Loading page content
Original self-reflection questionnaire · Full results free
Take 24 free questions about everyday trust actions. Read four separate frequency means and full guides with examples, tradeoffs and private reflection.
24 questions · about 6 minutes · no signup
Recall the past four weeks in ordinary, low-risk interactions where you were free to decline. Rate how often you acted this way when the opportunity arose. Describe your own actions, not someone else’s. Choose NA when not experienced or not judgeable; do not test another person, disclose private information, or enter an unsafe situation to answer.
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.
“Trust issues” is an everyday phrase, not a condition this questionnaire diagnoses. Reflect on ordinary, low-risk actions during the past four weeks: offering an opening, building in stages, clarifying agreements and keeping distance. The four can coexist; the result does not judge anyone else’s trustworthiness.
Four groups contain six statements each. Ratings 1–5 describe frequency when an opportunity arose, with no reverse keys. Each group requires all six valid ratings for its 6–30 sum and 1–5 mean; any NA withholds only its own group, without zero or midpoint imputation. Results follow all 24 selections.
The four groups describe different reported actions, read separately without a total, subtraction, cross-group ranking or highest-mean type. Means are not percentages, population ranks or grades. One person can open, clarify, build gradually and retain distance across situations. All four full guides remain available.
An opening concerns a small first opportunity; staging concerns later changes of scope; clarification concerns the present agreement; distance concerns what you retain or handle alone. These are original topic groups, not established psychological factors. The bank does not observe another person and assigns no type to friends or partners.
Read what each of the 4 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.
Reflect on small openings in low-risk interactions, with scope, counterexamples and a private observation exercise.
Review small steps, agreed review points and later adjustments, while separating voluntary cooperation from covert testing.
Review responsibilities, editing permissions and audiences while distinguishing bounded clarification from control or interrogation.
Reflect on working alone, keeping information private and retaining backups, without treating distance as a defect.
No. It summarizes reported frequency of 24 everyday actions without diagnosing a condition, trauma or attachment style. Use the examples to understand choices without deciding that you are a problem or problem-free.
The four actions can coexist and reflect different opportunities. This edition has no basis for a combined total or a highest-mean type, so each group is reported separately with every full guide available.
Choose not experienced / cannot judge. It withholds only its own group rather than becoming a low or middle score. Other complete groups remain available, and all four general guides stay fully readable without a score.
Reflect only on your own actions. This bank does not observe others or judge honesty, reliability or compatibility. Do not test another person, request private information or enter an unsafe interaction to complete it.
Public guides contain no personal answers or means. Optional progress stays in this browser tab for up to 24 hours and clears on completion, clearing or retake. Sharing a general guide link does not publish the attempt.
Research distinguishes a partner’s predictability, dependability and faith in a relationship, and examines whether trust and distrust belong on one continuum. These 24 statements, four topic groups and frequency means are original to FermatMind, not translations of Rempel or JobCannon banks. No validity is inherited, and no diagnosis or prediction of relationship success is made.
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-original-not-validated / 1.0.0-four-descriptive-frequency-means / 1.0.0-original-full-guides