Suspicion Confirmation and Avoidance Strategies Measure

Abstract

The Suspicion Confirmation and Avoidance Strategies Measure (Weigel & Shrout, 2025) is an empirically validated psychometric instrument developed to assess the cognitive, communicative, and behavioral strategies individuals employ when they suspect a romantic partner of infidelity. Grounded in interpersonal communication theories and responses to relational uncertainty, the instrument systematically captures how suspicious individuals navigate epistemic vigilance versus deliberate ignorance. Adapted from foundational scales measuring stalking, relational intrusion, and communicative responses to romantic jealousy (Guerrero et al., 1995, 2011; Whitford & Howells, 2000), the measure consists of 26 items structured into five distinct dimensions: Snooping, Surveillance, Intrusion, Conversation, and Avoidance. Administered to adults actively experiencing infidelity suspicion, the measure utilizes a 7-point frequency-response format ranging from 1 (Never) to 7 (Very Often). Exploratory factor analysis using promax rotation demonstrated a robust five-factor architecture accounting for 67.55% of the total variance, accompanied by exceptional sampling adequacy (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin = .93). Subscale internal consistencies are strong, ranging from α = .81 to α = .93. The instrument provides clinical psychologists, marital counselors, and interpersonal communication scholars with a standardized methodology to evaluate behavioral escalation, covert digital monitoring, and communicative coping within distressed dyadic partnerships.

Keywords

Suspicion Confirmation Strategies, Infidelity, Relational Uncertainty, Snooping, Partner Surveillance, Relational Intrusion, Communicative Jealousy, Information Seeking, Dyadic Communication, Avoidance Strategies

Authors

The Suspicion Confirmation and Avoidance Strategies Measure was conceived and developed by:

• Daniel J. Weigel, Ph.D. — Professor and Extension Specialist in Human Development and Family Science, University of Nevada, Reno. Correspondence Address: University of Nevada Reno, Human Development & Family Science, 4955 Energy Way, Reno, Nevada 89502, USA. Email: [email protected].
• M. Rosie Shrout, Ph.D. — Assistant Professor of Human Development and Family Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA.

Purpose

The primary clinical and theoretical objective of the Suspicion Confirmation and Avoidance Strategies Measure is to quantify the multidimensional behavioral repertoire enacted by individuals experiencing subjective suspicion of romantic partner infidelity. Suspecting infidelity constitutes an acute relational crisis marked by severe cognitive dissonance, threat to relational security, and relational turbulence. Despite the prevalence of infidelity in couple therapy and relationship research, prior operationalizations often conflated broad emotional jealousy with distinct, targeted information-seeking strategies. The measure fills this empirical void by providing a granular framework for identifying both confirmation-seeking tactics (ranging from overt verbal inquiry to clandestine electronic spying) and defensive withdrawal patterns.

From an applied perspective, the measure serves crucial roles in:

• Clinical Couples Therapy: Identifying destructive behavioral patterns, such as severe boundary violations, digital privacy invasions, and obsessive partner surveillance, which often catalyze reciprocal toxicity, emotional trauma, and domestic escalation.
• Marital and Dyadic Communication Research: Operationalizing information-seeking strategies within frameworks such as Uncertainty Reduction Theory to model how individuals transition between passive observation, active covert investigation, and interactive direct confrontation.
• Trauma and Post-Infidelity Recovery: Assessing avoidant coping styles (e.g., stone-walling, psychological detachment, and physical withdrawal) that impede adaptive conflict resolution or relational termination.

Psychological Construct

The measure conceptualizes partner suspicion management as a behavioral continuum governed by two divergent motivational drives: the imperative to resolve epistemic ambiguity through information acquisition, versus the defensive desire to mitigate psychological threat through denial or relational withdrawal. This construct is partitioned across five distinct behavioral dimensions:

1. Snooping

Snooping reflects covert, targeted, physical or digital inspection of a partner’s private domain without their awareness or consent. Unlike broad observation, snooping involves deliberate boundary invasion into highly personal artifacts. Behaviors within this dimension include reading private text messages, social media direct messages, browsing electronic call histories, rummaging through personal wallets or handbags, and inspecting partner clothing for physical evidence (e.g., scents, cosmetics, receipts). Snooping serves as an active, unilateral information-seeking strategy aimed at uncovering definitive, indisputable proof of infidelity.

2. Surveillance

Surveillance encompasses clandestine, real-time behavioral monitoring and spatial tracking. Whereas snooping inspects personal artifacts and communicative records ex post facto, surveillance involves real-world tracking and covert eavesdropping as events unfold. Examples include following a partner physically in transit, listening to conversations from adjacent rooms, monitoring a partner from a concealed distance, and intercepting physical postal correspondence. It reflects an escalated level of behavioral monitoring that mirrors persistent investigative vigilance.

3. Intrusion

Intrusion represents repeated, high-frequency, overt investigative interrogations and boundary-challenging verifications that disrupt the partner’s daily autonomy. Unlike covert snooping, intrusion is behavioral and visible, yet less collaborative than prosocial dialogue. It manifests through unexpected phone calls to verify physical presence, arriving unannounced at the partner’s location, interrogating the partner regarding routine activities and contacts, and interjecting oneself into the partner’s private social conversations. Intrusion captures intrusive relational checking driven by acute anxiety and low trust.

4. Conversation

Conversation denotes constructive, direct, and collaborative interpersonal communication. Rooted in interactive uncertainty reduction, this dimension reflects emotionally transparent engagement wherein the suspicious partner discloses their feelings, articulates vulnerabilities, discusses perceived relational threats, and directly addresses their jealousy. Rather than resorting to covert tactics or hostile boundary cross-checks, conversation relies on open dyadic negotiation to resolve relational ambiguity.

5. Avoidance

Avoidance represents cognitive, communicative, and physical retreat designed to evade the reality or confrontation of suspected infidelity. When individuals fear relational dissolution, emotional devastation, or retributive conflict, they may enact deliberate behavioral withdrawal. This dimension is characterized by implementing the “silent treatment,” pretending nothing is amiss, ceasing verbal communication, and physically pulling away. Avoidance functions as an emotion-focused coping mechanism prioritizing immediate psychological self-protection over truth verification.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the Suspicion Confirmation and Avoidance Strategies Measure is synthesized from three prominent interpersonal and relational communication theories:

Uncertainty Reduction Theory and Information Seeking

Originally formulated by Charles R. Berger and Richard J. Calabrese (1975; Berger, 1979), Uncertainty Reduction Theory posits that individuals experience fundamental discomfort when confronted with high interpersonal ambiguity. To restore cognitive equilibrium, individuals employ three categorical strategies: passive (unobtrusive observation), active (investigating the target through third parties or manipulating the environment without direct confrontation), and interactive (direct communication with the target). Weigel and Shrout mapped these strategies into the infidelity domain, showing that snooping and surveillance represent specialized covert active strategies, intrusion reflects coercive interactive tactics, and conversation reflects cooperative interactive information seeking.

Communicative Responses to Jealousy

The scale integrates Laura K. Guerrero and colleagues’ theoretical taxonomy of jealousy responses (Guerrero et al., 1995, 2011). Guerrero conceptualized communicative jealousy as ranging from constructive/prosocial responses (integrative communication, direct expression of feelings) to destructive responses (surveillance, rival-focused manipulation, compensatory restoration, and avoidance/denial). The measure incorporates refined adaptations of these subscales to capture behavioral manifestations specifically triggered by cognitive suspicion of physical or emotional betrayal.

Interpersonal Deception and Epistemic Vigilance

Under Interpersonal Deception Theory (Buller & Burgoon, 1996), suspicion alerts an individual that receiver truth-bias should be suspended. Once suspicion crosses an appraisal threshold, individuals initiate “probing heuristics” and investigative routines. Concurrently, theories of epistemic vigilance predict that suspicious actors actively anticipate partner deceptive performance; because interactive questioning can be met with falsification, suspicious individuals often bypass direct conversation in favor of covert verification (snooping, surveillance), or, conversely, engage in strategic avoidance when cognitive load and fear of catastrophic certainty overwhelm coping capacity.

Validity

The psychometric evaluation of the Suspicion Confirmation and Avoidance Strategies Measure demonstrates sound structural and construct validity across adult populations experiencing relational suspicion:

• Content Validity: The initial pool of 31 candidate items was synthesized from established scales assessing stalking and obsessional relational intrusion (Whitford & Howells, 2000) and jealousy response dimensions (Guerrero et al., 1995, 2011). Expert item generation expanded these constructs to reflect modern physical and digital surveillance modalities, ensuring exhaustive conceptual coverage.
• Construct Validity via Factorial Independence: Promax rotated factor patterns confirmed five distinct, theoretically coherent latent dimensions. Factors demonstrated low-to-moderate inter-factor correlations, supporting multidimensionality without redundant construct overlap. The retention threshold required at least three items per factor with primary factor loadings exceeding .40 and absence of severe cross-loadings.
• Nomological and Predictive Validity: In structural equation modeling (Weigel & Shrout, 2025), individual differences in attachment insecurity, cognitive suspicion intensity, and perceived partner deceptive cues significantly predicted strategy selection. Specifically, elevated attachment anxiety predicted increased intrusion and snooping, whereas attachment avoidance predicted non-communicative avoidance and lower interactive conversation.

Reliability

The Suspicion Confirmation and Avoidance Strategies Measure exhibits exceptional internal consistency reliability across all five subscales. Psychometric evaluation of the final 26-item instrument yielded the following Cronbach’s alpha (α) coefficients:

• Snooping (6 items): α = .93 (indicating near-perfect internal coherence for measuring physical and digital artifact inspection).
• Surveillance (4 items): α = .87.
• Intrusion (7 items): α = .87.
• Conversation (4 items): α = .85.
• Avoidance (5 items): α = .81.

All subscales comfortably exceed the conventional scientific benchmark of .70 for research instruments and .80 for applied diagnostics. The high item-total correlations across the subscales affirm minimal measurement error and confirm that each subscale functions as a unified psychological metric.

Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the measure was determined through Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) using an oblique (promax) rotation, reflecting the theoretical expectation that behavioral responses to infidelity suspicion are correlated. Psychometric indicators confirmed high sample adequacy and data factorability:

• Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure: .93, demonstrating sampling adequacy well above standard thresholds.
• Total Variance Explained: The five-factor solution accounted for 67.55% of the cumulative variance across the items.
• Item Elimination Criteria: Factors were required to maintain a minimum of three items with primary loadings exceeding .40 and minimal cross-loadings. Five candidate items from the initial 31-item pool failed to meet these criteria and were eliminated, yielding the final 26-item measure.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational characteristics and structural architecture of the instrument are summarized below:

• Test Type: Original psychometric inventory / self-report behavioral questionnaire.
• Construct Assessed: Frequency of behavioral confirmation, surveillance, intrusion, communication, and avoidance strategies enacted upon suspicion of romantic partner infidelity.
• Item Count: 26 items (refined from an initial 31-item pool).
• Factor Dimensions: Five subscales (Snooping: 6 items; Surveillance: 4 items; Intrusion: 7 items; Conversation: 4 items; Avoidance: 5 items).
• Response Format: 7-point Likert-type frequency scale anchored from 1 (Never) to 7 (Very Often).
• Target Population: Adults (18 years and older; initial validation sample aged 18–47) who currently suspect, or have recently suspected, their romantic partner of infidelity.
• Scoring Protocol: Subscale scores are calculated by averaging item responses within each subscale, yielding mean scores ranging from 1.00 to 7.00. No items require reverse scoring. Higher scores reflect greater frequency of utilizing that specific strategic behavioral modality.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Suspicion Confirmation and Avoidance Strategies Measure was formally published in 2025 in the Western Journal of Communication by Taylor & Francis Group. The measure is not distributed for commercial fees; however, reproduction and distribution rights remain subject to standard publisher copyright and academic fair-use guidelines. Researchers and clinicians wishing to employ the scale in institutional research or clinical intervention should contact the corresponding author, Daniel J. Weigel ([email protected]), and consult the copyright holder (Taylor & Francis) for permission policies.

References

• Berger, C. R. (1979). Beyond initial interaction: Uncertainty, understanding, and the development of interpersonal relationships. In H. Giles & R. N. St. Clair (Eds.), Language and Social Psychology (pp. 122–144). Basil Blackwell.
• Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1(2), 99–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00258.x
• Buller, D. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1996). Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory, 6(3), 203–242. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1996.tb00127.x
• Guerrero, L. K., Andersen, P. A., Jorgensen, P. F., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1995). Coping with jealousy: Compensatory and destructive responses to jealousy: A test of the double-shot hypothesis. Communication Quarterly, 43(1), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379509369954
• Guerrero, L. K., Hannawa, A. F., & Babin, E. A. (2011). Relational responses to jealousy: Hurt, anger, and communicative behavior. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28(4), 566–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407510385498
• Weigel, D. J., & Shrout, M. R. (2025). Are you cheating on me? Identifying factors contributing to the use of suspicion confirmation and avoidance strategies. Western Journal of Communication, 89(1), 108–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2024.2324382
• Whitford, H., & Howells, K. (2000). Selective review of the clinical literature on stalking. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 34(4), 619–635. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1614.2000.00760.x

Items of the Scale