Social assertiveness, herein referred to as “speaking up,” has been traditionally conceptualized as the ability to directly and appropriately express one’s own needs, desires, and emotions, while simultaneously respecting the rights and perspectives of others (Alberti and Emmons, 1970). This interpersonal skill, in its various forms, has been recognized as a critical factor in enhancing individuals’ social functioning and subjective well-being (e.g., Sarkova et al., 2013; Ates, 2016; Carstensen and Klusmann, 2021). Typically, this traditional form of assertiveness has been understood as a preferred alternative to aggression (forceful, unfriendly conflict) and passivity (avoidance). However, as discussed below under the concept of “functional assertiveness,” social assertiveness can also be regarded as a communication continuum, where more aggressive or passive responses may be appropriate depending on the context—with a reasonable outcome being the standard of effectiveness. Moreover, expressions of assertiveness are shaped by cultural context. For example, communication styles perceived as appropriate in North America may be viewed as overly direct in East Asian or Latin American cultures (Park and Kim, 2008; Ma and Jaeger, 2010). The concept of functional assertiveness explicitly emphasizes context-appropriate expression over rigid stylistic norms.

Human emotional responses to challenging interpersonal situations frequently involve automatic and evolutionarily conserved fight-or-flight reactions. The perception of social threat often triggers affective responses, such as anger or fear, which may, in turn, elicit impulsive behavioral tendencies toward confrontation or avoidance (Blanchard and Blanchard, 2008). However, verbal assertiveness offers an alternative response strategy, characterized by deliberate and intentional communication governed by cognitive control rather than emotional reactivity (Parrott, 2001). Through the conscious enactment of assertive communication, individuals are able to override automatic defensive responses and instead employ verbal negotiation and problem-solving skills. Such assertive behavior facilitates the preservation of personal autonomy, while simultaneously promoting the development of constructive and mutually respectful interpersonal relationships. These interpersonal outcomes are considered to contribute to greater overall life satisfaction and psychological well-being (Sarkova et al., 2013; Ames et al., 2017).

Although social assertiveness may appear similar to the Big Five personality trait of extraversion, the two are conceptually distinct. Extraversion reflects a stable trait involving sociability and enthusiasm (McCrae and Costa, 1997; Ashton and Lee, 2005), while social assertiveness is a context-sensitive interpersonal skill that can be intentionally cultivated and flexibly applied (Speed et al., 2018). Assertive behavior can also be situationally activated in individuals with low trait extraversion (John et al., 2008; Speed et al., 2018), underscoring the learnable and volitional nature of assertiveness. Big Five traits may account for the portion of well-being shaped by genetic predispositions (Lyubomirsky et al., 2005; Lyubomirsky and Layous, 2013), whereas assertiveness relates to the portion of well-being influenced by intentional activity.

A growing body of empirical evidence has demonstrated the efficacy of assertiveness skills training in enhancing psychological adjustment and interpersonal functioning. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have consistently shown that social skills training programs incorporating assertiveness components are associated with reductions in anxiety symptoms, particularly social anxiety, as well as improvements in self-esteem and decreases in depressive symptoms (Speed et al., 2018).

Speaking up (social assertiveness) is enhanced through specific verbal and interpersonal skills that empower individuals to communicate their needs, set boundaries, and express their emotions constructively.

In the West, it has been common to emphasize a particular “style” of verbal assertiveness—typically characterized by direct and forceful communication and corresponding “assertive” body language. However, the concept of “functional assertiveness” emphasizes the importance of focusing on desired outcomes and using a style that is best suited to one’s personality, specific social situation, and culture (Mitamura, 2018). For example, a communication style that is considered normative in North America may be less effective—or even counterproductive—in Asia and Latin America (Ma and Jaeger, 2010). While a more aggressive, less friendly approach may be necessary in response to abusive or cruel behavior, a more friendly, persuasive, and respectful approach may be more effective in many everyday social situations. The key to “functional assertiveness” is focusing on the desired outcome, maintaining communication that is appropriate for the context, and demonstrating persistence—whether that persistence is friendly and polite or not.

