Good-Evil Test 2

People curious about how moral choices and interpersonal habits shape their self-image can use this questionnaire for structured reflection. The questionnaire is not a political compass test. As a moral-personality assessment, its result focuses on trust, responsibility, self-control, and reactions to other people in everyday situations. As a self-reflection tool, it suits readers seeking a clearer view of how they handle relationships, responsibility, and difficult choices.

What This Assessment Explores

Rather than measuring voting preferences, the questionnaire examines moral tendencies expressed in ordinary relationships and decisions. Items contrast honesty with expediency, forgiveness with revenge, generosity with possessiveness, tact with rudeness, and patience with irritability. As an ethical personality assessment, it captures degrees of inclination instead of assigning a simple moral label.

The three catalogue scales are:

• Humanity (-40-90) reflects the balance between virtuous and malevolent traits: Malevolent traits dominate (-40-0), Balanced / slightly positive (1-9), and Virtuous traits dominate (10-90).
• Evil (42-126) assesses vanity, deceitfulness, envy, cynicism, and rudeness; Low (42-49), Moderate (50-79), and High (80-126) indicate increasing expression of malevolent characteristics.
• Goodness (44-132) assesses humility, modesty, trust, responsibility, benevolence, altruism, and honesty; Lower expression (44-74), Moderate expression (75-104), and High (105-132) mark the displayed bands.

Methodology and Evidence Base

Each item presents two contrasting statements and a middle-ground choice. The alternatives cover firmness or flexibility, suspicion or trust, self-interest or responsibility, and directness or restraint. Selecting the middle-ground option gives respondents a less absolute answer when neither description fits fully. As a self-report personality test, the profile depends on how accurately and honestly the respondent recognizes current behavior.

Its closest conceptual reference is Good-Evil-2 (Ismagilova et al., 2019), alongside Ismagilova (2012) and the ethical-psychology work of Popov, Kashin, and Starshinova (2000), with related treatment by Popov, Golubeva, and Ustin (2008). These sources support the moral-personality framework; they do not establish that this online form is a direct adaptation, equivalent version, or independently standardized instrument.

The questionnaire provides ranges and bands, but no universal point value for each response is specified. Those categories therefore organize reflection rather than function as population norms or clinical cutoffs. Mood, social desirability, current relationships, and limited self-awareness can influence self-report, so the result is best read alongside recurring behavior and real-life choices.