An in-depth assessment to better understand your strengths, the areas that deserve your attention, and how the different dimensions of your profile relate to one another.
This assessment explores 5 dimensions
Positive Predictors · Positive/Negative Balance · Admiration and Respect · Conflict Repair · Readiness to Change
Your report doesn't stop at separate scores. It also highlights the contrasts and connections between your results to offer a more personal reading of your profile.
Hello Emma,
Your results paint a picture of a relationship where the day-to-day warmth and mutual regard have noticeably dimmed, leaving a sense of going through the motions. The combination of low positive predictors, low admiration, and a strained positive-to-negative balance suggests that the emotional atmosphere has become more transactional than connective. At 36, you are likely navigating multiple demands—career, perhaps family, personal identity—that can silently erode the deliberate attention a partnership needs. What stands out is the interdependence: without a steady stream of small positives, admiration wanes; without admiration, conflicts feel heavier and repairs more fragile; and when effort seems pointless, motivation to change stalls. This can create a self-reinforcing loop where the relationship feels like a source of fatigue rather than replenishment. Yet within this pattern lie seeds of possibility: your moderate conflict repair indicates that you and your partner still know how to find your way back to each other—at least sometimes—suggesting that the foundations are not entirely lost. Your low readiness to change may be a protective layer, armoring you against repeated disappointment, but it also signals that any shift must honor your pace and not feel forced. Because you are taking the time to explore these indicators, there is already a quiet willingness to look, which is the first step in any change process. The path forward might involve small, almost invisible experiments—a daily question, a scheduled coffee together—that can gradually reintroduce a sense of being known and valued. You are not broken, and neither is your relationship; you are, like many couples, in a place where neglect has accumulated, and where conscious attention can slowly restore what routine has obscured. If these reflections resonate, consider that the next step could be a gentle conversation rather than a ultimatum, or a workshop rather than a crisis intervention. The fact that you are reading this means you have not given up—and that is worth honoring.
It is possible that your anxious attachment pattern, with its heightened sensitivity to disconnection, feeds the tendency to mind-read and catastrophize, which in turn activates core schemas of abandonment and defectiveness—making the fading of everyday fondness feel like proof of something being fundamentally irreparable. This crossover suggests that the low readiness for change may be less about the relationship’s actual potential and more about a discouragement born from these deeply intertwined beliefs and thought habits. Exploring these links with gentle curiosity could help you begin to untangle them, opening space for small, deliberate shifts that rebuild a sense of hope and agency.
Overall result
Partial foundations — some areas deserve attentionYour overall responses suggest a relationship with real strengths and areas to strengthen. Some dimensions are well established, others have eroded. This profile is common in lasting relationships: erosion is gradual and is best addressed early.
And if you have actual messages to decode, ScanMyLove analyses your conversations with your partner from a simple export and reveals their real dynamics.
Partial foundations — some areas deserve attention
2 dimensions to strengthen, 3 strengths
5 dimensions · Personalized report
Open the different sections to discover how the same profile can be analysed from several angles. Your own report will follow this same logic, built from your own answers.
Your responses suggest that the active markers of relational vitality — curiosity about your partner, positive rituals, shared projects, spontaneous warmth — are currently little present. This is not a judgment about the relationship as a whole: these markers can fade gradually without being noticed. Gottman calls them the 'Love Map' and connection rituals — they can be cultivated and restored.
Your responses suggest that the small, everyday actions that nourish closeness—curiosity about your partner's inner world, shared rituals, spontaneous warmth—have faded. In the context of a busy life at 36, this often happens without anyone noticing, as work, parenting, or other demands take center stage. When these positive predictors are low, it becomes harder to access the goodwill needed to weather conflicts, which may explain why your conflict repair feels strained and your admiration has also dipped. A useful lens here is Gottman's 'Love Map' concept: a detailed mental map of your partner's life, emotions, and dreams. When the map gathers dust, partners can start feeling like roommates rather than allies.
The interplay with low admiration suggests a possible cycle: without regular positive check-ins, you see fewer of your partner's admirable qualities, and seeing fewer admirable qualities reduces your desire to engage. Recognizing that these behaviors are skills, not personality traits, can be a starting point. Even small experiments—like a daily open-ended question—can begin to restore the map, and because you took this test, there is already a spark of curiosity about what might be different. If this resonates, you might gently share with your partner that you would like to reconnect with what once made you curious about each other, rather than framing it as a problem to fix.
