Discuss what each person can actually offer
Look at suggesting contact, checking capacity, adjusting plans and discussing an unmet commitment. A small shared-activity example helps distinguish participation from a demand for equal time, money or availability.
Four valid ratings form a separate sum of 4–20 and a one-decimal mean of 1–5. They describe selected interactions, not how much either person cares. An unscored item withholds this part’s personal numbers while all five guides stay open.
Participation has more than one form
- This part looks at four interactions in one friendship during the past four weeks: a friend suggesting a time or activity, checking capacity before asking for help, adjusting plans when time changes, and discussing a contribution that cannot be made. These observations concern how participation is arranged. They do not count the value of gifts, the total hours spent together or the number of favours anyone owes.
- People can contribute differently because their resources, health, work and caring responsibilities differ. A friendship may involve little contact during a demanding period and still matter to both people. The relevant question is whether arrangements leave room to state what is possible and revise expectations. A low frequency in this small item set cannot decide that one person cares less.
Distinguish an invitation, a request and a commitment
- An invitation gives someone a choice. A request for help also needs room for an answer about time, money or ability. A commitment is something the person has actually agreed to do. Moving silently from the first two to the third can create a disagreement that neither person understood in the same way. Ask what was clearly accepted before judging whether an obligation was missed.
- For the first item, recall an actual occasion when you arranged contact and the friend suggested a time or activity. That contribution may follow your initial invitation; it does not require strict alternation in who starts a message. For the remaining items, consider whether capacity, changed circumstances and missed contributions could be discussed. These are behaviours to recall, not conclusions about motivation.
Read the sum and mean within their small range
- Suppose the four ratings are 2, 3, 2 and 4. Their sum is 11 within a possible 4–20. Dividing by four gives 2.75, displayed as 2.8 on the 1–5 scale. All items are forward-scored in this edition. This calculation does not transform different kinds of participation into equal units of effort or produce a percentage of mutual care.
- If no relevant occasion occurred or you cannot judge it, select the separate unscored option. All four numerical answers are required for this part’s personal sum and mean. A missing rating is neither no contribution nor a low-frequency answer. Other complete parts still show their readings, and every guide remains available without requiring a guessed answer.
A small plan can include unequal but agreed contributions
- You suggest an afternoon walk. Your friend proposes a nearby route and a time that fits their shift. You can bring water; they can check whether the path is open. When the shift changes, the friend tells you early and asks about another date. The arrangement contains contributions from both people without assigning the same task or cost to each.
- If checking the route cannot be done, a useful next exchange explains that limit and decides whether anyone will take it over or whether the plan should change. You are looking for what was communicated and agreed. The example does not establish that planning is always the most valuable contribution, nor that the same division would suit a different friendship.
An equal ledger can miss what matters
- You may compare every message, purchase and minute, then conclude that the lower total shows less care. Those counts can leave out access needs, financial limits, quieter forms of help and a contribution you did not observe. This questionnaire supplies no exchange rate between them. A discussion of one actual arrangement can be more informative than building a general debt ledger.
- The opposite concern also deserves attention: repeated requests can remain one-sided even after a clear limit is stated. Compassion for someone’s circumstances does not require unlimited money, time or access to you. Consider the ongoing behaviour and what you can manage. A generous past contribution or a favourable mean cannot create consent for every future request.
The same summary can hide a different difficulty
- Ratings of 4, 2, 3 and 2 also sum to 11 and display 2.8. That pattern could include more suggestions from the friend but less capacity checking or less discussion when a commitment cannot be met. The earlier example gives a different emphasis. The mean cannot choose the most important conversation for you; look at the actual item and occasion that matter.
- This part differs from having similar interests or feeling heard. Two people may enjoy different activities while taking care with shared arrangements. They may have many common interests but leave all coordination unspoken. Reading the other parts can help separate these observations. No combined score ranks friends or determines how close you ought to become.
Make one contribution explicit
- For one ordinary activity, ask what each person would like and realistically be able to handle. Choose a specific task, a reasonable time and a way to say if circumstances change. Accept that the answer may be no. If no workable arrangement is available, postponing or keeping the activity smaller can be an ordinary decision rather than a failure of friendship.
- After the activity, notice whether the task was understood, whether changes were communicated and whether you still want the same arrangement next time. You can thank a contribution without making it a permanent role. This optional observation does not require recording names or publishing anyone’s behaviour. Changing a rating later may reflect new circumstances, rather than a measured gain in friendship quality.
Background ideas do not validate the score
- The items and examples are original FermatMind writing. APA’s description of friendship includes voluntary relationships and concern for mutual needs; CDC describes social connection through its network, functions and qualities. These are background ideas. Neither source establishes that the four items measure reciprocity, that the five groups are distinct factors or that a particular mean has a validated interpretation.
- This is your account of one friendship in a recent period. It cannot observe effort you did not see, assess another person’s intentions, establish fairness or predict what they will do next. A friend who wishes to reflect can answer independently and choose what to share. Neither matching scores nor disagreement settles whose account is complete.