Introduction

Assertiveness or social boldness is the ability to be legitimate and honest in terms of one’s rights, interests, beliefs, while not denying or ignoring the rights of others (Rathus, 1973). Rakos (1991) divides assertiveness into two categories, positive and negative. Positive assertiveness includes behaviours like expressing positive feelings, giving and receiving compliments along with admitting to personal mistakes and shortcomings whereas negative assertiveness includes expressing unpopular opinions, refusing reasonable requests and requesting behaviour changes in other people. Eason (2018) highlighted other benefits of being assertive including increased self-confidence, stronger ability to overcome negative thoughts, better goal setting, and becoming better at listening. Social anxiety and stress were also found to decrease with increase in assertiveness (Pourjali & Zarnaghash, 2010). People who are unable to assert themselves are more prone to have low sensitivity towards criticism, low self-esteem, higher anxiety and extreme passivity (Marano, 2004). A strong correlation was found between assertive behaviour and self-esteem of Indian adolescents (Shanmgan & Kathyayini, 2017). It is extremely important for young adults to practice assertiveness in order to identify their strengths, build confidence and solidify their identity (Çok & Karaman, 2008).

Studies have found that traditional Asian cultures highly value indirect behaviours and subtleness in communication. Being assertive, direct or confrontational is viewed as disrespectful and is less appreciated (Lee & Ciftci, 2014; Jenson, 1999). Parray et al. (2020) defended the Indian culture by stating that there are traditional values of subservience, humility and obedience to social group which are largely followed in India. While having the freedom to preach their own beliefs, Indians fear being frowned upon and outcasted when making choices which differ from the existing norms. This could be a possible reason for reduced assertiveness when compared to western cultures. Since Indian culture is a patriarchal one, it encourages uncertainty-avoidance in relationships and hence people tend to be more submissive as compared to western countries where people tend to be more open and straightforward about their wants, needs and rights (Tripathi et al., 2010). According to Hinde and Groebel (1991), collectivistic cultures value goals and views of the ingroup as compared to individualistic cultures. They view one’s behaviour in concordance to the values of the group and practice high levels of hierarchy and harmony. Saving face is considered important in these cultures and individuals are expected to maximise the welfare and well-being of the group in place of one’s own (Hinde & Groebel, 1991).

Indian women also encounter their fair share of difficulties while being assertive. Acharya and colleagues’ (2016) study of middle-aged women found that the perceived arrogance of the speaker and the feeling of offending someone was a major obstacle to being assertive (Acharya et al., 2016). Along with that, women experienced a sense of freedom after expressing one’s emotions assertively and most of them feared the consequences of being assertive including fear of not getting perks, receiving threats to life, being expelled from a social group, etc. These women often preferred to be submissive in order to be socially accepted.

Various factors affect the ability to be assertive including educational qualification, gender, parenting styles, sense of psychological empowerment and family income (Nakhaee et al., 2017; Niyogi et al., 2020; Samuel & Chandrasekaran, 2018). This behaviour has been studied as a culture-specific phenomenon as well where Asians were found to be low on assertiveness due to their non-confrontational styles of communication and being perceived as disrespectful (Singhal & Nagao, 1993).

In a country like India where assertiveness is not promoted and is misinterpreted as being disrespectful, hurtful and aggressive, studying the facilitators related to high assertiveness in people could help in promoting assertiveness in others. Irrespective of what attitudes people hold against assertiveness in India, some people are still high on assertiveness. Getting an in-depth understanding of the factors associated with high assertiveness in Indians could help in organising a pool of information which can be generalised or worked upon in others.

Materials and methods

The period of this study was from April 2021 to April 2022. A qualitative descriptive design was used to conduct this study.

After obtaining approval from the Institute Ethics Committee approval (IEC – 673/2021) and the Clinical Trials Registry – India (CTRI/2022/01/039135), the study was broadcasted using an advertisement which was circulated through social media platforms like WhatsApp, Instagram and Facebook of the investigator and co-investigators to around 400 students. Advertisements contained information about the study and a link to a Google Form containing the participant information sheet, which included the details of the study and contact information of the investigator, informed consent, socio-demographic data sheet, and the screening questionnaire.

