Conflict Resolution Styles Inventory (CRSI)

Conflict Resolution Styles Inventory (CRSI) is an assessment tool that helps individuals and groups identify their preferred styles of conflict resolution. The CRSI is a self-report questionnaire that provides insight into how an individual or group typically responds to interpersonal conflict. It is based on the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument, which was developed in the 1970s to measure five different conflict resolution styles. The five conflict resolution styles measured by the CRSI are: Competing, Avoiding, Accommodating, Compromising, and Collaborating. Competing is a style of conflict resolution in which one party attempts to win at the expense of the other. Avoiding is a style of conflict resolution in which one party attempts to avoid the conflict altogether. Accommodating is a style of conflict resolution in which one party attempts to give in to the other partys demands. Compromising is a style of conflict resolution in which both parties attempt to come to a mutually beneficial agreement. Finally, Collaborating is a style of conflict resolution in which both parties attempt to work together to find a solution that meets both of their needs. The CRSI is a valuable tool for individuals and groups who are looking to better understand their preferred styles of conflict resolution. It can help individuals and groups identify areas of strength and weakness in their conflict resolution skills, as well as areas of potential growth. It can also help individuals and groups identify areas of conflict that may require additional attention and resources. The CRSI is a useful tool for individuals and groups who are looking to improve their conflict resolution skills. By understanding their preferred styles of conflict resolution, individuals and groups can develop strategies to better manage interpersonal conflicts. Additionally, the CRSI can help individuals and groups identify areas of conflict that may require additional attention and resources. Ultimately, the CRSI can help individuals and groups become more effective in resolving conflicts in a constructive and positive manner.
1.Launching personal attacks.
2. Focusing on the problem at hand.
3. Remaining silent for long periods of time.
4. Not being willing to stick up for myself.
5. Exploding and getting out of control.
6. Sitting down and discussing differences constructively.
7. Reaching a limit‚ shutting down‚ and refusing to talk any further.
8. Being too compliant.
9. Getting carried away and saying things that aren’t meant.
10. Finding alternatives that are acceptable to each of us.
11. Tuning the other person out.
12. Not defending my position.
13. Throwing insults and digs.
14. Negotiating and compromising.
15. Withdrawing‚ acting distant and not interested.
16. Giving in with little attempt to present my side of the issue.
Positive problem solvingconflict engagement ‚ conflict withdrawal‚ and compliance (alpha 0.79-0.90) (Henson‚ 2001)
 
Never‚ Rarely‚ Sometimes‚ Often‚ All of the Time
Conflict Engagement Subscale
·         Launching personal attacks.
·         Exploding and getting out of control.
·         Getting carried away and saying things that aren’t meant.
·         Throwing insults and digs.
Positive Problem Solving Subscale
·         Focusing on the problem at hand.
·         Sitting down and discussing differences constructively.
·         Finding alternatives that are acceptable to each of us.
·         Negotiating and compromising.
Self-Protection Subscale
·         Remaining silent for long periods of time.
·         Reaching a limit‚ shutting down‚ and refusing to talk any further.
·         Tuning the other person out.
·         Withdrawing‚ acting distant and not interested.
Acceptance Subscale
·         Not being willing to stick up for myself.
·         Being too compliant.
·         Not defending my position.
·         Giving in with little attempt to present my side of the issue.
 

Kurdek‚ L. A. (1994). Conflict resolution styles in gay‚ lesbian‚ heterosexual nonparent‚ and heterosexual parent couples. Journal of Marriage and Family‚ 56(3)‚ 705-722.

Kurdek‚ L. A. (1995). Predicting changes in marital satisfaction from husbands’ and wives’ conflict resolution styles. Journal of Marriage and the Family‚ 57‚ 153-164

Kurdek‚ L. A. (1997). Relation between neuroticism and dimensions of relationship commitment: Evidence from gay‚ lesbian‚ and heterosexual couples. Journal of Family Psychology‚ 11‚ 109-134.

Kurdek‚ L. A. (1998). Relationship outcomes and their predictors: Longitudinal evidence from heterosexual married‚ gay cohabiting‚ and lesbian cohabiting couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family‚ 60‚ 553568

Kurdek‚ L. A. (2007). Avoidance motivation and commitment in heterosexual‚ gay male‚ and lesbian partners. Personal Relationships‚ 14(2)‚ 291-306.

German‚ Nicole Marie. (2013). Assessment of Disharmony and Disaffection. Auburn University. Doctoral thesis.

Henson‚ R. K. (2001). Understanding internal consistency reliability estimates: A conceptual primer on coefficient alpha. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development‚ 34‚ 177-189.