Based on the research of Michael E. McCullough, professor of psychology at the University of California, San Diego.
Cutoff Test
How do you handle interpersonal betrayal?
When someone crosses a serious line, the hurt can become a decision about contact. Some people step back, some keep a record of what happened, some want accountability, and some stay open to repair.
Based on the research of Michael E. McCullough at the University of California, San Diego, this test looks at how strongly you lean toward withdrawal, record-keeping, payback, or repair after interpersonal hurt.
Question 1 of 20
After trust is broken, I focus on protecting myself before trying to understand the situation.
| Disagree | Agree |
BACK NEXT
The Cutoff Test is a research-informed self-report profile based on psychometric methodology and relevant psychological research. The sections below summarize the academic background and explain how each result pattern should be read.
Academic Background
Based on the research of Michael E. McCullough, professor of psychology at the University of California, San Diego, this profile summarizes the tested patterns as self-report facets rather than a diagnosis or formal assessment.
Withdrawal
Withdrawal is a motivational tendency to prioritize emotional distance and self-protection after an interpersonal offense. High scorers are less inclined to pursue reconciliation, often choosing to disengage, minimize contact, or move forward independently rather than repair the relationship through discussion. This style relies on the belief that some conflicts are not worth revisiting, or that distance is safer and more efficient than restoration. Low scorers are more willing to re-engage, address hurt directly, and work toward rebuilding connection.
Cold Exit
Cold Exit is a pattern of responding to interpersonal hurt by leaving the relationship, conversation, or contact channel before more damage can happen. High scorers tend to end contact quietly, stop answering, or make themselves unavailable when trust feels unsafe. Low scorers are more likely to state limits, seek a final conversation, or stay present long enough to decide whether repair is possible.
Receipt Keeping
Receipt Keeping is the habit of preserving details of past offenses as evidence for future distance or caution. High scorers tend to replay what happened, remember who crossed which line, and use those records to justify guardedness. Low scorers are less likely to store old harms as proof and more likely to let a conflict lose emotional force once the immediate danger has passed.
Payback Wish
Payback Wish is the desire for an offender to face a proportionate consequence after causing harm. High scorers tend to feel calmer when the other person experiences accountability, loss of standing, or a lesson that matches the offense. Low scorers are more likely to move on without wanting punishment, especially when remorse or repair seems possible.
Limitations
The Cutoff Test is designed for self-understanding and comparison between result patterns. It should not be treated as a clinical, educational, or employment assessment.
References
- McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S. J., Worthington, E. L., Brown, S. W., & Hight, T. L. (1998). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships: II. Theoretical elaboration and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(6), 1586-1603.
- McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L., & Rachal, K. C. (1997). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(2), 321-336.
- McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S. J., Worthington, E. L., Brown, S. W., & Hight, T. L. (1998). Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory. PsycTESTS Dataset.
- McCullough, M. E., Fincham, F. D., & Tsang, J. (2003). Forgiveness, forbearance, and time: The temporal unfolding of transgression-related interpersonal motivations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(3), 540-557.
- Fincham, F. D. & Beach, S. R. H. (2002). Forgiveness in Marriage: Implications for Psychological Aggression and Constructive Communication. Personal Relationships, 9(3), 239-251.
