Skip to contentScholarGate
LibraryBookshelfDeskReview StudioAssistant
Sign in
On this page
IntuitionHow it worksWhen to use itStrengths & limitationsCommon pitfallsApplicationsFrequently asked🔒 Read the full methodSourcesRelated methods
Cite this pageSpotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →
Home›Social Psychology›Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2)
Process / pipelineintimate partner violence and conflict assessment

Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2)

Also known as: CTS2, Revised Conflict Tactics Scale, CTS

The Conflict Tactics Scale is the most widely used instrument for measuring how intimate partners handle disagreements and conflict, including tactics ranging from negotiation and psychological aggression to physical violence and sexual coercion. Developed by Murray Straus in 1979 and substantially revised in 1996 (CTS2), it is used extensively in family research, intimate partner violence assessment, and couple therapy evaluation. The CTS2 measures five dimensions of conflict behavior: negotiation (reasoning and discussion), psychological aggression (insults, threats), physical assault (pushing, hitting, weapon use), injury (physical consequences of violence), and sexual coercion.

ScholarGate
  1. Process / pipeline
  2. v1
  3. 3 Sources
  4. PUBLISHED
Cite this page →
Tools & resources
Download slides
Learn & explore

Read the full method

Members only

Sign in with a free account to read this section.

Sign in

Method map

The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.

Conflict Tactics Scale
Attachment Style Questio…Dyadic Adjustment ScaleFamily Assessment Device

When to use it

The CTS2 is appropriate for couples seeking relationship assessment or therapy, research on intimate partner violence, and forensic evaluation. It is essential in domestic violence screening, safety planning, and risk assessment. Clinicians use it to document baseline conflict patterns and monitor change during therapy. It is particularly valuable in research examining prevalence and correlates of partner violence across populations. Caution is needed: the CTS2 should NOT be used as the sole measure of safety or abuse. Victims may underreport due to fear or shame, and instruments cannot replace clinical safety assessment and interview.

Strengths & limitations

Strengths
  • Comprehensive assessment of the full spectrum of conflict behaviors, from healthy negotiation to severe violence, enabling nuanced differentiation.
  • Extensive validation across 30+ years and diverse populations; cited in thousands of epidemiological, clinical, and intervention studies.
  • Strong reliability; subscales show adequate internal consistency (α = 0.80–0.88 for most scales).
  • Available in brief and full versions; the M-CTS2 (20 items) is suitable for rapid screening in primary care or community settings.
Limitations
  • Vulnerable to underreporting by victims due to shame, fear of consequences, or minimization of abuse.
  • Cannot be used to assess safety in isolation; must be paired with clinical interview and risk assessment.
  • Does not measure controlling behavior, isolation, financial abuse, or other forms of coercive control outside physical tactics.
  • Assumes accurate mutual reporting; discrepancies between partners are common and may reflect different perceptions or intentional distortion.

Frequently asked

Can I use the CTS2 in couples therapy with a couple experiencing violence?

Use the CTS2 with extreme caution. If there is an active safety risk, controlling behavior, or fear in the relationship, administer it to each partner separately without the other present. In many domestic violence contexts, couple therapy is contraindicated and individual assessment is safer. Always conduct a separate safety assessment and risk evaluation before beginning any couples intervention.

What does it mean if partners report very different levels of violence?

Discrepancies are common and can reflect genuine differences in perception, selective memory, shame or fear (causing underreporting by the victim), or deliberate minimization by the perpetrator. Large discrepancies warrant individual follow-up interviews to understand the context. In general, victims may underreport physical assault due to fear or self-blame, while perpetrators may minimize frequency or severity.

Does the CTS2 assess controlling or coercive behavior?

The CTS2 does not measure controlling behaviors such as financial control, isolation from family, or constant surveillance. These are core features of abusive relationships. Instruments like the Controlling Behaviors Scale or Power and Control Wheel should be used alongside the CTS2 for comprehensive coercive control assessment.

Is the CTS2 score of zero violence proof of a safe relationship?

No. A low CTS2 score indicates absence of reported physical, psychological, or sexual aggression, but does not assess emotional abuse, control, or psychological trauma. Additionally, victims may deny or minimize violence due to fear. Clinical interview and safety assessment must complement any CTS2 score.

Can the CTS2 be used in child protection or custody proceedings?

The CTS2 provides evidence of conflict tactics in a relationship but should not be the sole source of information in custody or safety decisions. Court-appointed evaluators should triangulate CTS2 data with clinical interviews, child interviews, police records, and risk assessment instruments (e.g., Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment). CTS2 scores do not directly translate to risk level or custody recommendations.

Sources

  1. Straus, M. A. (1996). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics Scale. Journal of Family Issues, 41(1), 75-88. link ↗
  2. Straus, M. A., & Douglas, E. M. (2004). A short form of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale, and typologies for violence and control. Violence and Victims, 19(5), 507-520. DOI: 10.1037/t43278-000 ↗
  3. Hamby, S. L., Poindexter, V. C., & Reaney, S. (2006). Adaptations for diverse populations of the Conflict Tactics Scale: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11(4), 375-385. link ↗

How to cite this page

ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2). ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/social-psychology/conflict-tactics-scale

Related methods

Attachment Style QuestionnaireDyadic Adjustment ScaleFamily Assessment Device

Which method?

Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.

  • Attachment Style QuestionnaireSocial Psychology↔ compare
  • Dyadic Adjustment ScaleSocial Psychology↔ compare
  • Family Assessment DeviceSocial Psychology↔ compare
Compare side by side →

Similar methods

Dyadic Adjustment ScaleGender-Based Violence SurveyChildhood Trauma QuestionnaireWorkplace Violence ScaleSexual Experiences SurveyNAS-PIImpact of Event Scale RevisedAdverse Childhood Experiences Questionnaire

Related reference concepts

Intimate Partner Violence and AbuseCouple and Family TherapyInterpersonal Violence and Intimate Partner ViolenceTrauma and Abuse in ChildrenViolence Risk Assessment and ManagementClinical Psychological Testing

Spotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →

ScholarGate — Conflict Tactics Scale (Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2)). Retrieved 2026-07-21 from https://scholargate.app/en/social-psychology/conflict-tactics-scale · Dataset: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20539026
Quick facts
Originator
Murray A. Straus
Subfamily
intimate partner violence and conflict assessment
Year
1979
Type
Self-report questionnaire
Related methods
Attachment Style QuestionnaireDyadic Adjustment ScaleFamily Assessment Device
ScholarGate

A content-first reference library for research methods — what each one is, how it works, and where it comes from.

Open data (CC-BY)

Explore

  • Library
  • Search the library…
  • Browse by field
  • Fields
  • Journey
  • Compare
  • Which method?

Reference

  • Subjects
  • Atlas
  • Glossary
  • Methodology
  • Philosophy

Your tools

  • Bookshelf
  • Desk
  • Chat

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Contact
  • Suggest a method

Entries are compiled from published sources for reference. Verifying the accuracy and suitability of any information for your own use remains your responsibility.

© 2026 ScholarGate · A research-method reference library
  • Privacy
  • Cookies
  • Terms
  • Delete account