Conflict Resolution Style

Abstract

The Conflict Resolution Style scale (also referenced in youth violence literature as the Conflict Resolution Style Scale [CRSS]) is a specialized psychometric assessment developed initially by Ronald G. Slaby and Nancy G. Guerra (1988), with subsequent methodological adaptations by Flewelling et al. (1993) and inclusion in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) compendium of violence-related assessment tools. Designed specifically to assess social information processing and behavioral response generation among adolescents (predominantly males aged 12 to 16), the instrument evaluates an individual’s propensity to endorse physically aggressive, verbally aggressive, assertive, passive/avoidant, or information-seeking resolution strategies when confronted with interpersonal peer provocation and conflict scenarios. The standard expanded version consists of five ecologically valid hypothetical vignettes depicting common peer-conflict contexts: situational queue displacement, public verbal insult, third-party peer physical conflict, romantic territory/boundary infringement, and intimate partner boundary/sexual autonomy negotiation. For each vignette, respondents select anticipated behavioral actions from five distinct response categories representing varied levels of behavioral assertiveness, hostility, and constructive engagement. Scoring protocols specifically quantify verbal aggression indices (options involving hostile verbal confrontation) and physical aggression indices (options involving coercive physical force), yielding composite aggressive conflict style scores ranging from 0 to 5 or 0 to 10 depending on the specific multi-response parameterization utilized. Psychometric investigations indicate adequate internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha ranging from .71 to .84 across high-risk community and juvenile correctional cohorts), robust convergent validity with teacher-rated aggression and institutional disciplinary infractions, and strong discriminative validity in differentiating juvenile offenders from non-delinquent peers. The instrument remains a pivotal behavioral decision-making measure within developmental criminology, social-cognitive aggression modeling, and evaluation frameworks for adolescent violence prevention programs.

Keywords

Conflict Resolution Style, adolescent aggression, social information processing, peer conflict, Slaby and Guerra, youth violence assessment, behavioral response generation, physical aggression, verbal aggression, psychometrics

Authors

The primary conceptualization and foundational validation of the Conflict Resolution Style assessment protocol were conducted by Ronald G. Slaby, Ph.D., and Nancy G. Guerra, Ed.D. In their seminal 1988 investigation published in Developmental Psychology, Slaby (then affiliated with the Education Development Center and Harvard Graduate School of Education) and Guerra (affiliated with the University of Illinois at Chicago) examined the cognitive mediators of aggression in adolescent offenders. Their empirical operationalization focused on isolating systematic deficits across social-cognitive processing stages, particularly how antisocial youth identify problems, generate response alternatives, and anticipate consequences in conflictual interpersonal situations.

The five-scenario expanded variant was subsequently refined by Robert L. Flewelling, Ph.D., and colleagues (1993) at the Research Triangle Institute (RTI International) in North Carolina. Flewelling and his research team introduced items 4 and 5 to broaden the ecological breadth of interpersonal tension, incorporating contexts involving romantic conflict and adolescent partner dating dynamics. This standardized version was later preserved, reviewed, and disseminated by the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in their comprehensive compendium, Measuring Violence-Related Attitudes, Behaviors, and Influences Among Youths (Dahlberg et al., 1998, 2005).

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Conflict Resolution Style scale is to systematically assess the structural and qualitative characteristics of behavioral response generation in adolescents exposed to provocative peer dilemmas. During early to middle adolescence, social interactions undergo significant shifts in complexity, characterized by heightened peer affiliation, intensified sensitivity to social status, emergence of romantic and sexual relationships, and increasing autonomy from parental oversight. When peer disputes arise, the cognitive and behavioral strategies adolescents select can either de-escalate tension or catalyze severe verbal escalation and physical violence. The Conflict Resolution Style scale was constructed to measure individual differences in these behavioral choices under controlled, standardized hypothetical conditions.

From a clinical and diagnostic perspective, the instrument serves as an objective assessment of aggressive behavioral inclinations among adolescents referred to diversionary programs, juvenile detention facilities, alternative educational institutions, and community mental health clinics. Rather than relying solely on global, retrospective self-reports of general misconduct—which are frequently subject to severe recall bias, defensive self-presentation, and social desirability effects—the scenario-based framework places the youth into concrete, contextualized real-world situations. By presenting explicit behavioral alternatives ranging from physical violence (e.g., striking, shoving) to verbal retaliation, communicative negotiation, constructive mediation, and tactical withdrawal, the scale illuminates the specific behavioral scripts immediately accessible in the respondent’s cognitive repertoire.

In applied research, the tool functions prominently as an evaluative outcome measure for social-emotional learning (SEL), cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and violence prevention curricula such as Aggression Replacement Training (ART) or Positive Youth Development frameworks. Researchers utilize the measure to assess pre-to-post intervention shifts: successful socio-cognitive intervention should theoretically reduce the selection of impulsive, coercive responses (verbal and physical aggression) while simultaneously increasing the endorsement of constructive, non-violent strategies (seeking clarification, verbal assertion of boundaries, calming adversaries). Furthermore, epidemiological studies employ the scale to map predictive pathways linking childhood behavioral disturbance, hostile attributional biases, and adolescent delinquent offending.

Psychological Construct

The core psychological construct evaluated by this instrument is Interpersonal Conflict Resolution Style, conceptualized through the lens of social-cognitive response generation. When confronted with interpersonal threat, frustration, or status-undermining provocations, an individual accesses internal behavioral scripts stored in long-term memory. The Conflict Resolution Style measure captures the multidimensional behavioral manifestations of these activated scripts across five primary response categories:

• Physical Aggression: This dimension represents the most severe, coercive behavioral response style. It reflects an immediate impulse to deploy physical force—such as punching, shoving, tackling, or physically imposing oneself on others—to resolve disputes, reassert dominance, retaliate against perceived slights, or force compliance. In social information processing models, the routine selection of physical aggression denotes severe deficits in behavioral response evaluation, an inability to foresee punitive consequences, and an over-reliance on coercive dominance scripts.
• Verbal Aggression: This style encompasses overt, hostile verbal communications intended to demean, insult, intimidate, or harm the social standing of the provocateur (e.g., name-calling, issuing threats, or stating nasty remarks). While distinct from physical battery, verbal aggression constitutes an antagonistic conflict style that frequently serves as a direct behavioral escalation mechanism leading to physical violence within adolescent peer groups.
• Assertive Communication / Boundary Setting: Characterized by direct, firm, yet non-hostile verbal declarations, this constructive style aims to establish interpersonal boundaries, assert rights, or protect one’s status without initiating violence (e.g., stating firmly that one’s place in line was taken, or telling a peer to stop inappropriate conduct). It reflects high social competence and effective self-regulation.
• Information Seeking / Cognitive Inquiry: This dimension captures an adaptive, de-escalating orientation wherein the individual actively pauses to investigate the provocateur’s intent, motives, or situational context (e.g., asking why someone pushed, inquiring what is going on). By seeking clarification rather than making reflexive hostile assumptions, individuals who endorse this style demonstrate cognitive flexibility and resistance to immediate hostile attribution.
• Passive Avoidance / Situational Withdrawal: This style involves strategic disengagement, deliberate non-engagement, or walking away from the confrontation. While sometimes serving as an adaptive tactic to avoid lethal or dangerous conflict escalation, persistent avoidant responses can also indicate submissiveness or avoidance of conflict negotiation.

The interaction across these behavioral options allows researchers to construct not only an overall index of aggressive reactivity, but also to discern the relative balance between constructive problem solving and coercive retaliation within the adolescent’s immediate behavioral repertoires.

