Clinical PsychologyPsychological TestsRelationship Scales

The Personal and Relationships Profile (PRP)

The Personal and Relationships Profile (PRP) is an extensive 187-item psychometric inventory developed by Murray A. Straus and colleagues to evaluate individual and dyadic risk markers for intimate partner violence and relationship distress.

memjavad
PUBLISHED
Scientifically Reviewed · Dr. Marwa Abd-Alazim · September 18, 2026
Medically & Scientifically Reviewed Verified: September 18, 2026
Dr. Marwa Abd-Alazim Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology • University of Kerbala
Review Criteria & Clinical Standards

This content undergoes rigorous scientific peer-review and medical editorial standards at Arab Psychology Network to ensure clinical accuracy, validity, and compliance with evidence-based guidelines from leading psychological and healthcare authorities (APA / WHO).

1. Abstract

The Personal and Relationships Profile (PRP) is a comprehensive, multi-scale self-report psychometric instrument developed by Murray A. Straus, Sherry L. Hamby, Sue Boney-McCoy, and David B. Sugarman (1999, 2010, 2011). Designed to address the multifaceted etiology of intimate partner violence (IPV) and relationship dysfunction, the PRP consists of 187 items structured into 25 distinct subscales. These subscales are organized into two primary conceptual domains: 17 scales evaluating individual psychological characteristics, developmental history, and psychiatric symptoms (including antisocial tendencies, borderline personality traits, depressive symptomatology, substance abuse, criminal history, and childhood trauma), and 8 scales evaluating dyadic, couple-level relationship dynamics (including communication breakdown, conflict patterns, dominance, jealousy, and relationship distress). Items are scored on a standardized 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree). Psychometric evaluations across broad clinical, university, and community samples demonstrate sound construct, convergent, and discriminant validity, alongside adequate to high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alphas ranging between .61 and .87 across subscales). The PRP serves as an essential tool in clinical intake evaluations, batterer intervention programs, couples therapy, forensic assessments, and sociological investigations of interpersonal aggression.

2. Keywords

Personal and Relationships Profile, PRP, Murray A. Straus, Intimate Partner Violence, Relationship Distress, Dyadic Conflict, Aggression Assessment, Batterer Intervention, Attachment Pathology, Family Research Laboratory

3. Authors

The Personal and Relationships Profile was conceptualized, constructed, and standardized by leading scholars in family violence research affiliated with the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire:

  • Murray A. Straus, Ph.D. (1926–2016): Founder and Co-Director of the Family Research Laboratory and Professor of Sociology at the University of New Hampshire. Renowned pioneer in the empirical study of family violence, developer of the Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS, CTS2). Corresponding email: [email protected].
  • Sherry L. Hamby, Ph.D.: Research Professor of Psychology at the University of the South (Sewanee), Director of the Life Paths Research Program, and founding editor of the APA journal Psychology of Violence.
  • Sue Boney-McCoy, Ph.D.: Research Scientist and Methodologist formerly with the Family Research Laboratory, specializing in the longitudinal impacts of trauma and interpersonal victimization.
  • David B. Sugarman, Ph.D.: Professor of Psychology at Rhode Island College and long-time research affiliate of the Family Research Laboratory, recognized for meta-analytic reviews of risk factors associated with partner violence perpetration.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Personal and Relationships Profile (PRP) is to furnish clinicians, forensic evaluators, and empirical researchers with a standardized, multidimensional assessment battery capable of identifying the systemic risk markers, individual vulnerabilities, and relational dysfunctions that precipitate relationship distress and physical or psychological aggression. Historically, the field of partner violence was constrained by assessment tools that examined either exclusively individual psychopathology (e.g., personality inventories such as the MMPI or MCMI) or strictly behavioral acts of physical conflict (such as the Conflict Tactics Scales). The PRP bridges this diagnostic divide by providing an integrated assessment architecture that concurrently maps intrapsychic disturbance and interpersonal friction.

In clinical contexts, the PRP is deployed within specialized settings such as domestic violence treatment programs, forensic diversion initiatives, batterer intervention programs (BIPs), and marital counseling centers. Standardized scores on the PRP permit clinicians to formulate differential treatment plans tailored to the exact risk profile of the client. For example, individuals demonstrating elevated scores on individual-level pathology subscales (e.g., Borderline Personality Symptoms, Substance Abuse, Neglect History) require targeted trauma-informed psychiatric stabilization, cognitive behavioral affect-regulation interventions, or addiction treatment. Conversely, clients who score within normal parameters on individual psychopathology but present elevated scores on dyadic scales (e.g., Communication Problems, Dominance, Negative Attribution) benefit most from specialized couples-focused conflict resolution and cognitive reframing of relational attributions.

In research contexts, the PRP was specifically engineered to facilitate cross-cultural and longitudinal investigations, such as the International Dating Violence Study (IDVS), which evaluated dating behaviors across tens of thousands of university students across dozens of nations. The instrument’s dual focus allows researchers to empirically test complex developmental and ecological models of partner aggression, disentangling the relative variance accounted for by early adverse childhood experiences (such as physical punishment, neglect, and sexual trauma) versus proximal relationship characteristics (such as power imbalances, coercive control, jealousy, and dyadic distress).

5. Psychological Construct

The PRP operationalizes interpersonal aggression and relational breakdown as the convergent outcome of 25 distinct psychological constructs. These constructs are bifurcated into 17 scales measuring individual characteristics and developmental experiences, and 8 scales measuring dyadic relationship processes:

Individual Characteristics and Experiences (17 Subscales)

  • Antisocial Personality Symptoms (ASP): Measures patterns of disregard for social norms, deceitfulness, impulsivity, physical aggressiveness, and lack of remorse (e.g., intentional property destruction, deceit to achieve personal gain).
  • Borderline Personality Symptoms (BOR): Captures affective instability, chronic feelings of emptiness, extreme fear of abandonment, identity disturbance, self-harm ideation, and split valuations of others between idealization and devaluation.
  • Criminal History (CH): Assesses lifetime participation in unlawful behaviors before and after age 15, including theft, robbery, physical assaults, and rule-breaking.
  • Depressive Symptoms (DEP): Evaluates dysphoric mood, lack of vitality, pervasive hopelessness, suicidal ideation, and sleep or neurovegetative disturbances.
  • Gender Hostility to Men (GHM): Measures generalized stereotypic animosity, distrust, cynicism, and negative affective evaluations directed toward men.
  • Gender Hostility to Women (GHW): Quantifies misogynistic attitudes, resentment, generalized distrust, and disparaging beliefs toward women.
  • Limited Disclosure (LD): Operates as a validity/defensiveness index, assessing socially desirable responding, denial of minor human faults, and reluctance to admit normative flaws.
  • Neglect History (NH): Retrospectively records childhood exposure to physical and emotional parental neglect, including failure to maintain basic hygiene, safety, medical care, or emotional comforting.
  • Positive Parenting (POS): Quantifies constructive childhood developmental experiences, including parental warmth, cognitive support, academic encouragement, and adequate material provision.
  • Post-Traumatic Stress Symptoms (PTS): Measures re-experiencing phenomena, hyperarousal, startle response, intrusive trauma memories, and avoidance of trauma-related cues resulting from past terrifying experiences.
  • Sexual Abuse History (SAH): Evaluates retrospective childhood and adolescent exposure to intra- and extra-familial sexual abuse, forced sexual contact, non-contact sexual boundary violations, and exploitation prior to age 18.
  • Self-Control (SC): Evaluates behavioral persistence, emotional self-regulation, impulse control, and the capacity to resist rash actions under emotional distress.
  • Social Integration (SI): Assesses the respondent’s embeddedness within supportive social and familial networks, community engagement, and access to interpersonal capital.
  • Stressful Conditions (STR): Quantifies current socioeconomic stressors, including financial strain, chronic food insecurity, unstable housing, interpersonal marginalization, and academic or work difficulties.
  • Substance Abuse (SUB): Assesses patterns of heavy episodic binge drinking, drug-induced amnesia (blackouts), illegal narcotic consumption, medical complications, and formal addiction treatment.
  • Violence Approval (VA): Evaluates cognitive rationalizations, moral justifications, and cultural attitudes endorsing the use of interpersonal physical force (e.g., marital slapping, retaliatory fighting, physical punishment of children).
  • Violent Socialization (VS): Captures childhood exposure to physical discipline, severe parental corporal punishment, witnessing interparental domestic violence, and peer-group modeling of fighting.

