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.
This assessment explores 11 dimensions
Specific phobias · Agoraphobia · Social phobia · Avoidance & anxious anticipation · Physical fear reactions · Screen addiction · Social-media addiction · Emotional dependency · Compulsive behaviors · Functional impact · 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 Emma,
Your overall profile reveals a system in which anxiety and avoidance reinforce each other, creating a progressively narrowing world. At 36, you present with moderate-to-high levels across multiple dimensions—notably agoraphobia, avoidance, screen addiction, emotional dependency, and functional impact are all marked (60%). What emerges is not a random collection of fears but an integrated pattern: you are avoiding situations that feel threatening (agoraphobia, social and specific phobias), managing that anxiety through immediate escape or distraction (screens, reassurance-seeking from a close other), and in doing so, preventing yourself from learning that these situations are survivable and less dangerous than anticipated. Your emotional dependency (60%) sits at the heart of this: much of your avoidance may be managed by relying on another person for safety, rather than by building your own capacity to tolerate discomfort and uncertainty. This creates a vicious circle—the more you depend on the other, the less autonomous and confident you feel, which increases anxiety and dependency further.
Your mild-to-moderate scores on specific phobias, social phobia, physical reactions, and compulsive behaviors suggest that anxiety is present but not at its most severe; what matters is the *functional impact* (60%) of these dimensions combined. You are living a life constrained by what you avoid rather than defined by what you pursue. The positive side is that this pattern, while entrenched, is entirely addressable. Anxiety thrives in avoidance; it dissolves with repeated, supported exposure. Emotional dependency shifts when you practice self-soothing and build proof that you can be safe and capable alone. Screen addiction weakens when healthier alternatives are available and reinforced. At your age and stage of life, investing in structured change now—whether through therapy, deliberate behavioral practice, or both—yields substantial returns in freedom, relationships, and quality of life. Your profile suggests you are motivated by functional impact; use that awareness as fuel.
Overall result
Moderate fears and dependenciesYour answers suggest fears or addictive conduct of moderate intensity (50%). While the overall profile does not yet exceed the diagnostic thresholds defined by reference criteria such as the DSM-5 and ICD-11, certain specific dimensions — situational phobias, social anxiety, repetitive uses — could weigh more heavily and deserve targeted work. Clinical psychology research indicates that early interventions, notably approaches such as CBT, are particularly effective at this moderate stage, before avoidances or dependencies further anchor themselves in daily functioning.
Moderate fears and dependencies
10 dimensions to strengthen
10 dimensions · Personalized report
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.
Intense, irrational fear of specific objects or situations (animals, heights, blood, flying, enclosed spaces…), with avoidance.
Your answers suggest the presence of a specific phobia of mild to moderate intensity (40%). One or more identified stimuli — animals, heights, blood, injections, enclosed spaces or others — appear to trigger a disproportionate fear accompanied by some avoidance, without however paralyzing your overall functioning.
According to reference criteria such as the DSM-5 and ICD-11, this level corresponds to real but still circumscribed discomfort. Clinical psychology research indicates that this stage is particularly favorable to early intervention, before avoidance strategies take hold and broaden the restriction.
Recommendations and concrete exercises
Fear of places or situations from which escape would be difficult (crowds, transport, queues, going out alone).
Your answers suggest agoraphobia of marked intensity (60%). Open spaces, transport, crowded places or situations where leaving quickly would be difficult appear to trigger intense anxiety, accompanied by active avoidance that concretely reduces your life perimeter.
According to reference criteria such as the DSM-5 and ICD-11, this level corresponds to a significant functional impact on travel, social and professional life. Clinical psychology research confirms that agoraphobia responds particularly well to approaches such as CBT with systematic graded exposure.
Recommendations and concrete exercises
Intense fear of being judged, watched or humiliated in social situations, with avoidance of interactions.
Your answers suggest social anxiety traits of mild to moderate intensity (40%). Certain social situations — public speaking, meeting strangers, evaluation or scrutiny situations — appear to arouse notable discomfort, an attentional focus on yourself and possibly some avoidance.
According to reference criteria such as the DSM-5 and ICD-11, this profile lies at the clinical boundary and deserves attention. Clinical psychology research shows that this stage responds very well to early behavioral strategies, before avoidance widens and impoverishes relational and professional life.
Recommendations and concrete exercises
A tendency to avoid what is feared and to anxiously anticipate dreaded situations, which maintains the fears.
Your answers suggest a high level of avoidance (60%), which indicates that working around feared situations has become a central and regular mechanism in your daily life. Clinically, avoidance at this level constitutes a major maintaining factor of anxiety and phobic disorders: each successful avoidance provides short-term relief but durably reinforces the belief that the situation is truly dangerous.
According to reference criteria such as the DSM-5 and ICD-11, it is precisely this cycle that characterizes persistent phobic presentations. CBT approaches, notably graded exposure, are recognized as particularly effective in interrupting this pattern.
Recommendations and concrete exercises
Intense bodily manifestations of fear: palpitations, sweating, trembling, a sense of choking or faintness.
Your answers suggest a moderate level of physical reactions to fear (40%), indicating that your body manifests perceptible alarm signals — tension, racing heart rate, breathing discomfort — without these yet reaching a disorganizing level. Clinically, these reactions correspond to the activation of the sympathetic nervous system, a normal mechanism of response to threat.
However, clinical psychology research shows that heightened sensitivity to these sensations can gradually fuel an anxiety loop, notably through the fear of the symptoms themselves. Active regulation at this stage remains easily accessible.
Recommendations and concrete exercises
Excessive, hard-to-control use of screens (games, videos, internet), at the expense of sleep and obligations.
Your answers suggest a marked screen addiction (60%), indicating that the volitional control of your digital use is significantly impaired: attempts to cut down fail, use continues despite its consequences on sleep, relationships or obligations, and disconnection generates notable discomfort.
Clinically, this profile approaches the criteria for internet or video-game use disorder such as those described in frameworks like the ICD-11. Clinical psychology research frequently identifies a role of emotional regulation in compulsive use, the screen serving to manage boredom, anxiety or social pain.
Recommendations and concrete exercises
Compulsive use of social media, a need for validation, social comparison and anxiety about disconnecting.
Your answers suggest social-media use of which certain aspects deserve attention (40%). Moderate signs of digital dependency appear present: a tendency to check the platforms frequently, sensitivity to online feedback or occasional difficulty in switching off.
These elements, without being clinically severe, correspond to patterns that clinical psychology research associates with partially externalized emotional regulation. At this stage, targeted behavioral adjustments generally make it possible to prevent a deeper settling in of problematic habits before they further impact quality of life.
Recommendations and concrete exercises
Excessive need for the other person's presence and approval, fear of abandonment and difficulty existing alone.
Your answers suggest a marked emotional dependency (60%), with clinically significant indicators. The evoked profile includes an important subordination of your emotional balance to the presence and approval of the other, a pervasive fear of abandonment and possibly behaviors of self-effacement or relational control.
In reference to reference criteria such as the DSM-5 and ICD-11 and to recognized attachment models, these elements correspond to an insecure style that can generate painful relational cycles. Therapeutic support focused on attachment and self-esteem offers solid and documented prospects for change.
Recommendations and concrete exercises
Loss of control over a rewarding behavior (shopping, gambling, food, sex…) despite its negative consequences.
Your answers suggest a mild compulsive tendency (40%), with indicators that deserve attention without being clinically severe. Certain behaviors appear to take a slightly disproportionate place in your daily life, notably when tension or malaise intensify.
In reference to reference criteria such as the DSM-5 and ICD-11, at this stage one distinguishes patterns of negative reinforcement — the behavior momentarily relieves a tension — without yet constituting a proven behavioral addiction. It is precisely at this threshold that awareness and targeted adjustments present the best preventive effectiveness according to clinical psychology research.
Recommendations and concrete exercises
The impact of fears and dependencies on daily life, work, relationships, health and freedom to live.
Your answers suggest a marked functional impact (60%): your freedom of movement, your interpersonal relationships or your general health seem notably affected. According to reference criteria such as the DSM-5 and ICD-11, this level of impact is characteristic of clinically significant suffering that justifies sustained attention.
Extended avoidance strategies, recurrent addictive behaviors or persistent emotional distress could contribute to this picture. Clinical psychology research shows that this level of impact responds favorably to structured interventions, notably approaches such as CBT, when they are put in place without delay.
Recommendations and concrete exercises
Your marked agoraphobia (60%), avoidance (60%), screen addiction (60%), emotional dependency (60%), and functional impact (60%) form an interconnected system rather than independent problems. Avoidance is the mechanism that maintains agoraphobia—the more you avoid public or open spaces, the more unfamiliar and threatening they become, deepening the phobic response. Screen addiction serves avoidance by providing immediate, low-friction escape; scrolling feels safer than facing feared situations or managing emotions directly. Emotional dependency functions similarly: by staying close to a trusted other, you can avoid encountering anxiety-provoking situations alone, which prevents you from building confidence in your own coping capacity. This creates a paradox—your relationships, which are meant to be sources of connection and support, become vehicles for avoidance, which can strain them and reinforce dependency. A likely circle of reinforcement operates thus: you avoid a situation (agoraphobia → avoidance), this temporarily relieves anxiety, which rewards avoidance and strengthens its grip; simultaneously, you depend on a close other for reassurance or companionship, which makes you feel less capable and autonomous; to soothe the resulting distress, you turn to screens, which occupy time and attention that might otherwise go toward social risk-taking or independent coping.
The high functional impact (60%) is the direct consequence—your world narrows because each mechanism pulls you further from autonomy and exposure. Breaking this system requires addressing more than one dimension simultaneously. Reducing avoidance without addressing emotional dependency risks creating panic if you face situations alone. Reducing emotional dependency without addressing avoidance risks leaving you unmoored in anxiety. Managing screen time without building active coping alternatives risks substituting one avoidance for another. A comprehensive approach that weaves together graded exposure (for agoraphobia and avoidance), emotional self-regulation and independence-building (for dependency), and restructured screen use (with healthier substitutes) creates the conditions for a positive, self-reinforcing circle: as avoidance decreases, you face more situations, anxiety habituates and confidence grows; as confidence grows, you rely less on reassurance; as reassurance-seeking decreases, you invest more energy in your own life and relationships; as time and attention are reclaimed from screens, you have more capacity for these investments. This is the goal—not the absence of fear (which is normal and adaptive), but the freedom to act despite it.
Right now
In the coming weeks
In the long run
These are hypotheses, not conclusions. You are the one who knows whether they resonate with your experience.
Recognised clinical frameworks applied to your profile, as additional perspectives to weigh.
Attachment style — anxious
Nervous system state — sympathetic / dorsal (hypervigilance + situational freeze)
Cognitive pattern — Catastrophizing
Cognitive pattern — Dichotomous thinking (all-or-nothing)
Early schema — Vulnerability to harm or illness
Early schema — Subjugation
Attachment — Sources: Bowlby (1969) ; Ainsworth et al. (1978) ; Hazan & Shaver (1987)
Cognitive distortions — Sources: Beck (1976) ; Burns (1980)
Young schemas — Sources: Young, Klosko & Weishaar (2003) ; Young (1990)
Polyvagal theory — Sources: Porges (2011) ; Dana (2018) — proposed/debated theory
Cross-cutting frameworks
Emotion regulation
Sources: Gross (1998) ; Gross (2015)
Ellis's ABC model
Sources: Ellis (1962) ; Ellis & Harper (1975)
Polyvagal theory
Sources: Porges (2011) ; Dana (2018) — proposed/debated theory
Self-efficacy
Sources: Bandura (1997) ; Bandura (1977)
Cognitive distortions
Sources: Beck (1976) ; Burns (1980)
Mindfulness
Sources: Kabat-Zinn (1990) ; Segal, Williams & Teasdale (2002)
These frameworks do not constitute a medical diagnosis.
At 36, you find yourself navigating a world that has quietly narrowed. The pattern glimpsed in your responses is not one of random fears but of an elegantly, if painfully, orchestrated safety system. The engine of this system is avoidance—not just of the feared object, but of the unsettling internal sensations of anxiety itself. Your marked agoraphobia and avoidance suggest that open or unfamiliar spaces feel like threats because they lack immediate exit routes or the comfort of the known. Your marked emotional dependency provides the primary solution: you anchor to a trusted companion, who acts as a mobile safe zone. When that person isn’t available, your marked screen addiction steps in as a portable, controllable world that blocks out ambiguity. These three intertwined strands—agoraphobia, dependency, and screen use—form a closed loop that feels self-evident while you’re inside it. The functional impact of 60% tells you this is not just an inner script; it shapes where you go, what you do, and possibly who you feel you can become.
The payoff of this configuration is immediate and real: predictability, emotional soothing, and a sense of control in the face of a frightening outer world. You have developed a system that quickly reduces discomfort, and that is no small achievement. But the hidden cost is a slow drain on your sense of agency. When you consistently outsource your safety to another person or a screen, you starve yourself of the experiences that would teach you, experientially, that you are capable. Your mind clings to the belief that you can’t handle distress alone, and the avoidance ensures you never disprove it. This leads to a paradoxical state: you are safe, but you feel more fragile than ever. The world recedes, and your identity becomes intertwined with the need for a protector. The tension between craving freedom and fearing its consequences can become exhausting, a quiet war between wanting more and believing you can’t have it.
This strategy likely made profound sense at some earlier chapter. Perhaps unpredictability in your environment—a chaotic family, a history of loss, a traumatic event—taught you that self-reliance invited danger. By leaning heavily on another person, you navigated periods that would have otherwise flattened you. That was not pathology; it was a creative, even courageous, adaptation to a tough reality. It allowed you to survive and maintain a foothold in daily life. Now, however, that same strategy may be working against you because the external threats have diminished, but your internal alarm hasn’t received the update. You are using an old map for a new terrain, and the places marked ‘dangerous’ may no longer be accurate. Recognizing this history can invite compassion: you didn’t choose this pattern from weakness, but from a genuine need to stay safe.
Despite what feels like a formidable cluster of difficulties, several under-appreciated resources reside in your profile. Your physical fear reactions are mild (40%), meaning that when fear hits, your body does not scream with panic—your nervous system shows restraint. This lowers the actual cost of taking a small risk. Your social phobia is only mild, suggesting you are not fundamentally crippled by others’ judgment; you have a relational capacity that is intact. Your mild compulsive behaviors indicate flexibility in your daily routines—you are not prisoner to rigid rituals. Even the emotional dependency, so often viewed negatively, reflects a deep ability to attach, to trust, to seek and give care. That capacity, when brought into balance, is the raw material of healthy interdependence. What’s currently skewed is not your ability to connect but the one-sided nature of that connection when fear takes the wheel.
So where might movement begin? With tiny, conscious acts of brave staying-put. Imagine, for a few minutes, being in a slightly anxiety-provoking situation without immediately reaching for your phone or your person, and simply observing what happens inside you—no judgment, just watching. The first sign that things are loosening might be an almost imperceptible shift: you notice that the feared disaster (a panic attack, helplessness, humiliation) didn’t occur, or that you felt anxious but survived it intact. That moment—when you witness your own endurance—quietly reframes the core belief from ‘I can’t do this alone’ to ‘I just did, for a bit.’ It doesn’t eliminate anxiety, but it gives you a new piece of data. Over time, such moments can accumulate, allowing emotional dependency to soften into choice rather than necessity, and transforming screens from escape hatches into tools. The goal isn’t to become fearless but to discover that you are a stronger, more capable companion to yourself than you ever imagined.
A score is not lived as a number but as a scene. See if you recognise yours — or set it aside.
Specific phobias
Agoraphobia
Social phobia
Avoidance & anxious anticipation
Physical fear reactions
Screen addiction
Social-media addiction
Emotional dependency
Compulsive behaviors
Functional impact
To write about on your own, or to bring to a professional.
To help you situate this report, here are the references specific to this test.
1. I am afraid of crowds and packed places.
Answer : Sometimes
You answered "Sometimes". Can you tell me more about when this comes up for you?
It mainly shows up in situations that matter to me, when I feel under pressure or emotionally involved.
2. I am afraid of looking ridiculous.
Answer : Rarely
And how long have you noticed this?
It has been more present over the past few months, though I recognise it from before too.
3. I feel dizzy or faint.
Answer : Rarely
4. I find it hard to cut down my screen time.
Answer : Sometimes
5. I have no fear of missing what happens online.
Answer : Often
6. I feel empty when I am alone.
Answer : Sometimes
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.
Answer the assessment questions and get your personalized report.
Detailed report · 11 dimensions · Personalized analysis
€4.90
Your profile won't be Emma's. It will be built from your own answers.
← Back to the test page