D

W'Vltmcufinwudl'tn “mp-um". —¢kuwww . p

ewwww

 

‘3“.

up:

"gun-«mm

 

'1
‘

1! ‘! VH9”!

11"

«q». ‘0‘» man

‘HM-hnoo—n—I‘uul unma‘u... .nuuouy.unnuc.....

Munurugu-u-u-a ova-9

 

vet-ow

.J‘ucb‘.

in:

 

umtr.

x

"W!

.039...

..

.1 vs
l 2
I.
1?

 

L IN 1

3.11:1?

.. 0!...
.6

:0?

111-. .2: .
: .i .5 fit:

n.

 

 

THESis

3

MI ICHIGAN STATEU

I I III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

166 0834

LIBRARY

Michigan State
Unlverslty

II

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

Anxiety or Ignorance: Ihe ueterm1nants of

Interpersonal Skill Display

presented by
Robert Taylor Anderson

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

FILE). degree in Psychology

MM?

Ma jO!‘ professor

Date 7/1t1L96

MS U i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove thle eheokout flom your record.
TO AVOID FINES retum on or More date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU to An Afflmethre AotlonlEmel Opportunity lnetltwon
W

' 3

ANXIETY OR IGNORANCE: THE DETERMINANTS OF
INTERPERSONAL SKILL DISPLAY

BY
Robert Taylor Anderson

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology

1996

ABSTRACT

ANXIETY OR IGNORANCE: THE DETERMINANTS
OF INTERPERSONAL SKILL DISPLAY

BY

Robert T. Anderson

This study was conducted to test the effects of
knowledge of assertion, motivation and fear of negative
evaluation on anxiety during evaluative conditions.
Furthermore, it was expected that anxiety would inhibit the
display of the interpersonal skill of assertion. Subjects
completed pencil-and-paper questionnaires to assess the
personality variables of need for approval,
Machiavellianism, and fear of negative evaluation. Knowledge
of assertion was measured with situational judgment items.
The subjects then participated in a negotiation role-play
under either a high-evaluative or low-evaluative condition.
Afterward, they completed a questionnaire to assess the
level of anxiety they experienced during the role—play. It
was found that regardless of condition, anxiety impacted
subjects' display of assertion on the dimensions of
nonverbal behavior, verbal behavior and context of
conversation. Thus, those who experienced greater anxiety
displayed fewer behaviors considered consistent with
assertion. Implications for interpersonal skills training

and future research directions are discussed.

To all African—Americans who pursue higher learning.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost I want to thank God for giving me the
opportunity and strength to pursue this goal. Although the
path was rough, it was made smoother by the people listed
below.

Thanks to my father, my hero and role model for teaching
me the value of education. Thanks to my mother and grandmother
who probably did not really know what I was doing here
(sometimes I didn't even know), but supported me nonetheless.
Thanks to my best friends Cliff, Bobby and.Johnny for being my
best friends and listening to my problems before I went
postal. Thanks to all members of my fraternity, Alpha Phi
Alpha, Incorporated who continuously hold up the light. Thanks
to my partner, Matt for always being on my side. He provided
invaluable support throughout these five years and I truly
could not have made this achievement without him. I also thank
his dog, Earnie, for always being happy to see me and his wife
Kathy for being so cool by letting me hang out at the house
‘without making feel like a third wheel. Thanks to my
dissertation chair, Kevin Ford, for tolerating my incessant
demands on his time and patience. It is because of his

dedication to my efforts that I finished before I became a

iv

threat to others and myself. Thanks to Rick DeShon for telling
it like it is and allowing me to do the same. Thanks to Dan
Ilgen for serving on my comprehensive exams and dissertation
committees. Thanks to Suzy Pavick for being simply one of my
favorite human beings of all time. She is almost a dog, which
under my philosophy is the highest compliment I can give to a
person. I also thank all of my fellow graduate students who
put up with all of my whining and moaning for the past five
years. I don't need to list all of the names because if you
know me, then you are who I'm talking about. Finally, thanks
to Neal Schmitt would played. an integral role in my
development and each one of my successes. I will be eternally
grateful and indebted to him for any and all of my
achievements, past, present and future.

Well . . .that' s the acknowledgements and I . . .am. . .outta

here!

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .................................................. viii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................. ix
INTRODUCTION .................................................... 1
IMPORTANCE OF INTERPERSONAL SKILLS AT WORK ...................... 2
DEFINING INTERPERSONAL SKILLS ................................... 4
DISTINGUISHING INTERPERSONAL SKILLS FROM OTHER CONSTRUCTS ....... 8
INTERPERSONAL SKILL DIMENSIONS .................................. 11
ROLE-TAKING AND EMPATHY ..................................... 11
SOCIAL MISPERCEPTION ........................................ 15
SITUATIONS .................................................. 16
GOALS ....................................................... 17
ASSERTIVENESS ............................................... 18
NEGOTIATION ..................................................... 24
lWOTIVATION ...................................................... 30
NEED FOR APPROVAL ........................................... 31
MACHIAVELLIANISM ............................................ 33
SOCIAL FACILITATION ....... a ...................................... 40
MAJOR DETERMINANTS OF INTERPERSONAL SKILL ....................... 45
GOFFMAN’S ANXIETY THEORY .................................... 46
MCEALL AND TWENTYMAN'S KNOWLEDGE-BASED THEORY ............... 48
CONCLUSIONS ..................................................... 51
HYPOTHESES ...................................................... 63

vi

METHODS ......................................................... 7 l

SUBJECTS .................................................... 71
MEASURES .................................................... 71
PROC-URES .................................................. 82
DATA ANALYSES ............................................... 90
RESULTS ......................................................... 92
DISCUSSION ...................................................... 106
IMPLICATIONS .................................................... 116
APPENDIX A ...................................................... 122
APPENDIX B ...................................................... 129
APPENDIX c ...................................................... 135
APPENDIX D ...................................................... 138
APPENDIX E ...................................................... 147
APPENDIX F ...................................................... 149
APPENDIX C ...................................................... 151
APPENDIX H ...................................................... 154
APPENDIX I ...................................................... 156
APPENDIX J ...................................................... 157
APPENDIX X ...................................................... 158
APPENDIX L ...................................................... 159
APPENDIX M ...................................................... 160
APPENDIX N ................................ ' ...................... 161
APPENDIX 0 ...................................................... 162
APPENDIX P ...................................................... 163
REFERENCES ...................................................... 164

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 - Selection of Terms Used in the Literature for

Interpersonal Skills ........................................ 6
Table 2 - Variable correlations and reliabilities ............... 80
Table 3 - Variable means and standard deviations ................ 94

Table 4 - Anxiety as a mediator between Fear of Negative

Evaluation and Verbal Behavior (regression analyses) ........ 97
Table 5 - Anxiety as a mediator between Fear of Negative
Evaluation and Nonverbal Behavior (regression analyses) ..... 98

Table 6 - Condition, Fear of Negative Evaluation and Interaction
as predictors of Anxiety (regression analyses) .............. 100

Table 7 - Need for Approval and Fear of Negative Evaluation
Interaction as a predictor of Anxiety (regression

analyses) ................................................... 103
Table 8 - Need for Approval and Condition Interaction as a
predictor of Anxiety (regression analyses) .................. 104

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 - Hypothesized model of variable relationships ......... 55

Figure 2 - Hypothesized interaction for Knowledge and Motivation
on Fear of Negative Evaluation .............................. 66

Figure 3 - Hypothesized interaction for Fear of Negative Evaluation
and Condition on Anxiety .................................... 69

ix

INTRODUCTION

This study was designed to examine the effects of
interpersonal skill knowledge, anxiety, and motivation type
on the display of interpersonally skilled behavior. Two
current theories of interpersonally skilled behavior are the
anxiety-inhibition approach and the knowledge—based
approach. The first proposes that most individuals know the
appropriate behavior in certain situations to reach a goal
but individual anxiety inhibits the expression of such
behavior. The second theory purports that individuals who do
not display appropriate behavior do not know which behaviors
are socially appropriate to achieve their goals.

The purpose of this research is to integrate these two
theories using the existing literature. This integration
leads to the investigation of how contrasting motivations as
well as anxiety influence individual desire and ability to
display interpersonally skilled behavior. In particular, the
literature on fear of negative evaluation, social
facilitation (which has an evaluative component) and two
motivation types (need for approval and Machiavellianism)
are examined to help integrate the two approaches.

This integration shows that the current theories do not

adequately explain the display of interpersonal skills.

1

2
Instead, these additional variables will provide additional
explicatory value to this construct of interpersonal skill
display. This subsequent explanation provides a broader
scope of the factors contributing to individual behavior.
The additional variables of fear of negative evaluation and
motivation are considered with relation to the display of
interpersonal skills in the particular area of assertiveness
and within the particular situation of negotiation.

This introduction is divided into five sections. In the
first section, interpersonal skills will be discussed
through their importance in the workplace. Following this
discussion, a review of previous definitions of
interpersonal skills and interpersonally skilled behaviors
*as well as characteristics of these concepts (what they are
and what they are not) is presented. Third, the importance
of these constructs when examining assertive situations such
as negotiation. Fourth, the importance of incorporating the
influential concept (in my opinion) of motivation type is
discussed. Finally, the application of these characteristics
and concepts to the two current theories of interpersonal
skills (i.e. the anxiety-inhibition approach and the
knowledge—based approach) are described and a testable model

is presented.

P T F INTE N K LLS AT W RK

The need for these interpersonal skills (generally

3

considered as skills necessary to interact effectively with
people) at work is becoming increasingly apparent. For
example, in an attempt to identify the skills necessary for
effective work performance, researchers worked on a joint
project for the American Society for Training and
Development and the U.S. Department of Labor. They found
that employers seek workers who can get along with others,
judge appropriate behavior, cope with undesirable behavior
in others, deal with ambiguity, listen, inspire confidence
in others, structure social interaction, and interact easily
with others. All of the above skills are considered to be
interpersonal in nature (Carnevale, Gainer, Meltzer &
Holland, 1988). In addition, a report by the Secretary's
Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS; U.S.
Department of Labor, 1991) concluded that interpersonal
skills were needed across all jobs from entry level clerks
to managers and executives. Furthermore, Brinkmeyer (1994)
found that interpersonal skills are increasingly mentioned
by employers when providing requisite skills in employment
advertisements across a broad array of employment settings.

More specifically, Keys and Case (1990) also believe
that formal authority is less prevalent due to increasing
team interdependence which would lead to the emerging need
for influence (through interpersonal means). Other aspects
of job performance where interpersonal skills have been

found to be relevant are negotiation (Adler, Doktor, &

4
Redding, 1986), reasoning, appeals to supervisors and
assertiveness (Schmidt & Yeh, 1992; Shwalb, Shwalb,
Harnisch, Maehr, & Akabane, 1992), and conflict resolution

(Bond, Leung, & Schwartz, 1992).

DEFINING INTERPERSONAL SKILLS

Despite the increasing importance of interpersonal
skills, a consensus on the definition of this construct has
not been reached (Hogan & Lock, 1995). From the job analysis
literature, Hogan and Lock (1995) found that when required
interpersonal skills were addressed, these skills were
generally worker-oriented and do not address specific
behaviors that are necessary. It is their opinion that the
information provided by the literature adds little value
beyond the descriptions given by the Dictionary of
Occupational Titles. In fact, the DOT itself is viewed as
inadeguately describing the construct of interpersonal
skills (Carnevale et al., 1988).

Hogan and Lock (1995), in their attempt to provide a
taxonomy for interpersonal skills, found that research was
sorely lacking in this area. They lament that research on
interpersonal skills often must rely on the literature from
other disciplines such as personality, social and clinical
psychology in addition to management and marketing. Hogan
and Lock (1995) also found that individual studies on

interpersonal skills have been relatively narrow in focus

5
yet divergent from previous research, leading to a broad yet
unconfined concept.

In fact, a vast number of terms used to refer to
interpersonal skills was found by Reiss, Ones and
Viswesvaran (1995) during their meta-analysis of
interpersonal skill studies (see Table 1; taken from Reiss
et al., 1995). In addition, the dimensions for the construct
of interpersonal skills were almost as different as the
terms that were used. For instance, the taxonomy of
interpersonal knowledge skills and abilities required for
teamwork that was developed by Stevens and Campion (1994)
includes conflict resolution, collaborative problem solving,
and communication. Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1985),
from the customer service literature identified
responsiveness, courtesy and communication as the most
important interpersonal skills. Fleishman (1992), in a
review of the literature and taxonomies, proposed 13
interpersonal requirements for work. These interpersonal
dimensions are agreeableness, behavior flexibility,
sociability, interpersonal coordination, dependability,
energy, social conformity, organization, negotiation, social
sensitivity, persuasion, self-control and social confidence.

In addition, there is a lack of agreement among
researchers whether interpersonal skills consist of
knowledge, or skills, or abilities or behaviors. Gist,

Stevens, and Bavetta (1991) view interpersonal

Table 1

SI . :1 ii I' l 1' El lil'll

 

 

Terms for Interpersonal Skills
Ability to get along with others Interpersonal competence Rel. w/ higher mgmt
Asserting displeasure with Interpersonal contact Rel. w/ steward
others' actions '
Concern for appropriateness Interpersonal effectiveness Rel. w/ union officials
Conflict resolution Interpersonal relationships Relate to others
Cmperativeness w/ rel. leaders - boss rel. Relationship with
functions authority
Dealing w/ Others in the org. Managing interpersonal Relationships with

. conflicts associates
Dealing w/ public Mech's reactions to supervisor Skills w/ peOple
Dealing w/ co-workers outside relationships Social adroitness
Employee relations Peer & passenger relationships Social competence
Functional flexibility Personal acceptability Social control
Get along w/ shipmatee Personal contacts Social expressiveness
Getting along w/ co-workers Personal relations Social intelligence
Global social competence Providing emotional support Social interaction
Human relations skills Rel. to others. '- v Social skills
Human relation techniques Rel. w/ subordinates Success. interper. rel.
Initiating relationships Rel. w/ supervisor
Inside relationships Rel. w/ co-Workers

 

7

communication, conflict resolution and performance appraisal
reviews as examples of interpersonal tasks. McGuire and
Priestly (1981) define interpersonal skills as behavior
performed by the individual, "those kinds of behavior which
are basic to effective face-to-face communication between
individuals" (p. 6). According to Morrison and Bellack
(1981), interpersonal skills consist of knowing the
appropriate behaviors, as well as knowing when and how to
display them. On occasion, the terms skills and abilities
are even confounded. For example, consider the quote from
Schlundt and McFall (1985). They define social skills as
"the specific component processes that enable an individual
to behave in a manner that will be judged as ’competent’.
Skills are the abilities necessary for producing behavior
that will accomplish the objectives of the task" (p.23).

Michelson, Sugai, Wood, and Kazdin (1983) offer six main
elements that they believe comprise social skills (as shown
by Table 1, the terms "social skills" and "interpersonal
skills" have been used to refer to the same concept). They
believe these elements: 1) are primarily acquired through
learning, 2) comprise specific, discrete verbal and
nonverbal behaviors, 3) entail effective, appropriate
initiations and responses, 4) maximize social reinforcement
from others, 5) are interactive in nature, and require
appropriate timing and reciprocity of specific behavior, and

6) are influenced by environmental factors.

8

In his review of definitions of skilled behavior, Hargie
(1986a) also suggested six featured components of
interpersonal skill. These components are: l) Socially
skilled behavior is goal oriented. It consists of behaviors
that are purposeful and directed toward a particular
outcome. It does not entail coincidental or unintentional
positive results; 2) Socially-skilled behaviors are
interrelated. This means that several discrete behaviors may
be displayed simultaneously to achieve a common goal; 3)
Social skills should be appropriate to the situation. The
socially skilled individual is able to determine the demands
of each situation and adjust behavior appropriately; 4)
Social skills consist of separate, identifiable behaviors;
5) Social skills are behaviors that can be learned; and 6)
Social skills are under control of the individual.

Unfortunately, previous definitions have failed to
provide a single unified concept of interpersonal skills.
Therefore, I will discuss related constructs and then
provide further detail of previously suggested dimensions,
abilities and situational influences that affect

interpersonal behavior.

DI TIN HIN INTERPERSON KILLS FROM OTHER CONSTRU T
For clarification, interpersonally skilled behavior
should not be confused with mere acquiescence or the

tendency to agree (e.g. Lentz, 1938). This has been viewed

9
as a personality trait related to conformity (e.g. Couch &
Keniston, 1960; Gough & Heilbrun, 1980). Interpersonally
skilled behavior, however, does not involve such passive
behavior. On the contrary, the interpersonally skilled
individual (the actor) often makes her/his feelings known
and makes an attempt to influence others (e.g. Kolotkin et
al., 1983). This requires a degree of assertiveness (Schmidt
& Yeh, 1992). For example, if the desired result of an
interaction is to influence a stubborn supervisor, then
behavior which is simply socially desirable may not be
effective.

Furthermore, interpersonal skills is not the same as
impression management. According to Goffman (1959), we
engage in verbal and nonverbal impression management when we
interact with others. Impression management, which is often
viewed as a purposeful misrepresentation of one's actual
behavior or intentions (Crowne, 1979), is usually designed
to present one's self favorably or to prevent one’s self
from being viewed unfavorably (Crowne, 1979). While the use
of interpersonal skills is a deliberate attempt to influence
the perceptions of a particular target (or other person), it
need not entail the degree of deception usually denoted in
impression management. Impression management is also often
situation specific and influenced by transient motives (cf.
Paulhus, 1991), such as in a job interview or a performance

appraisal. While interpersonal skills can also be used in

10
these instances, interpersonal skills are not as self-
focused. Interpersonal skills involve empathy which takes
into account not only one’s own position, but the position
and concerns of the other (Trief, 1976). This entails not
only adjusting one's own behavior to suit the situation, but
conveying to the other party that his or her concerns are
being taken into account as well (Keefe, 1976). (Empathy
itself will be addressed later.)

In addition, while impression management can often
consist of actions that do not directly involve another
actor, interpersonally skilled behavior does not. For
example, an instance of impression management could be when
a respondent intentionally provides false answers to items
on a questionnaire to appear more favorable (Paulhus, 1984,
1986). This is not interpersonally skilled behavior because
it does not explicitly involve interpersonal interaction.

Finally, interpersonal skills should be distinguished
from personality. Hogan and Lock (1995) present an
interesting and effective distinction between these two
constructs. They view personality as a broad dispositional
tendency such as those measured by the NEO-PI (i.e.
extroversion, openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness and
neuroticism; Costa & McRae, 1978). Interpersonal skills,
however, act as a moderators that may enhance or inhibit
action in certain situations. While personality can be an

unconscious pattern of behavior, Hogan and Lock (1995)

11

believe that interpersonal skills are conscious skills that
moderate personality. An example provided by Hogan and Look
(1995) describes an individual who is high on extroversion.
This person may need to recognize situations where
extroverted or dramatic behavior is inappropriate and adjust
displayed behavior accordingly. This would involve
interpersonal skills in the recognition of the situation and
adjustment of behavioral style. On the other hand, when a
situation (such as approaching a new acquaintance and
possible business contact) necessitates some degree of
assertiveness, this extroversion may need to be displayed.
In such instances, interpersonal skills can help individuals
to act within situational constraints and also take
advantage of situational opportunities.

To further examine the roles of interpersonal skills,
several dimensions of this construct are described. This
should help to provide additional context to illuminate how

these skills interact and apply to interpersonal behavior.

INTE P KILL DIMENSI NS

Role-taking and empathy. A critical dimension of
interpersonal skill is role-taking, or viewing a problem
from the perspective of the target individual (Trief, 1976).
This allows the individual a greater understanding of not
only what the other person (target) is feeling but how one

should respond to that target. The 'when' or timing of

12
behavior is also important because behavior that may have
been appropriate at one moment may appear inappropriate or
awkward after certain points in the conversation. Morrison
and Bellack (1981) also stress the importance of social
perception when they comment that
"Application of this knowledge (of interpersonal
skills), in turn, depends upon the ability to accurately
’read' the social environment, determine the particular
norms and conventions operating at the moment, and to
understand the messages being sent and the particular
emotions and intentions guiding the behavior of the
interpersonal partner." (p. 70)
One must be able to understand and interpret the target’s
behavior (i.e. seeing beyond the words) and get a sense of
(and respond to) not only what the target is saying, but
what the target means and how the target is feeling.
Although role-taking (when addressed in the
interpersonal skills context as opposed to the work-role
context) is considered a developmental trait, it has not
been found to be consistent across individuals. Role-taking,
which when used in the interpersonal skills literature
refers to the ability to view a situation from another
person’s perspective, is exhibited by older children who can
view and interpret events from a different focus or
perspective if asked to do so (Feffer, 1970). Furthermore,

Moore & Underwood (1981) found that developmental and

13
individual differences in role-taking appear to underlie
differences in interpersonal sensitivity, social maturity,
and prosocial behavior.

A construct strongly related and similar to role-taking
is empathy. Empathy also has been found to be positively
related to interpersonal competence (e.g. Eisenberg &
Miller, 1987; Knudson & Kagan, 1982) as well as altruism
(Batson & Coke, 1981; Krebs, 1975). Empathy has also been
found to have a negative relationship with aggressive
behavior (Chandler, Greenspan & Barenboim, 1974; Feshbach,
1978; Ianotti, 1978; Miller & Eisenberg, 1988; Reed, 1981;
Selman, 1980).

Empathy has been given many definitions (Goldstein &
Michaels, 1985). However, according to Goldstein (1988),
these definitions usually followed one of two different
paths. One path was to define empathy as a global construct
in an attempt to operationalize it for further study while
the second envisioned empathy as a multi-stage process
involving several distinct cognitive components.

Initially, several theorists provided relatively general
definitions of empathy. For example, Mead (1934) defined
empathy as "the capacity to take the role of the others and
to adopt alternative perspectives vis a vis oneself" (p.
27). Dymond (1949) viewed empathy as "the imaginative
transposing of oneself into the thinking feeling and acting

of another and so structuring the world as he does" (p.

14
127). In addition, Couto's (1951) definition of empathy was
that "empathy is the process by which a person momentarily
pretends to himself that he is another person, projects
himself into the perceptual field of the other person,
imaginatively puts himself in the other person’s place, in
order that he may get an insight into the other person's
probable behavior in a given situation" (p. 18).

Reik (1949), expanded upon empathy as a four stage
process consisting of identification (contemplating the
other person and his experiences), incorporation (similar to
identification, blending oneself with the other person
through similar experiences), reverberation (using our own
experiences and finding similarities to internalize the
feelings of the other) and detachment (withdrawal from
internalization to allow objective and impartial analysis of
the situation).

So far, these definitions have been similar to role-
taking. Keefe (1976), however, adds a critical component
which takes empathy one step further. Keefe's definition is
similar to that of Reik (1949), but it differs in that Keefe
(1976) suggests that the process of empathy is not complete
until the observer communicates accurate feedback to the
other regarding the other's affect.

This is not to say that communication had not previously
been considered part of empathy. It has been stated by

Goldstein (1988) that many psychotherapists have considered

15
communication alone to constitute empathy without taking
into account the cognitive dimensions given above. Goldstein
(1988) attributes this to Carl Rogers' students who
misunderstood his definition of empathy. Rogers (1957)
suggested that an accurate understanding of a client’s
feelings could be communicated to facilitate the counseling
process. Rogers (1957), however, also did not identify
possible cognitive dimensions. Furthermore, the students of
Rogers began to equate communication with empathy itself.
Goldstein (1988) goes on to say that the communication of
the role-taking perspective later became (for many
scientists) the operationalization of empathy.

I feel, however, that the later definitions that were
given (e.g. Keefe, 1976) are more complete and informative.
These definitions provide not only the communication of
understanding, but the cognitive processes that allow one to
obtain such understanding of another.

Social mdsperception. As noted above, an important
aspect of interpersonal skills is social perception. At the
other end of the spectrum is social misperception. According
to Trower, Bryant, and Argyle (1978)

"Research has shown that there is a great scope for

misperceiving, particularly in unfamiliar settings, and

mistaking cues in this way can lead to rapid breakdown
in communication...There are several forms of failure:

a) low level of discrimination and accuracy; b)

16

systematic errors, e.g. perceiving others as more

hostile than they are; c) inaccurate stereotypes, or

over-use of them; d) errors of attribution, e.g.

attributing too much to a person, too little to a

situation; e) halo effects, e.g. perceiving people as

consistently good or bad." (p. 10)

Furthermore, Hargie et al. (1987) suggest that
nonassertive individuals may have a different social
misperception obstacle which prevents assertion. They
suggest that nonassertive persons may perceive unreasonable
requests as reasonable. These individuals would then believe
it would be inappropriate behavior to deny these requests
and that they do not necessarily have the right to do so.

Other factors that may affect interpersonal interactions
are perceiver cognitive expectations (Forgas, 1979),
perceiver self-fulfilling prophecies (Jones & Panitch, 1971)
and perceiver self-confidence (Forgas, 1985). In addition,
perceiver affective states have been found to contribute to
social misperception, especially anxiety (Forgas, 1985).

Situations. While several previous researchers attribute
social misperception to the situation itself (e.g. Avedon,
1981; Argyle, 1981a; Jessor, 1981; Bennett and Bennett,
1981), Forgas (1985) believes that it is not the situation.
On the contrary, he believes that it is the affective states
induced by the situation that lead to such misperception.

Among these states are anxiety or self-confidence (or lack

17
thereof).

In addition, the type of situation has been hypothesized
to cause particular difficulty in interpersonal interaction.
Seven such situations identified by Richardson and Tasto
(1976) and Stratton and Moore (1977) are: 1) assertiveness
situations; 2) performing in public; 3) conflict; 4)
intimate situations; 5) meeting strangers; 6) dealing with
people in authority; and 7) anticipating or experiencing
fear of disapproval, criticism or making mistakes.

Of particular interest in this research are the
situations of assertion and experiencing fear of disapproval
(fear of negative evaluation). These two types of situations
are examined further in the contexts of assertiveness,
negotiation and motivation.

Goals. Interpersonal skill in a situation cannot be
determined unless we know exactly what the individual hopes
to gain from the interaction (Hargie, 1986a). Argyle (1981a)
further proposes that the skill of behavior should be
evaluated by the extent to which this behavior achieves its
intended goals. Graham, Argyle, and Furnham (1981) found
that individuals could have a number of goals that could
influence interpersonal behavior. Included in their 21
possible goals are: 1) to be accepted by others and 2) to
persuade or influence others. I chose these two goals not
only to narrow the focus of the discussion, but I feel that

these two goals are quite similar to the motivational

18
influences (i.e. need for approval and Machiavellianism)
that will be discussed later. More specifically, however,
situations of interest in the present research are
assertiveness situations where intended outcomes such as
approval from or helping others are not ends in themselves
(such as negotiating).

Assertiveness. The use of assertiveness has been deemed
an important dimension of interpersonal skills by previous
researchers (e.g. Scmidt & Yeh, 1992). Assertiveness is
addressed in greater detail than the previous dimensions of
interpersonal skills because the use of assertion
incorporates the interpersonal skills described above (i.e.
empathy, role-taking and social perception).

Assertiveness, as defined by Lange and Jakubowski
(1976), consists of "standing up for personal rights and
expressing thoughts, feelings and beliefs in direct, honest,
and appropriate ways which respect the rights of people" (p.
38). Smith's (1975) definition of assertiveness includes
direct expression of one's feelings, preferences, needs and
opinions in a way that does not threaten the target and does
not produce undue anxiety (italics added) for the actor.
However, the definition that most closely parallels the
concept of assertiveness as it will be used in this paper is
provided by Alberti and Emmons (1982). They define
assertiveness as a behavior which "enables a person to act

in his or her own best interests, to stand up for herself or

l9
himself without undue anxiety, to express honest feelings
comfortably, or to exercise personal rights without denying
the rights of others’ (p. 13).

To further distinguish assertiveness from other response
styles, Alberti and Emmons (1975) differentiate
assertiveness from nonassertive behavior and aggressive
behavior. Their brief definitions of each are provided
below.

Nonassertive responses are characterized by speaking
softly, looking away, avoiding issues and inflicting
discomfort inward rather than upon others. The goal here is
to appease others and avoid conflict.

Assertive responses involve acknowledging one's own
rights and the rights of others. This entails speaking
firmly, openly expressing feelings and opinions and looking
at the other person.

Aggressive responses involve threatening or violating
the rights of the other person. The person utilizing this
response style interrupts the other person, talks loudly and
abusively and accuses or blames the other person.

There are several behavioral characteristics of
assertion (as well as nonassertion and aggression) found by
previous researchers. For instance, Rose and Tryon (1979)
found that there is a relationship between response style
(i.e. nonassertive, assertive and aggressive) and loudness

of voice. As might be expected, nonassertive behavior was

20
accompanied by the lowest voice volume (68 decibels) with
assertive behavior notably higher (76 decibels) and
aggressive behavior was associated with the loudest voice
level (84 decibels). Rose and Tryon (1979) also state that
lapse time before responding could also be indicative of
nonassertion versus assertion. They viewed pauses of 16
seconds or more before responding as nonassertive behavior.
Those subjects exhibiting assertive behavior responded after
pauses of only 3-4 seconds. Additional characteristics of
assertive behavior identified by Rose and Tryon (1979) were
increased use of gestures and increased vocal inflection. In
addition, Kolotkin, Wielkiewicz, Judd, and Weisler (1983)
found that duration of eye contact during interaction was
greater for assertive, as compared to nonassertive,
individuals.

Baldwin (1992) also identified six behavioral learning
points for his assertiveness training program which were
adapted from Smith's (1975) model of assertion. These six
learning points were "a) speak clearly and to the point with
no dramatic changes in voice tone; b) be honest about your
feelings and needs and accept responsibility for them; c) be
persistent in a request or answer with calm repetition; d)
accept manipulative or sidetracking statements by calmly
acknowledging the probability that there may be some truth
in the statement; e) acknowledge and accept your feelings

and faults without apologizing for them; and f) check for

21
closure and two-way understanding of outcomes or
compromise".

Hargie et al. (1987) list several functions for the use
of assertion. They propose that such functions include
helping people to:

1) ensure that their personal rights are not violated.

2) withstand unreasonable requests from others

3) make reasonable requests of others

4) deal effectively with unreasonable refusals from others
5) recognize the personal rights of others

6) change the behavior of others toward them

7) avoid unnecessary aggressive conflicts

8) confidently, and openly, communicate their position on
any issue.

These functions, in part, appear to follow from the
research of Kolotkin et al. (1983) who found that requests
for behavior change was also associated with assertion. Use
of 'I' statements was associated with assertion instead of
'you' statements (that can appear accusatory) which were
associated with aggression. Statements of feeling were
considered an important aspect of assertion as well. In
addition, Galassi et al. (1981) emphasize the importance of
statement of rights, empathy statements and giving reasons
for behavior.

As mentioned, however, proper use of assertion is

important. Similar to the characteristics of interpersonally

22
skilled behavior, the use of assertion should be influenced
by the situation. For instance, the level of assertion
typical of a particular target may influence how assertive
behavior is perceived. Gormally (1982) found that assertion
was more favorably perceived by assertive targets.
Furthermore, it has been found that nonassertive targets
react less favorably to assertion than do assertive targets
while assertive targets react less favorably to nonassertive
behavior than do nonassertive targets (Kern, 1982).
Therefore, the interpersonally skilled individual must know
when to and when not to exhibit assertive behavior and adopt
a different approach to certain individuals.

The research on assertiveness has provided several
opinions and much evidence concerning the display of
assertion, the characteristics of assertion and the
functions of assertion. However, the assertiveness
literature does not appear to address the personal
characteristics associated with assertion. Its focus is
individual characteristics that may lead to nonassertion
(e.g. low self-esteem). Perhaps attention should be given to
situations or individual differences that could cause
assertion to be a more likely displayed behavior in
interpersonal situations.

For instance, when using interpersonally skilled
behavior in gaining power or influence, the emphasis appears

not to address position power (e.g. a supervisor over a

23

subordinate) where power is not disputed. Of greater concern
seems to be the extent to which an individual can influence
the behavior of others through one's own behavior (for
example, in a leaderless group or team) and not one's job
position (e.g. boss or supervisor). What if there is no
predetermined allocation of power or influence? How, then,
does one decide to assert his/herself in such a situation?
How does one’s motivation or intention come into play? To
address these concerns more specifically, the choices and
behaviors associated with negotiation are examined.

Negotiation will be discussed because it presents a
situation where approval from others is not the ultimate
intended outcome. Therefore, the goal of the individual
should not prevent the use of assertion. This would be in
contrast, for example, to a situation where an individual
was simply asking for a favor which the target was under no
obligation to grant. In addition, as will be shown below,
the negotiation literature further shows the importance of
the use of assertion in obtaining favorable results.
Furthermore, I chose to examine negotiation because unlike
other dimensions identified earlier in previous taxonomies
(e.g. sociability, interpersonal coordination and social
confidence; Fleishman, 1992), negotiation can have an
observable outcome. Such an outcome could be the amount of
*money or tangible goods desired by the individual as

compared to the goods actually obtained through negotiation.

24
Therefore, I view the results of negotiation as more readily

quantified and analyzed.

NEQQILAIIQH

Negotiation refers to discussions between opposing
parties where the gggl is to reach an agreement (cf.
Carnevale & Pruitt, 1992). For consistency within this
discussion of the negotiation literature (because the term
goal has been used to refer to different outcomes throughout
this paper), the term 'goal’ will imply this more
traditional usage as applied to negotiation. Furthermore, it
seems that the most appropriate criterion for successful
negotiation (with respect to assertion and interpersonal
skills) would be an agreement which brings an overall gain
(as opposed to a loss or an unproductive standoff) in
material or resources about which the negotiation was
concerned. Therefore, that is the criterion that will be
used in this context.

According to Carnevale and Pruitt (1992), the three
strategies that have received most of the research attention
have been:

1) Concession making which involves mainly accommodating

the wishes of the other party.

2) Contending which involves attempts to persuade the

other party to be accommodating (e.g. threats).

3) Problem solving which involves finding solutions that

25
address the needs of both (or all, depending upon the
number of parties) parties through active listening and
providing information about one's own demands or
concerns.
These strategies are similar to the types of behavior
addressed earlier: nonassertive (concession), aggressive
(contending) and assertive (problem solving) behavior. In an
attempt to show the similarities, each type of strategy will
be discussed in further detail below.

Concession strategies in negotiation, combined with
nonassertion could lead to negative results for the
negotiator as found by previous researchers (Bartos, 1974;
Benton et al., 1972; Hamner, 1974; Harnett & Vinclette,
_1978). They found that lower initial demands and faster
concessions produce smaller outcomes for the party employing
this tactic, while providing better outcomes for the
opposing party. It would seem that this would be the most
.1ikely outcome if the individual is most concerned with
appeasing others and avoiding conflict which is typically
the goal with nonassertive behavior.

Contending strategies often involve threats or
persuasive arguments to convince the other party that they
should concede. The threat dimension is similar to tactics
described above with aggressive behavior. This strategy is
often ineffective due to reactions of the other party. For

instance, these tactics often produce minimal benefits for

26

both parties and can result in no agreement (Pruitt, 1981;
Pruitt et al., 1991b). In addition, the opposing party may
react with similar contending strategies to defend
themselves (Hornstein, 1965; Kimmel et al., 1980). According
to Pruitt and Rubin (1986), when both parties employ this
tactic it often leads to failure of the tactic, in addition
to conflict escalation (as opposed to conflict resolution).

Problem solving is the third technique, which attempts
to find a solution that is beneficial for both parties. For
this tactic to be successful, negotiators need to be firm
(assertive) and flexible (R. Fisher & Ury, 1981; Pruitt &
Rubin, 1986). Problem solving often involves information
exchange as well as other tactics suggested by previous
authors (e.g. Filley, 1975; R. Fisher & Ury, 1981) such as
brainstorming, avoiding personal attacks on the other,
putting one's self in the position of the other (role-
taking) and active listening, which in this case involves
checking one's understanding of the position of the other
party. This tactic closely parallels the assertive style of
interaction described earlier in that it entails considering
the position of the other while also standing up for one’s
own position.

What must be examined next is how one chooses which
tactic to employ. According to Thomas (1992), the
conflict/negotiation literature is dominated by

rational/instrumental assumptions. These assumptions purport

27
that individuals choose their courses of action based on the
likelihood that such action will result in a desirable
outcome.

In what Pruitt (1983) has termed dual concerns models,
individual action is determined by the desire to achieve
one's own goals and the desire to satisfy the needs of the
other party. Therefore, use of each of the strategies above
depends upon the degree to which one has a concern for one’s
own goal and the goals of the other party. For instance, if
one has a strong desire to achieve one's own goals and
little concern for the needs of the other party, a
competitive (or contending) strategy is likely to be
incorporated by that person.

Based on a series on laboratory experiments, Pruitt
(1983) concludes that the importance of satisfying one’s own
goals is influenced by such variables as the strength of the
desired goal and the party’s fear of conflict. The
importance of satisfying the goals of the other party would
then depend upon interpersonal bonds (e.g. identity or
attraction).

In addition, according to what Pruitt terms feasibility
of a strategy, the incorporation of a strategy also depends
upon the party's perception that the strategy will lead to
the desired outcome. This perception entails the belief that
certain tactics can be used effectively in the particular

situation taking into account expectations of the other

28
party (e.g. the other party's reactions to such tactics).
Furthermore, the individual considers the likelihood (and
positive versus negative nature) of unintended outcomes from
the use of a particular strategy (Pruitt, 1983; Pruitt &
Rubin, 1986). This, at first, appears to contradict Hargie's
(1987) characteristics of social skills. Hargie (1987) does
not include unintentional positive outcomes as indicative of
interpersonally skilled behavior. The difference here,
however, appears to be that the negotiator considers these
alternative outcomes prior to engaging in actual behavior.
Therefore, the individual may be aware of the possibility of
such results and these results would not be as coincidental
as they might otherwise appear.

According to the literature on emotion, however, these
perceptions and assessments could be detrimentally
influenced by one’s emotions. Reviewing the emotion
literature, Kumar (1989) concluded that affect can influence
individual cognition and motivational forces. In particular,
Kumar (1989) notes that negative emotions can cause a
simplification of cognitive processes. This simplification,
according to Pruitt and Rubin (1986), reduces the likelihood
of cognitive integration and the ability to conceptualize
issues adequately. This would seem to interfere with one’s
ability to accurately assess the actions of the other party
as well as potential outcomes (intended and unintended).

Furthermore, as far as negotiation strategies are

29
concerned, apparently the type of emotion experienced by the
individual can influence which strategy is employed. For
example, anger appears to lead to an aggressive, competitive
or contending strategy (Baron, 1977; Kumar, 1989). On the
other hand, anxiety may lead to a withdrawal from
negotiation or unassertive behavior (Kumar, 1989).

From this literature, it is apparent that the prevalence
of certain types of emotion and motivation can lead to
negotiation strategies which typically lead to failure of
such efforts. However, perhaps because the negotiation
literature suggests that different strategies are
contrasting (Kelley, 1966; Lax & Sebenius, 1986; Pruitt,
1991), this approach attempts to categorize individuals into
distinct motivations. Consequently, it does not adequately
address possible contrasting motivations or a cognitive
decision by individuals to determine which goal is most
important if one or more goals are desirable but
incompatible. Perhaps, Pruitt's (1983) feasibility notion
and consideration of unintended outcomes could include such
instances where it would seem that one must be willing to
sacrifice being liked to successfully obtain material
rewards. This willingness should enable such an individual
to pursue the desired effects, while aware of (and able to
accept) the potential detriment to one's 'favorability
rating’. On the other hand, if an individual values the

approval of others to a high degree, he/she may be unwilling

30
to jeopardize that approval by pursuing individual rewards
(e.g. sizable gains through negotiation). However, this
individual may fail to successfully obtain that particular
goal (and will not have shown interpersonal skill) because
while favorability has been retained the primary desired
outcome of negotiation (i.e. material or personal gains) has
been unrealized.

It seems that the negotiation literature could be more
complete if these contrasting motivations were given more
consideration. Therefore, emotion and its possible
consequences is examined further in the context of social

facilitation and individual motivation.

MQILEAILQH

According to Tedeschi (1972), an important aspect of
influencing another is the actors motivation to do so
successfully. In fact, research has shown that increased
motivation promotes attitude change (Robberson & Rogers,
1988). As stated in the previous discussion of dimensions of
interpersonally skilled behavior, each of the two goals
previously identified by Graham et al. (1981) appear to be
tied directly to one's motivation to exhibit interpersonal
skills and to successfully accomplish one’s objectives. The
motivations of interest here are: (1) need for approval (to
be accepted by others) and (2) Machiavellianism (persuading

or influencing others).

31

,flggd_fg;_a2pggy§;g One’s need for approval (or social
desirability), a motive offered by Crowne and Marlowe
(1964), could be a determining factor in the desire to
behave in a interpersonally skilled manner. These
individuals are most likely to be concerned with self-
presentation during interaction and possibly preoccupied
with the anticipated judgmental evaluations by their peers
which could cause anxiety (Goffman, 1959). The subsequent
anxiety may also lead to social misperception (Forgas,
1985). As suggested previously, fear of negative evaluation
may be a type of anxiety that could have this effect.
Therefore, the concern with gaining the approval of others
may hinder the attainment of other personal goals in
situations such as negotiation because these individuals may
be more concerned with being liked by the target rather than
achieving such goals.

In addition, even if the individual with a high need for
approval attempts to display interpersonally skilled
behavior, possible anxiety may hinder these attempts
(Goffman, 1959). According to Shapiro (1968) this should be
seen more specifically through nonverbal behavior. Shapiro
(1968) states that it is possible that anxiety would cause
an individual in this affective state to display
contradictory behavior, such as sweating, fidgeting or voice
trembling while attempting to appear assertive. However,

these contradictory nonverbals may nullify spoken words for

32
it is likely that the target (or other person) will attend
more to the nonverbal behaviors to ascertain the actor's
feelings because they are not as much within the actor’s
control (Shapiro, 1968).

Even cognitive processes affected by anxiety may further
retard the acquisition of interpersonal skills knowledge.
Accurate listening, an important aspect of social
interaction and negotiation (e.g. Filley, 1975; R. Fisher &
Ury, 1981), is less likely to be achieved by anxious
individuals because they typically cannot encode
conversations in a rich or detailed manner (Bond & Omar,
1990). They therefore encode contradictory information about
their partners as similar because their automatic processing
actions form simpler impressions. Furthermore, insecure
people are also likely to be anxious because they are
characterized by seeking reassurance or positive evaluation
by others (e.g. Marlowe & Crowne, 1964). Wicklund and Braun
(1990) found that these individuals, too, rate contradictory
information as more consistent than do their secure
counterparts.

Research has shown that there are often situational
conditions or prior experiences leading to such a state or
that the individual becomes anxious because the situation is
novel or unfamiliar (e.g. Avedon, 1981; Forgas, 1985). It
Seems that a high need for approval in such situations could

lead to a fear of negative evaluation that may begin to

33

pervade the individual's future social interactions and
hamper the acquisition of effective interpersonal behaviors.

Maghiavellianism. The next motivation type,
Machiavellianism, presents a strong desire to manipulate
others in one's environment for personal gain. Christie and
Merton (1958) used this term to describe the attitudes of
medical students after several years in school. These
students began to see others as impersonal objects and
should be subject to manipulation if it served to achieve
one's ends. Four conditions where Jones and Pittman (1982)
believe such social influence is most likely to occur are
when: (1) emotionality or task involvement is moderate or
low enough, or other conditions exist to stimulate self-
consciousness, (2) opportunities or threats create
perceptions of instrumentality of influence behavior; (3)
the employee believes that he/she will be successful; and
(4) the situations and the potential outcomes are important
to the individual. It should be noted that importance of the
situation does not always imply emotional involvement. In
such instances, cold and calculative intentions would allow
emotionality to be maintained at a moderate or low level.

It would seem that this makes Machiavellianism the less
emotionally straining motivation of the two addressed here
because interpersonal behavior is seen as a means to an end
and no more. In fact, in loosely structured interactions,

individuals high in Machiavellianism have been found to be

34

less vulnerable to stress (Burgoon et al., 1972). One's
emotional disassociation from the environment and viewing
others as impersonal objects should significantly decrease
amount of anxiety, guilt and similar inhibitions from
dealing effectively with others (Kumar, 1989). This would
serve to minimize possible cognitive simplification caused
by such emotion (Kumar, 1989), simplification that can lead
to the reduction of cognitive integration (Pruitt & Rubin,
1986). In support of this notion, Schwendiman (1971) has
found that Machiavellians are more likely than other
personality types to win in bargain situations. Similarly,
Geis (1970) found a correlation of .71 between paper-and-
pencil measures of Machiavellianism and success in
laboratory interpersonal bargaining situations.

Furthermore, the perceived instrumentality of influence
behavior and one’s belief that s/he can exhibit this
behavior coincide with Pruitt’s (1983) dimensions of
feasibility; Thus, this makes it more likely that this type
of behavior will be utilized by an individual. 1

Therefore, Machiavellianism should allow one to focus
not only on one’s own actions, but on the actions and
possible perceptions of the target as well. In addition,
individuals with this motivation should be more successful
in obtaining their goals because they are able to attend to
their own desires (and carry out the necessary behaviors)

while still attending to the needs and rights of the target

35
(albeit in a dispassionate manner). This could also occur if
the individual is aware of evidence that consideration for
the other's outcomes, in addition to one’s own, leads to
more favorable outcomes for both parties (e.g. Ben-Yoave &
Pruitt, 1984a; Pruitt et al., 1983). Actually, according to
the literature of Machiavellianism, it would seem that
Machiavellians would be less concerned about the other's
outcomes. However, they (the Machiavellians) might be more
concerned that others perceive that they (the targets) have
been given a favorable outcome and that their positions have
been considered by the Machiavellians. Furthermore, the
ability to attend to the target would seem to be essential
to support the findings of Grams and Rogers (1990). They
found that people high in Machiavellianism frequently
appealed to emotions and worked to put their own ideas in
the heads of their targets.

A crucial distinction that needs to be made, however, is
the interpretation of empathy in this influential context.
In reviewing the research, experimenters apparently ascribe
a lack of empathy to Machiavellians. According to the
definition of empathy and the interpersonal accomplishments
of Machiavellians, this seems to be inappropriate. Empathy,
as noted previously, involves the understanding of the
other's emotions and perspective. Another important aspect
of this trait is to convey such an understanding to the

other party. It does not necessarily imply that one should

36
alter his/her actions or intentions based upon empathy felt
for another person. There does not appear to be any evidence
that Machiavellians are blind to or unconcerned with the
feelings of their targets. Their interpersonal effectiveness
would seem to indicate that they do have an understanding of
emotions displayed by others but this awareness does not
detract from their ability to attend to their own concerns
and desires. This distinction appears to become even more
evident in Durkin’s (1966) theory of encountering. Durkin
(1966) focuses on the actual process and not the outcome of
interpersonal functioning in differentiating between high
and low Machs. This process, which Durkin (1966) terms
encountering, is defined as "a process by which we change
through direct contact with one another" (p. 260;italics
added). To actually be emotionally affected in such a manner
would seem to more closely parallel sympathy; Again, a lack
of change of goals and/or intentions in light of another's
emotions does not indicate a lack of empathy. Furthermore,
according to Geis and Christie (1970), high Machs actually
appear more concerned than do low Machs.

It appears that a degree of empathy is necessary to
attend to the needs of the target to determine if and how
the target needs to be manipulated into accepting the
position of a Machiavellian. The Machiavellian would then
persuade the target in a fashion that is socially acceptable

so that successful negotiation results may be attained. This

37
contradicts Durkin’s (1970) interpretation of evidence
purported to show that high Machs do not respond
differentially to others. Also, it has been found that
Machiavellians are actually more flexible during
interactions, particularly when one bargaining tactic is
proving to be unsuccessful (Grams & Rogers, 1990). It is the
low Machs (in such a situation) who were unable to adapt to
resistance and employ an alternate strategy. A possible
interpretation of this is that high Machs are able to
discern differential behaviors across individuals in order
to interact more effectively across situations.

Another construct which could potentially be
misinterpreted in this discussion is that of need for
approval. It is quite plausible to assume that those
adhering to a Machiavellian outlook would have a need for
approval because being liked by others would help them to
attain their desired goals. Need for approval, however,
typically denotes that an individual’s self-esteem is
directly affected by perceived evaluations. The critical
distinction, once again, is that Machiavellians view being
liked as a means to an end (e.g. favorable negotiation
outcomes). Therefore, Machiavellians may have a necessity or
instrumentality of approval in that the opinions of others
may help Machiavellians to attain personal gain. Those with
a high need for approval need this approval of others

because it may directly impact their ability to gain or

38
maintain levels of self-esteem.

It is quite possible, even likely, that each individual
has a certain level of each motivation type (i.e. a need for
approval and a desire to influence others for personal
gain). From the negotiation literature, however, it seems
that the more important goal (of these two motivation types)
for that person when these two goals are conflicting or
incompatible will determine the actual exhibition of
interpersonal skills.

Furthermore, Kuperminc and Heimberg (1983) found that
submissive or nonassertive persons usually expect negative
consequences to follow from assertive behavior and expect
positive outcomes from compliance with requests. These are
the exact opposite expectations for assertive individuals.
.Assertive individuals expect positive outcomes from
assertion and negative outcomes from compliance (Kuperminc &
Heimberg, 1983). However, this would appear to be confounded
by what each group views as positive and negative outcomes.
For instance, what if a positive outcome to nonassertive
people is being likeg by the target, whereas a positive
outcome to assertive individuals is being respected or
achieving personal gains? In addition, recall that Gormally
(1982) found that nonassertion and assertion are viewed
differently according to the target’s own individual
behavioral style (i.e. assertive versus nonassertive). If

being liked and being respected become incompatible in a

39
situation, which of the two is a positive outcome and which
of the two is a negative outcome? That would appear to
depend upon the desires of the individual.

From this research, however, it would seem that a
nonassertive individual may have the desire to manipulate
another individual in a certain situation, but expects to be
evaluated negatively if s/he acts in an assertive manner and
this expectation may prevent the expression of assertive
behavior. In this case, the person may be more concerned
with making a favorable impression (e.g. being liked) than
with material gain, or influence. As a result, that person
may resort to behavior more consistent with a need for
approval because such a reward is more valuable to that
individual. However, it is also possible that an individual
would want to manipulate another but would not know which
behaviors are the most appropriate to achieve the desired
outcome.

I should note when one uses interpersonal skills, s/he
does not necessarily have a single intended goal (e.g. being
liked by other people). It appears that interpersonal skills
can also include gaining influence or power while gaining
the approval and respect of others (when possible) because
interpersonal skills not only address achieving one’s goals
but behaving in a socially appropriate manner as well. As
mentioned previously, the difference may lie in the

assertive nature of the target (Gormally, 1982). Each

40

individual will have his/her own levels of each motivation
to determine which outcome is most highly valued to
determine the 'appropriate’ course of action in each
situation. For instance, in some cases, one may have to
weigh the cost of losing favor with others against the
benefit of gaining personal rewards (or vice versa).

Another influence of motivation could be within the
concept of social facilitation. This addresses how
individuals respond behaviorally when they feel that they
are being evaluated. Therefore, as will be discussed below,
one’s need for approval could have effects that are equal in

strength Lg but opposite in direction from another's

 

Machiavellian motivation in some situations.

SOCIAL FACILITATION

Social facilitation, which involves the performance of a
task while in the presence of others, often facilitates task
mastery in some instances while inhibiting task behavior in
others. Several explanations for the effect of others on
individual behavior. Below, I will describe several of these
explanations, including the "mere presence" theory,
evaluation apprehension, self-awareness, and self-
presentation.

Zajonc (1965) analyzed this phenomenon and explained
these occurrences through a drive theory. He proposed that

an arousal effect occurs when others are present and leads

41
to a drive. This drive motivates the individual to improve
performance. Zajonc further incorporated the Hull-Spence
equation to explain how drive and habit strength for a
response interact to determine the likelihood of a response.
Thus, from the equation, E(response tendency) = D(drive) X
H(habit strength) combined with arousal, Zajonc concluded
that the presence of others enhances performance given that
the task is easy or familiar while debilitation of
performance occurs when the task is novel or difficult.
Zajonc also purported that this effect could be seen as a
result of the "mere" presence of others, which incited
controversy among researchers and resulted in several
attempts to disprove this notion as well as several
alternative explanations.

The hypothesis that the presence of others induces
social facilitation only when the "others" are in some way
evaluating the behavior of the target and/or have the
authority to provide or deny rewards for such behavior was
introduced by Cottrell et al. (1968). Other researchers
(e.g. Henchy & Glass, 1968; Sasfy & Okun, 1974) have also
supported this finding where audiences that evaluate (or are
perceived to evaluate) are more effective at inducing
arousal than are those where no perception of evaluation is
present.

Cottrell (1972) proposed that this effect occurs because

the evaluation and potential negative or positive outcomes

42
from this evaluation increases arousal. This is seen by
Cottrell as a learned drive which becomes an incentive to
improve performance. The increased incentive should
influence behavior so as to be affected by the social
facilitation phenomenon.

Implicit in social facilitation theory, is that its
effect on behavior is situation specific. An individual's
anxiety level may fluctuate from instance to instance
(depending on the behavior and its context), which may be
influenced by evaluation apprehension (e.g. Berkey & Hoppe,
1972). Therefore, an individual’s behavior may not be
predictable, with respect to social facilitation, across
situations. This is further affected by the perceived
outcome of the situation. It has been found that evaluation
apprehension is prominent only where to potential outcome is
expected to be negative (cf. Weiss & Miller, 1971). Studies
by Geen and his students (Geen, 1976b, 1977, 1988) show that
when performance is observed solely for the purpose of
giving feedback on how to better perform the task, the level
of apprehension decreases.

In a coaction setting, where others are simultaneously
performing the same task, the individual may feel a need to
compete (Cottrell, 1972; Geen, 1980a). A feeling of failure
may result by not performing up to the standards set by
others present who are also performing the task. Thus, a

fear of evaluation by coacters who outperform the target may

43
cause the target to exert greater effort to match that of
the others.

The presence of the experimenter in such studies can
also produce the coaction effect (Geen, 1980a). This may be
due to the fact that the experimenter controls the
distribution of rewards which leads to competition among the
study's participants. Geen, Thomas, and Gammill (1988) found
that the presence of the experimenter caused greater
evaluation apprehension for the coacters than did the
coacters for each other.

Self-awareness, as an explanation of social facilitation
proposed by Duval and Wicklund (1972), is seen as a state
where an individual compares one's current behavior to one’s
ideal behavior. When there is a discrepancy between these
two perceived behaviors, the individual acts so as to
decrease or minimize this discrepancy. This elicits a
greater motivation within the individual to improve
performance on the task.

Carver and Scheier (1981a, 1981b) provide an additional
theory to explain inhibition of performance in the self-
awareness condition. They believe that the task given in an
experiment indicates which behaviors are appropriate and the
individual then attempts to stay "in line" with those
behaviors. If the actual performance is significantly
different from the ideal behavior, attempts will again be

made to eliminate this discrepancy. However, if the

44
individual believes that s/he cannot perform the necessary
or appropriate behaviors, performance will suffer.

Another explanation for the effect the presence of
others has on individual behavior is that of self-
presentation. Schlenker (1980) put forth the premise that
individuals, in most instances, are concerned with making a
positive impression. Therefore, the individual wants to
prevent personal embarrassment among others by improving
performance. Several studies have supported this premise
(e.g. Bond, 1982; Strube, Miles, & Finch, 1981) showing that
individuals (when being observed by others) make direct
attempts to improve performance so as to give a favorable
impression of his/her behavior to the observer. .

Although the concept of social facilitation is typically
applied to tasks that are psychomotor in nature, there is a
possibility that these effects could also be observed in
interpersonal situations. Social facilitation has previously
been addressed in terms of individual motivation to be
viewed positively by others. Durkin (1970) as well as Geis
and Christie (1970), attempted to incorporate the concept of
social facilitation to explain the differences between high
and low Machs, although none performed actual investigations
to test such a relationship. Nonetheless, they suggested
that while social facilitation inhibits or detracts from
individual performance for low Machs, high Machs, on the

other hand, are not affected by an audience. However, they

45
all seemed to concentrate only on the inhibition that is
possibly caused by social facilitation. Apparently, they
ignored Zajonc’s prOposition that social facilitation also
enhances the performance of well-learned tasks. If Zajonc
(1965) is correct, then an evaluative audience or increased
rewards should result in a difference between high and low
Machs for two reasons. The first reason is that low Machs
will perform lower on tasks in such situations. In addition,
this discrepancy should be intensified not because the low
Machs perform worse while high Machs are unaffected. Rather,
there should be an increased difference because not only
would the low Machs perform worse, but the high Machs would
perform better when there exists such an audience or when
the rewards are of greater value. The possibility that this
motivation could also play a role in how individuals
interact with others as well as with psychomotor tasks will
be addressed within the context of determinants of
interpersonal skill. This should function to further
elaborate upon conditions where one's motivation to behave
in an interpersonally effective manner can influence the

process of the interaction itself.

MAJOR DEIERMIHANES QF INTERPERSONAL SKILL

As far as the personal variables which influence the
display of interpersonal skill are concerned, two major

theories are considered. The first explains the

46
demonstration of interpersonal skills, or lack thereof as a
funCtion of individual anxiety (Goffman, 1959). McFall and
Twentyman (1973), in contrast, suggest that individuals who
do not display adequate interpersonal skills simply do not
have the knowledge of the appropriate skill and thus,
inherently, are unable to perform them. Each position will
be addressed.

Goffman's anxiety theory. According to Goffman (1959),
individuals may wish to appear favorably to others but
anticipate that their attempt will result in failure and
thus embarrassment. These individuals may then experience an
increase in expectancy that future attempts will be negative
as well. This begins a cycle where a negative performance
leads to the expectation of future negative performance.
This expectation of future negative performance affects
behavior so that actual performance is indeed hampered
through the anxiety caused by expected negative outcomes.

This perspective relates to several aspects of social
facilitation described above. For instance, one's desire to
gain approval may lead to anxiety and increased anxiety may
block the acquisition of interpersonal knowledge or the
display of interpersonally skilled behavior. In addition,
the desire the present a favorable self to others is related
to Schlenker’s (1980) belief that we are concerned with how
others view us. This leads to increased motivation to behave

in a manner that would result in a favorable impression.

47
During negotiation, such a motivation may interfere with
obtaining desirable material or situational outcomes.

The same can be said for the threat of evaluation during
the interpersonal interaction process. The person towards
whom one's behavior is directed (the target) becomes the
controller of the rewards that are desired by the individual
(e.g. a smile, a liking by the target, negotiation gains).
Thus, behavior is aimed at impressing the other person to
gain such rewards. If the individual feels that her/his
behavior is not leading to such rewards, then attempts will
be made to improve behavior so that the desired behavior
from the other person will be attained.

Furthermore, self-awareness may also come into play in
that the individual may notice the discrepancy between the
behavior being displayed and the ideal behavior s/he wishes
to display. This perceived discrepancy between ideal and
actual behavior (as well as ideal and actual behavior to be
elicited from the target) may lead to a greater anxiety and
a decrease in effective behavior if the person is not
interpersonally skilled. This could also help to explain why
individuals adversely affected by social facilitation are
unable to adapt and adjust to diverse responses from
individuals during interpersonal situations.

The previously given literature shows that anxious
individuals are often concerned with self-presentation, may

be unable to take the perspective of the other person and

48
lack the empathy necessary for effective interpersonal
communication. This state may be escalated in certain
situations such as negotiation where a degree of assertion
is required to attain desirable outcomes. Furthermore,
social misperception brought about by this anxiety may also
lead to detrimental or less favorable results.

Morall and Twentyman's knowledge-based theory. The
explanation offered by McFall and Twentyman (1973), however,
takes a different perspective. They believe that those
individuals who do not display adequate interpersonal skills
lack the knowledge of such skills which would enable them to
do so. It is this lack of knowledge or underexposure to
interpersonal situations which may lead to anxiety in
performing such behaviors. Thus, this cycle stems from lack
of knowledge which may lead to anxiety, whereas Goff (1959)
believes that the knowledge is in the individual’s
repertoire but anxiety prevents him/her from displaying it.
However, implicit in the theory by McFall & Twentyman (1973)
is that the lack of knowledge prevents appropriate
interpersonal behavior independently of the anxiety of the
individual and that the anxiety may only intensify the
inhibition of appropriate behavior.

The anxiety—based theory of Goffman (1959) and the
knowledge-based theory of McFall & Twentyman (1973) leave
several questions. How are interpersonal skills acquired if

lack of exposure leads to further anxiety? Many situations

49

faced are novel at one time or another and supposedly we
learn to adjust to these situations. But if anxiety prevents
acquisition of knowledge, how does one ever become socially
adroit? Shouldn’t we all then be socially inept? However,
research has shown that there are individual differences in
the display of interpersonal skills. This is where I believe
type of motivation comes into play.

Individuals who may be anxious due to a high need for
approval (or other situations) fit nicely into not only the
knowledge-based theory of McFall and Twentyman (1973), but
into the Goffman's (1959) anxiety—based theory as well.
Anxiety has been shown to be detrimental to the acquisition
and inhibit the expression of interpersonally skilled
behaviors. It seems unlikely (according to the literature)
that interpersonally skilled behavior will typically be
displayed if an individual is experiencing a high level of
anxiety.

What these theories do not address, however, is a
situation where anxiety is not an issue. For instance, what
occurs when the situation is no longer novel or when need
for approval is not a motive? According to Goffman (1959),
everyone has the necessary knowledge of appropriate behavior
and should be able to execute these behaviors. However,
while sympathy for others (for instance) may lead to more
appropriate behaviors, it does not ensure that an individual

With such a motive will display the behaviors necessary to

50
accomplish predetermined objectives (as in negotiation).
Such efforts may be hindered by this concern for the other
person and thus subject to a feeling of obligation to help
this person or prevent harm. In such an instance, attempts
to attain personal goals may be preceded by attempts to
appease the other individual. Therefore, individual goals
may not be attained. McFall and Twentyman (1973) also do not
address this issue. According to their theory, those who do
not display interpersonally skilled behavior do not have the
necessary knowledge to display this behavior. However, in
the instance above, the individual may indeed possess such
knowledge but choose not to exert influence in favor of
attending to the other’s needs.

Finally, how would these theories explain the following
instance? What occurs if an individual does not have a high
need for approval? How would one account for this individual
who does not display interpersonally skilled behavior?
Again, Goff (1959) could offer no explanation because
according to his theory it is anxiety that inhibits the
expression of knowledge that we all have. McFall and
Twentyman (1973) would offer that this individual does not
possess the necessary knowledge. However, this individual
could possess such knowledge but not anticipate any personal
gains from acting in an interpersonally skilled manner. In
such an instance, knowledge of appropriate behavior could

have been masked by lack of adequate motivation.

51
W

The literature on interpersonal skills and the display
of these skills shows a severe lack of consensus with
respect to a definition of interpersonal skills and the
components which comprise this construct. Therefore, I feel
that the most beneficial model for each skill needs to be
determined in order to obtain a better understanding of
these skills and conduct adequate research. The two major
theories offered at this point, the anxiety-based approach
of Goffman (1959) and the knowledge—based approach of McFall
and Twentyman (1973), both provide quite useful insight into
explaining underlying dimensions that may affect
interpersonally skilled behavior. However, each taken
individually is incomplete and inadequate.

Based on the literature of anxiety, assertion,
negotiation and motivation, it appears that the display of
interpersonally skilled behavior relies on more than anxiety
and knowledge of appropriate behavior. It seems that exactly
what an individual hopes to accomplish through interpersonal
interaction may help to determine which course of action to
pursue in order to bring about that intended result.
Contrasting motivations (need for approval versus desire to
influence another, for example), perhaps can prevent or
promote the display of interpersonally skilled behavior such
as assertion, while the prevalence of a particular

motivation (e.g. need for approval) could result in

52
affective states (e.g. anxiety) that could, in turn,
possibly not only prevent the display of assertive behavior
but the acquisition of the appropriate knowledge of how and
when to display such behavior.

More specifically, it appears that two models are
necessary to explain interpersonal skills. One model may be
necessary to explain individual differences in the
acquisition of interpersonal skill knowledge and another
model may be required to account for the display of
interpersonally skilled behavior.

From the literature, it seems that one’s motivation will
serve to help or hinder the acquisition of knowledge of
appropriate behavior. It also appears that possession of
such knowledge is critical not only to the display of
interpersonally skilled behavior, but to the acquisition of
additional knowledge as well. A high need for approval may
lead to increased fear of negative evaluation and anxiety
which can prevent an individual from obtaining such
knowledge of appropriate behaviors necessary to achieve
certain goals (particularly goals where assertion is
required). Thus, in such situations, this subsequent lack of
knowledge may cause this cycle of anxiety to continue which
further prevents the acquisition of knowledge. A desire to
manipulate others, on the other hand, may be a more
impersonal motivation which serves to diminish possible

debilitating anxiety. However, it would appear that with

53
regard to acquisition of interpersonal skills the poor stay
poor (i.e. those who are anxious due to lack of knowledge
are unable to obtain such knowledge) and the rich get richer
(i.e. those who are not anxious and have the appropriate
knowledge are able to acquire more knowledge).

Motivation would come into play once again in a second
model, when overt behavior is actually performed. If an
individual with a high need for approval also experiences
anxiety, but also has a desire to influence a person in a
certain situation, the need for approval may prevent the
expression of assertive behavior (even if the individual
ggeg possess the adequate knowledge). Conversely, the desire
to manipulate others would not present such obstacles.
However, assertive behavior may not be displayed if the
individual does not value any possible consequence of
manipulating a person in a given situation.

At this point, it is not feasible to examine the
acquisition of actual interpersonal knowledge. This is a
longitudinal process which cannot be measured in a
laboratory study. The study of acquisition of knowledge
would involve determining if a lack of knowledge caused
anxiety or if anxiety prevented knowledge acquisition or if
this relationship was cyclical in nature, one constantly
affecting the other. Furthermore, the acquisition of
knowledge is a process which can occur over an extended

period of time and is not directly observable. However, it

54
is possible to examine the hypothesized underlying factors
which may influence the exhibition of such knowledge through
observable behavior in certain situations. Therefore, based
upon the literature and the possibilities it presents, the
following model is offered. The model (illustrated in Figure
1) begins with one’s level of actual knowledge of
appropriate behavior. [Although a model of knowledge
acquisition is not offered here, it is a safe assumption
that the endpoint of such a model would be attained
knowledge. Therefore, it seems to be an appropriate place to
begin this model which describes how one acts upon such
knowledge. To offer constructs that would occur prior to or
influence the acquisition of knowledge would confound
acquisition and display, two processes which this study
intends to keep separate.]

Due to the vast number of behaviors that can be
considered interpersonal in nature, a more precise
definition of knowledge and appropriate behavior needs to be
offered. Therefore, in this study, inadequate knowledge will
refer to the state of being incognizant of assertive
behaviors and the effectiveness of assertive behavior.
Likewise, adequate knowledge will refer to knowledge of
assertion and the effectiveness of assertive behavior. This
will provide the distinction between ineffective
(nonassertive) and effective (assertive) behavior.

The knowledge of appropriate behavior would influence

55

 

mozSsznEwd
><._n_-m._Om

 

 

 

% E_xz< A fl zoEozoo

      

 

J

 

 

 

 

k 1251-30... AI

/

 

f m>fi<3<>m

Ik

 

I
20.25.25 A
m>c<omz .

 

 

 

fi “.0 m<mE

L

m00m4>>02¥

     
        

2w_z<_._n_w><_10 _
.m>
.._<>Omn_n_< m0“. ommz

ZO_._.<>_._.O$_

woz<§m0mmmm ><IEmJOm oz< E_XZ< ><.._d-m..0m .ZO_._.<D.._<>m
.ZO_._.<D._<>m m>fi<0mz m0 m<m..._ .ZO:.<>_HO_2 .mwom4>>02¥
mjim m<20mmmmmmhz_ Zwm>>._.m_m n=Isz_._.<._mm DMN_mm_I._.Od>I

F mmDOE

56
fear of negative evalution in such a fashion that the lack
of knowledge would increase this fear because individuals
may anticipate negative evaluation from one’s peers
(Goffman, 1959). As stated previously, nonassertive
individuals believe that assertive behavior will be viewed
negatively and will lead to negative consequences. This
should contribute to the fear of negative evaluation trait
because these individuals would typically anticipate or make
conscious attempts to avoid meeting with disapproval by not
exhibiting assertion and these individuals may become overly
concerned that their behavior will be viewed unfavorably by
others. Conversely, possession of such knowledge should help
to prevent this fear of negative evaluation from developing
because such knowledge should provide an individual with
confidence that one can behave appropriately given a certain
situation. These assertive individuals may also believe that
their behavior will lead to positive outcomes and actually
be viewed favorably by those with whom they interact.

This is not to say that only one’s level of assertion
can contribute to one's fear of negative evaluation. Fear of
negative evaluation is a general trait where individuals are
concerned with being judged by others. Believing that one
may behave inappropriately and thus regarded poorly by
others can be a belief that one holds across situations.

However, fear of negative evaluation may also be

influenced by type of motivation. For instance, an

57
individual who lacks adequate knowledge and has a high need
for approval should have a higher fear of negative
evaluation than an individual who lacks adequate knowledge
but does not seek approval from others. In addition, an
individual who possesses adequate knowledge and does not
seek approval from others should have less fear of negative
evaluation than an individual who possesses adequate
knowledge but also has a high need for approval. Likewise,
individuals possessing adequate knowledge and high in
Machiavellianism, indicating that one’s priority is to
attain benefits for one’s self (and not approval from
others) should experience less fear of negative evaluation
than those lacking adequate knowledge and/or low on
Machiavellianism. Thus, it seems that those who wish to
attain benefits for one's self (and not approval from
others) should experience less fear of negative evaluation
than those lacking adequate knowledge and/or low on
Machiavellianism.

The next link in this model is that of fear of negative
evaluation and evaluative demands. It is quite possible that
the trait of fear of negative evaluation becomes more
apparent and observable in anxiety situations. However, this
fear may not be apparent if an individual does not sense
that anyone is forming an opinion about him/her.

This leads to the next link in this model where fear of

negative evaluation becomes apparent through anxiety which

58

is induced by an evaluative situation and then the
behavioral dispositions associated with such a state can be
observed. In support of this notion, it has been suggested
that accurate social perception is an important ability for
effective interpersonal interaction (Morrison & Bellack,
1981), and anxiety may lead to social misperception which
would be detrimental to such interaction. In such an
instance, knowledge of appropriate behavior would be masked
because an individual burdened with anxiety would be
responding to inappropriate (or nonexistent) cues and would,
in turn, be oblivious to or less cognizant of the cues and
behaviors actually displayed by his/her interaction partner.
Thus, to an extent, fear of negative evaluation and its
subsequent anxiety would prevent the display of appropriate
knowledge even though such knowledge could be in the
individual’s repertoire. In addition, anxiety may lead to
unassertive behavior (Kumar, 1989) which in situations such
as negotiation would be ineffective (Bartos, 1974; Benton et
al., 1972; Hamner, 1974; Harnett & Vinclette, 1978).

Furthermore, an important aspect of social interaction
and negotiation is accurate listening (e.g. Filley, 1975; R.
Fisher & Ury, 1981). Such listening is less likely to be
achieved by anxious individuals because they typically
cannot encode conversations in a rich or detailed manner
(Bond & Omar, 1990). In addition, insecure people (also

characterized by a high fear of negative evaluation) are

59
also likely to be anxious because they are characterized by
seeking reassurance or evaluation by others (e.g. Marlowe &
Crowne, 1964). Wicklund and Braun (1990) found that these
individuals, too, rate contradictory information as more
consistent than do their secure counterparts. It would
follow, then, that inaccurate encoding of behavior would
less likely result in appropriate responses than would
accurate encoding. In other words, individuals who are less
anxious can encode the behavior of others more accurately
and thus should have the capacity to respond to others in a
more appropriate manner than would individuals experiencing
high levels of anxiety.

Finally, at this point, the display of several behaviors
may be affected which could indicate anxiety or a fear of
negative evaluation (e.g. fidgeting and voice trembling,
Shapiro, 1968; lack of eye contact, Kolotkin et al., 1983).
In addition, this fear of negative evaluation could prevent
the display of behaviors that are considered to be
characteristic of assertive behavior such as use of gestures
and voice inflection (Rose & Tryon, 1979). In accordance
with the behaviors previously examined in the literature of
assertiveness, the behaviors of interest in the study will
consist of three categories which are verbal behavior,
nonverbal behavior and context of conversation (see rating
scales, Appendices M, N and O for specific behaviors and

previous discussion of assertiveness for how these behaviors

60
relate to use of assertion).

Therefore, while it has been well documented in the
literature that individuals that score high on the trait of
Machiavellianism outperform low scorers on the same trait in
loosely structured situations (e.g. Kosa, 1961; Budner,
1962; Geis, 1970), it needs to be further examined if the
hypothesized effects of fear of negative evaluation (and its
possible causes) are present. In previous studies, the
effects of anxiety have been assumed to be present as
indicated by self-report measures. This study, however,
seeks to examine subjects in a high-evaluative and a low-
evaluative situation to determine the extent to which fear
of negative evaluation (clustered with its possibly related
constructs of motivation, evaluative demands and social
facilitation) can differentiate between two types of
situations where actual behavior is observed. Therefore, at
the conclusion of this study it is anticipated that there
will exist further insight as to if and how fear of negative
evaluation and hypothesized related variables (i.e.
motivation, evaluative demands, and knowledge of appropriate
behavior) inhibit or enhance the display of interpersonal
skills. In particular, however, the interpersonal skill of
assertion in a negotiation situation is of interest.

The interpersonal skill of assertion is of particular
interest because there are certain observable behaviors that

are believed to differentiate between assertive and

61
nonassertive behavior. In addition, assertion incorporates
the interpersonal skill dimensions of role-taking and
empathy because it involves recognizing and acknowledging
the rights of others. The interpersonal skill dimension of
social misperception is also viewed as affecting responses
in assertion situations. Situations where assertion is
required, such as negotiation, have also been identified as
producing anxiety and social misperception.

Negotiation ties in with the use of assertion because
negotiation presents a situation where assertion is required
to act in one’s own best interest. Therefore, in negotiation
situations, the use of assertion can distinguish effective
behavior from ineffective behavior. Negotiation also allows
a goal to be assigned so that the display of appropriate
behavior (i.e. behavior consistent with that particular
goal) can be examined. This being the case, the use of
assertion can be measured by observing those behaviors
associated with assertion and thus indicating the degree to
which effective behavior was exhibited.

In summary, a model has been presented which purports
that in negotiation situations where behavior is evaluated,
a number of factors could impact the behavior which one
displays. The first set of hypotheses deals with these
factors. For instance, one's level of anxiety could enhance
or debilitate the behavior exhibited on all three dimensions

of interest in this study (i.e. nonverbal behavior, verbal

62
behavior and context of conversation). More specifically,
high levels of anxiety were expected to lead to impaired
display of assertive behavior while low levels of anxiety
should allow one to perform appropriate behaviors. As stated
in the literature review, heightened levels of anxiety can
serve to limit individuals' cognitive capacity to attend to
the cues provided by one's role-play partner. Thus, those
subjects who were more anxious during the role-play were
expected to display fewer assertive behaviors (and more
nonassertive behaviors) than those subjects who are not
anxious. In addition, fear of negative evaluation could
affect the display of behavior, but only through one’s level
of anxiety. It was expected that only those subjects with a
high fear of negative evaluation would be adversely affected
by the design of the role-play due to the evaluation
component. It was not anticipated that subjects who have a
low fear of negative evaluation would be anxious due to the
evaluation component of the role-play. This was also the
case with the evaluative condition experienced where the
high evaluative condition (which involved the presence of
the experimenter, enacting the role-play with a negotiation
expert and the recording of the role-play and the
participant expecting a performance critique immediately
afterward) was intended to induce a greater level of
anxiety. The low-evaluative condition involved only the

recording of the role-play witha partner whom the

63
participant believed was another subject (as opposed to a
confederate). Therefore, as with fear of negative
evaluation, condition was expected to impact behavior but
only through anxiety. Also, knowledge was presumed to have a
direct impact upon behavior because those who are more aware
of assertive responses and their effectiveness would be more
likely to display assertive behaviors than those who cannot
identify assertive responses or believe that they are
ineffective. In other words, if two participants differed on
knowledge, but not on anxiety, the participant with the
higher level of knowledge was expected to display more
assertive behaviors than the participant with less
knowledge. Therefore, anxiety was not expected to serve as a
moderator for this direct link between knowledge and display
of assertive behavior. These possibilities are addressed in

Hypotheses 1 through 4.

IL: Level of anxiety will be negatively correlated with
all three dimensions of assertive behavior (i.e.
nonverbal behavior, verbal behavior and context of

conversation).

IQ: Level of anxiety will mediate the relationship
between fear of negative evaluation and all three

dimensions of assertive behavior.

64
lg: Level of anxiety will mediate the relationship
between condition and all three dimensions of assertive

behavior.

IL: Knowledge will be positively related with all

three dimensions of assertive behavior.

The second set of hypotheses deals with other factors
which affect level of anxiety indirectly through fear of
negative evaluation. Fear of negative evaluation involves a
concern or preoccupation with the opinions of others. Those
with a high fear of negative evaluation, while wanting to
make a favorable impression, are often overly concerned with
the opinions others may be making of them and fear that
these opinions may-be negative. Individuals low on this
trait are not so apprehensive of judgments that others with
whom they interact may be forming. Furthermore, they may not
anticipate negative evaluations, rather positive ones.

Two factors suspected to influence this fear of negative
evaluation were Machiavellianism and need for approval. As
stated earlier, these variables were expected to be
negatively correlated. Previous research has indicated that
these motivations are contrasting in that those with a high
need for approval are less willing to obtain personal gains
at the expense of viewed unfavorably by others. Those high

on Machiavellianism, on the other hand, are less willing to

65
sacrifice obtaining personal gains in return for being
viewed favorably by others. Furthermore, it was expected
that those with a high need for approval, because they are
concerned with how others view them, would also have a
higher fear of negative evaluation. Conversely, those high
on the trait of Machiavellianism, because they are more
concerned with personal gain than with other individuals,
were expected to obtain lower scores on the fear of negative
evaluation measure. Moreover, it was anticipated that those
with less knowledge of assertive behavior and a high need
for approval (or low Machiavellianism) would have a high
fear of negative evaluation because those who chose
nonassertive responses for the situational judgment items
may have done so because they fear being viewed negatively
and will acquiesce to others to avoid confrontation.
However, it was believed that those with a low need for
approval (or high Machiavellianism), regardless of knowledge
would score low on this measure. Therefore, Machiavellianism
and need for approval were each expected to interact with
knowledge to affect fear of negative evaluation (see Figure
2). In addition, these two variables were hypothesized to
affect anxiety through fear of negative evaluation. In
addition, although knowledge of assertive behavior was
expected to have a direct impact upon display of behavior,
it was also expected to affect behavior indirectly through

fear of negative evaluation and anxiety. Those with more

66

55.96.66: :53 ”.9663 a. 862 3.1.1.2 "tossefla 6:89

 

 

 

 

 

ones; :9: caps; 25..
3.32620.
662 591382 56..

5.83

3.682

6 6......

com: 26.. Baez :9:
co_Lw:_m>m

825362 5 Lead :0 maggocx can
comszaamz .8 888.35 choaxm

N #507.

67
knowledge were expected to have a lower fear of negative
evaluation because they are more confident of their ability
to exhibit these necessary behaviors effectively during
their interactions and less anxious when the display of
behavior is required to obtain particular outcomes. On the
other hand, those with less knowledge were expected to be
less secure when their behavior is being evaluated in an
instance where one needs to display appropriate behavior to
attain a particular goal because they anticipate being
judged poorly. In addition, as stated in the literature
review, nonassertive individuals believe that others will
react unfavorably to assertive behavior and may feel that
the display of assertive behavior would be viewed negatively
by others. Therefore, they may fear or anticipate negative
evaluation by others if they display such behavior or
attempt to display such behavior and fail. This was expected
to lead to experienced anxiety in a situation where
assertive behavior was necessary to attain positive
outcomes. Thus, primarily, knowledge was expected to affect
anxiety through fear of negative evaluation. Next, knowledge
was expected to affect actual behavior through its
relationship with anxiety. Moreover, fear of negative
evaluation and condition were each anticipated to impact
anxiety level. Those with a high fear of negative evaluation
were presumed to experience greater anxiety than those with

a low fear of negative evaluation because they are more

68
concerned with the impressions others are forming of them.
In addition, it was expected that subjects would experience
more anxiety during the high-evaluative condition due to the
obvious evaluation component present in the manipulation.
Finally, it was expected that fear of negative evaluation
and condition would interact to impact anxiety. That is to
say, anxiety would be greater when there is high fear of
negative evaluation combined with the high evaluative
condition than with any other fear of negative
evaluation/condition combination (see Figure 3). It was
envisioned that those with a high fear of negative
evaluation would be most anxious when evaluation is high.
Those with a low fear of negative evaluation would not be
greatly affected by the increased presence of evaluation,
thus exacerbating the difference in anxiety levels between
those with a high fear of negative evaluation and those with
a low fear of negative evaluation. These issues are

addressed in Hypotheses 5 through 13.

IL: Machiavellianism and need for approval will be

negatively correlated.

IQ: Machiavellianism and need for approval will each
interact with knowledge to affect fear of negative

evaluation.

3.8.9.”. 6.: 3.8.3 :3
20:5on

 

69

 

me 25..

 

.26..
22.2.4

wzd no:

 

 

55950 new m2”. Co.— mcozomaoE. omsoooxm

m 230E

70
IL: Fear of negative evaluation will mediate the

relationship between Machiavellianism and anxiety.

IQ: Fear of negative evaluation will mediate the

relationship between need for approval and anxiety.

IA: Fear of negative evaluation will mediate the

relationship between knowledge and anxiety.

Hm: Knowledge will affect behavior through fear of

negative evaluation and anxiety.

Hn: Fear of negative evaluation will be negatively

correlated with anxiety.

Hm: Evaluative condition will be positively correlated

with anxiety.

Hn: Fear of negative evaluation and condition will

interact to affect anxiety.

METHODS

Sub cts

Subjects were 132 undergraduate psychology students from
a large Midwestern university as fulfillment of a class
requirement. A total of 123 subjects completed both the
paper-and-pencil and scenario phases of the study. However,
one subject did not complete the fear of negative evaluation
measure. Therefore, analyses involving this scale consist of

122 subjects.

EQAEEEQH

Among the measures was a series of situational judgment
items which evaluated each subject's knowledge of, or
ability to recognize, appropriate social behaviors when
presented. The situational judgment items were taken from
scenarios collected from a job analysis of entry-level
investigative agents (for collection procedures, see
Tsacoumis et al., 1993). A group of 17 supervisors provided
responses to each of the scenarios. A separate group of 34
supervisors (from the same agency) rated these responses to
the scenarios and individually chose the best and worst
responses. The original scoring for these items was

determined through a scoring procedure similar to that

71

72
described by Motowildo et al. (1990). (See Schmitt et al.,
1994 for detailed description.) For the current study,
however, to prevent an increased likelihood of either
assertive or nonassertive responses, it was desired that
only one "correct" (assertive) and "incorrect"
(nonassertive) response was provided for each item. Some
responses were then neither correct nor incorrect had a
neutral value, whereas correct and incorrect responses were
given values of +1 and -1, respectively. In addition,
because the purpose of using this measure was to distinguish
between assertive and nonassertive behavior, assertive
responses were considered correct and nonassertive responses
were considered incorrect. The original items are given in
Appendix A while the edited items appear in Appendix B.
Rationale for any editing of the scenarios, response options
and scoring is indicated in Appendix C. Because these items
had never been used for the purposes of this study, this
test was administered to 30 individuals prior to the
beginning of the investigation to provide an indication of
reliability (alpha coefficient) for this measure. This
reliability was .64.

However, because the coding of these items was
determined solely by the researcher, the items (and
literature concerning assertive and nonassertive behavior)
were given to 8 graduate psychology students to help

determine assertive and nonassertive responses. In addition,

73
3 new items were created for the test. Each item where 7 of
the 8 students agreed on both the assertive option and the
nonassertive options were accepted as written and included
in the measure. Items which did not have acceptable
agreement were altered and administered to a separate group
of 8 graduate psychology students. Items which then had
adequate agreement were deemed appropriate for the study and
the remaining items were eliminated. The final set of items
administered for the study are presented in Appendix D.

The measures also included a battery of personality
scales to determine individual motivation for interacting
effectively with others. These motivation scales were a
Machiavellianism scale (Mach IV; Christie & Geis, 1970;
Appendix E; item wording was slightly altered for
administration for purposes of gender neutrality) and the
Marlowe-Crowne need for approval scale (Crowne & Marlowe,
1960; Appendix F). In addition, Taylor's Manifest Anxiety
Scale (Taylor, 1953; Appendix G; two items referring to
biological functions were omitted) was administered to
provide a measure of anxiety and was used only for the
purposes of screening individuals with abnormal levels of
anxiety which could cause elevated degrees of stress. The
Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale (Watson & Friend, 1969;
Appendix H) is designed to tap individuals' concern with
being evaluated or judged by other people. High scores on

this measure indicate a fear of appearing foolish or meeting

74
with disapproval. This was given not only for this purpose,
but to identify individuals who could have knowledge of
interpersonal skills but are less likely to demonstrate them
because they are so little concerned with how others judge
them. This was also to give an indication of subjects who
may be adversely affected by possible social facilitation
during the role-play exercises because they are overly
concerned with such judgment. In addition, this was intended
to help identify those persons who may have had knowledge of
interpersonal skills but did not wish to impress or get
along with others, and therefore, had no desire to
demonstrate these skills. Thus, it should be noted that
there was also the possibility that some subjects may have
had a different motivation to behave effectively which was
not tapped by the study. Due to this possibility, each
subject was given a goal commitment questionnaire
(Hollenbeck, Klein, O’Leary, & Wright, 1989; presented in
Appendix I) with a five-point Likert scale, immediately
prior to the enactment of the role-play exercise to
determine the acceptance of the goal which was assigned by
the experimenter.

For the second phase of this study, a negotiation role-
play was developed (Appedix J) and was performed by each
subject. Immediately following the role—play, each subject
completed a role-play reaction questionnaire for either the

high- or low-evaluative condition (Appendices K and L) to

75
indicate the degree to which the subject was nervous or
anxious during the role-play. [Due to the different
environmental context for the two conditions, some variation
among items was necessary. For the purpose of analyses, only
items which the two measures have in common were used for
the primary analyses. Also, for data analyses, condition was
coded ’0’ for the low-evaluative condition and ’1' for the
high-evaluative condition. The two complete scales were used
for post hoc analyses.]

The performance was rated by two judges (one of whom was
the principal investigator). Drawing on the literature of
assertion and interpersonal skills, rating scales
(Appendices M through 0) were developed to evaluate each
subject’s exhibition during the role-play exercises on the
dimensions of non-verbal behavior, verbal behavior and
context of conversation. More specifically, behaviors which
have been previously researched and identified within these
dimensions were examined. To assess non-verbal behavior, the
behaviors of increased gestures (Rose & Tryon, 1979), eye
contact (Kolotkin et al., 1983), and fidgeting (Shapiro,
1968) were observed. Verbal behavior was assessed through
the evaluation of voice trembling (Shapiro, 1968), speaking
clearly with no dramatic changes in voice tone (Baldwin,
1992), as well as voice inflection and lapse time before
responses (Rose & Tryon, 1979). Finally, context of

conversation was evaluated on the criteria of expressed

76
empathy (Galassi et al., 1981), use of ’I’ statements
(Kolotkin et al., 1983), as well as Baldwin's (1992)
dimensions of checking for closure and persistence in one’s
request (which was measured by how many attempts the subject
makes to increase his/her outcome).

Because interpersonal skills is viewed as a multi-
dimensional construct, it was desired that relationships be
found for separate dimensions. These distinctions would be
of greater assistance to the existing literature because the
general construct of interpersonal skills is not currently
well-defined. Therefore, although highly inter-correlated,
each of these behaviors were measured separately.

There was also an additional performance dimension (for
which there are no hypotheses), the overall rating (Appendix
P). The overall rating, however, was not simply an average
of the three ratings of interest. It was not scored in this
fashion because while one could display nonverbal behaviors
(e.g. eye contact, hand gestures) as well as effective
verbal behaviors (e.g. speaking in a clear tone, using voice
inflection), a participant's overall negotiation strategy
could prove ineffective if not accompanied by appropriate
context of conversation (e.g. persuasive arguments,
expressions of empathy or expressions of one’s own
feelings). Thus, the overall rating was designed to be
mostly determined by the context of conversation dimension

rating and less determined by verbal and nonverbal behavior.

77
Therefore, taking an average of the three ratings would not
necessarily be representative of a participant's negotiation
success because these averages could be inflated simply due
to increased hand gestures, eye contact and voice
inflection. However, according to the negotiation
literature, these behaviors must be accompanied by empathy
statements and expression of one's own feelings in order to
be effective in a negotiation situation. As stated above,
the overall rating was simply to provide an indication of
overall success in the role-play, not just a compilation of
assertive behaviors which were displayed. To account for
this, the overall rating also used a behaviorally anchored
rating scale which focused upon the use of assertive
behavior and outcomes of negotiation.

This score reflects the overall effectiveness of one's
negotiation strategy, including the starting salary that the
subject obtained at the conclusion of the role-play. The
increases in salary were designed to be given in increments
of $2000 for every three assertive behaviors displayed by
the subject. However, at least one of the three behaviors
had to be contextual where the subject used an 'I'
statement, expressed empathy, etc. Any combination of three
behaviors which included an assertive statement was adequate
for a salary increase.

Ratings for video-taped role—play performances were

completed and the inter-rater reliabilities were as follows:

78
nonverbal behavior, .66; verbal, .76; context of
conversation, .84; and overall rating, .87. For any rating
where there was a discrepancy of more than one point, the
two raters viewed the video performance again and came to a
mutual agreement. Therefore, although the original inter-
rater reliabilities for nonverbal and verbal behavior were
not as high as desired, the divergence was minimized by re-
evaluating the performances and using the agreed upon score
for analyses. For ratings where the difference was only one
point, the average between the two ratings were used (e.g.
two ratings of a four and a five became 4.5).

It was found that, as designed, the overall rating was
mostly determined by contextual factors of the role-play
performance. Not only did context of conversation have the
strongest correlation with the overall performance compared
to the other behavioral dimensions, as shown in Table 2,
regression analyses show that it had the strongest
predictive value for the overall performance rating. With
all three behavioral dimensions entered into the regression
equation for overall performance, only context of
conversation received a significant beta weight. The beta
weight for context of conversation was .85 (p< .001) while
nonverbal and verbal behavior recieved beta weights of .08
and .06, respectively (both nonsignificant at p< .05).

These correlations and regression analyses provide

additional validity to the ratings. Furthermore, as

79
indicated in Table 2, the final salary obtained by the

subjects was significantly correlated with all of the

80

noauaawomwaou mason unsound mononucouom no mooHe> a

Shadow n Adm “magnum

Haouo>o a mm>o unawuonuo>cou mo uxounou I H200 au0w>msuo Hmnue> t m> auofi>mnon
Hmouo>coz u >2 a>uoaxc¢ u #21 “GOLDEDEOO o>auosam>m u nzoo ac0aumoam>o o>fiummmc «0 noun a mzm
“EmacMAHHe>mfinumz n muc: aao>oumao now p002 t mddz “empoasonx a 3023 unnofiumfi>ouono odomaum> .

 

Hoo. VG use .Ho. v9 so .mo. VQ e
ecevm. caemv. ocean. cocoa. eccen.u eeH¢.n no.1 50. NH.- mc.u A<w
aeevm. totem. eoeow. mH.u eeNN.n mo.: 50. OH.u no.1 mm>0
aecvw. totem. NH.: ecemm.u no.1 no. mo.: mo.u 9200
«comb. esmN.u «H.u ¢NN.: no. mo. mo. m>
eenN.: NH.: .am.: vo.u OH. NH.: >2
com. and. 50.- vo.n ha. Nz<
no.1 wo.n vo. mo. QZOU
“mo.v ho. eemm.u eeMN.a NZh
.mw.. 4..ov.- mo. soar
Amh.v oo. mmdz
AH¢.V 302%
um>0 8200 m> >2 xz< D200 MZE mU¢Z mmdz 302x

mmHBHAHEHamm D21 mZOHkgmmmOU «sagas,

u canny

81
behavioral measures as well as overall performance. This
shows that the assistants, throughout the study, adhered to
the instructions regarding when to concede salary raises to
the participants.

To give an indication of what the subject was trying to
accomplish during the role-play, standard questions [(1)
"Did you understand the facts of the scenario?" and (2) "Did
you understand your objective in the scenario?"] were asked
to ascertain the subject's interpretation of the scenario
and the purpose of his/her behavior throughout the scenario.
The answers to these questions were relevant in case her/his
behavior was contradictory to the experimenter's
expectations or interpretations. For instance, if it had
been found that a subject had interpreted facts within the
scenario differently than intended by the experimenter (e.g.
believing that one had to stop negotiation once the minimal
salary of forty thousand dollars was offered), that
subject's data would have been eliminated from the analysis.
However, there were no instances where the behavior of the
subject indicated misinterpretation of the facts or goals of
the scenario as determined by the experimenter. In addition,
no subject expressed confusion following the role-play
exercise. The majority of subjects verbalized an
understanding of the scenario while the remaining subjects,
despite probing, would respond only with a Simple "yes" or

affirmative comment.

82
Prggedurgs

The procedures involved a between-subjects design. In
the first phase of the study, the subjects were administered
the battery of written tests (i.e. situational judgment
items, Marlowe-Crowne scale for need for approval, the Mach
IV scale, the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale, and the Fear of
Negative Evaluation Scale). The results from the Taylor
Manifest Anxiety Scale were calculated to identify those
subjects who possessed levels of anxiety which may have
caused serious discomfort to those individuals during the
role-play. However, all subjects scored within the range of
the normal population. Therefore, no subjects were
eliminated on this basis.

After the first session, when the written tests were
administered, there was a second session at a later date
where the subjects participated in the role-plays so that
their actual behavior in simulated situations could be
evaluated. The role-play scenario was pilot tested to
determine if the desired effects of increased perceived
evaluation were actually obtained. This was done through the
role-play reaction questionnaire which asked the subjects to
indicate the degree to which the evaluation, coaction and
presence of the experimenter caused any anxiety. It was
found that 8 of 10 subjects who completed both the
situational judgment test and the role-play scenario (in the

pilot study) found at least one aspect of the study anxiety

83
inducing. Also, it was found that 8 minutes was adequate for
subjects to complete the negotiation. Therefore, an 8 minute
time limit was imposed for the role-play exercise during the
actual study.

Participants were randomly assigned to a role-play
condition during the paper-and-pencil phase of the actual
study. A sign-up sheet with available times was passed
around and subjects made an appointment according to their
own schedules. The role-play condition and times had been
predetermined according to the schedules of the four
research assistants. For example, evening hours had been
previously assigned to an assistant who enacted only the
high-evaluative condition. Therefore, any subject who made
an appointment during this time would participate in the
high-evaluative condition.

The scenarios themselves were loosely structured. A
situation was presented along with a limited number of
facts. The subject was told that any information not given
left room for 'improvisation’. This was intended to take
advantage of findings that Machiavellians typically
outperform low Machiavellians in situations that are not
well-defined or structured and perform no better than low
Machiavellians in less ambiguous situations (e.g. Kosa,
1961; Budner, 1962; Geis, 1970).

The subjects were notified prior to the experiment that

monetary awards would be given to the three subjects who

84
received the highest overall ratings for the role-play
exercises as an incentive for those characterized as
Machiavellian by the written tests. Therefore, it was
expected that they would see the experimenter as one to be
manipulated or falsely impressed so that the award could be
attained. In addition, the experiment itself may have had a
‘"built-in" motivation. Geis et al. (1970) found that high
scorers on a Machiavellianism measure simply enjoy
manipulating and/or influencing others more than do low
scorers on such a measure. Therefore, it was expected that
Machiavellians would be motivated to perform well during
these exercises, independently of the monetary award.
(However, the monetary award is expected to further increase
motivation for these subjects.)

For the actual experiment, in the low-evaluative
condition, the subject was seated with an assistant posing
as a subject. Each subject was given directions for the
role-play and then completed the goal commitment
questionnaire. The experimenter ostensibly randomly assigned
roles to the subject and confederate. However, the subject
was always assigned the role of the job candidate while the
confederate was assigned the role of the personnel manager.
Both were told that the experimenter would not be present
for the role-play, but it would be recorded for future
evaluation.

The experimenter assigned each subject the goal of

85
obtaining the best monetary award possible through
negotiation. Therefore, each subject had the same goal which
would make the interpretation of behavior possible because
we must know the objective of behavior to assign any meaning
in terms of interpersonally skilled behavior. Prior to the
role-play, each subject (and the confederate) then completed
the goal committment questionnaire.

After the role-play was completed, each subject (and the
confederate) completed a role-play reaction questionnaire.
At this point, the subject was told that his/her role-play
partner was, in fact, a research assistant. The subject was
then asked the standard questions about his/her role and
goal in the scenario and was invited to ask questions. After
this debriefing, the participant was dismissed.

The use of a confederate was intended to serve three
functions. The first benefit of this approach was that the
literature shows that when a subject is performing the same
task as is a counterpart, the situation further provokes
social facilitation due to the perceived competition. The
subject would believe that the subject and confederate would
each be evaluated and compared. Therefore, the subject would
also believe that s/he must perform better than the
confederate to have an opportunity to receive the fifty-
dollar award for achieving the highest role-play rating for
the study. Second, it would convince the subject that the

counterpart also has actual outcomes of the negotiation

86

(i.e. being rated by the experimenters and an opportunity to
gain a monetary award). This should have introduced a
decision to be made on the part of the subject. One possible
decision would have been to engage in concession behavior
toward the confederate so the subject would avoid negative
evaluation and be liked by the confederate (need for
approval). The other possible decision (of interest in the
current study) would have been to show assertion and
outperform the confederate (by obtaining as favorable an
outcome for his/herself as possible), with disregard to the
confederate's opinions of the subject, in hopes of earning
the fifty-dollar award (Machiavellianism). The third benefit
was to ensure that the counterpart engaged in the typical
response behaviors to each negotiation strategy. For
instance, lack of assertion is usually exploited by one's
negotiation counterpart. According to the literature, less
assertive subjects usually receive less favorable outcomes.
It would therefore be problematic and less representative of
negotiation outcomes if two subjects had each interacted in
a nonassertive manner and merely conceded benefits to one
another. In such an instance, a subject may have received
favorable outcomes through the concessions of one’s role-
play partner instead of through one’s own assertive
behavior.

To ensure the fulfillment of this third goal, all

research assistants were trained in the three major

87
negotiation strategies discussed previously as well as in
the behaviors associated with each strategy. They also
practiced the scenario with the experimenter to gain
experience before the actual study began. The assistants
were also trained to detect behaviors that the literature
identifies as assertive as well as those behaviors deemed as
nonassertive.

During the high-evaluative condition, a role-play
assistant served as the subject's role-play partner. The
participant was told that the assistant had been trained in
the skills and behaviors necessary for effective negotiation
and was a negotiation skills expert. The experimenter was
present and ostensibly taking notes. The subject was told
that this performance was being recorded for the purpose of
evaluation. The subject was also led to believe that the
performance would be critiqued by the assistant and
experimenter immediately following the role-play and that
the two would offer an opinion concerning the participant's
negotiation skills.

According to the literature, obvious evaluation as well
as the presence of the experimenter each, separately, are
sufficient to induce social facilitation. Therefore, with
the two combined, the effects of social facilitation should
be observable. In addition, the thought of being critiqued
afterward was included to further induce anxiety during the

performance. Therefore, this condition was expected to be

88
much more anxiety inducing than was the low-evaluative
condition.

It must also be kept in mind that it was not essential
in this experiment that anxiety be eliminated in the low-
evaluative session. Of particular interest is the difference
between the two role-play conditions across subjects. For
instance, if subjects are anxious in the low-evaluative
role-play session, it is expected that subjects will be more
anxious during the high-evaluative condition, making the
relationship stronger. In addition, it was expected that
such subjects would receive lower performance ratings than
subjects with a lower fear of negative evaluation (as
measured by the test battery).

The procedures following the role-plays in the high-
evaluative condition were the same as for the low-evaluative
where the subject completed the role-play reaction
questionnaire, was debriefed, invited to ask questions and
then dismissed.

In rating subjects, there was the issue that each of
the raters was unaware of the salary increases given to each
subject by the confederate. To minimize this potential
problem, neither rater (purposefully) took salary increases
into account when making the actual ratings on the behavior
dimensions. Therefore, in instances where a confederate may
have increased the participant’s salary before the requisite

number of assertive behaviors were displayed, each rater

89
counted only the number of behaviors, not salary awarded.
Because the investigator was present ony for the high—
evaluative role-plays, the condition in which each role-play
was enacted was also apparent to each rater. Investigator
bias was less of a concern, however, because individual
scores on the written measures were unknown to all
observers. Therefore, a bias to rate a subject overly
favorably or unfavorably could have actually led to
contradictions to the previously stated hypotheses. For
instance, if there had been a severity bias for the high-
evaluative condition, this would have served to diminish the
hypothesized relationship between fear of negative
evaluation and the behavior dimensions (mediated by
anxiety). If all participants would have been rated harshly,
even subjects who did not express high levels of anxiety
would have received poor ratings which would have
contradicted the hypothesis that those scoring low on this
measure would perform well during the scenario.

However, there were steps taken to minimize bias on the
part of the other raters. There was a total of five
assistants for this study, two for each condition. There
were two and only two assistants who served as confederates
for the low-evaluative condition while two and only two
assistants served as negotiation experts for the high-
evaluative condition throughout the study. Only the fifth

assistant (along with the experimenter) rated the subjects.-

90
In addition, this fifth assistant did not help to conduct
any of the role-plays. Therefore, the assistant did not
evaluate the performance of any subject with whom s/he had
enacted the actual role-play exercise. However, all
assistants were trained by the experimenter on possible
rater biases. They also had the opportunity to practice
rating subjects through the video tapes of subjects who

participated in the pilot study.

Date Analyses

Hypotheses 1, 11 and 12 were tested through a test of
significance for the correlations between level of anxiety
(role-play reaction) and behavior ratings. Tests of
significance for correlations were also performed to test
Hypotheses 4 and 5. In addition, simple regressions were
performed where the predictor variable was regressed on the
dependent variable.

Hypotheses 2, 3, 7, 8 , 9 and 10 were evaluated by tests
of mediation (when correlations revealed the possibilities
of such relationships). Here the two predictor variables
were entered into the regression equation for the dependent
variable, with the mediated variable entered first and then
followed by the mediator variable. The significance of the
change in R2 was then observed. This procedure was repeated
in the second equation except the mediator variable was

entered prior to the mediated variable and the significance

91
of the R? change was observed.

Hypotheses 6 and 13 were tested through regression where
each predictor variable was regressed on the dependent
variable. Also included in the equation was the interaction
component of the two predictor variables and the
significance of the change in R2 was examined for each
variable as well as for the interaction compenent of the two

variables combined.

RESULTS

Table 3 presents the means and standard deviations for
each of the variables in the study. One score of -7 on this
measure was eliminated because it was four units away from
its nearest score and thus considered an outlier. Therefore,
to eliminate possible inflation of the results, this score
is eliminated from initial analyses. However, this score was
included for post hoc examinations.In addition, there is one
missing score for the fear of negative evaluation measure
because one subject failed to complete all of the items for
the scale.

The reliabilities for the written measures and the
correlations among all of the measures are presented in
Table 2. As shown in Table 2, the reliability for the
situational judgment test is exceptionally low (.41). In
addition, a factor analysis was performed which yielded a
scree plot that indicated that there were two principle
factors to describe the data. An additional factor analyses
for two factors was then conducted. These two factors,
though, explained only 15.3 percent of the variance,

combined. However, given the small amount of variance

92

93
provided by these factors, it is unlikely that they fit the
data particularly well. As evidence of this, the
reliabilities for the two subsequent scales were only .34

and .45. In addition, no theoretical connections nor

94

Table 3
VARIABLE MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONSa
(Total, Low-evaluative Condition, High-Evaluative Condition)

 

VARIABLE MEANS
Total Low High
KNOWLEDGE 3.67 3.32 3.66
(2.94) (3.00) (3.26)
FEAR OF NEGATIVE 6.53 6.69 6.24
EVALUATION (4.74) (4.67) (4.69)
MACHIAVELLIANISM 9.45 9.61 9.25
(3.08) (3.27) (2.84)
NEED FOR 14.30 14.02 14.41
APPROVAL (5.16) (5.11) (4.95)
NONVERBAL 4.02 4.26 3.95
BEHAVIOR (1.26) (1.20) (1.39)
VERBAL 4.37 4.61 4.24
BEHAVIOR (1.31) (1.35) (1.29)
CONTEXT OF 3.10 3.53b 2.81b
CONVERSATION (1 26) (1.29) (1.18)
OVERALL 3.27 3.61b 3.07b
RATING (1.21) (1.18) (1.22)
ANXIETY 3.15 3.02 3.29
(COMPLETE SCALE) (.78) (.82) (.72)
ANXIETY 3.26 3.10c 3.42c
(SHORT SCALE) (.84) (.87) (.79)

 

N= 123, n= 62 (low-evaluative),

‘ Standard deviations in parentheses
b Means are significantly different at p< .05
° Means are significantly different at p< .01

n=61 (high-evaluative)

95

distinctions could be made for the two scales. An additional
possibility which was tested (using visual inspection) was
the separation of items which involved situations where the
subject was hypothetically interacting with professors or
supervisors as opposed to co-workers or classmates. The
eight item scale with items involving interactions with
professors or supervisors, however, also had a low
reliability (.20) as did the four item scale for classmates
or co-workers (.35). One item, which involved an
interviewee, was not included in either scale. In addition,
visual inspection was also employed to separate items on the
basis of content. Separate scales were developed for
directly work-related items (e.g. "You have been involved in
a long project that is rather unique in scope...When your
new supervisor begins to interject his ideas and then begins
to force you to adopt these suggestions, what do you do?")
and for items dealing with personal issues (e.g. "You are
advised by a co-worker that your supervisor has been
discussing your personal life with other co-workers. What
would you do?"). The reliabity of the nine-item scale for
work-related situations was .40, which is equavalent to that
of the full scale while the reliability of the four item
scale for personal situations was only .11.

Also as shown in Table 2, level of anxiety is negatively
correlated with two of the three performance dimensions with

effects present in the display of subjects' verbal as well

96
as nonverbal behavior (Hypothesis 1). There was no
relationship, however, between anxiety and context of
conversation.

It was also found that anxiety fully mediated the
relationships between fear of negative evaluation and verbal
as well as nonverbal behavior as predicted in Hypotheses 2
and 3. This test involved regression equations for verbal
and nonverbal behavior (separate equations) where fear of
negative evaluation was entered previously to entering
anxiety and then reversing the order in which these
variables were entered. The significant change in R?*when
fear of negative evaluation was entered before anxiety but
not when it was entered after anxiety indicates that this
variable does not account for signficant variance above and
beyond that which was accounted for by anxiety (see Tables 4
and 5).

The experimental condition yielded even fewer
opportunities to test for mediating effects through anxiety
to behavior. The evaluative condition was correlated only
with the behavior dimension of context of conversation.
Anxiety was not tested for mediation in this relationship
because context of conversation and anxiety were not
correlated.

The relationships between knowledge and the role-play
performance dimensions anticipated in Hypothesis 4 were not

found. Knowledge was not correlated with verbal behavior,

97

Table 4

Anxiety as a Mediator Between Fear of Negative Evaluation
and Verbal Behavior (regression analyses)

VARIABLE

Beta

R

R2

R2 change

 

EQUATION 1

Step 1:

Fear of Negative
Evaluation

Step 2:
Anxiety

EQUATIONZ
Step 1:
Anxiety

Step 2:
Fear of Negative
Evaluation

.22

.32

.27

.32

.05

.10

.07

.10

.05*

.05**

.07**

.03

 

n= 122

* p< .05
** p< .01

98

Table 5

Anxiety as a Mediator Between Fear of Negative Evaluation
and Nonverbal Behavior (regression analyses)

VARIABLE

Beta

R

R2

R? change

 

EQUATION 1

Step 1:

Fear of Negative
Evaluation

Step 2:
Anxiety

EQUATIONZ
Step 1:
Anxiety

Step 2:
Fear of Negative
Evaluation

.20

.29

.23

.29

.04

.08

.06

.08

.04*

.04*

.06**

.03

 

n= 122

* p< .05
** p< .01

99
nonverbal behavior, nor context of conversation.

As hypothesized in Hypothesis 5, Machiavellianism and
need for approval were negatively correlated. However,
neither of these variables interacted with knowledge to
affect fear of negative evaluation (Hypothesis 6). The
interaction component of need for approval and knowledge had
an R? change of only .02 (p> .05) for fear of negative
evaluation while the RF change for the interaction component
of Machiavellianism and knowledge was .00 (p> .05).
Furthermore, their relationships with other variables in the
study were contrary to Hypotheses 7 and 8. For instance,
Machiavellianism was not related to any other variable
including its expected correlations with fear of negative
evaluation and anxiety. This precluded the tests of the
hypothesized mediated effect of fear of negative evaluation
upon the relationship between Machiavellianism and anxiety.
In addition, need for approval was negatively correlated
with fear of negative evaluation when it was predicted that
there would be a positive relationship between the two.
Also, need for approval was not correlated with anxiety. As
was the case with Machiavellianism, this eliminated the
possibility of a mediated effect of fear of negative
evaluation upon the relationship between need for approval
and anxiety.

Knowledge of assertive behavior was not significantly

correlated with role-play reaction. Its correlation was not

100
significant, which eliminated the possibility that knowledge
would impact anxiety through fear of negative evaluation
(Hypothesis 9) as well as the possibility that knowledge
would affect behavior through fear of negative evaluation
and anxiety (Hypothesis 10).

Finally, although fear of negative evaluation and
condition were each correlated with anxiety (Hypotheses 11
and 12), regression analyses (Table 6) show that the two did
not interact to affect anxiety as predicted in Hypothesis
13.

Table 6
Condition, Fear of Negative Evaluation and

Interaction as Predictors of Anxiety (regression analyses)

VARIABLE Beta R. R2 I? change

 

Condition .20 .20 .04 .04*

Fear of Negative .19 .28 .08 .04*
Evaluation

Condition X -.16 .29 .08 .007
Fear of Negative
Evaluation

 

n= 122

* p< .05
** p< .01

When entered into the regression equation for anxiety, fear
of negative evaluation had a change in chof .04 (p< .05)
and condition also had a change in R2<1f .04 (p< .05). The
interaction of these two constructs, however, yielded an R2
change of only .007 (p> .05) indicating that it did not

account for any additional variance after fear of negative

101
evaluation and condition were entered.

When post hoc analyses were conducted to examine
individual items for the role-play reaction in the high-
evaluative condition, it was found that the general
questions (e.g. "I was not nervous at all during the role-
play" and "Nothing about the role—play itself caused me any
anxiety") were not related to subjects’ fear of negative
evaluation. However, fear of negative evaluation was
positively correlated with those items tapping the effects
of the particular aspects of the study designed to induce
anxiety (i.e. "I was tense during the role-play because I
was being video taped" and "The thought of being critiqued
at the end of the role-play did not make me nervous"; the
second item was reverse coded) with correlations of .21 and
.33 (p< .05). Therefore, while subjects with a low fear of
negative evaluation may have experienced anxiety due to one
or more factors not measured by the study (e.g. novelty of
the task or unfamiliar setting), subjects with a high fear
of negative evaluation experienced anxiety due to the
evaluation components (i.e. being video taped and/or
critiqued) designed to induce anxiety. This provides further
evidence that the manipulation was effective because those
subjects with a high fear of negative evaluation were
adversely affected by the evaluative components of the
design.

Furthermore, when the outlier score which was eliminated

102
for initial analyses was included, it was found that
knowledge did significantly impact role-play reaction with
an R? change of .04 (p< .05). In addition, fear of negative
evaluation also served as a mediator for this relationship.
This procedure was similar to the analyses outlined above
testing anxiety as a mediating variable. Knowledge was
entered into the regression equation separately and then
entered after fear of negative evaluation. When fear of
negative evaluation was entered before knowledge, fear of
negative evaluation yielded an R? change of .06 (p< .01).
However, there was then an R? change of only .02 (p> .05)
for knowledge of assertive behavior indicating that fear of
negative evaluation was able to account for the variance
which knowledge of assertive behavior explained. This was
the only relationship which was significantly changed by
including the outlier in the data analyses.

Also, additional analyses were performed to test
possible mediator relationship from fear of negative
evaluation to overall performance and salary. However, the
correlations for these relationships were -.06 and -.03,
respectively, and not significant at p< .05, eliminating the
possibility of such mediated relationships between the
variables.

Post hoc analyses were also performed to examine
possible interaction effects for need for approval and fear

of negative evaluation on anxiety (Table 7). Similar tests

103
were performed to test interaction effects for need for
approval and condition on anxiety (Table 8).
Table 7
Need for Approval and Fear of Negative

Evaluation Interaction on Anxiety (regression analyses)

VARIABLE Beta R. R2 I? change

 

Need for Approval“ -.04 .04 .00 .00

Fear of Negative .18 .18 .03 .03*
Evaluation

Need for Approval X .12 .20 .04 .00“
Fear of Negative
Evaluation

 

n=122

* p< .05

ANeed for approval was entered separately due to data
analysis restrictions of SPSS.

‘ Values are not precise due to rounding error.

104

Table 8
Need for Approval and Condition Interaction
on Anxiety (regression analyses)

 

 

VARIABLE Beta R R2 I? change
Need for Approval“ —.04 .04 .00 .00
Condition .20 .20 .04 .04*
Need for Approval X .02 .20 .04 .00“
Condition

n=123

* p< .05

“Need for approval was entered separately due to data
analysis restrictions of SPSS.
‘ Values are not precise due to rounding error.

These results for need for approval and fear of negative
evaluation show that need for approval did not have a direct
effect on anxiety (R? change = .00, p> .05) nor was there a
significant interaction component for need for approval and
fear of negative evaluation on this measure (R? change =
.004, p> .05). This indicates that need for approval and
fear of negative evaluation did not interact to impact
anxiety.

Similar results were found for need for approval and
condition. The interaction component for these variables on
anxiety was also insignificant (R? change = .00, p> .05).
Thus, no interaction effect was found for need for approval
and condition on anxiety.

Additional post hoc analyses were conducted to explore

any relationships between goal commitment and other

variables of the study. Goal commitment had a mean of 3.5

105
with a standard deviation of .41, indicating that, on
average, participants were slightly more than indifferent
toward the assigned goal. This measure was not correlated
with any of the behavioral dimensions or the overall rating.
However, goal commitment was positively correlated with need
for approval (r = .21, p< .05). Therefore, need for approval
has predictive value for responses to the goal commitment
questionnaire.

Finally, simple regressions were conducted to test the
overall model for each of the behavioral ratings as well as
overall performance. The variables in the study (i.e.
knowledge, need for approval, Machiavellianism, fear of
negative evaluation, condition, and anxiety) were
simultaneously entered into separate equations for nonverbal
behavior, verbal behavior, context of conversation and
overall performance. For nonverbal behavior, the model was
able to account for 13% of the variance observed (R? change
=.13, p< .01) with anxiety receiving the largest beta weight
(.23). Anxiety also had the greatest impact among all of the
predictors for verbal behavior. For this test, the model
explained 11% of the variance (R? change = .11, p< .05) and
the beta weight for anxiety was .24. The model did not
receive significant R? changes (p> .05) for context of

conversation (.10) or for overall performance (.08).

DISCUSSION

The results of this study support several of the main
hypotheses. For instance, it was found that anxiety does
affect the display of verbal as well as nonverbal behavior.
These are the most likely consequences of anxiety because as
stated in the literature review, verbal and nonverbal
behavior are often not under complete control of the
individual. Even when one attempts to behave in an assertive
fashion, making requests or stating one’s feelings, one's
verbal and nonverbal behavior will belie this tactic by
showing that the individual is actually nervous or
uncomfortable and thus exposing his/her vulnerability to
refusal or counter demands.

Those who were less anxious, on the the other hand, were
able to conduct themselves in a fashion consistent with
assertion as defined by the specific behaviors provided in
the rating scales. They maintained eye contact, spoke firmly
and used hand gestures to convey messages to their role—play
partners. These subjects were not only more comfortable
during the experiment but were able to convey this through
verbal and nonverbal behavior which is a better indicator of
comfortableness with others than are actual spoken words.
This would support the notion that it is not only important
what one says but how one says it.

Fear of negative evaluation, as predicted, heightened

106

107
one's anxiety experienced during the role-plays. Apparently,
preoccupation with being evaluated negatively, especially
when an evaluation component is clearly present, does
increase anxiety. More specifically, subjects with a high
fear of negative evaluation were most affected by particular
environmental aspects of the study that indicated that the
subjects’ behavior would be observed and rated.

Also, as predicted, these relationships between fear of
negative evaluation and role-play behaviors were completely
mediated by anxiety. Therefore, although a person may have a
high fear of negative evaluation, its effects will only be
seen if circumstances exist which induce anxiety. If there
is no obvious presence or threat of evaluation, this trait
does not necessarily lead to nonassertive behavior. However,
when an anxiety inducing agent is present, this fear of
negative evaluation can alter behavior.

It would seem, then, that those individuals most
concerned with how others view them were apparently the most
nervous when interacting with their role-play partners. This
fear of being judged negatively by other people caused
subjects to experience anxiety and subsequently display
nonassertive behaviors such as voice trembling or
fidgetting. Apparently, through anxiety, fear of negative
evaluation, in addition to provoking these behaviors, may
have served to suppress assertive behaviors such as hand

gestures and eye contact so as to not appear threatening to

108
others.

Those subjects low on this trait, however, were either
less concerned with the evaluation of others or more
confident that they could make a positive impression while
still obtaining the desired outcome. Thus, they were
comfortable using hand gestures and maintaining eye contact
with their role-play partners.

In addition, condition also served to influence or
induce anxiety during the role-plays. The heightened
presence of evaluation by those who were in a position to
judge not only the subject (as would all interaction
partners) but knowledgeable of the skills to be exhibited
(or not exhibited) by the subject, consequently increased
anxiety for the subject. This is to say that the
experimenter and the assistant could pass personal judgment
as well as objective analyses of the effectiveness of the
subject's behavior. The anticipation of this evaluation led
to increased anxiety compared to the low-evaluative
condition where the subject believed that the role-play
partner was only another subject who could evaluate the
subject on a personal level but could not evaluate the
subject's use of effective behavior.

Also as predicted, knowledge of assertive behavior was
related to fear of negative evaluation. Those individuals
who recognized assertive actions and their beneficial

results for interpersonal interaction were less likely to be

109
overly concerned with the opinions of others. This was
anticipated not because these individuals are flippant about
or impervious to the opinions of others, but because
individuals possessing this knowledge probably believe that
they can display the necessary behavior. Futhermore, they
are also more likely to believe that these actions will be
interpersonally effective. Subjects not possessing this
awareness or belief that assertive behavior is effective are
more likely to anticipate negative evaluation as a result of
displaying such behavior.

Additional analyses which included the outlier score on
knowledge show that knowledge also had an indirect affect on
anxiety with fear of negative evaluation mediating the
relationship between the two constructs. Therefore, it is
quite possible that knowledge of assertive behavior does
impact anxiety in such a way that those with greater
knowledge of assertive behavior will experience less anxiety
when the display of such behavior is necessary if these
individuals also have a low fear of negative evaluation.

Results also show that two constructs expected to impact
fear of negative evaluation, Machiavellianism and need for
approval, were correlated. These results are typical of
previous research which indicate that the two constructs
present contrasting or competing motivations in determining
one’s behavior.

Tests for the overall model found that it was able to

110
account for significant portions of variance for nonverbal
and verbal behavior. In particular, anxiety definitely
influenced the display of these behaviors. As addressed
above, it is these behaviors which are perhaps most
susceptible to the effects of anxiety because they are not
under direct control of the individual.

However, there were several results which were not
consistent with the hypotheses of this study. For example,
knowledge was not related to any of the behavior dimensions.
Perhaps these subjects, though they may have been able to
recognize assertive responses to certain situations, may
have been unfamiliar with the actual behaviors or statements
necessary to execute these strategies. In general, the
effects of knowledge of assertive behavior were not as
strong as envisioned as it failed to have direct
relationships with the performance dimensions.

It was also expected that anxiety would mediate the
relationships between condition and the behavior dimensions.
As was the case with fear of negative evaluation, condition
had a direct effect on anxiety. Unlike fear of negative
evaluation, however, condition also directly impacted
context of conversation, but did not affect verbal nor
nonverbal behavior. Furthermore, anxiety was not related to
this one behavior which condition affected.

A high level of evaluation was related to context of

conversation as subjects in this condition were less likely

111
to provide persuasive arguments, express empathy, or use 'I’
statements to communicate one's own desires. Therefore, it
is possible that something inherent in the high-evaluative
condition affect subjects' behavior. Perhaps this behavior
which is most under control of the individual (as compared
to verbal and nonverbal behavior) was the behavior most
stifled by an evaluative component. Each individual, while
not able to directly regulate verbal and nonverbal behavior,
can decide exactly what words are actually spoken.
Therefore, individuals who were not persuasive in the high-
evaluative condition were more likely to succumb to the
demands of their interactive partners by ceasing to make
demands on their own behalf although they may have felt that
they deserved more goods than they were receiving. Also,
these demands may have discontinued possibly because these
individuals were easily influenced into thinking that they,
in fact, did not deserve more money during the negotiation
scenario. Another possible factor here could be that
subjects were simply not as confident in their ability to
persuade the assistant who was presented as an expert. As
stated in the literature review, persuasive tactics are most
likely to be used when the individual believes that such
efforts will be successful. Therefore, although subjects
were more nervous in this condition, context of conversation
may have suffered due to lack of confidence that assertion

would lead to fruitful results. This does not necessarily

112
mean that all subjects believed that they could not perform
the appropriate behaviors, only that those behaviors may not
be successful under these circumstances. They were aware
that they were not competing with the assistant in this
condition and the assistant did not benefit in any way by
reaching an agreement (as opposed to what subjects were led
to believe in the low-evaluative condition). Therefore, they
may have viewed the assistant as more steadfast during the
negotiation.

This study also failed to find any relationship between
Machiavellianism and any of the hypothesized variables,
other than need for approval. Subjects characterized as
Machiavellians by the measure for this study were no less
concerned with the opinion of others than were subjects with
low scores on the Machiavellianism measure. In addition,
there was no relationship between Machiavellianism and
anxiety experienced during the role-play.

Need for approval was negatively correlated with fear of
negative evaluation when this relationship was expected to
be positive. A possible explanation for this is that the
items for the fear of negative evaluation scale are
blatantly intended to tap undue concern with the opinions of
others. Perhaps those high in need for approval did not wish
to indicate such a high degree of concern because it would
be viewed unfavorably. Thus, not indicating a fear of

negative evaluation may also be seen by these subjects as

113
socially desirable.

This is supported with a nonsignificant relationship
between need for approval and anxiety. The responses for the
anxiety scale may have been more representative of actual
feelings due to fact that the subjects completed this
questionnaire in direct view of the experimenter. Therefore,
it would have been more difficult to misrepresent the level
of anxiety experienced during the experiment (especially
those subjects who directly verbally expressed nervousness
immediately before or after the role-play). However, the
lack of a relationship between need for approval and anxiety
is still contrary to hypotheses.

Nonetheless, need for approval was correlated with goal
commitment which is consistent with the notion that those
with a high need for approval want others to have a
favorable impression of them. This questionnaire was
completed in the presence of the experimenter and perhaps
those with a high need for approval wanted to indicate that
they accepted the goals assigned by the experimenter and
would put forth a great deal of effort to attain these
goals. Therefore, it is possible that social desirability
response influenced responses on the fear of negative
evaluation measure as these results also seem to contradict
the negative relationship between need for approval and fear
of negative evaluation.

Finally, the overall model was not able to predict

114
context of conversation or overall performance for this
sample. This may or may not be particular to the population
from which this sample was drawn. Results show, however,
that, in general, subjects were not able to (or know that
they should) express empathy, provide persuasive arguments,
use 'I’ statements to assert one's position or remain
persistent in requests.

The results of this study give further indication that
even when one may want to appear assertive, anxiety may
prevent one from doing so which supports Goffman's (1959)
anxiety model. Subjects who were anxious may or may not have
chosen assertive responses for the knowledge test, however,
regardless of knowledge, those subjects who were anxious
were unable to perform assertive behaviors such as
expressing empathy and being persistent in one's requests.
This anxiety, in this study, was caused in part by one's
fear of negative evaluation. Therefore, other situations
which may contribute to this fear should be examined such as
dealing with conflict or with people in authority. More
specifically, situations concerning subordinates and
managers should be examined due to the importance of
interpersonal interaction in the workplace. The current
study investigated only the display of assertion (in
negotiation situations) which is only one of many
interpersonal skills. Other studies should be conducted to

detect more behaviors which may be affected by fear of

115
negative evaluation.

However, this study was unable to support the McFall and
Twentyman (1973) theory that it is knowledge that drives the
display of assertive behavior. In this case, though subjects
were able to identify and choose assertive responses to
situations, they were not able to actually perform these
behaviors. This was found to be the case in the low- and
high-evaluative conditions. Nonetheless, perhaps this theory
could be supported with a study measuring the knowledge of
actual behaviors associated with assertiveness (or other
interpersonal skills), not simply general assertive methods

of adapting to certain situations.

IMPLICATIONS

As the results of this study found that it was anxiety
and not knowledge which was a significant predictor of the
display of assertive behavior, future attention should be
devoted to how anxiety affects not only the acquisition of
knowledge but how it contributes further to one’s fear of
negative evaluation. This could potentially be a cyclical
process where anxiety has a negative effect on the display
of behavior. This poor display of behavior, in turn,
contributes to one's fear of negative evaluation and this
increased fear of negative evaluation causes elevated
anxiety and this anxiety serves to further debilitate the
display of these behaviors, and so on.

Although , this study and its results pertain only to
situations of negotiation. In this context, however, it
appears that one’s fear of negative evaluation is a critical
component in determining which behaviors are displayed and
not displayed in a negotiation situation. Therefore, to
improve individual display of assertive behavior under these
circumstances it may be most important to make people aware
of the effectiveness of this type of behavior in
interpersonal interactions. Knowledge of assertive behaviors

and anxiety reduction should then be secondary to this

116

117
awareness. Attempts to train assertive behaviors without
showing instances where this behavior can be effective and
evaluated positively may prove unfruitful because these
individuals may still experience degrees of apprehension in
employing these tactics.

Therefore, this gives further indication that personal
evaluations in group training situations should be avoided.
Trainers should continue to stress that participants should
not form judgments on individuals and only provide objective
feedback concerning the display of the behaviors of
interest.

When individuals become advised of the importance of
displaying assertive behaviors, they may become more
receptive to the notion of behaving in an assertive manner.
This awareness combined with anxiety reduction may assist
individuals in gaining interpersonal knowledge through their
own experiences. In novel environments, for instance, a
decreased fear of negative evaluation and reduced anxiety
may allow individuals to become more cognitively aware of
others in the environment and the cues supplied by them. As
a result, these individuals should become more confident
during their interpersonal interactions which would serve to
further reduce fear of negative evaluation and anxiety while
increasing the use of assertive behavior.

However, because this sample consisted solely of

undergraduate college students, the knowledge component may

118
not have played as important of a role when compared to the
general population. It may very well be that the majority of
these students may not have the adequate life experience
necessary to know the actual behaviors required for
effective communication and negotiation even though they may
be quite confident during their interactions that they do.
In such instances, individuals may have a low fear of
negative evaluation and low anxiety yet still not exhibit
effective behaviors in a given situation. Therefore, in the
general population, knowledge may serve a more
discriminatory function in separating those who exhibit
effective behavior from those who do not. Thus, perhaps
future research should further examine the knowledge
component and how it relates to the variables of this study
in the general population.

Furthermore, better tests should be developed to measure
this construct. Although the scale to assess knowledge of
assertive behavior had a low reliability and was apparently
multidimensional through factor analyses, this does not
necessarily indicate improper measurement of the construct
of assertiveness. A possible explanation for these results
is that subjects did not choose to respond in an assertive
fashion for each and every instance. However, data analyses
show that this scale is strongly related to fear of negative
evaluation. A step in the direction of improving such a

measure, however, could be the development of a test where

119
subjects are asked which actual behaviors they would display
instead of overall methods of handling certain situations.

I believe that it is the knowledge measure which may
have masked the possible relationships between knowledge,
anxiety and behavior, as opposed to the design of the role-
play. It was found that the aspects of the study designed to
induce anxiety were, to an extent, effective. These results
provide evidence that anxiety did lead to a debilitation of
the display of assertive behavior. The relationships between
anxiety and assertive behaviors (verbal and nonverbal)
coupled with the variance of the knowledge and role-play
reaction measures, refutes the possibility that the aspects
of the study were not sufficient to induce anxiety and
discriminate among the level of assertion displayed by the
participants.

In personnel selection situations where the display of
assertive behaviors is necessary for effective performance,
a test for the personality variable of fear of negative
evaluation (or equivalent measure), should definitely be
administered to applicants. This would give a better
indication of individuals who will actually display this
behavior in job-related situations than will simple
interviews or questionnaires asking how comfortable
applicants feel when interacting with others.

The confusing, contradicting and counterintuitive

results for the need for approval measure definitely deserve

120
further attention. Need for approval was negatively related
to fear of negative evaluation, not related to anxiety, but
positively related to goal commitment. The negative
relationship with fear of negative evaluation indicates that
those higher on need for approval had a lower fear of
negative evalution. The opposite end of the spectrum is even
more perplexing in that those scoring lower on need for
approval had a higher fear of negative evaluation. These
results fly in the face of the definition of the two
constructs. If one does not seek approval from others, then
it should follow that one would not be preoccupied with the
evaluations of others.

Although, it is possible that while some subjects with a
high need for approval were purposefully responding so as to
indicate a low fear of negative evaluation, those who were
not high on need for approval were responding more honestly.
These individuals may be less reluctant to admit to a
moderate degree of fear of negative evaluation.

However, need for approval was positively correlated
with goal commitment. These results may indicate that
subjects with a high need for approval feel that positive
behaviors, such as goal acceptance, will be viewed favorably
and should be exhibited. Less positive behaviors, however,
such as admitting to having a fear of negative evaluation or
experiencing anxiety, should be avoided. Therefore, perhaps

this possibility should be tested in future research. If

121
there was this distortion on the fear of negative evaluation
and anxiety measures on the part of subjects with a high
need for approval, perhaps the results of the study would
have been even stronger had subjects responded more
honestly.

In addition, there were additional behaviors throughout
the role-play which were not measured in this study. There
were several strategies of persuasion that were used by the
participants. These strategies were not successful only
because the requirements to obtain salary increases did not
allow them to be beneficial. In an effort to limit this
broad range of behaviors and tactics that could be
displayed, only the presence or absence of assertive

behaviors that were examined.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A
Situational Judgment Items

You are consistently requested to make
reports, complete surveys, and prepare
briefings that clearly are the responsibility
of your immediate supervisor. Doing these
projects causes you to have to work many
additional hours. What would you do?

Tactfully and openly discuss your workload
with your supervisor and try to resolve the
situation by discussing alternatives.

Tactfully discuss the problem and seek advice
from the next level supervisor.

Follow the direction of the supervisor.

Have a light discussion with the supervisor
and in a subtle way, suggest that you are
doing his/her work.

Keep track of the work hours and any work that
you feel is "extra," and use this information
to support your performance appraisal.

You are conducting an interview to obtain some
information for a project you are working on.
The interviewee becomes personally insulting.
What would you do?

Continue on with the interview; as long as you
are getting the information you need and you
are not being treated too badly, it does not
matter that the interviewee is insulting.

Stop the interview, explain to the person that
she/he is acting inappropriately, try to
continue with the interview. If there is no
change in the behavior, terminate the
interview, and seek out another source of
information.

Tell the interviewee that you will be back
when and if she/he decided not to be so
insulting.

End the interview and advise the individual’s

122

123

You overhear an opposite-sex worker in the
office refer to you in a sexually
provocative manner. What would you do?

Nothing, unless it continued to the point of
being offensive or was followed by actions.

Let the person know that you overheard the
conversation and that you do not feel that
his/her comments are appropriate in a
professional setting.

Report the incident to your supervisor and ask
for her/his intervention.

A co-worker has been working to recruit new
people into the job. The co-worker has
identified several potential employees who are
well qualified. The co-worker personally
knows some of these potential recruits and as
a result did not collect the necessary
background information on them. The co-worker
even went so far as to create fictitious
information about them. You confront the co-
worker with the fact and he explodes at you
stating that you don’t have the right to
intrude because you are not his supervisor.
What would you do?

Inform your supervisor of the co-worker's
actions.

Explain to the co-worker why his actions are
unfair and potentially harmful to the
organization, and then report the co-worker to
your supervisor if the co-worker does not
immediately conduct the necessary applicant
checks thoroughly and accurately.

Ask the co-worker to treat all applicants
fairly and to refrain from any favoritism.

Explain to the co-worker that he could help
his friends by providing a complete and
properly done formal recommendation.

Conduct the appropriate background checks
yourself.

124

You and a co-worker are asked to make an oral
presentation to several colleagues, including
some senior management members. You are each
allotted l/2 hour of presentation time. Your
colleague, known to be very ambitious, exceeds
his allotted time and seems to have plenty of
remaining material. The total presentation
cannot exceed one hour. What would you do?

Overtly remind your colleague of the time
constraint.

Shorten your presentation to the allotted
remaining time.

Wait for your co-worker to finish, and then
ask the audience if it is all right to fully
present your report, despite your co-worker’s
abuse of time.

Tactfully motion to your co—worker to wrap it
up, and then interrupt if your co-worker
continues.

Do nothing during the presentation, but
confront your co-worker later.

A senior, highly commended co-worker has
recently experienced some personal
difficulties. He has confided these problems
only to you. You have experienced an
increased workload because of his problems.
You have talked to him about your concerns,
and empathetically requested that he resume
full duties as soon as possible. A month
passes and you are still doing too much of his
work. What would you do?

Inform your co-worker that you understand his
problems, but are no longer able to perform
his work for him.

Ask your co-worker to take vacation, sick
days, or a leave of absence until he has
resolved his problems.

Continue to inform your co-worker of your
concerns until he resumes his full job duties.

125

Talk to your supervisor about the situation.

Report your co-worker's actions to his
supervisor.

You are assigned to work with another person
for whom you have little regard. You will
need to depend on this person to accomplish
your work and you know that the supervisor is
aware of this person's deficiencies. How do
you proceed?

Explain to your professor that the project
would suffer due to the involvement of the
deficient classmate and strongly request a
replacement for that person.

Enter the working relationship with an open
mind and make the best of the situation.

Personally see to it that all the work was
accomplished, even if it meant doing it all
yourself.

Perform the work and confront individual
problems as they arise.

Ask the professor to take an active role in
ensuring the smooth performance of the
project.

You are advised by a co-worker that your
supervisor has been discussing your personal
life with other co-workers. What would you
do?

You would confront the supervisor and tell him
or her to stay out of your business.

You would stop discussing your personal
business so that it could not be an issue at
work.

You would report your supervisor’s actions to
his or her superior.

126

D. You would ask a peer how they would handle the
situation.

E. Ask for a transfer.

10.

127

You are to participate in a presentation at a
board meeting. You have only been on the job
for two months. You receive a briefing on
what you and others will be doing in this
presentation. You feel that there are some
areas where certain issues were not addressed.
What would you do?

You would bring this matter up with the rest
of the participants.

Bring up this matter to the superior who
assigned you.

You would ask a more senior, trusted co-worker
for his or her advice on how to proceed.

Address it yourself during the presentation.

A co-worker is constantly interrupting your
work and asking for assistance. You try to be
as much assistance as you can because you feel
it’s your responsibility. The co-worker
you’ve been assisting receives recognition for
an excellent project he completed with a great
deal of your assistance. The co-worker does
not recognize you for your help and tells
everyone that he worked night and day to get
the project completed. How would you respond
to the co-worker the next time he comes to you
for assistance?

You would tell the co-worker that you do not
mind helping if you are given respect and
credit when due.

You would refuse to help him or her,
explaining why.

You would help him, no questions asked.

You would let a supervisor know what happened.

11.

12.

128

You have been involved in a long project that
is rather unique in scope. The project is far
from being finished. When your new supervisor
begins to interject his ideas and then begins
to force you to adopt these suggestions, what
do you do?

You would do as he suggests because he is your
superior, but document the times you
disagreed.

You would explain your vision of the project,
and stand firm with the direction you think
it should be headed in.

Explain your point of view, and try to reach a
compromise.

Explain that you have been working on this
longer than him, and you are best qualified to
determine the direction of the project.

You would talk to his supervisor about your
concerns.

You work with people who are not as well
educated as you and who seem to resent your
presence there. As a result, you are finding
it hard to get their cooperation when you need
it. What would you do?

You play dumb and try not to appear educated.

You try to talk with them to resolve the
problem and stress the importance of teamwork.

You make sure that you do not talk above their
level or talk at them to facilitate
communication.

You keep working hard so that you can gain
their respect.

You try to be their friend and create the
impression that you are all alike.

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B

Edited Situational Judgment Items

You are consistently requested to make
reports, complete surveys, and prepare
briefings that clearly are the responsibility
of your immediate supervisor. Doing these
projects causes you to have to work many
additional hours. What would you do?

Tactfully and openly discuss your workload
with your supervisor and try to resolve the
situation by discussing alternatives.

Tactfully discuss the problem and seek advice
from the next level supervisor.

Follow the direction of the supervisor.

Have a light discussion with the supervisor
and in a subtle way, suggest that you are
doing his/her work.

Keep track of the work hours and any work that
you feel is "extra," and use this information
to support your performance appraisal.

You are conducting an interview to obtain some
information for a project you are working on.
The interviewee becomes personally insulting.
What would you do?

Continue on with the interview; as long as you
are getting the information you need and you
are not being treated too badly, it does not
matter that the interviewee is insulting.

Stop the interview, explain to the person that
she/he is acting inappropriately, try to
continue with the interview. If there is no
change in the behavior, terminate the
interview, and seek out another source of
information.

Tell the interviewee that you will be back
when and if she/he decided not to be so
insulting.

End the interview and advise the individual's
supervisor of his/her behavior.

129

130

You overhear an opposite-sex student in the
classroom refer to you in a sexually
provocative manner. What would you do?

Nothing, unless it continued to the point of
being offensive or was followed by actions.

Let the person know that you overheard the
conversation and that you do not feel that
his/her comments are appropriate.

Report the incident to your professor and ask
for her/his intervention.

A co-worker has been working to recruit new
people into the job. The co-worker has
identified several potential employees who are
well qualified. The co-worker personally
knows some of these potential recruits and as
a result did not collect the necessary
background information on them. The co-worker
even went so far as to create fictitious
information about them. You confront the co-
worker with the fact and he explodes at you
stating that you don’t have the right to
intrude because you are not his supervisor.
What would you do?

Inform your supervisor of the co-worker's
actions.

Explain to the co-worker why his actions are
unfair and potentially harmful to the
organization, and then report the co-worker to
your supervisor if the co-worker does not
immediately conduct the necessary applicant
checks thoroughly and accurately.

Ask the co-worker to treat all applicants
fairly and to refrain from any favoritism.

Explain to the co-worker that he could help
his friends by providing a complete and
properly done formal recommendation.

131

You and a classmate are asked to make an oral
presentation to several students and some
senior professors. You are each allotted 1/2
hour of presentation time. Your classmate,
known to be very ambitious, exceeds his
allotted time and seems to have plenty of
remaining material. The total presentation
cannot exceed one hour. What would you do?

Overtly remind your classmate of the time
constraint.

Shorten your presentation to the allotted
remaining time.

Wait for your classmate to finish, and then
ask the audience if it is all right to fully
present your report, despite your classmate’s
abuse of time.

Tactfully motion to your classmate to wrap it
up, and then interrupt if your classmate
continues.

A senior, highly commended co-worker has
recently experienced some personal
difficulties. He has confided these problems
only to you. You have experienced an
increased workload because of his problems.
You have talked to him about your concerns,
and empathetically requested that he resume
full duties as soon as possible. A month
passes and you are still doing too much of his
work. What would you do?

Inform your co-worker that you understand his
problems, but are no longer able to perform
his work for him.

Ask your co-worker to take vacation, sick
days, or a leave of absence until he has
resolved his problems.

Continue to inform your co—worker of your
concerns until he resumes his full job duties.

Talk to your supervisor about the situation.

Report your co-worker’s actions to his
supervisor.

132

You are assigned to work with another student
for whom you have little regard. You will
need to depend on this person to accomplish
your work and you know that the professor is
aware of this person's deficiencies. How do
you proceed?

Explain to your professor that the project
would suffer due to the involvement of the
deficient classmate and strongly request a
replacement for that person.

Personally see to it that all the work was
accomplished, even if it meant doing it all
yourself.

Perform the work and confront individual
problems as they arise.

Ask the professor to take an active role in
ensuring the smooth performance of the
project.

You are advised by a co-worker that your
supervisor has been discussing your personal
life with other co-workers. What would you
do?

You would confront the supervisor and tell him
or her to stay out of your business.

You would report your supervisor's actions to
his or her superior.

You would ask a peer how they would handle the
situation.

Ask for a transfer.

10.

133

You are to participate in a presentation at a
board meeting. You have only been on the job
for two months. You receive a briefing on
what you and others will be doing in this
presentation. You feel that there are some
areas where certain issues were not addressed.
What would you do?

You would bring this matter up with the rest
of the participants.

Bring up this matter to the superior who
assigned you.

You would ask a more senior, trusted co-worker
for his or her advice on how to proceed.

A fellow classmate is constantly interrupting
your work and asking for assistance. You try
to be as much assistance as you can because
you feel it’s your responsibility. The
classmate you've been assisting receives
recognition for an excellent project he
completed with a great deal of your
assistance. The classmate does not recognize
you for your help and tells everyone that he
worked night and day to get the project
completed. How would you respond to the
classmate the next time he comes to you for
assistance?

You would tell the classmate that you do not
mind helping if you are given respect and
credit when due.

You would help him, no questions asked.

You would let the professor know what
happened.

12.

11.

134

You have been involved in a long project that
is rather unique in scope. The project is far
from being finished. When your new supervisor
begins to interject his ideas and then begins
to force you to adopt these suggestions, what
do you do?

You would do as he suggests because he is your
superior, but document the times you
disagreed.

You would explain your vision of the project,
and stand firm with the direction you think
it should be headed in.

Explain your point of view, and try to reach a
compromise.

Explain that you have been working on this
longer than him, and you are best qualified to
determine the direction of the project.

You would talk to his supervisor about your
concerns.

You work with people who are not as well educated
as you and who seem to resent your presence there.
As a result, you are finding it hard to get their
cooperation when you need it. What would you do?

A.

You play dumb and try not to appear educated.

You try to talk with them to resolve the
problem and stress the importance of teamwork.

You make sure that you do not talk above their
level or talk at them to facilitate
communication.

You keep working hard so that you can gain
their respect.

You try to be their friend and create the
impression that you are all alike.

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX C

* The first digit gives the number for the item as it is
listed for the study. The number in the parentheses
indicates the number as it is listed in the actual
inventory.

Item 1(7)

Response option C will be scored negatively. The
response "Follow the direction of the supervisor" fails to
deny unreasonable requests which is considered to be a
distinction between nonassertive and assertive behavior (e.g
Galassi et al., 1981; Hargie et al., 1987; Lange &
Jakubowski, 1976).

Item 2(14)

Response option B will be scored positively. In the
original scoring it was given a neutral response because it
did not receive adequate votes according to the numerical
calculations incorporated. However, it did receive more
ratings as "best response" than did any other response
option for the item. In addition, it involves standing up
for one's rights and an attempt at behavior change. In
addition, response option A will be scored negatively. The
response "Continue on with the interview;...it does not
matter that the interviewee is insulting" indicates that the
individual is not standing up for one's own rights, an
action which is at the heart of assertive behavior. This
response may be appropriate in an FBI setting due to the
critical nature of information that may be gathered. In the
context of this study, however, there are no immediately
apparent negative repercussions of ending the interview. The
proposed scoring will help to discriminate between
individuals who are assertive versus nonassertive in their
responses. Finally, response option C will be scored
neutrally. The response "Tell the interviewee that you will
be back when and if she/he decided no to be so insulting" is
more indicative of aggression. To reiterate, the primary
intention of these items is to distinguish between assertive
and nonassertive responses.

Item 3(21)
The scenario was changed to reflect a classroom setting.
More specifically, the word "classmate" replaced "worker"

and the word "classroom" replaced "office".

Item 4(65)

135

137
Item 9(85)

Response option D, "Address it yourself during the
presentation", will be eliminated. Although assertion is
displayed, it was determined by the raters as the worst
response in that situation.

Item 10(88)

To edit this scenario and provide a classroom setting,
the word "classmate" replaced "co-worker“ and the word
"professor" replaced "supervisor". In addition, response
option B will be eliminated. The response "You would refuse
to help him or her, explaining why" could also be considered
assertive. In order to include no more than one positive
response, response option A will remain because it received
more votes for "best response" than did response option B.

Item 11(94)

Response option D will be scored neutrally. The response
"Explain that you have been working on this longer than him,
and you are best qualified to determine the direction of the
project" is more indicative of aggression and not assertion
or nonassertion.

Item 12(115)

Response option C will scored neutrally. The response
"You make sure that you do not talk above their level or
talk at them to facilitate communication", although rated
favorably, does not involve assertion.

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX D

Final Situational Judgment Items

You are consistently requested to make reports,
complete surveys, and prepare briefings that
clearly are the responsibility of your immediate
supervisor. Doing these projects causes you to
have to work many additional hours. What would
you do?

.A. Tactfully and openly discuss your workload
with your supervisor and try to resolve the
situation by discussing alternatives.

B. Tactfully discuss the problem and seek
advice from the next level supervisor.

C. Follow the direction of the supervisor.

D. Have a light discussion with the supervisor
and in a subtle way, suggest that you are
doing his/her work.

E. Keep track of the work hours and any work
that you feel is "extra," and use this
information to support your performance
appraisal.

138

139

2. You are conducting an interview to obtain some
information for a project you are working on. The
interviewee becomes personally insulting. What
would you do?

.A. Continue on with the interview; as long as
you are getting the information you need
and you are not being treated too badly, it
does not matter that the interviewee is
insulting.

B. Stop the interview, explain to the person
that she/he is acting inappropriately, try
to continue with the interview. If there
is no change in the behavior, terminate the
interview, and seek out another source of
information.

C. Tell the interviewee that you will be back
when and if she/he decided not to be so
insulting.

D. End the interview and advise the
individual’s supervisor of his/her
behavior.

3. You overhear an opposite-sex student in the
classroom refer to you in a sexually provocative
manner. What would you do?

A. NOthing, unless it continued to the point
of being offensive or was followed by
actions.

B. Let the person know that you overheard the
conversation and that you do not feel that
his/her comments are appropriate.

C. Report the incident to your professor and
ask for her/his intervention.

140

You and a classmate are asked to make an oral
presentation to several students and some senior
professors. You are each allotted 1/2 hour of
presentation time. Your classmate, known to be
very ambitious, exceeds his allotted time and
seems to have plenty of remaining material. The
total presentation cannot exceed one hour. What
would you do?

.A. Overtly remind your classmate of the time
constraint.

B. Shorten your presentation to the allotted
remaining time.

C. Wait for your classmate to finish, and then
ask the audience if it is all right to
fully present your report, despite your
classmate’s abuse of time.

D. Tactfully motion to your classmate to wrap
it up, and then interrupt if your classmate
continues.

5.

141

A senior, highly commended co-worker has recently
experienced some personal difficulties. He has
confided these problems only to you. You have
experienced an increased workload because of his
problems. You have talked to him about your
concerns, and empathetically requested that he
resume full duties as soon as possible. A month
passes and you are still doing too much of his
work. What would you do?

A. Inform your co-worker that you understand
his problems, but are no longer able to
perform his work for him.

B. Ask your co-worker to take vacation, sick
days, or a leave of absence until he has
resolved his problems.

C. Continue to inform your co-worker of your
concerns until he resumes his full job
duties.

D. Talk to your supervisor about the
situation.

E. Report your co-worker's actions to his
supervisor.

142

You are assigned to work with another student for

whom you have little regard. You will need to
depend on this person to accomplish your work and
you know that the professor is aware of this
person's deficiencies. How do you proceed?

A.

Explain to your professor that the project
would suffer due to the involvement of the
deficient classmate and strongly request a
replacement for that person.

Personally see to it that all the work was
accomplished, even if it meant doing it all
yourself.

Perform the work and confront individual
problems as they arise.

Ask the professor to take an active role in
ensuring the smooth performance of the
project.

7. You are advised by a co-worker that your
supervisor has been discussing your personal life
with other co-workers. What would you do?

A.

You would confront the supervisor and tell
him or her to stay out of your business.

You would report your supervisor's actions
to his or her superior.

You would ask a peer how they would handle
the situation.

Ask for a transfer.

143

You are to participate in a presentation at a
board meeting. You have only been on the job for
two months. You receive a briefing on what you
and others will be doing in this presentation.
You feel that there are some areas where certain
issues were not addressed. What would you do?

A. Ybu would bring this matter up with the
rest of the participants.

B. Bring up this matter to the superior who
assigned you.

C. You would ask a more senior, trusted co-
worker for his or her advice on how to
proceed.

A fellow classmate is constantly interrupting your
work and asking for assistance. You try to be as
much assistance as you can because you feel it's
your responsibility. The classmate you’ve been
assisting receives recognition for an excellent
project he completed with a great deal of your
assistance. The classmate does not recognize you
for your help and tells everyone that he worked
night and day to get the project completed. How
would you respond to the classmate the next time
he comes to you for assistance?

A. YOu would tell the classmate that you do
not mind helping if you are given respect
and credit when due.

B. YOu would help him, no questions asked.

C. You would let the professor know what
happened.

144

10. You have been involved in a long project that is
rather unique in scope. The project is far
from being finished. When your new supervisor
begins to interject his ideas and then begins
to force you to adopt these suggestions, what
do you do?

__-__ A.
__+__ B.
__0__ C.
__0__, D.

0 B.

You would do as he suggests because he is
your superior, but document the times you
disagreed.

You would explain your vision of the
project, and stand firm with the direction
you think it should be headed in.

Explain your point of view, and try to
reach a compromise.

Explain that you have been working on this
longer than him, and you are best qualified
to determine the direction of the project.

You would talk to his supervisor about your
concerns.

11.

145

You disagree with a project grade given by one of
your professors. You believe you should have
received more points. What would be the best way
to handle this situation?

A.

B.

Accept the grade and continue to work hard.

Present your professor with arguments as to
why you deserve a higher grade and try to
receive more points for the assignment.

Ask your professor for feedback, while
subtely hinting that you received an unfair
grade.

During class, compare your grade with those
received by your classmates.

You have been working for a company for two years
when you find that a less senior working is
receiving a higher salary than you are. What would
be the best way to handle this situation?

Go to your supervisor and give reasons why
you should receive a higher salary than
your co-worker.

Tell your supervisor that you will quit if
you do not immediately receive a pay raise.

Wait until the performance review which
will show that you deserve a higher salary.

Use offers from other companies as leverage
to gain a pay raise.

13.

146

Your supervisor asks you to work overtime this
weekend, but you have plans which you do not want
to break. What would be the best way to handle
this situation?

A.

B.

Cancel your plans and work that weekend.

Tell your supervisor that you understand
her situation, but you will not cancel your
plans.

Flatly tell your supervisor that you refuse
to work weekends.

Find another co-worker who is willing to
work that weekend and refer him/her to your
supervisor.

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX E
MACH IV SCALE
1) Never tell anyone the real reason you did something
unless it is useful to do so.

2) The best way to handle people is to tell them what they
want to hear.

3) One should only take action when sure it is morally
right.

4) Most people are basically good and kind.

5) It is safest to assume that all people have a vicious
streak and it will come out when they are given a
chance.

6) Honesty is the best policy in all cases.

7) There is no excuse for lying to someone else.

8) Generally speaking, men won’t work hard unless they're
forced to do so.

9) All in all, it is better to be humble and honest than
important and dishonest.

10) When you ask someone to do something for you, it is best
to give the real reasons for wanting it rather than
giving reasons which might carry more weight.

11) Most people who get ahead in the world lead clean, moral
lives.

12) Anyone who completely trusts anyone else is asking for
trouble.

13) The biggest difference between most criminals and other
people is that criminals are stupid enough to get
caught.

14) Most men are brave.

15) It is wise to flatter important people.

16) It is possible to be good in all respects.

17) Barnum was very wrong when he said that there’s a sucker

147

born every minute.

18) It is hard to get ahead without cutting corners here and
there.

19) People suffering from incurable diseases should have the

choice of being put painlessly to death.

20) Most men forget more easily the death of their father
than the loss of their property.

148

APPENDIX F

APPENDIX F
MARLOWE-CROWNE SCALE

1) Before voting I thoroughly investigate the qualifications
of all the candidates.

2) I never hesitate to go out of my way to help someone in
trouble.

3) It is sometimes hard for me to go on with my work if I am
not encouraged.

4) I have never intensely disliked anyone.

5) On occasion I have had doubts about my ability to succeed
in life.

6) I sometimes feel resentful when I don’t get my way.
7) I am always careful about my manner of dress.

8) My table manners at home are as good as when I eat out in
a restaurant.

9) If I could get into a movie without paying and be sure I
was not seen, I would probably do it.

10) On a few occasions, I have given up doing something
because I thought too little of my ability.

11) I like to gossip at times.

12) There have been times when I felt like rebelling against
people in authority even though I knew they were right.

13) No matter who I’m talking to, I’m always a good
listener.

14) I can remember "playing sick" to get out of something.

15) There have been occasions when I took advantage of
someone.

16) I’m always willing to admit when I make a mistake.
17) I always try to practice what I preach.

18) I don't find it particularly difficult to get along with
loud-mouthed, obnoxious people.

149

19) I sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and
forget.

20) When I don't know something I don’t at all mind
admitting it.

21) I am always courteous, even to people who are
disagreeable.

22) At times I have really insisted on having things my way.

23) There have been occasions when I felt like smashing
things.

24) I would never think of letting someone else be punished
for my wrongdoings.

25) I never resent being asked to return a favor.

26) I have never been irked when people expressed ideas very
different from my own.

27) I never make a long trip without checking the safety of
my car.

28) There have been times when I was quite jealous of the
good fortune of others.

29) I have almost never felt the urge to tell someone off.
30) I am sometimes irritated by people who ask favors of me.
31) I have never felt that I was punished without cause.

32) I sometimes think when people have a misfortune they
only got what they deserved.

33) I have never deliberately said something that hurt
someone's feelings.

150

APPENDIX G

1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)

8)

9)

10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)

16)

I

I

APPENDIX C

MANIFEST ANXIETY SCALE

do not tire quickly.

am often sick to my stomach.

am about as nervous as other people.
have very few headaches.

work under a great deal of strain.
cannot keep my mind on one thing.
worry over money and business.

frequently notice my hand shakes when I try to do

something.

I

blush as often as others.

I worry quite a bit over possible troubles.
I practically never blush.

I am often afraid that I'm going to blush.
I have nightmares every few nights.

My hands and feet are usually warm enough.
I sweat very easily even on cool days.

When embarrassed I often break out in a sweat which is

very annoying.

17) I do not often notice my heart pounding and I am seldom
short of breath.

18)
19)
20)
21)

22)

I feel hungry almost all the time.

I have a great deal of stomach trouble.
At times I lose sleep over worry.

My sleep is restless and disturbed.

I often dream about things that I don't like to tell

151

152

other people.
23) I am easily embarrassed.
24) My feelings are hurt easier than most people.
25) I often find myself worrying about something.
26) I wish I could be as happy as others.
27) I am usually calm and not easily upset.
28) I cry easily.

29) I feel anxious about something or someone almost all of
the time.

30) I am happy most of the time.
31) It makes me nervous to have to wait.

32) At times I am so restless that I cannot sit in a chair
for very long.

33) Sometimes I become so excited that I find it hard to get
'to sleep.

34) I have sometimes felt that I faced so many difficulties
I could not overcome them.

35) At times I have been worried beyond reason about
something that really did not matter.

36) I do not have as many fears as my friends.

37) I have been afraid of things or people that I know could
not hurt me.

38) I certainly feel useless at times.

39) I find it hard to keep my mind on a task or job.
40) I am more self-conscious than most people.

41) I am the kind of person who takes things hard.
42) I am a very nervous person.

43) Life is often a strain for me.

44) At times I think I am no good at all.

153
45) I am not at all confident of myself.
46) At times I feel that I am going to crack up.

47) I don't like to face a difficulty or make an important
decision.

48) I am very confident of myself.

APPENDIX H

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

8)

9)

10)

11)

12)

13)
14)
15)
16)

17)

18)

APPENDIX E

FEAR OF NEGATIVE EVALUATION SCALE

I rarely worry about seeming foolish to others.

I worry about what people will think of me even when I
know it doesn’t make any difference.

I become less tense and jittery if I know someone is
sizing me up.

I am unconcerned even if I know people are forming an
unfavorable impression of me.

I feel very upset when I commit some social error.

The opinions that important people have of me cause me
little concern.

I am often afraid that I may look ridiculous or make a
fool of myself.

I react very little when other people disapprove of me.

I am frequently afraid of other people noticing my
shortcomings.

The disapproval of others would have little effect on
me.

If someone is evaluating me I tend to expect the worst.

I rarely worry about what kind of impression I am making
on someone.

I am afraid that others will not approve of me.

I am afraid that people will find fault with me.

Other people's opinions of me do not bother me.

I am not necessarily upset if I don not please someone.

When I am talking to someone, I worry about what they
may be thinking of me.

I feel that you can't help making social errors
sometimes, so why worry about it.

154

155

19) I am usually worried about what kind of impression I
make.

20) I worry a lot about why my superiors think of me.

21) If I know someone is judging me, it has little effect on
me.

22) I worry that others will think I am not worthwhile.
23) I worry very little about what others may think of me.

24) Sometimes I think I am too concerned about with what
other people think of me.

25) I often worry that I will say or do the wrong things.

26) I am often indifferent to the opinions others have of
me.

27) I am usually confident that others will have a favorable
impression of me.

28) I often worry that people who are important to me won't
think very much of me.

29) I brood about the opinions my friends have about me.

30) I become tense and jittery if I know I am being judged
by my superiors.

APPENDIX I

1)
2)

3)

4)

5)
6)

7)

APPENDIX I

GOAL COMMITTMENT QUESTIONNAIRE

It's hard to take this goal seriously.
It's unrealistic for me to expect to reach this goal.

It is quite likely that this goal may need to be revised,
depending on how things go.

Quite frankly, I don’t care if I achieve this goal or
not.

I am strongly committed to this goal.
It wouldn’t take much to make me abandon this goal.
I think this goal is a good goal to shoot for.

I am willing to put forth a great deal of effort beyond
what I'd normally do to achieve this goal.

156

APPENDIX J

APPENDIX J
ROLE—PLAY SCENARIO

A job candidate has been offered a job and s/he is
about to negotiate a salary. The typical starting
salaries in this field range between $40,000 and
$50,000.

Ar’ n f r i

* The candidate graduated from a reputable
university and has taken many relevant
classes, performing well in all of them.

* The candidate has also gained experience by
‘ working with his/her professors.

* The candidate’s professors have provided
excellent letters of recommendation which
also say that s/he gets along with
others, an attribute very important to
the atmosphere of this particular company
and in interacting with clients.

Ar f r

* The candidate has no "first hand" experience
working for an actual company.

* The candidate has always worked under a
professor who was ultimately responsible
or her/his work and there were no
serious consequences if s/he made
mistakes.

* The company also offers a standard benefits
package (which will not be negotiated) in
addition to the offered salary.

* The geo raphical location is erfect for the

can Idate because of fami y and climate.

The candidate will be talking to the personnel
manager (the two will never work together) and the
candidate should try to negotiate a deal that gives
him/her as much of the $50,000 as possible given his/her
qualifications for the job. The personnel manager should
try to hire the candidate for as little money as
possible. * Although the arguments above are to be
accepted as true, you are not limited to facts and

157

APPENDIX K

APPENDIX K
ROLE-PLAY REACTION
(High-Evaluative Condition)

9) The presence of the experimenter made me nervous during
the role—play.

10) I was tense during the role-play because I was being
video taped.

11) Enacting the role-play with a negotiation expert made me
anxious during the role-play.

12) I was not nervous at all during the role-play.
13) I was nervous about having my performance judged.

14) Nothing about the role-play itself caused me any
anxiety.

15) The thought of being critiqued at the end of the role-
play did not make me nervous.

16) I felt at ease throughout the role-play.

158

APPENDIX L

APPENDIX L

ROLE-PLAY REACTION
(Low-Evaluative Condition)

9) I was tense during the role-play because I was being
video taped.

10) Enacting the role-play with another subject made me
anxious during the role-play.

11) I was not nervous at all during the role-play.
12) I was nervous about having my performance judged.

13) Nothing about the role-play itself caused me any
anxiety.

14) I felt at ease throughout the role-play.

