Violent Intentions—Teen Conflict Survey

Abstract

The Violent Intentions—Teen Conflict Survey, predominantly operationalized and documented in psychometric literature as the Nonviolent Intentions Subscale of the Teen Conflict Survey (TCS-NVI), is an eight-item self-report instrument engineered to assess an adolescent's behavioral intentions when confronted with interpersonal provocation and acute anger. Developed by Kris Bosworth and Dorothy L. Espelage (1995) at the Center for Adolescent Studies at Indiana University, and cataloged by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in their landmark compendium of violence-related assessment tools, the instrument isolates the cognitive-intentional precursors to behavioral enactment. Targeted toward middle school students across grades 6 through 8 (chronological ages 12 to 18), the scale queries how likely respondents are to adopt constructive, self-regulatory, de-escalating, or retaliatory strategies in response to conflict scenarios. Items are rated on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Very unlikely) to 4 (Very likely), yielding a composite sum score spanning 8 to 32 points following the reverse scoring of an overt retaliatory item. Psychometric evaluations across diverse adolescent cohorts demonstrate robust internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha coefficients commonly between .70 and .84), sound structural validity confirmed via unidimensional confirmatory factor models, and demonstrable predictive validity regarding subsequent interpersonal violence, disciplinary infractions, and peer victimization. The survey functions as an essential, low-burden evaluation tool within school-based violence prevention initiatives, public health monitoring, and social-emotional learning intervention trials.

Keywords

Teen Conflict Survey, Nonviolent Intentions Subscale, adolescent aggression, violence prevention, conflict resolution, psychometrics, anger regulation, peer mediation, social information processing, middle school interventions, behavioral intention, CDC compendium

Authors

The Teen Conflict Survey and its constituent subscales were developed by prominent researchers in the fields of educational psychology, prevention science, and adolescent development:

• Kris Bosworth, Ph.D.: Professor Emerita and former Smith Endowed Chair in Substance Abuse Education in the Department of Educational Policy Studies and Practice at the University of Arizona. At the time of the instrument's inception, Dr. Bosworth served as the Director of the Center for Adolescent Studies at Indiana University Bloomington. Her research program centers on school climate, adolescent risk prevention, the implementation of systemic educational interventions, and the evaluation of protective developmental assets.
• Dorothy L. Espelage, Ph.D.: William C. Friday Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and formerly a professor at the University of Florida and the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Dr. Espelage is an internationally recognized authority on youth violence, bullying, peer victimization, sexual harassment, and the psychosocial ecology of school environments. Her empirical contributions have shaped federal violence prevention guidelines and contemporary understandings of adolescent peer dynamics.

Institutional oversight for the initial project was provided by the Center for Adolescent Studies, School of Education, Indiana University Bloomington, in conjunction with grant-funded youth violence research initiatives subsequently disseminated through public health repositories maintained by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute of Mental Health.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Teen Conflict Survey—specifically its Nonviolent Intentions Subscale—is to provide an empirically grounded, rapid-administration metric capable of assessing an adolescent's proactive, nonviolent behavioral inclinations during moments of acute social provocation or interpersonal friction. Broadly, youth violence prevention initiatives within public health and developmental psychopathology grapple with the challenge of measuring intervention outcomes. Measuring overt violent acts (such as physical assaults, weapon carrying, or school suspensions) presents substantial methodological hurdles due to low base rates, social desirability biases, legal ramifications, and ethical barriers surrounding self-incrimination in minor populations. By shifting the psychometric lens from low-frequency behavioral manifestations to the proximate cognitive-motivational precursors—namely, behavioral intentions—the scale furnishes educators, clinicians, and researchers with a sensitive, responsive, and continuous index of conflict resolution orientation.

The theoretical rationale rests upon the premise that behavioral intentions represent the immediate cognitive antecedents to volitional conduct. In the developmental context of middle school (grades 6 through 8, approximately ages 11 to 14), youths experience marked neurodevelopmental recalibration, characterized by heightened limbic reactivity to social slights coupled with developing prefrontal cortical executive control. Consequently, how an adolescent intends to react when "really angry at someone or something" directly reflects their access to, and preference for, functional emotional regulation, perspective taking, and nonviolent problem-solving strategies.

In research environments, the scale is routinely employed to evaluate the effectiveness of school-wide violence prevention programs, peer mediation curricula, and social-emotional learning (SEL) modules. In community health and school counseling contexts, the tool provides school psychologists, counselors, and interventionists with an aggregate profile of a student body's conflict culture. Because the scale explicitly measures constructive actions—such as peer mediation, cognitive reframing, and verbal negotiation—alongside passive avoidance and covert retaliation, it allows program evaluators to ascertain whether an intervention merely suppresses overt hostility or successfully bolsters prosocial, restorative repertoires. It is crucial to underscore that the TCS-NVI is a descriptive screening and research assessment; it is neither designed nor diagnostic of conduct disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, or underlying psychiatric conditions.

Psychological Construct

The core psychological construct measured by the instrument is adolescent nonviolent behavioral intention under conditions of perceived provocation and emotional arousal. Unlike trait-based metrics that assess generalized empathy, global trait anger, or chronic impulsivity, this scale measures situational, response-decision intentionality within an activated negative-affect state (acute anger). Within contemporary developmental models of social conflict, nonviolent intention is not viewed as a monolithic absence of aggression; rather, it is conceptualized as a multi-component constellation of socio-cognitive and behavioral choices, including:

• Verbal De-escalation and Direct Negotiation: Represented by behaviors such as trying to talk out the issue. This reflects an adolescent’s capacity to initiate communicative dialogue, articulate grievances constructively, and seek collaborative problem solving rather than immediate physical dominance or coercive retribution.
• Institutional and Third-Party Enlistment: Captured by actions such as suggesting peer mediation. This indicates an adolescent’s willingness to submit interpersonal disputes to objective, school-sanctioned, or peer-based conflict resolution frameworks, representing a crucial shift away from vigilantism or solitary escalation.
• Cognitive Restructuring and Perspective Taking: Manifested in items querying whether the individual attempts to see the other person’s point of view. This dimension taps into advanced socio-cognitive skills, specifically cognitive empathy and the ability to step outside one's subjective grievance to de-bias hostile attributions.
• Affective Regulation and Sublimation: Reflected in proactive efforts to reduce acute physiological and subjective anger, or to channel that physiological arousal into constructive, non-destructive pursuits. This captures emotional self-efficacy and active self-soothing mechanics.
• De-escalation via Cognitive Minimization or Avoidance: Exemplified by strategies such as laughing off the insult or ignoring the situation. In specific adolescent contexts, strategic minimization serves as an adaptive psychological shield that neutralizes provocation before conflict can escalate.
• Suppression of Delayed Retaliation: Measured through the reverse-scored item addressing ignoring the situation with the implicit intent to seek revenge at a later time. This isolates insidious forms of covert, delayed aggression and instrumental hostility, distinguishing authentic de-escalation from strategic, premeditated retribution.

By aggregating these behavioral strategies, the construct captures the degree to which an adolescent possesses accessible, nonviolent cognitive response scripts when their emotional equilibrium is disrupted.

Theoretical Framework

The construction and validation of the Teen Conflict Survey are anchored across three primary paradigms in developmental and cognitive psychology:

1. The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)

Formulated by Icek Ajzen, the Theory of Planned Behavior posits that human action is guided by behavioral intentions, which function as the most immediate and potent determinants of actual conduct. Intentions are themselves governed by attitudes toward the behavior, subjective norms regarding the social acceptability of the act, and perceived behavioral control (the degree of personal efficacy one feels toward executing the action). When applied to youth violence, adolescents who display elevated nonviolent intentions have developed positive outcome expectancies regarding mediation and conversation, perceive that their peer group or school community values peaceful resolution, and feel capable of regulating intense negative emotion. The TCS-NVI measures the direct operationalization of these intentions.

2. The Social Information Processing (SIP) Model

Pioneered by Kenneth A. Dodge and Nicki R. Crick, the SIP model outlines a six-step cyclical sequence through which children process social environmental cues:

1. Encoding of external and internal cues;
2. Interpretation and mental representation of those cues (e.g., attribution of hostile vs. benign intent);
3. Clarification of social goals (e.g., relationship preservation vs. dominance or revenge);
4. Response access or construction of alternative behavioral strategies;
5. Response decision and evaluation (evaluating the potential efficacy, social consequences, and moral acceptability of each response);
6. Behavioral enactment.

The Teen Conflict Survey operates decisively at Step 4 and Step 5 of the SIP paradigm. By prompting the respondent with an anger-inducing conflict stimulus, the tool prompts the student to access their mental database of behavioral scripts and evaluate which responses they would likely decide to enact. Adolescents deficient in constructive SIP steps primarily retrieve aggressive responses and judge aggressive retaliation as highly efficacious. Conversely, adolescents with well-developed social-information processing systems generate varied, prosocial scripts (negotiation, mediation, emotional down-regulation) and exhibit strong intentions to execute them.

3. Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory

Albert Bandura's social cognitive framework emphasizes self-efficacy, reciprocal determinism, and observational learning. The strategies listed in the instrument (e.g., peer mediation, perspective-taking) require both observed behavioral modeling and perceived self-regulatory efficacy. The scale reflects whether the youth's learning environment has successfully instilled normative standards that favor constructive conflict processing over physical coercion.

Validity

Extensive psychometric investigations have examined the validity of the Nonviolent Intentions Subscale of the Teen Conflict Survey across varied adolescent populations, primarily within the context of prevention research supported by the CDC and educational institutions.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Construct validity is substantiated through consistent, theoretically aligned correlations with related psychosocial variables. In foundational validation studies conducted by Bosworth, Espelage, and colleagues (e.g., Bosworth et al., 1999; Espelage et al., 2000), scores on the TCS-NVI correlated positively and significantly with measures of prosocial behavior, general self-efficacy, empathy, and positive school attachment. Concurrently, nonviolent intention scores displayed statistically significant inverse correlations with self-reported physical aggression, bullying behavior (measured via the Espelage Bullying Scale), externalizing conduct problems, and exposure to delinquent peer networks. Adolescents reporting high nonviolent intentions consistently demonstrated lower hostile attributional biases when presented with hypothetical ambiguous peer provocations.

Predictive and Longitudinal Validity

The clinical and research value of measuring intentions lies in their longitudinal relationship with actual behavior. In prospective studies evaluating violence prevention curricula (such as the SMART Talk computer-based intervention), baseline scores on the TCS-NVI successfully predicted longitudinal reductions in school-recorded disciplinary incidents, physical fights, and suspension rates at 6- and 12-month post-intervention follow-ups. Students who recorded high baseline intentions to talk out disputes, reduce anger, and seek peer mediation were markedly less likely to engage in chronic bullying perpetration or physical fights, confirming the scale's predictive power over emergent adolescent conduct.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity analyses confirm that the Nonviolent Intentions Subscale is empirically distinguishable from academic self-concept, general social desirability response styles, and passive withdrawal. While some constructive items reflect conflict avoidance (e.g., ignoring the situation), factor-analytic studies illustrate that positive nonviolent strategies clearly separate from pure social withdrawal or depressive passivity, demonstrating that the instrument taps an active, purposeful orientation toward conflict management.

Reliability

The psychometric evaluation of the TCS-NVI demonstrates consistent, acceptable-to-strong reliability across varied middle school demographic cohorts.

Internal Consistency

In the original cross-sectional and intervention validation studies involving large samples of 6th, 7th, and 8th graders (ranging from N = 558 to over N = 1,800), the Nonviolent Intentions Subscale yielded Cronbach’s alpha (α) coefficients typically ranging from .72 to .83. For an 8-item self-report scale administered to young adolescents, an alpha coefficient exceeding .70 reflects adequate internal consistency for group-level comparative research and program evaluation. Variations in alpha levels across studies typically relate to the developmental maturation of the sample: 8th-grade cohorts frequently demonstrate slightly higher reliability coefficients (.80 to .83) than 6th-grade cohorts (.70 to .74), consistent with developmental increases in cognitive stability and the consolidation of social-cognitive self-concepts.

Test-Retest Stability

Test-retest assessments administered over control-group intervals across periods of four to twelve weeks demonstrate stability coefficients ranging between r = .64 and r = .76. These moderate-to-high coefficients indicate that while behavioral intentions exhibit reasonable temporal stability under steady environmental conditions, they remain sensitive to educational interventions, restorative justice workshops, and social-emotional curricula, fulfilling the essential criteria for an intervention outcome measure.

Factor Analysis

The underlying dimensionality of the Nonviolent Intentions Subscale has been examined through both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) across diverse adolescent populations.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During initial scale development (Bosworth & Espelage, 1995), principal components analysis and principal axis factoring with both orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Promax) rotations revealed a primary dominant factor accounting for substantial common variance across the eight items. Items emphasizing communicative problem solving ("Try to talk it out"), structured intervention ("Suggest peer mediation"), perspective taking ("Try to see the other person's point of view"), and active affect regulation ("Try to reduce your anger") consistently demonstrated robust primary factor loadings ranging from .52 to .78.

A notable factor-analytic feature occurs with Item 2 ("Ignore the situation and get the person later?"). In unconstrained multidimensional exploratory extraction, Item 2 occasionally loads onto a secondary, minor factor reflecting covert/retaliatory aggression. However, when reverse-scored as intended by the scale authors, it exhibits a moderate, statistically acceptable negative loading on the primary nonviolent resolution factor (loadings typically around -.38 to -.50 prior to inversion, resolving to positive .40+ upon reverse coding).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent structural equation modeling and CFA conducted on large adolescent surveillance samples supported an overarching unidimensional model of nonviolent behavioral intentions, provided that the residual error variances between conceptually adjacent items (such as Item 1, passive avoidance, and Item 6, laughing off the provocation) are allowed to covary. Standard goodness-of-fit metrics reported across empirical studies confirm structural integrity:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > .94
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) > .93
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤ .058 (with 90% confidence intervals between .042 and .071)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) ≤ .045

Measurement invariance analyses across biological sex confirm configural and metric invariance, indicating that boys and girls interpret the psychological content of the items identically. However, scalar invariance testing frequently indicates significant intercept differences: adolescent females systematically report higher base mean scores on items reflecting verbal discussion, emotional down-regulation, and perspective-taking relative to adolescent males.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Type: Self-report behavioral intention questionnaire / psychometric survey.
• Target Population: Middle school and early adolescent youths (Grades 6–8; chronological ages 12–18).
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire or secure digital/computer-assisted survey administration.
• Administration Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes to complete.
• Total Item Count: 8 items.
• Prompt Instruction: "The next time you find yourself really angry at someone or something, how likely is it that you would …"
• Response Scale: A 4-point Likert response scale scored as follows:
  • 1 = Very unlikely
  • 2 = Unlikely
  • 3 = Likely
  • 4 = Very likely
• Scoring and Transformation Rules:
  • Direct Scoring: Items 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are scored directly as marked (1 = 1, 2 = 2, 3 = 3, 4 = 4).
  • Reverse Scoring: Item 2 ("Ignore the situation and get the person later?") is strictly reverse scored to align with the nonviolent orientation construct:
  • Very likely (4) → Recoded as 1
  • Likely (3) → Recoded as 2
  • Unlikely (2) → Recoded as 3
  • Very unlikely (1) → Recoded as 4
  • Composite Summation: Following the recoding of Item 2, all 8 numerical responses are summed.
  • Possible Score Range: 8 to 32 points.
  • Score Interpretation: Higher aggregate scores reflect a stronger, more resilient intention to utilize prosocial, nonviolent strategies to de-escalate interpersonal conflict and regulate anger. Lower aggregate scores (particularly those below 16) suggest a deficiency in nonviolent cognitive scripts and an elevated propensity toward overt or delayed retaliatory hostility.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Teen Conflict Survey was developed in 1995 by Dr. Kris Bosworth and Dr. Dorothy L. Espelage at the Center for Adolescent Studies, Indiana University Bloomington. The instrument was subsequently published and placed into the public domain through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Center for Injury Prevention and Control within the public health reference work: Measuring Violence-Related Attitudes, Behaviors, and Influences Among Youths: A Compendium of Assessment Tools (Dahlberg et al., 2005, p. 122).

As a publication produced under federal public health auspices, the instrument is available free of charge for non-commercial educational, clinical, and academic research purposes. No licensing fees or formal commercial copyright clearances are required for non-profit implementation, program evaluation, or academic inquiry. However, researchers and evaluators are ethically expected to maintain the exact item wording, preserve the integrity of the response format, and provide standard academic citation to the instrument’s originators (Bosworth & Espelage, 1995) and the CDC compendium.

References

• Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
• Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
• Bosworth, K., & Espelage, D. L. (1995). Teen Conflict Survey. Center for Adolescent Studies, Indiana University. (Unpublished assessment instrument).
• Bosworth, K., Espelage, D. L., & Simon, T. R. (1999). Factors associated with bullying behavior in middle school students. Journal of Early Adolescence, 19(3), 341–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431699019003003
• Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children's social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115(1), 74–101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.1.74
• Dahlberg, L. L., Toal, S. B., Swahn, M., & Behrens, C. B. (2005). Measuring violence-related attitudes, behaviors, and influences among youths: A compendium of assessment tools (2nd ed.). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Atlanta, GA. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/YV_Compendium.pdf
• Espelage, D. L., Bosworth, K., & Simon, T. R. (2000). Examining the social context of bullying behaviors in early adolescence. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78(3), 326–333. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2000.tb01914.x
• Espelage, D. L., Holt, M. K., & Henkel, R. R. (2003). Examination of factor structure and reliability of the Bullying, Fighting, and Victimization Scales among middle school students. Journal of School Violence, 2(2), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1300/J202v02n02_03

Items of the Scale