Clinical AssessmentPsychometricsRelationship Psychology

The Relationship between Conflict, Communication, and Sex

A comprehensive academic analysis of the psychometric battery evaluating interpersonal conflict, dyadic sexual communication, love styles, respect, and relationship satisfaction, developed by Tammy Lowery Zacchilli.

memjavad
PUBLISHED
Scientifically Reviewed · Dr. Marwa Abd-Alazim · September 26, 2026
Medically & Scientifically Reviewed Verified: September 26, 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-construct psychometric assessment protocol developed by Dr. Tammy Lowery Zacchilli (2007) under the academic mentorship of Clyde Hendrick and Susan S. Hendrick at Texas Tech University. Designed to evaluate the complex socio-cognitive, affective, and behavioral architecture of modern dating relationships, this extensive 211-item self-report inventory consolidates validated foundational scales with specialized relational measures. The battery captures eleven interconnected domains: demographic and romantic history, general relationship satisfaction via the Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS; Hendrick, 1988), multidimensional love styles through the Love Attitudes Scale (LAS; Hendrick & Hendrick, 1998), interpersonal respect through the Respect Scale (Hendrick & Hendrick, 2006), sexual attitudes via the Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale (Hendrick, Hendrick, & Reich, 2006), personal intimacy through the Self-Disclosure Index (Miller, Berg, & Archer, 1983), dyadic conflict resolution using the Romantic Partner Conflict Scale (RPCS; Zacchilli, Hendrick, & Hendrick, 2009), situational dispute behaviors measured by the Episode-Specific Conflict Tactics Scale (ESCT; Canary, Cunningham, & Cody, 1988), intimacy-specific communication via the Dyadic Sexual Communication Scale (DSC; Catania, 1998), mating strategies measured by the Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI; Simpson & Gangestad, 1991), and individual self-concept through the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg, 1965). Utilizing varied response frameworks—principally 5-point Likert-type continua ranging from strong agreement to strong disagreement, paired with discrete demographic, behavioral, and evaluative categories—the battery provides empirical reliability (Cronbach’s alphas spanning .70 to .93 across constituent dimensions) and strong construct, convergent, and predictive validity in both clinical assessment and empirical relationship research.

Keywords

interpersonal conflict, romantic relationships, Romantic Partner Conflict Scale, dyadic sexual communication, Relationship Assessment Scale, Love Attitudes Scale, respect in relationships, sociosexual orientation, conflict resolution tactics, relationship satisfaction

Authors

The integrated battery was compiled, standardized, and validated by Tammy Lowery Zacchilli, Ph.D., during her doctoral research at Texas Tech University (Department of Psychology, Experimental Psychology Program, 2007). Dr. Zacchilli subsequently joined the faculty at Saint Leo University, Florida, where she continues her scholarship as a Professor of Psychology specializing in romantic conflict, interpersonal aggression, cyberbullying, and relational dynamics.

The battery incorporates foundational instruments and collaborative contributions from prominent social psychologists:

  • Clyde Hendrick, Ph.D. & Susan S. Hendrick, Ph.D. (Texas Tech University): Renowned for foundational contributions to relationship science, including the Love Attitudes Scale, the Relationship Assessment Scale, and the Respect Scale.
  • Joseph A. Catania, Ph.D. (Oregon State University / University of California, San Francisco): Developer of the Dyadic Sexual Communication Scale.
  • Daniel J. Canary, Ph.D.: Interpersonal communication theorist and co-developer of the Episode-Specific Conflict Tactics Scale.
  • Jeffry A. Simpson, Ph.D. (University of Minnesota): Co-developer of the Sociosexual Orientation Inventory.

Purpose

Romantic relationships represent one of the most significant sources of both psychological well-being and distress across the human lifespan. Historically, research into relational maintenance frequently examined interpersonal communication, sexual adjustment, conflict management, and personality variables in isolation, obscuring their dynamic, bidirectional interactions. The overarching purpose of The Relationship between Conflict, Communication, and Sex battery is to provide an empirical protocol capable of assessing the complex network connecting constructive versus destructive conflict tactics, sexual communication fidelity, broader sexual ideologies, ideological styles of love, dyadic respect, and global relationship satisfaction.

In developmental and social psychology, dating and emerging adult partnerships provide the blueprint for long-term marital and cohabiting patterns. Unresolved relational conflicts, inadequate dyadic disclosure, and communication deficits regarding sexual preferences directly contribute to relational dissolution, infidelity, and psychological morbidity. By combining overarching cognitive-affective appraisals (such as the Hendrick RAS and Respect Scale) with tactical behavioral assessments (such as the RPCS and Canary’s ESCT) and intimacy-focused metrics (Catania’s DSC), this instrument enables researchers to determine whether sexual communication mediates the relationship between broad conflict resolution habits and overall relationship satisfaction.

Beyond theoretical research, the battery serves distinct clinical purposes in couple and family therapy. When administered as a comprehensive diagnostic intake assessment, the battery allows clinicians to identify discrepancies between partners’ conflict tactics, map unvoiced sexual grievances, isolate dysfunctional love styles (such as severe Ludus or destructive Mania), and establish baseline measures of mutual respect versus perceived contempt. Furthermore, its multidimensional design provides pre- and post-intervention benchmarks for evidence-based couple therapies, such as Emotion-Focused Therapy (EFT) and Integrative Behavioral Couple Therapy (IBCT).

Psychological Construct

The battery assesses an interconnected array of psychological constructs across relational, behavioral, and individual domains:

1. Global Relational Quality and Commitment

At the evaluative core of the battery lies relationship satisfaction, operationalized through the Relationship Assessment Scale (Hendrick, 1988). Rather than conceptualizing satisfaction as a composite of behavioral agreements, the construct represents a unified subjective appraisal of needs fulfillment, perceived relational quality relative to alternatives, and emotional devotion. This is complemented by Lund’s (1985) indices of behavioral commitment, perceived relationship permanence, and relational investment.

2. Typologies and Styles of Loving

Love is evaluated using the framework established by John Alan Lee (1973) and operationalized by C. Hendrick and S. Hendrick (1986, 1998) via the Love Attitudes Scale (LAS). The construct treats romantic love not as a monolithic emotion, but as an attitude system comprising distinct styles: Eros (passionate, physical, and romantic love), Ludus (game-playing, uncommitted love), Storge (friendship-based love maturing gradually), Pragma (practical, criteria-driven partner selection), Mania (possessive, dependent, and emotionally volatile love), and Agape (selfless, altruistic, and unconditional care).

3. Interpersonal and Dyadic Respect

The battery operationalizes mutual respect (Hendrick & Hendrick, 2006) as an affective and ethical evaluation distinct from love. The respect construct comprises positive regard, validation of the partner’s personal autonomy, viewing the partner as a source of healing, honoring their character, and bidirectional self-respect.

4. Sexual Ideologies and Sociosexuality

The sexual domain is measured through two complementary frameworks. The Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale assesses cognitive orientations toward sexual behavior across dimensions such as permissiveness (casual, uncommitted sex), sexual practices, communion (sex as an expressive spiritual union), and instrumentality (sex primarily as physical gratification). Concurrently, Simpson and Gangestad’s (1991) Sociosexual Orientation Inventory captures behavioral history, partner counts, fantasy frequency, and attitudinal willingness to engage in sexual intimacy outside of emotional commitment.

5. Self-Disclosure and Intimate Vulnerability

Interpersonal vulnerability is operationalized through the Self-Disclosure Index (Miller et al., 1983). The construct measures an individual’s willingness to reveal central aspects of the self to a romantic partner, encompassing moral guilt, deepest fears, self-concept, personal habits, and relational histories.

6. Romantic Conflict Tactics and Dyadic Negotiation

Relational conflict is measured via two psychometric frameworks: Zacchilli’s Romantic Partner Conflict Scale (RPCS) and Canary et al.’s (1988) Episode-Specific Conflict Tactics Scale (ESCT). The constructs span constructive negotiation (collaboration, compromise, calm discussion), destructive interaction (interactional reactivity, verbal aggression, hostility, guilt induction), avoidance (topic shifting, denial, physical evasion), temporal separation for emotional de-escalation, and dominance versus submissive capitulation.

7. Dyadic Sexual Communication

Catania’s (1998) construct captures dyadic communication processes specific to sex. Rather than evaluating general communication, the DSC measures emotional safety, mutual assertiveness, perceptual clarity, comfort in articulating sexual desires, and the absence of defensiveness or feelings of being lectured when discussing sexual matters.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework of the battery integrates four foundational paradigms in social psychology and communication theory:

1. Interdependence Theory and Social Exchange

Originating in the work of Harold Kelley and John Thibaut (1978), Interdependence Theory posits that relationship outcomes, stability, and satisfaction depend on how partners structure their mutual dependence, manage rewards and costs, and evaluate outcomes relative to both their Comparison Level (expectations) and Comparison Level for Alternatives (alternatives to the current partnership). Destructive conflict patterns (such as domination and verbal hostility) elevate relational costs, while dyadic sexual communication and mutual respect lower transaction costs and enhance emotional rewards, sustaining relationship satisfaction over time.

