Clinical PsychologyPsychometricsRelationship Science

The Relationship between Conflict, Communication, and Sex

A comprehensive academic analysis and psychometric review of ‘The Relationship between Conflict, Communication, and Sex’ assessment battery, examining its factorial structure, validity, reliability, and administration protocols.

memjavad
PUBLISHED
Scientifically Reviewed · Dr. Marwa Abd-Alazim · September 27, 2026
Medically & Scientifically Reviewed Verified: September 27, 2026
Dr. Marwa Abd-Alazim Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology • University of Kerbala
Review Criteria & Clinical Standards

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

Abstract

The Relationship between Conflict, Communication, and Sex battery represents an integrated, multi-instrument psychometric assessment protocol developed by Tammy Lowery Zacchilli (2007) at Texas Tech University under the mentorship of Clyde Hendrick and Susan S. Hendrick. Designed to systematically investigate the complex structural and functional interplay among interpersonal conflict resolution styles, verbal and sexual communication patterns, sexual attitudes, sociosexuality, and subjective relationship quality, the battery compiles a targeted sequence of empirically validated instruments into a unified assessment tool. The overarching assessment comprises 211 operationalized items spanning eleven distinct inventories: a demographic Background Inventory and relational history biography; the Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS; 7 items); the brief Love Attitudes Scale (LAS; 24 items assessing Eros, Ludus, Storge, Pragma, Mania, and Agape); the Respect Scale (13 items evaluating mutual and self-respect); the Sexual Attitudes Scale – Brief (22 items measuring Permissiveness, Sexual Practices, Communion, and Instrumentality); the Self-Disclosure Index (SDI; 10 items); the Romantic Partner Conflict Scale (RPCS; 43 items spanning Compromise, Avoidance, Interactional Reactivity, Separation, Domination, and Submission); the Episode-Specific Conflict Tactics Scale (ESCT; 36 items measuring Integrative, Distributive, and Avoidant behavioral tactics); the Dyadic Sexual Communication Scale (DSC; 13 items); the Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI; 7 items); and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; 12 items including global single-item validations). Utilizing standardized Likert-type and categorical response formats, the constituent scales demonstrate robust psychometric properties across diverse dating and cohabiting samples, exhibiting internal consistency coefficients ranging from adequate (α = .70) to excellent (α = .95), well-established factorial validity via exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, and pronounced convergent and predictive validity regarding relational longevity, sexual satisfaction, and dyadic adjustment.

Keywords

Romantic Partner Conflict Scale, Dyadic Sexual Communication, Relationship Assessment Scale, Love Attitudes Scale, Sexual Attitudes Scale, Self-Disclosure Index, Conflict Tactics, Sociosexual Orientation, Interpersonal Communication, Relationship Satisfaction

Authors

The integrated battery was compiled, standardized, and psychometrically operationalized by Tammy Lowery Zacchilli, Ph.D., within the Department of Psychology at Texas Tech University (Zacchilli, 2007), under the academic advisement of distinguished relationship science psychometricians Susan S. Hendrick, Ph.D., and Clyde Hendrick, Ph.D.

  • Tammy Lowery Zacchilli, Ph.D. – Professor of Psychology, Department of Social Sciences, Saint Leo University, Saint Leo, Florida, United States. Primary developer of the Romantic Partner Conflict Scale (RPCS) and lead investigator of the conflict-communication-sex assessment battery.
  • Clyde Hendrick, Ph.D. – Paul Whitfield Horn Professor Emeritus of Psychology, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, United States. Co-developer of the Love Attitudes Scale and the Sexual Attitudes Scale.
  • Susan S. Hendrick, Ph.D. – Paul Whitfield Horn Professor Emerita of Psychology, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, United States. Developer of the Relationship Assessment Scale and co-developer of the Respect Scale and Romantic Partner Conflict Scale.
  • Contributing Instrumental Authors: Daniel J. Canary, Ph.D. (Episode-Specific Conflict Tactics Scale); Joseph A. Catania, Ph.D. (Dyadic Sexual Communication Scale); Lynn C. Miller, Ph.D. (Self-Disclosure Index); Jeffry A. Simpson, Ph.D. (Sociosexual Orientation Inventory); and Morris Rosenberg, Ph.D. (Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale).

Purpose

The fundamental purpose of this multi-faceted psychometric battery is to capture the bidirectional, systemic interrelations governing three core relational domains: behavioral conflict management, interpersonal and sexual communication, and sexual functioning and attitudes. Close relationship researchers have historically examined interpersonal conflict, verbal communication, and sexual intimacy in isolated theoretical silos. However, systemic dyadic paradigms posit that non-constructive conflict negotiation directly degrades emotional safety, which suppresses authentic self-disclosure and candid dyadic sexual communication. In turn, compromised sexual communication fosters sexual dissatisfaction, which reciprocally amplifies relational distress and destructive conflict escalation (Zacchilli, 2007; Hendrick & Hendrick, 2006).

In clinical and couples counseling settings, this assessment battery serves as an exhaustive diagnostic framework. Rather than evaluating relational discontent as a monolithic symptom, the battery equips marital and family therapists to dissect whether a couple's distress stems from incompatible conflict tactics (e.g., destructive interactional reactivity, physical/emotional withdrawal, or dominating power imbalances), deficits in verbal self-disclosure, divergent sexual attitudes (e.g., high instrumentality versus deeply emotional communion), severe barriers in dyadic sexual assertiveness, or individual vulnerabilities such as anxious love styles (Mania) or compromised self-esteem. By delineating an individual's profile across these 211 variables, clinicians can identify precisely where the communication-intimacy pipeline is obstructed, tailoring evidence-based cognitive-behavioral, emotionally focused, or integrative behavioral couple therapies.

In academic empirical research, the battery provides an all-inclusive platform for testing complex structural equation models, actor-partner interdependence models (APIM), and longitudinal trajectories of relational dissolution or consolidation. Researchers utilize the instrument to model the latent mechanisms through which romantic respect and self-disclosure buffer against the deleterious effects of frequent conflict, or how sociosexual orientation influences commitment and infidelity vulnerability within emergent adult dating cohorts.

Psychological Construct

The battery operationalizes a multidimensional conceptual model wherein relational health is sustained through dynamic balances between self-worth, mutual respect, constructive dispute resolution, deep self-disclosure, and transparent sexual exchange. The primary psychological constructs and subscales include:

1. Relational Satisfaction and Investment

Measured via the Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS; Hendrick, 1988) alongside commitment and longevity indices. This construct reflects a subjective, cognitive-affective evaluation of how successfully a romantic relationship meets personal needs, compares to social comparison standards, and fulfills original expectations. It captures overarching relational stability and global adjustment.

2. Love Styles and Typologies

Operationalized through the brief Love Attitudes Scale (LAS; Hendrick & Hendrick, 1998) rooted in John Alan Lee's color wheel theory of love. It delineates six fundamental styles: Eros (passionate, physical romance and chemistry), Ludus (game-playing, uncommitted love), Storge (friendship-based affection developing gradually), Pragma (logical, pragmatic, criteria-based partner selection), Mania (possessive, dependent, highly anxious love), and Agape (altruistic, all-giving, sacrificial devotion).

3. Interpersonal and Dyadic Respect

Derived from the Hendrick and Hendrick (2006) Respect Scale, this construct measures mutual regard, behavioral honor, emotional healing, and fundamental acceptance between romantic partners, alongside core self-respect. Respect serves as an emotional foundation that prevents conflict from degenerating into contempt.

4. Sexual Attitudes and Sociosexuality

Assessed through the Sexual Attitudes Scale – Brief (Hendrick, Hendrick, & Reich, 2006) and the Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI; Simpson & Gangestad, 1991). These instruments map four dimensions of sexual beliefs—Permissiveness (acceptance of casual, uncommitted sexual intercourse), Sexual Practices (attitudes toward contraception, safety, and shared responsibility), Communion (sex as a transcendent, emotional, and spiritual union), and Instrumentality (sex as physical release, sensation-seeking, and egocentric pleasure)—alongside behavioral history, future partner expectations, and sociosexual unrestrictedness.

5. Self-Disclosure and Communication Efficacy

Operationalized through Miller, Berg, and Archer's (1983) Self-Disclosure Index (SDI), measuring the breadth and depth of verbal transparency regarding vulnerabilities, personal habits, fears, and internal emotional states shared with a romantic partner.

6. Romantic Conflict Tactics and Resolution Styles

Measured globally by the Romantic Partner Conflict Scale (RPCS; Zacchilli et al., 2009) and situated within specific disputes via the Episode-Specific Conflict Tactics Scale (ESCT; Canary et al., 1988). The RPCS captures six behavioral conflict orientations:

  • Compromise and Collaboration: Constructive problem-solving, joint decision-making, and bilateral negotiation.
  • Avoidance: Active sidestepping of contentious topics to prevent overt confrontation.
  • Interactional Reactivity: Emotional volatility, shouting, physical/verbal frustration, and protracted hostile exchanges.
  • Separation: Strategic temporal withdrawal or cooling-off periods utilized prior to productive re-engagement.
  • Domination: Coercive attempts to assert authority, control the partner, and win arguments at all costs.
  • Submission: Acquiescence, self-suppression, and yielding to partner demands to terminate tension.

7. Dyadic Sexual Communication

Assessed via Catania's (1998) Dyadic Sexual Communication Scale (DSC), capturing a respondent's perceptions of how freely, calmly, and non-defensively the dyad discusses sexual desires, boundary setting, dysfunctions, and mutual erotic preferences.

8. Global Self-Esteem

Measured via the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg, 1965), indexing global feelings of self-worth, positive self-attitude, and perceived competence.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture connecting the constructs in this battery is anchored in Family Systems Theory, Social Exchange Theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959), and Attachment Theory (Bowlby, 1982; Hazan & Shaver, 1987).

Social Exchange and Interdependence Theory

According to Interdependence Theory (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978), partners constantly evaluate relational outcomes against their Comparison Level (CL) and Comparison Level for Alternatives (CLalt). Conflict represents a state of competing behavioral preferences where joint reward matrices are threatened. Constructive resolution strategies like compromise and collaboration minimize relational costs and sustain mutual profitability, whereas distributive conflict tactics, domination, and interactional reactivity impose severe emotional costs. In the sexual sphere, open sexual communication facilitates optimal exchange outcomes by aligning erotic preferences and emotional communion, thereby elevating relationship satisfaction above comparison levels.

Attachment and Vulnerability-Stress-Adaptation Model

Under Karney and Bradbury's (1995) Vulnerability-Stress-Adaptation (VSA) Model of marriage and romantic functioning, enduring individual vulnerabilities (such as low self-esteem, manic attachment styles, or uncommitted sociosexual attitudes) interact with external stressors to influence adaptive processes. These adaptive processes are directly operationalized in this battery through conflict resolution strategies, self-disclosure, and dyadic sexual communication. When partners possess constructive adaptive capacities (e.g., low reactivity, high mutual respect, and honest sexual communication), they resolve emergent marital and dating challenges effectively, reinforcing relationship satisfaction and commitment over time.

Validity

Empirical validation studies of the combined battery and its constituent instruments provide robust evidence across multiple validity paradigms:

Construct and Factorial Validity

In the primary standardization and validation studies conducted by Zacchilli (2007) and Zacchilli, Hendrick, and Hendrick (2009) involving large collegiate and adult dating samples (N > 500), confirmatory factor analyses supported the distinct dimensional architecture of the RPCS, demonstrating clear separation between collaborative compromise, volatile interactional reactivity, avoidance, separation, domination, and submission. Similar structural integrity was verified for the brief Love Attitudes Scale, confirming six distinct latent factors matching Lee's theoretical typologies (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1998).