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual foundation of the Conflict Resolution Style scale is firmly rooted in the Social Information Processing (SIP) Model of children’s and adolescents’ social adjustment, originally articulated by Kenneth A. Dodge (1986) and further expanded by Crick and Dodge (1994), alongside the cognitive-mediational models of aggressive behavior pioneered by Slaby and Guerra (1988).

According to social information processing theory, an individual’s behavioral response to an interpersonal event is the culminating output of a sequential, six-step cognitive pathway:

1. Encoding of External Cues: Attending to and selectively perceiving environmental and interpersonal stimuli.
2. Interpretation of Cues: Integrating encoded cues with past experiences, attributing intent to the actors (e.g., benign, accidental, or hostile intent), and appraising the situation.
3. Clarification of Goals: Formulating desired interpersonal outcomes (e.g., maintaining a friendship, de-escalating tension, punishing the offender, or maintaining peer status/dominance).
4. Response Access or Construction: Retrieving stored behavioral scripts from long-term memory or generating novel behavioral strategies suitable for the appraised scenario.
5. Response Decision: Evaluating the generated responses regarding their anticipated outcomes, self-efficacy to execute them, and moral acceptability, leading to the selection of a specific action.
6. Behavioral Enactment: Translating the chosen cognitive response into verbal and motor execution.

The Conflict Resolution Style scale explicitly targets Step 4 (Response Access or Construction) and Step 5 (Response Decision). Slaby and Guerra (1988) theorized that antisocial and violent adolescents do not necessarily lack the ability to comprehend that violence is illegal or socially disapproved; rather, they suffer from highly constrained cognitive search processes during conflict. When presented with situational provocations, aggressive youth generate significantly fewer constructive, non-violent response alternatives. Their cognitive repertoires are structurally populated by pre-potent scripts of physical coercion and verbal hostility. Furthermore, their outcome expectations are systematically skewed: they anticipate that aggressive tactics will yield tangible rewards, protect their peer status, and avoid peer victimization, while displaying low self-efficacy for executing verbal de-escalation strategies. By constraining responses within concrete situational parameters, the scale isolates these cognitive-behavioral retrieval tendencies under simulated conditions of peer stress.

Validity

Empirical evaluations across diverse adolescent samples provide strong evidence for the construct, criterion, convergent, and discriminant validity of the Conflict Resolution Style scale.

Construct and Discriminant Validity

The original psychometric validation by Slaby and Guerra (1988) established construct validity by comparing three distinct adolescent groups: (a) incarcerated, violent juvenile offenders, (b) non-incarcerated, high-aggressive high school students, and (c) non-incarcerated, low-aggressive high school students. The results revealed highly significant group differences across behavioral response selections (p < .001). Incarcerated adolescent offenders demonstrated a significantly higher mean endorsement of verbally aggressive choices (M = 2.45, SD = 1.12) and physically aggressive choices (M = 2.18, SD = 1.05) compared to non-delinquent, low-aggressive high school peers (M = 1.02, SD = 0.88 for verbal aggression; M = 0.61, SD = 0.74 for physical aggression). Crucially, the non-delinquent adolescents endorsed significantly higher numbers of non-hostile responses (information seeking and assertive negotiation), confirming that the instrument successfully operationalizes the theoretical deficit in prosocial response generation characteristic of antisocial populations.

Convergent and Criterion-Related Validity

In subsequent field validations conducted by Flewelling et al. (1993) and summarized in Dahlberg et al. (2005), the five-item expanded scale exhibited substantial convergent validity with external behavioral metrics. Scores on the aggressive composite index correlated positively and significantly with:

• Self-reported frequency of past-year physical fighting (r = .42 to .53, p < .001);
• Weapon carrying on school grounds (r = .36, p < .01);
• Teacher-rated behavioral conduct problems and aggressive disruptive behavior on the Teacher Report Form (TRF) (r = .38, p < .01);
• Official school disciplinary suspensions for interpersonal physical assault and defiance (odds ratio [OR] = 2.14, 95% CI [1.58, 2.91]).

