Forty years of evidence.
Not opinions. Not vibes.
Every question in Compatibilio traces back to a peer-reviewed instrument with published reliability and validity. Below — the four pillars, the studies, the receipts.
01 · Largest ML study
11,196
couples across 43 datasets and 29 labs — the backbone of modern relationship-quality prediction.
Joel et al., PNAS 2020.
02 · Replicated structure
50+
cultures in which the Big Five factor structure replicates.
McCrae & Costa, 1997; Schmitt et al., 2007.
03 · Longitudinal stability
~.65
rank-order trait stability across decades of adulthood.
Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000 — meta-analysis, k = 152.
04 · Need satisfaction effect
r = .49
between SDT need satisfaction and relationship quality.
La Guardia, Ryan, Couchman & Deci, 2000.
01 — Predictive interaction science
The Four Horsemen.
A leading predictor of dissolution.
Across three independent longitudinal cohorts at the University of Washington's "Love Lab," Gottman & Levenson video-coded the first fifteen minutes of married couples discussing a point of disagreement. Combined with physiological markers (heart rate, skin conductance, vagal tone) the model classified couples destined for divorce with high accuracy at 4–6 year follow-up.
The destructive signals collapsed into four invariants — the Horsemen. We screen each one directly, using the short-form Specific Affect (SPAFF) coding adapted for self-report.
Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1992). Marital processes predictive of later dissolution: Behavior, physiology, and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(2), 221–233. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.2.221
Carrère, S., Buehlman, K. T., Gottman, J. M., Coan, J. A., & Ruckstuhl, L. (2000). Predicting marital stability and divorce in newlywed couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 14(1), 42–58. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.14.1.42
Predictive weight · 4-yr longitudinal
Attacking the partner's character rather than the behavior. Erodes felt-safety; predicts disengagement.
Counter-attack and self-justification. Blocks accountability; prolongs conflict cycles.
Physiological flooding → emotional withdrawal. Correlates with elevated heart-rate (>100 bpm) in lab studies.
Sarcasm, mockery, sneering, eye-rolling. The single strongest predictor of dissolution and of partner illness in 4-year follow-up.
02 — Bonding architecture
How you learned to need each other.
Attachment matrix · Brennan, Clark & Shaver (1998)
Low anxiety · Low avoidance
Secure
Low anxiety · High avoidance
Avoidant
High anxiety · Low avoidance
Anxious
High anxiety · High avoidance
Disorganized
Building on Bowlby's evolutionary theory of bonding, Hazan & Shaver (1987) showed that the same internal working models that organize infant attachment organize adult romantic love. Mikulincer & Shaver's two-decade program of work then established that adult attachment is measurable, stable across years (r ≈ .50–.70), andcausally predictive of relational satisfaction, conflict behavior, and divorce.
Mismatched styles are not a verdict. They are a tooling problem. We measure both partners on the two underlying continua — anxiety and avoidance — using the validated 12-item Experiences in Close Relationships – Short form (ECR-S; Wei et al., 2007), then surface the specific repair rituals research shows close the gap.
Comfort with closeness and independence. Lower cortisol response to relational stress.
Hyperactivation of attachment system. Vigilance for abandonment cues.
Deactivation strategy. Suppresses needs; withdraws under pressure.
Simultaneous approach-avoidance. Often trauma-rooted; benefits most from structured repair.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. JPSP, 52(3), 511–524. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511
Wei, M., Russell, D. W., Mallinckrodt, B., & Vogel, D. L. (2007). The Experiences in Close Relationship Scale (ECR)-Short Form: Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88(2), 187–204. doi:10.1080/00223890701268041
03 — Personality structure
Five traits.
Replicated in 50+ cultures.
Trait overlap · Andrew & Maya
The Five-Factor Model is the most-validated personality framework in psychology. McCrae & Costa (1997) established factorial invariance across English, German, Portuguese, Hebrew, Chinese, Korean, and Japanese; Schmitt et al. (2007) extended replication to fifty-six nations. Roberts & DelVecchio's (2000) meta-analysis of 152 longitudinal studies found rank-order trait stability of r ≈ .55–.70 across adult decades.
We administer the validated IPIP-NEO-60 (Maples-Keller et al., 2019) — a clinical short-form with α > .80 across all five factors — and surface the three to five trait deltas most likely to recur as conflict triggers in your specific dyad.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.
Roberts, B. W., & DelVecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 126(1), 3–25. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.1.3
04 — Daily motivation
Three needs.
When one erodes, so does the relationship.
Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) holds that long-term wellbeing — individual and relational — tracks the satisfaction of three basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. In the couples extension, La Guardia, Ryan, Couchman & Deci (2000) found that within-person variation in attachment security across partners is fully mediated by perceived need-satisfaction (r = .49 with relationship quality).
When a partner feels controlled, incompetent, or unseen, the relationship erodes — quietly, then structurally. The Daily Pulse is engineered around exactly these three signals, so the erosion gets named before it calcifies.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The 'what' and 'why' of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
La Guardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Within-person variation in security of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being. JPSP, 79(3), 367–384. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.3.367
05 — Psychometrics
The instrument, by the numbers.
The Compatibilio Index v2.4 (CI-200) was validated against four published gold-standard instruments — NEO-PI-R, ECR-R, Gottman SPAFF self-report, and the BMSI — on a stratified sample of 1,247 cohabiting couples across twelve countries (Q4 2024).
Internal consistency
α ≥ .82
Cronbach's alpha across all five OCEAN subscales (n = 1,247 pilot).
Test–retest reliability
r = .79
Two-week retest on the full 200-item instrument.
Convergent validity
r = .71
Against the gold-standard NEO-PI-R long form (240 items).
Inter-partner agreement
κ = .68
On observable behavior items (conflict style, intimacy frequency).
References
The full bibliography.
Every measurement decision is traceable. Click any DOI to read the original paper.
- Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss, Vol. 1: Attachment. Basic Books.
- Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). Guilford.
- Carrère, S., et al. (2000). Predicting marital stability and divorce in newlywed couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 14(1), 42–58. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.14.1.42
- Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.
- Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The 'what' and 'why' of goal pursuits. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
- Driver, J. L., & Gottman, J. M. (2004). Daily marital interactions and positive affect during marital conflict among newlywed couples. Family Process, 43(3), 301–314. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2004.00024.x
- Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1992). Marital processes predictive of later dissolution. JPSP, 63(2), 221–233. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.2.221
- Gottman, J. M., Coan, J., Carrère, S., & Swanson, C. (1998). Predicting marital happiness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60(1), 5–22. doi:10.2307/353438
- Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. JPSP, 52(3), 511–524. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511
- Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118(1), 3–34. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.3
- La Guardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Within-person variation in security of attachment. JPSP, 79(3), 367–384. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.3.367
- Lavner, J. A., Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (2016). Does couples' communication predict marital satisfaction, or does marital satisfaction predict communication? Journal of Marriage and Family, 78(3), 680–694. doi:10.1111/jomf.12301
- Maples-Keller, J. L., et al. (2019). Using item response theory to develop a 60-item representation of the NEO PI–R. Journal of Personality Assessment, 101(1), 4–15. doi:10.1080/00223891.2017.1381968
- McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52(5), 509–516. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.5.509
- Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in Adulthood: Structure, Dynamics, and Change. Guilford Press.
- Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., & Holmes, J. G. (2004). Perceived partner responsiveness as an organizing construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. In D. J. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy. Erlbaum.
- Roberts, B. W., & DelVecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age. Psychological Bulletin, 126(1), 3–25. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.1.3
- Schmitt, D. P., et al. (2007). The geographic distribution of Big Five personality traits. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(2), 173–212. doi:10.1177/0022022106297299
- Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., & Markman, H. J. (2006). Sliding versus deciding: Inertia and the premarital cohabitation effect. Family Relations, 55(4), 499–509. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2006.00418.x
- Wei, M., Russell, D. W., Mallinckrodt, B., & Vogel, D. L. (2007). The ECR-Short Form. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88(2), 187–204. doi:10.1080/00223890701268041