Assertiveness

Abstract

Assertiveness is a type of personality characteristic: strongly insistent, self-assured, and demanding behavior. This article covers the origins of assertiveness training in behavior therapy, the self-report schedules used to measure assertiveness, how assertive behavior is received by others, the curvilinear relation between assertiveness and perceived leadership, people's limited awareness of how assertive they appear, gender differences and historical change, and the evidence for assertiveness training.

Keywords: assertiveness, interpersonal assertiveness, leadership, assertiveness training

Interpersonal assertiveness reflects the degree to which someone stands up and speaks out for their own positions when they are faced with someone else who does not want the same outcomes, and both too little and too much of it can be problematic (Ames et al., 2017). Assertiveness training has been described as a once highly popular area of investigation that has been neglected in recent years by the field of psychotherapy, despite research indicating that it is a valuable transdiagnostic intervention (Speed et al., 2018).

What Assertiveness Is

MeSH defines Assertiveness as strongly insistent, self-assured, and demanding behavior, lists Assertivenesses as an entry term, and files the descriptor under personality.

People typically see a spectrum of possible responses to dealing with differences with others, ranging from avoidance and accommodation to competition and aggression, and judge their own and others' behaviors along this dimension of interpersonal assertiveness (Ames et al., 2017).

Early behavior-therapy research treated assertion, nonassertion and aggression as separate classes of response (Hull & Schroeder, 1979); one later self-report instrument instead distinguishes adaptive from aggressive assertiveness, with separate scales for each (Thompson & Berenbaum, 2011).

In the Big Five aspect model, assertiveness is one of two aspects of Extraversion. Factor analyses of facet scales from two major Big Five inventories found two distinct but correlated aspects within each Big Five domain, an intermediate level between facets and domains (DeYoung et al., 2007). For Extraversion these aspects are Assertiveness and Enthusiasm, and in three samples the aspects of Extraversion and Agreeableness had a structure corresponding to the octants of the interpersonal circumplex (DeYoung et al., 2013).

Figure 1

The Spectrum of Responses to a Difference

Figure 1 sets out the spectrum.

Origins in Behavior Therapy

Salter's conditioned reflex therapy, published in 1949 as a direct approach to the reconstruction of personality, preceded the behavior-therapy literature on assertion (Salter, 1949). Wolpe's monograph on psychotherapy by reciprocal inhibition appeared in 1958 (Wolpe, 1958), and a popular guide to assertive behavior followed in 1970 (Alberti & Emmons, 1970). A review of the clinical, measurement and research considerations in developing assertive responses appeared in 1973 (Hersen et al., 1973). A later review revisits the history of assertiveness training and its early research evidence for treating various clinical problems (Speed et al., 2018).

Measuring Assertiveness

Self-report schedules were developed to measure it. They include a 30-item schedule for assessing assertive behavior (Rathus, 1973), the College Self-Expression Scale (Galassi et al., 1974) and an assertion inventory for use in assessment and research (Gambrill & Richey, 1975).

Table 1 lists the three measures by publication year; the descriptions are the works' own titles.

Contemporary trait inventories measure narrower traits as well as broad domains; the Big Five Inventory-2, for example, specifies 15 facet traits nested within the Big Five domains (Soto & John, 2017). Behavioral role-play tests were the other main approach, and their validity for assessing social skills was itself questioned (Bellack et al., 1978). In one task analysis, low-assertive people differed from moderate- and high-assertive people on a role-playing assessment requiring them to deliver an assertive response, but not on their knowledge of a competent response or on hypothetical delivery situations (Schwartz & Gottman, 1976).

How Assertiveness Is Received

Early studies compared the interpersonal effects of assertion, nonassertion and aggression (Hull & Schroeder, 1979). A study of reactions to assertive versus unassertive behavior examined differential effects for males and females and the implications for assertiveness training (Kelly et al., 1980), and a review examined the social impact of assertiveness, its research findings and clinical implications (Delamater & McNamara, 1986). In later work on how others appraise assertive behavior, individuals seen either as markedly low or as high in assertiveness were generally appraised as less effective leaders (Ames & Flynn, 2007), and counterparts' views of a negotiator's assertiveness showed only a modest link to the negotiator's own self-view (Ames & Wazlawek, 2014).

The Balancing Act

Assertiveness has a curvilinear relation to leadership. Across three studies, individuals seen either as markedly low in assertiveness or as high in assertiveness were generally appraised as less effective leaders, and the authors linked these effects to a trade-off between social outcomes, which a high level of assertiveness worsens, and instrumental outcomes, which a low level of assertiveness limits (Ames & Flynn, 2007).

People also differ in what they expect assertiveness to bring. Most people assume increasing assertiveness can yield positive social and instrumental benefits up to a point, beyond which benefits decline, but they vary in how assertive this perceived optimal point is, and in four studies these expectancies were linked to assertiveness even after controlling for values (Ames, 2008).