After filling the information in the google form, participants were screened through the Rathus Assertiveness Scale (Rathus, 1973) which is a 30 item, 6-point Likert scale designed to measure the assertiveness levels of individuals. Since the study aimed at exploring facilitators of assertiveness in individuals, participants who scored within the bracket of ‘high assertiveness’ (+ 21 to + 39) on the scale were eligible for interviews as the bracket below this range (0 to + 20) classified individuals as ‘somewhat assertive’. Convenience sampling was used to select the eligible participants for in-depth interviews. A total of 15 participants were selected including 10 females and 5 males. This sex-ratio of participants is skewed since there were more female respondents and out of the male respondents, only a few qualified the cut-off for high assertiveness. Of these participants, 11 were pursuing their undergraduate studies while 4 had finished high school. The selected participants were within the age of 18–22 years (M = 21.46), who could read, write and speak in English.

The selected participants were contacted via email with a request to participate in the in-depth interviews. The semi-structured interview guide consisted of 10 open-ended questions (for example, “What are the obstacles you face while asserting yourself? How did you overcome them?“) with their respective probes and follow-up questions which were used to clarify comments and elicit in-depth explanations. The interview schedule was developed in concordance with the co-authors who are experts in qualitative methodology.

The e-mail also contained a Skype ID and password which was exclusively created for the study in order to attend the interview. The participation was voluntary and no compensation in any form was provided for the participants. The interviews were conducted through Skype by the principal investigator and lasted approximately 40 min, with the shortest interview being 22 min and the longest 61 min. During the interview, the participants were allowed to keep their video cameras turned on or off based on their preference. Before asking the interview questions, confidentiality was ensured and permission to record the interview was verbally obtained. Participants were given the option to refuse being recorded. Interviews were recorded through the in-built Skype recording application.

All obtained interviews were played back and transcribed offline by the first author and reviewed by the second author to ensure the accuracy of information. After data collection, the direct identifiers were removed, and alphabetical codes were assigned to each participant. The verified transcripts were read systematically and analysed using a six-phase thematic analysis (Braun and Clark, 2006). These steps involved familiarising with the data (transcripts), followed by the generation of names/initial codes that addressed respective research questions. Statements that illustrated the essence of each code were highlighted and assigned numbers to locate the codes within the transcripts. Subsequently, these initial codes were reviewed by the second author in order to retain the diversity of the initial codes. Finally, the codes were checked and discussed by all the authors. Verification of data integrity was done with the involvement of an external reviewer. The codes from the external reviewer were compared, and discrepancies were discussed within the research team. A code list was generated after coding the entire data. For the purpose of analysis and presentation, these codes were then clubbed into potential themes which were later revised to form broader themes. A total of 424 codes were generated which were clubbed into 16 sub-themes and 5 major themes. The interview transcripts were kept with the principal investigator for the period of this research.

Results

Table 1 includes the socio-demographic details of the 15 participants selected for the semi-structured interviews.

Table 1 Socio-demographic details of participants selected for in-depth interviews
Full size table

The major themes and sub-themes that were arrived at have been listed in Table 2.

Table 2 Major themes and sub-themes
Full size table

Five key themes emerged from the analysis of the data.

Theme 1: Facilitators for Assertiveness.

Many participants reported that values and beliefs of being assertive facilitated expression of assertiveness. These values were inculcated through family, school, and formal education environment. One participant reported developing values of independence and putting their opinion forward,

“My parents have always taught me to be independent, and to do things for myself and to think for myself. So, at this point of time, I think, if I am saying something that’s different from them, they don’t… they can’t really… they can’t really dominate over what I’m saying” - (V, female, 22).

Other participants reported incorporating the ability to ask questions and not get influenced by others’ opinions through their family environment. Participants also gave credit to their schooling and formal education environment for developing values of sharing one’s opinions, express grievances and understanding concepts of assertiveness. A participant expressed that,

“I understood terms like consent, and I think that’s one of the biggest things that I hold important. So that comes into assertiveness as well. Like if somebody is asking me to do something that I don’t want to do that’s inconsensual, so I will then assert myself” – (SK, female 19).

Learning through observation was also given precedence by participants where they incorporated aspects of assertiveness through their role models, media and reading. In addition to this, participants believed in being predisposed to assertiveness.

Various felt that extra-curricular activities helped them build assertiveness. These activities included public speaking, theatre, councils, and debates.

“I’ve always been into public speaking and stuff so gradually you just kind of develop the confidence to talk to people to express ourselves.” - (AM, female, 21).

A few believed that certain life events led them to develop assertive behaviour. These events included taking therapy and living alone. One participant stated that,

“So now that I live alone, I think a lot of responsibility of just mere existence has fallen upon my shoulders…it’s all me and it… it… it’s really been like a confidence building exercise to live alone because the longer that I do it, the more I have to step out of my comfort zone” - (AD, female, 20).

Theme 2: Benefits of being Assertive.

The benefits of being assertive yielded a protective and relational function. Participants expressed that being assertive prevented them from being on the receiving end of situations involving potential harassment or abuse. A participant reported that,

“The person was very…uh… drunk enough to come and ask for a photo… from us…I say I had to be strict to say no, go away, go right now and then he left. So, if I was not assertive that time, then we would have been followed by a man who is drunk, who is asking for photos and who cannot take no for an answer.” - (AS, female, 18).

It was also found that assertive behaviour had a positive impact of mental health of both parties engaged in the conversation. A participant stated that,

“The unnecessary aspects that affect the mental health of the parties involved uh… like personal attacks or… um…earlier… How do i put it?… yeah so basically it’s a very safer process of problem solving for me and unnecessary factors that are usually their, when they are absent, it’s much easier.” - (MY, female, 19).

In terms of reciprocity, participants revealed that being assertive invited reciprocity in their relationships where both partners contribute equally to the conversation. It also provides a space to effectively state one’s expectations of the other. One participant expressed that,

“…That’s definitely helped me with friends as well and, like I said, there’s a very like…strong boundary that I follow in terms of impinging on their autonomy but also setting my own expectations” - (AK, male, 22).

Being assertive has also helped participants choose and chase career paths along with taking up various leadership roles. A participant testified by saying,

“I was told that given my background and given our background as a family, there was only certain things that we are allowed or supposed to do and then having that conflict…going from 10th grade to 11th grade and letting them know that no matter what they say, no matter how much they cost me, no matter what they threatened me with, I will have to…um… put out as clearly and as coherently as possible, the specific way in which I wanted to live my life” - (IS, male, 20).

It also instilled the ability to guide and make decisions in a group for which few participants reported feeling proud and satisfied.

Theme 3: Obstacles to Assertiveness.

There were various obstacles to assertiveness which have been categorised under individual characteristics, receiver’s characteristics, and consequence of being assertive.

Participants believed that being assertive was difficult due to various factors like their age and spoken language. One participant said that,

“Age is an obstacle. Okay. So when you’re talking to a teacher and uh… or someone and you have a valid point but then because you don’t have what… whatever enough education qualification, you’re not old enough with age no like… like an elder person is not ready to listen to me that is something I’ve seen so that becomes ummm one thing” - (UK, female, 21).

Being assertive also suffered setbacks in situations where there was a communication gap in terms of spoken language. Apart of individual’s characteristics, the receiver’s characteristics also affect the ability to be assertive. One participant revealed that,

“I think sometimes when the person you’re talking to is overly sensitive, then you have to be really careful about what you choose to say. In that case, I don’t think I’m able to put forward a 100% of what I believe in, but it’s more of a sugar coated version of what I think.” - (AM, female 21).

Other than being sensitive, receivers were also viewed as aggressive. Having assertive conversations was also deemed difficult to the close relationship one shared with the receiver.

“I’m less assertive with people, I’m very closed and very intimate with. I mean, maybe I will go out of my comfort zone at times, if there were certain things that they want and I’m… I have my doubts about it but I would do it for them.” - (IQ, female, 18).

A pertinent theme which prevented people from being assertive is the consequence of showing assertive behaviour. Participants found it difficult to assert themselves in situations due to the fear of developing potential tensions in the relationship. Participants also felt that being assertive increased their interpersonal conflicts as stated,

“I think my interpersonal conflicts are more when I’m trying to be assertive. There are also times which, you know, because of my assertiveness, I feel that maybe an argument could have been avoided or the conflict could have been dealt with in a better manner. But I feel that because I’m assertive, certain things don’t go my way or an argument takes place because of it.” (SK, female, 19).

