Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS)

Abstract

The Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) is a globally recognized self-report instrument designed to quantify the frequency and severity of conflict behaviors occurring within intimate relationships. Originally developed in the 1970s by Murray A. Straus and Richard J. Gelles, the CTS quickly became the standard tool for measuring physical, psychological, and sexual aggression in family research.

The revised and most frequently utilized version, the Conflict Tactics Scale 2 (CTS2), expanded the scope significantly. It introduced measures of positive conflict resolution tactics, such as negotiation and reasoning, alongside detailed assessments of the physical injury resulting from conflict. By dividing conflict behaviors into distinct subscales, the CTS allows researchers to analyze the full spectrum of strategies—both constructive and destructive—used during disagreements, making it a critical tool for assessing the prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) and evaluating intervention effectiveness.

Keywords

Conflict Tactics Scale, CTS2, Intimate Partner Violence (IPV), domestic violence, relationship conflict, aggression measurement, psychological aggression, sexual coercion, negotiation, family research.

Authors

Murray A. Straus, Richard J. Gelles, Sherry L. Hamby, Ann Boney-McCoy, David B. Sugarman.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Conflict Tactics Scale is to establish a standardized, quantifiable methodology for assessing the specific types and frequencies of tactics employed by individuals when managing or resolving conflicts with an intimate partner. This standardization is vital for researchers conducting large-scale epidemiological studies, clinical assessments, and cross-cultural analyses regarding relationship violence.

The instrument is engineered as a robust research tool, providing data essential for understanding the patterns and consequences of relationship violence. A unique strength of the CTS is its capacity to measure both the respondent’s actions and their partner’s actions, thereby offering a crucial perspective on the bidirectional nature of conflict behavior within intimate relationships. This allows for nuanced data collection necessary for effective violence reduction interventions.

Construct

The CTS conceptualizes and measures conflict behavior along a continuum, moving from constructive resolution attempts to severe forms of aggression and violence. The original CTS (Form R, 1985) utilized four broad categories: Reasoning, Verbal Aggression, Minor Violence, and Severe Violence. The subsequent development of the Conflict Tactics Scale 2 (CTS2) refined this model into five primary, psychometrically rigorous subscales designed to capture distinct dimensions of conflict dynamics:

• Negotiation: This subscale measures behaviors associated with positive and constructive conflict resolution, including calmly discussing issues, suggesting compromises, explaining one’s viewpoint, and displaying mutual respect for the partner’s feelings.
• Psychological Aggression: This measures non-physical tactics intended to control, intimidate, or inflict emotional harm upon the partner. Examples include verbal insults, shouting, making threats, and destroying the partner’s property.
• Physical Assault: This covers acts of physical force or violence, spanning a range from minor actions like pushing and shoving to severe acts such as hitting with an object or punching with a fist.
• Sexual Coercion: This subscale quantifies the use of threats, physical force, or persistent insistence (without physical force) employed to compel a partner into unwanted sexual activities.
• Injury: Distinct from the assault subscale, Injury measures the tangible physical consequences resulting from the conflict, such as visible bruises, sprains, fractures, or requiring medical intervention.

Validity

The CTS, particularly the revised CTS2, is underpinned by strong empirical evidence supporting its validity. Its content validity is established by the comprehensive range of items that systematically cover both positive (negotiation) and negative (physical, psychological, and sexual aggression) conflict behaviors. This ensures the scale captures the intended domain of relationship conflict tactics.

Furthermore, construct validity is well-supported through numerous statistical studies confirming the clear differentiation between the five intended factors of the CTS2. This demonstrates that the scale successfully measures distinct, non-overlapping dimensions of conflict behavior. However, a significant criticism leveled against the CTS is its perceived failure to adequately measure non-physical forms of coercive control, such as legal or economic abuse, which are often central components of chronic and severe intimate partner violence.

Reliability

Psychometric analyses consistently demonstrate that the CTS2 possesses acceptable to good internal consistency across its subscales, confirming its reliability as a stable measure of conflict tactics. For instance, the internal consistency reliability, measured by Cronbach’s alpha, for the Psychological Aggression subscale was reported as .79 in the preliminary psychometric studies of the CTS2.

Beyond internal consistency, test-retest reliability studies have generally indicated stability in how respondents report their conflict behaviors over extended periods. This longitudinal consistency reinforces the instrument’s utility in research and clinical settings, showing that the CTS2 consistently measures the underlying constructs over time.

Factor Analysis

The development of the CTS2 represented a significant methodological advancement, driven by extensive factor analysis aimed at enhancing the precision and differentiation of aggression types. The factor analysis performed on the CTS2 items successfully confirmed a stable and distinct five-factor structure: Negotiation, Psychological Aggression, Physical Assault, Sexual Coercion, and Injury.

This five-factor model provides a far more nuanced and granular analysis of conflict dynamics than the original CTS, which relied on broader, less distinct categories like Verbal Aggression and generalized Minor/Severe Violence. This refined structure ensures greater psychometric robustness and improved measurement specificity for researchers studying complex relationship violence phenomena.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report instrument, primarily utilized for large-scale epidemiological studies and clinical research on relationship dynamics.

Format: Structured questionnaire. The CTS2 contains 78 items, requiring respondents to rate the frequency of specific actions they committed and specific actions their partner committed during conflict.

Language Available: English (original version), with numerous validated translations available for global research applications.

Population Group: Individuals currently or recently involved in intimate relationships, including dating, married, and cohabiting couples.

Age Group: Primarily adults, though specialized adaptations, such as the Dating Conflict Tactics Scale, exist for use with adolescents.

Population Details: The scale has been widely utilized in major data collection efforts, including large-scale national surveys (e.g., the National Family Violence Survey) and targeted clinical trials evaluating intervention efficacy.

Test Methodology: Respondents are instructed to report the frequency of specific tactics used by themselves and their partner over a defined recall period (typically the past year). Scoring relies on ordinal scales based on frequency, with specific metrics varying slightly between versions. For the Partner CTS2, the scale ranges from 0 (never happened) to 6 (more than 20 times in the past year).

Keywords

Family violence, relationship conflict, domestic abuse, aggression measurement, CTS2, relationship research, conflict resolution, verbal aggression, sexual coercion.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source material.

Affiliation Email addresses: [email protected]

Correspondence Address: Murray A. Straus, Family Research Laboratory, 126 Horton Social Science Center, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824, Tel: 603-862-2594. Web: www.unh.edu/frl

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The original Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) was developed in the 1970s and formally published in 1979. The revised and improved version, the Conflict Tactics Scale 2 (CTS2), was developed and published in 1996. Researchers requiring permission for the use, adaptation, or licensing of the scale should direct their inquiries to the primary author, Murray A. Straus, through the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire.

Reference’s

The instrument documentation and related resources are available online. The original PDF for the YV Compendium can be downloaded here: http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/YV_Compendium.pdf. Documentation on the CTS Revised Scale is available here: http://lilt.ilstu.edu/mjreese/psy290/downloads/Straus%20et%20al%201996%20CTSR.pdf. Additional PDF documents related to the scale can be found here: http://www.sid.ir/fa/VEWSSID/J_pdf/79413901602.pdf and http://www.sid.ir/fa/VEWSSID/J_pdf/78913902507.pdf.

Key academic citations:

• Straus, M. A. (1974). Leveling, civility, and violence in the family. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 36, 13-29.
• Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics Scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75-88.
• Straus, M. A. (1990). The Conflict Tactics Scale and its critics: An evaluation and new data on validity and reliability. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles, Physicul violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families (pp. 49-73). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishing.
• Straus, M. A. (1995). Manual fur the Conflict Tactics Scales. Durham, NH: Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire.
• Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, A., Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and Preliminary Psychometric Data. Journal of Family Issues 1996; 17; 283.

Items of the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS)

Revised Scale Items (Grouped by Construct)

• Negotiation
• Explained side of argument
• Suggested compromise to an argument
• Showed partner cared
• Said could work out problem
• Agreed to try partner’s solution
• Respected partner’s feelings
• Psychological aggression (alpha = .79)
• Insulted or swore at partner
• Shouted at partner
• Stomped out of room
• Threatened to Mt or throw something at partner
• Destroyed something of partners
• Did something to spite partner
• Called partner fat or ugly
• Accused partner of being a lousy lover
• Physical assault
• Kicked‚ bit‚ or punched partner
• Slapped partner
• Beat up partner
• Hit partner with something
• Choked partner
• Slammed partner against wall
• Grabbed partner
• Threw something at partner that could hurt
• Used knife or gun on partner
• Pushed or shoved partner
• Twisted partner’s m or hair
• Burned or scalded partner on purpose
• Sexual coercion
• Used force to make partner have sex
• Used threats to make partner have anal sex
• Used force to make partner have anal sex
• Insisted on anal sex (no force)
• Used threats to make partner have sex
• Insisted on sex (no force)
• Insisted on sex without a condom (no force)
• Injury
• Partner was cut or bleeding
• Partner went to doctor for injury
• Partner needed to see doctor but didn’t
• Partner felt pain the next day
• Partner had sprain or bruise could see
• Partner’s private parts were bleeding

Original Scale (Form R‚ 1985)

• Reasoning
1. Discussed an issue calmly
2. Got information to back up your side of things
3. Brought in‚ or tried to bring in‚ someone to help settle things
• Verbal aggression
1. Insulted or swore at him/her
2. Sulked or refused to talk about an issue
3. Stomped out of the room or house or yard
4. Cried (this item is not scored)
5. Did or said something to spite him/her
6. Threatened to hit or throw something at him/her
7. Threw or smashed or hit or kicked something
• Minor violence
1. Threw something at him/her
2. Pushed‚ grabbed‚ or shoved him/her
3. Slapped or spanked him/her
• Severe Violence
1. Kicked‚ bit‚ or hit him/her with a fist
2. Hit or tried to hit him/her with something
3. Beat him/her up
4. Choked him/her
5. Threatened him/her with a knife or gun
6. Used a knife or fired a gun

Partner CTS2 Items (Self and Partner Report)

1. I showed my partner I cared even though we disagreed.
2. My partner showed care for me even though we disagreed.
3. I explained my side of a disagreement to my partner.
4. My partner explained his or her side of a disagreement to me.
5. I insulted or swore at my partner.
6. My partner did this to me.
7. I threw something at my partner that could hurt.
8. My partner did this to me.
9. I twisted my partner’s arm or hair.
10. My partner did this to me.
11. I had a sprain‚ bruise‚ or small cut because of a fight with my partner.
12. My partner had a sprain‚ bruise‚ or small cut because of a fight with me.
13. I showed respect for my partner’s feelings about an issue.
14. My partner showed respect for my feelings about an issue.
15. I made my partner have sex without a condom.
16. My partner did this to me.
17. I pushed or shoved my partner.
18. My partner did this to me.
19. I used force (like hitting‚ holding down‚ or using a weapon) to make my partner have oral or anal sex.
20. My partner did this to me.
21. I used a knife or gun on my partner.
22. My partner did this to me.
23. I passed out from being hit on the head by my partner in a fight.
24. My partner passed out from being hit on the head in a fight with me.
25. I called my partner fat or ugly.
26. My partner called me fat or ugly.
27. I punched or hit my partner with something that could hurt.
28. My partner did this to me.
29. I destroyed something belonging to my partner.
30. My partner did this to me.
31. I went to a doctor because of a fight with my partner.
32. My partner went to a doctor because of a fight with me.
33. I choked my partner.
34. My partner did this to me.
35. I shouted or yelled at my partner.
36. My partner did this to me.
37. I slammed my partner against a wall.
38. My partner did this to me.
39. I said I was sure we could work out a problem.
40. My partner was sure we could work it out.
41. I needed to see a doctor because of a fight with my partner‚ but I didn’t.
42. My partner needed to see a doctor because of a fight with me‚ but didn’t.
43. I beat up my partner.
44. My partner did this to me.
45. I grabbed my partner.
46. My partner did this to me.
47. I used force (like hitting. holding down. or using a weapon) to make my partner have sex.
48. My partner did this to me.
49. I stomped out of the room or house or yard during a disagreement.
50. My partner did this to me.
51. I insisted on sex when my partner did not want to (but did not use physical force).
52. My partner did this to me.
53. I slapped my partner.
54. My partner did this to me.
55. I had a broken bone from a fight with my partner.
56. My partner had a broken bone from a fight with me.
57. I used threats to make my partner have oral or anal sex.
58. My partner did this to me.
59. I suggested a compromise to a disagreement.
60. My partner did this to me.
61. I burned or scalded my partner on purpose.
62. My partner did this to me.
63. I insisted my partner have oral or anal sex (but did not use physical force).
64. My partner did this to me.
65. I accused my partner of being a lousy lover.
66. My partner accused me of this.
67. I did something to spite my partner.
68. My partner did this to me.
69. I threatened to hit or throw something at my partner.
70. My partner did this to me.
71. I felt physical pain that still hurt the next day because of a fight with my partner.
72. My partner still felt physical pain the next day because of a fight we had.
73. I kicked my partner.
74. My partner did this to me.
75. I used threats to make my partner have sex.
76. My partner did this to me.
77. I agreed to try a solution to a disagreement my partner suggested.
78. My partner agreed to try a solution I suggested.