-
Researching How We Bond
The Bonding Project is a research-driven exploration of how people form, sustain, and imagine intimate connection. These profiles are designed to help you better understand your relationship wants and needs—not as fixed traits or prescriptions, but as living patterns that evolve over time, context, and experience.
At the heart of the project is a belief that there is no single “right”way to bond. Instead, people vary along multiple relational dimensions: how many connections they desire, how open or structured they prefer those connections to be, how they prioritize relationships, and how they balance interdependence with self-sufficiency. The Bonding Project offers a shared language for naming these differences, making them easier to recognize, discuss, and negotiate with connections.
Our Methods
We created the tests using research on relationship satisfaction, and then built these profiles from a combination of quantitative and qualitative data gathered directly from our bonders—the thousands of people who have taken our assessments, shared their lived experiences, and reflected on their relationships.
• Quantitative data helps us identify recurring patterns across large groups: common configurations, statistical clusters, and consistent axis placements.
• Qualitative data—open-ended responses, narratives, and reflections—adds texture, nuance, and emotional truth to those patterns.
By integrating both, we aim to create profiles that feel grounded in research and recognizable on a human level. The archetypes and language in these profiles emerge from lived experience, not from abstract theory alone.
What These Profiles Are (and Aren’t)
These profiles are relationship tools, not diagnoses or destiny statements. They are meant to:
• Help you clarify your own bonding preferences and pain points
• Offer language for discussing needs, boundaries, and desires with partners
• Normalize difference rather than rank or judge relational styles
They are not meant to box you in, predict your future, or replace conversation, consent, or care. Many people will recognize parts of themselves across multiple archetypes, or notice their results shifting across life stages, relationships, or healing processes. That flexibility is expected—and welcomed.
How to Read Your Profile
Each Bonding Project profile is structured to be both reflective and practical. As you read, you may find it helpful to:
• Notice what feels immediately accurate—and what doesn’t
• Reflect on how this archetype shows up across different relationships
• Use the language as a starting point for conversation
The most valuable insights often come not from perfect resonance, but from curiosity: Why does this part fit? Why does this part feel off? What does that tell me about what I want or need right now?
Using This as a Shared Tool
Many bonders choose to share their profiles with partners, friends, or collaborators as a way to open dialogue. When used together, these profiles can support clearer communication, reduce misinterpretation, and create more intentional agreements around intimacy, autonomy, and care.
Ultimately, The Bonding Project exists to support more honest, compassionate, and self-aware relationships—with yourself and with others.
© The Bonding Project 2026
-
What We Share Between Us
In The Bonding Project, we use the term bonding resources to describe the things partners share with one another that are inherently limited by time, material constraints, and emotional bandwidth. These resources shape how people feel about their relationships, negotiate them, and sustain them in everyday life.
Through our earliest rounds of data collection, one finding became unmistakably clear: people do not bond the same way across all resources. Someone’s preferences around romance may look nothing like their preferences around sex, finances, or housing. When we treated “bonding”as a single, unified instinct, important differences were flattened. When we separated resources, patterns emerged with striking clarity.
That insight is why we structure the Bonding Project by resource.
Why Resources Matter
Resources are where values meet reality. They are the places where love encounters logistics, where desire meets capacity, and where ideals are tested by circumstance.
Because resources are limited, they require:
• Prioritization
• Negotiation
• Explicit or implicit agreements
Conflict often arises not from a lack of care, but from mismatched assumptions about which resources are being shared, with whom, and in what way. By naming these domains separately, we give people a clearer way to understand—and communicate—their needs.
The Bonding Resources
Romance
Romance is the most elusive and hardest to quantify, and yet, most people immediately know when it’s present or missing.
Romance might include gestures, rituals, emotional intimacy, devotion, longing, fantasy, or shared meaning. It can be quiet or grand, steady or electric. Because romance is so subjective, we begin the assessment by asking what romance means to you.
As you read your profile, hold your own definition of romance in mind. Your archetype reflects how you tend to want to give and receive romance—not a universal standard of what romance “should”be.
Sex
Sexual bonding covers how people share intimacy, desire, and erotic connection. This includes not just frequency or partners, but also meaning: what sex signifies emotionally, relationally, or spiritually.
Some people experience sex as deeply bonding and central; others experience it as playful, expressive, or largely independent from emotional attachment. Still others don’t want to experience it at all. Differences here are common, and easily misinterpreted without shared language.
Finances
Money is one of the most concrete—and charged—bonding resources. Financial bonding includes how people share expenses, make decisions, manage risk, plan for the future, and tie material security to partnership.
People who bond similarly in romance may have wildly different instincts around financial entanglement. Naming these differences early can prevent resentment and confusion later.
Housing
Housing reflects how people share space, routines, and daily life. This includes cohabitation, nesting, proximity, and domestic integration.
For some, sharing a home is the ultimate expression of intimacy. For others, maintaining separate space is essential for regulation and well-being. Neither preference is more committed or more loving, they are simply different bonding needs.
Reading Resource Archetypes Together
Each resource has its own archetype because bonding is contextual. You may find strong alignment with one archetype in romance and a very different one in finances or housing. This is not a contradiction—it’s information.
Use these sections to:
• Clarify where your instincts are consistent and where they diverge
• Communicate more precisely with partners
• Separate “we’re incompatible”from “we differ in this specific domain”
When people struggle to relate, it’s often not because people want different relationships, but because they want to share different resources in different ways. Naming that difference is often the first step toward a more honest, compassionate, and workable connection.
© The Bonding Project 2026
-
Four core bonding axes shape each bonding style. Rather than sorting people into rigid categories, these axes describe relational tendencies—the underlying dimensions along which people differ in how they connect, commit, and care. Your bonding style reflects a particular configuration across all four axes, not a single trait in isolation.
Think of the axes as coordinates on a relational map. Together, they offer a clearer picture of how you bond, what you need to feel secure and fulfilled, and where friction or misunderstanding may arise with partners whose coordinates differ from yours.
Bonding Scope
Anchored ↔ Expansive
This axis describes the natural breadth of your relational world—how many meaningful connections feel sustainable and nourishing.
● Anchored bonders tend to feel most secure with a smaller, stable core of relationships. They orient around one person or a tight-knit group, preferring to go deep rather than wide. Adding new connections often feels diluting rather than enriching.
● Expansive bonders tend to feel most alive within broader, interconnected networks. They have capacity for multiple meaningful relationships simultaneously and may feel restricted when their relational world becomes too narrow. For them, variety and range feel nourishing rather than fragmenting.
Bonding scope is about capacity, not commitment. Both approaches can love deeply—they simply differ in how many connections they can sustain without feeling scattered or constrained.
Openness Style
Focused ↔ Open
This axis describes how permeable your romantic boundaries are and how readily you welcome new connections into your world.
● Focused bonders tend to be selective and intentional about who gets close. They observe carefully, vet thoroughly, and need significant evidence of safety and compatibility before opening emotionally. Focused types often have clear boundaries between "inside the circle" and "outside the circle," protecting intimacy through discernment.
● Open bonders tend to be emotionally permeable and welcoming. They develop chemistry quickly, trust their instincts about alignment, and are comfortable with the natural fluidity of relationships as they unfold. Open types don't require extensive vetting—they believe relationships reveal themselves through experience and let connections define themselves organically.
Openness style is about pace, not depth. Both approaches can form profound connections—they simply differ in how quickly they let new people in and how much structure they need around the process of opening.
Priority Orientation
Prioritized ↔ Collective
This axis describes how you organize relational energy and decision-making.
• Prioritized bonders tend to organize their relationships hierarchically, with one person (or connection) holding a distinctly central place. This doesn’t mean other bonds are devalued—it means prioritization feels clarifying and sustainable.
• Collective bonders are more likely to distribute priority across multiple relationships or within broader networks of care. They may resist ranking connections or prefer group-oriented approaches to intimacy and decision-making.
Priority orientation is about structure, not love. Both approaches can be deeply committed—they simply organize care differently.
Self–Connection Balance
Interdependent ↔ Self-Sufficient
This axis describes how you balance autonomy and togetherness.
• Interdependent bonders tend to thrive on shared routines, merged lives, and mutual reliance. They may feel most secure when connection is frequent, visible, and integrated into daily life.
