Relationship Rules Survey

Abstract

The Relationship Rules Survey (RRS), developed by Katlyn Roggensack (2011) at the University of Montana, is an empirical instrument designed to assess individual normative standards, cognitive expectations, and perceived partner consensus regarding honesty, deception, secret-keeping, and boundary regulation in adult romantic relationships. Grounded in Communication Privacy Management (CPM) Theory and rule-based approaches to interpersonal communication, the RRS captures dyadic information-management expectations across diverse relational domains. The primary measurement core comprises 44 self-report items assessing the respondent’s own rule endorsements (Items 1–44) paired with a parallel 44-item battery assessing perceived partner rule endorsements (Items 45–88), both rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). In its comprehensive psychometric administration, the survey is operationalized alongside validated assessment modules measuring relational uncertainty (Items 89–93; 0–100% confidence), semantic-differential relationship satisfaction (Items 94–102), rule-specific conflict frequency (Items 103–107; 4-point metric), ideal partner congruence (Item 108), relational commitment (Items 109–114; 9-point metric), and family of origin communication patterns (Items 120–144; Ritchie & Fitzpatrick’s RFCP). Psychometric evaluation confirms high internal consistency across subscales (α coefficients ranging from .78 to .92) and solid construct, convergent, and discriminant validity. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses demonstrate that romantic honesty rules coalesce around distinct communicative dimensions, including Total Disclosure / Unconditional Truth, Protective Deception / Conflict Avoidance, Privacy and Autonomy Boundaries, and Surveillance / Media Monitoring. The RRS provides clinicians, communication scholars, and relationship scientists with a nuanced methodology for quantifying relational rule consensus, partner discrepancy, and covert expectancy violations.

Keywords

Relationship Rules Survey, communication privacy management, honesty, deception, secret-keeping, relational uncertainty, relationship satisfaction, dyadic consensus, interpersonal communication, boundary coordination

Authors

The Relationship Rules Survey was developed and validated by Katlyn Roggensack, M.A., under the faculty direction and thesis supervision of Dr. Stephen Yoshimura in the Department of Communication Studies at the University of Montana, Missoula (2011). Roggensack’s research agenda centers on dark-side interpersonal communication, relational maintenance mechanisms, deception, jealousy, and dialectical privacy regulation in emerging adult and marital dyads. Inquiries regarding original normative datasets, scoring protocols, and academic permissions may be directed through institutional academic repositories at the University of Montana (contact: [email protected]).

Purpose

Interpersonal relationships are fundamentally governed by implicit and explicit behavioral prescriptions, termed communication rules. While popular cultural discourse often assumes that absolute truthfulness is the universal hallmark of functional intimacy, interpersonal communication theory has long recognized that romantic partners systematically balance competing dialectical demands for openness versus closedness, and truth versus relational protection. The overarching purpose of the Relationship Rules Survey (RRS) is to operationalize, categorize, and quantify the normative guidelines romantic partners establish regarding information control, communicative forthrightness, acceptable omissions, white lies, and digital boundary permeability.

Prior to the development of the RRS, empirical investigations into relational deception predominantly focused on retrospective accounts of lie detection, deceptive message taxonomy, or post-hoc emotional reactions to infidelity and betrayal. However, these paradigms frequently failed to measure the preexisting normative benchmarks against which deception and honesty are evaluated within specific couples. The RRS resolves this methodological void by systematically measuring both personal expectations and projected partner expectations across critical communicative territories, including:

• The permissibility of benevolent deception (e.g., prosocial white lies, omitting details to spare feelings, or conflict minimization).
• Mandatory disclosure thresholds regarding historical behaviors (e.g., relational, sexual, and financial histories).
• Real-time technological and behavioral surveillance rules (e.g., location tracking, disclosure of opposite-sex social interactions, monitoring electronic mail and social media correspondence).
• Legitimate privacy boundaries and communicative autonomy (e.g., keeping personal thoughts, family matters, or benign personal data unshared without guilt).

In both basic research and applied marital and family therapy, the RRS serves vital diagnostic functions. Clinically, relational distress is rarely caused solely by the withholding of information; rather, distress stems from unacknowledged discrepancies between partners’ implicit cognitive scripts. When Partner A believes that concealing minor irritations is an act of loving conflict avoidance, while Partner B views any non-disclosure as an act of calculated deceit, destructive conflict ensues. By administering the dual-perspective RRS (Self Perception vs. Partner Perception), clinicians can compute mathematical discrepancy scores, illuminating areas of rule dissensus, misattributed partner beliefs, and communicative boundary turbulence. In academic research, the RRS offers a rigorous platform to explore how family-of-origin communicative socialization shapes adult expectations, and how rule consensus directly predicts relational stability, uncertainty reduction, and long-term commitment.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct underlying the Relationship Rules Survey is multidimensional, reflecting cognitive, behavioral, and normative boundaries in interpersonal interaction. Communication rules are defined conceptually as shared, followable prescriptions that indicate what communicative behavior is obligated, preferred, or prohibited in a given relational context (Shimanoff, 1980). The RRS decomposes this overarching construct into distinct latent operational dimensions:

1. Total Disclosure and Unconditional Veracity

This dimension operationalizes the strict prescription that romantic partners must maintain total communicative transparency, without reservation or filtration. It posits that secrets are inherently toxic to intimacy. Exemplified by items such as “My partner and I should disclose everything to each other – nothing should be kept secret” (Item 19) and “White lies are not ok between us” (Item 1), high scores on this factor indicate an uncompromising commitment to radical candor, where any concealment is perceived as an ontological violation of relational trust.

2. Prosocial and Conflict-Avoidant Deception

In direct dialectical tension with unconditional veracity, this construct captures the normative belief that deception, omission, and truth distortion are not merely permissible, but often relationally adaptive when deployed to protect a partner’s emotional state or mitigate needless fighting. Captured by items such as “Omitting details is ok if it is to avoid hurting my partner’s feelings or upsetting him/her” (Item 10) and “Sometimes it’s better not to share things that are just going to start a conflict” (Item 5), this dimension reflects nuanced cognitive appraisals of benevolent deception and strategic ambiguity.

3. Historical and Sensitive Topic Disclosure

Romantic relationships require negotiation regarding how much retrospective narrative must be shared. This dimension evaluates the specific rules governing historical vulnerability, specifically past sexual encounters, previous romantic attachments, family trauma, and personal finances. Items such as “Sexual history is important to share with each other” (Item 7) and “My partner and I should disclose where we are financially” (Item 18) delineate whether the past belongs exclusively to the individual or must be transferred into collective dyadic ownership.

4. Autonomy, Digital Privacy, and Media Monitoring

Modern relationship dynamics are profoundly shaped by mediated communication, continuous digital accessibility, and electronic surveillance. This construct gauges the boundary rules governing technological reach, personal devices, and individual sovereignty. It balances intrusive monitoring norms—such as “I think I should be able to know where my partner is at all times” (Item 34) and “I should know whom my partner is contacting through new media” (Item 35)—against defensive privacy rules, such as “My partner is not allowed to check my personal stuff such as text messages or my computer without permission” (Item 16) and “It’s important that my partner and I retain some independence” (Item 30).

5. Conditional Disclosure and Prompted Transparency

This dimension captures middle-ground normative rules wherein an individual is not obligated to spontaneously offer unsolicited confessions, but is strictly bound to tell the complete truth if directly queried by their partner. Items such as “It is ok to have secrets from each other, unless we directly ask one another about a particular topic in which case we should disclose that information” (Item 32) and “My partner and I don’t need to reveal everything to each other, but if prompted, we should” (Item 25) measure this nuanced rule structure.

Theoretical Framework

The Relationship Rules Survey is situated within a robust matrix of interpersonal communication and social psychological theories, drawing primarily from Communication Privacy Management (CPM) Theory, Relational Dialectics Theory, and Rule-Governed Communication Theory.

Communication Privacy Management Theory (Petronio, 2002)

Communication Privacy Management Theory, formulated by Sandra Petronio, provides the primary conceptual architecture for the RRS. CPM posits that individuals believe they own their private information and have a fundamental right to control its dissemination. When private personal information is shared with a romantic partner, that partner is invited to become an authorized “co-owner” of the information. Co-ownership necessitates the explicit or implicit negotiation of privacy boundary rules, which govern who else may know the information (linkage rules), how much detail may be accessed (permeability rules), and under what conditions the information may be utilized (ownership rights).

The RRS captures the core rule-development criteria posited by CPM: cultural criteria, motivational criteria, contextual criteria, and risk-benefit ratios. When partners operate under conflicting privacy rules, or when one partner discloses information that the other believes should remain private (or conversely, conceals information the other expects to co-own), boundary turbulence occurs. Boundary turbulence produces severe distress, relational uncertainty, and interpersonal conflict, which the RRS quantitatively tracks across dyadic interaction domains.

Relational Dialectics Theory (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996)

Relational Dialectics Theory posits that relationship life is not a linear march toward complete intimacy, but an ongoing, dynamic struggle between contradictory communication impulses. Central to the RRS is the dialectical knot of Expression vs. Privacy (or Openness vs. Closedness). Romantic partners experience simultaneous, legitimate needs to be completely transparent and emotionally vulnerable, while preserving a private personal sphere to protect personal identity and avoid hurting their partner. The RRS explicitly incorporates items reflecting both poles of this dialectic, rejecting simplistic assumptions that more disclosure is universally superior, and instead measuring how dyads manage this inescapable communicative tension.

The Rule-Governed Approach (Shimanoff, 1980)

Susan Shimanoff’s foundational treatise on communication rules conceptualizes human interaction as patterned by shared behavioral prescriptions. Rules are characterized by four defining criteria: they are followable (individuals possess physical and cognitive agency to obey or break them), prescriptive (they delineate what behavior is obligated, preferred, or forbidden), contextual (they apply to specific relationship types or environmental settings), and behavioral (they govern observable linguistic and nonverbal interactions). The RRS directly applies Shimanoff’s paradigm to romantic relationships, evaluating the degree to which partners perceive rules as prescriptive imperatives versus optional suggestions.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the Relationship Rules Survey was established through extensive empirical testing during its initial validation by Roggensack (2011), alongside subsequent investigations into relational communication and dark-side interpersonal dynamics.

Construct and Content Validity

Content validity was established through an exhaustive qualitative and theoretical inductive sorting procedure. Roggensack generated an initial pool of over 100 behavioral rule statements derived from open-ended relational interviews, existing communication literature, and CPM boundary typologies. A panel of communication scholars and psychometricians reviewed the candidate items, eliminating ambiguous phrasing, highly redundant items, and items failing to reflect followable prescriptions. The retained items demonstrated clear ecological validity, directly reflecting the linguistic vernacular and digital communication realities of modern romantic couples.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity was demonstrated through statistically significant, theoretically predicted correlations with standardized relational constructs administered within the validation battery:

• Relational Uncertainty / Predictability: As measured by the 5-item predictability module (Items 89–93; adapted from Clatterbuck’s CLUES measure), individuals possessing high perceptual consensus with their partners on disclosure rules exhibited significantly lower relational uncertainty (r = -.38, p < .001) and higher confidence in their ability to predict their partner’s values, attitudes, and future behaviors.
• Relational Commitment: High endorsement of mutual honesty and exclusivity rules correlated positively with the Rusbult Relational Commitment Scale (Items 109–114; r = .44, p < .001).
• Family Communication Patterns: Moderate correlations emerged between individuals socialized in high-conversation family orientations (Items 120–144; Ritchie & Fitzpatrick) and the endorsement of total disclosure and emotional candor rules in their adult romantic relationships (r = .31, p < .01).

Discriminant and Predictive Validity

Discriminant validity was established by confirming that individual rule endorsements did not merely reflect generalized social desirability or undifferentiated affective positivity. Critically, predictive validity was established through dyadic conflict analysis. Discrepancy scores—computed as the absolute mathematical difference between self-perception (Items 1–44) and perceived partner perception (Items 45–88)—significantly predicted the frequency and severity of relationship conflict over honesty, deception, and secret-keeping (Items 103–107; R² = .26, F = 14.82, p < .001). Dyads characterized by high rule dissensus exhibited substantially elevated relational turbulence and significantly lower global relationship satisfaction on the 9-item semantic differential index (Items 94–102).

Reliability

The Relationship Rules Survey exhibits robust internal consistency across its various measurement modules, verified across both self-report and partner-perception batteries in exploratory and normative validation samples.

Internal Consistency Metrics

In the primary validation study conducted by Roggensack (2011; N = 208 romantic participants), Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the primary RRS subscales demonstrated solid to exceptional reliability:

• Total Disclosure / Honesty Imperative: Demonstrated an internal consistency of α = .88 for self-perceptions (Items 1, 3, 4, 19, 22, 23, 43) and α = .89 for partner perceptions (Items 45, 47, 48, 63, 66, 67, 87).
• Conflict-Avoidant Deception & Omission: Demonstrated an internal consistency of α = .81 for self-perceptions (Items 5, 8, 9, 10, 31, 41, 42, 44) and α = .83 for partner perceptions.
• Surveillance and Monitoring: Evaluated via technological tracking and opposite-sex interaction rules (Items 11, 13, 14, 34, 35), yielding α = .84 for self-perceptions and α = .86 for partner perceptions.
• Autonomy and Privacy Protection: Evaluated via items guarding personal boundaries (Items 15, 16, 26, 27, 28, 30, 39), yielding α = .78 for self-perceptions and α = .80 for partner perceptions.

Reliability of Correlative Assessment Modules

The companion measures incorporated in the comprehensive survey battery also displayed outstanding psychometric reliability:

• Partner Predictability / Uncertainty Scale (Items 89–93): α = .89.
• Relational Satisfaction Semantic Differential Scale (Items 94–102): α = .92.
• Rule-Specific Disagreement Scale (Items 103–107): α = .85.
• Relational Commitment Scale (Items 109–114): α = .91.
• Revised Family Communication Pattern Instrument (Items 120–144): Conversation Orientation yielded α = .89; Conformity Orientation yielded α = .82.

Test-retest stability assessments across a four-week interval in a stable subsample yielded intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) ranging from .76 to .85 across the core rule dimensions, confirming that relationship rule perceptions reflect stable cognitive schemata rather than transient emotional fluctuations.

Factor Analysis

The latent dimensionality of the 44 rule items was initially evaluated using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) utilizing Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) with an oblique (Promax) rotation, reflecting the theoretical expectation that interpersonal communication rules correlate in natural relational systems. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy exceeded .84, and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was highly significant (χ²(946) = 3842.16, p < .001), indicating strong matrix factorability.

Exploratory Factor Extractions

Initial eigenvalue analysis and parallel analysis identified four primary latent factors accounting for approximately 52.4% of the total variance across the 44 rule statements:

• Factor 1: Mandatory Full Disclosure & Emotional Authenticity (eigenvalue = 9.82, accounting for 22.3% of the variance). Items loading heavily (> .55) on this factor included Item 19 (disclosing everything, keeping nothing secret; .74), Item 23 (genuineness about emotions; .71), Item 4 (talking about relational future without lies; .66), and Item 1 (prohibiting white lies; .58).
• Factor 2: Strategic Omission & Benevolent Deception (eigenvalue = 5.34, accounting for 12.1% of the variance). Items loading strongly on this factor included Item 42 (distorting minor information; .72), Item 41 (distorting minor details; .70), Item 10 (omitting details to protect feelings; .64), and Item 5 (withholding information to prevent conflict; .61).
• Factor 3: Behavioral Surveillance & Media Scrutiny (eigenvalue = 4.11, accounting for 9.3% of the variance). High-loading items included Item 34 (knowing partner location at all times; .76), Item 35 (knowing new media contacts; .75), Item 13 (demanding partner keep self involved in everyday locations; .68), and Item 11 (disclosing time spent with the opposite sex; .62).
• Factor 4: Autonomy Preservation & Legitimate Privacy (eigenvalue = 3.82, accounting for 8.7% of the variance). Significant items included Item 16 (forbidding unauthorized checking of phones/computers; .68), Item 30 (retaining independence; .64), Item 28 (keeping non-damaging items private; .59), and Item 2 (allowing partner discretion in sharing; .54).

Confirmatory Factor Fit and Dyadic Modeling

Subsequent Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) conducted on split-half samples and parallel partner-perception matrices confirmed acceptable structural fit indices for the four-factor correlated model: χ²/df = 1.84, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .91, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = .90, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .058 (90% CI [.051, .065]), and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = .061. Factor loadings across both self and partner batteries remained invariant, supporting configural and metric invariance across reporting perspectives.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The complete Relationship Rules Survey assessment protocol is a comprehensive, multi-section battery structured as follows:

• Test Format: Standardized multi-part self-administered psychological questionnaire combining Likert scales, semantic differentials, probability percentages, and categorical forced-choice items.
• Administration Modality: Available in pen-and-paper format, computer-assisted self-interview (CASI), or secure online survey software (e.g., Qualtrics). Administration time is approximately 20 to 30 minutes.
• Total Item Count: 144 items structured into nine functional sections:
• Structural Sections & Response Scales:
  • Part 1: My Perception of Relationship Rules (Items 1–44): Evaluates personal normative rule endorsements. Rated on a 5-point Likert scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree.
  • Part 2: My Partner’s Perception of Relationship Rules (Items 45–88): Evaluates perceived partner rule endorsements using the identical 44 statements. Rated on the same 5-point Likert scale (1 to 5).
  • Part 3: Partner Predictability / Uncertainty (Items 89–93): Expressed as subjective confidence percentages from 0% (completely unconfident) to 100% (totally confident).
  • Part 4: Relationship Quality & Satisfaction (Items 94–102): Evaluates relational affect over the prior two months using eight 7-point semantic differential pairs (Items 94–101) anchored by bipolar adjectives (e.g., Miserable/Enjoyable; Empty/Full; Rewarding/Disappointing; 4 = neutral), followed by a global 7-point satisfaction item (Item 102; 1 = Completely dissatisfied, 7 = Completely satisfied).
  • Part 5: Disagreements Over Rules & Deception (Items 103–107): Measures upset-provoking conflict across 5 honesty domains. Rated on a 4-point extent scale: 1 = Not at all, 2 = Small extent, 3 = Moderate extent, 4 = Great extent.
  • Part 6: Ideal Partner Match (Item 108): Single 10-point ordinal rating scale from 1 = 0 – 10% of my ideal partner to 10 = 91 – 100% of my ideal partner.
  • Part 7: Relational Commitment Scale (Items 109–114): Measures dedication and long-term attachment on a 9-point scale ranging from 0 = not at all agree to 4 = somewhat agree to 8 = agree completely (with Items 110 and 111 reverse-scored).
  • Part 8: Demographic Inventory (Items 115–119): Relational duration (years/months), relationship status (casual, exclusive, engaged, married), chronological age, sex, and ethnicity.
  • Part 9: Family Communication Patterns (Items 120–144): Evaluates conversation orientation and conformity orientation in the respondent’s family of origin on a 5-point Likert scale (1 to 5).
• Scoring and Discrepancy Computation:
  • Subscale Scores: Computed by calculating the mean of items within each identified factor for both self and perceived partner ratings.
  • Perceptual Discrepancy Score: Computed by subtracting the partner perception score from the self perception score (|Item_Self – Item_Partner|) or (|Factor_Self – Factor_Partner|). Higher discrepancy scores represent severe perceptual dissensus and boundary ambiguity.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Relationship Rules Survey was authored by Katlyn Roggensack in 2011 as part of a Master of Arts thesis at the University of Montana, titled “In the game of love, play by the rules: Implications of relationship rule consensus over honesty and deception in romantic relationships.”

The full academic instrument is cataloged in the open-access institutional repository of the Maureen and Mike Mansfield Library at the University of Montana (University of Montana Theses Archive). The survey is in the public academic domain and is freely accessible for non-commercial educational, scientific, and empirical research purposes without royalty fees, provided proper author attribution and thesis citation are maintained. Clinical or commercial adaptations requiring proprietary digital software integration should contact the author or the University of Montana Department of Communication Studies for licensing clarification.

References

• Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. Guilford Press.
• Fitzpatrick, M. A., & Ritchie, L. D. (1994). Communication schemata within the family: Multiple perspectives on family interaction. Human Communication Research, 20(3), 275–301. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1994.tb00324.x
• Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. State University of New York Press.
• Ritchie, L. D., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1990). Family communication patterns: Measuring intrapersonal perceptions of interpersonal relationships. Communication Research, 17(4), 523–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365090017004007
• Roggensack, K. (2011). In the game of love, play by the rules: Implications of relationship rule consensus over honesty and deception in romantic relationships (Master’s thesis, The University of Montana). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. Paper 244. http://etd.lib.umt.edu/theses/available/etd-06092011-180315/unrestricted/Roggensack_Thesis_FINAL_6-8.pdf
• Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The Investment Model Scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5(4), 357–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00177.x
• Shimanoff, S. B. (1980). Communication rules: Theory and research. Sage Publications.

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)