Content uploaded by Tessa Pfafman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tessa Pfafman on Oct 13, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
A
Assertiveness
Tessa Pfafman
Humanities and Communication Division, Lake
Land College, Mattoon, IL, USA
Synonyms
Candid;Expressive;Forthright;Straightforward
Definition
Assertiveness involves appropriately expressing
ideas, feelings, and boundaries while respecting
other’s rights, maintaining positive affect in the
receiver, and considering potential consequences
of the expression. It includes both positive and
negative expressions and seeks to achieve per-
sonal and/or instrumental goals.
Foundations of Assertiveness
Popular perceptions and actual assertiveness dif-
fer in kind and in degree (Ames 2009). Even
though psychology has consistently maintained
that assertiveness respects mutual rights and fos-
ters positive affect, everyday perceptions of asser-
tiveness tend to include even aggressive and
relationship damaging expressions. Where asser-
tiveness creates positive affect in the receiver,
aggression is hostile, shows little respect for the
other, and fails to consider potential consequences
of the action. Where assertive personalities have
high affection, inclusion, and pleasure motives,
aggressives have high control motives and tend
to use force to dominate, control, defeat, or dam-
age another’s self-concept (Anderson and Martin
1995). Because everyday perceptions and even
popular writing routinely confuse aggression
with assertion, laypeople often identify assertive-
ness differently than experts. Everyday percep-
tions rarely, if ever, recognize statements such as
“I like you”as an assertive expression.
Similarly, a consistent and precise definition of
assertiveness remains one of the challenges in
assertiveness research. In fact, St. Lawrence
(1987) identified at least 20 distinctly different
definitions regularly used in research and asser-
tiveness training. Even minor differences in how
researchers operationalize the concept have mean-
ingful impacts on how assertiveness is identified,
evaluated, and judged and consequently produces
inconsistent or even contradictory study results.
There is general consensus regarding two gen-
eral categories of assertiveness. Positive assertive-
ness includes admitting personal shortcomings,
giving and receiving compliments, initiating and
maintaining interactions, and expressing positive
feelings. Negative assertiveness includes
expressing unpopular or different opinions,
requesting behavior changes, and refusing unrea-
sonable requests. Negative assertions have
#Springer International Publishing AG 2017
V. Zeigler-Hill, T.K. Shackelford (eds.), Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_1044-1
become known as the conflict classes and are the
most frequently studied (Rakos 1991).
Historically, assertiveness was framed as vital
to personal and relational well-being. Systematic
study of assertiveness began in the late1940s and
1950s when psychologists theorized some mental
illness might be caused by uncertainty
(nonassertiveness) and resistance or inability to
express ideas and feelings openly. Consequently,
nonassertiveness was associated with anxiety and
shyness. Individuals scoring low on assertiveness
scales were generally more anxious and quiet;
individuals scoring high on assertiveness were
more talkative, precise, and remembered by others
(Norton and Warnick 1976), so early assertiveness
training simply encouraged patients to talk more
in an effort to increase confidence and self-
acceptance.
However, assertiveness is also about social
competence. Wolpe (1954) warned that assertive-
ness training for nonassertive patience was only
appropriate when nonassertiveness was maladap-
tive. Later, Lazarus (1971) pointed out that open
expression of any idea or feeling in any situation
is also maladaptive and potentially aggressive.
His research and practice included training
aggressive patients to use assertiveness.
In the 1960s and 1970s, individual rights
movements in the United States began to link
assertive expression to defense of individual
rights. Assertiveness training moved out of the
psychotherapist’soffice and into the mainstream.
Around the same time, Norton and Warnick
(1976) successfully defined assertiveness as a
communication construct so that assertiveness
research moved beyond psychology’s disciplinary
domain as communication scholars began explor-
ing nonassertiveness in association with commu-
nication apprehension. This shift in focus also
altered the intention of assertiveness training.
Where previously the goal of training was confi-
dence and self-acceptance, training and research
now pursued assertiveness as a means to achiev-
ing instrumental goals.
Nature of Assertiveness
One approach to understanding the nature of
assertiveness is as a personality trait and commu-
nication style. From this perspective, personality
and cognitive processing combine to produce a
communication style, defined as a learned predis-
position to respond to certain cues in patterned
ways. Much assertiveness research characterizes
it as a style, which enables scholars to succinctly
classify assertiveness behaviors.
After a thorough review of literature, Rakos
(1991) identified three antecedent obligations
distinguishing assertive individuals:
(a) determining rights of all participants,
(b) developing responses that persuade but do
not judge or evaluate the other’s self-worth, and
(c) considering potential negative consequences
of assertion. He also identified assertive attitudes
as (a) openness in close personal relationships;
(b) willingness to volunteer opinions, question,
and confront stressful situations without fear;
(c) willingness to be contentious by standing up
for self in close personal relationships; and
(d) willingness to give neutral but definitive
responses in impersonal situations. Lazarus
(1971) described assertive personality traits as
the ability to talk openly, say no, and establish
contact with others through social interaction. In
addition, he reasoned nonassertiveness and
aggressiveness were the products of faulty cogni-
tive reasoning and erroneous conclusions, so
assertiveness training incorporated various per-
ception checking techniques.
A conflict style approach views assertiveness
as one’s relatively stable orientation toward con-
flict. Early conflict style research identified five
conflict behaviors determined by two independent
dimensions. The assertiveness dimension rate
behaviors intended to satisfy self-interests, and
the cooperation dimension rate behaviors
intended to satisfy interests of the other.
A competing conflict style is a highly controlling
or domineering orientation. These behaviors are
high in assertiveness and low in cooperation. An
accommodating conflict style is the least likely to
satisfy the speaker’s interests. It is low in asser-
tiveness and high in cooperation. The avoiding
2 Assertiveness
style often signals disengagement. It is low in both
assertiveness and cooperation. Collaborating pro-
duces the most satisfying outcomes for both
parties. It is high both in assertiveness and coop-
eration. Compromising has moderate amounts of
both collaboration and assertiveness. It tends to
produce outcomes that are only partially satisfy-
ing to both parties. However, no single style is
considered always appropriate.
Similarly, Infante and Wigley (1986) argued
aggressiveness is the learned predisposition to
use personal attacks in conflict situations. They
make a clear distinction between aggression and
argument where argument is the defense of a
position toward an issue including attacks against
opposing positions toward the issue. Aggression,
on the other hand, is a personal attack against the
other’s self-concept. Individuals are either moti-
vated to engage in argument situations or avoid
argument situations. People who are motivated to
engage are considered high in argumentativeness,
find argument intellectually challenging and thus
exciting, and derive excitement and satisfaction
from the argument experience. Individuals moti-
vated to avoid argument situations are low in
argumentativeness, find argument uncomfortable
and unsettling, and tend to lack the skills neces-
sary to be successful in argument situations. Stud-
ies find that individuals low in argumentativeness
are more likely to use personal attacks against
self-concept (aggressiveness) where individuals
high in argumentativeness more likely to use
assertiveness.
An alternative approach to assertiveness high-
lights situational factors as opposed to personality
traits. Since assertiveness must be perceived by
the receiver as appropriate, any expression violat-
ing cultural, contextual, or relational norms would
be considered aggressive. Furnham (1979)
explored the social and cultural influences on
assertiveness arguing assertiveness is a specifi-
cally Western concept since expressions encour-
aged and valued in the West would not be
encouraged or even tolerated in other cultures.
He documented cultural differences in self-reports
of assertiveness across three different cultural
groups in South Africa and explained these dif-
ferences as variance along collectivist/
individualist orientations with collectivist cultures
being lower in assertiveness than individualist
cultures.
Likewise, Florian and Zernitsky-Shurka
(1987) looked at cultural affiliations and level of
discomfort with assertive acts. Comparing Arab
Israeli and Jewish Israeli students revealed Jewish
women were highest in self-reports of assertive-
ness and more assertive than Jewish or Arab men.
Arab women were lowest in self-reports of asser-
tiveness. Arab men and Jewish men were in the
middle with Arab men reporting higher assertive-
ness than Jewish men. The authors concluded
cultural affiliation was more meaningful than gen-
der is influencing reports of assertiveness.
Regional differences also impact assertiveness.
Sigler et al. (2008) compared students raised and
attending school in the upper Midwestern United
States to students raised and attending school in
New York Metropolitan areas. They found signif-
icant difference in assertiveness across the two
regions but no significant differences within
regions and no interaction between sex and
region. Their findings suggest assertiveness is
learned and shaped by environment.
Other research indicates situation and expecta-
tions are also relevant to determining socially
appropriate expression. Pfafman and McEwan
(2014) found women strategically modified how
they asserted at work according to their goals, the
situation, and the relationship between interac-
tants. Because assertiveness is context and culture
bound, scholars and practitioners should use cau-
tion in assuming nonassertiveness is deficient.
Instead, nonassertiveness can be socially
competent.
Performing Assertiveness
Assertive behaviors include making requests;
refusing unwanted or unreasonable requests;
expressing one’s personal rights, positive and
negative feelings, or positive and negative ideas;
and initiating, maintaining, or disengaging from
conversation. Each of these expressions can be
performed using standard assertion, assertion
plus elaboration, or empathic assertion. Standard
Assertiveness 3
assertion is an expression of rights without elabo-
ration or explanation. It is judged as (a) equally
potent and more desirable than aggression, (b) less
likable than nonassertiveness, (c) more socially
competent than nonassertiveness, (d) less likable
and more unpleasant than everyday non-conflict
conversation, and (e) more unpleasant than
expression of positive feeling (Rakos 1991).
Expression plus elaboration is more responsive
to cultural, social, and relational norms than stan-
dard assertion. Elaborations can include a short
explanation, acknowledgment of the other’s situ-
ation, compromises or alternatives, praise, or
apologies. This type of assertion is generally
judged as effective and more socially competent
than standard assertion.
Empathic assertion pays particular attention to
relationship health. Empathic assertions include a
brief and honest explanation, acknowledgment
and expression of the other’s rights, praise or
positive comment, apology for inconvenience or
disappointment, and an attempt to achieve a mutu-
ally acceptable compromise. Empathic assertion
is always necessary in enduring relationships but
might be less important in temporary relationships
(such as interacting with a sales clerk). This
approach is always preferred and recommended
by practitioners.
From a communication perspective, assertive-
ness should be performed with politeness. Polite-
ness is a socially and contextually negotiated
subset of appropriateness determined by the inter-
play between identity, context, and relationship
(Jenkins and Dragojevic 2011). It enables people
to make requests that are less infringing on the
other or express negative ideas while maintaining
a positive relationship (Brown and Levinson
1987). Because assertiveness can intrude on
others’rights to pursue their own goals, it can
also pose a face threat, defined as a challenge to
one’s chosen image (Goffman 1967). Even minor
face threats (such as asking for a file) can threaten
the other’s chosen image or damage the relation-
ship. Politeness speech strategies mitigate these
face threats. Negative face threats are behaviors
that impede the receiver’s actions or cause the
receiver to feel imposed upon. Negative polite-
ness strategies mitigate the threat by using indirect
statements, tag questions (shortened questions at
the end of declarative statements), or hedges
(qualifications of utterances) (Lakoff 1975). Pos-
itive face threats are challenges to one’s self-
esteem, or ability to be liked, admired, or viewed
positively. Positive politeness strategies include
paying attention to the relationship and expressing
interest and concern for the other. Skillful asser-
tion includes politeness (Smith 1985).
Assertiveness Research
Most research on assertiveness analyzes self-
reported data collected with one of many different
assertiveness measures. There are at least 30 dis-
tinctly different self-report scales widely used to
measure and assess assertiveness. The Wolpe-
Lazarus Assertiveness Schedule (WLAS) (Wolpe
and Lazarus 1966) is one of the earliest assess-
ment instruments developed for therapists to
assess clients and determine the potential useful-
ness of assertiveness training. However, Rakos
(1991) and others report the WLAS, like most
popular assertiveness instruments, lacks sufficient
validity and reliability support. The few instru-
ments that do have a degree of psychometric
support are the Rathus Assertiveness Schedule
(RAS) (Rathus 1973), the College Self-
Expression Scale (CSES; Galassi et al. 1974),
and the Conflict Resolution Inventory (CRI;
McFall and Lillesand 1971). Many scholars cau-
tion that even these instruments with enough data
to support their use do not sample the same behav-
iors or situations, so there are low correlations
across instruments. The problem with assertive-
ness assessment measures makes drawing consis-
tent conclusion across studies difficult at best.
There are fewer behavioral measures for cod-
ing assertiveness. A couple of the more popular
measures include the Behavioral Assertiveness
Test –Revised (BAT-R) developed by Eisler
et al. (1975) and the Assertive Interaction Coding
System developed by Weeks and Lefebvre
(1982). Differences in instruments and precisely
what they measure might explain some of the
contradictory findings in assertiveness research.
4 Assertiveness
Interpersonal Research
Interpersonal, organizational, and identity differ-
ences research are a few areas where scholars are
especially interested in assertiveness. Assertive-
ness is an important component of personal and
professional interpersonal interactions. It is con-
sidered the most constructive communication in
interpersonal relationships and is a vital compo-
nent of interpersonal communication competence.
Interpersonal scholars link assertiveness to rela-
tionship development and maintenance, sexual
communication, expression of desire, dating
behavior, abusive relationships, relational inti-
macy, marriage, friendship, parenting, and doc-
tor/patient communication.
Conflict is one of the most studied areas of
assertiveness in interpersonal interactions. If,
when, and how one asserts ideas and feelings
has a meaningful impact on trajectory and impact
of the conflict. There are numerous instruments
designed to measure conflict styles. Research in
this area has explored strategies and tactics in
relation to conflict orientation. In conflict, asser-
tiveness is not hostile and enhances relational
satisfaction. Some conflict research considers
conflict engagement according to power and con-
trol tactics. Aggressive tactics are those perceived
negatively by the receiver. Assertive strategies
also attempt to exert control, but the receiver
perceives the tactics as more socially appropriate.
Submissive tactics are nonassertive. Conflict
research explores assertiveness in both personal
and professional relationships.
Organizational Research
In the 1980s, assertiveness was linked to self-
improvement at work, and work-related assertive-
ness training became especially popular. Unlike
psychology, which associates assertiveness train-
ing with self-confidence and self-actualization,
organizational assertiveness is more instrumental
goal achievement. The nature and quality of inter-
actions at work have a meaningful impact on
satisfaction, motivation, and productivity. Man-
agers were found to be more willing to assert
than subordinates (Sullivan et al. 1990). Managers
perceived as having too little or too much asser-
tiveness can be viewed as less effective leaders
(Ames and Flynn 2007), and their assertiveness
training tends to focus on improving listening and
feedback skills. A subordinate’s message delivery
style affects the supervisor’s willingness to grant
requests and influences perceptions of the
speaker’s reputation (Foste and Botero 2012).
Standard assertions at work have been linked to
perception of manipulation, coercion, and aggres-
sion and demonstrating lack of respect for the
other in upward communication. Assertiveness is
also explored in relation to perceptions of compe-
tence, leadership, decision making, employment
interviews, superior-subordinate relationships,
upward communication, information flow, nego-
tiation, feedback, and responses to criticism.
Dissent is a subset of assertiveness that is crit-
ically upward expression of feedback character-
ized by contradictory opinion or disagreement
(Kassing 1997). Research shows dissent enhances
organizational decision making and members’
sense of accomplishment, satisfaction, commit-
ment, and engagement. However, individuals
only have an ability to act within organizationally
controlled constraints, which is exerted by limit-
ing and shaping the channels of dissent. Organi-
zational power and politics can make dissent risky
for members. Research on organizational dissent
explores responses to dissent, leadership ability,
how dissent impacts public image and promotion,
and the role of power and status on willingness to
dissent.
Identity Differences
Research indicates assertiveness varies according
to sociopolitical factors such as social status, age,
and gender. Social identity determines percep-
tions of social appropriateness. In fact, numerous
studies explore the relationship between gender
and assertiveness, often with contradictory find-
ings. Some studies argue men are more assertive
or more frequently assertive than women. Other
studies argue women are differently assertive than
men (Pfafman and McEwan 2014). Some studies
conclude women are evaluated more negatively
than men when using assertive messages. Other
studies find no significant difference in evalua-
tions of men and women using assertive mes-
sages. However, other studies find gender
Assertiveness 5
influences overall valuation of assertiveness
(Crawford 1988). Self-advocating women tend
to suffer more backlash and negative evaluation
(Amanatullah and Tinsley 2013). Assertive
women at work experience greater resistance and
harsher performance evaluations and are more
likely to be sabotaged (Rudman and Fairchild
2004). Women initiating salary negotiations also
receive more negative evaluations than men initi-
ating salary negotiations regardless of whether
they used empathic or standard assertion
(Bowles et al. 2005).
Consistency in defining and operationalizing
assertiveness remains a problem in assertiveness
research and might explain some of the contradic-
tory gender findings. Specifically, the majority of
research defines assertive expressions generally as
direct, specific, and respectful with directness
operationalized as avoiding blatant lies, subtle
dishonesty, and exaggerated excuses (Rakos
1991). However, some studies have conceptual-
ized directness as blunt or without softeners asso-
ciated with politeness. In these instances, positive
politeness strategies are perceived as the speaker’s
lack of independence or confidence and negative
politeness strategies perceived as deferential and
powerless. It is possible studies conceptualizing
politeness and assertiveness as mutually exclusive
also misidentify some aggressive behaviors as
assertive and misidentify assertive but polite
behaviors as nonassertive.
Conclusion
Assertiveness is a well-established area of
research across several disciplines. There are
comprehensive bodies of literature on assertive-
ness in education, conflict, and behavior modifi-
cation. There is a growing body of assertiveness
research in health care, sports, and organizational
studies. However, there are many discrepancies
across study findings, which makes it difficult to
draw meaningful conclusion about assertiveness.
The numerous contradictory findings, particularly
in the gender research area, are likely a product of
inconsistencies in definition and measurement
tools. Much work remains to be done toward
defining and operationalizing assertiveness con-
sistently. Also, while there is abundant literature
on perceptions of assertiveness, there remains a
shortage of studies exploring actual assertiveness.
Growth in this area would be a valuable addition
to the assertiveness literature.
Cross-References
▶Culture, Collectivist Cultures
▶Empathy
▶Expectancy
▶Identity
▶Individualistic Cultures
▶Personality Traits
▶Positive Affect
▶Prosocial Behavior
▶Self Concept
References
Amanatullah, E. T., & Tinsley, C. H. (2013). Punishing
female negotiators for asserting too much...or not
enough: Exploring why advocacy moderates backlash
against assertive female negotiators. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120(1),
110–122. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.03.006.
Ames, D. (2009). Pushing up to a point: Assertiveness and
effectiveness in leadership and interpersonal dynamics.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 29, 111–133.
doi:10.1016/j.riob.2009.06.010.
Ames, D. R., & Flynn, F. J. (2007). What breaks a leader:
The curvilinear relation between assertiveness and
leadership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 92(2), 307–324. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.92.2.307.
Anderson, C. M., & Martin, M. M. (1995). Communica-
tion motives of assertive and responsive communica-
tors. Communication Research Reports, 12(2),
186–191.
Bowles, H. R., Babcock, L., & McGinn, K. (2005). Con-
straints and triggers: Situational mechanics of gender
in negotiation (Scholarly Report No. ID 832626).
Rochester: Social Science Research Network.
Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=
832626
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some
universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Crawford, M. (1988). Gender, age, and the social evalua-
tion of assertion. Behavior Modification, 12(4),
549–564. doi:10.1177/01454455880124004.
6 Assertiveness
Eisler, R., Hersen, M., Miller, P., & Blanchard, E. (1975).
Situational determinants of assertive behaviors. Jour-
nal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43,
330–340.
Florian, V., & Zernitsky-shurka, E. (1987). The effect of
culture and gender on self-reported assertive behavior.
International Journal of Psychology, 22(1), 83–95.
doi:10.1080/00207598708246769.
Foste, E. A., & Botero, I. C. (2012). Personal reputation
effects of upward communication on impressions about
new employees. Management Communication Quar-
terly, 26(1), 48–73. doi:10.1177/0893318911411039.
Furnham, A. (1979). Assertiveness in three cultures: Multi-
dimensionality and cultural differences. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 35(3), 522–527. doi:10.1002/
1097-4679(197907)35:3<522::AID-
JCLP2270350310>3.0.CO;2-9.
Galassi, J. P., Delo, J. S., Galassi, M. D., & Bastien,
S. (1974). The college self-expression scale:
A measure of assertiveness. Behavior Therapy, 5(2),
165–171.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-
face behavior. Garden City: Doubleday.
Infante, D. A., & Wigley, C. J. (1986). Verbal aggressive-
ness: An interpersonal model and measure. Communi-
cation Monographs, 53(1), 61–69. doi:10.1080/
03637758609376126.
