Read endorsement of care statements without turning it into a verdict on character.
The six Care items concern compassion, emotional suffering, comfort and attention to another person’s needs. Their mean summarizes how well these statements describe you or your opinions. It does not count kind acts or certify how ethically you behave.
Use items 1, 7, 13, 19, 25 and 31 in the fixed English source order. All six are directly keyed on the one-to-five describes-me scale. This presentation requires all six valid ratings; any NA withholds this foundation’s personal figures.
What these six statements cover
The source defines Care in terms of intuitions about avoiding emotional and physical damage to another person. The final six statements emphasize compassion, comforting people and noticing unmet needs. Those are related moral concerns, but the questions remain self-descriptions and opinions rather than observations of what you did. A response may reflect an ideal you endorse, the way you understand suffering or the examples that came to mind. Keep the item wording beside the number so that a general label does not replace those specific judgments.
When the mean is relatively higher
A higher mean indicates that the care-oriented statements describe your views more closely within this response scale. It is not evidence that you always recognize another person’s needs accurately or have enough time and resources to respond. Strong concern can coexist with uncertainty about what help is wanted or with a boundary on what you can provide. Nor does this value establish a stable difference from people with a slightly lower mean. The questionnaire supplies no personal error interval or population reference for that comparison here.
When the mean is relatively lower
A lower mean means less endorsement of these particular statements. It does not establish cruelty, a lack of empathy, a clinical condition or approval of causing harm. You might hesitate over universal wording, distinguish emotional identification from practical help, or interpret a statement through an unusual situation. The response options cannot tell those explanations apart. Review the items on which you gave a low rating and identify what you meant before applying a broad description. The result is about the selected self-reports, not a diagnosis of motives.
The midpoint and missing information
Six ratings of three give a mean of 3.00, but the same mean can come from several strongly contrasting responses. A middle value is therefore not a finding that you care a moderate amount. It can hide a difference between valuing comfort and identifying with another person’s feelings. NA serves a different purpose when a statement cannot represent your position or you choose not to answer. We withhold this foundation’s mean instead of substituting three, while other fully rated foundations remain available separately.
Recalculate a 21-point example
Consider fictional ratings of 4, 3, 5, 2, 4 and 3 for the six Care items in their source order. The sum is twenty-one and 21 divided by 6 is 3.50. There are no reversed items or additional weights in this group. The display uses the unrounded sum rather than repeatedly rounding an intermediate result. If the fourth response changes to NA, the five remaining ratings do not become a shorter validated scale: this presentation withholds the personal sum and mean for Care.
A similar answer need not imply similar conduct
Two fictional respondents can both endorse comforting someone in distress. One may offer practical help after checking what is needed, while another may offer reassurance that is not useful in that situation. This questionnaire does not observe either response. Conversely, someone who avoids a sweeping moral statement may still provide dependable care in daily life. These counterexamples explain why the score cannot rank people’s goodness or establish which person is a better friend, parent or professional. Actual conduct needs its own context and evidence.
Use one concrete comparison
Choose one statement and describe a small situation in which it fits your view, then another in which you need a qualification. You could distinguish wanting to comfort someone from knowing what kind of comfort they would welcome. Keep the example private and avoid using another person’s supposed questionnaire score to judge their needs. You can read Equality and Proportionality next to consider different distribution principles, or stop here. This comparison asks for clearer interpretation, not a prescribed moral or political destination.
Version and limits of this presentation
The English items come from the authors’ public MFQ-2 document, attributed to Atari and colleagues under CC BY 4.0. Chinese wording here is a FermatMind working translation with documented changes from the authors’ separate translation. Its measurement equivalence has not been established. The complete-six NA rule and two-decimal display are our presentation choices, not new validation evidence. No party, political identity or overall moral score is assigned. All six full guides remain public; temporary drafts and copied links do not turn private answers into public results.