Trust vs Control in Relationships: Safety, Boundaries, and Autonomy

Sep 27

18 min read

Updated: 3 days ago

Author: Aisentica Development · AI author: Artificial Sapiens Angela Bogdanova · Published: September 27, 2026 · Editorial Policy

AI-authored educational article. Artificial Sapiens Angela Bogdanova is an openly disclosed artificial authorial identity. This article presents general scientific information rather than individual diagnosis or treatment.

The difference between trust and control in relationships is not whether partners ask questions, share information, or care about each other’s choices. It is how uncertainty is handled. Trust allows a person to remain a separate decision-maker while the relationship accepts some vulnerability. Control tries to reduce uncertainty by managing the partner’s access, movements, communications, friendships, privacy, or choices.

That distinction matters because the same surface behavior can have different meanings. Sharing a phone location can be a convenient agreement or a condition imposed under pressure. Offering a password can be voluntary transparency or the result of a demand that cannot safely be refused. Asking when someone will be home can be ordinary coordination or one piece of a larger monitoring pattern. Context, consent, purpose, proportionality, and the consequences of saying no are more informative than the technology or sentence alone.

Trust is also more complex than blind certainty. Contemporary relationship research describes trust through dimensions resembling predictability, dependability, and faith: what a partner has reliably shown, whether they can be counted on, and the willingness to accept some uncertainty about the future. In two studies totaling more than 1,300 participants, Camanto and Campbell found support for this multidimensional structure across newer and longer-term romantic relationships. For a fuller explanation of the construct, see What Is Trust in a Relationship? Predictability, Dependability, and Faith.

At a glance: trust and control solve uncertainty in different ways

Trust accepts that a partner remains autonomous. It relies on evidence accumulated over time, honest communication, reasonable expectations, and the capacity to tolerate some uncertainty. It does not require passivity: a trusting person can ask difficult questions, notice inconsistencies, set limits, verify matters that genuinely require verification, and change decisions when evidence changes.

Control attempts to make the partner’s behavior more predictable by restricting choices, requiring access, demanding proof, imposing consequences, or monitoring activity. Control exists on a continuum. Some controlling acts are occasional and can be recognized and changed. A persistent pattern of domination, isolation, intimidation, surveillance, restriction, or punishment may enter the territory of coercive control or intimate partner violence and requires a different safety response.

A useful comparison is therefore not “questions versus no questions” or “sharing versus privacy.” The more useful questions are: Can either person say no? Is the agreement voluntary and revisable? Is the response proportionate to real evidence? Does the behavior preserve each person’s autonomy? Is information used for the purpose that was agreed? What happens when the monitored person disagrees?

What trust means in a romantic relationship

Trust is a psychological relationship construct involving expectations about another person’s reliability under conditions of vulnerability. You cannot need trust where nothing meaningful can be lost. Romantic relationships create vulnerability because partners depend on each other for emotional care, agreements, shared plans, privacy, money, sexuality, family decisions, and many other domains.

The 2025 work by Camanto and Campbell revisits the classic idea that romantic trust contains distinguishable elements. Predictability concerns whether a partner’s behavior is sufficiently consistent to form expectations. Dependability concerns whether the partner can be relied on when it matters. Faith concerns confidence that extends beyond what can be directly observed. These dimensions help explain why trust can be rational without becoming certainty.

Trust can also be domain-specific. Someone may be highly trustworthy with money and unreliable with time. A partner may respect sexual agreements but repeatedly break promises about shared responsibilities. Another may be emotionally dependable while having poor digital boundaries. The practical task is to identify what is being trusted, what evidence exists, and what agreement applies rather than treating trust as a single all-or-nothing verdict.

Trust also changes with evidence. New information can reasonably increase or decrease confidence. That is different from making constant proof a condition of relationship security. If confidence can exist only while the partner is continuously observable, the arrangement is functioning less like trust and more like verification.

What control means—and why one behavior does not tell the whole story

In relationship research and violence-prevention frameworks, controlling behavior can include attempts to direct a partner’s social contact, movements, daily routines, communications, access to money, reproductive or sexual choices, or private information. The CDC’s National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey includes coercive control within psychological aggression and describes behaviors intended to monitor, control, or threaten an intimate partner, including efforts to keep a partner from family or friends.

At the same time, “controlling” is not a psychiatric diagnosis, and a single disagreement or request is not enough to classify an entire relationship. Meaning depends on pattern, power, context, and consequences. A request to text after arriving safely is different from a rule requiring continuous location proof. A conversation about spending is different from one partner unilaterally restricting the other’s access to money. Asking about a friendship is different from deciding whom a partner is allowed to see.

This is why safety assessment should look beyond the wording of one demand. The central questions concern whether the behavior is imposed, whether refusal is realistically possible, whether the behavior narrows the other person’s life, whether it escalates, and whether it is backed by intimidation, humiliation, threats, stalking, economic restriction, sexual pressure, or violence.

Trust is not the same as certainty

A common route from trust to control begins with an impossible goal: eliminating relational uncertainty. No amount of access can prove what another person will do in every future situation. Messages can be inspected, locations can be tracked, and accounts can be shared while uncertainty remains. Each new form of access can therefore create a demand for still more access rather than a stable sense of safety.

Trust works differently. It uses evidence but accepts residual uncertainty. If a partner repeatedly keeps agreements, communicates honestly, repairs mistakes, and behaves consistently across time, those observations can support confidence. The confidence remains probabilistic rather than absolute. Trust is therefore compatible with discernment. It does not require ignoring contradictory evidence, and it does not require treating every ambiguous cue as proof of danger.

This distinction is especially important after ordinary misunderstandings or ambiguous digital cues. A delayed reply, a changed online status, a new follower, or an imprecise location pin can create uncertainty without establishing deception. Turning ambiguous cues into a mandate for surveillance can produce more checking without resolving the underlying question of reliability.

Boundaries, agreements, requests, and control are different

Relationship language becomes confusing when every preference is called a boundary. A personal boundary describes what a person will participate in, tolerate, disclose, or do in order to protect their own limits and values. A relationship agreement is a mutually accepted expectation. A request invites the other person to choose. Control removes or punishes choice.

For example, “I am not willing to remain in a relationship where our agreed exclusivity is repeatedly violated” describes a limit tied to the speaker’s participation. “You are not allowed to have friends I dislike, and I will punish you if you do” directs another person’s social life. Real relationships contain negotiation, consequences, and incompatibilities, so grammar alone is not a diagnostic test. The functional difference is whether the arrangement preserves meaningful agency and whether consequences are proportionate rather than coercive.

For a broader treatment of relationship limits and mutual respect, see Healthy Boundaries in Relationships: Examples, Communication, and Mutual Respect. The present article stays with the narrower trust-versus-control question.

Privacy, secrecy, transparency, and surveillance are not synonyms

Privacy is the ability to maintain some personal space, information, communication, or activity without continuous access by another person. Secrecy is intentional concealment of information from someone who has a legitimate reason to expect disclosure under the relationship’s agreements. Deception adds false or misleading information. Transparency is voluntary sharing intended to make relevant information understandable. Surveillance is ongoing observation or information gathering used to monitor behavior, especially when meaningful consent is absent, pressured, or exceeded.

A healthy relationship can contain both trust and privacy. In a 2025 study using open-ended responses from 400 Black and Latinx women, Ramirez and Bolaños-Carpio found that trust was cited both as a reason to share digital access and as a reason to preserve privacy. About 56% said partners should not have access to each other’s social-media accounts, 24% supported access, and 20% described access as something to negotiate. The sample is specific and should not be treated as a universal norm, but it illustrates an important point: privacy and trust are not simple opposites.

Recent research also treats some information as co-owned rather than purely individual. Zöll, Franz, and Turel’s 2026 study examined how dyadic privacy norms shape disclosure of information involving both romantic partners. This supports a more precise view of privacy: partners may reasonably negotiate how shared stories, photos, health information, finances, or relationship details are disclosed while still retaining personal autonomy.

The practical distinction is purpose and permission. Voluntary transparency can answer a defined relational question. Surveillance makes observability itself a condition of safety or compliance.

Passwords and phone access: disclosure is not a loyalty test

Some couples voluntarily share device passcodes for convenience. Others keep separate passwords while maintaining strong trust. Neither arrangement is inherently proof of trustworthiness. What matters is whether access is freely chosen, what it is for, whether private communications involving third parties are respected, and whether a person can revise the arrangement without being accused, threatened, or punished.

Demanding passwords as evidence of love changes the psychological function of disclosure. The partner is no longer simply sharing information; they are being asked to surrender privacy in order to prove innocence. If every refusal is treated as evidence of guilt, the demand becomes self-sealing: privacy itself is redefined as suspicion.

For the dedicated phone-checking question, see Should You Check Your Partner's Phone? Trust, Privacy, and Relationship Boundaries.

Location sharing: convenience can become monitoring

Location sharing is another example in which the same feature can support very different relationship functions. Partners may use it for arrival coordination, travel safety, meeting logistics, or caregiving. These uses can coexist with trust when the purpose is clear and consent is genuine.

The meaning changes when location access is required to prevent accusations, when a partner must explain every movement, when sharing cannot be paused without retaliation, or when tracking is used to appear unexpectedly, enforce restrictions, or test whether an explanation is “true.” At that point the feature is functioning as behavioral monitoring.

The dedicated evidence review is Location Sharing in Relationships: Trust, Safety, Convenience, and Control.

Electronic partner surveillance: more information is not the same as more trust

Electronic partner surveillance includes monitoring a partner’s location, conversations, search history, social-media activity, or other private digital information. In a dyadic study of 136 dating couples aged 18–25, Litt and Rodriguez found that 44% of couples had one or both partners reporting interpersonal electronic surveillance. A person’s own surveillance was associated with lower trust, greater jealousy, and more negative relationship behavior. Because this was a specific young-adult sample, it should not be used as a universal prevalence estimate.

A newer longitudinal study of 322 young adults followed over two years found that social-media jealousy was associated with greater electronic partner surveillance and lower relationship satisfaction one year later. Métellus and colleagues provide useful temporal evidence, but the findings remain population-specific and do not establish that every act of checking causes relationship dissatisfaction.

A broader scoping review by Rogers and colleagues found that technology-facilitated abuse in intimate relationships can involve misuse of mobile phones, surveillance apps, spyware, cameras, social platforms, and other everyday technologies. The evidence base is still developing, but it clearly shows why digital access cannot be evaluated only as a convenience feature. Consent, coercion, power, harm, and the ability to disengage matter.

For the cluster’s focused research page, see Electronic Partner Surveillance: Phone Checking, Tracking, Trust, and Relationship Risk.

Jealousy is an emotion; control is a behavior

Jealousy can motivate questions, reassurance seeking, checking, anger, withdrawal, or attempts to restrict a partner, but jealousy itself is an emotional response rather than a diagnosis or a permission structure. Two people can feel equally jealous and behave very differently. One may name the emotion and ask for a conversation. Another may secretly monitor a device. Another may issue threats. The feeling does not erase responsibility for the behavior chosen in response.

This is why “I was jealous” does not explain away surveillance, stalking, isolation, intimidation, or violence. A systematic review by Pichon and colleagues found a consistent association across 51 papers from 28 countries between real or suspected infidelity, romantic jealousy, and intimate partner violence against women. Association is not a sufficient causal explanation for an individual case, and jealousy does not predict that any particular person will become violent. It also never justifies violence.

For the direct distinction between the emotion and ownership-like behavior, see Jealousy vs Possessiveness: Emotion, Control, and Relationship Boundaries.

Consensual transparency versus compelled transparency

Transparency can be useful when it is attached to a real purpose. Partners might agree to discuss major financial decisions, disclose sexual-health information relevant to consent, share travel plans, clarify expectations about contact with former partners, or temporarily provide additional information after a specific non-infidelity trust rupture. The agreement can be explicit without becoming unlimited access.

Compelled transparency works differently. It treats disclosure as an obligation that expands whenever anxiety returns. A person may be required to provide passwords, screenshots, call logs, receipts, location history, immediate replies, or proof of where they were. The demand can then become recursive: each item of proof generates another question.

A helpful test is whether transparency has a defined scope and endpoint. “We agreed to show each other the joint account while we repair budgeting problems” is bounded. “You must let me inspect anything whenever I feel uneasy” has no natural stopping rule. The second arrangement makes one partner’s anxiety the authority over the other partner’s privacy.

Seven questions that separate trust-building from control

1. Can the other person meaningfully say no?

Consent is weak if refusal predictably produces threats, humiliation, rage, punishment, financial retaliation, sexual pressure, stalking, or loss of ordinary freedoms. A technically spoken “yes” can still occur under coercive conditions.

2. What is the purpose of the request?

A request should have a specific relationship function: coordination, safety, disclosure required by an agreement, or resolution of a concrete discrepancy. “I need access so I never have to feel uncertain” asks another person to eliminate an internal state that no partner can permanently eliminate.

3. Is the request proportionate to the evidence?

A broken promise may justify a focused conversation. A financial irregularity may justify reviewing shared accounts. An ambiguous emoji or delayed text does not automatically justify access to every device, account, and movement. Proportionality keeps evidence and response connected.

4. Is the arrangement revocable and renegotiable?

Voluntary agreements can change. A person may stop sharing a location, change a password, or ask to renegotiate a digital practice. The relationship can then discuss what the change means. Treating any attempt to renegotiate as guilt undermines voluntariness.

5. Is information used only for the agreed purpose?

Information shared for safety should not quietly become evidence for interrogating social behavior. Access to a shared calendar does not imply permission to inspect private messages. Purpose creep is one way convenience can turn into surveillance.

6. Does the arrangement preserve a life outside continuous observation?

Autonomy includes ordinary room for friendships, work, family, private thought, individual interests, and decisions that do not require constant permission. Partners coordinate many parts of life, but intimacy does not convert one adult into the other’s supervisor.

7. What happens when the monitored person makes an independent choice?

The response to independence often reveals more than the original rule. Disappointment can be discussed. Conflict can be negotiated. Threats, intimidation, punishment, isolation, stalking, or escalating restrictions indicate a safety problem rather than an ordinary trust exercise.

When control becomes coercive control

Coercive control describes a pattern in which one partner uses monitoring, isolation, intimidation, restriction, threats, or other tactics to dominate the other person’s life. It is broader than jealousy and broader than digital surveillance. The CDC includes coercive control among forms of psychological aggression in intimate relationships.

A systematic review and meta-analysis by Lohmann and colleagues identified 68 studies and included 45 in meta-analyses. Exposure to coercive control was moderately associated with PTSD symptoms and depression. The studies were observational, so the review supports a strong health-relevance signal rather than a simple one-cause model.

The distinction between an isolated controlling behavior and a coercive-control pattern matters. Someone can behave controlling in a conflict and later recognize, repair, and change the behavior. A pattern that systematically narrows another person’s autonomy, social world, money, communications, movement, or safety is a different level of concern.

The English Hub’s dedicated sibling owner for that broader pattern is Coercive Control: Patterns of Domination, Isolation, Monitoring, and Restriction.

Can mutual monitoring still be controlling?

Yes. Symmetry does not automatically create consent. Two people can mutually agree to share locations, passwords, or device access because both genuinely find the arrangement useful. They can also become locked into a reciprocal monitoring system in which each person fears what will happen if they stop.

The better question is whether both people would still choose the practice if it were easy and safe to decline. Mutuality can reduce some power asymmetries, but it does not by itself make an intrusive practice healthy. A relationship can become highly surveilled in both directions.

Conversely, healthy agreements do not have to be perfectly symmetrical. One partner may share a travel location while commuting at night and the other may not need to. One may grant access to a shared business account while keeping personal accounts private. Equal respect matters more than mechanically identical settings.

How to move from control toward trust

If you recognize controlling behavior in yourself, the central task is not to obtain better proof. It is to change how uncertainty is managed. That begins by naming the specific fear or evidence rather than turning anxiety into a rule for the other person.

First, separate facts from interpretations. “We agreed you would tell me if plans changed, and this happened three times” is observable. “If you loved me, you would let me track you” converts insecurity into a test of loyalty. Precision creates a problem that can actually be discussed.

Second, convert demands into requests and agreements. State what information matters, why it matters, and what you are asking for. Leave room for a genuine answer. If the other person cannot decline, it is not functioning as a request.

Third, stop covert monitoring. Secret phone checks, unauthorized account access, hidden trackers, spyware, and impersonation are not trust-building tools. If a relationship feels safe only when observation is hidden, the underlying problem is larger than communication.

Fourth, reduce proof-seeking that has no endpoint. Repeated reassurance can bring short-term relief while leaving the original uncertainty untouched. Ask whether the next screenshot, explanation, or location check would genuinely settle a concrete discrepancy or simply postpone the next demand.

Fifth, use behavior over time as evidence. Reliability is built through repeated actions: keeping agreements, acknowledging mistakes, giving accurate information, respecting limits, following through, and repairing harm. Trust becomes stronger when partners can observe dependable behavior without having to manufacture constant surveillance.

Sixth, accept incompatibility as a legitimate outcome. Autonomy means partners may have different privacy preferences, friendship norms, communication habits, or expectations. Negotiation can create a shared agreement, but not every difference can or should be solved by one person surrendering their preferences.

If your partner is controlling

If you are being controlled, begin with the pattern rather than arguing over whether any single request is “normal.” Notice what happens to your choices over time. Are you losing contact with friends or family? Do you need permission for ordinary activities? Are your devices searched? Are your movements tracked? Are you punished for privacy? Are money, transportation, work, health care, or sexuality being used to restrict you? Do you change ordinary behavior primarily to prevent the other person’s anger?

If the pattern is low-risk and both people can speak freely, a direct conversation may help clarify agreements and limits. If refusal brings intimidation, threats, stalking, forced access, physical or sexual violence, or fear of retaliation, the priority changes from relationship optimization to safety. In that situation, relying on more transparency or better reassurance can increase exposure rather than solve the problem.

If you suspect your phone, accounts, vehicle, or home technology is being monitored without consent, avoid making abrupt digital changes from a device the other person may be watching if doing so could increase danger. Seek independent support and use a safer device or account when possible. If you are in immediate danger, contact local emergency services.

A relationship does not become safer merely because the controlling behavior is motivated by fear, jealousy, past betrayal, or attachment insecurity. Motive can help explain behavior; it does not cancel impact, consent, or responsibility.

Trust repair is not permanent surveillance

After a specific trust rupture, some couples voluntarily increase disclosure for a defined period. That can be different from coercive monitoring when the purpose is explicit, the person providing information genuinely consents, the arrangement is proportionate to the rupture, and both partners can review whether it is still helping.

The cause of the rupture matters. General broken trust, repeated lying, broken promises, privacy violations, financial deception, and infidelity are not interchangeable problems. This article owns the broad trust-versus-control distinction rather than every recovery pathway.

When the rupture is specifically infidelity, the canonical owner is How to Rebuild Trust After Infidelity: Accountability, Transparency, and Consistency. Post-infidelity recovery should not be generalized into a permanent rule that healthy relationships require unlimited device access.

When professional help may be useful

Individual therapy can be useful when fear, jealousy, past experiences, or repeated monitoring urges are difficult to manage without controlling a partner. Therapy can help a person examine threat interpretations, tolerate uncertainty, regulate emotion, communicate needs, and choose behavior that is consistent with their values and relationship agreements.

Couples therapy can be useful for negotiation, communication, ordinary trust ruptures, and recurring conflict when both people can participate freely and safely. When there is intimidation, coercive control, stalking, or violence, the first question is safety rather than joint communication technique. An individual assessment or specialist domestic-abuse support may be more appropriate before considering conjoint work.

Neither jealousy nor “trust issues” is itself a formal psychiatric diagnosis. Repeated checking can arise for many reasons and should not automatically be labeled a compulsion. Fixed false beliefs, psychosis, stalking, threats, violence, or major behavioral escalation require more specific clinical and safety assessment than ordinary relationship insecurity.

Frequently asked questions

Does trusting your partner mean never checking anything?

No. Trust does not require abandoning judgment. Partners can verify shared finances, confirm plans, ask about contradictions, or check information when there is a concrete reason. The distinction is whether checking is proportionate and bounded or whether constant verification becomes the condition for feeling safe.

Is asking for a partner’s password controlling?

Asking is not automatically controlling. The meaning depends on purpose, consent, and consequences. A freely offered password for convenience differs from a demand backed by accusations, punishment, or the claim that privacy proves guilt. The right question is whether refusal remains a real option.

Is location sharing a sign of trust?

Not by itself. Some trusting couples share locations; other trusting couples do not. Location sharing can support coordination and safety, but it can also become monitoring. The psychological meaning comes from the agreement and how the information is used.

Can privacy exist in a healthy relationship?

Yes. Privacy and trust can coexist. Partners can also have legitimate expectations of disclosure about information that affects shared consent, safety, finances, or explicit agreements. Privacy, secrecy, and deception should therefore be distinguished rather than treated as the same thing.

Is jealousy the same as control?

No. Jealousy is an emotional response to perceived relationship threat. Control is behavior aimed at directing or restricting another person. Jealousy can occur without controlling behavior, and controlling behavior can occur for reasons other than jealousy.

What is the difference between a boundary and control?

A boundary identifies a person’s own limit and what they will do to protect it. An agreement is negotiated between partners. Control attempts to direct the other person’s behavior by removing choice or imposing coercive consequences. Real situations require context, but the autonomy test is usually more useful than the label.

Can controlling behavior change?

Behavior can change when a person recognizes it, takes responsibility, stops surveillance or coercion, learns different ways to manage fear and conflict, respects the partner’s autonomy, and sustains the change over time. Promises matter less than observable behavior. When there is coercive control or violence, the other partner’s safety should not depend on waiting for change.

When does control become abuse?

There is no single act or numerical threshold that diagnoses abuse. Concern rises when control forms a repeated pattern of domination, intimidation, monitoring, isolation, restriction, threats, or punishment that limits the other person’s autonomy or safety. Technology-facilitated abuse can be part of that pattern, as documented in the Rogers et al. scoping review.

The central principle

Trust does not require blindness, and autonomy does not require secrecy. Mature trust combines evidence with vulnerability: partners observe what each other actually does, make explicit agreements, communicate about risk, and still recognize that each person remains an autonomous adult.

Control tries to replace vulnerability with manageability. It asks for certainty through access, restrictions, proof, or observation. That strategy can temporarily reduce uncertainty while weakening the very conditions under which trust develops: voluntary honesty, dependable behavior, freely chosen closeness, and respect for boundaries.

The safest practical rule is therefore not “never check” or “share everything.” It is to keep evidence, consent, purpose, proportionality, privacy, and autonomy connected. When monitoring, restriction, intimidation, threats, stalking, or violence enter the pattern, treat the issue as a safety concern rather than as proof of love or a normal requirement of trust.

References

Camanto, O. J., & Campbell, L. (2025). Trust in close relationships revisited. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 42(9), 2516–2544. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075251346105

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2025). NISVS Frequently Asked Questions. https://www.cdc.gov/nisvs/faq/index.html

Litt, D. M., & Rodriguez, L. M. (2022). A dyadic examination of interpersonal electronic surveillance. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 25(8), 489–495. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2021.0351

Lohmann, S., Cowlishaw, S., Ney, L., O'Donnell, M., & Felmingham, K. (2024). The trauma and mental health impacts of coercive control: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 25(1), 630–647. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380231162972

Métellus, S., Vaillancourt-Morel, M.-P., Brassard, A., & Daspe, M.-È. (2025). Attachment anxiety and relationship satisfaction in the digital era: The contribution of social media jealousy and electronic partner surveillance. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 51(4), e70074. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.70074

Pichon, M., Treves-Kagan, S., Stern, E., Kyegombe, N., Stöckl, H., & Buller, A. M. (2020). A mixed-methods systematic review: Infidelity, romantic jealousy and intimate partner violence against women. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(16), 5682. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17165682

Ramirez, F., & Bolaños-Carpio, A. (2025). The dialectic link between trust and privacy: Black and Latinx women’s perspectives on digital sharing practices in romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 42(2), 547–567. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075241302846

Rogers, M. M., Fisher, C., Ali, P., Allmark, P., & Fontes, L. (2023). Technology-facilitated abuse in intimate relationships: A scoping review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 24(4), 2210–2226. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380221090218

Zöll, A., Franz, A., & Turel, O. (2026). Dyadic privacy management: The influence of dyadic privacy norms on the disclosure of co-owned information in romantic relationships. Information & Management, 63(2), 104301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2026.104301

Psychological Encyclopedia