Summary
The Trait Matrix Indicator (TMI) is an original 72-question self-report assessment created by Hypnotechs. It gives one broad picture of a person across five layers: temperament, motivation, close relationships, inner experience and work interests.
Each layer is built on a body of published, peer-reviewed research, and this document credits that work by name. The TMI itself, including every question, its scoring method and its type system, was written independently by Hypnotechs. It does not copy, adapt or reproduce the items, scoring keys or norms of any published test, and it is not affiliated with or endorsed by any of the researchers or publishers cited here.
This document explains where the ideas come from, how the questions were written, the steps taken to reduce bias, and why the scoring works the way it does. Item wording, scoring keys and internal decision rules are kept private to protect the integrity of the test.
An original test built on established theory
Scientific theories belong to the field. Specific tests built on those theories belong to their authors. The TMI draws a clear line between the two.
What the TMI uses: the concepts and dimensions that researchers have described and published, such as the six broad traits of the HEXACO model or the two dimensions of adult attachment. These ideas are the shared foundation of personality science, and anyone may build on them with proper credit.
What the TMI does not use: any other test's questions, wording, scoring keys, norms, type names or reports. Every TMI question was written from scratch by Hypnotechs. The 13 TMI type names, the five-layer structure and the way the layers fit together are Hypnotechs' own.
How credit is given: each layer below names the researchers whose work it rests on, and full references are listed at the end. Where a layer reflects a specific person's model, such as Dr. John Kappas' E&P model of suggestibility, that is stated plainly.
The TMI is not a short form, translation or rewording of any published instrument, and it should not be described as one.
Research foundations, layer by layer
The TMI measures 17 scales grouped into five layers. Each layer was chosen because it answers a question people commonly bring to personality testing, and because a well-studied body of research stands behind it.
Layer | What it asks | Research it draws on |
|---|---|---|
Wiring | What is your basic temperament? | The HEXACO model of personality structure, which identified six broad traits in studies of how people across many languages describe one another, including a sixth trait, honesty-humility, beyond the Big Five (Ashton & Lee, 2007; Lee & Ashton, 2004). |
Drive | What motivates you, and how much do you feel in charge of your life? | Cross-cultural research on basic human values, which finds security, achievement, self-direction and care for close others as distinct priorities (Schwartz, 1992); the dominance dimension of interpersonal behavior (Wiggins, 1979); and locus of control (Rotter, 1966). |
Connection | How do you relate to the people closest to you? | Adult attachment research, which consistently finds two underlying dimensions: worry about being let down and comfort with closeness (Brennan, Clark & Shaver, 1998; Fraley, Waller & Brennan, 2000). The question about how people show care is treated as a preference, in line with recent relationship science (Impett, Park & Muise, 2024). |
Inner world | How does your mind work? | Research on the vividness of mental imagery (Marks, 1973), including people with little or no imagery (Zeman, Dewar & Della Sala, 2015); research on absorption, a trait linked to responsiveness to hypnosis (Tellegen & Atkinson, 1974); and Dr. John Kappas' E&P model of suggestibility (Kappas, 1987). |
Direction | What kind of work fits you? | The two dimensions underlying Holland's career interest types, working with people versus things and with data versus ideas (Holland, 1997; Prediger, 1982; Rounds & Tracey, 1993). |
A note on Dr. John Kappas. Dr. Kappas described two ways people take in suggestion, which he called Physical and Emotional suggestibility. Hypnotechs uses the term Analytical for the second style because it describes it more clearly for a modern reader. The model and its insight are entirely his; the TMI includes only a short reading of it, written for this test, and points people to a full suggestibility assessment for more.
Why HEXACO for temperament? HEXACO covers the same ground as the widely used Big Five model and adds honesty-humility as its own trait. That sixth trait matters for an honest self-portrait: it captures how straightforward or self-promoting a person tends to be, which other broad models fold into other traits.
How the questions were written
Every TMI question was written to be easy to answer honestly and hard to misread. The same principles were applied across all five layers.
Everyday behavior, not abstract labels. Questions describe things people actually do, feel or prefer in recognizable situations, rather than asking people to rate themselves on a trait name. Concrete situations produce more consistent answers than self-labels, which people interpret in different ways.
One idea per question. Each statement asks about a single thing, so agreeing or disagreeing has one clear meaning.
Plain language. Questions are written in short, everyday words at roughly an eighth-grade reading level, with no jargon or clinical terms, so the test works for a broad audience.
Several questions per scale. No single answer decides a result. Each scale combines several questions that approach the same idea from different angles, so one misread question or unusual situation has limited effect.
Both ends are worth having. Every scale runs between two ends that each carry real strengths and real costs. Questions are worded so that neither end sounds like the right answer.
The right format for the content.
Most questions use an agree-disagree rating, which suits traits that people have in degrees.
Motivation uses forced choices between two options. Nearly everyone agrees that security, connection, achievement and freedom matter, so rating each one alone produces flat, similar scores. Choosing between them reveals what comes first.
How a person shows care uses a single ranking, because the question is about order of preference rather than amount.
Nothing sensitive or diagnostic. The TMI does not ask about health conditions, personal history or anything that would require clinical context to interpret.
Reducing bias
Self-report tests are vulnerable to a handful of well-known response biases. The TMI was designed with a specific safeguard for each.
Bias | What it looks like | How the TMI guards against it |
|---|---|---|
Agreeing with everything | Some people tend to agree with statements regardless of content. | Every scale mixes statements where agreeing points to one end with statements where agreeing points to the other, so a habit of agreeing cancels out instead of pushing a score in one direction. |
Looking good | People lean toward answers that sound admirable. | Both ends of every scale are described as legitimate. Statements avoid praise and blame, and the honesty-related questions describe ordinary situations rather than moral tests. |
Answering on autopilot | Long runs of similar questions invite pattern answering. | Questions from different traits are interleaved, so the test moves between topics instead of asking about one trait several times in a row. |
Order effects | The first option in a pair tends to be picked more often. | In the forced-choice questions, each option appears first as often as it appears second. |
Flat ratings | Rating several good things alone makes them all look equal. | Motivation is measured with forced choices, which require a real priority. |
Language and identity | Wording can favor one group's experience. | Questions use gender-neutral language and everyday situations that apply across cultures, ages and lifestyles, with no references to gender, relationship status, religion or region. |
False precision | A score near the middle can be reported as if it were a firm category. | Results mark how firm a type is, name two traits when they are nearly tied, and describe scores near the middle as balanced rather than forcing a label. |
Close calls | When the top two traits are nearly level, a single answer can flip the result. | A small number of extra questions appear only in that case, to give a steadier result. Most people never see them. |
How scoring works
TMI scores are built to show tendencies and gray areas honestly, not to sort people into rigid boxes.
Every scale runs from 0 to 100, with 50 as the middle. The two ends of each scale are opposite tendencies, not good and bad. A score of 20 is not a weak result; it is a clear lean toward the other end. What matters is how far a score sits from the middle, in either direction.
The type is the headline. A TMI type sums up temperament in a word. It is named after the Wiring trait that sits furthest from the middle, using the name of whichever end the person leans toward. Every trait has two named ends, so the types come in six pairs, plus The All-Rounder for people who do not lean far on any trait. The type is deliberately drawn from temperament alone: temperament is the most stable layer, and a label built from every score would be too long to remember or share. The other four layers do not change the type; they fill in the detail.
Results say how firm they are.
Distance from the middle | Reading |
|---|---|
Under 15 points on every Wiring trait | The All-Rounder |
15 to 24 points | Leaning |
25 to 34 points | Clear |
35 points or more | Strong |
Close results are named as close. When the top two traits are within a few points of each other, the result is a blend that names both. When a second trait stands out clearly but less than the first, it is added as a streak. These are not hedges. They reflect the measurement error that every short test carries, and they tell people honestly when a different day could tip the result.
Motivation and care are rankings, not amounts. The core drives are scored by how often each one was chosen over the others, and equal drives are reported as equally strong rather than forced apart. How a person shows care is reported as an order of preference.
Scores are relative to the scale, not to other people. A TMI score describes where a person's answers fall between the two ends of a scale. It is not a percentile and does not compare the person with a reference group.
Interpretation and recommendations
Each TMI result comes with an interpretation written for that person's exact scores, not a stock paragraph shared by everyone with the same type. Two people with the same type can lean on it to different degrees and differ on every other layer, and their results reflect that.
Interpretations follow fixed ground rules:
Plain, everyday language, with concrete examples from daily life, work and relationships.
Honest about costs. Traits that can create problems, such as a strong tendency to play the angles, are named plainly along with what they can cost, but never with clinical or criminal labels.
Tendencies, not verdicts. Scores near the middle are described as balanced, and leaning results are described as open to change.
No diagnosis. Results never suggest a mental health condition or a clinical finding.
The TMI also points each person to two or three deeper Hypnotechs assessments. These are chosen by fixed rules from the scores that stand out most, so the recommendations follow the results rather than promoting any particular test. They are suggested by what each test helps a person explore, not because the tests are related to one another.
Limits and responsible use
The TMI is an educational self-reflection tool. Its value comes from being clear about what it can and cannot do.
Broad, not deep. The TMI covers five layers in one sitting, so each scale rests on a handful of questions. Single scores are best treated as useful hints. The deeper Hypnotechs assessments measure individual topics in more detail.
Self-report. Results reflect how people see themselves. People who know someone well may see them a little differently.
Not clinical. The TMI cannot diagnose any condition, predict job performance or relationship outcomes, or describe anyone other than the person who took it. It should not be used for hiring, selection or any decision about another person.
Results can shift. Mood, stress and life changes move answers somewhat, especially near the middle of a scale. That is why firmness is reported.
A new test, under review. The TMI is a newly developed assessment. Hypnotechs reviews how its questions and scales perform as results come in, and refines them over time. Changes are made to improve clarity and consistency, never to steer people toward particular results.
Anyone whose worry, mood or relationships are affecting daily life is encouraged to talk with a licensed professional.
References
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(2), 150–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868306294907
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult romantic attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). Guilford Press.
Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 350–364. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.350
Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (3rd ed.). Psychological Assessment Resources.
Impett, E. A., Park, H. G., & Muise, A. (2024). Popular psychology through a scientific lens: Evaluating love languages from a relationship science perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 33(2), 87–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214231217663
Kappas, J. G. (1987). Professional hypnotism manual: Introducing physical and emotional suggestibility and sexuality. Panorama Publishing.
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO Personality Inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(2), 329–358. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3902_8
Marks, D. F. (1973). Visual imagery differences in the recall of pictures. British Journal of Psychology, 64(1), 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1973.tb01322.x
Prediger, D. J. (1982). Dimensions underlying Holland's hexagon: Missing link between interests and occupations? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 21(3), 259–287.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0092976
Rounds, J., & Tracey, T. J. (1993). Prediger's dimensional representation of Holland's RIASEC circumplex. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6), 875–890. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.6.875
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6
Tellegen, A., & Atkinson, G. (1974). Openness to absorbing and self-altering experiences ("absorption"), a trait related to hypnotic susceptibility. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 83(3), 268–277. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036681
Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(3), 395–412.
Zeman, A., Dewar, M., & Della Sala, S. (2015). Lives without imagery: Congenital aphantasia. Cortex, 73, 378–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2015.05.019
The Trait Matrix Indicator (TMI) is an original educational self-assessment by Hypnotechs. The researchers and publishers cited here are credited for the theories the TMI builds on; they did not create, review or endorse the TMI. The TMI cannot diagnose any condition or replace professional advice.