Ghosting vs Slow Fading: What's the Difference and Why Ambiguous Endings Are Hard
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 26, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Ghosting and slow fading are both indirect ways a connection can move toward an ending without a clear breakup conversation, but they are not cleanly separated scientific categories. In everyday dating language, ghosting usually means communication stops without explanation, while slow fading usually means contact, responsiveness, warmth, or initiative declines over time. The complication is that contemporary research does not require ghosting to be instantaneous: a 2025 theoretical analysis defines ghosting as a unilateral cessation of communication that may be sudden or gradual, provided it is unexplained and intended to end a meaningful relationship definitively (Schokkenbroek et al., 2025).
That overlap matters. A slow fade can remain a period of ambiguous disengagement, end in an explicit conversation, become mutual, or culminate in complete unexplained disappearance. In the last case, some researchers would classify the final pattern as gradual ghosting. This is why rigid internet rules such as “ghosting is sudden, slow fading is gradual” create more certainty than the science supports.
The practical difference is often found in the trajectory rather than in a universally agreed diagnostic boundary: ghosting is organized around an unexplained stop in communication, whereas slow fading describes progressive disengagement. Neither term is a diagnosis, neither reveals a person’s attachment style or personality, and neither lets an observer know the other person’s private motive.
Ghosting vs Slow Fading: The Short Answer
Ghosting: communication is unilaterally ended without an explanation. Many studies operationalize it as abruptly ceasing contact, but definitions vary. The newer three-pillar framework explicitly allows the cessation to be sudden or gradual as long as it ends in a definitive, unexplained communication stop (Schokkenbroek et al., 2025).
Slow fading: an everyday dating label for progressive disengagement—fewer messages, longer delays, less initiative, reduced emotional investment, repeated postponement, or increasingly minimal contact—without a clear statement that the connection is ending. Direct research on “slow fading” as a standardized named construct is limited. A 2025 study of intimate-relationship termination strategies identified an “avoid confrontation” strategy that included gradually fading away or disappearing without explanation, but this Greek-sample study does not establish a universal definition of slow fading or its psychological effects (Apostolou & Kagialis, 2025).
So the most defensible distinction is this: slow fading describes a declining pattern; ghosting describes an unexplained termination of communication. They can overlap. A fade that eventually becomes a complete, unilateral, unexplained stop may satisfy some scientific definitions of ghosting.
Why the Boundary Is Less Clear Than Dating Advice Makes It Sound
Ghosting research is still consolidating its definition. In an empirical study of 499 young adults in Canada, participants generally described ghosting as one person suddenly ignoring or stopping communication without explaining why, illustrating the common abrupt-disappearance meaning (Kay & Courtice, 2022). Other studies have used related but not identical definitions, including ending contact through digital communication, failing to respond to attempts to connect, or withdrawing across channels.
Schokkenbroek and colleagues reviewed these inconsistencies and proposed a more specific definition built around three pillars: the meaningfulness of the prior connection, the predominantly digital context, and the temporal character of the ending. Their formulation is especially important for the ghosting-versus-slow-fading question because it states that ghosting can be sudden or gradual. What makes it ghosting in that framework is the unilateral, unexplained and definitive cessation of communication, not a stopwatch measuring how fast the withdrawal occurred (Schokkenbroek et al., 2025).
This also means that the person receiving less contact may not know, in real time, whether a slow fade is actually an ending. A response pattern can look like withdrawal before the outcome is known. The ambiguity is part of the experience: reduced communication is observable, but the status and intention behind it may remain uncertain.
What Ghosting Means in Current Research
Ghosting is best treated as a relationship-dissolution or social-rejection behavior, not as a mental-health diagnosis or a personality type. A recent review describes it as unilaterally ending a romantic, platonic, or other relationship by cutting off contact, and summarizes research showing that people ghost for multiple reported reasons, including ease, beliefs about what is acceptable in digital interaction, avoidance of confrontation, and safety concerns (Freedman & Powell, 2024).
Those are group-level findings about reported motives. They do not permit mind-reading in an individual case. Silence can coexist with indifference, discomfort, conflict avoidance, concern about the other person’s feelings, fear, competing demands, uncertainty, or a decision to disengage. In experiments by Park and Klein, people who had been ghosted tended to underestimate how much ghosters cared about their well-being; the studies found that other-oriented motives can sometimes contribute to ghosting decisions (Park & Klein, 2024). That finding is a useful corrective to the claim that ghosting proves the other person never cared. It does not make ghosting considerate, and it does not identify the motive in any particular relationship.
Safety can also change the meaning of indirect rejection. In a registered study of romantic rejection decisions, safety concerns increased willingness to use ghosting under some conditions (Freedman et al., 2022). Advice that treats direct confrontation as morally mandatory in every situation therefore misses an important exception: when contact feels unsafe, reducing or ending access can be a reasonable protective choice.
What Slow Fading Means—and What Science Can Actually Say About It
“Slow fading” is widely understood in contemporary dating language, but it has a thinner and less standardized research base than ghosting. It usually refers to a pattern in which a person continues to respond or appear intermittently while the frequency, reciprocity, enthusiasm, planning, or emotional investment declines. The defining feature is not one delayed reply. It is the direction of the pattern across time.
Apostolou and Kagialis asked participants about ways people terminate intimate relationships and found a broader “avoid confrontation” strategy that included gradually fading away as well as disappearing without explanation (Apostolou & Kagialis, 2025). This gives direct contemporary evidence that gradual withdrawal is recognizable as a breakup strategy. The study was conducted with Greek-speaking samples and was not designed to validate a universal slow-fading scale, estimate prevalence, or compare the emotional impact of slow fading against ghosting.
The strongest scientific position is therefore modest and precise: slow fading is a useful descriptive relationship term for progressive disengagement, but it is not currently a sharply standardized psychological construct. Researchers may classify parts of the same sequence under broader categories such as indirect rejection, avoidance/withdrawal, gradual ghosting, or relationship dissolution.
The Most Important Differences
1. Pattern over time
Slow fading foregrounds a declining trajectory: less contact, less initiative, fewer plans, shorter exchanges, or increasingly delayed responsiveness. Ghosting foregrounds the unexplained termination of communication. A ghosting episode can be abrupt; under newer definitions it can also be the endpoint of gradual withdrawal.
2. Residual contact
During a slow fade, some contact usually continues. That residual contact can keep the relationship state unresolved because each interaction can be interpreted as evidence that the connection is still alive. In ghosting, the defining endpoint is nonresponse or cessation of contact.
3. Certainty about whether the relationship is ending
Slow fading can produce a prolonged period in which the recipient is unsure whether the relationship is ending, temporarily deprioritized, changing form, or simply passing through a busy period. Ghosting may also be ambiguous at first—especially because there is no universal point at which a delayed reply becomes a definitive ending—but sustained nonresponse can eventually make the behavioral outcome clearer even when the reason remains unknown.
4. Scientific status
Ghosting now has a substantial peer-reviewed literature, including reviews, experimental work, qualitative studies, cross-national research, and formal attempts to define the construct. Slow fading is much less standardized and is often embedded within broader research on indirect rejection or relationship termination. That evidence imbalance is why precise claims about how slow fading “works” psychologically should be made cautiously.
5. Endpoint
A slow fade does not have one inevitable endpoint. It can lead to a direct breakup, mutual disengagement, continued low-intensity contact, renewed involvement, or complete disappearance. Ghosting, in the 2025 three-pillar definition, requires a definitive unexplained cessation intended to end the relationship (Schokkenbroek et al., 2025).
There Is No Scientific 24-Hour, 48-Hour, or Three-Day Rule for Ghosting
Popular dating advice often tries to convert uncertainty into a time threshold: if someone has not replied for a fixed number of hours or days, you have been ghosted. Current research does not support a universal cutoff. In a preregistered 2025 study, Büttner and Lutz introduced “response delay tolerance,” the amount of time people are willing to wait before feeling ignored. That threshold changed with situational expectations: urgent messages and a partner’s previous pattern of fast replies shortened how long participants were willing to wait (Büttner & Lutz, 2025).
This matters because the same delay can mean different things in different relationships. A twelve-hour gap may violate an established pattern of frequent conversation but be completely ordinary in a connection where both people routinely reply every few days. The absence of an instant response is therefore not, by itself, evidence of ghosting or slow fading. Context includes the prior communication rhythm, message urgency, established expectations, recent changes, and the larger pattern of reciprocity.
Why Ambiguous Endings Can Be So Hard
The core difficulty in both ghosting and slow fading is often not merely reduced contact. It is unresolved meaning. Relationship science has long treated relational uncertainty as uncertainty about the relationship itself, including questions about involvement, mutuality, and the future. Foundational work shows that relationship uncertainty can shape how people experience and respond to relational events (Knobloch & Solomon, 2002).
Ghosting creates a particularly clear form of ambiguous rejection because the behavioral signal—nonresponse—does not supply an explanation. LeFebvre and Fan’s studies of people navigating ghosting documented attempts to reduce uncertainty and described the experience through the lens of ambiguous loss, where a relationship can be functionally absent while psychologically unresolved (LeFebvre & Fan, 2020).
Experimental work strengthens the case that ambiguity matters. In two 2025 studies simulating the development of an early online romantic relationship, Szczesniak, Pierce, and Spielmann compared ghosting, explicit rejection, and acceptance. Ghosted and explicitly rejected participants both reported negative emotional effects, but ghosted participants showed more continuing attachment to the target and intentions to keep monitoring or contacting them, consistent with reduced closure (Szczesniak et al., 2025).
Another set of multi-day experiments found adverse responses after both ghosting and explicit rejection, while the ghosting condition showed a slower recovery trajectory on several outcomes. The authors proposed uncertainty and lack of closure as possible explanations for the prolonged pattern (Telari et al., 2025). That mechanism is plausible and increasingly supported, but it should not be inflated into a universal clinical claim: study paradigms, relationship investment, time scale, and outcome measures differ.
Does Slow Fading Hurt More Than Ghosting? Science Does Not Support a Universal Ranking
Search results frequently frame this as a contest: which is worse, ghosting or slow fading? The scientific literature cannot currently provide a universal winner. Direct, well-powered studies that isolate slow fading as a standardized condition and compare it head-to-head with ghosting across relationship stages are scarce. Claims that slow fading always hurts more because it prolongs uncertainty, or that ghosting always hurts more because it is abrupt, go beyond the evidence.
Even within ghosting research, effects depend on what is measured and how the interaction is modeled. A 2022 study comparing recalled ghosting, orbiting, and explicit rejection found worse outcomes after ghosting on several measures (Pancani et al., 2022). The 2025 experimental studies described above found meaningful differences in attachment and recovery trajectories when ghosting was compared with explicit rejection (Szczesniak et al., 2025; Telari et al., 2025).
At the same time, a randomized controlled experiment published in 2026 found no effect of an acute, low-investment ghosting manipulation on objective or subjective sleep quality in university participants. The authors emphasized that the short simulated interaction was a low-investment context and should not be treated as a model of every real-world relationship (Langlais et al., 2026). This null result is important because it reminds us that “ghosting is harmful” is not a license to assume every outcome, every person, or every context is affected in the same way.
Relationship Investment and Context Matter
Being ignored after two messages on a dating app and being abruptly cut off after months of mutual involvement are both sometimes called ghosting in everyday speech, but they are not psychologically interchangeable events. Earlier work comparing ghosting with direct breakup conversations found that ghosted relationships in the study were, on average, shorter and lower in commitment, while ghosting still occurred in relationships with meaningful duration (Koessler et al., 2019).
A 2025 systematic review of ghosting research in emerging adults likewise concluded that the evidence base is still concentrated in young and emerging-adult samples and varies considerably in definitions, measures, contexts, and designs (Morales et al., 2025). This limits population-wide claims about prevalence and about what a particular ghosting episode will do to a particular person.
Culture also matters. In 2026, Freedman and Powell compared ghosting knowledge, attitudes, intentions, and past behavior across samples from twelve countries. Ghosting was widely recognized, but acceptance, intentions, and reported behavior differed by country (Freedman & Powell, 2026). Relationship norms are therefore part of the context, not background noise that can be ignored.
How Ghosting and Slow Fading Differ From Breadcrumbing
These labels can look similar because all involve communication patterns that are difficult to interpret, but they point to different trajectories. Slow fading refers to progressive disengagement. Ghosting refers to an unexplained communication stop. Breadcrumbing usually refers to intermittent signals of interest or availability that keep contact alive without clear progression or commitment.
Those distinctions are descriptive, not diagnostic. A person who sends occasional messages after a period of distance is not automatically “breadcrumbing” in a scientifically established sense, and intermittent contact does not prove manipulative intent. Likewise, a slow fade does not prove that someone is deliberately trying to keep another person attached. The observable pattern and the inferred motive are separate questions.
Ghosting, Slow Fading, and Attachment: What You Cannot Infer
Ghosting or slow fading does not identify an attachment style. Research has reported associations between attachment-related variables and ghosting roles or intentions, but associations across groups cannot diagnose the psychology of one person from one behavior (Freedman & Powell, 2024).
Adult attachment is more accurately studied as dimensions of attachment anxiety and avoidance rather than as a set of labels that can be assigned from a dating story. For the broader evidence, see Adult Attachment Theory: How Anxiety and Avoidance Shape Relationships and Attachment Styles in Relationships: Dating, Intimacy, Conflict, and Communication. A partner’s silence may activate attachment-related fears in the recipient, but that is different from claiming that the silent partner “is avoidant” or that the recipient “is anxious.”
What About the Person Who Is Doing the Fading or Ghosting?
Research does not support a single ghoster profile. In a mixed-method study of people who had both ghosted and been ghosted, ghosters more often described guilt and relief, while ghostees more often described sadness and hurt feelings; ghostees also reported stronger threats to needs such as belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaningful existence (Freedman et al., 2024).
The review literature identifies multiple reported motives, including convenience, perceived norms, conflict avoidance, emotional considerations, and safety concerns (Freedman & Powell, 2024). These findings explain why a behavioral description should remain a behavioral description. “They ghosted” tells you something about how communication ended. It does not, by itself, establish narcissism, emotional unavailability, avoidance, malicious intent, lack of empathy, or a personality disorder.
How to Tell Whether You Are Seeing a Slow Fade
There is no validated slow-fade diagnostic checklist. The useful question is whether there is a sustained change in the pattern rather than a single imperfect interaction. A possible slow fade may involve progressively less initiation, repeated reductions in responsiveness, a shift from concrete plans to vague postponement, or communication that becomes consistently minimal while the prior level of mutuality is not restored.
Several alternatives can produce the same surface pattern: illness, caregiving demands, work pressure, travel, depression, competing relationships, uncertainty about what they want, a change in preferred communication frequency, or a genuine decision to disengage. From the outside, you can observe the communication pattern. You generally cannot establish the reason without information from the person involved.
The 2025 response-delay study is particularly relevant here because it demonstrates that people’s perception of being ignored depends partly on prior responsiveness and message urgency rather than on one universal clock (Büttner & Lutz, 2025). A pattern change is more informative than an arbitrary “three-day rule.”
Mutual Fading Is Different From Unilateral Disengagement
Sometimes both people reduce contact at roughly the same time, neither continues initiating, and the connection quietly dissolves. Calling every such ending ghosting can erase an important feature of the construct: unilateral disengagement. If neither person is trying to maintain the interaction, there may be no clear ghoster and ghostee.
Likewise, a slow fade can become mutual after it begins. One person may initially reduce effort, the other may notice and match that level, and the relationship may dissolve without either person later experiencing the ending as a unilateral disappearance. Research categories are tools for describing patterns; ordinary relationship sequences can change category over time.
What to Do When You Cannot Tell What Is Happening
There is no clinical protocol for “treating” a slow fade. For most people, this is a communication and boundary problem rather than a psychiatric one. An evidence-informed practical approach is to move from repeated interpretation of ambiguous cues toward one clear request for information. For example, you can ask whether the person still wants to continue seeing or talking with you and state what kind of communication you need in order to continue participating.
The purpose of a clear message is not to force a reply or extract a confession about motives. It is to reduce the number of possible interpretations you are personally required to manage. If no answer comes, the absence of an answer becomes information about what the relationship can currently provide, even though it may never explain why.
It can also help to choose your own decision threshold rather than trying to discover a universal rule. A decision threshold is a boundary for your participation: how long you are willing to remain in an undefined pattern, what minimum reciprocity you need, and what you will do if communication remains unclear. This is ordinary communication advice, not a validated treatment protocol.
If contact feels unsafe, the goal changes. You do not owe a direct breakup conversation when direct contact could increase risk. Blocking, limiting access, involving trusted people, or using formal safety resources may be appropriate depending on the situation. The ghosting literature itself recognizes safety concerns as one reason some people choose indirect rejection (Freedman et al., 2022).
What Not to Do With an Ambiguous Ending
Do not turn an uncertain communication pattern into a remote diagnosis. A slow fade does not prove avoidant attachment, narcissism, manipulation, trauma, addiction, emotional unavailability, or a personality disorder. Ghosting does not prove those things either. Those conclusions require different evidence.
Do not use “intermittent reinforcement” as a universal explanation simply because replies are inconsistent. Variable and intermittent reinforcement are technical learning concepts. Applying them to a specific relationship requires evidence about contingencies, behavior, and reinforcement, not merely a hot-and-cold communication pattern.
Do not assume that social-media activity answers the relational question. Seeing someone post while not replying can make the discrepancy more salient, but it still does not reveal motive. It can tell you that the person used a platform; it cannot tell you why they did not respond to you.
And do not treat repeated checking as the only route to closure. Experimental work suggests that ghosting can leave people inclined to monitor and continue contact because the rejection is ambiguous (Szczesniak et al., 2025). Understanding that tendency can help you recognize why uncertainty invites more information-seeking even when the available information may never resolve the underlying question.
When Ambiguous Endings Become More Than an Ordinary Dating Stressor
Feeling hurt, confused, angry, embarrassed, preoccupied, or rejected after a fading or ghosting experience can fall within ordinary responses to interpersonal loss and uncertainty. Those reactions alone do not establish a mental disorder.
Professional support can become useful when the aftermath is persistently interfering with sleep, work, study, eating, relationships, daily functioning, or your ability to feel safe; when anxiety or depressed mood is severe or sustained; or when the situation activates symptoms from an existing mental-health condition. Assessment should focus on the actual symptoms and impairment rather than treating “being ghosted” as a diagnosis.
The 2026 sleep experiment is a useful reminder of this distinction: a brief laboratory ghosting experience did not produce measurable sleep deterioration in that sample, despite predictions that it might (Langlais et al., 2026). Effects should be measured rather than assumed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is slow fading the same as ghosting?
Not exactly, but the categories can overlap. Slow fading describes progressive disengagement. Ghosting describes an unexplained unilateral cessation of communication. A recent theoretical definition of ghosting explicitly allows that cessation to be gradual, so a slow fade that culminates in definitive unexplained disappearance can fit that framework (Schokkenbroek et al., 2025).
Can ghosting happen gradually?
Yes, under some contemporary scientific definitions. Schokkenbroek and colleagues propose that ghosting can involve a sudden or gradual cessation, provided it is unilateral, unexplained, predominantly digitally enacted, and intended to end a meaningful relationship definitively (Schokkenbroek et al., 2025). Other studies operationalize ghosting more abruptly, which is one reason definitions across the literature must be read carefully.
How long without a reply counts as ghosting?
There is no validated universal number of hours or days. People’s threshold for feeling ignored changes with prior communication patterns and situational expectations (Büttner & Lutz, 2025). Ghosting is better understood as a relational pattern and ending strategy than as a fixed response-time cutoff.
Which hurts more: ghosting or slow fading?
Current evidence does not justify a universal ranking. Ghosting has been compared experimentally with explicit rejection, and some studies find more persistent uncertainty or attachment after ghosting. Direct standardized comparisons of ghosting against slow fading are limited, so claims that one always hurts more are premature.
Does ghosting mean the other person never cared?
No. Research by Park and Klein found that people who were ghosted underestimated how much ghosters cared about their well-being, and other-oriented motives sometimes contributed to ghosting decisions (Park & Klein, 2024). That does not tell you what motivated a specific person, but it shows that ghosting cannot be translated automatically into “they never cared.”
Is slow fading manipulative?
The behavior alone does not establish manipulation. Progressive disengagement may be deliberate, conflicted, avoidant, poorly communicated, circumstantial, or mutually emerging. Calling it manipulation requires evidence about intentional influence and context that the communication pattern by itself does not provide.
Is ghosting a sign of avoidant attachment?
Not by itself. Attachment variables have shown associations with ghosting in some studies, but one behavior cannot identify an attachment orientation. Attachment anxiety and avoidance are dimensional constructs measured across patterns of relationships and responses, not labels that can be assigned from a single breakup behavior.
Why do I keep checking for a message after someone disappears?
Ambiguous rejection can leave the status of the relationship unresolved. In experimental research, ghosted participants showed more continuing attachment and intentions to monitor or contact the target than explicitly rejected participants (Szczesniak et al., 2025). That pattern is consistent with an uncertainty-and-closure explanation, although it does not mean every person will respond this way.
Should I send one final message?
