Skip to content after assessment

Assessment loading

If the interactive assessment does not start, you can still read the methodology and evidence below, then try again later.

Browse all assessments

Reading Your Behavioural Hold Pattern

High Performance Culture Habits
Your Behavioural Patterns Reflection
Your Behavioural Patterns Reflection

Reading Your Behavioural Hold Pattern

A 20-scenario self-report that groups your selected answer points across five editorial dimensions. It is not a validated measure of an underlying trait.

20 questions5 groups4 forced choicesno neutral option

Topic context from the cited source; it does not validate this questionnaire or its score thresholds.

— Vafaie & Kober (2022)
What your answers coverCraving IntensityHow often and how strongly urges to engage take hold of you.Tolerance SignalsNeeding more of the behaviour over time to get the same effect.Control MarkersHow reliably you can stop once you've started or as you planned.Withdrawal SensitivityHow much discomfort you feel, physically or emotionally, when you stop.Life-Domain ImpactHow much the behaviour is spilling into your work, relationships, and health.

Addiction Patterns Check: Which Behaviours Have the Strongest Hold on You?

Twenty forced-choice scenarios are summed into editorial answer-score bands; the result does not diagnose or measure an underlying trait.

~8-10 min · Item answers and results stay on this device · Share links and invite cards carry no scores

Answer for what actually happened recently, not your strongest day — honesty here is progress, not failure.

A structured self-reflection — not a diagnostic.

This assessment is a structured self-reflection tool and educational resource — it is not a validated diagnostic and is not a substitute for clinical evaluation. Every dimension insight references peer-reviewed literature for educational context only. If you have concerns about your health, consult a qualified professional. Self-report instruments of this kind have no validated retest interval; the four-to-six-week Second Reading is a sensible practice, not a clinical standard.

Welcome back — you have a profile in progress.

Your profile

0 / 

Profile

Dimension profile

The Reading

Strongest dimension

Learn more →
Open the full dossier

Dimension log

This assessment is a structured self-reflection tool and educational resource — it is not a validated diagnostic and is not a substitute for clinical evaluation. Every dimension insight references peer-reviewed literature for educational context only. If you have concerns about your health, consult a qualified professional.

Your answers

Appendix · Method & evidence Habits · Case file

How this instrument works

This is a 20-item structured self-assessment of your behavioural hold pattern, read across 5 dimensions: Craving Intensity; Tolerance Signals; Control Markers; Withdrawal Sensitivity; and Life-Domain Impact. Each item is a concrete scenario with four forced-choice responses — no neutral midpoint, so every answer commits to a direction — and response order is shuffled on every run to vary position; this implementation has not been tested for bias reduction. 5 of the 20 items are reverse-keyed — the attractive-sounding response is the structurally weak one — with wording intended to challenge socially desirable framing; this design has not been tested for bias reduction.

Scoring combines an overall reading with a per-dimension profile. Cascade flags compare configured dimension totals with editorial thresholds. They do not establish a compound risk and may not reflect the item-level pattern. The result bands are editorial guidance, not clinical thresholds: they organise the reading, they do not describe.

Every dimension insight cites peer-reviewed literature, and most answer reveals do — 5 sources back this instrument, each with DOI metadata supplied at build time; source relevance and claim interpretation remain editorial judgments. Compiled by the High Performance Culture editorial team. Instrument v1.1 · August 2026.

Items
20
Dimensions
5
Format
Forced choice, 4 options
Sources
5
Instrument
v1.1 · August 2026

The 5 editorial answer groups

Craving Intensity

Strength here looks like noticing urges briefly and moving on without significant disruption, with few situational triggers producing a persistent pull.

The vulnerable pattern: frequent, intense urges that are reliably triggered by everyday situations and linger long enough to compete with other priorities.

Sample itemHow often do you notice a strong urge or pull to engage in the behaviour — whether using a substance, scrolling, gambling, eating, or something else?

First structural move: When an urge arises, name it, give it a time estimate, and observe it without acting — labelling and waiting interrupts the automatic pull and returns the choice to you.

Go deeperDeep dive: The reward prediction error math →Glossary: Craving →Glossary: Dopamine pathway →

Tolerance Signals

Strength here looks like needing roughly the same amount as when you started, with a sustained sense of reward and no noticeable escalation trajectory.

The vulnerable pattern: needing progressively more to achieve the same effect, with diminishing pleasure alongside persistent urges — the wanting and liking systems diverging.

Sample itemCompared to when you started, how much of the behaviour or substance do you now need to achieve a similar effect?

First structural move: Compare your current level to where you started, not just to yesterday. A clear upward trajectory over months is the most informative signal — and gives you an honest baseline to work from.

Go deeperGlossary: Tolerance →Glossary: Reward prediction error →

Control Markers

Strength here looks like generally stopping when you intend to and not needing repeated attempts to cut back, with deliberate resistance working reliably most of the time.

The vulnerable pattern: regularly going beyond what you planned despite advance intentions, and returning to the same or higher levels after multiple genuine attempts to cut back.

Sample itemWhen you start engaging in the behaviour, how do you typically handle the question of when to stop?

First structural move: Set limits before you begin, not in the moment — and use external commitments (timer, environment change, another person) rather than in-the-moment willpower, which is less reliable once the pull is active.

Go deeperProtocol: The Discipline Protocol →Glossary: Self-control →Glossary: Ego depletion →

Withdrawal Sensitivity

Strength here looks like little or no noticeable discomfort when stopping, with mood and physical state largely unchanged by the absence of the behaviour.

The vulnerable pattern: noticeable physical or emotional discomfort when stopping, consistent relief on return, and the behaviour increasingly functioning as a relief mechanism rather than a source of pleasure.

Sample itemWhen you go without the behaviour for a day or more, how do you typically feel?

First structural move: Log what you notice when you stop — irritability, restlessness, sleep disruption, mood dip. Naming the pattern is the first step. If discomfort is strong or if you use a substance, speak to your GP before making abrupt changes.

Go deeperProtocol: The Breaking Addiction Protocol →Glossary: Withdrawal syndrome →

Life-Domain Impact

Strength here looks like the behaviour causing little or no disruption to work, relationships, health, or the amount of time and attention available for other valued activities.

The vulnerable pattern: repeated performance dips, relational strain, health effects, and significant time displacement — the behaviour having expanded into domains that matter and that you would not willingly sacrifice.

Sample itemHow much has this behaviour affected your performance, reliability, or output at work, study, or key responsibilities?

First structural move: Name the one domain most affected and make one concrete, small protective action this week — a recovered commitment, a conversation, a health habit — as early evidence to yourself that change is possible.

Go deeperDeep dive: The psychology of self-sabotage →Glossary: Attention economy →

Questions, answered

Is this a diagnosis?

No. This assessment is a structured self-reflection tool, not a validated clinical instrument. Its result bands are editorial guidance, not clinical thresholds — they organise your answers into a readable profile; they do not describe a condition. If you have concerns about your health or wellbeing, speak to a qualified professional.

How were the questions designed?

Each of the 20 items presents a concrete scenario with four graded responses and no neutral midpoint, so every answer commits to a lean. Items were authored against the peer-reviewed literature listed in the evidence file on this page, and citation metadata is supplied at build time; source relevance and claim interpretation remain editorial judgments. Response order is shuffled on every run to vary position; this implementation has not been tested for bias reduction.

What happens to my answers?

Assessment answers stay on this device. Unfinished progress expires after 30 days. A completed profile and optional comparison history remain until you delete local assessment data or clear browser data. If you opt into email, your email address is sent; item answers are not. If you share a result link, total and dimension scores are included in the URL and may appear in browser, server, CDN, or analytics logs.

How often should I retake it?

The instrument keeps your previous reading and sets the two side by side when you retake — the Second Reading. There is no validated retest interval; repeat only if a raw answer-point comparison would be useful, and do not treat it as confirmed underlying change.

Why bands instead of percentiles?

Because this assessment does not collect a population score set, there is no reader population to rank you against — and we will not invent one. The 5-dimension profile groups selected answer points for editorial display; it is not a validated structural or decision-utility model.

Where does the evidence come from?

Every dimension insight cites peer-reviewed research, and most answer reveals do — 5 sources stand behind this instrument, each with DOI metadata supplied at build time; source relevance and claim interpretation remain editorial judgments. A few reveals are straightforward editorial reasoning from the same evidence base and carry no citation by design. The full list, with DOIs, is in the evidence file below.

The evidence file

5 peer-reviewed sources stand behind this instrument's items and insights.

  1. Volkow et al. (2016) — Neurobiologic Advances from the Brain Disease Model of Addiction. New England Journal of Medicine. DOI: 10.1056/nejmra1511480 ✓ Crossref‑verified
  2. Robinson & Berridge (2008) — The incentive sensitization theory of addiction: some current issues. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2008.0093 ✓ Crossref‑verified
  3. Sayette (2016) — The Role of Craving in Substance Use Disorders: Theoretical and Methodological Issues. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-093351 ✓ Crossref‑verified
  4. Vafaie & Kober (2022) — Association of Drug Cues and Craving With Drug Use and Relapse. JAMA Psychiatry. DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2022.1240 ✓ Crossref‑verified
  5. Koob (2021) — Drug Addiction: Hyperkatifeia/Negative Reinforcement as a Framework for Medications Development. Pharmacological Reviews. DOI: 10.1124/pharmrev.120.000083 ✓ Crossref‑verified

High-Performance Insights