The College Self-Expression Scale

Abstract

The College Self-Expression Scale (CSES) is a 50-item self-report psychometric instrument developed by John P. Galassi, James S. DeLo, Merna Dee Galassi, and Sheila Bastien in 1974. Engineered specifically to measure behavioral assertiveness within collegiate populations, the scale operationalizes interpersonal expression across a tri-dimensional construct framework comprising positive assertiveness (the verbal and behavioral expression of affection, approval, admiration, and agreement), negative assertiveness (the communication of legitimate anger, annoyance, dissatisfaction, and disagreement), and self-denial (the exaggerated inhibition of one’s own rights, excessive interpersonal accommodation, and over-apologizing). Respondents evaluate interpersonal scenarios utilizing a 5-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 0 (“Almost always or always”) to 4 (“Never or rarely”), yielding a total composite score ranging from 0 to 200 following the programmatic reverse scoring of 29 assertively keyed items.

Extensive psychometric investigations have demonstrated robust reliability and multi-faceted validity for the CSES. Initial norming data yielded two-week test-retest reliability coefficients of r = .89 to .90 across independent samples of male and female college students, alongside internal consistency estimates (Cronbach’s alpha) typically spanning .88 to .93. Construct validity has been corroborated through significant negative correlations with trait anxiety indices—including the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale (r = -.46 to -.60) and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory—and significant positive correlations with autonomous personality characteristics measured by the Adjective Check List and the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. Criterion validity is supported by behavioral role-play evaluations, peer sociometric nominations, and documented clinical sensitivity to assertiveness training protocols. The CSES remains a cornerstone instrument in behavioral assessment, interpersonal psychotherapy, and higher education counseling research.

Keywords

College Self-Expression Scale, assertiveness measurement, behavioral assessment, interpersonal communication, social skills, positive assertiveness, negative assertiveness, self-denial, psychometrics, assertiveness training

Authors

The College Self-Expression Scale was conceived and standardized through a collaborative research initiative directed by counseling psychologists and behavioral researchers affiliated with West Virginia University and associated clinical training institutes:

• John P. Galassi, Ph.D.: Professor Emeritus of Counseling Psychology and Educational Psychology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, previously at West Virginia University. Dr. Galassi is internationally recognized for his pioneering scholarship on social competence, school counseling reform, behavioral assertiveness training, and outcome assessment in psychological interventions.
• James S. DeLo, Ph.D.: Clinical and counseling psychologist affiliated with the Department of Counseling and Guidance at West Virginia University during the scale’s inception, focusing on college student development and behavioral therapies.
• Merna Dee Galassi, Ed.D.: Renowned counseling psychologist, author, and faculty member at North Carolina State University and private clinical practice, widely celebrated for co-authoring seminal clinical manuals on assertive behavior modification, including Assert Yourself: How to Be Your Own Person.
• Sheila Bastien, Ph.D.: Research psychologist and clinical neuropsychologist who contributed to the early empirical validation, psychometric structuring, and multivariate factor-analytic evaluation of behavioral self-expression inventories.

Purpose

The primary clinical and empirical purpose of the College Self-Expression Scale is to provide a granular, situation-specific assessment of assertive behavior tailored to the environmental demands, interpersonal dynamics, and social ecology of collegiate emerging adults. During the early 1970s, the emergence of behavior therapy and assertive training highlighted a glaring methodological deficiency: existing self-report measures of assertiveness (such as early iterations of the Wolpe-Lazarus Assertiveness Questionnaire or the Rathus Assertiveness Schedule) suffered from extreme situational ambiguity, over-generalization, or adult-centric operationalizations that failed to tap into the developmental realities of university students.

Emerging adults in academic institutions face distinct developmental challenges situated at the intersection of late adolescence and independent adulthood. These include renegotiating authority boundaries with parents, cohabitating and negotiating living arrangements with roommates, interacting with academic authority figures (e.g., college professors and department chairs), initiating romantic and sexual connections, resisting peer coercion, and functioning autonomously in consumer interactions (e.g., handling commercial disputes with store clerks or navigating lease obligations with landlords). The CSES was explicitly constructed to capture behavioral response tendencies across these precise situational parameters, presenting concrete, contextualized scenarios rather than abstract self-characterizations.

In clinical practice, the CSES serves as an indispensable baseline assessment and progress-monitoring mechanism for assertiveness training groups, interpersonal psychotherapy, and college mental health services. It enables clinicians to differentiate between generalized social inhibition and circumscribed deficits in specific relational domains (e.g., an individual who displays optimal negative assertiveness with service workers but profound self-denial and submissiveness when interacting with parents or romantic partners). In academic and research domains, the instrument functions as an empirical outcome criterion to evaluate the efficacy of cognitive-behavioral interventions, communication skills workshops, leadership training modules, and social-cognitive development programs.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct assessed by the CSES is assertiveness, conceptualized not as a monolithic personality trait, but as a multi-faceted repertoire of communicative and behavioral skills that enable an individual to act in their own best interests, stand up for their legitimate rights without undue anxiety, express personal feelings honestly and comfortably, and exercise their personal boundaries without violating the rights of others. In alignment with the behavioral taxonomy formulated by Galassi et al. (1974), the CSES disaggregates this macro-construct into three core dimensional subscales:

1. Positive Assertiveness

Positive assertiveness denotes the capacity to express facilitative, warm, and prosocial affects and cognitions. In many early assertiveness models, non-assertiveness was conflated solely with the inability to express anger or defend rights; however, Galassi and colleagues demonstrated that an inability to articulate affection, offer sincere compliments, validate others’ achievements, or communicate vulnerability constitutes an equally debilitating behavioral deficit. Representative manifestations include:

• Expressing love, tenderness, and genuine affection toward close relational partners (e.g., Item 20).
• Spontaneously praising a peer’s clothing, accomplishment, or character (e.g., Items 25, 31).
• Publicly acknowledging and celebrating another person’s good fortune or success without covert resentment (e.g., Item 36).
• Initiating contact or conversational engagement with an attractive acquaintance or prospective romantic partner (e.g., Items 22, 44).

2. Negative Assertiveness

Negative assertiveness captures the direct, non-aggressive, and constructive expression of legitimate negative affect, boundaries, and dissenting viewpoints. Rather than retaliatory or explosive aggression, this dimension represents the behavioral execution of boundary defense in situations where an individual’s personal boundaries, comfort, or values are transgressed. Core manifestations include:

• Communicating justified anger, irritation, or emotional displeasure directly to interpersonal targets, including romantic partners, parents, and peers (e.g., Items 8, 16, 30, 48).
• Confronting inconsiderate or disruptive behaviors in public or communal environments, such as addressing a noisy roommate or asking a movie patron to cease kicking one’s seat (e.g., Items 6, 41).
• Refusing unreasonable demands, excessive favors, or unwanted social invitations from friends or acquaintances (e.g., Items 19, 27).
• Articulating dissenting cognitive perspectives or challenging institutional statements made by authority figures such as course instructors or seminar professors (e.g., Items 21, 23).

3. Self-Denial

Self-denial reflects an unassertive cognitive-behavioral style characterized by the reflexive subordination of one’s personal rights, values, emotional well-being, and physiological needs to appease others or avoid conflict. It is driven by catastrophic expectations of social rejection, exaggerated social evaluation anxiety, and maladaptive beliefs regarding social etiquette. High self-denial scores indicate an excessive willingness to endure personal discomfort, financial exploitation, or emotional mistreatment. Manifestations include:

• Incurring personal loss or inconvenience rather than requesting rightful rectification (e.g., accepting faulty merchandise or being shortchanged without complaint; Items 3, 26).
• Exhibiting pervasive over-apologetic behavior when no transgression occurred, or adopting excessive caution to prevent minor relational friction (e.g., Items 5, 12, 24).
• Silently enduring interpersonal exploitation, line-cutting, or conversational interruptions to avoid being perceived as difficult or conspicuous (e.g., Items 1, 39, 42).
• Internalizing opinions and hesitating to ask for basic interpersonal assistance or academic clarification due to severe self-consciousness (e.g., Items 14, 18, 50).

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual architecture of the College Self-Expression Scale is anchored in classical behavior therapy and social learning theory, drawing foundational insights from the clinical frameworks of Joseph Wolpe, Andrew Salter, and Arnold Lazarus.

Reciprocal Inhibition and the Anxiety-Inhibition Paradigm

Wolpe’s (1958, 1969) principle of reciprocal inhibition posits that if a response incompatible with anxiety can be made to occur in the presence of anxiety-provoking stimuli, the bond between these stimuli and the anxiety response will be weakened. Assertive behavior is fundamentally conceptualized as physiologically and neurobiologically antagonistic to conditioned autonomic anxiety. When an individual executes an assertive response (e.g., directly looking an interlocutor in the eye, setting a boundary, or speaking in a firm, modulated tone), the neurohumoral mechanisms that drive avoidance, submissiveness, and visceral fear are down-regulated.

According to this model, non-assertiveness in university students stems from conditioned interpersonal anxiety: the prospective act of expressing disagreement, refusing an imposition, or revealing vulnerability elicits conditioned sympathetic nervous system arousal. This autonomic activation prompts avoidance or escape behaviors—manifesting as silence, excessive compliance, or over-apologizing—which are then negatively reinforced through the immediate cessation of acute anxiety. The CSES was designed to map the precise topography of these conditioned inhibitions across the stimulus conditions common to higher education environments.

Social Cognitive and Behavioral Competence Theory

Beyond drive-reduction models, the CSES is grounded in Albert Bandura’s social cognitive theory, which delineates assertiveness as a complex set of learned social skills governed by outcome expectancies, behavioral scripts, and self-efficacy appraisals. In the collegiate developmental milieu, young adults must transition from rule-governed family systems into egalitarian, peer-dominated networks. Failures in assertiveness frequently reflect two distinct etiologies:

1. Skills Deficits: The student has never acquired or rehearsed the behavioral repertoires (e.g., verbal phrasing, non-verbal posture, vocal prosody) required to negotiate effectively.
2. Performance Deficits: The behavioral repertoire exists, but is actively inhibited by irrational cognitive distortions (e.g., “If I ask my roommate to clean up, they will hate me forever; I must be liked by everyone to be worthwhile”).

By assessing both the mechanical capacity to initiate responses (e.g., questioning a professor’s error) and the emotional inhibitors (e.g., fear of feeling self-conscious or fear of doing the wrong thing), the CSES captures the cognitive-behavioral nexus that determines whether a social skill is actualized in real-world performance.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the College Self-Expression Scale has been extensively evaluated across clinical, educational, and laboratory settings, establishing convergent, discriminant, construct, and criterion-related validity.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Construct validity has been established by examining the statistical convergence of CSES composite scores with standardized personality inventories, anxiety metrics, and self-actualization measures:

• Anxiety Measures: In their foundational validation study, Galassi et al. (1974) documented robust negative correlations between total CSES scores and the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale (TMAS), with correlation coefficients ranging from r = -.46 to r = -.60 (p < .001). Assertiveness scores likewise exhibit pronounced inverse relationships with the A-Trait scale of Spielberger’s State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; r = -.45 to -.54), verifying that individuals with high self-expression experience significantly lower baseline trait anxiety and lower interpersonal tension.
• Personality Profiling: Correlations with Gough’s Adjective Check List (ACL) indicate that high CSES scorers describe themselves through adjectives reflecting confidence, dominance, leadership, autonomy, and emotional stability, whereas low scorers select adjectives associated with submissiveness, self-blame, timidity, and emotional constriction. In investigations using the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS), CSES assertiveness positively correlated with scales measuring Heterosexuality, Dominance, and Exhibitionism, while demonstrating significant negative correlations with Abasement and Deference.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity is supported by studies confirming that the CSES measures a distinct behavioral construct separate from generalized cognitive intelligence, academic aptitude, or sheer antisocial hostility:

• Total CSES scores correlate negligibly with academic aptitude indices such as SAT Verbal and Quantitative scores (r values typically ranging between -.04 and .08), confirming that assertive competence is distinct from cognitive or scholastic ability.
• Correlations with social desirability response bias scales, such as the Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability Scale, have consistently fallen within non-significant to modest ranges (r = -.12 to .15), demonstrating that the scale is largely resistant to deliberate impression management or positive self-presentation biases.
• Importantly, the CSES distinguishes assertiveness from unbridled aggression. Factor scores for negative assertiveness correlate with constructive dispute resolution rather than with indices of hostilism or psychopathic deviance on the MMPI.

Criterion and Predictive Validity

Criterion-related validity has been demonstrated through objective behavioral paradigms and clinical outcome research:

• Behavioral Role-Plays: Galassi, Galassi, and Litz (1974) exposed high- and low-scoring CSES subjects to standardized behavioral role-play scenarios involving confederates who attempted to impose unfair demands or deliver unreasonable critiques. Participants scoring in the upper quartile of the CSES demonstrated significantly shorter response latencies, longer durations of speech, higher frequencies of verbal non-compliance, and greater ratings of eye contact and vocal firmness assessed by blind clinical raters compared to lower-quartile counterparts.
• Peer Sociometric Nominations: Validation trials incorporating dormitory peer ratings established that peers could reliably identify individuals in the upper and lower extremes of the CSES distribution, with peer-nominated assertiveness correlating significantly (r = .48, p < .01) with CSES self-report total scores.
• Sensitivity to Treatment: Numerous outcome studies on assertiveness training programs have utilized the CSES as a sensitive index of clinical improvement. Post-intervention assessments consistently show significant increases in CSES scores (typically displaying effect sizes ranging from d = 0.85 to 1.30) among participants completing behavioral rehearsal, cognitive restructuring, and systematic desensitization programs, compared to no-treatment or attention-placebo control groups.

