Infantilism Severity Scale Test

Designed for self-reflection, the Infantilism Severity Scale Test contains 48 questions and takes about 9 minutes. This self-report questionnaire explores psychological maturity, autonomy, self-regulation, motivation, and values, helping you understand your personal profile and identify areas for thoughtful growth.

Questions: 489 minutes

Infantilism Severity Scale Test: sample question card

October 2, 2025October 2, 2025Material has been updatedOctober 2, 2025Material has been published

32,180 views

3,001 completion

2,605 likes

Daniel Hall Psychologist · Test reviewer

2,605 likes

Scale Explorer

How the Scales are Structured

Underdeveloped Coping BehaviorUCB

Measures how developed a person’s coping behavior is for handling difficulties and overcoming obstacles.

example score6/18

6/18Well-developed copingexample score

0 – 6Well-developed coping

7 – 12Moderately limited coping

13 – 18Highly limited coping

A score of 6 suggests generally adequate coping resources, with only occasional difficulty persisting through challenging situations.

Behavioral DisorganizationBD

Measures how organized and disciplined a person’s behavior tends to be versus chaotic and spontaneous.

example score6/15

6/15Mixedexample score

0 – 5Organized

6 – 10Mixed

11 – 15Disorganized

A score of 6 falls in the Mixed range, suggesting generally adequate orderliness with occasional lapses into spontaneity or inconsistent follow-through.

Dependent AttitudeDA

Measures the extent to which a person tends to rely on others and avoid taking responsibility for decisions and actions.

example score10/27

10/27Moderate dependencyexample score

0 – 9Low dependency

10 – 18Moderate dependency

19 – 27High dependency

A score of 10 falls in the Moderate dependency range, suggesting a noticeable but not pronounced tendency to lean on others in responsibility-taking situations.

Poor ReflectionPR

Measures how developed self-analysis and reflection are, where higher scores indicate weaker reflexivity.

example score12/18

12/18Moderate reflection difficultiesexample score

0 – 6Developed reflection

7 – 12Moderate reflection difficulties

13 – 18Weak reflection

A score of 12 falls in the Moderate reflection difficulties range, suggesting self-analysis may be inconsistent and insights about one’s actions may not always guide behavior.

Orientation Toward Entertainment and HedonismOTEaH

Measures the degree to which a person is oriented toward pleasure-seeking and entertainment versus restraint and rational priorities.

example score4/12

4/12Restrainedexample score

0 – 4Restrained

5 – 8Balanced

9 – 12Hedonistic

A score of 4 falls in the Restrained range, suggesting a generally practical, self-controlled approach with relatively low emphasis on entertainment and immediate pleasure.

Predominance of Material ValuesPoMV

Measures how strongly material values and wealth are prioritized over moral and spiritual values.

example score6/21

6/21Low material focusexample score

0 – 7Low material focus

8 – 14Balanced/Mixed focus

15 – 21High material focus

A score of 6 falls in the Low material focus range, suggesting material goals are less dominant than moral or personal values in your current priorities.

Lack of Work MotivationLoWM

Measures the degree of reduced work motivation, where higher scores reflect greater passivity and less drive for achievement and professional development.

example score5/12

5/12Mixed motivationexample score

0 – 4High motivation

5 – 8Mixed motivation

9 – 12Low motivation

A score of 5 falls in the Mixed motivation range, suggesting generally adequate engagement with occasional dips in initiative or goal pursuit.

Emotional-Volitional ImmaturityEVI

This scale measures the maturity of emotional regulation and volitional self-control, including impulsivity and stability under stress.

example score15/21

15/21Marked Immaturityexample score

0 – 7Mature/Stabile

8 – 14Mixed Control

15 – 21Marked Immaturity

A score of 15 falls in the Marked Immaturity range, suggesting more frequent difficulties with emotion regulation, impulsivity, and sustaining self-control.

Overall Infantilism LevelOIL

Measures the overall degree of immaturity across emotional-volitional control, independence, responsibility, and work motivation.

example score97/144

97/144Highexample score

0 – 60Low

61 – 90Moderate

91 – 144High

A score of 97 falls in the High range, suggesting a stronger presence of infantile traits such as dependency, impulsivity, and reduced responsibility in everyday behavior and motivation.

just completed the test

DATA-BASED USER COHORTS

Who Usually Takes This Test?

Feeling stuck and dependent

41%OF USERS

Adults who feel emotionally immature, rely on others, avoid responsibility, or keep repeating “teen-like” patterns in work and relationships.

Therapy and self-reflection seekers

34%OF USERS

People in counseling or doing personal growth who want to pinpoint which parts of immaturity—motivation, willpower, morals, or social skills—need attention.

Parents and educators

25%OF USERS

Parents, teachers, and youth mentors using a quick screen to understand a teen’s readiness for independence, decision-making, and handling life challenges.

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

Underdeveloped coping behaviorUcb

You?

Average10.8

Typical rangeTypical8 – 13.5

Possible0 – 18

Disorganized BehaviorDB

You?

