Methodology

What this page is for

Twogle's editorial content draws on a small set of research traditions in relationship science. This page describes which frameworks we lean on, what each one is good at, where each one has limits, and what we deliberately don't claim. If you've read three of our articles and noticed we keep citing the same researchers, this is why.

The frameworks we lean on

The Gottman Method (John and Julie Gottman)

Four decades of longitudinal research at the University of Washington's "Love Lab" — recording, coding, and following thousands of couples over years and in some cases decades. The Gottman Institute has produced the strongest predictive findings in the field: the Four Horsemen (criticism, contempt, defensiveness, stonewalling), the 5:1 positive-to-negative interaction ratio, the importance of repair attempts, and the Sound Relationship House model. When we cite the Gottmans, we typically cite the original papers (Gottman & Levenson 1992, Gottman et al. 1998) or the most widely-read distillation (The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work, 1999).

Emotionally Focused Therapy / EFT (Sue Johnson)

Sue Johnson's EFT applies attachment theory to couples. Where Gottman focuses on behavioural patterns, EFT focuses on the attachment dynamics underneath — the pursue-withdraw cycle, the anxious-avoidant trap, the negative cycle as the "enemy" rather than the partner. We cite Hold Me Tight (Johnson 2008) and the underlying clinical text The Practice of Emotionally Focused Couple Therapy (Johnson 2004).

Attachment theory (Bowlby, Ainsworth, Levine, Mikulincer & Shaver)

Bowlby's original attachment work (1969) was about infants; Hazan and Shaver (1987) extended the framework to adult romantic relationships. Mikulincer and Shaver's Attachment in Adulthood (2007) is the contemporary academic synthesis. Amir Levine and Rachel Heller's Attached (2010) is the popular translation. When we write about anxious, avoidant, fearful-avoidant, or earned-secure attachment, we cite the academic source where possible.

PACT (Stan Tatkin)

Stan Tatkin's Psychobiological Approach to Couple Therapy bridges attachment theory with neuroscience — the nervous-system dimension of co-regulation, the "couple bubble" concept, the Anchor/Wave/Island typology. We cite Wired for Love (2012) and Wired for Dating (2016).

Imago Relationship Therapy (Harville Hendrix and Helen LaKelly Hunt)

The Imago Dialogue — mirror, validate, empathize — is one of the most influential structured couples-communication exercises. We cite Getting the Love You Want (Hendrix, revised 2008).

Nonviolent Communication (Marshall Rosenberg)

Rosenberg's NVC framework — observation, feeling, need, request — appears in our communication articles as a complement to Gottman's soft-startup and EFT's emotion-naming work. We cite Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life (Rosenberg 2003).

Modern critics and complementary voices

We also draw on Esther Perel (eroticism vs. domesticity), Terry Real (Relational Life Therapy), Eli Finkel (the all-or-nothing marriage thesis), Brené Brown (vulnerability research), and Susan David (emotional agility). These voices add cultural and contemporary depth that the older clinical frameworks don't always cover.

What we don't claim

Twogle is a wellness publication and a wellness app. We don't claim to do any of the following:

• Diagnose any clinical condition — couples-related or individual.
• Replace licensed couples therapy. Our content and app are positioned as something to use between or instead of therapy, depending on what's accessible to a given couple; never as therapy itself.
• Promise outcomes ("save your marriage in 30 days"). We describe mechanisms and protocols. The reader decides what to do with them.
• Claim that any single framework above is "the answer." The most-cited meta-analysis in the field (Benson, McGinn & Christensen 2012) found that the active ingredients across modalities — recognising patterns, regulating affect, communicating needs — matter more than the brand of therapy. We design our content around active ingredients, not brand affiliations.

How astrology fits

Twogle publishes a Sun Sign Compatibility reading at /tools/sun-sign-compatibility. Astrology is not science. We treat it as editorial — a thoughtful starting point for couples to notice patterns and have better conversations, not a predictive model. The reading is written with the same editorial care as our therapy-grounded content; it just isn't grounded in clinical research. We're explicit about that distinction on the tool itself.

How we update content

Every Twogle article has a datePublished and a dateModified. The distinction is meaningful: datePublished is when the piece first went live; dateModified reflects the most recent substantive update. Articles on active research areas — attachment, AI in mental health, contemporary divorce data — are reviewed annually and refreshed when new findings warrant it. Articles on stable frameworks (the Four Horsemen, the Imago Dialogue) are reviewed less frequently.

We do not update an article without bumping its dateModified and adding an "Updated" line where the change is substantive. Our editorial policy describes the corrections process in detail.

What you can ask us

If you have a question about how we treated a specific framework or finding — or if you think we got the literature wrong — email editorial@twogle.com. We answer methodology questions in detail and update articles when the underlying evidence warrants it.