Reliability

The CSES exhibits exceptional reliability parameters across diverse demographic subsets of university populations, demonstrating both temporal stability and item-homogeneity.

Internal Consistency

Initial and subsequent psychometric evaluations report high internal consistency for the 50-item scale:

• In the normative investigations conducted by Galassi et al. (1974), item-total correlation coefficients for the vast majority of items ranged from .30 to .62, indicating robust item-scale belongingness.
• Cronbach’s alpha coefficients across published college samples consistently fall between α = .88 and .93 for the total score. This high internal consistency reflects the cohesive underlying operationalization of assertive communication, despite the diverse behavioral domains covered by the scale.
• Subscale internal consistencies show moderate to high values: Positive Assertiveness (α ≈ .79 to .84), Negative Assertiveness (α ≈ .82 to .87), and Self-Denial (α ≈ .76 to .82).

Temporal Stability (Test-Retest Reliability)

Temporal stability metrics demonstrate that the CSES captures stable behavioral tendencies rather than transient, state-dependent mood swings:

• Two-Week Interval: Galassi et al. (1974) administered the CSES twice across a two-week interval to undergraduate cohorts. Test-retest reliability was r = .89 for female students (n = 66) and r = .90 for male students (n = 65), showing exceptional short-term stability.
• Long-Term Stability: Subsequent evaluations over periods spanning 8 to 12 weeks in untreated control groups have demonstrated retest correlations of r = .78 to .84. These values confirm that while the target construct reflects an enduring behavioral repertoire, it remains sufficiently malleable to register meaningful therapeutic changes following targeted behavioral intervention.

Factor Analysis

While the CSES was originally structured around three clinically derived theoretical pillars (positive assertiveness, negative assertiveness, and self-denial), multivariate psychometric investigations have subjected the 50 items to empirical exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to elucidate its latent structure.

Exploratory Factor Analyses (EFA)

In early factor-analytic investigations employing principal component analysis (PCA) with orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique rotations, Galassi and Galassi identified multiple localized situational factors nested within the broader theoretical dimensions. These factors demonstrate that assertiveness in university students is nuanced by the interpersonal status of the interactant:

• Factor I: Expression of Interpersonal Displeasure / Negative Assertion to Peers: Heavily loaded by items assessing boundary defense when peers make unfair demands, interrupt conversations, or borrow belongings without care (e.g., Items 6, 9, 11, 16, 42). Factor loadings on this primary component typically range from .45 to .68.
• Factor II: Interpersonal Anxiety and Social Self-Consciousness (Self-Denial): Composed of items measuring avoidance of visibility, hesitation to ask questions in academic lectures, reluctance to sit in conspicuous seating, and generalized fear of negative social evaluation (e.g., Items 33, 39, 47, 50), with loadings spanning .40 to .71.
• Factor III: Expression of Positive Affect and Initiation: Loaded significantly by items involving the expression of love, complimenting peers, praising accomplishments, and initiating romantic engagement (e.g., Items 7, 20, 22, 25, 31, 36), with item loadings between .48 and .69.
• Factor IV: Confrontation with Authority Figures / Institutional Assertion: Characterized by items tapping boundary navigation with parents, professors, and commercial figures such as landlords and store staff (e.g., Items 4, 8, 13, 21, 45, 46).
• Factor V: Consumer and Service Assertiveness: Grouping items that explicitly assess the defense of economic and transactional rights, including returning faulty products, confronting line-cutters, and addressing billing/change errors (e.g., Items 1, 3, 15, 26, 35).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Structural Considerations

Contemporary psychometric evaluations employing Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) have compared single-factor, three-factor, and hierarchical bifactor models for the CSES:

