The dataset of the Statistical "Which Character" Personality Quiz (SWCPQ) includes characters from the fictional universe of How To Get Away With Murder. The SWCPQ can operate as a "What How To Get Away With Murder character are you?" test, click the link above to access it. This page aggregates the crowd sourced data that the quiz is built upon.
| Notability | Name |
|---|---|
| 91.25 | Annalise Keating |
| 78.4 | Wes Gibbins |
| 64.1 | Michaela Pratt |
| 63.05 | Connor Walsh |
| 57.95 | Laurel Castillo |
| 47.0 | Frank Delfino |
| 42.65 | Nate Lahey |
| 41.65 | Bonnie Winterbottom |
| 39.9 | Oliver Hampton |
| 37.35 | Asher Millstone |
To see how each character was rated by users, view their individual page.
As part of the survey where they rated characters, users were also asked the question "How do you rate How To Get Away With Murder?". The distribution of their responses are below.
| # | Response | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | It's the worst | 34 |
| 2 | It's bad | 49 |
| 3 | It's okay | 1157 |
| 4 | It's good | 3344 |
| 5 | It's my favorite | 729 |
This gives it an average score of 3.88 / 5. Making it 205th out of the 369 universes in the dataset ordered by rating.
The average rating may be hard to generalize, though; the users of one online personality quiz could not be representative of the population in important ways. And there are some very obvious things you can point to: users of this quiz are more likely to be young and more likely to be women.
There are several different ways that average ratings can be broken down. Here are average scores by gender:
| Gender | Average rating |
|---|---|
| Male | 3.95 |
| Female | 3.88 |
The responses to the personality quiz can also be cross referenced with the universe ratings to see how personality affects it. The table below shows the correlation between a user's response to a specific self report item and their rating of this universe.
| Item | Correlation with rating | n |
|---|---|---|
| fresh (not stinky) | 0.0656 | 5478 |
| high-tech (not low-tech) | 0.0603 | 4860 |
| mature (not juvenile) | 0.0598 | 4789 |
| genius (not dunce) | 0.0564 | 5525 |
| nurturing (not poisonous) | 0.0537 | 5479 |
| disarming (not creepy) | 0.0479 | 5501 |
| reasonable (not deranged) | 0.0447 | 5554 |
| stylish (not slovenly) | 0.0427 | 5512 |
| alpha (not beta) | 0.0421 | 5474 |
| loyal (not traitorous) | 0.0419 | 5577 |
| charming (not awkward) | 0.0383 | 5609 |
| blissful (not haunted) | 0.0375 | 4821 |
| orderly (not chaotic) | 0.037 | 5525 |
| bossy (not meek) | 0.036 | 5532 |
| altruistic (not selfish) | 0.0271 | 5481 |
| conventional (not creative) | 0.0237 | 5614 |
| social (not reclusive) | 0.0233 | 5485 |
| mainstream (not arcane) | 0.0233 | 5487 |
| deep (not shallow) | 0.0228 | 5562 |
| obedient (not rebellious) | 0.0223 | 5515 |
| sheriff (not outlaw) | 0.0192 | 5470 |
| angelic (not demonic) | 0.0189 | 5474 |
| logical (not emotional) | 0.0186 | 5568 |
| adventurous (not stick-in-the-mud) | 0.0182 | 5483 |
| intimate (not formal) | 0.0176 | 5511 |
| feminine (not masculine) | 0.016 | 5628 |
| jock (not nerd) | 0.0157 | 5534 |
| wild (not tame) | 0.0144 | 4886 |
| scientific (not artistic) | 0.0144 | 4969 |
| feisty (not gracious) | 0.0098 | 5474 |
| lavish (not frugal) | 0.0078 | 5465 |
| spiritual (not skeptical) | 0.0065 | 5547 |
| indulgent (not sober) | 0.0044 | 5477 |
| ivory-tower (not blue-collar) | 0.0043 | 5458 |
| lenient (not strict) | 0.0032 | 5599 |
| sarcastic (not genuine) | 0.0002 | 4864 |
How these items predict the ratings for this universe can be compared to how the same items predict the ratings of other universes. The universes with the most similar patterns on the predictors are: