Lane Sbell..aEmpathy and assertive Communication.reb.812jp.; Piper presented at the-Annual MeeRestert-Speech-Communication AssociationCA,lebruary 14-18# 1991).

ADES MC OF01/PC6 Plus Postage..DESCRIPTORS *Assertiveness: Behavioral Sciencw Re&Jearch;

.Communication (Thought Transfer): *COmmunicationResearch; *Empathy; *Interpersonal competeace:*Interpersonal Relationship: Lite:ature Reviews;*Perupective Taking

g of theSan Jose,

ABSTRACTA review of communication research was conducted to

Aescrite:andclarifY:the nature. of empathy, (2). investigate the46attruct asiertivenessi, (3) posit a Possible relationship betweeneipitthland'Asg.Wtileness., and .(4).provide possible suggestions forfuture researctiThe literature indicates that conceptualizations ofempathy llitistatili-Streiii4t-erieMtation::toWirdIethetiG while,assertive communication most often places an emphasis upon theself.-1thOOgh first analyses indicate a negative relation- between the twoconstructs, empathy and assertiveness do share some essentialdefining characteristics...Both-oonstructs are conceptualized as ways__tp facilitate human understanding, both entail recognition of anotherindividUal4s -thoughts- and" feelings, and -both:involve- the nation ofappropriateness and fletibility in manifesting empathic and' assertive.communicaticp. Some research even offers "empathic assertion" as aspecific type -of assertiveness to be used-in appropriate situations.1'4:appears that a, threshold might exist whereby assertiveness andempathy are .*elated, linearly up to a point, after which highlyempathic individuals lose sight-of their own gdals and exhibit_nonassertive behaviOri.:Continued researcLinto this relationship, aswell as a curriculum in. assertiveness, nd empathic caring for others'righte,'Aoay effectivel4 improve some of the problems besettingcontemporary society. (EL)

* ***** **** *** * ** *** * *,_ * ***** **********Reproductions supplied by EDES are the best that can be made

from the original document.***********0** ************'*************** **

D AIlrlM N o It ATNATIOtiAlitMOTITUTE eDUCATION

EDUCATIONA REIPURCES INFOMATION...CENTER (EWE::

This document ,hare been reproducjd asreceived from the, person or organizationoriginating it.: ,

1 Minor changes have been made to implovereprglon quality.

Pointaieview or opinions stated In this dock',mint do: not necessarily represent °diced NIPposition or policy.

Shelley D, LaneUniversity of. Southern California

Department of CommunicationArts and Sciences

Los Angeles, Ca. 90007

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS SEEN GRANTED SY

Kelley D. Lane

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

Student Debut

Paper presented at W.S.C.A. Convention. San Jose, Cal

1981

c of "lath;interpersonal comMunication. a o its recognition as aprinary

proCessfunderpi interaction and. development (Rorke, 1971).emPa.thY. .

pat B

.

]been c Major component in tie varis conteptUalizations

rnceived as a ou

'communicative competence (Phelps and Snavely,' gen. Leavitt and Mueller

(1951) write that empathic behavior c ation skill, an0 it

has been h othesized that increased attention to'the feelings of others may

bm indicative interpersonal effectiveness-CP

Empathy is necessary for "rhetorical sensitivity uman understanding

(Lm.n90: 1980) as well as .fQr a better understanding of-7

one'has with others (Dymond, 1948icc Lack of e

Cause of inaccurate self-perceptions and the inability to communicate

adequately with others (Cottrell and Dymond, 949). Finally, empathic comm

cation is recognized as essentia within the dottor-patient relationship

(Friedman, 1979); is significantly related to marital adjustment (Hobart

Klausner, 1959); and "has become the concern of practitioners in

Centers half-way houses, crisis control programs, and other_

projects where e empathizing process is .an integral p

CO__

Although

thouse, 1977, p. 176).

rehab lite.-

community

of construttive

empathy" has been conceptually and operationally defined in a

ety of ways, the various definitions stress an

the prim criterion of the consti

antithetical criterion is that of assertiveness. In c4ntrast'to empathy, an

A construct

a ion toward others

with parent

emphasis upon the, self is often primary in characterizations of assertive?c

behavioi. In its broadest sense, assertive comunicatiOn refers to "all

socially acceptable pressions of rights and feelings" (Lazarus 1971, p.

and has been conceptualized as a way to boisterself-esteem.,(Phelps

Austin, 1975) and pe onal power (Alberti and Emmons, 1974). Manual Smith

( 975) writes that a person has the !right to be indepen ent of the go

Of others before coping with them [because] no matter whit you'or.I do,

isNnot gibing to like it; someone may, ev'en get Yee. feeling hurt. as a result"

(p. 59). Although Lange dJakubow 197H) stress that assertive conununi-

!4.

Lion must entail respect for another's neede and Wantaas weX1,as one's own,

both definitions view. the "self" as' the essential, aspect assertive communi-

cation.

At first glance, it may be .that person who asses states needs and

s will be less seri itive to the thoughts and feeli of others. HoweVer

nshp. between these two ngly contradictory

\

constructs it is necessary to investigate and eipli e the nature of empathy

before positing a relat

and assertive communication_ Surprisingly, this to qui \coMplex.

The constrUct of empathy is fraught with cone u iand operational

research findings. Theconfusion, often resulting in an incomparability

't- lf has been used in the literature with 'a variety of meanings

(Dymond, 19501, and the lack of comparability, of res arch fihdings from

'-various studies has been attributed to the.e _oration of different aspects

of interpersonal behavior '(Hobart and:Fahlbergy:1965) The study of empathy

has generally been dichdtomized into two disiict areas; A "cognitiye" approach,

in .which one can aginativtly take the role of another inorder to recognize

and understand the other's thoughts and feelinge, and an "affective': approach,

in which one. experiences, feels, and /or responds to another's emotions1

(Mehrabian d Epstein, 1972). These two approaches have been recognized

and labeled as= 1) cognitive otional; 2) understanding/feeling; and 3) per-

son p ception avicarious response (Mehrabian and Epstein, 1972'; Keefe, 1976r

HoffMan, 1977).

It is appropriate to point out that while many researchers have utilized

the " cognitive /affective" dichotomy.as mutually exclusive, one never treat

"cognitive properties" (thinking. role -z ing, ufidegitandin ) and

.

"affective' properties" feeling, emotional "arousal, physiological retpon,

,

ses)-asIteliy separate` and distinct. aunt as emotional states can

. one's thinkin the "definiti and libeling.of affective prop

.

cognitive proceises. Burke (1978) has written that Piaget conceived oft

affective acts as_never 'totally aevoid of =comprehension and iniellectual

:O.ds j.nvo1ves,

aces nevi unaffected, by emotion. Dar z, (1969) has Stated that

Perc p ual-cognitiy processes are.involved in emotidnai

enpds,,thus contradictingthe use of theoretical

s such as thinking versus feeling,

versus affect, or rational versus emotional.

ion

seems

reasonable=. to view "perceptual - cognitive processes as part

r'emotionarPhenomena, re/cognizing. that certain aspects of

. ,

perceptual - cognitive functioning ate probably independent ofi

. .,

emotion and certain aspects of emotion are likely to be

independent of perceptual -cc ive functioning (pp. 168-,169).

I contend thkt the complete distinction between 'cognitive and affective'

components that underly empathic coiinnur ication is spurious. '.past research .has

tended to conceptualize empathy aSconsisting.of either understanding thoughts

and feelings or an emotional experience qf some sort, ppon,defining empathy

as either primarily cognitive or primarily affectilid, it should be remembered.

that "the distinction between-emotion and cognition as referring 'to tso

clearly different kinds of processes hardly seems,tenable" (Davitz, 1969),

146!

'Keefe (1976) i r perceptions.mites that those who st s- :perception and, cognitions

defini g empathy characterize its constituent-Components as objectivity,

detachment, and analytic knowledge of antItheessoci41 roles.. This knowledge_

Can be attained by imaginatively, taking the role- of the other ( .Dymond, 1950)

and/or making inferences 4.bout the thoughts and-,feeligs of-the oth based

role4taking4nvolve* " taking anothe- etsOn's perspective and.-.

seeing .tie World as she tees it" (Cok0,,-Batson, and McDa

52). Parella (1971) 'delineates two types of role taking eppa

place

uitilAzed] as

Adoptive

nadoptive."',Pro

and one's

attem t to. un

.

ative empatfiY sets the viewer in

1078,

own potential response to. a similar uation Lis

4rstand the condition of the other" (p. 208) .

empathy entails adopting already established behavior on the part

f the other, without inte rpreting how he/she would feel In like circumstan-

cos. Chmiele k and Wolf (1979) define empathy in terms of projection or

"the= ability to imagine oneself exptriencing the events happening to another

/ .

,personn (p.: 6) in'their attempt to assess. the reliability,of a sdale to

- -

measur9 role- taking ability. On#the other hand, Dymond (1950) characterizes

projection as antithetical to empathy since "the thoughts and feelings of the

self are attributed to the °their rather than those of the other being

experienced" (p. 344). °Dymond (1§19) chdraote zes empathy~ as adoptive or

"the' imaginative transp osing of oneself into the thinking, feeling,

acting of another" 127) in creating 'a scale for the meaSureWent of

both types when he relates thatethic ability.. Lange (1980) recognize

the achievement of empathy is due to the tentative adoptio41 and projection of

perspectives: Similarly, Stotland, Sherman, and Shaver (1971) recognize both

types in their research maginative -involvement and .empathy. It was

d that an observer's ab'lity to epp at ize increases when instructed to

imagine either how the other person is feeling or_how he himself w

in the other ,person's po

Id feel

tion. Parella (1971) suggests that much of the

confusion` surrounding the meaning of empathy appears to be, the result of

failure to'identify whether one is engaging in projective or adoptive'

. .

em pethy- -a failure to di tiinguish be

its origin-in self:or. other.

Empatby as "social /perception"

-in-which a person

otfiers based upon.communication and/

--o e

sen the nature o

is characterized

aferenc gout' the in

nterpretationpf between

Brofenbrenner Harding, aba Gall

gars' predictivi

ve process',

-al states of

hehavior and his ot her own.

(1958).:haVe_employed: approach in the,atudy

out ,each other after a shor t.interaction. Hi. Gage bias

udied predictions `of strangers regarding each otherS' responses to various

ions after:an initial,: highly-structured interaction, 1 (1965) has

Conceived of empathy ass" involving both types If'

ire play' the role.of

ive" processes:

another- we:combine the inference and

role-taking points of vie

pSrform certain.

we' role-play, we actually

aviors. From thes3 we can infer our own

internal states; we can make inferences from our own behavior

which are pertinenE to- the :behavior of another. We then use

these inferences in tak ng the role of another (p. 53). fi

While role - taking and social perception entail different conceptual

definitions, both have been defined operationally as "predictive accuracy"

(Dymond, 1949; Bronfenbrenner et al., 1958; Hobart and Klausner, 1959).

Various instruments exist for the measurement, of 'predictive accuracy, based.

upon psychological dipens

aptitudes, attitudes c

ns such as "abilities, adjustment, appreciations,-.

cter, ego-involvement, ideals, insight, interests,

morale, moraiity, mores, motive, social distance, social Sensitivity, and

to tes" (Gompertz, 1960,:p., 539). These tests include tie -Wechsler,

Roischach, the SAT, and the California Et oc trism -testi as well as tests

desighed exclusively for the measurement of-empathy.; The Truax Accdrate

Empathy Scale (ABS 3 based upon various " "stages-of-- empathy, "" and the

construct ie meaSuredO

rbliability of this scale has been questioned, Conklin and Hunt (1980).report

a nine- pcoint continuUM. While .the validity and

other scales such -aS the (149).Model (consisting of a uestiou-.

nacre that explores counselor perc ption ofOlients)1 Carkhuff's (196q)

DiscriminatiohIndes (consisting of Siattents thit'vary in' their "de tee Of

understanding") and :Clifte' 1960)'Interpersonal Perception Film

be used to measure predictive aCcuracYF.

Just as "empathy as cognition entails,conceptual confusion

as affect "' also is be.et with inconsistencies. Empathy as affect

observer assuming an emotional -type experience

of cues, quid this perception elicits an emotional respon

part. Stotland (1978) illus ates this affective component

"empethy

ails

the other based on

e on e obse'

th the 'example

_'of an observiar who reacts fmotionally, because he or sh perceives thdt. another

is exper encitg or about to experience

allows for the possibility of any type of

emotion. This conceptualization.

esponding emotion in the observe

For instance, an observer' s, feeling' of joy as a response to a rival.'a sorrow

would be an acceptable empathic response within the parameters of thii concep-*

tualization. ,-Stotland labels this process as "contrast" empathy, as and compares

to "

The resea

and admits tl e is not much laboratory evidence for contrast empathy.

Hoffman's 7) characterization of empathy as "avica ious

response too ers" (p. 169) is also problematic. According to this iew, a

feellng towers another individual .(not necessarily in response to ahother s

tion) may conceptualized as empathy. Similarly, Barnett, Matthews,

athy, whereby matches the perceived _emotion of the other.

cognizes the problems within this conceptualization

affective

and Howard (17.1U,define'empathy as the ability to "experidnce the emotions

of another. i dividual" (p. 211). On the surface, it appears that the

experience of another's emotions.may clash with an affective response to

fin' S eMotionand Barnett fails 0 elaborate

iZation. Spitzberg (1989) includee'beth types of

fective,empathy when he writes that

or affectiVe expefiencs of anotherksemo

anal reaction to,

oral etate"-(p..

-predictive, accuracy is. u ed to measure "cognitive. empathy,".4

physiologic AndieatOrs ind self- report meas _es are used to differentiate

.levels of empithiceItOtional response. These physiological indicators include

-measure, ofNasoconstrietiOn And GSR instruments. However,-Mehrabian and

i. (1972) relate that there is a lack of consistency between self-

measure. _

of ea thy, palmar sweating, and vasoconstriction, due to an

inadequacy of th hysiological measures that differentiate between variou

0

facets of emotional experiences. See APpendices A and B for conceptual relation-

ships of cognitive and affective empathy).

:t is obvious that the

are extras

the concept of.empath

conceptual and operational-definitions of empathy

y diverse and often contradictory. Compertz (1960) writes that

eeds an unambiguous asOrell as standardized definitiom

Clark (1980) maintains that the available literature regarding empathy neglects

clear definition d cemprehensive theoretical approach. While the study of

achy has usually focused upon either the "understanding" or "feeling"

ap ach,--researchers have- combined both approaches in order to serve

various other funct ons; Buckley, Siegal and Ness (1979) write that

perspective-taking and empathy comp se altruistic behavior, Spitzberg (1980)

claims that role-taking and empathic abilities contribute to he interpersonal

skill of adapt veness. However

empathy is defined solely in cognitiv terms, construct haS little theo-

retical utility beyond that cont ibut d by the cogn ve functions themselves.

Stotland et (1978) report that when

On the, other hand, ifsmpathy merely refers to "some kind of motor mimicry"

JSpitzberg, 1980, p. thecapecity to understand 4nd predict another's

tights end ieelinga

s 957 write that in order to. achieve athiC u tderstand

therapist must.-sense the client's world as if it were his or her own.

therapist must alSO sense . the client' anget,'fear, or confusion without

getting bouid up'init. This ponceputalization includes both the "under-

standing". ,

d "feeling" tomponents. In addition, Bronfenbrenner et al.

1958) Call into cniestiCn the notion of a single generaiized'ability in

1PPathY."

maintain that a concept

and/or adoptive empa

1 definition including "cognitive" (projec-0.

y'. w.

1 as social perception) and "affective"

responding to/experiencing another's affective ..tate),compOnents will

together provide the most accurate predictions and most thorough understandiri

A clear delineation of the precise interpersonal behavior being measuredA

r.

e.g., role-taking vs. social perception, adoption vs, projection, etc.) will

help alleviate the conceptual and operational confusion regarding this

construct.

An understanding of 'the behavioral constituents of empathy is helpful' in

capturing, the essence of its various conceptualizations. Those who commnni-

cateempathically have a high degree of listening ability (Shuster, 1979).

Capacities underlying empathy include intelligence and "cue-sensitivity";

a high capacity to "listen" to feelings, moods, and words (Weinstein 1969,

p. 753.) Active listening as intlizoted by head nods, ai well as verbal

responses, contribute to empathic communication (Wiemann, 1977). ' Empathic

people have been ara terized as "emotionally expre ive, outg ing, opti-

mistic, warm people who have a strong interest in others. The are flexible

people . . [who] find they can establish. rewarding affectionate relatibfts

th others" (Cottrell _ _d Dymond, 1949) --

The behavioral constituents of assertive communication have also been

_iden .by-a variety' of resaerobe

Mess is not a conceptually confusing as e

A hough the construct -of assertive-

y, its communicative manifesta-

./

also aid in its understanding and met ispeCtion... .

.

study of assertiveness is quite recent, but it is a rap dly'expandiri

area (Hall, 1977). Jakubs)0. and Lange (1978) characterize assertive

communication as entailing mutual respect and interaction based on equality

- las opposed to status, age,-sex differenoes,.etc.), assertive individual

do, notmalign others,or-deny ,their rights [but is] open and flexible,

genuinely concerned w th the rights df others, yet at the same time able to

es abliph'very well his own rights" (Alberti and Emmons, 1974, p. 4) .

While-nonassertive communicatiOn allows others to take advantage of us,

P

and aggressive coMmunidation leads others to become guarded and withdraw from

us, assertive comMunication allows one to db lop caring, honest, and accept-

ing relatibnshs with othes (Jakubowski and Lanqe 1979).

Aside from the distinguishing fdature of respecting, 's needs and

ts, assertive communication is also 'oharacteriz d as "flexible." In other

words, assertivrbeha or-does not entail expressing one's opinion or standing

up for one's rights in each and every situation. Jakubowski and Lange (19 81--

'write that "responsible communicat

(p. 27),

not to be assertive because you notice th

[or] there can be cir

tion involves the ability to chc

fits the demands of a particular context"

d Alberti and Emmons (1970) write that "now and then you may choose

person is having difficulty

umstances" (p. 50). Assertive co

se an appropriate .way tc t in a-parti6ular

rather than being limited to a single response (Adlpr, 1977).

Assertiveness has had a wide variety of conc6ptualizations (e.g.,-the

expression of positive and negative feelings, refusal behavior, the ability

to ask for favo S and make demands, and the ability to initia

conversations), and it can be assessed as either a. personality' trait or

d'continue

at

tories ( .g., the Assertii7

. :Expression Scale the Rathus A --rtiVen

=specific.

veOk

communication:

ad to 'variety' of that study

clude sel*rating and self- report inveh

estionnaire, the College Self-'

(e.g., the Behavioral Role - Playing A

ness Test) (Hal], 1977)'.

and behaVioral assessments,

Similar to, empathy, essertiveness-;

to serve a variety of fUnc ions.

the Behavioral Assertive-

has, been combined with other variab

For-eXimple asgertiVenAhris arOentra3,

;socialrstyle refers to the

d'Agree upon when describing

According' to this .frame Work, *eople differ along the

component of the construct of social style-.A '

patterns of actions that others can observe

a person's behavio-_

dimension of "assertiveness" and ponsiveness," and "versatility"

adaptability) is said to mediate the consequences, of social style (Wfssmiller

and Lock 1979).. An

change in tohe Voice,

assertive individual emphasizes his/her ideas,by d

exhibits dominant statements, make's statements more

often than asks questions, and lets

Knapp,( 1978). Snafely (1980) wr

others knowl3f his/her needs and wants

tes that the usage ofthe construct of

social-style may allow individuals to

.

communication of others

understanding.

h the goal

AssertivenesS has alsO been

ccurately describe and adapt to the

of improved co iCation and increased

udied in relation to various other constructs.

In conceptualizing c-- unication style as a ethod of managing oneself and the

environment, Bugental, Henicer, and Whalen (1976) suggest that "individpals who

perceiVe little personal control over their outc es are more likely to

dethionstrate very strong displays. of assertion.A%

personal causation" (p. 405).,

a situation becomes, the more

those who perceive high

NesbiAt (1979) has-found that th- tore ,impersonal

likely and easier it is lo

Bert himself. In addition, Green

an individual to as-

Burkhart, and Harrison (1979) have fa_

-ore assertive the individual, the less impulsive he or she is as

measured on the PRF-E paper-end-pencil test. The researchers suggest that

impulsiveness may be an important component of assertiveness in real life

situationp%

At this point, it appears as thy and assertiveness share some

similar features. Both' constructsare conceptualized as a ./ay to facilitate

human derstanding, and both entail recognition of the other individual's

thoughts and feelings. In addition, both constructs involve the notion of

appropriateness and flexibility in manifesting empathic and assertive

communicatibn. Interestingly enough, Lange and Jakubowski (1976) offer

.,apathic assertion" as a specific type of assertiveness to be used in

appropriate Lion. Empathic.assertiveness "involves meking a statement

that conveys recognition of the other person's situation or feelings and is

followed by another statemnet which stands up for the speaker's righ

(Lange and Jakubowski, 1976, p. 15). It seems that the initially posited

statement regarding the negative relationship between assertion and empathy

may be 6purious. However, Bronfenbrenner et al. (1959) write that:

It is possible that the person who is highly perceptive of

other's feelings may pay a price in terms of realizing his own

capacities for creative expression and forthright social behavior

This possibility calls into question the prevailing view that the

athic" person is one who is effective in virtually all types of

rsonal situations (p. 106).

It is possible that a threshold exists; that is, assertiveness and

empathy are related linearly up to but after this point the highly

empathic individual loses sight of his or her own goals and ekhibits what may

be characterized as nonassertive behavior.

Alberti and Emmons -(1974) hint at this threshold effect when they write

that when individual's "polite restraint" is too well developed, he or

she may,ev tpally become incapable of choosing to act assertively. Jakubowski

and Lange (1978)also infer this relationship when they write that "we often

make the error of assuming that it is the other person's positive or negative

reactions that determine whether oc not we have an assertive right in a

situation" (p. 57).

Obviously, this relationship is purely conjectural, and -here is a need

for additional research to Uncle- d the possible relationships involved

between assertive communication and empathy. Other possible relationships can

be inferred from the literature. It was found that the components of social

style (assertiveness, responsiveness, and versatility) allow one to adapt to

the communication of others. Since adaptiveness is a prominent characteristic

of empathy and assertiveness, it may be that individuals with highly adaptive

social styles will be more inclined to be empathic and /or assertive in a

flexible than individuals with less adaptive social styles. In addition,

when recalling that assertive co _ ation is easily and m likely o be

manifested in impersonal situations, one can predict that the more personal a

situation becomes, the easier and more likely it will be for an individual to

be empathic. There may be little risk in using assertive communication in an

impersonal situation, since no extant relationship with other individuals

involved may exist. However, in highly pi sonal. situations, the relationship

may be so well developed that the consequences of assertive behavior can be

somewhat accurately predicted. Therefore, there may be less risk in displaying

assertive communication in highly impersonal situations. Similarly, assertive-

ness may decrease to a ce n point or range and subsequently increase posi-

tively with increases in the personal nature of the situation. Finally,

keeping in mind that the more assertive an individual tends to be, the less

mpulsive he or she tends to be, one can conjecture a similar relationship

13'

between empathy d impulsiveness. Itmay be that increasing levels of -

empatky as well as increasing levels of assertiveness are related to decrees-

ing levels of impulsiveness. Taking the 'time" to assert oneself and/or

.emPathize with ether individual nay inhibit impulsive,tendencies.

Some of these relationships have already been implied. For instance,

Jakubowski and Lange (1978) write that taking a few moments to put oneself in

another's shoes in order to understand his or her poiht of view can reduce the

impulse for mmediate response. While the researchers link this assumption

to aggressive communication, taking the time to ascertain whether or not to

communicate assertively and /or trying to understand another's thoughts and

feelings may act to inhibit any sort of impulsive response. Of course, further

theoretical and empirical research is needed in order to support or reject

these relationships.

The importance of studying these relationships is quite clear. Non-

asserters who do not express themselves pay for this inhibition in seve

ways. In a study of 800 university and high school students, Zimbardo (1977)

found that 82% described themselves as having shy dispositions. These shy

people exhibited an inability to stand up for their rights and suffered a

sense of social isolation. Psychological tolls also exert themselves on

nonassertive people. "Inept communication," or the inability to express the

full range of feelings, leads some to take refuge in impersonal ac

develop cynical attitudes, and despair at themselves. This despair can result

depression, emotional breakdown, or even s ide (Bach and Goldberg, 1974).

Similarly, the aggressive person m

communication c-

lack a sense of self-worth, and aggressive

sk self-doubts and guilt (Alberti and Emirns, 1974). These

problems can be alleviated if one is taught to act assertively and maintain

sensitivity to the thoughts and feelings of others. Va concelros (1974)

writes that the goil of self - esteem and questions of"humaness" are the most

14

important issues in education today. If it is not possible to teach individuals

to build self-esteem, increase self - understanding, and facilitatehonest and

_caring communication with others, "we simply aren't going to resolve our major

social problems: violence, drugs, racism, sexism, and war" (Vasconcellos, 1974,

iii). A curriculum that teaches assertiveness and empathic caring for others'

rights may effectively improve sane of the problems besetting today's society-.

Cognitive

Hobart &Klausner, 1959Belo, 1965

Appendix A

"Cognitive" Empathy

Adoption

1--) emotions

Cottrell & Dymond,.1949Dymond, 1949Dymond, 1950Hobart & Fahlberg,1965

Role -Takin

Rogers, 1957Borke, 1971Lange, 1980

cognitions

emotions

Pro e tion

Chmielewski & Wo1979

SocialPerception.

Bronfenbrenner, et al., 1958

cognitions

emotions

cognitions

Appendix B

"Affective"EmpathY

Reacting toPerceivedEmotion.

Stobland, 1971

Physiological

Sgrtisiwerg, 1980

Response toOthers

Hoffman, 1977

Response otion

-Sto land et al., 1969

16

s

f4< ence of motion

BaFnett et al, 1979'

contras

References

Adler, R.W. Confidence in CoMmunication: A Guide to Assertive and Social

Skills. USA: Holt, Rinehart and Winston161977.

Alberti, R:E., & Emmons,,

Our Perfect Right; R Luis Obispo, Ca.:

,ImRact Publishers, Inc., 1974.

Bach, G., & Goldberg, H. Creative Aggression. New York: Doubleday, 1974.

Barnett. M.A., Matthew, Y.A.,,& Howard, J.A. Relationship Between

Competitiveness and Empathy in 6-and-7-Year Olds. Developmental

Psychology; 1975, 15: 221-222.

terlo, D.K. InteraCtion: The Goal of Interpersonal Co- unioation., In

J.R. Campbell & H.W. Hepler (Eds.) Dimensions in Co univation.

Belmont, Ca.: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1965.

Berke, H. Interpersonal Perception of `Young Children: Egocentrism pr

Empathy? ,Deve1opment 1971, 5 263 -269.

Burke, H; Piaget's View of Social Interaction and the Theoretical Construct

Empathy. In L.S. Siegel- & C.J. Brainerd (Eds.1, Alternatives to

Pi ,get. New York: Academic Press, 1978.

0-Brofenbrenner, U., Harding, J.,. & allwey, M. The Meaguremen't of Skill inrr

OF\Social Perception. In D.C--McClell- d, A.L. Baldthin, U. Brofenbrenner,

& F.L. Strodbeck (Eds.), Talent and Society. Princeton, N._ D. Van

Nostrand, 1958.

Buckley,' N., Siegel, L.S. &-Ness, S. Egocentrism, Empathy, and Altruistic

Behavior in Young Children. Developmental Psychology, 1979, 15,

329-330.V

Bugental Henker, & Wha n C.K. Attribitional Antecedents of

Verbal and Vocal Assertiveness, Journal Personalit and Social

12111a,E, 1976, 34, 405-411.

17

Chmielewski, T.E. Asses -in- the Rehab ilia o a Scale to Measure.-

Role -Taking °Ali1lity. Paper presented at the Annual Conve

Speech Communication Association, San Antonio, Tex_ November 1979.

Clark, K.B. Empathy: A Neglected Topic in Psychological Research.

Psychologist, 1980, 35, 187-190.,k

Coke; J.S. Batson, C.D., & McDavis Empathic Mediation Helping: A

Two Stage Model. Journal of Personalit and Social 1978,

36, 752-766.

Conklin, R.C. & Hunt, A.S. An Investigation of the Validity of Empathy

Measures. In B.W. mors & L.A. Phelps (Eds.), Interpersonal Communioa-

Lion: A Relational P1-speotive. Minnesota: Burgess Publishing Co., 1980.'

Cot ell, L.S., Jr., & Dymond,'R.F. The Empathic Responses: A Neglected

Field for Research. Psychiatry, 1949, 12, 355-359.

Davitz, J.R. The Language of Emotion. New York: Academic Press, 1969.

Dymond,, R.F. A Preliminary Investigation of the Relation of Insight

Empathy. Joilltin-Ps-cholo_y, 1948, 12, 228-233.

DytOndt .R.n. A Scale for the Measurement of :mpathic Ability. Journal of

Consulting P 1949,, 13, 127-133.

Dymond, R.F.- Personality d'Empathy. Journnal of Consulting Psychology,

1950, 14, 343-350.

Friedman, H.S. Nonverbal Co :unication=between Pa-ents and Medical

Practitioners. Journal of Social Issues, 1979, 35, 82-99.

Gage, N.L. Judging Interest

Monographs, 1952, LXVI.

from Expressive Behavior. Psychological

Compertz, K. The Relation of Empathy to Effective Commnunication.A

Journalism Quarterly, 1960, XXVIII, 533-546.

Green, S.B., Burkhart, B.R., & Harrison, W.H. Personality Correlates of

Seif -Report, Role - Playing, In V4.vo Measure

Journal of Consulting and ClinicalPsychol

of Assertiveness.

1979 47, 16-24.

Hall, J. Assessment of Avertiveness.- In P. McReynolds (Ed.), 124.Lalic21E

in Psychological Assessment -7 Volume

Jo ey-Bass, Inc., 1977.

Hobart, C.W. & Fahlberg, N. The Measurement of E athy., A ierican Journal

Of Sociology, 1965, 70, 595-603..

Hobart, C.W. & Klausner, W.J. Some Social Interac al. Correlates-

an Francisco, -Ca.:

Marital Role Disagreement d Marital Adjustment. Marriage and Famil-'

Livi:ng, 1959, 21, 256-263.

Hoffman, M.L. Empathy, Its Development and Pros cial Lftplications. In

19

H.E. Howe, Jr. (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation - 1977. Lincoln

Nebraska: University of Nebraska, 1977, 169-217.

-ski, P., & Lange, A. The Assertive 04'tion Your Ri.hts aind Res on-.-

bilities. Champaign, III.: Research Press Co., 1978.

Keefe, T. Empathy: The Crit

Knapp, 4 1. Social Intercours

Bacon, 1978.

Skill. Social Work, 1976, 21, 10-14.

reetin

A.J. & Jakubowski, P. - Res- onsible Assertive

Research Press, 1976.

Lange, J. al Sensi

the 51st Western Speech Comm

Boston: Allyn &

Ch-

d Understi ndin.. Paper presented dt

February 1980.

Lazarus, A.A. Behavior. New York: McGraw Hill, 1971.

Leavitt, H.J. & Mueller, R.H. Some Effects of Feedback on Communication.

__ion As5ociation Convention, Por

Human Re 1951, IV.

9A. 1

Mehrabian, A. Epstein, N. A Measure of otional Empathy. Journal

Personality, 1972, 40, 525-543.

Nesbitt, E.B. Rathus Assertiveness Schedule and College Self-Expression

Scale Sees as Predictor; of Assertive Behavior. Psychological

ii.tE2Ipj 1979, 45, 855-861,

Northouse, P G. Predictors of

A Research Note.

Ability in an Organizational Setting:

Communication Research, 1977, 176-178.

Parella, G.C. Projection and Adoption: Toward a Clarification of the Concept

of EmpSthy. QuarterlyJourna1 of Speech, 1971, 57, 205-213.

Phelps, L.A. & Snavely, W.B. Toward the Measurement of,Inte oersonal Communi7

cation Competence. Paper presented at the 51st Western Speech Comm ica-

tIOn Association Convention, Portland, Oregon, February 1980.

Phelps, S. & Austin, N. The Assertive Woman. USA: Impact, X975.

Pierce, R.M & Zarle, J.H. Differential Refer to Significant Others as a

Function of Interpersonal Effectiveness. Clinical Psychclo

1972, 28, 2307232

Rogers, C.R. The Necessary and ufficient COndi_ ns of Therapeutic

Personality Change. Journal of Counse 1957, 2, 95-103.

Schuster, R. Empathy and Mindfulness. Journal of HumanisticPsycholo-

1979, 19, 75-76.

SMith, M.J. en_I Say No, I Feel Guilty. New York: Dial Press, 1975.

W.B. Impact of Social Style upon Person Perception. in

_---Relationships. Commun .cation_ uarterly, iii press.

(...,Spit berg, B. IattEpersonalCloa2t2i1E2111dp2neliness. Paper presented at

the 51st Western Speech Communication Association Convention, Portland,

,Orgon, February 1980.-._-

Stotland, E., Mathews, K.E. Jr., Sherman, S.E., Hansonn, R.O., & Richardson,

B.Z. fLatl,Payy,p.__q-lel-inan. Beverly Hills, Ca.: Sage, 1978.

20

'21

Stotland, E., Sherman, S.E. & Shaver, K. Ellely and Birth Order. Lincoln:

University of Nebraska Press, 1971.

Vasconcellos, 3. Introduction. In R. Alberti & M. Emmons, Your Perfect

ELEIII. San Luis Obispo, Ca.: Impact, 1974.

Weinstein, E.A. The Development of Interpersonal Competence. In D. Goslin

(Ed.), anal-ook of Socialization Theory and Research. Chicago: Rand

McNally College Publishing Co., 1969.

Wiem_ J.M. Explication and Test of a Model of Communicative Competence.

omwunicat on Research, 1977, 3, 195-213.

Wissmiller, A. & Lockwood, D. An Exploratory St

Rewa 'Contingencies. Paper presented at the 29th Annual Conference

of the Inte- ational Communication Association, Philadelphia, Pa. 1979.

Zimba o G. Shyness. New York:Jove_Publioation-, 1977.