Home
Psychological tests
Cognitive Distortions in Online Communication

Cognitive Distortions in Online Communication Test

Understand your online thinking traps and reactions in just 8 minutes. Get clear insights from 40 quick items to reduce conflict, manage emotions, and communicate more effectively.

Start Online Test

Questions: 408 minutes

Hi! My name is Freudly, i am an AI therapist, I will give you an interpretation of the test after you complete it.

08:30

October 2, 2025

October 2, 2025
Material has been updated

October 2, 2025
Material has been published

24350 views

2531 completion

2165 likes

Scale Explorer

How the Scales are Structured

example score

8/12

Overgeneralization (O)

Measures how often a person draws broad, rigid conclusions from isolated online interactions or messages.

Low

Moderate

4 – 8: Low | 9 – 12: Moderate

A score of 8 falls in the Low range, suggesting overgeneralizing is relatively infrequent in your online communication.

example score

8/12

Should Statements (SS)

Measures how strongly a person uses rigid “should/ought” beliefs to judge and control behavior in online communication.

Flexible expectations

Strong duty-bound thinking

4 – 8: Flexible expectations | 9 – 12: Strong duty-bound thinking

A score of 8 suggests generally flexible expectations in online interactions, with occasional “should” thinking that may surface in certain situations.

example score

6/12

Personalization (P)

Measures how strongly you tend to interpret online events and others’ reactions as being caused by you or your personal qualities.

Low

High

4 – 8: Low | 9 – 12: High

A score of 6 falls in the Low range, suggesting you are less likely to automatically blame yourself for negative online interactions.

example score

9/12

Mind Reading (MR)

Measures how often you assume you know what others mean or feel in online communication without clear evidence.

Low

High

4 – 8: Low | 9 – 12: High

A score of 9 falls in the High range, suggesting you more often infer others’ thoughts or emotions from messages without sufficient objective cues.

example score

5/12

Mental Filter (MF)

Measures the tendency to focus on negative details in online interactions while discounting positive or neutral information.

Low

Elevated

4 – 8: Low | 9 – 12: Elevated

A score of 5 falls in the Low range, suggesting you are less likely to filter online messages through mainly negative details.

example score

7/12

Labeling (L)

Measures how often a person tends to assign fixed, absolute labels to themselves or others in online communication instead of evaluating specific behaviors and contexts.

Low labeling

Moderate labeling

High labeling

4 – 7: Low labeling | 8: Moderate labeling | 9 – 12: High labeling

A score of 7 suggests a generally low tendency to jump to absolute labels in online interactions, with labeling occurring occasionally but not as a dominant pattern.

example score

10/12

Emotional Reasoning (ER)

Measures how strongly a person relies on intense emotions as evidence of truth during online communication instead of considering alternative, rational explanations.

Low

Elevated

4 – 8: Low | 9 – 12: Elevated

A score of 10 falls in the Elevated range, suggesting you may often treat strong feelings about online messages as proof of what they mean, even when other interpretations are possible.

example score

9/12

Disqualifying the Positive (DtP)

Measures how often a person dismisses or minimizes positive events and achievements in online communication contexts.

Low

High

4 – 8: Low | 9 – 12: High

A score of 9 falls in the High range, suggesting you often downplay positive feedback or successes in online interactions.

example score

8/12

Catastrophizing (C)

Measures the tendency to interpret online interactions by exaggerating negative consequences and expecting the worst outcomes.

Low

High

4 – 8: Low | 9 – 12: High

A score of 8 falls in the Low range, suggesting catastrophizing is present but generally not a dominant pattern in your online communication.

example score

8/12

Dichotomous Thinking (DT)

Measures the tendency to interpret online interactions in black-and-white extremes rather than considering nuanced possibilities.

Low

High

4 – 8: Low | 9 – 12: High

A score of 8 falls in the Low range, suggesting you usually allow for nuance in online communication, though you may occasionally slip into all-or-nothing judgments.

Start Online Test

just completed the test

DATA-BASED USER COHORTS

Who Usually Takes This Test?

Sensitive online communicators

41%OF USERS

People who often reread messages, assume the worst from short replies, or get stuck on negative interpretations after online exchanges.

Psychologists and counselors

34%OF USERS

Professionals who use quick screening tools to spot clients’ thinking traps in digital dialogue and plan targeted coping strategies.

Social media community managers

25%OF USERS

People who regularly handle comments and conflicts online and want to understand their own bias patterns to respond more calmly and fairly.

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

RESULTS YOU CAN ACTUALLY USE

What You’ll See After You Finish the Test

Scale Results
— Explained Clearly

Your scores across each test scale, translated into plain, usable insights. Not just numbers, but what they actually mean for your daily life, emotional state, and overall well-being.

AI-Powered
Interpretation

A structured, clinically grounded explanation. Our AI analyzes patterns and relationships between scales to provide a coherent interpretation — without alarmist language.

Statistical
Comparison

See how you compare to others. Your scores are placed in a statistical context, showing percentiles and trends based on anonymized platform data to help you understand what`s typical.

Practical
Recommendations

Actionable guidance tailored to your profile. Receive clear, realistic suggestions you can apply immediately — focused on coping, self-regulation, and realistic next steps.

AI-Detected
Insights

Key patterns you might not notice on your own. Surfacing subtle connections in your responses that help you better understand what may be driving your current results.

Discuss with
an AI Psychologist

Clarify, reflect, and explore right away. Talk through your outcomes, ask questions, and explore meanings in a calm, non-diagnostic dialogue environment.

Start Online Test

Used in 52+ countries

Benchmarking

See How You Compare

Once you finish the test, your results will be compared with real-world data from people in your country.
Below is a preview of the benchmarks we use to place your score in context.

Overgeneralization (O)

Average

8.5

Normal range

7.3 — 9.7

min.

max.

majority

This curve shows how scores are typically distributed.
Once you complete the test, your result will appear here so you can see where you land.

Obligation (O)

Average

8.7

Normal range

7.4 — 10.1

min.

max.

majority

This curve shows how scores are typically distributed.
Once you complete the test, your result will appear here so you can see where you land.

Personalization (P)

Average

8.2

Normal range

7.2 — 9.2

min.

max.

majority

This curve shows how scores are typically distributed.
Once you complete the test, your result will appear here so you can see where you land.

Mind Reading (MR)

Average

7.5

Normal range

6.2 — 8.7

min.

max.

majority

This curve shows how scores are typically distributed.
Once you complete the test, your result will appear here so you can see where you land.

Mental Filter (MF)

Average

9.6

Normal range

8.5 — 10.7

min.

max.

majority

This curve shows how scores are typically distributed.
Once you complete the test, your result will appear here so you can see where you land.

Labeling (L)

Average

8.6

Normal range

7.5 — 9.7

min.

max.

majority

This curve shows how scores are typically distributed.
Once you complete the test, your result will appear here so you can see where you land.

Emotional Justification (EJ)

Average

6.4

Normal range

5 — 7.9

min.

max.

majority

This curve shows how scores are typically distributed.
Once you complete the test, your result will appear here so you can see where you land.

Devaluing the Positive (DtP)

Average

9.2

Normal range

7.7 — 10.6

min.

max.

majority

This curve shows how scores are typically distributed.
Once you complete the test, your result will appear here so you can see where you land.

Catastrophizing (C)

Average

9.7

Normal range

8.3 — 11.1

min.

max.

majority

This curve shows how scores are typically distributed.
Once you complete the test, your result will appear here so you can see where you land.

Dichotomous Thinking (DT)

Average

8.3

Normal range

7.3 — 9.3

min.

max.

majority

This curve shows how scores are typically distributed.
Once you complete the test, your result will appear here so you can see where you land.

Start Online Test

Featured On

Rated 4.8/5 by Our Customers

“Freudly really helped me discover parts of my personality I hadn’t noticed before. It strengthened the areas where I needed to grow and made me feel more grounded and confident in the parts that already worked well.”

— Emma C., US

“I wanted to understand how serious my ADHD is, and now I finally do. I also realized I need to work on my self-esteem. It has been low for a long time, and that makes daily life harder than it should be.”

— Mateo R., CA

“Reading each question felt like someone really understood me. Even though I’ve already dealt with much of this, reflecting still helped me learn something new about myself.”

— Caroline F., US

“The process is simple. The test covers everything you need, and you’ll get a clear breakdown of your results. For just a few dollars, it’s a great value.”

— Klara N., CZ

“I kept thinking there might be a small chance, but now I know for sure. The questions were easy to understand, and the whole process was straightforward.”

— Bruno M., BR

“I really enjoyed this experience. I learned a lot, and it helped me make sense of my thoughts and the feeling I’ve had for a long time that I may have grown up with undiagnosed ADHD.”

— Alice B., FR

“Great platform — the insights were genuinely meaningful!”

— Daniel W., DE

“Everything was easy to follow. The tools you get at the end are genuinely helpful for self-growth, and the price is very reasonable. I really appreciate that.”

— Sofia M., ES

“Surprisingly accurate — honestly didn’t expect it to nail things so well.”

— Adir B., IL

“There are lots of different tests to pick from, and the price is surprisingly low for how much insight you get.”

— Olivia W., CA

“I was pleasantly surprised when I read the results. It was as if someone had sorted out my messy thoughts and given me useful tips to help me speak with more confidence.”

— Grace O., IE

“It was really solid, very detailed, and it actually helped me make sense of a lot of things.”

— Carla T., TT

“I was really impressed with the report. It was clear, thoughtful, and it reflected things I’ve been noticing about myself.”

— Jade H., US

“The questions made me think deeply and helped me become more self-aware.”

— Brooke S., US

“Reading through most of the questions made me feel understood. Although I’ve already worked through some of these issues, the questions still gave me useful insights and helped me learn more about myself.”

— Ryan M., US

“I usually take one or two tests each month, and this has become a good way for me to see how I’m doing.”

— Lucas W., US

“Most of the time, my results are in the 90 to 98th percentile compared to others. It really makes me feel like there’s something unique about me.”

— Ethan C., US

“I tried out some of the AI’s suggestions, and to be honest, they worked much better than I thought they would. Maybe this thing really is smarter than me.”

— Reece D., AU

Trusted by 22k+ Users Worldwide

CLEAR ANSWERS TO COMMON QUESTIONS

Frequently Asked Questions

Any questions left?

What does this questionnaire measure?

It assesses how often common thinking errors occur during online messaging and digital interactions. It focuses on patterns that can distort interpretation and emotional reactions.

How long does it take to complete and how many items are included?

Completion typically takes about 8 minutes. The questionnaire includes 40 statements.

What time frame should be used when answering?

Responses should reflect typical online communication over a recent period, such as the past few weeks. If unsure, select the option that best matches usual behavior.

How should responses be selected?

Choose the option that indicates how often each statement applies in online communication. Answer based on actual experience rather than preferred or expected behavior.

How should results be interpreted?

Scores indicate the relative frequency of specific cognitive traps in online communication. Results are not a clinical diagnosis and should be considered alongside other information.

WHAT THE TEST MEASURES

About This Assessment

Cognitive Biases in Online Communication Test

Cognitive Distortions in Online Communication Test

cyberpsychology cognitive distortions social networks

This measure assesses maladaptive thinking patterns that may arise in digital interactions and influence interpretation of messages and interpersonal responses. Cognitive Distortions in Online Communication is intended to support rapid identification of common cognitive errors relevant to online dialogue.

The instrument consists of 40 items and typically requires about 8 minutes to complete. Items ask respondents to rate the frequency of specific thinking styles (e.g., overgeneralization, catastrophizing, dichotomous thinking) in online communication contexts.

Cognitive Distortions in Online Communication may be used in clinical, counseling, or research settings to characterize patterns that contribute to distress, misinterpretation of intent, and interpersonal conflict in digital environments. Authors cited in the source material include Aaron T. Beck and David A. Clark.

Author: Aaron T. Beck, David A. Clark

Literature: Walther, J. B. Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research. 1996.

Test Question Form