Am I Dangerous 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
- I have not identified anyone as a target.
- A person has briefly come to mind, without sustained focus or intent.
- I repeatedly focus on a specific person or imagine confronting them, but have not decided to harm them.
- I have selected a person and intend to approach, trap, attack, or kill them.
- I have not experienced a concerning anger or fixation pattern.
- It has been present but limited, without becoming more intense or behaviorally disruptive.
- It has become more frequent, consuming, confrontational, or difficult to interrupt.
- It is escalating rapidly, and I or someone else fears I may act violently soon.
- I have not directed hostile or threatening communication at anyone.
- I sent or said something harsh, then stopped without threatening harm.
- I repeatedly used intimidating language or implied that something bad might happen.
- I made a direct threat to injure or kill someone, even if I later withdrew it.
Am I Dangerous Quiz - Description and methodology of the test
Current risk-related experiences matter more here than a permanent label. For someone wondering whether anger, fixation, or violent urges are becoming harder to control, the Am I Dangerous Quiz offers a practical snapshot. It helps answer the concern behind a how dangerous am i quiz: how dangerous current thoughts or behavior may be, and when distance, trusted support, or urgent protective action deserves priority.
What This Assessment Explores
As a self-report assessment, it addresses the concern raised by a how dangerous are you quiz, examining recent anger, fixation, threats, monitoring, boundary violations, force, preparation, timing, and access to means. It supports self-reflection about current experiences, while its three dimensions summarize recent endorsed experiences rather than a generalized dangerousness or safety rating.
It shows three dimensions:
- Behavioral Escalation and Boundary Violations (0-15) shows intimidation, pursuit, force, injury, or loss of control. Bands: No current endorsement (0); Concern to review (1-2); Prompt support warranted (3-15).
- Intent, Planning, and Access (0-15) shows target focus, preparation, timing, and accessible means. Bands: No current endorsement (0); Concern to review (1-2); Prompt support warranted (3-15).
- Violent Thoughts and Urges (0-15) captures unwanted or welcome thoughts, fantasies, and urges that may be difficult to resist. Bands: No current endorsement (0); Concern to review (1-2); Prompt support warranted (3-15).
Methodology and Evidence Base
Each item offers four ordered choices from no current endorsement through increasing concern, loss of control, or urgency. The wording concerns recent situations, making the result a current snapshot.
Three scale scores appear in this am i dangerous test; individual answer allocation and weighting are unspecified. They do not establish whether I am dangerous. The bands are unvalidated reflective summaries, not clinical, legal, severity, or violence-prediction cutoffs. Any concerning response matters independently; a red-flag response can override the total.
Past Feelings and Acts of Violence Scale (PFAV) is the closest comparison for self-reported violence risk; the Violent Ideations Scale (VIS) covers violent thoughts and urges. Related 1999 targeted-violence work by Borum and 2002 stalking work by Kropp, Hart, and Lyon address focus, intent, planning, escalation, and pursuit. These works are conceptually consistent with this questionnaire, not evidence of adaptation or revalidation.
Self-report depends on honest recall, self-awareness, and context. Specific intent, preparation, accessible means, or imminent loss of control call for distance, trusted support; if harm may occur soon or a plan could be carried out, contact emergency services or a crisis line.
- Plutchik, R., & van Praag, H. M. (1990). A self-report measure of violence risk, II. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 31(5), 450-456. 10.1016/0010-440X(90)90031-M
- Murray, A. L., Eisner, M., & Ribeaud, D. (2018). Development and validation of a brief measure of violent thoughts: The Violent Ideations Scale (VIS). Assessment, 25(7), 942-955. 10.1177/1073191116667213
- Borum, R., Fein, R., Vossekuil, B., & Berglund, J. (1999). Threat assessment: Defining an approach for evaluating risk of targeted violence. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 17(3), 323-337. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0798(199907/09)17:3<323::AID-BSL349>3.0.CO;2-G
- Kropp, P. R., Hart, S. D., & Lyon, D. R. (2002). Risk assessment of stalkers: Some problems and possible solutions. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29(5), 590-616. 10.1177/009385402236734
Updated: