Conflict with Family Scale

Abstract

The Conflict with Family scale is a specialized, abbreviated instrument derived from the comprehensive Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) framework. It is expertly designed to quantify the specific behavioral tactics utilized by individuals when navigating disagreements within the immediate family unit, typically involving interactions with a parent or sibling. Recognizing that conflict is an inherent, though often challenging, component of family life, the scale moves beyond simple identification of discord to systematically categorize the methods used for resolution. The measured tactics span a broad continuum, ranging from constructive behaviors like calm discussion and negotiation to highly destructive patterns, including verbal insults, emotional withdrawal, and various levels of physical aggression. Understanding and quantifying these specific tactics is essential for researchers and clinicians seeking to assess the health of relationships, identify chronic patterns of dysfunction, and recognize potential indicators of abuse or violence within the family setting.

This scale provides a reliable, quantitative measure that allows for the differentiated scoring of low-intensity communication tactics versus high-intensity violent acts, making it a crucial tool in sociological and psychological studies of family dynamics.

Keywords

Conflict Tactics Scale, CTS, Family Conflict, Intrafamily Violence, Aggression, Conflict Resolution, Murray A. Straus, Psychological Scale, Family Dynamics, Behavioral Inventory.

Authors

Murray A. Straus, Richard J. Gelles, Joel Fischer, Kevin J. Corcoran.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Conflict with Family scale is to provide a systematic and objective measurement of the incidence and nature of specific behaviors employed during disputes between family members, particularly focusing on interactions between siblings and parents. It serves as a behavioral inventory designed to quantify the frequency of various tactics over a defined reference period, such as the preceding year.

The instrument is intended to capture the full spectrum of responses, enabling the quantification of both non-violent, constructive tactics (e.g., rational argument, seeking compromise) and destructive, violent tactics (e.g., psychological aggression and physical assault). By differentiating these behavioral strategies, the scale offers researchers and clinicians a robust, reliable measure for mapping complex family interaction patterns and assessing the prevalence of potential intrafamily violence.

Construct

The core psychological construct measured by the Conflict with Family scale is the behavioral repertoire of conflict resolution tactics utilized within close interpersonal relationships. This construct is not merely defined by the presence or absence of conflict, but by the specific strategies employed to manage or escalate the dispute.

The items are structured to reflect three primary, distinguishable dimensions of interaction behavior: 1) attempts at constructive communication and resolution, often termed Negotiation (e.g., calm discussion, information gathering); 2) expressions of psychological or emotional aggression (e.g., yelling, sulking, withdrawal); and 3) acts of physical aggression or violence (e.g., hitting, throwing objects, threatening harm). The scale’s utility lies in its ability to quantify the relative reliance an individual places on these distinct behavioral strategies when faced with family disputes.

Validity

The psychometric integrity of the Conflict with Family scale rests heavily on the extensive validation studies performed on its parent instrument, the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS). The scale demonstrates high levels of Content validity, as the item pool was developed through comprehensive empirical research involving large samples, ensuring that the items accurately reflect the full range of behaviors commonly reported during conflict situations.

Furthermore, construct validity is strongly supported by consistent empirical findings. The dimensions derived from the CTS framework reliably correlate in theoretically meaningful ways with external measures of relationship distress, overall psychological well-being, and other established indicators of family dysfunction. Crucially, the scale exhibits discriminant validity, effectively distinguishing between the use of verbal and psychological aggression versus the commission of physical violence, which is vital for accurate clinical assessment and intervention planning.

Reliability

Reliability studies conducted across the full CTS and its subsequent revisions (such as the CTS2) generally indicate acceptable to good levels of internal consistency, as measured by Cronbach’s Alpha, for its derived subscales. This consistency is often highest for the more overtly measurable behaviors, particularly the Physical Assault subscale.

Test-retest reliability, which measures the temporal stability of the scores, has been demonstrated to be adequate, especially when the scale is used to assess behavioral patterns over recent, defined periods. The consistency observed in reporting specific conflict behaviors across various measurement contexts provides strong evidence for the reliability of using these specific behavioral tactics to accurately measure intrafamily aggression and resolution strategies.

Factor Analysis

Although specific factor analysis results for this abbreviated “Conflict with Family” version are not detailed in the source content, the instrument’s items are meticulously aligned with the widely accepted and empirically validated factor structure of the standard Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS). This established structure consistently yields three key factors that represent a clear continuum of conflict behavior severity.

• Negotiation (Items A-D): Reflects attempts at rational problem-solving, constructive communication, and compromise.

• Psychological Aggression (Items E-H): Encompasses verbal and emotional abuse, coercion, and passive-aggressive behaviors such as sulking or emotional withdrawal.

• Physical Violence (Items I-N): Covers the range of physical acts, spanning from minor physical gestures (e.g., pushing) to severe assault (e.g., hitting with an object). The differentiation of these subscales is fundamental to the scale’s utility, allowing for nuanced and differentiated scoring of conflict behaviors.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report measure (Behavioral Inventory)

Format: 15 items (A-O) rated on a 6-point frequency scale (0 to 5), covering frequencies from “Never” to “More than once a month.”

Language Available: English (Original), with numerous translations existing for the full CTS and its variations.

Population Group: Individuals involved in close family relationships, including children, adolescents, and adults reporting on their interactions with parents or siblings.

Age Group: Applicable to respondents capable of reliable recall and reporting of conflict behaviors, typically utilized with adolescents and adults.

Population Details: Used extensively in sociological and psychological research focused on family dynamics, the etiology of domestic violence, and parent-child interaction patterns across diverse cultures.

Test Methodology: Respondents are instructed to indicate the frequency with which they or a specified family member performed each of the listed conflict tactics during a defined reference period (e.g., the last 12 months).

Keywords

Intrafamily Conflict, Conflict Tactics Scale, Family Dynamics, Psychological Measurement, Relationship Assessment, Violence Measurement, Domestic Violence Screening, Behavioral Tactics.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A (Refer to primary author Murray A. Straus)

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A (Refer to institutional affiliations of authors)

Correspondence Address: N/A (Refer to University of New Hampshire for primary author Murray A. Straus, as of foundational research period)

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The foundational research that led to the development of the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) began in the early 1970s, with critical publications establishing the instrument appearing in 1974 and 1979 (Straus). The scale remains one of the most widely cited and utilized instruments in academic and clinical settings globally.

The specific instrument format provided here (likely an abbreviated version such as the CTS2x-Abridged) is frequently made available for non-commercial academic and research use without an associated fee. However, researchers are strongly advised to seek formal permission from the primary author or the current copyright holder prior to use. The original PDF can be downloaded here: http://pubpages.unh.edu/ch‎armas2/CTS41%20(CTS2x-Abridged).pdf.

Reference’s

1. Straus, M. A. (1974). Leveling, civility, and violence in the family. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 36, 13-29.

2. Straus, Murray A. (1979). Measuring Intrafamily Conflict and Violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) Scales. Journal of Marriage and Family, 41(1), 75-88.

3. 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, Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families (pp. 49-73). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishing.

4. Straus, Murray A.; Gelles, Richard J. (1990). Physical Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and Adaptations to Violence in 8,145 Families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

5. Fischer, Joel, & Corcoran, Kevin J. (2007). Measures for Clinical Practice and research: A sourcebook. (4th ed.). NY: Oxford University Pr. Vol. 1, Page(s), 227-231.

Items of the Conflict with Family Scale

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

Conflict with Brother or Sister or Parent

A. Tried to discuss the issue relatively calmly

B. Did discuss the issue relatively calmly

C. Got information to back up his/her side of things

D. Brought in someone else to help settle things (or tried to)

E. Argued heatedly but short of yelling

F. Yelled and/or insulted

G. Sulked and/or refused to talk about it

H. Stomped out of the room

I. Threw something (but not at the other) or smashed something

J. Threatened to hit or throw something at the other

K. Threw something at the other

L. Pushed, grabbed, or shoved the other

M. Hit (or tried to hit) the other person but not with anything

N. Hit or tried to hit) the other person with something hard

O. Other. Please describe:

0 =Never, 1= Once that year, 2=Two or three times, 3=Often, but less than once a month, 4 =About once a month, 5=More than once a month