An assertiveness training program for indecisive students attending an Italian University.

Indecisive students often present with social skills problems, which may make academic and vocational decision-making tasks difficult and complex for them. Moreover, choices regarding one's future require the ability to gather information, to search for help and support, to stave off intrusiveness and pressures, and to communicate one s decisions. Social competencies, particularly, play a significant role in vocational guidance activities. This article presents a training program devised to augment assertive competencies in indecisive students choosing a university course of study. Intended aims and the analyses to assess the efficacy of the intervention through self-evaluation and role-play assessment are described.

**********

Numerous research studies have shown that academic-vocational indecision can significantly affect choice processes and can actually hinder adaptation processes (Jones, 1989; Lucas, 1993; Lucas & Epperson, 1990; Nota, 1999; Savickas & Jarjoura, 1991). Wanberg and Muchinsky (1992), who have studied the relationship between decisional status and psychological variables in depth, have considered aspects such as anxiety, locus of control, self-esteem, and self-awareness level. Their analyses have shown that indecision is associated with poor self-awareness, low knowledge of academic-vocational reality, high levels of anxiety, low self-esteem, and external locus of control.

A consistent relationship also seems to exist between social competencies and indecision. Phillips and Bruch (1988), for instance, found that shy students, both male and female, were more indecisive than those who were not shy. Furthermore, the authors determined that shyness was negatively correlated both with the expression of interests, particularly regarding those professions requiring interpersonal skills, and with the active search for information necessary to activate the decisional processes. In this respect, the authors stated that concerns that centered on the self and on passive behaviors in relational contexts (often associated as predictors of negative other-evaluations) combine to keep anxiety levels high and to strengthen the association between anxiety and indecision. Analogously, Kinnier, Brigman, and Noble (1990) observed that individuals who were more easily influenced by family pressures and who were not able to cope effectively with the interference of significant others were more indecis ive when facing problems concerning career decision making. Similarly, Arnold (1989) found that decisional levels and levels of psychological well-being were strongly correlated. Finally, Nota and Soresi (1998) highlighted how, in a group of 319 students about to choose a university course of study, those who were very indecisive also felt greater levels of discomfort in situations in which assertive behaviors might be required.

In this regard, it must not be forgotten that a career decision-making task requires the person who is making the decision to interact with many individuals who might hinder or support his or her choices. Such individuals include parents, teachers, peers, and friends, all of whom may either create barriers to or facilitate the formulation and achievement of the person's objectives (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 2000). Other potential facilitators may include people who have the necessary information regarding training offered by different universities, the staff of offices and firms who might supply information and data on prospective jobs and work opportunities, people who might collaborate on and help with career decision making, and so on. One's social skills, especially in the area of assertiveness, must be used to adequately formulate requests in different contexts, to express clearly one's wishes and aspirations, to manage pressures and resist intrusiveness, and, ultimately, to make autonomous and conscious d ecisions (Furnham & Rawles, 1994; Nota & Soresi, 1997).

These observations have led us to consider that, in addition to the usual approach to university vocational guidance, some training courses aimed at augmenting assertiveness skills could be proposed, especially to students who are indecisive due to, among other things, low social competencies.

We expected that an assertiveness training program would positively affect the social competencies of Italian high school students about to make the transition to the university. As part of this transition, these students are required to commit to a particular Italian faculty, a process analogous to choosing a major for American students. Only about 50% of Italian students who begin their university studies actually graduate. There may be several reasons for such high dropout rates, including the fact that some classes have optional attendance policies and that students are given great leeway in scheduling their required exams. This high dropout rate may also be the result, in part, of students making poorly informed decisions regarding their course of study. Thus, we predicted that improving students' decision-making abilities would be associated with a more active search for the information needed to make choices and that the presence of a more positive interior dialogue about oneself would be related to th e ability to reflect with greater insight on one's future. Higher assertiveness competencies should therefore be related to lower levels of indecision for these students.

Method

Participants

There were 18 participants, 4 boys and 14 girls, selected from a group of 995 students (358 boys, 36%, and 637 girls, 64%; mean age 17.08 years; SD = 0.18) attending their final year at high schools within the Padua province in Italy and involved in vocational guidance activities. Of these students, 433 (43.5%) attended the scientific lycee (or high school), 75 (7.5%) the classic lycee, 18 (1.8%) the art lycee, 121 (12.2%) the vocational training school, 74 (7.4%) the industrial school, 148 (14.9%) the business school, 117 (11.8%) the teacher training school, and 9 (0.9%) the building surveyor school. Of these students, 72% were from middle income families; 16% and 12%, respectively, were from lower income arid upper income families. The 18 participants selected (9 in the experimental group and 9 in the control group) were attending technical schools (i.e., training to become building surveyors, accountants, industrial technicians) and scientific lycees; all were from middle income families. The participants of these two groups, as well as the remaining 977 students, were of similar age (experimental group: M = 17.5 years, SD = 0.51; control group: M = 17.61 years, SD= 0.50; total group: M= 17.73 years, SD = 0.61).

Procedure and Instruments

The 995 students, who were involved in school-based vocational guidance activities, voluntarily completed a battery of measures during group testing sessions. Measures tapped career indecision, decisional style, decision-making self-efficacy, assertiveness, and professional interests. After these measures were scored, each student was given a personalized printout that explained his or her profile and provided suggestions and possible directions to proceed in making his or her choice. Using the instrument Ideas and Attitudes on Academic-Career Future (Nota, 1997; Soresi & Nota, 2003), which analyzes the decision-indecision dimension associated with academic-career choices, and conducting a cluster analysis on the responses obtained, we identified four typologies of deciders: (a) very decisive and sure (n = 167), (b) indecisive and unsure (n = 323), (c) fairly decisive and sure (n = 411), and (d) not very motivated to cope with the issue of choice (n = 94). These groups were differentiated by their levels of d ecisional self-efficacy and assertiveness competencies, by their markedly different decisional styles, and by the extent to which they were satisfied with their academic experience. Specifically, the indecisive and unsure students, in addition to exhibiting high levels of indecision, poor knowledge of themselves and of school-career reality, and an external locus of control, also tended to resort to passive relational styles (Nota, 1999).

From the group of indecisive and unsure students (n = 323), we selected participants to take part in our study using the following selection criteria: similar cultural background, or academic preparation, in science and technology; similar socioeconomic status; and levels of social discomfort at least one standard deviation above the mean of the entire group of 995 students. The use of these rather strict selection criteria resulted in a subsample of only 18 participants. These students were randomly assigned to two groups (one experimental and one control) of 9 participants each (2 boys and 7 girls). Analyses of variance (ANOVAs) of the pretest means revealed that there were significant differences (all in the expected direction) in social discomfort between students in the experimental and control groups and the remaining 977 students in the larger group (F values for discomfort in assertive management of a number of social situations, in accepting and expressing compliments and praise in an assertive way, in expressing negative feelings, and in coping in an assertive way with one's own limitations and social difficulties were, respectively, 14.87, 5.89, 6.55, and 7.09; for all comparisons, p < .05). The participants in the control group attended informational programs provided by the university, which enabled them to gather information on university courses and on professions that they might pursue after graduation.

The Ideas and Attitudes Toward Academic-Career Future instrument (Nota, 1997; Soresi & Nota, 2003) was used to measure career indecision. This standardized instrument comprises 54 items requiring respondents to indicate on a 7-point, Likert-type scale to what degree the proposed statement describes their usual way of thinking and behaving. Specifically, the scale assesses (a) level of decision related to one's academic-career future (30 items, e.g., "I have clear ideas regarding my professional future"; score range, 7 to 210; [alpha] = .91), (b) locus of control associated with professional problem solving (14 items, e.g., "Even if I make decisions about my future, something will certainly happen to stop me from achieving my professional objectives"; score range, 7 to 98; [alpha] = .87), (c) ability to gather information useful to making a choice (5 items, e.g., "I know how to get the information I need"; score range, 7 to 35; [alpha] = .78), and (d) importance attributed to making an academic-career choice ( 5 items, e.g., "I attribute a lot of importance to my professional plans"; score range, 7 to 35; [alpha] = .77).

To measure participants' self-evaluations of the discomfort they experienced in situations requiring assertive behaviors, we used Arrindell, De Groot, and Walburg's (1984) Scale of Interpersonal Behavior translated into Italian by Nota, Sanavio, and Soresi (Soresi, 1999). The measure comprises 50 items describing different social situations and requires respondents to indicate on a 5-point, Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely), the extent of discomfort and tension that they associate with each situation. It was therefore possible to analyze the discomfort experienced regarding the assertive management of several social situations (9 items, e.g., "Starting a conversation with a stranger"; score range, 5 to 45; [alpha] = .83), in expressing negative feelings (15 items, e.g., "Telling someone who interrupts you that you find that annoying"; score range, 5 to 75; [alpha] = .81), in managing one's own limitations and difficulties (14 items, e.g., "Asking someone to explain something you did not understand"; score range, 5 to 70; [alpha] = .78), and in receiving and expressing compliments and praise (12 items, e.g., "Acknowledging a compliment about your personal appearance"; score range, S to 60; [alpha] = .78).

To test for the acquisition of assertiveness skills, we used a second analytical procedure. Specifically, we examined the participants' actual ability to manage difficult social situations in a role-play assessment situation. The students' performances were videotaped and analyzed according to methods proposed by Foster and Ritchey (1985). We decided to follow this procedure because it involves direct observation, which several authors consider adequate to evaluate the efficacy of social skills programs in clinical and experimental settings (Franco, Christoff Crimmins, & Kelly, 1983; Hansen, St. Lawrence, & Christoff, 1989). The role-play assessment situations we used were preceded by the following instructions:

I'm now going to describe some imaginary situations and tell you each time what you have to do. It isn't difficult; please try to behave as naturally as possible by saying and doing what you would actually say and do if these were real situations.

The first role-play scenario, Coping With the Insistence of Others, presented each participant with a situation in which a friend (an experimenter, who was a vocational counseling psychologist and who was unaware of the research aims) insisted on meeting the student that afternoon. The participant was required to play the role of a student who had already decided to study for an exam that afternoon. The second role play, Expressing a Request, required each participant to take part in a situation in which a teacher (again, the experimenter) assigned an essay, due within 10 days, that would determine each student's grade for that term. In this scenario, participants were asked to play the role of a student who, during that same period, had to prepare for other written and oral exams. The third scenario, Expressing an Opposite Opinion, presented each participant with a situation in which a teacher (the experimenter) advised a student to undertake a certain course of study in college. In this case, each participa nt was asked to play the role of a student who, although having great respect for this particular teacher, did not agree with the advice.

The participants' reactions were videotaped to facilitate coding, which was independently carried out by two psychologists well versed in the analysis of assertive behaviors and unaware of the research aims. These raters used an ad hoc checklist to indicate in the participants' behavior the presence or absence both of specific assertive components and of inadequate, passive, or aggressive behaviors. For each participant and for each situation, only the observations on which the two judges had reached an agreement of at least 80% were considered (agreement index: number of agreements/number of agreements + number of disagreements).

A participant's performance was considered assertive if he or she did or indicated any of the following: maintained eye contact with the interlocutor during most of the time when he or she was talking; spoke in an audible tone of voice; gesticulated in an adequate way; showed understanding of the other person's request or problem ("I understand that..."); expressed a decision, an opinion, or a request in a clear way and in the first person singular ("Today I was going to...," "I'd already decided to ..."); indicated the reasons in favor of his or her request ("I could do it better...," "I could do it on the computer... "), or showed feelings associated both with his or her and with the other person's request ("The idea makes me feel... "). Reactions that were considered passive included the following: lowering one's glance or directing it somewhere else (not toward the other person), speaking in a low voice, excessive or inadequate gesticulating (e.g., squeezing one's fingers, touching one's hair or clothes), stuttering and/or pausing excessively while expressing one's request, using useless filler phrases ("You know," "I mean"), expressing one's request in a plural ("We should... ") or in a generic way ("You could give me longer..."), or immediately accepting the other person' s proposal. Finally, the following reactions were considered to be aggressive: maintaining a loud tone of voice, gesticulating in a threatening manner (e.g., pointing one's finger toward the other person), repeating one's request over and over again, accusing the other person of not being very understanding, or telling the other person what he should do ("You must do...").

At posttest a month after the end of the assertiveness training intervention, the students in both the experimental and control groups completed the same procedures-role-play assessments: the Italian version of Arrindell et al.'s (1984) Scale of Interpersonal Behavior and the Ideas and Attitudes Toward Academic-Career Future instrument (Nota, 1997; Soresi & Nota, 2003). ANOVAs of the pretest means revealed that the two groups did not differ significantly in career indecision and assertiveness prior to training.

Treatment

In designing our assertiveness training program, we focused on strengthening the following four types of skills: (a) analysis and description of problematic relational situations; (b) discrimination of adaptive and maladaptive relational styles, which might appear when coping with problem situations, and of the consequences associated with the use of adaptive and maladaptive relational styles; (c) coping with difficult situations by resorting to assertive behaviors; and (d) managing problem situations by resorting to effective problem-solving and decision-making procedures. In designing the program, we based our methodological and didactic choices on learning theories and on the contributions of researchers who have emphasized the importance of creating conditions that facilitate learning and its application (Christopher Smith, Nangle, & Hansen, 1993; Fox & McEvoy, 1993; Hughes & Sullivan, 1988; Kerr & Nelson, 1989; Schumaker, Hazel, & Pederson, 1988; Soresi & Nota, 2000). We implemented the following didacti c units: Didactic Unit 1: Relational Problems and Their Description; Didactic Unit 2: Relational Problems and Their Functional Analysis; Didactic Unit 3: From Problems to Objectives and the Characteristics of a Good Solver; Didactic Unit 4: Passive, Aggressive, and Assertive Relationships; Didactic Unit 5: Expressing Wishes and Emotions and Searching for Information; Didactic Unit 6:

Criticizing and Making Observations; Didactic Unit 7: Managing Criticism and Observations; Didactic Unit 8: Managing Aggressiveness and Pressure From Others; Didactic Unit 9: Managing Problem Relational Situations and Social Decisions; Didactic Unit 10: Social Skills in Academic-Vocational Choice. Each didactic unit used a treatment protocol, which detailed the experimenter's verbal and nonverbal behaviors in the training situation to facilitate achieving each objective. Specifically, the protocol involved reviewing the skills learned in the previous sessions, how to communicate to the students the objective of the present unit, how to adequately use the proposed teaching techniques, and how to assess the achievement of the mastery criterion. Each didactic unit was videotaped to evaluate the correspondence between the planned program and the actual teaching. Each didactic unit lasted about 2 hours, took place once a week, and was conducted by a vocational counseling psychologist who was unaware of the researc h aims presented here.

Results

Before proceeding with a review of the analyses, we needed to verify the quality and the effectiveness of our assertiveness training intervention (Di Nuovo, 1992).

Reliability of the Assertiveness Training Intervention

Two independent judges, who were unaware of the aims of the assertiveness training intervention, examined the videotaped recordings of the didactic units. The degree of correspondence between what had been planned and what was realized by the teacher was calculated by considering the realization of the envisaged teaching phases, on the one hand, and the implementation of the programmed techniques, on the other hand. First, the agreement index of the number of phases singled out (agreement index: number of agreements/number of agreements + number of disagreements) was calculated to be 98%. For the phases singled out by both evaluators, the teaching techniques used were verified. This agreement index was found to be 90% (agreement index: number of agreements/number of agreements + number of disagreements).

Training Efficacy

To assess whether there were significant differences between the experimental and the control group, a series of analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) were carried out to compare the groups' posttest means, with pretest scores used as covariates (Cook & Campbell, 1979; Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989). Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, Fvalues and effect sizes for the subscales of Arrindell et al.'s (1984) Scale of Interpersonal Behavior and for the number of assertive, passive, and aggressive reactions shown in the role-play assessment situations at both pre- and posttest. A series of ANCOVAs were also carried out to check for any changes in career decidedness. Table 2 shows the means, standard deviations, F values and effect sizes for the subscales of Ideas and Attitudes on Academic-Career Future (Nota, 1997; Soresi & Nota, 2003). T

The results obtained suggest that the group that had the benefit of the assertiveness training intervention program showed lower levels of discomfort than did the control group in all of the following: assertively coping with several social situations, expressing negative feelings, managing one's limitations and difficulties, and receiving and assertively expressing compliments and praise. There were also significant differences found in the number of assertive, passive, and aggressive behaviors exhibited by individuals in the experimental group at posttest when compared with their pretest behaviors.

The experimental group participants also showed greater levels of decision and greater ability to gather information useful for decision making than did the participants in the control group. Regarding internal locus of control, the scores of the experimental group approached significance, whereas no differences were found in the area of importance attributed to choice.

Clinical Significance of the Assertiveness Training Intervention

The clinical significance of the assertiveness training intervention was also verified by checking whether the intervention reached standards established a priori. The criteria generally considered as adequate indicators of clinical significance are decreases in risk, recognition of change by significant others, and achievement of functionality levels that characterize persons who do not present the difficulties expressly dealt with by the intervention. The final criterion concerns, in particular, the ability to state that the participants who initially showed dysfunctional values in a variable (at least one standard deviation below those of the normal population) were found, at the end of treatment, to manifest the central values of the normal population (Di Nuovo, 1992; Jacobson, 1988; Jacobson & Truax, 1991; Kendall & Norton-Ford, 1982).

We considered the aforementioned final criterion to be appropriate for the current study, because we were interested in examining whether our training could reduce the social difficulties experienced by students resorting to assertive behaviors. By conducting a series of ANOVAs, we compared the data obtained for the control and experimental groups with data obtained for the larger group of students (977) who had decided to follow the regularly offered vocational guidance procedures. Table 3 presents the means and standard deviations, Fscores, and probability levels concerning the reactions of both the experimental and control groups on Arrindell et al.'s (1984) Scale of Interpersonal Behavior, as well as the evaluations supplied by the whole group of students who had decided to follow the standard vocational guidance program initiated by the University of Padua (977 students in all).

As can be observed, the data highlight the fact that at posttest the experimental group showed levels of discomfort experienced in different social situations requiring assertive behaviors that were similar to the level of discomfort of the population of origin, whereas this was not the case for the control group.

Discussion

The analyses we carried out enable us to say that the training we devised to improve the assertive abilities of a group of indecisive students is effective. The assertiveness training intervention actually decreased the level of social discomfort experienced by the participants when they had to resort to assertive behaviors in critical situations. Through training, these indecisive students learned to analyze difficult situations, to gather information, to examine their own wishes and objectives, and to effectively communicate all of this to significant others. This is important given that these significant others might otherwise pressure students toward unacceptable professional or university choices by means of unwanted intrusions that do not respect the students' own ideas, wishes, and aspirations.

Furthermore, the assertiveness training intervention seemed to improve the students' ability to gather information useful to making a choice and to strengthen these students' tendency to attribute to themselves an essential role in achieving their professional objectives. All of these factors can be associated with increased levels of decision-making skills.

On the basis of these conclusions, we recommend that a training program like the one presented here would be beneficial if it was included among the counseling activities that were implemented by a university to help students choose a course of study.

However, this study has limitations that future research should address. First, to adequately verify the efficacy of training, research should not be limited to recording changes only a few weeks after the end of treatment but should also include follow-ups at 6 or 12 months to check whether the students have maintained and generalized the skills taught (Hughes & Sullivan, 1988). Another consideration is the well-known limitations associated with traditional approaches (e.g., ALNCOVAs) to data analysis. For instance, the presence of correlated measures may influence the estimate of intervention effects. The assessment of the same variable at pre- and posttest may have favored an overestimation of construct stability, and this may, in turn, have caused the dependent variable to be less sensitive to the effects of the intervention (Cole, 1987). An alternative approach to analyzing the data may be to use the Structural Equation Model, a variation of the usual linear models of analysis, which would enable us to o vercome the aforementioned limitations. However, the application of this model requires a much larger sample than we had available for our study, because parameter estimation may not be reliable with fewer than 100 observations (Russell, Kahn, Spoth, & Altmaier, 1998). All this can certainly be an objective to bear in mind when planning future research with the aim of achieving, in the field of applied psychology as well, the use of more sophisticated procedures for the evaluation of treatment efficacy.

Counselors who work with students who must decide what to do at the end of high school may benefit from these findings in several ways. First, it is important to determine whether indecisive individuals also demonstrate lower social abilities, because the lack of these abilities can make the decisional task more difficult. Therefore, in addition to instruments investigating indecision, self-report questionnaires that measure social abilities can also be used. This would enable advisers, in an inexpensive way, to single out those individuals who consider themselves poorly equipped socially. A very helpful instrument for more extensive assessment, especially with students showing high levels of social discomfort, is the role-play assessment, which can also provide specific intervention recommendations. Second, working with groups of participants allows the assertiveness training intervention to be implemented with a larger number of individuals, which makes it less expensive. Moreover, by working in groups, stu dents can see that others are experiencing the same difficulties, and this can help them consider their situation in a less negative way. Finally, resorting to techniques that encourage a more active participation (e.g., role plays, homework) and examining difficult situations that have actually been experienced can provide many examples of effective management of interpersonal situations that will be useful to these students in their decision-making efforts.

Conclusion

TABLE 1

Experienced Discomfort and Assertive, Passive, and Aggressive Reactions:
Means and Standard Deviations for Experimental and Control Group
Participants at Pre- and Posttest Analysis of Convariance (ANCOVA)

                                                    Pretest
                                          Experimental           Control
                                               Group               Group
Variable (a)                           M              SD         M

Discomfort experienced in the        36.88           6.33      39.44
 assertive management of several
 social situations
Discomfort experienced in receiving  32.88           7.11      30.44
 and expressing compliments and
 praise
Discomfort experienced in            48.11           4.16      48.44
 expressing negative feelings
Discomfort experienced in managing   31.22           6.15      31.77
 own limitations and difficulties
Assertive reactions                  10.55           2.92      10.88
Passive reactions                     4.44           1.13       4.00
Aggressive reactions                  0.77           1.30       0.88

                                      Pretest             Posttest
                                      Control           Experimental
                                       Group               Group
Variable (a)                          SD         M              SD

Discomfort experienced in the        3.35      30.22           7.49
 assertive management of several
 social situations
Discomfort experienced in receiving  4.41      27.55           7.36
 and expressing compliments and
 praise
Discomfort experienced in            3.67      42.00           6.12
 expressing negative feelings
Discomfort experienced in managing   3.38      25.77           5.06
 own limitations and difficulties
Assertive reactions                  2.14      13.88           1.96
Passive reactions                    1.22       2.22           0.97
Aggressive reactions                 1.16       0.22           0.66

                                           Posttest
                                            Control
                                             Group             ANCOVA
Variable (a)                           M         SD        F(1, 15)

Discomfort experienced in the        40.11      3.17      11.325 **
 assertive management of several
 social situations
Discomfort experienced in receiving  30.77      4.08       6.044 **
 and expressing compliments and
 praise
Discomfort experienced in            47.77      4.29       7.077 **
 expressing negative feelings
Discomfort experienced in managing   31.33      3.67       9.594 *
 own limitations and difficulties
Assertive reactions                  10.88      2.57      15.583 ***
Passive reactions                     4.00      2.06      13.206 **
Aggressive reactions                  0.88      0.60       4.612 *



                                         ANCOVA
Variable (a)                         [[nau].sup.2]

Discomfort experienced in the             .43
 assertive management of several
 social situations
Discomfort experienced in receiving       .28
 and expressing compliments and
 praise
Discomfort experienced in                 .32
 expressing negative feelings
Discomfort experienced in managing        .39
 own limitations and difficulties
Assertive reactions                       .51
Passive reactions                         .46
Aggressive reactions                      .23

Note. n = 9 in each group.

(a)Discomfort items are from the Scale of Interpersonal Behavior
(Arrindell, De Groot, & Walburg, 1984). Reactions are from the role-play
assessment situations created for the study.

* p < .05.

** p < .01.

*** p < .001.

TABLE 2

Evaluations of Career Decidedness: Means and Standard Deviations for
Experimental and Control Group Participants at Pre- and Posttest and
Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)

                                                Pretest
                                        Experimental           Control
                                           Group                Group
Variable (a)                           M          SD           M

Levels of decision                  118.00       37.64      121.55
Internal locus of control            67.44        8.35       69.22
Ability to gather information        20.77        5.82       19.33
 useful to choice
Importance attributed to choice      29.11        3.33       28.88

                                  Pretest             Posttest
                                  Control           Experimental
                                   Group               Group
Variable (a)                      SD             M          SD

Levels of decision               34.75        137.22       43.19
Internal locus of control        12.15         75.66        9.86
Ability to gather information     2.69         26.11        5.73
 useful to choice
Importance attributed to choice   3.75         30.44        3.20

                                       Posttest
                                        Control
                                         Group            ANCOVA
Variable (a)                         M       SD       F(1, 15)

Levels of decision                123.66    35.23      5.621 *
Internal locus of control          70.55    13.02      4.221
Ability to gather information      20.11     2.75      9.094 **
 useful to choice
Importance attributed to choice    30.00     3.87      0.054



                                   ANCOVA
Variable (a)                     [eta] (2)

Levels of decision                 .260
Internal locus of control          .220
Ability to gather information      .370
 useful to choice
Importance attributed to choice    .004

Note. n = 9in each group.

