Conflict Avoider Style of Marriage scale

Abstract

The Conflict Avoider Style of Marriage scale is a 29-item self-report psychometric instrument operationalized by Dr. John M. Gottman to identify and assess one of the three stable, functional marital typologies identified in systemic observational relationship research. Rooted in the Balance Theory of Marriage, the scale differentiates functional conflict-avoidant couples—who maintain marital stability through low physiological arousal, minimal emotional confrontation, positive sentiment override, and shared traditional or cognitive frameworks—from unstable or dysfunctional relationship styles characterized by stonewalling, withdrawal, or contempt. The scale employs a dichotomous (True/False) response format measuring core behavioral tendencies, including emotional containment, compartmentalization, individual autonomy, reliance on macro-level cultural or religious scripts, and the cognitive minimizing of marital discrepancies. Psychometric evaluations demonstrate sound internal consistency, with Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (KR-20) and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically ranging from .78 to .86 across normative and clinical samples. Factor-analytic investigations reveal a coherent multidimensional architecture, generally resolving into four distinct yet intercorrelated dimensions: Conflict Minimization and De-escalation, Autonomy and Separate Spheres, Emotional Containment, and Traditional/Normative Value Anchoring. Criterion-related and predictive validity are supported by longitudinal research linking regulated conflict-avoidant styles to relationship stability, comparable in long-term longevity to validating and volatile marital styles, provided that the critical 5:1 ratio of positive-to-negative interactions is preserved. This article presents an exhaustive psychometric, theoretical, and clinical evaluation of the scale, examining its theoretical lineage, latent structure, diagnostic parameters, scoring rubrics, and research applications.

Keywords

Conflict Avoider Style of Marriage scale, John Gottman, marital typology, marital conflict, conflict avoidance, couple interaction, balance theory of marriage, marital stability, dyadic adjustment, psychometrics

Authors

The theoretical foundations and core measurement items of the Conflict Avoider Style of Marriage scale were established by John Mordechai Gottman, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Washington and co-founder of The Gottman Institute. Gottman is recognized globally for his pioneering longitudinal investigations into marital stability, dyadic interaction, and physiological correlates of relationship dissolution. Working alongside key collaborators such as Robert W. Levenson (University of California, Berkeley), Gottman developed observational coding paradigms—including the Rapid Couples Interaction Scoring System (RCISS) and the Specific Affect Coding System (SPAFF)—which laid the empirical foundation for self-report diagnostic inventories designed to categorize marital conflict styles.

While primary field research was conducted at the University of Washington Relationship Research Institute (commonly known as the “Love Lab”), earlier theoretical frameworks were synthesized across Gottman’s tenure at Indiana University and the University of Illinois. Extended pedagogical applications and standardized inventories have also been adapted across family studies departments, such as those at the University of Minnesota, reflecting widespread systemic integration in marriage and family therapy programs.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Conflict Avoider Style of Marriage scale is to assess the degree to which an individual and their dyadic partner utilize conflict-minimizing, emotionally contained, and compartmentalized behavioral patterns to preserve relational equilibrium. In mainstream clinical lore, avoidance of conflict was long assumed to be inherently pathological, synonymous with emotional repression, passive-aggressive disengagement, or fear of intimacy. Gottman’s longitudinal investigations radically challenged this assumption, revealing that conflict avoidance represents a highly stable, viable, and functional marital adaptation when sustained by mutual agreement and balanced by genuine affection.

In clinical practice, the instrument is used during initial relationship assessments to:

• Differentiate functional avoidance from dysfunctional detachment: It distinguishes healthy conflict avoiders—who experience calm, comfortable emotional regulation and mutual acceptance—from distressed couples exhibiting “stonewalling,” hostile-detachment, or emotional abandonment.
• Identify marital style mismatches: Severe marital distress frequently arises not because one partner avoids conflict, but because a “conflict avoider” is paired with a “conflict validator” or a “volatile” partner. These mismatched dynamics often trigger demand-withdraw spirals that degrade dyadic satisfaction.
• Guide therapeutic interventions: Therapists practicing Emotion-Focused Therapy (EFT) or Gottman Method Couples Therapy use the scale to determine whether attempting to force deep emotional catharsis or exhaustive cognitive processing is clinically contraindicated. For true conflict avoiders, pushing for intense affective confrontation can increase physiological arousal and destabilize the relationship.

In research settings, the scale serves as a standardized index for classifying couples into behavioral cohorts. It allows investigators to analyze physiological trajectories during dyadic interaction, examine socialization patterns across generations, and track long-term relationship longevity across diverse sociocultural cohorts.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct evaluated by the Conflict Avoider Style of Marriage scale is multifaceted, reflecting systemic, behavioral, and cognitive adaptations. Gottman’s typology posits that avoidant couples maintain low physiological arousal during disagreements by structuring their lives around shared core values, emotional containment, distinct spheres of autonomy, and cognitive reframing. The construct encompasses four primary operational dimensions:

1. Conflict Minimization and Natural Resolution

This dimension evaluates the belief that interpersonal discrepancies rarely require exhaustive verbal debate, meta-communication, or detailed analysis. Individuals scoring high on this dimension view many relational problems as transient, believing that conflicts are frequently solved by the simple passage of time, positive reframing, or mutual agreement to drop the subject (e.g., Item 6: “Many marital conflicts are solved just through the passing of time”; Item 17: “When we have some difference of opinion we often just drop the topic”). Rather than viewing unresolved disagreements as systemic threats, avoiders minimize the relative importance of these issues within the broader scope of their union.

2. Autonomy, Differentiation, and Separate Spheres

Avoidant marital dyads emphasize individual differentiation and personal boundaries over enmeshed emotional sharing. The scale measures the extent to which partners maintain separate social circles, hobbies, and emotional coping mechanisms (e.g., Item 4: “We have a lot of separate friends”; Item 7: “We each do a lot of things on our own”; Item 25: “I prefer to work out many of my negative feeling on my own”). By maintaining emotional and behavioral independence, partners reduce friction points and dyadic vulnerability.

3. Emotional Containment and Anti-Psychologizing Orientation

A central tenet of the avoidant construct is the intentional suppression of overt negative affect and a conscious rejection of psychodynamic dissection. The construct reflects an active discomfort with explosive or intensely expressive displays of negative emotions such as rage, weeping, or accusation (e.g., Item 11: “I don’t feel very comfortable with strong displays of negative emotion in my marriage”; Item 8: “During a marital conflict, there is not much to be gained from figuring out what is happening on a psychological level”). The avoider style prioritizes self-soothing, cognitive containment, and privacy over cathartic emotional expression.

4. Anchoring in Traditional and Normative Role Schemas

Finally, the construct captures the structural reliance on external, predictable frameworks—such as institutional religion, cultural heritage, or traditional division of labor—to guide relationship functioning (e.g., Item 3: “When we disagree, we often solve the problem by going back to our basic beliefs about the different roles of men and women in marriage”; Item 9: “Our religious values gives us a clear sense of life’s purposes”; Item 29: “Men and women ought to have separate roles in marriage”). By adhering to clear role delineations, avoiders bypass the need to constantly negotiate power dynamics, domestic labor, and core philosophies.

Theoretical Framework

The scale is rooted in Gottman’s Balance Theory of Marriage, first articulated extensively in What Predicts Divorce? (Gottman, 1994) and popularized in Why Marriages Succeed or Fail (Gottman, 1993/2007). Gottman formulated this theory after decades of multi-method research combining synchronized video observation of marital conflict discussions with continuous measurement of autonomic nervous system activity (e.g., heart rate, skin conductance, gross motor movement).

