Version: 5.0 Date: February 2026 Publisher: Psychologie et Sérénité Contact: contact@psychologieetserenite.com
ScanMyLove is a computational analysis platform for written conversations (WhatsApp, Messenger, Instagram, Telegram, SMS, emails, screenshots) that applies 14 theoretical frameworks drawn from clinical psychology, social psychology and communication sciences to produce a relational map from textual exchanges.
The tool positions itself explicitly as a reflection-aid instrument and not as a diagnostic tool. It is a substitute neither for a clinical consultation nor for a standardized psychometric assessment. Its goal is to provide quantitative and qualitative benchmarks that help the user (and, where applicable, their therapist) better understand the relational dynamics at work in their exchanges.
The analysis process breaks down into three phases:
| Source | Format | Extraction method |
|---|---|---|
| Text export (.txt, .zip) | FR/EN temporal regex (iOS/Android) | |
| Messenger | Facebook JSON export | Structured JSON parsing |
| JSON export | Structured JSON parsing | |
| Telegram | HTML/JSON export | Multi-format parsing |
| SMS | Text export | Heuristic detection |
| Plain text | Generic parsing | |
| Screenshots | PNG, JPG, WEBP, HEIC | OCR via vision model (max 30 images) |
Conversations are pre-processed for cross-file deduplication and encoding detection (UTF-8, UTF-16, Latin-1).
| Metric | Definition | Unit |
|---|---|---|
| Number of messages | Total messages sent | Integer |
| Number of words | Total words emitted | Integer |
| Average length per message | Words/messages ratio | Words/message |
| Longest message | Message with the highest word count | Words |
| Metric | Definition | Computation method |
|---|---|---|
| Emoji density | Total number of emojis used | Unicode counting |
| Top 20 emojis | Most frequent emojis per participant | Descending frequency |
| Number of questions | Messages containing "?" | Punctuation detection |
| Number of exclamations | Messages containing "!" | Punctuation detection |
| Multimedia content | Messages containing images, audio, video | Tag detection |
| Top 30 words | Most frequent words (excluding 150+ stopwords) | Frequency after filtering |
| Top expressions | Recurring bigrams and trigrams | N-gram analysis |
| Metric | Definition | Processing |
|---|---|---|
| Average response time | Mean delay between received message and reply | Arithmetic mean, filtering >24h |
| Median response time | Median value of delays | Median, more robust to outliers |
| Hourly distribution | Message distribution across 24 hours | Histogram 0-23h |
| Weekly distribution | Distribution across 7 days | Sunday to Saturday |
| Activity heatmap | 7 days x 24 hours matrix | Message density per time slot |
| Longest active streak | Maximum number of consecutive days with exchange | Streak counting |
| Metric | Definition |
|---|---|
| Exchange initiator | Identification of who sends the first message of each daily conversation |
| Global first message | Author of the very first message of the corpus |
| Global last message | Author of the most recent message |
| Total conversation duration | Number of days covered by the corpus |
| Messages per day (average) | Average daily volume |
The breakpoint engine detects 5 types of events through a longitudinal analysis of the corpus.
The computation relies on two dictionaries of linguistic markers:
Formula:
affective_ratio = positive_markers / (positive_markers + negative_markers + 1)
The ratio ranges between 0 (entirely negative) and 1 (entirely positive). Smoothing over 7 days reduces the noise from daily fluctuations.
| Event | Detection criterion | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| Affective drop | Affective ratio decline >30% (medium) or >60% (high) over 14 days | Medium / High |
| Ghosting | Silence of 3-6 days (medium) or 7+ days (high) after 5+ active days | Medium / High |
| Communication withdrawal | Weekly volume decline >60% (medium) or >80% (high) | Medium / High |
| Acute conflict | Spike of negative markers >3x the daily average | Medium / High |
| Composite breakup | Co-occurrence of an affective drop and ghosting within a 14-day window | Always High |
Events are deduplicated within a 3-day window to avoid redundancy.
The clinical analysis is performed by a parallel processing pipeline organized into groups. Each group independently queries a language model with a specific prompt encoding a structured assessment grid and a JSON output schema.
Two levels of analysis are offered:
| Level | Groups | Models covered | Average duration |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard (€9.90) | 5 parallel groups | 7 models | ~22 seconds |
| Premium (€19.90) | 9 parallel groups | 14 models + action plan | ~33 seconds |
The conversational corpus is first anonymized (names replaced by "Person A" / "Person B"; phone numbers, emails, addresses and banking details redacted) and truncated according to a 160,000-character budget strategically allocated:
This allocation ensures the model has access to the initial context, the intermediate evolution and the current state of the relationship.
Theoretical reference: Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A Triangular Theory of Love. Psychological Review, 93(2), 119-135.
What it measures: Three fundamental components of love — intimacy (emotional closeness, trust, sharing), passion (desire, attraction, enthusiasm) and commitment (conscious decision to maintain the relationship).
Scoring method: Each component is assessed on a 0-to-100 scale from the analysis of conversational markers:
Clinical interpretation: The combination of the three scores produces a typology of 7 forms of love (consummate love, companionate love, infatuation, empty love, romantic love, fatuous love, liking/friendship).
Theoretical reference: Chapman, G. (1992). The Five Love Languages: How to Express Heartfelt Commitment to Your Mate. Northfield Publishing.
What it measures: Each participant's preferred mode of expressing and receiving affection.
Scoring method: Five dimensions assessed from 0 to 100 for each participant:
Clinical interpretation: The analysis identifies each participant's dominant language and measures the degree of concordance or mismatch (gap analysis). A significant gap between the two participants' primary languages is an indicator of potential relational frustration.
Theoretical reference: Gottman, J. M. (1994). What Predicts Divorce? The Relationship Between Marital Processes and Marital Outcomes. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gottman, J. M., & Silver, N. (1999). The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work. Three Rivers Press.
What it measures: The four communication behaviors most predictive of couple dissolution according to the work of the Gottman Institute.
Scoring method: Four indicators assessed from 0 to 100:
Positive/negative ratio: Computation of the ratio of positive vs. negative interactions.
| Ratio | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| >= 5:1 | Healthy relationship (Gottman threshold) |
| 3:1 to 5:1 | Watch zone |
| < 3:1 | Alert zone (one horseman > 50) |
| < 1:1 | Critical zone (one horseman > 70) |
Clinical interpretation: Gottman's research indicates that the simultaneous presence of these four behaviors predicts separation with roughly 93% accuracy over 6 years. Contempt is considered the most toxic predictor.
Theoretical reference: Johnson, S. M. (2008). Hold Me Tight: Seven Conversations for a Lifetime of Love. Little, Brown and Company. Fogarty, T. F. (1976). Marital crisis. In P. J. Guerin (Ed.), Family Therapy: Theory and Practice. Gardner Press.
What it measures: The distribution of emotional and communicational power in the couple, measured through the pursuer/distancer dynamic.
Scoring method:
Imbalance levels:
| Gap | Classification |
|---|---|
| 0-15 | Balance |
| 16-30 | Slight imbalance |
| 31-50 | Imbalance |
| > 50 | Strong imbalance |
Clinical interpretation: A pursuer/distancer imbalance is self-reinforcing: the more the pursuer insists, the more the distancer withdraws, which increases the pursuer's anxiety (Johnson, 2008). Identifying this dynamic is a key step in Emotionally Focused Couple Therapy (EFT).
Theoretical references: Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss, Vol. 1: Attachment. Basic Books. Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of Attachment. Lawrence Erlbaum. Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment Styles Among Young Adults: A Test of a Four-Category Model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226-244.
What it measures: Each participant's predominant attachment style, inferred from their conversational behaviors.
Scoring method: Four dimensions assessed from 0 to 100 for each participant:
Clinical interpretation: Attachment style is the best predictor of recurring relational patterns (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). The analysis identifies the dominant style and measures the compatibility of the two participants' styles.
Theoretical reference: Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Disorders. International Universities Press. Burns, D. D. (1980). Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy. William Morrow.
What it measures: The systematic information-processing errors present in each participant's discourse.
Scoring method: 10+ types of distortions assessed from 0 to 100, with identification of illustrative excerpts:
| Distortion | Definition | Typical conversational example |
|---|---|---|
| Mind reading | Presuming to know the other's intentions | "You say that but I know you think the opposite" |
| Personalization | Attributing to oneself the cause of external events | "If you're in a bad mood it's because of me" |
| Overgeneralization | Drawing a general rule from an isolated case | "You NEVER make any effort" |
| Catastrophizing | Imagining the worst-case scenario | "If you don't reply it means it's over" |
| Emotional reasoning | Confusing emotion with reality | "I feel it, so it's true" |
| Mental filter | Retaining only the negative | Ignoring compliments, focusing on one remark |
| Dichotomous thinking | All or nothing | "Either you love me completely or you don't love me" |
| Labeling | Reducing the other to a single trait | "You're a selfish person" |
| Minimization | Devaluing the positive | "OK you did that, but it's normal" |
| Imperatives ("should") | Imposing rigid norms | "You should know what I need" |
Clinical interpretation: The frequency and diversity of cognitive distortions are correlated with relational distress (Epstein & Baucom, 2002). Identifying them is a major therapeutic lever in couple CBT. For each distortion detected, 1 to 2 real excerpts from the conversation are provided.
Theoretical reference: Young, J. E., Klosko, J. S., & Weishaar, M. E. (2003). Schema Therapy: A Practitioner's Guide. Guilford Press.
What it measures: The Early Maladaptive Schemas activated in the relational dynamic, assessed for each participant.
Scoring method: 18 schemas assessed from 0 to 100, grouped into 5 domains:
Domain 1 — Disconnection and rejection
Domain 2 — Impaired autonomy and performance
Domain 3 — Impaired limits
Domain 4 — Other-directedness
Domain 5 — Overvigilance and inhibition
Clinical interpretation: Early maladaptive schemas are stable, self-perpetuating patterns that bias the interpretation of relational events (Young et al., 2003). Detecting them in textual exchanges helps identify the core schema themes that organize the couple's dynamic.
Theoretical reference: Rosenberg, M. B. (2003). Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life. PuddleDancer Press.
What it measures: Each participant's ability to communicate according to NVC's OFNR process (Observation, Feeling, Need, Request).
Scoring method: Global score from 0 to 100 per participant, broken down into:
Clinical interpretation: Message excerpts are provided with an NVC / non-NVC analysis and proposed reformulations. NVC is widely used in couple mediation and relational therapy.
Theoretical reference: Marston, W. M. (1928). Emotions of Normal People. Kegan Paul. Adapted and modernized by J. Geier (1958) and Wiley's DiSC model.
What it measures: Each participant's behavioral communication style along four axes.
Scoring method: Four dimensions assessed from 0 to 100 per participant:
Clinical interpretation: DISC incompatibilities (e.g., high D + high S in the other) are sources of communicational friction. Identifying the profile helps adapt dialogue strategies.
Theoretical reference: Karpman, S. B. (1968). Fairy Tales and Script Drama Analysis. Transactional Analysis Bulletin, 7(26), 39-43.
What it measures: The three dysfunctional roles adopted in relational psychological games.
Scoring method: Three roles assessed from 0 to 100 per participant:
Clinical interpretation: The analysis also detects role shifts over time. The circularity of Karpman's games is a key concept in transactional analysis: the persecutor can become a victim, the victim can turn into a persecutor, and so on.
Theoretical reference: Luft, J., & Ingham, H. (1955). The Johari Window: A Graphic Model of Interpersonal Awareness. Proceedings of the Western Training Laboratory in Group Development, UCLA.
What it measures: Each participant's degree of openness and transparency in the relationship.
Scoring method: Four zones assessed from 0 to 100 per participant:
Clinical interpretation: A large open area is associated with better relational satisfaction. The analysis identifies the degree of reciprocity in self-disclosure.
Theoretical reference: Schutz, W. (1958). FIRO: A Three-Dimensional Theory of Interpersonal Behavior. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
What it measures: The three fundamental interpersonal needs, in their expressed and wanted dimensions.
Scoring method: 6 scores from 0 to 100 per participant (3 needs x 2 dimensions):
| Need | Expressed | Wanted |
|---|---|---|
| Inclusion | Tendency to include the other | Need to be included |
| Control | Tendency to lead | Need to be guided |
| Affection | Tendency to express affection | Need to receive affection |
Clinical interpretation: The gap between expressed and wanted scores reveals unverbalized interpersonal frustrations. A large gap on the affection axis (strong wanted need, weak expression from the other) is an indicator of emotional deprivation.
Theoretical reference: Porges, S. W. (2011). The Polyvagal Theory: Neurophysiological Foundations of Emotions, Attachment, Communication, and Self-Regulation. W. W. Norton.
What it measures: The state of the autonomic nervous system inferred from the communication style, according to the three branches of the vagus nerve.
Scoring method: Three states assessed from 0 to 100 per participant:
Clinical interpretation: Polyvagal theory offers a neurobiological framework for understanding withdrawal or aggression reactions in the couple. A participant in a prolonged dorsal state requires a different therapeutic approach from one in sympathetic activation.
This model breaks down into two complementary sub-models, activated conditionally.
Theoretical reference: Walker, L. E. (1979). The Battered Woman. Harper & Row. Walker, L. E. (2009). The Battered Woman Syndrome (3rd ed.). Springer Publishing.
Trigger: Activated if the global toxicity score > 60, or if more than 3 affective drops or ghosting episodes are detected.
What it measures: The presence and phases of the cycle of domestic violence.
Scoring method: Identification of the 4 phases with dating:
Theoretical reference: Pence, E., & Paymar, M. (1993). Education Groups for Men Who Batter: The Duluth Model. Springer Publishing.
Trigger: Activated if the toxicity score > 50.
What it measures: The 8 power-and-control mechanisms identified by the Duluth model.
Scoring method: Eight indicators assessed from 0 to 100:
Clinical interpretation: These two models are activated conditionally to avoid false positives in healthy relationships. When activated, a safety banner with emergency numbers (in France: 3114 — suicide prevention, 3919 — domestic violence, 114 — emergencies by SMS) is displayed prominently.
