The Avoidance Strategy Questionnaire (ASQ)

Abstract

The Avoidance Strategy Questionnaire (ASQ) is a specialized self-report instrument designed to measure the various tactics individuals employ when attempting to resist or avoid unwelcome requests from their partners within intimate relationships. It focuses on the specific behavioral and communicative strategies used when a person does not wish to comply with their partner’s persuasion attempts. The ASQ provides insight into how individuals manage relational conflict and maintain personal autonomy in the face of perceived pressure, characterizing avoidance along dimensions such as bilateral versus unilateral engagement and compliance versus noncompliance.

Keywords

Avoidance strategies, close relationships, relationship conflict, relationship dynamics, refusal tactics, compliance, noncompliance, self-report questionnaire.

Authors

Belk, S. S., Snell, W. E., Jr.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Avoidance Strategy Questionnaire (ASQ) is to assess the level of engagement and frequency of use of various specific avoidance strategies utilized by individuals in committed or close relationships. The scale helps researchers and clinicians categorize how partners respond when they are faced with a request they prefer not to fulfill.

By quantifying these behaviors, the ASQ allows for the systematic study of relational dynamics, particularly concerning power struggles, autonomy maintenance, and resistance to influence. The results are often analyzed based on underlying dimensions that differentiate between open negotiation (bilateral) and passive or aggressive refusal (unilateral).

Construct

The ASQ measures the construct of Avoidance Strategies in Intimate Relationships. These strategies are defined as the specific tactics and techniques people deploy to manage or neutralize their partners’ unwelcome attempts at persuasion. The construct is conceptualized across two primary, orthogonal dimensions identified through multidimensional scaling (MDS):

• Bilateral-Unilateral Dimension: This continuum describes the degree to which the resistance involves mutual discussion or negotiation (bilateral) versus tactics employed solely by the resisting partner, such as withdrawal, ignoring, or outright refusal (unilateral).
• Compliance-Noncompliance Dimension: This continuum addresses whether the individual ultimately conforms to the request, even if reluctantly, or whether they actively or passively refuse to comply.

Validity

Information regarding the specific validity coefficients and detailed psychometric evidence for the ASQ is primarily documented in the initial publication. The scale’s structural validity is supported by both Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) and Factor analysis procedures, which delineated the underlying dimensions of avoidance behavior.

The original research by Belk and Snell (1988) established construct validity by demonstrating that the items reliably group into meaningful categories corresponding to theoretical models of interpersonal influence and resistance. Further research has used the ASQ to successfully differentiate avoidance strategy use across various demographic groups and cultural contexts, supporting its cross-cultural applicability and external validity.

Reliability

Specific internal consistency reliability statistics (such as Cronbach’s alpha) for the ASQ subscales are detailed in the primary journal article referenced below. The rigorous statistical methods employed in the scale development, including MDS and factor analysis, suggest that the items consistently measure the intended dimensions of avoidance.

The reliability of the ASQ is crucial for ensuring that the measurement of avoidance tactics—which can range from subtle nonverbal cues to direct refusal—is stable and reproducible across different administrations and samples. Researchers should consult the 1988 article for specific coefficients related to the bilateral-unilateral and compliance-noncompliance scales, as well as the four identified factors.

Factor Analysis

The development of the ASQ utilized both multidimensional scaling (MDS) and factor analysis to structure the instrument and derive scoring procedures. Two primary scale construction methods emerged:

MDS-Derived Scales

The first method involves the computation of two continuous scales based on the MDS coefficients: the Bilateral-Unilateral scale and the Compliance-Noncompliance scale. Item scores are multiplied by their relevant MDS coefficients and then summed across the 24 items. Higher scores indicate greater use of bilateral strategies (versus unilateral) and compliance behaviors (versus noncompliance).

Factor-Analytic Subscales

The second method uses the results of the factor analysis, yielding four distinct subscales. These subscales are computed by summing the scores of the corresponding items. The four factors identified are:

• Factor I (Unilateral Avoidance): Items 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22.
• Factor II (Bilateral Avoidance): Items 9, 10, 12, 14, and 24.
• Factor III (Noncompliance Avoidance): Items 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 15, and 16.
• Factor IV (Unilateral Avoidance): Items 3, 7, and 11.

Note that for some scaling procedures mentioned in the original text (not explicitly detailed in the provided source), certain items may require reverse coding before summation to align with the intended direction of the factor score.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report questionnaire / Psychometric scale

Format: 24 Likert-style items scored on a 5-point frequency scale.

Language Available: English (Original); adaptations likely exist given studies examining US and Mexican populations.

Population Group: Individuals in close or intimate relationships (e.g., dating, married, cohabiting couples).

Age Group: Adults.

Population Details: Originally validated on samples relevant to social and clinical psychology research focusing on relationship dynamics.

Test Methodology: Respondents indicate how often they use each listed avoidance strategy in response to an unwelcome request from their partner, using a scale ranging from A (“Do not use at all”) to E (“Use very often”). The scoring assigns numerical values A=1 through E=5.

Keywords

Social psychometrics, relational resistance, influence tactics, multidimensional scaling, factor structure, relationship communication.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source content.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided in source content.

Correspondence Address: Not provided in source content.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Avoidance Strategy Questionnaire (ASQ) was first published in 1988. Permissions for use are typically governed by standard academic research guidelines, requiring citation of the primary reference (Belk & Snell, 1988). Specific fee requirements for commercial or clinical use should be sought directly from the original authors or copyright holders.

Reference’s

• Belk, S. S., & Snell, W. E., Jr. (1988). Avoidance strategies in intimate relationships. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 7, 80-96.
• Belk, S. S., Garcia, R., Hernandez, J. E., & Snell, W. E., Jr. (1988). Avoidance strategy use in the intimate relationships of women and men from Mexico and the United States. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 12, 165-174.

Items of the The Avoidance Strategy Questionnaire (ASQ)

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

CLOSE RELATIONSHIP STRATEGIES: Sometimes people in close relationships don’t want to do what their partner wants. The following questions pertain to how you avoid your partner’s requests in such situations. Use the following scale to indicate how often you use the following types of avoidance strategies with your partner:

A …………. B …………. C …………. D E

Do not use at all ……………………………………………………………………. Use very often

REMEMBER:

You will be indicating how often you use the following avoidance strategies in response to an unwelcome request from your partner.

1. I refuse his/her requests with an affectionate gesture (e.g., with a kiss).
2. I express displeasure through body language (e.g., facial disapproval).
3. I comply but unilaterally select the method and time of compliance.
4. I refuse the request in a forthright manner.
5. I tell my partner, “I don’t want to.”
6. I refuse and tell why I make the particular refusal.
7. I make excuses for not complying.
8. I simply comply with the request.
9. I discuss the request with my partner.
10. I discuss my feelings about the request with my partner.
11. I make an excuse about why I can’t (not won’t) comply.
12. I suggest other options and alternatives to the original request.
13. I tell my partner to do it alone or with someone else.
14. I suggest a compromise.
15. I am persistent in not giving in to his/her request.
16. I simply do not comply.
17. I directly and angrily refuse to comply.
18. I withdraw emotionally from my partner.
19. I ignore my partner, or try to ignore the request.
20. I procrastinate until it is too late to comply.
21. I try to avoid the topic of the request in my partner’s presence.
22. I change the subject, diverting attention to some other topic.
23. I persuade my partner to “see things my way.”
24. I actually discuss my reasons for not complying with his/her request.