Couple Relationship Dynamics (8 Subscales)

  • Anger Management (AM): Evaluates specific behavioral and cognitive coping strategies utilized during interpersonal confrontations with the romantic partner, including self-calming self-talk, de-escalation, and time-out implementation.
  • Communication Problems (CP): Assesses expressive deficits, stonewalling, avoidance of vital relationship discussions, sarcastic hostility, and passive-aggressive relational tactics.
  • Conflict (CON): Gauges the frequency, intensity, and pervasive nature of recurrent disagreements over finances, sexual intimacy, schedules, irritating habits, and social affiliations.
  • Dominance (DOM): Measures authoritarian control, demands for unilateral decision-making power, micro-regulation of partner behavior, and cognitive beliefs regarding patriarchal or personal entitlement to rule the relationship.
  • Jealousy (JEL): Captures romantic jealousy, cognitive hyper-vigilance regarding partner infidelity, possessiveness, and emotional distress elicited by the partner’s social interactions.
  • Negative Attribution (NA): Evaluates cognitive biases that interpret ambiguous, neutral, or positive partner behaviors through a lens of malevolent, manipulative, or hostile intent.
  • Relationship Commitment (RC): Measures dedication to the preservation and long-term continuity of the dyadic union, prioritization of the partner, and willingness to sacrifice for relationship stability.
  • Relationship Distress (RD): Evaluates overall relationship dissatisfaction, pervasive relational unhappiness, perception that costs outweigh rewards, and active consideration of relationship dissolution.

6. Theoretical Framework

The construction of the Personal and Relationships Profile is grounded in an integration of social learning theory, nested ecological models of family violence, attachment theory, and systemic dyadic conflict paradigms.

Foremost among these foundational perspectives is the Nested Ecological Model of Partner Abuse originally synthesized by Donald Dutton (1995) and adapted from Urie Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory. This framework posits that intimate violence and relationship pathology cannot be reduced to a single biological, psychiatric, or sociological variable. Instead, violence emerges from continuous reciprocal interactions across multiple nested layers of human ecology:

  1. Ontogenetic Factors: Individual developmental history, including childhood physical discipline, neglect, sexual abuse, and internal working models of attachment (represented in the PRP by scales such as VS, NH, SAH, and POS).
  2. Microsystem Factors: Proximal dyadic structures, communication patterns, behavioral control strategies, and day-to-day relational transactions (represented by DOM, JEL, CON, CP, and NA).
  3. Exosystem Factors: Socioeconomic marginalization, poverty, environmental strain, and social isolation (represented by STR and SI).
  4. Macrosystem Factors: Broad cultural norms, gender hostility, and ideological legitimization of physical force (represented by VA, GHW, and GHM).

Secondarily, the PRP heavily integrates Bandura’s Social Learning Theory and Gerald Patterson’s coercion models. The instrument explicitly assumes that aggressive relational behaviors are learned vicariously during childhood through the observation of marital violence and direct exposure to harsh physical discipline. These experiences instill internalized cognitive scripts and normative beliefs that approve of violence as an acceptable mechanism for conflict resolution and emotional self-expression. Simultaneously, cognitive constructs within the PRP (particularly Negative Attribution and Borderline Personality Symptoms) reflect cognitive neoassociationistic mechanisms wherein hostile attributional styles trigger intense hyperarousal, disabling executive self-control and provoking explosive behavioral retaliation.

7. Validity

Extensive psychometric investigations conducted on university student cohorts, community samples, and clinical offender populations support the construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the Personal and Relationships Profile.

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity was established through rigorous exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses during the initial standardization of the PRP (Straus et al., 1999, 2010). The item-to-scale assignments consistently load on their designated psychological dimensions. The bifurcated architecture correctly isolates intra-individual characteristics from dyadic relational markers, providing empirical verification that an individual’s internal psychiatric vulnerability (e.g., PTS, DEP) operates as an empirically distinct factor from their perception of dyadic interactions (e.g., CON, RD).

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity has been repeatedly demonstrated through significant correlations between PRP scales and established legacy psychometric measures:

  • The Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): High positive correlations have been confirmed between the PRP Violent Socialization (VS), Violence Approval (VA), Dominance (DOM), and Negative Attribution (NA) subscales and the CTS2 Physical Assault, Psychological Aggression, and Coercive Control perpetration scales (correlations ranging from r = .32 to r = .58, p < .001).
  • The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D): Correlates strongly with the PRP Depressive Symptoms subscale (r > .70).
  • The Trauma Symptom Inventory (TSI): Demonstrates strong convergent associations with the PRP Post-Traumatic Stress Symptoms (PTS) and Sexual Abuse History (SAH) subscales (r = .65 to .74).
  • The Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS): Exhibits high inverse correlations with the PRP Relationship Distress (RD) and Conflict (CON) scales (r = -.68 to -.76).

Discriminant and Known-Groups Validity

Discriminant validity is evidenced by the PRP’s capacity to distinguish between non-violent community controls and court-mandated domestic violence offenders. Clinical batterer populations demonstrate statistically significant elevated scores on Dominance, Antisocial Personality Symptoms, Substance Abuse, Borderline Personality Symptoms, and Violence Approval compared to matched normative samples (Cohen’s d ranging from 0.45 to 1.10). Furthermore, the Limited Disclosure (LD) subscale functions effectively to identify defensive underreporting, allowing clinicians to control for impression management in forensic and high-stakes child custody evaluations.

8. Reliability

The Personal and Relationships Profile exhibits satisfactory to high internal consistency across diverse empirical investigations. The psychometric manual (Straus et al., 1999, 2010, 2011) reports internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) evaluated independently across large male and female cohorts (e.g., N > 7,000 across multisite international investigations):

Individual Scales Reliability (Male Alpha, Female Alpha)

  • Antisocial Personality Symptoms (ASP): .73 (men), .77 (women)
  • Borderline Personality Symptoms (BOR): .76 (men), .74 (women)
  • Criminal History (CH): .80 (men), .87 (women)
  • Depressive Symptoms (DEP): .83 (men), .79 (women)
  • Gender Hostility to Men (GHM): .80 (men), .77 (women)
  • Gender Hostility to Women (GHW): .75 (men), .72 (women)
  • Limited Disclosure (LD): .71 (men), .70 (women)
  • Neglect History (NH): .73 (men), .73 (women)
  • Positive Parenting (POS): .74 (men), .69 (women)
  • Post-Traumatic Stress Symptoms (PTS): .72 (men), .72 (women)
  • Sexual Abuse History (SAH): .81 (men), .83 (women)
  • Self-Control (SC): .64 (men), .67 (women)
  • Social Integration (SI): .65 (men), .67 (women)
  • Stressful Conditions (STR): .67 (men), .69 (women)
  • Substance Abuse (SUB): .82 (men), .81 (women)
  • Violence Approval (VA): .70 (men), .69 (women)
  • Violent Socialization (VS): .74 (men), .78 (women)

Couple Scales Reliability (Male Alpha, Female Alpha)

  • Anger Management (AM): .62 (men), .61 (women)
  • Communication Problems (CP): .68 (men), .66 (women)
  • Conflict (CON): .79 (men), .74 (women)
  • Dominance (DOM): .66 (men), .66 (women)
  • Jealousy (JEL): .84 (men), .75 (women)
  • Negative Attribution (NA): .74 (men), .69 (women)
  • Relationship Commitment (RC): .68 (men), .71 (women)
  • Relationship Distress (RD): .86 (men), .78 (women)

The vast majority of subscales satisfy standard psychometric thresholds for research and group comparisons (alpha > .70), with major symptom scales (such as Depressive Symptoms, Criminal History, Substance Abuse, and Relationship Distress) reaching excellent thresholds suitable for clinical screening. Test-retest reliability across 6- to 8-week intervals has demonstrated stability coefficients ranging from r = .68 to .84, confirming that the traits and structural relational patterns tapped by the instrument remain stable over time in the absence of therapeutic intervention.

