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
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Thirty-nine items in total examine six subscales of conflict behaviors: compromise (14 items, e.g., “We try to find solutions that are acceptable to both of us”; Cronbach’s α = 0.947), avoidance (3 items, e.g., “I avoid conflict with my partner”; Cronbach’s α = 0.876), interactional reactivity (6 items, e.g., “When my partner and I disagree, we argue loudly”; Cronbach’s α = 0.867), separation (5”
Citations
Cites
(1998) · Cited by 36,049
Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences
Guitton, H., & Siegel, S. (1958) · Revue économique · doi:10.2307/3498751 · Cited by 35,279
The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and Preliminary Psychometric Data
STRAUS, M. A., HAMBY, S. L., BONEY-McCOY, S., & SUGARMAN, D. B. (1996) · Journal of Family Issues · doi:10.1177/019251396017003001 · Cited by 6,923
Social psychology: handbook of basic principles
Higgins, E., & Kruglanski, A. (2008) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.45-3496 · Cited by 5,535
Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications.
Thompson, B. (2004) · doi:10.1037/10694-000 · Cited by 3,469
A step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling
(1995) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.33-0366 · Cited by 3,359
Interpersonal Relations: A Theory of Interdependence
Hansen, D. A., Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1982) · Journal of Marriage and the Family · doi:10.2307/351281 · Cited by 2,782
A Generic Measure of Relationship Satisfaction
Hendrick, S. S. (1988) · Journal of Marriage and the Family · doi:10.2307/352430 · Cited by 2,270
Self-citationInterpersonal relations — a theory of interdependence
Maldé, B. (1979) · Applied Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/0003-6870(79)90259-x · Cited by 1,776
Structural Equation Modeling with EQS and EQS/WINDOWS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming
Byrne, B. M. (1994) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,499
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Byrne, B.M., 1994, Basic concepts, applications, and programming
- Christensen, A., 1984, Communication Patterns Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript
- Long, E.C.J., 1996, Family Relations, 45, 303
- 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.
- Sillars, A.L., 1980, Communication Yearbook, 4, 217
- Smith, T.D., Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Self-compassion, Interpersonal Conflict Resolutions, and Well-being
Yarnell, L. M., & Neff, K. D. (2012) · Self and Identity · doi:10.1080/15298868.2011.649545 · Cited by 490
Trivedi, J., & Sama, R. (2019) · Journal of Internet Commerce · doi:10.1080/15332861.2019.1700741 · Cited by 365
Fetais, A. H. M. A., Algharabat, R., Aljafari, A. M., & Rana, N. P. (2022) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-022-10264-7 · Cited by 95
Conflict resolution styles and teen dating violence
Bonache, H., Ramı́rez, G., & González-Méndez, R. (2016) · International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.ijchp.2016.03.003 · Cited by 83
Hepp, J., Lane, S. P., Carpenter, R. W., Niedtfeld, I., Brown, W. C., & Trull, T. J. (2017) · Clinical Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/2167702616677312 · Cited by 64
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
- 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
- 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
