General Relationship Attitudes Scale

Abstract

The General Relationship Attitudes Scale (GRAS), originally operationalized through the pioneering empirical framework of Cindy Hazan and Phillip Shaver (1987) and cataloged in psychometric compendia of intimate relations (e.g., Tzeng, 1993), is a foundational psychometric instrument designed to assess individual differences in adult attachment styles within romantic relationships. Developed to translate Mary Ainsworth‘s infant-caregiver attachment typologies into the domain of adult romantic partnerships, the instrument conceptualizes relationship orientations across three distinct prototypical patterns: Secure, Avoidant, and Anxious/Ambivalent. Comprising three self-report vignettes or global descriptive statements, the instrument can be administered either as a discrete categorical forced-choice assessment or as a continuous multidimensional measure utilizing a 5-point Likert-type agreement continuum ranging from 1 (Strongly Agree) to 5 (Strongly Disagree). Across decades of empirical investigation, the measure has demonstrated robust construct, convergent, and predictive validity, correlating predictably with measures of relationship satisfaction, emotional regulation, coping mechanisms, cognitive working models of self and others, and longitudinal relationship stability. Test-retest reliability across short- to moderate-term intervals demonstrates substantial stability (typically ranging from 70% to 80% categorical concordance), while subsequent psychometric decompositions of its prototypical statements laid the groundwork for contemporary two-dimensional models of attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance. This article provides an exhaustive psychometric review of the scale, examining its theoretical architecture, psychometric properties, structural validity, clinical and empirical applications, and administrative protocols.

Keywords

General Relationship Attitudes Scale, adult attachment, attachment styles, Hazan and Shaver, secure attachment, avoidant attachment, anxious ambivalent attachment, romantic relationships, internal working models, relationship satisfaction, psychometrics, relational attitudes, dyadic functioning, close relationships, attachment theory

Authors

The scale was developed by Cindy Hazan and Phillip R. Shaver in their seminal 1987 investigation published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Subsequent psychometric cataloging, evaluation, and standardization within broader taxonomies of interpersonal metrics were conducted by Oliver C. S. Tzeng in his definitive psychometric volume, Measurement of Love and Intimate Relations (1993).

• Cindy Hazan, Ph.D.: Associate Professor of Human Development at Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Dr. Hazan is an internationally recognized pioneer in the empirical study of adult attachment, the evolutionary biology of human pair-bonding, and the developmental trajectories of affectional bonds across the lifespan.
• Phillip R. Shaver, Ph.D.: Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of California, Davis. Dr. Shaver is one of the most widely cited social and personality psychologists globally, celebrated for his theoretical synthesis of psychoanalytic attachment theory with cognitive-affective social psychology, emotion research, and psychometric assessment.
• Oliver C. S. Tzeng, Ph.D.: Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Director of the Osgood Laboratory for Cross-Cultural Research at Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI). Dr. Tzeng specializes in quantitative methodology, cross-cultural psychometrics, and the systematic classification of measurement scales in marital, family, and intimate relationship dynamics.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the General Relationship Attitudes Scale is to identify and measure the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral orientations that individuals bring to romantic partnerships. Historically, attachment theory had been conceptualized almost exclusively as a developmental framework explaining the affectional bond between infants and their primary caregivers (John Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1980). Hazan and Shaver’s central innovation was the proposition that romantic love is an attachment process—an ethological-developmental behavioral system designed to maintain proximity to a primary partner, obtain emotional comfort, and provide a secure base from which to explore the social and physical environment.

The scale serves several crucial functions across empirical research, clinical psychology, and marital and family therapy:

• Empirical Investigation of Relational Dynamics: In social, personality, and developmental psychology, the scale allows researchers to operationalize individual differences in relationship orientations. It enables investigators to test hypotheses concerning how attachment orientations moderate cognitive appraisals of partner behavior, emotional reactions to conflict, attributions of intent, sexual satisfaction, and behavioral responses to relational threat.
• Clinical Diagnosis and Case Conceptualization: In individual psychotherapy and couples counseling, the scale functions as an efficient diagnostic screener. Clinicians utilize the instrument to uncover underlying internal working models regarding interpersonal trust, autonomy, vulnerability, and abandonment fears. Understanding a client’s attachment orientation illuminates repetitive, maladaptive interpersonal cycles, such as the classic “demand-withdraw” or “pursuer-distancer” interactional pattern commonly observed in distressed dyads.
• Assessment of Affective Regulation and Coping: Beyond relational contexts, the scale serves as an index of general emotion-regulation strategies. Secure individuals typically utilize constructive, primary coping mechanisms characterized by open acknowledgment of distress and support-seeking; avoidant individuals rely on deactivating strategies (compulsive self-reliance, suppression of attachment needs, and emotional distancing); and anxious/ambivalent individuals demonstrate hyperactivating strategies (vigilant monitoring of partner availability, ruminative distress, and emotional catastrophizing).
• Predictive Utility in Longitudinal Research: The scale has been widely implemented in prospective longitudinal studies tracking romantic relationship trajectories, marriage dissolution, transitional crises (e.g., transition to parenthood, physical illness, severe life stressors), and bereavement outcomes.

Psychological Construct

The General Relationship Attitudes Scale assesses three discrete psychological constructs rooted in adult attachment theory. Each construct represents an enduring cognitive-affective schema—termed an “internal working model”—comprising generalized expectations, beliefs, and emotional scripts concerning the self’s worthiness of love and the availability and responsiveness of relational partners.

1. Secure Attachment Orientation

The Secure attachment orientation reflects a positive working model of both the self and others. Individuals characterized by this profile perceive themselves as worthy of affection, care, and respect, while simultaneously holding benevolent expectations regarding the trustworthiness, dependable nature, and emotional availability of partners. Core features of this construct include:

• Comfort with Interdependence: A balanced capacity to establish emotional closeness, self-disclose vulnerabilities, and depend on a partner without fear of losing personal autonomy.
• Low Attachment Anxiety: Absence of pervasive worries regarding partner abandonment, rejection, or insufficient love.
• Low Attachment Avoidance: Absence of defensive discomfort when others seek intimacy, physical proximity, or emotional interdependence.
• Constructive Affect Regulation: An ability to tolerate relational conflict, engage in collaborative problem-solving, and seek instrumental and emotional support when experiencing distress.

2. Avoidant Attachment Orientation

The Avoidant attachment orientation represents a defensive adaptation characterized primarily by a negative working model of others combined with a defensively inflated or self-protective model of the self. Shaped by chronic histories of parental or relational rejection, coldness, or punitive responses to vulnerability, avoidant individuals maintain psychological equilibrium through interpersonal distancing. Core facets include:

• Compulsive Self-Reliance: An insistence on complete behavioral and emotional self-sufficiency, accompanied by a profound skepticism regarding the dependability and reliability of others.
• Discomfort with Intimacy and Vulnerability: Manifest feelings of unease, claustrophobia, or anxiety when romantic partners seek high levels of emotional closeness, shared vulnerability, or relational commitment.
• Deactivating Coping Strategies: The active cognitive and behavioral suppression of attachment-related thoughts, feelings, and memories. When faced with relational stress or emotional demands, avoidant individuals reflexively withdraw, engage in cognitive distraction, minimize the subjective importance of the relationship, and suppress distress signals.

3. Anxious/Ambivalent Attachment Orientation

The Anxious/Ambivalent attachment orientation (frequently designated as preoccupied attachment in four-category models) represents an internal working model characterized by a deeply negative, unlovable sense of self coupled with a highly idealized, yet chronically untrustworthy or unpredictable view of others. This orientation emerges from developmental histories characterized by inconsistent, intrusive, or conditionally attentive caregiving. Core psychological dimensions include:

• Persistent Fear of Abandonment: Constant, hyper-vigilant cognitive monitoring of the partner’s emotional states, verbal cues, and behavioral actions for subtle signs of waning affection, infidelity, or impending departure.
• Desire for Merging and Enmeshment: An intense longing for total psychological and emotional union with the partner, often manifesting as boundary blurring, possessiveness, and demands for constant reassurance that inadvertently push partners away.
• Hyperactivating Coping Strategies: Chronic amplification of negative emotions, emotional reactivity, rumination, and dramatic expressions of distress designed to compel proximity and coercive caregiving from an ambivalent or emotionally distant partner.

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual foundation of the General Relationship Attitudes Scale rests upon the integration of John Bowlby‘s evolutionary-ethological attachment theory and Mary Ainsworth‘s empirical taxonomy of individual differences in attachment patterns.

The Infant-Caregiver Foundation

Bowlby (1969, 1973, 1980) postulated that humans possess an innate, biobehavioral attachment system evolved to maximize infant survival by maintaining physical proximity to familiar, protective caregivers (attachment figures). In situations of perceived environmental threat, separation, or internal distress (e.g., pain, illness), this homeostatic motivational system is activated, triggering proximity-seeking behaviors (crying, clinging, following) until a state of felt security is restored. Through thousands of repeated interactions across infancy and childhood, individuals construct generalized cognitive representations of relational transactions—termed internal working models (IWMs) of self and attachment figures. These IWMs operate as enduring cognitive schemas that guide attention, memory interpretation, and behavioral forecasting in future interpersonal contexts.

Mary Ainsworth and colleagues (1978) empirically validated Bowlby’s theoretical assertions through the standardized Strange Situation paradigm, classifying 12-month-old infants into three major behavioral patterns based on their reunion behaviors with the mother following brief separations:

• Pattern B (Secure): Infants who actively sought proximity, were easily comforted by the caregiver, and promptly resumed environmental exploration.
• Pattern A (Anxious-Avoidant): Infants who exhibited conspicuous visual and behavioral avoidance of the caregiver upon reunion, showing minimal overt distress while demonstrating profound autonomic arousal (e.g., elevated heart rate).
• Pattern C (Anxious-Ambivalent/Resistant): Infants who displayed intense distress, mingled proximity-seeking with petulant anger, resisting physical comfort and remaining unable to return to exploratory play.

The Hazan and Shaver Adult Attachment Model

In 1987, Hazan and Shaver published their groundbreaking conceptualization demonstrating that the fundamental dynamics of the infant-caregiver attachment system function as the primary organizing mechanism for adult romantic relationships. They identified structural, behavioral, and phenomenological parallels between infant-caregiver bonds and adult romantic pairs:

1. Both types of relationships involve a desire for regular physical and emotional proximity.
2. Both involve heightened distress, protest, and disorientation upon involuntary or prolonged separation.
3. Both feature the use of the partner as a safe haven to which an individual retreats for comfort and reassurance in times of external distress.
4. Both rely on the partner as a secure base from which the individual can confidently explore the broader physical, occupational, and social environment.
5. Both involve non-verbal affectionate behaviors, such as prolonged mutual eye contact, soothing vocalizations (“motherese” vs. “baby talk” between lovers), holding, and mutual caressing.

Hazan and Shaver hypothesized that adult romantic partners serve as primary attachment figures, effectively replacing parents in late adolescence and adulthood. Crucially, they posited that the individual differences identified by Ainsworth in infancy persist across development, manifesting as predictable, stable romantic relationship attitudes in adulthood.

Validity

Since its inception in 1987, the General Relationship Attitudes Scale has undergone extensive empirical scrutiny across diverse samples, cultures, and methodology types (e.g., self-report, observational, behavioral, and physiological). The accumulated literature provides substantial evidence for the measure’s validity.

Construct and Convergent Validity

In their initial validation investigations involving both a general newspaper community survey (N = 620) and an undergraduate university sample (N = 108), Hazan and Shaver (1987) established fundamental construct validity by demonstrating that the three attachment classifications showed distinct, theoretically predictable associations with retrospective accounts of childhood relationships with parents:

• Secure participants characterized their childhood home environments as warm, affectionate, and accepting; they described their parents as emotionally available, mutually loving, and supportive.
• Avoidant participants characterized their mothers as emotionally cold, rejecting, demanding, and critical, reflecting the developmental etiology of avoidant deactivation.
• Anxious/Ambivalent participants reported that their fathers were perceived as unfair and emotionally unpredictable, reflecting an environment of inconsistent responsiveness.

Convergent validity was further demonstrated through systematic correlations with validated multidimensional personality and relationship inventories. Secure attachment classification positively correlated with scales measuring interpersonal trust (e.g., Wrightsman’s Philosophy of Human Nature Scale), self-esteem, self-efficacy, and constructive communication styles. Conversely, Avoidant attachment demonstrated strong positive correlations with interpersonal cynicism, emotional detachedness, fear of intimacy (e.g., Descutner & Thelen’s Fear of Intimacy Scale), and compulsive self-reliance. Anxious/Ambivalent attachment showed strong convergent linkages with chronic neuroticism, abandonment anxiety, emotional lability, obsessive-compulsive love styles (e.g., Lee’s Mania style), and extreme jealousy.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity analyses have established that the three romantic attachment styles are not merely redundant proxies for general neuroticism or extroversion as indexed by the Five-Factor Model of personality. While attachment anxiety shares moderate variance with neuroticism (typically r = .30 to .45), it specifically indexes interpersonal vulnerabilities, relational distress, and attachment-specific hyperactivation that predict dyadic outcomes above and beyond global neurotic traits. Similarly, attachment avoidance relates to low extraversion and low agreeableness, yet it demonstrates distinct predictive validity concerning physical contact avoidance, suppression of attachment-relevant stimuli, and rejection of partner emotional support.

Predictive and Criterion Validity

The scale possesses exemplary predictive validity across diverse behavioral domains:

• Relationship Quality and Longevity: Secure individuals consistently report significantly higher levels of relationship satisfaction, commitment, trust, dyadic consensus, and intimacy over time compared to avoidant and anxious individuals (e.g., Collins & Read, 1990; Simpson, 1990). Longitudinal investigations indicate that secure partnerships have lower dissolution rates over multi-year observation periods.
• Behavioral Dynamics Under Stress: In landmark observational laboratory studies (e.g., Simpson, Rholes, & Phillips, 1996), when female partners were subjected to an anxiety-inducing laboratory task, secure women sought emotional support from their male partners in direct proportion to their level of anxiety, and secure men provided warm, responsive comfort. Avoidant women sought less support as anxiety increased, and avoidant men responded with heightened anger, irritation, and physical withdrawal when their partners exhibited distress.
• Cognitive Processing Under Relational Threat: Laboratory cognitive paradigms (e.g., lexical decision tasks, emotional Stroop tasks) reveal that avoidant individuals rapidly suppress attachment-related concepts (e.g., “loss,” “separation”) under normal conditions, but experience cognitive rebound effects under high cognitive load, validating the defensive nature of the construct (Mikulincer, Dolev, & Shaver, 2004).

Reliability

The evaluation of reliability for the General Relationship Attitudes Scale requires consideration of its structural format, which can be implemented either as a single-item, forced-choice categorical typology or as a three-item continuous rating inventory.

Test-Retest Reliability and Temporal Stability

Because the classic version of the scale presents three comprehensive paragraph vignettes, internal consistency reliability (such as Cronbach’s alpha) cannot be calculated for the single-item categorical selection. Psychometric evaluation therefore relies heavily on test-retest reliability and longitudinal categorical stability:

• Short-Term Stability: Over intervals ranging from two weeks to three months, studies have demonstrated categorical stability rates between 70% and 85%, with Cohen’s kappa (κ) coefficients typically falling between .55 and .70, indicating moderate to substantial stability (e.g., Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Baldwin et al., 1996).
• Moderate- to Long-Term Stability: Longitudinal tracking over one to four years indicates that approximately 68% to 75% of adults retain their categorical attachment classification. Observed changes in classification are systematically predicted by significant life events, such as traumatic romantic betrayals, severe marital dissolution, or conversely, entering a stable, long-term relationship with an emotionally responsive, secure partner (“earned security”).
• Continuous Rating Temporal Stability: When administered using the 5-point Likert response scale across all three items, individual item test-retest correlation coefficients over a six-week interval are: Secure item: r = .68 to .74; Avoidant item: r = .71 to .78; Anxious/Ambivalent item: r = .65 to .72.

Methodological Caveats and the Evolution of Internal Consistency

The reliance on single multi-sentence descriptive vignettes presented a notable psychometric limitation regarding item-level internal consistency. Each prototype paragraph conflates several distinct behavioral, emotional, and cognitive indicators (e.g., trust, intimacy comfort, fear of abandonment, desire to merge) into a single stimulus. To address this psychometric constraint, subsequent researchers decomposed Hazan and Shaver’s three paragraphs into multi-item scales (e.g., Collins & Read’s 18-item Adult Attachment Scale, 1990; Simpson’s 13-item scale, 1990). These expanded scales demonstrated robust internal consistency, yielding Cronbach’s alpha (α) values routinely exceeding .80 for subscale dimensions.

Factor Analysis

The structural composition and dimensionality of the General Relationship Attitudes Scale have served as the focal point for substantial mathematical and factor analytic evolution within personality psychometrics.

From Categorical Typologies to Continuous Latent Dimensions

Initially, Hazan and Shaver (1987) conceptualized adult attachment as three mutually exclusive categories, echoing the three discrete infant patterns identified by Ainsworth. However, taxometric analyses and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) conducted throughout the 1990s demonstrated that adult attachment is more accurately represented as a continuous dimensional space rather than true discontinuous discrete types (Fraley & Waller, 1998).

When the individual assertions within the Hazan and Shaver prototypes are subjected to exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using principal axis factoring or maximum likelihood extraction with oblique (e.g., Promax or Oblimin) rotation, two broad, orthogonal higher-order latent factors consistently emerge across the literature:

1. Attachment Anxiety (Model of Self): Defined by items capturing intense fear of abandonment, hyper-vigilance regarding partner affection, self-doubt, and a desperate desire for emotional union. High scores reflect profound anxiety and low self-worth.
2. Attachment Avoidance (Model of Other): Defined by items capturing aversion to closeness, distress when partners seek intimacy, extreme defensive self-reliance, and reluctance to trust or depend upon others. High scores reflect an avoidant orientation and negative appraisals of other people.

