Interaction Position Questionnaire Test

People who want to understand how they handle disagreement, influence, dependence, or cooperation may find the Interaction Position Questionnaire Test useful as a structured self-reflection tool. The questionnaire examines interpersonal interaction and is intended for people examining their usual responses when personal interests meet another person’s needs or pressure. The result highlights interaction tendencies, helping readers consider where they withdraw, cooperate, persuade, or impose rather than reducing them to a single label.

What the Questionnaire Measures

When conflict, dependence, competing interests, or pressure arise, as a test of interaction positions, it focuses on responses a person chooses. The items cover patience, withdrawal, helping, compromise, anger control, deception, pressure, intimidation, and directing others. It concerns patterns, not isolated events. The four dimensions are:

• Non-Intervention Position (0-10): higher scores indicate low activity, resignation, acceptance of circumstances, and avoidance; Low 0-4, Moderate 5-6, High 7-10.
• Nonviolence Position (0-10): higher scores indicate consideration of others’ interests and preference for cooperation, helping, compromise, forgiveness, and non-harmful actions; Low 0-4, Moderate 5-6, High 7-10.
• Manipulative Position (0-10): higher scores indicate preference for flattery, deception, bribery, intimidation, indirect pressure, and appeals to authority; Low 0-4, Moderate 5-6, High 7-10.
• Coercive Position (0-10): higher scores indicate disregard for others’ interests and preference for pressure, demands, threats, and aggression; Low 0-4, Moderate 5-6, High 7-10.

Methodology and Evidence Base

The items use ordered self-report choices, including Often, Sometimes, Rarely, and Never, as well as agreement options such as Strongly agree, Mostly agree, Agree and disagree equally, and Disagree. The respondent reports frequency or agreement, not a right answer. This interaction style questionnaire uses that format to capture habitual preferences.

The scoring presentation displays results on four separate 0-10 scales with their stated bands. Because the questionnaire does not specify each response’s point value, those ranges cannot reconstruct a scoring formula or serve as population norms.

Its evidence base is conceptually consistent with the Interaction Position Questionnaire described by Maralov and Sitarov in 2018. Maralov and Sitarov’s 2017 work frames coercion and nonviolence as contrasting value-expressive positions, while a 2024 study by Maralov, Kudaka, and Smirnova examines interaction-position choices alongside Dark Triad and Light Triad traits. These sources support the framework, but do not establish identical items, norms, reliability, or validation for this online version.

Self-report results can shift with circumstances, self-awareness, and the wish to appear socially acceptable, so the profile supports reflection rather than diagnosis.