This consequently led to a lack of cooperation between both parties due to the increased inability to compromise. Another participant stated that,

“I mean, yes, people do appreciate this quality in me a lot but it doesn’t end up being nice to me because a lot of people depend on me for so many things and I can’t cater to all of their demands all the time. So that way it kind of backlashes on me” - (MC, female, 21).

Having many people rely on her made her feel the burden of responsibility which acted in a counterproductive manner. Participants also received negative reactions where people felt that they were being rude. A few participants also felt dismissed and stated that people formed a negative impression of them.

“People think I come off as too strong.um. come off with arrogant, come off as…uh… opinionated, headstrong and I’ve had these…um… and aggressive. aggressive too… Uh…so. yeah, I’ve had these as an outcome of me being assertive” - (AK, male, 22).

The aftermath of these consequences, as stated by a few participants, was that they started overthinking before stating their opinions. They also developed apprehensions towards receiving similar negative reactions which again led them to not be as assertive as they would want to be. A participant voiced that,

“So, sometimes a bigger obstacle I feel sometimes is I… earlier I had this sense of failure, okay like, if I’m not able to make my point across are not able to articulate so I’ll be like yeah, I’m not good enough” - (UK, female, 21).

Theme 4: Performing Assertive Behaviour.

Participants dealt with the obstacles towards assertiveness through various ways of being assertive. These ways include boundary setting, cost benefit analysis of situations and following the notion of agreeing to disagree.

Few participants set boundaries by not interfering with the choices made by others unless they affected them in a negative manner. They also practiced ending an argument by stating their opinions and allowing others to state theirs, albeit not choosing which opinion is better. A participant mentioned,

“If you can have a discussion, you can get to know what the thought or the point that they are putting forward by this thing, so or why they believe so that also helps. So I do take forward the discussion. Even if we can’t reach to a conclusion, or we can’t decide if I was right, or they were right. I’m happy to agree to disagree” - (HR, male, 21).

Other participants preferred to view the situation holistically before and choose whether the situation warrants an assertive stance or not. One of them said that,

“You have to figure out.umm. you have to make these judgement calls where… where if I am aggressive and being assertive, where does that really pay off? Where does that really matter? and where can I let it go? Where can I…um…uh… not intentionally or unintentionally cause.um.uh. something…uh… like…uh… cause a situation to arise which is inconsequential, that…uh… these are…uh… if it’s a small trivial matter, you make the judgement call” - (IS, male, 20).

Various participants also reflected on ways that helped them deal with negative reactions. One of them talked about the requirement of being aware of other party’s feelings,

“…with assertiveness also comes this responsibility of. you know, what do you say like… um… at least for me, I am very aware of other person ummm like feeling dominated or something. So, if I’m too assertive I know that that person in front of me might feel defensive and all so it’s my responsibility to not come out as condescending.” - (UK, female, 21).

Other participants preferred choosing when to be assertive and otherwise taking space from the recipient,

“If the discussion is polite and civil so I indulge in it and if it’s going…uh… in…if I know… if I sense that it’s going nowhere and we are going to have a verbal.uh. something’s going to happen so I just…uh… get up and leave the conversation because I don’t believe in getting in… getting in…uh… arguments.“- (PR, male, 20).

Journaling one’s thoughts also helped a few participants gauge their further conversations and incorporate aspects which they thought were lacking by objectively looking at the incident. One of them revealed that,

“The way I…uh… handle it is…um… well I write a lot, I will journal…um… I will honestly…like… do self introspection and I will ask myself if it’s true. I will not just…um…uh… believe or imagine myself to…uh… like…I will not just laugh them off and be.uh. accuse them of insulting me or anything like that. I will journal, I will talk to myself, I will ask myself if…uh… do I believe it to be true?” - (IS, male, 20).

There were participants who believed that apologising was a better way to deal with negative reactions. They empathise in order to avoid further confrontation which also depends on their stance in the conversation. One participant said that,

“I…so I try to empathise with them for some time. Like, let’s say like, we are having a discussion right now and I tell you something and your feelings get hurt. So I try to empathise with you, like if I had something said wrong if I had been disrespectful or something. If not immediately after a certain while of time.” - (HR, male, 21).

