Loading page content
Original self-reflection questionnaire · Full results free
Explore what matters to you when receiving an apology with 20 original items. Read five separate means, equal values, examples and complete guides free.
20 questions · about 5 minutes · no signup
For each ordinary-mistake scenario, rate how important that element would be to you when receiving an apology. Use your own current preference; no recent incident or fixed recall period is required. You may use an imagined ordinary example, or choose Cannot rate / prefer not to answer. The questions do not require contact, reconciliation or forgiveness. Do not use these scenarios to replace safety, professional advice or a formal process for serious harm.
Preparing the test…
All questions and full results are free, with no signup. Saving is optional; only saved attempts can be resumed after a refresh or language change. Tab drafts expire after 24 hours and clear on completion or retake.
This original FermatMind reflection organizes receiving preferences around five ideas in Gary Chapman and Jennifer Thomas’s popular apology framework: regret, responsibility, repair, planned change and requesting forgiveness. It is not their official quiz or a validated personality instrument. Five means stay separate, with equal values retained and no primary type assigned. It does not infer how you apologize, determine another person’s sincerity, or predict forgiveness, reconciliation or career fit. All five complete guides are free.
Each group has four importance ratings from 1 to 5, without reverse items. Add the four values and divide by four, displaying one decimal. For example, 15/4 displays as 3.8. All five means can be large, small or equal. They are not percentages, ranks, a combined total or a rule for deciding which apology will work.
An unscored choice withholds only its four-item group’s mean. It is not a low rating and is not filled or prorated. Complete groups still have their own means, and all five guides remain readable. Similar means do not establish that two needs are equally strong or that a small difference is meaningful.
The framework is a conversation aid, not an empirically validated five-type classification. The linked 2016 research tested six apology components in written trust-violation scenarios; it does not validate this item set, determine a recipient’s obligation, or guarantee that matched language restores trust. Contact, repair, forgiveness and reconciliation remain separate choices.
Read what each of the 5 parts explores. Your complete result presents them together; they are not mutually exclusive personality types. These public guides contain no one’s answers or personal means.
This group asks how much you value an expression of regret when receiving an apology. Its four ordinary situations concern a changed plan, an inaccurate statement about you, damage to a borrowed item, and a missed promise of help. The emphasis is on acknowledging disappointment or inconvenience, rather than asking you to reassure the person apologizing. A high mean does not show that you apologize emotionally yourself. Receiving preferences and giving behavior are different questions, and this reflection measures neither another person’s feelings nor the sincerity of their words.
These four items ask how important it is to you that a person identifies their own contribution to an ordinary mistake. The situations include changing an arrangement, making an unsupported statement, careless handling of a borrowed object, and missing promised help. The group concerns what you want to hear while receiving an apology. It does not determine who was legally or morally responsible, whether someone is honest, or whether you habitually take responsibility yourself. Those conclusions require information that this preference questionnaire does not collect.
This group asks how much you value a feasible effort to address what an ordinary mistake left behind. Its four examples concern replacing a disrupted plan, correcting an inaccurate statement, repairing a damaged item, and helping with a missed commitment’s remaining effects. It is about what you value when receiving an apology, not whether you solve other people’s problems. Repair can involve time, information or a practical action; it is not necessarily a gift, payment or proof that a relationship has returned to its earlier state.
These four items ask how much you value a specific plan to avoid repeating an ordinary mistake. They concern notification when plans change, checking information before repeating a claim, precautions when borrowing, and anticipating a clash with a promise to help. The group follows the planned-change theme in the popular Chapman and Thomas framework. It records what you want when receiving an apology, not whether the person has already changed. A statement about future action and evidence of that action remain different kinds of information.
This group asks how much you value a request for forgiveness that leaves the decision with you. Its four examples follow a changed plan, correction of an inaccurate claim, repair of a damaged object, and a missed commitment. They include accepting that you may not be ready and avoiding the assumption that repair earns forgiveness. The mean concerns your receiving preference. It does not say that you owe a response, that you apologize by asking repeatedly, or that explicit forgiveness is necessary for every ordinary disagreement to end.
No. The questions ask what you value when receiving an apology. They do not observe your behavior, establish a partner’s preferences or assess anyone’s sincerity.
The five groups can coexist and tie. All means and complete guides are retained without ranking or a tie-break; small differences have no established meaningful-gap threshold.
No. Their popular framework is credited, while these 20 statements, bilingual guides and scoring are original to FermatMind and have not been empirically validated.
Choose the unscored option. That group has no personal mean, while other complete groups remain available. Missing is not zero, and every guide stays complete.
This score cannot require either. The recipient may decline, ask for time, keep a boundary or choose no contact. Repair does not buy forgiveness, and a promise does not establish change.
All 20 items and five complete guides are free without signup. Drafts require explicit opt-in, stay in this tab for at most 24 hours, and clear on completion or reset. Sharing copies only the public title and link.
The 20 statements, bilingual wording, scoring policy and guides were written by FermatMind. The popular five-theme framework is credited to Chapman and Thomas; no official paired-choice item bank or JobCannon bank is administered. This is not a measure of observed apology skill, moral worth or another person’s motives.
These sources provide background, not validation of this questionnaire or an individual diagnosis.
Website content edition 1.0.0 ·
Source question / scoring / report versions: fm_apology_receiving_importance20_v1 / fm_apology_five_complete4_importance_means1dp_no_ranking_v1 / fm_apology_receiving_five_full_guides_v1