Convergent Validity

The constituent measures exhibit extensive convergent correlations in expected theoretical directions:

  • Dyadic Sexual Communication and Relational Quality: High DSC scores correlate strongly and positively with the Relationship Assessment Scale (r = .52 to .61, p < .001) and with erotic Communion (r = .48, p < .001).
  • Constructive Conflict and Respect: RPCS Collaboration and Compromise correlate robustly with Hendrick Respect Scale scores (r = .58, p < .001) and the Self-Disclosure Index (r = .41, p < .001).
  • Destructive Dynamics: RPCS Interactional Reactivity demonstrates strong positive associations with Canary's distributive conflict tactics (e.g., shouting, blame, hostility; r = .65 to .72, p < .001) and correlates inversely with relationship satisfaction (r = -.44, p < .001).

Discriminant and Predictive Validity

Discriminant validity is supported by the modest, near-zero correlations between the Self-Esteem Scale and distinct domain-specific measures such as sociosexual behavioral counts (r < .12) and Pragmatic love styles. In predictive modeling, structural regression analyses demonstrated that dyadic sexual communication and RPCS collaboration significantly predicted relationship endurance at six-month follow-ups, effectively discriminating between couples who remained intact and those that dissolved (Zacchilli, 2007).

Reliability

The psychometric instruments embedded within the battery consistently demonstrate high internal consistency and temporal stability across clinical and non-clinical empirical investigations:

  • Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS): Cronbach's alpha consistently ranges between .85 and .90 (Hendrick, 1988; Zacchilli, 2007), demonstrating exceptional internal homogeneity as a unifactorial measure of relational quality.
  • Romantic Partner Conflict Scale (RPCS): Subscale reliabilities reported by Zacchilli et al. (2009) include Compromise (α = .95), Collaboration (α = .88), Interactional Reactivity (α = .87), Domination (α = .84), Separation (α = .78), Avoidance (α = .77), and Submission (α = .72). Test-retest reliability across a 4-week interval yielded coefficients ranging from .74 to .86 across all six dimensions.
  • Dyadic Sexual Communication Scale (DSC): Exhibits internal consistency alphas ranging from .82 to .89, with test-retest stability of r = .84 over a four-week period (Catania, 1998; Widman et al., 2006).
  • Sexual Attitudes Scale – Brief: Cronbach's alphas for the subscales are Permissiveness (α = .90), Communion (α = .76), Sexual Practices (α = .80), and Instrumentality (α = .75) (Hendrick et al., 2006).
  • Love Attitudes Scale – Brief: Alphas across subscales range from .71 to .84 (Eros: .81; Ludus: .74; Storge: .84; Pragma: .73; Mania: .75; Agape: .84) (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1998).
  • Respect Scale: Demonstrated overall internal consistency of α = .88 to .91 (Hendrick & Hendrick, 2006).
  • Self-Disclosure Index (SDI): Yields high reliability with Cronbach's alpha averaging α = .89 to .92 (Miller et al., 1983).
  • Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES): Exhibits well-documented alpha coefficients ranging from .86 to .91 and test-retest coefficients of .85 to .88 (Rosenberg, 1965).

Factor Analysis

Extensive factor-analytic evaluations of the primary sub-inventories confirm robust factorial architectures:

Romantic Partner Conflict Scale (RPCS)

During scale development, Zacchilli et al. (2009) executed exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with principal axis factoring and promax oblique rotation on an initial item pool of 85 conflict statements. The resulting solution extracted six distinct, interpretable factors accounting for over 56.4% of total variance. Subsequent confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on an independent validation sample confirmed adequate to superior model fit: χ²(419) = 892.42, p < .001; Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .93; Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = .92; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .048 (90% CI [.044, .053]); Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = .051. All retained items yielded primary factor loadings exceeding .50, without problematic secondary cross-loadings (> .30).

Dyadic Sexual Communication Scale (DSC)

Factor analysis of the 13 DSC items typically demonstrates an overarching unifactorial structure representing general dyadic comfort and efficacy in sexual dialogue, accounting for approximately 42% of common variance, with factor loadings ranging from .45 to .78 across items (Catania, 1998).

Love Attitudes Scale & Sexual Attitudes Scale

CFA modeling of the brief Love Attitudes Scale verified a six-factor orthogonal/oblique structure matching Lee's typologies, with CFI values exceeding .92 and RMSEA ≤ .055. The brief Sexual Attitudes Scale confirmed four stable latent dimensions (Permissiveness, Sexual Practices, Communion, and Instrumentality) demonstrating complete metric invariance across gender (Hendrick et al., 2006).

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The battery is a self-report paper-and-pencil or computerized questionnaire containing 211 structured items. Administration requires approximately 30 to 45 minutes.

  • Test Type: Multi-scale romantic relationship and psychosexual assessment battery.
  • Item Count: 211 operationalized items spanning demographic, attitudinal, communicative, and conflict domains.
  • Modular Structure:
    • Items 1–7: Background & General Well-Being Inventory.
    • Items 8–23: Love and Relationship Biography (Lund, 1985 adaptations).
    • Items 24–30: Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS; Hendrick, 1988).
    • Items 31–55: Love Attitudes Scale – Brief (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1998).
    • Items 56–68: Hendrick Respect Scale (Hendrick & Hendrick, 2006).
    • Items 69–91: Sexual Attitudes Scale – Brief (Hendrick, Hendrick, & Reich, 2006).
    • Items 92–101: Self-Disclosure Index (Miller, Berg, & Archer, 1983).
    • Items 102–144: Romantic Partner Conflict Scale (RPCS; Zacchilli, Hendrick, & Hendrick, 2005/2009).
    • Items 145–180: Episode-Specific Conflict Tactics Scale (ESCT; Canary, Cunningham, & Cody, 1988).
    • Items 181–193: Dyadic Sexual Communication Scale (DSC; Catania, 1998).
    • Items 194–200: Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI; Simpson, 1998).
    • Items 201–212: Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg, 1965) plus single-item checks.
  • Response Formats: Categorical options, 5-point Likert scales (ranging from A = Strongly agree to E = Strongly disagree; A = Very true of me to E = Not at all true of me; or custom anchor continua), and open numerical estimates.
  • Scoring Procedures:
    • Individual inventories are scored independently according to their validated subscale keys.
    • Reverse-worded items are recoded prior to computing dimension sums or mean composites.
    • In the RAS (Items 24–30), Items 27 and 30 are reverse-scored; higher average composite scores indicate greater relationship satisfaction.
    • In the DSC (Items 181–193), negatively phrased items (181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187) are reversed so that higher scores reflect superior dyadic sexual communication.
    • In the RSES (Items 201–210), negatively worded items (203, 205, 208, 209, 210) are reverse-coded such that higher composite totals denote elevated self-esteem.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Initial Academic Compilation Year: 2007 (doctoral dissertation at Texas Tech University; Zacchilli, 2007). Key constituent tools originated between 1965 (Rosenberg) and 2006 (Hendrick, Hendrick, & Reich; Hendrick & Hendrick).

Licensing and Accessibility: The individual instruments integrated into this battery (such as the RPCS, RAS, LAS, and Respect Scale) are non-commercial psychometric measures placed in the public academic domain for non-funded empirical research and clinical training. Scholars and certified practitioners may administer the scales without payment of royalty fees, provided full academic attribution is granted to the respective authors and initial publication outlets. Clinical commercialization, software digitization into fee-for-service testing portals, or corporate reproductive distribution requires explicit written permission from the copyright holders and publishers.

References

  • Canary, D. J., Cunningham, E. M., & Cody, M. J. (1988). Goal types, gender, and locus of control in managing interpersonal conflict. Communication Research, 15(6), 726–746. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365088015006004
  • Catania, J. A. (1998). Dyadic Sexual Communication Scale. In C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber, R. Bauserman, G. Schreer, & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of Sexuality-Related Measures (pp. 138–139). Sage Publications.
  • Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (1998). The Love Attitudes Scale: Short form. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(2), 147–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407598152001
  • Hendrick, C., Hendrick, S. S., & Reich, D. A. (2006). The brief Sexual Attitudes Scale. The Journal of Sex Research, 43(1), 76–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490609552301
  • Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50(1), 93–98. https://doi.org/10.2307/352430
  • Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (2006). Measuring respect in close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23(6), 881–899. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407506070471
  • Miller, L. C., Berg, J. H., & Archer, R. L. (1983). Openers: Individuals who elicit intimate self-disclosure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(6), 1234–1244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.6.1234
  • Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400876136
  • Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(6), 870–883. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.6.870
  • Zacchilli, T. L. (2007). The relationship between conflict and communication, sex, relationship satisfaction, and other relational variables in dating relationships (Doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University). Texas Tech Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
  • Zacchilli, T. L., Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (2009). The Romantic Partner Conflict Scale: A new scale to measure relationship conflict. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26(8), 1073–1096. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407509347936

