Neuroticism and Relationship Satisfaction: What the Meta-Analytic Evidence Shows
Updated: Oct 8
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 30, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Higher neuroticism is associated, on average, with lower satisfaction and lower overall quality in romantic relationships. The strongest recent quantitative synthesis is a 2025 meta-analysis of 148 published studies, which reported an aggregate correlation of r = −.238 between neuroticism and relationship quality. That is a reliable population-level association of modest size: neuroticism matters, but it does not determine whether a particular relationship will be satisfying. The meta-analysis also found meaningful variation across studies, including moderation by world region, measurement tool, participant age, and relationship length. Esplin et al. (2025)
There is an important precision point at the outset. The 2025 paper synthesized relationship quality broadly, not relationship satisfaction alone. Relationship satisfaction is one central component of relationship quality, but studies may operationalize quality through satisfaction, adjustment, functioning, or closely related evaluations. For the narrower question asked here—neuroticism and relationship satisfaction—the broader meta-analysis should therefore be read together with satisfaction-specific meta-analytic and longitudinal studies rather than treated as if every included effect were a pure satisfaction score.
Neuroticism itself is a dimensional personality construct in the Big Five. It describes stable individual differences in negative emotionality, threat sensitivity, distress proneness, and emotional reactivity. It is not a psychiatric diagnosis and does not mean that someone has anxiety disorder, depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, a personality disorder, or any other clinical condition. For the construct itself, see Neuroticism: What It Is in the Big Five Personality Model.
The short answer
Across relationship research, the average pattern is consistent: people higher in neuroticism tend to report lower relationship satisfaction, and their partners may also report lower satisfaction. The association appears in cross-sectional studies, dyadic studies, and longitudinal work. A 2010 meta-analysis of 19 samples totaling 3,848 participants found that lower neuroticism, along with higher agreeableness, conscientiousness, and extraversion, was associated with greater intimate-partner satisfaction. Malouff et al. (2010)
The newer 2025 synthesis makes the neuroticism finding much more precise by pooling 148 published studies on relationship quality. Its overall r = −.238 corresponds to roughly 5.7% shared variance in the simplest bivariate sense. That number is useful for scale, but it should not be read as “neuroticism explains 5.7% of a relationship” or as a causal percentage. Correlations summarize covariation across samples; they do not isolate a single causal pathway, and the underlying studies differ in measures, populations, relationship duration, and design. Esplin et al. (2025)
In practical terms, neuroticism is best understood as one probabilistic vulnerability among many. Relationship satisfaction is also shaped by partner behavior, communication, affection, sexual and nonsexual intimacy, conflict patterns, stress, finances, health, parenting, social context, expectations, attachment-related processes, and the fit between two people’s needs and circumstances. A trait-level association can be robust while leaving enormous room for individual variation.
What neuroticism means in relationship research
In contemporary personality science, neuroticism is a broad trait domain. People higher on the dimension are, on average, more prone to worry, sadness, irritability, self-consciousness, emotional volatility, and feeling overwhelmed. People lower on the dimension are often described as higher in emotional stability. The trait is continuous: there is no universal boundary separating a “neurotic” group from a “non-neurotic” group.
This matters for relationship interpretation because a neuroticism score does not identify a single behavior. Two people with similar broad-domain scores can differ substantially in the facets driving those scores. One may be especially anxiety-prone, another more irritable, another more self-conscious, and another more vulnerable to feeling overwhelmed. Relationship consequences can differ accordingly.
Research on married couples illustrates this lower-order variation. In 301 couples, Renshaw, Blais, and Smith examined anxiety, angry hostility, and depression facets of negative affectivity. Depression and angry hostility showed negative actor effects on marital satisfaction, but only angry hostility showed a significant negative partner effect in their path analyses. The study does not prove that anger is the universal mechanism, but it shows why a broad neuroticism score can conceal relationship-relevant differences among facets. Renshaw et al. (2010)
Relationship satisfaction and relationship quality are related but not identical
Relationship satisfaction usually refers to a person’s global evaluation of how rewarding, fulfilling, or satisfactory the relationship feels. Relationship quality is a broader umbrella that can include satisfaction as well as adjustment, conflict, support, commitment, intimacy, positive interaction, negative interaction, or composite measures. Different studies use different questionnaires and different operational definitions.
That distinction is central to interpreting the 2025 meta-analysis. Its r = −.238 is an aggregate association with relationship quality across the included literature. The authors found that the type of measurement tool significantly moderated the association. In other words, the size of the observed neuroticism–relationship link depended partly on how relationship quality was measured. Esplin et al. (2025)
This is why a result obtained with one relationship scale should not automatically be treated as numerically equivalent to a result obtained with another. The same principle applies to neuroticism. NEO inventories, the BFI-2 Negative Emotionality domain, IPIP-based scales, and Eysenck neuroticism measures overlap conceptually, but their items, facet structures, response formats, norms, and scoring are not interchangeable. A raw score or percentile has meaning only relative to its instrument, scoring procedure, normative sample, and population. See Neuroticism Test: What It Measures and How to Interpret Results.
What the 2025 meta-analysis actually found
Esplin and colleagues identified 148 published studies reporting associations between neuroticism and relationship quality. Across those studies, the aggregate correlation was r = −.238. The direction was negative: higher neuroticism was associated with lower relationship quality on average. The review is particularly useful because it moved beyond asking whether the association exists and examined where its magnitude changes. PubMed record for Esplin et al. (2025)
Several candidate moderators did not significantly alter the association in the final published meta-analysis: participant race, participant sexual orientation, and whether the effect size came from cross-sectional versus longitudinal data. By contrast, world region, the type of measurement tool, participant age, and relationship length significantly moderated the association. Those findings argue against a single context-free effect size that can be applied equally to every couple.
The meta-analysis also separated actor and partner effects by sex. Male actor, male partner, female actor, and female partner correlations were described as similar. That supports a broad conclusion that the neuroticism–relationship-quality association is not confined to one member of a heterosexual dyad. At the same time, this pooled result should not be turned into a claim that all sex or gender differences are absent in every population. A later 2025 study of 3,780 adults in Australia, Denmark, and Sweden reported a stronger negative association between neuroticism and romantic satisfaction among men in those data. That newer result is a study-specific moderation finding, not a replacement for the meta-analytic average. Fors Connolly & Goossen (2025)
Actor effects and partner effects
Dyadic relationship studies distinguish two questions. An actor effect asks whether a person’s own neuroticism is associated with that same person’s relationship satisfaction. A partner effect asks whether one person’s neuroticism is associated with the other partner’s satisfaction. These effects can coexist, but they are not the same psychological process.
Actor effects are especially plausible because neuroticism can influence how people perceive, remember, and interpret relationship events. A partner may offer the same ambiguous comment to two people, yet a person higher in threat sensitivity may be more likely to interpret it as criticism, rejection, indifference, or evidence of future trouble. That does not mean the interpretation is always inaccurate. It means dispositional negative emotionality can change the probability distribution of how ambiguous events are experienced.
Partner effects would imply that one person’s trait-linked reactions also shape the other person’s experience. Frequent reassurance seeking, irritability, withdrawal, hostile responding, conflict escalation, or heightened stress transmission can affect a partner even when the partner’s own neuroticism is low. But partner effects are not guaranteed. A 2025 nine-year longitudinal study of 972 partners found clear actor effects for neuroticism and conscientiousness but no detectable partner effects in its models. Bach et al. (2025)
This apparent contrast with literature showing partner associations is informative rather than contradictory. Partner effects can depend on sample, measure, time scale, statistical model, relationship stage, and which facet of neuroticism is most salient. Meta-analysis estimates an average across heterogeneous studies; one longitudinal cohort estimates a particular effect under a particular design.
