Suspicion Confirmation and Avoidance Strategies Measure

Abstract

The Suspicion Confirmation and Avoidance Strategies Measure (SCASM), developed by Weigel and Shrout (2025), is an instrument designed to quantify the specific behavioral and communicative strategies utilized by individuals who suspect their partner of infidelity. The scale development involved adapting items from existing measures related to intrusive and surveillance behaviors, as well as prosocial and avoidant responses to jealousy. Initially comprising 31 items, the measure was administered to individuals experiencing suspicion regarding their partner’s fidelity. Subsequent Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) resulted in a refined, reliable 26-item instrument structured around five distinct factors.

SCASM provides researchers and clinicians with a standardized tool to assess the spectrum of information-seeking and relationship-distancing behaviors employed during periods of relational uncertainty and suspicion, ranging from covert monitoring (Snooping, Surveillance) to overt communication (Conversation) or emotional withdrawal (Avoidance).

Keywords

Suspicion Confirmation Strategies, Avoidance Strategies, Infidelity, Jealousy, Close Relationships, Romantic Partners, Snooping, Surveillance, Intrusion, Information Seeking, Relationship Measures, Cheating.

Authors

Weigel, Daniel J., Shrout, M. Rosie

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Suspicion Confirmation and Avoidance Strategies Measure is to systematically evaluate the diverse types of strategies individuals employ when attempting either to confirm their suspicions regarding their partner’s potential infidelity or to avoid confronting the potential reality of the situation. This measure aids in understanding how relational uncertainty translates into specific, measurable behaviors.

The secondary purpose is to facilitate research into the factors influencing the choice between intrusive, information-seeking strategies (e.g., Snooping, Surveillance, Intrusion) and less direct, relational maintenance strategies (e.g., Avoidance, Conversation) when faced with the threat of unfaithfulness in a romantic partnership.

Construct

The SCASM measures behavioral and communicative responses to relationship suspicion. The scale is constructed around five distinct psychological and behavioral constructs, which capture the range of confirmation and avoidance tactics used by a suspicious partner. These five factors are:

1. Snooping: Covert physical actions taken to search a partner’s personal belongings or digital communication for evidence of infidelity.

2. Surveillance: Covert monitoring of the partner’s activities, movements, or conversations from a distance, without direct interaction.

3. Intrusion: Overt, direct interrogation and monitoring behaviors aimed at tracking the partner’s location and activities, often involving repeated questioning or unexpected check-ups.

4. Conversation: Prosocial communication strategies used to express feelings, discuss the situation openly, and share jealous feelings with the partner.

5. Avoidance: Strategies involving emotional or physical withdrawal from the partner, including the use of silence or pretending the relational issue does not exist.

Validity

At the time of publication of the foundational study (Weigel & Shrout, 2025), specific data regarding the criterion or construct validity of the Suspicion Confirmation and Avoidance Strategies Measure were not available. Future research is required to establish the external validity of the five-factor model and its predictive utility in relation to relationship outcomes.

Reliability

The measure demonstrates strong psychometric properties related to Internal Consistency across all five subscales, indicating that the items within each factor measure the intended construct reliably. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients reported for the finalized 26-item instrument are as follows:

• Snooping: α = .93

• Surveillance: α = .87

• Intrusion: α = .87

• Conversation: α = .85

• Avoidance: α = .81

These values suggest excellent to good reliability for all factor subscales, supporting the use of the measure in research settings.

Factor Analysis

Scale development utilized Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) to determine the underlying structure of the items. The analysis employed promax rotation, which is suitable for factors assumed to be correlated, and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was high (KMO = .93), indicating the data were highly suitable for factor analysis.

The EFA yielded a robust five-factor solution, which collectively accounted for 67.55% of the total variance in the original set of items. Items were retained only if they demonstrated factor loadings greater than .40 and contributed to a factor containing at least three items. Five items that did not meet these criteria were removed from the final 26-item measure. The distribution of variance and eigenvalues for the final factors were:

• Snooping: (Eigenvalue: 14.32, % Variance: 46.22%)

• Surveillance: (Eigenvalue: 2.66, % Variance: 8.57%)

• Intrusion: (Eigenvalue: 1.51, % Variance: 4.87%)

• Conversation: (Eigenvalue: 1.36, % Variance: 4.38%)

• Avoidance: (Eigenvalue: 1.05, % Variance: 3.51%)

Instrument

Test Type: Original Inventory/Questionnaire

Format: Items are rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale, anchored by 1 (Never) and 7 (Very Often).

Language Available: English

Population Group: Human; Male; Female

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

Population Details: The measure was validated using a sample of individuals in the United States who suspected their romantic partner of infidelity. Participant ages ranged from 18 to 47 years.

Test Methodology: Test Reliability, Internal Consistency, Factor Analysis, Exploratory Factor Analysis, Structural Equation Modeling

Keywords

Suspicion, Confirmation Strategies, Avoidance, Snooping, Surveillance, Intrusion, Cheating, Sexual Partners, Marriage and Partner Measures, Close Relationships, Relational Uncertainty, Infidelity.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: No data is Available

Affiliation Email addresses: [email protected] (Daniel J. Weigel)

Correspondence Address: Weigel, Daniel J.: University of Nevada Reno, Human Development & Family Science, 4955 Energy Way, Reno, Nevada, United States, 89502, [email protected]

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Permissions: Contact Publisher

Fee: No

Test Year: 2025

Reference’s

Weigel, D. J., & Shrout, M. R. (2025). Are you cheating on me? Identifying factors contributing to the use of suspicion confirmation and avoidance strategies. Western Journal of Communication, 89(1), 108–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2024.2324382

Whitford, H. & Howells, K. (2000). Selective review of the clinical literature on stalking. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 34, 619-635.

Guerrero, L.K., Andersen, P.A., Jorgensen, P.F., Spitzberg, B.H. (1995). Compensatory and destructive responses to jealousy: A test of the double-shot hypothesis. Communication Quarterly, 43, 29-44.

Guerrero, L. K., Hannawa, A. F., & Babin, E. A. (2011). Relational responses to jealousy: Hurt, anger, and communicative behavior. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 566-593.

Items of the Suspicion Confirmation and Avoidance Strategies Measure

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

Test Items Available: Yes

Number of items: This measure consists of 26 items.

Factors and Subscales:

• Snooping

• Surveillance

• Intrusion

• Conversation

• Avoidance

Instructions: Please indicate how often you have engaged in the following behaviors since you became suspicious that your partner is or may be cheating on you. Use the scale below:

1 = Never
2 =
3 =
4 =
5 =
6 =
7 = Very Often

---

Snooping

• Checked my partner’s belongings (e.g., wallet/ purse, bags, or pockets)

• Looked through my partner’s personal communication (e.g., text messages, e-mails, social media) without him/her knowing

• Went through my partner’s phone to see who he/ she had recently called

• Went through my partner’s property (e.g., car, home, office) to look around

• Looked through my partner’s drawers, handbags, pockets

• Checked my partner’s clothing for signs of cheating

Surveillance

• Secretly followed my partner to see where she/he was going

• Secretly listened to my partner’s conversations from another room

• Secretly watched from a distance to see what my partner was doing

• Read my partner’s personal mail without him/her knowing

Intrusion

• Asked my partner where he/she had been and what they had been doing

• Contacted (e.g., call, text message) my partner to check up on where she/he was

• Questioned my partner about his/her telephone calls

• Kept an eye on what my partner is saying and doing while socializing

• Arrived at places unexpectedly to see what my partner was doing

• Joined in whenever I see my partner talking to someone else

• Called my partner unexpectedly, just to see if she/he is there

Conversation

• Explained my feelings to my partner

• Discussed the situation with my partner

• Let my partner know I was upset

• Shared my jealous feelings with my partner

Avoidance

• Pretended nothing was wrong

• Stopped talking to my partner

• Became silent

• Gave my partner the “silent treatment”

• Physically pulled away from my partner