Moral Disengagement Scale (MD-8) Test

Understand how people justify unethical actions and feel less guilt in about 2 minutes. Eight quick items pinpoint key rationalizations to predict risk and guide focused support.

Start Online Test

Questions: 82 minutes

Hi! My name is Freudly, i am an AI therapist, I will give you an interpretation of the test after you complete it.

08:30

October 2, 2025

October 2, 2025
Material has been updated

October 2, 2025
Material has been published

14642 views

1396 completions

1200 likes

Scale Explorer

How the Scales are Structured

example score

5/7

Moral Disengagement of Responsibility (MDoR)

Measures the degree to which a person distances themselves from moral responsibility by using justifications that reduce guilt for harmful actions.

Low alienation

Moderate alienation

High alienation

1 – 1.9: Low alienation | 2 – 3.6: Moderate alienation | 3.7 – 7: High alienation

A score of 5 falls in the High alienation range, suggesting frequent use of cognitive justifications that shift or diffuse moral responsibility and make unethical behavior feel more acceptable.

example score

5/7

Attribution of Blame (AoB)

Measures the tendency to shift responsibility for harmful actions onto the victim as a way to justify one’s own behavior.

Low

Moderate

High

1 – 2: Low | 3 – 5: Moderate | 6 – 7: High

A score of 5 indicates a moderate tendency to attribute blame to the victim, suggesting situational use of this justification when explaining negative actions.

example score

4/7

Dehumanization (D)

Measures the extent to which a person downplays others' humanity, making harmful actions feel more justifiable.

Low

Moderate

High

1 – 2.9: Low | 3 – 5: Moderate | 5.1 – 7: High

A score of 4 falls in the Moderate range, suggesting an occasional tendency to view targets as less fully human in ways that can reduce moral discomfort about harm.

example score

4/7

Distortion of Consequences (DoC)

Measures the tendency to deny, downplay, or reframe the harm and impact caused by one’s actions.

Low minimization

Moderate minimization

High minimization

1 – 2: Low minimization | 3 – 5: Moderate minimization | 6 – 7: High minimization

A score of 4 suggests a moderate tendency to reduce feelings of responsibility by viewing harmful outcomes as limited, less serious, or offset by perceived benefits.

example score

4/7

Diffusion of Responsibility (DoR)

Measures the extent to which a person reduces personal accountability by spreading blame for harmful actions across a group.

Low

Moderate

High

1 – 2: Low | 3 – 5: Moderate | 6 – 7: High

A score of 4 indicates a moderate tendency to view wrongdoing as shared responsibility, which can soften feelings of personal accountability in group situations.

example score

4/7

Displacement of Responsibility (DoR)

Measures the tendency to attribute one’s harmful actions to authorities, others, or circumstances rather than personal choice.

Low

Moderate

High

1 – 2: Low | 3 – 5: Moderate | 6 – 7: High

A score of 4 suggests a moderate tendency to shift responsibility, meaning accountability may sometimes be externalized to reduce personal blame.

example score

3/7

Advantageous Comparison (AC)

Measures the tendency to justify one’s own questionable actions by comparing them to worse behavior to make them seem less harmful.

Low use

Moderate use

High use

1 – 2: Low use | 3 – 5: Moderate use | 6 – 7: High use

A score of 3 indicates a moderate tendency to downplay questionable actions by viewing them as relatively minor compared with more extreme wrongdoing.

example score

5/7

Euphemistic Labeling (EL)

Measures the tendency to use softened or neutral wording to reduce the perceived moral weight of harmful actions.

Low

Moderate

High

1 – 2: Low | 3 – 5: Moderate | 6 – 7: High

A score of 5 suggests a moderate tendency to frame questionable actions in sanitized terms, which can make them feel less troubling or easier to justify.

example score

3/7

Moral Justification (MJ)

Measures how strongly a person frames questionable actions as serving a moral, social, or economic good to reduce personal responsibility.

Low justification

Moderate justification

High justification

1 – 2: Low justification | 3 – 5: Moderate justification | 6 – 7: High justification

A score of 3 suggests a moderate tendency to use “greater good” reasoning at times to make harmful or unfair actions feel more acceptable.

Start Online Test

just completed the test

DATA-BASED USER COHORTS

Who Usually Takes This Test?

Managers and team leads

41%OF USERS

They take it to spot rationalizations that can lead to rule-bending, harmful decisions, or toxic leadership in high-pressure work settings.

Therapists and coaches

34%OF USERS

They use it to identify a client’s go-to justifications for hurting others or breaking norms and to plan targeted behavior change.

Ethics and compliance learners

25%OF USERS

They take it to understand how people talk themselves into unethical acts and to reflect on their own risk situations.

BASED ON AGGREGATED, ANONYMIZED DATA FROM TENS OF THOUSANDS OF FREUDLY USERS.

RESULTS YOU CAN ACTUALLY USE

What You’ll See After You Finish the Test

Scale Results
— Explained Clearly

Your scores across each test scale, translated into plain, usable insights. Not just numbers, but what they actually mean for your daily life, emotional state, and overall well-being.

AI-Powered
Interpretation

A structured, clinically grounded explanation. Our AI analyzes patterns and relationships between scales to provide a coherent interpretation — without alarmist language.

Statistical
Comparison

See how you compare to others. Your scores are placed in a statistical context, showing percentiles and trends based on anonymized platform data to help you understand what`s typical.

Practical
Recommendations

Actionable guidance tailored to your profile. Receive clear, realistic suggestions you can apply immediately — focused on coping, self-regulation, and realistic next steps.

AI-Detected
Insights

Key patterns you might not notice on your own. Surfacing subtle connections in your responses that help you better understand what may be driving your current results.

Discuss with
an AI Psychologist

Clarify, reflect, and explore right away. Talk through your outcomes, ask questions, and explore meanings in a calm, non-diagnostic dialogue environment.

Start Online Test

Used in 52+ countries

Benchmarking

See How You Compare

Once you finish the test, your results will be compared with real-world data from people in your country.
Below is a preview of the benchmarks we use to place your score in context.

Scale of Moral Responsibility Alienation (SoMRA)

Average

5.2

Normal range

4.4 — 6

min.

max.

majority

This curve shows how scores are typically distributed.
Once you complete the test, your result will appear here so you can see where you land.

Attribution of blame (Aob)

Average

3.2

Normal range

2.1 — 4.3

min.

max.

majority

This curve shows how scores are typically distributed.
Once you complete the test, your result will appear here so you can see where you land.

Dehumanization (D)

Average

3.6

Normal range

2.8 — 4.4

min.

max.

majority

This curve shows how scores are typically distributed.
Once you complete the test, your result will appear here so you can see where you land.

Distortion of consequences (Doc)

Average

3.3

Normal range

2.5 — 4

min.

max.

majority

This curve shows how scores are typically distributed.
Once you complete the test, your result will appear here so you can see where you land.

Diffusion of Responsibility (DoR)

Average

Normal range

3.9 — 6.1

min.

max.

majority

This curve shows how scores are typically distributed.
Once you complete the test, your result will appear here so you can see where you land.

Shifting Responsibility (SR)

Average

3.3

Normal range

2.4 — 4.2

min.

max.

majority

This curve shows how scores are typically distributed.
Once you complete the test, your result will appear here so you can see where you land.

A Beneficial Comparison (ABC)

Average

3.2

Normal range

2.4 — 4

min.

max.

majority

This curve shows how scores are typically distributed.
Once you complete the test, your result will appear here so you can see where you land.

Euphemistic Label (EL)

Average

4.8

Normal range

3.8 — 5.8

min.

max.

majority

This curve shows how scores are typically distributed.
Once you complete the test, your result will appear here so you can see where you land.

Moral justification (Mj)

Average

5.1

Normal range

4.2 — 6

min.

max.

majority

This curve shows how scores are typically distributed.
Once you complete the test, your result will appear here so you can see where you land.

Start Online Test

Featured On

Rated 4.8/5 by Our Customers

“Freudly really helped me discover parts of my personality I hadn’t noticed before. It strengthened the areas where I needed to grow and made me feel more grounded and confident in the parts that already worked well.”

— Emma C., US

“I wanted to understand how serious my ADHD is, and now I finally do. I also realized I need to work on my self-esteem. It has been low for a long time, and that makes daily life harder than it should be.”

— Mateo R., CA

“Reading each question felt like someone really understood me. Even though I’ve already dealt with much of this, reflecting still helped me learn something new about myself.”

— Caroline F., US

“The process is simple. The test covers everything you need, and you’ll get a clear breakdown of your results. For just a few dollars, it’s a great value.”

— Klara N., CZ

“I kept thinking there might be a small chance, but now I know for sure. The questions were easy to understand, and the whole process was straightforward.”

— Bruno M., BR

“I really enjoyed this experience. I learned a lot, and it helped me make sense of my thoughts and the feeling I’ve had for a long time that I may have grown up with undiagnosed ADHD.”

— Alice B., FR

“Great platform — the insights were genuinely meaningful!”

— Daniel W., DE

“Everything was easy to follow. The tools you get at the end are genuinely helpful for self-growth, and the price is very reasonable. I really appreciate that.”

— Sofia M., ES

“Surprisingly accurate — honestly didn’t expect it to nail things so well.”

— Adir B., IL

“There are lots of different tests to pick from, and the price is surprisingly low for how much insight you get.”

— Olivia W., CA

“I was pleasantly surprised when I read the results. It was as if someone had sorted out my messy thoughts and given me useful tips to help me speak with more confidence.”

— Grace O., IE

“It was really solid, very detailed, and it actually helped me make sense of a lot of things.”

— Carla T., TT

“I was really impressed with the report. It was clear, thoughtful, and it reflected things I’ve been noticing about myself.”

— Jade H., US

“The questions made me think deeply and helped me become more self-aware.”

— Brooke S., US

“Reading through most of the questions made me feel understood. Although I’ve already worked through some of these issues, the questions still gave me useful insights and helped me learn more about myself.”

— Ryan M., US

“I usually take one or two tests each month, and this has become a good way for me to see how I’m doing.”

— Lucas W., US

“Most of the time, my results are in the 90 to 98th percentile compared to others. It really makes me feel like there’s something unique about me.”

— Ethan C., US

“I tried out some of the AI’s suggestions, and to be honest, they worked much better than I thought they would. Maybe this thing really is smarter than me.”

— Reece D., AU

Trusted by 22k+ Users Worldwide

CLEAR ANSWERS TO COMMON QUESTIONS

Frequently Asked Questions

Any questions left?

What does this questionnaire measure?

It measures common cognitive justifications that reduce guilt and weaken self-control around harmful or unethical behavior. It summarizes how often these justifications are endorsed.

How is it structured?

It includes eight statements, each reflecting a different moral disengagement mechanism. Responses are combined to estimate overall endorsement and highlight which mechanisms are most prominent.

How should items be answered?

Select the response that best reflects typical beliefs or reactions, not what seems socially acceptable. Answer based on usual patterns rather than a single unusual event.

How should the results be interpreted?

Higher scores suggest greater use of justifications that can enable rule-breaking, manipulation, or harm without guilt. Results are indicators and should be interpreted alongside other information and context.

Is it a diagnostic tool?

No, it does not diagnose a mental disorder or determine intent. It is a brief screening measure for research or clinical formulation.

WHAT THE TEST MEASURES

About This Assessment

Moral Disengagement Scale (MD-8) Test

moral

This brief self-report measure is designed to assess cognitive mechanisms that can reduce moral self-sanction and facilitate justification of harmful or unethical behavior. The Moral Disengagement Scale (MD-8) focuses on common patterns of reasoning that may minimize perceived responsibility, downplay harm, or shift blame.

It consists of 8 items and typically takes about 2 minutes to complete. Responses can be used to summarize the degree to which an individual endorses moral disengagement strategies, supporting clinical formulation or research when interpreted in context and alongside other sources of information. The Moral Disengagement Scale (MD-8) is not a stand-alone indicator of behavior or intent and should be considered within the broader psychosocial and situational factors relevant to the respondent.

Author: albert-bandura

Literature: Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1996.

Test Question Form