Why neuroticism can be associated with lower satisfaction
The best-supported explanation is not a single mechanism. Neuroticism can influence emotional reactions, interpretations, and behavior, and these processes can reinforce one another. The 2025 meta-analysis explicitly organized the literature around these pathways. A large longitudinal dyadic study by Kreuzer and Gollwitzer examined cognitive, emotional, and behavioral processes simultaneously in 2,090 heterosexual couples from the German Pairfam panel and found that cognitive processes were particularly important at both intrapersonal and interpersonal levels. Kreuzer & Gollwitzer (2022)
Interpretation and appraisal
Neuroticism is associated with stronger sensitivity to potential threat, loss, rejection, and uncertainty. Inside a close relationship, that can affect how ambiguous events are construed: a delayed reply may feel more alarming, a partner’s fatigue may be read as disinterest, a disagreement may feel more globally threatening, and a temporary drop in closeness may be interpreted as evidence that the relationship is deteriorating. These are probabilistic tendencies, not assumptions about every person high in neuroticism.
Longitudinal dyadic work supports the relevance of attributional processes. In three annual waves from 268 Chinese couples, Cao and colleagues modeled marital attribution and aggression as pathways linking neuroticism with later marital satisfaction. Their results identified several indirect paths involving wives’ neuroticism, later attribution or aggression, and subsequent satisfaction while controlling earlier levels of the mediators and satisfaction. The design strengthens temporal ordering, although a longitudinal mediation model still does not establish experimental causality. Cao et al. (2019)
Emotional reactivity
People higher in neuroticism tend to experience negative emotions more frequently and intensely. In relationships, stronger reactions can make ordinary disagreements feel more consequential and can extend the emotional recovery period after conflict. The same argument applies to stress outside the relationship: work strain, financial uncertainty, health concerns, or sleep disruption may spill into couple interaction more readily when a person is highly stress-reactive. For the broader personality–stress evidence, see Neuroticism and Stress: Perceived Stress, Reactivity, and Recovery.
Emotional intensity itself is not equivalent to poor relationship functioning. Strong emotion can be communicated constructively, and a calm presentation can coexist with harmful behavior. The relationship-relevant question is how emotional reactions are interpreted, regulated, expressed, and repaired within the dyad.
Conflict and interpersonal behavior
Neuroticism-related irritability or defensive responding can alter the behavioral sequence of conflict. One partner’s negative interpretation can prompt a sharper response; that response can elicit defensiveness or withdrawal from the other partner; the reaction then appears to confirm the original threat interpretation. Repeated cycles of this kind can become relationship-specific patterns even if the initiating vulnerability began as an individual difference.
The classic newlywed study by Karney and Bradbury helps separate stable trait effects from interaction effects. Sixty newlywed couples were followed every six months for four years. Neuroticism was associated with initial levels of marital satisfaction but did not add to the rate of change in satisfaction, whereas observed behavior during marital interaction predicted rates of change. This finding is important because it resists a deterministic story in which trait level alone dictates the trajectory. Karney & Bradbury (1997)
Intimacy and sexual satisfaction
Some mechanisms may operate through specific relationship domains rather than global conflict. Fisher and McNulty followed 72 newlywed couples for one year and found that own neuroticism predicted lower concurrent marital and sexual satisfaction; several partner associations were also present. In their models, sexual satisfaction mediated the neuroticism–marital-satisfaction effects they examined. Because this was a relatively small newlywed sample, the result should be treated as evidence for a plausible pathway rather than a universal mechanism in all relationships. Fisher & McNulty (2008)
Longitudinal evidence: does neuroticism predict later dissatisfaction?
Longitudinal studies are essential because a cross-sectional correlation cannot tell whether neuroticism precedes lower satisfaction, lower satisfaction changes personality, both change together, or a third factor influences both. Longitudinal designs improve temporal information, but they still do not automatically establish causality.
Schaffhuser and colleagues studied 141 heterosexual couples at two occasions two years apart with Actor–Partner Interdependence and Common Fate models. Neuroticism predicted later individual relationship satisfaction at the intrapersonal level, whereas their self-esteem results showed a different transactional pattern. The study supports the idea that the direction of association depends on the personality construct and level of dyadic analysis. Schaffhuser et al. (2014)
O’Meara and South analyzed 1,965 participants from the MIDUS study over approximately 18 years. Neuroticism and marital satisfaction were negatively associated at baseline, and changes in neuroticism covaried negatively with changes in satisfaction: people who increased in neuroticism tended to decline in marital satisfaction. Several directional paths were sensitive to covariate specification, leading the authors to emphasize correlated change rather than a simple one-way causal story. O’Meara & South (2019)
The nine-year study by Bach, Koch, and Spinath adds another perspective. Across three cohorts and 972 partners, lower neuroticism was associated with greater long-term relationship satisfaction through actor effects, while partner effects were not detected. The study also found little evidence that personality congruence between partners was central over the longer time span. Bach et al. (2025)
Taken together, longitudinal work supports a durable association between neuroticism and relationship satisfaction, but it does not justify the statement that high neuroticism inevitably causes satisfaction to decline. Some studies find effects on starting levels more clearly than rates of change; some identify actor but not partner effects; some find correlated change; and mechanisms differ across samples.
Does personality similarity matter?
People often ask whether a highly neurotic person needs an emotionally stable partner, or whether two people with similar neuroticism levels are more compatible. The evidence does not support a simple matching rule. In the 2025 nine-year study, actor levels of neuroticism and conscientiousness were more informative than partner effects, and personality congruence appeared less important over the longer time frame than earlier work sometimes implied. Bach et al. (2025)
That finding does not mean partner characteristics never matter. Meta-analytic and dyadic studies do find partner associations in some datasets. It means similarity itself should not be treated as a universal compatibility formula. Two partners can have similar trait levels and build very different interaction patterns; two dissimilar partners can also develop effective accommodation, communication, and repair.
Neuroticism, attachment, and relationship insecurity
Neuroticism and insecure attachment are related constructs, but they are not interchangeable. Neuroticism is a broad personality dimension spanning many situations. Attachment orientations describe expectations and regulatory strategies in close relationships, especially around availability, rejection, intimacy, and dependence. A person can be high in neuroticism without showing the same attachment pattern across relationships, and attachment measures do not become neuroticism measures.
Attachment can matter because threat interpretation in romantic relationships is partly relational. A person’s expectations about a partner’s availability can shape how negative emotion is activated and managed. That makes attachment a plausible neighboring construct, but the present article retains its narrower canonical intent: the meta-analytic and longitudinal relationship between neuroticism and satisfaction. For the attachment construct itself, see Attachment Styles in Relationships: Dating, Intimacy, Conflict, and Communication.
Neuroticism is not anxiety, depression, or a relationship disorder
High neuroticism can raise average vulnerability to psychological distress and is associated with many forms of psychopathology, but it is not a disorder. Anxiety symptoms are states or symptom dimensions; trait anxiety is a narrower dispositional construct; neuroticism is a broader personality trait; anxiety disorders are clinical diagnoses. Depression symptoms and depressive disorders are likewise distinct from the neuroticism domain.
This distinction matters in relationship studies because distress can affect both personality questionnaires and relationship evaluations. Someone experiencing a depressive episode may report more negative affect and lower relationship satisfaction at the same time. That does not make a neuroticism score a depression diagnosis, and it does not prove that personality caused the episode or the relationship difficulty. For the transdiagnostic evidence and its clinical boundaries, see Neuroticism and Mental Health: Why the Trait Is a Transdiagnostic Risk Factor.
Measurement changes the answer
Any interpretation of neuroticism and relationship satisfaction should name the measurement system. NEO-based Neuroticism, BFI-2 Negative Emotionality, IPIP measures, Eysenck Neuroticism, trait-anxiety scales, and symptom inventories are not interchangeable. A study using a trait-anxiety scale may capture a narrower construct than one using a full Big Five neuroticism domain. A study using self-report may also differ from one using informant reports.
Relationship satisfaction has the same problem of apparent simplicity. Researchers use global satisfaction questions and multi-item instruments with different emphases. Some measures blend satisfaction with consensus, cohesion, conflict, or adjustment. Esplin and colleagues found that measurement tool moderated the overall neuroticism–relationship-quality association, so instrument choice is empirically relevant rather than merely a technical footnote. Esplin et al. (2025)
A high score has no universal meaning outside its scale. Raw scores, standardized scores, percentiles, and category labels depend on scoring direction, scale range, normative sample, and target population. Likewise, one cannot infer relationship compatibility from a single personality score or convert a neuroticism percentile into an expected satisfaction percentage.
What the effect size means for an individual couple
An r of −.238 is meaningful at the population level and modest at the individual level. It says that, across the literature synthesized by Esplin and colleagues, higher neuroticism tended to accompany lower relationship quality. It does not say where a given couple will fall. Many people high in neuroticism have satisfying relationships, and many people low in neuroticism experience severe relationship problems.
This distinction between population association and individual prediction is one of the most important lessons from personality research. A trait can shift average risk while leaving wide overlap between people at different trait levels. The outcome for one couple depends on their full interpersonal system, histories, stressors, resources, behaviors, and current circumstances.
The effect is also not a diagnostic threshold. There is no evidence-based neuroticism cutoff above which relationships are destined to fail, no universal “safe score,” and no scientific basis for labeling a partner unsuitable solely from a Big Five result.
What couples can take from the evidence
The most useful implication is process-focused. Neuroticism is relatively stable, but the relationship processes through which it is expressed are more specific: threat interpretation, reassurance seeking, anger, rumination, avoidance, conflict escalation, stress spillover, recovery after disagreement, and communication around uncertainty. These are more actionable than treating a personality trait as a disease that needs to be cured.
For a person who notices a recurring pattern, useful questions are concrete: What kinds of events trigger the strongest reactions? Which interpretations occur automatically? How does the other partner respond? What happens next in the interaction sequence? How long does recovery take? Which responses reduce uncertainty, and which inadvertently maintain it? Those questions translate trait science into observable relationship processes without turning a broad score into a diagnosis.
If distress or conflict is persistent, severe, or impairing, assessment should focus on the actual problem rather than on the label neuroticism. A clinician may evaluate mood, anxiety, trauma, sleep, substance use, relationship violence, medical contributors, or other concerns when relevant. A personality score can provide context, but it does not replace condition-specific assessment.
Common misconceptions
“High neuroticism means someone is a bad partner.”
The evidence supports an average association with lower satisfaction, not a moral judgment or deterministic partner category. Traits influence probabilities; relationship behavior and context remain central.
“An emotionally stable partner cancels out high neuroticism.”
There is no universal compensatory rule. Partner effects vary across studies, and a recent nine-year cohort found actor effects without detectable partner effects. Emotional stability may be helpful in some interactions, but it is not a scientifically established antidote that guarantees satisfaction.
“The correlation proves neuroticism causes relationship problems.”
No. Meta-analysis can establish the consistency and average size of an association, while longitudinal designs strengthen temporal inference. Neither automatically proves causation. Shared vulnerabilities, stress exposure, symptoms, measurement overlap, reciprocal influence, and relationship-specific processes can all contribute.
“Relationship dissatisfaction proves someone is highly neurotic.”
No. Satisfaction is an outcome influenced by many variables. It cannot be used as a diagnostic proxy for neuroticism, and one partner’s dissatisfaction cannot establish the other partner’s personality score.
“Women are always more affected by neuroticism in relationships.”
The 2025 meta-analysis reported broadly similar male and female actor/partner effects, while a later three-country study reported a stronger negative neuroticism–romantic-satisfaction association among men in its data. The safest evidence-based conclusion is that sex and gender moderation is context-dependent and should not be universalized from one sample.
Frequently asked questions
Does neuroticism lower relationship satisfaction?
On average, yes: higher neuroticism is reliably associated with lower relationship satisfaction and broader relationship quality. The association is modest rather than deterministic. The 2025 meta-analysis of 148 published studies reported an aggregate relationship-quality correlation of r = −.238.
How strong is the link between neuroticism and relationship satisfaction?
The best recent broad synthesis found r = −.238 for neuroticism and relationship quality. In simple bivariate terms, that is about 5.7% shared variance. The magnitude varies with factors such as measurement tool, participant age, relationship length, and world region.
Does my partner’s neuroticism affect my satisfaction?
Partner effects appear in parts of the literature, but they are less uniform than a simple rule suggests. The 2025 meta-analysis found similar actor/partner patterns across male and female estimates, whereas one nine-year cohort found substantial actor effects but no detectable partner effects. The answer depends on sample, measure, time scale, and relationship process.
Does high neuroticism doom a relationship?
No. A trait-associated average risk is not an individual forecast. Many people high in neuroticism maintain satisfying relationships, and many low-neuroticism couples struggle for reasons unrelated to personality.
Can relationship satisfaction change neuroticism?
Personality and relationships can change together, but directional findings are mixed. Longitudinal work has found correlated change between neuroticism and marital satisfaction and some evidence that neuroticism predicts later satisfaction. Strong claims that relationship satisfaction directly changes neuroticism require more causal evidence.
Is neuroticism the same as attachment anxiety?
No. They overlap in threat sensitivity and negative affect but belong to different construct families. Neuroticism is a broad personality trait; attachment anxiety is a relationship-oriented pattern involving concerns about availability, rejection, and abandonment.
Should someone try to “treat” neuroticism to improve a relationship?
Neuroticism is a personality trait, not a disease. When a relationship is distressed, the evidence points toward examining concrete processes—interpretations, emotional regulation, stress spillover, conflict behavior, communication, and any co-occurring clinical symptoms—rather than treating a trait label as the problem.
Can a neuroticism test predict whether two people are compatible?
Not with the precision implied by a compatibility score. Personality measures can describe broad tendencies, but relationship outcomes depend on many variables. Score interpretation also depends on the specific instrument and normative population.
Bottom line
The current evidence supports a clear but bounded conclusion. Neuroticism is reliably associated with lower relationship satisfaction and lower relationship quality on average. The strongest recent meta-analysis places the broad association at r = −.238 across 148 published studies. That association is heterogeneous, shaped by measurement and relationship context, and expressed through a mixture of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral processes.
Actor effects are generally prominent; partner effects occur but vary by study. Longitudinal research supports persistence and correlated change, yet it does not reduce the relationship to a one-way personality mechanism. Neuroticism is a vulnerability factor, not a relationship verdict, and a score should never be interpreted as a diagnosis, a compatibility cutoff, or a forecast of an individual couple’s future.
Related Articles
References
Bach, R. A., Koch, M., & Spinath, F. M. (2025). Relationship satisfaction and The Big Five – Utilizing longitudinal data covering 9 years. Personality and Individual Differences, 233, 112887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2024.112887
Cao, H., Yuan, X., Fine, M., Zhou, N., & Fang, X. (2019). Neuroticism and marital satisfaction during the early years of Chinese marriage: The mediating roles of marital attribution and aggression. Family Process, 58(2), 478–495. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12356
Esplin, C. R., Rasmussen, B. D., Hatch, S. G., Hawkins, A. J., & Braithwaite, S. R. (2025). Neuroticism and relationship quality: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 128(3), 594–610. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000463
Fisher, T. D., & McNulty, J. K. (2008). Neuroticism and marital satisfaction: The mediating role played by the sexual relationship. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(1), 112–122. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.22.1.112
Fors Connolly, F., & Goossen, M. (2025). The interplay between gender and personality in relationship outcomes: Satisfaction across domains and partnership status. Journal of Research in Personality, 119, 104674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2025.104674
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1997). Neuroticism, marital interaction, and the trajectory of marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(5), 1075–1092. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.5.1075
Kreuzer, M., & Gollwitzer, M. (2022). Neuroticism and satisfaction in romantic relationships: A systematic investigation of intra- and interpersonal processes with a longitudinal approach. European Journal of Personality, 36(2), 149–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070211001258
Malouff, J. M., Thorsteinsson, E. B., Schutte, N. S., Bhullar, N., & Rooke, S. E. (2010). The Five-Factor Model of personality and relationship satisfaction of intimate partners: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(1), 124–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.09.004
O’Meara, M. S., & South, S. C. (2019). Big Five personality domains and relationship satisfaction: Direct effects and correlated change over time. Journal of Personality, 87(6), 1206–1220. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12468
Renshaw, K. D., Blais, R. K., & Smith, T. W. (2010). Components of negative affectivity and marital satisfaction: The importance of actor and partner anger. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(3), 328–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.03.005
Schaffhuser, K., Wagner, J., Lüdtke, O., & Allemand, M. (2014). Dyadic longitudinal interplay between personality and relationship satisfaction: A focus on neuroticism and self-esteem. Journal of Research in Personality, 53, 124–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.08.007