Integration with Bartholomew’s Four-Category Framework

The convergence on these two fundamental dimensions led to Kim Bartholomew and Leonard M. Horowitz’s (1991) influential four-category model, which conceptually bisected Hazan and Shaver’s avoidant category into two distinct styles based on the underlying model of self:

• Secure: Low Anxiety (Positive Self), Low Avoidance (Positive Other).
• Preoccupied: High Anxiety (Negative Self), Low Avoidance (Positive Other) — equivalent to Hazan and Shaver’s Anxious/Ambivalent.
• Dismissing-Avoidant: Low Anxiety (Defensively Positive Self), High Avoidance (Negative Other) — reflecting defensive independence without overt anxiety.
• Fearful-Avoidant: High Anxiety (Negative Self), High Avoidance (Negative Other) — reflecting individuals who long for intimacy but withdraw out of acute terror of rejection.

Comprehensive factor analytic syntheses of all existing adult attachment measures (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998) reaffirmed that the three prototype descriptions of the General Relationship Attitudes Scale map cleanly onto this two-dimensional Cartesian plane. The Secure prototype maps onto the low anxiety/low avoidance quadrant, the Anxious/Ambivalent prototype onto the high anxiety/low avoidance vector, and the Avoidant prototype encompasses elements of both dismissing and fearful avoidance.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The General Relationship Attitudes Scale is designed for rapid, low-burden self-report administration in both individual clinical settings and large-scale empirical studies.

• Instrument Name: General Relationship Attitudes Scale (GRAS) / Hazan-Shaver Adult Attachment Prototype Measure
• Construct Assessed: Individual attachment orientations in adult romantic/intimate relationships
• Primary Author: Cindy Hazan and Phillip R. Shaver (1987); psychometric documentation by Oliver C. S. Tzeng (1993)
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (ages 16 and older) currently or previously involved in romantic relationships
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire, digital survey interface, or clinical self-report rating
• Time Required: 2 to 5 minutes
• Item Count: 3 descriptive prototype statements
• Response Formats:
  • Format A (Continuous Likert Scale): Each of the three prototype statements is rated independently on a 5-point continuum from 1 (Strongly Agree) to 5 (Strongly Disagree). (Note: Researchers frequently reverse-score so that 5 indicates high agreement with that orientation).
  • Format B (Categorical Forced-Choice): Respondents read all three descriptions simultaneously and select the single statement that best or most accurately describes how they generally feel in romantic relationships.
• Scoring and Profiling:
  • Categorical Scoring: The participant is assigned to one of three mutually exclusive groups: Secure, Avoidant, or Anxious/Ambivalent based on their single selection.
  • Continuous Dimensional Scoring: Each participant receives three continuous subscale scores reflecting their degree of endorsement for Secure attitudes, Avoidant attitudes, and Anxious/Ambivalent attitudes. This allows researchers to capture mixed attachment styles or subtle shifts across longitudinal interventions.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Original Publication Year: 1987 (Hazan & Shaver); integrated into relationship assessment compendia in 1993 (Tzeng).
• Copyright and Intellectual Property: The original instrument was published in an academic journal article by the American Psychological Association (APA). In accordance with standard fair-use academic conventions, the scale statements are widely available in the public academic domain for non-commercial research, educational, and clinical applications without licensing fees.
• Commercial and Diagnostic Use: Commercial publishers, software vendors, or for-profit platforms incorporating the instrument or derivative commercial diagnostic tools should consult the standard rights and permissions policies of the American Psychological Association (APA) and the original authors.
• Accessibility: The scale items, scoring rubrics, and continuous Likert adaptations are freely accessible in the primary literature and standardized psychometric handbooks.

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.
• Baldwin, M. W., Keelan, J. P. R., Fehr, B., Enns, V., & Koh-Rangarajoo, E. (1996). Social-cognitive conceptualization of attachment working models: Availability and accessibility effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 94–109. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.94
• Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.226
• 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.
• Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(4), 644–663. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.4.644
• Fraley, R. C., & Waller, N. G. (1998). Adult attachment security: Psychometric analysis of category approaches versus dimensions. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 77–114). Guilford Press.
• Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (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., Dolev, T., & Shaver, P. R. (2004). Attachment-related strategies during thought suppression: Ironic rebounds and the defensive function of defensive exclusion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(6), 940–956. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.6.940
• Simpson, J. A. (1990). Influence of attachment styles on romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 971–980. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.971
• Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Phillips, D. (1996). Conflict in close relationships: An attachment perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(5), 899–914. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.5.899
• Tzeng, O. C. S. (1993). Measurement of love and intimate relations. Praeger / Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc.

Items of the Scale