CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 129Attachment and Relationship DynamicsConflict Management and NegotiationFamily Dynamics and Relationships

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 59 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The romantic partner conflict scale: A new scale to measure relationship conflict

Zacchilli, Tammy L., Hendrick, Clyde, Hendrick, Susan S.·2009·Journal of Social and Personal Relationships
DOI 10.1177/0265407509347936
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In this article, we report on three studies designed to develop the Romantic Partner Conflict Scale (RPCS). In Study 1, items were developed based on existing research and theory. The factor analysis of these items indicated six factors (totaling 39 items): Compromise, Domination, Submission, Separation, Avoidance, and Interactional Reactivity. In Study 2, Confirmatory Factor Analysis reinforced the six-factor structure. Study 3 demonstrated strong test—retest reliabilities for the factors/ subscales. Moreover, the subscales representing constructive conflict strategies (especially Compromise) were positively related to communication, satisfaction, respect, love, and sexual attitudes. The subscales representing destructive strategies were negatively related to these variables. Additional findings, limitations of the research, and implications for future research and clinical use of the RPCS are presented.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0265407509347936

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Byrne, B.M., 1994, Basic concepts, applications, and programming
  2. Christensen, A., 1984, Communication Patterns Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript
  3. Long, E.C.J., 1996, Family Relations, 45, 303
  4. Peterson, D.R. ( 1983). Conflict. In H. H. Kelley, E. Berscheid, A. Christensen, J. H. Harvey, T. L. Huston, G. Levinger, E. McClintock , L. A. Peplau, & D. R. Peterson (Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 360-396). New York: Freeman.
  5. Sillars, A.L., 1980, Communication Yearbook, 4, 217
  6. Smith, T.D., Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 129

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Zacchilli, T. L., Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S.
Affiliations
  • Saint Leo University (US)
  • Texas Tech University (US)
ORCID
Zacchilli, Tammy L.
Venue
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2009-12
Volume
26
Issue
8
Pages
1073-1096
ISSN
  • 0265-4075 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-3608
DOI
10.1177/0265407509347936
OpenAlex
W2133916799
Cited by
129
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 4
FWCI
3.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Conflict Management and Negotiation
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Family Dynamics and Relationships
Keywords
relationship conflict, romantic relationships, compromise, domination, submission, separation, avoidance, conflict strategies, constructive conflict, destructive conflict, relationship satisfaction, sexual attitudes, interpersonal communication

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review