754198

research-article2018
CDPXXX10.1177/0963721417754198Arriaga et al.Downplaying Partner Aggression

ASSOCIATION FOR
PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE
Current Directions in Psychological

The Invisible Harm of Downplaying a Science

1­–6
© The Author(s) 2018
Romantic Partner’s Aggression Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0963721417754198
https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417754198
www.psychologicalscience.org/CDPS

Ximena B. Arriaga1, Nicole M. Capezza2, Wind Goodfriend3,

and Katherine E. Allsop4
1
Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University; 2Psychology Department, Stonehill College;
3
Psychology Department, Buena Vista University; and 4Department of Counseling Psychology, Social Psychology,
and Counseling, Ball State University

Abstract
Nonphysical forms of partner aggression are common and more harmful than is widely recognized. Such aggression
does not leave physical marks but nonetheless predicts invisible harm, including unhappiness and psychological
distress. Most individuals do not end their relationship the moment a partner becomes aggressive. Instead they
may deny, minimize, or justify the aggression, particularly when they are strongly committed to their relationship.
Perceptions that downplay a partner’s aggression may protect and prolong a relationship, putting individuals at risk
for greater harm. This article presents a model of the causes and consequences of downplaying partner aggression and
describes the relevance of commitment for understanding aggression-related perceptions and interventions.

Keywords
partner aggression, relationship commitment, downplaying aggressive behavior, invisible harm, psychological aggression

Being belittled, insulted, bullied, or on the receiving
end of other acts that are intended to inflict harm is
particularly hurtful when it comes from a romantic part-
ner. Experiencing partner aggression typically does not
result in immediately ending a relationship. These pain-
ful experiences pose a paradox: The person who is
expected to provide intimacy, security, and support
instead is being hurtful (Arriaga & Capezza, 2011).
Existing theoretical models account for causes of part-
ner aggression. It is equally important, however, to
understand how individuals on the receiving end man-
age aggression once it occurs.
This article draws attention to specific beliefs that
individuals adopt when they are motivated to continue
a relationship despite their partner’s aggression.
Commitment-driven beliefs downplay the occurrence
and effects of partner aggression. Committed individu-
als often do not recognize how they are being harmed,
making such harm invisible. Recent research suggests
that (a) experiencing partner aggression predicts dis-
tress (e.g., unhappiness, anxiety, depression), even
among individuals who do not necessarily perceive
their relationship as distressing; (b) people downplay
a partner’s aggression—reinterpreting, minimizing, or
justifying partner acts—when they are motivated to
continue their relationship; and (c) perceptions that
downplay a partner’s aggression are likely to prolong
the distress caused by such aggression.
Why Examine Common Forms of
Partner Aggression?
Partner aggression is distinct from other destructive
relational behavior. Couples may feel angry during con-
flicts or engage in norm violations (betrayal, infidelity,
being neglectful), which may hurt but are not intended
to cause harm. Partner aggression, in contrast, involves
direct efforts aimed at harming or diminishing a partner
(Lawrence, Yoon, Langer, & Ro, 2009; Richardson,
2014). Table 1 lists various forms of partner aggression.
For example, being ignored by someone watching tele-
vision would not reflect aggression, whereas being
punished by getting the silent treatment reveals hurtful
intentions and thus reflects aggression (hostile with-
drawal; Zadro, Arriaga, & Williams, 2008). Excessive
Corresponding Author:
Ximena B. Arriaga, Purdue University, 703 Third St., West Lafayette,
IN 47907-2081
E-mail: arriaga@purdue.edu
2 Arriaga et al.

Table 1.  Forms of Partner Aggression That Are Frequently Studied

Form of partner aggression Examples

1. Verbal abuse to diminish a partner Belittling, insulting, denigrating the partner in front of other people
2. Intimidation Breaking things, tantrums, threats to cause fear
3. Hostile withdrawal Stomping out of a room, using the silent treatment as punishment, other ways of severing
a connection
4. Being overly controlling or restrictive Undermining contact with other people, monitoring whereabouts, controlling
behavior that threatens the other’s autonomy
5. Physical abuse Slapping, pushing, hitting with something that could hurt

Note: The forms of aggression listed in the table have been assessed using several established scales. For example, Forms 1 through 4 have been
assessed using the Multidimensional Measure of Emotional Abuse (Murphy & Hoover, 1999), the Follingstad Psychological Aggression Scale
(Follingstad, Coyne, & Gambone, 2005), and the Measure of Psychologically Abusive Behaviors (Follingstad & Rogers, 2014). Forms 1, 2, 3, and
5 have been assessed using the Conflict Tactics Scale 2 (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996).

partner control may not cause immediate harm but
eventually leads to losing one’s sense of self and
auto­nomy.
Not all forms of partner aggression are equally com-
mon. Acts of verbal abuse, hostile withdrawal, and con-
trolling behavior are particularly prevalent. Most
individuals (80%–90%) report experiencing one or more
forms of the psychological aggression indicated in
Table 1, as assessed with established scales (e.g., Hines
& Saudino, 2003; Taft et al., 2006).
Are such common acts consequential? Perhaps sur-
prisingly, being belittled or humiliated by a partner can
be more difficult to overcome than being physically
abused (Estefan, Coulter, & VandeWeerd, 2016;
Follingstad, Rutledge, Berg, Hause, & Polek, 1990).
Even common forms of aggression predict increased
unhappiness and personal distress (Fig. 1, Path A;
Arriaga, Capezza, Goodfriend, Rayl, & Sands, 2013;
Arriaga & Schkeryantz, 2015).
The common forms of aggression observed in col-
lege and community samples often involve mutual
aggression between partners, blurring distinctions
between the perpetrator and the target or victim
(Lawrence et al., 2009). The occurrence of aggression
may not affect each partner equally. Recent research
with romantically involved college students isolated the
unique effects associated with perpetrating versus
receiving psychological aggression (Arriaga &
Schkeryantz, 2015). Participants were assessed multiple
times to measure new instances of aggression across 3

Relationship Commitment
• Having or Recalling Satisfying Moments
• Daily Relational Routines or Habits
• Extended History Together
• Joint Friends, Memories, Plans That Downplaying Aggression by a Partner
Would Be Lost if a Relationship Ends
For Example:
• Reinterpreting Aggressive Behavior as
C Joking Around
• Justifying a Partner’s Aggressive Behavior
B • Shifting Standards for What Is Acceptable
Partner Aggression D
(See Table 1)
A Negative Personal Outcomes
For Example:
• Unhappiness
• Anxiety and Depression
• Lowered Self-Esteem

Fig. 1.  Causes and consequences of downplaying partner aggression. Common forms of partner aggression predict increased nega-
tive personal outcomes (Path A). Being in an aggressive relationship is stigmatizing, which encourages downplaying the meaning and
impact of aggression (Path B). Strong commitment and dependence are unrelated to aggression but enable these perceptions (Path C)
and sustain the risks associated with aggressive relationships (Path D).
Downplaying Partner Aggression 3
months; most reports concerned nonphysical aggres-
sion. Prospectively experiencing new instances of psy-
chological aggression uniquely predicted a subsequent
increase in distress, whereas enacting new aggression
did not. Moreover, these effects held when accounting
for scores on the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (e.g., quar-
reling, regretting being together), which did not predict
psychological distress beyond victimization. Aggression
from a partner is uniquely distressing, beyond nonag-
gressive forms of couple dysfunction and beyond
effects of physical aggression (Arriaga & Schkeryantz,
2015; Lawrence et al., 2009).
Although partner aggression and distress are con-
nected, targets do not necessarily make that connection,
especially when motivated to continue their relationship.
In the research just described (Arriaga & Schkeryantz,
2015), committed individuals who experienced partner
aggression were no more likely than other individuals
to perceive their relationship as a source of stress.
Common forms of aggression often remain under the
radar. By not resulting in physical bruises or marks,
common aggression is not perceived to be as serious
as physical aggression despite its negative conse-
quences (Capezza & Arriaga, 2008).
Downplaying Partner Aggression
How do people make sense of their partner’s aggressive
behavior? Individuals in aggressive relationships often
attribute the causes of aggression to substance problems,
stress, or dysfunctional communication (Flynn & Graham,
2010). But they enact other perceptions to manage
aggression. Individuals often deny aggressive partner
behavior, as when a person hides it from others (Dunham
& Senn, 2000). Individuals also justify a partner’s aggres-
sive acts, for example by taking personal responsibility
for the partner’s behavior. Being in an aggressive rela-
tionship is stigmatizing, which encourages downplaying
the meaning and impact of aggression (Fig. 1, Path B;
Arriaga, Capezza, & Daly, 2016, Study 1). As discussed
next, the relational context moderates these perceptions
(Fig. 1, Path C).
The relational context matters
Why do individuals who endure partner aggression
continue their relationship? Commitment powerfully
predicts these dynamics. Relationship commitment typi-
cally is assessed by self-report items tapping the inten-
tion to continue a relationship into the long-term future
and feeling connected to a partner (Rusbult, Martz, &
Agnew, 1998).
Decades ago, abuse victims were perceived as irra-
tional. Rusbult and Martz (1995) challenged this belief,
drawing attention to logical reasons for persistence,
such as being married or financially dependent, which
predict shelter victims’ return to an abusive partner.
However, many people remain puzzled that dating rela-
tionships persist despite aggression.
Individuals who experience common forms of
aggression are no different from those who do not in
terms of sustaining their commitment. People feel com-
mitted because they have had gratifying moments with
their partner and anticipate more in the future, their
habits and routines become intertwined, they share an
extended history together, or they hope to sustain ties
with friends or family, memories, and future plans that
would be lost if their relationship ends (Goodfriend &
Agnew, 2008; Tan, Arriaga, & Agnew, 2018). These con-
ditions create the dependence that fuels subjective feel-
ings of commitment. Although the term dependence can
trigger ideas of weakness or lack of autonomy, the
reality is that relationship partners regularly rely on
each other for various needs and desires. Not only is
dependence typical and normative, it is logical in that
without it, most relationships would be fleeting (Rusbult
et al., 1998). This extends to people in aggressive rela-
tionships (Tan et al., 2018).
Once people are dependent and feel committed,
they withstand negative relationship behavior (Rusbult
et al., 1998), including aggression. This means that com-
mitment may precede but not predict aggression. Nor
does the onset of aggression necessarily cause people
to become less or more committed. Indeed, the amount
of aggression experienced and self-reported commit-
ment do not exhibit a consistent association (see Arriaga
et al., 2016, Note 4). However, partner aggression does
make people less likely to base their commitment on
current feelings of satisfaction (Rusbult & Martz, 1995;
Tan et al., 2018).
Regulating relationship persistence
Individuals endure partner aggression because they
perceive that being in their relationship is better than
being out of their relationship despite current aggres-
sion. When aggression occurs, people experience
unhappiness but also anticipate experiencing even
greater unhappiness without their partner. In a 3-month
study with multiple assessments, individuals started the
study by predicting how they would feel if their rela-
tionship were to end (Arriaga et  al., 2013). Although
everyone anticipated greater unhappiness than they
experienced later when their relationship ended, highly
committed individuals were particularly susceptible to
this error: In their early predictions, they greatly over-
estimated how unhappy they would feel from breaking
up. The prediction–reality gap also was magnified for
4 Arriaga et al.
individuals who reported relatively higher levels of
partner aggression: They became much happier after
their relationship ended than they had been previously.
But everyone anticipated unhappiness, preferring a
known and imperfect path over an unknown path.
Such forecasting errors have been studied exten-
sively. Individuals incorrectly forecast how they will
feel after negative events because they focus only on
the impact of events (e.g., breakups) and underestimate
their coping skills (Wilson & Gilbert, 2005). Our
research suggests an additional explanation: Individuals
in aggressive relationships make errors in judging their
current circumstances, overestimating both how happy
they currently feel (given how much happier they even-
tually felt) and how much they need their partner.
The relational context, as captured by subjective feel-
ings of commitment, matters in how people manage
their persistence. Rusbult and Martz’s (1995) classic
work on shelter victims elevated the importance of
commitment bases (alternatives, investments) in pre-
dicting returning to an abusive partner. But more com-
mon forms of aggression may not even lead to
temporarily leaving a partner; financially independent
and unmarried partners remain together.
A new generation of research increasingly examines
how people interpret aggression that is common and
pervasive but nonetheless predicts distress, as reviewed
above. Thought patterns that downplay aggression are
important because they may blind people to increas-
ingly negative outcomes.
Regulating perceptions of aggression
Committed individuals are more likely than noncom-
mitted individuals to deny aggression or justify it. When
they do this, the harmful effects of aggression become
invisible. One established thought pattern is to reinter-
pret objectively aggressive acts as “joking around.” For
example, community participants in a study reported
specific partner acts of physical aggression during con-
flicts (Arriaga, 2002). Then they considered joking con-
texts and were asked about the same partner acts.
Violent acts in conflict and joking contexts were cor-
related (e.g., being “jokingly” kicked or beaten up), but
only among highly committed participants. This sug-
gests that committed individuals deny their partner’s
violent behavior by reinterpreting it as merely joking,
which diminishes reasons one might have to change
the status quo in a relationship.
Another thought pattern that sustains aggressive rela-
tionships is to adopt increasingly lenient standards of
what is considered acceptable. In a recent study, indi-
viduals who had never experienced partner aggression
were asked to judge whether specific partner acts
would be grounds for ending a relationship (e.g., insults
and swearing, threats, physical force; Arriaga et  al.,
2016, Study 2). Thereafter, they were tracked prospec-
tively; 38% experienced partner aggression for the first
time during the study (mostly nonphysical aggression).
Among them, only highly committed participants
revised their judgments of the same aggressive acts to
be more tolerant. The onset of aggression predicted
increased tolerance, whereas the reverse was not sup-
ported (initially lenient standards did not cause the
onset of aggression). In an experiment, even when
judging the exact same aggressive behavior, individuals
were more lenient if the behavior was enacted by their
partner than by someone else, and this was especially
true of highly committed individuals (Arriaga et  al.,
2016, Study 3).
Although committed individuals become increasingly
tolerant of their partner’s aggression, there are limits to
what people will tolerate. Most individuals judge severe
acts (e.g., beating) to be unacceptable regardless of their
level of commitment or first-time experiences (Arriaga
et al., 2016). However, those in the minority who already
have experienced severe aggression judge such aggres-
sion to be tolerable (Arriaga et al., 2016, Study 1). This
suggests that with time and experience, even severely
aggressive behavior can become the new normal.
Consequences of downplaying
aggression
Committed individuals reinterpret behavior commonly
judged to be violent as merely joking around, and they
change how they judge specific and objective acts. Less
committed individuals do not exhibit these downplay-
ing patterns. These examples suggest that relationship
outsiders may perceive certain acts to be aggressive or
even violent, but their perceptions shift once they
become insiders of a committed relationship.
Is downplaying aggression consequential (Fig. 1,
Path D)? A few existing studies lead us to speculate that
the answer is yes: Downplaying aggression sustains
aggressive relationships. In one of the previously
reviewed longitudinal studies (Arriaga et  al., 2016,
Study 2), the only variable that predicted relationship
persistence was commitment. In contrast, persistence
was not predicted from initial standards regarding
aggressive behavior, perceptions of aggression as nor-
mative, or, importantly, experiencing partner aggression
for the first time.
If an aggressive relationship causes unhappiness and
personal distress, commitment prolongs these condi-
tions. When people experience common forms of
aggression, the amount they experience does not predict
whether their relationship will persist over the short
Downplaying Partner Aggression 5
term (see Arriaga et  al., 2013). Rather, commitment-
relevant factors predict whether relationships persist,
even when there are costs of experiencing aggression.
Conclusions and Implications
Most individuals will eventually experience partner
aggression, which makes them susceptible to negative
outcomes. Strong commitment prolongs aggressive rela-
tionships through perceptions that downplay aggres-
sion and underestimate its effects.
On a practical level, interventions may be more
effective when they account for each partner’s level of
commitment. Reinterpreting aggressive partner behav-
ior as joking around or being increasingly tolerant of
aggression could function as diagnostic signals to other
people. Individuals who downplay aggression may be
unlikely to accept interventions, shun others who offer
support, and balk at efforts to change the status quo.
Understanding commitment also can improve existing
theories, which primarily predict perpetration and char-
acterize aggression (frequency, severity) but overlook
whether partners deny aggression or underestimate its
outcomes. Just as partners affect each other’s commit-
ment, they may affect their tendencies to downplay
aggression. Future research could examine dyadic pat-
terns that may create a “couple culture” in which mutual
aggression becomes common.
Eventually, distressed individuals seek to change the
status quo ( Johnson, 2006), which could entail couples
or individual therapy. Not all aggressive partners, how-
ever, are willing or able to change their aggressive
behavior. This raises several unresolved issues of how
people might address partner aggression. Less committed
individuals may simply end their relationship. More com-
mitted individuals, however, may not perceive the effects
of infrequent aggression that nonetheless causes momen-
tary pain or distress. When frequent aggression causes
significant distress, most individuals eventually prioritize
their own well-being. Changing partner (or mutual)
aggressive patterns requires significant effort (e.g., ther-
apy addressing deep-seated issues), which may strengthen
a relationship but also could end it. More research is
needed on resolving such uncertainty.
Another issue concerns developing interventions for
individuals who have left chronically abusive partners.
Many exhibit depression and diminished self-esteem/
efficacy (Kirkwood, 1993). Much would be gained from
developing straightforward interventions that undo ten-
dencies to downplay aggression and restore expecta-
tions of caring and constructive relational behavior.
Most people eventually will experience and perpe-
trate common forms of partner aggression. There is no
clear answer suggesting at what point aggression
becomes too harmful. Strong commitment keeps rela-
tionships intact through thick and thin; therefore, it may
mask aggression-related harm. However, eventually
individuals realign their personal and relational needs
and harmonize their goals.
Recommended Reading
Arriaga, X. B., Capezza, N. M., & Daly, C. A. (2016). (See
References). A series of empirical studies examining how
standards toward specific and objective aggressive acts
become more lenient after a relationship becomes aggres-
sive.
Arriaga, X. B., Cobb, R. J., & Daly, C. A. (2018). Aggression
and violence in romantic relationships. In A. L. Vangelisti
& D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of per-
sonal relationships (2nd ed., pp. 365–377). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press. A review of research
on intimate partner aggression, including causes, contexts,
responses, and intervention efforts.
Lawrence, E., Yoon, J., Langer, A., & Ro, E. (2009). (See
References). An empirical study demonstrating unique
effects of psychological aggression in predicting distress
beyond the effects of physical aggression.
Rusbult, C. E., & Martz, J. M. (1995). (See References). A clas-
sic study reframing why individuals remain with abusive
partners, suggesting relational bonds as a cause rather
than victim irrationality.
Action Editor
Randall W. Engle served as action editor for this article.
Acknowledgments
We thank Lucy Hunt for her insights and helpful suggestions
on an earlier draft of this article. Eduardo and Regina Arriaga
also provided useful comments and support.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared that there were no conflicts of interest
with respect to the authorship or the publication of this
article.
References
Arriaga, X. B. (2002). Joking violence among highly com-
mitted individuals. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17,
591–610.
Arriaga, X. B., & Capezza, N. M. (2011). The paradox of part-
ner aggression: Being committed to an aggressive partner.
In M. Mikulincer & P. Shaver (Eds.), Understanding and
reducing aggression and their consequences (pp. 367–383).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Arriaga, X. B., Capezza, N. M., & Daly, C. A. (2016). Personal
standards for judging aggression by a relationship partner:
How much aggression is too much? Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 110, 36–54.
Arriaga, X. B., Capezza, N. M., Goodfriend, W., Rayl, E. S., &
Sands, K. J. (2013). Individual well-being and relationship
6 Arriaga et al.
maintenance at odds: The unexpected perils of main-
taining a relationship with an aggressive partner. Social
Psychological & Personality Science, 4, 676–684.
Arriaga, X. B., & Schkeryantz, E. L. (2015). Intimate relation-
ships and personal distress: The invisible harm of psy-
chological aggression. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 41, 1332–1344.
Capezza, N. M., & Arriaga, X. B. (2008). You can degrade but
you can’t hit: Differences in acceptability of psychological
versus physical aggression. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 25, 225–245.
Dunham, K., & Senn, C. Y. (2000). Minimizing negative expe-
riences: Women’s disclosure of partner abuse. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 15, 251–261.
Estefan, L. F., Coulter, M. L., & VandeWeerd, C. (2016).
Depression in women who have left a violent relation-
ship: The unique impact of frequent emotional abuse.
Violence Against Women, 22, 1397–1413.
Flynn, A., & Graham, K. (2010). “Why did it happen?” A
review and conceptual framework for research on per-
petrators’ and victims’ explanations for intimate partner
violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, 239–251.
Follingstad, D. R., Coyne, S., & Gambone, L. (2005). A rep-
resentative measure of psychological aggression and its
severity. Violence and Victims, 20, 25–38.
Follingstad, D. R., & Rogers, M. (2014). The nature and preva-
lence of partner psychological abuse in a national sample
of adults. Violence and Victims, 29, 3–23. doi:10.1891/
0886-6708.09-160
Follingstad, D. R., Rutledge, L. L., Berg, B. J., Hause, E. S., &
Polek, D. S. (1990). The role of emotional abuse in physically
abusive relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 1, 37–49.
Goodfriend, W., & Agnew, C. R. (2008). Sunken costs and
desired plans: Examining different types of investments
in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 34, 1639–1652.
Hines, D. A., & Saudino, K. J. (2003). Gender differences in
psychological, physical, and sexual aggression among
college students using the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales.
Violence and Victims, 18, 197–217.
Johnson, M. P. (2006). Violence and abuse in personal rela-
tionships: Conflict, terror, and resistance in intimate
partnerships. In A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), The
Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (1st ed.,
pp. 557–576). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Kirkwood, C. (1993). Leaving abusive partners: From the scars
of survival to the wisdom for change. London, England:
SAGE.
Lawrence, E., Yoon, J., Langer, A., & Ro, E. (2009). Is psycho-
logical aggression as detrimental as physical aggression?
The independent effects of psychological aggression on
depression and anxiety symptoms. Violence and Victims,
24, 20–35.
Murphy, C. M., & Hoover, S. A. (1999). Measuring emotional
abuse in dating relationships as a multifactorial construct.
Violence and Victims, 14, 39–53.
Richardson, D. S. (2014). Everyday aggression takes many forms.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 220–224.
Rusbult, C. E., & Martz, J. M. (1995). Remaining in an abusive
relationship: An investment model analysis of nonvol-
untary dependence. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 21, 558–571.
Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The
Investment Model Scale: Measuring commitment level,
satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment
size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357–391.
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman,
D. B. (1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2):
Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal
of Family Issues, 17, 283–316.
Taft, C. T., O’Farrell, T. J., Torres, S. E., Panuzio, J., Monson,
C. M., Murphy, M., & Murphy, C. M. (2006). Examining
the correlates of psychological aggression among a com-
munity sample of couples. Journal of Family Psychology,
20, 581–588. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.20.4.581
Tan, K., Arriaga, X. B., & Agnew, C. R. (2018). Running on
empty: Measuring psychological dependence in close
relationships lacking satisfaction. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 35, 977–998. doi:10.1177/0865407
5177020
Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2005). Affective forecast-
ing: Knowing what to want. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 14, 131–134.
Zadro, L., Arriaga, X. B., & Williams, K. D. (2008). Relational
ostracism. In J. P. Forgas & J. Fitness (Eds.), Social rela-
tionships: Cognitive, affective, and motivational processes
(pp. 305–319). New York, NY: Psychology Press.