Relational Pursuit Scale

1. Abstract

The Relational Pursuit Scale (RPS), developed by William R. Cupach and Brian H. Spitzberg (2000, 2004), is a widely recognized psychometric instrument designed to measure patterns of persistent, unwanted pursuit, obsessive relational intrusion (ORI), and stalking behavior. Originating from interpersonal communication and forensic psychology paradigms, the RPS assesses behavioral tactics across a continuum ranging from mildly intrusive, hyper-intimate courtship gestures to explicit relational stalking, intimidation, sexual coercion, and life-endangering violence. The instrument comprises 28 items structured around self-reported perpetration (or adaptively administered to assess victimization) across a 5-point behavioral frequency response format (ranging from 0 = Never to 4 = Over 5 times). Psychometric evaluations demonstrate robust internal consistency reliability across clinical, collegiate, and forensic samples, typically yielding overall Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from .88 to .95. Factor-analytic investigations reveal a hierarchically organized multidimensional structure capturing hyper-intimacy, spatial and electronic boundary invasion, surveillance, persistent contact, explicit intimidation, and physical/sexual aggression. Construct validity is supported by strong convergent associations with adult attachment insecurity (particularly anxious and fearful attachment), relational entitlement, cognitive distortions, low perspective-taking, rejection sensitivity, and intimate partner violence (IPV). Criterion validity is underscored by the instrument’s capacity to discriminate between normative post-breakup contact, persistent non-violent pursuit, and high-risk criminal stalking requiring legal and regulatory interventions. The RPS is extensively utilized in empirical research, clinical risk assessment, threat management, and psycho-legal evaluations, providing an evidence-based foundation for understanding the dark side of interpersonal relationships.

2. Keywords

Relational Pursuit Scale, obsessive relational intrusion, stalking perpetration, interpersonal intrusion, intimate partner violence, relationship dissolution, behavioral surveillance, Cupach and Spitzberg, hyper-intimacy, threat assessment

3. Authors

The Relational Pursuit Scale was conceptualized, operationalized, and validated by leading communication scientists and interpersonal psychologists:

• William R. Cupach, Ph.D.: Professor Emeritus of Communication at Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, USA. Dr. Cupach is an internationally recognized authority on the “dark side” of interpersonal communication, relational competence, face-management, interpersonal conflict, and obsessive relational intrusion.
• Brian H. Spitzberg, Ph.D.: Senate Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Communication in the School of Communication at San Diego State University, San Diego, California, USA. Dr. Spitzberg is an acclaimed researcher in human communication competence, interpersonal violence, stalking victimization and perpetration, threat assessment, and cyber-harassment.

Inquiries regarding academic adaptations, normative research datasets, and conceptual applications are traditionally directed to the Department of Communication at Illinois State University or the School of Communication at San Diego State University.

4. Purpose

The Relational Pursuit Scale was formulated to address a profound empirical and clinical gap: the lack of a standardized, behaviorally anchored measurement tool capable of assessing the broad continuum of unwanted relational pursuit. Following the formal legal criminalization of stalking in the 1990s, early behavioral sciences relied primarily on dichotomous legalistic criteria or idiosyncratic checklists that failed to capture the progressive escalation characterizing obsessive relational dynamics. Cupach and Spitzberg designed the RPS to operationalize Obsessive Relational Intrusion (ORI)—defined as the repeated and unwanted pursuit and invasion of one’s physical, psychological, or social boundaries by an individual who desires or perceives a desired relational intimacy.

The primary purpose of the RPS is to systematically document the frequency, breadth, and severity of behaviors enacted by an individual seeking relational access, maintenance, or reconciliation after explicit disinterest or explicit rejection has been communicated. In research settings, the instrument provides an empirical bridge between normative courtship behaviors (e.g., sending flowers, persistent messaging) and severe criminal pathologies (e.g., breaking and entering, physical restraint, lethal threats). By tracking this full spectrum, the RPS enables researchers to study developmental trajectories, relational escalation patterns, attachment-related vulnerabilities, and cognitive rationalizations across normative dating samples, community cohorts, and forensic populations.

In clinical, forensic, and campus-safety contexts, the RPS serves as an essential inventory for diagnostic screening, threat assessment, and safety planning. Clinical psychologists and forensic evaluators utilize the RPS to quantify a perpetrator’s behavioral repertoire, assess imminent risks of violence, identify patterns of regulatory harassment (such as retaliatory legal filings), and structure targeted cognitive-behavioral interventions targeting obsessive rumination, entitlement, and boundary transgression. Victim advocates and forensic social workers use parallel administrations to validate victims’ experiences, document escalating pattern evidence for protective orders, and construct empirical threat profiles.

5. Psychological Construct

The underlying construct assessed by the Relational Pursuit Scale is Obsessive Relational Intrusion (ORI) and stalking perpetration. ORI is conceptualized not as an isolated behavioral pathology, but as an aberrant, coercive extension of the normative human drive toward attachment and intimacy. Grounded in interpersonal communication theory, ORI spans mild boundary transgressions to extreme criminal violations. The RPS operationalizes this overarching construct into distinct behavioral dimensions:

Hyper-Intimate Behaviors

Hyper-intimacy comprises actions that mirror culturally scripted courtship behaviors, but which occur inappropriately within the relational context—such as after explicit rejection, after brief acquaintanceship, or in an intensely disproportionate manner. Examples captured in the RPS include leaving unwanted gifts (e.g., flowers, jewelry; Item 1), leaving unwanted affectionate messages via letters, email, or voice messages (Item 2), and making exaggerated declarations of affection or performing massive, unprompted favors (Item 3). Although superficially benign, hyper-intimacy disregards the recipient’s personal boundaries, communicating an implied entitlement to reciprocal intimacy.

Spatial and Interactional Boundary Violations

This dimension encompasses direct invasions of personal, physical, and conversational autonomy. It captures behavioral tactics where the pursuer imposes physical proximity without consent. Specific behaviors include following the target to daily activities (Item 4), hovering or intruding uninvited into private conversations (Item 6), invading physical personal space and touching the target inappropriately during interactions (Item 7), and showing up unannounced or lying in wait in public areas such as fitness centers, grocery stores, or workplaces (Item 12).

Surveillance and Covert Monitoring

Surveillance reflects systematic behavioral information gathering designed to maintain cognitive and physical proximity to the target. It reflects obsessive vigilance over the target’s movements and relational network. Items tapping this dimension assess watching from a distance or driving past residences (Item 5), monitoring behavioral routines and checking whereabouts through mutual associates (Item 11), and covertly intercepting private information—such as reading mail, eavesdropping on messages, or taking clandestine photographs (Item 13).

Social and Network Infiltration

Because targets often attempt to isolate themselves from pursuers, pursuers frequently divert pursuit tactics toward the target’s relational network. This dimension entails intruding upon friends, family members, or coworkers, attempting to befriend the target’s circle, seeking employment at the target’s workplace, or attending social events solely to gain indirect access or relational leverage (Item 10), as well as enrolling the target in programs or using their name without consent (Item 8).

Harassment, Intimidation, and Coercion

As relational frustration escalates, pursuit behaviors shift from pseudoromantic approaches to punitive and coercive strategies. The RPS captures this trajectory through items measuring property invasion and trespass (Items 9 and 14), sending threatening notes or voicemails (Item 15), engaging in regulatory harassment such as filing frivolous civil or institutional complaints (Item 17), stealing or vandalizing valued personal property or harming companion animals (Item 18), and threatening self-harm or suicide to manipulate the target’s behavior (Item 19).

Threats, Physical Aggression, and Life Endangerment

The most severe manifestation within the ORI construct encompasses explicit criminal stalking, interpersonal violence, and physical subjugation. The RPS measures direct verbal threats to the target or their loved ones (Items 20 and 21), sending weapons or threatening objects (Item 22), physical restraint and blocking mobility (Item 16), sexual coercion and forced sexual contact (Item 24), physical battery (Item 26), kidnapping, forcible room confinement, or car entrapment (Item 27), and lethal life endangerment, including attempted vehicular assault, strangulation, or brandishing deadly weapons (Item 28).

6. Theoretical Framework

The Relational Pursuit Scale is grounded primarily in the Relational Goal Pursuit Theory (Cupach & Spitzberg, 2004, 2014), supplemented by principles from attachment theory and social exchange models. Relational Goal Pursuit Theory posits that persistent, unwanted pursuit emerges through a cascade of cognitive, affective, and behavioral distortions:

Goal Linking and rumination

According to the theory, individuals possess overarching, higher-order goals related to self-worth, identity, and relational belonging. In normative functioning, individuals pursue specific interpersonal relationships as lower-order goals to fulfill these universal desires. However, in ORI perpetration, a catastrophic cognitive distortion known as goal linking occurs: the lower-order goal (establishing or salvaging a romantic relationship with a specific target) becomes cognitively bound to the pursuer’s core life happiness, self-worth, and existential meaning. The pursuer believes that without winning this specific person, their self-worth is irrevocably compromised. This linkage triggers persistent cognitive rumination, keeping the pursuit goal hyper-accessible in working memory.

Self-Efficacy and Rationalization of Persistence

When the target issues a relational rejection, normative communicators interpret the negative feedback as a signal to cease pursuit and revise their goals. In contrast, relational pursuers exhibit an inverted attributional process. Due to self-efficacy distortions and cultural romantic scripts (e.g., “true love overcomes all obstacles,” “persistence wins the prize”), pursuers view rejection not as a definitive refusal, but as a temporary barrier, an ambiguous test, or a misunderstanding that can be rectified through greater effort. Ambiguous or polite rejections (“I’m just really busy right now”) are reframed as implicit encouragement.

Emotional Flooding and Escalation

As the target increases boundary firmness, the pursuer experiences intense negative affect—including acute shame, jealousy, humiliation, and abandonment panic. Instead of prompting withdrawal, this emotional flooding amplifies the pursuer’s desperate efforts to restore control and intimacy. When benign communication fails, the pursuer rationalizes escalating the behavioral repertoire into surveillance, harassment, and coercive strategies, viewing the target’s resistance as unjust provocation. In severe cases, the goal shifts from reconciliation to retribution: punishing the target for rejecting the pursuer’s devotion.

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the Relational Pursuit Scale has been extensively documented across dozens of empirical investigations involving college student cohorts, community adults, and clinical/forensic samples.

Construct and Factorial Validity

Confirmatory factor analyses across diverse investigations validate that the 28 items tap a cohesive, hierarchically organized construct. Items systematically load onto lower-order behavioral clusters (such as hyper-intimacy, pursuit/monitoring, invasion/trespass, and coercion/threats) while simultaneously loading strongly on a single, overarching secondary dimension of relational intrusion severity. High item-total correlations across the continuum confirm that mild and severe items assess varying levels of the same underlying behavioral continuum.

Convergent Validity

The RPS exhibits strong, theoretically coherent convergent validity with related psychological inventories. Scores on the RPS correlate positively with:

• Insecure Attachment Styles: High positive correlations with the Adult Attachment Scale and Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR) scales, specifically anxious attachment ($r = .32$ to $.48$) and fearful attachment, reflecting hyper-activating attachment strategies and abandonment fears.
• Relational Rumination and Entitlement: Significant associations with measures of rumination on relationship loss, obsessive thinking, and narcissistic entitlement ($r = .28$ to $.45$).
• Rejection Sensitivity: Positive associations with Downey’s Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire, reflecting hyper-vigilant cognitive processing of social threats.
• Intimate Partner Violence: Substantial convergence with the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS-2), specifically psychological aggression ($r = .45$ to $.62$) and physical assault scales ($r = .30$ to $.52$).

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity has been confirmed through weak or non-significant correlations with non-relational psychopathology constructs, social desirability response sets (e.g., Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale, $r = -.11$ to $-.19$), and unrelated personality traits such as openness to experience and cognitive intelligence. The scale clearly differentiates between reciprocal, mutually accepted romantic persistence and unilateral, unwanted boundary intrusion.

Predictive and Criterion Validity

The RPS demonstrates exceptional criterion validity in distinguishing non-pursuers from persistent stalkers. Research demonstrates that cumulative scores, particularly elevated frequencies on items 14 through 28, prospectively predict target distress, protective order filings, target behavioral adaptations (such as changing residences or jobs), and legal system involvement. In forensic contexts, RPS scores correlate strongly with actuarial stalking threat assessments, such as the Stalking Risk Profile (SRP) and Guidelines for Stalking Assessment and Management (SAM).

8. Reliability

The Relational Pursuit Scale exhibits exceptional psychometric reliability across diverse populations, study contexts, and administration formats.

Internal Consistency

Across validation and empirical studies, the overall 28-item RPS consistently yields high internal consistency. In the initial validation cohorts reported by Cupach and Spitzberg (2000, 2004), Cronbach’s alpha for the composite index exceeded $\alpha = .91$. Subsequent independent investigations across collegiate samples, community cohorts, and cross-cultural adaptations have reported alphas consistently ranging between $.88$ and $.95$. Lower-order subscales or symptom clusters also maintain acceptable to excellent internal consistency:

• Hyper-Intimate Pursuit / Attention: $\alpha = .78 – .86$
• Surveillance and Monitoring: $\alpha = .81 – .89$
• Intrusion and Property Invasion: $\alpha = .80 – .87$
• Coercion, Threat, and Physical Aggression: $\alpha = .84 – .92$

Test-Retest Reliability

Stability assessments over brief intervals (e.g., 2 to 4 weeks) demonstrate robust test-retest reliability coefficients ranging from $r = .79$ to $r = .88$ in non-intervention control samples. Because relational pursuit behaviors often escalate or de-escalate based on external circumstances (such as new relationships or legal injunctions), longitudinal administrations over longer intervals (e.g., 6 months to 1 year) serve as sensitive measures of behavioral change rather than static traits.

9. Factor Analysis

Empirical analyses evaluating the latent structure of the RPS have demonstrated that while the 28 items can be summed to form a unidimensional index of overall pursuit severity, the scale possesses an underlying multidimensional architecture reflecting distinct behavioral tactics.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Initial principal axis factoring with oblique (Promax) rotation conducted on post-breakup pursuit samples revealed a clear multi-factor solution accounting for over 52% to 65% of the total variance. Primary factors typically emerge as follows:

• Factor 1: Coercive Aggression and Explicit Threat (Items 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28) with primary item factor loadings ranging from $.58$ to $.84$.
• Factor 2: Hyper-Intimate Courtship and Affection (Items 1, 2, 3) with item loadings from $.64$ to $.82$.
• Factor 3: Surveillance and Proximity-Seeking (Items 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12) with loadings between $.51$ and $.76$.
• Factor 4: Covert Boundary Infiltration and Property Invasion (Items 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, 18) with loadings ranging from $.46$ to $.73$.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Confirmatory factor analytic investigations comparing single-factor, orthogonal multi-factor, and higher-order hierarchical models demonstrate that a second-order hierarchical model—in which lower-order behavioral factors load onto an overarching general Relational Pursuit factor—demonstrates superior fit across goodness-of-fit indices:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): $.92 – .96$
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): $.91 – .95$
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): $.048 – .062$ ($90%\text{ CI } [.041, .069]$)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): $.044 – .058$

These findings substantiate the use of both specific subscale scores for granular behavioral profiling and an aggregated total score representing general perpetration severity.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Relational Pursuit Scale is formatted as a self-report behavioral questionnaire measuring the frequency of persistent, unwanted pursuit tactics enacted toward an individual who has not reciprocated or has rejected romantic interest.

Structural Characteristics

• Item Count: 28 behavioral items.
• Test Format: Standardized paper-and-pencil or secure computerized/online administration.
• Prompt / Direction: “Have you ever persistently pursued someone in unwanted ways by…”
• Response Format: 5-point ordinal frequency scale anchored as follows:
  • 0 = Never
  • 1 = Only Once
  • 2 = 2 or 3 Times
  • 3 = 4 to 5 Times
  • 4 = Over 5 times

Scoring Instructions

• Total Score Calculation: Items are summed across all 28 items. Total raw scores range from 0 to 112.
• Score Interpretation: Higher cumulative scores reflect greater intensity, chronicity, and severity of relational intrusion and stalking perpetration.
  • 0 – 5: Minimal / Normative post-relational contact attempt (isolated occurrence).
  • 6 – 15: Mild Relational Intrusion (predominantly non-threatening hyper-intimacy).
  • 16 – 35: Moderate Obsessive Relational Intrusion (persistent spatial/surveillance tactics).
  • 36+: Severe Relational Stalking and Coercive Intimidation (high risk for physical harm, legal intervention warranted).
• Subscale Scoring: Researchers can compute discrete subscale sums for Hyper-Intimacy (items 1–3), Surveillance/Proximity (items 4–7, 11–12), Covert Infiltration (items 8–10, 13–14, 17–18), and Coercive Threats/Violence (items 15, 16, 19–28).
• Adaptation for Victimization: While framed in the source text for perpetration assessment, the item prompts are easily modified to assess victimization (e.g., “Has someone ever persistently pursued you in unwanted ways by…”).

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Publication Year: The empirical foundations and initial item topologies were introduced in 2000 (Cupach & Spitzberg, Violence and Victims) and formally compiled in their definitive monograph published in 2004 (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).
• Inclusion in Federal Compendium: The scale is published in the public interest within the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publication: Measuring Intimate Partner Violence Victimization and Perpetration: A Compendium of Assessment Tools (Dahlberg et al., 2005, pp. 144–147).
• Permissions and Copyright: Copyright © 2004 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. (now Taylor & Francis Group). Academic researchers, educators, and clinicians are generally permitted to utilize the scale for non-commercial research, institutional evaluation, and clinical assessment without licensing fees, provided formal scholarly attribution is maintained. Commercial applications or reproduction within profit-generating assessment batteries require written permission from the copyright holders or authors.

12. References

• Cupach, W. R., & Spitzberg, B. H. (2000). Obsessive relational intrusion: Incidence, perceived severity, and coping. Violence and Victims, 15(4), 357–372. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.15.4.357
• Cupach, W. R., & Spitzberg, B. H. (2004). The dark side of relationship pursuit: From attraction to obsession and stalking. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410610225
• Cupach, W. R., & Spitzberg, B. H. (2014). Relational pursuit, obsessive relational intrusion, and stalking. In C. R. Agnew (Ed.), Social influences on romantic relationships: Beyond the dyad (pp. 248–278). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139049443.014
• Dahlberg, L. L., Toal, S. B., Swahn, M., & Behrens, C. B. (2005). Measuring intimate partner violence victimization and perpetration: A compendium of assessment tools. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/ipv/measuring_ipv_victimization-a.pdf
• Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (2007). The state of the art of stalking: Taking stock of the emerging literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12(1), 64–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2006.05.001
• Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (2008). Fanning the flames of unwanted pursuit: Emotion, goal linking, and obsessive relational intrusion. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(3), 477–498. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407508090869

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)