Danger and Safety Needs 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
- Yes
- Rather yes than no
- Rather no than yes
- No
- Yes
- Probably yes
- Probably not
- No
- Yes
- Rather yes than no
- Rather no than yes
- No
Danger and Safety Needs Questionnaire Test - Description and methodology of the test
For readers weighing protection, stability, and risk, the Danger and Safety Needs Questionnaire Test offers a focused self-report profile. The result helps you examine your need for safety, your desire to feel protected and stable, and your tendency to seek or avoid dangerous situations. These patterns support practical reflection on everyday choices.
What This Assessment Explores
Three dimensions separate protection, stability, and risk attraction. Questions about safety, risk, precautions, conflict, and change show how these themes relate to the profile. The scales are:
- Need for Safety Assurance (0-10) measures active protection for self and others; higher scores indicate stronger safety control. Bands: Lower need for safety control (0-4), Balanced (5-6), High need for safety control (7-10).
- Need to Experience a Sense of Safety (0-10) measures desire for protection and stability; higher scores indicate stronger safety needs, while lower scores suggest tolerance for uncertainty. Bands: Low need for safety (0-4), Moderate need for safety (5-6), High need for safety (7-10).
- Need to Experience a Sense of Danger (0-10) measures attraction to thrills and risk; higher scores may indicate seeking danger, while lower scores may reflect risk avoidance. Bands: Low (0-4), Moderate (5-6), High (7-10).
Methodology and Scientific Basis
Each statement in this self-report questionnaire uses four ordered response choices, from Yes to No, with two intermediate options expressing a leaning. The items cover precautions, smoothing conflict, preserving stability, weighing consequences, and deliberately creating or welcoming excitement. Responses are summarized across the three dimensions, not as one global score.
The closest source is the questionnaire developed by Maralov and colleagues in 2016. This online questionnaire is conceptually consistent with that work, but is not presented as a validated reproduction or direct adaptation. The 2015 study by Maralov and colleagues contextualizes individual differences in safety-needs structure, while the 2018 study addresses personal psychological safety in interaction. Maslow’s framework supplies the broader view of safety as a human motive.
Interpret the resulting safety and danger profile as a pattern of reported preferences. The response-to-score mapping is not specified; the displayed ranges organize the result without showing how each answer contributes. Current circumstances, self-awareness, and response bias can shape answers, including reported risk-taking tendencies, making the online result a self-report profile rather than a clinical diagnosis.
- Maralov, V. G., Kudaka, M. A., Smirnova, O. V., Perchenko, E. L., & Tabunov, I. A. (2016). Development of a questionnaire test for diagnosing safety needs in people. Scientific Notes of Cherepovets State University, no. 1(5), 12-17.
- Maralov, V. G., Kudaka, M. A., Perchenko, E. L., Smirnova, O. V., & Tabunov, I. A. (2015). Individual-typological features of the structure of safety needs in students. Concept, 13, 2586-2590.
- Maralov, V. G., Fortunatov, A. A., & Shonin, M. Yu. (2018). Interaction positions of students in the context of problems of ensuring personal psychological safety. Knowledge. Understanding. Skill, no. 3, 196-205. 10.17805/zpu.2018.3.18.
- Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Updated: