Appendix E: Self-Assessment Instruments

A word before you begin: the instruments collected here are tools for thinking, not verdicts about your character. Psychology scales are designed for research purposes — they describe statistical tendencies across populations, and no single questionnaire can capture the full complexity of who you are. What these instruments can do is offer a structured occasion to reflect on patterns you may already sense in yourself. Use them the way you would use a good conversation: openly, with curiosity, and without treating the output as fixed.

None of these instruments should be used as clinical diagnoses. If any of the content below touches something painful — particularly in sections on rejection sensitivity or objectification — please reach out to a counselor, therapist, or trusted support person. Self-knowledge is valuable. Professional support is irreplaceable.

Instrument 1: Experiences in Close Relationships — Revised (ECR-R)

What it measures: Adult attachment style — specifically, the two dimensions of attachment anxiety (fear of abandonment and preoccupation with relationships) and attachment avoidance (discomfort with closeness and emotional dependency). Your placement on these two dimensions describes how you typically approach intimacy. Neither high anxiety nor high avoidance is a "bad result" — they are patterns shaped by your history, and patterns can change.

Connected chapter: Chapter 11 (Attachment Theory and Adult Relationships)

Background: The ECR-R was developed by Fraley, Waller, and Brennan (2000) as a refinement of the original Experiences in Close Relationships scale. It is one of the most widely used self-report attachment measures in adult relationship research. The version below uses paraphrased items for educational use. If you want to take the original validated version, it is freely available at www.yourpersonality.net.

Instructions: Think about how you generally experience romantic relationships — not just a current relationship, but your typical pattern across close romantic partnerships. Rate each item on a scale of 1 to 7:

1 = Disagree strongly | 2 = Disagree | 3 = Disagree somewhat | 4 = Neither agree nor disagree | 5 = Agree somewhat | 6 = Agree | 7 = Agree strongly

Anxiety Subscale (18 items)

1. I worry a lot about whether my romantic partner really cares about me.
2. I get anxious when a partner doesn't reassure me of their feelings often enough.
3. I find myself constantly thinking about my romantic relationships.
4. I worry that partners will leave me.
5. My desire for closeness sometimes pushes people away.
6. I am afraid of being alone.
7. I get frustrated when a partner isn't as available as I want them to be.
8. I worry that I don't measure up to other people my partner might be attracted to.
9. When my partner is away, I worry that they might become interested in someone else.
10. When I show my feelings, I'm afraid my partner won't feel the same way.
11. I need a lot of reassurance that I am loved.
12. Sometimes I feel like I need to force my partner to show they care.
13. I do not often worry about being abandoned. (reverse score)
14. I find that my partner doesn't want to get as close as I would like.
15. I get upset when partners spend time away from me.
16. When my partner seems to pull away, I feel panicky.
17. I worry that I won't measure up.
18. I find it easy to be emotionally close to partners when I feel secure. (reverse score)

Avoidance Subscale (18 items)

19. I prefer not to show partners how I feel deep down.
20. I feel uncomfortable sharing my feelings with romantic partners.
21. I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on romantic partners.
22. I prefer not to be too close with partners.
23. I get uncomfortable when a partner wants to be very close.
24. I find it relatively easy to become emotionally close to partners. (reverse score)
25. I try to avoid being too intimate with partners.
26. I am not comfortable opening up to partners.
27. I prefer to keep my feelings to myself.
28. When partners try to get very close, I feel uncomfortable.
29. I am somewhat uncomfortable being depended on by others.
30. I don't mind asking romantic partners for comfort and support. (reverse score)
31. I'm comfortable with my partner depending on me. (reverse score)
32. It is easy for me to feel warm and caring toward my partner. (reverse score)
33. I don't feel comfortable depending on romantic partners.
34. I find it easy to be affectionate with my partner. (reverse score)
35. It's not difficult for me to get close to partners. (reverse score)
36. I feel that my partner accepts me even with my flaws. (reverse score)

Scoring Instructions:

1. Reverse-score the items marked (reverse score): subtract your rating from 8. So a 7 becomes a 1, a 6 becomes a 2, a 5 becomes a 3, and so on.
2. Anxiety subscale score: Calculate the mean (average) of your ratings for items 1–18 (after reverse-scoring items 13 and 18).
3. Avoidance subscale score: Calculate the mean of your ratings for items 19–36 (after reverse-scoring items 24, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, and 36).
4. Both subscale scores range from 1 to 7.

Interpreting Your Scores:

The two-dimensional model places people in a two-by-two space. These quadrant descriptions are generalizations — real people are far more nuanced.

⚠️ Critical Caveat: These categories are conveniences, not containers. Attachment styles can vary by relationship partner, life circumstances, and personal growth. Research shows attachment patterns are modestly to moderately stable over time — but they are not fixed. Therapy, particularly approaches informed by attachment theory, has strong evidence for shifting anxious and avoidant patterns toward greater security.

Instrument 2: Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire (RSQ) — Simplified Version

What it measures: Rejection sensitivity is the tendency to anxiously expect, readily perceive, and over-react to rejection from others. Developed by Geraldine Downey and Scott Feldman at Columbia University, the RSQ captures both how anxious you feel about rejection in specific situations and how likely you expect rejection to be. High rejection sensitivity is associated with poorer relationship outcomes, heightened conflict reactivity, and, in some studies, stalking and intimate partner violence perpetration.

Connected chapter: Chapter 14 (The Psychology of Rejection)

Instructions: Below are 18 social situations involving a request of someone close to you. For each situation, rate:

• Part A: How anxious or concerned would you feel about making this request? (1 = very unconcerned, 6 = very concerned)
• Part B: How likely do you think the person would be to grant your request? (1 = very unlikely, 6 = very likely)

Situations:

1. You ask a romantic partner if they love you.
2. You ask a friend if they want to spend time with you.
3. You express your opinion in a group and wait to see whether others agree.
4. You ask someone you are interested in to go on a date.
5. You ask a close friend to help you move to a new apartment.
6. You ask a family member for emotional support during a hard time.
7. You ask your partner if they are still attracted to you.
8. You ask a friend if they like your new look.
9. You tell someone you have romantic feelings for them.
10. You ask a classmate to study with you.
11. You suggest a new idea at work or in class and wait for a reaction.
12. You reach out to reconnect with a friend you have drifted from.
13. You ask your partner to spend more quality time with you.
14. You ask a friend to keep a secret for you.
15. You ask your partner how they feel about your future together.
16. You ask a new acquaintance if they want to become better friends.
17. You call a family member and ask to talk about your problems.
18. You ask someone you find attractive if they would like to exchange numbers.

Scoring Instructions:

The RSQ scoring is somewhat technical in its validated form. For educational reflection, use this simplified approach:

1. For each situation, multiply your anxiety rating (Part A) by a weight derived from your expectancy rating (Part B). Specifically: if Part B is low (you expect rejection), your anxiety matters more; if Part B is high (you expect acceptance), your anxiety matters less. In the original scoring, this involves formula manipulation — here, simply note the situations where you feel both high anxiety and expect rejection.

2. Simplified self-reflection score: Sum your Part A (anxiety) ratings across all 18 items. Scores on this simplified sum range from 18 to 108.

• 18–45: Low rejection sensitivity. You generally approach social requests without significant fear of rejection.
• 46–72: Moderate rejection sensitivity. Some situations trigger anxiety about rejection, particularly in romantic contexts.
• 73–108: High rejection sensitivity. You experience significant anxiety around requests for connection and may preemptively withdraw to avoid possible rejection.

Interpreting Your Score:

Rejection sensitivity exists on a continuum. High scores do not indicate a character flaw — they often reflect adaptive responses to environments where rejection was genuinely common or painful. The important question is: When does this sensitivity protect you, and when does it cause you to misread situations or respond in ways that hurt your relationships?

Downey and Feldman's research found that high-RS individuals often created the rejections they feared through preemptive hostility or withdrawal — a self-fulfilling prophecy that can be interrupted once recognized. Chapter 14 discusses cognitive retraining approaches and attachment-informed therapy as evidence-based pathways to reducing RS-related harm.

⚠️ Critical Caveat: This simplified version is not a validated clinical instrument. The original RSQ is available through Dr. Downey's lab and should be used for any research purposes. High scores on this self-reflection exercise should prompt curiosity, not alarm.

Instrument 3: Self-Objectification Scale — Simplified Version

What it measures: Self-objectification is the internalization of an observer's perspective on one's own body — attending to appearance rather than competence, feeling, or function. Barbara Fredrickson and Tomi-Ann Roberts introduced objectification theory in 1997. This simplified scale assesses the degree to which you prioritize appearance-based attributes over competence-based attributes when thinking about your own body.

Connected chapter: Chapter 31 (Objectification and the Male Gaze)

Instructions: Below are 10 body attributes. Rank them from 1 (most important) to 10 (least important) in terms of how important each attribute feels to how you evaluate yourself as a person. There are no "right" answers — only honest ones.

Body Attributes: - Physical attractiveness (how attractive you appear to others) - Physical health (how healthy your body is) - Weight (how much you weigh, whether it is "ideal") - Physical strength (how physically capable and strong you are) - Physical coordination (how graceful and coordinated your movement is) - Sex appeal (how sexually desirable you appear to others) - Physical fitness level (cardiovascular fitness, endurance) - Physical energy (how much energy you have day-to-day) - Measurement/shape (whether your body proportions match cultural ideals) - Body competence in activities (how well your body performs tasks you care about)

Scoring Instructions:

1. Identify the appearance-based attributes from your list: physical attractiveness, weight, sex appeal, and measurement/shape.
2. Calculate the average rank you assigned to these four appearance-based items.
3. Calculate the average rank you assigned to the six competence-based attributes: health, strength, coordination, fitness, energy, and body competence.
4. Subtract the appearance average from the competence average. Call this your Self-Objectification Index (SOI).

• Positive SOI (+1 to +9): You tend to prioritize competence-based attributes over appearance — lower self-objectification.
• SOI near 0 (−1 to +1): Roughly equal weighting of appearance and competence.
• Negative SOI (−2 to −9): You tend to prioritize appearance-based attributes — higher self-objectification.

Interpreting Your Score:

Fredrickson and Roberts's research (and many subsequent studies) found that women, on average, score higher on self-objectification than men — a pattern they attribute to cultural environments that persistently evaluate women's bodies as objects for visual consumption. High self-objectification has been linked to body shame, depression, eating disorders, and reduced "flow" states in cognitive tasks. However, the relationship is not deterministic: self-objectification is responsive to context, and interventions focused on body functionality and media literacy show modest effects.

Importantly, self-objectification is not a personal failing — it is a response to cultural messaging. The point of identifying it is not shame, but awareness.

⚠️ Critical Caveat: This simplified version uses a ranking approach adapted for educational use. The full validated Self-Objectification Questionnaire (Noll & Fredrickson, 1998) includes a forced-choice between pairs of attributes. This educational version captures the concept but does not have the same psychometric properties.

Instrument 4: Relationship Goal Inventory (RGI)

What it measures: Your current motivational orientation toward romantic and sexual relationships — specifically, where you fall on the continuum between primarily wanting casual, short-term connections and primarily wanting committed, long-term partnership. This instrument was developed for this textbook and is not a validated research scale; it is intended for structured self-reflection rather than research use.

Connected chapters: Chapters 36 (Hookup Culture) and 37 (Love, Attachment, and Long-Term Relationships)

Instructions: Rate each statement on a scale of 1 to 5:

1 = Not at all like me | 2 = Slightly like me | 3 = Somewhat like me | 4 = Mostly like me | 5 = Very much like me

Items:

1. I am primarily interested in romantic connections that could lead to long-term commitment.
2. I enjoy sexual and romantic experiences without necessarily wanting them to become serious.
3. When I meet someone attractive, I typically find myself thinking about potential for a future together.
4. I value the freedom to explore connection with multiple people rather than committing to one person.
5. The idea of building a shared life with a partner is important to me.
6. I feel uncomfortable when a partner seems to want more commitment than I currently want to offer.
7. I find myself hoping that someone I am seeing will become a long-term partner.
8. I think it is reasonable to engage in casual sexual relationships without the expectation of commitment.
9. Emotional intimacy and deep partnership are what I am most seeking from romantic connections right now.
10. I would describe my ideal relationship situation right now as non-exclusive or open.
11. I feel most fulfilled in my romantic life when I am in a stable, committed relationship.
12. At this stage of my life, I prioritize independence over the responsibilities of committed partnership.

Scoring Instructions:

1. Committed-Orientation Score: Sum items 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11. Scores range from 6–30.
2. Casual-Orientation Score: Sum items 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12. Scores range from 6–30.

You will have two scores. Most people score somewhat on both — human desire is rarely either/or.

Interpreting Your Scores:

The key word in "relationship goal" is current — goals shift across life stages, major transitions, and relationship experiences. Neither casual nor committed orientations are inherently healthier; research consistently shows that alignment between partners matters more than the content of any individual's preference. Mismatched goals are a primary source of relational conflict and harm. Chapter 36 explores the social pressures (campus culture, media, peer norms) that can make people feel their natural preferences are wrong — whether they lean casual or committed.

⚠️ Critical Caveat: Relationship goals exist within social and cultural contexts that reward some preferences and stigmatize others. Women who report casual orientations often face "slut-shaming"; men who report strong committed orientations are sometimes mocked as weak. Your score reflects a preference — not a character judgment — and is worth examining in light of these social pressures.

Instrument 5: Digital Dating Habits Reflection (DDHR)

What it measures: Patterns in your use of dating applications — including behavioral habits, emotional responses, and the degree to which app-mediated dating shapes your self-perception. This instrument was created for this textbook and is not a validated research scale.

Connected chapter: Chapter 20 (Digital Communication and Dating Apps)

Instructions: This is a reflective instrument rather than a scored scale. For each item, rate your agreement (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), but also spend 30–60 seconds writing a sentence or two about your honest response. The score is a launching pad; the written reflection is the point.

Items:

1. I often feel worse about my appearance or desirability after a session on a dating app.
2. I sometimes use dating apps as a form of entertainment or distraction rather than with any serious intention.
3. The number of matches or "likes" I receive significantly affects my mood that day.
4. I have noticed that I present a somewhat idealized version of myself on my dating profile.
5. I feel anxious when I have not checked a dating app in a day or more.
6. I have experienced "swipe fatigue" — feeling emotionally exhausted or numb from excessive swiping.
7. I feel disappointed or frustrated when I match with someone but conversation does not develop.
8. I have been "ghosted" by someone on a dating platform, and it affected me more than I expected.
9. I sometimes swipe right (express interest) without reading profiles carefully, largely based on photos.
10. I have wondered whether using dating apps is making it harder, not easier, to meet people I genuinely connect with.
11. I have compared my match rate or dating app success to that of friends, and felt worse about myself as a result.
12. I have noticed that people of certain races, body types, or backgrounds are systematically underrepresented in my swiping behavior.
13. I think the profiles I see on dating apps give me a reasonably accurate picture of who these people actually are.
14. I find it easier to end a connection by simply not responding than to communicate directly that I am not interested.
15. Overall, my experience with dating apps has been more positive than negative.

Scoring and Reflection Guide:

There is no single composite score for the DDHR — instead, group your responses:

• Items 1, 3, 11 (App use and self-esteem): High scores (4–5) suggest the platform is functioning as a sociometer — feeding or damaging your sense of worth based on algorithmic feedback. Chapter 13's discussion of sociometer theory is directly relevant here.
• Items 2, 5, 6 (Compulsive/habitual use): High scores suggest engagement patterns driven by variable reinforcement schedules rather than genuine pursuit of connection — the same psychological mechanism as slot machines, as Chapter 20 discusses.
• Items 4, 9, 13 (Authenticity and perception): Honest reflection here opens questions about the gap between profile-self and actual-self, and whether you extend the same critical lens to others' profiles.
• Items 7, 8, 14 (Ghosting and digital norms): These items probe the ethical dimensions of digital communication that Chapter 20 addresses at length.
• Items 10, 15 (Overall evaluation): These anchor questions encourage you to assess the platform's net effect on your well-being — something research on app use and loneliness suggests is more negative for high-frequency users than for occasional ones.

Item 12 deserves particular attention as a standalone: racial bias in dating app behavior is one of the most robust and uncomfortable findings in this literature (Chapter 25). Reflection here is not about self-condemnation but about taking seriously the ways that "preference" is always partly constructed by the cultural environment we inhabit.

A Final Note on Self-Assessment:

These five instruments should leave you with more questions than answers — and that is exactly as it should be. The goal of psychological self-assessment in an educational context is not to produce a file on yourself. It is to develop the habit of noticing: noticing patterns, noticing when feelings seem disproportionate, noticing the gap between what you say you want and what your behavior suggests you want. That kind of noticing is the beginning of agency in your relational life. It is, in the deepest sense, what this course is for.

If you find yourself wanting to explore any of these dimensions further, Chapter 41 (Personal Reflection and Growth) provides a structured framework for doing so — and the Further Reading sections throughout the book point toward books and resources that go considerably deeper than any questionnaire can.