Home1
Psychological tests2
Attributional Style Questionnaire (ASQ)3

Attributional Style Questionnaire (ASQ) Test

With 48 questions and an estimated completion time of 9 minutes, the Attributional Style Questionnaire (ASQ) Test explores how you explain positive and negative events. Your results can highlight optimistic or pessimistic patterns, including whether you view causes as personal, lasting, or broad, supporting focused self-reflection about everyday interpretations.

Questions: 489 minutes

Attributional Style Questionnaire (ASQ): situation and reply bubbles

October 2, 2025October 2, 2025Material has been updatedOctober 2, 2025Material has been published

20,246 views

2,780 completions

1,962 likes

Daniel Hall Psychologist · Test reviewer

1,962 likes

Scale Explorer

How the Scales are Structured

Total ScoreTS

This scale summarizes a person’s overall attributional style on a continuum from more pessimistic to more optimistic explanations of life events.

example score11/24

11/24More optimisticexample score

-2 – 3More pessimistic

4 – 8Mixed / balanced

9 – 24More optimistic

A score of 11 falls in the “More optimistic” range, suggesting a tendency to explain events in a generally optimistic way across situations.

Positive Events TotalPET

This scale measures how optimistically a person explains positive events by attributing successes to stable and broadly applicable causes.

example score4/24

4/24Low optimism for successesexample score

0 – 10Low optimism for successes

11 – 16Moderate optimism for successes

17 – 24High optimism for successes

A score of 4 falls in the low range, suggesting successes are more often explained as situational or less stable rather than enduring and universal.

Negative Events TotalNET

Measures how pessimistically versus optimistically a person tends to explain adverse (failure) events overall.

example score14/24

14/24Mixedexample score

0 – 8Optimistic

9 – 14Mixed

15 – 24Pessimistic

A score of 14 falls in the Mixed range, suggesting a balance between optimistic and pessimistic explanations of failures with a slight tilt toward pessimism.

Self - SuccessSS

Measures how strongly you attribute your successes to internal, personal causes rather than external factors.

example score3/8

3/8Moderate personalizationexample score

0 – 2Low personalization

3 – 5Moderate personalization

6 – 8High personalization

A score of 3 indicates a moderate tendency to see your achievements as partly driven by your own qualities and efforts, alongside situational factors.

I Am a FailureIAaF

Measures the tendency to attribute failures to internal, personal causes (self-blame).

example score4/8

4/8Moderate personalizationexample score

0 – 2Low personalization

3 – 5Moderate personalization

6 – 8High personalization

A score of 4 indicates a moderate tendency to interpret failures as caused by one’s own actions or qualities, which may be accompanied by some self-criticism.

Success PervasivenessSP

Measures how broadly you generalize the causes of your successes across different areas of life versus seeing them as situation-specific.

example score4/8

4/8Moderately broadexample score

0 – 2Specific successes

3 – 5Moderately broad

6 – 8Highly broad

A score of 4 suggests a moderately broad style, meaning you sometimes extend the reasons for success to other life domains while still keeping some successes tied to specific contexts.

Failure GlobalityFG

This scale measures how broadly you generalize the causes of your failures across different areas of life versus keeping them specific to a situation.

example score6/8

6/8Broad generalizationexample score

0 – 2Specific view of failures

3 – 5Mixed generalization

6 – 8Broad generalization

A score of 6 suggests you tend to view failures as having broad, cross-situational causes rather than being limited to a specific context.

Success TimeST

Measures how stable and consistent you perceive the causes of your successes to be over time.

example score4/8

4/8Moderately stableexample score

0 – 2Less stable

3 – 5Moderately stable

6 – 8Highly stable

A score of 4 indicates a moderately stable view of success causes, suggesting you sometimes see achievements as driven by consistent factors and sometimes as more changeable.

Stability of FailuresSoF

Failure Time (FT) measures how permanent you tend to perceive the causes of negative events and setbacks to be.

example score3/8

3/8Moderately temporaryexample score

0 – 2More temporary

3 – 5Moderately temporary

6 – 8More lasting

A score of 3 falls in the “Moderately temporary” range, suggesting you generally view failures as somewhat time-limited rather than enduring.

just completed the test

DATA-BASED USER COHORTS

Who Usually Takes This Test?

Therapy and counseling clients

41%OF USERS

People in therapy or coaching take it to understand how they explain setbacks and successes and how that affects mood, motivation, and stress.

Psychology students and trainees

34%OF USERS

Students and early-career specialists use it to learn assessment skills and practice interpreting optimism–pessimism patterns.

Self-improvement seekers

25%OF USERS

Individuals curious about their mindset take it to spot habitual thinking patterns and track changes over time.

BASED ON AGGREGATED, ANONYMIZED DATA FROM TENS OF THOUSANDS OF FREUDLY USERS.