Self-awareness is limited. In dyadic negotiations, those seen as under- and over-assertive were likely to see themselves as appropriately assertive, and many people seen as appropriately assertive by counterparts mistakenly thought they were seen as having been over-assertive, an effect the authors call the line crossing illusion; counterparts' orchestrated displays of discomfort, which the authors term strategic umbrage, were linked to the illusion, and the illusion predicted outcomes in a multi-round negotiation (Ames & Wazlawek, 2014).

Gender and Historical Change

Assertiveness shows a gender difference that varies with time and culture. In Revised NEO Personality Inventory data from 26 cultures (N = 23,031), men were higher in Assertiveness, but gender differences were small relative to individual variation within genders, and contrary to predictions from the social role model they were most pronounced in European and American cultures; among the possible explanations the authors discuss is the attribution of masculine and feminine behaviors to roles rather than traits in traditional cultures (Costa et al., 2001). The social role model remains contested on this point: the result was replicated across 55 nations (N = 17,637), where higher levels of human development were the main nation-level predictors of larger sex differences in personality (Schmitt et al., 2008). A later review of large cross-cultural studies reported that evidence suggests gender differences in most aspects of personality are conspicuously larger in cultures with more egalitarian gender roles, and that social role theory appears inadequate for explaining some of the observed cultural variations (Schmitt et al., 2017). Social role theorists have set out a biosocial construction account of sex differences and similarities in behavior (Wood & Eagly, 2012). Sex differences have also been examined across all 30 facets of the five factor model in a public sample of 320,128 people (Kajonius & Johnson, 2018). Across two cross-temporal meta-analyses, American women's assertiveness rose and fell with their social status from 1931 to 1993, increasing enough that many recent samples show no sex differences in assertiveness, while men's scores showed no significant birth cohort effect overall (Twenge, 2001).

Context also shapes how assertive women are willing to be. In a laboratory negotiation experiment, women bargaining on their own behalf anticipated that assertiveness would evoke backlash and hedged it, using fewer competing tactics and obtaining lower outcomes, whereas women bargaining on another's behalf achieved better outcomes; anticipated attributions and backlash statistically mediated this interaction (Amanatullah & Morris, 2010).

Assertiveness Training

Research on assertiveness and assertiveness training as a stand-alone treatment within clinical psychology has diminished drastically, despite evidence that assertiveness is a relevant factor in a variety of clinical problems, populations and contexts (Speed et al., 2018).

Early accounts of unassertiveness differed over what training should target. Response acquisition approaches to assertion training are based on a skill-deficit model, in which nonassertive people have specific limited capabilities in a specific set of social situations; in a task analysis, low-assertive people differed from moderate- and high-assertive people in role-played delivery of an assertive response but not in their knowledge of a competent response, and reported higher self-perceived tension and more negative and fewer positive self-statements (Schwartz & Gottman, 1976). A later comparison asked whether assertion therapy works through skill training or cognitive restructuring (Linehan et al., 1979).

In a study of 69 nursing and medical students with low assertiveness, the 33 who received eight weekly 2-hour sessions of assertiveness training significantly improved in assertiveness and self-esteem, although their interpersonal communication satisfaction was not significantly improved (Lin et al., 2004). In 126 high school students, 2 months after eight sessions of assertiveness training the mean anxiety score of the experimental group was significantly lower than that of the control group, while the difference in depression was not significant (P = 0.09) (Eslami et al., 2016).

A systematic review of eight papers found interventions to improve assertive communication in healthcare professionals and students effective to some degree with all targeted groups except experienced anaesthesiologists (Omura et al., 2017).

Worked Example

The gender-difference finding can be read as an overlap. In the 26-culture sample of 23,031 respondents (Costa et al., 2001), a difference that is small relative to individual variation within genders means that, for an illustrative standardized difference of d = 0.2, about 92% of the two distributions would overlap, so many women would score higher in assertiveness than the average man.

Discussion

Three conclusions follow. First, assertiveness is a balance rather than a quantity to maximize: both too little and too much were judged poor leadership (Ames & Flynn, 2007), and people's expectations of where the optimum lies shape how hard they push (Ames, 2008).

Second, people have limited awareness of how assertive they appear: there was only a modest link between targets' self-views and counterparts' views, and those seen as under- or over-assertive tended to see themselves as appropriately assertive (Ames & Wazlawek, 2014).

Third, assertiveness is shaped by social context: women's assertiveness tracked their status across six decades (Twenge, 2001), and gender differences in personality traits were most pronounced in cultures in which traditional sex roles are minimized (Costa et al., 2001).

Current Directions

The cited reviews point to three lines of work. Mechanisms: the sources of accommodating and assertive behavior include motivations, expectancies and failures of self-regulation (Ames et al., 2017). Effective assertion: ways people can assert themselves effectively range from making precise offers in negotiations to employing rationales as part of their proposals (Ames et al., 2017). Clinical training: research on assertiveness communication training for healthcare professionals and students should consider evaluation of its sustained effect on behavior change and patient safety (Omura et al., 2017).

Common Misconceptions

“More assertiveness is always better.”

People seen as high in assertiveness were generally appraised as less effective leaders, as were those seen as markedly low (Ames & Flynn, 2007).

“People know how pushy they come across.”

There was only a modest link between targets' self-views and counterparts' views of their assertiveness (Ames & Wazlawek, 2014).

“Assertiveness is a fixed sex difference.”

Women's scores have increased enough that many recent samples show no sex differences in assertiveness (Twenge, 2001).

Glossary

Accommodation.

Yielding to another's position in a disagreement, at the low end of the assertiveness spectrum.

Aggression.

Responding to a difference with hostile pressure, at the far end of the spectrum beyond competition.

Assertion inventory.

A self-report instrument for assessing assertive behavior in assessment and research.

Assertiveness expectancies.

Idiosyncratic predictions people make about the social and instrumental consequences of assertive behavior.

Assertiveness training.

Structured instruction in assertive behavior, described as a valuable transdiagnostic intervention.

Avoidance.

Not engaging with a difference at all, the lowest point on the spectrum of responses.

College Self-Expression Scale.

A self-report measure of assertiveness developed for college students.

Cross-temporal meta-analysis.

A meta-analysis that tracks mean scores on a measure across the years in which samples were collected.

Curvilinear relation.

A non-linear relation; in the inverted-U form reported for assertiveness and leadership, both low and high levels of a variable go with worse outcomes than moderate levels.

Instrumental outcomes.

Goal achievement, which a low level of assertiveness limits.

Interpersonal assertiveness.

The degree to which someone stands up and speaks out for their own positions against someone who wants a different outcome.

Line crossing illusion.

Mistakenly believing one was seen as over-assertive when counterparts saw one as appropriately assertive.

Social outcomes.

The state of relationships, which a high level of assertiveness worsens.

Strategic umbrage.

Counterparts' orchestrated displays of discomfort in a negotiation, linked to the line crossing illusion.

Key Researchers

Daniel R. Ames

Social psychologist at Columbia Business School; showed a curvilinear link between assertiveness and perceived leadership and studied assertiveness expectancies. Faculty Page

Paul T. Costa

(b. 1942). Personality psychologist, Scientist Emeritus at the National Institute on Aging; reported with Terracciano and McCrae that men score higher on the Assertiveness facet across 26 cultures. ORCID - Wikipedia - Wikidata - Google Scholar

Francis J. Flynn

Organizational psychologist at the Stanford Graduate School of Business; showed with Ames that both too little and too much assertiveness damage how leaders are seen. Faculty Page

Marvin R. Goldfried

Clinical psychologist at Stony Brook University; compared skill training with cognitive restructuring in assertion therapy and argued with colleagues that assertiveness training is a forgotten evidence-based treatment. Wikipedia

Jean M. Twenge

Psychologist at San Diego State University; showed in a cross-temporal meta-analysis that American women's assertiveness rose and fell with their social status from 1931 to 1993. ORCID - Wikipedia - Wikidata - Google Scholar - Faculty Page

Joseph Wolpe

(1915–1997). Psychiatrist at Temple University; author of Psychotherapy by Reciprocal Inhibition (1958). Wikipedia - Wikidata

Frequently Asked Questions

What is assertiveness?

MeSH defines it as strongly insistent, self-assured, and demanding behavior; interpersonal assertiveness is the degree to which someone stands up and speaks out for their own positions when they are faced with someone else who does not want the same outcomes (Ames et al., 2017).

Is being more assertive always better?

No: people seen as markedly low or high in assertiveness were generally appraised as less effective leaders (Ames & Flynn, 2007).

Why do people differ in how hard they push?

They differ in how assertive they expect the optimal point to be, beyond which benefits decline (Ames, 2008).

Do people know how assertive they seem?

Not well: those seen as under- or over-assertive were likely to see themselves as appropriately assertive (Ames & Wazlawek, 2014).

Are men more assertive than women?

Men reported higher Assertiveness across 26 cultures, but the difference was small relative to variation within genders (Costa et al., 2001), and American women's assertiveness rose and fell with their social status from 1931 to 1993 (Twenge, 2001).

How is assertiveness measured?

With self-report schedules such as a 30-item schedule for assessing assertive behavior (Rathus, 1973) and an assertion inventory (Gambrill & Richey, 1975).

Does assertiveness training work?

In a systematic review of eight papers, interventions to improve assertive communication in healthcare professionals and students were reported to be effective to some degree with all targeted groups except experienced anaesthesiologists, with behavior change evaluated by observer-based rating scales during simulation (Omura et al., 2017).

Why is assertiveness training less common now?

Research on it as a stand-alone treatment has diminished drastically, although it has been called a forgotten evidence-based treatment (Speed et al., 2018).

References