Methodology & honest limits

The Love Audit: six behavioral signals

The Love Audit doesn't read minds — it reads behavior. Romantic interest tends to leave measurable traces in how people text, independent of what they say. The audit scores six of these signals and weights them into a single 0–100 score:

• Reply speed — how quickly someone responds. Faster replies signal higher priority; consistently slow ones signal lower.
• Initiation share — who restarts a conversation after it goes quiet. Doing this repeatedly is one of the clearest markers of investment.
• Question rate — how often they ask about your life. Genuine curiosity is effortful and hard to fake at volume.
• Effort ratio — message length and richness relative to yours. Matched or greater effort signals engagement.
• Volume balance — whether the conversation is roughly two-sided or carried by one person.
• Double-texting — coming back unprompted with a follow-up. A small but telling sign of someone keeping the thread alive.

These rest on a simple, well-supported premise: attention and effort follow interest. But they are proxies, not proof. Some people text slowly with everyone; some are warm with everyone. The score is most meaningful against a baseline — run a platonic chat through it to see what "just friends" looks like for you, then compare. We built it to be honest about uncertainty, not to hand you a verdict.

Attachment theory: the research base

Our attachment style test and pairing guides rest on one of the most durable, replicated frameworks in relationship psychology. The lineage:

• John Bowlby (1969), Attachment and Loss — originated attachment theory: early bonds with caregivers shape an internal "working model" of relationships.
• Mary Ainsworth (1978), the "Strange Situation" — produced the first empirical classification of attachment patterns (secure, anxious, avoidant) through controlled observation.
• Hazan & Shaver (1987), Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process — extended attachment theory to adult romantic relationships, showing the same patterns operate between partners.
• Fraley, Waller & Brennan (2000), the ECR-R scale — established the modern two-dimensional measurement (attachment anxiety and avoidance) that our test adapts.

Our 20-item quiz is adapted from the two-dimensional structure of the ECR-R — it is not the validated clinical instrument itself, and it is not a diagnosis. It's an educational tool built on a serious foundation, and we treat it that way. Attachment style is also not fixed for life: it can shift with experience and relationships, which is the hopeful part of the theory.

MBTI compatibility: a popular framework, used with caution

We publish MBTI compatibility reports because personality type is a useful, common language for talking about differences — introvert vs. extravert, planner vs. improviser. But we won't oversell it. MBTI has real limitations in psychometric research: modest test–retest reliability and weak support for its discrete "type" categories. We treat it as a popular framework for reflection and conversation, not a validated predictor of relationship success. Read those reports as a lens, not a law.

Zodiac compatibility: for entertainment

Our zodiac pages are, plainly, for fun. There is no scientific basis for astrological compatibility, and we don't pretend otherwise. They're an enjoyable mirror for thinking about what you value in a partner — and that's the entire pitch. If you want a science-informed read instead, start with the attachment test.

Our stance

We'd rather be trusted than impressive. So, plainly: the Love Audit and the attachment tools are where the substance is — behavioral evidence and a well-supported psychological framework. MBTI is a helpful lens with caveats. Zodiac is entertainment. We label each honestly on purpose, because a relationship site that blurs the line between science and horoscope isn't one you should trust with anything that matters.