2. The Dual-Concern and Interactional Conflict Models

The operationalization of romantic conflict in the RPCS is grounded in Blake and Mouton’s Managerial Grid, later adapted into Rahim’s dual-concern model and Canary’s interactional perspective. The framework positions conflict behaviors across two intersecting axes: concern for self and concern for other. Collaboration reflects high concern for both self and other; Domination represents high concern for self and low concern for other; Submission indicates low concern for self and high concern for other; and Avoidance reflects low concern for both. Zacchilli extended this model by demonstrating that romantic conflict involves unique emotional dynamics—specifically, interactional reactivity (affective dysregulation) and deliberate cooling-off periods (separation)—that distinguish romantic disputes from organizational or peer negotiations.

3. Lee’s Typology of Love

The integration of the Love Attitudes Scale is rooted in John Alan Lee’s (1973) Colors of Love model. Lee conceptualized love as an array of distinct styles, analogous to primary and secondary color wheels. Hendrick and Hendrick translated these typologies into empirical measurement tools, demonstrating that love styles function as dispositional frameworks that guide how individuals interpret their partner’s actions, respond to relationship conflict, and evaluate sexual intimacy.

4. Systems Theory and Dyadic Communication Models

Under Dyadic Systems Theory, communication functions as an interdependent feedback loop rather than a linear exchange. Dyadic sexual communication represents an intimacy-specific subsystem: partners who cannot discuss sexual needs often experience lower sexual satisfaction, which can spill over into non-sexual conflicts. In this battery, Catania’s DSC serves as a conceptual bridge connecting relational conflict, sexual attitudes, and overall relationship quality.

Validity

The component instruments within Dr. Zacchilli’s battery have been subjected to extensive psychometric validation across multiple independent investigations as well as within the composite 2007 dating study:

Construct and Factorial Validity

The convergent construct validity of the primary conflict instrument—the Romantic Partner Conflict Scale (RPCS)—was established through significant correlations with established relational conflict measures. Zacchilli, Hendrick, and Hendrick (2009) demonstrated that the RPCS Collaboration and Compromise subscales correlated positively with Rahim’s Integrating and Compromising dimensions, whereas RPCS Domination and Interactional Reactivity correlated strongly with Rahim’s Dominating scale and Canary’s hostile conflict tactics. Confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses across independent samples validated the distinct factor structure of the battery’s primary scales.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

The battery demonstrates clear patterns of convergent and discriminant validity:

  • Global Satisfaction: The Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS) correlated positively with constructive conflict approaches (Compromise: r = .38 to .48; Collaboration: r = .42 to .52), open Dyadic Sexual Communication (r = .45 to .56), mutual respect (r > .60), and the Eros love style (r = .50 to .62). Conversely, RAS scores correlated negatively with destructive conflict tactics (Interactional Reactivity: r = -.45 to -.55; Domination: r = -.30 to -.42) and the game-playing Ludus style (r = -.35 to -.48).
  • Dyadic Sexual Communication: Catania’s DSC demonstrated convergent validity via moderate-to-strong correlations with the Self-Disclosure Index (r = .38 to .46) and the Sexual Communion subscale, while remaining distinct from general self-esteem (RSES, r = .15 to .22), confirming discriminant validity between dyadic intimacy processes and individual self-regard.
  • Sociosexuality: The SOI correlated positively with the Permissiveness dimension of the Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale and the Ludus subscale, while correlating negatively with relational commitment and investment, validating its measurement of uncommitted mating orientations.

Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity

Regression and path analyses confirmed the battery’s capacity to predict critical relationship outcomes. In structural models evaluated by Zacchilli (2007), dyadic sexual communication and mutual respect mediated the impact of conflict styles on global relationship satisfaction. Longitudinal tracking indicated that couples reporting elevated baseline scores on Interactional Reactivity, Domination, and Ludus had significantly higher dissolution rates at six-month follow-ups, demonstrating strong criterion-related validity.

Reliability

The measures comprising the battery have demonstrated high internal consistency across empirical samples:

  • Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS): Hendrick (1988) and subsequent cross-validations report Cronbach’s alpha coefficients between .86 and .90, demonstrating high internal consistency for a 7-item scale.
  • Romantic Partner Conflict Scale (RPCS): Zacchilli et al. (2009) established robust alpha coefficients across its distinct subscales:
    • Collaboration: α = .87 to .91
    • Compromise: α = .80 to .85
    • Interactional Reactivity: α = .83 to .88
    • Separation: α = .81 to .86
    • Avoidance: α = .74 to .80
    • Domination: α = .76 to .82
    • Submission: α = .70 to .75
  • Dyadic Sexual Communication Scale (DSC): Catania (1998) reported Cronbach’s alphas ranging from .84 to .89 across clinical and non-clinical cohorts. In Zacchilli’s (2007) sample, internal consistency was observed at α = .86.
  • Respect Scale: S. Hendrick and C. Hendrick (2006) established alphas ranging from .87 to .92 for the global Respect for Partner construct.
  • Love Attitudes Scale (LAS – Short Form): Subscale reliabilities typically range from α = .71 to .87 (Eros: .82; Ludus: .76; Storge: .84; Pragma: .78; Mania: .75; Agape: .85).
  • Self-Disclosure Index (SDI): Miller et al. (1983) documented an alpha of .86 to .91, matching the reliability of .89 observed in Zacchilli (2007).
  • Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES): Consistently displays internal consistency estimates between α = .87 and .92, with extensive test-retest correlations (r = .82 to .88 over two- to four-week intervals).

Factor Analysis

The structural validity of the primary instruments within the battery has been confirmed through both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA):

Romantic Partner Conflict Scale (RPCS)

During its initial scale development, Zacchilli, Hendrick, and Hendrick (2005, 2009) subjected an initial pool of over 70 conflict items to Principal Axis Factoring with oblique (Promax) rotation, reflecting the expected intercorrelations among interpersonal behaviors. The analyses yielded a six-factor primary solution explaining over 58% of the common variance, later refined into seven distinct structural dimensions:

  • Factor 1: Compromise (Items loading > .55; characterized by mutual concessions and finding middle ground).
  • Factor 2: Collaboration (Items loading > .60; marked by integrative joint problem solving and shared decision-making).
  • Factor 3: Interactional Reactivity (Items loading > .50; characterized by emotional distress, shouting, hurt feelings, and verbal escalation).
  • Factor 4: Separation (Items loading > .65; designated by cooling-off periods and physical withdrawal prior to discussion).
  • Factor 5: Domination (Items loading > .52; defined by demands to win, taking control, and refusing to yield).
  • Factor 6: Avoidance (Items loading > .58; avoiding arguments and circumventing conflict points).
  • Factor 7: Submission (Items loading > .48; yielding, surrendering personal positions, and appeasing the partner).

Subsequent CFA models confirmed acceptable fit for this multidimensional structure (χ²/df < 2.5, CFI = .92, TLI = .91, RMSEA = .058).

Dyadic Sexual Communication Scale (DSC)

Factor analyses conducted by Catania (1998) supported a robust unidimensional model representing perceived communication openness, mutual comfort, and communication barriers regarding sexual intimacy. While minor secondary factors (e.g., expressive comfort vs. partner defensiveness) occasionally emerge, structural equation models confirm that a single higher-order factor provides the most parsimonious fit, with all 13 items displaying factor loadings between .45 and .78.

Love Attitudes Scale & Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale

The LAS items consistently load onto Lee’s six distinct factors with low cross-loadings (< .25), demonstrating clear orthogonal-to-oblique differentiation among love styles. Similarly, CFA of the Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale replicates Hendrick, Hendrick, and Reich’s (2006) 4-factor solution: Permissiveness, Sexual Practices, Communion, and Instrumentality (CFI = .93, RMSEA = .052).

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The battery is structured as an integrated self-administered survey containing 211 items organized into clear thematic modules:

  • Administration Format: Standardized self-report paper-and-pencil or computerized questionnaire. Completed individually by one or both members of a romantic partnership.
  • Completion Duration: Approximately 35 to 50 minutes.
  • Item Count & Module Composition:
    • Background Inventory & Relationship Biography (Items 1–23): Demographic variables, relationship status, duration, cohabitation, sexual history, and investment metrics (Lund, 1985).
    • Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS) (Items 24–30): 7 items measuring global relationship satisfaction.
    • Love Attitudes Scale (LAS) (Items 31–55): 25 items assessing Lee’s six love styles (Eros, Ludus, Storge, Pragma, Mania, Agape).
    • Respect Scale (Items 56–68): 13 items assessing perceived mutual and partner-specific respect.
    • Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale (Items 69–91): 23 items evaluating sexual attitudes (Permissiveness, Practices, Communion, Instrumentality).
    • Self-Disclosure Index (SDI) (Items 92–101): 10 items assessing personal disclosure to romantic partners.
    • Romantic Partner Conflict Scale (RPCS) (Items 102–144): 43 items measuring general dyadic conflict resolution styles.
    • Episode-Specific Conflict Tactics Scale (ESCT) (Items 145–180): 36 items assessing specific behavioral tactics utilized during a recent disagreement.
    • Dyadic Sexual Communication Scale (DSC) (Items 181–193): 13 items measuring mutual communication regarding sexual intimacy.
    • Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI) (Items 194–200): 7 items assessing sexual behavior history, fantasy frequency, and attitudes toward uncommitted sex.
    • Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) (Items 201–212): 12 items assessing global individual self-esteem.
  • Response Continua:
    • Items 1–23: Multiple-choice categorical options and discrete rating scales.
    • Items 24–30 (RAS): 5-point semantic anchor scale (1 = Poorly / Unsatisfied to 5 = Extremely Well / Extremely Satisfied).
    • Items 31–143 (LAS, Respect, SAS, SDI, RPCS): 5-point Likert scale (A = Strongly agree [1], B = Moderately agree [2], C = Neutral [3], D = Moderately disagree [4], E = Strongly disagree [5]), or scored in reverse (1 = Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly agree).
    • Item 144: 5-point comparative similarity scale.
    • Items 145–180 (ESCT): 5-point frequency/truth scale (A = Very true of me [5] to E = Not at all true of me [1]).
    • Items 181–193 (DSC): 5-point Likert scale (A = Strongly agree [5] to E = Strongly disagree [1]).
    • Items 194–200 (SOI): Categorical behavioral frequencies and 5-point attitudinal agreement scales.
    • Items 201–212 (RSES): Standard 4-point Likert agreement scale (Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree) plus supplementary 5-point global summary items.
  • Scoring Procedures:
    • Negative items require reverse scoring prior to subscale aggregation. On the RAS, items 27 and 30 are reverse-scored; on the DSC, items 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, and 187 are reverse-scored; on the RSES, items 203, 205, 208, 209, and 210 are reverse-scored.
    • Subscale scores are calculated as the mean or sum of their constituent items. Higher scores denote greater presence of that construct (e.g., higher DSC indicates more constructive sexual communication; higher RAS indicates greater relationship satisfaction).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The integrated battery was compiled and formally presented in 2007 as part of Tammy Lowery Zacchilli’s doctoral dissertation at Texas Tech University, with core components subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals (e.g., the RPCS in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2009). The dissertation is archived in the Texas Tech University Libraries institutional repository and is accessible for academic research.

Licensing and Usage Guidelines: The constituent scales (such as Hendrick’s RAS, Catania’s DSC, and Rosenberg’s RSES) remain the intellectual property of their original developers or copyright holders, but are widely available for non-commercial, educational, and academic research purposes without licensing fees. Researchers wishing to use the full battery or its subscales in clinical trials, proprietary applications, or commercial settings should contact the respective authors and copyright holders for formal permission.

References

Canary, D. J., Cunningham, E. M., & Cody, M. J. (1988). Linking conflict tactics, communicative competence, and topic relevance to evaluate and discuss conflict episodes. Human Communication Research, 15(1), 160–189. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1988.tb00174.x

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. (1986). A theory and method of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(2), 392–402. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.392

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

Lee, J. A. (1973). The colors of love: An exploration of the ways of loving. New Press.

Lund, M. (1985). The development of investment and commitment scales for predicting persistence of personal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407585021001

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.

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 University Libraries Electronic Theses and Dissertations. https://hdl.handle.net/2346/9978

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 26). The Relationship between Conflict, Communication, and Sex. PSYCHOLOGICAL DATABASE. https://en.arabpsychology.com/scales/the-relationship-between-conflict-communication-and-sex/
memjavad. “The Relationship between Conflict, Communication, and Sex.” PSYCHOLOGICAL DATABASE, 26 September 2026, https://en.arabpsychology.com/scales/the-relationship-between-conflict-communication-and-sex/.
memjavad. “The Relationship between Conflict, Communication, and Sex.” PSYCHOLOGICAL DATABASE. September 26, 2026. https://en.arabpsychology.com/scales/the-relationship-between-conflict-communication-and-sex/.