Average6.2

Typical rangeTypical4.2 – 8.1

Possible0 – 15

Dependency StanceDS

You?

Average19.4

Typical rangeTypical14.9 – 23.8

Possible0 – 27

Weak reflectionWr

You?

Average12.5

Typical rangeTypical10 – 15

Possible0 – 18

Focus on Entertainment, HedonismFoEH

You?

Average8.2

Typical rangeTypical6.2 – 10.1

Possible0 – 12

Predominance of material valuesPomv

You?

Average8.6

Typical rangeTypical4.8 – 12.4

Possible0 – 21

Lack of work motivationLowm

You?

Average4.5

Typical rangeTypical2.8 – 6.3

Possible0 – 12

Emotional-Volitional ImmaturityEI

You?

Average15.2

Typical rangeTypical11.2 – 19.1

Possible0 – 21

General Level of InfantilismGLoI

You?

Average86.3

Typical rangeTypical65.6 – 107

Possible0 – 144

Featured On

SAMPLE QUESTIONS

Example Questions From the Test

Each item in this questionnaire has four response options. For each item, select the one response that best applies to you. Please note that there are no “right” or “wrong” answers. Only one response may be selected for each question. If you are unsure or do not know which option to choose, indicate the response you would select if you did know.

- Yes
- Rather yes than no
- Rather no than yes
- No
- Yes
- Rather yes than no
- Rather no than yes
- No
- Yes
- Rather yes than no
- Rather no than yes
- No

These are 3 of the 48 real questions — the rest appear in the test. No sign-up needed to start.

WHAT THE TEST MEASURES

Infantilism Severity Scale Test - Description and methodology of the test

infantilism

personal maturity

organization

People seeking a clearer picture of their autonomy, self-control, and everyday responsibility may use the Infantilism Severity Scale Test to examine patterns associated with psychological immaturity. As an infantilism assessment, it describes tendencies across several areas of functioning, helping readers notice whether dependence, impulsivity, weak planning, or limited self-reflection may shape decisions and progress toward goals.

What This Assessment Explores

The questionnaire examines maturity-related patterns in everyday functioning. Its themes include handling obstacles, organizing conduct, accepting responsibility, examining motives and consequences, regulating emotion, sustaining effort, and balancing immediate pleasure against longer-term aims. It also considers work orientation, material priorities, and reliance on family or other people. This makes the assessment relevant to anyone reflecting on repeated habits, choices, or motivations rather than a single incident.

Used as a psychological maturity test, it produces a profile rather than a pass-or-fail judgment. One reader may show stronger emotional control but weaker work drive; another may show independence alongside limited reflection. The overall result summarizes the direction and intensity of infantile traits across the measured areas, while separate dimensions show where the pattern is most pronounced. Scores are most useful when read together with the situations that prompted the respondent to take the questionnaire.

Methodology and Scientific Basis

Its infantilism questionnaire format uses four yes-to-no options; scores use bands; answer values are unspecified.

The result bands are:

Underdeveloped Coping Behavior (0-18) and Behavioral Disorganization (0-15) measure coping, conduct: Well-developed coping 0-6; Moderately limited coping 7-12; Highly limited coping 13-18; Organized 0-5; Mixed 6-10; Disorganized 11-15.
Dependent Attitude (0-27), Poor Reflection (0-18), and Orientation Toward Entertainment and Hedonism (0-12) measure reliance, reflection, pleasure: Low dependency 0-9; Moderate dependency 10-18; High dependency 19-27; Developed reflection 0-6; Moderate reflection difficulties 7-12; Weak reflection 13-18; Restrained 0-4; Balanced 5-8; Hedonistic 9-12.
Predominance of Material Values (0-21), Lack of Work Motivation (0-12), Emotional-Volitional Immaturity (0-21), and Overall Infantilism Level (0-144) measure material, work, self-regulation, severity: Low material focus 0-7; Balanced/Mixed focus 8-14; High material focus 15-21; High motivation 0-4; Mixed motivation 5-8; Low motivation 9-12; Mature/Stabile 0-7; Mixed Control 8-14; Marked Immaturity 15-21; Low 0-60; Moderate 61-90; High 91-144.

Seregina (2006) is closest; Seregina (2007) and Podolskaya and Utenkov (2018) add diagnostic/educational context. It is conceptually consistent, not directly adapted; bands lack population norms, and self-report varies.

Author: Erik H. Erikson

Literature:

Seregina, Anna Alexandrovna. Social-Psychological Conditions for Overcoming Infantilism in Unemployed Youth. PhD dissertation, Russian State Social University, Moscow, 2006.
Seregina, Anna Alexandrovna. Psychological Diagnostic and Correctional Work for Overcoming Infantilism in Young People. Bulletin of Psychosocial and Correctional-Rehabilitation Work, no. 4, 2007, pp. 36-71.
Podolskaya, Tatiana A., and Aleksey V. Utenkov. Detecting and Overcoming Infantilism in Students at Teachers Colleges. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art, 11(1), 2018, pp. 84-94. 10.11621/pir.2018.0107

Updated: 2025-10-02