Why assertiveness training programs fail

This second decade of research in and practice of assertiveness training calls forth mixed reactions. This article identifies promising developments in contrast to recurrent mistakes found in such training programs. It discusses overlooked problems that arise in negative image, curriculum format, and generalizability of learned skills. Curriculum format, in particular, faces unresolved difficulties with definitions of assertiveness, models of training, and inadequacies of instructor preparation. Risks of established programs in business and psychotherapy may outweigh presumed benefits; elicited "assertiveness " may not result in positive short- and long-term outcomes for all persons in all situations. Recommendations to enhance interventions are provided, derived largely from behavioral systems theory. The eagerness of clinicians and educators to demonstrate the power of self-expression has been the guiding force behind the assertiveness movement. Despite its multiple origins (Galassi & Galassi, 1978; Ruben, 1985; Salter, 1949), the enormous growth of assertiveness interventions over the last 20 years relates to en-hanced methodology, techniques, and rethinking of basic princi-ples. Alberti (1977) described this eagerness and growth in the 1970s as philosophically oriented and inching closer to scientific analysis. By the early 1980s, predictions of progress beyond neo-natal stages were clearly evident; the incursion of assertiveness programs into circles of business and psychotherapy opened door