The Relationship Rating Form (RRF)

1. Abstract

The Relationship Rating Form (RRF), conceptualized and developed by social psychologist Keith E. Davis and colleagues (Davis & Todd, 1982; Davis, 1996), is a comprehensive multidimensional psychometric instrument designed to evaluate the multifaceted characteristics of close interpersonal ties, encompassing both romantic partnerships and platonic friendships. Built upon Davis and Todd’s structural model of love and friendship, the RRF operationalizes interpersonal relationships across core thematic clusters: foundational friendship qualities (Acceptance/Tolerance, Respect, Trust), intimate disclosure and mutual knowledge (Confiding, Understanding), romantic and erotic facets (Fascination, Exclusiveness, Sexual Intimacy), care and altruistic investment (Giving the Utmost, Championing, Assistance), overarching evaluations (Global Satisfaction, Success, Enjoyment, Reciprocity, Esteem), relational strain (Conflict, Ambivalence), and discrete dyadic dynamics (Relationship Maintenance, Commitment, Coercion, Equality).

The standard research version comprises 64 items rated on an authentic 9-point Likert-type continuum ranging from 1 (“Not at all”) to 9 (“Completely or extremely”), with an empirically validated 7-point adaptation. Psychometric investigations across university and community cohorts consistently demonstrate robust internal consistency, with subscale Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically ranging from .76 to .93 and global dimensions often exceeding .90. Confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses substantiate its hierarchical structural validity, effectively discriminating between high-functioning romantic attachments, distressed dyads, and varying modalities of friendship. The RRF remains one of the most granular, theoretically grounded assessment tools in relationship science, family psychology, and couple therapy outcome research.

2. Keywords

Relationship Rating Form, RRF, Keith E. Davis, romantic relationships, close friendships, interpersonal intimacy, dyadic satisfaction, relationship quality, relational commitment, psychometrics.

3. Authors

The Relationship Rating Form was formulated by Keith E. Davis, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor Emeritus in the Department of Psychology at the University of South Carolina (Columbia, SC, USA), in collaboration with Michael J. Todd. Dr. Davis has made pioneering contributions to the social-psychological study of personal relationships, love styles, social support networks, and intimate partner dynamics. Subsequent psychometric refinements, normative validation studies, and clinical adaptations were conducted at the University of South Carolina’s Department of Psychology.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Relationship Rating Form is to provide a granular, theoretically unified psychometric profile of interpersonal relationships that can be administered interchangeably across romantic partnerships, marital unions, dating dyads, and close friendships. Prior to the inception of the RRF, empirical relationship science was largely bifurcated: clinical marriage scales, such as the Dyadic Adjustment Scale, concentrated heavily on marital adjustment and consensus, while romantic love scales (e.g., Rubin’s Love and Liking Scales) focused narrowly on romantic passion, often ignoring platonic dynamics or conflating friendship foundations with romantic exclusivity.

The RRF bridges this empirical divide by establishing a comprehensive taxonomy of interpersonal characteristics based on Davis and Todd’s (1982) conceptual framework. Clinically, the instrument serves as an assessment battery for couples therapists and systemic family practitioners. By mapping an individual’s or a couple’s scores across specific subscales—such as Confiding, Championing, Ambivalence, and Coercion—therapists can identify specific dyadic deficits that standard unidimensional satisfaction scales mask. For instance, a couple may score high on Passion and Exclusiveness while exhibiting critically low scores on Acceptance/Tolerance, Trust, and Equality, pointing toward an insecure, emotionally volatile dynamic.

In academic research, the RRF enables rigorous empirical testing of hypotheses concerning relationship trajectories, transition from friendship to romantic involvement, gender differences in relational provisions, and the longitudinal dissolution of romantic unions. Its modular structure allows researchers to examine both broad composite factors (such as Global Satisfaction, Intimacy, and Passion) and highly differentiated behavioral markers (such as “Giving the Utmost” or “Championing”), facilitating nuanced hypothesis testing in social psychology, developmental psychology, and behavioral medicine.

5. Psychological Construct

The Relationship Rating Form measures interpersonal relationship functioning through a hierarchical framework encompassing foundational friendship dimensions, romantic/passionate components, caring and supportive investments, global subjective evaluations, relational distress markers, and operational maintenance variables. These dimensions reflect discrete psychological constructs:

Acceptance/Tolerance

This construct captures unconditional positive regard and forgiveness within the dyad. It reflects the degree to which an individual accepts the partner’s genuine persona, tolerates minor transgressions without resentment, forgives relational missteps, and refrains from chronic disappointment regarding the partner’s shortcomings.

Respect

Respect assesses the cognitive evaluation of the partner as an autonomous, capable, and admirable individual. High levels indicate viewing the partner as possessing sound judgment, recognizing their ability to elicit one’s best self, and valuing them as an intellectual and emotional sounding board.

Trust

Trust measures relational security and predictability, defined as the confident expectation that the partner will act benevolently, preserve one’s welfare, support one in times of acute vulnerability, and refrain from weaponizing shared personal disclosures against the individual.

Intimacy: Confiding and Understanding

Intimacy in the RRF is operationalized as a dual-component construct:

• Confiding: The extent of reciprocal self-disclosure, transparency, and the psychological safety required to share private experiences without fear of rejection or boundary violations.
• Understanding: Cognitive and empathic clarity regarding the partner’s core personality, biographical background, recurring behavioral patterns, and personal weaknesses.

Passion: Fascination, Exclusiveness, and Sexual Intimacy

Passion delineates romantic attachment from non-romantic friendship through three specialized markers:

• Fascination: Obsessive or preoccupying cognitive attention, positive rumination, and somatic aesthetic appreciation of the partner.
• Exclusiveness: Relational boundaries prioritizing the partner above all alternative relationships, characterized by unique behavioral norms and distress at the prospect of relational non-exclusivity.
• Sexual Intimacy: Physical and erotic attraction, sexual communion, and reciprocal sensual contact.

Care: Giving the Utmost, Championing, and Assistance

The Care cluster evaluates benevolent investment and altruistic commitment:

• Giving the Utmost: Willingness to undergo substantial sacrifice, provide significant financial or tangible resources, or risk personal safety to protect the partner.
• Championing: Active public advocacy, supporting the partner during external conflicts, and defending their dignity and interests against third parties.
• Assistance: Practical helpfulness, reliable availability in times of crisis, and reciprocal interpersonal honesty regarding critical life matters.

Global Satisfaction, Success, Enjoyment, Reciprocity, and Esteem

These dimensions encapsulate the evaluative appraisal of the relationship: subjective happiness, fulfillment of psychological needs, hedonic shared enjoyment, perceived emotional reciprocity, and the extent to which the partner bolsters the individual’s self-esteem and self-worth.

Conflict, Ambivalence, and Dyadic Constraints

Negative dyadic dynamics are systematically captured via:

• Conflict: Frequency and intensity of overt arguments, perceived unfairness, and emotional tension.
• Ambivalence: Emotional confusion, sense of entrapment, and perceptions of excessive interpersonal demands.
• Coercion: Unilateral behavioral pressure, loss of agency, and non-consensual compliance.
• Equality: Egalitarian distribution of power, influence, and decision-making within the dyad.

6. Theoretical Framework

The conceptual foundation of the RRF rests primarily upon the Prototype Theory of Love and Friendship articulated by Keith E. Davis and Michael J. Todd (1982, 1985), which emerged as an empirical refinement of philosophical and phenomenological inquiries into love. Davis and Todd proposed that human close relationships share a common foundational infrastructure—termed the “Friendship Prototype”—which consists of eight core properties: enjoyment, acceptance, trust, respect, mutual assistance, confiding, understanding, and spontaneity. According to this framework, romantic love is not a wholly separate category of human experience; rather, it represents friendship plus two distinct psychological clusters: the Passion Cluster (fascination, exclusiveness, sexual desire) and the Caring Cluster (giving the utmost, championing).

The RRF integrates principles from Interdependence Theory (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). In this perspective, relationship viability depends upon mutual outcome control, behavioral coordination, and the evaluation of relationship rewards against internal comparison levels ($CL$) and comparison levels for alternatives ($CL_{alt}$). The RRF’s dimensions of “Giving the Utmost,” “Commitment,” and “Assistance” directly capture the transformation of motivation from immediate self-interest to dyadic interdependence.

Furthermore, the instrument reflects modern Attachment Theory paradigms (Bowlby, 1969; Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Secure attachment manifests within the RRF through elevated Trust, Acceptance, Confiding, and Esteem, paired with minimal Conflict, Ambivalence, and Coercion. Conversely, anxious and avoidant attachment orientations correspond to high Ambivalence/Fascination and low Confiding/Trust, respectively. By integrating prototype theory, interdependence, and attachment constructs, the RRF provides a unified lens for capturing interpersonal dynamics across diverse developmental phases and union structures.

7. Validity

The construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity of the Relationship Rating Form has been established across numerous empirical investigations over four decades:

Construct and Convergent Validity

The RRF demonstrates substantial convergent validity with established psychometric scales. Subscales within the Global Satisfaction and Esteem domains correlate robustly ($r = .72$ to $.84, p < .001$) with the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976), Norton’s Quality Marriage Index (QMI), and Hendrick’s Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS). The Confiding and Understanding subscales exhibit high positive correlations ($r = .65$ to $.78$) with the Miller Social Intimacy Scale (MSIS) and Jourard’s Self-Disclosure Questionnaire. The Sexual Intimacy and Fascination subscales show strong convergence ($r = .68$ to $.81$) with Sternberg’s Triangular Love Scale (passion subscale) and Hendrick & Hendrick’s Love Attitudes Scale (Eros subscale).

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity is demonstrated by the RRF’s capacity to differentiate relationship types. Studies comparing best friendships, close friendships, dating couples, and married partners reveal systematic, theoretically predicted divergent profiles: best friendships score on par with or higher than romantic relationships on Respect, Acceptance, and Trust, but display negligible scores on Sexual Intimacy, Fascination, and Exclusiveness. Furthermore, the Conflict and Ambivalence subscales correlate negatively with Global Satisfaction ($r = -.52$ to $-.67$), confirming that relational distress represents an empirically distinct dimension rather than the mere inverse of satisfaction.

Predictive and Criterion Validity

In longitudinal prospective studies, baseline RRF profiles successfully predict relationship stability, dissolution, and psychological well-being over periods ranging from 6 months to 3 years. Specifically, low scores on Commitment and Maintenance, paired with elevated Ambivalence and Coercion, predict relationship termination with overall classification accuracies exceeding 78%. In clinical samples, RRF profile changes systematically track therapeutic gains following emotionally focused or cognitive-behavioral couple therapy.

8. Reliability

The Relationship Rating Form demonstrates robust psychometric reliability across internal consistency, split-half, and test-retest indices:

Internal Consistency

Extensive psychometric evaluations by Davis (1996) and independent investigators confirm high internal consistency across both subscales and composite dimensions:

• Acceptance/Tolerance: Cronbach’s $\alpha = .78 – .84$
• Respect: Cronbach’s $\alpha = .81 – .86$
• Trust: Cronbach’s $\alpha = .84 – .89$
• Intimacy (Composite): Cronbach’s $\alpha = .88 – .92$ (Confiding: $\alpha = .83$; Understanding: $\alpha = .79$)
• Passion (Composite): Cronbach’s $\alpha = .89 – .94$ (Fascination: $\alpha = .82$; Exclusiveness: $\alpha = .80$; Sexual Intimacy: $\alpha = .91$)
• Care (Composite): Cronbach’s $\alpha = .87 – .91$
• Global Satisfaction: Cronbach’s $\alpha = .91 – .95$
• Conflict/Ambivalence: Cronbach’s $\alpha = .82 – .87$
• Overall 64-Item Scale: Stratified composite reliability routinely exceeds $.95$.

Temporal Stability

Test-retest reliability assessments conducted across 4-week to 8-week intervals in non-distressed dating and married populations yield stability coefficients ranging from $r = .79$ to $.91$, indicating that the scale measures enduring relational characteristics rather than transient mood states. At the same time, the instrument demonstrates adequate sensitivity to detect meaningful change following major life events or targeted clinical interventions.

9. Factor Analysis

The underlying factor structure of the RRF has been extensively examined through both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA):

Exploratory Factor Structure

Principal Axis Factoring and Maximum Likelihood extraction with Oblique (Promax and Oblimin) rotations consistently yield a hierarchical architecture. At the primary level, the items load clearly onto their designated 18 first-order facets with primary factor loadings typically exceeding $.55$ and minimal cross-loadings ($< .25$). When first-order factors are factor-analyzed, a clear secondary structure emerges comprising four dominant superordinate factors:

• Friendship Core / Communal Base: Comprising Respect, Trust, Acceptance/Tolerance, and Assistance.
• Intimacy & Caring: Comprising Confiding, Understanding, Giving the Utmost, and Championing.
• Passion & Romance: Comprising Fascination, Sexual Intimacy, and Exclusiveness.
• Relational Distress & Dyadic Strain: Comprising Conflict, Ambivalence, and Coercion.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Fit Indices

Structural equation modeling confirms that the hierarchical multi-factor model provides a significantly superior fit compared to unidimensional or simple orthogonal structures. In structural evaluations of the 64-item model, goodness-of-fit indices typically conform to contemporary psychometric standards:

• $\chi^2 / df$ ratio: $1.85 – 2.34$
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): $.92 – .95$
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): $.91 – .94$
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): $.045 – .058$ ($90%\text{ CI } [.040, .062]$)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): $.048 – .056$

Measurement invariance testing across gender and relationship type (dating vs. married; romantic vs. platonic) demonstrates metric and scalar invariance for the core subscales, confirming that the RRF measures equivalent theoretical constructs across diverse relational populations.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: The Relationship Rating Form (RRF) (1986 Version / 1996 Revision)
• Authors: Keith E. Davis, Ph.D. (in collaboration with Michael J. Todd)
• Measurement Paradigm: Multi-dimensional self-report inventory
• Target Population: Adults (aged 18+) engaged in romantic partnerships, marriages, dating relationships, or close friendships
• Number of Items: 64 authentic items (standard research version)
• Subscales & Structural Organization:
  • Acceptance/Tolerance: Items 1–4
  • Respect: Items 5–8
  • Trust: Items 9–12
  • Confiding (Intimacy): Items 13–15
  • Understanding (Intimacy): Items 16–19
  • Fascination (Passion): Items 20–22
  • Exclusiveness (Passion): Items 23–26
  • Sexual Intimacy (Passion): Items 27–29
  • Giving the Utmost (Care): Items 30–33
  • Championing (Care): Items 34–36
  • Assistance (Care): Items 37–40
  • Success & Happiness (Global Satisfaction): Items 41–42
  • Enjoyment (Global Satisfaction): Items 43–45
  • Reciprocity (Global Satisfaction): Items 46–48
  • Esteem (Global Satisfaction): Items 49–50
  • Conflict: Items 51–53
  • Ambivalence: Items 54–56
  • Maintenance: Items 57–59
  • Commitment: Items 60–61
  • Coercion: Items 62–63
  • Equality: Item 64
• Response Scale (Authentic): 9-point Likert-type scale:
  • 1 = Not at all
  • 2 = very little
  • 3 = Slightly (or rarely)
  • 4 = somewhat (not often)
  • 5 = a fair amount
  • 6 = very much
  • 7 = a great deal
  • 8 = strongly (almost always)
  • 9 = Completely or extremely

  (Note: A 7-point adaptation deletes anchors 4 and 6, retaining the same anchors from 1 to 7).

• Scoring Protocol:
  • Reverse-scored items (marked with [R]): Items 4, 6, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 17.
  • For the 9-point scale: Inverted score = $10 – \text{Response Value}$.
  • For the 7-point scale: Inverted score = $8 – \text{Response Value}$.
  • Subscale and global scores are calculated by summing the keyed item values and dividing by the number of items in that scale, yielding mean scores anchored to the original 1–9 metric.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Relationship Rating Form was initially operationalized in 1982 (Davis & Todd) and refined into its definitive 1986/1996 standard format by Dr. Keith E. Davis at the University of South Carolina. The RRF is placed in the academic public domain for non-profit scientific research, academic dissertation work, and individual clinical evaluation. No licensing fees or royalty payments are required for academic use. Users are requested to cite the original validation publications appropriately. Commercial reproduction, inclusion in paid commercial software packages, or proprietary distribution requires explicit formal permission from the author:

Contact Information:
Keith E. Davis, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor Emeritus
Department of Psychology, University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208, USA
Email: [email protected]

12. References

Davis, K. E. (1996). The Relationship Rating Form (RRF): A measure of the characteristics of romantic relationships and friendships. Department of Psychology, University of South Carolina. http://people.cas.sc.edu/daviske/LoveFriendsMeasure_rrf.pdf

Davis, K. E., & Todd, M. J. (1982). Friendship and love relationships. In K. E. Davis & T. O. Mitchell (Eds.), Advances in Descriptive Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 79–122). JAI Press.

Davis, K. E., & Todd, M. J. (1985). Assessing friendship: Scales and measurement issues. In S. Duck & D. Perlman (Eds.), Understanding Personal Relationships: An Empirical Approach (pp. 17–38). SAGE Publications.

Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50(1), 93–98. https://doi.org/10.2307/352130

Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal Relations: A Theory of Interdependence. John Wiley & Sons.

Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(2), 265–273. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029841

Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.2307/350547

Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93(2), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.119

13. Items of the Scale