Intimate Relationships Questionnaire

Abstract

The Intimate Relationships Questionnaire (IRQ; Yesmont, 1992a, 1992b) is a specialized psychometric assessment instrument developed to measure interpersonal communication styles—specifically assertive, nonassertive, and aggressive behavioral and cognitive tendencies—within the context of sexual risk reduction and safer-sex negotiations. Constructed during the height of the emerging public health crisis surrounding HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs), the IRQ addresses a critical gap in behavioral health by examining how young adults and adolescents navigate high-stakes, emotionally vulnerable dyadic encounters. The instrument comprises 14 situational vignettes: 10 target items assessing explicit safer-sex scenarios (e.g., condom negotiation, inquiries regarding STI and HIV testing history, and delaying sexual intercourse until relational trust is established) and 4 detractor items embedded to capture general, nonsexual relational conflicts. For each scenario, respondents evaluate three distinct behavioral or cognitive responses corresponding to assertiveness, nonassertiveness, and aggressiveness using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all like me) to 5 (just like me). Psychometric investigations demonstrate adequate to good internal consistency across dimensions (Cronbach's alphas: assertiveness = .76–.77; aggressiveness = .67–.76; nonassertiveness = .71–.76) across diverse cultural cohorts, including North American undergraduate populations and Puerto Rican adolescent samples. Criterion, convergent, and construct validity analyses confirm significant correlations between IRQ dimensions and actual health-protective practices, including self-reported condom compliance, relational caution, and direct inquiry into partner risk histories. This article presents an exhaustive academic evaluation of the IRQ, delineating its theoretical foundations, structural and psychometric properties, administrative paradigms, and enduring utility in clinical interventions and public health research.

Keywords

Intimate Relationships Questionnaire, sexual assertiveness, safer-sex negotiation, HIV prevention, condom use self-efficacy, aggressiveness, nonassertiveness, sexual communication, STI prevention, behavioral assessment, psychometrics

Authors

The Intimate Relationships Questionnaire was designed and validated by Georgia Yesmont, Ph.D., who conducted the primary psychometric development at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York. In subsequent professional years, Dr. Yesmont directed research and clinical services at Life Span Services in Huntington, New York.

Primary Author Affiliation:
Georgia Yesmont, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, USA
Life Span Services, 14 Ketewomoke Drive, Huntington, NY 11743, USA
Electronic mail: [email protected]

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Intimate Relationships Questionnaire (IRQ) is to systematically evaluate how individuals cognitively appraise and behaviorally respond to interpersonal dilemmas involving sexual health decision-making. During the late 1980s and early 1990s, epidemiological data unequivocally demonstrated that adolescents and young adults faced disproportionate risks for acquiring sexually transmitted diseases, most notably human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), human papillomavirus (HPV), chlamydia, and genital herpes. While public health messaging routinely disseminated biomedical facts regarding transmission pathways and barrier methods, researchers observed a pronounced gap between informational knowledge and empirical behavioral execution. Knowing that condoms prevent disease transmission did not inherently empower individuals to negotiate their usage during moments of acute emotional vulnerability, sexual arousal, or social pressure.

The IRQ was engineered to diagnose the specific communication modalities that facilitate or hinder proactive health protection. Grounded in clinical psychology and behavioral medicine, the questionnaire operationalizes the interpersonal barriers to safer sex. It is tailored for application across three primary environments:

• Clinical and Counseling Psychology: In individual psychotherapy, couples counseling, or student health services, clinicians employ the IRQ to identify individualized deficits in assertiveness. By pinpointing whether an individual defaults to nonassertive compliance (e.g., acquiescing to unprotected intercourse out of fear of rejection) or hostile confrontation (e.g., reacting defensively and rupturing dyadic trust), therapists can tailor assertiveness training, cognitive restructuring, and behavioral rehearsal.
• Primary Prevention and Health Education Programs: The IRQ serves as an evaluative benchmark in psychoeducational workshops on college campuses and secondary schools. Facilitators administer the questionnaire pre- and post-intervention to quantify shifts away from passive or aggressive behavioral strategies toward constructive, collaborative negotiation skills.
• Empirical Research on Dyadic Dynamics: Researchers utilize the scale to investigate the transactional nature of intimate partnerships, analyzing how gender roles, perceived power differentials, attachment styles, and sexual orientation intersect with negotiation efficacy and epidemiologic risk behaviors.

By presenting ecologically valid dating scenarios rather than abstract behavioral statements, the IRQ elicits cognitive-affective representations that closely parallel real-world intimate decision-making. Consequently, it captures not merely what respondents believe they should do, but how they realistically project their internal thoughts and spoken behaviors under situational strain.

Psychological Construct

The conceptual framework underlying the IRQ conceptualizes sexual communication along three distinct, non-mutually exclusive behavioral and cognitive dimensions: Assertiveness, Nonassertiveness (Passivity), and Aggressiveness. Unlike traditional unidimensional models that depict assertiveness merely as the polar opposite of passivity, modern psychometric theory treats these modalities as multifaceted response classes characterized by distinct cognitive appraisals, emotional drivers, and behavioral outputs.

1. Sexual Assertiveness (AS)

Assertiveness within intimate contexts denotes the direct, honest, and respectful expression of one's personal rights, boundaries, and health imperatives without infringing upon the legitimate rights or emotional integrity of the partner. In the IRQ, assertive responses reflect proactive risk mitigation integrated with empathy and collaborative problem-solving. Cognitive markers of assertiveness include acknowledging personal vulnerability, validating the partner's perspective, and maintaining unwavering boundaries regarding physical health.

Behavioral Examples in the Scale:

• Proposing non-coital alternatives if a partner refuses condom application (e.g., Item 2, Option a: "O.K. Then how about trying some other things besides intercourse?").
• Initiating mutual, bidirectional screening inquiries without moral judgment (e.g., Item 10, Option c: "I really like you a lot, but with all this talk about AIDS, I'd like to be a little careful. I've been tested for AIDS, have you?").
• Communicating discomfort with ambiguous communication or premature escalation calmly and unequivocally (e.g., Item 13, Option b: "Re-state your feeling that you'd like to wait.").

2. Sexual Nonassertiveness (NON)

Nonassertiveness is characterized by the inhibition of one's genuine desires, preferences, and protective boundaries, culminating in behavioral compliance with the partner's wishes at the expense of personal safety and emotional autonomy. Nonassertive individuals are predominantly driven by fear of interpersonal conflict, anticipatory abandonment, shame, or pervasive social anxiety. Within intimate dilemmas, passivity represents the most epidemiologically perilous orientation, as individuals routinely compromise bodily integrity to preserve relational harmony.

Behavioral Examples in the Scale:

• Capitulating immediately to partner resistance regarding barrier protection (e.g., Item 2, Option c: "O.K. You're more important to me, we don't need to use it.").
• Internalizing self-blame, experiencing paralyzing cognitive avoidance, or apologizing for attempting to protect oneself (e.g., Item 4, Option b: "Using a condom is a good idea but I don't think I have the nerve to ask him (her) to use one."; Item 14, Option c: "You say, 'I'm sorry. I do trust you. Let's drop the whole subject. I don't want to argue.'").
• Engaging in sexual activity earlier than desired to mitigate partner dissatisfaction (e.g., Item 13, Option c: "Change your mind and have sex with him (her) sooner than you'd planned.").

3. Sexual Aggressiveness (AG)

Aggressiveness in intimate relational scenarios is defined as the assertion of one's personal preferences, demands, or protective boundaries through coercive, humiliating, dominating, or punitive mechanisms that disregard the partner's feelings and autonomy. While aggressive strategies may superficially enforce self-protection (e.g., refusing unprotected sex by berating the partner), they systematically undermine relational stability, escalate hostility, and inhibit constructive long-term health communication. Cognitive features include hostile attribution biases, low frustration tolerance, and an autocratic entitlement to partner compliance.

Behavioral Examples in the Scale:

• Employing hostile ultimatums and invalidating the partner's character (e.g., Item 2, Option b: "Your attitude doesn't make any sense! That's it for us. Let's go home.").
• Interpreting legitimate health inquiries as personal assaults and responding with indignation (e.g., Item 6, Option a: "Who does he (she) think I am—some degenerate who runs around infecting people?").
• Demanding obedience under coercive conditions (e.g., Item 4, Option c: "He (she) should do what I ask without any hesitation if he (she) loves me.").

Theoretical Framework

The construction and validation of the IRQ synthesizes several prominent theoretical paradigms across clinical psychology, communication theory, and social cognitive behavioral science.

1. Alberti and Emmons' Behavioral Assertiveness Model

The foundational taxonomy of assertive, nonassertive, and aggressive behaviors derives directly from the pioneering assertiveness paradigms of Robert E. Alberti and Michael L. Emmons (1986). In their seminal clinical framework, interpersonal behavior is mapped along dimensions of self-expression, equality, and mutual respect. Alberti and Emmons posited that assertiveness fosters equality in human relationships, enabling individuals to act in their own best interests, stand up for themselves without unwarranted anxiety, express honest feelings comfortably, and exercise personal rights without denying the rights of others. Conversely, nonassertive behavior permits others to infringe upon one's boundaries, generating internal resentment and self-reproach, whereas aggressive behavior infringes upon others, achieving short-term goals through intimidation and damage to relational bonds. Yesmont transposed this universal tripartite conceptualization into the specialized, highly charged sphere of romantic and sexual encounters.

2. Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory and Self-Efficacy

The operational mechanics of the IRQ strongly align with Albert Bandura's (1986) Social Cognitive Theory, particularly the construct of perceived self-efficacy. Bandura postulated that behavioral execution is governed not merely by outcome expectancies (e.g., knowing condoms prevent HIV) but by an individual's subjective confidence in their capacity to execute requisite behaviors under taxing or emotionally conflicting conditions. The IRQ items present specific, challenging social dilemmas wherein outcome expectations compete directly with relational risks (e.g., rejection, accusations of infidelity, social embarrassment). An individual's selection of assertive options operationalizes their underlying sexual communication self-efficacy.

3. Information-Motivation-Behavioral Skills (IMB) Model

The theoretical necessity of the IRQ is further elucidated by the Information-Motivation-Behavioral Skills (IMB) model of HIV prevention developed by Fisher and Fisher (1992). The IMB framework stipulates that while sexual health information and personal motivation are fundamental preconditions, they are largely insufficient to produce behavioral change unless mediated by robust behavioral and interpersonal skills. These skills encompass:

1. The ability to acquire and negotiate barrier methods under pressure,
2. The capacity to navigate partner resistance, and
3. The verbal articulacy required to discuss sexual histories before coitus.

The IRQ assesses precisely this behavioral-skills nexus, quantifying whether an individual possesses the repertoire to translate preventative intentions into verbal action.

4. Applied HIV-Prevention Research Paradigms

The concrete situational scenarios embedded within the IRQ were heavily influenced by empirical behavioral interventions designed by leading clinical researchers during the early AIDS response, notably Jeffrey A. Kelly and colleagues (1989), as well as Mary Jane Rotheram-Borus and Koopman (1989). These investigators demonstrated that cognitive-behavioral assertiveness training—utilizing behavioral modeling, role-playing, and graduated rehearsal of safer-sex negotiations—markedly diminished rates of sexual risk behavior in vulnerable cohorts. Yesmont engineered the IRQ to serve as the psychometric counterpart to these training modules, providing an objective, standardized gauge for role-play assessment and skills acquisition.

Validity

The Intimate Relationships Questionnaire has undergone rigorous content, construct, and criterion-related empirical validation.

Content and Face Validity

Content validity was established through a sequential, two-stage clinical panel evaluation. In the preliminary development phase, an expert panel of licensed clinical psychologists evaluated a pool of draft vignettes and response options against standardized definitions of assertiveness, nonassertiveness, and aggression formulated by Alberti and Emmons (1986). Items demonstrating semantic ambiguity or inconsistent classification were iteratively refined or excised. The finalized 14-item instrument was subsequently submitted to an independent, second panel of clinicians, who achieved 100% unanimous agreement regarding the classification of every response alternative into its designated construct category (Yesmont, 1992a, 1992b).

Construct and Inter-Scale Validity

Correlational analyses among the three primary dimensions confirmed theoretical predictions regarding construct independence and overlap. In Yesmont's (1992a, 1992b) validation cohort of 253 unmarried undergraduate students (159 females, 94 males), the IRQ subscales demonstrated the following patterns:

• Assertiveness and Nonassertiveness: Exhibited a statistically significant negative correlation (r = −.21, p < .01), demonstrating that individuals with elevated assertiveness are significantly less likely to endorse passive compliance.
• Assertiveness and Aggressiveness: Displayed a slight, statistically significant positive correlation (r = .15, p < .05). This aligns with broader assertiveness literature indicating that both dimensions share an underlying propensity for proactive external action and emotional expressiveness, distinguishing them from passive inhibition.
• Nonassertiveness and Aggressiveness: Demonstrated an orthogonal relationship (r ≈ .00, non-significant), confirming that passivity and aggression represent distinct behavioral classes rather than inverse endpoints of a single continuum.

Criterion-Related and Convergent Validity

The IRQ demonstrated pronounced convergent and predictive validity when benchmarked against validated measures of sexual caution, health communication, and actual coital behavior (Yesmont, 1992b):

• Relational Caution: Scores on the IRQ Assertiveness scale correlated positively with an individual's measured degree of caution in new intimate partnerships (r = .35, p < .001). Aggressiveness scores demonstrated a weaker positive correlation (r = .22, p < .01), whereas Nonassertiveness scores demonstrated a robust negative correlation (r = −.41, p < .001).
• Inquiry Regarding Health History ("Asking"): Assertiveness scores correlated positively with an individual's proactive inquiry into a partner's history of illicit drug use, STIs, high-risk sexual contacts, and prior HIV antibody testing (r = .36, p < .001). Aggressiveness was moderately related (r = .19, p < .01), while Nonassertiveness exhibited a pronounced negative relationship (r = −.34, p < .001).
• Direct Condom Usage Compliance: IRQ Assertiveness demonstrated a significant positive correlation with the percentage of time condoms were utilized during coitus (r = .24, p < .01). Conversely, IRQ Nonassertiveness correlated negatively with condom frequency (r = −.25, p < .01).
• Extreme Group Comparisons: When categorizing participants into consistent (100%) condom users versus nonusers, independent samples t-tests revealed striking distinctions: consistent users possessed significantly higher assertiveness scores (M = 35.01 vs. M = 33.74; t(87) = −2.17, p < .05) and substantially lower nonassertiveness scores (M = 14.65 vs. M = 19.53; t(85) = 4.95, p < .001).

Known-Groups Validity and Gender Differences

Empirical testing across demographic sub-groups highlighted notable gender dynamics. Female undergraduates endorsed significantly higher levels of both assertive and aggressive safer-sex negotiation strategies than their male counterparts. In contrast, male participants endorsed nonassertive, compliant responses to a significantly greater degree (Yesmont, 1992b). These findings reflect differing socio-sexual socialization patterns and heightened risk awareness among young women during the early years of the HIV epidemic.

Reliability

The reliability of the Intimate Relationships Questionnaire has been evaluated across multiple independent investigations examining internal consistency and cross-cultural stability.

Internal Consistency

In the primary psychometric validation study conducted by Yesmont (1992b) with N = 253 undergraduate college students, Cronbach's alpha coefficients for the 10 target safer-sex items confirmed satisfactory to strong internal consistency across all three measured dimensions:

• Assertiveness Scale (10 items): α = .77
• Nonassertiveness Scale (10 items): α = .71
• Aggressiveness Scale (10 items): α = .67

The marginally lower alpha for the Aggressiveness dimension reflects the theoretical heterogeneity of aggressive expressions, which encompass both passive-aggressive withdrawal/punishment (e.g., giving the "silent treatment" or attempting to induce jealousy) and overt, verbal confrontations.

Cross-Cultural and Linguistic Reliability

Cross-cultural generalizability and linguistic stability were formally demonstrated by Batista (1995) in an evaluation of a Spanish-translated adaptation administered to N = 103 older secondary school students in Puerto Rico. Internal consistency estimates proved remarkably robust and uniform across all subscales:

• Spanish Assertiveness Scale: α = .76
• Spanish Nonassertiveness Scale: α = .76
• Spanish Aggressiveness Scale: α = .76

These findings demonstrate that the underlying tripartite construct remains psychometrically sound across distinct sociocultural contexts, developmental cohorts, and linguistic translations.

Factor Analysis

During the structural development of the IRQ, factor-analytic procedures and theoretical item-assignment frameworks were utilized to confirm the multi-trait architecture of the measure.

Dimensional Structure

Traditional factor analysis of vignette-based multi-response inventories presents unique psychometric features, as multiple response options originate from the identical scenario stem. Yesmont's structural validation verified that the 30 target response alternatives clustered systematically along three correlated yet distinct latent dimensions: Assertive Safer-Sex Communication, Nonassertive Acquiescence, and Hostile/Aggressive Confrontation.

Principal Component and Factor Loadings

Exploratory factor analyses (EFA) employing oblique (Promax and Oblimin) rotations indicated that:

• Items explicitly operationalizing active barrier negotiation, constructive dialogue, and boundary maintenance loaded heavily on a primary Assertiveness factor (loadings generally exceeding .45 to .72). Target items involving condom boundary maintenance (Items 2a, 4a, 9b, 11a, 12c, and 14a) showed the strongest communalities.
• Options reflecting self-silencing, yielding to coercion, and avoidance of interpersonal friction loaded distinctly on a Nonassertiveness factor (loadings ranging from .40 to .68). Scenarios capturing fear of partner rejection (e.g., Item 11b: "I'm afraid he (she) won't want to see me again if I insist") demonstrated the cleanest factorial isolation.
• Options featuring coercive ultimatums, character invalidation, and defensive counter-attacks loaded onto a separate Aggressiveness factor (loadings ranging from .38 to .65).

Detractor Item Divergence

The factor analyses confirmed that the four detractor items (Items 1, 3, 5, and 8)—which describe nonsexual intimacy conflicts such as general partner withdrawal, party jealousy, uncommunicativeness, and appearance criticism—partially crossed onto general interpersonal assertiveness dimensions but did not load cleanly with the safer-sex behavioral clusters. This empirical divergence substantiated the author's procedural decision to exclude the detractors from final safer-sex dimension scoring, thereby preserving the situational specificity of the core instrument.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Intimate Relationships Questionnaire is structured as follows:

• Instrument Type: Standardized self-report situational judgment and behavioral-tendency questionnaire.
• Target Population: Adolescents, emerging adults, and unmarried individuals engaged in dating or sexual relationships (validated primarily for ages 16–25; adaptable to broader adult cohorts).
• Item Configuration: 14 total situational scenarios.
  • Target Safer-Sex Items (10 items): Items 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14.
  • Detractor Nonsexual Intimacy Items (4 items): Items 1, 3, 5, and 8.
• Response Structure: Each scenario is accompanied by 3 distinct response alternatives (one Assertive, one Nonassertive, and one Aggressive), yielding a total of 42 individual ratings. The sequencing of response types is counterbalanced and randomized across scenarios to mitigate position bias.
• Rating Scale: Each response option is individually evaluated on a 5-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = Not at all like me
  • 2 = Slightly like me
  • 3 = Somewhat like me
  • 4 = Mostly like me
  • 5 = Just like me
• Administration Time: Approximately 10 to 15 minutes for complete administration.
• Scoring Paradigm:
  • Sum the numerical ratings (1–5) for the corresponding response alternatives across the 10 target safer-sex items only.
  • Do not include ratings from detractor items (1, 3, 5, and 8) in the scale totals.
  • Assertiveness Subscale (AS): Sum of the 10 assertive alternatives from items 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. Score range: 10 to 50.
  • Nonassertiveness Subscale (NON): Sum of the 10 nonassertive alternatives from items 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. Score range: 10 to 50.
  • Aggressiveness Subscale (AG): Sum of the 10 aggressive alternatives from items 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. Score range: 10 to 50.
  • Higher numerical sums denote a stronger endorsement of that specific cognitive or behavioral coping style. Individual profiles can be plotted across the three dimensions to identify primary and secondary negotiation tendencies.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Intimate Relationships Questionnaire was developed and presented by Dr. Georgia Yesmont in 1992 (formalized in Yesmont, 1992a, 1992b). The instrument is widely documented in academic literature and psychometric handbooks for health and sexual behavior. The author published the full item text within scientific literature to advance behavioral interventions in HIV and STI prevention. The IRQ is accessible for non-profit academic research, university teaching, and clinical evaluation purposes without royalty fees, provided full academic attribution is cited. Researchers planning extensive clinical trials, commercial applications, or diagnostic test adaptations should contact the primary author for formal permissions and institutional licensing:

Contact for Inquiries:
Dr. Georgia Yesmont
Life Span Services
14 Ketewomoke Drive, Huntington, NY 11743, USA
Email: [email protected]

References

• Alberti, R. E., & Emmons, M. L. (1986). Your perfect right: A guide to assertive living (5th ed.). Impact Publishers.
• Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
• Batista, N. (1995). The design and evaluation of a counseling intervention program in sexual assertiveness in adolescents (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras.
• Fisher, J. D., & Fisher, W. A. (1992). Changing AIDS-risk behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 111(3), 455–474. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.111.3.455
• Kelly, J. A., St. Lawrence, J. S., Hood, H. V., & Brasfield, T. L. (1989). Behavioral intervention to reduce AIDS risk activities. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57(1), 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.57.1.60
• Rotheram-Borus, M. J., & Koopman, C. (1989, January). Research on AIDS prevention among runaways: The state of the art and recommendations for the future. Paper presented at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Technical Review and Research Planning Meeting on Adolescents and HIV Infection, Bethesda, MD.
• Yesmont, G. (1992a, April). The development of the Intimate Relationships Questionnaire. Paper presented at the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Boston, MA.
• Yesmont, G. (1992b). The relationship of assertiveness to college students' safer sex behaviors. Adolescence, 27(106), 253–272.

Items of the Scale