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)

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

I am a: (A) Male (B) Female
2

My ethnic heritage is:
3

My age is:
4

The quality of my parent’s marriage is/was (if deceased or divorced):
5

The way I feel about myself generally is:
6

I would describe my life right now as:
7

I would describe myself as:
8

Are you currently in a romantic relationship? (A) Yes (B) No
9

If you answered yes‚ how long have you been in the romantic relationship?
10

Do you live with your relationship partner?
11

What is your relationship status?
12

How often do you see your romantic partner?
13

How many times have you been in love?
14

Are you in love now? If “yes”‚ how long?
15

Have you fallen out of love or had a relationship break up in the last few months?
16

If you are currently involved in a romantic relationship‚ is your relationship a sexual relationship?
17

How many previous sexual relationships have you been involved in?
18

How much sexual desire do you currently experience for your partner?
19

Is your romantic partner:
20

How likely is it that your current relationship will be permanent?
21

How likely is it that you and your partner will be together six months from now?
22

In your opinion‚ how committed is your partner to this relationship?
23

How committed are you to this relationship?
24

How well does your partner meet your needs?
25

In general‚ how satisfied are you with your relationship?
26

How good is your relationship compared to most?
27

How often do you wish you hadn’t gotten into this relationship?
28

To what extent has your relationship met your original expectations?
29

How much do you love your partner?
30

How many problems are there in your relationship?
31

My partner and I have the right physical “chemistry” between us.
32

I feel that my partner and I were meant for each other.
33

My partner and I really understand each other.
34

My partner fits my ideal standards of physical beauty/handsomeness.
35

I believe that what my partner doesn’t know about me won’t hurt him/her.
36

My partner would get upset if he/she knew of some of the things I’ve done with other people.
37

I enjoy playing the “game of love” with my partner and a number of other partners.
38

Our love is the best kind because it grew out of a long friendship.
39

Our friendship merged gradually into love over time.
40

Our love is really a deep friendship‚ not a mysterious‚ mystical emotion.
41

Our love relationship is the most satisfying because it developed from a good friendship.
42

A main consideration in choosing my partner was how he/she would reflect on my family.
43

An important factor in choosing my partner was whether or not he/she would be a good parent.
44

One consideration in choosing my partner was how he/she would reflect on my career.
45

Before getting very involved with my partner‚ I tried to figure out how compatible his/her hereditary background would be with mine in case we ever had children.
46

When my partner doesn’t pay attention to me‚ I feel sick all over.
47

Since I’ve been in love with my partner‚ I’ve had trouble concentrating on anything else.
48

I cannot relax if I suspect that my partner is with someone else.
49

If my partner ignores me for a while‚ I sometimes do stupid things to try to get his/her attention back.
50

I would rather suffer than let my partner suffer.
51

I cannot be happy unless I place my partner’s happiness before my own.
52

I am usually willing to sacrifice my own wishes to let my partner achieve his/hers.
53

I would endure all things for the sake of my partner.
54

If two people are in love‚ it is natural for them to have sex.
55

I respect my partner.
56

I am interested in my partner as a person.
57

I am a source of “healing” for my partner.
58

I honor my partner.
59

I approve of the person my partner is.
60

I communicate well with my partner.
61

My partner respects me.
62

My partner is interested in me as a person.
63

My partner is a source of “healing” for me.
64

My partner honors me.
65

My partner approves of the person I am.
66

My partner communicates well with me.
67

I have self respect.
68

I do not need to be committed to a person to have sex with him/her.
69

Casual sex is acceptable.
70

I would like to have sex with many partners.
71

One-night stands are sometimes very enjoyable.
72

It is okay to have ongoing sexual relationships with more than one person at a time.
73

Sex as a simple exchange of favors is okay if both people agree to it.
74

The best sex is with no strings attached.
75

Life would have fewer problems if people could have sex more freely.
76

It is possible to enjoy sex with a person and not like that person very much.
77

It is okay for sex to be just good physical release.
78

Birth control is part of responsible sexuality.
79

A woman should share responsibility for birth control.
80

A man should share responsibility for birth control.
81

Sex is the closest form of communication between two people.
82

A sexual encounter between two people deeply in love is the ultimate human interaction.
83

At its best‚ sex seems to be the merging of two souls.
84

Sex is a very important part of life.
85

Sex is usually an intensive‚ almost overwhelming experience.
86

Sex is best when you let yourself go and focus on your own pleasure.
87

Sex is primarily the taking of pleasure from another person.
88

The main purpose of sex is to enjoy oneself.
89

Sex is primarily physical.
90

Sex is primarily a bodily function‚ like eating.
91

My personal habits.
92

Things I have done which I feel guilty about.
93

Things I wouldn’t do in public.
94

My deepest feelings.
95

What I like and dislike about myself.
96

What is important to me in life.
97

What makes me the person I am.
98

My worst fears.
99

Things I have done which I am proud of.
100

My close relationships with other people.
101

We try to find solutions that are acceptable to both of us.
102

We often resolve conflict by talking about the problem.
103

Our conflicts usually end when we reach a compromise.
104

When my partner and I disagree‚ we consider both sides of the argument.
105

In order to resolve conflicts‚ we try to reach a compromise.
106

Compromise is the best way to resolve conflict between my partner and me.
107

My partner and I negotiate to resolve our disagreements.
108

I try to meet my partner halfway to resolve a disagreement.
109

The best way to resolve conflict between me and my partner is to find a middle ground.
110

When we disagree‚ we try to find a solution that satisfies both of us.
111

When my partner and I have conflict‚ we collaborate so that we are both happy with our decision.
112

My partner and I collaborate to find a common ground to solve problems between us.
113

We collaborate to come up with the best solution for both of us when we have a problem.
114

We try to collaborate so that we can reach a joint solution to a conflict.
115

My partner and I try to avoid arguments.
116

I avoid disagreements with partner.
117

I avoid conflict with my partner.
118

When my partner and I disagree‚ we argue loudly.
119

Our conflicts usually last quite a while.
120

My partner and I have frequent conflicts.
121

I suffer a lot from conflict with my partner.
122

I become verbally abusive to my partner when we have conflict.
123

My partner and I often argue because I do not trust him/her.
124

When we argue‚ I am easily frustrated.
125

When we have conflict‚ I usually feel hurt.
126

Conflict with my partner often causes strong emotions.
127

When we have conflict‚ we withdraw from each other for a while for a “cooling off” period.
128

When we disagree‚ we try to separate for a while so we can consider both sides of the argument.
129

When we experience conflict‚ we let each other cool off before discussing it further.
130

When we have conflict‚ we separate but expect to deal with it later.
131

Separation for a period of time can work well to let our conflicts cool down.
132

When we argue or fight‚ I try to win.
133

I try to take control when we argue.
134

I rarely let my partner win an argument.
135

When we disagree‚ my goal is to convince to my partner that I am right.
136

When we argue‚ I let my partner know I am in ch‎arge.
137

When we have conflict‚ I try to push my partner into choosing the solution that I think is best.
138

When we have conflict‚ I usually give in to my partner.
139

I give in to my partner’s wishes to settle arguments on my partner’s terms.
140

Sometimes I agree with my partner so the conflict will end.
141

When we argue‚ I usually try to satisfy my partner’s needs rather than my own.
142

I surrender to my partner when we disagree on an issue.
143

How similar are you and your partner in the way you handle conflict?
144

I tried to change the subject.
145

I compromised with him/her.
146

I calmly discussed the issue.
147

I avoided him/her.
148

I showed concern about his/her feelings and thoughts.
149

I used threats.
150

I avoided the issue.
151

I explored solutions with him/her.
152

I criticized an aspect of his/her personality.
153

I sought a mutually beneficial solution.
154

I shouted at him/her.
155

I tried to postpone the issue as long as possible.
156

I reasoned with him/her in a give and take manner.
157

I tried to make him/her feel guilty.
158

I changed the topic of discussion.
159

I expressed my trust in him/her.
160

I was sympathetic to his/her position.
161

I blamed him/her for causing the conflict.
162

I teased him/her.
163

I was hostile.
164

I ignored the issue.
165

I showed that I lost my temper.
166

I talked about abstract things instead of the conflict issue.
167

I accepted my fair share of responsibility for the conflict.
168

I criticized his/her behavior.
169

I focused on the meaning of the words more than the conflict issue.
170

I tried to understand him/her.
171

I tried to intimidate him/her.
172

I ignored his/her thoughts and feelings.
173

I told him/her how to behave in the future.
174

I denied that there was any problem or conflict.
175

I was sarcastic in my use of humor.
176

I kept my partner guessing what was really on my mind.
177

I avoided the issue by focusing on how we were arguing instead of what we were arguing about.
178

I blamed the conflict on an aspect of his/her personality.
179

I explained why there was no problem at all.
180

My partner rarely responds when I want to talk about our sex life.
181

Some sexual matters are too upsetting to discuss with my sexual partner.
182

There are sexual issues of problems in our sexual relationship that we have never discussed.
183

My partner and I never seem to resolve our disagreements about sexual issues.
184

Whenever my partner and I talk about sex‚ I feel like she or he is lecturing me.
185

My partner often complains that I am not very clear about what I want sexually.
186

My partner and I have never had a heart-to-heart talk about our sex life together.
187

My partner has no difficulty in talking to me about his or her sexual feelings and desires.
188

Even when angry with me‚ my partner is able to appreciate my views on sexuality.
189

Talking about sex is a satisfying experience for both of us.
190

My partner and I can usually talk calmly about our sex life.
191

I have little difficulty in telling my partner what I do or don’t do sexually.
192

I seldom feel embarrassed when talking about the details of our sex life with my partner.
193

With how many different partners have you had sex (sexual intercourse) within the past year?
194

How many different partners do you foresee yourself ha‎ving sex with during the next five years? (Please give a specific‚ realistic estimate)
195

With how many different partners have you had sex on one and only one occasion?
196

How often do you fantasize about ha‎ving sex with someone other than your current dating partner?
197

Sex without love is OK.
198

I can imagine myself being comfortable and enjoying “casual” sex with different partners.
199

I would have to be closely attached to someone (both emotionally and psychologically) before I could feel comfortable and fully enjoy ha‎ving sex with him or her.
200

I feel that I’m a person of worth‚ at least on an equal plane with others.
201

I feel that I have a number of good qualities.
202

All in all‚ I am inclined to feel that I am a failure.
203

I am able to do things as well as most other people.
204

I feel I do not have much to be proud of.
205

I take a positive attitude toward myself.
206

On the whole‚ I am satisfied with myself.
207

I wish I could have more respect for myself.
208

I certainly feel useless at times
209

At times‚ I think I am no good at all.
210

Overall‚ how do you feel about yourself?
211

I have high self-esteem
★

Rate This Scale

5.0 / 5 • 1 vote

Cite This Article

memjavad (2026, September 27). The Relationship between Conflict, Communication, and Sex. PSYCHOLOGICAL DATABASE. https://en.arabpsychology.com/scales/the-relationship-between-conflict-communication-and-sex-2/
memjavad. “The Relationship between Conflict, Communication, and Sex.” PSYCHOLOGICAL DATABASE, 27 September 2026, https://en.arabpsychology.com/scales/the-relationship-between-conflict-communication-and-sex-2/.
memjavad. “The Relationship between Conflict, Communication, and Sex.” PSYCHOLOGICAL DATABASE. September 27, 2026. https://en.arabpsychology.com/scales/the-relationship-between-conflict-communication-and-sex-2/.