Methodology
The Relationship Mirror questions were developed by the author drawing on work about emotional bonds, attachment and the cognitive exploration of experience. These ideas help to look step by step at the situation, feelings, interpretations, needs and habitual reactions.
Relationship Mirror is an authored reflection tool. It is not a standardised psychological test, has not undergone independent clinical validation and does not replace psychotherapy. Evidence for the effectiveness of psychotherapy is not evidence for the effectiveness of this app.
Approaches and authors
Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT/EFCT)
Sue Johnson; early joint work by Sue Johnson and Leslie Greenberg. Ideas used: emotional responsiveness, needs for closeness, partners' accessibility to each other and recurring interaction cycles. We do not claim that all anger, silence or distance stems from fear of rejection.
Attachment theory
John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth — research on attachment in childhood; Cindy Hazan and Phillip Shaver — applying attachment ideas to adult romantic relationships. These are distinct research areas. The tool draws no conclusions about childhood and assigns no 'attachment style'.
Cognitive model
Aaron Beck. Used: the distinction between a situation, its interpretation, the emotional response and the reaction. Users' worries are not labelled cognitive distortions: concerns may reflect real circumstances. Albert Ellis's rational emotive behaviour approach was not used.
Safety in relationships
WHO materials on intimate partner violence. Used: the distinction between ordinary disagreements and threats, coercion, violence and controlling behaviour.
Methodology table
| Step | Concept explored | Grounding | Purpose of the question | Role in reflection |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Notice | A concrete observable situation | Cognitive model (situation); EFT (interaction cycles) | Move from general judgements to concrete moments | Clarifies context; does not establish a need |
| 2. Feel | Emotional response | EFT; cognitive model | Name the feeling without judging it | Constrains assumptions; does not establish motive |
| 3. Understand | Interpretation, meaning | Cognitive model | Separate the event from the meaning given to it | User explanation, not an established cause |
| 4. Matters | Need, value, resource | EFT (accessibility, responsiveness); attachment theory (closeness, secure base) | Name the need and resources already available | Basis for context and grounding thought |
| 5. Respond | Habitual reaction | EFT (cycles); cognitive model (behaviour) | Notice one's own move in a recurring interaction | Clarifies response, not its outcome |
| 6. Want to understand | The user's own open question | Socratic inquiry | Let the user choose the direction of reflection | Chosen direction, not evidence of cause |
Sources
We state how fully each source was reviewed. No questionnaires or therapy protocols were copied; all question wording is the author's own. This product is not a method of Sue Johnson, Bowlby, Beck or the WHO.
ICEEFT. What is Emotionally Focused Therapy? (official overview)
Level of review: official open overview/document; availability checked
ICEEFT. What is Emotionally Focused Therapy for Couples? (official overview)
Level of review: official open overview/document; availability checked
Level of review: bibliographic record and widely known content; full text not studied for this version
Johnson, S. M. (2004). The Practice of Emotionally Focused Couple Therapy: Creating Connection (2nd ed.). Brunner-Routledge.
Level of review: bibliographic record and widely known content; full text not studied for this version
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss, Vol. 1: Attachment. Basic Books.
Level of review: bibliographic record and widely known content; full text not studied for this version
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of Attachment. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Level of review: bibliographic record and widely known content; full text not studied for this version
Level of review: bibliographic record and widely known content; full text not studied for this version
Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Disorders. International Universities Press.
Level of review: bibliographic record and widely known content; full text not studied for this version
Beck Institute for Cognitive Behavior Therapy. The Cognitive Model (official PDF, 2024).
Level of review: official open overview/document; availability checked
Level of review: official open overview/document; availability checked
How reflection is built
- Completion has three parts: what comes together, where tension lies, and a grounding thought. There is no final question.
- Needs and responses come only from selected answers. Tension is shown only for checked combinations; no contradiction is a valid outcome.
- All answers are checked for restrictions, including threats, concern about reactions and mixed experiences. Causes, action outcomes and partner feelings are not inferred.
- Skipping, none fitting and uncertainty are not interpreted. Without a pair no link is created; you can stop without a ready answer.
Limitations
- Answers are one person's self-report at one moment; they reflect their view, not an 'objective' picture of the relationship.
- Answer options inevitably simplify experience.
- The tool does not assess the partner, the relationship or its prospects.
- Completion time has not been measured and is not promised.
Safety
- Before the main questions there is an optional question about threats, coercion, violence or fear for safety. It is not a diagnostic screening.
- If the answer is 'Yes' or 'Not sure', a separate screen offers support information with manual country choice, the option to finish, or to continue individual reflection without questions about working things out together.
- Violence is not reduced to mutual conflict or attachment fear, and responsibility for the partner's actions is not placed on the user.