The Research Behind Harvest
Research foundations for Soil, Grounded, and The Gardener
Harvest draws on relationship science to connect three parts of the product: Soil, the values framework; Grounded, the behavioral framework; and The Gardener, the built-in generative AI dating coach created for Harvest using OpenAI models. The research base includes long-standing and recent empirical work on partner responsiveness [7, 10, 11, 17], attachment [1, 4, 5, 9], trust [14], autonomy [16, 20], emotion regulation [3], conflict and repair [8], commitment [15, 19], intimacy [10, 11, 13], coercive control [6, 12], and relationship stability [8, 15, 19].
The Harvest framework
Soil
Emotional Intelligence, Stability, Integrity, Connection, and Growth, from two perspectives: I Bring and I Need.
Grounded
Eight dimensions that describe how relational values appear in conversations and interactions.
The Gardener
Created for Harvest using OpenAI models. Interprets interactions through Grounded and connects them to the user’s Soil values.
1. Soil: Relational Values and Priorities
Soil organizes relationship values into five user-facing categories: Emotional Intelligence, Stability, Integrity, Connection, and Growth. The questionnaire examines these values from two perspectives: I Bring, which reflects qualities users believe they tend to contribute in relationships, and I Need, which reflects qualities they most value receiving from a partner.
The framework was informed by research on emotional responsiveness [7, 10, 17], attachment security [1, 4, 5, 9], interpersonal trust [14], relationship commitment [15, 19], conflict repair [8], emotional intimacy [10, 11, 13], autonomy [16, 20], affection, and relational growth [2]. Scenario-based questions place those values inside realistic relationship situations involving closeness, conflict, vulnerability, reassurance, responsibility, affection, and future orientation.
2. Grounded: Observable Relationship Behavior
Grounded translates broad relationship concepts into patterns The Gardener can evaluate in conversations and interactions. Its eight dimensions create a consistent behavioral vocabulary for interpreting how relational values appear in practice.
The eight Grounded dimensions
Responsiveness
Listening, validation, curiosity, attentiveness, and response to positive or difficult disclosures.
Research basis [7, 10, 11, 17]Reciprocity
The movement of effort, disclosure, planning, curiosity, and accommodation between both people.
Research basis [7, 13, 18]Agency
Responsibility for personal choices, emotions, logistics, and life functioning.
Autonomy & Boundaries
Respect for limits, privacy, independence, consent, and freedom from pressure or coercion.
Research basis [6, 12, 16, 20]Respect & Regard
The way disagreement, frustration, and difference are handled, including contempt, hostility, and personal attack.
Research basis [8]Emotional Regulation
The management and communication of strong emotion, reassurance needs, escalation, and withdrawal.
Research basis [3]Accountability & Repair
Ownership of behavior, acknowledgment of impact, repair attempts, and behavioral change.
Research basis [8]Consistency & Investment
Follow-through, reliability, persistence, investment, and alignment between words and behavior.
Research basis [14, 15, 19]Three user-facing evidence levels
Rooted Strength
Healthy relational habits that show up throughout the conversation, such as responsiveness, reciprocity, respect, and follow-through.
Worth Noticing
Relational patterns that may need to be considered: early or mixed signals that aren’t yet clear enough to draw a firm conclusion.
Grounding Concern
Ways of relating to others that appear unhealthy, especially when they are clear, repeated, or serious.
3. Research Areas Represented
Partner responsiveness & intimacy
Laurenceau, Barrett & Pietromonaco [10]; Gable et al. [7]; Smallen et al. [17].
Attachment & emotional security
Bowlby [4]; Ainsworth [1]; Hazan & Shaver [9]; Candel & Turliuc [5].
Trust & commitment
Rempel, Holmes & Zanna [14]; Rusbult [15]; Tran, Judge & Kashima [19].
Emotion regulation & conflict
Bloch, Haase & Levenson [3]; Gottman & Levenson [8].
Autonomy, boundaries & coercive control
Weinstein et al. [20]; Lohmann et al. [12]; recent sexual-autonomy-support research [16].
Relationship maintenance & positive responding
Gable et al. [7]; Otto et al. [13]; relationship-maintenance and reciprocity literature [18].
Digital relationship behavior
Recent longitudinal work on social-media jealousy and electronic partner surveillance [6].
Growth & self-expansion
Aron & Aron [2] and subsequent self-expansion research.
Research Foundations
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1986). Love and the expansion of self: Understanding attraction and satisfaction. Hemisphere.
Bloch, L., Haase, C. M., & Levenson, R. W. (2014). Emotion regulation predicts marital satisfaction: More than a wives’ tale. Emotion, 14(1), 130–144.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. Basic Books.
Candel, O.-S., & Turliuc, M. N. (2019). Insecure attachment and relationship satisfaction: A meta-analysis of actor and partner associations. Personality and Individual Differences, 147, 190–199.
Emond, M., Vaillancourt-Morel, M.-P., Métellus, S., Brassard, A., & Daspe, M.-È. (2023). Social media jealousy and intimate partner violence in young adults’ romantic relationships: A longitudinal study. Telematics and Informatics, 79, 101956.
Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., Impett, E. A., & Asher, E. R. (2004). What do you do when things go right? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 228–245.
Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1992). Marital processes predictive of later dissolution: Behavior, physiology, and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(2), 221–233.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524.
Laurenceau, J.-P., Barrett, L. F., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1238–1251.
Laurenceau, J.-P., Barrett, L. F., & Rovine, M. J. (2005). The interpersonal process model of intimacy in marriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(2), 314–323.
Lohmann, S., et al. (2024). The trauma and mental health impacts of coercive control: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse.
Otto, A. K., Laurenceau, J.-P., Siegel, S. D., & Belcher, A. J. (2015). Capitalizing on everyday positive events uniquely predicts daily intimacy and well-being. Journal of Family Psychology, 29(1), 69–79.
Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(1), 95–112.
Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16(2), 172–186.
Shoikhedbrod, A., Harasymchuk, C., Impett, E. A., & Muise, A. (2026). When a partner supports your sexual autonomy: Perceived partner sexual autonomy support, need fulfillment, and satisfaction in romantic relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 52(2), 381–399.
Smallen, D., Eller, J., Rholes, W. S., & Simpson, J. A. (2022). Perceptions of partner responsiveness across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Family Psychology, 36(4), 618–629.
Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship type, gender and relational characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8(2), 217–242.
Tran, P., Judge, M., & Kashima, Y. (2019). Commitment in relationships: An updated meta-analysis of the Investment Model. Personal Relationships, 26(1), 158–180.
Weinstein, N., et al. (2016). Autonomy support and diastolic blood pressure: Long-term effects and conflict navigation in romantic relationships. Motivation and Emotion.