Lazarus (1973) once identified four core abilities to help people be more socially effective: (1) openly expressing one’s desires and needs; (2) saying no; (3) expressing one’s positive and negative emotions; and (4) adequately beginning, maintaining, and ending conversations. Similar skills have been articulated by behavioral psychologists over time. In our review of existing tools, the following four core verbal skills have emerged as particularly useful in a broad variety of difficult social interactions:

Verbal assertiveness training is widely available through therapists, educational programs, and online platforms. Therapists can be particularly beneficial in cases where past trauma makes it difficult for individuals to express themselves assertively (Herman, 2015). Being the victim of past bullying, acute criticism, or other forms of mental or physical abuse can leave individuals with mental imagery and related emotional pain that inhibits assertive communication (Hackmann et al., 2000). Addressing underlying trauma issues first can support the development of assertive verbal skills. Professional interventions may include techniques such as imagery rescripting (Wild and Clark, 2011; Arntz, 2012).

We define behavioral assertiveness, referred to here as “jumping in,” as the act of initiating necessary or desired activities despite a lack of motivation. This plays a crucial role in overcoming obstacles such as natural instincts, unpleasant emotions, and social pressures. Often, individuals avoid engaging in activities that could bring satisfaction, leading to inactivity and negative emotions. In contrast, assertiveness involves “jumping in” to engage with chosen activities, which can positively influence emotions and behavior. Participating in enjoyable or productive activities has been shown to generate positive thoughts and improve mood, whereas excessive inactivity or negative interactions may contribute to negative emotions (Singh et al., 2023).

The concept of behavioral activation (i.e., jumping in)—a key component of cognitive-behavioral therapy—involves engaging in activities despite emotional resistance. This form of assertiveness has been demonstrated to be highly effective, particularly in addressing depression. Research indicates that behavioral activation, when intentionally practiced, can be more effective than purely cognitive strategies, such as countering negative thoughts (Mazzucchelli et al., 2009). A significant study by Dimidjian et al. (2006) found that behavioral activation is as effective as antidepressant medication (paroxetine) in treating depression.

In life, individuals must engage in both necessary and desired activities, such as fulfilling responsibilities and pursuing personal interests. While emotions, whether positive or negative, are part of life, they should not hinder action. Behavioral psychologists argue that when individuals face persistent sadness or depression, the natural response may be to withdraw, which can worsen the condition (Gross, 2002). Therefore, an active approach—engaging with others and seeking help—is recommended as an effective coping strategy for depression and negative emotional states (Coyne and DeLongis, 1986).

It is important to distinguish behavioral assertiveness from related constructs such as grit and self-control (Duckworth et al., 2007; Vohs and Baumeister, 2011). Behavioral assertiveness, as defined here, refers to the capacity to initiate action despite a lack of motivation or the presence of emotional resistance—particularly in situations characterized by avoidance tendencies. While grit emphasizes long-term perseverance toward distant goals and self-control involves inhibiting impulses, behavioral assertiveness focuses on the intentional initiation of present-moment action, especially in relation to daily obligations and personally valued activities. This definition aligns closely with the principles of behavioral activation, particularly in its emphasis on overcoming inertia arising from mood, avoidance, or discomfort in social situations.

Jumping in (behavioral assertiveness) is supported by methods that promote goal-directed activity and help individuals overcome avoidance patterns. Below are three examples of practical strategies that can help activate behavior:

Emotional assertiveness, referred to here as “embracing compassion,” involves responding to suffering—both our own and that of others—with intentional, “assertive” acts of kindness and support. Suffering, in its various forms such as physical pain, emotional distress, anxiety, and grief, is an inherent aspect of the human experience. It can arise from external factors like illness, poverty, or life events, as well as from internal mental and emotional states. Regardless of its cause, suffering invariably involves a strong emotional component.

Our emotions and thoughts are deeply interconnected, influenced by biological, cultural, and psychological factors. Negative emotions are not solely triggered by immediate threats, but also by the mind’s ability to recall the past or imagine the future. For instance, remembering a loss can evoke grief, while worrying about potential challenges can lead to anxiety. Such emotional responses are a natural part of being human, as the mind constantly scans for both real and imagined dangers.

Compassion begins with recognizing the shared human experience of suffering and viewing others as fellow selves rather than objects. This perspective fosters a genuine concern for others’ well-being, even when their struggles are not fully known to us. While humans are driven by survival instincts, we also possess a natural inclination to help. Research shows that infants as young as 14–18 months engage in helping behaviors, such as comforting others and sharing, without external rewards (Hepach et al., 2012; Spinrad and Eisenberg, 2017). Moreover, adults who engage in altruistic behaviors, such as helping or volunteering, report increased life satisfaction and better physical and mental health outcomes (Headey et al., 2010; Brown and Brown, 2015). Ultimately, compassion and helping behaviors are essential components of human well-being.

Emotional assertiveness should be distinguished from related constructs such as empathy and emotional intelligence (Davis, 1994; Mayer et al., 2004). While empathy involves understanding or sharing another’s emotional state, and emotional intelligence refers to broader competencies like emotion recognition, regulation, and social navigation, emotional assertiveness emphasizes the intentional, compassionate expression of emotion—both inward and outward—especially in response to suffering. This includes not only caring behaviors toward others but also the practices of self-compassion and rational compassion. Rather than reflecting passive emotional sensitivity, emotional assertiveness is a proactive stance—a deliberate choice to respond to suffering (whether one’s own or others’) with kindness, support, and perspective-taking.

Embracing compassion (emotional assertiveness) involves strategies that cultivate and express compassion as an intentional response to suffering. The following four strategies are examples of approaches that can cultivate more compassion in our lives.

Self-compassion is a vital aspect of compassion-based practices (Neff, 2023). According to Neff (2011), self-compassion involves self-kindness, recognizing common humanity, and maintaining mindfulness. Practicing self-compassion allows individuals to respond to personal suffering with warmth and understanding rather than harsh self-criticism. Research indicates that self-compassion is associated with increased optimism, life satisfaction, and reduced depression and negative body image (Neff and Germer, 2013; Albertson et al., 2015). The four strategy examples above can also be applied to oneself.

Mental assertiveness, referred to here as “accepting life,” can be conceptualized as fostering greater acceptance of life by intentionally reducing unnecessary negative judgments. Excessive negative evaluations of oneself, others, or life circumstances are closely associated with dissatisfaction and negative emotions, two key components of human unhappiness. Acceptance refers to recognizing reality as it is, without denial or unrealistic expectations, especially regarding aspects that are beyond one’s control.

Previous research has demonstrated that cultivating acceptance through cognitive- and acceptance-based interventions contributes to improved mental health outcomes, particularly in managing anxiety symptoms (Butler et al., 2006; Gloster et al., 2020). Moreover, among older adults, greater acceptance of life experiences and associated unpleasant emotions has been linked to enhanced emotional well-being (Shallcross et al., 2013). Self-acceptance not only reduces anxiety but also fosters a greater acceptance of others (Falkenstein and Haaga, 2013).

Despite its benefits, acceptance is inherently challenging due to humans’ evolutionary tendency toward negativity bias. Negative judgments originally served as adaptive mechanisms for survival, drawing attention to potential threats (Rozin and Royzman, 2001).

Importantly, acceptance does not imply resignation or passive approval of adverse events. Rather, it involves intentionally observing experiences without excessive evaluation, reducing mental resistance, and acknowledging difficulties as inherent aspects of life. Acceptance can coexist with the appropriate use of necessary negative judgments, such as ethical discernment, problem-solving, and responding to injustice. Thus, fostering acceptance enables individuals to perceive life more accurately, reduce emotional turmoil, and engage in constructive actions to improve both personal well-being and the broader social environment.

Accepting life (mental assertiveness) requires finding a more reasonable perspective and reducing unnecessary negative judgments. The following four strategies are examples of approaches that can be used to promote psychological flexibility and reduce maladaptive judgments.

One of the biggest challenges to psychological well-being is the impact of difficult, unpleasant emotions that arise. CBT—including behavioral activation—and antidepressant medication have been shown to be helpful in this regard (Dimidjian et al., 2006; Mazzucchelli et al., 2009). Another approach, promoted by Steven Hayes and others, is acceptance and commitment therapy (Hayes et al., 1999; Hayes, 2004). The emphasis of this therapy is to focus less on the content of thoughts and feelings and more on our relationship to those thoughts and feelings—applying less judgment and more acceptance and compassion toward painful mental activity that is difficult to change. Part of this approach emphasizes flexibly and nonjudgmentally observing mental activity as natural sensations, rather than focusing on the detailed content of such mental activity or assuming that such thoughts and emotions are “us” (Hayes et al., 1999; Hayes, 2004). Instead of avoiding or fighting such activity, one learns to take it in with less negative judgment and reaction. And quite importantly, one learns not to allow such sensations to inhibit commitment to, and engagement in valued daily activities.

Another major component of acceptance of life is self-acceptance. While self-acceptance overlaps with self-compassion, it is different. Self-compassion entails providing ourselves with kindness and support, while self-acceptance is a more fundamental belief about the self. It is holding the conviction that one is a regular, worthwhile human being regardless of mistakes and limitations. We unconditionally accept ourselves, just as we unconditionally accept a son or daughter or best friend. Self-acceptance does not mean that everything we do is good, or that we like everything we do. It cannot be an excuse for cruel or harmful behavior. We still need to take responsibility for our actions. But it does mean that we accept ourselves as regular, imperfect human beings through the thick and thin of everyday living.

Radical acceptance, a concept popularized by Brach (2003), builds on mindfulness by encouraging acceptance of life’s realities—our thoughts, emotions, and external circumstances—without judgment or the need for control. This practice invites individuals to let go of mental resistance to things beyond their control, fostering compassion and mental clarity. In mindfulness meditation, moments of “radical acceptance” occur when we let go of mental turmoil and embrace life as it is, allowing the universe (or a higher power) to unfold as it will (Brach, 2003). Both mindfulness and radical acceptance work together to enhance mental well-being and promote a greater awareness of life’s present moment.

Empirical investigation of the four-pathway model of assertiveness is warranted to evaluate its predictive validity, clinical utility, and cross-cultural generalizability.

In addition, future research should clarify the model’s testability by explicitly addressing its underlying assumptions. If assertiveness is conceptualized as a state rather than a stable trait, longitudinal designs will be essential to capture its dynamic nature over time and in response to interventions. Such studies could explore intraindividual variability in assertiveness across contexts or life phases. Moreover, if the model implies normative benchmarks for adaptive assertiveness, comparative studies across populations (e.g., clinical vs. non-clinical groups, cultural or occupational samples) will be necessary to assess its generalizability and contextual appropriateness. These lines of inquiry may help determine whether certain assertiveness pathways are more salient or effective depending on situational demands or individual characteristics.

Future research should focus on the following:

In addition, theoretically, the model invites further exploration of assertiveness as an integrated construct within the broader frameworks of psychological flexibility, eudaimonic well-being, and self-determination theory (Hayes et al., 1999; Ryan and Deci, 2000). Future studies should also examine the convergent and discriminant validity of each pathway. While each is defined with distinct theoretical boundaries, empirical studies are needed to establish their uniqueness relative to related constructs—for example:

Establishing construct validity through factor analysis and correlations with existing measures will be essential in refining the model’s empirical value.

Although substantial research supports the effectiveness of each behavioral strategy included in this model, additional studies could examine the interrelationships among these strategies and their combined impact on well-being. For instance, it is plausible that speaking up (traditional assertiveness) and jumping in (behavioral activation) are highly interrelated, as the former depends on the latter. Future research could also explore the connections between assertive self-expression and compassion, assertive self-expression and acceptance, and between compassion and acceptance. While these relationships may seem intuitive, exploratory research using surveys and qualitative interviews could offer empirical clarification.

Additionally, the model raises questions about the cultural specificity of assertive behaviors. For instance, in collectivist societies, “speaking up” may be less socially rewarded than “embracing compassion” or “accepting life” (Park and Kim, 2008; Gelfand et al., 2011). Future studies might explore the cultural modulation of the relative salience and effectiveness of each pathway across diverse sociocultural contexts.

By offering a broader conceptualization of assertiveness, this model contributes to ongoing efforts to refine psychological interventions that support sustainable well-being and personal growth. Its multidimensional nature aligns with contemporary movements in integrative psychotherapy and transdiagnostic approaches (Barlow et al., 2004; Norcross and Goldfried, 2005), offering a promising avenue for both scholarly inquiry and practical implementation. Its flexibility also makes it amenable to digital health delivery and scalable interventions across diverse populations.

To complement the theoretical directions outlined above, we propose preliminary ideas for how each of the four pathways of assertiveness might be operationalized in empirical research. These suggestions are intended not as finalized measures, but as conceptual starting points to guide future measurement development and validation studies.

Social assertiveness may be assessed using structured role-play tasks or interpersonal simulations in which participants navigate challenging social exchanges (e.g., refusing unreasonable demands, giving constructive criticism). Behavioral coding systems could be employed to evaluate the clarity, calmness, and respectfulness of assertive responses (Bolger et al., 2003; Shiffman et al., 2008; Iida et al., 2012). Additionally, self-report measures may capture perceived confidence and discomfort in boundary-setting situations, while observer (e.g., peer or supervisor) ratings could serve as external indicators of socially assertive behavior.

Behavioral assertiveness may be measured by the frequency and quality of proactive behaviors that reflect personal goals, particularly in situations involving interpersonal challenge or judgment. Daily diary methods and ecological momentary assessments could track such actions in real time (Bolger et al., 2003; Shiffman et al., 2008; Iida et al., 2012), including decisions to speak up in meetings, pursue goals despite criticism, or act against group pressure. Task-based paradigms (e.g., assertive action tasks in virtual environments) may also offer standardized behavioral indices of this construct.

Emotional assertiveness could be operationalized as the intentional enactment of compassion toward oneself and others in response to suffering. This may be assessed through self-report measures capturing frequency and motivation behind helping behaviors, expressions of support, and compassionate communication. Observational or informant-based assessments of prosocial and self-compassionate behavior may complement self-report data. Additionally, participation in compassion-based practices (e.g., loving-kindness or self-compassion meditation) could be examined as behavioral indicators of emotional assertiveness (Jazaieri et al., 2013).

Mental assertiveness reflects an internal stance of self-directed agency in engaging with one’s thoughts, beliefs, and values. It involves not only cognitive flexibility and self-reflection, but also the capacity to accept uncomfortable inner experiences without avoidance or suppression. This construct may be assessed through instruments that capture adaptive inner dialogue, value-guided decision-making, and openness to internal discomfort—concepts closely related to psychological flexibility (Kashdan and Rottenberg, 2010). Performance-based tasks assessing cognitive flexibility (e.g., perspective-shifting, identifying core personal values) and response style coding of open-ended responses may offer behavioral indicators. In addition, self-report measures derived from acceptance- and commitment-based frameworks—such as the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (Bond et al., 2011)—could provide valuable indices of mental assertiveness as acceptance in action (Hayes et al., 2012). Qualitative methods may further reveal how individuals engage with internal barriers in the service of meaningful life directions.

These proposed operationalizations aim to facilitate the design of future studies examining the psychometric structure, predictive validity, and clinical relevance of each assertiveness pathway. Employing a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods across diverse populations will be important for building a comprehensive empirical foundation for the model.

The four-pathway model of assertiveness may also inform the development of integrated therapeutic programs that emphasize assertiveness not only as a social skill but also as a holistic psychological orientation encompassing behavior, emotion, and mental. Cognitive-behavioral therapists, health psychologists, and educators could employ the four-pathway framework to assist clients and students in identifying and addressing areas of under-engagement across these domains.

Furthermore, the model’s intelligibility and cross-domain relevance make it a suitable foundation for psychoeducational materials and self-help interventions. Structured programs based on this framework could be delivered in clinical, community, or workplace settings to enhance resilience, foster self-determination, and improve quality of life (Speed et al., 2018). Assertiveness training protocols could be updated to include exercises in behavioral activation, self-compassion, and mindfulness-based acceptance practices (Harris, 2019), thus moving beyond traditional social skills training toward more comprehensive models of psychological flexibility.

In educational settings, this model can be incorporated into school-based social–emotional learning (SEL) curricula, university counseling programs, and professional training for caregivers and educators. Teaching young people and emerging adults to “jump in” or “accept life” may be especially effective for promoting autonomy and emotional regulation during transitional life stages.

This model may serve as a foundation for a new generation of assertiveness-based interventions that extend beyond traditional social skills training by incorporating behavioral, emotional, and mental dimensions.