Everyday Dialogues Questionnaire Test
How the Scales are Structured
Who Usually Takes This Test?
See How You Compare
Below is a preview of how scores are typically distributed across each scale.
Example Questions From the Test
- a) and no one would want to share a desk with him in class;
- b) maybe his parents are poor too;
- c) Gosha is a good person: he is kind and smart.
- a) What, do you want to disgrace your father completely?
- b) In time, you will understand it yourself—and you will thank us later.
- c) If that is your responsible decision, then let’s talk about how promising it is.
- a) Please rule out all non-prestigious professions right away.
- b) I hope I will still have a choice.
- c) That is why I came here.
Everyday Dialogues Questionnaire Test - Description and methodology of the test
People who want to examine their reactions to social difference can use this questionnaire as a focused self-reflection exercise. The Everyday Dialogues Questionnaire Test presents ordinary situations involving status, nationality, religion, gender, poverty, authority, and conflict. This social attitudes test examines tolerance and reactions to interpersonal situations, helping readers notice how they interpret disagreement, vulnerability, responsibility, and social judgment.
What This Assessment Explores
Rather than testing fluency or persuasion, the questionnaire examines whether a chosen reply recognizes dignity, challenges unfair generalizations, or accepts exclusion, punishment, and prejudice. Scenes involve family, education, employment, politics, religion, migration, class, gender, violence, and age differences. As a tolerance assessment, it describes response tendencies in these situations, not fixed character labels.
Three dimensions organize the profile. Together, they show how acceptance relates to less visible and open bias:
- Tolerance (0-21) measures acceptance, respect, and forbearance toward differences; Low tolerance is 0-7, Moderate tolerance is 8-14, and High tolerance is 15-21.
- Covert Intolerance (0-21) measures subtle bias that may influence relationships without being expressed openly; Low is 0-7, Moderate is 8-14, and High is 15-21.
- Overt Intolerance (0-21) measures explicit rejection or prejudice toward people or groups; Low is 0-7, Moderate is 8-14, and High is 15-21.
Methodology and Scientific Basis
Each item presents a brief dialogue in an everyday setting and three possible replies. The alternatives represent different ways of interpreting responsibility, difference, authority, conflict, or vulnerability. Selecting the response that best matches your view produces separate profile dimensions rather than one overall index. As an online social attitudes questionnaire, it produces separate scale profiles but has no specified item-weighting rule or population norms; the displayed bands are descriptive, not norm-referenced classifications.
Its closest conceptual reference is Pochebut’s Everyday Dialogues work, which connects dialogue choices with cross-cultural and ethnic attitudes. Pettigrew and Meertens’ 1995 distinction between subtle and blatant prejudice provides a framework for separating less visible and explicit bias. Clark and Brennan’s 1991 account of grounding in communication helps explain the emphasis on shared understanding during interaction.
The questionnaire is an online self-reflection tool, not a standardized adaptation of a published instrument; these works serve as conceptual reference points. Self-report answers can shift with mood, experience, social desirability, and interpretation of a scene. The profile is most useful for noticing patterns and selecting concrete topics for reflection or discussion.
- Pochebut, L. G. (2017). Cross-Cultural and Ethnic Psychology: A Textbook for Bachelor's and Master's Degree Students (2nd ed., revised and expanded). Moscow: Yurait Publishing House, pp. 295–302. ISBN 978-5-534-03101-0.
- Pettigrew, T. F., & Meertens, R. W. (1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in Western Europe. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25(1), 57–75. 10.1002/ejsp.2420250106.
- Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition (pp. 127–149). American Psychological Association. 10.1037/10096-006.
Updated: