The Relational Dimensions of an Analysis Report: Affection, Communication, Conflict, Commitment, Balance

Beyond the score: what a report really measures

When you discover a conversation analysis, the eye goes first to the global score. But the essential is elsewhere: in the dimensions that compose it. A couple isn't a single grade; it's a balance among several registers, each of which can be solid or fragile independently. Breaking the bond into dimensions — affection, communication, conflict management, commitment, balance — lets you understand where it's going well and where it's stuck, instead of settling for a global verdict.

Each of these dimensions reads in how two people write to each other, over time — not in an isolated message.

Why the detail beats the total

Two couples with the same global score can have opposite profiles: one overflowing with affection but undermined by conflict, the other peaceful but distant. The score confuses them; the dimensions distinguish them. That's why a useful report gives not just a number, but a map — and it's that map that guides action.

The written word provides the material for each dimension. And since each rests on regularities (affection density, exchange quality, conflict patterns, projection into the future, distribution of effort), it can only be measured over a large number of messages.

The five dimensions, and what they read

• Affection — the density and reciprocity of marks of tenderness, desire, support. It reads in sweet words, attentions, their evolution over time.
• Communication — the quality of exchanges: do you truly answer each other, listen, or do messages cross without meeting? It reads in the depth and reciprocity of conversations.
• Conflict management — the way of handling disagreements: repair and appeasement, or escalation, contempt, withdrawal (Gottman's horsemen)? Often the most predictive dimension.
• Commitment — shared projection, reliability, presence over time. It reads in plans evoked, constancy, regularity.
• Balance — the distribution of initiatives and effort: who carries the bond? A durable asymmetry weakens even an affectionate couple.

Reading these dimensions separately moves you from a vague diagnosis ("things aren't going well") to a precise one ("affection is strong, but conflict management is struggling").

Reading the dimensions in the history

• The profile, not the score: which dimension is high, which is low?
• The correlations: does poorly managed conflict erode affection over time?
• The evolution: which dimension is degrading, which strengthening?
• The asymmetry: is the balance of effort sustainable?

Reconstructing this map from memory is impossible. The analysis from ScanMyLove precisely breaks down your exchange history along these dimensions — to offer a map of the bond rather than a single number, and reveal where to focus attention.

From the map to action

A map leads to targeted levers:

• Work on the lowest dimension, not the global score. That's where the biggest gain lies.
• Link each dimension to examples in the conversation — a dimension only makes sense tied to real messages.
• Respect the interdependencies: restoring conflict management often protects affection.
• Deepen your part. A psychological test sheds light on your contribution to each dimension; and support at the practice helps work on the fragile one.

The written word draws the map of the bond

Reducing a couple to a grade loses the essential. The relational dimensions — affection, communication, conflict, commitment, balance — turn the verdict into a map: they tell not whether the bond is doing well, but where. The written word, by preserving the material of each dimension, makes that map possible. And a precise map of the bond always says more, and helps far more, than a global score you contemplate without knowing what to do with it.

Gildas Garrec, CBT Psychotherapist in Nantes