difficultpersontest

Form DPT-45Guide

Is the difficult person test accurate?

Key takeaways

  • The seven traits come from a 2021 factor analysis of 234 antagonism items in 532 students. The popular online tests are built on that structure but were not created by the researchers.
  • Self-reports of these traits are not useless. Studies find people high in antagonistic traits often recognize them and the problems they cause.
  • A score is an average of your own answers. Without a reference group it can't tell you how you compare with other people, and no online quiz can diagnose a personality disorder.
  • The most informative next step is a second opinion from someone who knows you well.

Where does the difficult person test come from?

The “difficult person test” that spread online measures seven traits: callousness, grandiosity, aggressiveness, suspicion, manipulativeness, dominance and risk taking. Those traits come from a 2021 study in which researchers gave 532 students at a large university 234 questionnaire items about antagonism — the opposite pole of agreeableness — and looked for how the items grouped. A seven-factor solution fit best, and the factors related differently to outcomes such as aggression and substance use (Sleep et al., 2021).

That study did not produce a public test. The best-known online version was written by a separate test publisher, which says it was inspired by the research. The test on this site is another independent version, built from public-domain items that measure the same seven traits so that every statement and scoring rule can be published (see all 45 items).

Can a self-report test measure difficult traits?

A common objection is that difficult people won’t admit it. The evidence is more mixed than that.

  • In two samples, people who scored higher on psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism also reported higher levels of antagonism-related traits, and were aware of the problems those traits caused (Sleep et al., 2021).
  • People with high maladaptive-trait scores tend not to “like” those traits in themselves; they simply dislike them less than other people do (Sharpe et al., 2023).
  • Across 152 samples, people’s average self-ratings on the Big Five traits were about the same as the average ratings from people who knew them (Kim et al., 2019).

So answering honestly about yourself is possible. The limitation is different: you can only report what you notice, and some things are seen better from outside.

What can’t your score tell you?

How you compare with other people. This site shows the average of your own answers on a 1–5 scale. A 3.6 on mistrust means your answers leaned toward “somewhat true”; it does not mean you’re more mistrustful than 80% of people. We report no percentiles because we couldn’t find a published reference group for these exact items to check against. Be cautious with any test that gives percentiles without saying who the comparison group is.

Whether you have a disorder. The items come from a research measure of personality-disorder traits (Simms et al., 2011), and validation studies link its scales to impairment (Long et al., 2021). But a quiz can’t diagnose anything. The National Institute of Mental Health, summarizing the DSM-5, describes a personality disorder as an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that is consistent across situations and causes distress or impairment (NIMH, checked October 26, 2026). A score from a few minutes of self-report can’t establish that; assessing it is a job for a licensed clinician.

What caused a particular conflict. Traits describe tendencies across situations. A bad month, a toxic workplace or one relationship can push answers up without saying much about you elsewhere.

Who sees your difficult traits more clearly, you or others?

It depends on the trait. In one study comparing self-ratings, friends’ ratings and behavioral measures, people were the best judges of their own neuroticism-related traits, while friends were the best judges of intellect-related traits — consistent with the idea that others see more of traits that are highly evaluative (Vazire, 2010). That study didn’t test antagonism. Our inference: because the seven traits mostly show up in how you treat people, the people on the receiving end are likely to have useful information.

That’s why this site offers a second-opinion link. Someone who knows you rates you on the same statements, and you see both profiles side by side. Big gaps aren’t proof of who’s right; they’re a specific place to start a conversation (“You rated me higher on domineering — when did that show up?”).

How should you read a high score?

Take it as a prompt, not a verdict:

  1. Look at the profile, not just the highest bar. The traits are related but separate.
  2. Read the statements behind your highest trait on its trait page. Which ones did you rate “very true”, and in what situations?
  3. Ask for a second opinion from someone you trust.
  4. If a trait is causing real damage — lost jobs, relationships ending, violence — talk to a licensed mental health professional.

If you want to change a trait, there is some evidence that people can; see how to be less difficult.

Sources

  1. Sleep CE, Crowe ML, Carter NT, Lynam DR, Miller JD (2021). Uncovering the structure of antagonism. Personal Disord 12(4), 300-311. PubMed 34323587 · doiCross-sectional factor analysis. 532 university students answered 234 antagonism items from seven trait measures; a seven-factor solution emerged: callousness, grandiosity, domineering, manipulation, suspiciousness, aggression and risk taking. Limits: One student sample, self-report only. Checked against the abstract only, October 26, 2026.
  2. Simms LJ, Goldberg LR, Roberts JE, Watson D, Welte J, Rotterman JH (2011). Computerized adaptive assessment of personality disorder: introducing the CAT-PD project. J Pers Assess 93(4), 380-9. PubMed 22804677 · doiMeasure development. Describes the NIMH-funded project that built the CAT-PD trait model and item pool (59 candidate traits, 2,589 initial items). Limits: Early-phase report. Checked against the abstract only, October 26, 2026.
  3. Long TA, Reinhard E, Sellbom M, Anderson JL (2021). An Examination of the Reliability and Validity of the Comprehensive Assessment of Traits Relevant to Personality Disorder-Static Form (CAT-PD-SF). Assessment 28(5), 1345-1357. PubMed 32125172 · doiValidation study. CAT-PD static-form scores related to other personality measures in expected ways and moderately to functional impairment. Limits: The five-factor structure fit only marginally. Checked against the abstract only, October 26, 2026.
  4. Sleep CE, Lynam DR, Campbell WK, Miller JD (2021). Insight Regarding the Presence of Antagonism-Related Traits and Their Subsequent Impairment in Relation to Psychopathy, Narcissism, and Machiavellianism. J Pers Disord 35(1), 57-72. PubMed 30785862 · doiTwo-sample study. People higher in psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism reported higher antagonism-related traits and were aware of related impairment. Limits: Self-report. Checked against the abstract only, October 26, 2026.
  5. Sharpe BM, Sleep CE, Carter NT, Lynam DR, Miller JD (2023). Is Personality Pathology Ego-Syntonic? Self- and Meta-Perception of Maladaptive Personality Traits. J Pers Disord 37(4), 383-405. PubMed 37721782 · doiCommunity sample. High scorers on maladaptive traits did not 'like' those traits; they disliked them less than others did. Limits: 401 participants. Checked against the abstract only, October 26, 2026.
  6. Kim H, Di Domenico SI, Connelly BS (2019). Self-Other Agreement in Personality Reports: A Meta-Analytic Comparison of Self- and Informant-Report Means. Psychol Sci 30(1), 129-138. PubMed 30481113 · doiMeta-analysis. Across 152 samples (33,033 people), average self-ratings of the Big Five did not differ from ratings by people who knew them; strangers rated more critically. Limits: Big Five traits, not antagonism facets specifically; compares averages, not individual accuracy. Checked against the abstract only, October 26, 2026.
  7. Vazire S (2010). Who knows what about a person? The self-other knowledge asymmetry (SOKA) model. J Pers Soc Psychol 98(2), 281-300. PubMed 20085401 · doiRound-robin study. The self was the best judge of neuroticism-related traits, friends the best judges of intellect-related traits. Limits: 165 participants; single study. Checked against the abstract only, October 26, 2026.

Update history

  • : First published.

Related

  1. 01
  2. 02
  3. 03
  4. 04