What we measure, and what it can't tell you
Sources last checked
paired counts patterns in your WhatsApp export: who writes, when, how fast, and which words and emoji show up. Below is every number we show, the research behind it where there is some, and its limits.
We only cite studies we have checked, and we only say what they found. Where a sentence goes beyond a study, we say it's our interpretation. Most of this research was done with young adults, in English, and often not with WhatsApp. Treat every number as a conversation starter, not a verdict.
Connection Index
Connection Index: what we measure
A score from 0 to 100 that compares your last 8 weeks with your own history: messages per week, reply speed, affection, tension and balance. For each part, 50 means your usual (everything before the last 8 weeks), 100 means your best 8-week stretch or 50% better than usual, 0 means none at all. The score is a weighted average of those parts. Labels: Close from 70, Steady from 40, Cooling from 25, Drifting below.
Connection Index: what research says
There is no study behind this score. It is our own summary of the measures below, built to be relative to you and never compared with other couples or invented “healthy” benchmarks.
Connection Index: what it can't tell you
The Connection Index can't tell whether a change is good or bad for you. Fewer messages can mean you see each other more. It reacts to the last 8 weeks, so a holiday or exam period can move it.
Messages over time
Messages over time: what we measure
Messages per week and per person, including media and deleted messages, excluding WhatsApp's system messages. Partial weeks at the start and end are scaled when we compare rates.
Messages over time: what research says
A descriptive study of people in committed relationships (Coyne et al., 2011) found most participants used cell phones and texting to contact their partner frequently, and that expressing affection was the most common reason for contact.
In a study of young adults (Schade et al., 2013), women who texted more reported their relationships as more stable, while men who texted more reported lower relationship satisfaction. Volume alone doesn't point one way.
Coyne, S. M., Stockdale, L., Busby, D., Iverson, B., & Grant, D. M. (2011). “I luv u :)!”: A descriptive study of the media use of individuals in romantic relationships. Family Relations, 60(2), 150–162. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2010.00639.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2010.00639.x
Schade, L. C., Sandberg, J., Bean, R., Busby, D., & Coyne, S. (2013). Using technology to connect in romantic relationships: Effects on attachment, relationship satisfaction, and stability in emerging adults. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 12(4), 314–338. doi:10.1080/15332691.2013.836051 https://doi.org/10.1080/15332691.2013.836051
Messages over time: what it can't tell you
We can't see calls, voice notes' content, other apps or time spent together, so a quiet chat may just mean you talk elsewhere.
Read the guide: Why is my partner texting less? What it can mean, and how to find out
Who starts conversations
Who starts conversations: what we measure
A new conversation begins with the first message after 6 hours of quiet. We count who sends it.
Who starts conversations: what research says
We don't know of a study that links who starts WhatsApp conversations to relationship outcomes. We show it as a pattern because many people ask about it. The 6-hour rule is our choice.
Who starts conversations: what it can't tell you
Starting a conversation can be habit, schedule (who wakes up first) or job. It doesn't measure who cares more.
Read the guide: "I always text first." Is it a problem, and how do you talk about it?
Affection
Affection: what we measure
Hearts and affectionate emoji plus phrases like “love you”, “miss you”, “hab dich lieb”, “te quiero” in seven languages, counted per 100 text messages and over time.
Affection: what research says
Schade et al. (2013) surveyed young adults in relationships: texting to express affection was associated with higher reported attachment to the partner, for both men and women.
Coyne et al. (2011) found expressing affection was the most common reason people contacted their partner by phone or text.
Lab studies by Riordan (2017) found that emojis, including non-face emojis like hearts, change how much emotion readers perceive in a message and make messages less ambiguous. These studies are about how messages are read, not about relationship health.
In surveys of single adults (Gesselman, Ta & Garcia, 2019), people who used emoji more often reported more first dates and more sexual activity. The design was correlational; the authors note it can't show cause and effect.
Schade, L. C., Sandberg, J., Bean, R., Busby, D., & Coyne, S. (2013). Using technology to connect in romantic relationships: Effects on attachment, relationship satisfaction, and stability in emerging adults. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 12(4), 314–338. doi:10.1080/15332691.2013.836051 https://doi.org/10.1080/15332691.2013.836051
Coyne, S. M., Stockdale, L., Busby, D., Iverson, B., & Grant, D. M. (2011). “I luv u :)!”: A descriptive study of the media use of individuals in romantic relationships. Family Relations, 60(2), 150–162. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2010.00639.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2010.00639.x
Riordan, M. A. (2017). Emojis as tools for emotion work: Communicating affect in text messages. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 36(5), 549–567. doi:10.1177/0261927X17704238 https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X17704238
Riordan, M. A. (2017). The communicative role of non-face emojis: Affect and disambiguation. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 75–86. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.009 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.009
Gesselman, A. N., Ta, V. P., & Garcia, J. R. (2019). Worth a thousand interpersonal words: Emoji as affective signals for relationship-oriented digital communication. PLOS ONE, 14(8), e0221297. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0221297 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221297
Affection: what it can't tell you
Word lists miss inside jokes, pet names we don't know, sarcasm and affection shown without words. Some people just don't use emoji.
