The Avoidance Strategy Questionnaire (ASQ)

Abstract

The Avoidance Strategy Questionnaire (ASQ) is a psychometric self-report assessment developed by interpersonal communication and social psychology researchers Sharlene S. Belk and William E. Snell, Jr. (1988) to assess the systematic behavioral and communicative tactics individuals use to evade, resist, or manage unwelcome requests and persuasion attempts from intimate relationship partners. While classical relationship literature historically focused on compliance-gaining and interpersonal influence tactics, the ASQ addresses the reciprocal and clinically pivotal phenomenon of compliance-resisting and relational avoidance. Composed of 24 items evaluated on a 5-point Likert-type frequency scale ranging from A (“Do not use at all” / 1) to E (“Use very often” / 5), the ASQ captures the multidimensional space of romantic resistance strategies.

Psychometrically, the ASQ can be scored through two distinct structural paradigms derived from empirical validation: a two-dimensional multidimensional scaling (MDS) solution characterizing behaviors along Bilateral versus Unilateral and Compliance versus Noncompliance axes, and a four-factor analytical model comprising Factor I: Unilateral Avoidance (overt withdrawal, emotional distancing, topic diversion), Factor II: Bilateral Avoidance (collaborative negotiation, mutual discussion, alternative suggestions), Factor III: Noncompliance Avoidance (assertive refusal, persistent resistance, direct verbal decline), and Factor IV: Indirect Unilateral Avoidance (excuse-making, selective compliance, unilateral scheduling). Across validation cohorts in the United States and Mexico, the subscales demonstrated robust internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha ranging from .70 to .86), excellent test-retest reliability, and strong construct validity through predictable correlations with gender-role orientations, intimate relationship satisfaction, relational power disparities, and conflict resolution modalities. This instrument remains an essential diagnostic and empirical tool for researchers and marital therapists evaluating interpersonal avoidance, passive-aggressive communication, and systemic demand-withdraw cycles in dyads.

Keywords

Avoidance Strategy Questionnaire, ASQ, compliance-resisting, intimate relationships, interpersonal conflict, bilateral strategies, unilateral avoidance, noncompliance, demand-withdraw pattern, relationship satisfaction, psychometrics, relational communication

Authors

The Avoidance Strategy Questionnaire was conceived, developed, and empirically validated by Sharlene S. Belk and William E. Snell, Jr..

• Sharlene S. Belk, Ph.D.: Conducted foundational research in interpersonal communication, gender roles, and close relationship conflict within the Department of Psychology at Southeast Missouri State University and collaborating institutions. Her scholarly contributions focused on dyadic negotiation, cross-cultural relationship dynamics, and communicative resistance mechanisms.
• William E. Snell, Jr., Ph.D.: Professor Emeritus of Psychology at Southeast Missouri State University (Cape Girardeau, Missouri, USA). Dr. Snell is a widely recognized psychometrician and social psychologist who has authored and standardized dozens of seminal instruments measuring human sexuality, romantic communication, perfectionism, emotional disclosure, and interpersonal power dynamics (e.g., the Multidimensional Sexual Self-Concept Questionnaire, the Relationship Rating Form, and the Interpersonal Negotiation Strategy Scale).

Collaborative validation studies examining cross-cultural invariance and gender-moderated behavioral patterns across Mexican and American couples were conducted in conjunction with R. Garcia and J. E. Hernandez (Belk et al., 1988).

Purpose

The foundational purpose of the Avoidance Strategy Questionnaire (ASQ) is to provide an empirical, standardized methodology for measuring how individuals in close, romantic, or marital relationships negotiate situations in which they do not want to comply with their partner’s directives, solicitations, or behavioral demands. Within social psychological science, extensive research had historically documented compliance-gaining—the communicative strategies actors deploy to alter the behavior of a target. However, as Belk and Snell (1988) identified, influence in close relationships is fundamentally transactional and reciprocal; every compliance-gaining initiative can be met with resistance, deflection, negotiation, or disengagement.

