Encyclopedia of Couple and Family Therapy

2019 Edition
| Editors: Jay L. Lebow, Anthony L. Chambers, Douglas C. Breunlin

Conflict Tactics Scale-2

  • Michele CascardiEmail author
  • Sarah Avery-Leaf
  • Michelle Rosselli
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49425-8_392

Name and Type of Measure

Conflict Tactics Scale 2 is a self-report survey of positive and negative behaviors used in an intimate relationship.


CTS2; Revised Conflict Tactics Scales; Revised Conflict Tactics Scales 2


Murray Straus published the groundbreaking measure called the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) in 1979. The CTS was designed to measure the frequency of specific positive tactics (e.g., negotiation and reasoning) and negative tactics (e.g., psychological and physical aggression) used to resolve conflicts, disagreements, or disputes in family relationships. This entry focuses on the CTS as a measure of behaviors between intimate partners, such as married, cohabiting, or dating partners.

Assessment using the CTS exposed a startling and unpleasant reality about American family life: husbands and wives engaged in physical aggression against one another at very high rates, with 17.9% of wives and 9.1% of husbands endorsing at least one act of physical...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Arias, I., & Beach, S. R. (1987). Validity of self-reports of marital violence. Journal of Family Violence, 2(2), 139–149.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00977038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barling, J., O’Leary, K. D., Jouriles, E. N., Vivian, D., & MacEwen, K. E. (1987). Factor similarity of the conflict tactics scales across samples, spouses, and sites: Issues and implications. Journal of Family Violence, 2(1), 37–54.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00976369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Birkley, E. L., & Eckhardt, C. I. (2015). Anger, hostility, internalizing negative emotions, and intimate partner violence perpetration: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 37, 3740–3756.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2015.01.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Browning, J., & Dutton, D. (1986). Assessment of wife assault with the conflict tactics scale: Using couple data to quantify the differential reporting effect. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48(2), 375–379.  https://doi.org/10.2307/352404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Calvete, E., Corral, S., & Estévez, A. (2007). Factor structure and validity of the revised conflict tactics scales for Spanish women. Violence Against Women, 13(10), 1072–1087.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801207305933.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Cascardi, M., Avery-Leaf, S., O’Leary, K. D., & Slep, A. S. (1999). Factor structure and convergent validity of the conflict tactics scale in high school students. Psychological Assessment, 11(4), 546–555.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.11.4.546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caulfield, M. B., & Riggs, D. S. (1992). The assessment of dating aggression: Empirical evaluation of the conflict tactics scale. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7(4), 549–558.  https://doi.org/10.1177/088626092007004010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cuenca, M. L., Graña, J. L., & Redondo, N. (2015). Differences in the prevalence of partner aggression according to the revised conflict tactics scale: Individual and dyadic report. Behavioral Psychology/Psicología Conductual: Revista Internacional Clínica Y De La Salud, 23(1), 127–140.Google Scholar
  9. Exner-Cortens, D., Gill, L., & Eckenrode, J. (2016). Measurement of adolescent dating violence: A comprehensive review (Part 2, attitudes). Aggression and Violent Behavior, 27, 2793–2106.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2016.02.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Friend, D. J., Bradley, R. P. C., Thatcher, R., & Gottman, J. M. (2011). Typologies of intimate partner violence: Evaluation of a screening instrument for differentiation. Journal of Family Violence, 26(7), 551–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hamby, S. L., & Sugarman, D. B. (1999). Acts of psychological aggression against a partner and their relation to physical assault and gender. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61(4), 959–970.  https://doi.org/10.2307/354016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heyman, R. E., & Schlee, K. A. (1997). Toward a better estimate of the prevalence of partner abuse: Adjusting rates based on the sensitivity of the conflict tactics scale. Journal of Family Psychology, 11(3), 332–338.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.11.3.332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johnson, M. P., & Ferraro, K. J. (2000). Research on domestic violence in the 1990s: Making distinctions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(4), 948–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lucente, S. W., Fals-Stewart, W., Richards, H. J., & Goscha, J. (2001). Factor structure and reliability of the revised conflict tactics scales for incarcerated female substance abusers. Journal of Family Violence, 16(4), 437–450.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012281027999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Murphy, C. M., & O’Leary, K. D. (1989). Psychological aggression predicts physical aggression in early marriage. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57(5), 579–582.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.57.5.579.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. O’Leary, K. D., & Williams, M. C. (2006). Agreement about acts of aggression in marriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(4), 656–662.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.20.4.656.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Salis, K. L., Salwen, J., & O’Leary, K. D. (2014). The predictive utility of psychological aggression for intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 5(1), 83–97.  https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.5.1.83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Simpson, L. E., & Christensen, A. (2005). Spousal agreement regarding relationship aggression on the conflict tactics Scale-2. Psychological Assessment, 17(4), 423–432.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.17.4.423.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41(1), 75–88.  https://doi.org/10.2307/351733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Straus, M. A. (1987). The conflict tactics scales and its critics: An evaluation and new data on validity and reliability. Retrieved from ERIC Number: ED297030.Google Scholar
  21. Straus, M. A., & Mickey, E. L. (2012). Reliability, validity, and prevalence of partner violence measured by the conflict tactics scales in male-dominant nations. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17(5), 463–474.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.06.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 283–316.  https://doi.org/10.1177/019251396017003001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Vega, E. M., & O’Leary, K. D. (2007). Test-retest reliability of the revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2). Journal of Family Violence, 22(8), 703–708.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-007-9118-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Viejo, C., Sanchez, V., & Ortega-Ruiz, R. (2014). Physical dating violence: The potential understating value of a bi-factorial model. Anales de Psicología, 30(1), 172–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Yun, S. H. (2011). Factor structure and reliability of the revised conflict tactics scales’ (CTS2) 10-factor model in a community-based female sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(4), 719–744.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260510365857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michele Cascardi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sarah Avery-Leaf
    • 2
  • Michelle Rosselli
    • 1
  1. 1.William Paterson UniversityWayneUSA
  2. 2.The Informatics Applications Group (tiag)TacomaUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Heather Pederson
    • 1
  • Diana Semmelhack
    • 2
  1. 1.Council for RelationshipsPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Midwestern UniversityDowners GroveUSA