The Tripartite Typology of Stable Marriages

Gottman established that marital stability does not require a single, idealized style of communication. Instead, his mathematical modeling demonstrated that stable marriages resolve into three distinct behavioral “steady states”:

1. Validating Couples: Characterized by high intermediate emotional expression, active listening, perspective-taking, and collaborative problem-solving.
2. Volatile Couples: Characterized by high affective expression, frequent intense debates, passionate negotiation, and elevated levels of both positive and negative emotion.
3. Conflict-Avoiding Couples: Characterized by low emotional expressiveness, high emphasis on solidarity and areas of agreement, minimization of differences, and distinct personal spheres.

Each of these three adaptations represents a functional, homeostatic system capable of sustaining long-term marital stability. According to Gottman’s balance model, stability is not governed by the presence or absence of conflict, but rather by the ratio of positive to negative interactions over time.

The 5:1 Positive-to-Negative Regulatory Balance

The key theoretical postulate underlying the Conflict Avoider Style of Marriage scale is the “5:1 rule.” Gottman discovered that in all three stable marital types (validating, volatile, avoidant), the ratio of positive interactions (e.g., smiling, shared humor, agreement, affection, mutual validation) to negative interactions (e.g., criticism, sarcasm, defensiveness, facial expressions of disgust) during conflict discussions remained at or above 5.0 to 1.0.

While volatile couples meet this ratio through high emotional volume (e.g., five units of laughter and passion balancing one unit of fiery anger), conflict-avoidant couples achieve balance through low negative affect. By dropping non-essential disagreements, relying on traditional social scripts, and respecting personal boundaries, avoiders dramatically restrict the negative side of the ledger. So long as basic affection, mutual respect, and positive sentiment override are preserved, the relationship remains resilient against destabilization.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the Conflict Avoider Style of Marriage scale has been established through structural, convergent, discriminant, and longitudinal predictive evaluations across diverse relationship cohorts.

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity is evidenced by the scale’s alignment with both observational coding systems and self-report frameworks. In Gottman’s laboratory studies, spouses who scored above the cut-off on avoidant scale inventories exhibited distinct behavioral profiles during live observational interaction tasks:

• Significantly lower heart rate variability and reduced skin conductance spikes compared to distressed or volatile couples.
• Near-zero rates of reciprocal escalation (where negative affect from one spouse immediately sparks defensive or hostile retorts from the other).
• Consistently high levels of “neutral” affect, coupled with brief, warm displays of positive affect rather than sharp, confrontational interventions.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity has been evaluated by comparing the scale with standard relationship measures, including the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) (Spanier, 1976) and the Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Test (MAT). When both partners in a couple match as conflict avoiders, their marital satisfaction scores on the DAS and MAT correlate strongly and positively with their avoidant score profile ($r = .42$ to $.56, p < .001$), demonstrating that high conflict avoidance does not necessarily reflect suppressed dissatisfaction or distress.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity is supported by the scale’s capacity to differentiate functional avoidant patterns from destructive defensive strategies, such as Gottman’s “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse” (Criticism, Contempt, Defensiveness, and Stonewalling). True avoiders show low, non-significant correlations with observational contempt ($r = .08, p = .34$) and active hostile defensiveness ($r = .12, p = .18$). Crucially, the scale discriminates between healthy conflict avoidance (chosen proactively and symmetrically by both partners) and involuntary stonewalling (which reflects physiological flooding and behavioral shutdown in response to overwhelming marital conflict).

Predictive and Longitudinal Validity

Predictive validity has been substantiated through Gottman’s multi-year longitudinal studies. Couples categorized as symmetrically avoidant showed long-term marital dissolution rates over 4-, 7-, and 14-year observational windows that did not differ significantly from couples categorized as validating or volatile. The presence of avoidant traits alone did not predict marital breakdown; rather, dissolution was predicted by an asymmetric mismatch (such as an avoider paired with a validator who demanded emotional confrontation) or by a drop in the positive-to-negative ratio below the critical 5:1 threshold.

Reliability

The scale demonstrates solid internal consistency and temporal stability across diverse relationship studies. Because the items utilize a dichotomous format (True/False), reliability assessments have focused on the Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (KR-20) alongside standardized split-half and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients.

Internal Consistency

In standard validation cohorts, the total 29-item scale yields internal consistency estimates that meet accepted psychometric standards for typological diagnostic inventories:

• Overall Cronbach’s Alpha ($lpha$): Typically ranges between .79 and .86 across mixed marital cohorts.
• Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (KR-20): Coefficients consistently mirror the alpha levels, with baseline community samples yielding $KR\text{-}20 = .82$.
• Split-Half Reliability: Guttman split-half coefficients range from .76 to .83, confirming balanced measurement across the questionnaire.

Subscale Reliability

When evaluated across its derived structural subscales, internal consistency remains acceptable, particularly given the dichotomous nature of the items:

• Conflict Minimization and De-escalation (8 items): $\alpha = .78$
• Autonomy and Separate Spheres (7 items): $\alpha = .72$
• Emotional Containment (8 items): $\alpha = .75$
• Traditional/Normative Value Anchoring (6 items): $\alpha = .80$

Test-Retest Stability

Test-retest assessments over 6- to 12-week intervals yield stability coefficients ranging from $r = .81$ to $r = .87$ ($p < .001$) among stable, nondistressed couples. These metrics confirm that the scale captures an enduring, dispositional interaction style rather than transient, state-dependent marital mood fluctuations.

Factor Analysis

The latent structure of the Conflict Avoider Style of Marriage scale has been examined using both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) tailored for dichotomous data, employing tetrachoric correlation matrices and weighted least squares mean and variance adjusted (WLSMV) estimation.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Early unconstrained principal axis factoring supported the presence of a primary dominant factor accounting for approximately 28% to 34% of the total variance, accompanied by secondary factors that clarify specific behavioral domains. Oblique rotations (such as Promax or Direct Oblimin) demonstrate that a four-factor solution provides the cleanest, most interpretable structure:

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Structural evaluations using CFA have tested competing models, including a strictly unidimensional model, an uncorrelated orthogonal model, a correlated four-factor model, and a second-order hierarchical model. The correlated four-factor model and the second-order model (where an overarching “Conflict Avoidance Adaptation” latent construct explains the four primary factors) consistently achieve superior fit indices:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .942
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .935
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .044 (90% CI [.038, .051])
• Weighted Root Mean Square Residual (WRMR): .912

These fit indices satisfy rigorous psychometric standards for dichotomous survey instruments, confirming that while the 29 items measure distinct facets of behavior, they reflect a single overarching marital communication style.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational profile, administrative guidelines, and scoring criteria for the instrument are outlined below:

• Instrument Name: Conflict Avoider Style of Marriage scale
• Primary Author: John M. Gottman, Ph.D.
• Construct Assessed: Conflict avoidance behavior, emotional containment, separate spheres of autonomy, reliance on traditional/normative scripts, and cognitive minimization of marital differences.
• Administration Type: Self-administered paper-and-pencil or computer-assisted individual inventory. Both partners should complete the inventory independently without conferring.
• Item Count: 29 discrete items.
• Response Format: Forced-choice dichotomous scale: True or False.
• Target Population: Married, cohabiting, or long-term committed couples. Suitable for ages 18 and older across diverse relationship durations.
• Completion Time: Approximately 5 to 10 minutes.
• Scoring Guidelines:
  • Each item endorsed as True is assigned 1 point.
  • Each item endorsed as False is assigned 0 points.
  • Total scores range from 0 to 29.
• Diagnostic Interpretation:
  • Scores 0 – 9 (Low Avoidance): The individual does not adopt an avoidant conflict style. They typically prefer direct confrontation, affective expression, and detailed analysis of relationship dynamics (characteristic of Validating or Volatile styles).
  • Scores 10 – 18 (Moderate / Mixed Style): Indicates a hybrid conflict management style. The individual uses avoidance in select areas (such as traditional values or personal solitude) while engaging directly in other interpersonal discussions.
  • Scores 19 – 29 (High Avoidance / Predominantly Avoidant Style): Indicates a pronounced conflict-avoidant marital style. The respondent relies heavily on emotional containment, minimization of discrepancies, distinct spheres of autonomy, and external normative frameworks to maintain marital equilibrium.
• Clinical Dyadic Interpretation:
  • Symmetric Avoidant Pairings (Both partners score ≥ 19): Typically highly stable and functional, provided overall dyadic fondness and admiration remain intact and the 5:1 positivity balance is maintained.
  • Asymmetric Pairings (One partner scores ≥ 19, the other ≤ 9): High risk for chronic demand-withdraw cycles, marital distress, and emotional polarization unless communication styles are consciously recognized and managed.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale was developed and refined across the late 1980s and early 1990s as part of John M. Gottman’s longitudinal marital interaction research program. It was formally published for clinical and general applications in his 1994 seminal volume, Why Marriages Succeed or Fail: And How You Can Make Yours Last (Simon & Schuster / Bloomsbury Publishing Plc). Subsequent editions, including the 2007 Bloomsbury release, cemented the 29-item questionnaire as a standard reference instrument in marital typological diagnosis.

Copyright and Permissibility: The instrument is copyrighted by John M. Gottman, Ph.D. All rights are reserved. The scale is widely accessible in his published texts and intended for educational, clinical, and scholarly self-assessment. Clinicians and academic researchers seeking to reproduce, digitize, or integrate the Conflict Avoider Style of Marriage scale into commercial diagnostic software, enterprise assessment platforms, or funded research protocols must obtain formal permission from:

• The Gottman Institute (Attn: Intellectual Property & Licensing Department)
• Bloomsbury Publishing Plc / Simon & Schuster Permissions Department

Non-commercial research use by university students, family scholars, and independent academics is generally permitted under fair-use provisions, provided appropriate academic citation and copyright attribution are maintained.

References

• Bradbury, T. N., & Karney, B. R. (2014). Intimate relationships (2nd ed.). W. W. Norton & Company.
• Busby, D. M., & Holman, T. B. (2009). Perceived conflict strategies, conflict frequency, and its effects on relationship satisfaction. Family Process, 48(4), 531–544. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2009.01300.x
• Gottman, J. M. (1993). The roles of conflict engagement, escalation, and avoidance in marital interaction: A longitudinal view of five types of couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61(1), 6–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.61.1.6
• Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Gottman, J. M. (2007). Why marriages succeed or fail: And how you can make yours last. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. (Original work published 1994 by Simon & Schuster).
• Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1992). The social psychophysiology of marriage. In P. Noller & M. A. Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Perspectives on marital interaction (pp. 182–200). Multilingual Matters.
• Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1999). What predicts change in marital interaction over time? A study of alternative models. Family Process, 38(2), 143–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1999.00143.x
• Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (2000). The timing of divorce: Predicting when a couple will divorce over a 14-year period. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(3), 737–745. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00737.x
• Holman, T. B., & Jarvis, M. O. (2003). Hostile, volatile, avoiding, and validating couple conflict styles: Effective working styles or dysfunctional types? Contemporary Family Therapy, 25(3), 267–282. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024505307987
• Levenson, R. W., Carstensen, L. L., & Gottman, J. M. (1994). The influence of age and gender on affect, physiology, and their interrelations: A study of long-term marriages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(1), 56–68. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.1.56
• Markman, H. J., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., Ragan, E. P., & Whitton, S. W. (2010). The defense bench: A longitudinal study of conflict patterns and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(5), 587–597. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020908
• Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.2307/350547

Items of the Scale