How are the results interpreted?

Scores fall into 4 levels: Low dark traits, Moderate dark traits, High dark traits, Very high dark traits.

How does payment work?

You pay €2.90 before taking the test. Your detailed PDF report is generated immediately after — downloadable with no sign-up.

What does the report look like?

This sample shows the full report (dimension scores, radar chart, 6 clinical reading frameworks, recommendations) on a fictional illustrative profile.

← Back to the test

Manipulation, coldness, grandiosity

Q: What does the Manipulation, coldness, grandiosity test measure?

The test evaluates 4 dimensions: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, Subclinical psychopathy, Readiness to Change.

An in-depth assessment to better understand your strengths, the areas that deserve your attention, and how the different dimensions of your profile relate to one another.

📄 Sample report — fictional profile. This example shows you the level of detail of the analysis. Your personalized report will be built from your own answers and will bring out your personal profile.

This assessment explores 4 dimensions

Narcissism · Machiavellianism · Subclinical psychopathy · Readiness to Change

Your report doesn't stop at separate scores. It also highlights the contrasts and connections between your results to offer a more personal reading of your profile.

Hello Léa,

Profile synthesis

The profile you describe for Marc suggests Dark Triad traits that are generally low to moderate. His narcissism and subclinical psychopathy stay low, which suggests he retains a capacity for empathy and a degree of modesty — two resources that, in theory, favour more authentic relationships. His moderate Machiavellianism, on the other hand, points to strategic thinking that can show up in your relationship as behaviours you find hard to decode: calculated remarks, strategic silences, or shifts in how he speaks depending on who he's talking to. This combination can be confusing for you: Marc isn't depicted here as cold or domineering, but as someone whose moderate strategic thinking coexists with a genuine relational sensitivity.

Your own readiness to change, in contemplation, shows you're weighing what these observations mean for you. It's possible the current balance of the relationship generally suits you, or that you notice occasional friction when Marc's strategy takes over from more direct communication. One thing worth exploring, if it resonates: pinpoint the exact moments when you feel that shift, and what effect it has on your own trust in the relationship. Keep in mind this test only captures one facet of Marc's functioning, as you perceive it, and it doesn't replace a professional's opinion if you feel the need to talk to someone.

The moderate Machiavellianism — the only really salient trait in what you describe — combined with low narcissism and psychopathy, could reflect pragmatic social intelligence in Marc rather than a genuine intent to harm. That doesn't mean you shouldn't pay attention: a relational strategy, even without an obvious bad intention, can cost you something if it installs a lasting doubt about what's sincere or calculated in your exchanges.

Overall result

Moderate dark traits

Your answers describe an overall profile with moderate Dark Triad traits in the person you're observing — your partner, Marc. This level is commonly seen and reflects a mix of adaptive behaviours and areas worth watching. Clinically, some degree of narcissism can support Marc's self-confidence, moderate strategic thinking can help him navigate social situations, and a limited degree of emotional detachment can protect him from emotional overload. For you, the key question is how the traits you describe affect your relationship day to day: approaches such as CBT show that clearly naming what you observe is the first step toward setting healthy boundaries.

And if you have actual messages to decode, ScanMyLove analyses your conversations with your partner from a simple export and reveals their real dynamics.

Moderate dark traits

2 dimensions to strengthen, 2 strengths

Narcissism

Subclinical psychopathy

Machiavellianism

Readiness to change

StrengthTo strengthen

Your profile at a glance

Discover your own profile →

4 dimensions · Personalized report

Discover the level of detail of the analysis

Open the different sections to discover how the same profile can be analysed from several angles. Your own report will follow this same logic, built from your own answers.

Detailed analysis

NarcissismLow

See the analysis →

Your answers describe a low level of narcissistic traits in the person you're observing. Clinically, this points to a modest orientation toward social recognition and a tendency to downplay his own achievements compared to others'. Research distinguishes adaptive humility from chronic self-underestimation: a very low level can sometimes reflect fragile self-esteem rather than simple modesty. This result is one marker among the other dimensions explored by this test — you're the only one who can say whether this reading matches what you see day to day.

The low narcissism score you describe suggests Marc doesn't particularly seek to build up his image or need admiration. Combined with the rest of the profile you report (fairly preserved empathy, moderate Machiavellianism), this trait may offset the more strategic sides of how he operates.

This lack of grandiosity may make the relationship easier on this specific point — Marc doesn't seem to demand special treatment or admiration. What this test can't tell you is how you, on your side, experience the combination of all these traits together. One thing worth exploring: is this low score enough to offset the other aspects of the profile you're describing?

Recommendations and concrete exercises

✓Over two weeks, note the moments when Marc's behaviour seems furthest from a stance of superiority — this helps you separate what, in the relationship, isn't related to this particular trait.
✓If you're trying to understand the whole profile you're describing, keep in mind this low dimension doesn't cancel out the others: avoid downplaying what you notice about Machiavellianism or psychopathy just because narcissism, here, is low.
✓Talk to someone you trust about what you notice in Marc on this specific point, to check whether your perception is shared or unique to you.
✓If you still feel an unmet need for recognition within the relationship, note it separately: that need is yours, and it deserves to be named for yourself, independently of Marc's profile.

MachiavellianismModerate

See the analysis →

Your answers describe a moderate level of Machiavellian traits in the person you're observing. Clinically, this profile points to an ability to reason strategically, anticipate others' intentions, and adapt communication to context. This kind of functioning can be effective in competitive environments, provided it stays within an ethical frame. Recognised approaches distinguish legitimate persuasion, based on honest arguments, from manipulation, which involves concealment or exploiting others' vulnerabilities — potentially including yours.

The moderate Machiavellianism score you report indicates that Marc often takes a strategic view of situations, possibly including within your relationship. This can show up as a tendency to calculate what he says or does based on the effect he's aiming for, rather than being directly transparent.

Combined with low narcissism and fairly preserved empathy, it's possible this strategy isn't hostile, yet it may still be hard for you to decode day to day: you may feel you never quite know where you stand with him. What this test can't settle is the intention behind these behaviours — your own feelings and experience in the relationship remain the most reliable reference for you.

Recommendations and concrete exercises

✓Over two weeks, note situations where you feel Marc is steering a conversation toward a goal he isn't stating clearly — without drawing conclusions, just to make what you're feeling more concrete.
✓When an interaction leaves you with doubt ("why did he say that, exactly now?"), allow yourself to ask Marc directly rather than guessing at his strategy alone.
✓Practise Marshall Rosenberg's nonviolent communication to express your own need for clarity, without accusing Marc of ill intent, which this test cannot establish.
✓If you notice a persistent gap between what Marc says and what he does, consider talking to someone you trust outside the relationship — an outside view can help you make sense of what you observe.

Subclinical psychopathyLow

See the analysis →

Your answers describe a low level of subclinical psychopathic traits in the person you're observing. Clinically, this points to an apparent capacity for affective and cognitive empathy, sensitivity to others' emotions, and an ability to regulate impulsive behaviour. This profile is generally associated with interpersonal relationships built on reciprocity. Research highlights that this level of empathy is a protective factor — for the person themselves as much as for those around them.

The low subclinical psychopathy score you report suggests Marc generally remains able to perceive and take your emotions into account, even in moments when his moderate Machiavellianism shows through. This low trait can act as a brake: it limits the risk of his strategic thinking turning into genuine indifference toward you.

If you still feel a lack of consideration from him in certain situations, it may be worth distinguishing one-off moments from recurring patterns — this test describes a general tendency, not every interaction. You're best placed to judge whether this result matches what you experience most of the time.

Recommendations and concrete exercises

✓Over the next two weeks, notice a moment when Marc showed genuine attention to how you were feeling — this gives you a concrete point of comparison going forward.
✓If a situation seems to contradict this score (a moment of marked coldness), note it separately rather than dismissing it: these are exactly the gaps worth watching over time.
✓Tell Marc how certain of his behaviours affect you, using "I" statements ("I feel alone when…") rather than judgements about who he is.
✓If the empathy you describe in him feels genuine, use it as a starting point for a direct conversation about the parts of the profile that worry you more, such as Machiavellianism.

Readiness to changeContemplation

See the analysis →

This dimension measures YOUR OWN readiness to act on what you observe in Marc — not his. You recognise the impact of what you're describing on your relationship and are starting to consider acting, without being fully ready yet. This ambivalence is a normal, well-documented stage in the process of deciding how to respond to a relationship that's raising questions for you.

You're in the contemplation stage: you're aware that some of Marc's behaviours, as you describe them, may call for a response from you — talking about it, setting a boundary, or simply observing more — without the urge to act being fully there yet.

That's an understandable position given a profile that, overall, stays moderate and ambivalent: not alarming enough to demand immediate action, not reassuring enough for the question to disappear. There's no urgency to decide, but recognising this ambivalence is already a step. This report is yours: you're the one who knows what, in this relationship, deserves clarifying.

Recommendations and concrete exercises

✓Do the decisional balance exercise for yourself: pros and cons of openly raising what you observe in Marc, pros and cons of saying nothing for now.
✓Pick a single recent situation where Marc's behaviour struck you, and note what you would have liked to tell him in the moment — with no obligation to do it right away.
✓If you're hesitant to talk to Marc directly, consider talking to a professional or someone you trust first, to clarify your own feelings before acting.
✓Give yourself time for this contemplation: it isn't a sign of guilty inaction, but a useful stage before any decision that concerns you.

How your dimensions interactSee the analysis →

In what you describe, the different dimensions form a fairly coherent whole, where low narcissism and low psychopathy seem to moderate the expression of Marc's Machiavellianism. It's possible his genuine relational sensitivity mostly keeps him from crossing into openly harmful manipulation — the empathy he shows elsewhere may act as a brake.

A possible tension, to be checked against your actual experience, could appear in moments when Marc has to reconcile his own goals with keeping a sincere relationship with you: that may be where you feel the most ambiguity. This reading doesn't cancel out your own experience: if some of his behaviours worry you more than this overall profile suggests, that deserves to be taken seriously and, if needed, shared with a professional.

Your action planSee the analysis →

Right now

→Do the decisional balance exercise on ONE specific situation with Marc that stood out to you recently, to clarify what you feel before acting.
→For a week, note each evening a moment when Marc's behaviour felt strategic or calculated to you, without judgement, just to get a clearer picture of how often you notice this.
→If a conversation with Marc feels necessary, prepare it using nonviolent communication: express a personal need ("I need more clarity") rather than an accusation about who he is.

In the coming weeks

→Talk regularly to someone you trust outside the relationship about what you notice in Marc, to keep an outside perspective on your own perception.
→If doubts about Marc's intentions become recurring, consider discussing this with a professional (psychologist, couples therapist) to help you see things more clearly.
→Keep a journal of your own relational needs — clarity, sincerity, reciprocity — independently of Marc's profile, so you don't lose sight of what matters to you.

In the long run

→Build, over time, a clear list of what is and isn't acceptable to you in the relationship, based on what you've learned from your own observations.
→If the relationship keeps raising questions for you, consider psychotherapy, alone or as a couple, to explore what this profile actually means for your life together.
→Periodically reassess (every six months, for example) whether the behaviours you've identified change, fade, or intensify, rather than relying on a general impression.

Avenues to exploreSee the analysis →

These are hypotheses, not conclusions. You are the one who knows whether they resonate with your experience.

Reading frameworksSee the analysis →

Personality

Dimensional model (DSM-5, Section III)

Sources: American Psychiatric Association (2013)

Mentalization (Fonagy)

Sources: Fonagy, Gergely, Jurist & Target (2002)

Cross-cutting frameworks

Ellis's ABC model

Sources: Ellis (1962) ; Ellis & Harper (1975)

Emotion regulation

Sources: Gross (1998) ; Gross (2015)

Self-efficacy

Sources: Bandura (1997) ; Bandura (1977)

Mindfulness

Sources: Kabat-Zinn (1990) ; Segal, Williams & Teasdale (2002)

These frameworks do not constitute a medical diagnosis.