Recommendations and concrete exercises
Your responses suggest a rather uneven balance: positive interactions are present but insufficient to compensate for tensions and frustration. The negative can weigh on how the relationship is perceived overall even when everything is not dark. Identifying where positive interactions erode allows for targeted action.
The balance between positive and negative exchanges appears tilted, with negatives perhaps weighing more heavily in your emotional memory. This is not uncommon when the relationship's 'emotional bank account' runs low—exactly what low positive predictors and low admiration can create. Without a cushion of small affirmations and curiosity, minor disagreements can feel disproportionately draining. Your moderate conflict repair indicates that you do find your way back to each other, but the lingering tension might be sustained by this uneven ratio. Gottman's research points to a 5:1 ratio of positive to negative interactions as a reliable marker of stability.
At 36, with multiple roles pulling at your attention, it is easy to drift into a pattern of functional exchanges (logistics, chores, complaints) that tip the scale. The good news: positives can be deliberately inserted. They do not require grand gestures; a kind glance, an affectionate text, a moment of shared humor can shift the balance. Since your readiness to change is low, you might begin by simply noticing the current ratio without pressure—perhaps keep a mental tally for three days. Awareness alone sometimes loosens the grip of habit. If you recognize moments where your response escalates negativity, the STOP technique (Stop, Take a breath, Observe, Proceed) can create a pause to choose a different reaction.
Recommendations and concrete exercises
Your responses suggest that mutual admiration and respect have significantly diminished in your relationship. No longer admiring your partner, no longer feeling recognized and respected, is a serious signal according to Gottman — contempt (the inverse dimension) is the strongest predictor of separation. This is not irreversible, but it deserves serious attention.
Your score here points to a significant erosion of mutual regard and respect—what Gottman identifies as a particularly destabilizing dynamic. When admiration fades, partners can begin to see each other through a lens of disappointment or even contempt, which makes every interaction harder. Combined with low positive predictors, it suggests that the emotional space where admiration once lived has been occupied by routine or hurt. At 36, you might be comparing your current relationship to an idealized earlier phase, or to external pressures of what a partnership 'should' look like, which can amplify feelings of being taken for granted. Interestingly, your moderate conflict repair suggests that there remains a willingness to reconnect after fights, but if the underlying admiration is absent, those repairs may feel hollow—as though you are mending the surface without restoring the foundation.
A possible mechanism: when you feel unadmired, you may withdraw positive curiosity (low positive predictors), and that withdrawal further starves admiration. Breaking this cycle often starts with a private reflection: what did you once genuinely appreciate about your partner, beyond the routines of daily life? This is not about ignoring current frustrations but about opening a door to see the whole person again. If you decide to discuss this, framing it around your own experience ('I miss feeling proud of you') rather than blame ('you never do anything worth admiring') can create a softer entry. Professional guidance can be particularly helpful here, as contempt patterns are stubborn and can benefit from structured excavation.
Recommendations and concrete exercises
Your responses suggest partial repair capacity: some conflicts resolve, others leave a lasting mark. You sometimes find the way back, but lingering resentments or circular disputes remain a problem. This profile is common — it indicates that repair tools exist but are not used systematically.
You describe a partial ability to repair after conflicts—some arguments get resolved, but others leave a mark. This unevenness might be influenced by the low positive predictors and admiration: when the relationship lacks a warm emotional buffer, post-conflict recovery takes more effort and feels less stable. Perhaps after a fight, you both retreat into your corners, and the silence stretches because there is no ritual to signal it is safe to reconnect. Your low readiness to change could mean that entrenched communication habits—like criticism or defensiveness—keep resurfacing, making repair attempts feel fragile. At 36, with the cognitive maturity to reflect on patterns, you are in a position to experiment with new repair strategies without needing a personality overhaul.
A simple but powerful tool is the 'repair attempt': a deliberate bid to de-escalate, like a joke, a pause, or a physical touch. The challenge is that your partner must also recognize and accept the bid. Since you cannot control their reaction, start by observing which of your own attempts work and which get dismissed. Also, considering how your conflict style interacts with the low admiration: if you feel little respect, you may repair grudgingly, and grudging repairs rarely stick. Exploring why you sometimes succeed—what was different on those occasions—can provide a blueprint. If safety permits, discussing with your partner what repair looks like for each of you ('I need time alone first' vs 'I need you to reach out immediately') can align expectations.
Recommendations and concrete exercises
These questions measure your readiness to evolve in the way you function in your relationship. Your score indicates that you are not yet fully convinced of the necessity or possibility of evolving — which is a valid stage. Awareness precedes decision. Your report helps you clarify what is at stake.
A low readiness to change indicates that, right now, you are not yet convinced that evolving how you show up in the relationship is necessary or even possible. This is not a deficit; it is a common stage, especially when other dimensions show strain. When admiration is low and positive moments are scarce, a protective stance can set in: if you do not hope for better, you cannot be disappointed. Yet the fact that you completed this assessment suggests a quiet curiosity—a willingness to at least look at the landscape. This ambivalence might be linked to feeling exhausted by the effort of holding things together, or to a fear that any change would have to come from you alone. A helpful framework: motivation often follows action, not the other way around. Very small, almost imperceptible steps can generate a sense of agency.
For example, simply noticing one moment each day when you feel more open and one when you shut down—without needing to change anything—can begin to loosen the fixed story of 'this is just how it is.' Given your moderate conflict repair, there may be a window: when a repair succeeds, do you notice a flicker of possibility? Monitoring these tiny wins might gradually shift your internal readiness. If part of you worries that changing means accepting blame or ignoring real grievances, give that part a voice; it has valid information. You might write a letter to yourself about what would need to be true for you to believe change is worthwhile. There is no rush; the path from precontemplation to contemplation is the most delicate stage of change, and it deserves respect.
Recommendations and concrete exercises
The dimensions in your profile form a tight weave: low positive predictors and low admiration seem to reinforce each other almost symbiotically. Without daily curiosity and rituals, you have fewer opportunities to witness qualities that inspire respect, and feeling unadmired likely saps your motivation to invest in those very rituals. The moderate positive-negative balance acts like a barometer of this tension—negatives loom larger because there are not enough genuine positives to outweigh them, and every unresolved conflict (partial repair) further depletes the emotional reservoir that could feed admiration. Your low readiness to change sits at the center of this pattern, potentially locking the cycle in place; the prospect of altering any one piece feels daunting because the others seem immovable.
Yet this interconnectedness also means that progress in one area can cascade. For example, deliberately reintroducing one positive ritual (a love map question) might, over weeks, rekindle a flicker of admiration, which could soften conflict stances, which might nudge your belief that change is possible. The key is to view the system not as a diagnosis of failure but as a set of habits that have drifted out of balance—habits that can be recalibrated with small, consistent adjustments. If this systemic view feels accurate, the way forward is not to overhaul everything at once but to pick the thread that feels most accessible and tug gently.
Right now
In the coming weeks
In the long run
These are hypotheses, not conclusions. You are the one who knows whether they resonate with your experience.
Recognised clinical frameworks applied to your profile, as additional perspectives to weigh.
Attachment style — anxious
Cognitive pattern — mind reading
Cognitive pattern — catastrophizing
Early schema — abandonment
Early schema — defectiveness
Attachment — Sources: Bowlby (1969) ; Ainsworth et al. (1978) ; Hazan & Shaver (1987)
Cognitive distortions — Sources: Beck (1976) ; Burns (1980)
Young schemas — Sources: Young, Klosko & Weishaar (2003) ; Young (1990)
Cross-cutting frameworks
Cognitive distortions
Sources: Beck (1976) ; Burns (1980)
Young’s Early Maladaptive Schemas
Sources: Young, Klosko & Weishaar (2003) ; Young (1990)
Self-efficacy
Sources: Bandura (1997) ; Bandura (1977)
Ellis’s ABC Model
Sources: Ellis (1962) ; Ellis & Harper (1975)
Emotion regulation
Sources: Gross (1998) ; Gross (2015)
These frameworks do not constitute a medical diagnosis.
Your results suggest a relationship where admiration—the quiet engine of mutual regard—has dimmed, and that dimming now organizes much of how you experience each other. It is as if the lens through which you view your partner has gradually lost its warmer filter, making it harder to see what is still genuinely likable, interesting, or worthy of esteem. Because admiration is so low, the small positive gestures that might otherwise flow naturally (the unexpected cup of tea, the affectionate teasing, the shared glance of understanding) become rare, leaving a somewhat barren emotional landscape. This creates a self-reinforcing dynamic: without moments that remind you why you chose each other, the balance of positive to negative interactions feels uneven, conflicts land with a heavier weight, and repairing after a disagreement asks for an effort that can feel hollow. Even your partial repair skills—real and present—operate without the cushion of underlying warmth, like skilled words spoken in a room that has gone cold. Your low readiness to change, then, is not a failure of character but a perfectly logical response to this pattern: why invest when the return feels so uncertain?
Living inside this configuration carries a particular internal tension. On one hand, it can feel eerily easy. The relationship asks little of you emotionally; you can coexist, manage logistics, and avoid the vulnerability of reaching toward someone who might not reach back. There is a protective efficiency in not expecting admiration, not initiating repair fully, not risking change. On the other hand, this ease is costly. You lose the replenishing quality a partnership can offer—the sense of being truly seen, the relief of being admired even on a difficult day, the softening that happens when a conflict ends in genuine reconnection. So you are left with a strange duality: the comfort of low stakes paired with a creeping loneliness, a relationship that functions but no longer nourishes. The moderate positive/negative balance (50%) tells you precisely this: you have not fallen into a sea of negativity, but you are hovering at a threshold where indifference might feel safer than hope.
How does such an equilibrium come about? Often it is not a dramatic rupture but a slow, silent erosion shaped by context. At 36, you are likely navigating a period where external demands—career building, possibly young children, financial pressures, the ongoing construction of personal identity—have pulled your attention outward. In these seasons, a relationship can subtly shift from being a source of connection to a logistical partnership, a team managing life. You may have learned, implicitly, that setting aside emotional needs was necessary to keep everything else afloat. Perhaps admiration faded because you both stopped telling each other what you appreciated, assuming it was obvious or that there was no time. Perhaps repair became partial because exhaustion made full emotional processing seem like a luxury. This is not a moral failure; it is an adaptation. The relationship served a purpose: it provided stability, co-parenting, or a sense of shared project. The cost is that the connective tissue thinned, and now that the external noise might be slightly quieter, you notice the quiet inside the relationship too.
Yet within this pattern lies a resource you may be underestimating. Your conflict repair sits at 50%, meaning that even in a climate stripped of easy warmth, you and your partner still find a way back to each other at least half the time. This is not nothing; it is a stubborn, functional thread. It suggests that when a disagreement escalates, there are still tools—a sincere apology, a gesture of reconciliation, a willingness to listen—that you both can access, however imperfectly. These moments of repair are like brief flashes of light in a dim room. They tell you that the underlying skill is not lost, merely underused. Similarly, a positive/negative balance of 50% indicates that the relationship is not wholly negative; it is ambivalent. And ambivalence can be a more honest starting point for rebuilding than imagined perfection. The ability to repair after a fight, even partially, means there is still an “us” to return to—a shared history and a mutual, if bruised, recognition that you matter to each other.
If something were to shift first, it would likely not be a grand overhaul but a very small, deliberate reintroduction of positive attention—not because you feel it fully, but as an experiment. It might be as simple as noticing one thing your partner does that you once appreciated and actually saying it aloud, without expecting a response. The sign that this is catching hold would be subtle: you might find yourself smiling unexpectedly at something your partner does, or feeling a brief wave of warmth rather than neutrality. That flicker would indicate that the capacity for admiration is not gone, just buried under layers of disuse. Change does not require you to be ready to transform the entire relationship; it asks only for a willingness to water one small corner and see if anything grows. Trust that your own pace matters, and that even this reflection—reading these words, sitting with the discomfort—is a form of movement, a reclaiming of agency over the story you co-author together.
A score is not lived as a number but as a scene. See if you recognise yours — or set it aside.
Positive Predictors
Positive/Negative Balance
Admiration and Respect
Conflict Repair
Readiness to Change
To write about on your own, or to bring to a professional.
To help you situate this report, here are the references specific to this test.
1. I still feel attracted to my partner.
Answer : Somewhat disagree
You answered "Somewhat disagree". Can you tell me more about when this comes up for you?
It mainly shows up in situations that matter to me, when I feel under pressure or emotionally involved.
2. I feel treated as an equal in our relationship.
Answer : Somewhat disagree
And how long have you noticed this?
It has been more present over the past few months, though I recognise it from before too.
3. I feel more gratitude than frustration in our relationship right now.
Answer : Neither agree nor disagree
4. I feel safe raising difficult subjects with my partner.
Answer : Neither agree nor disagree
5. We still know how to make each other laugh.
Answer : Somewhat disagree
6. I feel seen and recognised for my strengths by my partner.
Answer : Somewhat disagree
The example shown on this page illustrates the format and level of detail of the report. Your own analysis will be different, because it will be built from your own answers.
What is interesting is not just your score on each dimension. Your report also seeks to identify the contrasts and interactions between your results: a strong resource that offsets a fragility, a dimension that seems to play a central role, or a gap between several aspects of how you function.
This is the personalized reading that the example cannot give you.
Answer the assessment questions and get your personalized report.
Detailed report · 5 dimensions · Personalized analysis
€2.90
Your profile won't be Emma's. It will be built from your own answers.
← Back to the test page