Breadcrumbing: What It Means, Why It Happens, and What Psychology Actually Knows
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 26, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Breadcrumbing is a contemporary relationship term for a pattern of intermittent, low-commitment contact that keeps another person’s expectation of connection alive without clear, sustained movement toward the relationship that the signals appear to imply. A breadcrumb can be a warm message after silence, flirtation without follow-through, a vague promise to meet, a sudden return after distance, or small digital signs of attention that repeatedly reopen the question of whether the connection is going somewhere. Peer-reviewed researchers now study the behavior, but the term began in popular dating language and still does not have one universally accepted scientific definition.
The most important distinction is between behavior and interpretation. You can observe that contact is intermittent, plans remain vague, and interest repeatedly appears and disappears. You usually cannot infer from those facts alone whether the other person is deliberately manipulating you, is ambivalent, wants a low-commitment connection, has poor communication habits, is dating several people, is uncertain about the relationship, or simply understands the relationship differently. Research can identify patterns and statistical associations; it cannot read a particular person’s motive from a text-message history.
Breadcrumbing is not a psychiatric diagnosis. It does not appear as a standalone mental disorder in the DSM-5-TR or in the ICD-11 diagnostic framework. It is also not a reliable way to diagnose narcissistic personality disorder, an avoidant attachment style, trauma, addiction, emotional unavailability, or any other psychological condition in another person.
In short: what is breadcrumbing?
In current relationship research, breadcrumbing is generally operationalized as recurring signals of romantic or sexual interest that are noncommittal, inconsistent, or insufficiently followed by concrete relationship progression. Early adult research described it as sporadic flirtatious messages or social-media interactions that maintain dating expectations. The 2020 adult study by Navarro and colleagues and the BREAD-ASR measurement study helped move the term from popular dating vocabulary into empirical research.
A useful working definition is therefore: breadcrumbing is a repeated pattern in which small signs of relational interest sustain expectation while clarity, consistency, commitment, or follow-through remain limited. That definition describes the observable pattern. It leaves motive open unless the person has directly stated it or the study design actually measured it.
What counts as breadcrumbing—and what does not?
Breadcrumbing is easier to understand as a pattern across time than as a single act. One delayed reply, one canceled date, one week of distraction, or one uncertain conversation does not establish the pattern. The label becomes more descriptively useful when intermittent interest repeatedly coexists with unresolved expectations and low behavioral follow-through.
Common patterns people describe as breadcrumbing
Warm or flirtatious contact that repeatedly appears after periods of silence, without a corresponding increase in relational clarity.
Vague future-oriented messages—“we should do something soon,” “I miss you,” “let’s see each other”—that are rarely converted into specific plans.
Periodic likes, reactions, replies, or direct messages that re-establish emotional salience without clarifying what the connection is.
Renewed attention when the recipient begins to pull away, followed by another decline in contact.
A recurring mismatch between emotionally suggestive communication and the amount of time, effort, reliability, or commitment shown in behavior.
Keeping a possible romantic future verbally available while repeatedly postponing decisions or conversations that would define the relationship.
These examples are descriptive, not diagnostic. The same surface behavior can arise from different motives, and mutually understood casual relationships can include intermittent contact without either person experiencing it as misleading. Context matters: what was communicated, what each person reasonably expected, how established the relationship was, and whether the pattern continued after the mismatch was explicitly discussed.
What is not enough by itself
Someone takes longer than usual to reply.
A person changes their mind after one or two dates.
Two people are casually dating and both understand that the relationship is nonexclusive or low-commitment.
A person is genuinely uncertain and communicates that uncertainty clearly.
A relationship becomes less frequent because of work, illness, travel, caregiving, or another visible change in circumstances.
One plan falls through or one conversation is emotionally inconsistent.
Breadcrumbing is a relationship behavior term, not a clinical category
This status matters because popular psychology often turns a recognizable dating pattern into a remote personality assessment. “They breadcrumbed you, therefore they are a narcissist,” “avoidants always breadcrumb,” or “breadcrumbing proves emotional abuse” are stronger claims than the evidence supports.
The research base is real but still comparatively small. A 2020 psychometric study developed the Breadcrumbing in Affective-Sexual Relationships questionnaire in a sample of 247 adolescents from one high school in southeastern Spain. The work provided an early research measure of breadcrumbing perpetration in online affective-sexual relationships. A research questionnaire can operationalize a behavior for study; it does not create a mental-health diagnosis, prove a universal definition, or establish a clinical cutoff.
Definitions also vary across studies. Some researchers explicitly build intentional deception or feigned interest into their operationalization. Others focus more broadly on inconsistent, flirtatious, noncommittal contact. The 2025 study by Jaspal and Lopes defined breadcrumbing as an abusive dating behavior involving noncommittal signals and feigned interest despite no intention to progress the relationship. That is a legitimate study definition, but it should not be silently converted into a universal rule that every inconsistent dater necessarily has that hidden intention.
Why do people breadcrumb? What research actually shows
Search results often promise one psychological explanation—fear of commitment, avoidant attachment, narcissism, a need for validation, boredom, power, or a desire to keep backup options. The scientific picture is less tidy. Several of these variables have been studied, but most evidence is cross-sectional, sample-specific, or qualitative. That allows us to discuss associations and reported motives. It does not justify assigning a cause to an individual case.
Attachment insecurity: direct evidence of association, not a diagnosis
A 2023 cross-sectional study in BMC Psychology examined breadcrumbing engagement and attachment insecurity in young adults in India and Spain. After exclusions, the samples included 304 participants in India and 334 in Spain. Both attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance were positively associated with breadcrumbing engagement in both countries, although the strength of the associations differed by country.
This finding is important precisely because it contradicts simplistic online formulas. Breadcrumbing was not associated only with avoidance. Anxiety was also positively associated with engagement in the behavior. The study used cross-sectional survey data and snowball recruitment, so it cannot establish that an attachment dimension causes breadcrumbing, nor can an observer diagnose someone’s attachment orientation from intermittent messaging.
For the broader science of anxiety and avoidance in adult relationships, see our Adult Attachment Theory overview. Our article on Limerence and Attachment Styles likewise explains why attachment dimensions are probabilistic relationship variables rather than personality verdicts.
Personality traits: group differences do not identify an individual
A 2023 study of 313 online daters found that people who reported having breadcrumbed someone showed higher average vulnerable narcissism and Machiavellianism views than those who did not report breadcrumbing; inauthentic online self-presentation was also higher among those who reported breadcrumbing. The study is relevant to the question of correlates, but it does not support diagnosing narcissistic personality disorder, psychopathy, or a manipulative personality from a breadcrumbing episode. Trait-score differences between groups and a clinical personality diagnosis are different kinds of claims.
Ambivalence, commitment uncertainty, and emotional distance: qualitative evidence
A small 2023 qualitative study by Khattar, Upadhyay, and Navarro used two focus groups with nine participants who had experienced breadcrumbing. The analysis generated themes including charm, leading on, incongruence, avoiding emotional investment, and commitment uncertainty. This research is valuable for understanding how recipients make sense of the experience, but a nine-person qualitative sample cannot establish population prevalence or a universal motive profile.
The strongest conclusion from the motive literature is therefore plural rather than singular: breadcrumbing-like behavior can occur alongside attachment insecurity, inauthentic self-presentation, relationship ambivalence, commitment uncertainty, or strategic maintenance of interest. Current research does not provide a psychological test that lets a recipient infer which explanation applies to a particular person.
Can breadcrumbing be unintentional?
Yes. The observable pattern can emerge without a conscious plan to manipulate. A person may be ambivalent, conflict-avoidant, poorly coordinated, uncertain about what they want, accustomed to low-effort digital contact, or maintaining a casual connection that the other person interprets as movement toward commitment. None of those possibilities excuses misleading behavior, but they illustrate why motive should be separated from pattern.
Intent becomes more evidentially grounded when it is directly communicated or when behavior follows explicit conversations in a consistent way. For example, if someone repeatedly promises a defined relationship, is directly asked about the mismatch, acknowledges that they do not intend to pursue it, and then deliberately resumes romantic signaling to keep the other person engaged, the evidence for strategic behavior is stronger. Even then, the appropriate description concerns the behavior and communication; it still does not justify a remote psychiatric diagnosis.
Is breadcrumbing manipulation or emotional abuse?
Some peer-reviewed papers explicitly frame breadcrumbing as manipulation or abuse. The 2025 Jaspal and Lopes study used an abusive-dating-behavior operationalization, while the 2023 qualitative study described participants’ experiences in terms that included pretentiousness, incongruence, and manipulation. Those framings are part of the literature and should be reported accurately.
The term itself, however, is not a clinical or legal determination of abuse. Relationship harm depends on the full pattern: deception, coercion, threats, isolation, control, exploitation, disregard of clearly stated boundaries, power imbalance, and other contextual factors. Calling every inconsistent dating interaction “abuse” collapses distinctions that matter clinically and ethically. Conversely, using the softer label “breadcrumbing” should not minimize a broader pattern when coercive or abusive behaviors are actually present.
Why breadcrumbing can feel so psychologically difficult
The distress of breadcrumbing is understandable without assuming a special neurochemical mechanism. The person receives enough relational information to keep the possibility alive, but not enough to resolve what the relationship means. This creates a recurring interpretive problem: Is the connection developing, fading, paused, casual, or merely being maintained?
Direct breadcrumbing evidence on well-being
In a 2020 study of 626 adults aged 18 to 40, participants who reported breadcrumbing experiences showed lower life satisfaction and higher loneliness and helplessness than comparison groups. Because the design was cross-sectional and based on self-report, these findings should be described as associations rather than proof that breadcrumbing caused the outcomes.
The same study asked about whether participants had experienced breadcrumbing and ghosting, but its sample estimates should not be treated as population prevalence. Convenience and online samples can tell us that the phenomenon exists and can be studied; they do not establish how common it is in all adults, all dating-app users, or a national population.
The 2023 qualitative focus-group study reported themes involving emotional disturbance, self-concept, and effects on future relationships among participants. Again, qualitative findings describe lived meanings and possible consequences; they are not prevalence estimates and cannot determine how every recipient will respond.
The 2025 study: social support and paranoid ideation
A newer 2025 UK study of 544 participants examined exposure to breadcrumbing, perceived social support, and paranoid ideation. Greater reported exposure to breadcrumbing was indirectly associated with paranoid ideation through lower perceived social support in a statistical mediation model.
This result deserves careful wording. The data were cross-sectional and correlational. A mediation model fitted to cross-sectional data does not establish a temporal causal pathway in which breadcrumbing first reduces social support and then causes paranoia. It identifies a pattern of associations consistent with that model. Longitudinal and experimental research would be needed to establish direction and mechanism.
Relationship uncertainty: the scientific bridge behind the ambiguity
Relationship uncertainty is a more established construct in relationship science than breadcrumbing. It concerns uncertainty about one’s own involvement, the partner’s involvement, and the relationship itself. Foundational work by Knobloch and Solomon examined how relational uncertainty varies with intimacy, while later longitudinal dyadic research by Knobloch and Theiss followed 135 romantic couples weekly for six weeks and found reciprocal links between relational uncertainty and avoidance of relationship talk.
