The use of threats or put-downs may be less effective in gaining compliance and more apt to elicit anger when compared with assertive statements. According to a study of eight role play situations involving several forms of interpersonal conflict in several different interpersonal contexts, the use of a threat is less effective in gaining compliance even in the most immediate of situations. This ineffectiveness was made clear by the data, which revealed that almost half of the subjects responded to aggressive statements with belligerence and indications of noncompliance (Hollandsworth & Cooley, p. 645).
Over-assertiveness may reduce trust between parties, and ultimately undermine the implementation of an agreement (Campagna, Mislin, Kong & Bottom; Ames et al., p. 6).
Over-assertiveness can evoke opposition, thereby triggering self-reinforcing cycles of conflict escalation and interfering with desired outcomes (De Dreu, 2010; Ames et al., p. 5). Falbe and Yukl (1992) found that assertive pressure tactics evoked far greater resistance, and led to worse outcomes, than “soft” tactics such as consultation, personal appeals, and ingratiation.
Over-assertiveness may be detrimental to problem-solving. Parties may be especially unlikely to transmit information to a counterpart who is problematically over-assertive, perhaps anticipating negative reactions or a low likelihood of change (Wazlawek & Ames, 2016; Ames et al., 8). This may result in an impasse, in which one party walks away or otherwise declines to agree to a solution or way forward (Ames et al., p. 5).
Over-assertiveness can plant the seeds for resentment and revenge. High assertiveness that appears to yield an attractive outcome in the short-term may have long-term, relational costs. People who feel mistreated by a counterpart may subsequently seek to restore equity or balance though acts such as sabotage, retaliation, or conflict escalation (Kim & Smith, 1993; Walster, Walster & Berschied, 1978; Wang, Northcraft & Van Kleef, 2012; Ames et al., p. 5).
| Appropriate assertiveness in conflict may be difficult to achieve without training, which neighbours in conflict cannot realistically be expected to have. A randomized study of 48 university students found that levels of appropriate assertiveness (and active listening) did not significantly increase when a participant interacted with a trained partner, as was predicted. In relation to these two measures, the results indicated that regardless of the training condition of the partner, individuals untrained in conflict resolution are more likely to communicate their views aggressively or not explain adequately their concerns, as well as ignore, interrupt, and criticize the other party during a dyadic conflict interaction. It seems that individuals need direct training in these skills to listen and understand another party’s interests, and to communicate their own underlying interests when resolving conflict (Feeney & Davidson, p. 266).
Appropriate assertiveness may be at odds with likeability, a potentially important trait to neighbours. A 1982 study found that videotape models who exhibited refusal assertion skills when confronted with the unreasonable behavior of another person were evaluated by observers as behaving in an appropriate and able manner relative to unassertive models. However, assertive models were also rated less favorably than unassertive models on 14 indices assessing their likeability, warmth and social attractiveness. This indicates that while observers describes assertive models as behaving effectively in the social conflict situations, they also felt the models were singularly unlikeable when behaving assertively (Kelly et al., p. 39). Recent investigators have suggested that the presence of still other comments (such as empathy or understanding of the antagonist’s own position) in an assertive individual’s handling of social conflict situations may be necessary for the person to be perceived favorably by others (Mullinix & Galassi, 1978; Romano & Bellack, 1980; Woolfolk & Dever, 1979; Kelly et al., p. 39).
Women may be at a unique disadvantage when it comes to asserting themselves appropriately in conflict. Women who act assertively in pursuit of their own interests are often seen as violating prescriptive gender stereotypes, and are judged more harshly for such behavior than men (Rudman, 1998; Williams & Tiedens, 2016; Ames et al., p. 6). At the same time that assertiveness can evoke social backlash for women, it can also fail to secure instrumental gains or sought-after outcomes. At the same time that assertiveness can evoke social backlash for women, it can also fail to secure instrumental gains or sought‐after outcomes. Compared with men, women’s abilities and competency are more often questioned, their ideas and viewpoints are more frequently challenged and met with skepticism (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Heilman, Block, Martell, & Simon, 1989; Brescoll & Uhlmann, 2008; Brooks, Huang, Kearney & Murray, 2014; Ames et al., p. 6), and sometimes they are less likely to get what they ask for (Amanatullah & Tinsley, 2013b). When women do act in stereotype‐consistent communal ways, their accommodations are sometimes undervalued and go unrewarded. Women are less likely than men to be recognized and rewarded for altruistic behaviors performed in the workplace, and the value they concede in negotiation is less likely to be reciprocated by their male counterparts (Heilman & Chen, 2005; Wazlawek & Stephens, 2017). |
