What does a report reveal when you doubt their sincerity - coercive control or clumsiness?
I have doubts: is this coercive control... or just clumsiness?
Inès's doubt is legitimate - and the report resolves it: this is not clumsiness.
- →Each partner's true attachment profile: why Inès moves closer when Marc pulls away.
- →The precise mechanism that damages the exchanges: gaslighting (rewriting the facts).
- →Who carries the relationship — and at what cost (initiation imbalance 69%).
Conversation statistics
Message distribution
Evolution over time
Activity by hour
Activity by day
Heat map
Activity by day and hour
Expressions from Inès
Most frequent bigrams and trigrams
Expressions from Marc
Most frequent bigrams and trigrams
Most used words by Inès
Most used words by Marc
Favourite emojis of Inès
Favourite emojis of Marc
The relationship analysis
Inès's doubt is legitimate - and the report resolves it: this is not clumsiness. The messages trace out a cycle of idealization followed by devaluation, with a systematic reversal of responsibility. These are mechanisms of coercive control, not occasional misunderstandings.
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.
“You're making it up, I never said that”
“If I react like this, it's because of you”
“Without you I can't be held responsible for anything”
Pursuer / withdrawer dynamic
Who pursues the exchange vs who withdraws
Balance: Strong 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 33, passion 33 and commitment 36 outlines a "loosened bond" profile. The imbalance between the pillars weakens the whole — one side carries the relationship while the others give way.
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: Inès and Marc 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.
The hot-cold cycle spins out: devaluation then winning back, without the underlying issue ever changing.
Relationship prognosis
Fragile
A low score does not mean your situation is hopeless. It reflects current dynamics, which can evolve — particularly with appropriate professional support. Every relationship goes through difficult phases, and recognising these difficulties is already an important step.
Positive factors
- + Inès retains a capacity for doubt - a sign of preserved clear-sightedness
- + Real moments of affection (which is what makes the cycle so gripping)
Risk factors
- - Contempt (68) and gaslighting (74): we are well beyond clumsiness
- - Systematic reversal of responsibility (69)
- - Positive/negative ratio at 1.8 - far below the healthy threshold (5:1)
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
« You never think about how I feel. »
Generalization ("never") and judgment: the real need (to be taken into account) stays hidden behind the reproach.
« I feel alone when I go a whole day without hearing from you. »
Fact + emotion + need, without accusation: the wording opens dialogue instead of closing it.
Requests come mainly through reproach: the need is real but framed in a way that triggers the other's defensiveness rather than their cooperation.
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.
Inès and Marc do not share the same communication style (couple's communication: 31/100). 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 Inès and Marc, the roles are not fixed: they rotate (Victim → Rescuer → Persecutor). Inès 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.
Inès
Marc
For Inès as for Marc, enlarging the "open" area — saying what one feels, asking for feedback — mechanically reduces the misunderstandings of the blind and hidden areas, which are numerous in this case.
FIRO by Schutz
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.
Inès
Marc
For Inès and Marc, the gap between what each one EXPRESSES and what they DESIRE is the real source of frustration: Inès 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 behaviours.
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 | Inès | Marc |
|---|---|---|
| Disconnection & Rejection | ||
| Abandonment / instability | 53 | 34 |
| Mistrust / abuse | 36 | 36 |
| Emotional deprivation | 37 | 27 |
| Defectiveness / shame | 34 | 18 |
| Impaired Autonomy | ||
| Impaired Limits | ||
| Insufficient self-control | 34 | 32 |
| Other-Directedness | ||
| Subjugation | 41 | 10 |
| Approval-seeking | 37 | 17 |
| Overvigilance | ||
| Emotional inhibition | 16 | 29 |
Violence Cycle (Walker)
Identification of cyclical phases in the relational dynamic.
Rising reproaches and irritability; Marc 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).
Personalised 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. 3919 (domestic violence), 3114 in case of distress.
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
DailyInès and Marc: leave room for the other's initiative rather than reaching out into the void.
Frame it in "I"
At each tensionReplace 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
- ✓Inès retains a capacity for doubt - a sign of preserved clear-sightedness
- ✓Real moments of affection (which is what makes the cycle so gripping)
Points to watch
- !Contempt (68) and gaslighting (74): we are well beyond clumsiness
- !Systematic reversal of responsibility (69)
- !Positive/negative ratio at 1.8 - far below the healthy threshold (5:1)
- !Marked power imbalance (Balance 22)
What the report answers
What red flags does the report detect?
This is where the doubt is resolved: gaslighting at 74, reversal of responsibility at 69. Rewriting the facts ("you're making it up") and turning the blame around are not clumsiness - they are documented mechanisms of coercive control.
What do the score and communication dynamic say?
Contempt at 68 and a positive/negative ratio of 1.8 (the healthy threshold is 5:1). In Gottman's research, contempt is the single most toxic predictor. Combined with gaslighting, it leaves no ambiguity.
Coercive control or misunderstanding? The report settles it -> Analyze the conversation
Analyse our conversation · 2 minFree dashboard · Full report from €1.99
Private analysis, no sign-up. Your messages stay yours.