Measures

Attachment to AI Scale (PDF)

A 9-item scale measuring attachment dimensions in relationships with artificial intelligence systems. Participants rate each item on a 7-point scale ranging from "Strongly Disagree" (1) to "Strongly Agree" (7). The avoidance score can be computed by averaging items 1 - 6, while reverse keying items 1, 2, 3, and 4. The anxiety score can be computed by averaging items 7 - 9.

This measure is particularly relevant for understanding human-AI interactions, attachment processes in technological relationships, and individual differences in AI engagement.

Reference: Gillath, O., Ai, T., Branicky, M. S., Keshmiri, S., Davison, R. B., & Spaulding, R. (2021). Attachment and trust in artificial intelligence. Computers in Human Behavior, 115, 106607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106607

Breakup Strategies Questionnaire (PDF)

A 43-item scale listing different strategies one might use to breakup with their partner in a hypothetical scenario. Each item asks the participant to disclose how likely i would be that they would use the listed strategy (e.g., openly express desire, avoid hurting feelings, dropping hints, etc.) on a 7-point scale ranging from Very Unlikely (1) to Very Likely (7). The scale is provided in both the future and the past tense, where past tense is used to refer to past partners. Coding schemes and SPSS syntax is included.

Reference: Collins, T. J., & Gillath, O. (2012). Attachment, breakup strategies, and associated outcomes: The effects of security enhancement on the selection of breakup strategies. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 210-222. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2012.01.008

Volunteer Questionnaire (PDF)

26-item scale listing different volunteer activities (e.g., teaching, reading, counseling troubled people, providing health care to the sick) and tapping the number of activities a participant volunteered for and the time he or she devoted to teach of item. Each item names a particular volunteer activity, and the participants are asked to indicate whether or not they had engaged in it during the past year, and if so, how much time they had devoted to it. The time assessments are made on a 7-point scaled ranging from once a year (1) to almost every day (7). For each participant, two total scores can be computed: (a) number of volunteer activities- the number of activities a participant marks in the list and (b) time devoted to volunteer activities- the average time assessments across all the activities a participant marked.

Reference: Gillath, O., Shaver, P. R., Mikulincer, M., Nitzberg, R. E., Erez, A., & Ijzendoorn, M. H. (2005). Attachment, care-giving, and volunteering: Placing volunteerism in an attachment-theoretical framework. Personal Relationships, 12(4), 425.

State Adult Attachment Measure (PDF)

Resources State Adult Attachment Measure To capture temporary fluctuations in the sense of attachment security and insecurity we developed a State Adult Attachment Measure (SAAM). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses yielded three reliable sub-scales measuring state levels of attachment-related anxiety, avoidance, and security. Additional studies demonstrated both convergent and discriminant validity of the new measure, and its sensitivity to a variety of experimental manipulations.

SAAM reference: Gillath, O., Hart, J., Noftle, E. E., & Stockdale, G. D. (2009). Development and validation of a state adult attachment measure (SAAM). Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 362-373.

Sexual Strategies Questionnaire (PDF)

Following Buss’ conceptualization (e.g., Buss, 1999) of long and short term mating strategies, this self-report measure assesses people’s tendency to prefer each type of strategy (short vs. long). People can prefer one over the other, both, or neither.

The scoring divides the 12 items into two opposing subscales: Long-Term / Commitment Orientation and Short-Term / Casual Orientation. [1, 2]

Step 1: Reverse Score Item 10

Before adding your points together, you must reverse the score for Item 10 to make sure it aligns with the rest of the commitment-seeking items.

If you answered 1, change it to 5
If you answered 2, change it to 4
If you answered 3, stays 3
If you answered 4, change it to 2
If you answered 5, change it to 1 [1]

Step 2: Separate and Calculate Subscale Scores

Long-Term / Commitment Orientation Subscale

These items measure how much you value psychological closeness, marriage, and long-term romantic stability. [1]

Items to add together: 1, 5, 6, 7, 10 (use the reversed score from Step 1), and 12.
Score range: 6 to 30.
Meaning: A higher score indicates a strong preference for monogamy, emotional attachment, and long-term partnerships before having sex.

Short-Term / Casual Orientation Subscale

These items measure your openness to casual hookups, sex without love, and multiple sexual partners. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Items to add together: 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, and 11.
Score range: 6 to 30.
Meaning: A higher score indicates high comfort with casual sex, uncommitted relationships, and sex without strict emotional prerequisites. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Step 3: Interpretation

Once you have both numbers, compare them to see which subscale score is higher:

Higher Commitment Score: You hold a restricted sociosexual strategy. You prefer your sexual experiences to take place within safe, loving, and long-term boundaries. [1, 2, 3]
Higher Casual Score: You hold an unrestricted sociosexual strategy. You view sexual intimacy and emotional commitment as separate concepts and enjoy casual dynamics. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Equal / Balanced Scores: You fall in a flexible middle ground, meaning your preference heavily depends on your specific partner, current life stage, or situational circumstances.

SSQ reference: Gillath, O. & Schachner, D. A. (2006). Sex and love: Goals, motives, and strategies: How do sexuality and attachment interact? In M. Mikulincer & G. S. Goodman (Eds.), Dynamics of romantic love: Attachment, care-giving, and sex. (pp. 121-147). New York: Guilford Press.

RBM - Relationship Behaviors Measure (PDF)

A relationship behaviors measure (RBM) consists of 25 relationship-related scenarios that are threatening in some way (e.g., suggesting partner infidelity or indiscretion or lack of commitment), as well as possible reactions (representing a variety of secure and insecure responses) to each scenario. For example, “You are at a party and your partner just revealed an intimate fact or story about you that you had hoped would remain private. What would you do?” Four plausible reactions were listed, always including at least one secure response and three different insecure responses. The scenarios selected for the study met two criteria: (1) being likely to activate the attachment system (Mikulincer, Gillath, & Shaver, 2002) because of a threat of rejection or betrayal and (2) offering a variety of different behavioral options that might appeal to different degrees to people with different attachment styles.

RBM reference: Gillath, O. & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Effects of attachment style and relationship context on selection among relational strategies (PDF). Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 968–976.

Sexual Behavioral System Subgoals (PDF)

Based on the notion that every behavioral system has specific goals that guide behavior so that it’ll help fulfill the systems function, a self-report measure of individual differences in sex behaviors and beliefs related to the pursuit of the sexual system subgoals was created. There are 4 factor to the SBSS: Relationship initiation; relationship maintenance; promoting frequent sexual activity; and a negative factor reflecting interference with the sexual system.

SBSS reference: Birnbaum, G. E., & Gillath, O. (2006). Measuring subgoals of the sexual behavioral system: What is sex good for? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 675-701.