In 1979 (with an important revision in 2000), researcher David Olson proposed the Circumplex Model of Marital and Family Systems, which organizes how a close family relationship functions along 2 independent dimensions: cohesion (the degree of emotional bonding between members) and flexibility (the system's ability to change roles, rules and leadership as needed). Unlike most 2-axis quizzes in this catalog, Olson's model is curvilinear: according to it, the two extremes of each axis, disengaged or enmeshed for cohesion, rigid or chaotic for flexibility, tend to bring different challenges, and the middle ground is what research calls "balanced".
While answering, keep ONE close family relationship of your choosing in mind (the family you grew up in, the family you formed, or another configuration that matters to you), and stick with that same relationship from start to finish. The quiz does not assume any specific family composition.
The quiz measures 2 axes, cohesion and flexibility, through 12 agreement statements per attempt (6 drawn from a pool of 9 for each axis, with at least 4 reverse-worded statements per axis to reduce response bias), the same pool/pick format used by this site's Attachment Style Quiz.
Your position on the 2 axes (normalized 0-100) is compared by distance to the closest match among 9 possible profiles: a conceptual low/medium/high grid on each axis, faithful to the curvilinear logic of Olson's model. That is why this quiz does not use the quadrant chart seen in other tests in the catalog, it would imply one of the 4 corners is always the "pure" ideal result, which would not be faithful to the model. This is our own implementation inspired by the academic concept of the Circumplex Model, it does not reproduce FACES (Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales), the commercial measurement instrument derived from Olson's model.
This pattern combines low emotional bonding with fairly fixed rules: each person tends to go their own way, with little interdependence, while the few agreements that do exist rarely change, even when life calls for it. The challenge here tends to be twofold, building more genuine connection while also making room to renegotiate old rules. Small shared rituals and open conversations about what no longer makes sense tend to help a lot.
Here, roles and rules already adapt well to change, but the emotional bond between people tends to run more distant than close. Practical surprises tend to get handled well, but there's little sharing about feelings and little mutual reliance day to day. Investing in moments of genuine connection, without forcing artificial closeness, tends to balance this dynamic without giving up the flexibility that already works well here.
This pattern pairs little emotional connection with a structure of roles and leadership that shifts very often, sometimes without much agreement behind it. The practical result tends to be a sense of instability, without a strong bond to cushion the constant changes. Setting a few more stable agreements, even just a handful, and investing in emotional closeness tends to give this relationship more solid ground, without losing the adaptability it already has.
The emotional bond here tends to be healthy and balanced, neither too distant nor too fused, but the structure of rules and roles tends to be quite fixed, with little room to change who does what or how decisions get made. This tends to work fine during stable periods, but can create friction when life demands adaptation, a new job, an illness, a new stage. Gradually making room to renegotiate old rules tends to strengthen this already solid foundation even further.
This is the pattern Olson's Circumplex Model associates with more functional relationships most of the time: emotional bonding is present without smothering individuality, and roles and rules adjust when the situation calls for it without turning into chaos. There's room for both closeness and autonomy, for both structure and change. That doesn't mean an absence of conflict or hard stretches, it means this relationship tends to have the internal resources to reorganize when it needs to, the core of what research calls 'balanced'.
The emotional bond here tends to be healthy, but the structure of roles, rules and leadership changes quite often, sometimes faster than everyone can keep up with. That can create a sense of unpredictability, even with the emotional connection working well. Locking in a few more stable agreements, even if the rest stays flexible, tends to add more predictability without sacrificing the good adaptability this relationship already shows.
This pattern combines a very intense emotional bond, sometimes with little room for individuality, with a fairly fixed set of rules. Diverging from established expectations or seeking more personal space can create real tension. The challenge tends to be gradually making room for both individual autonomy and renegotiating old rules, without that being read as distance or disloyalty. Small steps toward independence tend to land better than abrupt changes.
The structure of roles and rules here already adapts well to life's changes, but the emotional bond tends to be quite intense, with little room for privacy or differing opinions without discomfort. People likely feel very close, which has its upside, but it can also make individual decisions harder. Practicing saying 'I disagree' or 'I need some time alone' without guilt tends to bring more balance, without losing the closeness that's already there.
This is the pattern Olson's model describes as the most challenging: a very intense emotional bond, with little room for individuality, combined with roles and rules that change very frequently, sometimes without clarity on who decides what. It can feel like being constantly involved, yet never on stable ground underneath. Seeking outside support, like family therapy, to build a few firmer agreements without losing closeness tends to help a lot with this pattern.
Because Olson's model is curvilinear, not linear: the two extremes of each axis tend to bring different challenges (too little connection on one side, too little individual space on the other; overly rigid rules on one side, lack of structure on the other). Research associates the middle ground on each axis with more functional relationships most of the time, which is why this quiz's central profile is the only one framed purely positively, while the other 8 profiles each describe a typical challenge and a practical path forward, never a "bad result".