What State Am I Quiz

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
- Strongly disagree
- Disagree
- Not sure
- Agree
- Strongly disagree
- Disagree
- Not sure
- Agree
- Strongly disagree
- Disagree
- Not sure
- Agree
What State Am I Quiz - Description and methodology of the test
For people deciding whether a region’s everyday character would suit them, the What State Am I Quiz turns preferences about weather, scenery, food, social energy, and pace into a profile of environmental, cultural, and lifestyle preferences. The resulting state preference profile helps readers compare the kinds of places they may prefer, from regional atmosphere to everyday routines. It supports reflection rather than prescribing a move.
What This Assessment Explores
This assessment reads state fit as a preference pattern, not a fixed personality label. Its items cover climate, landscapes, culture, social energy, and everyday pace.
The three dimensions are:
- Climate & Outdoors Fit (0-20) measures preference for cool, forested, mountainous settings versus warm, sunny, water-and-beach settings; bands are Cool & Mountain Leaning (0-6), Balanced Seasons (7-13), and Warm & Sunny Leaning (14-20).
- Culture & Flavor Index (0-20) measures traditional, low-key tastes versus bold, experimental, high-energy ones; bands are Grounded & Traditional (0-7), Balanced & Exploratory (8-14), and Bold & Trend-Forward (15-20).
- Urban-Rural Vibe (0-20) measures a slower, nature-centered routine versus faster urban life with nightlife and amenities; bands are Rural-leaning (0-6), Balanced mix (7-13), and Urban-leaning (14-20).
Readers can use this regional lifestyle quiz to compare regional climate, cultural, and urban-rural characteristics across the kinds of places reflected in their profile.
Methodology and Evidence Base
Methodologically, this is a self-report questionnaire built from short lifestyle statements. Each uses four options-Strongly disagree, Disagree, Not sure, or Agree-so respondents can show direction and uncertainty without explaining every choice. Results are reported on the three displayed indices.
It examines state lifestyle preferences through environmental and cultural fit, including climate, setting, social pace, and regional expression. Its approach is closest to Rentfrow et al. (2008), which links geographic settings, regional cultures, and psychological characteristics. Rentfrow (2010) applies this perspective to U.S. states. Götz et al. (2018) illustrates person-environment fit in regional culture, while Elleman et al. (2018) examines the stability of state-level personality patterns over time.
These studies provide conceptual context, not the questionnaire’s norms or scoring key. The result bands are this assessment’s interpretive categories, so they describe tendencies rather than population rankings. Those studies contextualize the themes; this questionnaire’s bands remain its own preference categories. Because online self-report is affected by current mood, memory, and self-perception, results may change with circumstances and are best read as a preference profile.
- Rentfrow, P. J., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2008). A theory of the emergence, persistence, and expression of geographic variation in psychological characteristics. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(5), 339-369. 10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00084.x
- Rentfrow, P. J. (2010). Statewide differences in personality: Toward a psychological geography of the United States. American Psychologist, 65(6), 548-558. 10.1037/a0018194
- Götz, F. M., Ebert, T., & Rentfrow, P. J. (2018). Regional cultures and the psychological geography of Switzerland: Person-environment-fit in personality predicts subjective wellbeing. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 517. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00517
- Elleman, L. G., Condon, D. M., Russin, S. E., & Revelle, W. (2018). The personality of U.S. states: Stability from 1999 to 2015. Journal of Research in Personality, 72, 64-72. 10.1016/j.jrp.2016.06.022
Updated: