This tool is evidence-informed — not evidence-based (that would overclaim). The design draws on reasonably replicated research. Single studies and replication-crisis-prone fields are flagged explicitly.
Why stated preferences are a poor guide ✅ Strong
Eastwick, P. W., Luchies, L. B., Finkel, E. J., & Hunt, L. L. (2014). The predictive validity of ideal partner preferences. Psychological Bulletin, 140(3), 623–665. — People's ideal partner criteria predict who they desire in theory, but not who they're actually attracted to in person. This is why Phase 1 is a starting point for reflection, not a filter.
Why self-concept clarity is the real mechanism ✅ Strong
McIntyre, K. P., & Mattingly, B. A. (2017). So close I can see me: Self-concept clarity and the inclusion of other in the self. Self and Identity, 16(6), 663–679. — Clarity about who you are (values, identity, trajectory) is a stronger predictor of healthy partner selection than any checklist. This is the foundation of The Mirror phase.
Self-expansion and relationship quality ✅ Strong
Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1996). Self and self-expansion in relationships. In G. J. O. Fletcher & J. Holmes (Eds.), Knowledge Structures in Close Relationships. — The "who do you become" framing comes from self-expansion theory: healthy relationships expand your sense of self rather than diminishing it. A consistent predictor of long-term satisfaction.
Attachment patterns and partner selection ✅ Strong
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in Adulthood: Structure, Dynamics, and Change. Guilford Press. — Attachment style shapes who we're drawn to and how we behave in relationships. Secure attachment is consistently linked to relationship satisfaction. The Mirror prompts around patterns and readiness draw on this body of work.
Personality similarity vs stated preferences ⚠️ Emerging
Kredl, J. (2024). Similarity in personality predicts relationship satisfaction better than stated partner preferences. — Emerging evidence that actual similarity in personality traits (especially agreeableness, conscientiousness) predicts relationship satisfaction more reliably than what people say they want in advance. Treat Phase 1 outputs as material for conversation, not a specification.
Values alignment and long-term satisfaction ✅ Strong
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. — Autonomy, relatedness, and shared intrinsic values are consistently linked to relationship quality. The Values and Shared Vision categories in Phase 1 are grounded in this framework.
⚠️ This tool is for reflection in session with Dynas Heart. It is not a diagnostic instrument and does not replace professional advice.