The Partner’s Suspicious Behavior Measure

Abstract

The Partner’s Suspicious Behavior Measure (Weigel & Shrout, 2025) is a psychometric instrument designed to assess the frequency and intensity of behavioral indicators exhibited by a romantic partner that generate suspicion of extradyadic involvement or infidelity. Adapted from earlier behavioral repertoires compiled by Hanson Sobraske, Gaulin, and Boster (2014) regarding mate retention and rival alert cues, the scale was modified to focus specifically on ambiguous, vigilance-provoking cues within established romantic partnerships while excluding explicit or definitive acts of infidelity. Administered to adults between 18 and 47 years of age who suspected their partner of cheating, the measure captures perceived partner behaviors using a 7-point Likert response format ranging from 1 (“never”) to 7 (“all of the time”). Exploratory factor analysis utilizing promax rotation identified a dominant unidimensional structure accounting for 51.6% of the total variance, demonstrating that disparate behavioral cues—such as unexplained secrecy, technological concealment, relational withdrawal, and altered habits—converge into a unified latent construct of suspicious partner behavior. The instrument displays exceptional internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .94). By systematically quantifying subjective perceptions of partner suspiciousness, the scale provides interpersonal communication scholars, relationship scientists, and clinicians with a psychometrically validated operationalization of the antecedents to relational uncertainty, jealousy, and information-seeking strategies.

Keywords

partner suspicious behavior, infidelity suspicion, relational uncertainty, information seeking, romantic relationships, jealousy, mate guarding, cheating cues, psychometrics, exploratory factor analysis

Authors

The Partner’s Suspicious Behavior Measure was developed by:

• Daniel J. Weigel, Ph.D. — Professor and Extension Specialist in Human Development and Family Science, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, Nevada, United States. (Email: [email protected]).
• M. Rosie Shrout, Ph.D. — Assistant Professor of Human Development and Family Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, United States.

Purpose

Infidelity is widely recognized as one of the most disruptive and psychologically distressing events in romantic relationships, frequently precipitating relationship dissolution, depression, domestic conflict, and severe relational trauma. Prior to explicit discovery or direct confession, individuals frequently navigate a distressing phase characterized by ambiguous relational cues, shifting interpersonal dynamics, and burgeoning suspicion. The primary purpose of the Partner’s Suspicious Behavior Measure (Weigel & Shrout, 2025) is to systematically capture and quantify the behavioral signals emitted by a partner that trigger feelings of suspicion regarding potential infidelity.

Historically, research on romantic infidelity has relied either on post-hoc retrospective accounts of confirmed infidelity or on broad assessments of generalized romantic jealousy and attachment insecurity. Such approaches often confound an individual’s chronic dispositional paranoia or neuroticism with observable behavioral shifts in the partner. The Partner’s Suspicious Behavior Measure bridges this empirical gap by focusing on partner-enacted behaviors—such as guarded communication, abrupt alterations in scheduling, physical or emotional unavailability, and atypical technological privacy—that serve as ecological cues prompting suspicion.

In research contexts, the instrument is designed to evaluate how these perceived behaviors operate as catalysts within cognitive-appraisal models of interpersonal communication. Specifically, it enables researchers to investigate how suspicious behaviors predict relational uncertainty and determine whether individuals enact active confirmation strategies (such as digital surveillance, interrogating mutual acquaintances, or confrontation) or avoidance strategies (such as denial or communicative withdrawal). In clinical and couple therapy settings, the measure offers practitioners an objective diagnostic framework to delineate whether a client’s relationship distress stems from widespread, observable changes in partner conduct or from individualized cognitive biases, facilitating targeted therapeutic interventions regarding boundaries, transparency, and trust reconstruction.

Psychological Construct

The Partner’s Suspicious Behavior Measure evaluates the latent construct of perceived partner suspiciousness, defined as an individual’s perception of atypical, secretive, or emotionally detached behaviors exhibited by a romantic partner that reasonably imply the reallocation of romantic, sexual, or emotional resources outside the dyad. This construct is grounded in interpersonal perception, evolutionary vigilance, and relational uncertainty theories.

The operationalized construct consists of several behavioral manifestations that, while theoretically diverse, coalesce into a single overarching operational dimension:

• Technological Guardedness and Digital Concealment: Behaviors wherein the partner alters digital habits, such as hiding screens, frequently changing device passwords, receiving atypical late-night notifications, or exhibiting distress when their digital devices are handled.
• Temporal and Spatial Incongruities: Unaccounted-for blocks of time, sudden alterations in routine, vague explanations regarding one’s whereabouts, or frequent, uncorroborated schedule deviations.
• Emotional and Physical Detachment: Marked reductions in relational warmth, communicative withdrawal, abrupt shifts in physical affection or sexual frequency, and evasiveness during interpersonal dialogue.
• Heightened Defensiveness: Disproportionate hostility, counter-accusations, or agitation when asked benign questions about daily activities, social contacts, or personal plans.
• Altered Appearance and Self-Presentation: Uncharacteristic attention to physical grooming, new wardrobe investments, or shifts in personal scent and presentation that are not oriented toward the primary romantic partner.

Importantly, the construct excludes direct, unambiguous evidence of cheating (such as discovering explicit romantic correspondence or catching a partner in a physical encounter). By isolating ambiguous behavioral anomalies from confirmed betrayals, the scale precisely isolates the subjective cognitive threshold wherein suspicion is activated and managed.

Theoretical Framework

The Partner’s Suspicious Behavior Measure is anchored in three theoretical perspectives: Relational Turbulence Theory, Uncertainty Reduction Theory, and evolutionary perspectives on mate guarding and anti-cuckoldry psychology.

Under Relational Turbulence Theory (Solomon & Knobloch, 2002; Knobloch & Theiss, 2011), relationships experience periods of intensified reactivity when partners encounter disruptions to their daily coordination. When a partner engages in ambiguous or secretive behaviors, these actions disrupt behavioral interdependence, elevating relational uncertainty and amplifying emotional cognitive reactions. The scale operationalizes the immediate environmental disruptions that fuel relational turbulence, serving as the empirical catalyst for dyadic instability.

From the perspective of Uncertainty Reduction Theory (Berger & Calabrese, 1975) and its relational extensions (e.g., Planalp & Honeycutt, 1985), unexpected or norm-violating behaviors undermine cognitive confidence regarding a partner’s fidelity. When behavioral expectations are violated, individuals experience heightened cognitive drive to gather information. The Partner’s Suspicious Behavior Measure quantifies the magnitude of these violations, enabling researchers to examine how the intensity of perceived suspiciousness prompts specific surveillance, interrogation, or avoidance strategies.

Finally, the scale incorporates insights from Evolutionary Psychology regarding mate-retention tactics and vigilance mechanisms (Buss, 2000; Hanson Sobraske et al., 2014). Evolutionary models posit that humans have evolved psychological mechanisms to detect subtle cues indicating potential partner defection or rival poaching. Hanson Sobraske and colleagues identified 24 distinct behaviors signaling mate-value reallocation or rival threat. Weigel and Shrout (2025) adapted this framework, recognizing that these evolutionary alert mechanisms function as an interconnected perceptual net, triggering psychological alarms when a partner’s behavioral fidelity is compromised.

Validity

The construct and empirical validity of the Partner’s Suspicious Behavior Measure were established during its development and initial testing by Weigel and Shrout (2025):

• Content and Face Validity: The initial item pool was directly derived from established behavioral taxonomies of rival alert cues (Hanson Sobraske, Gaulin, & Boster, 2014). Content validity was refined by systematically reviewing items to eliminate confounding variables. Three items representing explicit, confirmed acts of infidelity were removed, ensuring that the remaining indicators strictly measured ambiguous behaviors that generate suspicion rather than definitive proof of cheating.
• Construct and Convergent Validity: Perceived partner suspicious behavior exhibited strong associations with relational uncertainty, partner-specific doubt, and information-seeking strategies. Consistent with theoretical predictions, higher scores on the measure were positively associated with both active confirmation strategies (e.g., checking phone logs, questioning associates) and strategic avoidance, establishing that the measure successfully indexes an acute cognitive-relational stressor.
• Discriminant Validity: The scale demonstrates separation from general, non-relational paranoia and baseline neuroticism by targeting partner-directed behavioral observations. Furthermore, its focus on ambiguous, subtle cues differentiates it from scales measuring overt partner infidelity or post-infidelity relational outcomes.

Reliability

The Partner’s Suspicious Behavior Measure exhibits high internal consistency reliability:

• Internal Consistency: In its primary validation study by Weigel and Shrout (2025), the scale demonstrated a Cronbach’s alpha of α = .94. This high coefficient indicates strong inter-item covariance and minimal measurement error across the scale indicators.
• Scale Homogeneity: The robust internal consistency provides empirical support for treating diverse behavioral manifestations (e.g., communicative evasion, schedule shifts, digital secrecy) as expressions of a singular underlying construct.
• Measurement Precision: The high reliability coefficient translates into a narrow standard error of measurement (SEM), supporting the scale’s utility for both group-level structural equation modeling and individualized assessment in applied relational counseling.

Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the Partner’s Suspicious Behavior Measure was evaluated using exploratory factor analysis (EFA):

• Extraction and Rotation: An initial exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the 21-item instrument using promax (oblique) rotation, reflecting the expectation that behavioral indicators of relationship suspicion would be naturally intercorrelated.
• Eigenvalues and Variance Explanation: The initial mathematical extraction produced three factors displaying eigenvalues greater than 1.0. However, inspection of the scree plot revealed an elbow immediately following the first factor.
• Dominance of the Primary Factor: The first extracted factor accounted for 51.6% of the total variance. In stark contrast, the second and third factors accounted for only 6.58% and 5.72% of the variance, respectively.
• Structural Determination: Because the primary factor accounted for over half of the total variance—surpassing the secondary factors by an order of magnitude—Weigel and Shrout (2025) retained a parsimonious unidimensional (one-factor) model. All retained items loaded substantially onto this dominant dimension of partner suspicious behavior.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Type: Self-report rating scale; psychological behavioral inventory.
• Construct Measured: Perceived frequency of suspicious, infidelity-indicative partner behaviors.
• Respondent Population: Individuals in romantic relationships (validated on adults aged 18–47 who suspect their partner of infidelity).
• Administration Format: Electronic questionnaire (online survey platforms) or paper-and-pencil inventory.
• Response Scale: 7-point Likert-type frequency scale:
• 1 = Never
• 2 = Very rarely
• 3 = Rarely
• 4 = Occasionally / Sometimes
• 5 = Frequently
• 6 = Very frequently
• 7 = All of the time
• Scoring Protocol: A composite mean or sum score is calculated across all retained items. Higher scores indicate a greater perceived frequency of suspicious partner behaviors within the current relationship.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Partner’s Suspicious Behavior Measure was published in 2025 in the Western Journal of Communication by Daniel J. Weigel and M. Rosie Shrout. The measure is intended for non-commercial academic research and clinical educational purposes. Researchers wishing to utilize, reproduce, or adapt the scale should contact the corresponding author, Dr. Daniel J. Weigel, at [email protected]. Standard academic citation of the primary validation article is required in all derivative publications. No licensing fees are assessed for non-commercial scholarly research.

References

• Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1(2), 99–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00258.x
• Buss, D. M. (2000). The dangerous passion: Why jealousy is as necessary as love and sex. Free Press.
• Hanson Sobraske, K. N., Gaulin, S. J. C., & Boster, J. S. (2014). Behaviors causing concern about a rival: Evidence for a cross-cultural taxonomy. Evolutionary Psychology, 12(1), 106–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470491401200105
• Knobloch, L. K., & Theiss, J. A. (2011). Relational uncertainty and intimacy as predictors of the forms and outcomes of communication about intimacy. Communication Monographs, 78(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2010.542469
• Planalp, S., & Honeycutt, J. M. (1985). Events that increase uncertainty in personal relationships. Human Communication Research, 11(4), 593–604. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1985.tb00062.x
• Solomon, D. H., & Knobloch, L. K. (2002). A model of relational turbulence: The role of relational uncertainty and interference from partners in fluctuations of relationship intimacy. Communication Monographs, 69(3), 195–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750216546
• Weigel, D. J., & Shrout, M. R. (2025). Are you cheating on me? Identifying factors contributing to the use of suspicion confirmation and avoidance strategies. Western Journal of Communication, 89(1), 108–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2024.2324382

Items of the Scale