{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03197353914002205, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002205071664829107, 'mean_word_length': 5.878787878787879, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Perceived Structure of Aggressive and Assertive Behaviors

Teachers rated the social behavior, aggressive and otherwise, of high school students according to a 25-item adjective checklist. Principal components analysis of the rating scales yielded five factors: social boldness, positive regard, weakness of will, openness, and social facility. Assertiveness and aggressiveness loaded on the social boldness factor, as did such behavioral descriptors as bold, outspoken, nasty, unfair, and belligerent. Assertiveness was absent from the openness and social facility factors. Given the confounded lay interpretation of “assertiveness,” and the movements toward “social skills training” and viewing assertiveness in terms of situational specificity, it may be that assertiveness, as a personality construct, has outlived its utility. The adjective assertive, as a behavioral descriptor, may not be far behind.