Make closeness compatible with a real choice
Consider what happens after a declined invitation, before sharing a private conversation and when someone needs quiet time. A weekend example shows how to make contact arrangements without treating access as proof of care.
Four numerical responses produce a separate 4–20 sum and a one-decimal mean on the 1–5 response scale. They summarize recalled occasions, not safety or entitlement to someone’s time. Any unscored item withholds this part’s numbers; every guide stays open.
Space is part of an arrangement between people
- This part asks about four kinds of interaction over the past four weeks with one chosen friend: declining an invitation without having to reverse the decision, permission before passing on personal information, making time for other friends, and discussing contact when quiet time is requested. It records your observations of those occasions. It does not measure a general personality trait or establish what every friendship should look like.
- Some friends enjoy daily messages; others are comfortable meeting occasionally. Neither rhythm receives a preferred score here. The items concern what happens when a choice or request is expressed. A busy month with no relevant discussion offers limited information, so the unscored option is a reasonable response. More contact by itself does not demonstrate that space and privacy are being respected.
Separate a request for information from a demand for access
- A friend may ask when you are available or how you would like to be contacted. That question can help coordinate a plan. An expectation that you disclose every detail of your day, share private messages or abandon other friendships is a different matter. Read the item in relation to the actual exchange rather than deciding from a label such as close friend.
- For privacy, permission should concern the information and the proposed audience. Being comfortable telling one friend does not automatically mean agreeing to a group chat, a screenshot or a public post. You can describe the occasion to yourself without recording the private detail in a test answer. This questionnaire needs no friend’s name, contact details or account access.
A mean summarizes four responses, not a right of access
- With ratings of 5, 4, 5 and 3, the sum is 17 out of the possible 4–20. Dividing 17 by four gives 4.25, displayed as 4.3 on the 1–5 scale. All four items use their original values; there are no reverse-scored items in this edition. The display is not 85% compatible, a safety rating or a guarantee about a future interaction.
- All four numerical ratings are needed to display this part’s personal sum and mean. If an occasion did not occur, you cannot judge it, or you prefer not to answer, the separate unscored option withholds these numbers. It is not changed into zero, one or an assumed answer. Other complete parts still display their own readings, and all five guides remain available.
A quiet weekend can include a clear contact plan
- After a demanding week, you decline a Saturday outing and say that you need a quiet weekend. Your friend can feel disappointed and still accept the answer. You agree to discuss another date on Monday, without promising that you will be continuously available in between. This is one possible arrangement, not a required script or evidence that nobody felt hurt.
- Separately, the friend asks whether a story from your conversation can be shared with a mutual acquaintance. You can agree to a limited version, ask for identifying details to be removed, or decline. Discussing the request before sharing leaves room to decide. It does not mean that a person must always offer an edited version or explain every reason for keeping something private.
One troubling incident can matter more than a summary
- A favourable mean can coexist with an incident you take seriously, such as a private message being shared after an explicit refusal. Three frequent positive responses do not cancel that event. Look at what happened, what you need now and what choices are available. A score is not a reason to dismiss your concern or to establish that the other person is generally safe.
- At the other extreme, describing every disagreement as a boundary violation can close a conversation prematurely. Someone can express disappointment, ask a practical question or propose another time while still accepting a no. Consider the behaviour after the answer. This guide cannot adjudicate an incident, and it does not require a conversation if engaging would create a risk for you.
The same mean can reflect different occasions
- Ratings of 4, 5, 3 and 5 also sum to 17 and display 4.3. They put the lower response on time for other friends rather than on the quiet-time contact arrangement. The summary alone cannot tell you which occasion matters most or why it happened. Return to the relevant item and concrete example before choosing something to discuss.
- Space is also separate from agreement and shared effort. Two friends may readily share tasks yet leave permission about personal information unclear. They may allow considerable privacy while still struggling to coordinate an outing. The five parts keep those observations separate. There is no combined number that settles whether the friendship should continue or how close it ought to be.
State one specific permission or contact preference
- Choose one ordinary, manageable situation. For example: “Please ask me before sharing a screenshot of our conversation,” or “I can talk on Sunday afternoon; during the working day I may not reply.” Be specific about the action and the setting. Allow a discussion about practical needs without turning your request into a demand to control the friend’s other relationships.
- Notice what happens after the request: was it understood, was there agreement, and what behaviour followed? If it is not accepted, consider a smaller arrangement or the amount of contact you can realistically manage. Repeated pressure, threats or monitoring need attention on their own terms; this questionnaire cannot assess them or make continued access a condition of being a good friend.
Background concepts do not validate these four items
- APA’s friendship overview describes a voluntary relationship involving mutual needs and shared experiences. CDC’s social-connection overview distinguishes the functions and qualities of relationships. These sources support a broad discussion of interaction, not this questionnaire’s item selection, the five editorial groups or any interpretation of a particular mean. This is an original reflection tool without established norms or cutoffs.
- Your answers describe one perspective on a recent period. They cannot inspect someone else’s intentions, determine legal permission, establish a complete account of an incident or predict a friend’s future response. A friend may choose to answer independently and decide what to share. Agreement between scores does not replace an explicit conversation about privacy or contact.