If contact is safe, one clear message can be a reasonable communication choice: ask for clarity, state what you need, and decide what you will do if no answer comes. This is practical communication advice rather than a clinical protocol. Repeated messages are unlikely to guarantee the explanation you want, because another person’s motive remains outside your control.
Is a slow fade always intentional?
No conclusion about intent can be made from the pattern alone. Reduced responsiveness can reflect deliberate disengagement, but it can also reflect stress, competing demands, illness, uncertainty, or a changed communication rhythm. The observable decline and the person’s private explanation are separate kinds of information.
Bottom Line
Ghosting and slow fading are best understood as overlapping forms of indirect relational disengagement rather than perfectly separate psychological categories. Ghosting has the stronger scientific literature and is generally defined around an unexplained unilateral ending of communication. Slow fading is a useful contemporary description of progressive disengagement, but its research boundaries are less standardized.
The most important scientific correction is that ghosting does not have to be instantaneous in every current framework. A gradual fade can culminate in ghosting, and no universal number of unanswered hours or days creates the category. The most important psychological issue is often relationship uncertainty: when contact changes without an explicit account of what the relationship now is, the mind is left trying to infer status, meaning, and future from incomplete evidence.
That uncertainty can be painful and attention-grabbing, but it does not authorize diagnosis or mind-reading. The strongest response is to distinguish what you can observe from what you cannot know, ask directly when it is safe and useful, and make decisions about your own participation from the communication that is actually available.
Related Articles
References
Apostolou, M., & Kagialis, A. (2025). Soften the blow, avoid confrontation, take a break: Three strategies that people use to terminate an intimate relationship. Personality and Individual Differences, 245, 113273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2025.113273
Büttner, C. M., & Lutz, S. (2025). When does waiting for a reply turn into ghosting? Individual, relational, and situational predictors of feeling ignored in online messaging. Computers in Human Behavior, 172, 108774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2025.108774
Freedman, G., Hales, A. H., Powell, D. N., Le, B., & Williams, K. D. (2022). The role of gender and safety concerns in romantic rejection decisions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 102, 104368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104368
Freedman, G., Powell, D. N., Le, B., & Williams, K. D. (2024). Emotional experiences of ghosting. The Journal of Social Psychology, 164(3), 367–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2022.2081528
Freedman, G., & Powell, D. N. (2024). Ghosting: A common but unpopular rejection strategy. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 18(12), e70026. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.70026
Freedman, G., & Powell, D. N. (2026). A cross-national comparison of ghosting knowledge, attitudes, intentions, and behaviors in friendships and romantic relationships spanning twelve countries. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075261463579
Kay, C., & Courtice, E. L. (2022). An empirical, accessible definition of “ghosting” as a relationship dissolution method. Personal Relationships, 29(2), 386–411. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12423
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
Koessler, R. B., Kohut, T., & Campbell, L. (2019). When your boo becomes a ghost: The association between breakup strategy and breakup role in experiences of relationship dissolution. Collabra: Psychology, 5(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.230
Langlais, M. R., Pons, A., Dechert, O., Murvich, A. M., & Bigalke, J. A. (2026). Resilience to ghosting? A randomized controlled trial examining the consequences of ghosting on sleep quality in potential romantic relationships. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1742356. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1742356
LeFebvre, L. E., & Fan, X. (2020). Ghosted?: Navigating strategies for reducing uncertainty and implications surrounding ambiguous loss. Personal Relationships, 27(2), 433–459. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12322
Morales, A., Fuentes, E., & Fernández-Martínez, I. (2025). A systematic review of ghosting as a relationship dissolution method in emerging adults’ relationships. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 57, 33–49. https://doi.org/10.14349/rlp.2025.v57.4
Pancani, L., Aureli, N., & Riva, P. (2022). Relationship dissolution strategies: Comparing the psychological consequences of ghosting, orbiting, and rejection. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 16(2), Article 9. https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2022-2-9
Park, Y., & Klein, N. (2024). Ghosting: Social rejection without explanation, but not without care. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 153(7), 1765–1789. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001590
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
Szczesniak, A. L., Pierce, M. E., & Spielmann, S. S. (2025). Give up the ghost: Emotional and behavioral responses to ambiguous rejection. Personal Relationships, 32(3), e70018. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.70018
Telari, A., Pancani, L., & Riva, P. (2025). The phantom pain of ghosting: Multi-day experiments comparing the reactions to ghosting and rejection. Computers in Human Behavior, 172, 108756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2025.108756