Distinguish endorsement of group loyalty from proof of belonging or a duty to ignore harm.
The six Loyalty items refer to country, community and a sports team. Their mean describes identification with the stated loyalty concerns. It does not measure citizenship, patriotism as a whole, personal faithfulness or willingness to defend every action by an ingroup.
Use source items 4, 10, 16, 22, 28 and 34, all directly keyed on the five-point describes-me scale. The English referents community and sports team are retained in the working Chinese translation. Each group needs its own six valid ratings for a mean.
Several group referents appear in one foundation
The source definition of Loyalty concerns cooperation with ingroups and competition with outgroups. The six final items refer to loyalty to country, love for community, defending country when called upon, pride in a community member’s international success and loyalty within a sports team. Those referents are not interchangeable. Someone may understand community as a local, cultural or voluntary group rather than a nation. The fixed wording matters because changing the referent changes the judgment being requested. This mean summarizes all six statements without showing which group carries the most significance for you.
More endorsement of these loyalty statements
A higher mean indicates that these statements describe your opinions more closely. It does not prove that you approve every decision made by a group or reject responsibilities to outsiders. You may see speaking up about a group’s mistake as one way of being loyal to its values. The questionnaire does not decide whether that interpretation is correct in a real situation. Nor does it establish readiness for sacrifice, military behavior or the quality of a personal relationship. Those are separate questions requiring context beyond these six self-reported opinions.
Less endorsement leaves the reasons open
A lower mean can reflect reservations about one group referent, a preference for duties that apply across groups, or disagreement with how loyalty should be taught. It is not a finding that you betray people, have no community or are a bad citizen. You might strongly value a chosen team while resisting an unconditional statement about national obligation. The average cannot distinguish that pattern from several mild reservations across all items. Review the actual statements before describing your result in broad terms, and avoid using it to assess someone else’s belonging.
Mixed group commitments and NA
Your answers about country and your answers about a voluntary team can differ without a scoring error. The program reports the source foundation rather than inventing separate country and community diagnoses from too few items. A mean near three can hide these strong differences, so it is not a label of moderate loyalty. If a statement’s referent cannot represent your position, NA keeps that limit visible. This presentation withholds Loyalty’s personal figures when any of its six ratings is missing; other foundations keep their own complete responses.
Calculate nineteen divided by six
For fictional ratings of 3, 2, 4, 3, 5 and 2, the raw sum is nineteen. Nineteen divided by six is 3.166666…, displayed as 3.17. The final sports-team item is directly keyed, just like the statements about country. Its lower rating is not changed into a high score through reverse coding. All six contribute equally to the source mean. The two-decimal display does not establish an objective amount of loyalty, and no later step converts 3.17 into a national ranking, political identity or membership decision.
Loyalty and criticism can coexist
Two fictional team members may both value the team’s long-term welfare. One supports a leader’s decision, while another questions it because they think it damages the group’s stated purpose. Their broad commitment can look similar while their conduct differs. Conversely, praise for a group does not by itself prove dependable support in practice. These examples show why questionnaire endorsement cannot establish trustworthiness or decide who deserves to belong. Care for people outside the group can also coexist with strong group loyalty; the foundation means are not a forced either-or choice.
Name the group and the boundary
Pick one item and write which group you pictured, what commitment you think members owe each other and where that commitment has limits. Use a fictional example rather than testing a real person’s allegiance. Then consider whether your answer changes for a chosen group compared with one you did not choose. The exercise clarifies interpretation without demanding one correct form of belonging. You can read Care or Authority for another angle, retain a disagreement or stop. The result recommends no organization, party, campaign or political action.
Translation and privacy boundaries
The author-hosted English MFQ-2 document is the fixed item source, used with CC BY 4.0 attribution. The authors’ separate Chinese file changes some group referents, including community and sports team. Our working translation preserves the selected English referents and identifies the adaptation rather than claiming official equivalence. Neither the new translation nor the complete-six NA display inherits validation automatically. All full guides remain available when personal figures are withheld. Saved progress is temporary tab storage; sharing copies a public title and link without revealing any country-specific answer or personal mean.