This literature helps explain why breadcrumbing can be cognitively sticky without claiming that breadcrumbing has already been experimentally shown to cause rumination. When signals are intermittent and the relationship remains undefined, the recipient may have repeatedly unresolved questions about reciprocity, exclusivity, commitment, and future direction. Relationship uncertainty supplies a scientifically established framework for those questions. Breadcrumbing is one contemporary behavioral pattern that can coexist with such uncertainty.
The distinction also protects against overreach: uncertainty can exist without breadcrumbing, and breadcrumbing-like behavior can occur in relationships where one person does not experience much uncertainty because expectations are already clear.
Breadcrumbing vs mixed signals
Mixed signals is the broader descriptive idea. It refers to cues that appear inconsistent or point in different relational directions. Breadcrumbing is narrower: it usually implies a repeated pattern of small signals of interest that sustain engagement while clarity or progression remains limited.
Mixed signals can arise from ordinary ambivalence, changing feelings, asynchronous communication, different communication styles, or misunderstandings. Breadcrumbing can also be interpreted that way in some cases, but many definitions add a stronger element of maintaining someone’s expectation. The scientific literature does not yet provide a universally agreed threshold separating the two.
Breadcrumbing vs ghosting
Breadcrumbing maintains intermittent contact. Ghosting ends communication. A 2025 theoretical analysis of ghosting proposed that ghosting involves a unilateral, unexplained, sudden or gradual but ultimately definitive cessation of communication in a meaningful relationship, predominantly through digital technology. The authors explicitly distinguished breadcrumbing and related discontinuous-contact behaviors from ghosting because contact returns rather than ending definitively.
This temporal distinction is useful in practice. If someone disappears for several days and then repeatedly reappears with renewed romantic attention, the overall pattern may fit breadcrumbing more closely than definitive ghosting. If communication ends and remains ended, ghosting is the closer descriptive term. The broader psychology of ghosting is a separate topic; here, the comparison stays narrow.
Breadcrumbing vs a situationship
A situationship describes a type or state of relationship that lacks some of the definition or conventional markers of a formal partnership. Breadcrumbing describes a communication or dating behavior. The two can overlap, but neither implies the other.
Two people can be in an undefined relationship while communicating consistently and honestly about the uncertainty. That would not automatically be breadcrumbing. Conversely, breadcrumbing can occur before a relationship becomes established, after dating has cooled, or around a connection that one person hopes will become more defined.
Does intermittent reinforcement explain breadcrumbing?
“Intermittent reinforcement” is one of the most common online explanations for why breadcrumbing feels compelling. The analogy is intuitive: attention appears unpredictably, so the recipient keeps checking or hoping for the next positive signal. But the direct breadcrumbing literature has not established that modern dating interactions function as a specific laboratory reinforcement schedule, nor has it shown that a variable-ratio mechanism is the universal cause of continued engagement.
A more defensible formulation is that unpredictable positive contact may plausibly maintain attention and expectation in some people, especially when the relationship is already important or uncertain. That is a psychological interpretation, not a demonstrated general mechanism of breadcrumbing. Using technical conditioning language does not make the causal claim stronger than the evidence.
Breadcrumbing, social media, and dating apps
Digital platforms make breadcrumb-like contact easy because a person can signal presence at very low effort: a reaction, story view, like, short direct message, emoji, or occasional reply can renew salience without requiring a longer conversation. The early BREAD-ASR work explicitly focused on online affective-sexual relationships, and several breadcrumbing studies emerged from the context of digital dating.
Still, a social-media cue has limited semantic content. A like proves that someone liked a post; it does not prove romantic intention. A story view proves that the story was viewed; it does not reveal why. A late-night message can be meaningful, habitual, impulsive, friendly, sexual, or relationally strategic. The observer has evidence of behavior and must infer motive.
If repeated checking of digital cues is becoming part of obsessive romantic preoccupation, our article Social Media and Limerence: Checking, Digital Cues, and Obsessive Preoccupation reviews the separate evidence on digital observation, checking, limerence, and uncertainty. Breadcrumbing itself should not be used as proof that the recipient has limerence.
Why “they are an avoidant” is not an explanation
Attachment language is especially easy to overuse. The 2023 India–Spain study found positive associations between breadcrumbing engagement and both anxiety and avoidance dimensions. That finding alone should end the formula “breadcrumbing equals avoidant attachment.” Adult attachment is dimensional, context-sensitive, and measured through validated instruments; it is not visible directly in a messaging pattern.
If the attachment question matters, describe the actual behavior first: Does the person avoid closeness? Seek reassurance? Pull away after intimacy? Communicate openly about commitment? Behave differently across relationships? Those observations can guide a conversation or a clinical assessment. They are more informative than assigning a label from a single dating behavior.
Why “they are a narcissist” is not an explanation
The same rule applies to narcissism. The Willis study found group-level differences in vulnerable narcissism scores among people who reported breadcrumbing, but that result does not convert breadcrumbing into a marker of narcissistic personality disorder. A clinical diagnosis requires a much broader, enduring pattern assessed against diagnostic criteria by a qualified professional.
Using “narcissist” as a synonym for someone whose dating behavior hurt or confused you obscures the question that can actually be answered: What did this person do, what did they communicate, what happened when expectations were clarified, and is the current pattern acceptable to you?
How to respond to breadcrumbing without trying to diagnose the other person
There is no validated clinical protocol called “breadcrumbing treatment.” Practical advice is therefore best presented as evidence-informed relationship decision-making and communication guidance rather than as therapy. The aim is to reduce ambiguity about your own choices, not to solve the other person’s hidden psychology.
1. Describe the pattern in behavioral terms
Write down what is actually happening across time. For example: “They message warmly every few weeks, suggest meeting, and do not select a date,” or “After I stop initiating, they return with affectionate messages and then disappear again.” Behavioral descriptions are harder to distort than global labels.
2. Identify the relationship outcome you want
The relevant question is not only whether their behavior qualifies for an internet label. Ask what you want now: a committed relationship, exclusivity, more consistent dating, a casual connection with clear expectations, friendship, or no further contact. A pattern becomes easier to evaluate when it is compared with an explicit goal.
3. Ask a concrete question
If the relationship is important enough to clarify, ask about something observable and current: “Do you want to keep dating regularly?” “Are you interested in becoming exclusive?” “Would you like to choose a day to meet?” “Are you looking for a casual connection?” Clear questions reduce the amount of psychological inference required.
4. Compare communication with follow-through
A reassuring message can be sincere in the moment and still fail to predict behavior. Over time, compare words with actions: Are plans made and kept? Is contact reciprocal? Do answers become more specific? Does the relationship move in the direction both people said they wanted? This is not a test of character; it is a test of compatibility between stated intentions and observable relationship behavior.
5. Set a boundary around your own participation
A boundary describes what you will do, rather than trying to control the other person. Examples include deciding not to continue a romantic conversation without concrete plans, declining repeated late-night reappearances, or stepping out of an undefined connection that does not meet your needs. The psychological value is clarity about your own action.
6. Reduce information-seeking that keeps the ambiguity active
If you find yourself repeatedly checking profiles, rereading messages, monitoring online status, or decoding small digital cues, reducing those opportunities can be a reasonable practical step. Direct breadcrumbing trials have not established a specific “digital detox” treatment, so this should be understood as an evidence-informed way to reduce cue exposure and rumination opportunities, not a proven cure.
7. Use support outside the relationship
Social support is especially relevant given the 2025 breadcrumbing study’s association between exposure, perceived social support, and paranoid ideation. The study does not prove a causal pathway, but maintaining contact with trusted people can keep an ambiguous dating connection from becoming the only source of feedback about what is happening.
When breadcrumbing becomes more than an annoying dating pattern
A relationship term becomes clinically relevant when the distress or associated behaviors begin to impair functioning. Persistent insomnia, marked anxiety, depressed mood, compulsive checking, inability to concentrate, substantial withdrawal from ordinary relationships, or repeated intrusive preoccupation may warrant a broader mental-health assessment. The clinician’s task is not to diagnose “breadcrumbing”; it is to assess the actual symptoms, their duration, severity, context, and functional impact.
Likewise, if the relationship includes threats, stalking, coercive control, intimidation, sexual pressure, financial control, isolation, or fear for safety, those behaviors deserve direct attention. The breadcrumbing label is too narrow to capture them.
What the evidence does—and does not—allow us to say
Supported directly by breadcrumbing research: the behavior has been operationalized in peer-reviewed studies; exposure has been associated with lower life satisfaction, loneliness, helplessness, perceived social support, and other distress-related outcomes in specific samples; engagement has shown associations with attachment anxiety and avoidance and with some personality-trait measures. Navarro et al. (2020); Khattar, Huete, & Navarro (2023); Jaspal & Lopes (2025).
Supported by established adjacent relationship science: relational uncertainty can shape how people experience and avoid relationship talk, and relationship processes are reciprocal rather than reducible to one person’s hidden trait. Knobloch & Theiss (2011).
Plausible interpretation: intermittent attention can keep an ambiguous relationship cognitively salient and create repeated opportunities for hope, doubt, checking, and meaning-making. Direct causal breadcrumbing experiments are still limited.
Popular-psychology overreach: breadcrumbing automatically means narcissism, avoidant attachment, emotional abuse, trauma bonding, dopamine addiction, or a variable-ratio reinforcement schedule. Current evidence does not justify those universal claims.
Frequently asked questions
What is breadcrumbing in dating?
Breadcrumbing is a repeated pattern of small, intermittent signs of romantic or sexual interest that maintain another person’s expectation of connection while clear progression, consistency, or commitment remains limited. Researchers have begun to operationalize the behavior, but definitions still vary.
Is breadcrumbing a mental-health diagnosis?
No. Breadcrumbing is a relationship-behavior term, not a standalone diagnosis in the DSM-5-TR or ICD-11. A person should not be diagnosed from a breadcrumbing pattern.
Why do people breadcrumb?
Studies suggest several possible correlates, including attachment insecurity, inauthentic self-presentation, ambivalence, and commitment uncertainty. Research has not identified one universal cause. The motive in a particular relationship cannot be determined from intermittent communication alone.
Can breadcrumbing be unintentional?
Yes. Ambivalence, changing feelings, low communication skill, different expectations, or poorly defined casual dating can produce a breadcrumb-like pattern without a deliberate strategy. Intentional breadcrumbing also occurs. The observable pattern and the inferred motive should be kept separate.
Does breadcrumbing mean someone is avoidantly attached?
No. In a 2023 cross-country study, breadcrumbing engagement was positively associated with both attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance. The design was cross-sectional and cannot be used to diagnose attachment style or establish causation.
Do narcissists breadcrumb?
Some group-level research has found higher vulnerable narcissism scores among participants who reported breadcrumbing, but this does not mean breadcrumbing identifies narcissistic personality disorder. One dating behavior cannot establish a clinical personality diagnosis.
Is breadcrumbing the same as ghosting?
No. Breadcrumbing involves recurring or intermittent contact. A recent theoretical definition of ghosting emphasizes a unilateral and ultimately definitive cessation of communication. The behaviors can occur in the same relationship at different times, but the concepts are distinct.
Is breadcrumbing the same as mixed signals?
Not exactly. Mixed signals is the broader idea of inconsistent relational cues. Breadcrumbing usually refers to a repeated pattern in which small signs of interest keep a connection active while progression or clarity remains limited.
Is breadcrumbing the same as a situationship?
No. A situationship describes an undefined or less formally defined relationship configuration. Breadcrumbing describes a pattern of communication or dating behavior. An undefined relationship can be honest and consistent, while breadcrumbing can occur outside a situationship.
Does intermittent reinforcement explain why breadcrumbing is hard to leave?
It is a plausible analogy, not an established universal mechanism. Direct breadcrumbing research has not shown that inconsistent dating contact functions as a specific operant-conditioning schedule or that this mechanism explains all continued engagement.
How long does breadcrumbing last?
Research does not provide a validated universal timeline. Because breadcrumbing is defined as a pattern across interactions, duration depends on the relationship context, frequency of contact, and whether the people clarify, continue, redefine, or end the connection.
Does breadcrumbing mean the person has no real feelings?
Not necessarily. A person can have genuine attraction or affection and still behave inconsistently or avoid relationship progression. The behavior tells you more reliably about the pattern of contact and follow-through than about the exact intensity or authenticity of private feelings.
What should I do if I think I am being breadcrumbed?
Focus on the observable pattern, decide what relationship outcome you want, ask a concrete question, compare words with follow-through, and set a boundary around your own participation. If the situation is producing substantial anxiety, obsessive preoccupation, depressed mood, sleep disruption, or functional impairment, consider discussing those symptoms with a qualified mental-health professional.
The bottom line
Breadcrumbing names a recognizable modern dating pattern: enough contact to preserve possibility, too little clarity or follow-through to resolve what the connection is becoming. Psychology now has a small but growing empirical literature on the behavior. That literature supports taking recipients’ distress seriously, while also resisting the temptation to turn a dating label into a diagnosis or a mind-reading device.
The strongest way to understand a breadcrumbing situation is to separate four questions: What behavior is occurring? What has actually been communicated? What remains uncertain? What do you want to do given the pattern that exists now? Research can improve those questions. It cannot replace the missing conversation by inventing a hidden motive.
For the broader relationship-dissolution pattern of ending contact without an explanation, see Ghosting Psychology: Why People Ghost and What It Can Do to the Person Being Ghosted.
Related Articles
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2022). What is the DSM? Official APA resource.
Jaspal, R., & Lopes, B. (2025). Breadcrumbing by a dating partner, perceived social support, and paranoia. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 34(11), 1623–1640. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2025.2555567
Khattar, V., Huete, N., & Navarro, R. (2023). Attachment insecurity and breadcrumbing engagement in young adults: A cross-sectional, cross-country study in India and Spain. BMC Psychology, 11, 356. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01404-y
Khattar, V., Upadhyay, S., & Navarro, R. (2023). Young adults’ perception of breadcrumbing victimization in dating relationships. Societies, 13(2), 41. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc13020041
Knobloch, L. K., & Solomon, D. H. (2002). Intimacy and the magnitude and experience of episodic relational uncertainty within romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 9(4), 457–478. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6811.09406
Knobloch, L. K., & Theiss, J. A. (2011). Relational uncertainty and relationship talk within courtship: A longitudinal actor–partner interdependence model. Communication Monographs, 78(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2010.542471
Navarro, R., Larrañaga, E., Yubero, S., & Víllora, B. (2020). Psychological correlates of ghosting and breadcrumbing experiences: A preliminary study among adults. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(3), 1116. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17031116
Rodríguez-García, M. C., et al. (2020). Development and validation of Breadcrumbing in Affective-Sexual Relationships (BREAD-ASR) Questionnaire: Introducing a new online dating perpetration. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(24), 9548. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17249548
Schokkenbroek, J. M., Telari, A., Pancani, L., & Riva, P. (2025). What is (not) ghosting? A theoretical analysis via three key pillars. Computers in Human Behavior, 168, 108637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2025.108637
Willis, M. L., Oliver, E., & March, E. (2023). Dating in the dark: Vulnerable narcissism predicts inauthentic self-presentation in online dating. Telematics and Informatics, 81, 101985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2023.101985
World Health Organization. (2024). Clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements for ICD-11 mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders. Official WHO publication.