The individual scores of the 14 models are aggregated into composite dimensions that offer a synthetic view of the relationship.
Standard level (5 dimensions):
| Dimension | Contributing models |
|---|---|
| Affection | Sternberg (intimacy, passion), Chapman (languages), FIRO (affection) |
| Communication | Gottman (ratio), NVC, DISC, power dynamics |
| Conflict | Gottman (4 horsemen), Karpman, cognitive distortions |
| Commitment | Sternberg (commitment), shared plans, prospective discourse |
| Balance | Power dynamics, attachment, reciprocity of exchanges |
Premium level (additional dimensions):
| Dimension | Contributing models |
|---|---|
| Trust | Attachment, Young (mistrust/abuse), Johari (open area) |
| Intimacy | Sternberg, Johari, FIRO (inclusion/affection), self-disclosure |
| Respect | Gottman (absence of contempt), Duluth, power balance |
| Humor | Detection of lightness, wordplay, playful emojis |
| Projection | Future orientation, planning, explicit commitment |
The global score is computed as the arithmetic mean of all dimensions.
| Global score | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| >= 70 / 100 | Positive relationship |
| 40 - 69 / 100 | Relationship under tension |
| < 40 / 100 | Relationship in difficulty |
The prognosis is generated from all indicators and includes:
The Premium report includes an action plan structured in 3 phases, each containing 2 to 3 concrete exercises with title, description and recommended frequency.
Make a clinical diagnosis. ScanMyLove is not a diagnostic tool in the sense of the DSM-5 or ICD-11. It cannot diagnose a personality disorder, depression, an anxiety disorder or any other pathology.
Substitute for a mental health professional. Computational text analysis does not replace clinical observation, face-to-face interviews, standardized psychometric tests and the clinician's expertise.
Analyze non-verbal communication. Paralanguage (tone, pace, volume), facial expressions, body language and the physical context of the exchanges inherently escape textual analysis.
Assess the sincerity of the discourse. The analysis concerns what is written, not what is thought. A participant may use affectionate language out of manipulation or social convention.
Capture off-text exchanges. Face-to-face conversations, phone calls and non-digital interactions are not taken into account. The analysis concerns a potentially unrepresentative sample of the couple's total communication.
| Bias | Description | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|
| Sampling bias | The analyzed conversation may not be representative of the relationship | Explicit mention in the report |
| Social desirability bias | Written exchanges may be more "filtered" than oral communication | Taken into account in interpretation |
| Cultural bias | The affective-marker dictionaries are calibrated on metropolitan French | Progressive extension to other variants |
| Recency bias | Overrepresentation of recent messages (50% of the token budget) | Deliberate choice, as the current state is clinically the most relevant |
| Length bias | Short conversations produce less reliable analyses | Automatic warning below a message threshold |
| Platform bias | Writing style varies by platform (SMS vs. email) | Platform detection and contextual adjustment |
| Model-interpretation bias | Language models may hallucinate or over-interpret | Structured prompts with strict JSON schemas and caution instructions |
| # | Model | Primary reference | Level | Scores |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Triangular Theory of Love | Sternberg (1986) | Standard | 3 x (0-100) |
| 2 | 5 Love Languages | Chapman (1992) | Standard | 5 x (0-100) / participant |
| 3 | Gottman's 4 Horsemen | Gottman (1994) | Standard | 4 x (0-100) + ratio |
| 4 | Power dynamics | Johnson (2008), Fogarty (1976) | Standard | 2 x (0-100) + balance |
| 5 | Attachment styles | Bowlby (1969), Bartholomew (1991) | Standard | 4 x (0-100) / participant |
| 6 | Cognitive distortions | Beck (1976), Burns (1980) | Standard | 10+ x (0-100) + excerpts |
| 7 | Young's schemas | Young et al. (2003) | Premium | 18 x (0-100) / participant |
| 8 | Nonviolent Communication | Rosenberg (2003) | Premium | 1 x (0-100) / participant |
| 9 | DISC profile | Marston (1928) | Premium | 4 x (0-100) / participant |
| 10 | Karpman's triangle | Karpman (1968) | Premium | 3 x (0-100) / participant |
| 11 | Johari Window | Luft & Ingham (1955) | Premium | 4 x (0-100) / participant |
| 12 | Schutz's FIRO | Schutz (1958) | Premium | 6 x (0-100) / participant |
| 13 | Polyvagal theory | Porges (2011) | Premium | 3 x (0-100) / participant |
| 14 | Violence detection | Walker (1979), Pence & Paymar (1993) | Premium | 4 phases + 8 x (0-100) |
Document produced from analysis of the ScanMyLove v5.0 source code. This document is intended for mental health professionals evaluating the credibility and methodological rigor of the tool. For any question or collaboration, contact contact@psychologieetserenite.com.