Read the guide: Long-distance relationship texting: how much is normal, and what keeps you close
Tension
Tension: what we measure
Phrases that often signal friction (“leave me alone”, “you always”, “lass mich in Ruhe”…) and angry emoji, per 100 text messages. Words that are usually neutral (“whatever”, “egal”) are deliberately not counted.
Tension: what research says
In Schade et al. (2013), texting to hurt a partner was negatively associated with attachment, satisfaction and stability for men. The study reports this link for men, not for women.
Schade, L. C., Sandberg, J., Bean, R., Busby, D., & Coyne, S. (2013). Using technology to connect in romantic relationships: Effects on attachment, relationship satisfaction, and stability in emerging adults. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 12(4), 314–338. doi:10.1080/15332691.2013.836051 https://doi.org/10.1080/15332691.2013.836051
Tension: what it can't tell you
We can't read tone. A teasing “you always 🙄” counts the same as a real complaint. Arguments on the phone or in person are invisible to us.
Who says sorry first
Who says sorry first: what we measure
A conversation counts as tense when it has at least two tension signals. We then look for the first apology (“sorry”, “tut mir leid”, “perdón”…) within 48 hours and note who sent it.
Who says sorry first: what research says
We don't know of a study that measures who apologizes first in chat logs. This is a descriptive pattern, and the 48-hour window is our choice.
Who says sorry first: what it can't tell you
Many apologies happen in person. “Sorry I'm late” also counts if it lands in that window.
When you talk
When you talk: what we measure
Messages by weekday and hour, and the share sent between 10 pm and 5 am. Times are as written in the export, in your phone's time zone.
When you talk: what research says
We show this descriptively. We don't know of research that ties chat timing to relationship outcomes.
When you talk: what it can't tell you
Shift work, time zones and living together all change when people text.
Read the guide: Who texts more? How to analyze your WhatsApp chat, privately
Message length
Message length: what we measure
Average words per text message, per person. Media and deleted messages are not counted.
Message length: what research says
We show this descriptively. We don't know of research that ties message length in private chats to relationship outcomes.
Message length: what it can't tell you
Some people send one long message, others five short ones that say the same.
Talking like each other (language style matching)
Talking like each other (language style matching): what we measure
How similarly you use small function words: pronouns, articles, prepositions, conjunctions, auxiliary verbs, negations and similar. Per category we compare how often each of you uses them and average the similarity (0 to 100). Word lists exist for English, German, Dutch, Spanish, French, Italian and Portuguese.
Talking like each other (language style matching): what research says
Ireland et al. (2011) found that in 40 speed-dates, pairs whose styles matched more were more likely to both want to meet again. In a second study, among 86 dating couples, higher style matching in their instant messages predicted still dating three months later (76.7% vs 53.5% for pairs above vs at or below the median).
Ireland, M. E., Slatcher, R. B., Eastwick, P. W., Scissors, L. E., Finkel, E. J., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2011). Language style matching predicts relationship initiation and stability. Psychological Science, 22(1), 39–44. doi:10.1177/0956797610392928 https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610392928
Talking like each other (language style matching): what it can't tell you
Language style matching is a subtle, statistical signal from small samples. Two people can match perfectly and still be unhappy, or write differently and be very close.
Read the guide: Is he losing interest over text? The signs that actually matter
Silences and busiest weeks
Silences and busiest weeks: what we measure
The longest gaps between any two messages, and the week with the most messages.
Silences and busiest weeks: what research says
We show these as moments to remember, not as a measure of anything.
Silences and busiest weeks: what it can't tell you
A long silence can be a trip together as easily as a fight.
Read the guide: When did it go wrong? Understanding a breakup through your chat
The research is mixed, and that matters
Texting doesn't have one effect on relationships. Schade et al. (2013) found different associations for men and women. Much of the evidence is correlational: it shows what goes together, not what causes what.
Slatcher & Pennebaker (2006) had one partner of 86 dating couples write about their relationship. Afterwards, both partners used more positive and negative emotion words in their instant messages, and those who wrote about the relationship were more likely to still be dating three months later. Increases in positive emotion words partly explained that link. It shows emotion words in messages can move with relationship processes. It doesn't mean counting emotion words can predict your relationship.
What paired can't tell you
- It can't read tone of voice, sarcasm or what a message meant to you.
- It doesn't see calls, voice note content, other apps or the time you spend together.
- It can't know what anyone intends, feels or does outside the chat.
- It isn't a diagnosis or therapy. If you're worried about your relationship, talking to each other, or to a counselor, beats any number.