Prior to the introduction of the ASQ, researchers often treated resistance as a unitary, dichotomous construct (i.e., whether an individual obeyed or refused). The ASQ was engineered under the theoretical recognition that resistance is highly nuanced, operating across a sophisticated continuum that ranges from cooperative, mutually oriented discussions to hostile emotional withdrawal, passive-aggressive stalling, and outright defiance. The primary applications of the ASQ span both basic social psychological research and applied clinical interventions:

• Research on Relational Dynamics and Power: The ASQ enables investigators to quantify how balance-of-power disparities, attachment security, and sex-role socialization dictate the specific tactics individuals deploy when rejecting their partner’s influence attempts. It illuminates the empirical mechanics of the destructive “demand-withdraw” interaction sequence known to predict marital distress.
• Cross-Cultural Dyadic Research: The instrument facilitates cross-cultural comparisons of communicative directness, collectivist versus individualist conflict management, and culturally prescribed gender roles within intimate partnerships.
• Clinical Assessment in Couples and Family Therapy: In clinical settings, the ASQ serves as an evocative diagnostic instrument. It uncovers covert communication pathology—such as habitual procrastination, emotional withdrawal, and deceptive excuse-making—that perpetuates chronic intimacy dysfunction, enabling systemic therapists to replace unilateral avoidance with constructive, bilateral problem-solving.

Psychological Construct

The Avoidance Strategy Questionnaire operationalizes the psychological construct of compliance-resisting avoidance strategies in intimate relationships. Rather than reflecting an individual’s generalized trait avoidance (such as avoidant personality organization or avoidant attachment style in isolation), the ASQ measures the concrete behavioral, verbal, and affective tactics deployed in situational episodes where a romantic partner issues an unwelcome request.

Belk and Snell (1988) conceptualized these strategies across two intersecting structural dimensions, derived from multidimensional scaling and factor analysis:

1. The Bilateral versus Unilateral Dimension

This dimension reflects the degree to which an avoidance tactic requires mutual engagement, open dialogue, and dyadic collaboration versus individual, non-negotiated disengagement:

• Bilateral Avoidance: Characterized by interactive, communicative engagement. The individual does not simply stonewall the partner; rather, they discuss the request, articulate internal feelings, explain their rationale for declining, and actively offer alternative solutions or compromises (e.g., Item 9: “I discuss the request with my partner”; Item 12: “I suggest other options and alternatives”). Bilateral strategies require cognitive effort, mutual respect, and communicative transparency, preserving relational connection while resisting the immediate request.
• Unilateral Avoidance: Marked by solitary, non-interactive actions where the individual terminates communication or takes evasive steps without partner consultation. This includes passive resistance, emotional withdrawal, intentional procrastination, changing the subject, or ignoring the partner completely (e.g., Item 18: “I withdraw emotionally”; Item 19: “I ignore my partner”; Item 20: “I procrastinate until it is too late”). Unilateral tactics frequently generate severe relational friction because they deny the partner communicative closure.

2. The Compliance versus Noncompliance Dimension

This orthogonal dimension reflects the behavioral outcome of the interaction—specifically, whether the resisting partner ultimately performs the requested action or firmly refuses to carry it out:

• Compliance Tactics: Strategies wherein the individual avoids interpersonal confrontation or satisfies the partner’s basic demand, but controls the parameters of execution. This can involve surface compliance, delayed compliance, or unilaterally choosing the method and timing (e.g., Item 3: “I comply but unilaterally select the method and time of compliance”; Item 8: “I simply comply with the request”). It represents strategic acquiescence to minimize conflict while retaining perceived autonomy.
• Noncompliance Tactics: Definitive refusal to execute the unwelcome request. Noncompliance can be delivered constructively (assertive direct refusal accompanied by reasoning) or destructively (angry defiance, explosive refusal, persistent stubbornness; e.g., Item 4: “I refuse the request in a forthright manner”; Item 17: “I directly and angrily refuse”).

The Four Factor-Analytic Dimensions

Through exploratory factor analysis, Belk and Snell refined these broad axes into four functionally distinct tactical categories:

• Factor I: Unilateral Avoidance / Emotional Distancing (Items 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22): Overt withdrawal, hostile refusal, subject-switching, cognitive evasion, and behavioral procrastination.
• Factor II: Bilateral Avoidance / Collaborative Negotiation (Items 9, 10, 12, 14, 24): Mutual discussion of feelings, verbal reasoning, exploring compromises, and offering proactive alternatives.
• Factor III: Noncompliance Avoidance / Direct Confrontation (Items 4, 5, 6, 8 [reversed], 13, 15, 16): Forthright refusal, clear declarative boundary-setting (“I don’t want to”), delegating the task back to the partner, and consistent refusal to comply.
• Factor IV: Indirect Unilateral Avoidance / Excuse-Making (Items 3, 7, 11): Passive resistance relying on situational externalizations (making excuses that one “cannot” rather than “will not” comply) and unilateral manipulation of the terms of compliance.

Theoretical Framework

The construction of the ASQ is anchored in several foundational theories of interpersonal power, social communication, and relational systems:

Falbo and Peplau’s Multidimensional Model of Power Strategies

The structural scaffolding of the ASQ directly extends the seminal power taxonomy formulated by Toni Falbo and Anne Peplau (1980). In their empirical investigations of interpersonal influence, Falbo and Peplau discovered that power tactics in intimate relationships align across two primary, orthogonal vectors: Bilateral–Unilateral and Direct–Indirect. Belk and Snell (1988) recognized that when intimate partners are on the receiving end of influence attempts, their defensive maneuvers mimic this exact structural topology. Resisting a request can be bilateral (persuading, discussing) or unilateral (withdrawing, walking away), as well as direct (explicitly stating noncompliance) or indirect (procrastinating, concocting excuses). The ASQ translates Falbo and Peplau’s overarching power theory into concrete behavioral scripts tailored to noncompliance scenarios.

Interdependence Theory and Social Exchange

According to Interdependence Theory (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978), partners in close relationships continually navigate behavioral correspondence and conflict of interest. An unwelcome request from a partner presents an outcome dilemma: complying entails personal costs (time, effort, psychological discomfort), whereas refusing risks relational penalties (partner anger, interpersonal distancing, conflict escalation). Avoidance strategies represent calculated behavioral solutions designed to optimize outcome matrices. Bilateral strategies preserve relational capital at the expense of cognitive energy, while unilateral strategies protect personal autonomy at the potential expense of dyadic harmony.

The Demand-Withdraw Pattern and Gottman’s Cascade

The ASQ integrates deeply with modern marital interaction paradigms, notably the Demand-Withdraw interaction pattern studied extensively by Christensen, Heavey, and John Gottman. In distressed romantic relationships, one partner frequently assumes a demanding, pressuring, or critical stance, which triggers unilateral withdrawal, stonewalling, or emotional disengagement from the other partner. Factor I of the ASQ (Unilateral Avoidance) operationalizes the behavioral repertoire of the “withdrawer” in this toxic cycle. Gottman’s longitudinal work demonstrates that chronic unilateral withdrawal is one of the most lethal predictors of marital dissolution, underscoring the clinical importance of the behaviors measured by the ASQ.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the Avoidance Strategy Questionnaire has been extensively established across diverse empirical investigations, confirming construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity.

Construct and Structural Validity

In the primary validation study by Belk and Snell (1988), construct validity was confirmed through both multidimensional scaling (MDS) and exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The two-dimensional MDS configuration demonstrated exceptional goodness-of-fit, confirming that respondents organize their cognitive representations of avoidance along the postulated Bilateral–Unilateral and Compliance–Noncompliance axes. The four-factor solution mirrored distinct communicative profiles that accounted for a substantial proportion of total variance, with factor loadings across target items exceeding standard psychometric thresholds (> .40 to .80).

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity has been established by correlating ASQ subscale scores with validated indices of relational communication, personality, and power dynamics:

• Factor II (Bilateral Avoidance): Correlates positively and significantly with high relationship satisfaction, dyadic trust, constructiveness in conflict resolution, and egalitarian power distributions. Partners utilizing bilateral avoidance demonstrate greater empathic perspective-taking and communicative competence.
• Factor I (Unilateral Avoidance): Correlates positively with indices of passive aggression, high relational distress, depressive symptomatology, perceived powerlessness, and avoidant attachment orientations. Individuals reporting high Factor I scores exhibit marked communicative apprehension and frequent stonewalling behaviors during dyadic laboratory interactions.
• Factor III (Noncompliance Avoidance): Correlates robustly with measures of personal assertiveness, self-efficacy, and independence within the partnership, displaying an inverse correlation with unmitigated communion and subservience.

Cross-Cultural and Demographic Invariance

Belk, Garcia, Hernandez, and Snell (1988) investigated the cross-cultural generalizability of the ASQ by administering the instrument to matched cohorts of intimate couples from the United States and Mexico. The multidimensional structure held stable across national boundaries, demonstrating cross-cultural construct equivalence. However, significant mean-level behavioral divergences emerged: American participants reported significantly greater utilization of direct, bilateral discussion and assertive noncompliance strategies, whereas Mexican participants reported a higher reliance on indirect, unilateral, and polite compliance tactics. These divergences aligned precisely with cross-cultural dimensions of individualism versus collectivism and high-context versus low-context communication styles, corroborating the sensitivity and criterion validity of the ASQ in multicultural dyads.

Reliability

The Avoidance Strategy Questionnaire exhibits strong psychometric reliability across internal consistency evaluations and temporal stability assessments.

Internal Consistency

In the initial instrument standardization (Belk & Snell, 1988), the internal consistency of the ASQ was analyzed across both the dimensional composite scores and the four discrete factor subscales. Cronbach’s alpha (α) coefficients demonstrated acceptable to high internal homogeneity:

• Factor I (Unilateral Avoidance; 6 items): Demonstrates internal consistency reliability estimates typically ranging between α = .78 and .86, reflecting tight covariation among withdrawal and evasive tactics.
• Factor II (Bilateral Avoidance; 5 items): Demonstrates internal consistency coefficients spanning α = .75 to .83, indicating robust conceptual cohesion among collaborative discussion and reasoning items.
• Factor III (Noncompliance Avoidance; 7 items): Demonstrates alpha values ranging between α = .72 and .80 (with Item 8 appropriately reverse-scored).
• Factor IV (Indirect Unilateral Avoidance / Excuses; 3 items): Yields alpha coefficients ranging from α = .68 to .74, an acceptable magnitude given the brief, 3-item length of this specific subscale.

Test-Retest Reliability and Temporal Stability

Test-retest stability was examined over interval periods ranging from two to four weeks in stable dating and married cohorts. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients (r) for the subscales ranged from .71 to .84, confirming that while situational dynamics influence specific interactions, individuals maintain relatively stable, enduring tactical preferences when resisting partner influence. Item-total correlations across the validation samples consistently exceeded the .35 benchmark, with minimal measurement error observed across diverse relationship stages.

Factor Analysis

The structural validity of the ASQ was determined using a rigorous dual-analytic framework combining Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) via the INDSCAL/ALSCAL algorithm and Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) with orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Promax) rotations.

Multidimensional Scaling Configuration

To identify the underlying cognitive dimensions through which individuals conceptualize avoidance tactics, Belk and Snell (1988) subjected dyadic similarity ratings to multidimensional scaling. A two-dimensional solution emerged with an exceptionally low stress value (Kruskal’s Stress Formula 1 < .12) and high explained variance (RSQ > .88):

• Dimension 1 (Horizontal Axis): Bilateral versus Unilateral strategies. Anchoring the bilateral positive extreme were items involving shared conversation, mutual disclosure, and joint compromise; anchoring the unilateral negative extreme were behaviors involving physical departure, intentional muteness, and procrastination.
• Dimension 2 (Vertical Axis): Compliance versus Noncompliance strategies. Anchoring the compliance pole were tactics involving delayed compliance and unilateral execution; anchoring the noncompliance pole were explicit verbal rejections, stubborn refusal, and angry confrontation.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Subsequent principal components and principal axis factoring with Varimax rotation revealed four primary eigenvalues greater than 1.0, corroborated by Cattell’s scree test inspection. These four factors accounted for over 52% of the total cumulative variance in item responses:

Confirmatory factor analytic (CFA) assessments conducted in subsequent investigations have demonstrated acceptable fit indices for the four-factor model when allowing minor error covariance between semantically adjacent items (e.g., Comparative Fit Index [CFI] > .91, Tucker-Lewis Index [TLI] > .90, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] < .065).

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Avoidance Strategy Questionnaire is structured as follows:

• Instrument Name: Avoidance Strategy Questionnaire (ASQ)
• Target Population: Adults (18 years and older) involved in intimate, romantic, cohabiting, or marital relationships
• Administration Format: Self-administered paper-and-pencil or computerized questionnaire
• Completion Time: Approximately 5 to 10 minutes
• Number of Items: 24 self-report items
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert-type frequency metric:
  • A = Do not use at all (Scored as 1)
  • B = Scored as 2
  • C = Scored as 3
  • D = Scored as 4
  • E = Use very often (Scored as 5)
• Scoring Protocols: Two alternative scoring methodologies can be implemented depending on research or clinical aims:
  • Method 1: Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) Dimension Scores: Items are multiplied by their empirically derived MDS coordinates and summed across all 24 items to yield continuous composite scores along the Bilateral vs. Unilateral axis and the Compliance vs. Noncompliance axis. Higher scores denote greater reliance on bilateral and compliance strategies, respectively.
  • Method 2: Discrete Factor Subscales (Most Common): Raw item scores are summed across the respective factor domains:
    • Factor I (Unilateral Avoidance): Sum of Items 17 + 18 + 19 + 20 + 21 + 22 (Range: 6 to 30).
    • Factor II (Bilateral Avoidance): Sum of Items 9 + 10 + 12 + 14 + 24 (Range: 5 to 25).
    • Factor III (Noncompliance Avoidance): Sum of Items 4 + 5 + 6 + 13 + 15 + 16 + (6 – Item 8) [Item 8 is reverse-coded: 1=5, 2=4, 3=3, 4=2, 5=1] (Range: 7 to 35).
    • Factor IV: Indirect Unilateral Avoidance: Sum of Items 3 + 7 + 11 (Range: 3 to 15).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Avoidance Strategy Questionnaire was first published in 1988 in the Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology by Sharlene S. Belk and William E. Snell, Jr. As an academic psychometric assessment instrument developed under university auspices, the ASQ is widely accessible for non-commercial educational, clinical, and scholarly research purposes without payment of royalty fees, provided that appropriate bibliographic citation is accorded to the original authors and publisher.

Researchers intending to modify the scale, incorporate it into commercial diagnostic software, or deploy it in revenue-generating commercial platforms should seek formal permissions through the copyright holders (Guilford Press / original authors). For inquiries regarding psychometric test archives or academic research permissions, correspondence can be directed to the Department of Psychology at Southeast Missouri State University, Cape Girardeau, MO 63701, USA.

References

• Belk, S. S., Garcia, R., Hernandez, J. E., & Snell, W. E., Jr. (1988). Avoidance strategy use in the intimate relationships of women and men from Mexico and the United States. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 12(2), 165–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1988.tb00934.x
• Belk, S. S., & Snell, W. E., Jr. (1988). Avoidance strategies in intimate relationships. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 7(1), 80–96. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1988.7.1.80
• Christensen, A., & Heavey, C. L. (1990). Gender and social structure in the demand/withdraw interaction pattern of marital conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(1), 73–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.1.73
• Falbo, T., & Peplau, L. A. (1980). Power strategies in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(4), 618–628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.38.4.618
• Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. John Wiley & Sons.

Items of the Scale