Separate caring, actual duties and felt responsibility
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.
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.
What this part explores
Three PPS items ask about feeling responsible that others are well, obligation toward their well-being and a strong desire to care. They do not fully ask about actual caring duties, what another person needs or what you have done. Agreement therefore cannot be converted straight into excessive responsibility, control or emotional labour. Read the wish to care separately from self-sacrifice, alongside the other parts and actual context.
Neither higher nor lower ranks character
A higher mean shows stronger agreement with the responsibility and caring statements, not automatic ill health, loss of self or inability to cope. A lower mean proves neither lack of empathy nor refusal of real duties. You may fulfil a specific duty carefully without feeling responsible for everyone’s well-being, or wish strongly to care while limiting what you actually do. The mean ranks neither ability nor morality.
An original scope-of-help conversation
In an ordinary situation where discussion is safe, a friend wants support with a decision. You could say, “I can talk it through for twenty minutes tonight; the decision will still be yours.” This names support and decision ownership without making another person’s feelings your examination. Adjust the time and duties to the situation; the example cancels no existing care obligation and guarantees no agreement.
Counterexample: genuine duties are real
Caring for a child, meeting a role’s requirements or providing agreed support can involve real responsibilities. Strong responsibility does not make those commitments people pleasing, and lowering a test score is no reason to stop necessary care abruptly. The counterexample asks for a concrete scope: what is required, what is negotiable and which outcomes one person cannot control. The questionnaire cannot make that judgment for you.
Compare needs and expectations
Higher responsibility with lower agreement about neglecting needs can reflect caring alongside less reported self-neglect in these answers; it does not create a healthy type. If expectations are also higher, separately consider willingness, difficulty refusing and actual duties. Item counts and wording differ between parts. Small mean differences do not establish which mechanism causes or drives another.
Other people’s states are not measured
All responses come from you. They record neither whether someone needs help, deliberately applies pressure nor feels satisfied. The mean cannot diagnose a partner, relative or colleague or predict a relationship’s future. Someone’s reaction may involve your actions and many other factors. The test assigns no blame and does not require everyone to feel well before your care counts as care.
Try a small scope list
Choose an ordinary caring task that can be discussed and make three private columns: what I agreed to, what needs clarification, and what I cannot guarantee. You might agree to call at a time without guaranteeing that one conversation resolves everything. Clarify one detail rather than experimenting on a whole relationship. Keep the note private if you wish; no immediate refusal or major decision is required.
Three ratings or insufficient information
All three items in this part need valid 1–5 ratings for a one-decimal mean. Any NA produces insufficient information without neutrality, zero-filling or guessing. Complete all ten selections first; the other parts are handled separately. Added NA, minimum counts and displayed means are website adaptations, not diagnostic cutoffs, quartiles or an official missing-data rule. The guide and retake remain available even when this part is insufficient.
Item attribution, licence and adaptations
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.