Psychology
2013. Vol.4, No.1, 50-58
Published Online January 2013 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/psych) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2013.41007
50
Adolescent Adjustment: The Hazards of Conflict Avoidance
and the Benefits of Conflict Resolution
Megan E. Ubinger1, Paul J. Handal2, Carrie E. Massura2
1Department of Psychology, SSM Cardinal Glennon Children’s Medical Center, St. Louis, USA
2Department of Psychology, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, USA
Received October 16th, 2012; revised November 12th, 2012; accepted December 17th, 2012
Current literature provides strong support for the relationship between perceived family conflict (i.e., dis-
agreements, expressed anger, and/or aggression) and adolescent maladjustment (i.e., internalizing, exter-
nalizing, and/or physiological symptoms). Moreover, research indicates that successful conflict resolution
(i.e., “behaviors that regulate, reduce, or terminate conflicts,” Davies & Cummings, 1994) decreases the
adverse impact family conflict has on children. Many researchers have treated conflict resolution as a di-
chotomous variable (e.g., resolved or unresolved), but there may be different approaches to conflict reso-
lution. Only one dimensional measure of conflict resolution has been developed in the literature, and it
has only been used in a sample of young adults. Recent research has also underscored the importance of
assessing conflict avoidance (i.e., indirect efforts to alter stressful situations). Unfortunately, there are
limited studies on conflict avoidance and its impact on psychological adjustment, none of which use an
adolescent sample. The primary purpose of the current study was to determine whether the relationship
between conflict resolution, conflict avoidance, and adjustment would extend to adolescents using a di-
mensional measure of conflict resolution. Second, the current study aimed to develop and pilot a dimen-
sional measure of conflict avoidance. One hundred two adolescents between the ages of 14 and 19 were
recruited from four parochial high schools in a large Midwestern city. The participants completed
self-report measures regarding perceived family conflict, conflict resolution, avoidant behaviors, and
psychological adjustment. Results paralleled the findings of previous research in a young adult sample
regarding the impact of conflict resolution on adjustment. In addition, after considering perceived family
conflict, the presence of conflict avoidance added significantly to the prediction of adolescents’ psycho-
logical symptoms. These findings suggest that assessing for conflict avoidance in addition to family con-
flict and conflict resolution may have important implications for the screening and assessment of adoles-
cent psychological health.
Keywords: Family Conflict; Conflict Resolution; Avoidance; Adolescent Adjustment; Assessment
Introduction
During the last two decades the relationship between conflict
and adjustment has been extensively investigated and research
has revealed a clear relationship between these two variables.
Initially, results of research concerning inter-parental conflict
indicated a negative effect on the adjustment of children when
inter-parental conflict was present. This finding has been sup-
ported in two major meta-analyses (Amato, 2001; Emory,
1999). Additionally, family conflict (i.e., discord, disagree-
ments, expressed anger, and/or aggression) and its relationship
to the adjustment (i.e., degree of internalizing symptoms, ex-
ternalizing symptoms, and/or physiological arousal) of children,
adolescents, and young adults has been extensively investigated
with consistent findings demonstrating that high levels of per-
ceived family conflict are associated with children, adolescents,
and young adults manifesting psychological distress and mal-
adjustment (Borrine, Handal, Brown, & Searight, 1991; Dancy
& Handal, 1984; Enos & Handal, 1986; Kleinman, Handal,
Enos, Searight, & Ross, 1989). The investigation of perceived
family conflict is particularly salient given the rise of sin-
gle-parent families as a consequence of rising divorce rates in
the United States.
Unlike family conflict, conflict resolution (i.e., “behaviors
that regulate, reduce, or terminate conflicts;” Davies & Cum-
mings, 1994), and its relationship to adjustment has not been as
widely investigated. The limited empirical research investigat-
ing conflict resolution and its effects on adjustment appears to
indicate conflict resolution is associated with a decrease in
negative reactions in children (Davies & Cummings, 1994), and
a decrease in aggression and expressed anger by children
(Cummings, Iannotti, & Zahn-Waxler, 1985). It is notable that
the bulk of research in the area of conflict resolution and its
effects on adjustment has been conducted in a laboratory setting
and measured dichotomously, with conflict being defined as
either resolved or unresolved.
As is noted by Davies and Cummings (1994), conflict reso-
lution is not a dichotomous variable, as many researchers have
treated it. Instead, there may be different means of measuring
conflict resolution, or perhaps non-resolution. For example,
when a conflict occurs among family members, behaviors such
as yelling, fighting, and/or arguing suggest that the conflict
remains unresolved. In addition, avoidance of the problem may
suggest that the conflict is not resolved. It has been argued that
active avoidance of a conflict indicates a failure to resolve the
conflict situation (as cited in Johnson, LaVoie, Spenceri, &

M. E. UBINGER ET AL.
Mahoney-Wernli, 2001).
More recently, Roskos, Handal, and Ubinger (2010), after
reviewing the literature on conflict resolution, also indicated a
need for a measure of conflict resolution that was not dichoto-
mous, but rather dimensional, as well as the need for a measure
that would tap conflict resolution as perceived by the child,
adolescent, or young adult. In order to remedy this deficit,
Roskos et al. (2010) developed a dimensional measure of con-
flict resolution, and investigated conflict resolution’s relation-
ship to perceived family conflict, as well as to adjustment in a
sample of young adults. They found that young adults who
reported low levels of perceived family conflict resolution re-
ported significantly more distress than did young adults who
reported high levels of perceived family conflict resolution. In
fact, the young adults who reported low levels of conflict reso-
lution had an aggregate mean score on an epidemiological
measure of distress and need for treatment that exceeded the
clinical cutoff score for the presence of distress, while those
individuals who reported high levels of perceived conflict
resolution had an aggregate mean score below that cutoff score.
In essence, Roskos et al. (2010) reported both statistical sig-
nificance and clinical meaningfulness for their findings. Unfor-
tunately, conflict resolution and its impact on psychological
adjustment have not been examined in an adolescent population
using a dimensional measure of conflict resolution such as the
FCRS (The Family Conflict Resolution Scale).
The FCRS includes one item assessing whether families
avoid conflicts. Serendipitously, Roskos et al. (2010) found that
young adults who reported that their families primarily dealt
with conflict through the use of avoidance, and as such were
classified as avoidant of conflict, reported maladjustment scores
that were significantly higher than those individuals who re-
ported that their families tended to resolve conflict. This finding
also was statistically significant and clinically meaningful and
indicates that the continued presence of either conflict or con-
flict avoidance (i.e., indirect efforts to alter stressful situations)
is equally deleterious to the mental health of young adults.
Furthermore, the young adults who reported that their family
uses avoidance as a coping method did not differ from a group
of young adults who reported, via measures of psychological
symptomatology, that their families primarily employed con-
tinued yelling. Interestingly, the avoidant group reported con-
flict scores on the Family Environment Scale (FES; Moos &
Moos, 1994) equal to the mean for the standardization sample.
In other words, if one only considered these subjects’ reports of
perceived family conflict, these individuals would never have
been flagged as at-risk for adverse mental health issues. This
finding underscores the importance of investigating all of the
possible ways an individual could manage conflict, ranging
from continuing to maintain high conflict, through avoidance of
conflict, to addressing conflict by resolving it. To the authors’
knowledge, there is only one study that specifically examines
the relationship between conflict avoidance and maladjustment,
and unfortunately, the sample only included 4th and 8th grade
students (Johnson et al., 2001). Additionally, the lack of re-
search on conflict avoidance, suggests there is a need to de-
velop dimensional measures of conflict avoidance (as opposed
to one item).
The current study had two primary aims. First, the authors’
sought to determine whether the relationship between conflict
resolution, conflict avoidance, and adjustment, as reported by
Roskos et al. (2010), would extend downward to adolescents.
Specifically, the authors hypothesized that family conflict re-
solution, as measured by the Family Conflict Resolution Scale
(FCRS; Roskos et al., 2010) would be negatively correlated
with family conflict, as measured by the FES (Moos & Moos,
1994). Additionally, the authors predicted that low levels of
family conflict resolution would be significantly related to
higher levels of psychological maladjustment, as measured by
the Langer Symptom Survey (LSS; Langner, 1962), and lower
levels of positive adjustment, as measured by the Satisfaction
with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffen,
1985). Third, the authors hypothesized that conflict avoidance,
as measured by the Avoidant Conflict Behavior Scale (ACBS),
would be significantly predictive of higher levels of psycho-
logical maladjustment and lower levels of positive adjustment.
Secondly, the present investigation aimed to develop a di-
mensional measure of conflict avoidance as opposed to the one-
item assessment used in previous research (Roskos et al., 2010).
It was designed to define specific behaviors that characterize
conflict avoidance, as well as to provide a more thorough
evaluation of avoidance. The authors collected information with
regards to the measure’s psychometric properties including:
sample mean and standard deviation, internal consistency, sam-
ple cutoff scores, and factor analytic properties.
Methodology
Participants
Approximately 700 students were recruited from four paro-
chial high schools in a large Midwestern city. The final sample
included 102 adolescents (14.6% return rate). The participants
were between the ages of 14 to 19 (M age = 16.58 years, SD =
1.36). The sample consisted of 64 females (62.7%) and 38 males
(37.3%) participants. The racial/ethnic composition of the sam-
ple was predominantly Caucasian (95.1%). The remaining ra-
cial/ethnic distribution was as follows: African American (n = 0,
0%), Hispanic (n = 1, 1%), Asian American (n = 0, 0%), Native
American (n = 1, 1%), and Other (n = 3, 2.9%). Although ado-
lescents in grades 9 through 12 were represented, the partici-
pants were primarily in grade 12 (n = 47, 46.1%). The remain-
ing grades were represented as follows: 9th grade (n = 15,
14.7%), 10th grade (n = 17, 16.7%), and 11th grade (n = 23,
22.5%). Socioeconomic status was assessed by examining re-
ported maternal and paternal income, educational level, and
employment status. The maternal median income for those
reporting (n = 81, 79.4%) was $30,001 to $40,000, while the
paternal median income for those reporting (n = 83, 81.4%)
was $50,001 to $70,000. The median parental educational level
for those reporting was college graduate for both mothers (n =
98, 97.1%) and fathers (n = 98, 96.1%). The median parental
employment status for those reporting was full-time for both
mothers (n = 100, 98%) and fathers (n = 100, 98%).
Measures
Conflict Scale of The Family Environment Scale (FES;
Moos & Moos, 1994). The FES is a 90-item true-false instru-
ment that yields standard scales on 10 subscales designed to
assess family environment. Of these 90 items, the nine items
that comprise the conflict scale were used to assess the amount
of expressed anger, aggression, and conflict among family
members. Items endorsing family conflict are scored as 1, while
items that do not endorse family conflict are scored as zero. The

M. E. UBINGER ET AL.
items are summed to yield a total score, with higher scores
indicating high levels of family conflict. This measure has fre-
quently been utilized with adolescent populations (Dancy &
Handal, 1984; Enos & Handal, 1986; Gregory, Caspi, Moffitt,
& Poulton, 2006; Kleinman et al., 1989; Ross, Marrinana,
Schattner, & Gullone, 1999).
Validated cutoff scores for the conflict scale have been de-
veloped to categorize high, middle, and low conflict families.
High conflict families fall more than one standard deviation
above the mean, middle conflict families fall within one stan-
dard deviation of the mean; low conflict families fall more than
one standard deviation below the mean (Kleinman et al., 1989).
In the current sample, high conflict families reported scores
greater than six, middle conflict families reported scores be-
tween 2 and 5, and the low conflict families reported scores of
either 0 or 1. In a normative sample, the mean score on the
conflict subscale was 3.18 (SD = 1.91), the internal consistency
(Cronbach’s Alpha) was α = .75, and the two-month test-retest
reliability was .85 (Moos & Moos, 1994).
The Family Conflict Resolution Scale (FCRS)—Family
Resolution scale. This is an 18-item self-report scale devel-
oped by Roskos et al. (2010) in order to assess conflict resolu-
tion within the family system. The subscale was initially de-
veloped as a component of a broader measure for use with a
college-age sample. The measure’s items were generated
through both empirical and rational methods. First, the re-
searchers conducted a literature search and included items from
instruments such as the Children’s Perception of Interparental
Conflict Scale (CPIC; Grych, Seid, & Fincham, 1992), the FES,
and the Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, 1979), which tapped into
the construct of conflict resolution. Items that appeared appro-
priate from these measures were included in the FCRS. Second,
items were generated by Roskos, a fellow student, and a re-
search supervisor. Items were rationally constructed and ap-
peared content valid. Roskos (2010) conducted a pilot study of
the measure with 10 people.
Of the 18 items, 14 are answered using a true/false response
format. Responses endorsing resolution items are scored as a 1,
while responses endorsing non-resolution items are scored as 0.
Participants rate items 15, 16, and 17 on a 7-point Likert scale;
anchors for the items range from 1 (never) to 7 (always). Items
1 to 17 are summed to provide the score for conflict resolution,
with higher scores indicating higher levels of conflict resolution.
Item 18 is a categorical self-report item that requires partici-
pants to best describe how disagreements among family mem-
bers are typically handled. Only the first 17 items were used in
the present study.
Roskos et al. (2010) developed cutoff scores in order to
categorize high, middle, and low levels of family conflict reso-
lution utilizing his study sample (N = 332). High levels of fam-
ily conflict resolution fell more than one standard deviation
above the mean, middle family conflict resolution fell within
one standard deviation of the mean, and low family conflict
resolution fell more than one standard deviation below the
mean. The mean score of Roskos et al.’s (2010) sample on the
scale was 20.43 (SD = 6.74), and they reported an internal con-
sistency of α = .87. To date, the FCRS and its cutoff scores
have not been validated.
Although the FCRS was originally developed for use with a
college-age sample, the authors were interested in evaluating
the use of the FCRS in an adolescent population. The authors
believed that the FCRS items would be valuable in measuring
family conflict resolution in the current study because it pro-
duced strong results in the Roskos et al.’s (2010) study. There-
fore, the authors believed the measure would potentially pro-
duce strong results in the current study because the adolescents
were currently living with their families, as opposed to the col-
lege students.
Avoidant Conflict Behavior Scale (ACBS). The ACBS is a
pilot measure developed for use in the current study, which
includes 15 true-false-items assessing avoidant behaviors. The
study conducted by Roskos et al. (2010) suggested that current
measures of family conflict and resolution are not adequately
screening for avoidance of conflict; they believed this is a po-
tential problem and proposed further definition of avoidant
conflict behavior. This measure is an attempt to further define
and adequately assess for conflict avoidance.
The author of this measure derived items from the avoidant
coping and conflict resolution literature that reflected a range of
avoidant behaviors and had originated within the following
instruments: Response to Stress Questionnaire (Connor-Smith
et al., 2000), the Coping Across Situations Questionnaire (Seif-
fge-Krenke, 1995), a measure of conflict tactics (Feldman &
Gowen, 1998), a measure of conflict resolution (Owens, Daly,
& Slee, 2005), and an interpersonal conflict style inventory
(Rahim, 1983). The author also rationally derived additional
items that appeared content valid. Examples of items include:
“In my family, we avoid discussing differences;” “In my family,
when we have a disagreement we leave the room;” “In my fam-
ily, we avoid disagreements.”
Responses endorsing avoidant conflict behavior were scored
as a 1, while responses endorsing non-avoidant behaviors were
scored as 0. The items were then summed, with higher scores
indicating higher levels of avoidant conflict behaviors. Cutoff
scores were developed to categorize high, middle, and low
levels of avoidant conflict behavior. High levels of avoidant
conflict behavior fell more than one standard deviation above
the mean, middle levels of avoidant conflict behavior fell
within one standard deviation of the mean, and low levels of
avoidant conflict behavior fell more than one standard deviation
below the mean. The mean score of the current sample on the
ACBS was 3.85 (SD = 2.69), and the internal consistency was α
= .69.
Langner Symptom Survey (LSS; Langner, 1962). The LSS
was used as a measure of current psychological adjustment. It is
comprised of 22 self-report items that represent symptoms of
depression, anxiety, social isolation or withdrawal, and psy-
chophysiological complaints. Each item is scored either 0 (ab-
sence of symptoms) or 1 (presence of symptoms). Higher scores
indicate greater psychological distress or impairment. Langner
(1962) reported the mean score on the measure in various
treatment groups: outpatients (M = 4.78, SD = 3.27), ex-
patients (M = 4.20, SD = 3.35), and non-patients (M = 2.60, SD
= 2.67). The LSS has a reported internal consistency of α = .80
(Dohrenwend et al., 1980). Furthermore, a cutoff score of 4 or
more has been reported to differentiate patients from
non-patients and correctly identify 84% of those with psycho-
logical difficulties (Langner, 1962). The measure is correlated
nega- tively with a measure of well-being, which supports its
concur- rent validity.
The cutoff score of 4 has been validated for adolescents. The
LSS accurately identified 82% of adolescents never in treat-
ment, 76% of adolescents in outpatient treatments, and 79% of
adolescents in inpatient treatment (Handal, Gist, Gilner, &
52

M. E. UBINGER ET AL.
Searight, 1993). Therefore, a cutoff score of 4 was used to de-
termine the presence of psychological symptoms.
Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener, Emmons,
Larsen, & Griffin, 1985). This is a 5-item measure that as-
sesses a person’s global judgment of life satisfaction. Roskos et
al. (2010) used the Flanagan Life Satisfaction Questionnaire
(FLSQ; Flanagan, 1978) as a measure of positive adjustment.
Unfortunately, the FLSQ has never been used in samples of
adolescents, and the authors felt it more appropriate to use the
SWLS, which has been widely used and validated in interna-
tional samples of adolescents. Items are scored on a 7-point
Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree). Total scores indicate whether an individual is satisfied
(scores between 26 and 30), slightly satisfied (scores between
21 and 25), equally satisfied and dissatisfied (score of 20),
slightly dissatisfied (scores between 15 and 19) or extremely
dissatisfied (scores between 5 and 9; Pavot & Diener, 1993).
Mean scores for American students range from 23.0 to 25.2
(SD = 6.4 to 5.8; Pavot & Diener, 1993). The instrument shows
strong internal consistency (α = .80) and a 2-month test-retest
reliability of .82 (Diener et al., 1985). However, the test-retest
reliability falls over longer periods of time. In addition, the
SWLS has generally been found to be unrelated to gender and
age (Pavot, Diener, Colvin, & Sandvik, 1991).
Demographic Questionnaire. A demographic questionnaire
was included in order to gather information regarding the par-
ticipants’ sex, race, age, grade, and their families’ income,
education level, and employment status.
Procedure
Approval was obtained from the Saint Louis University In-
stitutional Review Board (IRB) prior to participant recruitment.
Data collection occurred from October 2007 to February 2008.
Participants were recruited from four parochial high schools in
a large Midwestern city. The study investigators initially visited
the high schools in order to introduce themselves, brief the
students on the purpose of the study, explain the nature of par-
ticipation, and to answer any questions the students had. Pack-
ets were distributed to approximately 75% of the participants to
take home that included a) a cover letter for the adolescent and
his/her parent(s) or legal guardian(s) to read, containing a brief
description of the study; b) an explanation of the con-
sent/assent required to participate in the study; and c) the con-
sent/assent form. The remaining participants received the same
packet plus the questionnaires. In order to control for the possi-
bility that sequencing of measures might influence responding,
two forms were used: A and B. Form A had items related to
psychological symptoms and life satisfaction first with items
relating to family conflict and conflict resolution appearing
second. Form B began with family conflict and resolution items,
which were followed by the psychological symptoms and life
satisfaction measures.
To accommodate the requests of the administrative personnel
at each of the four high schools, two separate procedures were
employed. For the first group, the study investigators collected
returned consent/assent forms and distributed questionnaires to
the students for completion at school. For the other participants,
the participants returned completed consent/assent forms and
completed questionnaires to their school within 10 days. In
order to guarantee confidentiality for this group, the partici-
pants returned completed materials in a sealed envelope to a
drop box in the main office. Furthermore, when the completed
questionnaires were collected, the consent/assent forms were
immediately separated from the response sheets in order to
ensure that there was no identifiable information connected to
individual data points. Only those questionnaires accompanied
by signed consent/assent forms were included in the data analy-
sis.
Results
Demographic Variabl e s and Dependen t Variables
In order to determine whether item order had a significant
effect on responding, a one-way multivariate analysis of vari-
ance (MANOVA) was conducted using form A (N = 49) and
form B (N = 53) as the fixed factor and the measure of conflict
(FES), the two measures of conflict resolution (FCRS and
ACBS), and the two adjustment measures (LSS and SWLS) as
the dependent variables (DVs). The analysis resulted in a
non-significant MANOVA (Wilks’ λ = .973, F6,95 = .443, p
= .848). As a consequence, data from form A and for B was
collapsed for further analyses.
In order to determine whether the participants’ sex or grade
level significantly affected their responses on the conflict
measure (FES), the two measures of conflict resolution (FCRS
and ACBS), and the two adjustment measures (LSS and
SWLS), a 2 × 4 factorial MANOVA was conducted. The
analysis revealed no significant main effects for either sex
(Wilks’ λ = .954, F6,89 = .716, p = .637) or grade level (Wilks’ λ
= .862, F18,252.215) = .757, p = .750), and no significant sex by
grade level interaction was found (Wilks’ λ = .843, F18,252.215
= .875, p = .609). As a result, data for males and females and
for all grade levels was collapsed in further analyses.
The means and standard deviations for all variables in the
collapsed sample are shown in the upper portion of Table 1. As
can be seen, the sample mean for the FES (M = 3.70) was simi-
lar to the mean reported by Moos and Moos (1994) in the man-
ual (M = 3.90). Similarly, the FCRS sample mean (M = 19.75)
was comparable to that reported by Roskos et al. (2010; M =
20.43). The LSS sample mean (M = 3.75) was similar to the
previous reports for adolescents not currently in outpatient or
inpatient treatment (Handal et al., 1993; Enos & Handal, 1986;
Kleinman et al., 1989). Finally, the SWLS sample mean (M =
24.86) lies within the range of means reported by Pavot and
Diener (1993; M = 23.0 to 25.2).
The intercorrelations among all variables are presented in the
bottom portion of Table 1. As can be seen, family conflict, as
measured by the FES, is positively and significantly correlated
with the LSS, which replicates previous findings and indicates
that the more family conflict that is present in the home, the
more likely an adolescent is to experience psychological symp-
toms. On the other hand, the FCRS was negatively and signifi-
cantly correlated with the LSS, which is not unlike findings
with young adults in Roskos et al.’s study (2010). This indi-
cates that when families are unable to resolve conflict, adoles-
cents tend to experience more psychological symptoms. Finally,
the ACBS was positively and significantly correlated with the
LSS and inversely and significantly correlated with the SWLS,
which suggests that when families employ more avoidant be-
haviors during conflict, adolescents tend to experience greater
psychological symptomatology and lower levels of satisfaction
with life.

M. E. UBINGER ET AL.
Table 1.
Descriptive statistics and intercorrelation matrix.
Dependent
Va
r
iable M SD
FES 3.70 2.23
FCRS 19.75 5.86
ACBS 3.85 2.69
LSS 3.75 3.42
SWLS 24.86 6.73
FES FCRS ACBS LSS SWLS
FES - −.563*** .212* .454*** −.339***
FCRS - −.305** −.379*** .366***
ACBS - .299*** −.217*
LSS - −.578***
SWLS -
Note: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001; FES = family environment scale; FCRS =
family conflict resolution scale—family conflict scale; ACBS = avoidant conflict
behavior scale; LSS = langner symptom survey; SWLS = satisfaction with life
scale.
Perceived Family Conflict, Family Conflict
Resolution, and Adolescent Adjustment
In order to determine whether the previously reported rela-
tionship between conflict and adjustment could be replicated,
and to determine whether Roskos et al.’s (2010) relationship
between conflict resolution and adjustment could be extended
downward to adolescents, two separate MANOVAs were per-
formed. Low, middle, and high conflict groups were developed
on the basis of the FES sample mean. The low conflict group
(N = 15) consisted of participants with a score of 1 or 0 (1 SD
below the mean); the middle conflict group (N = 66) consisted
of participants whose scores ranged from 2 to 5 (within one SD
above and below the mean); the high conflict groups (N = 21)
consisted of participants with a score of 6 or greater (1 SD
above the mean). Similarly, low, middle, and high conflict
resolution groups were developed on the basis of the FCRS
sample mean. The low conflict resolution group (N = 14) con-
sisted of participants with a resolution score of 1 to 13 (1 SD
below the mean); the middle conflict resolution group (N = 73)
consisted of participants whose scores ranged from 14 to 25
(within one SD above and below the mean); the high conflict
resolution group (N = 15) consisted of participants with a con-
flict resolution score of 26 or greater (1 SD above the mean).
The results of the first analysis examining the relationship of
conflict to adjustment yielded a significant MANOVA (Wilks’
λ = .800, F4,196 = 5.780, p < .001, eta squared = .10). Sufficient
power was demonstrated (observed power = .981). Univariate F
statistics were significant for both the LSS (F = 9.333, p < .001,
eta squared = .159) and the SWLS (F = 8.385, p < .001, eta
squared = .145). Tukey HSD post hoc analyses revealed that
low and middle conflict groups did not differ from each other
but both differed significantly (p ≤ .001) from the high conflict
group on both the LSS and SWLS. These results are not only
statistically significant but are clinically meaningful, as well,
because the high family conflict group exceeded the cutoff
score of 4 on the LSS (M = 6.29), while both the low family
conflict group and middle family conflict group were below the
cutoff on the LSS (M = 2.13, 3.30 respectively). Consistent
with the current literature, these results suggest that the high
family conflict group has clinically meaningful levels of psy-
chological symptoms and lower levels of life satisfaction com-
pared to adolescents in the low and middle family conflict
groups.
The results of the second analysis for the relationship of con-
flict resolution to psychological symptoms and life satisfaction
yielded a significant MANOVA (Wilks’ λ = .888, F4,196 = 3.006,
p < .05, eta squared = .058). Results demonstrated insufficient
power of the test (observed power = .792) Univariate F statis-
tics were significant for both the LSS (F = 3.709, p < .05) and
the SWLS (F = 4.442, p = .01). Tukey HSD post hoc analyses
revealed that the middle (M = 3.56) and high (M = 2.67) con-
flict resolution groups (p < .01) did not differ significantly from
each other on the LSS but both differed significantly from the
low (M = 5.86) conflict resolution group. On the SWLS, the
middle and the high conflict resolution groups did not signifi-
cantly differ from each other; however, only the high conflict
resolution group significantly differed from the low conflict
resolution group. These results suggest that the low conflict
resolution group has clinically meaningful levels of psycho-
logical symptomatology compared to those in the middle and
high conflict resolution groups, and significantly lower levels
of life satisfaction than those in the high conflict resolution
group. Moreover, the results paralleled Roskos et al.’s (2010)
findings in young adults.
In order to determine whether family conflict resolution and
conflict avoidance help predict adolescents’ psychological
symptoms and life satisfaction above and beyond the informa-
tion provided by perceived family conflict, several hierarchical
regression analyses were conducted. The first set of hierarchical
regression analyses investigated the predictive value of family
conflict resolution and conflict avoidance on adolescents’ psy-
chological symptoms. In the first hierarchical regression analy-
sis, perceived family conflict was entered first, with conflict
avoidance and family conflict resolution entered second and
third, respectively, in order to predict psychological symptoms.
Please see the upper portion of Table 2 for the results of this
analysis. A second hierarchical regression analysis that was
identical to the first analysis except that it reversed the order of
the latter two independent variables, with family conflict reso-
lution being entered second and conflict avoidance entered third,
was also conducted. The results of the second analysis were
comparable to those of the first analysis, and so they are not
reported here. In general, the first set of analyses demonstrates
that, after considering perceived family conflict, conflict avoi-
dance adds significantly to the prediction of adolescents’ psy-
chological symptoms, whereas family conflict resolution does
not.
The second set of hierarchical regression analyses was con-
cerned with the predictive value of family conflict resolution
and conflict avoidance in regard to adolescents’ life satisfaction.
The third hierarchical regression analysis included perceived
family conflict, conflict avoidance, and family conflict resolu-
tion entered first, second, and third into the equation, respec-
tively. Please see the lower portion of Table 2 for the results of
this analysis. Similar to the process described above, a fourth
hierarchical regression analysis that reversed the order of the
54

M. E. UBINGER ET AL.
Table 2.
Hierarchical Regression Analyses FES, ACBS, and FCRS’ Prediction of LSS.
B SE B β ∆R2 F
Model 1 .21 25.949***
FES .70 .14 .45
ACBS
FCRS
Model 2 .04 5.705*
FES .63 .14 .41
ACBS .27 .11 .21
FCRS
Model 3 .01 1.450
FES .52 .16 .34
ACBS .24 .12 .19
FCRS −.08 .06 −.13
FES, ACBS, and FCRS’ Prediction of SWLS
B SE B β ∆R2 F
Model 1 .12 12.958***
FES −1.02 .28 −.34
ACBS
FCRS
Model 2 .02 2.518
FES −.92 .29 −.31
ACBS −.38 .24 −.15
FCRS
Model 3 .04 5.142*
FES −.52 .33 −.17
ACBS −.25 .24 −.10
FCRS .30 .13 .26
Note: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p< .001; FES = family environment scale; FCRS = family conflict resolution scale—family conflict scale; ACBS = avoidant conflict behavior
scale; LSS = langner symptom survey; SWLS = satisfaction with life scale.
latter two independent variables was also conducted. The re-
sults of this fourth analysis were equivalent to those of the third
analysis, and they are also not reported here. The second set of
analyses indicates that when examining adolescents’ life satis-
faction, family conflict resolution is a significant predictor,
even after considering perceived family conflict. In these
analyses, conflict avoidance did not significantly add to the
prediction of adolescents’ life satisfaction.
ACBS Factor Analyses
Finally, in further evaluating the Avoidant Conflict Behav-
iors Scale (ACBS) in terms of its item content, factor analytic
techniques were employed. A principal components analysis
using a varimax rotation was utilized. The analysis extracted
factors based on eigenvalues with a value greater than 1.0. The
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was .687,
and the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was significant (p < .001),
suggesting that there is reasonable correlation among the items
and that the factors extracted are viable. The eigenvalue greater
than one criterion was utilized to choose factors in each case. A
cutoff of .30 was used to determine items that loaded onto each
given factor.
Four interpretable factors were extracted. All together the
four factors accounted for 55.66% of the total variance after
varimax rotation. All 15 items included in the analysis loaded

M. E. UBINGER ET AL.
onto a factor, with three items loading onto more than one fac-
tor. The first factor included items that addressed denial that
conflict exists, and after rotation it accounted for 17.22% of the
total variance. The second factor consisted of items that ad-
dressed walking away from conflict or pretending conflict does
not exist; this factor accounted for 15.42% of the total variance.
The third factor included items such as “in my family we do not
talk about taboo topics,” suggesting a lack of communication.
This factor accounted for 12.23% of the total variance. The
fourth factor accounted for 10.80% of the total variance and
included items that addressed behaviors such as the silent
treatment and avoiding talking. Table 3 provides the rotated
factor loadings and a summary of the principal component
analysis.
Discussion
Overall, the results of the current study replicated the exist-
ing literature that demonstrated a well-established relationship
between family conflict and adolescents’ psychological symp-
toms and life satisfaction. More specifically, high levels of
family conflict were significantly related to greater psycho-
logical symptomatology and reduced life satisfaction in both a
statistically and clinically meaningful manner.
More importantly, to the authors’ knowledge, the current
study is the first study to assess adolescents’ perceptions of
conflict resolution within the family and its relationship to ado-
lescents’ psychological adjustment using a dimensional meas-
ure of conflict resolution. Much of the previous research has
been conducted in laboratory setting with younger children
using dichotomous measures of conflict resolution. A dimen-
sional measure of conflict resolution was developed to remedy
the use of dichotomous measures (Roskos et al., 2010), but
unfortunately prior to this study it had not been implemented in
a population of young adults.
Table 3.
Rotated factor matrix avoidant conflict behavior scale.
ACBS Items Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Communalities
Item 3: in my family we do not fight. .820 .018 −.160 .038 .700
Item 8: in my family we do not argue. .750 .085 −.152 .192 .630
Item 14: in my family, when we have a disagreement, we
only make positive comments. .736 .086 .218 −.228 .648
Item 10: in my family, when we have a disagreement, we
avoid saying negative things. .692 −.111 .086 .010 .498
Item 2: in my family, when we have a disagreement, we
walk away and do not discuss the disagreement later on. .072 .804 .127 .012 .669
Item 5: in my family, when we have a disagreement, we
pretend the conflict does not exist. .155 .654 .073 .068 .461
Item 12: in my family, when we have a disagreement, we
leave the room. −.161 .589 −.237 .463 .643
Item 13: in my family we avoid sharing feelings. −.093 .483 .314 .036 .342
Item 7: in my family, when we have a disagreement, we
talk about things we disagree on. −.221 .220 .694 −.042 .581
Item 4: in my family we do not talk about taboo topics. .257 .005 .673 .191 .555
Item 6: in my family we talk about conflict. −.135 .553 .556 −.046 .636
Item 1: in my family we avoid disagreements. .202 −.112 −.016 .762 .580
Item 9: in my family, when we have a disagreement, we
get cool and distant (i.e. silent treatment). −.114 .460 .108 .568 .559
Item 11: in my family we avoid discussing differences. .070 .102 .495 .517 .528
Item 15: in my family, when we have a disagreement, we
speak directly with one another. −.268 .203 .232 .389 .318
Rotated λ (eigenvalues) 2.583 2.312 1.843 1.620
% of total variance each component accounts for after the
rotation 17.22 15.42 12.23 10.80
Note: varimax rotation solution presented. The extracted factors were named as follows: Factor 1: denial of conflict; Factor 2: ignoring a conflict/feelings; Factor 3: lack of
communication; Factor 4: behavioral avoidance.
56

M. E. UBINGER ET AL.
Low levels of conflict resolution were significantly related to
a greater presence of psychological symptoms in a group of
adolescents. Furthermore, medium and high levels of family
conflict resolution were significantly related to lower levels of
psychological symptoms in both a statistically and clinically
meaningful manner. More specifically, the medium and high
conflict resolution groups attained mean LSS scores below 4,
while the low family conflict resolution group attained a mean
LSS score above 4, which is the cutoff for determining which
adolescents are distressed and in need of treatment. Addition-
ally, it was demonstrated that, after controlling for family con-
flict, degree of family conflict resolution is a significant pre-
dictor of adolescents’ life satisfaction, whereas conflict avoid-
ance is not. These results highlight the importance of further
assessing adolescents’ perceptions of family conflict resolution
because the resolution of a conflict, or the lack thereof, has
consequences for adolescents’ mental health. This will be an
important area of continued research, and, in particular, further
validation of the FCRS in adolescent populations may be a
focus of future research.
This study also highlights the importance of assessing a par-
ticular approach to conflict resolution, avoidance. The assess-
ment of avoidant or passive approaches to family conflict has
been neglected in the current literature. The current study is
also the first, to the authors’ knowledge to examine the rela-
tionship between family conflict avoidance and adolescents’
psychological adjustment. As predicted, higher levels of con-
flict avoidance were significantly related to higher levels of
psychological symptoms, while it was significantly and nega-
tively correlated with family conflict resolution and with life
satisfaction. This indicates that individuals who report high
levels of conflict avoidance report low levels of conflict resolu-
tion in their families and experience deleterious consequences
(i.e., reduced life satisfaction and more psychological symp-
toms). In addition, the results underscore the importance of the
assessment of conflict avoidance above and beyond the level of
family conflict because conflict avoidance added significantly
to the prediction of adolescents’ psychological symptoms even
after considering perceived family conflict, whereas family
conflict resolution did not. Overall, this suggests that high lev-
els of conflict avoidance are as deleterious to adolescents’
mental health as is the presence of high levels of family con-
flict.
The current study is also the first to develop and pilot a di-
mensional measure of conflict avoidance in an adolescent
population. Examination of the item content of the Avoidant
Conflict Behavior Scale (ACBS) revealed four interpretable
factors (i.e., denial of conflict, ignoring conflict/feelings, no
communication, and behavioral avoidance). However, several
of the items included in the ACBS appear to be redundant. For
example, the items “in my family we do not fight” and “in my
family we do not argue,” or, “in my family we avoid disagree-
ments” and “in my family we avoid discussing differences” are
very similar to one another. In developing the measure the goal
was to include more items than may be needed in order to de-
termine which items would best measure avoidant conflict be-
haviors. Future research employing further trials of this meas-
ure may consider consolidating or revising the items. It is
promising that the results of the current study closely mirrored
the results of Roskos’ et al. (2010) study, suggesting that the
ACBS deserves further study to refine and validate the measure
in other populations of adolescents.
Taken together, the present findings have important implica-
tions for screening adolescents for degree of life satisfaction
and presence of psychological symptoms. Adolescents in fami-
lies who handle conflict with avoidance appear to be at risk for
a greater degree of psychological symptoms whereas adoles-
cents whose families consistently practice conflict resolution
tend to report greater life satisfaction. This unique pattern of
relationships suggests that a multidimensional assessment mea-
suring both conflict resolution and conflict avoidance is neces-
sary in order to obtain the most informative evaluation of an
adolescent’s adjustment. In other words, the findings suggest
that using measures of family conflict or conflict resolution
alone may overlook a group of adolescents who are at risk for
psychological symptoms. This study provides initial support for
use of the ACBS as a means of identifying adolescents at risk
for more severe psychological symptoms, a group that has been
previously neglected in the literature.
Strengths and Limitatio ns
The most significant limitation of the present study was the
limited sample size. However, analyses of power suggest that
we can have some confidence in the results found, despite the
small sample size. Additionally, the study utilized a mono-
method approach. The data consisted of self-report information;
therefore, there is no way to ensure that the adolescents were
reporting entirely accurate levels of family conflict, conflict
resolution, life satisfaction, and psychological symptoms.
Despite the given limitations, this study has several meth-
odological strengths. First, the well-established relationship
between family conflict and greater psychological symptoma-
tology demonstrated in previous research was replicated. Sec-
ond, despite a small sample size, the present results closely
mirror the results of a similar study conducted by Roskos et al.
(2010) in a college population. Therefore, in combination with
the results of Roskos et al. (2010), the current project has the
potential to contribute important information that will lead to
the examination of previously unexplored dimensions of family
conflict. Finally, the sample means on all measures were at or
near the normative means for the instruments, which provides
greater confidence in the generalization of the results of this
study.
REFERENCES
Amato, P. R. (2001). Children of divorce in the 1990’s: An update of
the Amato and Keith (1991) meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psy-
chology, 15, 255-370. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.15.3.355
Borrine, L. M., Handal, P. J., Brown, N. Y., & Searight, H. R. (1991).
Family conflict and adolescent adjustment in intact, divorced, and
blended families. Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 246-250.
Connor-Smith, J. K., Compas, B. E., Wadsworth, M. E., Thomsen, A.
H., & Saltzman, H. (2000). Responses to stress in adolescence:
Measurement of coping and involuntary stress responses. Journal of
Counseling and Clinical Ps ycho logy , 68, 976-992.
doi:10.1037/0022-006X.68.6.976
Cummings, E. M., Iannotti, R. J., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (1985). The in-
fluence of conflict between adults on the emotions and aggression of
young children. Developmental Psychology, 21, 495-507.
doi:10.1037/0012-1649.21.3.495
Dancy, B.L., & Handal, P.J. (1984). Perceived family climate, psycho-
logical adjustment, and peer relationships of black adolescents: A
function of parental marital statusor perceived family conflict?
Journal of Community Psychology , 12, 222-228.

M. E. UBINGER ET AL.
doi :10.1 0 0 2 /15 2 0 - 6 62 9 ( 1 9 8407)12:3<222::AID-JCOP2290120306>
3.0.CO;2-9
Davies, P. T., & Cummings, E. M. (1994). Marital conflict and child
adjustment: An emotional security hypothesis. Psychological Bulle-
tin, 116, 387-411. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.387
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The
satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49,
71-75. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
Dohrenwend, B. P., Dohrenwend, B. S., Gould, M. S., Link, B.,
Neugebauer, R., & Wunsch-Hitzig, R. (1980). Mental Illness in the
United States: Epidemiological Estimates. New York: Praeger.
Emery, R. E. (1999). Marriage, divorce, and children’s adjustment.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Enos, D. M., & Handal, P. J. (1986). The relation of parental marital
status and perceived family conflict to adjustment in white adole-
scents. Journal of Co n s u l t i ng and Clinical Psychology , 5 4 , 820-824.
Feldman, S. S., & Gowen, L. K. (1998). Conflict negotiation tactics in
romantic relationships in high school students. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 27, 691-717. doi:10.1023/A:1022857731497
Flanagan, J. C. (1978). A research approach to improving our quality of
life. American Psychologist, 33, 126-147.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.33.2.138
Gregory, A. M., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., & Poulton, R. (2006). Family
conflict in childhood: A predictor of later insomnia. Journal of Sleep
and Sleep Disorder Research, 29, 1063-1067.
Grych, J. H., Seid, M., & Fincham, F. D. (1992). Assessing marital
conflict from the child’s perspective: The children’s perception of
interparental conflict scale. Child Development, 63, 558-572.
doi:10.2307/1131346
Handal, P. J., Gist, D., Gilner, F. H., & Searight, H. R. (1993). Prelimi-
nary validity for the langner symptom survey and the brief symptom
inventory as mass-screening instruments for adolescent adjustment.
Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 22, 382-386.
doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp2203_9
Johnson, H. D., LaVoie, J. C., Spenceri, M. C., & Mahoney-Wernli, M.
A. (2001). Peer conflict avoidance: Associations with loneliness, so-
cial anxiety, and social avoidance. Psychological Reports, 88, 227-
235. doi:10.2466/pr0.2001.88.1.227
Kleinman, S. L., Handal, P. J., Enos, D., Searight, H. R., & Ross, M. J.
(1989). Relationship between perceived family climate and adoles-
cent adjustment. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 18, 351-359.
doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp1804_9
Langner, T. S. (1962). A 22-item screening score of psychiatric symp-
toms indicating impairment. Journal of Health and Human Behavior,
3, 269-276. doi:10.2307/2948599
Moos, R. H., & Moos, B. S. (1994). Family Environment Scale manual
(3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Owens, L., Daly, A., & Slee, P. (2005). Sex and age differences in
victimization and conflict resolution among adolescents in a south
australian school. Aggressive Behavior, 31, 1-12.
doi:10.1002/ab.20045
Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the satisfaction with life
scale. Psychological Assessment, 5, 164-172.
doi:10.1037/1040-3590.5.2.164
Pavot, W., Diener, E., Colvin, C. R., & Sandvik, E. (1991). Further
validation of the satisfaction with life scale: Evidence for the
cross-method convergence of well-being measures. Journal of Per-
sonality Assessment, 28, 1-20.
Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal
conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 368-376.
doi:10.2307/255985
Roskos. P. T., Handal, P. J., & Ubinger, M. (2010). Family conflict
resolution: Its measurement and relationship with family conflict and
psychological adjustment. Psychology, 1, 370-376.
doi:10.4236/psych.2010.15046
Ross, R. D., Marrinana, S., Schattner, S., & Gullone, E. (1999). The
relationship between perceived family environment and psychologi-
cal wellbeing: Mother, father, and adolescent reports. Australian
Psychologist, 34, 58-63. doi:10.1080/00050069908257426
Seiffge-Krenke, I. (1995). Stress, coping, and relationships in adole-
scence. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The
Conflict Tactics (CT) scales. Journal of Marriage and Family, 41,
75-88. doi:10.2307/351733
58