BEHAVIOR THERAPY 6, 269-271 (1975)

BRIEF NOTE

On Effective Assertive Behavior: A Brief Note

DAVID D. HEWES

Bakersfield, California

Two kinds of assertive responses are distinguished when anger has been
aroused. Humanists separate expressions of anger from verbalized angry attacks.
The latter usually elicit counterattack, whereas the expression of anger is inclined
to produce a change in affect, or some verbalized self observation, or a defensive
position. These responses then encourage the addressor to emit a genuine con-
gruent reflective response with positive reinforcement. This approach articulates,
in a compatible sequence, the position of Wolpe and Lazarus on assertion and
avoids the present trend toward rampant hostile assertiveness, a development
which is possibly derived from Wolpe's teachings and which Lazarus (1973) has
sharply criticized.

L a z a r u s (1973) p r o p o s e d cultivation of a s u p p o r t i v e a s s e r t i v e re-

sponse as a guideline for a s s e r t i o n training r a t h e r than p r a c t i c e of as-
sertion by verbal attack. H e illustrates this with a vignette wherein he
e x p e r i e n c e d p r o g r e s s i v e irritation with a surly and unobliging shirt
salesman by saying, after reviewing p r i v a t e l y some n a s t y thoughts,
" Y o u seem to be having a hell of a b a d day. Is something w r o n g ? " This
illustration implies that, when one is angry, one can learn to elicit an
a s s e r t i v e a d a p t i v e r e s p o n s e which can even c a r r y positive reinforce-
ment for the a d d r e s s e e . But d o e s one thus leave the feelings of anger
seemingly hanging fire?
I n acquiring a s s e r t i v e p r o c e d u r e s and carrying t h e m out, what does
b e c o m e of the anger? Is it used or s u p p r e s s e d or d i s s i p a t e d in some
w a y ? W o l p e (1973) d e c l a r e d that anger is u s e d in learning assertion.
A n g e r p r o d u c e s a p r o p u l s i o n to a s s e r t o n e s e l f and in e x p r e s s i n g it one
inhibits fear. A l t h o u g h not stated in his brief note, L a z a r u s (1974) said
that the s u p p r e s s i o n of anger is unhealthy, but o v e r t verbal aggression is
to be a v o i d e d or " c o n t a i n e d " until an a d a p t i v e a s s e r t i v e r e s p o n s e can be
f o r m u l a t e d and elicited. Such r e s p o n s e s m a y v a r y from a firm verbaliza-

Requests for reprints should be addressed to: David D. Hewes, 518 Habeffelde Bldg.,
Bakersfield, CA 93301.
269
Copyright (~) 1975 by Academic Press, Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
270 BRIEF NOTE

tion about one's anger to an authentic reflection of the addressee's

behavior (as illustrated in the shirt salesman incident).
Since Lazarus used "reflection" (Rogers, 1971) or "active listening"
(Gordon, 1970; Randolph, 1966), as one example of adaptive assertive
responses, the humanistic use of reflective responses in conflict resolu-
tion warrants elaboration. For the humanists, using a reflective response
when one is angry would be disguising the anger and assuming an in-
congruent pose which eventually arouses anger and distrust from others.
They did, however, advocate expression of anger but not quite in the
way of either Wolpe or Lazarus (Gordon, 1970; Ginott, 1967; Ran-
dolph, 1966).
Their aim is to express anger in a manner which minimizes counterat-
tack. For example, Gordon's "effective sending" with I-Messages give
expression to anger as opposed to "ineffective sending" with You-Mes-
sages which are, roughly speaking, verbal attacks. An 1-Message ex-
pressing anger, for instance, would be "I really get miffed when I'm
trying to buy a shirt from you and you're behaving the way you are."
Ineffective sending with a You-Message, as in the verbal attack "Hey,
you, quit giving me any more of your lip" would probably elicit coun-
terattack. It is the ineffective sending with its consequence of verbal at-
tack that Lazarus declared should be avoided. However, like Wolpe
(1969), he did not clearly distinguish between effective sending and inef-
fective sending, i.e., between expressions of anger and verbal attack.
The closest Lazarus (1974) seemed to come to expressing anger was
either the admission of anger or talking about it.
Using the I-Message expression of anger would satisfy Wolpe's for-
mulation of the dynamics of assertion learning and also minimize the
counterattack potential which Lazarus underscored. Guidelines for as-
sertion training based on such distinctions could be made clear and
would reduce the acquisition of precise ways "to mete out punishment,
to deal w i t h . . , intimates as adversaries . . . to make a fetish of
gaining the upper hand," against which Lazarus rightfully protested
(1973, p. 698.)
Further, effective sending of anger sets the stage for introducing "the
obvious and subtle nuances of positive reinforcement" (Lazarus 1973, p.
698). The initial congruent expression of anger usually reduces one's
anger and elicits a defense, a complaint, or an adult constructive
response from the addressee, as "I'm sorry," "Pardon me," "I didn't
realize I was making you so angry," or the salesman from the Lazarus
vignette might respond "I guess I'm pretty miffed myself, today." Such
responses indicate a change in affect and/or self-observation and may
now evoke a congruent or authentic feeling of acceptance communicated
by a reflective response that has positive reinforcement. From the
 BRIEF NOTE 271

vignette, one might now genuinely say "You seem to be having a hell of
a bad day."
The entire procedure for assertion training where anger is aroused and
is to be expressed can be summarized step by step in the following
format, using the Lazarus vignette for content:

Wolpe
Effective sending "I get miffed in this kind of a set up, when I'm trying
(assertion) to buy a shirt from you, and you are behaving the way
you are with me." (Expression of anger, e.g., I-Message.)

Consequent response "Well, I'm miffed today, too . . . . I'm just Goddamned
to effective sending edgy." (Change from attack to expression of anger, with
self-observation giving opportunity for a reflective type
of response.)

Lazarus
Assertion with "You really seem to be feeling uptight as hell, today."
positive reinforcement (Positive reinforcement as it reflects what is expressed.)

Consequent response "That's right . . . . My wife's in the hospital . . ."

after positive reinforcement (Expression and release of tension.)

REFERENCES
GINOTT, H. G. Between parent and child. New York: MacMillan, 1967.
GORDON, T. P.E.T.: Parent effectiveness training. New York: Wyden, 1973.
LAZARUS, A. A. Understanding and modifying aggression in behavioral groups. In A.
Jacobs & W. Spradlin (Eds.), The group as agent of change. New York: Behavioral
Publications, 1974. Pp. 87-99.
LAZARUS, A. A. On assertive behavior: A brief note. Behavior Therapy, 1973,4, 697-699.
LAZARUS, A. A. Behavior therapy and beyond. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.
RANDOLPH, N., & HOWE, W. Self-enhancing education. Palo Alto: Sanford Press (Educa-
tional Development Corporation), 1966.
ROGERS, C. R. Client-centered therapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1951.
WOLPE, J. Supervision transcript: V - Mainly about assertive training. Journal of Behavior
Therapy & Experimental Psychology, 1973, 4, 141-148.
WOLPE, J. The practice of behavior therapy. New York: Pergamon Press, 1969.
WOLPE, J. Psychotherapy by reciprocal inhibition. Stanford: Stanford University Press,
1958.
WOLPE, J., & LAZARUS,A. A. Behavior therapy techniques. New York: Pergamon Press,
1969.