What does a report say about jealousy that spills over?
Jealousy and social media are poisoning our exchanges
Social media has become the couple's battleground.
- →Each partner's true attachment profile: why Karim moves closer when Maya pulls away.
- →The precise mechanism that damages the exchanges: jumping to conclusions.
- →Who carries the relationship — and at what cost (initiation imbalance 61%).
Conversation statistics
Message distribution
Evolution over time
Activity by hour
Activity by day
Heat map
Activity by day and hour
Expressions from Maya
Most frequent bigrams and trigrams
Expressions from Karim
Most frequent bigrams and trigrams
Most used words by Maya
Most used words by Karim
Favorite emojis of Maya
Favorite emojis of Karim
The relationship analysis
Social media has become the couple's battleground. The report distinguishes "ordinary" jealousy (occasional worry) from control that takes hold: checking up, demanding explanations, reading into things. Here, the shift toward control has already begun. The mechanism the report isolates is a misplaced target: Karim's alarm comes from attachment insecurity, but it lands on notifications — so every measure taken against social media (checking, explanations, restrictions) treats the screen and feeds the alarm. Reassurance works for a while, then the next ambiguous signal reloads the cycle, because the source of the doubt was never on the platform. Meanwhile each interrogation costs Maya, whose reassurance is consumed faster than it is credited. The strain will follow the alarm wherever it points next — which is why the target, not the tool, is the thing to treat.
What the messages reveal
Reconstructed excerpts — the report reads each exchange and highlights the underlying pattern.
Relational dimensions
Attachment profile
Gottman’s 4 Horsemen
The lower the score, the better. Above 50 = warning signal.
Cognitive distortions
Thinking biases detected in the conversation
Cognitive distortions (Aaron Beck) are automatic thinking biases that warp our perception of relational reality. A high score indicates a more pronounced presence of this bias.
“That like means something's going on”
“I know she's thinking about him”
Pursuer / withdrawer dynamic
Who pursues the exchange vs who withdraws
Balance: Imbalance
The in-depth analysis
Sternberg’s Triangle
The 3 components of love according to triangular theory.
According to Robert Sternberg, complete love rests on three pillars: intimacy (emotional), passion (physical/romantic) and commitment (decisional). The balance between these three components defines the type of relationship.
The combination of intimacy 45, passion 40 and commitment 53 outlines a "weakened bond" profile. One pillar compensates for the others: the relationship holds, but on a single support, which makes it sensitive to shocks.
5 Love Languages
Predominant love languages of each person (Chapman).
Gary Chapman identifies 5 love languages: words of affirmation, acts of service, gifts, quality time and physical touch. Knowing each partner’s dominant language improves mutual understanding.
Gap: Maya and Karim do not share the same dominant language: one partner's proofs of love sometimes go unnoticed by the other, for want of being expressed through the "right" channel.
Identifying the language actually received (rather than the one we spontaneously give) prevents the feeling of "giving without being loved in return."
Detected breakpoints
Key moments where the dynamic shifted
The emotional timeline pinpoints the key moments where the relational dynamic shifted significantly: conflicts, distancing, reconnections.
First marked tension: reproaches replace the request, the exchange grows tense.
Clear cooling of affection: signs of tenderness become scarce on one side.
Relationship outlook
Guarded
Positive factors
- + A strong, sincere attachment on both sides — the investment is real, which is what makes the strain worth addressing
- + Maya seeks to reassure rather than flee, an answer that keeps the dialogue open
- + Stonewalling stays comparatively low (38): the couple still argues, which paradoxically means it still talks
Risk factors
- - Jumping to conclusions (64) turns every detail into proof: left running, the standard of evidence keeps dropping until anything can convict
- - Control (demanding explanations) is setting in on Karim's side: each granted verification normalizes the next, and the perimeter only ever widens
- - Gottman ratio at 2.6: negativity dominates the exchanges — at this level the relationship's baseline experience is strain, with closeness as the exception
Nonviolent Communication
NVC Score (Rosenberg): use of OFNR format vs judgment/blame.
Nonviolent Communication (Marshall Rosenberg) assesses the ability to express one’s needs and emotions without aggression or judgment. A high score indicates more empathetic communication.
