Consumer Assertiveness and Aggressiveness Scale (CAAS)

Abstract

The Consumer Assertiveness and Aggressiveness Scale (CAAS) is a foundational psychometric instrument developed by Marsha L. Richins (1983) to delineate, quantify, and evaluate distinct behavioral interaction styles exhibited by consumers during marketplace conflicts, service failures, and complaint resolution encounters. Rooted in social psychology and interpersonal communication paradigms—most notably the behavioral competence model formulated by Robert E. Alberti and Michael L. Emmons (1974)—the CAAS addresses a critical conceptual boundary in consumer behavior: the demarcation between firm, constructive, rights-oriented self-advocacy (assertiveness) and hostile, coercive, rights-violating confrontation (aggressiveness). Comprising 14 self-report items distributed evenly across two orthogonal or weakly correlated subscales—Consumer Assertiveness (ASRT; 7 items) and Consumer Aggressiveness (AGGR; 7 items)—the instrument employs a 5-point Likert response format ranging from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 5 (“Strongly Agree”). Extensive psychometric evaluations demonstrate robust structural stability, high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha coefficients routinely exceeding .75 to .84 across retail, hospitality, and service-recovery contexts), and well-established convergent, discriminant, and predictive validities. The instrument has illuminated how individual difference variables govern complaint channels, predicting constructive verbal redress seeking, formal administrative appeals, third-party complaints, and destructive frontline employee harassment. This article provides an exhaustive psychometric, theoretical, and operational appraisal of the CAAS, evaluating its psychometric taxonomy, factor structure, cross-cultural generalizability, and ongoing relevance in an era characterized by omnichannel customer touchpoints and frontline service dynamics.

Keywords

Consumer Assertiveness and Aggressiveness Scale, CAAS, consumer complaint behavior, assertiveness, aggressiveness, service recovery, customer incivility, Marsha L. Richins, psychometrics, marketplace voice

Authors

The Consumer Assertiveness and Aggressiveness Scale was conceptualized, operationalized, and psychometrically validated by Marsha L. Richins, Ph.D. During the initial development and publication of the instrument in 1983, Dr. Richins served on the marketing faculty at Louisiana State University and subsequently became an internationally recognized chaired professor of marketing at the University of Missouri-Columbia. Dr. Richins is globally distinguished for her pioneering investigations into the psychological dimensions of consumer dissatisfaction, negative word-of-mouth communication, marketplace complaint behavior, and the sociopsychological antecedents and consequences of consumer materialism (e.g., the Material Values Scale).

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Consumer Assertiveness and Aggressiveness Scale is to provide researchers, organizational psychologists, service managers, and market sociologists with a valid, reliable, and theoretically grounded diagnostic tool to differentiate between productive consumer self-advocacy and destructive, hostile escalation during marketplace transactions. Prior to the introduction of the CAAS in 1983, empirical scholarship on consumer dissatisfaction was dominated by broad taxonomies of complaining behavior—such as Albert O. Hirschman’s classic Exit, Voice, and Loyalty paradigm (1970) and Ralph L. Day’s behavioral categorizations (1980)—which treated the act of “voicing” complaints as a monolithic construct. These early frameworks failed to capture the profound behavioral, affective, and operational variations characterizing *how* individuals express discontent when confronted with product malfunctions, deceptive marketing, contractual breaches, or substandard service delivery.

In response to this conceptual void, the CAAS was developed to disentangle interpersonal communication styles within commercial arenas. In clinical and social psychology, interpersonal behavior had long been partitioned into non-assertive (passive), assertive, and aggressive modalities. However, general psychological scales measuring assertiveness (e.g., the Rathus Assertiveness Schedule or the College Self-Expression Scale) contained widespread domain-specific limitations when mapped onto retail transactions. General assertiveness measures evaluate behaviors across familial, romantic, academic, and peer-group settings, introducing confounding variance when applied to commercial exchanges governed by legal rights, financial exchanges, implicit customer contracts, and perceived power imbalances between buyers and sellers.

The CAAS fills this gap by situating communication behavioral styles within marketplace encounters. The scale allows investigators to address several core research and applied objectives:

• Predicting Consumer Redress Modalities: The instrument uncovers why certain consumers seek formal remedies (reimbursements, exchanges, manager intervention) while others engage in retaliatory non-constructive behaviors, such as vitriolic broadscale negative word-of-mouth or vindictive customer actions.
• Evaluating Frontline Employee Stress and Emotional Labor: In occupational and organizational health psychology, the scale provides a validated framework for modeling customer incivility and frontline employee burnout. Service firms utilize the CAAS taxonomy to evaluate customer escalation patterns and design frontline de-escalation protocols.
• Improving Service Recovery System Design: In service marketing, understanding whether an organization’s customer base tilts toward assertiveness or aggressiveness assists systems designers in engineering feedback loops, automated grievance ticketing, and personal touchpoints that de-escalate aggressive tendencies while facilitating assertive consumer input.
• Cross-Cultural and Demographic Research: Sociologists and cross-cultural psychometricians deploy the CAAS to examine how national culture (e.g., Hofstede’s dimensions of power distance, individualism, and masculinity) systematically shifts consumer baseline norms between passive forbearance, assertive negotiation, and aggressive hostility.

Psychological Construct

The CAAS is anchored in a two-dimensional conceptualization of consumer marketplace engagement. Rather than situating assertiveness and aggressiveness as polar opposites along a single continuum, the theoretical architecture of the CAAS models them as two distinct, partially independent behavioral dimensions. This multidimensional conceptualization aligns with modern personality and social interaction frameworks, which recognize that an individual can possess high tendencies for assertive problem-solving while concurrently exhibiting either low or high inclinations toward emotional aggression under acute stress.

1. Consumer Assertiveness (ASRT)

Consumer assertiveness represents an individual’s chronic behavioral predisposition to defend legitimate consumer rights, articulate dissatisfaction, and seek equitable redress through direct, firm, and socially appropriate communication, while maintaining unconditional respect for the personal dignity, professional role, and boundaries of service personnel. The theoretical underpinnings of this construct center on constructive problem-solving, cognitive composure, and interpersonal efficacy.

Behavioral manifestations of consumer assertiveness include:

• Proactively confronting a billing error by calmly requesting an itemized audit from a service representative.
• Directly voicing dissatisfaction to restaurant management regarding cold or improperly prepared food without resorting to personal insults, emotional outbursts, or public humiliation of waiting staff.
• Politely refusing to accept unwarranted high-pressure sales tactics or unsolicited add-on warranties.
• Insisting upon speaking with supervisory staff when frontline representatives lack the jurisdictional authority to execute an authorized refund, doing so without adopting a condescending or retaliatory posture.

Crucially, consumer assertiveness is driven by a quest for functional equilibrium and equitable resolution. Assertive consumers demonstrate high self-efficacy; they believe that the market environment contains established channels for dispute resolution and that articulate, persistent, and respectful engagement yields positive outcomes. They possess emotional regulation mechanisms that dissociate the personal identity of the frontline worker from the systemic or technical failure of the enterprise.

2. Consumer Aggressiveness (AGGR)

In contrast, consumer aggressiveness denotes a chronic behavioral disposition to express marketplace discontent through hostile, coercive, intimidating, and interpersonally punitive strategies that violate the dignity, emotional well-being, and boundaries of service providers. Aggressiveness reflects an adversarial orientation toward commercial exchanges, wherein service failures are often attributed to malicious intent, employee incompetence, or systemic deception.

Behavioral markers of consumer aggressiveness include:

• Direct verbal hostility, such as shouting, condescending sarcasm, swearing, and personal attacks directed at frontline personnel during a service interruption.
• The deployment of disproportionate threats, such as threatening to terminate an employee’s employment, staging disruptive public scenes within the retail store, or promising vindictive public smear campaigns.
• Demanding excessive, unreasonable restitution far outstripping the economic or psychological gravity of the initial service failure.
• Physical boundary violations, such as slamming products onto counters, pointing fingers aggressively in employees’ faces, or invading private employee workstations.

Psychologically, consumer aggressiveness is sustained by high levels of trait reactance, hostile attribution bias, and an externalized locus of blame. Unlike the assertive consumer who seeks problem resolution, the aggressive consumer is frequently driven by retaliatory motives—seeking psychological domination, retribution, or public vindication at the expense of the service provider’s dignity. In contemporary service literature, extreme expressions of this construct converge with concepts such as dysfunctional customer behavior, retail incivility, and customer-directed bullying.

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual foundation of the Consumer Assertiveness and Aggressiveness Scale represents an interdisciplinary integration of clinical behavior therapy, sociological models of market exit and voice, and cognitive appraisal theories of emotion.

The Alberti and Emmons Behavioral Model

The primary theoretical architecture of the CAAS traces directly to the interpersonal competence paradigm established by Alberti and Emmons (1974) in their seminal work, Your Perfect Right. Alberti and Emmons classified interpersonal responses into three fundamental modalities: non-assertive (passive), assertive, and aggressive:

• Passive Behavior: The individual suppresses internal desires, forfeits legitimate rights, allows others to take advantage of them, and experiences subsequent internal turmoil, resentment, and diminished self-worth.
• Assertive Behavior: The individual acts in their own best interests, stands up for personal rights without undue anxiety, expresses feelings honestly and comfortably, and exercises personal rights without denying or trampling upon the human rights of others.
• Aggressive Behavior: The individual pursues personal objectives and asserts perceived rights at the expense of others, employing domination, humiliation, coercion, and hostility, ultimately generating defensive or retaliatory reactions from the interaction partner.

Richins recognized that the commercial marketplace serves as an emotionally charged stage where these behavioral modalities continuously manifest. However, Richins identified that marketplace encounters possess unique social scripts. While general interpersonal interactions are largely symmetric (e.g., between peers, friends, or romantic partners), marketplace encounters are often characterized by structural asymmetry: the consumer holds financial purchasing power, while the service employee holds procedural gatekeeping power. Adapting Alberti and Emmons’ conceptual definitions, Richins posited that marketplace assertiveness preserves this social contract through balanced communication, whereas marketplace aggressiveness exploits the customer’s perceived positional superiority to dehumanize frontline personnel.

Hirschman’s Exit, Voice, and Loyalty Paradigm

The second major theoretical pillar underpinning the CAAS is Albert O. Hirschman’s (1970) political-economic treatise, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Hirschman argued that economic actors faced with deteriorating performance exhibit two primary corrective options:

• Exit: The customer terminates the commercial relationship, defecting to a competing brand without providing explanatory feedback to the offending firm.
• Voice: The customer actively communicates their discontent directly to the management, seeking institutional reform, restitution, or service improvement.

Richins’ work with the CAAS revealed that Hirschman’s “Voice” construct was overly broad. Voice does not invariably produce constructive feedback. The CAAS demonstrates that assertive consumers utilize constructive voice mechanisms—providing actionable feedback that enables organizational learning and service recovery. In contrast, aggressive consumers employ destructive voice mechanisms that overwhelm frontline resources, trigger defensive employee withdrawal, and disrupt operational workflows. Thus, the CAAS serves as a psychological refinement of Hirschman’s macroeconomic model.

Social Cognitive Theory and Attributional Frameworks

The scale also interfaces with Bernard Weiner’s attribution theory and cognitive appraisal models (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). When a consumer encounters a service breakdown, cognitive appraisal processes evaluate locus of causality, controllability, and intentionality. If the consumer attributes the failure to controllable, stable, and internally blameworthy factors on the part of the firm, emotional outcomes lean toward anger and outrage. Consumers scoring high on the Aggressiveness dimension of the CAAS are predisposed toward hyper-reactive attributional appraisals—assuming deliberate negligence or disrespect from the service provider—which catalyzes coercive and punitive behavioral scripts.

Validity

The psychometric integrity of the Consumer Assertiveness and Aggressiveness Scale has been established through empirical investigations demonstrating construct, convergent, discriminant, criterion-related, and predictive validity.

Construct and Structural Validity

In her foundational 1983 study, Richins conducted rigorous initial scale construction employing multiple consumer samples totaling over 600 adult participants. Initial pools of items derived from clinical literature and critical incident customer interviews were evaluated through iterative item-to-total correlations and exploratory factor extractions. Items demonstrating poor factor loadings, severe cross-loadings, or ambiguous semantic framing were systematically purged. The resulting two-factor structure yielded clear dimensional stability, with the 7 assertiveness items loading cleanly onto an independent factor and the 7 aggressiveness items loading onto a separate factor. This structural independence confirmed that consumer assertiveness and aggressiveness operate as distinct psychological constructs rather than opposite ends of a single continuum.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Evidence for convergent validity was established by correlating CAAS dimensions with established generalized psychological instruments:

• Assertiveness Subscale: The ASRT dimension demonstrated significant positive correlations with general interpersonal assertiveness measures, such as the Rathus Assertiveness Schedule (RAS; *r* values typically ranging from .42 to .56, *p* < .001), and standardized internal locus of control metrics. Consumers scoring high on ASRT also showed positive associations with generalized consumer self-confidence and market mavenism.
• Aggressiveness Subscale: The AGGR dimension correlated significantly with generalized measures of hostility, trait aggression (e.g., the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire; *r* = .48 to .61, *p* < .001), Machiavellianism, and trait neuroticism.
• Discriminant Independence: The empirical correlation between the ASRT and AGGR subscales themselves was found to be statistically non-significant or weakly negative (typically *r* = -.08 to -.18 across adult populations), providing strong discriminant validity. This empirical orthogonality validates the theoretical premise that a consumer can be firm and direct without being hostile, or hostile without being clear and constructive.

Criterion and Predictive Validity

The predictive power of the CAAS has been corroborated across simulated behavioral laboratory experiments and real-world field studies:

• Actual Redress Seeking vs. Passive Forbearance: In behavioral laboratory paradigms involving confederate sales representatives who purposefully shortchanged participants or presented defective merchandise, Richins (1983) observed that the Assertiveness subscale significantly predicted whether a participant actively demanded their correct change or requested an exchange (*p* < .01), whereas generalized demographic variables failed to predict this behavior.
• Escalation Tactics: The Aggressiveness subscale systematically predicts the deployment of hostile, punitive escalation tactics. Research in retail settings demonstrates that consumers scoring high on AGGR are significantly more likely to engage in verbal abuse, initiate retaliatory negative electronic word-of-mouth (e-WOM), file punitive complaints with consumer protection bureaus, and threaten litigation against small business owners, even when economic losses are negligible.
• Resolution Success: Assertiveness positively predicts successful complaint resolution and long-term customer retention post-recovery. Aggressiveness, conversely, is strongly associated with prolonged service disputes, heightened service representative burnout, and permanent service breakdown.

Reliability

The reliability of the Consumer Assertiveness and Aggressiveness Scale has been confirmed across diverse consumer demographic cohorts, international adaptations, and industry contexts.

Internal Consistency

Across the development and validation samples published by Richins (1983), the internal consistency of both subscales demonstrated strong reliability parameters:

• Consumer Assertiveness (ASRT): The 7-item assertiveness subscale yielded Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) coefficients ranging from .74 to .82 across diverse non-student adult community samples. Subsequent replications in banking, telecommunications, and airline service environments have routinely confirmed internal consistency figures between .78 and .85.
• Consumer Aggressiveness (AGGR): The 7-item aggressiveness subscale demonstrated Cronbach’s alpha values ranging from .76 to .83 in Richins’ initial validation investigations. Replications focusing on retail dispute contexts have reported alpha values ranging from .80 to .88, confirming high item homogeneity.

Test-Retest Reliability and Temporal Stability

To evaluate whether the CAAS captures enduring consumer interaction dispositions rather than fleeting situational moods, longitudinal test-retest investigations were conducted. Over a four-week test-retest administration interval, stability coefficients were established at *r* = .78 (*p* < .001) for the Assertiveness subscale and *r* = .82 (*p* < .001) for the Aggressiveness subscale. Over extended intervals (up to 6 months), stability coefficients remained above .70, demonstrating that the CAAS functions as a stable measure of consumer disposition rather than a purely state-dependent measure.

Composite Reliability and Average Variance Extracted (AVE)

Contemporary structural equation modeling (SEM) evaluations of the CAAS confirm its psychometric soundness according to modern validation standards:

• Composite Reliability (CR): Structural models demonstrate Composite Reliability scores routinely exceeding the conventional .70 benchmark, typically registering between .82 and .89 for both latent constructs.
• Average Variance Extracted (AVE): AVE metrics for both latent constructs consistently meet or exceed the .50 criterion established by Fornell and Larcker (1981), demonstrating that the variance explained by the underlying constructs exceeds the variance attributable to measurement error.

Factor Analysis

The structural integrity and latent dimensionality of the CAAS have been confirmed through both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During the initial development of the instrument, Richins subjected candidate items to Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) and Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with both orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Promax) rotations. The analysis yielded an unmistakable two-factor latent architecture:

• Eigenvalues and Variance: The two factors accounted for the vast majority of common variance (over 52% of total cumulative variance in early validation runs). Factor 1 (Aggressiveness) and Factor 2 (Assertiveness) exhibited eigenvalues exceeding 3.5 and 2.4, respectively, with a clear scree plot drop-off occurring after the second factor.
• Factor Loadings: The 7 Assertiveness items loaded cleanly on Factor 2, with primary standardized loadings ranging from .54 to .78 and cross-loadings onto the Aggressiveness factor remaining consistently below .20. The 7 Aggressiveness items demonstrated primary factor loadings ranging from .56 to .81 on Factor 1, with cross-loadings onto the Assertiveness factor falling below .15.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent psychometric investigations evaluating the CAAS using structural equation modeling have tested alternative competitive models to verify the superiority of the hypothesized two-factor structure. Typical CFA fit statistics comparing competing specifications demonstrate the following patterns:

As illustrated by the CFA metrics, a unidimensional conceptualization of consumer response style provides an unacceptable fit to empirical data ($\chi^2/df > 8$, CFI < .65). In contrast, the two-factor oblique specification yields excellent fit indices meeting contemporary structural standards (CFI > .95, TLI > .95, RMSEA < .05, SRMR < .05). Standardized factor loadings in the confirmatory solution are robust, with all items exhibiting loadings well above the conventional .50 threshold, confirming that both subscales possess strong construct definition.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational administration parameters, structural properties, and scoring rubrics of the Consumer Assertiveness and Aggressiveness Scale are structured as follows:

• Instrument Designation: Consumer Assertiveness and Aggressiveness Scale (CAAS).
• Original Author: Marsha L. Richins (1983).
• Theoretical Paradigm: Interpersonal behavioral competence model (Alberti & Emmons) adapted to consumer complaint behavior (CCB).
• Test Format: Standardized self-report paper-and-pencil or computer-assisted survey instrument.
• Total Item Count: 14 items across two distinct subscales:
  • Consumer Assertiveness (ASRT): 7 items measuring calm, firm, rights-respecting complaint behaviors.
  • Consumer Aggressiveness (AGGR): 7 items measuring hostile, demanding, confrontational behaviors.
• Response Format: 5-point Likert rating scale:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree (Neutral)
  • 4 = Agree
  • 5 = Strongly Agree
• Administration Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes for complete administration.
• Target Population: Adult consumers (ages 18 and older) possessing independent purchasing and retail transaction experience.
• Scoring Methodology:
  • Subscale Computation: Item scores within each subscale are typically averaged to generate a composite index ranging from 1.00 to 5.00 for each dimension. Alternatively, raw item scores may be summed to yield total subscale scores ranging from 7 to 35 points.
  • Absence of a Global Composite: Because assertiveness and aggressiveness represent orthogonal, distinct constructs, scores on the two subscales should never be summed together into a single global score. Summing across both subscales obscures the diagnostic profile of the respondent.
  • Typological Classification: Researchers frequently employ median splits or cluster analyses across both dimensions to segment respondents into four distinct behavioral typologies:
    • Constructive Redress Seekers: High Assertiveness, Low Aggressiveness (ideal marketplace advocates).
    • Hostile Escalators: Low Assertiveness, High Aggressiveness (disruptive, punitive complainants).
    • Dominant / Confrontational Complainants: High Assertiveness, High Aggressiveness (forceful actors utilizing both procedural and aggressive tactics).
    • Passive Forbearers: Low Assertiveness, Low Aggressiveness (reticent, non-complaining consumers at risk of silent brand abandonment).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Consumer Assertiveness and Aggressiveness Scale was first published in 1983 in the peer-reviewed scholarly article:

Richins, M. L. (1983). An analysis of consumer interaction styles in the marketplace. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(1), 73–82.

Licensing and Academic Fair Use: The scale items, validation data, and psychometric procedures are published within the academic public domain for scientific, educational, and non-commercial research purposes. Qualified academic investigators, graduate students, and non-profit research organizations may administer the CAAS within empirical studies without paying licensing fees, provided that comprehensive bibliographic attribution is accorded to Dr. Marsha L. Richins and the Journal of Consumer Research. Commercial organizations, consulting firms, or commercial test publishers intending to integrate the CAAS into proprietary diagnostic toolkits, customer management platforms, or commercial training modules must seek formal copyright permissions from the copyright holder (Oxford University Press / Journal of Consumer Research, Inc.).

References

• Alberti, R. E., & Emmons, M. L. (1974). Your perfect right: A guide to assertive living (2nd ed.). Impact Publishers.
• Day, R. L. (1980). Research perspectives on consumer complaining behavior. In C. W. Lamb, Jr. & P. M. Dunne (Eds.), Theoretical developments in marketing (pp. 211–215). American Marketing Association.
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
• Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Harvard University Press.
• Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing Company.
• 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
• Richins, M. L. (1983). An analysis of consumer interaction styles in the marketplace. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(1), 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1086/208946
• Richins, M. L. (1987). A multivariate analysis of responses to dissatisfaction. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 15(3), 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02722168
• Singh, J. (1988). Consumer complaint intentions and behavior: Definitional and taxonomical issues. Journal of Marketing, 52(1), 93–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298805200108
• Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(4), 548–573. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.548

Items of the Scale