• Self-sufficient bonders tend to value independence, personal space, and clear boundaries around individual time and decision-making. They may feel most secure when autonomy is protected, even within committed bonds.
Self–connection balance is not about emotional availability—it’s about regulating proximity. Both styles can love deeply; they simply require different rhythms of closeness and distance.
How the Axes Work Together
Your bonding style is not one axis in isolation—it’s the interplay of all four. An Anchored, Focused, Prioritized, Interdependent bonder will have a very different relational experience than an Expansive, Open, Collective, Self-Sufficient bonder—even if both care equally about their connections.
Understanding these axes helps you:
• Recognize your own patterns and needs
• Identify where friction with partners may be structural rather than personal
• Communicate more precisely about what you need to feel secure and fulfilled
The axes are not prescriptive. They are descriptive tools for naming real differences that exist—and for building relationships that honor those differences rather than trying to erase them.
© The Bonding Project 2026
-
One of the most common questions people ask when exploring their bonding style is: What kinds of relationship structures will work for me?
The answer is rarely straightforward—because the same structure can feel wildly different depending on how it’s negotiated, who’s involved, and what agreements are in place. Still, certain bonding styles tend to thrive (or struggle) in particular configurations. Understanding these patterns can help you make more intentional choices about the relational frameworks you pursue.
The Four Primary Structures
One-to-One
Traditional dyadic partnership, often with expectations of exclusivity or primary focus on a single partner.
Strengths: Clear roles, simplified logistics, social legibility, deep focused intimacy.
Challenges: Can feel constraining for those who desire variety or multiple deep bonds; risk of enmeshment or unmet needs if one partner can’t fulfill all roles.
Best suited for: Anchored, Focused, Prioritized, and/or Interdependent bonders who thrive on concentrated intimacy.
One-to-Many
A primary partnership with one or more additional partners. Often involves some form of hierarchy (explicit or implicit).
Strengths: Combines stability of a primary bond with variety or additional connection; allows various needs to be met by different people.
Challenges: Requires significant emotional labor, time management, and communication; hierarchy can create hurt for non-primary partners; jealousy and insecurity may surface.
Best suited for: Prioritized bonders who want a clear anchor but also desire additional connections; works when a primary partner is secure and secondary partners want that kind of connection.
Many-to-Many
Non-hierarchical polyamory or relationship networks where multiple people are connected romantically, without a single “primary”relationship organizing the system.
Strengths: Distributes care and intimacy across a web; can feel liberating for those who resist hierarchy; creates community-based support.
Challenges: Logistically complex; requires exceptional communication and emotional maturity from all parties; can lack the clarity and security that comes with prioritization.
Best suited for: Expansive, Collective, and/or Open bonders who thrive in networked intimacy and resist traditional hierarchy.
Solo
Maintaining independence while having romantic or intimate connections—often without cohabitation, merged finances, or a “primary”partner.
Strengths: Preserves autonomy, allows full self-direction, reduces entanglement; can feel deeply honest for those who value independence.
Challenges: Can feel lonely or unsupported; partners may want more integration than solo structure allows; social/financial systems often penalize solo living.
Best suited for: Self-Sufficient bonders who need high autonomy; works well for those in transitional life phases or who resist traditional escalation.
Structure Is Not Identity
It’s important to distinguish between relationship structure (the practical configuration of your connections) and relationship orientation (your underlying preferences and identity).
Someone may practice monogamy while preferring non-monogamy. Someone may be in a hierarchical polyamorous structure while identifying as relationship anarchist. Someone may be solo by circumstance rather than preference.
Structure reflects what you’re currently doing. Orientation reflects what you’re drawn toward. The Bonding Project measures orientation—but we recognize that context, constraint, and compromise all shape the ways that people can structure or implement their orientations.
Flexibility Within Structure
Most people’s lived experiences don't fit neatly into one structure forever. Relationships evolve, people grow, and life circumstances shift. A structure that worked beautifully in one season may feel stifling or unsustainable in another.
As you read your archetype profile’s “Relationship Structure Preferences”section, keep in mind:
• Flexibility over time: What worked at 25 may not work at 45
• Contextual variation: Different relationships may call for different structures
• Growth edges: Some discomfort is developmental, not diagnostic
The goal is not to find the “perfect”structure and lock it in forever. The goal is to understand your patterns well enough to make intentional, informed choices—and to renegotiate when needed.
