Conflict Resolution Styles Inventory (CRSI)

Abstract

The Conflict Resolution Styles Inventory (CRSI) is a specialized psychological assessment tool developed primarily by Lawrence A. Kurdek. Its core function is to identify and quantify an individual’s habitual and preferred behavioral responses when faced with interpersonal conflict. Operating as a self-report questionnaire, the CRSI draws heavily from the theoretical foundation established by the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI).

The inventory provides crucial diagnostic insight, offering users a structured framework for understanding their conflict management skills. By pinpointing specific areas of strength and weakness—such as engagement, withdrawal, or positive problem-solving—the CRSI facilitates targeted interventions aimed at improving constructive communication and fostering more effective resolution strategies in various relational contexts, particularly among couples.

Keywords

Conflict Resolution Styles Inventory, CRSI, Interpersonal Conflict, Conflict Management, Thomas-Kilmann Model, Self-Report, Couple Conflict, Relationship Dynamics, Psychometrics, Conflict Avoidance, Collaboration, Assertiveness, Psychology, Marital Satisfaction.

Authors

Lawrence A. Kurdek

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Conflict Resolution Styles Inventory (CRSI) is diagnostic and analytical: to provide a quantifiable measure of an individual’s typical behavioral patterns during disagreement. By structuring and measuring these responses, the CRSI enables users—and clinicians or researchers—to gain a deeper understanding of interaction dynamics, especially within intimate or relational settings like couples or teams.

Beyond diagnosis, the CRSI serves as a vital tool in applied fields such as counseling, psychology, and organizational development. It is frequently employed to guide training and development programs focused on enhancing interpersonal communication skills and promoting mutually beneficial approaches to managing tension and disagreement effectively.

Construct

The CRSI measures the psychological construct of Conflict Resolution Style, defined as the patterned behavioral response adopted by an individual when their interests diverge from those of another party. This construct is fundamentally rooted in the classic two-dimensional model of conflict behavior, which evaluates two independent axes: concern for self (assertiveness) and concern for others (cooperativeness).

Although the CRSI empirically yields four distinct factors (Positive Problem Solving, Conflict Engagement, Conflict Withdrawal, and Compliance), its conceptual basis is the five primary conflict modes associated with the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI). These five classic styles provide the theoretical framework from which the CRSI behaviors are derived:

• Competing: Characterized by high assertiveness and low cooperation, aiming to win at the expense of the other party.
• Avoiding: Characterized by low assertiveness and low cooperation, involving sidestepping or withdrawing from the conflict.
• Accommodating: Characterized by low assertiveness and high cooperation, involving giving in to the other party’s demands.
• Compromising: Characterized by moderate assertiveness and moderate cooperation, seeking a middle ground solution.
• Collaborating: Characterized by high assertiveness and high cooperation, involving working together to find a solution that satisfies both parties’ needs.

Validity

The validity of the CRSI is strongly evidenced by its consistent and successful application in extensive academic research, particularly longitudinal studies conducted by Kurdek (1994, 1995, 1998, 2007) focusing on relationship commitment, marital satisfaction, and couple dynamics. The scale exhibits strong predictive validity regarding long-term relationship outcomes, showing that destructive styles (such as hostile engagement or withdrawal) are reliable predictors of decreased satisfaction and commitment across diverse relationship types, including heterosexual, gay, and lesbian couples.

Furthermore, Content validity is established through the instrument’s item structure, which directly targets specific, observable behaviors related to the core dimensions of assertiveness and cooperation in conflict scenarios. Construct validity is supported by the scale’s theoretical alignment with the well-established TKI model, even as the CRSI organizes these behaviors into empirically derived factors (e.g., Positive Problem Solving) that hold high relevance in clinical and counseling settings.

Reliability

The reliability of the CRSI has been robustly demonstrated through measures of internal consistency across its various subscales. Research consistently indicates that the instrument possesses high internal reliability, confirming that the items loading onto each factor are cohesive and consistently measure the intended underlying construct.

Specifically, reliability estimates, typically quantified using Cronbach’s alpha, fall within the acceptable to excellent range standard for psychological measures. Published alpha coefficients for the primary subscales—Positive Problem Solving, Conflict Engagement, Conflict Withdrawal, and Compliance—have been reported to range from 0.79 to 0.90, as supported by studies such as Henson (2001) and subsequent applications of the inventory.

Factor Analysis

Although the CRSI is conceptually rooted in the five styles of the TKI model, empirical factor analysis generally reveals a four-factor structure that effectively captures differing approaches to conflict management. These four distinct factors or subscales structure the 16 items into conceptually coherent and clinically relevant dimensions (Henson, 2001; German, 2013):

1. Positive Problem Solving: This factor reflects constructive, cooperative, and non-aggressive methods aimed at achieving mutually acceptable solutions, encompassing behaviors like collaboration and constructive negotiation.
2. Conflict Engagement: This factor captures highly assertive and often destructive competitive behaviors, characterized by verbal aggression, emotional outbursts, and personal attacks.
3. Conflict Withdrawal (or Self-Protection): This factor reflects passive or avoidance behaviors, including refusing to communicate, tuning out the partner, emotional distancing, and overall retreat from the disagreement.
4. Compliance (or Acceptance): This factor represents highly accommodative behaviors where the individual yields easily, avoids defending their personal position, and readily gives in to the demands of the other party.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-Report Inventory / Psychological Assessment Tool

Format: Questionnaire consisting of 16 items.

Language Available: English (Primary research documentation is in English).

Population Group: Individuals, particularly those involved in intimate or close relationships (e.g., couples, families, organizational teams).

Age Group: Adults.

Population Details: The scale has been extensively validated across diverse relationship types, including heterosexual married couples, gay cohabiting couples, and lesbian cohabiting couples (Kurdek, 1994, 1998, 2007).

Test Methodology: Respondents rate the frequency with which they engage in the listed conflict behaviors using a five-point Likert-type scale with anchors: Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often, or All of the Time.

Keywords

Psychometrics, Relationship Dynamics, Conflict Avoidance, Collaboration, Assertiveness, Psychology, Marital Satisfaction, Conflict Resolution Style, Self-Report Inventory.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not specified in source content.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not specified in source content.

Correspondence Address: Not specified in source content.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Conflict Resolution Styles Inventory (CRSI) was initially developed and documented for academic and research use, with primary publication appearing in 1994 by Kurdek. Access and usage rights are generally governed by the original author or the publishing academic entity.

The full instrument is often accessible through academic resources, such as specialized handbooks or research databases. The original PDF thesis citing the instrument and its application can be downloaded here: https://etd.auburn.edu/bitstream/handle/10415/3666/Nicole%20German%20thesis.pdf?sequence=2.

Reference’s

• German, Nicole Marie. (2013). Assessment of Disharmony and Disaffection. Auburn University. Doctoral thesis.
• Henson, R. K. (2001). Understanding internal consistency reliability estimates: A conceptual primer on coefficient alpha. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 177-189.
• Kurdek, L. A. (1994). Conflict resolution styles in gay, lesbian, heterosexual nonparent, and heterosexual parent couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 56(3), 705-722.
• Kurdek, L. A. (1995). Predicting changes in marital satisfaction from husbands’ and wives’ conflict resolution styles. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 153-164.
• Kurdek, L. A. (1997). Relation between neuroticism and dimensions of relationship commitment: Evidence from gay, lesbian, and heterosexual couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 109-134.
• Kurdek, L. A. (1998). Relationship outcomes and their predictors: Longitudinal evidence from heterosexual married, gay cohabiting, and lesbian cohabiting couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 553-568.
• Kurdek, L. A. (2007). Avoidance motivation and commitment in heterosexual, gay male, and lesbian partners. Personal Relationships, 14(2), 291-306.

Items of the Conflict Resolution Styles Inventory (CRSI)

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

1. Launching personal attacks.
2. Focusing on the problem at hand.
3. Remaining silent for long periods of time.
4. Not being willing to stick up for myself.
5. Exploding and getting out of control.
6. Sitting down and discussing differences constructively.
7. Reaching a limit, shutting down, and refusing to talk any further.
8. Being too compliant.
9. Getting carried away and saying things that aren’t meant.
10. Finding alternatives that are acceptable to each of us.
11. Tuning the other person out.
12. Not defending my position.
13. Throwing insults and digs.
14. Negotiating and compromising.
15. Withdrawing, acting distant and not interested.
16. Giving in with little attempt to present my side of the issue.