Loading page content
PPS item reflection · Full results free
Explore own needs, responsibility and others’ expectations with ten PPS items. Three readings and full free guides, no signup, personality tiers or diagnosis.
10 questions · about 4 minutes · no signup
Rate how well each statement applies to you generally, from 1 Does not apply at all to 5 Completely applies, without a fixed-month recall period. Choose NA if unsure or unwilling; it is not zero or neutrality. Answer for yourself rather than a partner or colleague. Actual duties, voluntary care and safety constraints need separate context. Complete all ten selections. Each part needs three ratings: own needs may have one missing of four; the other parts need all three. NA and website readings are identified adaptations, not a validated study missing-data rule.
Preparing the test…
All questions and full results are free, with no signup. Saving is optional; only saved attempts can be resumed after a refresh or language change. Tab drafts expire after 24 hours and clear on completion or retake.
When you agree to a request, are you choosing to help, meeting a duty, or finding little room for your own needs? This People Pleaser Test explores an everyday self-reported tendency, not a personality disorder. Under CC BY 4.0, it uses the author-provided English wording of Blötner’s final ten PPS items (2026), with FermatMind’s independent Chinese translation; the original studies administered German only. Read separate guides to setting aside needs, felt responsibility and orientation to expectations before answering. There are no quartile types or verdicts about partners, careers or relationship outcomes.
Select an answer for all ten items, from 1 Does not apply at all to 5 Completely applies, or NA if unsure or unwilling to answer. Each part has a one-decimal mean: own needs requires three of four ratings, responsibility and expectations all three each. Otherwise there is no personal mean; NA is not zero-filled. NA, intermediate labels, minimum counts, rounding and interpretations are website adaptations, not a study missing-data rule, psychological cutoff or norm. Three continuous readings produce no total, highest-score type or quartile tiers; decimal differences establish neither causation nor statistical significance.
A mean describes agreement with that part’s items, not automatic goodness, mental health, kindness or selfishness. Responsibility in particular cannot alone prove excessive care. Actual duties, voluntary help, costs and available choices need context. Item counts and wording differ; small differences do not identify a root cause. There are no population rankings, four personality tiers or clinical judgments, and all explanations remain available.
The PPS focuses on needs, responsibility and expectations rather than equating agreeableness, attachment or passive communication with one result. Topics can overlap without interchangeable names or scores. No childhood, trauma, anxiety, depression, partner personality, breakup probability or career fit is inferred. Examples and small observations are independently authored for voluntary, ordinary situations that can be discussed safely, without demanding immediate confrontation.
Read what each of the 3 parts explores. Your complete result presents them together; they are not mutually exclusive personality types. These public guides contain no one’s answers or personal means.
This part asks about forgetting, struggling to voice or setting aside your own needs, without turning a compromise or voluntary care into a fixed identity.
This part asks about responsibility for others’ well-being and the wish to care. Strong agreement alone is not unhealthy or an obligation to manage everyone’s feelings.
This part asks about meeting expectations, the urge to please and difficulty refusing, without typing anyone from an agreement or refusal.
No. The familiar test name refers to everyday self-reported people pleasing: own needs, responsibility and expectations. There are no clinical cutoffs, four personality tiers, causes or relationship predictions, and you cannot answer for someone else. Three full guides include dialogue and counterexamples without equating kindness or duties with pleasing.
The final ten items come from Christian Blötner’s published Table 1 (2026), under CC BY 4.0. Author-provided English is retained with independent Chinese translation, attribution and licence links on the entry and full guides. Studies administered German only. Chinese, NA, intermediate labels, minimum counts, rounded means and website explanations are identified adaptations, not local validation or author endorsement.
Complete ten selections of 1–5 or NA. Own needs requires three of four ratings; responsibility and expectations all three each for a one-decimal mean. NA is neither zero-filled nor estimated, and insufficient information is explicit. This is a website completeness rule, not a study missing-data protocol or psychological cutoff. All three full guides appear regardless of means.
No. There are no established local quartile norms, competitor tiers, famous-person typing or career matches here. Read three parts without a total, strongest driver, match percentage or partner diagnosis. Decimal differences do not establish who is healthier or kinder.
No. The responsibility items include caring wishes and obligation for well-being; they do not alone prove ill health or self-neglect. Consider actual duties, willingness and room for discussion, alongside the other parts. Lowering a score is no reason to stop necessary care or make a major relationship decision.
All items and three full guides are free without signup or another test. A 24-hour tab draft is saved only after opting in and deleted on completion, retake or clearing. Sharing contains the public entry without answers, means or private relationship information. MBTI is an optional separate attempt after the full result.
Items: Christian Blötner (2026), Valuing others over oneself: development and validation of a people pleasing scale in two German samples, DOI 10.1007/s12144-026-09519-2; article and final Table 1: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-026-09519-2 . Used under CC BY 4.0: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . Author-provided English wording is retained; FermatMind independently translated Chinese and added NA, intermediate labels, minimum counts, one-decimal means and original explanations. These changes are identified. The studies administered German only; they establish neither English–Chinese validation, author endorsement nor website norms.
All ten items, three means or insufficient states and three full guides are free without email, signup, payment or another test. Scoring happens in the browser. Only opting in saves a 24-hour tab draft, deleted on completion, retake or clearing. Sharing uses the public entry and reflection description without answers, means, another person’s information or internal IDs. Blocked storage or copying does not prevent completion.
These sources provide background, not validation of this questionnaire or an individual diagnosis.
Website content edition 1.0.0 ·
Source question / scoring / report versions: 1.0.0 / 1.0.0 / 1.0.0