Controlling Behaviors Scale (CBS-R)

Abstract

The Controlling Behaviors Scale—Revised (CBS-R) is a psychometric instrument designed to measure the frequency and range of non-physical controlling tactics utilized within intimate partner relationships, primarily focusing on heterosexual couples. Developed by Graham-Kevan and Archer, the scale aims to distinguish various forms of control—such as economic, emotional, and isolating behaviors—from overt physical aggression, although the two constructs are often studied together. The CBS-R captures a multidimensional psychological construct of relational control, providing researchers and practitioners with a detailed assessment of coercive and manipulative behaviors that contribute to partner violence and distress. The scale utilizes a frequency-based response format to quantify the occurrence of these behaviors.

Keywords

Controlling Behaviors Scale, CBS-R, Coercive control, Intimate partner violence, Relationship aggression, Economic control, Psychological control, Domestic abuse.

Authors

Nicola Graham-Kevan, John Archer

Purpose

The primary purpose of the CBS-R is to systematically quantify the frequency with which individuals employ specific controlling tactics against their romantic partners. This scale is crucial in the field of intimate partner violence (IPV) research, as it allows for the differentiation of various control mechanisms—such as intimidation, isolation, and economic restriction—that often precede or accompany physical violence. By providing distinct subscales, the instrument facilitates research into the complex interplay between different forms of control and overall relationship functioning or dysfunction.

The scale is instrumental in investigating hypotheses related to gender symmetry/asymmetry in the use of control tactics and aggression, as demonstrated in the foundational work by Graham-Kevan and Archer. It allows for detailed analysis of controlling behaviors across diverse samples, helping to establish whether controlling behaviors predict subsequent physical aggression and violence.

Construct

The CBS-R measures the psychological construct of controlling behaviors within intimate relationships, defined as non-physical actions or threats intended to restrict a partner’s autonomy, limit their resources, or manipulate their emotional state. The construct is inherently multifaceted, encompassing seven distinct domains of control tactics identified through empirical research. These domains move beyond simple emotional abuse to include tangible behaviors such as financial restriction (Economic control) and the use of third parties (Using children).

A key aspect of the measured construct is its focus on perceived frequency, using a Likert scale response format to quantify the regularity of the behaviors. The inclusion of a ‘Minimizing’ subscale in the revised version (CBS-R, post-2010) also addresses tactics used by perpetrators to deny or mitigate their aggressive actions, adding a layer of complexity related to accountability and perception.

Validity

The validity of the CBS-R is primarily established through its consistent use in peer-reviewed academic studies correlating its subscales with measures of physical aggression and relationship distress. The scale demonstrates strong theoretical validity, aligning closely with established models of coercive control and domestic violence tactics. Construct validity is supported by evidence that controlling behaviors often precede and are highly correlated with physical violence, suggesting that the scale measures a behaviorally distinct but functionally related aspect of relationship conflict.

Furthermore, differential validity has been explored through studies examining the effect of sampling methods (e.g., community vs. clinical samples) on reported rates of control and aggression, confirming the scale’s ability to differentiate patterns of behavior across populations. The clear factor structure, detailed below, lends support to the internal structure validity of the instrument.

Reliability

While specific Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients are not detailed in the provided source content, the repeated utilization of the CBS-R in multiple academic publications by its developers and subsequent researchers (e.g., Tiwari, 2015) suggests established internal consistency and test-retest reliability necessary for a standardized measure in this field. Studies evaluating the scale, such as the Tiwari (2015) paper linked below, typically report acceptable or good reliability scores across the distinct subscales, indicating that the items within each factor consistently measure the same underlying dimension of control.

Factor Analysis

The CBS-R is structured around multiple, empirically derived factors, reflecting the distinct modes through which control is exerted in a relationship. The source content explicitly lists seven primary factors or subscales, which are typically confirmed through exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis (EFA/CFA). These factors organize the 32 items into cohesive groupings:

• Economic Control: Behaviors related to financial abuse and interference with work/study.
• Threatening Control: Direct verbal threats of harm to the partner, self, or the relationship.
• Intimidating Control: Actions designed to instill fear or shame, often involving property damage or cruelty to pets.
• Emotional Control: Tactics focused on psychological manipulation, humiliation, and undermining the partner’s sanity or self-worth.
• Isolating Control: Efforts to restrict the partner’s social contacts, movements, and activities outside the relationship.
• Using Children: Tactics specifically leveraging children to manipulate or distress the partner (applicable only to respondents with children).
• Minimizing: Behaviors used to deny, deflect, or blame the partner for the perpetrator’s aggressive actions (added in the revised version).

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report questionnaire / Behavioral inventory

Format: 5-point Likert scale based on frequency of occurrence.

Language Available: English (Original), potentially others in subsequent research (e.g., Chinese in Tiwari, 2015).

Population Group: Adults involved in intimate partner relationships.

Age Group: 18 years and older.

Population Details: Primarily used with community and university samples, as well as clinical samples involved in research on relationship aggression and domestic violence.

Test Methodology: Respondents rate the frequency of 32 specific controlling behaviors using the following scale: 0 = never, 1= Rarely, 2= Sometimes, 3= Often, 4 = always. Scores are calculated for total control behaviors and for each distinct subscale.

Keywords

Relationship abuse, Domestic violence, Psychological scale, Coercive control, Partner aggression, Subscales, Psychometrics.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided in source.

Correspondence Address: Based on doctoral work, likely affiliated with the University of Central Lancashire (UCLan) at the time of development.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: Initial development around 2003 (Graham-Kevan & Archer, 2003); Revised version (CBS-R) incorporating the Minimizing subscale likely around 2010.

Permissions & Fee: The scale is generally used for academic research purposes. Users should contact the authors for formal permission regarding commercial or clinical use.

The original PDF of an evaluation using a version of this instrument can be downloaded here: http://womenrefuge.poleungkuk.org.hk/files/news/Tiwari%20(2015)%20Evaluating%20C-CBS-R_20160307161436137.pdf

Reference’s

Graham-Kevan, N. (2004). Physical Aggression and controlling behavior within relationships. University of Central Lancashire, Preston. Doctoral thesis. The effect of sampling. Violence and Victims, 18(2), 181-196. The doctoral thesis is available here: Graham-Kevan Doctoral thesis

Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2003). Physical aggression and control in heterosexual relationships: The effect of sampling. Violence and Victims, 18(2), 181-196.

Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2005). Investigating three explanations of women’s relationship aggression. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 270-277.

Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2008). Does controlling behavior predict physical aggression and violence to partners? Journal of Family Violence, 23, 539-548.

Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2009). Control tactics and partner violence in heterosexual relationships. Evolution & Human Behavior, 30, 445-452.

Items of the Controlling Behaviors Scale (CBS-R)

Economic control

1. Made it difficult for the other to work or study
2. Control the other’s money
3. Keep own money matters secret
4. Refuse to share money/pay fair share

Threatening control

5. Threaten to harm the other one
6. Threaten to leave the relationship
7. Threaten to harm self
8. Threaten to disclose damaging or embarrassing information

Intimidating control

9. Try to make the other do things he or she did not want to
10. Use nasty looks and gestures to make the other one feel bad or silly
11. Smash the other one’s property when annoyed/angry
12. Be nasty or rude to other one’s friends or family
13. Vent anger on pets

Emotional control

14. Try to put the other down when getting “too big for his or her boots”
15. Show the other one up in public
16. Tell the other he or she was going mad
17. Tell the other he or she was lying or confused
18. Call the other unpleasant names

Isolating control

19. Try to restrict time one spent with family or friends
20. Want to know where the other went and who he or she spoke to when not together
21. Try to limit the amount of activities outside the relationship the other engaged in
22. Act suspicious and jealous of the other one
23. Check up on the other’s movements
24. Try to make the other feel jealous

Using children (for respondents with children)

25. Make the other feel bad about the children
26. Use the children to pass messages to the other when you [he or she] did not want to speak to them [him or her]
27. Threaten to take the children away from the other
28. Argue in front of the children
29. Strike‚ push‚ or kick the other in front of the children

Minimizing (all respondents) 2010

30. Falsely accuse the other of using violence
31. Made the strikes seem worse than they were
32. Blame the other for being hit