The Personal and Relationships Profile (PRP)

1. Abstract

The Personal and Relationships Profile (PRP) is an extensive, multi-dimensional psychometric instrument designed to evaluate personal risk factors, developmental histories, individual psychopathology, and dyadic interaction patterns associated with intimate partner violence (IPV) and relationship conflict. Developed by prominent family violence researcher Murray A. Straus and colleagues at the Family Research Laboratory of the University of New Hampshire, the PRP addresses the critical need for a comprehensive assessment battery capable of measuring both individual vulnerability factors and relationship-specific systemic dynamics in cross-sectional, longitudinal, and clinical settings. Comprising 187 self-report items, the PRP operationalizes 25 distinct psychometric scales categorized into two overarching domains: 17 scales assessing individual characteristics, developmental histories, and personal risk markers (such as antisocial personality symptoms, borderline personality traits, criminal history, depressive symptomatology, gender hostility, physical and sexual abuse history, neglect, and substance abuse), and 8 scales measuring couple-specific relational dynamics (such as anger management deficits, communication breakdowns, interpersonal conflict, dominance, jealousy, negative attribution, commitment, and relationship distress).

Items are formatted using a 4-point Likert response scale ranging from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 4 (“Strongly Agree”). Extensive normative and validation studies across diverse civilian, clinical, and university samples have documented sound psychometric properties, with subscale internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) generally ranging between .61 and .87 across male and female respondents. Confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses substantiate the multifactorial structural validity of the PRP, demonstrating marked convergence with established clinical criteria from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), criminal justice recidivism metrics, and observational measures of intimate conflict. By synthesizing intrapersonal psychopathology with systemic dyadic communication patterns, the PRP serves as an indispensable diagnostic and empirical tool for clinical psychologists, couple therapists, forensic evaluators, and relationship researchers seeking to identify etiologic pathways toward conflict escalation and perpetrate evidence-based clinical interventions.

2. Keywords

Personal and Relationships Profile, PRP, intimate partner violence, Murray A. Straus, relationship conflict, dyadic assessment, psychopathology, borderline personality symptoms, antisocial traits, partner aggression, forensic assessment, couples therapy

3. Authors

The Personal and Relationships Profile was developed by Murray A. Straus, Ph.D. (1926–2016), an internationally recognized sociologist and founder of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire, alongside his research collaborators at the Family Research Laboratory.

• Murray A. Straus, Ph.D.: Professor of Sociology and Co-Director of the Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire, United States. Renowned worldwide for pioneering the Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS and CTS2) and extensive empirical research on family violence, corporal punishment, and intimate aggression across multiple decades.
• Collaborating Researchers & Psychometricians: Members of the Family Violence Research Program and the Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire.
• Institutional Affiliation & Archival Contact: Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire, Horton Social Science Center, 20 Academic Way, Durham, NH 03824, USA. Archival resource materials, scoring programs, and instrument manuals remain documented via the academic repository at University of New Hampshire Faculty Pages.

4. Purpose

The primary clinical and empirical purpose of the Personal and Relationships Profile (PRP) is to deliver an exhaustive, multidimensional profile of the proximal and distal etiology underlying intimate relationship distress, marital breakdown, and physical, psychological, or sexual aggression between intimate partners. While instruments such as the Conflict Tactics Scales focus directly on measuring the incidence, frequency, and severity of aggressive behaviors, the PRP was intentionally constructed to capture the underlying personality characteristics, trauma histories, cognitive styles, social-cognitive distortions, and dyadic processes that elevate the statistical risk of relationship dysfunction and conflict escalation.

Clinically, the PRP is deployed across a range of diagnostic, rehabilitative, and forensic environments. In batterer intervention programs (BIPs) and mandated court-ordered partner abuse treatment initiatives, the PRP provides intake clinicians with a granular mapping of criminogenic needs, underlying personality pathology (such as borderline emotional dysregulation or antisocial rule-breaking), substance abuse tendencies, and denial/minimization mechanisms via its limited disclosure scale. Because traditional intervention programs frequently adopt one-size-fits-all psychoeducational curricula, the multidimensional nature of the PRP facilitates clinical subtyping, allowing clinicians to differentiate between “family-only” aggressors, “dysphoric-borderline” partners, and “generally violent-antisocial” perpetrators, tailoring targeted interventions to address trauma, emotional regulation, or cognitive distortions directly.

In outpatient couples therapy, marital counseling, and family dispute mediation, the PRP provides systemic therapists with an objective inventory of reciprocal relational vulnerabilities. Therapists utilize the dyadic subscales—including Communication Problems, Negative Attribution, Dominance, Jealousy, and Conflict—to pinpoint the transactional loops that transform minor daily grievances into severe clinical distress. Furthermore, the inclusion of historical scales assessing childhood corporal punishment, witnessing interparental violence, childhood sexual abuse, and parental neglect enables clinicians to trace transgenerational trauma transmissions that subconsciously govern contemporary relational expectations.

In academic research, the PRP provides behavioral scientists, sociologists, criminologists, and clinical psychologists with a standardized psychometric engine to test multivariate models of partner violence, dyadic concordance, and relationship satisfaction. The instrument’s dual assessment of individual-level attributes and relational interaction dynamics enables researchers to test complex interactional models, such as whether high partner dominance predicts aggression only in the presence of low anger management or high borderline personality traits. Its public availability and dedicated scoring protocols have solidified its status as a benchmark self-report instrument in family violence research globally.

5. Psychological Construct

The Personal and Relationships Profile operationalizes a multidimensional conceptualization of partner functioning, partitioning risk into 25 discrete scales organized under two overarching domains: 17 scales evaluating individual characteristics, developmental histories, and intrapersonal functioning, and 8 scales evaluating couple-specific relational dynamics.

Individual Characteristics and Developmental History Scales (17 Scales)

• Antisocial Personality Symptoms (ASP): Assesses disregard for the rights of others, pervasive deceitfulness, impulsivity, physical destructiveness, and behavioral non-compliance across educational and occupational settings, aligning with DSM criteria for antisocial personality organization (e.g., deliberate destruction of property, chronic lying).
• Borderline Personality Symptoms (BOR): Measures pervasive affective instability, chronic feelings of emptiness, extreme fear of abandonment, identity diffusion, self-harming ideation, and split object representations characterized by idealization and devaluation (e.g., rapidly alternating between viewing the partner as perfect or terrible).
• Criminal History (CH): Evaluates past delinquent and illegal behaviors, including property theft, violent assaults, and juvenile delinquency occurring both prior to and after age 15.
• Depressive Symptoms (DEP): Measures core cognitive, affective, and somatic indicators of unipolar depression, including persistent sadness, anhedonia, passive or active suicidal ideation, and psychomotor exhaustion.
• Gender Hostility to Men (GHM): Assesses generalized stereotyping, suspicion, resentment, and hostile attributions directed toward men as a social and relational collective (e.g., viewing men as inherently dishonest, rude, or abusive).
• Gender Hostility to Women (GHW): Evaluates pervasive misogynistic attitudes, resentment, and negative attributions directed toward women, reflecting entrenched ideological hostility that frequently underpins gendered intimate violence.
• Limited Disclosure (LD): Functions as an impression-management and defensiveness validity scale, detecting social desirability biases, minimization of personal faults, and unwillingness to acknowledge normative moral failings (e.g., claiming to never feel irritated or always being a good listener).
• Neglect History (NH): Documents severe developmental omissions in parental caregiving during childhood, including physical neglect (lack of hygiene, inadequate clothing) and emotional neglect (lack of comfort and failure to support educational growth).
• Positive Parenting (POS): Measures perceived retrospective parental support, emotional availability, cognitive guidance, and positive behavioral reinforcement during childhood.
• Post-Traumatic Stress Symptoms (PTS): Measures persistent psychological sequelae of severe past trauma, including intrusive re-experiencing, trauma-related nightmares, hyperarousal (easily startled, constant threat monitoring), and cognitive avoidance of traumatic triggers.
• Sexual Abuse History (SAH): Assesses explicit retrospective experiences of childhood sexual abuse prior to age 18, differentiating between intra-familial and extra-familial victimization by adults or peers.
• Self-Control (SC): Measures generalized executive functioning, trait conscientiousness, capacity for delayed gratification, and the cognitive regulation of immediate impulses.
• Social Integration (SI): Assesses the individual’s embeddedness within supportive social and familial networks, community engagement, and availability of instrumental and emotional external resources.
• Stressful Conditions (STR): Quantifies the presence of severe proximal environmental stressors, including financial strain, chronic food insecurity, and substandard or chaotic living environments.
• Substance Abuse (SUB): Measures alcohol and illicit drug misuse, binge drinking patterns, tolerance, substance-induced amnesia (blackouts), and formal clinical treatment history for addiction.
• Violence Approval (VA): Measures explicit pro-violence norms, cognitive acceptance of physical retaliation, endorsement of interpersonal aggression as an acceptable dispute-resolution mechanism, and victim-blaming attitudes regarding sexual assault.
• Violent Socialization (VS): Documents direct childhood exposure to violence, including experiencing severe parental corporal punishment, witnessing interparental domestic violence, and parental encouragement to engage in physical retaliation against peers.

Couple Relationships Scales (8 Scales)

• Anger Management (AM): Measures capacity to down-regulate physiological and affective arousal during partner disputes, recognize emotional escalation triggers, and implement constructive de-escalation strategies (e.g., taking time-outs).
• Communication Problems (CP): Evaluates chronic avoidance of constructive problem-solving, passive-aggressive communication, verbal withholding, and inability to resolve core relationship conflicts.
• Conflict (CON): Quantifies the subjective frequency and breadth of disagreements across primary relational domains, including finances, public affection, sexual frequency, in-laws, and domestic roles.
• Dominance (DOM): Measures an authoritarian need for interpersonal control, demanding ultimate decision-making authority, monitoring the partner’s actions, and asserting patriarchal or personal dominance over the partner.
• Jealousy (JEL): Evaluates hypervigilant, possessive, and suspicious affective responses to perceived or real emotional, conversational, or physical attention paid by the partner to third parties.
• Negative Attribution (NA): Assesses hostile attributional biases regarding the partner’s motives, viewing the partner’s neutral or irritating behaviors as deliberate, malicious, or intentionally designed to cause distress.
• Relationship Commitment (RC): Measures subjective emotional investment in the long-term continuation of the dyad, willingness to sacrifice personal preferences for the partnership, and adherence to relational persistence.
• Relationship Distress (RD): Evaluates pervasive relationship dissatisfaction, subjective evaluation of relationship deterioration, doubts regarding durability, and explicit contemplation of dissolution.

6. Theoretical Framework

The Personal and Relationships Profile is conceptually anchored within an ecological and social-interactional theoretical architecture, most prominently synthesizing Urie Bronfenbrenner’s social ecological model of human development, Albert Bandura’s social learning theory, Donald Dutton’s nested ecological model of partner abuse, and family systems theory.

Murray Straus posited that relational distress and interpersonal violence cannot be understood exclusively through single-variable paradigms—such as purely intra-individual psychopathology or purely socio-structural patriarchy. Rather, the etiology of intimate conflict emerges from the transactional intersection of multiple nested systems:

• Ontogenetic Level (Individual History & Personality): The PRP explicitly operationalizes ontogenetic factors through scales capturing childhood developmental adversity (Violent Socialization, Neglect History, Sexual Abuse History) alongside established individual psychopathological profiles (Antisocial Personality Symptoms, Borderline Personality Symptoms, Depressive Symptoms). Following attachment theory (John Bowlby) and Dutton’s trauma-based personality paradigms, individuals exposed to severe childhood maltreatment frequently develop borderline personality traits, characterized by hyper-reactivity to abandonment, pervasive emotional dysregulation, and an inability to maintain stable mental representations of others. When activated within an intimate partnership, these internal working models yield intense relational instability and affective volatility.
• Microsystemic Level (The Dyad as a System): Guided by social-interactional and family systems theories (such as the work of Gerald Patterson and John Gottman), the PRP recognizes that the intimate dyad constitutes an interconnected social unit with its own emergent properties. Relational processes are operationalized through the 8 Couple Relationships scales. Gottman’s research on negative affect reciprocity and destructive communication styles is directly reflected in the PRP’s measurement of Negative Attribution, Dominance, and Communication Problems. When partners perceive each other through hostile attributional lenses, benign missteps are interpreted as deliberate attacks, sparking defensive escalation cycles that rapidly outpace either partner’s capacity for anger management.
• Exosystemic and Sociocultural Levels (Environmental Stress & Cultural Norms): Social learning theory underscores how behavioral repertoires and normative cognitive schemas are internalized through modeling and environmental reinforcement. The PRP’s Violence Approval and Violent Socialization scales capture the cultural and familial transmission of violent norms—the explicit belief that physical aggression is an appropriate mechanism for asserting dominance, maintaining order, or resolving domestic disputes. Concurrently, environmental stress theory demonstrates that chronic structural deprivation (captured by the Stressful Conditions scale) depletes cognitive and emotional bandwidth, eroding executive function (Self-Control) and exacerbating proximal relational distress.

7. Validity

The construct, criterion, convergent, and discriminant validity of the Personal and Relationships Profile has been evaluated across multiple empirical studies encompassing undergraduate student cohorts, community adult couples, and clinical populations enrolled in batterer intervention programs.

Construct and Factorial Validity

Construct validity has been verified through structural equation modeling and exploratory/confirmatory factor analyses demonstrating that the 25 scales load distinctly on their hypothesized individual and dyadic dimensions without excessive factor cross-loading. The independence of the individual psychopathology scales (e.g., ASP, BOR, DEP) from dyadic dynamic scales (e.g., CON, NA, DOM) demonstrates that the instrument measures personal psychological vulnerabilities independently from relational processes.

Convergent and Concurrent Validity

The convergent validity of the PRP is demonstrated through strong correlations with benchmark clinical and relationship measures:

• The Antisocial Personality Symptoms (ASP) and Borderline Personality Symptoms (BOR) scales correlate significantly (r = .55 to .68, p < .001) with corresponding scales on the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI-III) and the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI).
• The Relationship Distress (RD) scale shows strong negative correlations with the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS; r = -.72 to -.79), confirming that high scores on PRP Relationship Distress accurately reflect severe marital dissatisfaction.
• The Substance Abuse (SUB) scale demonstrates substantial concurrent convergence with the Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (MAST) and the DAST-10 (r > .60).
• The Violence Approval (VA) and Violent Socialization (VS) scales exhibit moderate-to-strong correlations with the Attitudes Toward Marital Violence Scale and measures of retrospective childhood corporal punishment.

Predictive and Discriminant Validity

The predictive validity of the PRP is evidenced by its capacity to discriminate between physically violent and non-violent intimate partners as classified by the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2). Logistic regression modeling conducted by Straus and colleagues demonstrated that elevated scores on Borderline Personality Symptoms, Dominance, Jealousy, Negative Attribution, and Violence Approval correctly classified partner violence perpetrators with over 78% overall predictive accuracy. Furthermore, the Limited Disclosure (LD) scale effectively differentiates between authentic self-reporters and individuals exhibiting defensive social desirability in court-mandated treatment evaluations, providing clinical gatekeeping against underreporting.

8. Reliability

The internal consistency reliability of the PRP scales has been documented across normative community samples, college student cohorts, and clinical intervention participants. Reliability metrics are reported separately for men and women across the 25 scales, demonstrating stable psychometric performance across genders.

Internal Consistency Reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha)

As documented in the official technical manual (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1999; Straus, 2010), the internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) for the 17 Individual Scales across male and female samples are as follows:

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

For the 8 Couple Relationships Scales, internal consistency coefficients across male and female respondents are:

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

While the majority of scales demonstrate robust internal consistency (α > .70 to .87), brief behavioral scales such as Anger Management and Self-Control exhibit modest coefficients (.61 to .67), reflecting the multidimensional nature and relative brevity of those individual subscales.

9. Factor Analysis

The factorial architecture of the PRP was established through iterative exploratory factor analyses (EFA) and subsequent confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) across diverse validation samples totaling over 2,000 participants during instrument development.

During the EFA phase using principal axis factoring with promax (oblique) rotation, items were evaluated to ensure they loaded cleanly onto their intended theoretical construct (standardized factor loadings ≥ .35) while displaying minimal cross-loadings (< .25) on adjacent constructs. The analyses corroborated the theoretical separation of individual intrapersonal indicators from relational interactional patterns. For instance, Borderline Personality Symptoms items loaded onto a primary emotional dysregulation factor distinct from, though correlated with, Depressive Symptoms and Antisocial Personality Symptoms.

Confirmatory factor analytic models testing the structural integrity of the PRP have demonstrated adequate-to-good fit across standard structural equation modeling indices:

• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) values consistently fall within acceptable thresholds, ranging from .042 to .056 across sub-domain structural models.
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) estimates systematically exceed .90 for the 17 individual-level constructs and the 8 relationship-level constructs when modeled as correlated multi-factor structures.
• Standardized factor loadings for items on their designated scales generally range from .40 to .82. For example, in the Sexual Abuse History (SAH) scale, specific behavioral victimization items display robust loadings exceeding .70, while items within the Relationship Distress (RD) scale demonstrate loadings between .65 and .84.

Second-order hierarchical factor models reveal higher-order latent constructs, such as a generalized Intrapersonal Dysregulation Factor (encompassing ASP, BOR, DEP, SUB, and low SC) and a generalized Dyadic Escalation Factor (encompassing CON, DOM, JEL, NA, and low AM), which together account for a substantial proportion of shared variance in intimate partner violence perpetration.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Full Instrument Name: The Personal and Relationships Profile
• Acronym: PRP
• Author: Murray A. Straus, Ph.D., and colleagues (Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire)
• Measurement Format: Comprehensive 187-item self-report questionnaire
• Constructs Assessed: 25 subscales divided into 17 Individual Characteristics/Experiences scales and 8 Couple Relationships scales
• Response Scale: 4-point Likert response format:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Agree
  • 4 = Strongly Agree
• Administration Guidelines:
  • Self-administered via paper-and-pencil or computerized testing environments.
  • Estimated completion time: 35 to 50 minutes.
  • Respondents currently in a relationship lasting one month or longer answer partner-directed items based on their current relationship.
  • Respondents not currently in a relationship but who have been in one lasting one month or longer in the past answer based on their most recent relationship.
  • Respondents who have never been in a relationship lasting at least one month omit the partner and relationship-specific items.
• Scoring and Interpretation Procedures:
  • Positively worded items are scored: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly Agree.
  • Negatively keyed items are reverse-coded prior to subscale summation (e.g., 1 becomes 4, 2 becomes 3, 3 becomes 2, 4 becomes 1).
  • Subscale scores are calculated as the mean or sum of constituent items. Higher scores denote elevated levels of the respective construct (e.g., higher anger management deficits, greater relationship distress, elevated borderline pathology).
  • The Limited Disclosure (LD) scale is examined first to evaluate response validity and assess social desirability or defensive posturing.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Year of Initial Publication: 1999 (Original Technical Manual: The Personal and Relationships Profile [PRP]; updated revisions published through 2010).
• Copyright & Intellectual Property: Murray A. Straus and the Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire.
• Licensing and Availability: In keeping with Murray Straus’s commitment to advancing family violence research, the PRP was placed in the academic public domain for non-profit scholarly research and clinical training. Researchers and clinicians may utilize the instrument without royalty fees, provided full academic attribution is maintained and items are not sold commercially.
• Instrument Manual and Documentation: The comprehensive testing manual, scoring algorithms, and SPSS syntax files are archived and available for scholarly download via the University of New Hampshire Faculty Pages: UNH PRP Manual Link.

12. References

• Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall.
• Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. Basic Books.
• Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.
• Dutton, D. G. (2007). The abusive personality: Violence and control in intimate relationships (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
• Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• 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. (2010). The Personal and Relationships Profile (PRP): Manual for research and clinical use of a multi-scale inventory to assess individual and dyadic characteristics associated with partner violence. Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire. http://pubpages.unh.edu/charmas2/PR10%2015%20Manual.pdf
• Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 283–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/019251396017003001
• Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1999). The Personal and Relationships Profile (PRP). Durham, NH: Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire.
• Straus, M. A., & Mouradian, V. E. (1998). Impulsive corporal punishment by mothers and antisocial behavior and impulsiveness of children. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 16(3), 353–374.
  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