Freudly+971 508685814hello@freudly.ai
Freudly

Intimacy Quiz 36 Questions

Intimacy Quiz 36 Questions Test - FreudlyTake a free intimacy quiz to explore emotional and physical closeness in your relationship. Quick, no sign-up needed. Start now!en
The 15-question format takes about 10 minutes, while the Intimacy Quiz 36 Questions explores how you experience affection, emotional openness, and shared presence with a partner. Your result can highlight familiar patterns of connection, support self-reflection, and help you notice how you create, communicate, and sustain closeness in an intimate relationship.
Questions: 1510 minutes
Intimacy Quiz 36 Questions: situation and reply bubbles
July 22, 2026July 22, 2026Material has been updatedJuly 22, 2026Material has been published
8,175 views
682 completions
585 likes
Daniel HallPsychologist · Test reviewer
585 likes
Scale Explorer

How the Scales are Structured

Affection and Physical EaseAaPE
Measures comfort with consensual physical affection, welcome touch, and communication during physical intimacy.
example score4/15
4/15Space-Orientedexample score
0 – 5Space-Oriented
6 – 10Contextual Warmth
11 – 15Touch-Forward
A score of 4 falls in the Space-Oriented range, suggesting you tend to prefer limited, deliberate, or highly predictable physical closeness.
Emotional OpennessEO
Emotional Openness reflects how readily you share vulnerable feelings, personal meaning, and support needs with your partner.
example score8/15
8/15Selective Sharingexample score
0 – 5Private Processing
6 – 10Selective Sharing
11 – 15Open Exchange
A score of 8 suggests selective sharing—opening up in some moments while keeping certain feelings or details protected.
Shared PresenceSP
Shared Presence reflects how intentionally you create focused attention, respond to bids for connection, and reconnect after distraction or tension.
example score8/15
8/15Available Connectionexample score
0 – 5Parallel Rhythm
6 – 10Available Connection
11 – 15Intentional Presence
A score of 8 suggests you tend to create focused time together when circumstances or clear needs bring it forward, with some consistency but not as a constant default.
just completed the test
DATA-BASED USER COHORTS

Who Usually Takes This Test?

Couples feeling disconnected
41%OF USERS
Partners who sense distance or mixed signals use it to pinpoint whether the gap is emotional openness, physical affection, or shared presence.
People dating and unsure
34%OF USERS
Those in a new or on-and-off relationship take it to clarify what closeness currently looks like versus what they hope for.
Reflecting after a breakup
25%OF USERS
People coming out of a relationship use it to understand patterns around vulnerability, consented touch, and feeling truly together.
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
Affection and Physical EaseAaPE
You?
Average6.7
Typical rangeTypical4.5 – 8.8
Possible0 – 15
Emotional OpennessEO
You?
Average8.3
Typical rangeTypical6.1 – 10.5
Possible0 – 15
Shared PresenceSP
You?
Average3.8
Typical rangeTypical1.7 – 5.9
Possible0 – 15
Featured On
SAMPLE QUESTIONS

Example Questions From the Test

    • Occasionally, usually in meaningful or clearly affectionate moments.
    • Very often; initiating touch is one of my main ways of connecting.
    • Not often; I am more comfortable responding or connecting without touch.
    • Fairly often, especially during greetings, relaxation, or reassurance.
    • Each continue with separate interests or tasks.
    • Check in briefly, then decide independently how to use the time.
    • Spend part of the hour together and leave part unstructured.
    • Treat it as an opportunity for focused time together.
    • A warm verbal greeting without necessarily touching.
    • A brief affectionate touch if the moment feels right.
    • A hug or kiss as a usual part of reconnecting.
    • Lingering affectionate contact before moving on with the day.
WHAT THE TEST MEASURES

Intimacy Quiz 36 Questions - Description and methodology of the test

People deciding whether to examine closeness in a relationship can use Intimacy Quiz 36 Questions to organize moments that feel easy, uncertain, or hard to discuss. It turns those patterns into a relationship closeness assessment, helping you ask why connection changes across situations and giving reflection a concrete structure. The profile can help you identify situations worth discussing and notice where your usual response may leave needs unspoken.

What This Assessment Explores

This physical and emotional intimacy quiz addresses touch, disclosure, support needs, attention, and reconnection after tension without ranking styles.

The result has three dimensions:

  • Affection and Physical Ease (0-15) reflects comfort with consensual affection, welcome touch, and communication during physical intimacy: Space-Oriented (0-5), Contextual Warmth (6-10), or Touch-Forward (11-15); it cannot assess consent, boundaries, or compatibility.
  • Emotional Openness (0-15) reflects how readily you share vulnerable feelings, personal meaning, and support needs with your partner: Private Processing (0-5), Selective Sharing (6-10), or Open Exchange (11-15); these bands describe a pattern, not emotional health or relationship quality.
  • Shared Presence (0-15) reflects how intentionally you create shared attention, respond to bids for connection, and return to togetherness after distraction or tension: Parallel Rhythm (0-5), Available Connection (6-10), or Intentional Presence (11-15); the result is descriptive, not a verdict on commitment or relationship quality.

Methodology and Evidence Base

Each item presents a relationship situation with four response options describing ways of handling closeness. The choices address initiating touch, naming hurt, pausing to listen, and planning reconnection, so the result reflects self-reported preferences rather than observed behavior. Scoring is dimensional rather than a single total: it produces a three-scale descriptive profile, and the questionnaire does not state how individual answer choices are weighted, so no per-item scoring rule should be inferred.

As an emotional intimacy questionnaire, it is conceptually consistent with the Waring Intimacy Questionnaire (Waring & Reddon, 1983), which treats intimacy as measurable in close relationships. It also aligns with the PAIR Inventory, Miller and Lefcourt’s social-intimacy assessment, and Reis and Shaver’s interpersonal-process model, where disclosure, responsiveness, and connection develop through interaction. These sources support the constructs, not a claim that this online questionnaire adapts or standardizes those instruments.

Read bands as descriptive prompts. Self-report scores may shift with current stress, relationship context, self-awareness, and impression management. The online version is not presented with published norms, so interpret the profile alongside lived experience and partner conversation rather than as a standalone verdict.

Literature:
  • Waring, Edward M., and John R. Reddon. "The Measurement of Intimacy in Marriage: The Waring Intimacy Questionnaire." Journal of Clinical Psychology, vol. 39, no. 1, 1983, pp. 53-57. 10.1002/1097-4679(198301)39:1<53::AID-JCLP2270390110>3.0.CO;2-0
  • Schaefer, Mark T., and David H. Olson. "Assessing Intimacy: The PAIR Inventory." Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, vol. 7, no. 1, 1981, pp. 47-60. 10.1111/j.1752-0606.1981.tb01351.x
  • Miller, Rickey S., and Herbert M. Lefcourt. "The Assessment of Social Intimacy." Journal of Personality Assessment, vol. 46, no. 5, 1982, pp. 514-518. 10.1207/s15327752jpa4605_12
  • Reis, Harry T., and Phillip Shaver. "Intimacy as an Interpersonal Process." In Handbook of Personal Relationships: Theory, Relationships, and Interventions, edited by Steve Duck, John Wiley & Sons, 1988, pp. 367-389. 10.4324/9780203732496-5

Updated:

Popular tests
Comments
Leave a Comment