Limerence After Rejection: Why Obsessive Thoughts Can Continue After the Relationship Ends
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 26, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Rejection can end a relationship, a dating possibility, or the realistic prospect of reciprocation without immediately ending limerence. A person can understand the answer intellectually and still find that attention keeps returning to the same person, memories keep replaying, imagined conversations continue, and the mind keeps searching for a different ending. That persistence can feel contradictory: if the relationship is over, why has the thinking not stopped?
The best current answer is that rejection and mental disengagement are different psychological events. Limerence is an involuntary pattern of intense romantic preoccupation, and recent research on impairing limerence shows that thoughts about the person of focus can be frequent, intrusive, immersive, and closely tied to mood. Research on romantic breakups adds several adjacent mechanisms that can help explain persistence after rejection, including desire for reconciliation, rumination, continued exposure to reminders, online observation of an ex-partner, and difficulty reorganizing the self after a relationship ends. None of these mechanisms, by itself, proves why one particular person remains preoccupied.
Limerence is a research and descriptive psychological construct. It is not a separate diagnosis in the current DSM-5-TR or ICD-11. The American Psychiatric Association's DSM-5-TR materials and the World Health Organization's ICD-11 Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Requirements do not establish limerence as its own disorder. Persistent thoughts after rejection therefore should not be used to diagnose OCD, an attachment disorder, depression, trauma, addiction, a personality disorder, or any other condition.
Why Can Limerence Continue After Rejection?
A clear rejection changes the external situation. It tells you that the desired relationship is unavailable, unwanted, or over. But the cognitive and emotional processes that made the person highly salient can persist for some time. Research does not support one universal post-rejection pathway. Instead, several processes may overlap, and their relative importance can differ from person to person.
1. Limerent thoughts can already be highly practiced and involuntary
The strongest direct evidence comes from a 2026 study by Evans and colleagues, currently the largest quantitative investigation of impairing limerence. In Study 1, 1,647 participants described recurrent and often prolonged episodes of limerent preoccupation. In Study 2, 51 participants completed repeated experience-sampling assessments across seven days. Thoughts about the limerent object appeared during roughly half of sampled waking thought episodes and were often intrusive and immersive (Evans et al., 2026).
Those findings matter after rejection because they show that, in a selected group with impairing limerence, attention to the person was not simply a deliberate choice that could be switched off by receiving new information. A rejection can change what is possible while the mind continues producing previously dominant thoughts. The study does not establish that all limerence follows this pattern, and its participants were not a representative population sample.
The 2025 development of the Limerence Questionnaire-11, or LQ-11, provides another useful clue about the structure of the experience. The measure identified two related dimensions, Intense Need for Attachment and Neglect to Self and Others (Marshall et al., 2025). The LQ-11 is a research measure, not a diagnostic test. A high score does not diagnose limerence or any mental disorder.
2. Rejection can remove reciprocity without removing motivational salience
Romantic rejection is not psychologically equivalent to learning a neutral fact. In a small 2010 fMRI study, 15 adults who had recently been rejected but reported remaining intensely in love viewed photographs of the rejecting partner. The task engaged regions implicated in reward, motivation, gain/loss evaluation, and emotion regulation (Fisher et al., 2010). A later systematic review of adult romantic attachment separation and rejection found that the neuroimaging literature was small and methodologically heterogeneous, with only four eligible fMRI studies, so broad neural claims require restraint (van der Watt et al., 2021).
This evidence supports a modest conclusion: motivational relevance can remain active after romantic rejection. It does not justify calling limerence a dopamine addiction, equating romantic rejection with substance addiction, or claiming that a brain scan explains an individual person's behavior. Neural systems involved in motivation, learning, attention, and reward participate in many ordinary human experiences.
3. The mind may continue to organize around the possibility of reconciliation
A rejection can be explicit while hope remains psychologically active. That distinction appears in newer breakup research. In a 2026 longitudinal study of 272 adults who had experienced a romantic breakup within the previous month, desire for reconciliation was among the factors associated with post-dissolution distress and with change in distress over time. Relational anxiety and coping patterns also contributed, while relationship length and frequency of contact with an ex-partner were less consistent predictors once other factors were considered (Dailey et al., 2026).
