Am I Asking for Too Much in My Relationship Quiz
How the Scales are Structured
Who Usually Takes This Test?
See How You Compare
Below is a preview of how scores are typically distributed across each scale.
Example Questions From the Test
- One sincere confirmation would usually be enough until we revisit the issue.
- I would want repeated reassurance until their warmth toward me felt fully restored.
- I would ask them to check in once later so I know the distance is temporary.
- I would seek reassurance a few more times while we were apart.
- They should attend because being a supportive partner sometimes means overriding personal preference.
- We should consider the event’s importance, possible limits, and whether I could attend with someone else.
- I would want them to come for part of it, even if they left early.
- They should attend the whole event because shared participation is how I judge relationship support.
- Regular updates about where they are and what the group is doing.
- An arrival or home-safe message would be reassuring.
- No updates unless the plan changes in a way that affects me.
- A few messages during the evening so I continue to feel included.
Am I Asking for Too Much in My Relationship Quiz - Description and methodology of the test
People unsure whether their preferences in a partnership are becoming demands can use this assessment to examine relationship expectations from more than one angle. The Am I Asking for Too Much in My Relationship Quiz is for self-reflection when a preference starts to feel like a demand. It offers pressure points, not a verdict about which partner is right. Separating the dimensions clarifies where a preference may be becoming a demand.
What This Assessment Explores
It examines whether preferred standards dominate when partners want different things, how much reassurance or access you seek, and how strongly you expect a partner’s time and responsiveness when schedules compete. These relationship needs remain separate in the result.
The three result dimensions are:
- Flexibility & Reciprocity Strain (0-15) shows whether your standard dominates: Mutual adjustment (0-5) allows both views; Preference tension (6-10) makes compromise harder; One-sided pressure (11-15) suggests uneven concessions.
- Reassurance & Access Pressure (0-15) reflects confirmation, updating, visibility, and access: Spacious reassurance (0-5) allows independence; Active reassurance needs (6-10) values clear signals; Intensive reassurance needs (11-15) seeks frequent confirmation or access, without measuring neediness or relationship quality.
- Time & Availability Pressure (0-15) reflects responsiveness expectations: Flexible expectations (0-5) allow adaptation; Firm preferences (6-10) value dependable contact; Strong availability expectations (11-15) make regular access important.
Methodology and Scientific Basis
Each self-report scenario presents a disagreement or coordination problem with four response options, from accommodating choices to stronger expectations for reassurance, priority, or access. The result reports scores on three dimensions within stated bands; these describe response patterns rather than relationship quality.
Relevant conceptual parallels are specific, not a claim of provenance. Tolmacz and Mikulincer's Sense of Entitlement in Romantic Relationships scale addresses standards and entitlement; a 2023 study by Fua and colleagues examines flexibility in partner perspectives; Campbell and colleagues connect ideal standards with mutual adjustment; and Stewart and Harkness examine repeated reassurance-seeking and interpersonal strain. These works identify related constructs; that consistency does not establish this questionnaire as any published instrument or adaptation.
Results are prompts for context-sensitive reflection: current conflict, anxiety, or recent disappointment can influence self-report, and self-awareness may be limited. No population norms or reliability coefficients are reported for this questionnaire, and its displayed bands are descriptive rather than clinical cutoffs. The result can guide a conversation about relationship pressure, feasibility, and reciprocity, but it cannot decide whether a need is reasonable without wider context.
- Tolmacz, Rami, and Mario Mikulincer. 2011. The Sense of Entitlement in Romantic Relationships-Scale Construction, Factor Structure, Construct Validity, and Its Associations With Attachment Orientations. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 28(1), 75-94. 10.1037/a0021479
- Fua, Karl, Katharine E. Daniel, Alexandra Werntz, Brian Doss, Erika Lawrence, and Bethany A. Teachman. 2023. Development and Validation of the Flexibility in Partner Perspectives Scale. Contemporary Family Therapy, 45(4), 410-424. 10.1007/s10591-022-09653-6
- Stewart, Jeremy G., and Kate L. Harkness. 2015. The Interpersonal Toxicity of Excessive Reassurance-Seeking: Evidence From a Longitudinal Study of Romantic Relationships. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 34(5), 392-410. 10.1521/jscp.2015.34.5.392
- Campbell, Lorne, Jeffry A. Simpson, Deborah A. Kashy, and Garth J. O. Fletcher. 2001. Ideal Standards, the Self, and Flexibility of Ideals in Close Relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(4), 447-462. 10.1177/0146167201274006
Updated: