Dehumanizing Deindividuation in Couples (DDC) Scale

Abstract

The Dehumanizing Deindividuation in Couples (DDC) Scale (Brock & Gervais, 2025) is a psychometrically validated self-report instrument designed to quantify interpersonal dehumanization within adult and adolescent romantic relationships, specifically capturing the phenomenon of dehumanizing deindividuation. Originating from the broader Individuality in Couples Questionnaire (ICQ; Brock et al., 2023), the DDC isolates the destructive interpersonal processes through which romantic partners reduce each other to subordinate, interchangeable, or agency-deprived entities. Evaluated across undergraduate and community dyadic samples comprising diverse gender identities and sexual orientations, the scale evaluates two complementary perspectives: Received DDC (behaviors experienced from one’s partner) and Enacted DDC (behaviors perpetrated toward one’s partner). Each form contains 10 items evaluated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), assessing interactions over the preceding month. Confirmatory factor analyses demonstrate that after removing a redundant item (“interrupted me”), a unidimensional construct achieves excellent global model fit (χ² statistics supportive; CFI = .96, RMSEA = .053, SRMR = .042) with salient factor loadings ranging from .60 to .74. The scale exhibits robust internal consistency (McDonald’s ω = .88, Cronbach’s α = .88, average interitem correlation = .436). The instrument displays solid convergent validity with related constructs, correlating positively with the Dehumanization in Romantic Relationships Scale (DIRRS; r = .59) and negatively with nonphysical valuation (NPV; r = −.31) and individuation (ICQ; r = −.53 to −.70). Crucially, path analyses verify the DDC’s incremental validity: it accounts for unique variance in lower global relationship satisfaction and heightened risks of both intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration and IPV victimization, even when controlling for established measures of valuation and romantic dehumanization. The DDC provides researchers and clinicians with a targeted tool for diagnosing subtle, corrosive micro-behaviors that degrade personal agency within intimate dyads.

Keywords

Dehumanizing Deindividuation in Couples Scale, DDC Scale, romantic dehumanization, deindividuation, intimate partner violence, relationship satisfaction, dyadic assessment, interpersonal contempt, partner infantilization, psychometrics.

Authors

The Dehumanizing Deindividuation in Couples (DDC) Scale was developed and validated by:

• Rebecca L. Brock, Ph.D. — Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska, United States. ORCID: 0000-0001-7826-6421. Email: [email protected].
• Sarah J. Gervais, J.D., Ph.D. — Professor of Psychology and Law, Department of Psychology and College of Law, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska, United States.

Correspondence Address: Rebecca L. Brock, Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 220 Burnett Hall, Lincoln, NE 68588-0308, United States.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Dehumanizing Deindividuation in Couples (DDC) Scale is to operationalize, detect, and quantify the presence of dehumanizing deindividuation within intimate dyads. Dehumanization has historically been conceptualized and investigated within macro-sociological contexts, such as intergroup conflict, racial bias, warfare, and systemic oppression. However, contemporary social and clinical psychology demonstrates that dehumanizing processes frequently manifest in micro-level, interpersonal domains—most notably within romantic partnerships where emotional vulnerability is maximal.

In intimate partnerships, dehumanization rarely assumes explicit, gross forms such as comparing an outgroup to animals or subhuman species. Rather, it manifests as subtle everyday relational degradations: emotional condescension, chronic invalidation of cognitive viewpoints, conversational dominance, and treating a partner as lacking personal agency, intellect, or autonomy. Prior to the development of the DDC, clinical and social psychological literature lacked a brief, empirically refined tool explicitly targeted at deindividuating behaviors—specifically actions that ignore a partner’s distinct selfhood, internal states, and independent status.

The DDC was constructed to fulfill multiple research and clinical needs:

• Elucidating Relationship Distress Mechanisms: It provides basic relationship researchers with a psychometrically rigorous metric to explore how micro-level degradation precipitates relational erosion, systemic contempt, and communication breakdowns.
• Predicting and Preventing Intimate Partner Violence (IPV): Empirical findings indicate that dehumanizing deindividuation functions as a potent cognitive-behavioral antecedent to physical, emotional, and psychological abuse. By diminishing a partner’s perceived personhood, the perpetrator lowers internal moral thresholds that inhibit aggression.
• Facilitating Dyadic and Individual Clinical Assessment: For couples therapists, marriage and family counselors, and clinical psychologists, the DDC serves as an assessment instrument. It parses whether one or both partners experience chronic infantilization, dismissiveness, or conversational suppression, thereby exposing asymmetrical power dynamics and covert emotional hostility.
• Evaluating Enacted versus Received Perceptions: By deploying parallel Received and Enacted forms, the instrument enables dyadic researchers to contrast self-perceptions against partner-perceptions, illuminating perceptual blind spots, denial, or systemic mutual degradation.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct assessed by the DDC Scale is dehumanizing deindividuation within romantic dyads. Dehumanizing deindividuation represents an interpersonal dynamic wherein one romantic partner strips the other of their distinct individuality, cognitive agency, emotional validity, and relational equality. It blends the social-psychological construct of deindividuation (failing to perceive or treat someone as an autonomous, multifaceted individual) with subtle dehumanization (denying full human status, mental complexity, or moral worth).

Within the operational framework established by Brock and Gervais (2025), dehumanizing deindividuation encompasses five core behavioral and psychological facets:

1. Intellectual Invalidation and Epistemic Injustice

This facet involves the systematic dismissal of a partner’s beliefs, opinions, and cognitive judgments. Rather than engaging in constructive disagreement, the dehumanizing partner dismisses the other’s intellectual capacity (e.g., “My partner disregarded my opinions”; “My partner told me they were right and I was wrong”). This induces epistemic injustice, leaving the target feeling intellectually invisible and incompetent.

2. Infantilization and Status Hierarchy

Infantilization occurs when an individual treats an adult romantic partner as if they were a child lacking maturity, judgment, or self-regulation (e.g., “My partner treated me like a child”; “My partner acted superior to me”). This behavior dismantles egalitarian power structures, replacing mutual partnership with a patronizing, authoritarian dynamic that undermines the partner’s adult dignity.

3. Conversational Erasure and Dominance

Communication is the primary vehicle for relational intimacy. Dehumanizing deindividuation disrupts this through active conversational suppression (e.g., “My partner talked over me”) and passive interpersonal ostracism (e.g., “My partner ignored me”). By refusing to listen or speaking over the partner, the perpetrator signals that the target’s voice does not warrant space, recognition, or basic communicative courtesy.

4. Pervasive Affective Irritation and Rejection

Rather than signaling supportive warmth, the perpetrator projects ongoing annoyance and visceral frustration toward the partner’s basic presence (e.g., “My partner seemed to be irritated by me”; “I felt like I got on my partner’s nerves”). Over time, this chronic ambient rejection conveys that the target’s natural self-expression is inherently burdensome, bothersome, and unwelcome.

5. Behavioral Micromanagement and Controlling Bossiness

The final element involves instrumental control, where the target is treated not as an autonomous agent, but as an object requiring constant correction, direction, and supervision (e.g., “My partner nagged me to do certain things or stop doing certain things”; “My partner was bossy toward me”). This reduces the targeted individual to a subordinate entity under administrative surveillance.

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual framework of the DDC Scale integrates several foundational paradigms from social, clinical, and evolutionary psychology:

Haslam’s Dual Model of Dehumanization

Haslam (2006) delineated two distinct forms of dehumanization: animalistic dehumanization (the denial of uniquely human attributes such as civility, refinement, higher cognition, and moral sensibility) and mechanistic dehumanization (the denial of human nature, characterized by coldness, rigidity, lack of emotional warmth, and treating others as inert machines or instruments). The DDC reflects aspects of both models within romantic contexts. By infantilizing a partner and treating them as intellectually incompetent, the perpetrator engages in everyday animalistic degradation (denying higher-order rationality and autonomy). Concurrently, by ignoring their feelings and treating them as objects to be bossed and micromanaged, mechanistic dehumanization is enacted.

Deindividuation Theory in Close Relationships

Historically developed by Festinger, Pepitone, and Newcomb (1952) and elaborated by Zimbardo (1969), deindividuation theory posited that immersion in crowds or uniforms obscures individual identity, lowering behavioral inhibitions. Brock and Gervais adapted this construct to close relationships: rather than self-deindividuation in a group, interpersonal deindividuation occurs when an individual fails to individuate their partner. Instead of viewing the partner as a unique individual with an internal mental landscape, the perpetrator views them through flattened, generic, or subordinate lenses, eroding the empathy that normally constrains interpersonal aggression.

Gottman’s Cascade Model and the Corrosive Role of Contempt

The behavioral markers captured by the DDC mirror the toxic relational interactions identified in Gottman’s (1994) relational Cascade Model. Gottman highlighted contempt—fueled by perceived superiority, mocking, eye-rolling, and patronizing communication—as the single strongest predictor of relational dissolution. The DDC captures this dynamic by measuring feelings of partner superiority, talking over one another, and chronic irritation. Dehumanizing deindividuation functions as the underlying cognitive-affective engine driving overt contempt.

Interdependence and Moral Disengagement Theories

According to Kelley and Thibaut’s (1978) Interdependence Theory and Bandura’s (1999) Moral Disengagement Theory, humanizing another individual enforces mutual responsibility, moral concern, and prosocial restraint. When an intimate partner is deindividuated, moral disengagement mechanisms are activated. The perpetrator rationalizes verbal aggression, dominance, and physical abuse on the grounds that the victim is exasperating, child-like, or devoid of meaningful insight, providing a theoretical bridge between everyday relational slights and severe domestic violence.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the DDC Scale was examined by Brock and Gervais (2025) across two distinct empirical investigations involving university undergraduates and community couples:

Construct and Structural Validity

Structural integrity was examined using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). An initial 11-item model derived from the Individuality in Couples Questionnaire (ICQ; Brock et al., 2023) yielded inadequate fit indices. Following modification index evaluations and content redundancy analysis, an overlapping item regarding interruptions was eliminated. The resulting 10-item unidimensional construct exhibited excellent structural validity, with all indicators loading significantly and substantially on the latent dehumanizing deindividuation construct.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity was evaluated by correlating DDC scores with established measures of relationship quality, partner appraisal, and dehumanization:

• Dehumanization in Romantic Relationships Scale (DIRRS): Dyadic DDC scores exhibited a strong, statistically significant positive correlation with the DIRRS (r = .59, p < .001). This confirms that while the DDC assesses specific deindividuating micro-behaviors, it shares substantial variance with broader romantic dehumanization constructs.
• Nonphysical Valuation (NPV): Correlations with the Nonphysical Valuation scale (Meltzer & McNulty, 2014), which evaluates appreciation for a partner’s psychological and intellectual qualities, were significant, moderate, and negative (r = −.31, p < .001). This supports the hypothesis that deindividuation suppresses appreciation for a partner’s personal attributes.

Discriminant Validity

The scale was evaluated against the Individuality in Couples Questionnaire (ICQ; Brock et al., 2023), from which its item pool originated. Large inverse correlations were observed across samples:

• Sample 1 Dyadic DDC and ICQ: r = −.64
• Sample 1 Enacted DDC and ICQ: r = −.53
• Sample 1 Received DDC and ICQ: r = −.66
• Sample 2 Received DDC and ICQ: r = −.70

These associations confirm that dehumanizing deindividuation represents the conceptual inverse of individuation. Crucially, none of the correlations exceeded the conventional psychometric threshold for multicollinearity or measurement redundancy (r ≥ .80), establishing that the DDC captures a distinct construct rather than merely mirroring low individuation.

Incremental and Criterion-Related Validity

Path analytical models were conducted to evaluate whether the DDC provides explanatory utility beyond existing constructs. When controlling simultaneously for Nonphysical Valuation (NPV) and the Dehumanization in Romantic Relationships Scale (DIRRS), DDC scores accounted for significant, unique variance in three critical relationship metrics:

• Lower Global Relationship Satisfaction: Incremental variance in couple dissatisfaction was uniquely predicted by higher DDC scores.
• Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) Perpetration: Higher levels of enacted DDC uniquely predicted increased perpetration of physical and emotional partner violence.
• Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) Victimization: Higher levels of received DDC uniquely predicted elevated rates of violence victimization within the relationship.

These findings substantiate that the DDC detects unique, highly toxic variance unaccounted for by general romantic dehumanization or physical valuation scales.

Reliability

The DDC Scale demonstrates strong internal consistency across samples and forms:

Internal Consistency Metrics

• McDonald’s Omega (ω): Across the final 10-item scale, McDonald’s ω was .88, indicating high composite reliability when accounting for varying item factor loadings.
• Cronbach’s Alpha (α): The classical coefficient alpha was .88, confirming high internal consistency without reaching levels that suggest item redundancy (α ≥ .95).
• Average Interitem Correlation (AIC): The AIC for the 10-item instrument was .436. Clark and Watson (1995) recommend that optimal AIC values for unidimensional constructs fall within the range of .15 to .50; a value of .436 indicates that the items share a cohesive target construct while capturing diverse behavioral expressions.

Dyadic Reliability and Enacted-Received Correspondence

Analysis of dyadic data revealed substantial, statistically significant correlations between Enacted DDC and Received DDC within relationships. This strong correspondence supports both the validity of individual self-reports and the psychometric viability of averaging Enacted and Received scores to generate a composite Dyadic DDC index in research designs examining couple-level dynamics.

Factor Analysis

The structural development and factor purification of the DDC Scale followed a systematic psychometric process across two validation cohorts.

Initial Confirmatory Factor Analysis (11-Item Model)

Initially, 11 items selected from the 25-item Individuality in Couples Questionnaire (ICQ) pool were modeled as indicators of a single latent factor representing received dehumanizing deindividuation. The baseline 11-item model yielded an inadequate global fit:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .86 (below the standard acceptable threshold of .90–.95)
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .095 (exceeding the acceptable cutoff of .06–.08)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .059 (within the acceptable range ≤ .08)

Model Refinement and Item Pruning

Diagnostic evaluations of localized strain and residual covariances revealed an elevated residual covariance between two linguistically and conceptually overlapping items: “My partner interrupted me” and “My partner talked over me”. The psychometric team made an empirical and conceptual decision to drop the item “My partner interrupted me” (which demonstrated a lower standardized factor loading of .56) and retain “My partner talked over me”. The latter was preserved because talking over someone represents an active, overt behavioral dominance, which was reflected in its higher factor loading (.60).

Final Confirmatory Factor Analysis (10-Item Model)

Re-estimation of the purified 10-item single-factor model produced an excellent fit across all standard fit indices:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .96 (indicating exceptional model fit)
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .053 (indicating close fit, well below the .06 benchmark)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .042 (indicating minimal residual discrepancy, well below .05)

All standardized factor loadings for the 10 retained items were statistically significant (p < .001) and salient, spanning from .60 to .74. These results confirm that the 10 items function as robust indicators of a single, coherent latent construct of dehumanizing deindividuation.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Type: Self-report psychological rating scale; dyadic relationship questionnaire.
• Format: Available in two parallel versions: Received Version (assessing behaviors experienced from one’s partner) and Enacted Version (assessing behaviors directed toward one’s partner). Electronic administration is typical.
• Number of Items: 10 items per version (20 items total if both Received and Enacted forms are completed by each participant).
• Timeframe: Past month (“Thinking about interactions with your partner over the past month…”).
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = Strongly disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Neutral
  • 4 = Agree
  • 5 = Strongly agree
• Scoring Rules:
  • Subscale / Version Scores: Calculate the arithmetic mean of all 10 items for each respective version (Received DDC Score = Mean of Items 1–10 of Set 1; Enacted DDC Score = Mean of Items 1–10 of Set 2). Possible scores range from 1.0 to 5.0.
  • Reverse Coding: None. All 10 items are positively keyed toward the presence of dehumanizing deindividuation.
  • Dyadic Composite Score: Because enacted and received scores typically demonstrate high correlation, researchers may average the individual’s Enacted and Received scores, or average both partners’ scores in dyadic designs, to generate an overall Dyadic DDC Index.
  • Administrative Note: The technical labels (“Received”, “Enacted”) and the formal test title should be removed from the participant-facing protocol to reduce demand characteristics and social desirability bias.
• Target Populations: Adolescents (13–17 years) and adults (18–65+ years) involved in romantic relationships, cohabiting unions, or marriages. Validated across diverse gender identities (men, women, transgender men, transgender women, genderqueer, nonbinary) and sexual orientations (heterosexual, bisexual, lesbian, gay, pansexual, queer, asexual).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Test Publication Year: 2025.
• Authors: Rebecca L. Brock and Sarah J. Gervais.
• Copyright & Permissions: Published by the American Psychological Association (APA). The scale may be utilized without financial charge for non-commercial, academic, empirical research, and clinical training purposes.
• Commercial Usage: Any commercial adaptation, integration into proprietary platforms, or fee-for-service testing requires written permission from the copyright holders and the APA.
• Contact for Permissions: Dr. Rebecca L. Brock, Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 220 Burnett Hall, Lincoln, NE 68588-0308. Email: [email protected].

References

• Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_3
• Brock, R. L., & Gervais, S. J. (2025). The psychometric properties of a new scale of dehumanizing deindividuation in couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 39(2), 171–183. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0001311
• Brock, R. L., Gervais, S. J., & Franz, M. R. (2023). Developing the Individuality in Couples Questionnaire: Measuring individuation and dehumanization in intimate dyads. Assessment, 30(5), 1421–1437. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911221102970
• Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309
• Festinger, L., Pepitone, A., & Newcomb, T. (1952). Some conditions associated with de-individuation in a group. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47(2S), 382–389. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057906
• Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203772874
• Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 252–264. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4
• Karantzas, G. C., Pizzirani, B., & Haslam, N. (2023). Dehumanization in romantic relationships: State of the science and clinical implications. Current Opinion in Psychology, 51, 101589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101589
• Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. John Wiley & Sons.
• Meltzer, A. L., & McNulty, J. K. (2014). “She is also intelligent, kind, and funny!”: Nonphysical valuation buffers the negative association between partner physical attractiveness and marital satisfaction. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(8), 874–881. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614537309
• Pizzirani, B., Karantzas, G. C., & Haslam, N. (2019). Dehumanization in romantic relationships: Development and initial validation of the Dehumanization in Romantic Relationships Scale (DIRRS). Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(8), 2440–2461. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407518790411
• Zimbardo, P. G. (1969). The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. In W. J. Arnold & D. Levine (Eds.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 17, pp. 237–307). University of Nebraska Press.

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)