Assertiveness training

1. Introduction

Version followed: there is no single official manual. This guide follows the behavioural assertive-training tradition of Wolpe (1958; Practice of Behavior Therapy, 4th ed. 1990) and Wolpe & Lazarus (1966). It organises that tradition with the four-part cognitive-behavioural structure of Lange & Jakubowski (1976), the rights framework and self-help sequence of Alberti & Emmons (Your Perfect Right, 1970 onwards), and the verbal techniques of Smith (1975). Salter's (1949) original "excitatory" exercises are included as historical procedures. Where these authors differ, the text says whose version is used.

Assertiveness training (AT) is a skills-and-anxiety-reduction approach. It teaches clients to state wants, refusals, opinions and feelings, both positive and negative, directly and honestly, without violating other people's rights. It is a family of procedures rather than one branded therapy. It sits inside behaviour therapy and CBT and later fed into social skills training. [source: Speed, Goldstein & Goldfried 2018; Wikipedia "Assertiveness"]

How change is thought to happen, in three historical models that are now usually combined:

• Salter's model. Neurotic people are "inhibitory" and change comes through expressive action, not insight. He wrote that inhibition becomes excitation "only through action" (CRT p.142, as cited on Wikipedia). [source: Wikipedia "Andrew Salter"; APS Observer obituary]
• Wolpe's model. Assertive responding is incompatible with anxiety. Each assertive act performed in a feared interpersonal situation weakens the anxiety habit through reciprocal inhibition. [source: Speed et al. 2018; Wikipedia "Assertiveness"]
• The cognitive-behavioural model. Unassertiveness comes from a skill deficit, from anxiety or belief-driven inhibition of skills the client already has, or from both. Treatment therefore combines rehearsal and modelling for the deficit with cognitive restructuring and exposure for the inhibition. [source: Linehan, Goldfried & Goldfried 1979 and Goldfried & Davison 1976, as summarised in Speed et al. 2018]

2. Framework

None of the sources lays down a fixed session-by-session protocol. The phase structure below is a synthesis of the components every major source shares: assessment, discrimination of response styles, rights and beliefs, rehearsal, and in-vivo practice. Lange & Jakubowski (1976) organise training around four procedures: teaching the difference between assertion, non-assertion and aggression; helping clients identify and accept their own rights and others' rights; reducing cognitive and affective obstacles; and building skills through active practice. [synthesis; Lange & Jakubowski's four-part structure is uncertain]

Format and dose. AT can be delivered individually, in groups, with couples, or as structured self-help. [source: Speed et al. 2018] Published examples include 4 one-hour sessions over 3 weeks (McFall & Marston 1970), 6 weekly sessions of about 48 minutes for adolescents (Parr & Lundquist), and 12 group sessions for chronic schizophrenia (Lee et al. 2013). [source: ERIC ED126380; Speed et al. 2018] As a working default, plan 6–12 weekly sessions of 50 minutes individually, or 6–10 weekly sessions of 90–120 minutes for groups of 6–10 with two co-leaders. [synthesis; uncertain]

The phase goals come from the shared components in the sources. The session counts and transition criteria are synthesis. [synthesis]

3. Guiding principles

• Assertion is not aggression. Assertion stands up for oneself without putting the other person down; Wolpe drew this distinction himself. In practice, every response is checked for respect towards the other person as well as for directness. [source: Speed et al. 2018 on Wolpe]
• Assertion covers positive feelings too. Expressing affection, praise and agreement, and accepting compliments, are assertive acts, not just protest. Positive assertion belongs in every hierarchy. [source: Lazarus 1971/1973 via Speed et al. 2018; "positive assertion" in University at Buffalo handout]
• Use the four response classes as a map. Lazarus's four classes are asking for what one wants, saying no, expressing positive and negative feelings, and starting, continuing and ending conversations. Assess and treat each class separately. [source: Speed et al. 2018]
• Assertiveness is situation-specific. A client may be assertive at work and not at home. Target the specific situations and people, not a global trait. [source: Speed et al. 2018; Wikipedia]
• Formulate before treating. If the main problem is a skill deficit, emphasise modelling, coaching and rehearsal. If it is anxiety or belief-driven inhibition, emphasise cognitive restructuring and exposure. Many clients need both. [source: Linehan et al. 1979 via Speed et al. 2018]
• Change comes through action. Rehearsal and real-life practice are the active ingredients; insight alone is not enough. Every session ends with a concrete practice task. [source: Salter via Wikipedia; Speed et al. 2018]
• Grade the difficulty. Start with easy, low-stakes situations and climb. Never begin with the client's most feared person. [source: Wolpe tradition; graded practice per Psychology Tools summary]
• How it is said matters as much as what is said. Eye contact, voice volume, affect and posture are trained explicitly. [source: Linehan et al. 1979 via Speed et al. 2018]
• Clients have rights, and so do others. Mutual respect sets the ethical limit; assertion is the exercise of one's own rights "without denying the rights of others". [source: Alberti & Emmons 1970, quoted in ERIC ED126380]
• The client chooses. Training gives the client the option to assert, not an obligation to. Lange & Jakubowski reject "assertion at all costs" and the idea that assertion means winning. Choosing not to assert after weighing the consequences is a legitimate outcome. [source: Beaubien review of Lange & Jakubowski]
• Weigh the consequences realistically. Wolpe cautioned against urging assertion where real punishment is likely. Assertive behaviour is also judged differently by context and by gender, and assertive women may face a double bind. Plan with the client for how others may actually respond. [source: Speed et al. 2018; the Wolpe caution is from secondary recollection, uncertain]
• Use the least forceful response that works. Start with the mildest assertion likely to succeed and escalate only if needed. [source: escalating assertion in University at Buffalo handout; the term "minimal effective response" is usually credited to Rimm & Masters 1974, uncertain]
• Avoid manipulation. Techniques such as broken record and fogging can become coercive or manipulative when used without respect. [source: Beaubien review of Lange & Jakubowski; Wikipedia]
• Fit the culture. What counts as appropriately assertive varies across cultures and settings, so calibrate to the client's context rather than one cultural norm. [source: Speed et al. 2018 on cultural and gender findings; synthesis]

4. Intervention inventory

The interventions are grouped as follows:

• A. Assessment and engagement
• B. Cognitive and anxiety-reduction work
• C. The rehearsal toolkit
• D. Response types and content skills
• E. Smith's (1975) verbal techniques
• F. Salter's (1949) excitatory exercises
• G. Transfer and maintenance

All example therapist language is illustrative unless it is in quotation marks with a citation.

