Take the test
English

Methodology

Our compatibility analysis draws on insights from peer-reviewed academic research and public statistical data.

Big Five Personality Traits

The Big Five (OCEAN model) is the most widely accepted personality trait model in modern psychology. Decades of factor analysis research have repeatedly confirmed that human personality can be described along five independent dimensions.

The Malouff et al. meta-analysis (integrating 19 samples covering 3,848 participants) reports associations between Big Five personality traits and relationship satisfaction. Our analysis draws on insights from research such as this.

Big Five trait axes: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Openness, NeuroticismEACON
  • Extraversion EReflected in sociability and one's style of engaging with people
  • Agreeableness AA trait reflected in warmth, consideration, and how one relates to others
  • Conscientiousness CReflected in planning, self-discipline, and everyday habits
  • Openness ORelates to intellectual curiosity and interest in new experiences
  • Emotional Stability NRelates to calmness and how one copes with stress

Age Gap Statistics

Multiple statistical studies exist on the relationship between age gaps and relationship longevity. In a study of about 3,000 ever-married adults in the United States, Francis-Tan and Mialon (2015) reported that, after accounting for factors such as age at marriage and income, larger age gaps between spouses tended to be associated with a higher risk of divorce (this is a correlation from a one-time self-reported survey and does not show causation). Japan's Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare vital statistics also show statistical trends related to age gaps.

However, age gap statistics represent population-level trends and do not predict outcomes for individual couples. Many couples with significant age differences maintain happy, lasting relationships.

Zodiac (Element Compatibility)

Western astrology has a long tradition of grouping the twelve zodiac signs into four elements (Fire, Earth, Air, Water) and describing compatibility through their combinations. On this site, this is treated as a cultural reference item; scientific evidence is limited, so please enjoy it as a fun extra.

Blood Type (Reference)

Large-scale surveys (10,000+ participants) have found no statistically significant relationship between blood type and personality. On this site, blood type is treated as a reference item rooted in Japanese cultural tradition, so please enjoy it as a fun extra. Blood type input is optional and excluded from evaluation if not provided.

Overall Assessment

Your results present compatibility assessed holistically from multiple perspectives, including personality traits, expressed as a rank from SSS to G.

When optional items are left blank, evaluation is performed using only the provided inputs. The analysis can be completed with Big Five responses alone.

How the solo personality test is measured

The personality test uses the Mini-IPIP (Donnellan et al., 2006), a 20-item short scale drawn from the public-domain International Personality Item Pool (IPIP). Each trait is measured by four items on a 5-point scale; after reverse-keyed items are processed, the raw score (4–20) is linearly mapped to a 0–100 position on the scale. The Japanese, Chinese, and Korean item wordings are this site’s own translations.

The 0–100 scores are positions computed from your responses, not rankings against other test-takers. The “share of study participants who scored lower than you” shown with your results is an estimate based on the per-trait means and standard deviations that Cooper et al. (2010) obtained from 1,481 university students in the UK. Because answers to translated versions such as the Japanese one are compared with participants who took the English version, please treat it as a rough guide. A 20-item short form also trades some precision for brevity compared with full-length inventories (50–300 items). Please treat the results as a starting point for self-understanding.

References

  • Malouff, J. M., Thorsteinsson, E. B., Schutte, N. S., Bhullar, N., & Rooke, S. E. (2010). The Five-Factor Model of personality and relationship satisfaction of intimate partners: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(1), 124-127. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.09.004
  • Francis-Tan, A., & Mialon, H. M. (2015). "A diamond is forever" and other fairy tales: The relationship between wedding expenses and marriage duration. Economic Inquiry, 53(4), 1919-1930. doi:10.1111/ecin.12206
  • Nawata, K. (2014). 血液型と性格の無関連性――日本と米国の大規模社会調査を用いた実証的論拠―― [No relationship between blood type and personality: Evidence from large-scale surveys in Japan and the US]. 心理学研究, 85(2), 148-156. doi:10.4992/jjpsy.85.13016
  • Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan - Vital Statistics. Official page
  • Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The Mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18(2), 192-203. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.192
  • Cooper, A. J., Smillie, L. D., & Corr, P. J. (2010). A confirmatory factor analysis of the Mini-IPIP five-factor model personality scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(5), 688-691. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.01.004
  • Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. G. (2006). The International Personality Item Pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(1), 84-96. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007

Key studies cited in the articles on this site

  • McNulty, J. K., Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2008). Beyond initial attraction: Physical attractiveness in newlywed marriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(1), 135-143. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.22.1.135
  • Meltzer, A. L., McNulty, J. K., Jackson, G. L., & Karney, B. R. (2014). Sex differences in the implications of partner physical attractiveness for the trajectory of marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(3), 418-428. doi:10.1037/a0034424
  • Carter, C. S. (1998). Neuroendocrine perspectives on social attachment and love. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 23(8), 779-818. doi:10.1016/S0306-4530(98)00055-9
  • Williams, J. R., Insel, T. R., Harbaugh, C. R., & Carter, C. S. (1994). Oxytocin administered centrally facilitates formation of a partner preference in female prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster). Journal of Neuroendocrinology, 6(3), 247-250. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2826.1994.tb00579.x
  • Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1), 1-25. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.1