How this instrument works
This is a 20-item structured self-assessment of your conflict style, read across 5 dimensions: Conflict Avoidance; Conflict Intensity; Interest vs Position; Flooding & De-escalation; and Repair After Rupture. 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.
Read the full assessment methodology →
- Items
- 20
- Dimensions
- 5
- Format
- Forced choice, 4 options
- Sources
- 5
- Instrument
- v1.1 · August 2026
The 5 editorial answer groups
Conflict Avoidance
Strength here looks like engaging with difficult conversations directly and at a calm moment, holding your own concerns and the other person's in view rather than sidestepping friction to keep the peace.
The vulnerable pattern: deferring difficult conversations, softening messages past the point of clarity, or withdrawing under pressure — leaving issues accumulating unsaid beneath the surface.
Sample itemWhen a recurring issue in a close relationship keeps creating friction, what do you most often do?
First structural move: Choose one specific unresolved issue and raise it at a calm moment this week. Frame it as what you need, not a verdict on the other person — and say it once, clearly.
Go deeperGlossary: Difficult conversations →Glossary: Avoidant attachment →
Conflict Intensity
Strength here looks like expressing concerns directly and assertively without tipping into domination — keeping conflict focused on the issue rather than pressing to win or to wear the other person down.
The vulnerable pattern: pressing hard to prevail, matching escalation with intensity, or prioritising being right over reaching a workable outcome — turning issue-focused conflict into relationship conflict.
Sample itemWhen a conflict touches something you care strongly about, how do you typically express your frustration?
First structural move: In your next conflict conversation, describe the specific behaviour that's frustrating you and its impact on you — rather than your verdict on the person — before you say anything else.
Go deeperProtocol: The Radical Candor Protocol →Glossary: Radical candor →
Interest vs Position
Strength here looks like approaching conflict curious about underlying needs — yours and the other person's — rather than defending an opening position, which expands the range of workable solutions available.
The vulnerable pattern: focusing on achieving a stated position and treating departures from it as concessions, rather than treating both parties' underlying needs as the relevant starting point for resolution.
Sample itemWhen you enter a conflict or difficult conversation, how do you tend to think about what you want from it?
First structural move: Before your next conflict conversation, spend two minutes writing: 'What I'm asking for is X. What I actually need is Y.' That gap is where solutions tend to appear.
Go deeperGlossary: Nonviolent communication →Glossary: Active listening →
Flooding & De-escalation
Strength here looks like staying physiologically regulated during conflict — able to feel tension without being flooded — which preserves the ability to listen, process, and respond thoughtfully under pressure.
The vulnerable pattern: experiencing high physiological arousal during conflict that reduces the ability to think clearly, stay regulated, and apply de-escalation habits when they are most needed.
Sample itemDuring a heated conflict, what actually happens in your body and mind as things intensify?
First structural move: Pick one physical signal — clenched jaw, tight chest, faster breathing — as your personal flooding cue. When you notice it, that's your signal to slow down before it affects what you say.
Go deeperProtocol: The Emotional Agility Protocol →Deep dive: The Neuroscience of Resilience →Glossary: Emotional regulation →
Repair After Rupture
Strength here looks like re-engaging warmly after conflict, taking active repair steps rather than waiting for things to settle, and letting ruptures resolve rather than linger and accumulate.
The vulnerable pattern: re-engaging slowly after conflict, waiting passively for things to return to normal, or carrying unresolved hurts forward into future interactions rather than raising and resolving them.
Sample itemAfter a significant conflict, what's your honest pattern for when you re-engage warmly with the other person again?
First structural move: Choose one small repair gesture for your next conflict — a check-in, an acknowledgement, or expressing care — and do it within 24 hours. The gesture doesn't resolve the conflict; it reopens the connection.
Go deeperGlossary: Secure attachment →Glossary: Accountability →
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.
