Conflict Anxiety Response Scale (CARS)

Abstract

The Conflict Anxiety Response Scale (CARS), developed by Coleman and Chan (2023), serves as a crucial instrument for assessing the impact of conflict anxiety on an individual’s behavioral responses during personal conflicts. The scale is theoretically grounded in the influential framework proposed by Deutsch’s framework (1993), which posits several key dimensions underlying conflict behavior.

The scale development involved extensive refinement across seven distinct studies. Initial item sets were drafted to capture twelve hypothesized tendencies (e.g., avoid, escalate, rigid) structured across six bipolar dimensions (e.g., rigid-loose). The final psychometric evaluation utilized a large sample of adults in the United States, recruited through online platforms such as Mturk, Qualtrics, and Prolific. Researchers ultimately recommended a concise 22-item brief scale, derived by selecting the one or two items exhibiting the highest coefficients within the final statistical model. Comprehensive analyses, including Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA), test reliability, and validity assessments, were conducted and reported to establish the scale’s empirical rigor.

Keywords

Conflict Tendencies, Conflict Management, Anxiety, Anxiety Management, Conflict Resolution, Responses, Behavioral Measures, State Trait Level Measures, Psychometrics, Factor Analysis.

Authors

Coleman, Peter T., Chan, Anthea.

Purpose

The primary objective of the Conflict Anxiety Response Scale (CARS) is the precise measurement of an individual’s characteristic responses when faced with conflict anxiety. By quantifying these tendencies, the CARS provides insight into maladaptive or productive behaviors exhibited during interpersonal disputes.

Beyond simple measurement, the CARS is also designed to facilitate personal development. It generates an individualized feedback report aimed at increasing the respondent’s self-awareness regarding their typical conflict-response tendencies, thereby serving as a potential tool for intervention and improved Conflict Management.

Construct

The CARS measures responses to conflict based on an underlying structure derived from Deutsch’s framework (1993). This framework suggests that responses to conflict anxiety manifest across six fundamental bipolar dimensions. The scale operationalizes these dimensions through twelve specific conflict tendencies, which represent the spectrum of potential reactions, ranging from functional to dysfunctional.

The twelve hypothesized tendencies measured by the scale are: Avoid, Involve, Soft, Hard, Emotional, Intellectualize, Escalate, Minimize, Conceal, Reveal, Rigid, and Loose. These tendencies capture how individuals manage the distress and uncertainty associated with conflict situations, focusing specifically on the role of anxiety as a catalyst for certain behavioral patterns.

Validity

Validation studies for the CARS included an assessment of its Predictive Validity. The results offered general, though qualified, support for the foundational hypothesis derived from Deutsch’s original work. This hypothesis suggests that extreme responses to conflict anxiety along any of the measured dimensions are associated with greater difficulties.

Specifically, findings indicated that the more extreme the response along each dimension, the more problematic it is for respondents’ emotions, overall well-being, and the quality of their relationships. This supports the scale’s ability to predict real-world outcomes related to conflict management effectiveness.

Reliability

The reliability of the CARS was assessed primarily through measures of Internal Consistency. These assessments focused on ensuring that the items within each subscale consistently measure the same underlying construct. The final reported reliabilities across all subscales demonstrated acceptable to strong levels of consistency, with coefficients ranging from 0.67 to 0.895.

Factor Analysis

The scale underwent rigorous statistical investigation using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) across the development process. The initial EFA on the first data set utilized principal axis factoring and promax rotation, resulting in 66 separate EFAs covering every possible combination of the 12 factors. This aggressive approach to trimming items, while aiming for factor purity, led to some subscales becoming too small (fewer than three items).

Subsequent Confirmatory Factor Analysis was utilized to validate the final structure. In Model 3, specified correlations between latent factors were removed, which successfully improved key model fit indices (e.g., RMSEA = 0.060, CFI = 0.83, TLI = 0.82). The final, preferred model was identified as the one without correlated latent factors and with two items trimmed, exhibiting the lowest values for the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC).

Instrument

Test Type: Original Inventory/Questionnaire

Format: Items are rated on 5-point Likert scales.

Language Available: English

Population Group: Human; Male; Female

Age Group: Adulthood (18 yrs & older), encompassing Young Adulthood (18-29 yrs), Thirties (30-39 yrs), Middle Age (40-64 yrs), and Aged (65 yrs & older).

Population Details:

• Location: United States

• Respondents: Adults (Aged 18 to 80 Years) recruited via Mturk, Qualtrics, and Prolific online platforms.

Test Methodology: Test Validity, Predictive Validity, Test Reliability, Internal Consistency, Factor Analysis, Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Exploratory Factor Analysis.

Keywords

Conflict Tendencies, Conflict Management, Conflict Resolution, Anxiety, Psychometrics, Scale Development, Behavioral Responses, Likert Scale, Predictive Validity.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier:

• Chan, Anthea: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2667-2927

Affiliation Email addresses:

• Coleman, Peter T.: Columbia University, Teachers College, [email protected]

• Chan, Anthea: Coqual

Correspondence Address:

• Coleman, Peter T.: Columbia University, Teachers College, Morton Deutsch International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution, New York, New York, United States, [email protected]

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Permissions: Contact Corresponding Author

Commercial: No

Fee: No

Test Year: 2023

References

Coleman, P. T., & Chan, A. (2023). Conflict + anxiety = turmoil! Introducing a measure of conflict response derailers. Negotiation Journal, 39(2), 137–173. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12427

Items of the Conflict Anxiety Response Scale (CARS)

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

Number of items: This is a 22-item measure.

Subscales: Avoid; Involve; Soft; Hard; Emotional; Intellectualize; Escalate; Minimize; Conceal; Reveal; Rigid; Loose.

Test Items Available: No data is Available