Loading page content
Original self-reflection questionnaire · Full results free
Reflect on 20 original conflict-handling items. Read five separate means, worked examples and full free guides, without a fixed type or a best-style verdict.
20 questions · about 4 minutes · no signup
Choose one ordinary work, study or shared-task setting. Recall disagreements you encountered during the past four weeks. Report how often you yourself used each action when there was an opportunity; do not answer for another person. If a situation did not occur or cannot be judged, choose the separate unscored option. No names or event details are requested. Do not enter unsafe situations or negotiate away safety to obtain a score. Choose a frequency from almost never to almost every time. There is no timer; four minutes is an editorial estimate for the questions. Every group needs all four numeric ratings for a mean. The original statements and the language versions have not been psychometrically validated.
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.
Explore five ways you reported handling ordinary disagreements during the past four weeks: pressing your own plan, joint problem-solving, trading concessions, stepping back and yielding a choice. Twenty original items produce five separate means, with every complete guide available free before and after answering. There is no single winning style, overall conflict competence score or prediction of how another person will behave.
Each group has four original frequency items, all forward-scored from 1 to 5. Add four valid ratings for a sum of 4–20, divide by four and display one decimal. For example, 2+4+3+2=11 and 11/4=2.75, displayed as 2.8. Any unscored answer withholds only its own group’s personal sum and mean. All twenty questions need a selection, including the separate unscored option, before the attempt finishes.
The means describe these reported actions in your chosen setting. They do not establish whether an agreement was fair, safe or effective, or explain motives and childhood. There is no total, winner, personality stage, clinical label, population ranking or career match. The five-mode conceptual background does not validate this original questionnaire or its language equivalence.
Every complete guide remains available at any mean and when information is insufficient. Similar values are not a tie to break or proof of meaningful equivalence. Different answers can produce the same mean. Read the specific actions, examples and constraints instead of choosing a fixed identity from the largest decimal. The five means are not converted into two-axis coordinates.
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.
Read how four original items describe pushing for your preferred arrangement. Explore relevant reasons, real decision limits, alternative responses and situations where safety should take priority, without a fixed personality label.
Four original items describe asking about needs, developing options, checking concerns and trying a limited arrangement together. Read a full worked example and practical limits without assuming that every disagreement has a win-win answer.
Read four original self-reports about mutual concessions, middle ranges and temporary agreements. Work through the mean and compare an explicit compromise with yielding, a new option or an unsafe bargain.
Four original self-reports cover ending, not raising, redirecting and postponing a disagreement. Read the arithmetic and concrete examples without inferring a personality disorder, childhood cause or obligation to confront an unsafe person.
Four original items describe following another preference, withdrawing a request and prioritizing another person’s stated need. Read a worked mean, a bounded example and the difference between voluntary yielding and an unsafe demand.
This is a FermatMind original twenty-item frequency reflection, not the TKI or a validated short form. The five-mode idea is background; no TKI items, paired choices, norms or report are reproduced.
Each four-item group needs four numeric ratings. Add them and divide by four, with one decimal displayed. All items are forward-scored. The groups stay separate without an overall total or winning type.
Choose Not experienced / cannot judge. One such answer withholds its own group’s sum and mean; other complete groups retain theirs. This all-four rule is an editorial policy, not a validated missing-data threshold. All full guides remain available.
Every guide is shown. There is no hidden tiebreak, rank or fixed identity. The same mean can contain different item responses, and a close decimal difference has no established meaningful-change threshold here.
Answer only about your own actions. These self-reports do not diagnose someone else, establish a childhood cause, predict a relationship or certify conflict competence. Actual safety and behavior need their own evidence.
All twenty items and five full public guides are free without signup. Progress is saved in this tab for up to 24 hours only if you opt in; completion, reset or exit-and-clear deletes it. Copying shares only a public title and link, not answers or means.
Thomas and Kilmann discuss five conflict-handling modes through concern for one’s own and the other person’s concerns. Their TKI uses thirty paired A/B choices. FermatMind authored these twenty frequency items, the all-four completeness rule and all five explanatory texts. We do not reproduce the TKI bank, key, report or comparison norms, and this is neither the TKI nor a validated or endorsed short form.
Do not create a disagreement, disclose private details or continue an unsafe interaction for a score. Safety, consent and privacy are not concessions to bargain away. Different roles and opportunities affect what you can report, and the questionnaire does not adjust for them. You may choose unscored answers, stop, seek suitable support or simply read the public guides.
These sources provide background, not validation of this questionnaire or an individual diagnosis.
Website content edition 1.0.0 ·
Source question / scoring / report versions: 1.0.0-original-not-validated / 1.0.0-five-separate-forward-means / 1.0.0-five-full-original-guides