Hate Values Test

In 66 questions completed in about 10 minutes, the hate values test explores how you respond to moral disagreement, group difference, contempt, exclusion, and dominance. Your result highlights patterns in polarized thinking and devaluing others, offering a structured starting point for self-reflection and more deliberate responses during conflict.

Questions: 6610 minutes

March 25, 2026March 25, 2026Material has been updatedMarch 25, 2026Material has been published

8,018 views

1,069 completions

599 likes

Daniel Hall Psychologist · Test reviewer

599 likes

Scale Explorer

How the Scales are Structured

Black-and-White ThinkingBaWT

Measures how strongly you interpret disagreement and group differences in absolute, all-or-nothing terms rather than with nuance.

example score2/40

2/40Low rigidityexample score

0 – 13Low rigidity

14 – 26Moderate rigidity

27 – 40High rigidity

A score of 2 falls in the Low rigidity range, suggesting you typically tolerate complexity and are less likely to frame group differences as strictly right/wrong.

Dehumanization & ContemptD&C

Measures how strongly you use or endorse contemptuous, dehumanizing frames that reduce others to stereotypes or lesser-than human status during disagreement.

example score27/40

27/40Highexample score

0 – 13Low

14 – 26Moderate

27 – 40High

A score of 27 falls in the High range, suggesting a greater tendency to use demeaning or devaluing language or mental frames toward out-groups, especially under conflict or threat.

Exclusion & Dominance OrientationE&DO

Assesses your tendency to prefer hierarchy, punitive responses, or excluding others from shared spaces when values conflict.

example score6/40

6/40Inclusion-orientedexample score

0 – 13Inclusion-oriented

14 – 26Mixed/conditional

27 – 40Dominance/exclusion-oriented

A score of 6 falls in the Inclusion-oriented range, suggesting a generally lower preference for hierarchy or exclusion and a greater tilt toward equal-status, de-escalatory approaches during conflict.

just completed the test

DATA-BASED USER COHORTS

Who Usually Takes This Test?

Debate and politics fatigued

41%OF USERS

People who feel their views are hardening after constant conflict and want a private check on anger, fairness instincts, and black-and-white thinking.

Community and workplace leaders

34%OF USERS

Managers, moderators, organizers, and educators who want to spot exclusionary habits and reduce escalation when disagreements flare up in groups.

Repairing strained relationships

25%OF USERS

People navigating family, friend, or partner rifts over identity or values who want prompts to talk without dehumanizing or cutting others off.

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

Black-and-White ThinkingBT

You?

Average10.6

Typical rangeTypical4.2 – 16.9

Possible0 – 40

Dehumanization & ContemptD&C

You?

Average25.7

Typical rangeTypical20.6 – 30.8

Possible0 – 40

Exclusion & Dominance OrientationE&DO

You?

Average19.8

Typical rangeTypical13.4 – 26.3

Possible0 – 40

Featured On

SAMPLE QUESTIONS

Example Questions From the Test

- Strongly disagree
- Disagree
- Not sure
- Agree
- Strongly disagree
- Disagree
- Not sure
- Agree
- Strongly disagree
- Disagree
- Not sure
- Agree

These are 3 of the 66 real questions — the rest appear in the test. No sign-up needed to start.

WHAT THE TEST MEASURES

Hate Values Test - Description and methodology of the test

aggression

For readers examining their own reactions to moral conflict, the hate values test offers a structured way to notice when judgments about groups move toward certainty, contempt, or exclusion. The hate test focuses on value-based reactions and helps people examine polarized responses without reducing themselves to a fixed label. The result describes patterns in their answers and can support more deliberate choices during disagreement.

What This Assessment Explores

These items examine how moral disagreement can become judgments about a whole group’s character, status, or belonging. They cover absolute right-wrong framing, demeaning language, bad-faith assumptions, reduced compassion, retaliation, punishment, separation, and unequal power. Viewed as a hate values assessment, the profile shows which tendencies are more pronounced in the respondent’s answers, not whether the person belongs to a moral category.

The displayed dimensions are:

Black-and-White Thinking (0-40) measures all-or-nothing interpretations; Low rigidity (0-13), Moderate rigidity (14-26), and High rigidity (27-40) show increasing inflexibility.
Dehumanization & Contempt (0-40) measures reducing others to stereotypes or lesser personhood; Low (0-13), Moderate (14-26), and High (27-40) show increasing devaluation.
Exclusion & Dominance Orientation (0-40) measures support for hierarchy, retaliation, or removing others from shared spaces; Inclusion-oriented (0-13), Mixed/conditional (14-26), and Dominance/exclusion-oriented (27-40) mark the displayed pattern.

Item Themes and Evidence Base

The questions are presented as first-person statements with options ranging from Strongly disagree to Agree. Statements address polarized judgments, demeaning labels, exclusion, punishment, hierarchy, and assumptions about whole groups. The result presents three dimension scores within the displayed ranges, but individual response weights are not specified.

The hate values questionnaire is conceptually consistent with the Hate Behaviours Scale (Vergani et al., 2025) and related work on dehumanization, social dominance, and dichotomous thinking, but it is not a direct adaptation or validated administration of those instruments. Related examples include Kteily et al.’s work on blatant dehumanization, Ho et al.’s SDO7 model of social dominance orientation, and Oshio’s Dichotomous Thinking Inventory. Together, these sources identify content areas represented by the statements: rigid categorization, devaluation, and support for unequal treatment.

Results are best read as a profile of response tendencies. They may show whether rigid, dehumanizing, or exclusionary patterns are more prominent, but they do not explain their causes or predict conduct in every setting. The displayed bands are not population norms or clinical thresholds; self-report can reflect current mood, self-presentation, and limited self-awareness.

Literature:

Vergani, M., Diallo, T., & O'Brien, K. (2025). Measuring the potential for hateful behaviours: Development and validation of the Hate Behaviours Scale (HBS). Terrorism and Political Violence, 37(2), 205-222. 10.1080/09546553.2023.2283565
Kteily, N., Bruneau, E., Waytz, A., & Cotterill, S. (2015). The ascent of man: Theoretical and empirical evidence for blatant dehumanization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(5), 901-931. 10.1037/pspp0000048
Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Kteily, N., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., Pratto, F., Henkel, K. E., Foels, R., & Stewart, A. L. (2015). The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO7 scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(6), 1003-1028. 10.1037/pspi0000033
Oshio, A. (2009). Development and validation of the Dichotomous Thinking Inventory. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 37(6), 729-742. 10.2224/sbp.2009.37.6.729

Updated: 2026-03-25

Popular tests

Alligator vs Crocodile Quiz

Addition and Subtraction Quiz

Adding and Subtracting Decimals Quiz

99 Names of Allah Quiz

27 Amendments Matching Quiz

1 Samuel Quiz