Benchmarking

See How You Compare

Once you complete the test, your results are compared with real-world data from people in your country.
Below is a preview of how scores are typically distributed across each scale.

Shaded area — where most people score

Dot — the average

You — your score lands on each curve after the test— your score, after the test

Final resultFr

You?

Average15.7

Typical rangeTypical11 – 20.3

Possible-2 – 24

Summary of Positive EventsSoPE

You?

Average10

Typical rangeTypical6.9 – 13.2

Possible0 – 24

Summary of adverse eventsSoae

You?

Average6.5

Typical rangeTypical3.4 – 9.6

Possible0 – 24

I am successIas

You?

Average2

Typical rangeTypical0.7 – 3.4

Possible0 – 8

I am a failureIaaf

You?

Average5.4

Typical rangeTypical4.3 – 6.4

Possible0 – 8

Breadth of SuccessBoS

You?

Average3

Typical rangeTypical1.8 – 4.3

Possible0 – 8

The Extent of FailureTEoF

You?

Average3.9

Typical rangeTypical2.7 – 5.1

Possible0 – 8

Time of successTos

You?

Average2.9

Typical rangeTypical1.9 – 3.9

Possible0 – 8

Time of FailuresToF

You?

Average6

Typical rangeTypical5 – 7

Possible0 – 8

Featured On

SAMPLE QUESTIONS

Example Questions From the Test

- A. Today I quickly resolved all disagreements.
- B. I usually resolve conflicts easily.
- I did not write down the address accurately.
- My friend gave incorrect directions.
- I was lucky with the weather.
- I chose the timing and route well.

These are 3 of the 48 real questions — the rest appear in the test. No sign-up needed to start.

WHAT THE TEST MEASURES

Attributional Style Questionnaire (ASQ) Test - Description and methodology of the test

attributional style

hope

optimism

positive psychology

People who want to examine how they explain success, setbacks, luck, and responsibility can use the Attributional Style Questionnaire (ASQ) Test as a structured self-reflection tool. It is intended for anyone curious about habitual interpretations, including whether causes seem internal or external, temporary or lasting, and specific or broadly relevant. Results from this attributional style questionnaire offer a profile rather than a single label.

What This Assessment Explores

The attributional style assessment groups these scenarios into:

Total Score (-2-24) measures explanatory style: More pessimistic (-2-3) / Mixed / balanced (4-8) / More optimistic (9-24); Positive Events Total (0-24) measures success optimism: Low optimism for successes (0-10) / Moderate optimism for successes (11-16) / High optimism for successes (17-24); Negative Events Total (0-24) measures setback optimism: Optimistic (0-8) / Mixed (9-14) / Pessimistic (15-24).
Self - Success (0-8) and I Am a Failure (0-8) measure success/failure personalization: Low personalization (0-2) / Moderate personalization (3-5) / High personalization (6-8).
Success Pervasiveness (0-8) and Failure Globality (0-8) measure breadth: Specific successes / Specific view of failures (0-2), Moderately broad / Mixed generalization (3-5), Highly broad / Broad generalization (6-8); Success Time (0-8) and Stability of Failures (0-8) measure duration: Less stable / More temporary (0-2), Moderately stable / Moderately temporary (3-5), Highly stable / More lasting (6-8).

Methodology and Scientific Basis

Each item presents an event and a forced choice between two explanations. The alternatives contrast personal and situational causes, then distinguish specific from broad and temporary from enduring interpretations. Scores combine these dimensions into positive-event, negative-event, and overall profiles; there is no right answer, so the result is dimensional rather than pass/fail.

The method is tied most directly to the Forced-Choice ASQ (Reivich and Seligman, 1991) and the original ASQ described by Peterson and colleagues (1982). Reivich’s account of explanatory style and the learned-helplessness reformulation by Abramson, Seligman, and Teasdale (1978) provide the theoretical context. This online questionnaire is conceptually consistent with those works, not presented as a direct adaptation.

Interpret the profile as a pattern: someone may credit success internally yet personalize failure, or view positive events as lasting while treating setbacks as temporary. An explanatory style test can clarify these contrasts. The displayed bands are descriptive categories for this questionnaire; memory, current circumstances, honesty, and self-awareness can also shape self-report, so the result describes responses rather than a diagnosis.

Author: C. S. Peterson, J. P. Semmel, M. E. P. Seligman

Literature:

Reivich, K. J., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1991). The forced-choice Attributional Style Questionnaire. Unpublished data, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Reivich, K. (1995). The measurement of explanatory style. In G. M. Buchanan & M. E. P. Seligman (Eds.), Explanatory Style (pp. 21-47). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Peterson, C., Semmel, A., von Baeyer, C., Abramson, L. Y., Metalsky, G. I., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1982). The Attributional Style Questionnaire. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 6(3), 287-299. DOI 10.1007/BF01173577
Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87(1), 49-74. DOI 10.1037/0021-843X.87.1.49

Updated: 2025-10-02