Assertive Communication: Saying What You Think Without Disrespecting the Other Person

Assertive communication doesn’t avoid disagreement or force it: it names it with clarity and respect at the same time.

This article is part of an informational series on communication style, based on classic assertiveness theory. It’s meant for informational purposes and doesn’t replace guidance from a psychology professional.

The point of balance

Robert Alberti and Michael Emmons published Your Perfect Right in 1970, the book that gave assertiveness training its popular form. In their original approach, assertive behavior is defined by contrast with two others: nonassertive behavior (staying quiet or giving in at your own expense) and aggressive behavior (imposing yourself at the other person’s expense). Being assertive means standing up for yourself without denying the other person’s rights.

Later popular writing added a fourth style, the passive-aggressive one, and that’s how this site’s communication style quiz presents it. Compared with the other three, the assertive style doesn’t keep quiet about what it thinks (unlike the passive style), doesn’t impose it without a filter (unlike the aggressive one) and doesn’t communicate it indirectly (unlike the passive-aggressive one): it expresses it directly, while minding the impact on the other person.

How it shows up

• You can say no without over-justifying yourself or feeling guilty about it.
• You express disagreement as soon as it comes up, directly but with care.
• You hold your position without needing the other person to fully give in for you to feel the conversation went well.
• You listen to the other person’s response with a willingness to consider it, not just waiting for your turn to speak.

An assertive “no,” in practice

The quiz’s first statement, saying no without over-justifying yourself, is the one most noticeable in daily life. An example: a coworker asks you to cover her Saturday shift for the third time this month.

• Passive response: “Well, okay, no problem,” even though you had plans.
• Aggressive response: “Again? It’s always the same with you.”
• Assertive response: “I can’t this Saturday. If it works for you, I can cover the one after.”

The assertive version doesn’t offer five excuses or apologize for having plans. It says no, once, and offers an alternative if there genuinely is one. If the other person insists, you calmly repeat the same idea rather than adding new justifications.

What the research says

Assertiveness training was for years a very popular research area in psychotherapy. In a 2018 review, Brittany Speed, Brandon Goldstein and Marvin Goldfried point out that a substantial body of research links assertiveness to a wide variety of clinical problems and settings, and they argue that training it is a valuable, transdiagnostic intervention, useful beyond any one specific disorder. Their criticism is that, despite that support, research on assertiveness training as a stand-alone treatment has almost disappeared.

For everyday life, the practical idea is simple: standing up for your own needs without silencing them (which builds frustration) or imposing them (which creates distance) lets disagreements keep happening, but get resolved with less lingering resentment.

It isn’t a permanent state

It’s best not to idealize this style as a fixed achievement, reached once and for all. Under a lot of stress or fatigue, or in an especially charged argument, anyone can slip momentarily toward passivity (staying quiet to avoid more conflict) or aggression (losing patience with the tone).

Being aware of those moments, without judging yourself harshly for them, helps you return to balance next time.

Your maintenance challenge

If you already identify with this style, the challenge isn’t “achieving” it but sustaining it in difficult moments: the most emotionally charged arguments, conversations with the people who matter most to you, or the days you’re simply worn out. Recognizing when you’re about to slip into another style is, in itself, a form of assertiveness toward yourself.

Shared meaning, according to Crucial Conversations

Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, Ron McMillan and Al Switzler, in Crucial Conversations (2002), describe dialogue as the free flow of meaning between people: the more ideas, facts and perspectives are put on the table, the better the group’s final decision, and the more committed people are to it, because they’ve understood the why and haven’t just been informed.

That’s what assertive communication does better than the other three alternatives: it doesn’t withhold information from the pool (as silence does) or force it unilaterally (as what the authors call violence does), but contributes it clearly and leaves it available so the conversation can move forward.

The authors illustrate the cost of not doing so with a hospital case: several professionals sensed that something was off during an operation, and none of them said so out loud. The error didn’t happen for lack of knowledge, but because that knowledge was never shared.

Do you recognize yourself in this style? Find out with the communication style quiz.

Sources

• Alberti, R. E. and Emmons, M. L. (1970). Your Perfect Right. Impact Publishers.
• Patterson, K., Grenny, J., McMillan, R. and Switzler, A. (2002). Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High. McGraw-Hill.
• Speed, B. C., Goldstein, B. L. and Goldfried, M. R. (2018). Assertiveness training: A forgotten evidence-based treatment. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 25(1), e12216. https://doi.org/10.1111/cpsp.12216