• A strict unidimensional model demonstrates poor to moderate fit across conventional fit indices (χ²/df > 3.5, RMSEA > .08, CFI < .82), confirming that assertiveness cannot be reduced to an undifferentiated single continuum.
• A correlated three-factor model matching the original theoretical categorization (Positive Assertiveness, Negative Assertiveness, Self-Denial) demonstrates substantially superior fit (RMSEA ≈ .054, CFI ≈ .91, TLI ≈ .90, SRMR ≈ .051).
• A hierarchical bifactor model—featuring a general assertiveness factor alongside specific group factors reflecting relational target context (parents, peers, authority figures, strangers)—frequently exhibits the strongest empirical fit indices. This psychometric finding confirms that while a global assertiveness composite score is clinically meaningful, individual profile analysis across subscale dimensions provides essential diagnostic nuance.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The CSES is a standardized, paper-and-pencil or computer-administered psychometric assessment tool. Below are the structural parameters and administration specifications of the instrument:

• Instrument Designation: The College Self-Expression Scale (CSES).
• Construct Assessed: Interpersonal Assertiveness (Positive Assertiveness, Negative Assertiveness, Self-Denial).
• Target Population: College students, university undergraduates, and emerging adults in post-secondary educational or vocational training contexts.
• Administration Format: Self-report questionnaire; individual or group administration; computerized or paper-and-pencil.
• Total Number of Items: 50 behavioral statements.
• Estimated Completion Time: 12 to 20 minutes.
• Response Format: 5-point Likert-type frequency scale:
  • 0 = Almost always or always
  • 1 = Usually
  • 2 = Sometimes
  • 3 = Seldom
  • 4 = Never or rarely
• Scoring and Directionality:
  • The scale is designed so that a higher total score reflects a higher level of assertiveness.
  • Directly Scored Items (21 items): Items in which a non-assertive or self-denying behavior is described are scored directly using the printed values (where answering “Never or rarely” [4] indicates assertive behavior and “Almost always” [0] indicates lack of assertiveness):
    Items: 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 17, 18, 24, 28, 32, 33, 34, 37, 38, 39, 44, 47, and 50.
  • Reverse Scored Items (29 items): Items in which an assertive behavior is described must be reverse scored so that “Almost always or always” earns 4 points and “Never or rarely” earns 0 points (Formula: Reversed Score = 4 - Original Score):
    Items: 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 35, 36, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 48, and 49.
  • Total Score Range: 0 to 200 points. Higher composite scores correspond to superior overall interpersonal assertiveness and adaptive self-expression.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The College Self-Expression Scale was formally published in 1974 in the peer-reviewed journal Behavior Therapy (Association for Advancement of Behavior Therapy, now the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies; published by Elsevier). Under standard fair use principles for academic research, the instrument has been widely reproduced across scholarly monographs, clinical training manuals, and psychological test compendiums.

Researchers, educators, and mental health clinicians typically utilize the scale without royalty fees for non-commercial educational, scientific, and therapeutic purposes, provided that appropriate scholarly attribution is accorded to the original authors (Galassi, DeLo, Galassi, & Bastien, 1974). However, commercial utilization, integration into proprietary software assessment platforms, or large-scale digital distribution may require formal copyright clearance from the copyright holder or the publisher (Elsevier / ABCT).

References

• Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Dawley, H. H., Jr., & Wenrich, W. W. (1976). Achieving assertive behavior: A guide to assertive training. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
• Galassi, J. P., DeLo, J. S., Galassi, M. D., & Bastien, S. (1974). The College Self-Expression Scale: A measure of assertiveness. Behavior Therapy, 5(2), 165–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(74)80131-0
• Galassi, J. P., & Galassi, M. D. (1974). Validity of a measure of assertiveness. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 21(3), 248–250. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036494
• Galassi, M. D., & Galassi, J. P. (1977). Assert Yourself: How to Be Your Own Person. New York, NY: Human Sciences Press.
• Galassi, J. P., Galassi, M. D., & Litz, M. D. (1974). Assertive training in groups using video feedback. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 21(5), 390–394. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037086
• Lazarus, A. A. (1971). Behavior Therapy and Beyond. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
• Rathus, S. A. (1973). A 30-item schedule for assessing assertive behavior. Behavior Therapy, 4(3), 398–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(73)80120-0
• Weiten, W., & Lloyd, M. A. (2000). Psychology applied to modern life: Adjustment at the turn of the century (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
• Weiten, W., Lloyd, M. A., & Lashley, R. L. (1991). Psychology applied to modern life: Adjustment in the 90s (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
• Wolpe, J. (1958). Psychotherapy by Reciprocal Inhibition. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Wolpe, J. (1969). The Practice of Behavior Therapy. New York, NY: Pergamon Press.

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)