BondPrintBondPrint is research-informed, not clinically validated, and this page keeps that boundary visible. Each area below summarizes published relationship science, cites the source, and then states separately what BondPrint does with it. Only verified sources are cited; where the model draws on areas without a verified citation in our library yet, we say so rather than inventing one.
Attachment theory
Attachment research describes people as needing a secure base: connection feels steadiest when we trust it will be there the moment we reach for it. Adult attachment work adds that worry about a bond tends to switch on under ambiguity — uncertainty about availability, more than distance itself, activates the system, and the same person can function differently across relationships.
BondPrint interpretation: attachment is treated as one dimension among many, assessed at baseline and per relationship, and never converted into a style label.
Caregiving and support
Research on support in relationships suggests it matters in two directions: a safe haven in hard times and a launching pad toward growth in good ones. What shapes outcomes is substantially the support that is perceived, not only the support provided.
BondPrint interpretation: giving and receiving care are mapped as separate dimensions, because the gap between them — love given but not registered — is one of the most consequential patterns two people can compare.
- Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2015). A new look at social support: A theoretical perspective on thriving through relationships. doi:10.1177/1088868314544222
Conflict, flooding, and repair
Gottman's observational research suggests stable couples are distinguished less by avoiding friction than by repairing quickly, and by keeping a high ratio of appreciation to criticism. His work on physiological flooding indicates that once the body is overwhelmed in conflict, productive conversation stops.
BondPrint interpretation: repair confidence, appreciation channels, flooding tendency, and time-to-recover are explored as individual patterns that partners can compare.
Investment and commitment
Rusbult's investment model describes commitment as growing from satisfaction, the felt absence of better alternatives, and what has already been built together. Stanley and Markman distinguish dedication — wanting a future together — from constraint, the feeling of being stuck.
BondPrint interpretation: future orientation and "feeling chosen" questions draw on this distinction; the visible practice of dedication, not commitment declarations, is what BondPrint asks about.
- Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(80)90007-4
- Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (1992). Assessing commitment in personal relationships. doi:10.2307/353245
Self-determination and autonomy
Self-determination theory treats autonomy and relatedness as basic human needs rather than opposites — closeness that is freely chosen tends to feel most sustaining.
BondPrint interpretation: autonomy and togetherness needs are mapped as coexisting dimensions, not a spectrum with a healthy end.
- Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7
Novelty and self-expansion
Self-expansion theory proposes that love stays alive partly through growth: new experiences and perspectives shared with a partner expand who each person is.
BondPrint interpretation: novelty need and growth orientation appear in the desire and bonding dimensions; a high novelty need is read as a pattern, not restlessness.
- Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1986). Love and the Expansion of Self. Source
Desire, attraction, and attachment as distinct systems
Fisher's anthropological work frames romantic love as a deep motivational drive expressed through distinct systems of desire, attraction, and attachment.
BondPrint interpretation: this separation is structural in the model — desire and attachment are assessed as different dimensions that can point in different directions in the same relationship.
- Fisher, H. (2004). Why We Love: The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love. Source
Connection as repeated moments
Fredrickson's research reframes love as built from many small moments of shared positive connection rather than one continuous state.
BondPrint interpretation: the continuity and ritual dimensions draw on this — rhythm and small kept threads are treated as load-bearing, not trivial.
- Fredrickson, B. L. (2013). Love 2.0: How Our Supreme Emotion Affects Everything We Feel, Think, Do, and Become. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-6689-1_1
Love as practice
Fromm described love as active concern for the life and growth of what we love; hooks framed love as a practice — choices and actions renewed daily — rather than a feeling that happens to us.
BondPrint interpretation: these philosophical framings inform BondPrint's emphasis on behaviors and choices over self-description, and are labeled as philosophical rather than empirical sources.
Areas awaiting verified sources
BondPrint's model also touches perceived partner responsiveness, intimacy and self-disclosure, and relationship-diversity research. Verified primary citations for these areas are not yet in our source library, so they are listed here as pending rather than cited from memory.
See how these sources shape the model on the methodology page.