Examples
« When you let me know you'll be home late, I worry less — thank you. »
Observation + positive impact: reinforces the desired behavior without demanding.
« I would have liked us to talk about it first; I felt presented with a fait accompli. »
Expresses the feeling and the need for consultation without attacking the person.
Both often manage to connect fact, emotion and need — this is what allows tensions to be defused before they escalate.
DISC Profile
Dominant communication style of each person.
The DISC model (W. Marston) classifies behaviors along 4 axes: Dominant (Red — results-oriented), Influential (Yellow — relationship-oriented), Steady (Green — cooperation-oriented) and Conscientious (Blue — precision-oriented). Each has distinct motivations and communication styles.
Maya and Karim do not share the same communication style (couple's communication: 40/100). Neither good nor bad — the challenge is to translate from one style to the other: a direct profile gains from slowing down, a relational profile from daring to be explicit.
Karpman’s Triangle
Dominant roles in the relational dynamic (Transactional Analysis).
Karpman’s drama triangle identifies three dysfunctional relational roles: Persecutor, Victim and Rescuer. A high score on a role indicates a tendency to adopt it during conflicts.
Role shifts
Between Maya and Karim, the roles are not fixed: they rotate (Victim → Rescuer → Persecutor). Karim often slides toward the self-sacrificing rescuer. Stepping out of the triangle means returning to an adult-to-adult exchange, without roles.
Johari Window
Zones of self-knowledge and knowledge of the other in the relationship.
The Johari window (Luft & Ingham) maps 4 zones of self-knowledge: open (known to all), blind (seen by the other but not by oneself), hidden (known to oneself but not shared) and unknown.
Maya
Karim
For Maya as for Karim, enlarging the "open" area — saying what one feels, asking for feedback — mechanically reduces the misunderstandings of the blind and hidden areas.
Schutz's FIRO
Fundamental relationship needs: expressed vs desired.
Schutz’s FIRO model measures three fundamental interpersonal needs: Inclusion (need to belong), Control (need for power) and Affection (need for closeness), each in an expressed and a wanted version.
Maya
Karim
For Maya and Karim, the gap between what each one EXPRESSES and what they DESIRE is the real source of frustration: Karim waits for an initiative that he/she never openly asks for, while the other does not perceive the need.
Polyvagal Theory
Dominant autonomic nervous system activation state in exchanges (Porges).
Polyvagal theory (S. Porges) distinguishes three states of the nervous system: ventral (connection and safety), sympathetic (fight/flight) and dorsal (freeze/shutdown). These states deeply influence communication within a couple.
The shifts into a sympathetic state (alert) or dorsal state (shutdown) explain the exchanges that "go off the rails": under stress, the nervous system takes precedence over intentions.
Young Schemas
Early maladaptive schemas influence your relational behaviors.
Early maladaptive schemas (Jeffrey Young) are deep emotional patterns formed in childhood that influence our adult relationships. A high score indicates a stronger activation of the schema.
| Schema | Maya | Karim |
|---|---|---|
| Disconnection & Rejection | ||
| Abandonment / instability | 44 | 46 |
| Mistrust / abuse | 28 | 39 |
| Emotional deprivation | 30 | 35 |
| Defectiveness / shame | 29 | 29 |
| Impaired Autonomy | ||
| Impaired Limits | ||
| Insufficient self-control | 21 | 29 |
| Other-Directedness | ||
| Subjugation | 5 | 37 |
| Approval-seeking | 30 | 37 |
| Overvigilance | ||
| Emotional inhibition | 13 | 18 |
Cycle of Violence (Walker)
Identification of cyclical phases in the relational dynamic.
Rising reproaches and irritability; Maya is "walking on eggshells."
Crisis: devaluation, hurtful words, reversal of responsibility.
Apologies, minimization ("I wasn't myself"), promises to change.
Return of intense affection — until the next rise in tension.
The cycle repeats on an ever-shorter rhythm. Recognizing the "honeymoon" phase as part of the cycle (and not as real change) is often the turning point that protects.
Power and Control Wheel (Duluth)
Control mechanisms detected in the relational dynamic.
The wheel makes the underlying mechanics of control visible: these are not isolated outbursts but levers that reinforce one another. Talking about it to a trusted third party breaks the first link (isolation).
Personalized action plan
Therapeutic exercises tailored to your relational profile.
This action plan offers progressive exercises, at your own pace, to reinforce your strengths and work on the areas for improvement that were identified.
Get to safety
Immediate priorityConsult a professional
As soon as possibleAs a priority, a professional trained in coercive control and control dynamics. If you are in immediate danger, contact your local domestic-abuse helpline (0808 2000 247 in the UK, 800-799-7233 in the US).
Document the facts
As it happensRecord dates and words to counter the rewriting of reality and keep a reliable reference point.
Rebalance
Weeks 3-4Slow down the pursuit
DailyMaya and Karim: leave room for the other's initiative rather than reaching out into the void.
Frame it in "I"
Whenever tension arisesReplace the reproach ("you never…") with the need ("I need…").
Rebuild trust
Weeks 5-6Dated actions
WeeklyFavor concrete, verifiable commitments over general promises.
Consolidate or decide
Weeks 7-8Take stock
MonthlyAfter two months, assess honestly: has the dynamic shifted, or is it repeating identically?
Strengths
- ✓A strong, sincere attachment on both sides — the investment is real, which is what makes the strain worth addressing
- ✓Maya seeks to reassure rather than flee, an answer that keeps the dialogue open
- ✓Stonewalling stays comparatively low (38): the couple still argues, which paradoxically means it still talks
- ✓The conflicts are concentrated on a single territory (social media), leaving the rest of the bond relatively preserved
- ✓The trigger-response loop is visible and recent enough in the exchanges to be mapped precisely — patterns this legible respond well to being named
Points to watch
- !Jumping to conclusions (64) turns every detail into proof: left running, the standard of evidence keeps dropping until anything can convict
- !Control (demanding explanations) is setting in on Karim's side: each granted verification normalizes the next, and the perimeter only ever widens
- !Gottman ratio at 2.6: negativity dominates the exchanges — at this level the relationship's baseline experience is strain, with closeness as the exception
- !Criticism (58) and defensiveness (60) are locked in a loop: accusation produces justification, which reads as evasion and produces more accusation
- !Maya's pre-emptive self-editing is the quiet cost: if it continues, the control will have achieved its effect without ever being agreed to — and her resentment will arrive later, with interest
What the report answers
What does the attachment style reveal in this case?
Karim highly anxious (70): here jealousy is the symptom of attachment insecurity. Treating it by monitoring social media only worsens the control. That relocation is also the forecast: neutralize the platform and the alarm moves — to messages, colleagues, delays, tone. Karim's anxiety is not an accusation, it is an explanation: the doubt precedes the evidence, so no evidence can retire it. What the configuration asks of him is to work on the alarm itself; what it asks of Maya is to stop paying a debt that reassurance cannot settle. The distinction protects them both.
What red flags does the report detect?
Jumping to conclusions at 64: a like becomes proof of infidelity. This is the engine of jealousy overflowing — the report shows the problem isn't social media, but the interpretation. The score also indicates how this evolves if untouched: at 64, interpretation no longer waits for evidence — it manufactures it, and each confirmed suspicion lowers the bar for the next. Combined with mind reading (51), the loop closes entirely: Karim reads intentions, finds them in details, and Maya's denials become part of the case. The audit that breaks this is factual: counting how many alarms proved true. The exchanges suggest the ledger would be short.
What do the score and communication dynamic say?
Ratio at 2.6 (healthy threshold: 5) and criticism at 58: the exchanges tip into negativity. Jealousy is no longer an occasional emotion, it structures the conversation. The structural reading matters for what comes next: a couple can absorb jealous episodes, but it cannot absorb a permanent regime of them — at this ratio, the repair between conflicts no longer refills what the conflicts spend. The pairing of criticism (58) and defensiveness (60) shows where it leaks: every accusation buys a justification instead of a connection. The ratio will follow the interrogation frequency, in either direction — which is precisely why the recommendations target the cycle, not the feelings.
Normal or toxic jealousy? The report pinpoints it → Analyze our conversation
Analyze our conversation · 2 minFree dashboard · Full report from $2.19
Private analysis, no sign-up. Your messages stay yours.