A1. Assessment interview and situational analysis

• Purpose / when: Use at the start to find out where, with whom and in which response class the client fails to assert, and why. [source: Lazarus's response classes and Linehan et al.'s skill-deficit vs inhibition formulation, via Speed et al. 2018]
• Steps:
  1. Ask for 3–5 recent situations where the client wanted to say or do something and did not, or said it aggressively.
  2. For each situation, record who was involved, the setting, what the client wanted, what they actually did, their thoughts beforehand, their anxiety (0–100 SUDS) and the outcome.
  3. Sort the situations into Lazarus's four classes: requests, refusals, expressing positive or negative feelings, and conversation.
  4. Test for a skill deficit by asking the client to show you, right now, what they would say. If they produce a competent response in the room but cannot do it in life, inhibition (anxiety or beliefs) is likely. If they cannot produce it at all, a deficit is likely.
  5. Screen for situations where assertion is unsafe, such as an abusive partner or a precarious job.
  6. Agree measurable targets.
• Example language (illustrative): "Let's take last Tuesday with your manager. Say to me now, as if I'm her, what you wish you'd said."
• Watch for: Clients who are passive in some areas and explosive in others. Code both patterns, because passive-aggressive or indirect styles need the same discrimination work. If the client cannot name any wants, this may point to depression or broader self-concept problems that need attention first. [synthesis]

A2. Self-report assertiveness inventories

• Purpose / when: Use for a baseline and outcome measurement and to find target areas. [source: Speed et al. 2018]
• Instruments:
  • The Wolpe–Lazarus assertiveness questionnaire (1966), described as the first such questionnaire. [source: Speed et al. 2018]
  • The Rathus Assertiveness Schedule (Rathus 1973).
  • The Assertion Inventory (Gambrill & Richey 1975). This rates both how uncomfortable each situation is and how likely the client is to act, which helps separate anxiety from skill. [uncertain: described from general knowledge]
  • Do not reproduce items. Use the published versions under their terms.
• Steps: Give the inventory at intake, mid-point and end. Review the highest-discomfort and lowest-probability items together and convert them into hierarchy items (see B4).
• Watch for: Responses that look socially desirable. Back the inventory up with a behavioural role-play test, as the research literature did with eye contact, response latency, number of requests and dialogue length. [source: Eisler et al. 1974 via Speed et al. 2018]

A3. Self-monitoring log

• Purpose / when: From session 1, to build awareness, collect material for rehearsal and track change. Alberti & Emmons recommend keeping a log of one's assertive behaviour. [source: Alberti & Emmons, Your Perfect Right; uncertain because the book is not drawn on]
• Steps:
  1. Each day, the client notes one or two interpersonal moments with these columns: situation, person, what I wanted, what I did (labelled non-assertive, aggressive or assertive), thoughts, SUDS, and outcome.
  2. Bring the log to every session and choose the next rehearsal scene from it.
• Example language (illustrative): "Don't change anything yet. Just catch the moments when you swallowed something or snapped."
• Watch for: Logs coming back empty, which usually means avoidance or shame. Ask for one entry, completed in the session together. Whether the log is working shows in more entries and in rising self-labelling accuracy. [synthesis]

A4. Presenting the rationale

• Purpose / when: In sessions 1–2, to build motivation and explain why practice is needed.
• Steps:
  1. Explain that holding back keeps the anxiety going and leads to built-up resentment, guilt or outbursts.
  2. Explain that acting assertively in feared situations reduces anxiety over time. This is Wolpe's reciprocal-inhibition idea in plain language.
  3. Explain that assertion is a learnable skill.
  4. Explain that the goal is choice, not always asserting.
• Example language (illustrative): "Each time you say what you need while the anxiety is there, the anxiety loses a bit of its grip. So we'll practise here, then in small real situations."
• Watch for: Fear that "assertive" means rude or selfish. Go straight to B1. [source for rationale content: Wolpe via Speed et al. 2018; Salter via Wikipedia]

B1. Discrimination training: non-assertive, aggressive and assertive

• Purpose / when: In Phase 1, so the client can recognise the three styles in others and in themselves. This is Lange & Jakubowski's first procedure and the core continuum in Alberti & Emmons. [source: Speed et al. 2018; Wikipedia]
• Steps:
  1. Define the three styles:
     • Non-assertive: one's own rights and wants are not expressed or are expressed apologetically.
     • Aggressive: one's wants are expressed in ways that attack, blame, threaten or ignore the other person's rights.
     • Assertive: direct, honest and respectful of both people.
  2. Present or act out 6–10 short vignettes, each with three versions of the reply. The client labels each and explains the cues, both verbal content and non-verbal delivery.
  3. Ask what the likely short-term and long-term consequences of each style are.
  4. Have the client re-label entries from their own log.
  5. In groups, members act out one scene in all three styles while others label them.
• Example language (illustrative): "Three ways to answer a colleague who dumps work on you: 'Oh… OK, I suppose' / 'You always do this, it's pathetic' / 'I can't take that on today; I can look at it Thursday.' Which is which, and what gave it away?"
• Watch for: Mislabelling indirect aggression (sarcasm, sulking) as assertion, or labelling any firm statement as aggressive. It is working when the client labels new examples accurately and spontaneously notices their own style between sessions.

B2. Personal rights work

• Purpose / when: In Phase 2, for clients whose guilt or sense of obligation blocks assertion. Rights lists were developed by Alberti & Emmons, by Smith (10 rights) and by Jakubowski & Lange (11 rights, with an emphasis on women's rights). [source: Speed et al. 2018]
• Steps:
  1. Do not hand out a published list verbatim. Instead, ask the client to generate rights relevant to their targets. Typical themes are the right to refuse, to ask, to have and express feelings and opinions, to make mistakes, to change one's mind, to not justify one's choices, and to be treated with respect.
  2. For each right, name the matching right of the other person, such as the right to ask and the right to refuse in return.
  3. Pick the right most relevant to this week's target situation.
  4. Explore what the client was taught about this right while growing up.
  5. Write a one-line self-statement the client can use before asserting.
• Example language (illustrative): "Does your sister have the right to ask you to babysit? And do you have the right to say no? Both can be true."
• Watch for: Rights being used as weapons ("I have the right to say what I want"). Always pair a right with responsibility for the other person's rights. It is working when guilt ratings before a refusal fall. [synthesis for steps]

B3. Cognitive restructuring of assertion-blocking beliefs

• Purpose / when: When inhibition rather than a skill deficit is the main problem. Common targets are beliefs that assertion will make others think less of the client, catastrophic predictions about others' reactions, guilt, and perfectionist "musts". Lange & Jakubowski drew on rational-emotive principles here. [source: Linehan et al. 1979 and Goldfried & Davison 1976 via Speed et al. 2018; Beaubien review]
• Steps:
  1. Pick a target situation and elicit the automatic thoughts just before the moment of not asserting.
  2. Identify the belief type (approval need, guilt or responsibility, catastrophising, "I must not upset anyone").
  3. Examine the evidence, past outcomes, other people's likely views and the worst, best and most likely outcome. Clients often misjudge how others will react to their assertiveness, so test this directly.
  4. Build a balanced coping statement.
  5. Turn the prediction into a behavioural experiment: assert, then compare the actual reaction with the prediction.
• Example language (illustrative): "You predicted she'd be furious and stop speaking to you. Rate that 0–100. Shall we test it with something smaller this week and see what she actually does?"
• Watch for: Intellectual agreement without any drop in emotion, which calls for more experiments and fewer debates. It is working when belief ratings fall after real assertions and the client starts asserting with less pre-rehearsal.

B4. Building a graded assertion hierarchy

• Purpose / when: At the end of assessment, to sequence rehearsal and real-life practice from easy to hard. [source: Wolpe tradition; graded practice per Psychology Tools summary]
• Steps:
  1. List 10–20 concrete situations taken from the log and inventories.
  2. Rate each 0–100 for anticipated anxiety or difficulty.
  3. Order them so that each step is a modest increase.
  4. Vary one dimension at a time: the person (stranger, then acquaintance, then family or boss), the response class, how high the stakes are, and whether the other person is likely to push back.
  5. Start rehearsal at an item rated about 20–40.
• Example: Ask a shop assistant for help → return a faulty item → decline a colleague's extra task → tell a friend you were hurt → ask your manager for a deadline extension. (illustrative)
• Watch for: Items that are too vague ("be more assertive at work"). Each item must name a person, a situation and the response wanted.

B5. Relaxation and systematic desensitisation as adjuncts

• Purpose / when: Use when anticipatory anxiety is so high that the client cannot rehearse or attempt the lowest hierarchy items. Wolpe used relaxation as his primary anxiety-reduction method, with assertion as a second route. [source: Speed et al. 2018]
• Steps:
  1. Teach brief progressive or cue-controlled relaxation.
  2. Optionally, have the client visualise ascending hierarchy scenes while relaxed. Present each scene until it can be imagined with little anxiety, then move up.
  3. Then return to overt rehearsal.
  4. Before real assertions, teach one slow breath and a check of posture.
• Example language (illustrative): "Picture the corridor, your manager walking towards you. Keep your shoulders loose. Signal if the anxiety rises above 30."
• Watch for: Relaxation being used to avoid actually asserting. Keep it a bridge to action. Standard exposure cautions apply: get informed consent, explain that temporary discomfort is expected, and screen for trauma, where imagery can trigger intrusions. [synthesis]

C1. Behaviour rehearsal cycle (core procedure)

• Purpose / when: This is the main active ingredient, used every session from Phase 3. Lazarus introduced "behaviour rehearsal", and Wolpe & Lazarus (1966) set it out as the central assertive-training method. Later research isolated rehearsal, coaching, modelling and feedback as its parts. [source: ERIC ED126380 on McFall & Marston 1970, McFall & Twentyman 1973; Speed et al. 2018] The step order below is synthesised from these sources. [synthesis]
• Steps:
  1. Set the scene. Take a hierarchy item. Get specifics: where it happens, who is there, the other person's typical opening line and manner.
  2. Brief the antagonist. The therapist, or a group member, plays the other person at the agreed level of difficulty. Start cooperative and add pushback later.
  3. Baseline run. The client responds as they naturally would, for 30–90 seconds.
  4. Feedback. Ask the client first: what went well, what to change, and their SUDS. Then give your own feedback, with one or two strengths and one or two specific changes covering both content and delivery.
  5. Model. If needed, the therapist demonstrates an alternative response while the client plays the other person (see C2 and C6).
  6. Coach. Give one or two specific instructions for the next run (see C4).
  7. Re-rehearse. Repeat until the response is fluent and SUDS has dropped, usually 3–6 runs.
  8. Raise the difficulty. Have the antagonist push back so the client practises persisting (see E1 and D3).
  9. Assign real-life practice. Set a real-life assignment matched to the rehearsed scene (see G1).
• Example language (illustrative): "Good, your request was clear. This time keep your eyes on me as you say it and drop the 'sorry, it's probably nothing'. Same words otherwise. Ready? I'm your landlord: 'What is it now?'"
• Watch for:
  • Rehearsing too long without moving on: after 6 runs without progress, step down the hierarchy.
  • Antagonist role-play that is too harsh too early.
  • A client performing well but with high SUDS. Keep repeating for habituation before assigning the situation in real life.
  • Signs it is working: shorter response latency, fewer qualifiers, steadier voice and falling SUDS across runs.

C2. Modelling (live and symbolic)

• Purpose / when: Use when the client does not know what an assertive response looks or sounds like (a skill deficit). Treatment studies used therapist modelling, recorded models and "symbolic verbal modelling". [source: ERIC ED126380 on McFall & Lillesand 1971, Eisler et al. 1973; Speed et al. 2018]
• Steps:
  1. Demonstrate the target response yourself, or play or show a recorded peer example.
  2. Ask the client to say what made it assertive, both the words and the delivery.
  3. Show a second, different model so the client does not copy one script word for word.
  4. Have the client adapt the response into their own words and rehearse it (C1).
• Example language (illustrative): "Watch me do it once. Notice where I pause and that I don't explain my reasons more than once."
• Watch for: Over-imitation, where the client sounds unlike themselves. One component analysis found modelling added little beyond rehearsal plus coaching (McFall & Twentyman 1973), so use it when it is needed rather than by default. [source: ERIC ED126380]

C3. Covert rehearsal and covert modelling

• Purpose / when: Use when overt role play is too threatening, between sessions, or just before a real assertion. Covert (imagined) rehearsal was compared with overt rehearsal by McFall & Lillesand (1971), and Hersen et al. (1979) compared live and covert modelling. [source: ERIC ED126380; Speed et al. 2018] Kazdin's covert-modelling procedures for assertion are not drawn on. [uncertain]
• Steps:
  1. With eyes closed, the client imagines the scene in detail, then either a model or themselves making the assertive response successfully.
  2. Then they imagine a range of outcomes, including mild pushback and a good recovery.
  3. Repeat 3–5 times.
  4. Follow with an overt run when possible.
• Example language (illustrative): "Picture yourself at the counter. Hear yourself say 'I'd like a refund, please.' Notice your feet on the floor and your voice steady."
• Watch for: Imagery that slides into catastrophe. If that happens, stop, re-script, and keep the imagined outcomes realistic rather than ideal.

C4. Coaching non-verbal and paralinguistic components

• Purpose / when: Use throughout rehearsal. Targets named in the sources are eye contact, voice volume, affect, posture, response latency and length of speech. [source: Linehan et al. 1979 and Eisler et al. 1974 via Speed et al. 2018] Alberti & Emmons also list facial expression, gestures, fluency, timing, listening and content as components. [uncertain]
• Steps:
  1. Pick one or two components per run, not all at once.
  2. Give a concrete instruction, for example: look at the person's face while you make the request; use the same volume as when you order coffee; sit upright with feet on the floor; start within two seconds; match your face to your words.
  3. Rehearse and rate that component only.
  4. Add the next component.
• Example language (illustrative): "Your words were fine, but you smiled while saying you were angry. Try it with a neutral face."
• Watch for: Overcorrection into staring, loudness or stiffness. Check what is normal for the client's culture before setting an eye-contact or volume target. [synthesis]

C5. Performance feedback, including audio or video replay

• Purpose / when: Use after each rehearsal run so the client can see and hear their own delivery. Studies used recorded replays of the client's own responses as feedback. [source: ERIC ED126380 on McFall & Marston 1970; Speed et al. 2018 on audio/video feedback]
• Steps:
  1. With consent, record a run on a phone.
  2. Play it back. The client comments first, then the therapist adds one strength and one specific change.
  3. Rehearse again and compare the recordings.
  4. Delete the recordings or store them under your data-protection policy.
• Watch for: Harsh self-criticism on seeing oneself recorded. Structure feedback as strengths first and keep it specific.

C6. Role reversal

• Purpose / when: Use when the client cannot predict the other person's responses, needs to model for themselves, or needs to understand the other person's view (useful for empathic assertion). Commonly described as part of behaviour rehearsal in the Wolpe–Lazarus tradition. [uncertain]
• Steps:
  1. The client plays the other person while the therapist plays the client, using the client's own words from the baseline run.
  2. Ask the client how it felt to receive that response.
  3. The therapist then models a more assertive version while the client is still in the other person's role.
  4. Switch back to the original roles and rehearse.
• Example language (illustrative): "You be your father. I'll be you. Say what he usually says."
• Watch for: Distress when playing an abusive figure. Do not use role reversal with perpetrators of trauma without trauma-informed preparation. [synthesis]

D1. Basic assertion

• Purpose / when: This is the first response type to teach: a plain statement of a want, need, belief, opinion or feeling. [source: University at Buffalo handout, following the Lange & Jakubowski / Jakubowski & Lange typology; the attribution of the typology to them is uncertain]
• Steps:
  1. Write one sentence in the first person stating the want or opinion.
  2. Remove apologies, excessive justification and hedges.
  3. Rehearse it with steady delivery.
• Example language (illustrative): "I'd like to finish my point before we move on."
• Watch for: Statements that open with long excuses. One brief reason is enough.

D2. Empathic assertion

• Purpose / when: Use when the relationship matters or the other person is stressed. It acknowledges the other person's situation or feeling, then states one's own position. [source: University at Buffalo handout]
• Steps:
  1. Reflect the other person's position or feeling in one clause.
  2. Follow with "and" rather than "but", then state the want or limit.
  3. Rehearse the response with an antagonist who keeps pressing.
• Example language (illustrative): "I know you're swamped with the launch, and I still need the report by Friday."
• Watch for: Empathy turning into giving in. The limit must survive the acknowledgement.

D3. Escalating assertion

• Purpose / when: Use when a first, mild assertion is ignored. Start with the least forceful response likely to work and become gradually firmer without becoming aggressive. [source: University at Buffalo handout; the "minimal effective response" concept is attributed to Rimm & Masters 1974, uncertain]
• Steps:
  1. Prepare a three-level script: a polite request; a firm statement repeating it; a firm statement adding a stated consequence the client is willing and able to carry out.
  2. Rehearse the full sequence, with the antagonist ignoring the first two levels.
  3. Check that the consequence is proportionate and something the client will actually follow through on.
• Example language (illustrative): "Could you turn the music down, please?" → "I'm asking again for the music to be turned down." → "If it's not turned down by eleven, I'll contact the building manager."
• Watch for: Jumping straight to level 3, or threatening consequences the client will not carry out.

D4. Confrontive assertion

• Purpose / when: Use when someone's actions contradict an agreement. [source: University at Buffalo handout]
• Steps:
  1. Describe neutrally what was agreed.
  2. Describe what actually happened, without attributing motives.
  3. State what the client wants now.
• Example language (illustrative): "We agreed you'd cover Saturday's shift. You told me Friday night you couldn't. I'd like us to arrange cover together next time, at least two days ahead."
• Watch for: Interrogation or labelling ("You're unreliable").

D5. I-language (I-statements)

• Purpose / when: Use when expressing negative feelings or difficult feedback. The client speaks from their own perspective without judging or blaming. [source: Wikipedia; University at Buffalo handout]
• Steps: Use four parts:
  1. The specific behaviour.
  2. Its concrete effect on the client.
  3. The client's feeling.
  4. The client's preference.
• Example language (illustrative): "When plans change at the last minute, I end up cancelling things, and I feel frustrated. I'd like a day's notice if you can."
• Watch for: Disguised "you" statements such as "I feel that you are selfish". The feeling word must describe the client, not the other person.

D6. DESC script

• Purpose / when: Use for planned, high-stakes conversations. DESC stands for Describe, Express, Specify, Consequences. [source: Bower & Bower 1976, Asserting Yourself; uncertain]
• Steps:
  1. Write each element in one or two sentences: describe the behaviour objectively; express your feelings or thoughts; specify the change you want, including what you will do; state the consequences, preferably positive ones and only realistic ones.
  2. Rehearse the script (C1).
  3. Prepare for likely replies.
• Example language (illustrative): "Three meetings this month have started 20 minutes late. I'm losing time I need for clients. I'd like us to start on time or reschedule. If we can, I'll be able to stay for the full agenda."
• Watch for: Consequences that are worded as threats.

D7. Positive assertion: giving and receiving compliments and affection

• Purpose / when: Use with every client, and especially with those who are reserved or depressed. Expressing positive feelings is one of Lazarus's four response classes. [source: Speed et al. 2018; University at Buffalo handout]
• Steps:
  1. Giving: make it specific and sincere and drop any immediate self-deprecation.
  2. Receiving: practise a simple thank-you or agreement instead of deflecting.
  3. Rehearse, then set a quota for real life, such as one specific appreciation per day.
• Example language (illustrative): "Thanks, I worked hard on that." (in place of "Oh, it was nothing")
• Watch for: Compliments that are vague or carry an ulterior motive.

D8. Refusing requests (saying no)

• Purpose / when: Refusal is one of Lazarus's four response classes and a core target for people-pleasing clients. [source: Speed et al. 2018]
• Steps:
  1. Buy time if needed.
  2. Say no clearly and early in the reply.
  3. Give at most one brief reason; it is optional.
  4. Optionally offer an alternative.
  5. Do not over-apologise.
  6. Repeat the refusal if pressed (E1).
• Example language (illustrative): "Let me check my diary and get back to you." / "No, I can't do Saturday. I could help for an hour on Sunday."
• Watch for: Reasons that invite negotiation ("I might be busy"), and saying yes later out of guilt. If this happens, address the guilt beliefs (B3).

D9. Making requests

• Purpose / when: Use when the client cannot ask for help, favours, information, or what they are owed. [source: Lazarus via Speed et al. 2018]
• Steps:
  1. Decide exactly what is wanted and by when.
  2. Ask directly rather than hinting.
  3. Accept that the other person has the right to refuse.
  4. Practise both the yes outcome and the no outcome in rehearsal.
• Example language (illustrative): "Would you be willing to proofread this by Wednesday?"
• Watch for: Hints and indirect requests that the client experiences as asking but others do not hear as asking.

D10. Initiating, maintaining and ending conversations

• Purpose / when: Use for socially anxious or isolated clients. This is Lazarus's fourth response class. [source: Speed et al. 2018]
• Steps: Rehearse each of these in graded settings: opening lines; open questions; building on what the other person shares (see E2 and E3); disclosing an opinion; and ending politely.
• Example language (illustrative): "It's been good talking. I need to head off now."
• Watch for: Safety behaviours such as scripted monologues or avoiding eye contact. Integrate social-anxiety CBT if needed. [synthesis]

E. Smith's (1975) verbal techniques: overview

These techniques come from Manuel Smith's When I Say No, I Feel Guilty (1975). The techniques are taken from Wikipedia, a University of Limerick self-help sheet citing Smith, and general knowledge. Mark the less-documented items [uncertain]. Lange & Jakubowski warned that broken record and fogging can be manipulative and destructive when used without respect. [source: Beaubien review] Teach them as tools for persistence and for handling criticism, not as ways to "win". [synthesis]

E1. Broken record

• Purpose / when: Use when the other person keeps pressing, sidetracking or arguing against a reasonable request or refusal. [source: Wikipedia; UL self-help sheet]
• Steps:
  1. Pick one short, calm sentence.
  2. Briefly acknowledge the other person's point.
  3. Restate the same sentence without new justifications.
  4. Repeat as needed.
  5. Rehearse with an antagonist who uses guilt, humour and side-issues.
• Example language (illustrative): "I hear it's a great deal. I'm not buying today." … "I understand. I'm not buying today."
• Watch for:
  • Using it in close relationships where it becomes stonewalling.
  • Repetition losing force, in which case move to a workable compromise (E7) or a stated consequence (D3). Wikipedia notes that repeated requests can lose power and that sanctions may then be needed.

E2. Free information

• Purpose / when: Use for building conversation. The client notices and follows up on information the other person offers without being asked. [uncertain: Smith; description from general knowledge]
• Steps:
  1. Practise listening for cues such as mentioned activities, places or feelings.
  2. Ask an open question about one of them.
• Example language (illustrative): Other: "Sorry I'm late, the trains from Leeds were a mess." Client: "Leeds? Do you travel down every day?"
• Watch for: Interrogating instead of conversing. Balance it with self-disclosure (E3).

E3. Self-disclosure

• Purpose / when: Use to deepen conversation and to express one's own views and feelings openly, including about things the client is self-conscious about. [uncertain: Smith]
• Steps:
  1. Rehearse sharing a relevant opinion, preference or feeling in response to free information.
  2. Grade from low-risk disclosures (tastes) to higher-risk ones (feelings).
• Example language (illustrative): "I'm nervous about these meetings myself."
• Watch for: Over-disclosure too early in a relationship.

E4. Fogging

• Purpose / when: Use to receive manipulative or non-constructive criticism calmly. The client agrees with any part that is true, or true in principle, without accepting the whole and without changing course. [source: Wikipedia; UL self-help sheet; University at Buffalo handout]
• Steps:
  1. Listen to the criticism.
  2. Find the element that is literally true or possibly true.
  3. Agree with that element in a calm, non-sarcastic tone.
  4. Do not defend, counter-attack or comply.
• Example language (illustrative): Critic: "You're always so slow with these." Client: "You're right, I do take my time with them."
• Watch for:
  • A sarcastic tone, which turns fogging into aggression.
  • Fogging valid, important feedback, which calls for negative inquiry (E6) or negative assertion (E5) instead.

E5. Negative assertion

• Purpose / when: Use when criticism of a real mistake is valid. The client accepts the fault without excessive apology or self-attack, and without giving up a legitimate demand. [source: Wikipedia]
• Steps:
  1. Acknowledge the specific error plainly.
  2. Optionally say what you will do about it.
  3. Stop there, with no self-deprecating speech.
• Example language (illustrative): "Yes, I forgot to send it. That was careless. I'll send it in the next hour."
• Watch for: Shame spirals. Pair this with cognitive work on perfectionism (B3).

E6. Negative inquiry

• Purpose / when: Use when criticism is vague. The client asks for specific information to find out whether it is useful or manipulative. [source: Wikipedia]
• Steps:
  1. Ask in a genuinely curious tone what specifically the other person objects to.
  2. Keep asking until the criticism is concrete or runs out.
  3. Then respond with negative assertion, fogging or a request.
• Example language (illustrative): "What is it about the way I ran the meeting that bothered you?"
• Watch for: A sarcastic or challenging tone. Rehearse the delivery carefully.

E7. Workable compromise

• Purpose / when: Use when both people's interests are legitimate and the client's self-respect is not at stake. The client offers a middle ground. [source: UL self-help sheet (described there, not labelled); Smith's labelling is uncertain]
• Steps:
  1. State your own need.
  2. Acknowledge theirs.
  3. Propose a specific option that meets part of both.
  4. Agree the details.
• Example language (illustrative): "I can't stay late tonight, but I can come in early tomorrow to finish it."
• Watch for: Compromising on matters of personal safety, values or core rights. Those are not open to compromise.

E8. Defusing (postponing during anger)

• Purpose / when: Use when the other person is too angry for productive exchange. The client sets aside the content and postpones the discussion until things are calmer. [source: UL self-help sheet; this is not confirmed as one of Smith's named techniques, uncertain]
• Steps:
  1. Acknowledge the anger briefly.
  2. Propose a specific later time.
  3. Leave or end the call if the anger continues.
  4. Return to the issue at the agreed time.
• Example language (illustrative): "I can see you're really angry. I want to sort this out, and I'll talk about it at six when we've both calmed down."
• Watch for: Defusing used as permanent avoidance. Always follow up at the agreed time.

F. Salter's (1949) excitatory exercises

Salter's Conditioned Reflex Therapy (1949) prescribed exercises to make "inhibitory" people more "excitatory". The sources confirm "I-talk" (the deliberate use of "I" as often as possible, CRT p.68) and confirm that there were six such techniques, but they do not name all six. The other five below are the names commonly given in secondary textbooks; the book itself is not drawn on. [source: Wikipedia "Andrew Salter"; APS Observer; other five uncertain] Salter's approach was confrontational. Modern use softens the "contradict" exercise into respectful disagreement. [synthesis]

• F1. Feeling-talk: Deliberately say out loud what one feels and likes or dislikes, in everyday conversation. Use: for emotionally constricted clients. Step: set a daily quota of spontaneous feeling statements, such as "I love this song" or "I didn't enjoy that film" (illustrative). Watch for: statements that sound forced. Grade them up from low-risk topics. [uncertain]
• F2. Facial-talk: Let the face show the emotion being felt. Use: for clients with flat or incongruent expression. Step: practise matching facial expression to feeling in a mirror or on video (link to C4). [uncertain]
• F3. Contradict and attack: When one disagrees, say so rather than feigning agreement. Salter's original emphasis was combative. Modern step: rehearse voicing a different opinion respectfully, for example "I see it differently: …" (illustrative). Watch for: aggression. Keep B1 discrimination in view. [uncertain]
• F4. Deliberate use of "I": Use "I" as often as possible to own one's statements. Step: rewrite generalised "one" or "you" statements into "I" statements (links to D5). [source: Wikipedia, citing CRT p.68]
• F5. Express agreement when praised: Accept praise rather than deflecting it. Step: see D7. [uncertain]
• F6. Improvise: Act spontaneously rather than planning everything in advance. Step: graded tasks such as replying without rehearsing in low-stakes chats. Watch for: impulsivity in clients who already struggle with it. Do not use with them. [uncertain; caution is synthesis]

G1. Real-life (in-vivo) assignments and behavioural contracting

• Purpose / when: Use every session from Phase 3 to transfer gains to real life. Treatment programmes combined rehearsal with "contracting" and with between-session practice. [source: ERIC ED126380; Speed et al. 2018 case examples] The structure below is synthesis.
• Steps:
  1. Choose one or two real situations matched to the item just rehearsed.
  2. Specify who, when, the exact opening line and the fallback (escalation, broken record or exit).
  3. Predict the outcome and rate SUDS beforehand.
  4. Agree a written contract, for example "by Thursday I will ask X for Y".
  5. Log the attempt: the actual outcome, SUDS and what was learned.
  6. Debrief at the start of the next session. Praise the attempt regardless of outcome and troubleshoot.
• Example language (illustrative): "So the deal is: Wednesday, after the team meeting, you'll ask Sam to swap the rota, using the words we practised. Whatever Sam says, the success is that you asked."
• Watch for:
  • Assignments that depend on another person's response for "success". Define success as the client's own behaviour.
  • Unsafe targets. Check that the assignment does not expose the client to violence, job loss or other real harm. [synthesis]

G2. Group-format procedures

• Purpose / when: Use when delivering AT as a group or course. Lange & Jakubowski's trainer manual describes about 20 structured exercises and theme-oriented groups for specific populations. [source: Beaubien review] The exercises themselves are not drawn on, so the structure below is generic synthesis. [uncertain]
• Steps:
  1. Run 6–10 members per group and screen each one first: exclude people in acute crisis and people whose main problem is aggression unless the group is designed for them.
  2. Open each session by reviewing homework.
  3. Give a short didactic input (B1, B2, D-types).
  4. Model the skill (C2).
  5. Rehearse in triads, with an asserter, an antagonist and an observer who gives feedback, then rotate roles.
  6. Rehearse in a fishbowl, with one pair in the centre and the group giving feedback.
  7. Assign individual homework (G1).
  8. Close with each member stating one thing they are proud of. This is itself a positive assertion.
• Example language (illustrative): "Observers, give one thing that worked and one specific change, about either the words or the delivery."
• Watch for: Dominant members taking over feedback, and members holding back. Structure turns explicitly.

G3. Consolidation, self-reinforcement and relapse prevention

• Purpose / when: Use in the last 1–2 sessions. This is synthesis consistent with CBT practice; the sources do not describe a specific AT maintenance protocol. [synthesis]
• Steps:
  1. Review the log and inventory change (A2).
  2. Identify high-risk people and situations still ahead.
  3. Have the client run a full rehearsal cycle on their own, out loud or covertly (C3).
  4. Agree self-reinforcement for assertive attempts.
  5. Set a monthly self-check and offer booster sessions.
• Watch for: A return to over-accommodation under stress, such as a new job or a new relationship. Plan a pre-emptive rehearsal for these.

5. Handling problems

The sources say little about troubleshooting. Except where a source is tagged, this section is synthesis from general CBT and skills-training practice. [synthesis]

• Stuck: competent in role play, no change in life. This points to inhibition rather than a skill deficit. [source: Linehan et al. 1979 via Speed et al. 2018]
  • Move to B3: elicit the specific prediction for the real person and test it with a smaller experiment.
  • Add covert rehearsal immediately before the real event (C3).
  • Lower the hierarchy step. Use an intermediate person or a lower-stakes version of the request.
• Stuck: cannot produce the response even in role play. This points to a skill deficit or very high anxiety.
  • Model more (C2) and shorten the target to one sentence.
  • Do written scripting first, then reading aloud, then speaking from memory.
  • Add relaxation or desensitisation (B5).
• "Assertion is selfish, rude or un-Christian" (or another value objection). Do not argue.
  • Explore what the client's values say about honesty and about respecting oneself and others.
  • Show that assertion includes the other person's rights (B1, B2) and that the client chooses when to use it. [principle: Lange & Jakubowski's rejection of "assertion at all costs", via Beaubien review]
  • Start with positive assertion (D7), which rarely conflicts with values.
• Cultural or family norms where direct speech is costly. Assertive behaviour is judged in context. [source: Speed et al. 2018]
  • Calibrate the form: indirect-but-clear wording, empathic assertion (D2), choosing private rather than public settings, and using intermediaries where that is the norm.
  • Ask the client what a respected person in their community would say, and model on that.
• Overwhelm or high anxiety in session.
  • Stop the run. Ground with slow breathing and orient to the room.
  • Rate SUDS and return to a lower item.
  • In later runs, have the antagonist start out cooperative.
  • If panic dominates, treat the panic first. Speed et al.'s second case reduced panic symptoms before moving to AT.
• Non-adherence to real-life assignments.
  • Ask what got in the way: no opportunity, too hard, forgot, or the other person was unavailable.
  • Shrink the task, make an implementation plan (when, where, first line) and agree a reminder.
  • Do the assignment in session where possible: a phone call, an email, or a request to a receptionist.
  • Reinforce attempts, not outcomes (G1).
• Overshoot into aggression. Many beginners "go too far". [source: Wikipedia]
  • Normalise it as part of learning (the pendulum swing).
  • Repeat B1 discrimination on the client's own example.
  • Coach the minimal effective response (D3) and empathic assertion (D2).
  • Help the client repair with the other person. Rehearse an apology that keeps the original request.
• Backlash or negative real-world reactions. These are a known risk when AT is applied rigidly. Assertive women may face a double bind at work. [source: Speed et al. 2018]
  • Prepare clients beforehand that some people will resist change in a previously accommodating person.
  • Debrief: separate "I did it skilfully" from "they liked it".
  • Consider the timing, the setting and a different response type.
  • Choosing not to assert after weighing the consequences is a valid outcome.
• Danger: abusive relationships or coercive control.
  • Do not assign assertion towards someone who has been violent or threatening.
  • Prioritise safety planning and refer to domestic-abuse services.
  • Use AT only in safe domains, or as part of an exit plan.
  • This reflects the Wolpe-tradition caution against prompting assertion where punishment is likely. [uncertain attribution; core guidance is synthesis]
• Using techniques manipulatively (broken record as nagging, fogging as sarcasm). This risk is flagged by Lange & Jakubowski. [source: Beaubien review; Wikipedia]
  • Name it gently and return to the mutual-rights principle.
  • Check the intent: is this to express a need, or to win?
• Ruptures in the therapy relationship.
  • When the client disagrees with or criticises the therapist, treat it as a live assertion. Acknowledge it, thank them, use negative inquiry (E6) genuinely, and adjust.
  • When the therapist has pushed too hard, for example with an over-ambitious homework or a harsh antagonist role, say so and recalibrate. This models negative assertion (E5).
• The client complies with the therapist without asserting (people-pleasing in session).
  • Invite disagreement explicitly: "Tell me one thing about today's homework you'd change" (illustrative).
  • Practise refusing a mock request from the therapist.
• Underlying anger problems presenting as "assertiveness" requests.
  • Assess for aggression first.
  • Combine discrimination and empathy work with anger-management methods rather than pure assertion rehearsal.
• Depression and low self-worth. Low assertiveness has been linked to depression in some samples. [source: Speed et al. 2018]
  • Start with positive assertion and small requests.
  • Monitor mood and assess suicide risk using standard practice if hopelessness rises after a setback.
• Social anxiety. Exposure is built into rehearsal. [source: Speed et al. 2018]
  • Watch for safety behaviours during role plays and real-life practice and fade them.
  • Integrate social-anxiety CBT if needed.
• Clients with severe mental illness or cognitive difficulties. Group AT has been run for chronic schizophrenia over 12 sessions. [source: Lee et al. 2013 via Speed et al. 2018]
  • Use shorter scripts, more repetition, visual prompts and concrete everyday scenarios.
• Autistic or neurodivergent clients.
  • Explicit scripts can help. Pay attention to over-literal generalisation and to non-verbal targets: do not impose eye-contact norms; agree alternatives.
• Trauma history.
  • Avoid role-playing perpetrators without preparation (C6).
  • Watch for dissociation during confrontation scenes.
  • Sequence trauma-focused work first if confrontation scenes trigger re-experiencing.

Sources

Sources:

• Assertiveness (Wikipedia)
• Andrew Salter (psychologist) (Wikipedia)
• Andrew Salter (1914–1996): Founding behavior therapist (APS Observer)
• Speed, Goldstein & Goldfried (2018). Assertiveness training: A forgotten evidence-based treatment. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice (author PDF)
• Parr & Lundquist. Modeling and behavior rehearsal with nonassertive junior high students (ERIC ED126380)
• Beaubien, review of Lange & Jakubowski, Responsible Assertive Behavior (Canadian Journal of Counselling)
• Types of assertion handout (University at Buffalo)
• Assertiveness self-help sheet (Mary Immaculate College / University of Limerick)
• Assertive Responses (Psychology Tools)

Further reading (not drawn on unless listed above):

• Salter, A. (1949). Conditioned Reflex Therapy.
• Wolpe, J. (1958). Psychotherapy by Reciprocal Inhibition.
• Wolpe, J. (1990). The Practice of Behavior Therapy (4th ed.).
• Wolpe, J., & Lazarus, A. A. (1966). Behavior Therapy Techniques.
• Lazarus, A. A. (1971). Behavior Therapy and Beyond.
• Lazarus, A. A. (1973). On assertive behavior: A brief note. Behavior Therapy.
• Alberti, R. E., & Emmons, M. L. (1970; later editions). Your Perfect Right.
• Smith, M. J. (1975). When I Say No, I Feel Guilty.
• Lange, A. J., & Jakubowski, P. (1976). Responsible Assertive Behavior: Cognitive/Behavioral Procedures for Trainers.
• Jakubowski, P., & Lange, A. J. (1978). The Assertive Option.
• Bower, S. A., & Bower, G. H. (1976). Asserting Yourself.
• Rimm, D. C., & Masters, J. C. (1974). Behavior Therapy: Techniques and Empirical Findings.
• Rathus, S. A. (1973). A 30-item schedule for assessing assertive behavior. Behavior Therapy.
• Gambrill, E. D., & Richey, C. A. (1975). An assertion inventory for use in assessment and research. Behavior Therapy.
• Linehan, M. M., Goldfried, M. R., & Goldfried, A. P. (1979). Assertion therapy: Skill training or cognitive restructuring. Behavior Therapy.
• McFall, R. M., & Marston, A. R. (1970); McFall, R. M., & Lillesand, D. B. (1971); McFall, R. M., & Twentyman, C. T. (1973). Behavioral rehearsal studies, Journal of Abnormal Psychology.