(a)Items based on subscales of Ideas and Attitudes an Academic-Career
Future (Nota, 1997; Soresi & Nota, 2003)

* p <.05.

** p <.01.

TABLE 3

Evaluations of Experienced Discomfort: Means and Standard Deviations for
the Experimental and Control Group Participants at Posttest and for the
Students Who Followed the Standard Vocational Guidance Activities

                                       Groups            Standard Voc.
                                      Posttest           Guidance Group
Variable (a)                     M          SD         M

Experimental Group Posttest

Discomfort experienced in
 the assertive management
 of several social situations  30.22       7.49      27.80

Discomfort experienced in
 receiving and expressing
 compliments and praise        27.55       7.36      25.34

Discomfort experienced in
 expressing negative feelings  42.00       6.12      40.16

Discomfort experienced in
 managing own limitations and
 difficulties                  25.77       5.06      25.33

Control Group Posttest

Discomfort experienced in
 the assertive management
 of several social situations  40.11       3.17      27.80

Discomfort experienced in
 receiving and expressing
 compliments and praise        30.77       4.08      25.34

Discomfort experienced in
 expressing negative feelings  47.77       4.29      40.16

Discomfort experienced in
 managing own limitations and
 difficulties                  31.33       3.67      25.33

                                Standard
                                  Voc.
                                Guidance
                                 Group
Variable (a)                    SD       F (1, 984)    p

Experimental Group Posttest

Discomfort experienced in
 the assertive management
 of several social situations  0.89         0.80     0.371

Discomfort experienced in
 receiving and expressing
 compliments and praise        7.91         0.70     0.404

Discomfort experienced in
 expressing negative feelings  9.48         0.33     0.564

Discomfort experienced in
 managing own limitations and
 difficulties                  6.91         0.04     0.848

Control Group Posttest

Discomfort experienced in
 the assertive management
 of several social situations  8.09        20.78     0.00

Discomfort experienced in
 receiving and expressing
 compliments and praise        7.91         4.22     0.04

Discomfort experienced in
 expressing negative feelings  9.48         5.77     0.01

Discomfort experienced in
 managing own limitations and
 difficulties                  6.91         6.75     0.01

Note. Standard voc. guidance group = standard vocational guidance group;
n = 9 in experimental group n = 9 in control group; n = 977 in standard
vocational guidance group.

(a)Items are from the Scale of Interpersonal Behavior (Arrindell, De
Groot, & Walburg, 1984).

References

Arnold, J (1989). Career decidedness and psychological well-being: A two-cohort longitudinal study of undergraduate students and recent graduates. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62, 163-176.

Arrindell, W. A., Dc Grout, P. M., & Walburg, J. A. (1984). Se Schaal voor Interpersoonlijk Gedrag (SIG); handleiding deel I. [The Scale for Interpersonal Behavior (SIB)]. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.

Christopher Smith, J., Nangle, D. W., & Hansen, D. J. (1993). Social skills interventions with adolescents. Behavior Modification, 17, 314-338.

Cole, D. A. (1987). Utility of confirmatory factor analysis in test validation research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 55, 584-594.

Cook, D. T., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation. Boston: Houghton Muffin.

Foster, S. L., & Ritchey, W, L. (1985). Behavioral correlates of sociometric status of fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade children in two classroom situations. Behavioral Assessment, 7, 79-93.

Di Nuovo, S. (1992). La sperimentazione in psicologia applicata [Experimentation in applied psychology]. Milano, Italia: Franco Angeli.

Fox, J. J., & McEvoy, M. A. (1993). Assessing and enhancing generalization and social validity of social-skills interventions with children and adolescents. Behavior Modification, 17, 339-366.

Franco, D. P., Christoff, K. A., Crimmins, D. B., & Kelly, J. A. (1983). Social skills training for an extremely shy young adolescent: An empirical case study. Behavior Therapy, 14, 568-575.