In contrast, there were participants who stood for taking ownership of their words and not apologising. It can be seen in the following transcript,

“…there were instances where.you know. I didn’t have a plan of action, I didn’t really apologise, I didn’t.umm. emphathise enough and that may be.uh. pushed some people away but that. that was. I think, it’s part of the process of being assertive, you know. It…I…I… you kind of learn where to draw that balance” - (AK, male, 22).

In order to deal with misinterpretations related to displaying assertive behaviour, participants preferred asking questions in order to gain clarity over other party’s stance about the topic. They also preferred communicating their own point of view and stance in a respectful manner to prevent any further misunderstanding. A participant expressed that,

“I think my plan of action would be to just communicate… to talk, I think that is the best way to solve anything or to go about anything because misunderstandings occur no matter what we do.So I think the best way to go about it is… go about it is to communicate and have a healthy discussion around it.” - (SK, female, 19).

Theme 5: Sex-based differences in Assertiveness.

The sex of individuals plays a major role in the way they assert themselves and how it is perceived by others as the reactions received by individuals vary based on their sex. Female participants revealed that men opposed them for being assertive and they were more likely to be disrespected for this behaviour. One of the account mentions,

“I have also received negative reactions. I maybe… maybe biased in recalling this but most of those have been from men or women in terms of patriarchy, where they tell me that, you know, a girl shouldn’t behave like this” - (V, female, 22).

There was also a difference in the prompt reaction received to orders given out by men as compared to women. This is seen in the organisational world where one participant stated that,

“One more is the fact that a lot of times when we exist in corporate spheres or when they exist where females are in competition with privilege gender, then their opinions aren’t taken seriously and I have noticed that” - (SK, female, 19).

Both sexes act differently while showing assertive behaviour where female participants revealed that they tend to be more apologetic.

“I mean there’s nothing conscious but I realise a lot of unconscious things I do…umm…that I share with a lot of other women like…uh… apologising when I make my point or…umm… say my voice and my tone me or my body…body language, all of it is, when I speak, especially being assertive or uh…communicating my needs…umm…they are very mysterious” - (MY, female, 19).

Female participants also expressed more mysterious ways of interacting with people where it is difficult for them to be completely open about their views. They are also expected to be respectful to a point where they are not able to state their intentions and wants in front of others.

Discussion

This study aimed to understand the facilitators for assertiveness among college students in India and found family and school environment, observation learning, and various life events as major factors which led to the development of assertiveness in the participants. Participants also listed various obstacles faced while engaging in this behaviour along with the manner and benefits of tackling these difficulties.

Family environment of the participants helped them to develop independent beliefs, have healthy discussions where both parties contribute equally along with having the ability to be respectful towards the other party. The also felt that since their families promoted free expression, they felt confident in putting their point forward which is supported by the study conducted by Alayi et al. (2011) which found that parents who exercised little control and too much love towards their children provided a space for children to make mistakes without getting called on by them. These factors help children in forming conception of self, awareness of one’s own opinions and of others and finally learning how to communicate which largely depends on how they communicate with their parents (Schermerhorn et al., 2008). Many participants felt that their school and formal education helped them express their grievances and understand other concepts of assertive behaviour. They learnt the importance of consent, free expression and holding their stance in the face of retaliation during an argument. To identify the impact of the teaching environment on self of students, it was found that having a learning environment which fosters self-expression and autonomy, develops the value of being proactive and independent in students (Shanmugan & Kathyayini, 2017). Since school plays an important role in providing a space for group interactions, many participants claimed it to be one of the most effective facilitators for their assertive behaviour. It was also mentioned by participants that having the exposure to indulge in public speaking, theatre and councils helped them develop the ability to put forward their point in a clear and more effective manner. This adds to the findings of scholars like Heathcote & Bolton (1994) who found that having students perform in drama increased their interpersonal skills and confidence, ultimately impacting their self-esteem in a positive way. Observing role models, media personalities and reading literature was also found to increase this behaviour. Various participants listed names of their favourite sportspersons, social media personalities and mentioned how their life stories inspired them to stand up for themselves. Observing female role models on TV shows being in a state of power made participants idealise them and inculcate their values of being honest and respectful. Similarly, reading books about the triumph of various protagonists due to their ability to stand up for themselves helped participants gauge situations of conflicts. These instances satisfy the principles laid down by Bandura (1965). Various events in life including going for psychotherapy and living alone also helped participants gain self-confidence, exploring one’s biases and being honest about one’s opinions. This finding is supported by research conducted by Ryu et al. (2021) who conducted research on adults living alone and their impact on self-confidence. They found that self-confidence was reinforced by the independence of living alone and in the current study, it facilitated assertive behaviour.

Being assertive also enforced various benefits where this behaviour served both protective and relational functions along with opening the way to various opportunities. It was observed that having a firm stance in situations of emotional or physical harm helped the participants get out of it. These findings add on to the research conducted by Bulback (2006) which aimed at checking the effects of assertiveness training on the rising cases of verbal abuse experienced by nurses which affected their emotional well-being. Through changing the style of communication and instilling a different manner of conflict resolution, assertiveness training was found to be effective against instances of verbal abuse. Participants also examined the effect of assertiveness on their relationships, with the majority noting positive and healthy outcomes. It invited reciprocity, trust and a safe space to put forth one’s point without being disrespectful. Open communication about expectations of each party from the other led to a stronger and direct relationship. These findings support the findings of Lange & Jakubowski (1976) who studied the relationships between assertiveness and self-actualization. They concluded by saying that people with assertiveness have their needs respected and fulfilled and associated this behaviour to the ability to encourage and maintain rewarding interpersonal relationships. They also suggested that the reason behind fostering healthy relationships was their ability to communicate freely and feel secure in their expectations. Assertiveness promotes the desire to state one’s wants which was found to be particularly effective while opting career paths. Being able to choose and state their options to their parents is another benefit they reaped. This behaviour provided them with a sense of independence and better decision making. One study revealed that building assertiveness in students also improved their decision making towards career paths along with enhancing the ability to communicate one’s decision to others. This was attributed to higher social competencies due to increased confidence in their decisions (Soresi, & Nota, 2011).

There were various obstacles that the participants faced while being assertive. Their age was associated to their lack of experience which prevented them from being assertive with people older to them. Their opinions were pushed off or were met with silence if said out loud in a room of more experienced audience. Along with that, not knowing the native language of the party prevented them from effectively putting their point forward. Since communication is an extremely important aspect of being assertive (Pfafman, 2017), it is likely that not being able to do it effectively can act as an obstacle. Having incompetency in the language more familiar to the receiver, can act as a barrier when to comes to verbally communicating a need or desire. Along with one’s own characteristics, receivers who are sensitive, aggressive and at a position of authority tend to make the process of being assertive difficult. Participants felt that people who were highly sensitive tend to get more upset if one is being honest with them. They also felt that it became increasingly difficult to have healthy conversations with someone who is aggressive as they resist one’s thoughts to a very high extent. This can be supported by research conducted by Waung & Highhouse (1997) to understand the role of assertiveness in providing feedback to people. They found that the fear of conflict prevented people from being completely open and giving reviews and being completely honest. Contrary to the relational function played by assertiveness, few participants felt that being assertive in a relationship tends to increase the arguments and remaining silent and more accepting of the other person was deemed fit for them. They also felt that highly assertive behaviour reduced the ability to compromise between parties. It becomes difficult to stay objective when close relationships are involved and hence, might lead to escalation of issues. Participants also listed few negative consequences of this behaviour where having people trust them to be their voice led to increasing sense of responsibility which proved to be detrimental. Their assertiveness was seen in negative light and they were perceived as rude which prevented them from sticking to their point. These findings are congruent with the research conducted by Zollo et al. (1985). They conducted a study on various undergraduate students which aimed at evaluating the consequences of being assertive in the long run. They found that being assertive led to negative reactions from the receiver which in turn affected their ability to be assertive. One peculiar finding from the study revealed that having past failures also prevented people from being assertive as the aftermath of that event developed into an apprehension of it happening again. Having such experiences led to the development of apprehensions about the possible negative reactions of this behaviour as well. In few participants, multiple past failures led to feelings of self-doubt and increased overthinking about their stances in a conversation to avoid negative reactions.

Facilitation of assertive behaviour also includes the ability to overcome the obstacles and participants followed certain ways to do the same. Some of them set boundaries for themselves to not interfere with others’ choices, however still putting their point forward, in order to avoid arguments. They chose the ‘agree to disagree’ route reserving both parties’ right to have opinions. Some preferred analysing the situation first before putting their point forward to gauge the possible negative reactions that may come from the other parties and subsequently modifying their ways to be more respectful. This cost benefit analysis helped them decide the degree of assertiveness. Many of them even chose not to be assertive at all in certain situations where an argument was guaranteed and opted to write their feelings down instead. This finding supports the meta-analysis conducted by Ames et al. (2017) who concluded that striking a balance between the degree of assertiveness is important and being able to balance this act perfectly was termed as a strength among people. This also adds on to the conclusion drawn by Ames (2008) which stated that, people tend to develop expectations about other people and imagine the consequence of their assertiveness depending on the other person. All these aspects then decide if the person will assert or not. When it came to dealing with negative consequences of their assertive behaviour, participants believed that apologising was better than engaging in order to avoid confrontation. Some of them even preferred taking some time off and reflecting on their own actions to improve them for the future since they felt the need to respect others for having opinions just as they respect themselves. Others believed in taking a stand for themselves even in the face of negative reactions as they did not believe in taking one’s insults for believing in something. Taking responsibility for what they said helped them stick to it and not re-analyse their opinions about a certain topic due to a negative reaction. Being misinterpreted by people who are sensitive is one major obstacle of being assertive and participants felt the need to clarify any doubts they had about one’s own stance and that of others by asking questions. They also preferred respectfully clarifying other person’s doubts, if any, to avoid potential arguments.

Sex-based differences in terms of this behaviour were also evident in the results. One of them was about the reactions each one of them received for being assertive. This is mostly seen in corporate organisations where opinions given by female leaders were, more often than not, discarded. Being in a collectivistic society, standing up for oneself is already frowned upon due to the need to avoid arguments or differences. Pairing that with a patriarchal outlook made it even more difficult for the female participants to be assertive as they were actively stopped from doing so as compared to men. They were opposed by people around for standing up for themselves and had an increased chance of being disrespected for this behaviour. This adds to the reasons why women are not assertive as initially found by Acharya et al. (2016) in their study conducted on assertiveness in women of India. It was found that women tend to take a less assertive stance in general due to fears of society and the increased likelihood of receiving negative reactions. Participants also blamed their extended families for being too critical about their assertive stance for which they received negative reactions. This also put them in a dilemma of acting in their own self-interest as this was perceived as going against their role in the society. This difference creeps in the way both sexes are assertive where the results revealed that women tend to be more apologetic in their approach as compared to men. As compared to the male participants, female participants were found to be less open about their stance and acted more careful while putting it forward. This was attributed to their conditioning towards acting a certain way where they are taught to act in ways which points more towards their safety and sways away from their need to exercise control and state of their intentions and wants in front of others These stereotypes are supported by findings of Eagly (1987) and Bem (1974) who found that men are expected to be more dominant and take agency of their actions whereas women are expected to be more accommodating and concerned about others. Even the male participants believed the patriarchy exists, mostly in the northern regions, where there is a stark difference in the upbringing of both sexes as men are expected to be more assertive than women, hence the difference their manner of being assertive.

The study aimed to explore various facilitators for assertiveness among college students of India who displayed high levels of this behaviour. Insights were gained regarding the impact of values, beliefs, role models, and individual schemas on assertive behaviour. Along with that, there were revelations regarding ways of dealing with various obstacles that prevent one from being assertive. These findings can be incorporated into assertiveness and communication skills training. For instance, while teaching ways of managing emotions, individuals can be exposed to various obstacles they might face while being assertive which could elicit highly emotional reactions. Various influences including family environment, media, reading and extra-curricular activities can be looked into as ways promoting assertive behaviour at home. One limitation of this study was that majority of the participants were from an urban population, so it failed to completely capture the outlook of rural background and its impact on assertive behaviour. There is a dearth of understanding and accounting for people who were from difference age groups as the cohort only consisted of college undergraduates. Future studies can consider a wider cohort for better understanding and aim to include people from rural background to understand their experiences which led to assertive behaviour.