What kind of care do you welcome from someone close to you?
An offer of help can mean different things depending on the person, the situation and what you need that day.
These questions explore what you prefer to receive in one close relationship: appreciation, practical support, time with someone's full attention, space that is respected, nonsexual affection you welcome, and personal gestures that matter to you.
For adults exploring their own experience. These reports cannot diagnose a condition or decide who is suitable for a job or relationship.
Describe the care you welcome in enough detail for another person to understand what you mean.
02
Consider several preferences together. Practical help, time together and time alone may each matter in different circumstances.
03
Notice how your answers depend on the person, what has happened recently and whether the situation applies to you.
An everyday example
Something to recognise
Imagine arriving home after a demanding day. You might welcome help with dinner, or want someone to listen once you've had some quiet time. Describing the situation can make a request clearer than naming a general preference.
These original prompts still need research testing to show how well they measure these preferences. They do not measure what you prefer to give, relationship quality or compatibility. A preference for touch never establishes consent.
Go deeper: how this assessment works
More about this approach
A helpful offer can mean different things depending on the person, the situation and what you need that day.
This module explores what you prefer to receive in one close relationship: appreciation, practical support, focused time, respected space, welcome nonsexual affection and meaningful personal gestures.
Find more specific language for care you welcome, so another person has something concrete to understand.
Consider several preferences together; you may value practical help, shared attention and time alone in different circumstances.
Notice where your answers depend on who is involved, what has happened recently or whether the situation applies.
These original prompts are exploratory and unvalidated. They do not measure giving preferences, relationship quality or compatibility. A touch preference never establishes consent.
Answering the questions
Think of the same close relationship while answering and use ordinary situations from the past few months. Rate what you prefer to receive, not what you prefer to give. A low touch preference, including wanting no touch, is valid. Touch items concern only wanted, mutually agreed nonsexual contact; no score is consent. Choose Not applicable when a situation does not apply, or Skip / unsure when you lack enough experience to answer. No contact is needed to complete this reflection. The original preferences need two of three answers; touch and personal gestures each need three of four.
Timing is a planning estimate of 15–30 seconds per remaining question, before breaks and report reading.
Sources and interpretation
Original illustrative receiving-preference prompts, not validated. These six preferences may coexist and are not an exhaustive relationship model or commercial types.
Original illustrative Nousophy prototype item, AI-assisted drafting on 30 September 2026. Not validated or independently content-reviewed. No affiliation with or reproduction of a proprietary relationship instrument.
Original illustrative Nousophy receiving-preference item, AI-assisted drafting on 1 October 2026. Not validated or independently expert-reviewed. No affiliation with or reproduction of a proprietary relationship instrument.
Original illustrative receiving-preference prompts, not validated. These six preferences may coexist and are not an exhaustive relationship model or commercial types.
Means use equal-weight keyed responses on the 1-5 accuracy scale. A skip contributes no score. There are no norms, percentiles or diagnoses. Any categorical translation uses declared exploratory rules.
Each construct requires at least two-thirds of its items, rounded up (2 of 3; 3 of 4) answered. This coverage rule is not evidence of reliability or validity.
These receiving preferences may coexist. No exclusive winner, relationship type or partner-compatibility prediction is assigned. Giving preferences were not measured.
A touch answer is not consent to contact and establishes neither relationship safety nor an attachment style, sexual preference or amount of affection. Wanting no touch is valid; no contact is needed to complete the assessment.
Not applicable, unsure and skipped answers remain missing evidence, never neutral or low scores. A lower numeric answer describes a receiving preference, not a defect.
All relationship items are positively worded candidates. Similar wording and overlapping content, especially gestures with appreciation or shared time, require response-process and validation work.
A range of three or more scale points flags variation for review; it is an exploratory display rule, not a psychometric cutoff or evidence of dishonesty.
Answers may depend on the chosen situation, recent experiences and wording. A useful interpretation still needs independent observation.
Reports use fixed rules in this browser. Answers are not sent to a server or AI service. Saving in this browser is optional. These modules are for adult self-reflection, not diagnosis, recruitment or consequential decisions.
Optional question examples are original, unscored reading aids. They are not author-approved clarifications of the source instruments and have not been validated.
