A report of an action does not tell you its effect
Read six original action-frequency prompts, an exact example and the difference between a voluntary request, checking and a demand.
Six complete 1–5 frequency ratings produce this group’s mean. A frequency summary cannot verify an incident, infer motives or measure its impact.
What these action prompts ask you to recall
The group concerns seeking more explanation, returning to the same worry, comparing public information, trying to change plans, joining an interaction and seeking more reassurance than intended. It asks only whether you recall those actions in relevant opportunities. Some actions can have different meanings depending on context, agreement and willingness. The form cannot observe the interaction, establish another person’s experience or tell whether a request became coercive. Read each prompt rather than replacing all six with a character label.
Frequency is not a count of harmful incidents
For ratings of 1, 2, 3, 2, 4 and 3, the sum is 15 and the mean is 15/6 = 2.5. None is reverse-coded, and a larger mean means only selecting larger frequency categories for these prompts. It is not fifteen incidents, a percentage of controlling behaviour or proof that a partner felt harmed. Different kinds of action are not assigned equivalent consequences by giving them the same numerical response options.
Turn a reassurance wish into an optional request
Imagine noticing that you have asked about the same interaction several times. You might say: “I notice I am returning to the same worry. Would you be willing to discuss one specific question, or would you prefer to pause?” This is a possible wording to adapt, not a prescribed treatment or a requirement to keep talking. The other person can decline. You can also stop without a new answer; a questionnaire does not make complete certainty available or create an obligation to reassure.
The form does not authorise checking or control
A counterexample is using a result to require passwords, inspect private messages, test loyalty or limit another person’s friendships. Another is claiming that a small mean proves you never crossed a boundary. Neither conclusion follows. The questions require no new checking activity, and you should not reproduce an action to answer them. Consider any real agreement, consent or safety concern on its own facts rather than relying on the number to permit, excuse or deny an incident.
Thought, feeling and action are not interchangeable
You may remember a worry without acting, take an action without recalling strong discomfort, or have few relevant opportunities for one group. These possibilities are not a fixed sequence, a diagnosis or a set of assigned jealousy types. The action mean is not ranked against thought frequency or discomfort intensity; each uses different content and, for discomfort, different anchors. Close or equal means stay visible without indicating equal risk or suggesting that one group cancels another.
A lack of opportunity is not a low action score
Use never when a relevant situation occurred and you did not take the action. Use unscored when no relevant opportunity arose, you cannot judge or you prefer not to answer. These cases remain distinct. All six numeric choices are required for this group’s mean, and an unscored choice is not filled with zero. Complete groups keep their own means. You may finish with eighteen unscored responses and still read every guide, without receiving an inferred substitute profile.
Original prompts do not inherit an observational method
Jealousy research provides conceptual distinctions, not an observation of your behaviour. This original eighteen-item bilingual edition uses new statements, 1–5 anchors, a four-week recall and a complete-six rule. It is not a published MJS item set or a validated short form. There are no established norms, reliability, language equivalence or thresholds for interpersonal risk. A self-report cannot establish motive, causality, a personality defect or the effect on another person, however complete the answers appear.
Review one action without conducting a new test
If useful, privately note one remembered action, the relevant agreement and what you actually know about its result. Separate a wish for reassurance from a demand that another person must meet. Any conversation or next step is voluntary, and you can stop here. You do not need to collect evidence, approach another person or share the report. The copied link contains a public explanation only, never your actions or counts, and cannot settle a real disagreement for you.