Freudly+971 508685814hello@freudly.ai
Freudly
behavior in conflict

Conflict Situations Questionnaire Test

Take the online Conflict Situations Questionnaire Test - AI psychologist FreudlyYou can take Conflict Situations Questionnaire Test here. Online version of a simple and accurate psychological test with interpretation.en
In about 10 minutes, the Conflict Situations Questionnaire Test presents five situations with response options. Your result highlights tendencies in irony, blame, problem-solving, emotional expression, and recognizing a partner’s feelings, giving you a concise profile for self-reflection about how you communicate and respond when disagreements arise.
Questions: 510 minutes
Conflict Situations Questionnaire Test: situation and reply bubbles
October 2, 2025October 2, 2025Material has been updatedOctober 2, 2025Material has been published
22,493 views
1,768 completions
1,495 likes
Daniel HallPsychologist · Test reviewer
1,495 likes
Scale Explorer

How the Scales are Structured

IronyI
Measures the tendency to use irony, sarcasm, and indirect verbal aggression in conflict situations.
example score28/35
28/35Highexample score
5 – 14Low
15 – 24Moderate
25 – 35High
A score of 28 falls in the High range, suggesting irony and sarcasm are relatively common strategies you may use during disagreements.
Partner BlamingPB
Measures the tendency to respond to conflict by blaming a partner and expressing anger through insults or threats.
example score20/35
20/35Moderate accusingexample score
5 – 15Low accusing
16 – 25Moderate accusing
26 – 35High accusing
A score of 20 falls in the Moderate accusing range, suggesting you sometimes use blaming or harsh language in conflict but it is not your dominant approach.
Problem-Solving ProposalsPSP
Measures the tendency to propose constructive solutions and compromises when facing a conflict situation.
example score22/35
22/35Moderate solution focusexample score
5 – 15Low solution focus
16 – 25Moderate solution focus
26 – 35High solution focus
A score of 22 indicates a moderate tendency to look for constructive ways to resolve conflicts, with compromises considered in some situations.
Expression of FeelingsEoF
Measures how openly a person expresses their feelings and personal viewpoint during conflict communication.
example score14/35
14/35Reserved expressionexample score
5 – 15Reserved expression
16 – 25Situational openness
26 – 35Open expression
A score of 14 suggests you tend to hold back or soften emotional expression and your stance during conflicts, sharing them more selectively.
Acknowledgment of Partner's FeelingsAoPF
Measures how consistently a person acknowledges the other party’s feelings and goals while navigating conflict.
example score24/35
24/35Moderate acknowledgmentexample score
5 – 15Low acknowledgment
16 – 25Moderate acknowledgment
26 – 35High acknowledgment
A score of 24 indicates a generally steady tendency to take the partner’s emotions and motives into account in conflict, though this may vary by situation.
just completed the test
DATA-BASED USER COHORTS

Who Usually Takes This Test?

Managers and Team Leads
41%OF USERS
They take it to understand their default conflict approach and improve how they handle disagreements, feedback, and tension within a team.
Couples and Close Partners
34%OF USERS
They use it to spot patterns in arguments and learn more constructive ways to communicate under stress.
HR and Training Participants
25%OF USERS
They take it during workshops or coaching to quickly map conflict styles and target specific communication and self-regulation skills.
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
IronyI
You?
Average18.6
Typical rangeTypical13.7 – 23.5
Possible5 – 35
Accusing a PartnerAaP
You?
Average18.1
Typical rangeTypical13.5 – 22.8
Possible5 – 35
Proposed solution to the problemPsttp
You?
Average17.7
Typical rangeTypical12.8 – 22.7
Possible5 – 35
Expressing Your FeelingsEYF
You?
Average14.8
Typical rangeTypical10.8 – 18.7
Possible5 – 35
Acknowledging Your Partner's FeelingsAYPF
You?
Average15.8
Typical rangeTypical11.3 – 20.4
Possible5 – 35
Featured On
SAMPLE QUESTIONS

Example Questions From the Test

    • I understand how important it is to you to become head of the department.
    • I am hurt that you, my best friend, used my project without my permission.
    • This is my project, and I must tell the manager, but I will say it was a mistake. You can be my deputy if you like the project.
    • You are a traitor. I never want to see you again!
    • It was a brilliant idea to use my project! You are the best candidate for the position of head of the department.
    • I understand—you love Valeria!
    • I feel hurt that my best friend is trying to take my girlfriend away from me.
    • Let’s talk to Valeria together!
    • I thought you were my friend. You’re a traitor—and a coward! You didn’t tell me anything!
    • Do you really think Valeria would be with you? That’s just ridiculous!
    • I understand how important it is for you to achieve the goal.
    • I am concerned that carrying out this task could be dangerous for employees and harmful to our company’s well-being.
    • Let’s think about how we can achieve the goal in a different way.
    • You are a criminal. I will report your behavior to the authorities!
    • Do you really think this can be done? And where did you even get your education?
WHAT THE TEST MEASURES

Conflict Situations Questionnaire Test - Description and methodology of the test

behavior in conflict

People who want to examine how they communicate during disagreement can use the Conflict Situations Questionnaire Test to compare several response tendencies across interpersonal dilemmas. The questionnaire offers a structured way to reflect on conflict communication, including competing needs, hurt, responsibility, and possible solutions. Its profile describes endorsed response patterns to the presented situations, not behaviour observed repeatedly over time.

What This Assessment Measures

Scenarios depict disagreements. Ratings describe patterns, not correct answers.

Dimensions:

  • Irony (5-35) measures indirect, covert partner-directed verbal aggression, including mockery and sarcasm: Low 5-14; Moderate 15-24; High 25-35.
  • Partner Blaming (5-35) measures partner-directed anger, including blame, insults, and threats: Low accusing 5-15; Moderate accusing 16-25; High accusing 26-35.
  • Problem-Solving Proposals (5-35) measures solution-seeking and compromise: Low solution focus 5-15; Moderate solution focus 16-25; High solution focus 26-35.
  • Expression of Feelings (5-35) measures expressing feelings and viewpoints: Reserved expression 5-15; Situational openness 16-25; Open expression 26-35.
  • Acknowledgment of Partner's Feelings (5-35) acknowledges a partner's feelings and goals: Low acknowledgment 5-15; Moderate acknowledgment 16-25; High acknowledgment 26-35.

These dimensions show interpersonal conflict responses captured by the questionnaire.

Methodology and Evidence Base

This scenario-based self-report format presents five possible statements in each scenario, and respondents rate each one on a 1-7 scale for how strongly the person should say it. Separate displayed results are provided for the five dimensions. The statements represent distinct interpersonal moves.

Conceptually, the questionnaire is consistent with a 2021 study by Sinelnikova and Wigboldus on conflict interaction through socially meaningful situations. It is also compatible with the conflict-mode perspective associated with the MODE instrument developed by Kilmann and Thomas, where responses are discussed as competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding, or accommodating. Its displayed bands are descriptive categories rather than validated population norms.

Read this questionnaire’s conflict response patterns comparatively: a higher result signals more endorsement of the behavior described by that dimension, while a lower result signals less. Hypothetical situations remain sensitive to mood, experience, social desirability, and scenario interpretation; the profile is therefore a self-reflection aid, not a clinical diagnosis.

Author: Thomas, K. W., Wigboldus, D.
Literature:
  • Sinelnikova, E. S. (2021). Emotional intelligence and conflict interaction in Russia and in the Netherlands. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences, 494-499. 10.15405/epsbs.2021.12.61
  • Kilmann, R. H., & Thomas, K. W. (1977). Developing a forced-choice measure of conflict-handling behavior: The "MODE" instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37(2), 309-325. 10.1177/001316447703700204

Updated:

Popular tests
Comments
Leave a Comment