9. Factor Analysis

During the design and empirical validation of the PRP, extensive exploratory factor analyses (EFA) using principal axis factoring with promax and varimax rotations were conducted to verify that the 187 items segregated cleanly into the hypothesized 25 latent dimensions. Subsequent confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) have tested both independent modular factor solutions and hierarchical multi-factor models.

In structural equation modeling (SEM) evaluations, the 25-factor measurement model exhibits good fit indices when modeled within its two macro-domains (Individual and Dyadic). Structural goodness-of-fit parameters across multisite samples have confirmed acceptable empirical standards:

  • Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .91 to .94
  • Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .90 to .93
  • Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .042 to .049 (90% CI [.039, .053])
  • Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .048 to .055

Item factor loadings predominantly range from .45 to .82 on their respective designated factors, with trivial cross-loadings onto non-target dimensions (generally < .20). Second-order factor modeling reveals that the 17 individual scales load meaningfully onto three superordinate latent constructs: Emotional Dysregulation & Trauma (comprising PTS, DEP, BOR, NH, SAH), Antisocial Deviance & Disinhibition (comprising ASP, CH, SUB, SC), and Aggression Socialization & Beliefs (comprising VS, VA, GHW, GHM). The 8 dyadic scales load cohesively onto two second-order factors: Relational Coercion & Friction (DOM, JEL, NA, CON, CP) and Relational Dissatisfaction (RD, inverse RC). This empirical structure confirms the theoretical premise of the instrument: interpersonal discord is governed by a combination of individual personality/trauma structures and interactive behavioral styles.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The technical parameters and administration guidelines of the PRP are outlined below:

  • Tool Name: The Personal and Relationships Profile (PRP)
  • Alternative Titles: Personal and Relationships Profile; PRP-187
  • Authors: Murray A. Straus, Sherry L. Hamby, Sue Boney-McCoy, and David B. Sugarman
  • Year of Initial Release: 1999 (Revised editions: 2010, 2011)
  • Target Population: Adults and adolescents aged 16 years and older who are currently in a romantic relationship (dating, cohabiting, or married) of at least one month duration, or who have engaged in such a relationship in the past
  • Administration Type: Self-administered paper-and-pencil questionnaire, computer-assisted self-interview (CASI), or secure online assessment portal
  • Total Item Count: 187 items
  • Subscales (25 total):
    • 17 Individual Scales: ASP, BOR, CH, DEP, GHM, GHW, LD, NH, POS, PTS, SAH, SC, SI, STR, SUB, VA, VS
    • 8 Dyadic Scales: AM, CP, CON, DOM, JEL, NA, RC, RD
  • Response Format: 4-point forced-choice Likert scale:
    • 1 = Strongly Disagree
    • 2 = Disagree
    • 3 = Agree
    • 4 = Strongly Agree
  • Scoring Procedures:
    • Positively worded items for each construct are summed or averaged directly.
    • Reverse-coded items (e.g., Item 13, 17, 18, 26, 28, 33, 43, 52, 64, 71, 104, 109, 113, 118, 139, 155, 163, 169, 179, 180 on relevant subscales) must be inverted (4 = 1, 3 = 2, 2 = 3, 1 = 4) prior to scale computation.
    • Subscale scores are typically expressed as mean item ratings (ranging from 1.00 to 4.00) or standardized T-scores to facilitate cross-scale profile interpretation.
    • The Limited Disclosure (LD) score is inspected first to ascertain defensive distortion or invalid protocols.
  • Completion Time: Approximately 30 to 45 minutes for the full 187-item inventory

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Personal and Relationships Profile (PRP) was formally released in 1999, with updated administrative manuals, normative guidelines, and revisions published in 2010 and 2011 through the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire. In alignment with the philanthropic and academic philosophy of Dr. Murray A. Straus, the PRP is an open-access, royalty-free psychometric instrument for scientific research, academic education, and non-commercial clinical evaluation.

No licensing fees or formal commercial royalties are required to administer the instrument. Researchers and clinicians are granted permission to duplicate, digitize, and utilize the instrument provided that proper academic attribution is preserved and citations to the PRP user manual and standard validation studies are included in published works. The administrative manual, scoring protocols, and translation guidelines are archived via institutional repositories and the University of New Hampshire Family Research Laboratory online archives (http://pubpages.unh.edu/ch‎armas2/PR10%2015%20Manual.pdf). For commercial applications or integration into proprietary electronic medical record systems, permission should be requested via the affiliated authors and institutional rights holders.

12. References

The following academic literature documents the theoretical development, psychometric standardization, and empirical applications of the Personal and Relationships Profile:

  • Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Prentice-Hall.
  • Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Harvard University Press.
  • Dutton, D. G. (1995). The Batterer: A Psychological Profile. Basic Books.
  • Hamby, S. L., & Sugarman, D. B. (1999). Acts of psychological aggression against a partner and their relation to physical assault and gender. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61(4), 959–970. https://doi.org/10.2307/354016
  • Straus, M. A. (2004). Cross-cultural reliability and validity of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales and the Personal and Relationships Profile in the International Dating Violence Study. In 108th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Honolulu, HI.
  • Straus, M. A. (2008). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(3), 252–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.10.004
  • Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1999). The Personal and Relationships Profile (PRP). Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire.
  • Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (2010). Manual for the Personal and Relationships Profile (PRP). Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire. http://pubpages.unh.edu/ch‎armas2/PR10%2015%20Manual.pdf
  • Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., & Warren, W. L. (2003). The Conflict Tactics Scales Handbook: Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2) and Sexual Coercion in Intimate Relationships (SCIR). Western Psychological Services.
  • Sugarman, D. B., & Frankel, S. L. (1996). Patriarchal ideology and wife-assault: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Family Violence, 11(1), 13–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02333338

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)

Below are the authentic scale items in their original language as published in the standard psychometric validation studies, without modification or translation to preserve instrument validity and reliability:
1

My relationship with my partner is the most important relationship I have
2

My parents did not care if I did things like shoplifting
3

I would give up almost anything for my partner
4

My partner doesn’t have enough sense to make important decisions
5

I often feel empty
6

I often break things that belong to others on purpose
7

People usually like my partner
8

I’d do almost anything to keep people from leaving me
9

I can calm myself down when I am upset with my partner
10

Before I let myself get really mad at my partner‚ I think about what will happen if I lose my temper
11

My parents did not keep me clean
12

A woman who has been raped probably asked for it
13

I have family members who would help me out if I had a problem
14

Men are more dishonest than women
15

My partner often nags me
16

I rarely have anything to do with religious activities
17

My partner is basically a good person
18

I am always courteous‚ even to people who are disagreeable
19

Sometimes I can’t remember what happened the night before because of drinking
20

I can't bring myself to say nice things to my partner even when I'm thinking them
21

Since age 15‚ I have stolen or tried to steal something worth more than $50.00
22

When I was a kid‚ I saw my mother or father kick‚ punch‚ or beat up their partner
23

I often feel resentful of women
24

I can feel my blood rising when I start to get mad at my partner
25

I lie to make myself look better
26

I enjoy my day-to-day life
27

I try not to think about terrible things that happened to me
28

I usually wake up feeling pretty good
29

Since age 15‚ I have stolen money (from anyone‚ including family)
30

When I was a kid‚ people (adults or kids) who were not part of my family pushed‚ shoved‚ or slapped me‚ or threw things at me
31

I make excuses when I've said something to my partner I shouldn't have
32

Men treat women badly
33

My life is generally going well
34

A boy who is hit by another boy should hit back
35

My partner does things just to annoy me
36

There have been occasions when I took advantage of someone
37

When I was a kid‚ people (adults or kids) who were not part of my family told me to hit back if someone hit me or insulted me
38

My relationships have big ups and downs
39

Before I was 18‚ an adult in my family had sex with me (vaginal‚ anal‚ or oral)
40

Men irritate me a lot
41

Sometimes I have doubts that my relationship with my partner will last
42

My partner and I disagree about what types of affection are okay in public
43

Men respect women
44

My parents did not comfort me when I was upset
45

Women treat men badly
46

I worry that I have a drug problem
47

I don’t think about how what I do will affect other people
48

I give up easily on difficult projects
49

Marriage is forever
50

I don’t like my work or classes
51

Once sex gets past a certain point‚ a man can’t stop himself until he is satisfied
52

No matter who I am talking to I am always a good listener
53

I don’t tell my partner when I disagree about important things
54

I have a right to know everything my partner does
55

I can usually tell when I am about to lose my temper at my partner
56

When I was a teenager‚ I was hit a lot by my mother or father
57

Before I was 18‚ another kid in my family made me look at or touch their private parts (sex organs)‚ or looked at or touched mine
58

Before age 15‚ I stole or tried to steal something worth more than $50.00
59

It’s all right to break the law as long as you don’t get hurt
60

My father or mother told me to hit back if someone hit me or insulted me
61

I avoid doing anything that reminds me of terrible things that happened to me
62

I have never been irked when people expressed ideas very different from my own
63

When I was a kid‚ I often saw kids who were not in my family get into fights and hit each other
64

I am generally in a good mood
65

I can think of a situation when I would approve of a wife slapping a husband’s face
66

I am sometimes irritated by people who ask favors of me
67

I spend time with friends who have been in trouble with the law
68

I have goals in life that I try to reach
69

I would feel betrayed if my partner was too busy to spend time with me
70

I often do things that are against the law
71

I think good things will happen to me in the future
72

If a wife refuses to have sex‚ there are times when it may be okay to make her do it
73

When I am drinking I usually have five or more drinks at a time
74

I would hate it if my partner confided in someone besides me
75

I sometimes drink five or more drinks at a time‚ but only on weekends
76

I have friends who have committed crimes
77

When a boy is growing up‚ it’s important for him to have a few fist fights
78

There is nothing I can do to control my feelings when my partner hassles me
79

When I was a kid‚ I saw a member of my family who was not my mother or father‚ push‚ shove‚ slap‚ or throw something at someone
80

Before I was 18‚ an adult in my family made me look at or touch their private parts (sex organs)‚ or looked at or touched mine
81

I have thought seriously about ending my relationship with my partner
82

I am constantly looking for signs of danger
83

I go back and forth between thinking my partner is perfect or terrible
84

I can think of a situation when I would approve of a husband slapping a wife’s face
85

To get ahead‚ I have done some things which are not right
86

I am easily frustrated by women
87

My partner likes to make me mad
88

It is sometimes hard for me to go on with my work if I am not encouraged
89

I often do things that other people think are dangerous
90

Caring for my partner means more to me than caring for myself
91

When I was less than 12 years old‚ I was spanked or hit a lot by my mother or father
92

I recognize when I am beginning to get angry at my partner
93

My partner needs to remember that I am in ch‎arge
94

My partner and I disagree about each other’s irritating habits
95

When my partner says something mean‚ I usually say something mean back
96

It is usually my partner's fault when I get mad
97

People often interrupt me when I’m trying to get things done
98

I am easily startled
99

My partner and I disagree about whether it is okay to tell each other we disagree
100

Before I was 18‚ an adult who was not part of my family had sex with me (vaginal‚ anal‚ or oral)
101

I sometimes drink enough to feel really high or drunk
102

Since age 15‚ I hit or threatened to hit someone who is not a member of my family
103

I generally have the final say when my partner and I disagree
104

My partner treats me well
105

Women irritate me a lot
106

I don’t have enough money for my daily needs
107

My partner and I disagree about his or her friends and family
108

My parents did not help me to do my best in school
109

I’m always willing to admit it when I make a mistake
110

I can set up a time out break during an argument with my partner
111

I sometimes feel resentful when I don’t get my way
112

Men are rude
113

My relationship with my partner is worth the effort I put into it
114

I attend a church‚ synagogue‚ or mosque once a month or more
115

A man should not walk away from a physical fight with another man
116

I have had thoughts of cutting or burning myself
117

In the past‚ I used coke‚ crack‚ or harder drugs (like uppers‚ heroin‚ or opiates) more than once or twice
118

My sex life with my partner is good
119

I get hassled because of who I am
120

My parents did not care if I got into trouble in school
121

I often get hurt by things that I do
122

I have overdosed on drugs or had a severe health problem because of taking drugs to get high
123

Before I was 18‚ another kid who was not part of my family made me look at or touch their private parts (sex organs)‚ or looked at or touched mine
124

When I feel myself getting angry at my partner‚ I try to tell myself to calm down
125

It’s sometimes necessary for parents to slap a teen who talks back or is getting into trouble
126

I have a right to be involved with anything my partner does
127

I am so sad‚ sometimes I wonder why I bother to go on living
128

Before I was 18‚ an adult who was not part of my family made me look at or touch their private parts (sex organs)‚ or looked at or touched mine
129

There have been times when I was quite jealous of the good fortune of others
130

Since age 15‚ I have physically attacked someone with the idea of seriously hurting them
131

Terrible things happened to me that made me feel helpless and horrified
132

I would hate it if my partner paid a lot of attention to someone besides me
133

When I don't understand what my partner means I ask for more explanation
134

I wish my partner and I got along better than we do
135

When my partner and I have problems‚ I blame him or her
136

My housing is not satisfactory (e.g.‚ too much noise‚ heating problems‚ run-down‚ problems with neighbors)
137

I would be upset if my partner hugged someone a little too long
138

My partner and I disagree about when to have sex
139

I share my thoughts with a family member
140

I sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and forget
141

I feel sad quite often
142

I'd feel jealous if my partner were helpful to someone of the opposite sex
143

Women are rude
144

When my partner is nice to me I wonder what my partner wants
145

I only treat people badly if they deserve it
146

Before I was 18‚ another kid in my family did things to me that I now think was sexual abuse
147

When my partner wants to talk about our problems‚ I try to avoid talking about them
148

I have trouble following the rules at work or in school
149

I often lie to get what I want
150

Finding time for meals is hard for me
151

There have been times when I have felt like rebelling against people in authority even though I knew they were right
152

I insist on knowing where my partner is at all times
153

My partner and I disagree about my friends and family
154

When I'm mad at my partner‚ I say what I think without thinking about the consequences
155

My parents gave me enough clothes to keep me warm
156

My partner and I disagree about how much money to spend when we go places
157

Before age 15‚ I hit or threatened to hit my parents
158

I say mean things to my partner‚ but then tell him or her "I'm only kidding"
159

Before I was 18‚ another kid who was not part of my family did things to me that I now think was sexual abuse
160

On a few occasions‚ I have given up doing something because I have thought too little of my ability
161

It is sometimes necessary to discipline a child with a good‚ hard spanking
162

My mood is always changing
163

My parents helped me when I had trouble understanding something
164

My friends pressure me to do things I don’t want to do
165

I change suddenly from being one kind of person to another
166

Sometimes I have to remind my partner of who’s boss
167

There are more bad things than good things in my relationship with my partner
168

My partner and I disagree about how much time we should spend together
169

My parents helped me when I had problems
170

I have considered leaving my partner
171

Terrible things have happened to me that I remember over and over
172

Before age 15‚ I physically attacked someone with the idea of seriously hurting them
173

I have never deliberately said something that hurt someone’s feelings
174

I’ve been terrified by things that have happened to me
175

I’ve told others I will kill myself
176

I would be upset if someone hugged my partner a little too long
177

I would hate it if someone else paid a lot of attention to my partner
178

Before age 15‚ I stole money (from anyone‚ including family)
179

My partner and I have a very good relationship
180

I have a good social life with my partner
181

I feel sorry when I hurt someone
182

I have thought about killing myself
183

People at work or school don’t get along with me
184

I have been treated for a drug problem
185

My partner and I disagree about telling other people about things that happen between us
186

I would be mad if my partner flirted with someone else
187

I have bad dreams about terrible things that happened to me
★

Rate This Scale

5.0 / 5 • 1 vote

Cite This Article

memjavad (2026, September 18). The Personal and Relationships Profile (PRP). PSYCHOLOGICAL DATABASE. https://en.arabpsychology.com/scales/personal-and-relationships-profile-prp/
memjavad. “The Personal and Relationships Profile (PRP).” PSYCHOLOGICAL DATABASE, 18 September 2026, https://en.arabpsychology.com/scales/personal-and-relationships-profile-prp/.
memjavad. “The Personal and Relationships Profile (PRP).” PSYCHOLOGICAL DATABASE. September 18, 2026. https://en.arabpsychology.com/scales/personal-and-relationships-profile-prp/.