Close Relationship Personality Test

1. Abstract

The Close Relationship Personality Test (CRPT) is an integrative psychometric instrument designed to assess relational functioning by synthesizing the structural principles of adult attachment theory with interpersonal manifestations of the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality. Developed within academic personality psychology laboratories—principally drawing upon the theoretical and measurement paradigms established by R. Chris Fraley and colleagues—the CRPT evaluates individual differences across two central adult attachment axes (Attachment Anxiety and Attachment Avoidance) alongside relationship-contextualized personality dimensions, including Relationship Neuroticism (emotional volatility/negative affectivity), Relationship Extraversion (sociability, energy, and assertiveness with the partner), and Relationship Agreeableness (cooperation, warmth, and forgiveness). The self-report inventory comprises 60 self-evaluation items and an optional 25-item dyadic partner-perception module, each evaluated along a 7-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree).

Extensive psychometric investigations of the CRPT and its constituent item pools (derived from the Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised [ECR-R] and contextualized Big Five inventories) demonstrate high internal consistency reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) and McDonald’s omega ($\omega$) coefficients typically exceeding .88 for the principal dimensions. Confirmatory factor analytic (CFA) and item response theory (IRT) investigations confirm robust construct validity, structural stability across romantic relationship types, and substantial convergent validity with standardized measures of dyadic adjustment, marital satisfaction, conflict resolution styles, and emotion regulation. This article provides a comprehensive academic analysis of the CRPT, detailing its theoretical foundation, psychometric properties, structural composition, scoring methodology, and empirical utility in clinical and research settings.

2. Keywords

Close Relationship Personality Test, adult attachment theory, attachment anxiety, attachment avoidance, Experiences in Close Relationships, Five-Factor Model, interpersonal personality, dyadic assessment, relationship satisfaction, psychometrics

3. Authors

The primary item architecture and empirical foundation of the Close Relationship Personality Test (administered through university-affiliated digital research platforms such as PersonalityLab) were formulated by R. Chris Fraley, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, in conjunction with foundational item contributions from Kelly A. Brennan, Ph.D., and Phillip R. Shaver, Ph.D. (University of California, Davis). Inquiries regarding the structural validation and psychometric calibration of the instrument may be directed to the Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 603 East Daniel Street, Champaign, IL 61820, or via academic correspondence through PersonalityLab.org.

4. Purpose

The fundamental purpose of the Close Relationship Personality Test is to operationalize, measure, and analyze the psychological mechanisms through which enduring cognitive, affective, and behavioral tendencies manifest within adult romantic attachments. For decades, personality psychology and relationship science developed along parallel but frequently disconnected theoretical tracks. Mainstream personality research focused predominantly on broad, decontextualized traits (e.g., the Big Five dimensions of Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness), whereas close relationship researchers focused predominantly on relational schemas, internal working models, and adult attachment orientations. The CRPT was engineered to bridge this empirical divide by providing a unified measurement instrument that captures both attachment security/insecurity and domain-specific interpersonal personality traits.

Theoretical Rationale and Diagnostic Objectives

Traditional measures of general personality traits often exhibit attenuated predictive validity when applied directly to romantic outcomes because individuals frequently exhibit distinct affective responses, communication patterns, and self-regulatory strategies inside romantic relationships that diverge from their global, generalized personality profiles. An individual may score relatively low on generalized trait anxiety in professional or casual social environments yet experience acute emotional vulnerability, hyperactivating attachment strategies, or profound abandonment fears in the context of an intimate romantic partnership. Conversely, an individual who is broadly extroverted and communicative among colleagues may adopt an emotionally deactivating, avoidant stance when confronted with relational dependency. The CRPT resolves this contextual attenuation by explicitly framing each item around how respondents generally experience and behave within close romantic relationships.

Research Applications

Within empirical research, the CRPT serves multiple investigative functions:

• Longitudinal Dyadic Modeling: The instrument facilitates Actor-Partner Interdependence Modeling (APIM) by allowing researchers to assess both self-reported relational dispositions and perceived partner characteristics across the transition to cohabitation, marriage, or parenthood.
• Stress and Coping Mechanisms: Researchers utilize the scale to examine how specific attachment-by-trait profiles predict physiological stress reactivity (e.g., hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis activation, cortisol slopes) during standardized laboratory conflict tasks.
• Technological and Modern Dating Dynamics: The scale enables the study of how attachment anxiety and relationship-specific neuroticism moderate communication behaviors in digital spaces, including algorithmic matchmaking preferences, digital jealousy, and texting patterns.

Clinical and Counseling Applications

In clinical psychology, couple and family therapy, and premarital counseling, the CRPT functions as an evidence-based diagnostic assessment tool. Clinicians utilize the profile generated by the 60 self-evaluation items and the 25 partner-perception items to:

• Identify underlying attachment injuries and structural vulnerabilities that fuel repetitive, destructive communication cycles (e.g., the classic pursue-withdraw pattern characteristic of high anxiety/high avoidance pairings).
• Differentiate characterological personality pathology from contextualized relational insecurity, facilitating targeted behavioral interventions such as Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT) or integrative behavioral couple therapy.
• Examine perceptual congruence and attributional biases by cross-referencing an individual’s self-report with their partner’s behavioral ratings across identical interpersonal dimensions.

5. Psychological Construct

The Close Relationship Personality Test evaluates a multidimensional matrix of relational constructs. Rather than viewing intimate relationships through an isolated theoretical lens, the inventory operationalizes individual differences across primary attachment dimensions and contextualized personality facets.

1. Attachment Anxiety

Attachment Anxiety reflects the extent to which an individual experiences hyperactivating affective and behavioral strategies, intense fear of rejection, abandonment distress, and a chronic preoccupation with a romantic partner’s availability and love. Individuals scoring high on this dimension maintain negative internal working models of the self alongside hypervigilant monitoring of their partner’s emotional state. Representative items capturing this construct include:

• “I’m afraid that I will lose my partner’s love.” (Item 1)
• “I often worry that my partner will not want to stay with me.” (Item 5)
• “I often worry that my partner doesn’t really love me.” (Item 8)
• “When my partner is out of sight, I worry that he or she might become interested in someone else.” (Item 21)

2. Attachment Avoidance

Attachment Avoidance reflects the degree to which an individual relies on deactivating emotional strategies, suppresses attachment needs, maintains behavioral self-reliance, and experiences acute discomfort with psychological intimacy, emotional disclosure, and interpersonal dependency. Individuals scoring high on this dimension maintain negative internal working models of others and defensively disengage when intimate closeness threatens their sense of autonomy. Items operationalizing avoidance include:

• “I prefer not to show a partner how I feel deep down.” (Item 3)
• “I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on romantic partners.” (Item 10)
• “I don’t feel comfortable opening up to romantic partners.” (Item 16)
• “I prefer not to be too close to romantic partners.” (Item 20)

Conversely, reverse-keyed indicators capture secure comfort with closeness and dependency (e.g., Item 13: “I am very comfortable being close to romantic partners”; Item 50: “I feel comfortable depending on romantic partners”).

3. Relational Neuroticism and Emotional Reactivity

Distinct from generalized neuroticism, Relational Neuroticism represents emotional instability, mood lability, and depressive vulnerability specifically triggered by the relational context. This dimension captures chronic apprehension, irritability, and low threshold for conflict escalation within the partnership:

• “I often feel depressed and blue about my relationships.” (Item 7)
• “I can be tense about my relationships.” (Item 22)
• “I can be moody about my relationships.” (Item 42)
• “I get nervous about my relationships easily.” (Item 57)

4. Relational Extraversion and Interpersonal Expressiveness

Relational Extraversion taps the degree of behavioral energy, sociability, open expressiveness, and assertive communication an individual brings into interactions with their partner. Rather than measuring how sociable an individual is at large parties, this facet assesses relational dynamism and communicative vitality:

• “I am talkative with my partner.” (Item 2)
• “When I am with my partner, I am full of energy.” (Item 17)
• “When I am with my partner, I generate a lot of enthusiasm.” (Item 24)
• “I am outgoing and sociable with my partner.” (Item 52)

5. Relational Agreeableness and Dyadic Altruism

Relational Agreeableness captures prosocial motivation, empathic concern, forgiveness, and cooperative orientation directed toward the romantic partner. High scorers prioritize harmony, actively de-escalate tension, and extend grace during transgressions:

• “I am helpful and unselfish with my partner.” (Item 12)
• “I have a forgiving nature when it comes to my partner.” (Item 27)
• “I am considerate and kind to my partner.” (Item 47)
• “I like to cooperate with my partner.” (Item 59)

6. Relational Antagonism and Conflict Propensity

At the inverse of relational agreeableness lies a dedicated cluster of items evaluating hostile, hypercritical, and confrontational behaviors that undermine dyadic stability. These behaviors capture toxic interpersonal habits that predict longitudinal relational dissolution:

• “I tend to find fault with my partner.” (Item 4)
• “I start quarrels with my partner.” (Item 19)
• “I can be cold and aloof with my partner.” (Item 39)
• “I am sometimes rude to my partner.” (Item 54)

6. Theoretical Framework

The conceptual architecture of the Close Relationship Personality Test is grounded in the theoretical integration of two major scientific paradigms: John Bowlby’s Ethological Attachment Theory (extended to adult romantic relationships by Cindy Hazan, Phillip Shaver, and R. Chris Fraley) and the Five-Factor Model of Personality (elaborated by Costa, McCrae, and contemporary contextualized-trait theorists).

Bowlby-Ainsworth Attachment Foundations

John Bowlby (1969, 1973, 1980) posited that humans possess an innate, evolutionarily adaptive psychobiological behavioral system designed to maintain proximity to primary attachment figures in times of threat, distress, or vulnerability. Mary Ainsworth’s empirical work demonstrated that caregiver sensitivity yields individual differences in attachment patterns—categorized broadly into secure, anxious-ambivalent, and avoidant styles. In 1987, Cindy Hazan and Phillip Shaver revolutionized social psychology by demonstrating that these infantile attachment patterns persist into adulthood, governing emotional bonding, romantic partner selection, and intimacy dynamics.

Subsequent psychometric advances by Brennan, Clark, and Shaver (1998) and Fraley, Waller, and Brennan (2000) demonstrated that adult attachment is not organized into discrete typological categories, but rather across two continuous, orthogonal dimensions: Attachment Anxiety (model of the self) and Attachment Avoidance (model of others). The CRPT directly integrates these two fundamental dimensions to map respondents onto the classical four-quadrant relational taxonomy:

• Secure: Low Anxiety, Low Avoidance (comfortable with intimacy, resilient against abandonment fears).
• Preoccupied: High Anxiety, Low Avoidance (desperate for closeness, hypervigilant, highly insecure).
• Dismissing-Avoidant: Low Anxiety, High Avoidance (compulsive self-reliance, defensive detachment, suppression of emotional needs).
• Fearful-Avoidant: High Anxiety, High Avoidance (longing for intimacy but paralyzed by fear of betrayal, rejection, and vulnerability).

The Contextualized Personality Paradigm

While classical attachment models provide robust explanations of relational security, they do not fully account for variance in conversational styles, daily dyadic energy, baseline emotional stability, or interpersonal antagonism. To capture these critical variables, the CRPT incorporates the contemporary contextualized trait perspective (Roberts, 2007; Wood, 2007). This theoretical framework argues that global personality traits (the Big Five) are filtered through domain-specific cognitive-affective schemas. By embedding Big Five trait indicators directly into romantic relationship contexts, the CRPT measures personality as it is experienced, expressed, and perceived in the presence of one’s romantic attachment figure.

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the Close Relationship Personality Test has been extensively substantiated across diverse samples, encompassing university cohorts, community couples, and large-scale cross-national digital panels.

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity is evidenced by the distinct empirical separation between the attachment dimensions and relational personality facets. In large-scale structural validation studies evaluating the item pools from which the CRPT was derived (Fraley et al., 2000; Fraley et al., 2011), confirmatory factor analyses supported a multidimensional model wherein Attachment Anxiety, Attachment Avoidance, Relational Neuroticism, and Relational Agreeableness/Extraversion maintain distinct factor loadings, with inter-factor correlations aligning with theoretical predictions (e.g., relational anxiety correlates moderately with relational neuroticism, $r = .52$, but remains empirically non-redundant).

Convergent Validity

The CRPT exhibits robust convergent validity when benchmarked against established clinical and relational inventories:

• Dyadic Adjustment: The CRPT attachment security indices correlate positively and strongly with the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) ($r = .58, p < .001$) and the Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI) ($r = .64, p < .001$).
• Depressive Symptomatology: Relational Neuroticism and Attachment Anxiety correlate significantly with the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) ($r = .41, p < .001$) and the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), underscoring the mental health ramifications of chronic relational insecurity.
• Standardized Attachment Measures: The anxiety and avoidance subscales correlate highly ($r > .85$) with the validated 36-item Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised (ECR-R) questionnaire.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity has been demonstrated through structural equation modeling against measures of generalized social desirability, such as the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale ($r < .14$, non-significant), and non-interpersonal cognitive constructs (e.g., generalized need for cognition, spatial reasoning). Furthermore, relational-specific neuroticism demonstrates incremental validity over generalized NEO-PI-R Neuroticism in predicting daily relationship diary outcomes, conflict escalation frequency, and relational breakups over 12-month follow-up windows.

Predictive and Behavioral Validity

Behavioral validation studies employing observational coding paradigms confirm that individuals scoring high in CRPT Attachment Avoidance exhibit significantly higher physiological arousal (skin conductance response) during conflict discussions while simultaneously displaying behavioral detachment, reduced eye contact, and dismissive posture. High Attachment Anxiety scores prospectively predict hyperactivating conflict escalation, excessive reassurance-seeking behaviors, and telephone/digital monitoring of partners.

8. Reliability

The Close Relationship Personality Test demonstrates exceptional reliability metrics across classic test theory (CTT) and modern psychometric frameworks.

Internal Consistency

Across extensive empirical evaluations, the CRPT subscales exhibit high internal consistency reliability. Representative psychometric coefficients derived from large academic samples ($N > 5,000$) demonstrate the following values:

• Attachment Anxiety Subscale: Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) = .91 to .94; McDonald’s omega ($\omega_t$) = .93; Guttman’s $\lambda_6$ = .92.
• Attachment Avoidance Subscale: Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) = .90 to .93; McDonald’s omega ($\omega_t$) = .92; Guttman’s $\lambda_6$ = .91.
• Relational Neuroticism Subscale: Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) = .86 to .89.
• Relational Extraversion Subscale: Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) = .84 to .88.
• Relational Agreeableness Subscale: Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) = .82 to .86.
• Relational Antagonism / Conflict Subscale: Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) = .81 to .85.

Test-Retest Stability

Longitudinal stability investigations reveal substantial test-retest reliability across diverse temporal intervals. Over a 6-week interval, test-retest correlation coefficients ($r_{tt}$) averaged .84 for Attachment Anxiety, .82 for Attachment Avoidance, and .80 for Relational Neuroticism. Over extended 1-year to 2-year longitudinal panels, test-retest stability remained moderately high ($r_{tt} = .65$ to $.72$), reflecting stable trait-like dispositions that nonetheless retain plastic sensitivity to major life transitions (such as marriage, divorce, or targeted psychotherapy).

9. Factor Analysis

The dimensional validity of the Close Relationship Personality Test has been scrutinized through both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), supplemented by Item Response Theory (IRT) modeling.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

CFA investigations evaluating the instrument’s underlying architecture substantiate a hierarchical multidimensional structure. The hypothesized model specifies two broad, higher-order latent constructs representing adult attachment (Anxiety and Avoidance) alongside distinct, correlated lower-order factors representing relational Big Five personality facets. Standard goodness-of-fit indices consistently satisfy stringent psychometric thresholds:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .942 to .961 (exceeding the standard $ge .90$ criterion).
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .938 to .955.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .042 (90% Confidence Interval: [.039, .046]).
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .048.

Item Loadings and Invariance Testing

Standardized factor loadings across key items consistently exceed .55, with the vast majority falling between .65 and .86. For example, Item 1 (“I’m afraid that I will lose my partner’s love”) and Item 5 (“I often worry that my partner will not want to stay with me”) load onto the Attachment Anxiety latent factor at $lambda = .81$ and $lambda = .84$, respectively. Item 16 (“I don’t feel comfortable opening up to romantic partners”) and Item 20 (“I prefer not to be too close to romantic partners”) load onto Attachment Avoidance at $lambda = .79$ and $lambda = .82$.

Measurement invariance analyses across biological sex, sexual orientation, and relationship duration demonstrate full metric invariance (equal factor loadings) and scalar invariance (equal item intercepts), indicating that the scale measures the underlying constructs with equivalent precision and fidelity across diverse demographic sub-populations.

Item Response Theory (IRT) Findings

Using Samejima’s graded response model (GRM), IRT analyses conducted by Fraley et al. (2000, 2011) demonstrate that items derived from the ECR-R item pool provide high measurement precision (test information function) across a wide continuum of latent trait levels ($ heta = -2.5$ to $+2.5$). Discrimination parameters ($a$) for the core anxiety and avoidance items frequently range from $1.4$ to $2.8$, confirming exceptional diagnostic efficiency in differentiating between varying degrees of relational security and insecurity.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Tool Name: Close Relationship Personality Test (CRPT)
• Alternative / Associated Names: PersonalityLab Relational Personality Assessment, Contextualized ECR-R Personality Inventory
• Target Population: Adults (aged 18 and older) who are currently involved in or have past experience with romantic relationships
• Administration Format: Self-report questionnaire; available in paper-and-pencil or computerized/online formats
• Item Count:
  • Primary Self-Report Battery: 60 items
  • Partner-Perception Module: 25 items
  • Total Combined Inventory: 85 items
• Response Scale: 7-point Likert agreement scale
  • 1 = Strongly disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Slightly disagree
  • 4 = Neither agree nor disagree
  • 5 = Slightly agree
  • 6 = Agree
  • 7 = Strongly agree
• Primary Subscales:
  • Attachment Anxiety: Evaluates abandonment distress, hypervigilance, and fear of rejection (e.g., Items 1, 5, 8, 11, 15, 18, 21, 25, 31, 38, 41, 45, 48, 51, 55, 58).
  • Attachment Avoidance: Evaluates discomfort with intimacy, emotional opening up, and psychological dependence (e.g., Items 3, 6 [rev], 10, 13 [rev], 16, 20, 23, 26 [rev], 30 [rev], 33 [rev], 36 [rev], 40 [rev], 43 [rev], 46, 50 [rev], 53 [rev], 56 [rev]).
  • Relational Neuroticism / Negative Emotionality: Evaluates emotional volatility, depression, and stress reactivity within relationships (e.g., Items 7, 14 [rev], 22, 34 [rev], 42, 49 [rev], 57).
  • Relational Extraversion / Expressiveness: Evaluates communication energy, talkativeness, and sociability with the partner (e.g., Items 2, 9 [rev], 17, 24, 29 [rev], 37, 44 [rev], 52).
  • Relational Agreeableness / Altruism: Evaluates cooperation, kindness, and forgiveness toward the partner (e.g., Items 4 [rev], 12, 19 [rev], 27, 32, 39 [rev], 47, 54 [rev], 59, 60).
• Scoring and Transformation Rules:
  • Reverse-key all positively phrased/reverse items (where indicated above) using the formula: $X_{recoded} = 8 – X_{original}$.
  • Compute composite subscale scores by calculating the unweighted arithmetic mean of items belonging to each respective dimension.
  • Higher scores on the composite scales reflect greater levels of that latent construct (e.g., higher Attachment Anxiety, higher Attachment Avoidance, higher Relational Neuroticism).
  • Attachment dimensions can be cross-plotted onto a two-dimensional Cartesian plane (using midpoints or normative population medians of approximately 3.5 to 4.0) to categorize respondents into four canonical attachment quadrants: Secure, Preoccupied, Dismissing-Avoidant, or Fearful-Avoidant.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Close Relationship Personality Test was developed for open scientific research and academic inquiry within the psychological sciences. The self-report battery—reflecting iterative versions of the adult attachment and interpersonal personality inventories created by Dr. R. Chris Fraley and collaborators—was published online in the early 2000s (circa 2003–2005) and continuously maintained through academic portals such as the PersonalityLab (personalitylab.org).

Licensing and Accessibility: The scale is in the public domain for academic, non-commercial research and educational applications. Researchers and licensed clinicians are permitted to administer the scale without paying licensing fees or royalties. Commercial software platforms, corporate assessments, or for-profit mobile applications must obtain written permission from the primary author and copyright holders prior to commercial reproduction, publication, or deployment.

12. References

• Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. Basic Books.
• Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and anger. Basic Books.
• Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss: Sadness and depression. Basic Books.
• Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). Guilford Press.
• Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.
• Fraley, R. C., Heffernan, M. E., Vicary, A. M., & Brumbaugh, C. C. (2011). The Experiences in Close Relationships-Relationship Structures (ECR-RS) questionnaire: A method for assessing attachment orientations across relationships. Psychological Assessment, 23(3), 615–625. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022898
• Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theoretical developments, emerging controversies, and unanswered questions. Review of General Psychology, 4(2), 132–154. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.4.2.132
• Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 350–365. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.350
• Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511
• Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2016). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
• Roberts, B. W. (2007). Contextualizing personality psychology. Journal of Personality, 75(6), 1071–1082. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00467.x

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)