© The Bonding Project 2026
-
Compatibility in The Bonding Project is not about finding your “perfect match”or determining whether a relationship is doomed. Instead, it’s a tool for understanding the dynamics that emerge when two different bonding styles come together—and for identifying where care, communication, or compromise may be most needed.
What Compatibility Means
Compatibility is not destiny. It describes patterns, tendencies, and friction points that commonly arise between certain archetypes—but it cannot account for individual context, maturity, communication skills, shared values, or willingness to grow.
Some of the strongest relationships exist between archetypes with lower structural compatibility—because the people involved bring curiosity, flexibility, and commitment to bridging their differences. Conversely, high compatibility does not guarantee ease or longevity if other relational foundations are missing.
How We Assess Compatibility
Compatibility sections are based on:
• Axis alignment: How closely two archetypes align on Bonding Scope, Openness Style, Priority Orientation, and Self–Connection Balance
• Structural preferences: Whether preferred relationship structures (one-to-one, one-to-many, many-to-many, solo) can coexist
• Common friction points: Where differences in needs, pacing, or communication styles tend to create recurring tension
• Growth opportunities: Where differences can become sources of balance, learning, or expansion
The Compatibility Spectrum
High Compatibility 🔥🔥🔥
These pairings tend to feel naturally aligned. Needs, rhythms, and expectations overlap significantly, reducing the need for constant negotiation. However, this does not mean “effortless”—all relationships require care.
Example: Two Interdependent, Prioritized bonders who both want one-to-one partnership will likely experience structural ease and shared expectations around closeness and commitment.
Moderate Compatibility 🔥🔥
These pairings require more active negotiation but can thrive when both people are flexible and committed to honoring each other’s differences.
Example: An Anchored, Interdependent bonder with an Expansive, Self-Sufficient bonder will need to negotiate around time, autonomy, and relational structure—but can create a dynamic where one provides grounding and the other brings spaciousness.
Lower Compatibility 🔥
These pairings tend to experience recurring friction around core relational needs. Success is possible, but requires significant emotional maturity, clear communication, and often external support (therapy, community, coaching).
Example: A Prioritized bonder who needs clear hierarchy and a Collective bonder who resists ranking relationships may struggle to find agreements that honor both people’s core needs.
Reading Compatibility Sections
When you encounter compatibility insights in your profile, consider them as:
• Mirrors: Reflections of dynamics you may already be experiencing
• Maps: Guides for anticipating areas of potential tension or growth
• Invitations: Prompts for deeper conversation with partners
Ask yourself:
• Which dynamics feel familiar in my relationships?
• Where have we felt stuck, and does this help to clarify why?
• What conversations have we been avoiding—or having repeatedly?
• Where might this relationship be offering us opportunities for growth?
Growth Edges, Not Red Flags
Every archetype pairing includes growth edges—areas where differing needs or instincts may create recurring challenges. These are not flaws or warnings; they are invitations.
Growth edges point toward:
• Skills to build (communication, pacing, boundary-setting)
• Assumptions to question
• Support or structure that may be needed to thrive together
In many cases, the very differences that create friction can also become sources of resilience, balance, and mutual learning if the bonders are willing to put in some effort into meeting each other in the middle.
An Invitation to Conversation
Ultimately, archetype compatibility is meant to open dialogue, not close it. These sections are prompts for shared reflection:
• Does this resonate with how we experience each other?
• Where do we want to adapt—and where do we want to honor our differences?
• What agreements or reassurances would help us feel more aligned?
Use compatibility insights as a starting point for honest conversation, collaborative problem-solving, and compassionate understanding. The goal is not perfect alignment, but clearer communication and more intentional connection.
High compatibility does not mean “easy forever,”and lower compatibility does not mean “doomed.”Some of the most meaningful relationships grow out of difference—when people have the tools and willingness to meet one another with curiosity.
© The Bonding Project 2026
-
One of the most important—and most misunderstood—findings from The Bonding Project data is that how people identify, what they want, and what they actually do in relationships are often three different things.
These differences are not failures, contradictions, or signs of dishonesty. They are usually the result of complex social, cultural, and material realities shaping what feels possible at a given moment in someone’s life.
Understanding the distinction between relationship identity, relationship preferences, and relationship practices can bring enormous relief—and clarity.
Relationship Identity
How you name yourself
Relationship identity refers to the labels people use to describe themselves: monogamous, polyamorous, open, non-monogamous, solo, or undecided. These identities often carry emotional, political, or community significance. They can feel deeply true even when someone’s lived reality doesn’t fully match them.
Elements that shape identity include:
• Personal values and ethics
• Community belonging and language access
• Political or philosophical alignment
• Aspirational self-understanding
For many people, identity reflects who they believe themselves to be or who they are becoming, not necessarily what their current relationships look like.
Relationship Preferences
What you want
Preferences describe your internal desires: how many partners you want, how you want to share resources, what kinds of closeness feel nourishing, and what boundaries feel regulating.
Preferences are often revealed through:
• Longing and frustration
• Patterns across multiple relationships
• Fantasies about “ideal”relational setups
Someone may prefer non-monogamy but practice monogamy. Someone may prefer a deeply entwined partnership while identifying as independent or solo. Preferences are often more stable than practices—but harder to honor in constrained environments.
Relationship Practices
What you are actually doing
Practices are the structures, agreements, and behaviors that make up your real-life relationships right now.
Practices are heavily influenced by:
• Partner compatibility and availability
• Economic realities (housing, healthcare, childcare)
• Legal structures and protections
• Safety concerns and social risk
• Geography and access to community
• Time available to devote to relationships versus other things like work, education, caregiving responsibilities, etc.
Many people’s practices reflect compromise rather than preference—not because they are unclear about what they want, but because their context limits what is feasible.
Why These Three Might Not Match
Our data shows that disparities between identity, preference, and practice are incredibly common. These gaps are often shaped by forces larger than any individual:
• Religion and upbringing may constrain what feels morally or socially permissible
• Cultural norms influence which relationship structures are legible, respected, or safe
• Economics can dictate housing, childcare, insurance, and legal dependency
• Geography affects access to community, partners, and social support
• Race, gender, sexuality, and disability can change the stakes of visibility, risk, and choice
In this context, many people are not “living inauthentically”—they are navigating survival, care, and belonging the best they can.
If You Notice a Disparity in Yourself
If your relationship identity, preferences, and practices don’t align, that doesn’t mean something is wrong. It means there is information to explore.
Some reflective questions to consider:
• Is this gap temporary, or long-standing?
• What constraints are shaping my current practices?
• Which parts feel chosen—and which feel imposed?
• What would more alignment look like, even in small ways?
You don’t need to resolve everything at once. Sometimes alignment comes through gradual shifts, clearer communication, or renegotiated agreements—not dramatic overhauls.
Practical Advice for Navigating the Gaps
• Name the difference (to yourself first). Clarity reduces shame.
• Separate ethics from logistics. You can honor your values even when your circumstances limit practice.
• Communicate context, not just labels with partners. Saying “this is what I want, and this is what I can currently do”builds trust.
• Allow identity to evolve. You are not required to keep a label that no longer fits—or to adopt one before you’re ready.
• Be compassionate with timing. Alignment often happens in seasons, not all at once.
• Get some support. Find others who are also managing a gap between their relationship and their preferred styles and formats of bonding. Support groups, counseling, MeetUps, and online chatting with others in a similar situation can go a long way towards helping you understand what is happening, figuring out how to handle it, and feeling less isolated.
Alignment as a Direction, Not a Destination
The Bonding Project treats alignment not as a fixed state, but as a direction of travel. Your relationship identity, preferences, and practices may move closer together or further apart across different life stages—and that movement itself carries insight.
This profile is designed to help you name those dynamics, understand the forces shaping them, and make more intentional choices within the realities you’re living.
Your bonding style reflects your authentic preferences—not your current circumstances. Honor the gap between what you want and what you’re doing as information, not failure. And know that many people are navigating the same tension between ideal and real, between identity and practice, between who they are and what their world allows. You are not alone in this complexity.
© The Bonding Project 2026