Example: A Real Relationship Map
The Four Factors Behind the Score
40%
Communication Frequency
How often you connect, relative to the baseline for this relationship type. Based on Oswald et al. (2004).
25%
Recency
How recently you last connected. Decay is steeper for newer relationships (Hall, 2018).
20%
Trend Direction
Is communication increasing, stable, or declining over 90 days? Based on Sprecher (2013).
15%
Milestone Engagement
Did you acknowledge birthdays, career changes, or life events? Reis and Shaver (1988).
The Research Foundation
Communication Frequency: The Strongest Signal
Oswald, Clark, and Kelly (2004) in Communication Research showed that regular, brief interactions maintain friendships more effectively than infrequent, lengthy ones. A 5-minute call every week does more than a 3-hour dinner every 6 months.
We measure consistency, not just volume. 10 interactions spread evenly over 90 days scores higher than 10 clustered in one week followed by silence.
The Friendship Formation Timeline
Hall (2018) quantified friendship formation: roughly 50 hours for a casual friend, 90 for a friend, 200+ for a close friend. This informs our decay model — newer relationships need more frequent contact, while established ones are more resilient.
That is why Mom stays at 92 even if you skip a week, while a new professional contact drops faster. The relationship has more stored capital.
Dunbar's Layers
Robin Dunbar's research (2010) identified concentric circles: 5 intimate contacts, 15 close, 50 good friends, 150 acquaintances. Each layer requires different maintenance. Our model adapts — we do not expect you to call a professional contact as often as your sister.
Responsiveness: The Quality Multiplier
Reis and Shaver's (1988) intimacy process model shows that perceived responsiveness — the feeling that someone notices and cares — is the foundation of deep relationships. Missing a birthday measurably hurts. Remembering it has an outsized positive effect.
What the Score Does Not Measure
Emotional depth. We do not read messages, so we cannot assess conversation quality.
In-person interactions. If you see someone daily but never text, our score will not capture that.
Relationship satisfaction. A high-frequency relationship could still be stressful.
Reciprocity. Currently we measure your outreach, not whether the other person reciprocates.
A relationship health score is like a step counter for your social life. It does not tell you everything about your fitness, but it tells you when you have been sitting too long.
See your relationship health scores
A iHuman generates AI-powered health scores for every connection. See which relationships are thriving and which need attention.
Download A iHuman Free
Sources and References
- Oswald, D. L., Clark, E. M., and Kelly, C. M. (2004). Friendship maintenance behaviors. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23(3), 413-441.
- Hall, J. A. (2018). How many hours does it take to make a friend? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(4), 1278-1296.
- Dunbar, R. I. M. (2010). The social brain hypothesis. Annals of Human Biology, 36(5), 562-572.
- Reis, H. T. and Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In Handbook of Personal Relationships. Wiley.
- Sprecher, S., et al. (2013). Effects of self-disclosure on liking and closeness. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30(4), 497-514.
- Holt-Lunstad, J., et al. (2010). Social relationships and mortality risk. PLoS Medicine, 7(7), e1000316.