Furnham, A., & Rawles, R. (1994). Interpersonal influence and coping strategies. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 357-361.

Hansen, D. J., St. Lawrence, J. S., & Christoff K. A. (1989). Group conversational skills training with inpatient children and adolescents: Social validation, generalization and maintenance. Behavior Modification, 13, 4-31.

Hughes, J. N., & Sullivan, K A. (1988). Outcome assessment in social skills training with children. Journal of School Psychology, 26, 167-183.

Jacobson, N. S. (1988). Defining clinically significant change. Behavioral Assessment; 10, 131-132.

Jacobson, N. S., & Truax, P. (1991). Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 12-19.

Jones, L. K. (1989). Measuring three-dimensional construct of career indecision among college students: A revision of the Vocational Decision Scale--the Career Decision Profile. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36, 477-486.

Kendall, P. C., & Norton-Ford, J. D. (1982). Therapy outcome research methods. In P.C. Kendall & J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in clinical psychology (pp. 429-460). New York: Wiley.

Kerr, M. M., & Nelson, C. M. (1989). Strategies for managing behavior problems in the classroom (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Kinnier, R. T., Brigman, S. L., & Noble, F. C. (1990). Career indecision and family enmeshment. Journal of Counseling & Development; 68, 309-312.

Lent, W. R, Brown S. D., & Hackett, G. (2000). Contextual support and barriers to career choice: A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 36-49.

Lucas, M. (1993). A validation of types of career indecision at a counseling center. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 40, 440-446.

Lucas, M., & Epperson, D. (1990). Types of vocational undecidedness: A replication and refinement. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37, 382-388.

Nota, L. (1997). La dimensione "decisione-indecisione" [The "decision-indecision" dimension]. Psicologia e Scuola, 87, 83-95.

Nota, L. (1999). Tipologie di decisori e livelli di autoefficacia, assertivita e qualita della vita in soggetti che si accingono a scegliere la facolta universitaria [Typologies of deciders, assertiveness, and quality of life in individuals about to choose a university faculty]. In N. Paggin (Ed.), Orientamento precoce alla scelta universitaria (pp. 105-130). Padova, Italia: Cleup Editrice.

Nota, L., & Soresi, S. (1997). I comportamenti sociali: dall'analisi all'intervento [Social behaviors: From analysis to intervention]. Pordenone, Italia: Erip editrice.

Nota, L., & Soresi, S. (1998). Studenti indecisi e scelta della facolta universitaria [Undecided students and the choice of a university faculty]. Psicologia e Scuola, 90, 127-136.

Phillips, S. D., & Bruch, M. A. (1988). Shyness and dysfunction in career development. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 35, 159-165.

Russell, D. W., Kahn, J. H., Spoth, R., & Altmaier, E. M. (1998). Analyzing data from experimental studies: A latent variable structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 18-29.

Savickas, M. L., & Jarjoura, D. (1991). The Career Decision Scale as a type indicator, Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 85-90.

Schumaker, J., Hazel, J., & Pederson, C. (1988). Social skills for daily living: Program basics. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Soresi, S. (1999). Progetto integrato per la realizzazione di interventi diagnostici destinati alla valutazione della scelta universitaria e per l'attivazione di esperienze didattiche con carattere orientante [An integrated project for the implementation of diagnostic interventions directed to the evaluation of university choice and the activation of didactic vocational activities]. In N. Paggin (Ed.), Orientamento precoce alla scelta universitaria (pp. 13-72). Padova, Italia: Cleup Editrice.

Soresi, S., & Nota, L. (2000). A social skill training for persons with Down's Syndrome. European Psychologist, 5, 34-43.

Soresi, S., & Noes, L (2003). Introdusione e interessi e attegqiamenti sul futuro [Introduction, interests, and attitudes on school-career future]. Firenze, Italia: Organizzazioni Speciali.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics. HarperCollins: New York.

Wanberg, C. R, & Muchinsky, P. M. (1992). A typology of career decision status: Validity extension of the vocational decision status model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39, 71-80.

Laura Nota and Salvatore Soresi, Department of Developmental Psychology and Socialization, University of Padua. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Laura Nota, Department of Developmental Psychology and Socialization, University of Padua, 35131 Padua, Italy (e-mail: [e-mail]).