159

APPENDIX M

max M
HIE-WWW
PIN-mm

 

 

 

Miriam

 

 

‘I 2 3 4 5 6 7
Ddrnlseaytad me Usedtadgstus
mmm WWW thugmt'edsos'at
Wadrulodr mumeedngm na'rtairsdeyeoam
dedqmtaintrs mmmammm mammotmde
WWW etiitedrmmshsanorqtya nayddrrrefititary
otensh’ttedinsa, 0'4“me ramshdaias
“WW
menswear}:
55mm

 

160

 

APPENDIX N

MN
FOE-MINNIE
mm

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

 

mongmmsametrm Wmmflwm WINE-133!
10m mm m5t010m Mainlatlms
bide-(131m spde'na momma magidamd
mm mm \doe(egtIHTfl”fl§$);vdoe toedvo’mo (Baivu'oe

anedodflithto radyts‘rfled sperms 'rilafimdnrgoanssaia't
unassumuerrued LELlet's/dear \doeraatlerrfledsaaedi
Wierepa'du mesdeartmgmte

 

 

 

161

 

APPENDIX 0

m0
HIE- HNMIMB

 

 

 

WWW
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
WWW Macaw 0181mm
amm’drgd mgamim (rrnetthtinesHu
“Preterm/ms turde-dqmtra‘s dogwmssm m-
mamfi Warmers t'sldfirminomptn'tiat
WWII)“ mmmm mum“
ammonium “WWW”? mhdurhrstarirga
mddruMb “MIME “.9de
dcheradytsed'l'

 

 

tawytssd’l’stae‘mts

 

 

162

APPENDIX P

WP
HIE-HA! MIME

 

 

 

mmmm
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Ddrurra'rtaneem WWQS Grasstlyn'arta'redee
embram managedhlifited WWW!)
WWW (ma—BMW WWW
WWW m2a3t'nsdlig erratymeflmmines
terrtiirgddrnetpa mmmm mmmm
mmrflpasset MIDMCI tompfificn
hrsqfisddrndux roads/tats

fudcsue

 

 

 

163

 

LIST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Adler, N.J., Doktor, R., & Redding, 8.6. (1986). From the
Atlantic to the Pacific century: Cross-cultural

management reviewed. gegggel_ef_flegegemeg§, 12, 295-318.

Alberti. R a Emmons. M. (1975). W
SWIM Impact. San Luis
Obispo, CA.

Alberti, R. & Emmons, M. (1982). ' h : ide
WW Impact. San Luis Obispo, CA

Argyle, M. (1981a). The experimental study of the basic
features of situations. In D. Magnusson (Ed.), Iewarg e
9: 10 0°: 0 : i‘!‘ 41 i! ‘1. i094. 97_=9fctiv-.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Avedon, E. (1981). The structural elements of games. In A.

Furnham & M. Argyle (Eds.), s i l
eieeeeieee. New York: Pergamon.

Baldwin, T. (1992). Effects of alternative modeling
strategies on outcomes of interpersonal- -skills training.

MSW 77 147- 154

Baron, R. (1977). Hemee_eg;eeeieg. New York: Plenum.
Bartos, O.J. (1974). Egoeeee end Ogeeeme in Negotiation. New

York: Columbia University Press.

Batson, C. & Coke, J. (1981). Empathy: A source of
altruistic motivation for helping? In J. P. Ruston & R. M.

Sorrentino (Eds )_ WEISS...

v r ct ve
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bennett, D. & Bennett, J. (1981). Making the scene. In A.

Furnham & M. Argyle (Eds. ), The peycholegy ef eoeial
eieeeeieee. New York: Pergamon.

164

165

Benton, A.A., Kelley, H.H., & Liebling, B. (1972). Effect of
extremity of offers and concession rate on the outcomes
of bargaining- JSurnal_Sf_£erSSSalitx_an_§SciaI
WI 24: 73-83-

Ben-Yoav, O. & Pruitt, D.G. (1984a). Accountability to

constituents: a two-edged sword. Organizational Behavior
and Human Pertetmanee, 34, 283-295.

Berkey, A.S. & Hoppe, R.A. (1972). The combined effect of
audience and anxiety on paired associates learning.

Peyeheaemic Scienee, 29, 351-353.

Bond, C. F. (1982). Social facilitation: A self-
presentational view. n and ' l
Paxcholggy,42, 1042-1050.

Bond, C.F. & Omar, A.S. (1990). Social anxiety, state
dependence, and the next-in-line effect. Journal of
SxSerimeatal_§gcial_2§chSngx. 26. 185-198.

Bond, M. H. Leung, R., & Schwartz, S. (1992). Explaining
choices in procedural and distributive justice across

cultures InSernatiSnal_JSurnal_Sf_2§x2SSngx 27 211-
225.

Brinkmeyer. K. (1995). E_Sleers__reguirements_£Sr
intetpeteon na; ekilla of workete. Paper presented at the
Tenth Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.

Budner, S. (1962). Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality
variable. l22£flél.9§.2§£§2§§li§¥. 30. 29-50.

Burgoon, M., Miller, G. & Teller, A. (1972).
Machiavellianism, justification and attitudinal change
following counterattitudinal advocacy. Jeurnal of

Petsonality and Seeial Peyeaelegy, 22, 366-371.

Carnevale, A., Gainer, L., Meltzer, A. & Holland, S. (1988).
The skills employers want. Irainigg and Qevelepmeat
igutnal. 42. 23-30.

Carnevale, P. & Pruitt, D. (1992). Negotiation and

mediation. ASnual.Bexieu_Sf_ES22SSngx. 43. 531-582.
Carver, C.S. & Schier, M.F. (1981a). Attentien and eel;-
' - r - r h uman hav'

New York: Springer-Verlag.

166

Carver, C.S. & Schier, M.F. (1981b). The self-induced
feedback loop and social facilitation. Journal ef

W. 17. 545-568.

Chandler, M., Greenspan, S. & Barenboim, C. (1974).
Assessment and training of role-taking and referential
communication skills in institutionalized emotionally

disturbed children. pevelepmenta; Peychelegy, 10, 546-
553.

Christie, R. & Merton, R. (1958). Procedures for the
sociological study of the values climate of medical

schools. WWW. 33.125-153

Cottrell, N.B. (1972). Social facilitation. In C.G.

McClintock (Ed.). WW (pp-
185-236). New York: Holt.

Cottrell, N.B., Wack, D.L., Sekerak, G.J., & Rittle, R.H.
(1968). Social facilitation of dominant responses by the
presence of an audience and the mere presence of others.

MW: 9 245-
250.

Couch, A. & Keniston, K. (1960L Yeasayers and naysayers:
Agreeing response set as a personality variable. Jearnal

WW1 60. 151- 174

Couto, W. (1951). Role- -playing vs. role- -taking: An appeal
for clarification W. 16.

180- 184.

Costa. P. 8: McCrae. R. (1978). W-
Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

Crowne, D. (1979). Th e i 1 of Pers n 1i
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Crowne, D. & Marlowe, D. (1964). IQQIAEQSQEQL_MQLLXQ- New

York: Wiley.

Durkin. J..E (1966) W
We Unpublished

doctoral dissertation. Rutgers- the State University.

Durkin, J. E. (1970). Encountering: What low Machs do. In L.
Festinger & S. Schachter(Eds. ), t i in

MQQSI§_§lliani§m. pp. 260- 284. New York: Academic Press.

Duval, S. & Wicklund, R.A. (1972). h ob'e 've
eel£;aga;egeee. New York: Academic Press.

167

Dymond, R. (1949). A scale for the measurement of empathic
ability. QSurnal_of_gons11tins_£schSIng. 13. 127-133.

Eisenberg, N. & Miller, P. (1987). The relation of empathy
to prosocial and related behaviors. Peyehelegical

Bulletin. 101. 91-119.

Feffer, M. (1970). Development analysis of interpersonal

behavior. BSXSSSng1cal_Bexieu. 77(3). 192- 214

Feshbach, N. (1978). Studies of empathic behavior in
children. In B. A. Maher (Ed. ). Progress_1n_erper1mental

r n ' re e r h (Vol. 8L New York: Academic.

Filley, A.C. (1975). I ' i n.
Glenville, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Fisher. R. & Ury. W. (1981). Setting_SS_IE§1_uegStiating_
Agreement Without giving In. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Fleishman, E. (1992). ic nd
iBE2£EQEEQnQl_EEQEiI2mQBLE_Q£_!Q£EI_IEE112§§iQB§_i9£
r v' ‘ ' ' n u ‘ it .

Unpublished manuscript.

Forgas, J. (1979). ' ' : of ' ion
geatiaea. New York: Academic.

Forgas. J. (1985). Interpersonal_SeSaxior. New York:

Pergamon.

Galassi, J., Galassi, M. & Vedder, M. (1981). Perspectives
on assertion as a social skills model. In a J. Wine & M.

Smye (Eds.), Seeial_gempeteaee. New York: Guilford

Press .

Geen R.G. (1976b). The role of the social environment in the
induction and reduction of anxiety. In C.D. Spielberger
& I.G. Saranson, s n nxi (Vol.3, pp. 105-
126). Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere.

Geen, R. G. (1977). The effects of anticipation of positive
and negative outcomes on audience anxiety. Jetraal_gf
n , 45, 715-716.

Geen, R. G. (1980a). Test anxiety and cue utilization. In
I. G. Saranson (Ed. ), e a ' : T re nd

applicatio_s (pp. 43- 61). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

168

Geen, R. G. Thomas, S. L. & Gammil, P. (1988). Effects of
evaluation and coaction on state anxiety and anagram

performance _ersSSaI1Sr_aSd_1ndi_1dual_2111erences. 6.
293-298.

Geis, F. (1970). The con game. In L. Festinger & S.
Schachter (Eds.), u ' s i M c ' v 1 i nism. pp. 106-
129. New York: Academic Press.

Geis, F. & Christie, R. (1970). Overview of experimental
research. In L. Festinger & S. Schachter (Eds.), Studies

in Maehiavellianism. pp. 106-129. New York: Academic
Press.

Gist, M., Stevens, C. & Bavetta, A. (1991). Effects of Self-
Efficacy and Post-Training Intervention on the
Acquistion and Maintenance of Complex Interpersonal

Skills. Eersonnel_£sxcholosx. 44. 837-861.
Goffman, E. (1959). Th '0 1 in v d

life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Goldstein, A. (1988). The Pr ' m: Tea in
prosocial_compentencies Research Press. Champaign. IL.

Goldstein, A. & Michaels, G. (1985). Empathy; Development.
t1a1_1ng1_and_conseguence§. Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum.

Gormally, J. (1982). Evaluation ofassertiveness: effects of
gender, rater involvement and level of assertiveness.

_eSa_1Sr_ISe_apx 13 219-225.

Gough. H. & Heilbrun, A. (1980). ISe_adiectize_cSecklist_
magtal. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Graham, J., Argyle, M. & Furnham, A. (1981L The goal
structure of situations. In A. Furnham & M. Argyle

(Eds. ). ISe_psxcSSlng_o__s22111_situ_t1o_s.New York.

Pergamon.

Grams, W. & Rogers, R. (1990). Power and personality:
Effects of Machiavellianism, need for approval, and
motivation on use of influence tactics. Th 0 rn f

General_£schSngx. 117(1). 71-82.

Hamner, W.C. (1974). Effects of bargaining strategy and
pressure to reach agreement in a stalemated negotiation.
chol , 30, 458-

169

Hargie, O. (1986a). Communication as skilled behavior. In 0.
Hargie (Ed.) A n o C mm ni “on Sk' , Croom
Helm, London/ New York University Press, New York.

Hargie, O., Saunders, C. & Dickson, D. (1987). Social Skille
1S_IStexpersonal_so__unicatio_ Cambridge. MA: Brookline

Books.

Harnett, D.L. & Vinclette, J.P. (1978). Strategic influences
on bargaining effectiveness. In H. Sauermann

(Ed.).QSSSr1Sut1SSs_SS_Exper1mental_ficonomics. Mohr:

Tubingen.

Henchy, T. & Glass, D.C. (1968). Evaluation apprehension and
the social facilitation of dominant and subordinate

responses. ' 'a c l ,
10, 446-454.
Hogan. J & Lock. J. (1995). A_Iaxono_x_of_1nterpersonal_

sk1l1s_for_Susiness_1nSeractio_s. Paper presented at the
Tenth Annual Meeting fo the Society for Industrial and

Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.

Hollenbeck, R. Klein, H., O'Leary, A., & Wright, P. (1989).
Investigation of the Construct Validity of a Self— -Report

Measure of Goal Committment. QQBISQ__9£_AEE_1§Q
Earshologx. 74(6). 951- 955.

Hornstein, H. A.. (1965). Effects of different magnitudes of
threat upon interpersonal bargaining. Jeurnal ef
, 1, 282- 293.

Iannotti, R. (1978). Effect of role-taking experiences on
role-taking, empathy, altruism, and aggression.

Sexelopmehtal_2sxchologx. 14. 119-124.

Jessor, R. (1981). The perceived environment in
psychological theory and research. In D. Magnusson
(Ed. ). ISyard_a_p_rSSologx_21_situatio____An
i_ESIQQLiQnélIQ§£§E§££i_§ Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum.

Jones, S. & Panitch, D. (1971). The self-fulfilling prophecy

and interpersonal attraction. Jearnal ef Expetimental
§Q£i§l_2§¥QthQg¥: 7. 356- 366.

Jones, E. & Pittman, T. (1982). Toward a general theory of
strategic self- -presentation. In J. Suls (Ed.),

Raye helegaea; perepeetivee en the self Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

170

Keefe, T. (1976). Empathy: The critical skill. £921§l_EQIK.
21, 10-14.

Kelley, H.H. (1966). A classroom study of the dilemmas in
interpersonal negotiations. In K. Archibald (Ed.),
r- t--T - 1 'on - q . f ' : ori-in-l r-o- - 1nd
Q_§eae§ieg. Berkely, CA: Inst. Int. Stud.

Kern, J. (1982). Predicting the impact of assertive,
empathic-assertive and non-assertive behavior: the
assertiveness of the assertee. Behavior Therapy. 13,
486-498.

Keys, B. & Case, T. (1990). How to become an influential

manager. ASadSmx_Sf_ManagemeSS_EzeSuSixe. 4.4. 38-49.

Kimmel, M., Pruitt, D.G., Magenau, J., Konar-Goldband, E.,
Carnevale, P. J. (1980). The effects of trust,
aspiration, and gender on negotiation tactics. Joataal

, 38, 9- 23.

Knudson, K. & Kagan, S. (1982). Differential development of

empathy and prosocial behavior. Jea;gal_ef_§enet_e
ESXSSSISQL 140 249- 251

Kolotkin, R., Wielkiewicz, R., Judd, B., & Weisler, S.
(1983). Behavioral components of assertion: comparison
of univariate and multivariate assessment strategies.

BeSaxioraI_Assessment. 6. 61-78.

Kosa. J. ISe_rSle_Sf_sSme_pereenalitx1facto_§_in_the
seleSS1Sn__ieId_S1_mediS1nS1.51studx_1n_the_2_a_d_m
eealea. Mimeographed, University of North Carolina,
1961.

Krebs, D. (1975). Empathy and altruism. Jearna1 e:
2ersSSal1tx_and_§ocial_£sxchologx. 32. 1134-1146.

Kumar, R. (1989). Affect, cognition and decision making in
negotiation: A conceptual integration. In M. A. Rahim

(Ed. ). Manag1_g_QSnfl1cS1_AS_Integrati_e_ApprSa_S (pp
185- 194L New York: Praeger.

Kupermic, M. & Heimberg, R. (1983). Consequence probability
and utility as factors in the decision to behave

assertively. EfihéxiQZIIhfianY. 14, 637-646.

Lange, A. & Jakubowski, P. (1976). Responaible assertive
beha_ie;. Research Press, Champaign, IL.

171

Lax, D. & Sebenius, J. (1986). The Manager aa a Negot1atior.
New York: Free Press.

Lentz, T. (1938). Acquiescence as a factor in the

measurement of personality. £eyehe1eg1ea1_fig11et1g, 35,

659.
McGuire. J. & Priestly. p. (1981). Life_after_school1_a_
sociai_s_1iis_curri_ulu.. Pergamon. Oxford.

McFall, R.M. & Twentyman, C.T. (1973). Four experiments on
the relative contribution of rehearsal, modeling, and

coaching to assertion training. geggaa1_91_5bngtma1
PSXSSSISQX. 81. 199-218.

Mead, G. (1934). M1gg1_ae1£_ang_ege1ety. Chicago: University

of Chicago Press.

Michelson, L., Sugai, D., Wood, R. & Kazdin, A. (1983).
' ' t 'ni wi '
Plenum, New York.

Miller, P. & Eisenberg, N. (1988). The relation of empathy
to aggressive and externalizing/antisocial behavior.

2112191291261_91111111. 103. 324- 344.

Moore, B. & Underwood, B. (1981). Sources of behavioral
consistency. r ' '

Psychology. 40(4). 780-785.

Morrison, R. & Bellack, A. (1981). The role of social
perception in social skills. Behay1e;a1_1he1apy, 12, 69-
79.

Motowidlo, S, Dunnette, M., & Carter, G. (1990). An
alternative selection procedure: The low- fidelity

simulation JSurS11_Sf_Applied_£sxchplogL 75(6). 640-
647.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. & Berry, L. (1985). A
conceptual model of service quality and its implications

for future research. Jeggna__g§_uagket1gg, 49, 41- 50.

Paulhus, D. (1984). Two-component models of socially

desirable responding. Jegtgal ef Pereenality agg See1al
Psychology. 46, 598-609.

Paulhus, D. (1986). Self- -deception and impression management
in test responses. In A. Angleitner & J. S. Wiggins(Eds.),

PersSnaliSx_assessmenS__ia_guestio_naire. New York:
Springer- Verlag.

172

Paulhus, D. (1991). Measurement and control of response

bias. In Measuree ef Peraonality and Social
2aychelogiga1 Att1tggee. (pp. 17- 59) Academic Press, Inc.

Pruitt, D.G. (1981). Neget1atign Behavigr. New York:
Academic.

Pruitt, D. G. (1983). Strategic choice in negotiation.
Ame11can_SeSaxioral_§SieSSist.27. 167-194.

Pruitt, D.G. (1991). Strategy in negotiation. In V.

Kremenyuk (Ed.), lateraat1onal Negetiat1gn: Analysie,
Appgeaghee1_1aegee1 San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pruitt, D., Carnevale, P., Ben-Yoav, O., Nochajski, T., &
Van Slyck, M. (1983). Incentives for cooperation in
integrative bargaining. In R. Tietz (Ed.), Aspirat1en
Lev ' r ' ' n omi Decisi n Makin . (PP.
22-34). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Pruitt, D.G., Pierce, R.S., Zubek, J.M., Nochajski, T.H.,
McGillicuddy, N.B. & Welton, G.L. (1991b). Determinants
of short-term and long-term success in mediation. In S.

Worchel and J.A. Simpson (Eds.), Qegtliet Between Pegple

aag_2eep1ea. Chicago: Nelson Hall.

Pruitt, D.G. & Rubin, J.z. (1986). Seeial Conflict:
EsSa1at1Sn1_SSalemate1_and_§ettlement. New York: Random
House .

Reed, N. (1981). h hi lin en m h an

help1ng_behay1g;. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Loyola University of Chicago.

Reik. T. (1949). L1sSShing_sitS_SSe_third_ear. New York:
Farrar, Straus & Giroux. (Original work published in
1933)

Reiss, A., Ones, D. & Viswesvaran, C. (1995). L1aking _
in e er on '11 and com un' ' n skills with 'ob
petfgtmance: Meta-analytic explorations gt eriteriea-

related validity and construct validity. Paper presented
at the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Society for

Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.

Richardson, F. & Tasto, D. (1976). Development and factor
analysis of a social anxiety inventory. Behavior

Therapx. 7. 453-462.

173

Robberson, M. & Rogers, R. (1988). Beyond fear appeals:
Negative and positive persuasive appeals to health and

self—esteem. Qpprpal pf Applied Sppial Esychplpgy,
18(3), 277-287.

Rogers, C. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions

of therapeutic personality change. gpprnal pf Consulping
2122191232. 21. 95-103.

Rose, Y. & Tryon, W. (1979). Judgments of assertive behavior
as a function of speech loudness, latency, content,

gestures, inflection anof Ix. Behaviorglations, 16,, 07-
123.

Sasfy, J. & Okum, M. (1974). Form of evaluation and audience

effects. 191rnal_9f_Ez2erimental_§osial_£§xs_ologx 10

461-467.
Schlenker, B.R. (1980). m ' ma : Th -
on ‘9 -- T1. '2‘! ' =1! '1 ‘99‘ :09: ‘_= '0 f.

Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.

Schlundt, D. & McFall, R. (1985). New directions in the
assessment of social competence and social skills. In L.
L’Abate and M. Milan (Eds.), H k f so 'a k'
tra'n' nd , Wiley, New York.

Schmidt, S.M. & Yeh, R.S. (1992). The structure of leader
influence: A cross-national comparison. Qppxp§l_pf

Qrose;§ultural_zsxsholosx. 23. 251-264.

Schmitt, N., Pulakos, E., Whitney, D., Tsacoumis, S.,
Keenan, P., Anderson, R. & Copeland, L. (1994).
0“ e_-91- o _ 1 9-‘V” ‘; ; o f.‘ _=. 9‘ f~

Aggppg. FBI, Washington, D. C.

Schwendiman, G. (1971). Machiavellianism as a predictor of
success in bargaining under high and low incentive
conditions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Brigham
Young University.

Selman, R. (1980). In: grpwph pf ippgpperspngl

 

York: .Academic.

Shapiro, J.G. (1968). Responsivity to facial and linguistic
cues. Jgprnal pf Cpmmpnipatipn, 18, 11-17.

174

Shwalb, D.W., Shawlb, B.J., Harnisch, D.L., Maehr, M.L., &
Akabane, K. (1992). Personal investment in Japan and the
U.S.A.: A study of worker motivation. Inpernapional

WWI—amps. 16. 107-123.
Smith, M.J. (1975). Whgp I pay np, I figel gpilty. New York:
Appleton.

Stevens, M. & Campion, M. (1994). The knowledge, skill and
ability requirements for teamwork: Implications for

human resource management. Joupnal pf Mapagemenp, 20,
503-530.

Stratton, T. & Moore, C. (1977). Application of the robust
factor concept to the fear survey schedule. Journal of

WW 8. 229-

Strube, M.J., Miles, M.E. & Finch, W.H. (1981). The social
facilitation of a simple task: Field tests of
alternative explanations. Per ' nd Soci 1

ngghglggx Bullggig, 7, 701-707.

Tedeschi, J.T. (Ed.). (1972). Thg gocial inflpence process.
Chicago: Aldine Athenton.

Thomas, K. (1992). Conflict and negotiation processes in
organizations. In M. Dunnette and L. Hough (Eds.),
f ia an Or niz i nal Ps cholo , 3,
651-717.

Tsacoumis, S., Pulakos, E., Schmitt, N., Whitney, D.,
Anderson, R. & Copeland, L. (1993). b l is of

W FBI Washington. D C

U.S. Department of Labor (1991). Wha; wprk rggpires pf
sphpplg; A SCANS repprt for Amgripa 2000. Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Weiss, R.F. & Miller, F.G. (1971). The drive theory of
social facilitation. Psyphplpgipa; Rgvigw, 78, 44-57.

Wicklund, R. & Braun, O. (1990). Creating consistency among
pairs of traits: A bridge from social psychology to
trait psychology. n f E rim n a1 8 °

23191191531. 26(6) . 545-558.

Zajonc, R.B. (1965). Social facilitation. Scienpe, 149, 269-
274.

      

HICH

  
 

(1W1(Mimi/II(Hmm\min(i(1(‘

31293015660834