MBTL

The research behind MBTL, and its limits

MBTL is built on five dimensions that relationship research has confirmed over many years. Here is what it rests on and what it cannot say.

Item set MBTL v1.0 · 2026-10-12

Five dimensions

Each dimension has been replicated in adult relationship research. Both ends are described by their strengths first, so neither sounds bad.

Distance · Close / Own space

What it measures

Whether closeness and reliance feel easy, or you need space of your own.

Basis

The 'avoidance' dimension of adult attachment research. It is linked to how fast people get close, how fast they commit, and how much they switch feelings off after a breakup. [2][4][5]

Antenna · Mindful / Laid-back

What it measures

How sensitively you read and react to changes in a partner's signals.

Basis

The 'anxiety' dimension of adult attachment research. It is linked to how people react when a reply is late, the urge to check in, and rumination after a breakup. [2][4][5]

Conflict · Direct / Reflect

What it measures

Whether you raise a problem right away or settle first and then raise it.

Basis

Draws on the demand–withdraw pattern in conflict (one partner pursues, the other pulls back), research on styles of handling conflict, and on how people regulate emotion. [6][7][8]

Belief · Kismet / Grow

What it measures

Whether the right person is right from the start, or a relationship is something you build.

Basis

Research on implicit beliefs about relationships (destiny belief and growth belief). Destiny belief tends to move into evaluation mode at early trouble; growth belief tends to move into coping and maintenance. [9][10]

Expression · Expressive / Quiet

What it measures

How often, and how openly, you show affection and feeling in words and actions.

Basis

Draws on research on emotional expressivity, exchange of affection, self-disclosure and closeness, and responses to sharing good news. It overlaps partly with Distance, so it is added as the -E · -Q suffix rather than as part of the type name. [26][27][28][29][30]

In the research, Belief is two independent scales (destiny belief and growth belief). MBTL puts them on one line as 'the first thought when trouble comes'. Because of that simplification, please read the result as a tendency.

How scoring works

  • Each question is a forced choice between two reactions to one situation. The 20 core questions are five dimensions × four scenes (crush, dating, conflict, breakup).
  • For each dimension we compare how many times you chose each end. Your position is shown as clear, leaning, or close to the middle.
  • If you chose both ends of a dimension equally often, we ask one more tiebreak question for that dimension, so the four letters are always settled.
  • If an axis is close to the middle, we also show the neighbouring type with that axis flipped. A type is a name for a continuous dimension, not a box.

Me with that person

Tendencies shift with the other person. Adult attachment research has repeatedly shown that one person feels differently secure in different relationships, which is why relationship-specific measures were created. MBTL asks the same questions under two instructions and shows which axes moved.

Tendencies that move with the other person

We say 'tends to' and no more. We never claim that if they are like this, you become like that.

  • When your partner leans Own-space — keeping their distance, answering in fits and starts — your antenna tends to tilt toward Mindful. ★★★ Replicated across many studies [5][21][22]
  • When your partner leans Mindful and checks in often, your sense of distance tends to tilt toward Own-space. ★★★ Replicated across many studies [5][22]
  • When your partner is Laid-back but reliably responds, even briefly, your antenna tends to settle toward Laid-back. ★★★ Replicated across many studies [20][21][11]
  • When your partner leans Close yet respects your independence, your sense of distance tends to tilt toward Close — leaning in gets easier, and with it, so does standing on your own. ★★ Found in some studies [25][20]
  • When your partner leans Direct and raises problems right away, your conflict style tends to tilt toward Reflect. ★★★ Replicated across many studies [6][23][7]
  • When your partner leans Reflect and holds back their words, your conflict style tends to tilt toward Direct. ★★★ Replicated across many studies [6][23]
  • When your partner leans Kismet, your growth beliefs tend to get tested after the first conflict, pulled toward judging the relationship. ★★ Found in some studies [9][10]
  • When your partner leans Grow, your destiny beliefs tend to soften, and you tend to treat problems less like verdicts. ★ Inferred from theory [10][24]
  • When your partner is Expressive and greets your good news warmly, your own expression tends to tilt toward Expressive. ★★ Found in some studies [30][29]
  • When your partner is Quiet and responds little, your own expression tends to shrink. ★★ Found in some studies [8][32]

Known limits

  • It is self-report. It measures how you see yourself, not what you do.
  • It sums up continuous dimensions as types. Bars and neighbouring types soften this but cannot remove it.
  • Four questions per dimension is short, so consistency may be low. We publish the checks below.
  • The first sample is mostly Korean speakers. The English items are a rewrite, not a translation, and we have not yet verified that the two languages measure the same thing.
  • We have not tested whether it predicts how long a relationship lasts or how satisfied people are. We do not claim it does.

We check it ourselves, in public

We will not tell you the test is right — we let the numbers say it. Once enough people have finished, we will publish them here every quarter.

  • Item consistency (KR-20, per dimension) of 0.60 or more
  • Both ends chosen between 20 and 80 out of 100 times on every item
  • Correlation between dimensions below 0.30
  • How often the same type comes out when people retake it four weeks later
  • A check of type against real chat statistics (only from consenting users, anonymous bands only)

Still being counted. We do not make numbers up.

References

  1. 1.Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511
  2. 2.Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). Guilford Press.
  3. 3.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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.226
  4. 4.Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 350–365. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.350
  5. 5.Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2016). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
  6. 6.Christensen, A., & Heavey, C. L. (1990). Gender and social structure in the demand/withdraw pattern of marital conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(1), 73–81. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.1.73
  7. 7.Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  8. 8.Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348–362. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348
  9. 9.Knee, C. R. (1998). Implicit theories of relationships: Assessment and prediction of romantic relationship initiation, coping, and longevity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 360–370. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.2.360
  10. 10.Knee, C. R., Patrick, H., & Lonsbary, C. (2003). Implicit theories of relationships: Orientations toward evaluation and cultivation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(1), 41–55. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0701_3
  11. 11.Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and interventions (pp. 367–389). John Wiley & Sons.
  12. 12.Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. (1986). A theory and method of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(2), 392–402. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.392
  13. 13.Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(1), 101–117. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.1.101
  14. 14.Sbarra, D. A., & Emery, R. E. (2005). The emotional sequelae of nonmarital relationship dissolution: Analysis of change and intraindividual variability over time. Personal Relationships, 12(2), 213–232. doi:10.1111/j.1350-4126.2005.00112.x
  15. 15.Impett, E. A., Park, H. G., & Muise, A. (2024). Popular psychology through a scientific lens: Evaluating love languages from a relationship science perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 33(2), 87–92. doi:10.1177/09637214231217663
  16. 17.Fraley, R. C., Heffernan, M. E., Vicary, A. M., & Brumbaugh, C. C. (2011). The Experiences in Close Relationships—Relationship Structures questionnaire: A method for assessing attachment orientations across relationships. Psychological Assessment, 23(3), 615–625. doi:10.1037/a0022898
  17. 18.Overall, N. C., Fletcher, G. J. O., & Friesen, M. D. (2003). Mapping the intimate relationship mind: Comparisons between three models of attachment representations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(12), 1479–1493. doi:10.1177/0146167203251519
  18. 19.La Guardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Within-person variation in security of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(3), 367–384. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.3.367
  19. 20.Arriaga, X. B., Kumashiro, M., Simpson, J. A., & Overall, N. C. (2018). Revising working models across time: Relationship situations that enhance attachment security. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(1), 71–96. doi:10.1177/1088868317705257
  20. 21.Simpson, J. A., & Overall, N. C. (2014). Partner buffering of attachment insecurity. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(1), 54–59. doi:10.1177/0963721413510933
  21. 22.Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Davis, K. E. (1994). Attachment style, gender, and relationship stability: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(3), 502–512. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.3.502
  22. 23.Holley, S. R., Sturm, V. E., & Levenson, R. W. (2010). Exploring the basis for gender differences in the demand-withdraw pattern. Journal of Homosexuality, 57(5), 666–684. doi:10.1080/00918361003712145
  23. 24.Drigotas, S. M., Rusbult, C. E., Wieselquist, J., & Whitton, S. W. (1999). Close partner as sculptor of the ideal self: Behavioral affirmation and the Michelangelo phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(2), 293–323. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.2.293
  24. 25.Feeney, B. C. (2007). The dependency paradox in close relationships: Accepting dependence promotes independence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(2), 268–285. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.268
  25. 26.Floyd, K. (2006). Communicating affection: Interpersonal behavior and social context. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511606649
  26. 27.Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (1997). Revealing feelings: Facets of emotional expressivity in self-reports, peer ratings, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(2), 435–448. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.2.435
  27. 28.Kring, A. M., Smith, D. A., & Neale, J. M. (1994). Individual differences in dispositional expressiveness: Development and validation of the Emotional Expressivity Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(5), 934–949. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.5.934
  28. 29.Laurenceau, J.-P., Barrett, L. F., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal process: The importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1238–1251. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1238
  29. 30.Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., Impett, E. A., & Asher, E. R. (2004). What do you do when things go right? The intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 228–245. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.228
  30. 31.Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. Guilford Press.
  31. 32.Impett, E. A., Kogan, A., English, T., John, O., Oveis, C., Gordon, A. M., & Keltner, D. (2012). Suppression sours sacrifice: Emotional and relational costs of suppressing emotions in romantic relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(6), 707–720. doi:10.1177/0146167212437249

For researchers

If you need the item set or anonymous aggregates, write to hello@dasiann.com. Every figure is published with the item-set version.