Jenkins, M., & Dragojevic, M. (2011). Explaining the
process of resistance to persuasion: A politeness
theory-based approach. Communication Research.
10.1177/0093650211420136
Kassing, J. W. (1997). Articulating, antagonizing, and
displacing: A model of employee dissent. Communica-
tion Studies, 48(4), 311–332. doi:10.1080/
10510979709368510.
Lakoff, R. T. (1975). Language and woman’s place.
New York: Harper & Row.
Lazarus, A. A. (1971). Behavior therapy & beyond.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
McFall, R. M., & Lillesand, D. B. (1971). Behavior
rehearsal with modeling and coaching in assertion
training. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 77(3),
313–323.
Norton, R., & Warnick, B. (1976). Assertiveness as com-
munication construct. Human Communication
Research, 3,62–66.
Pfafman, T. M., & McEwan, B. (2014a). Polite women at
work: Negotiating professional identity through strate-
gic assertiveness. Women’s Studies in Communication,
37(2), 202–219. doi:10.1080/07491409.2014.911231.
Rakos, R. F. (1991). Assertive behavior: Theory, research,
and training. In London. New York: Routledge.
Rathus, S. A. (1973). A 30-item schedule for assessing
assertive behavior. Behavior Therapy, 4(3), 398–406.
Rudman, L. A., & Fairchild, K. (2004). Reactions to
counterstereotypic behavior: The role of backlash in
cultural stereotype maintenance. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 87(2), 157–176.
Sigler, K., Burnett, A., & Child, J. T. (2008). A regional
analysis of assertiveness. Journal of Intercultural Com-
munication Research, 37(2), 89–104. doi:10.1080/
17475750802533364.
Smith, P. M. (1985). Language, the sexes, and society.
Oxford/New York: B. Blackwell.
St Lawrence, J. (1987). Assessment of assertion. Progress
in Behavior Modification, 21, 152–190.
Sullivan, J. J., Albrecht, T. L., & Taylor, S. (1990). Process,
organizational, relational, and personal determinants of
managerial compliance-gaining communication strate-
gies. Journal of Business Communication, 27(4),
331–355.
Weeks, R. E., & Lefebvre, R. C. (1982). The assertive
interaction coding system. Journal of Behavioral
Assessment, 4(1), 71–85. doi:10.1007/BF01321383.
Wolpe, J. (1954). Reciprocal inhibition as the main basis of
psychotherapeutic effects. AMA Archives of Neurology
& Psychiatry, 72(2), 205–226.
Wolpe, J., & Lazarus, A. A. (1966). Behavior therapy
techniques; a guide to the treatment of neuroses.
Oxford/New York: Pergamon Press.
Selected Publications
Pfafman, T. (2010). Activating the spirit of work: Business
advice books and the use of pastoral power to manage
employees. Iowa Journal of Communication, 42,
151–174.
Pfafman, T., & Bochantin, J. (2012). Negotiating power
paradoxes: Contradictions in women’s constructions of
organizational power. Communication Studies, 63,5.
Pfafman, T. M., & McEwan, B. (2014). Polite women at
work: Negotiating professional identity through strate-
gic assertiveness. Women’s Studies in Communication,
37(2), 202–219.
Pfafman, T. M., Carpenter, C. J., & Tang, Y. (2015). The
politics of racism: Constructions of African immigrants
in China on ChinaSMACK. Communication, Culture
& Critique. doi:10.1111/cccr.12098.
Tessa Pfafman is a communication professor who stud-
ies organizational communication and power. She has a
particular research interest in marginalized groups and
social inequalities. Pfafman is a faculty member at Lake
Land College where she teaches prisoners incarcerated
with the Illinois Department of Corrections.
Prior to working with prisoners, Dr. Pfafman was a faculty
member for 9 years at Western Illinois University in
Macomb, IL, where she taught organizational communica-
tion, conflict, gender, and qualitative research methods.
She has also taught public relations and public relations
writing courses for Monmouth College in Monmouth, IL.
She earned a BA in English and Communication from
Purdue University in1994, an MA in communication
from Purdue University Fort Wayne in 1998, and a PhD
in communication from University of Missouri in 2007.
Assertiveness 7
