Codependency Test
Answer 18 quick questions about how you relate to people close to you, choosing whichever option comes closest to your own experience. At the end, you’ll get a clear picture of how far signs of codependency currently reach into those relationships — takes about 4 minutes.
Steady Ground: codependency touches your closest relationships only in rare, passing moments right now.
Steady Ground fits a stretch where you're mostly running your own week. You pick the restaurant, keep the Saturday you already planned, and clock how you're doing before anyone else's mood gets a vote.
When a friend's crisis lands in your inbox, you can pitch in without clearing out the rest of your week for it. A real annoyance still gets said out loud, and noticing you're hungry or tired or simply done for the day doesn't require a crisis first.
None of that makes you cold toward people. You still show up when it counts, and taking over for someone else stays the odd exception rather than a habit.
What eighteen questions can't tell you is how you'd hold up through a genuinely rough season — a health scare, months of someone leaning on you, a breakup nearby. This reading only covers ground you've actually walked; the rest is still unwritten.
The Occasional Yield: codependency touches your closest relationships every so often, without becoming the norm.
The Occasional Yield fits someone for whom this dynamic is a visitor, not a housemate. Most weeks you're deciding your own plans, saying what you actually think, and letting people close to you carry their own weather.
Then one specific corner shows up: maybe you go quiet about wanting the window seat because your sister always claims it, or you smooth over a friend's short temper instead of naming it. It's contained, but it's real while it's happening.
Calling it occasional doesn't erase what it costs in that one moment. Whoever's on the other side of it feels the genuine version, even without it repeating every week.
This result can't tell you which corner of your life it lives in, though. That part is worth tracking yourself, the next time you catch it happening.
The Tipping Point: codependency touches your closest relationships about half the time, closer to a coin flip than a fixed pattern.
The Tipping Point lands almost exactly on the line this test can draw. Roughly half of what you described costs you something; the other half rolls right off you.
An ordinary Tuesday, you'd barely notice a difference. It's the weeks that go sideways — a family emergency, a call you have to make in twenty minutes flat — where more than one of these habits tends to show up at the same time.
That split makes you less a fixed type and more someone standing right on an edge, with genuine room to move in either direction from here.
Ask about a calm month and this would sound minor. Ask about the month everything went wrong and it would sound like considerably more — both would be honest descriptions of the same person.
Running on Someone Else's Clock: codependency touches several of your closest relationships on a steady, week-to-week basis.
This result covers more than a single habit — it's several of them, on a schedule that isn't really yours. A canceled plan here, a swallowed opinion there, all showing up together often enough to notice.
Habits this steady rarely start from nowhere. Underneath is often real love for the person you keep bending toward, or an exhausting conviction that things fall apart the moment you stop holding them together.
That same steadiness carries a price tag. Sleep gets shorter, a plan gets moved for the third time this month, and your own preferences slide quietly down the list.
This tells you how often it happens, not why it took root this way for you specifically — that's a longer story than any scored questionnaire can hold.
All In, All the Time: codependency touches almost every relationship close to you, nearly without a break.
All In, All the Time leaves barely a corner untouched. You track someone else's whereabouts more closely than your own calendar, keep giving well past what most people would call generous, and covering for them has quietly stopped feeling optional.
Something reaching this far is rarely coldness in disguise. Far more often it's what deep caring looks like after years of also being afraid that pulling back means letting someone down.
That same devotion is exactly what's been wearing you down — your sleep, your health, your own plans, your sense of what you'd choose if no one else were in the room, sometimes with nothing about the actual situation changing.
None of this predicts what happens with anyone else in your life; it describes a pattern in you, one you're free to work on. Some people find it helps to talk this through with a counselor or therapist — nobody's requiring it, it's simply there if you want it.
Your results are no accident
The classic 16-type personality test rooted in Jung's typology has been rebuilt from the ground up: a new CoreTypes methodology, and a far higher level of accuracy. These might be the most useful ten minutes you'll ever spend on yourself: you walk away with the key to your decisions, your relationships and your results — and it's yours for good.
Take the free testFrequently Asked Questions
Is codependency a real diagnosis?
It isn't listed in any psychiatric classification system as an illness on its own. It's a well-established name for how someone tends to connect with the people around them — worth taking seriously, but not something a doctor would write down as a condition.
Can a quiz like this actually tell me if I'm codependent?
Not by itself. What a questionnaire like this can do is describe how far a certain way of relating currently shows up in your own account of your behavior. Anything past that — an actual clinical call — needs a licensed professional, not a set of multiple-choice questions.
Is this something you either have or don't, or can it be mild?
It plays out along a spectrum rather than as a switch that's simply on or off. One tense moment tells you far less than the overall shape of how you tend to show up across many different situations — which is exactly what a scored result like this is built to reflect.
Isn't this just what being a generous person looks like?
Plenty of generous, warm people would score low here. The dividing line isn't how much you give — it's whether that giving keeps taking something out of you, over and over, well past what any single situation actually required.
Where does a pattern like this come from, and is it permanent?
People often connect a pattern like this to the environment someone grew up in, though this particular quiz isn't built to examine anyone's individual history. The research keeps pointing the same way: a pattern like this can soften once someone notices it and gets some backing from other people — nobody's stuck with it permanently.
Methodology
This test is grounded in published research about codependency — leaning on someone close at your own expense — not in any single branded program or named test. Six habits get measured side by side: stepping in to soften consequences that belong to someone else, keeping real feelings tucked away instead of voiced, tracking another person's moods and whereabouts more closely than your own, letting your own mood trail behind theirs, working to steer or manage choices that aren't yours to make, and giving in ways that outlast what the situation actually called for.
Like every self-report questionnaire, what comes back only reflects how you describe your own behavior — it can't observe your relationships directly, and it never hears the other person's side of them. Plain generosity isn't what's being flagged here; the questions target situations where giving keeps taking something from you, again and again, rather than the giving itself.
Codependency doesn't appear as a condition in any psychiatric classification system, so what you get is a reading of degree, never a diagnosis, and it says nothing about anyone else in your life or where things are heading with them. For more on how researchers and clinicians actually use the term, the APA's dictionary entry on codependency is a solid place to start.
Treat your result as a snapshot of how you currently describe yourself, nothing more clinical than that — it doesn't stand in for a mental health professional, and it isn't passing judgment on your relationship or where it's headed.
References
- Dear, G. E., Roberts, C., & Lange, L. (2004). Defining codependency: A thematic analysis of published definitions. In S. Shohov (Ed.), Advances in Psychology, Volume 34 (pp. 189–205). Nova Science Publishers.
- Dear, G. E., & Roberts, C. M. (2000). The Holyoake Codependency Index: Investigation of the Factor Structure and Psychometric Properties. Psychological Reports, 87(3), 991–1002. doi:10.2466/pr0.2000.87.3.991
- Marks, A. D. G., Blore, R. L., Hine, D. W., & Dear, G. E. (2012). Development and validation of a revised measure of codependency. Australian Journal of Psychology, 64(3), 119–127. doi:10.1111/j.1742-9536.2011.00034.x
- Rotunda, R. J., West, L., & O'Farrell, T. J. (2004). Enabling behavior in a clinical sample of alcohol-dependent clients and their partners. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 26(4), 269–276. doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2004.01.007