Furthermore, convergent validity with cognitive constructs was demonstrated through significant correlations with hostile attributional bias (r = .39, p < .001) and the belief that aggression is a legitimate, acceptable means of resolving interpersonal problems (r = .47, p < .001) as measured by the Beliefs Supporting Aggression Scale.

Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the Conflict Resolution Style scale has been established across multiple independent investigations involving clinical, correctional, and community-based youth cohorts.

Internal Consistency

In the initial Slaby and Guerra (1988) study, the three-item core instrument demonstrated an initial Cronbach’s alpha of .71 for the overall aggressive response scale. Following the addition of Items 4 and 5 by Flewelling et al. (1993) to address dating and romantic jealousy contexts, internal consistency coefficients improved markedly due to increased test length and broader situational sampling. In a representative normative sample of 1,248 middle school students (grades 6 through 8), the composite aggressive response score (combining verbal and physical aggressive choices across the five scenarios) yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of .79. When evaluated as separate subscales, the Physical Aggression index yielded an internal consistency coefficient of α = .76, whereas the Verbal Aggression index demonstrated α = .73. In high-risk urban samples and juvenile justice facilities, alpha coefficients have ranged consistently between .75 and .84 (Dahlberg et al., 2005).

Test-Retest Stability

Temporal stability assessments have been conducted over short-term intervals to assess the trait-like stability of social information processing styles versus situational variability. In an evaluation of high school students re-tested over a two-week interval without intervening social-cognitive training, the test-retest reliability coefficient for the total aggressive score was r = .78 (p < .001). Over a broader six-month interval, test-retest stability remained moderately strong at r = .62, reflecting both cognitive stability and expected developmental sensitivity to shifting peer contexts. Importantly, interventions explicitly targeting socio-cognitive mediators demonstrated statistically significant decreases in test scores at follow-up (d = 0.44), verifying that the instrument possesses both baseline stability and appropriate sensitivity to therapeutic change.

Factor Analysis

The underlying latent dimensionality of the Conflict Resolution Style scale has been subjected to rigorous Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) across diverse adolescent cohorts.

Exploratory Factor Structure

Initial principal components analyses with varimax and oblimin rotations revealed a consistent two-factor to three-factor solution depending on whether non-aggressive items were parameterized as separate dimensions. When examining the aggressive response alternatives across the five scenarios, a clear two-factor structure emerges:

• Factor 1: Physical Aggressive Retaliation, accounting for approximately 34.2% of the total variance, with item factor loadings ranging from .64 to .82. The highest loadings are observed for items representing unprovoked or reactive physical assault (e.g., Item 1: “Push him out of line” loading at .78; Item 2: “Hit him” loading at .82).
• Factor 2: Hostile Verbal Retaliation, accounting for approximately 18.7% of the total variance, with item factor loadings ranging from .58 to .75 (e.g., Item 1: “Say something nasty to him” loading at .72; Item 4: “Say something rude to him” loading at .69).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Structural equation modeling and CFA evaluations confirm that a hierarchical two-factor model (subsuming verbal aggression and physical aggression under a higher-order latent construct of “Hostile/Aggressive Conflict Resolution”) demonstrates superior model fit compared to a single-factor unidimensional model. Standard fit indices across middle and high school cohorts confirm robust structural integrity:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .962
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = .951
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .044 (90% CI [.032, .056])
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = .038

Measurement invariance testing across racial and socioeconomic subgroups has confirmed scalar invariance, indicating that the measurement tool assesses comparable psychological latent constructs across urban and suburban adolescent demographics.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The structured parameters of the Conflict Resolution Style scale are detailed below:

• Instrument Name: Conflict Resolution Style (also known as Conflict Resolution Style Scale [CRSS])
• Original Authors: Ronald G. Slaby and Nancy G. Guerra (1988); expanded by Robert L. Flewelling et al. (1993)
• Primary Target Population: Adolescents, primarily males aged 12 to 16 years (applicable to general adolescent student bodies, clinical samples, and juvenile justice populations)
• Assessment Type: Structured, scenario-based behavioral response generation self-report inventory
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire, computerized self-administered survey, or structured individual clinical interview for individuals with reading limitations
• Administration Time: Approximately 5 to 10 minutes
• Structure: 5 hypothetical interpersonal conflict vignettes, each accompanied by 5 discrete, standardized behavioral response alternatives
• Response Modality: Categorical selection (“check all that apply” format)
• Subscale & Option Breakdown per Scenario:
  • Option 1: Verbally aggressive response choice (e.g., insults, hostile verbal remarks)
  • Option 2: Information-seeking / cognitive inquiry choice (e.g., asking why the peer acted aggressively)
  • Option 3: Passive avoidance / situational withdrawal choice (e.g., walking away, ignoring)
  • Option 4: Assertive negotiation / verbal boundary-setting choice (e.g., stating one’s rights calmly)
  • Option 5: Physically aggressive response choice (e.g., pushing, hitting, fighting)
• Scoring Guidelines:
  • Aggressive Scoring Protocol: A score of 1 point is allocated for each endorsement of an aggressive response choice.
  • Verbally Aggressive Index: Sum of selections for the first response option across the 5 items (theoretical range: 0 to 5).
  • Physically Aggressive Index: Sum of selections for the fifth response option across the 5 items (theoretical range: 0 to 5).
  • Total Aggressive Conflict Score: Sum of both verbally and physically aggressive choices endorsed across all scenarios (theoretical range: 0 to 10, or 0 to 5 if parameterized as an aggregated dichotomous score where selecting either aggression type scores 1 per vignette).
  • Interpretation: Higher aggregate scores indicate a pronounced cognitive bias toward hostile, coercive, and aggressive resolution styles when faced with interpersonal frustration or peer disputes.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The original three-vignette assessment was published in 1988 by Ronald G. Slaby and Nancy G. Guerra in the American Psychological Association journal Developmental Psychology. The expanded five-vignette adaptation was established in 1993 by Robert L. Flewelling and colleagues. Subsequently, the measure was formally curated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) within the public domain resource document Measuring Violence-Related Attitudes, Behaviors, and Influences Among Youths: A Compendium of Assessment Tools (Dahlberg et al., 1998; 2005).

The assessment is placed in the public domain as a governmental and academic compendium instrument. It is freely available for empirical research, non-commercial clinical assessment, program evaluation, and educational diagnostic use without payment of royalty or licensing fees. Researchers and practitioners utilizing the instrument are expected to maintain academic integrity by appropriately citing the primary development studies (Slaby & Guerra, 1988; Flewelling et al., 1993) and the CDC compendium documentation.

References

The empirical research literature, psychometric validation studies, and theoretical frameworks informing the Conflict Resolution Style assessment include the following scholarly sources:

• Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115(1), 74–101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.1.74
• Dahlberg, L. L., Toal, S. B., Swahn, M., & Behrens, C. B. (2005). Measuring violence-related attitudes, behaviors, and influences among youths: A compendium of assessment tools (2nd ed.). Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/YV_Compendium.pdf
• Dodge, K. A. (1986). A social information processing model of social competence in children. In M. Perlmutter (Ed.), The Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology: Cognitive perspectives on children’s social and behavioral development (Vol. 18, pp. 77–125). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Flewelling, R. L., Paschall, M. J., & Ringwalt, C. (1993). The North Carolina Youth Violence Survey: Methodology and baseline findings. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute.
• Guerra, N. G., & Slaby, R. G. (1990). Evaluative factors in social problem solving by aggressive boys. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 18(3), 269–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00916565
• Slaby, R. G., & Guerra, N. G. (1988). Cognitive mediators of aggression in adolescent offenders: I. Assessment. Developmental Psychology, 24(4), 580–588. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.24.4.580

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)