Your profile, told as a wholeSee the analysis →

The profile you describe for Marc draws a distinctive picture: at the heart of a clearly low narcissism and psychopathy, a moderate Machiavellianism takes centre stage, like the pivot of a balance he seems to have patiently built. This strategic, pragmatic dimension doesn't appear, in him, to be driven by a need for domination or emotional coldness — his very low scores on the other two sides of the triad point that way. It seems, rather, to serve a genuine relational sensitivity, an ability to read situations without losing himself in them. The overall logic might be that of someone who has learned to think about interactions tactically, not out of a taste for calculation, but perhaps to protect a space he feels is precious and fragile — which doesn't mean this way of functioning comes at no cost to you.

The tension this configuration creates in your relationship is subtle: what seems easy for Marc is reading social situations, anticipating reactions, adjusting smoothly — including with you, which can leave you feeling you never quite know where you stand. What costs you, on your side, is precisely the moment when his strategic finesse collides with your own need for transparency. His empathic resources, quite present according to what you describe, could nonetheless make him capable of a more direct connection — the question this profile raises may be less "is he manipulative?" than "what, in your relationship, keeps him from being more direct with you?"

A plausible story behind this balance might trace back to contexts, before he even knew you, where being directly assertive wasn't without risk for him, or simply wasn't the most workable path. Machiavellianism here may not be a fixed trait, but the sediment of countless micro-adjustments learned across his roles — professional, family, friendship — long before you. The absence of psychopathy and narcissism, conversely, suggests this skill hasn't devoured his relational capacities: he hasn't cut himself off from others, he may simply have learned to read them from a distance, to approach them better once the ground feels safe — a mechanism that concerns you directly, since it's you, today, that he approaches or doesn't approach this way.

In this profile, the underestimated resource might be your own contemplative position at 50%, which could wrongly be reduced to indecision. You're not standing still out of half-heartedness: you inhabit a space of reflectiveness that reflects a keen awareness of what's at stake in this relationship. It isn't a lukewarm in-between, it's a stretch of inner freedom where you can ask yourself, without pressure, what this profile of Marc's changes or doesn't change for you. Another, quieter resource is the low narcissism you describe in him: it potentially offers more favourable ground for a direct conversation, since he doesn't seem the type to feel attacked at the slightest disagreement.

What might shift first, for you, isn't certainty about who Marc is, but a small change of perspective: starting to notice, in your daily life, the exact moment when his strategy gives way to a plainer word, and observing what that produces in you. The concrete sign would be small: a conversation where he said "I don't know" or "I need you" without having prepared the ground beforehand, and where you, afterwards, felt more at ease. These shifts don't amount to a final verdict on him — this test makes no such claim — but they can help you tell, over time, what in this relationship works for you and what deserves to be named.

Your dimensions in real lifeSee the analysis →

A score is not lived as a number but as a scene. See if you recognise yours — or set it aside.

Narcissism

You might notice that, at a dinner with friends, Marc mentions a recent professional achievement almost in passing, without dwelling on it, and someone warmly congratulates him. You may notice he quickly changes the subject, a little uncomfortable with the compliment, and instead asks someone else at the table how they're doing. You notice he doesn't try to extend the attention on himself, unlike what you might have feared. Later in the evening, you notice he credits his team when asked how the project turned out. This moment leaves you with an impression of sincerity, without any grandstanding.

Machiavellianism

Picture a situation where Marc needs to convince a colleague to back him on an important project, and you're partly present for his preparation. You watch him think aloud about the best way to approach the person, weighing his words, anticipating objections. Part of you wonders whether this is simple preparation or a kind of calculation that makes you uneasy. You notice he ultimately chooses a direct wording, while keeping a warm tone. You feel both reassured by this apparent straightforwardness and curious whether he acts this way with you too.

Subclinical psychopathy

At a get-together with friends, someone suggests a slightly risky game, like crossing a makeshift bridge over a stream at night. You notice Marc hesitates, clearly voices his concern for the group's safety, and suggests a safer alternative — holding the lights, for instance, rather than going across. He stays attentive to everyone throughout the scene, ready to step in if needed. You notice the thrill of the risk doesn't seem to draw him in particularly; he seems more comfortable in a watchful role than a risk-taking one.

Other possible readingsSee the analysis →

The moderate Machiavellianism score you report could above all reflect, in Marc, a sharpened social navigation skill, developed in an environment where strategic reading of relationships is a daily competence — professionally, in particular. Rather than a leaning toward manipulation within your relationship, it could reflect a practical intelligence he applies widely elsewhere, one that sometimes spills over, unintentionally, into how he communicates with you.

This moderate Machiavellianism could be read as the residue of an early lesson for Marc: having grown up or lived through situations where trusting others' transparency carried a risk for him. He may have developed a kind of social radar, not for the game of it, but to secure his own emotional safety — a mechanism that predates your relationship, and isn't aimed at you personally even though it affects you.

Another competing reading focuses less on Marc than on you: the fact that you chose to take this test about him, and the precision of your observations, could point to a relational vigilance that's your own — perhaps shaped by past experiences where trust was tested. This hypothesis doesn't diminish what you observe in Marc, but invites you to ask what your own relational history leads you to watch for more closely in him.

Questions to keep exploringSee the analysis →

To write about on your own, or to bring to a professional.

In which specific moments of your relationship with Marc do you feel most clearly that his way of acting creates distance between you, and what happens inside you right after?
If you had to describe Marc's strategic side to a close friend — the part that anticipates, evaluates, adjusts — without judging or hiding it, how would you present it so she understands both what it gives you and what it costs you in the relationship?
Looking back at the important moments in your history with Marc, when did you most clearly notice this strategic skill in him, and what do you think it was responding to: a professional necessity, a fear, an old habit?
Marc's low narcissism score may give you an opening you haven't used yet: what subjects could you raise more directly with him, betting that he won't feel attacked?
Your own contemplation in this situation seems like a stance of listening to yourself: what do you notice, right now, in this relationship, that you hadn't identified six months ago?
If you had one fully direct conversation with Marc about what you observe in him, with no preparation or strategy on your part, what would feel like the biggest risk to you, and what could be the reward you're not expecting?
Among the people in your circle who also know Marc, who could offer you a perspective that complements your own on this profile, and what do you hope to get from it?
How would you picture your relationship with Marc in five years if the behaviour you describe today stayed exactly the same — and what does that projection teach you about what really matters to you?

Reference frameworks and authorsSee the analysis →

To help you situate this report, here are the references specific to this test.

DSM-5 — Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 2013)
ICD-11 — International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision (World Health Organization, 2022)
Dark Triad (Paulhus & Williams, 2002)

Your answers in detailSee the analysis →

1. This person waits their turn without demanding to go first.

Answer : Somewhat agree

You answered "Somewhat agree". Can you tell me a bit more about the moments when you notice this in him?

It shows up mostly in queues or meetings: he doesn't try to go ahead of others, even when he easily could.

2. This person presents themselves as someone exceptional.

Answer : Somewhat disagree

And how long have you noticed this about him?

Ever since we've known each other, he's always been fairly quiet about his achievements, almost to the point of downplaying them.

3. This person arranges things so as to be the centre of attention.

Answer : Somewhat disagree

4. This person demands respect in the name of their qualities.

Answer : Somewhat disagree

5. This person places themselves as equal to others, without setting themselves above.

Answer : Somewhat agree

6. This person gets upset when their achievements aren't acknowledged.

Answer : Somewhat disagree

What you’ll find in your personalized report

✓Your profile across 4 dimensions
✓Your main strengths
✓The dimensions that deserve your attention
✓The connections and contrasts between your results
✓Concrete avenues to move forward
✓Exercises tailored to your profile
✓Several reading frameworks to deepen your understanding

The example shown on this page illustrates the format and level of detail of the report. Your own analysis will be different, because it will be built from your own answers.

What is interesting is not just your score on each dimension. Your report also seeks to identify the contrasts and interactions between your results: a strong resource that offsets a fragility, a dimension that seems to play a central role, or a gap between several aspects of how you function.

This is the personalized reading that the example cannot give you.

Ready to discover your own profile?

Answer the assessment questions and get your personalized report.

Detailed report · 4 dimensions · Personalized analysis

€2.90

Your profile won't be Léa's. It will be built from your own answers.

Discover my profile in 4 dimensions →

← Back to the test page