J. Llehav. Thrr. & E.kp. Prychror. Vol. IO, PP. 21.24. 0005.7908/79/0301-0021 $02.

00/O
0 Pergamon I’m\ Ltd., 1979 Prlmrd in Char Britain

FACTOR ANALYSIS OF THE RATHUS ASSERTIVENESS SCHEDULE

WITH A COLLEGE POPULATION

JEFFREY S. NEVID
Hofstra University
and
SPENCER A. RATHUS
Northeastern University

Summary--Separate principal-components analyses were conducted on the Rathus Assertiveness

Schedule (RAS) scores of male and female college students in a large nationwide sample. The
results showed the factorial complexity of the scale, with eight and nine factors emerging for
males and females respectively, and thus supported the situationally-specific nature of
assertiveness.

Previous factor analyses of other self-report varimax rotation of all factors having eigen-
assertiveness instruments (Bates and Zimmer- values >l) were performed. Tables 1 and 2
man, 1971; Gambrill and Richey, 1975; Gay, display the derived factors and the percentage
Hollandsworth and Galassi, 1975) have of the variance accounted for by each. Items
supported a situationally-specific understanding loading at 0.35 or above were included for
of the construct of assertiveness. The present descriptive purposes.
study extended these factorial investigations Factor analyses revealed eight factors for
with the Rathus Assertiveness Schedule (RAS) females and nine for males, with the major
(Rathus, 1973; Rathus and Nevid, 1977), in the factors (Assertive Business Dealings, Complain-
hope of shedding further light on the com- ing to Rectify Injustice, Insensitive Self-
plexities of “assertiveness”. Expressiveness, Spontaneity, and Verbal
Fluency) largely convergent between the sexes.
However, several sex-specific factors also
METHOD
emerged, including General Argumentativeness
The respondents were 1401 college and university
students from all regions of the Wiled States. Eighty and Arguing over Prices among women, and
college and university professors were selected at random Combativeness, Control Over Arousal during
from the 1975 Directory of the Association for the
Confrontations, and Self-Aggrandizement
Advancement of Behavior Therapy, and 35 of these
administered the RAS to their classes or to the classes of among men. It appears that male responses are
colleagues within an allotted two-month time span. Com- more discreetly clustered around issues of
pleted questionnaires were returned from 764 females
verbal and possible physical confrontations,
(Mean age = 22; S.D. = 5.5) and 637 males (Mean age
= 22; S.D. = 4.0). possibly reflecting sex-role stereotyping. Factor 7
for women, Avoiding Public Confrontation,
suggests that many women who are self-
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION aggrandizing among peers have adopted the
Separate factor analyses were conducted for socially-induced “better seen than heard”
male and female respondents. Principal- attitude concerning public confrontations with
components analyses (l’s in the diagonals, noted figures.
Requests tor reprints should be addressed to: Jeffrey S. Nevid, Psychology Department, Hofstra University, Hempstead,
NY 11550.

21
22 JEFFREY S. NEVID and SPENCER A. RATHUS

Table I. RAS factor struclure for college females*

Item number Item content I oadi ng

Factor 1 (19% of variance): Asertive h~tsrne.~.~rleulinps.

12 Phoning establishments as needed 0.72
14 Returning merchandise 0.66
13 Seeking personal interviews 0.61
5 Saying no to salesperson\ 0.46
23 Ability to say no 0.40
Factor 2 (7%): C’ornplrrir~in~ lo rec/lfy injust&.
25 Complaining about poor service in restaurants 0.75
3 Complaining about improperly prepared food 0.65
27 Asking nearby persons to be quiet in a theatre 0.64
28 PreventinP other? frnm cuttine into line 0.59
Factor 3 (5.2%): Insensitivesel&expressiveness.
4 Confronting regardlesr of recipient’< feelings 0.66
24 Expressing feeling7 even when a Tccne i< made 0.57
23 Ability to say no 0.57
9 Preventing others from taking advantage 0.57
17 Control over arousal during arguments 0.39
5 Saying no to salespersons 0.37
Factor 4 (4.49%): General argumentativeness.
6 Insisting that requests be justified 0.71
7 Occasionally seeking arguments (l.67
8 Striving to get ahead 0.49
Factor 5 (4. I %): Spontaneif.v.
22 Immediately confronting spreaders of stories 0.68
21 Being open and frank about feelings 0.62
IO Enjoying starting conversations with new persons 0.47
IS Expressing annoyance to close relatives 0.38
Factor 6 (3.1%): Verbalfluenc:v.
2 Lack of shyness in making and accepting dates 0.62
30 Never feeling lost for words 0.61
II Handling small talk with attractive persons of the opposile sex 0.52
10 Enjoying starting conversations with new persons 0.4s
26 Ability to respond to compliments 0.42
1 Feeling as assertive and aggresGve a\ most people 0.38
8 Striving to get ahead 0.36
16 Asking questions in public 0.36
Factor 7 (3.6%): Avoiding: ptjblic confrontafion.
18 Confronting a tamed lecturer to express one’s views to an audience 0.78
16 Asking questions in Public 0.45
20 Informing others of one’s accomplishments 0.43
Factor 8 (3.5%): Argurng overprices.
19 Arguing over prices with salespersons 0.70
3 Complaining about improperly prepared food 0.36

*These eight factors amount for 50.9% of the variance.

The multifactorial structure of the RAS may are more useful than general assertiveness
be seen as consistent with recent evidence that scores in predicting particular assertive behaviors
assertiveness might be viewed constructively as in particular natural settings. Individual factors
a contextual or situation-specific matter (Eisler, seem to be more helpful than total test scores in
Hersen, Miller and Blanchard, 1975) rather assessing particular deficits in assertive
than as a general trait. It may be unfruitful to responding.
t’hink in terms of “the assertive individual”. The present findings support the utility of
The present study suggests that factor scores viewing assertiveness in terms of social appro-
 FACTOR ANGLYSIS OF THE RAS 23

Table 2. RAS factor slrllclllre for college ma/es*

Item number Item content 1 oading

Factor I (16.8%): Asserliw hu.cimw dpalinm.

12 Phoning establishments as needed 0.71
13 Seeking personal inferviews 0.70
14 Returninp merchandise 0.62
Factor 2 f6.5%): Complainim lo rect(fy injaslice.
2s Complaining ahoIl poor service in reslauranls 0.79
3 Complaining about improperly prepared food 0.77
27 Asking nearby personr lo he qtliel in a lheatre 0.48
Factor 3 (5.5 %): Imemitive self-expre~%iwness.
15 Eupressinp amiovance lo close relaliver 0.6X
5 Saying no lo salesperwns 0.56
4 Confronting regardless of recipient’s feelings 0.55
24 Expressing feelings even when a scene i< made 0.53
I9 Arguing over prices with <alespersons 0.39
23 Abililv lo say no 0.37
Factor 4 (4.8%): Verhal,fluenc_v.
2 Lack of shyness in making and accepting dates 0.71
II Handling small talk with attractive persons of the opposite sex 0.67
I Feeling as assertive and aperessive as mosl people 0.38
30 Never feeling lost for words 0.56
26 Ability 10 respond IO compliments 0.46
Faclor 5 (4.3%): Cornhariveness
28 Preventing olhers from culling into line 0.62
4 Confronting regardless of recipient’s feelings 0.51
7 Occasionally seeking arguments 0.47
I Feeling as assertive and aggressive as most people 0.38
27 Asking nearby persons to be quiet in a rheatre 0.38
Factor 6 (4.1%): Public e.upre.rsivenew.
29 Being quick IO express an opinion 0.70
I6 Asking questions in public 0.58
18 Confronting a famed lecturer to express one’s views to an audience 0.57
21 Being open and frank about feelings 0.42
Factor 7 (3.8%): Sponlaneily.
22 Immediately confronting spreaders of stories 0.82
21 Being open and frank about feelings 0.44
Factor 8 (3.7%): Conlrol river arou.ral during confroniafions.
I7 Control over arousal during arguments 0.73
9 Preventing other from raking advantage 0.47
Factor 9 (3.5 070): Self-aggrandizement.
20 Informing others of one’s accomplishments. 0.63
6 Insisting that requests be justified 0.51
8 Striving to get ahead 0.50

*These nine factors account for 53% of the variance.

priateness. Eisler et al. (1975) suggest that criminating social situations in which outspoken-
assertive confrontation of line-cutters at a ness is appropriate from those in which it is not.
movie theatre will receive various levels of
social sanction depending on whether the
infractor is a middle-aged man, a young child, REFERENCES
or an old woman. High scores on factors such Bates H. D. and Zimmerman S. F. (1971) Toward the
as Insensitive Self-Expressiveness (i.e. expres- development of a screening scale for assertive training,
siveness without regard for social setting or Psychol. Rep. 28,99-101.
Eisler R. M., Hersen M., Miller P. M. and Blanchard E. B.
feelings of recipients) may identify individuals (1975) Situational determinants of assertive behavior,
who would profit from instruction in dis- J. Consul. C/in. Psvchol. 43, 330-340.
24 JEFFREY S. NEVID and SPENCER A. RATHUS

Gambrill E. D. and Richey C. A. (1975) An assertion Rathus S. A. (1973) A 30-item schedule for assessing
inventory for use in assessment and research, Behav. assertive behavior, Behav. Therapy 4,398~406.
Therapy 6, 550-561.
Gay M. L., Hollandsworth J. G. and Galassi J. P. (1975) Rathus S. A. and Nevid J. S. (1977) Concurrent validity
An assertiveness inventory for adults, J. Counsel. of the 30-item assertiveness schedule with a psychiatric
Psycho/. population, Behav. Therapy 8, 393-397.