- Email: [email protected]
On effective assertive behavior: A brief note
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 congruent 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 response 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 assertion 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 reinforcement 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 resolution warrants elaboration. For the humanists, using a reflective response when one is angry would be disguising the anger and assuming an incongruent 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; Randolph, 1966). Their aim is to express anger in a manner which minimizes counterattack. For example, Gordon's "effective sending" with I-Messages give expression to anger as opposed to "ineffective sending" with You-Messages which are, roughly speaking, verbal attacks. An 1-Message expressing 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 counterattack. It is the ineffective sending with its consequence of verbal attack that Lazarus declared should be avoided. However, like Wolpe (1969), he did not clearly distinguish between effective sending and ineffective 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 formulation of the dynamics of assertion learning and also minimize the counterattack potential which Lazarus underscored. Guidelines for assertion 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 (assertion)
"I get miffed in this kind of a set up, when I'm trying 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 to effective sending
"Well, I'm miffed today, too . . . . I'm just Goddamned edgy." (Change from attack to expression of anger, with self-observation giving opportunity for a reflective type of response.)
Lazarus Assertion with positive reinforcement
"You really seem to be feeling uptight as hell, today." (Positive reinforcement as it reflects what is expressed.)
Consequent response after positive reinforcement
"That's right . . . . My wife's in the hospital . . ." (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 (Educational 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.
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 congruent 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 response 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 assertion 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 reinforcement 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 resolution warrants elaboration. For the humanists, using a reflective response when one is angry would be disguising the anger and assuming an incongruent 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; Randolph, 1966). Their aim is to express anger in a manner which minimizes counterattack. For example, Gordon's "effective sending" with I-Messages give expression to anger as opposed to "ineffective sending" with You-Messages which are, roughly speaking, verbal attacks. An 1-Message expressing 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 counterattack. It is the ineffective sending with its consequence of verbal attack that Lazarus declared should be avoided. However, like Wolpe (1969), he did not clearly distinguish between effective sending and ineffective 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 formulation of the dynamics of assertion learning and also minimize the counterattack potential which Lazarus underscored. Guidelines for assertion 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 (assertion)
"I get miffed in this kind of a set up, when I'm trying 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 to effective sending
"Well, I'm miffed today, too . . . . I'm just Goddamned edgy." (Change from attack to expression of anger, with self-observation giving opportunity for a reflective type of response.)
Lazarus Assertion with positive reinforcement
"You really seem to be feeling uptight as hell, today." (Positive reinforcement as it reflects what is expressed.)
Consequent response after positive reinforcement
"That's right . . . . My wife's in the hospital . . ." (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 (Educational 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.