Am I Trustworthy 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
- Accept the praise and plan to thank my teammate privately later.
- Describe it generally as a team effort without dividing up the credit.
- Mention that my teammate played a substantial role before the meeting moves on.
- Clarify which parts my teammate contributed and which parts I handled.
- Say yes, trusting that I will find something else to move later.
- Agree conditionally before taking a close look at my schedule.
- Check my schedule and offer a limited version I believe I can complete.
- Review my existing obligations first, then name exactly what I can deliver and when.
- Leave it alone unless the claim comes up again.
- Update only anyone who appears likely to act on it.
- Correct it the next time I naturally speak with the group.
- Proactively correct the claim with the same people and identify the accurate information.
Am I Trustworthy Quiz - Description and methodology of the test
People considering how their choices affect other people's confidence may use the Am I Trustworthy Quiz to examine everyday decisions. It suits anyone reflecting on shared work, borrowed property, private information, or promises made under pressure. This quiz about being trustworthy turns familiar dilemmas into a profile of reported tendencies rather than a verdict on character.
What This Assessment Explores
The scenarios focus on moments when trust depends on action: crediting others, correcting misinformation, respecting private material or access, naming uncertainty, disclosing conflicts, and renegotiating commitments. This makes the result relevant to relationships, teamwork, and shared responsibilities.
Three complementary dimensions make up the trustworthiness assessment:
- Boundaries and Stewardship (0-15) covers entrusted information, property, access, limits, and conflicts: Informal boundaries (0-5), Context-sensitive stewardship (6-10), and Deliberate stewardship (11-15).
- Reliability and Accountability (0-15) covers realistic commitments, updates, completion, and ownership: Flexible follow-through (0-5), Generally dependable (6-10), and Accountable consistency (11-15).
- Truthfulness and Transparency (0-15) covers relevant facts, uncertainty, mistakes, and contributions: Selective openness (0-5), Situational candor (6-10), and Consistent transparency (11-15).
Together, they show patterns to examine; one choice does not define you.
Methodology and Scientific Basis
Each item presents a realistic situation with four response options. The choices contrast handling credit, consent, disclosure, uncertainty, commitments, and mistakes. The questionnaire produces displayed scores for the three scales, but its scoring conversion from response options is not documented, so point values should not be inferred.
The method resembles a situational judgment test: it asks how someone would respond to dilemmas rather than rate abstract traits. Its themes are conceptually consistent with Schlenker et al.’s (1994) responsibility model, which addresses obligations, control, and consequences. Evans and Revelle’s (2008) work provides background on interpersonal trust and propensity to trust, not direct evidence for these conduct scales. Whetzel and McDaniel explain the response format.
Interpretation should focus on tendencies and the situation behind an answer. The displayed bands are descriptive ranges used by this questionnaire; the cited publications do not establish norms or validation for this online questionnaire. Self-report can be affected by mood, self-awareness, memory, and the wish to appear favorably; an integrity self-assessment is most useful when it prompts examples. One result cannot represent every relationship.
- Evans, Anthony M., and William Revelle. "Survey and behavioral measurements of interpersonal trust." Journal of Research in Personality 42, no. 6 (2008): 1585-1593. 10.1016/j.jrp.2008.07.011
- Schlenker, Barry R. "Integrity and Character: Implications of Principled and Expedient Ethical Ideologies." Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 27, no. 10 (2008): 1078-1125. 10.1521/jscp.2008.27.10.1078
- Mayer, Roger C., James H. Davis, and F. David Schoorman. "An Integrative Model Of Organizational Trust." The Academy of Management Review 20, no. 3 (1995): 709-734. 10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080335
- Whetzel, Deborah L., and Michael A. McDaniel. "Situational judgment tests: An overview of current research." Human Resource Management Review 19, no. 3 (2009): 188-202. 10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.03.007
Updated: