Close relationships ask us to hold two things at once: being connected to other people and staying true to ourselves. This module looks at what research can and cannot say about that balance, and offers practice scenarios and a reflection. It does not tell you what to do in your own relationships, and it is not therapy.
About 31 min read
A note on safety. The communication and boundary-setting ideas on this page are not suited to relationships that involve fear, threats, control or violence. In those situations, saying no or speaking up may not be safe, and a trained advocate can help you think it through first. Abuse is not only physical.
If you are afraid of someone close to you, read the safety section just below this box before trying anything else on this page.
You can stop at any time. Skip any question or scenario that feels like too much.
Nothing you write here is sent anywhere. It stays in this browser unless you save it yourself.
If you are in crisis or thinking about suicide, call or text 988 in the United States or Canada (chat in the US at 988lifeline.org). In the UK or Ireland, call Samaritans on 116 123. In Australia, call Lifeline on 13 11 14. In New Zealand, call or text 1737. These lines are free to call from most phones and open 24 hours a day. Elsewhere, find a local helpline at findahelpline.com. If someone is in immediate danger, call your local emergency number.
Safety first: when boundaries may not be safe
Research-informed
Please read this first if you are afraid of someone. Communication and boundary-setting advice on this site is not suited to relationships involving fear, threats or violence. If you are unsafe, contact local emergency or domestic violence services before confronting a partner.
Abuse is not only physical. Coercive control is an ongoing pattern of control rather than separate incidents (Stark & Hester, 2019). It can include checking your phone or location, controlling money, cutting you off from friends and family, put-downs and threats, or pressuring you about sex or pregnancy. It can happen to people of any gender or sexuality, in any relationship, and in families.
Digital abuse is common in partner abuse. It can mean monitoring, tracking or getting into your accounts (Kim & Ferraresso, 2023). If you are worried about being monitored, use a device the other person cannot access, and think about whether someone could see your search history.
Studies of serious and fatal violence find that controlling behaviour and stalking are warning signs (Matias et al., 2020; Spencer & Stith, 2020; Sheed et al., 2024; Monckton Smith, 2020). The period around separation can be higher-risk for some people. That is a reason to plan with a trained advocate, not a reason to stay or to leave on your own. Most people can take protective steps with support. These studies cannot tell you your own level of risk.
Do not rely on this page, on assertive scripts or on a general self-help article to keep you safe. You do not have to decide anything today.
Where to turn: your local domestic violence service, your local emergency number, and findahelpline.com, which lists free helplines by country for everyone. A trained advocate can talk through your situation privately. Whoever you tell should listen without judging and respect your choices. You decide what happens next.
The World Health Organization counts psychological abuse and controlling behaviours as forms of partner violence, not only physical harm. See its fact sheet on violence against women. Its official clinical guideline for health care providers (2014; a guideline, not a research study) names ongoing safety as one of four areas of need for women who have experienced partner or sexual violence. That handbook is written about women, but the help lines above are for anyone.
If you are in immediate danger, contact your local emergency number.
What the research on safety tools shows
Research-informed
Online safety tools for women facing partner violence have been tested in trials. Benefits were mixed: helpful for some groups and motivating for some women, but not clearly better than information alone for all. In one New Zealand trial, an online safety planning tool was linked with less violence exposure among Indigenous Māori women but not among other women (Koziol-McLain et al., 2018). That is a subgroup finding that needs repeating. In another, an online tool did not improve depressive symptoms, and self-efficacy was slightly lower than with an information website, although some women found it motivating and supportive (Hegarty et al., 2019). In a third, both versions of an online tool were followed by improvements and the tailored version helped some subgroups more (Ford-Gilboe et al., 2020). These tools support, and do not replace, talking to an advocate.
At least one of these trials enrolled only women with safe access to a computer and the internet. They are not a test of whether leaving or confronting a partner is safe. This page does not give safety-planning steps. For those, please speak with a trained advocate or service in your area.
Healthy closeness can involve both depending on other people and staying yourself. One theory, restated in a meta-analysis of therapy studies (Levy et al., 2018), describes secure attachment as healthy interdependence. This is one proposed way of framing it, not a rule. To read more about attachment, see Adult Attachment.
Emotional boundaries: noticing what is yours (your feelings, needs and limits) and what belongs to someone else.
Assertive communication: saying what you think, feel or need in a way that is honest and respects the other person.
Interdependence and autonomy: relying on each other and also keeping your own views, interests and time.
Mutual respect, trust and validation: each person's feelings are taken seriously, even when you do not agree.
Where the evidence is thin. Research on how best to build trust, set boundaries or ask for support is limited. Most studies describe how support is received, not how best to ask for it. Experiments on refusing and asking for help are covered below. Treat the practical suggestions as general guidance, not as proven methods.
Disagreement is normal
Reflection
This module treats disagreement as an ordinary part of close relationships, not a sign that something is wrong. That is a framing for reflection, not a research finding. It does not apply to relationships involving fear or control.
Reviews of couple research describe severe or persistent conflict as a situation that can bring out each partner's attachment tendencies (Feeney & Karantzas, 2017). These studies show links, not proof, and they are not about relationships involving fear or control.
Working through a disagreement
Reflection
These are ideas to think about, not research findings and not rules. They are not suited to relationships involving fear or control (see the safety section).
Pause when you are very upset. Strong feelings make it harder to listen. You can say you need a short break and name when you will come back.
Say what you understood before you answer. For example, "It sounds like you felt left out. Is that right?" Feeling heard is a form of validation.
Repair afterwards. If a conversation went badly, you can return to it later and say what you would do differently.
If you are afraid of how the other person will react to a pause or a disagreement, these ideas do not fit your situation. Please read the safety section first.
What the research says about hiding and giving up
Research-informed
Habitually hiding feelings is linked with poorer relationships. Across 43 papers (Chervonsky & Hunt, 2017), more suppression went with less social support and lower relationship quality. This is an association, not proof, and expressing every emotion is not shown to be healthier. Expressing positive emotion was linked with better social outcomes, while expressing anger was linked with poorer ones, and expressing negative emotion in general showed a very small, mixed link to poorer outcomes. Hiding feelings and venting anger are different things.
Giving things up for others
Research-informed
Giving things up for a partner is not simply good or bad. A meta-analysis of 82 data sets (Righetti et al., 2020) found that being willing to sacrifice for a partner and feeling satisfied about it went with better well-being, while perceived costs of sacrifice went with worse well-being for the person and for the relationship. Actually giving things up was very slightly linked to lower personal well-being. A separate review of studies on communal motivation (Le et al., 2018) found that care for others with no concern for oneself was not linked with personal well-being, while care balanced with self-concern was. These are correlational findings.
Silencing your own needs in relationships was moderately linked with depression across 42 studies (r about .39; Pintea & Gatea, 2021). This is a link, not proof of cause, and the direction may run either way.
Culture and context
Research-informed
In one meta-analysis (Wu et al., 2024), suppressing emotion showed no meaningful overall link with life satisfaction, but the link was negative in Western samples and not significant in Eastern samples. This compares regions, not individuals. Ideas about directness, family duty and what is polite differ across cultures and families. What counts as a healthy balance of connection and autonomy is partly a matter of values, and that last point is a reflection, not a research finding. If anyone in your family or home controls, threatens or frightens you, this is not a question of values or politeness: please read the safety section above first.
Validation, support and trust
Research-informed
In a daily-diary study of 162 veteran and spouse couples (O'Neill et al., 2020), feeling that a partner understands and cares was linked to better mood and, through mood, to better sleep for both partners, and to less pain for veterans only. This is an association in one specific group. In a cross-sectional study of 240 couples in Portugal (Brandão, 2024), people who felt their emotions were dismissed tended to report more psychological distress, and for women this was linked to lower relationship satisfaction for both partners. These are associations.
In a laboratory experiment with 126 people (Kuo et al., 2022), validation of different emotions was followed by different changes in positive emotion, depending on how much trouble a person had regulating emotions. Validation does not work the same way for every emotion or person.
Higher social support is linked to better sleep across 61 studies (Kent de Grey et al., 2018), and close, high-quality relationships are linked to better health and lower mortality risk (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2017). These are associations, not guarantees.
A systematic review of 31 studies of couples found that a partner's support reduced the link between insecure attachment and negative emotions in only about 9% of analyses (Mosannenzadeh et al., 2025).
Trust
Reflection
Research on how to build trust is limited, so this section is a reflection. Some people find that trust grows when words and actions match over time. That is a personal observation, not a research finding. You might ask yourself: where do I feel trusted, and where do I find it hard to trust? Does that vary with the person?
Assertive communication: what the evidence supports
Research-informed
Training in assertiveness has been tested in trials (see below). A narrative review argues that assertiveness is linked to a range of clinical problems and that assertiveness training, once popular and now rarely studied, has early research support as a general-purpose treatment (Speed et al., 2018). Much of that evidence is older, and the authors call for renewed attention. We did not find a recent large trial of assertiveness in everyday relationships.
In a meta-analysis of 12 randomised trials with 503 people (Hede et al., 2026), assertiveness training reduced social anxiety to a medium degree. It may be one helpful option for people who feel inhibited with others. These trials were about social anxiety and do not directly test how to refuse requests or set limits with family or partners.
Passive, assertive, aggressive. The three-style comparison below (passive, assertive, aggressive) is a common teaching framework. We did not find research that tests these three styles directly. The examples are illustrations for reflection, not research findings, and not scripts you must follow.
A passive response puts the other person's wishes first and hides your own.
An aggressive response puts your wishes first and overrides the other person's.
An assertive response states your own view or limit clearly and still respects the other person.
Saying no and asking for help: what experiments show
Research-informed
In experiments, people who declined a request tended to expect worse reactions than they actually got (Lu et al., 2023). The bias got smaller when people cared less about avoiding those consequences. A review of experiments finds that people underestimate how often others agree to requests and how awkward it is for others to say no (Bohns, 2016). Other experiments find that people underestimate how good helping feels to the helper (Zhao & Epley, 2022).
Most of these were online or short-term studies, mostly in Western samples. Norms about asking and refusing differ across cultures and families, and some refusals do have real costs. So this is a reason to test the fear, not proof that saying no or asking is always safe. It does not apply to relationships involving fear or control.
Communication practice scenarios
Reflection
Open a scenario to compare three ways of responding. There is no single right answer. Your tone, history and relationship matter. You can close this at any time. These scenarios are for practice and thinking, and are not suited to relationships involving fear or control (see the safety section).
Communication practice: three ways of responding
Reflection
Open a scenario to compare a passive, an assertive and an aggressive response. These are illustrations for reflection, not research findings and not scripts. You can close this at any time. Notice which response feels most like you, and which feels hardest. Not suited to relationships involving fear or control.
A friend repeatedly asks for help when you are exhausted
Passive: "Of course, I will be right there," even though you have nothing left, and you feel resentful afterwards. Assertive: "I care about you, and I am worn out tonight. I cannot come over, but I could call you tomorrow for twenty minutes." Aggressive: "You always do this. Stop asking me for things." Reflect: what does each response cost me, and what does it cost the friendship? What is one sentence in the assertive style that sounds like me?
A partner is upset when you express a different opinion
If you are afraid of how your partner will react, this scenario is not for you. Please read the safety section instead. Otherwise: Passive: you stop talking and say "you are right" to keep the peace, while still disagreeing inside. Assertive: "I can see this matters to you. I see it differently, and I would like to tell you how. Can we both say what we think?" Aggressive: "You are being ridiculous. I am not going to change my mind." Reflect: how do I feel in my body in each version?
A family member expects you at every gathering
Passive: you attend every time and feel drained, and you say nothing. Assertive: "I love seeing everyone. I cannot make every event, but I would like to come to the birthday dinner." Aggressive: "I am not coming to any of them. Stop pressuring me." Reflect: which family expectations feel like a fair request, and which feel like too much? Family and cultural norms differ, and you decide what balance fits your values. If anyone controls, threatens or frightens you, including a family member, please read the safety section above first.
Practicing assertive communication
Reflection
Practicing assertive communication
Reflection
A short reflection to help you think through one situation, in your own words. It is a reflection, not a test. Choose a safe, everyday relationship, not one that involves fear or control. You can stop whenever you like.
Forgiveness is a personal choice
Philosophy & culture
Whether to forgive is a personal choice, not a duty and not a requirement for healing. That is a value position, not a research finding. You may choose to forgive, choose not to, or take your time. Each is a legitimate choice, and ideas about forgiveness differ across cultures and faiths.
What forgiveness research shows
Research-informed
A systematic review of randomised trials of structured forgiveness programmes found reductions in depression, anger and distress for people who had been hurt, with small-to-moderate effects, and the authors call for more research (Akhtar & Barlow, 2018). The trials mostly tested programmes with people who were no longer being hurt, and they often compared with waiting lists.
People who forgive others tend to report slightly better physical health, but this link is small and correlational (Lee & Enright, 2019). The research does not show that forgiving improves health or that people should forgive.
Some people worry that forgiving someone who is still harming you, or forgiving only to keep the peace, could leave a person feeling worse about themselves or open to more mistreatment. That worry is general reasoning, not a research finding. One related study set found that partner forgiveness went with less later offending when the partner was more agreeable, but with more later offending when the partner was less agreeable (McNulty & Russell, 2016; four studies of couples). These studies were not about abuse and show links, not proof of cause.
In research with women who had experienced partner violence, forgiveness after leaving did not mean reconciling and came after clear boundaries were set (Wu et al., 2021; 25 women, interviews). In another study of 67 women, forgiving for the sake of the relationship was the only reason linked with intent to return to the abuser (Golden et al., 2026). Both are small studies and show links only.
Forgiving someone does not mean reconciling, trusting them again, or staying in contact. If a relationship is controlling or frightening, safety comes before any question of forgiveness (see the safety section above).
What the research does and does not show
Research-informed
What the research does and does not show
Research-informed
Associations. Findings about suppression, silencing, validation, support and forgiveness are mostly correlations. They do not show that one thing causes another, and the direction may run both ways.
Trials. Assertiveness training and forgiveness programmes have some trial evidence, with small-to-moderate effects, but numbers are small and more research is needed.
Theory. The idea of healthy interdependence, and the passive, assertive and aggressive framework, are ways of thinking, not tested findings.
Thin areas. We did not find a recent trial of assertive communication in everyday relationships. Research on how best to ask for support or build trust is limited, though experiments show people tend to misjudge how others will react to a request or a refusal.
Samples. Many studies came from Western, student or couple samples, and some from one country or one kind of setting.
When to get professional support
Research-informed
It can help to talk with a licensed professional when relationship difficulties affect your daily life, such as your sleep, work or ability to feel safe, or when you often feel you are losing yourself in a relationship. Couples therapy is one option for couples. One attachment-based approach, Emotionally Focused Therapy, has research support (the review we cite was co-written by its developer, Wiebe & Johnson, 2016), but it is one option among several.
Couples therapy is not usually advised if one partner is afraid of the other, or if there is control, threats or violence. A systematic review of six studies concluded that couples therapy may be workable only in select cases of situational, non-coercive violence, and the evidence is preliminary (Karakurt et al., 2016). If this is your situation, seek individual support first. A good therapist will ask about safety separately and privately, and your local domestic violence service can help you plan.
If you are in crisis or thinking about suicide, call or text 988 in the United States or Canada (chat in the US at 988lifeline.org). In the UK or Ireland, call Samaritans on 116 123. In Australia, call Lifeline on 13 11 14. In New Zealand, call or text 1737. These lines are free to call from most phones and open 24 hours a day. Elsewhere, find a local helpline at findahelpline.com. If someone is in immediate danger, call your local emergency number.
Sources and further reading
Akhtar, S., & Barlow, J. (2018). Forgiveness Therapy for the Promotion of Mental Well-Being: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 19(1), 107-122. Source Systematic review of randomised trials: forgiveness interventions reduced depression, anger and distress, with small-to-moderate effects.
Bohns, V. K. (2016). (Mis)understanding our influence over others: A review of the underestimation-of-compliance effect. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(2), 119-123. Source Review of experiments: people underestimate how often others comply with requests and how awkward saying no is for them.
Brandão, T. (2024). Perceived Emotional Invalidation, Psychological Distress and Relationship Satisfaction in Couples: An Actor–Partner Interdependence Mediation Analysis. Psychological Reports, 129(4), 2964-2985. Source Cross-sectional study of 240 Portuguese couples: perceived emotional invalidation linked to distress and to relationship satisfaction.
Chervonsky, E., & Hunt, C. (2017). Suppression and expression of emotion in social and interpersonal outcomes: A meta-analysis. Emotion, 17(4), 669-683. Source Meta-analysis: more suppression linked to less social support and lower relationship quality; expressing anger linked to poorer outcomes.
Feeney, J. A., & Karantzas, G. C. (2017). Couple conflict: insights from an attachment perspective. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 60-64. Source Review: severe or persistent conflict can activate attachment tendencies; responses shaped by each partner's anxiety and avoidance.
Ford-Gilboe, M., Varcoe, C., Scott-Storey, K., Perrin, N., Wuest, J., Wathen, C. N., Case, J., & Glass, N. (2020). Longitudinal impacts of an online safety and health intervention for women experiencing intimate partner violence: randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health, 20(1), 260. Source Both online tool versions were followed by improvement; tailored version helped some subgroups.
Golden, K. B., Harris, J. I., Godlin, A. E., & Gobin, R. L. (2026). In recovering from intimate partner violence, women's reasons for forgiving matter. Violence Against Women, 32(10), 3318-3341. Source Study of 67 women: reasons for forgiving abusers; forgiving for the relationship linked with intent to return.
Hede, J. P., Malouff, J. M., & Meynadier, J. (2026). A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials on the efficacy of assertiveness training for social anxiety. International Journal of Applied Positive Psychology, 11(2), 28. Source Meta-analysis of 12 randomised trials: assertiveness training reduced social anxiety to a medium degree.
Hegarty, K., Tarzia, L., Valpied, J., Murray, E., Humphreys, C., Taft, A., Novy, K., Gold, L., & Glass, N. (2019). An online healthy relationship tool and safety decision aid for women experiencing intimate partner violence (I-DECIDE): a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet Public Health, 4(6), e301-e310. Source Online safety tool trial: depressive symptoms not improved, self-efficacy slightly lower than with an information website; trial required safe computer access.
Holt-Lunstad, J., Robles, T. F., & Sbarra, D. A. (2017). Advancing social connection as a public health priority in the United States. American Psychologist, 72(6), 517-530. Source Close relationships and social connection linked to health and lower mortality risk.
Karakurt, G., Whiting, K., van Esch, C., Bolen, S. D., & Calabrese, J. R. (2016). Couples therapy for intimate partner violence: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 42(4), 567-583. Source Systematic review of six studies: couples therapy for partner violence may be viable only in select situational, non-coercive cases; preliminary evidence.
Kent de Grey, R. G., Uchino, B. N., Trettevik, R., Cronan, S., & Hogan, J. N. (2018). Social support and sleep: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology, 37(8), 787-798. Source Social support linked to better sleep across 61 studies.
Kim, C., & Ferraresso, R. (2023). Examining technology-facilitated intimate partner violence: A systematic review of journal articles. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 24(3), 1325-1343. Source Systematic review: technology-facilitated partner abuse (monitoring, tracking, account access).
Koziol-McLain, J., Vandal, A. C., Wilson, D., Nada-Raja, S., Dobbs, T., McLean, C., Sisk, R., Eden, K. B., & Glass, N. E. (2018). Efficacy of a Web-Based Safety Decision Aid for Women Experiencing Intimate Partner Violence: Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(12), e426. Source Online decision aid for partner violence reduced exposure only in a subgroup.
Kuo, J. R., Fitzpatrick, S., Ip, J., & Uliaszek, A. (2022). The who and what of validation: an experimental examination of validation and invalidation of specific emotions and the moderating effect of emotion dysregulation. Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation, 9(1), 15. Source Laboratory experiment (126 people): effects of validation depend on the emotion and on emotion regulation difficulty.
Le, B. M., Impett, E. A., Lemay, E. P., Muise, A., & Tskhay, K. O. (2018). Communal motivation and well-being in interpersonal relationships: An integrative review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 144(1), 1-25. Source Review and meta-analysis: care for others with no self-concern was not linked with personal well-being; balanced care was.
Lee, Y. R., & Enright, R. D. (2019). A meta-analysis of the association between forgiveness of others and physical health. Psychology & Health, 34(5), 626-643. Source Forgiveness of others showed a small, correlational link with physical health.
Levy, K. N., Kivity, Y., Johnson, B. N., & Gooch, C. V. (2018). Adult attachment as a predictor and moderator of psychotherapy outcome: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 74(11), 1996-2013. Source Meta-analysis of therapy studies: restates the theory of healthy interdependence, overdependence and difficulty relying on others.
Lu, J., Fang, Q., & Qiu, T. (2023). Rejecters overestimate the negative consequences they will face from refusal. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 29(2), 280-291. Source Experiments: people who refuse a request overestimate the negative consequences.
Matias, A., Gonçalves, M., Soeiro, C., & Matos, M. (2020). Intimate partner homicide: A meta-analysis of risk factors. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 50, 101358. Source Meta-analysis of risk factors for intimate partner homicide: controlling behaviours and stalking associated with higher odds.
McNulty, J. K., & Russell, V. M. (2016). Forgive and forget, or forgive and regret? Whether forgiveness leads to less or more offending depends on offender agreeableness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(5), 616-631. Source Four studies of couples (survey, experiment, 4-year and diary studies): forgiveness went with less later offending by more agreeable partners and more by less agreeable partners; links, not proof of cause.
Monckton Smith, J. (2020). Intimate partner femicide: Using Foucauldian analysis to track an eight stage progression to homicide. Violence Against Women, 26(11), 1267-1285. Source Analysis of femicide cases: coercive control and stalking before homicide, including around separation.
Mosannenzadeh, F., Kouri, G., Luijten, M., Schoebi, D., & Karremans, J. C. (2025). Does Romantic Partner Support Buffer the Effect of Attachment Insecurities on Negative Emotions? A Systematic Review. Collabra: Psychology, 11(1), 130079. Source Systematic review of 31 studies: partner support buffered the link between insecure attachment and negative emotions in only about 9% of analyses.
O'Neill, A. S., Mohr, C. D., Bodner, T. E., & Hammer, L. B. (2020). Perceived partner responsiveness, pain, and sleep: A dyadic study of military-connected couples. Health Psychology, 39(12), 1089-1099. Source Daily-diary study of 162 veteran and spouse couples: perceived partner responsiveness linked to better mood and sleep, and less pain for veterans only.
Pintea, S., & Gatea, A. (2021). The relationship between self-silencing and depression: A meta-analysis. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 40(4), 333-358. Source Self-silencing in relationships moderately linked to depression across 42 studies.
Righetti, F., Sakaluk, J. K., Faure, R., & Impett, E. A. (2020). The link between sacrifice and relational and personal well-being: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(10), 900-921. Source Meta-analysis of 82 data sets: willingness and satisfaction with sacrifice versus perceived costs, and well-being.
Sheed, A., Brandt, C., & McEwan, T. E. (2024). The relationship between stalking, homicide, and coercive control in an Australian population. Homicide Studies. Source Australian study: stalking and coercive control in intimate partner homicide cases.
Speed, B. C., Goldstein, B. L., & Goldfried, M. R. (2018). Assertiveness training: A forgotten evidence‐based treatment. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 25(1), Article e12216. Source Narrative review: links assertiveness to a range of clinical problems; assertiveness training has early research support and has been neglected.
Spencer, C. M., & Stith, S. M. (2020). Risk factors for male perpetration and female victimization of intimate partner homicide: A meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 21(3), 527-540. Source Meta-analysis of risk factors for intimate partner homicide.
Stark, E., & Hester, M. (2019). Coercive Control: Update and Review. Violence Against Women, 25(1), 81-104. Source Coercive control is a pattern; higher control predicts harms including post-separation violence.
Wiebe, S. A., & Johnson, S. M. (2016). A Review of the Research in Emotionally Focused Therapy for Couples. Family Process, 55(3), 390-407. Source Review co-written by the developer of Emotionally Focused Therapy; reports research support.
World Health Organization. (2014). Health care for women subjected to intimate partner violence or sexual violence: A clinical handbook (WHO/RHR/14.26). World Health Organization. Source Official WHO guideline (2014; not a study) for health care providers: ongoing safety is one of four areas of need for women who have experienced partner or sexual violence.
Wu, Q., Wang, L., & Choi, A. W. M. (2021). Understanding forgiveness after leaving an abusive relationship: The voices of Chinese female intimate partner violence survivors. Violence Against Women, 27(12-13), 2273-2293. Source Interviews with 25 Chinese women: forgiveness after leaving abuse did not mean reconciliation and followed boundaries.
Wu, W., Wu, H., Wu, X., Gu, J., & Qi, X. (2024). A meta-analysis of life satisfaction's association with cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression: The influences of age, gender, and cultural values. Journal of Happiness Studies, 25(4), 41. Source Meta-analysis: expressive suppression and life satisfaction; no overall link, negative in Western samples, not significant in Eastern samples.
Zhao, X., & Epley, N. (2022). Surprisingly Happy to Have Helped: Underestimating Prosociality Creates a Misplaced Barrier to Asking for Help. Psychological Science, 33(10), 1708-1731. Source Experiments: people asking for help underestimate others' willingness to help and how good helping feels.
Within Your Light provides psychoeducation. This page is for educational purposes only and is not medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Please talk with a licensed professional about your own health. If you are in crisis, call or text 988 in the United States, or use your local emergency number or findahelpline.com.
