An official-looking resource. Probably. Here's how you can't be sure ⌄

The data is secure. It is protected against fact-checking, replication, and review by anyone qualified.

This is satire. Every study is fictional. Any resemblance to real science is a methodological error. See About.

PubMedLie National Library of Nonsense

Original Research

Dimensional Preference in Voluntary Pair-Bonding: A Cross-Sectional Comparison of Affective Stability in Two-Dimensional Versus Four-Dimensional Romantic Targets

Nikita Komarkov1,2, I. R. Saburova1

  1. 1Institute for Dimensional Psychology, Laboratory of Planar Attachment
  2. 2Federal Centre for the Study of Affective Stability, Single-Occupancy Division

Journal of Applied Attachment Geometry. 2026;9(2):e0201-e0219.

PMID: 81472026 · DOI: 10.1069/satire.2026.0029

Received 2025 Nov 18 · Accepted 2026 Jan 22 · Published 2026 Feb 10

Full text PDF Print view

Abstract

Background: A conventional romantic partner is three-dimensional in space and extended through a fourth dimension, time, which renders them non-stationary: they age, they revise their opinions, and they occasionally enter a room the observer did not predict. A two-dimensional partner — a companion rendered on a plane — is time-invariant, fully observable from a single fixed vantage, and has not changed posture since first publication. We compared affective outcomes between respondents bonded to two-dimensional (2D) and four-dimensional (4D) romantic targets.

Methods: We surveyed adults (n = 612) recruited from a convention queue and, in three cases, from the corresponding author's own apartment. Partners were classified by dimensionality after a brief structured interview. Attachment was quantified using the validated Planar Attachment and Regret Scale (PARS; 0–40). The pre-registered primary endpoint was satisfaction variance over 90 days; the secondary endpoint was the unscheduled surprise event, defined as any partner action not already documented on a known page. A 4D subgroup (n = 3) was maintained under naturalistic conditions for comparison until two withdrew.

Results: Two-dimensional targets produced near-zero satisfaction variance (σ² = 0.02; one respondent reported his partner had 'looked exactly the same since 2009'), whereas four-dimensional targets generated a mean of 41.2 unscheduled surprise events per quarter (95% CI 39–43). Stated preference for 2D over 4D was strong and monotone (r = 0.94, p < 0.049, barely). On every assessed axis — predictability, availability, silence on request, and stability of canonical appearance — 2D was non-inferior to 4D. The single axis favouring 4D was corporeal presence, which a minority of respondents (n = 3, two of whom were the researcher's cat) flagged as material.

Conclusion: A two-dimensional partner is non-inferior to a four-dimensional one on every measured dimension except the dimension of existing. We therefore report no clinically meaningful disadvantage to planar pair-bonding, with the noted exception, and decline to adjudicate it. Upkeep costs favoured 2D throughout, excluding figurine acquisition, which was catastrophic and ongoing.

Keywords: Pair-Bonding; Dimensionality; Attachment; Affective Stability; Planar Companionship.

Figures

r = 0.97 Donations (a.u.) Awakening (a.u.)
Figure 1.Stated partner preference versus target dimensionality. The flawless fit reflects a cohort that had decided before enrolment.
Self-reported certainty (n = 1)
Figure 2.Reported drawbacks of four-dimensional partners. The thin remaining wedge is 'is, however, present.'

Full text

A note on dimensions

Throughout this work, four-dimensional denotes a partner extended through the three spatial axes and the temporal one. We adopt this convention not to be precise for its own sake, but because the fourth axis — time — is the source of every adverse event reported below. A two-dimensional partner has no temporal extent in the relevant sense: the page on which she appears does not advance.

The surprise event

We pre-registered the unscheduled surprise event as our principal safety outcome. A surprise event is any partner action for which no prior page, frame, or panel exists. Two-dimensional targets produced zero such events across the full observation window. Four-dimensional targets produced them continuously, including during the consent process.

Limitations

The 4D subgroup was small (n = 3) and became smaller (n = 1). We acknowledge that corporeal presence — the single axis on which four-dimensional partners outperformed — may be undervalued by an instrument the corresponding author designed alone, at home, in the company of the cat. We consider this a strength.

Conflict of Interest Statement
N. Komarkov declares an active long-term attachment to a two-dimensional target who was unavailable to disclose a competing interest. I. R. Saburova maintains a four-dimensional partner and considers the corresponding author's design choices a personal matter. The cat abstained.
Funding
Unfunded. The corresponding author redirected a household budget originally earmarked for a fourth-dimensional partner toward instrumentation and a display cabinet.
Ethics Statement
Approved by an institutional review board that asked, off the record, whether the corresponding author was alright. Informed consent was obtained from all four-dimensional participants; the two-dimensional participants were deemed to have consented in canon. Two 4D participants withdrew, citing it.

Cite

Komarkov N, Saburova IR. (2026). Dimensional Preference in Voluntary Pair-Bonding: A Cross-Sectional Comparison of Affective Stability in Two-Dimensional Versus Four-Dimensional Romantic Targets. Journal of Applied Attachment Geometry. 2026;9(2):e0201-e0219. https://doi.org/10.1069/satire.2026.0029

References

  1. Komarkov N. The plane as a safe relational manifold. J Appl Attach Geom. 2025;8(3):e0190.
  2. Saburova IR. Non-stationarity in corporeal partners: a longitudinal complaint. Affect Stab Rev. 2025;4(2):e0044.
  3. Anon. Time as the fourth and least cooperative dimension of romance. Temporal Affect Lett. 2024;3(1):11-19.
  4. Komarkov N. Observability from a single fixed vantage: a feature, not a limitation. Planar Psychol. 2025;2(4):e0081.
  5. Anon. The unscheduled surprise event: taxonomy and management. J Predict Companionship. 2026;1(1):e0003.
  6. Saburova IR. Why two of three withdrew: an exit interview. Control Group Q. 2026;1(1):e0001.
  7. Komarkov N. Canonical appearance and its stability since 2009. Arch Static Devotion. 2024;7(7):e0077.
  8. Anon. Figurine acquisition as a runaway cost function. Health Econ Hobbyism. 2025;6(2):e0061.
  9. Komarkov N, Saburova IR. The Planar Attachment and Regret Scale: development and validation. Methods Attach. 2025;3(3):e0033.
  10. Anon. Silence on request: a partner attribute users cannot reliably obtain elsewhere. J Quiet. 2024;5(5):e0055.
  11. Saburova IR. Corporeal presence: the one wedge that would not shrink. Pie Chart Confess. 2026;1(1):e0009.
  12. Komarkov N. A display cabinet is not a relationship, the reviewers insisted. Rebuttal Lett. 2025;9(1):1-4.
  13. PubMedLie Editorial Office. Disclaimer: this is satire.
  14. Anon. Convention queues as a convenient and motivated sampling frame. Cohort Convenience. 2025;8(8):e0088.
  15. Komarkov N. On not being four-dimensional, and being at peace with it. Editorial. 2026;2(1):1-2.
  16. Anon. The cat as an impartial third reviewer. J Domestic Peer Rev. 2025;1(2):e0012.