Separate a thought from what you actually know
Read six original worry-frequency prompts, an exact mean, a delayed-reply example and a private way to keep uncertainty explicit.
Six numeric frequency ratings produce a separate 1–5 mean. It summarises these prompts, not the truth of a suspicion or a severity band.
What the thought prompts cover
These original statements ask how often a relationship worry returned: imagining replacement, wondering about comparisons, replaying an interaction, interpreting a mention, seeking certainty and imagining change. They describe your recollection of thoughts, not evidence about a partner or another person. A thought can recur even when you do not endorse it. Conversely, a small number of recalled thoughts does not establish trust, security or an accurate assessment of what is happening.
A six-item frequency example
Suppose the six ratings are 2, 3, 4, 2, 3 and 4. They sum to 18 and give a mean of 18/6 = 3.0. All six statements are forward-coded in this original edition. The number is not a percentage of time, a population percentile or a probability that a partner is interested elsewhere. Two different response patterns can have the same mean, so the actual thought themes remain worth reading alongside the number.
Use an ordinary delay without assuming its cause
Imagine sending a message and noticing no reply for several hours. The observable event is the delay; “I am being replaced” is one interpretation rather than an established explanation. Other context may be unknown. If a conversation is wanted and safe, a request could be: “I noticed I was guessing when I did not hear back. Is there an ordinary way we want to handle busy periods?” The other person can decline, clarify or propose something different.
An intrusive thought is not a finding
A counterexample is treating a larger mean as proof of infidelity or demanding a phone inspection to settle a score. The form cannot verify an event, read intentions or authorise access to another person’s accounts. It also cannot establish that a worry is unfounded. If you have concrete information about an agreement or boundary, consider that information separately rather than using a mean to confirm or dismiss it. No investigation or confrontation is needed to finish this tool.
Frequency and discomfort answer different questions
The discomfort group asks about intensity in recalled situations, while this group asks how often a thought returned. The action group concerns what you remember doing. A frequent thought need not produce strong discomfort or an action, and a single intense episode may be recalled rarely. The groups use different prompts and anchors, so their means are not ranked against each other or combined into an overall jealousy score. Close numbers do not establish equivalent experiences.
No opportunity and no wish to answer remain unscored
Use never when there was a relevant opportunity and the described thought did not occur. If there was no relevant experience, you cannot judge or you prefer not to answer, use unscored instead. Any unscored response withholds this group’s mean without replacing it with zero or estimating an answer. Other complete groups keep their means. All eighteen unscored choices can finish the form, and all three full readings stay available without a personal score.
Conceptual background does not validate these new items
Research distinguishes cognitive, emotional and behavioural aspects of jealousy, but published MJS versions have different item sets and scoring. These eighteen bilingual statements, the four-week recall and the complete-six rule are FermatMind editorial choices. This is not the original 24-item MJS, a validated 17- or 15-item short form, or an endorsed clinical instrument. It has no established reliability, norms or language equivalence. A thought-frequency mean supplies no diagnosis or prediction about the relationship.
Keep one uncertainty without turning it into a demand
If useful, privately separate one remembered event, the interpretation that followed and what remains unknown. You may choose a voluntary conversation, a different source of support or no further action. Another person does not need to disclose private material to make your answer legitimate. You can stop here if discussion would be unsafe. Public links contain the general guide, and copying does not expose the six ratings or send a message on your behalf.