Relational in depth.

The conflict style integrates two complementary traditions. The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (Thomas & Kilmann, 1974) is a two-dimensional model crossing assertiveness (concern for self) with cooperativeness (concern for the other), yielding five archetypal styles. It was validated in organisational settings and replicated across thousands of workplace studies. John Gottman's research (Why Marriages Succeed or Fail, 1994; The Seven Principles, 1999), conducted in laboratory observation of couples over four decades, identified the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (criticism, defensiveness, contempt and stonewalling) as robust predictors of divorce, and formulated the magic ratio of 5:1 (five positive interactions per negative one) as the marker of stable relationships.

You receive your score across the five TKI styles (Competing, Collaborating, Compromising, Avoiding and Accommodating) and we identify your dominant style and your secondary style, with an applied reading of when each tends to surface in your life. We also map your variation by context: your style can shift substantially with a romantic partner, with work colleagues or with family of origin. We add an indicator of the four Gottman Horsemen (criticism, defensiveness, contempt and stonewalling) in your responses, as warning signs read without the weight of diagnosis. You see your typical trigger-reaction-recovery pattern (what sparks your tension, how you react, and how long you need to return to baseline) and we describe your habitual repairs after an argument: apology, withdrawal, distraction or physical contact. We close with Gottman Institute-oriented suggestions for moving from your dominant style toward Collaborating in high-stress moments.

The TKI has moderate psychometric validity and relies on self-report. Gottman's research is empirically robust (close to 90% predictive accuracy for divorce in longitudinal studies), though the original instrument is based on observational coding of couples in the laboratory. Conflict style is variable: it shifts with topic, relational phase and emotional state. Furthermore, conflict avoidance can be healthy and functional in cultures where communal harmony is a core value, so results should be read in context, as guidance.

The Relational Window is an Agapone proprietary instrument that captures each person's current relational moment: how available they are, for what kind of bond, and at what intensity. It draws on two traditions. From Erik Erikson (Childhood and Society, 1950) it inherits the psychosocial reading of adulthood, in which intimacy vs. isolation is the central task of young adulthood and re-emerges, under new shapes, in every later stage. From Robert Sternberg (Triangular Theory of Love, 1986) it borrows the idea that passion, intimacy and commitment combine in different patterns across time, rarely in balance. Together they let the window treat affective availability as a declared state, something that moves from phase to phase, and therefore something to be revisited whenever life changes.

You receive your current window (Open-deep, Open-casual, Closed-healing or Ambivalent), self-declared, with a reflection on what that position means at this point in your life. Two orthogonal modifiers sit on top of it: preferred pace of approach (slow ↔ fast) and expected intensity (calm ↔ intense), tuning rhythm and temperature without altering the window itself. An estimated duration indicator is included, based on typical post-event cycles (rupture, loss, professional transition), so you can place how long you are likely to stay here. The reading also brings an implicit comparison with your history (are you more or less available now?), the internal signs that usually mark the move into the next window, and practical guidance for communicating your window to others clearly, avoiding mixed messages. It closes with small rituals to strengthen the window you are living: regulation practices if you are Closed-healing, space for discernment if you are Open-deep.

The Relational Window is a Agapone proprietary framework, not yet externally validated. It rests on empirical literature on intimacy development (Erikson, 1950; Sternberg, 1986), but the specific combination is original. The window is self-declared: it depends on self-knowledge, and many people do not immediately know which window they are in. Re-evaluation every six months, or after significant events (rupture, grief, life change, new commitment), is recommended.

Ronald Sabatelli (The Marital Comparison Level Index, 1984; Exploring Relationships with the Family of Origin, 1988) introduced the comparison level: the internal standard against which each person evaluates their partner, built from the family of origin, past relationships and surrounding culture. Thomas Holman and Tao-Mei Li (Premarital factors influencing perceived readiness for marriage, 1997) extended this line with inventories of premarital readiness and expectation. The critical distinction is between declared expectations (what you say you want) and implicit expectations, inherited wordlessly from the family of origin. The gap between the two is a central source of relational disappointment: what you assume without saying is, typically, what hurts when it is breached.

The app delivers a per-domain score across five axes: Companionship & Communication, Loyalty & Fidelity, Instrumental Support, Future Vision and Autonomy & Space. Each axis is surfaced in two parallel layers: declared expectations (what you explicitly chose) and implicit expectations, extracted from indirect questions and patterns inherited from your family of origin. Your non-negotiables (items flagged as cliff-edge) are isolated, alongside zones of silent disappointment: what you tend to assume but rarely articulate. Where longitudinal data exists, you receive a past vs present map of how your expectations have shifted over recent years. Finally, a pre-commitment conversation script is generated with concrete questions to put to a partner, organised by the five domains. When an expectation is culturally or contextually unlikely, the reading flags it honestly so you can reassess.

Empirical validity is moderate. Self-report on expectations suffers a double bias: social desirability (you say what sounds good) and limited self-knowledge, since many implicit expectations are discovered only after they are breached. Expectations also shift: what you want at 25 differs from what you want at 35, especially after children or career transitions. It is advisable to revisit this inventory biennially and at major transitions (moving home, a child, a career shift), treating it as an ongoing conversation that stays alive over time.

An Agapone proprietary framework built at the intersection of two clinical traditions: Aaron T. Beck's Cognitive Therapy (Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Disorders, 1976), which isolated automatic cognitive distortions, and Jeffrey Young's Schema Therapy (1990), which described early maladaptive relational schemas. It measures your relational filter, the automatic thought patterns that activate inside a relationship: how you read silence, what intent you ascribe to others, how readily you personalise what is external. The instrument combines 16 SJT items (situational judgment) with 8 forced-choice items, mapping them onto 4 cognitive dimensions and 9 relational archetypes.

You receive a numeric score on the four dimensions of relational thinking (catastrophising, personalisation, generalisation, and mind-reading), together with your predominant relational filter, the automatic pattern that most often activates when you enter connection. From the interplay of dimensions, your cognitive-relational archetype (e.g. The Anxious Watcher, The Mind-Reader, The Calm Reflective) is delivered with a full reading: likely origin, internal mechanics, affective cost. The app shows concrete examples of automatic thoughts typical of your filter and proposes CBT-inspired reframings. It also maps your activation points (prolonged silence, direct conflict, ambiguity) and includes an evolution timeline with the progress typically observed after weeks and months of reflective practice. It closes with daily exercise suggestions coherent with your profile: thought records, Socratic questioning, micro-rituals of verification.

This is an Agapone proprietary framework, not yet externally validated through independent psychometric studies. It draws on clinical models with strong empirical evidence (Beck's Cognitive Therapy and Young's Schema Therapy are two of the most documented traditions in contemporary psychotherapy), while the Agapone version works as a self-knowledge instrument, sitting outside the scope of diagnosis. The 4 dimensions and 9 archetypes describe behavioural tendencies that stay short of clinical conditions. For persistent disruptive cognitive patterns (intense rumination, incapacitating distortions, chronic relational distress), qualified psychological or psychiatric support is recommended.