Built on published research into
why people stay together
and why they drift apart.
| Framework | What it covers in ResonanceME |
|---|---|
| Behavioural integrity, honesty-humility and trust — Simons, HEXACO, Rempel et al. | SELF — Integrity, Honesty and Trust |
| Commitment — Rusbult; divorce-reason studies | SELF — Loyalty & Commitment; Love domain |
| Locus of Control — Julian B. Rotter | SELF — Responsibility |
| Conscientiousness (Big Five) — McCrae & Costa | SELF — Work Ethic |
| Gottman Relationship Research | SELF — Respect; Love and Family domains — conflict and repair |
| Forgiveness research — McCullough | SELF — Forgiveness |
| Schwartz Theory of Basic Values | The structure behind SELF's dilemmas and the Purpose domain |
| Attachment Theory — Bowlby, Ainsworth, Hazan & Shaver | Love domain — security, avoidance, anxiety in relationships |
| Self-Determination Theory — Deci & Ryan | Purpose and Career domains — motivation and autonomy |
| Desire and intimacy research — Sprecher; Baumeister & Bratslavsky | Love and Intimacy domains |
The research behind ResonanceME was not invented for this product. It comes from decades of work in psychology and relationship science, and we have chosen the parts that bear most directly on one question: what do people stand on, and does it fit with the person next to them?
ResonanceME is a self-knowledge and conversation tool. It is not a clinical or psychometric instrument. We have not yet run formal reliability or validity studies of our own questions, and we say so plainly. What we can say is where each idea comes from, what the research does and does not show, and where it is disputed.
Many personality and compatibility tools are built to feel insightful while staying vague enough that almost anyone can see themselves in the result. That is the Barnum effect. We try to do the opposite: make specific, checkable statements, and let you tell us when we are wrong.
What follows is the body of research we draw on, openly, for scrutiny. If you spot something we have overstated, tell us.
A few numbers behind the research
of divorced people in one small study named lack of commitment among their reasons. Infidelity (60%) and too much conflict (58%) followed.
Scott, Rhoades, Stanley et al., 2013 (52 people)
higher risk of early death linked to loneliness, and 29% for social isolation, across 70 studies.
Holt-Lunstad et al., 2015
Gottman and Levenson followed 79 couples. Patterns of conflict behaviour distinguished those who later divorced.
Gottman & Levenson, 2000
of employees worldwide are engaged at work.
Gallup State of the Global Workplace, 2023
10 bodies of research.
Read them, then judge for yourself.
Each pillar below shaped how ResonanceME's domains and dimensions are structured. Where the research is mixed or disputed, we say so.
Attachment Theory
Bowlby · Ainsworth · Hazan & Shaver
John Bowlby's work established that early bonds create internal working models: mental templates for how relationships work. Mary Ainsworth's Strange Situation studies identified distinct attachment patterns in children, and Hazan & Shaver (1987) showed that similar secure, anxious and avoidant patterns appear in adult romantic relationships.
ResonanceME's Love domain looks at attachment as a pattern with several dimensions, not a single label. It uses that to describe how two people's patterns might interact. That is a prompt for conversation, not a forecast.
On average, pairings of an anxious and an avoidant partner report lower satisfaction. Knowing your own pattern helps you spot it early.
Gottman Relationship Research
John & Julie Gottman · decades of couples data
John and Julie Gottman have studied couples for decades, including long-term follow-ups in their "Love Lab". In a 14-year study of 79 couples (Gottman & Levenson, 2000), patterns of conflict behaviour (criticism, contempt, defensiveness and stonewalling) distinguished couples who later divorced from those who stayed together.
The headline accuracy figures from this work, often quoted above 90%, come from models tested on the same couples they were built from, and have been challenged for that reason (Heyman & Slep, 2001). We do not quote them. What has been consistent across the research is the pattern: how a couple handles conflict, and whether contempt is present, tends to matter more than how often they disagree.
Contempt, the sense of being above your partner, is among the strongest warning signs in Gottman's research. It is worth catching early.
Schwartz Values Theory
Shalom Schwartz · tested across more than 80 countries
Shalom Schwartz's theory of basic human values identifies ten value types arranged around a circle, with two main tensions: Self-Enhancement against Self-Transcendence, and Openness to Change against Conservation. The structure has been found in more than 80 countries. What differs between people is how they rank the values.
Research on whether similar values predict how couples fare is mixed. A review of around 339 studies found only modest, inconsistent links between partners' similarity and their outcomes, and perceived similarity mattered more than actual similarity. So ResonanceME treats values as the place to look for fault lines and conversations, not as a prediction.
Two people can share every surface preference and still disagree when a big decision forces their priorities into conflict. The dilemmas in SELF are designed to surface that early.
Integrity, Honesty and Trust
Simons · HEXACO (Ashton & Lee) · Rempel, Holmes & Zanna
Tony Simons' research on behavioural integrity defines it as the perceived match between what a person says and what they do, and finds it is a foundation of trust. The HEXACO personality model treats honesty-humility as its own trait: low scores are linked to dishonesty and infidelity in relationships, and people weigh it heavily when choosing a long-term partner.
Rempel, Holmes and Zanna describe trust in close relationships as confidence in a partner's predictability, dependability and faith. It is built by watching someone act reliably when they could have done otherwise.
These are the values most often named when a relationship ends in betrayal. SELF tests them with dilemmas where each choice has a cost, not with questions about what you believe.
Commitment
Rusbult · Scott, Rhoades & Stanley
Caryl Rusbult's investment model links commitment to three things: satisfaction, what you have invested, and the alternatives you can see. It has been tested across many kinds of relationships.
When people who have divorced are asked why, lack of commitment, infidelity and conflict come up again and again. In one study of 52 divorced people, 75% named lack of commitment, 60% infidelity and 58% too much conflict (Scott et al., 2013). The sample is small and other surveys rank the reasons differently, but commitment and infidelity sit near the top across studies.
SELF asks what you do when a commitment gets expensive. Fidelity goes deeper in the Love and Intimacy domains.
Locus of Control
Julian B. Rotter · 1954 onwards
Julian Rotter's locus of control separates people who tend to see outcomes as the result of their own actions from those who see them as the result of luck or other people. The tendency shifts with experience; it is not fixed.
Owning your part in a problem is what usually makes repair possible after a conflict. ResonanceME's Responsibility dimension looks at whether your first instinct is to look at your own part or at everyone else's.
Looking at your own part first tends to make repair easier. It can also mean taking blame that was not yours.
Conscientiousness and the Big Five
McCrae & Costa · Malouff et al. (2010)
The Big Five (Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism) is the most widely used personality framework in research. ResonanceME does not measure the Big Five. We draw on it where it informs a value: conscientiousness informs the Work Ethic dimension.
A meta-analysis of 19 samples and 3,848 partners (Malouff et al., 2010) found that lower neuroticism and higher agreeableness, conscientiousness and extraversion in a partner were each linked to higher relationship satisfaction. The effects were small.
Traits matter, but they explain only a small part of how a relationship goes. Values and behaviour under pressure add a lot more to the picture.
Forgiveness and Repair
Michael McCullough and colleagues
Research by McCullough and others links forgiveness to higher relationship satisfaction and to recovery after a betrayal. Forgiving is not the same as reconciling, and it works best when the wrong has been acknowledged.
SELF's Forgiveness dimension asks how readily you let things go and where you hold the line on accountability. Both ends have a cost, which is why it is a dilemma and not a scale.
Forgiveness without accountability can teach the wrong lesson. Accountability without forgiveness can leave nothing to rebuild.
Self-Determination Theory
Deci & Ryan
Self-Determination Theory identifies three core psychological needs whose satisfaction predicts wellbeing and motivation: autonomy (acting from your own choices), competence (mastering meaningful challenges) and relatedness (feeling connected to others).
It informs ResonanceME's Purpose and Career domains, which ask what actually drives you and what drains you.
Needs for autonomy, competence and connection show up in motivation and wellbeing across many settings, including work.
Desire and Intimacy
Sprecher · Baumeister & Bratslavsky
Research on relationship satisfaction (Sprecher) and on passion and intimacy (Baumeister & Bratslavsky) suggests that a mismatch in desire is a common source of dissatisfaction, and that emotional intimacy and desire are related but separable.
ResonanceME's Love and Intimacy domains map what each person wants and gives, in a serious and non-clinical way, so that these conversations can happen early rather than late.
Most couples assume they are aligned on this. The domains exist to check.
Several question formats.
Each reveals something different.
Most assessments ask you to rate yourself on a scale. The problem: people are imperfect self-observers, and social desirability pushes answers toward who we would like to be. ResonanceME mixes formats to reduce that, though no format removes it.
What makes Resonance
different in practice.
Choices over claims
ResonanceME rarely asks "how honest are you?" It puts you in a dilemma and looks at what you choose. That is still self-report, so we treat it as a prompt for conversation, not proof.
Specific, not flattering
The Barnum effect, the reason horoscopes feel accurate, is the enemy of useful insight. ResonanceME analysis aims to be specific and checkable. The parts that sting slightly are usually the parts worth discussing.
Fit, not worth
The values framework we use is one particular set, shaped by a Western tradition. The structure of values appears across many cultures, but how people rank them differs. Your results describe fit with another person against that framework. They never say who is a better person.
Honest about uncertainty
Research on whether similar partners do better is mixed. ResonanceME describes where two people differ and what that might mean. It does not predict whether a relationship will last.
Built to be revisited
People change. The map is meant to be redone at significant points in your life, and the value of it grows when you can compare who you were at 28 with who you are at 38.
Actionable, not just accurate
Insight without direction is trivia. Each analysis points to specific places to look and things to try, not a generic "be more open".
Eight character types.
A shorthand, not a test.
After SELF, the AI gives you a Resonance Profile: a descriptive label for your pattern of values and how you tend to show up with other people. It is a name to start a conversation with, not a psychometric type or a measurement.
The types have not been validated against other personality measures. No type is better than another. Each carries its own strengths and its own blind spots.
Makes decisions faster than most. Thrives under pressure and ambiguity. Needs people who can keep up — and the wisdom to surround themselves with those who slow them down just enough.
Leads through authority and strategic control. Doesn't just go first — builds the road. Holds ground, sets standards, and demands that those around them rise to meet them.
Asks the question that changes a room. Greatest work is what they make possible in others. Thrives in dynamic environments where energy and ideas move fast.
Brings people together across divides of background, function, and opinion. Gift is belonging — they make rooms feel safe enough for people to be honest.
Trusted because trustworthy. Gift is constancy. Their people are the ones who stay — because the Steward is always still there.
Sees potential before others do. Patient where others rush. Derives deep satisfaction from watching the people around them become more than they thought they could be.
Thinks institutionally. Sees ten moves ahead. Needs people who match depth of commitment and tolerance for long games. Uncomfortable with chaos — thrives in complexity they can map.
Thinks deeply. Reads widely. Gift is clarity — they name what others only sense. Challenge is finding people who match their depth without retreating into abstraction.
Your profile is based on your SELF responses. The AI picks the type that best fits your pattern, which may not be the one you would choose for yourself.
ResonanceME is not a substitute for professional psychological, therapeutic, or medical advice. It is an instrument of self-knowledge — a starting point, not a clinical assessment.
AI-generated analysis reflects the patterns in your responses. It is not infallible. Treat it as the most honest mirror you have found — not the final word on who you are.
ResonanceME's own questions have not yet been through formal reliability or validity testing. We draw on published research, but that does not make our questions a validated instrument.
No framework fully captures human complexity. ResonanceME is built to be useful, not exhaustive. The goal is to improve the quality of your decisions, not to replace your judgement.
Compatibility analysis describes probabilities and patterns, not certainties. People surprise each other. Context matters. The map is an aid to navigation — you are still the navigator.
The research is the foundation.
You are what it was built for.
Begin with the Self domain. It is free, private, and the foundation that makes every other domain possible.
Begin Your LIFEMAP →