The Relationship between Conflict, Communication, and Sex<\/strong> 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<\/a> (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\u2014principally 5-point Likert-type continua ranging from strong agreement to strong disagreement, paired with discrete demographic, behavioral, and evaluative categories\u2014the 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.<\/p>\n 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<\/p>\n The integrated battery was compiled, standardized, and validated by Tammy Lowery Zacchilli, Ph.D.<\/strong>, 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.<\/p>\n The battery incorporates foundational instruments and collaborative contributions from prominent social psychologists:<\/p>\n 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<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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).<\/p>\n The battery assesses an interconnected array of psychological constructs across relational, behavioral, and individual domains:<\/p>\n At the evaluative core of the battery lies relationship satisfaction, operationalized through the Relationship Assessment Scale<\/a> (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.<\/p>\n 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<\/em> (passionate, physical, and romantic love), Ludus<\/em> (game-playing, uncommitted love), Storge<\/em> (friendship-based love maturing gradually), Pragma<\/em> (practical, criteria-driven partner selection), Mania<\/em> (possessive, dependent, and emotionally volatile love), and Agape<\/em> (selfless, altruistic, and unconditional care).<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n The theoretical framework of the battery integrates four foundational paradigms in social psychology and communication theory:<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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\u2014specifically, interactional reactivity (affective dysregulation) and deliberate cooling-off periods (separation)\u2014that distinguish romantic disputes from organizational or peer negotiations.<\/p>\n The integration of the Love Attitudes Scale is rooted in John Alan Lee’s (1973) Colors of Love<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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:<\/p>\n The convergent construct validity of the primary conflict instrument\u2014the Romantic Partner Conflict Scale (RPCS)<\/strong>\u2014was 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.<\/p>\n The battery demonstrates clear patterns of convergent and discriminant validity:<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n The measures comprising the battery have demonstrated high internal consistency across empirical samples:<\/p>\n The structural validity of the primary instruments within the battery has been confirmed through both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA):<\/p>\n 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:<\/p>\n Subsequent CFA models confirmed acceptable fit for this multidimensional structure (χ²\/df < 2.5, CFI = .92, TLI = .91, RMSEA = .058)<\/span>.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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)<\/span>.<\/p>\n The battery is structured as an integrated self-administered survey containing 211 items organized into clear thematic modules:<\/p>\n The integrated battery was compiled and formally presented in 2007<\/strong> 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<\/em>, 2009). The dissertation is archived in the Texas Tech University Libraries institutional repository and is accessible for academic research.<\/p>\n Licensing and Usage Guidelines:<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n 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<\/em>, 15(1), 160–189. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/j.1468-2958.1988.tb00174.x<\/a><\/p>\n 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<\/em> (pp. 138–139). Sage Publications.<\/p>\n Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (1986). A theory and method of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology<\/em>, 50(2), 392–402. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1037\/0022-3514.50.2.392<\/a><\/p>\n Hendrick, C., Hendrick, S. S., & Reich, D. A. (2006). The Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale. The Journal of Sex Research<\/em>, 43(1), 76–86. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/00224490609552301<\/a><\/p>\n Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family<\/em>, 50(1), 93–98. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2307\/352430<\/a><\/p>\n Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (2006). Measuring respect in close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships<\/em>, 23(6), 881–899. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0265407506070471<\/a><\/p>\n Lee, J. A. (1973). The colors of love: An exploration of the ways of loving<\/em>. New Press.<\/p>\n Lund, M. (1985). The development of investment and commitment scales for predicting persistence of personal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships<\/em>, 2(1), 3–23. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0265407585021001<\/a><\/p>\n Miller, L. C., Berg, J. H., & Archer, R. L. (1983). Openers: Individuals who elicit intimate self-disclosure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology<\/em>, 44(6), 1234–1244. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1037\/0022-3514.44.6.1234<\/a><\/p>\n Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image<\/em>. Princeton University Press.<\/p>\n Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology<\/em>, 60(6), 870–883. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1037\/0022-3514.60.6.870<\/a><\/p>\n Zacchilli, T. L. (2007). The relationship between conflict and communication, sex, relationship satisfaction, and other relational variables in dating relationships<\/em> (Doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University). Texas Tech University Libraries Electronic Theses and Dissertations. https:\/\/hdl.handle.net\/2346\/9978<\/a><\/p>\n 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<\/em>, 26(8), 1073–1096. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0265407509347936<\/a><\/p>\nKeywords<\/h2>\n
Authors<\/h2>\n
\n
Purpose<\/h2>\n
Psychological Construct<\/h2>\n
1. Global Relational Quality and Commitment<\/h3>\n
2. Typologies and Styles of Loving<\/h3>\n
3. Interpersonal and Dyadic Respect<\/h3>\n
4. Sexual Ideologies and Sociosexuality<\/h3>\n
5. Self-Disclosure and Intimate Vulnerability<\/h3>\n
6. Romantic Conflict Tactics and Dyadic Negotiation<\/h3>\n
7. Dyadic Sexual Communication<\/h3>\n
Theoretical Framework<\/h2>\n
1. Interdependence Theory and Social Exchange<\/h3>\n
2. The Dual-Concern and Interactional Conflict Models<\/h3>\n
3. Lee’s Typology of Love<\/h3>\n
4. Systems Theory and Dyadic Communication Models<\/h3>\n
Validity<\/h2>\n
Construct and Factorial Validity<\/h3>\n
Convergent and Discriminant Validity<\/h3>\n
\n
Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity<\/h3>\n
Reliability<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
Factor Analysis<\/h2>\n
Romantic Partner Conflict Scale (RPCS)<\/h3>\n
\n
Dyadic Sexual Communication Scale (DSC)<\/h3>\n
Love Attitudes Scale & Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale<\/h3>\n
Instrument \/ Measurement Tool<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Permissions & Fee and Test Year<\/h2>\n
References<\/h2>\n
13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)<\/h2>\n