The relationship sabotage scale: an evaluation of factor analyses and constructive validity.
Defensiveness
Relationship sabotage
Relationship sabotage scale
Relationship skills
Romantic relationships
Scale development
Self-sabotage
Trust difficulty
Journal
BMC psychology
ISSN: 2050-7283
Titre abrégé: BMC Psychol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101627676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 Sep 2021
19 Sep 2021
Historique:
received:
11
04
2021
accepted:
02
09
2021
entrez:
20
9
2021
pubmed:
21
9
2021
medline:
22
9
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Some individuals are no longer entering romantic relationships, others move through relationships too quickly searching for "the one" and making quick assessments of their romantic partners, while others stay in their relationships but "check out" or do not work on their issues. These are conclusions from two studies: (1) an interview with psychologists who specialise in relationship therapy, and (2) an analysis of individuals' lived experiences of relationships. The concept of relationship sabotage can explain these phenomena. However, presently, there is no instrument to conceptualise and empirically measure how people continue to employ self-defeating attitudes and behaviors in (and out) of relationships to impede success, or withdraw effort, and justify failure. A series of three studies (involving a total of 1365 English speaking individuals of diverse gender orientation, sexual orientation, and cultural background, with relationship sabotage experience) were conceptualized for the current project to fill the need for scale development and to build empirical evidence on the topic of self-sabotage in romantic relationships. The scale was developed over two studies using exploratory factor analysis and one-congeneric model analyses. The third study, using confirmatory factor analysis, confirmed the final structure for the Relationship Sabotage Scale (RSS), which contains 12 items and three factors: defensiveness, trust difficulty, and lack of relationship skills. Constructive validity analyses were also conducted. The RSS is a brief scale that provides conclusive information about individual patterns in relationships. Findings using this scale can offer explanations regarding the reasons that individuals engage in destructive behaviours from one relationship to the next. Investigations should continue to test a model for sabotage in romantic relationships using the developed scale and other factors such as relationship diferences and insecure attachment. More specifically, this measure can be used to understand mediator constructs of relational outcomes within the attachment framework to explain relationship dissolution and work towards relationship maintenance.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Some individuals are no longer entering romantic relationships, others move through relationships too quickly searching for "the one" and making quick assessments of their romantic partners, while others stay in their relationships but "check out" or do not work on their issues. These are conclusions from two studies: (1) an interview with psychologists who specialise in relationship therapy, and (2) an analysis of individuals' lived experiences of relationships. The concept of relationship sabotage can explain these phenomena. However, presently, there is no instrument to conceptualise and empirically measure how people continue to employ self-defeating attitudes and behaviors in (and out) of relationships to impede success, or withdraw effort, and justify failure.
METHODS AND RESULTS
RESULTS
A series of three studies (involving a total of 1365 English speaking individuals of diverse gender orientation, sexual orientation, and cultural background, with relationship sabotage experience) were conceptualized for the current project to fill the need for scale development and to build empirical evidence on the topic of self-sabotage in romantic relationships. The scale was developed over two studies using exploratory factor analysis and one-congeneric model analyses. The third study, using confirmatory factor analysis, confirmed the final structure for the Relationship Sabotage Scale (RSS), which contains 12 items and three factors: defensiveness, trust difficulty, and lack of relationship skills. Constructive validity analyses were also conducted.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The RSS is a brief scale that provides conclusive information about individual patterns in relationships. Findings using this scale can offer explanations regarding the reasons that individuals engage in destructive behaviours from one relationship to the next. Investigations should continue to test a model for sabotage in romantic relationships using the developed scale and other factors such as relationship diferences and insecure attachment. More specifically, this measure can be used to understand mediator constructs of relational outcomes within the attachment framework to explain relationship dissolution and work towards relationship maintenance.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34538259
doi: 10.1186/s40359-021-00644-0
pii: 10.1186/s40359-021-00644-0
pmc: PMC8449894
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
146Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Wei M, Ku T-Y. Testing a conceptual model of working through self-defeating patterns. J Couns Psychol. 2007;54(3):295–305.
Rusk N, Rothbaum F. From stress to learning: attachment theory meets goal orientation theory. Rev Gen Psychol. 2010;14(1):31–43.
Rusk N, Tamir M, Rothbaum F. Performance and learning goals for emotion regulation. Motiv Emot. 2011;35(4):444–60.
Bowlby J. The making and breaking of affectional bonds. New York: Taylor and Francis; 1979.
Hazan C, Shaver P. Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1987;52(3):511–24.
pubmed: 3572722
Collins NL, Ford MB, Guichard AC, Allard LM. Working models of attachment and attribution processes in intimate relationships. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2006;32(2):201–19.
pubmed: 16382082
Levine A, Heller RSF. Attached: the new science of adult attachment and how it can help you find-and keep-love. New York: Penguin Random House LLC; 2012.
Feeney JA, Noller P. Attachment style as a predictor of adult romantic relationships. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1990;58(2):281–91.
Elliot AJ, Reis HT. Attachment and exploration in adulthood. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003;85(2):317–31.
pubmed: 12916573
Locke KD. Attachment styles and interpersonal approach and avoidance goals in everyday couple interactions. Pers Relat. 2008;15(3):359–74.
Kammrath LK, Dweck C. Voicing conflict: preferred conflict strategies among incremental and entity theorists. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2006;32(11):1497–508.
pubmed: 17030891
Murray SL, Holmes JG, Collins NL. Optimizing assurance: the risk regulation system in relationships. Psychol Bull. 2006;132(5):641–66.
pubmed: 16910746
Cavallo JV, Fitzsimons GM, Holmes JG. When self-protection overreaches: relationship-specific threat activates domain-general avoidance motivation. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2010;46(1):1–8.
Peel R, Caltabiano N, Buckby B, McBain KA. Defining romantic self-sabotage: a thematic analysis of interviews with practicing psychologists. J Relatsh Res. 2019;10(e16):1–9.
Peel R, Caltabiano N. Why do we sabotage love? a thematic analysis of lived experiences of relationship breakdown and maintenance. J Couple Relatsh Ther. 2021;20(2):99–131.
Jones EE, Berglas S. Control of attributions about the self through self-handicapping strategies: the appeal of alcohol and the role of underachievement. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1978;4(2):200–6.
Rhodewalt F, Self-handicappers: individual differences in the preference for anticipatory self-protective acts. In: Self-handicapping the Paradox that isn’t [Internet]. pp. 69–106.
Post RD. Self-sabotage among successful women. Psychother Priv Pract. 1988;6(3):191–205.
Ayduk O, Downey G, Kim M. Rejection sensitivity and depressive symptoms in women. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2001;27(7):868–77.
Christensen A. Detection of conflict patterns in couples. In: Hahlweg K, Goldstein MJ, editors. The family process press monograph series understanding major mental disorder: the contribution of family interaction research. New York: Family Process Press; 1987. p. 250–65.
Gottman JM. The marriage clinic: a scientifically based marital therapy. New York: Norton; 1999.
Gottman JM, Levenson RW. A two-factor model for predicting when a couple will divorce: exploratory analyses using 14-year longitudinal data. Fam Process. 2002;41(1):83–96.
pubmed: 11924092
Greenberg LS, Johnson SM. Emotionally focused therapy for couples. New York: Guilford Press; 1998.
Shapiro AF, Gottman JM. Effects on marriage of a psycho-communicative-educational intervention with couples undergoing the transition to parenthood, evaluation at 1-year post intervention. J Fam Commun. 2005;5(1):1–24.
Sullaway M, Christensen A. Assessment of dysfunctional interaction patterns in couples. J Marriage Fam. 1983;45(3):653–60.
Gottman JM. What predicts divorce? the relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes. England: Psychology Press; 1993.
Worthington RL, Whittaker TA. Scale development research: a content analysis and recommendations for best practices. Couns Psychol. 2006;34(6):806–38.
Fabrigar LR, Wegener DT, MacCallum RC, Strahan EJ. Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychol Methods. 1999;4(3):272–99.
Costello AB, Osborne JW. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pract Assess Res Eval. 2005;10(7):1–9.
Ten CS. Steps in scale development and reporting: a guide for researchers. Commun Methods Meas. 2018;12(1):25.
Haig BD. Exploratory factor analysis, theory generation, and scientific method. Multivar Behav Res. 2005;40(3):303–29.
Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 4th ed. New York: Guilford Publications; 2016.
Kaiser HF. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika. 1974;39(1):31–6.
Bartlett MS. A note on the multiplying factors for various chi square approximations. J R Stat Soc. 1954;16(2):296–8.
Kaiser HF. The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educ Psychol Measur. 1960;20(1):141–51.
Russell D. In search of underlying dimensions: the use (and abuse) of factor analysis in PSPB. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2002;28:1629–46.
Bentler PM, Chou C-P. Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociol Methods Res. 1987;16(1):78–117.
Browne MW. Asymptotically distribution-free methods for the analysis of covariance structures. Br J Math Stat Psychol. 1984;37:62–83.
pubmed: 6733054
Satorra A, Bentler PM. Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In: Eye A, Clogg CC, editors. Latent variables analysis: applications for developmental research. California: Sage; 1994. p. 399–419.
Henson RK, Roberts JK. Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educ Psychol Meas. 2006;66(3):393–416.
Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. 6th ed. Sydney: Pearson; 2013.
Holmes-Smith PD, Rowe K. The development and use of congeneric measurement models in school effectiveness research: Improving the reliability and validity of composite and latent variables for fitting multilevel and structural equation models. In: International congress for school effectiveness and improvement. Australia; 1994.
Bollen KA. Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley; 1989.
Byrne BM. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications, and programming. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group; 2010.
Jöreskog KG. Some contributions to maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika. 1967;32(4):443–82.
Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociol Methods Res. 1992;21(2):230–58.
Hayduk LAG, Glaser DN. Jiving the four-step, waltzing around factor analysis, and other serious fun. Struct Equ Model A Multidiscip J. 2000;7(1):1–35.
Bentler PM. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull. 1990;107(2):238–46.
pubmed: 2320703
Jöreskog KG, Sorbom D. LISREL VI Analysis of linear structural relationships by maximum likelihood, instrument variables, and least square methods [Computer program]. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software, Inc.; 1984.
Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16(3):297–334.
Hancock GR, Mueller RO. Rethinking construct reliability within latent variable systems. In: Cudeck R, Du Toit S, Sörbom D, editors. Structural equation modeling: present and future Chicago. IL: Scientific Software International; 2001. p. 195–216.
Lord FM, Novick MR. Statistical theories of mental test scores. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley; 1968.
Cohen JW. Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. 2nd ed. New Jervey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int J Med Educ. 2011;2:53–5.
pubmed: 28029643
pmcid: 4205511
Bagozzi RP, Yi Y, Phillips LW. Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Adm Sci Q. 1991;36(3):421–58.
Campbell DT, Fiske DW. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol Bull. 1959;56(2):81–105.
pubmed: 13634291
Wei M, Russell DW, Mallinckrodt B, Vogel DL. The experiences in close relationship scale (ECR)-short form: reliability, validity, and factor structure. J Pers Assess. 2007;88(2):187–204.
pubmed: 17437384
Fletcher GJO, Simpson JA, Thomas G. The measurement of perceived relationship quality components: a confirmatory factor analytic approach. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2000;26(3):340–54.
Strube MJ. An analysis of the self-handicapping scale. Basic Appl Soc Psychol. 1986;7(3):211–24.
Jöreskog KG, Sörbom D. LISREL 7 User’s reference guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software, Inc.; 1989.
Hair JJ, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE, Tatham RL. Multivariate data analysis. 7th ed. England: Pearson; 2010.
Fornell C, Larcker DF. Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: algebra and statistics. J Mark Res. 1981;18(3):382–8.
Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res. 1981;18(1):39–50.
Cheung GW, Wang C. Current approaches for assessing convergent and discriminant validity with SEM: Issues and solutions. Acad Manag Proc. 2017;217(1):12706.
Abramson LY, Metalsky GI, Alloy LB. Hopelessness depression: a theory-based subtype of depression. Psychol Rev. 1989;96(2):358–72.
Mikulincer M, Shaver PR, Pereg D. Attachment theory and affect regulation: the dynamics, development, and cognitive consequences of attachment-related strategies. Motiv Emot. 2003;27(2):77–102.
Rom E, Mikulincer M. Attachment theory and group processes: the association between attachment style and group-related representations, goals, memories, and functioning. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003;84(6):1220.
pubmed: 12793586
De Castella K, Byrne D, Covington M. Unmotivated or motivated to fail? a cross-cultural study of achievement motivation, fear of failure, and student disengagement. J Educ Psychol. 2013;105(3):861–80.
Gottman JM, Silver N. The seven principles for making marriage work. New York: Harmony Books; 2015.
Gottman JM. A theory of marital dissolution and stability. J Fam Psychol. 1993;7(1):57–75.
Harper MS, Dickson JW, Welsh DP. Self-silencing and rejection sensitivity in adolescent romantic relationships. J Youth Adolesc. 2006;35(3):435–43.
Downey G, Freitas AL, Michaelis B, Khouri H. The self-fulfilling prophecy in close relationships: rejection sensitivity and rejection by romantic partners. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998;75(2):545–60.
pubmed: 9731324
Rempel JK, Holmes JG, Zanna MP. Trust in close relationships. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1985;49(1):95–112.
Simpson JA. Influence of attachment styles on romantic relationships. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1990;59(5):971–80.
Le B, Dove NL, Agnew CR, Korn MS, Mutso AA. Predicting nonmarital romantic relationship dissolution: a meta-analytic synthesis. Pers Relat. 2010;17(3):377–90.
Pietromonaco PR, Barrett LF. The internal working models concept: What do we really know about the self in relation to others? Rev Gen Psychol. 2000;4(2):155–75.
Knee CR, Patrick H, Vietor NA, Neighbors C. Implicit theories of relationships: moderators of the link between conflict and commitment. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2004;30(5):617–28.
pubmed: 15107161
Hancock GR, Mueller RO. The reliability paradox in assessing structural relations within covariance structure models. Educ Psychol Measur. 2011;71(2):306–24.
van Bork R, Rhemtulla M, Waldorp LJ, Kruis J, Rezvanifar S, Borsboom D. Latent variable models and networks: Statistical equivalence and testability. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 2019:1–24.
Ruscio J, Ruscio AM, Carney LM. Performing taxometric analysis to distinguish categorical and dimensional variables. J Exp Psychopathol. 2011;2(2):170–96.
pubmed: 23946883
pmcid: 3740760