This study did not investigate limerence specifically, so it should be treated as adjacent breakup science rather than direct evidence about limerence. It nevertheless clarifies an important post-rejection distinction: a relationship can be behaviorally over while the person still wants a different outcome. When reconciliation remains a desired possibility, memories and cues can continue to be evaluated for signs that the outcome might change.
Fear of being single may be one contributor for some people, but it is not a universal explanation. In cross-sectional and daily-experience research, stronger fear of being single was associated with greater longing for ex-partners and more attempts to renew the relationship (Spielmann et al., 2016). That finding identifies a possible individual difference, not a cause that should be assigned to anyone simply because they are struggling to let go.
4. Rumination can keep the rejected relationship cognitively available
Rumination means repetitive thinking that returns to the same personally significant material without necessarily producing new information or resolution. Breakup-related rumination can include replaying conversations, asking what went wrong, imagining alternatives, reviewing the rejection, or repeatedly analyzing what the other person felt. The Relational Rumination Questionnaire was developed to distinguish romantic preoccupation, relational uncertainty, and breakup rumination as related but separable dimensions (Senkans et al., 2016).
A 2026 daily-diary study of 202 dating partners provides strong adjacent evidence that relationship uncertainty and rumination can move together dynamically. On days when participants ruminated more than usual, they reported more relational turbulence, and unusually high turbulence predicted more rumination the following day. Individual differences in relationship uncertainty also predicted person-specific patterns of daily rumination (Goodboy et al., 2026). Because these participants were in dating relationships rather than post-rejection limerence, the study does not prove that uncertainty causes limerence after rejection. It shows that uncertainty and repetitive relationship-focused thinking can form a reciprocal daily process in relationship contexts.
After a clear rejection, objective uncertainty may actually be low. The person has been told no. Yet subjective uncertainty can persist in other forms: Why did this happen? Did they mean it? Could they change their mind? Was there another reason? What if the timing were different? These questions can become cognitively open loops even when the interpersonal boundary itself is settled.
5. Trying to force thoughts away can sometimes make them more salient
A classic pair of experiments on thoughts about former partners found that deliberate suppression could produce rebound effects under some conditions. Participants instructed not to think about a past relationship later thought about it more when the relationship was no longer desired, while suppression of thoughts about a still-desired person increased physiological arousal rather than producing the same cognitive rebound (Wegner & Gold, 1995).
The study is old and narrow, and contemporary thought-suppression research is more complex than the slogan 'what you resist persists.' The practical point is smaller: repeatedly checking whether you are successfully not thinking about someone can itself keep that person in the attentional field. A failed attempt to eliminate every thought is not evidence that the attachment is destined to continue.
6. Digital access can repeatedly reactivate attention
Rejection no longer necessarily creates physical or informational distance. Social media can make a former partner or desired person continuously observable through profiles, stories, likes, mutual contacts, location cues, new partners, and algorithmically surfaced memories. That can keep new material entering a system already organized around the person.
The evidence here is stronger than many popular explanations suggest. In four studies involving 762 participants, including longitudinal, experimental, and daily-diary designs, active observation of ex-partners on social media predicted greater breakup distress, while experimentally increasing the salience of observation increased negative affect and jealousy. Active observation was also associated with greater same-day and next-day breakup distress (Marshall, 2026). An earlier study of 464 participants likewise found Facebook surveillance of an ex-partner was associated with greater breakup distress, longing, and lower personal growth (Marshall, 2012).
These are breakup studies, not limerence treatment trials. They support an evidence-informed inference that repeated digital monitoring can make disengagement harder for some people after rejection. They do not establish that every social-media view is harmful, that unfollowing is mandatory, or that online checking is proof of a disorder.
7. Rejection can destabilize the sense of self as well as the relationship
Romantic relationships often become incorporated into routines, plans, social identity, and the way people understand themselves. When the relationship ends, the task is not only to stop wanting the other person but also to reorganize a self that had become partly structured around the relationship.
In an eight-week longitudinal study after romantic separation, poorer self-concept recovery preceded poorer psychological well-being, and continued love for an ex-partner was associated with poorer self-concept recovery at the same assessments (Mason et al., 2012). The sample was small and primarily young, so the findings should not be universalized. They nevertheless illustrate why persistent thoughts can be partly about reconstructing one's own identity, future, routines, and meaning after a relationship ends.
A 2025 systematic review of 47 studies on romantic breakups in emerging adulthood similarly concluded that breakup experiences can affect self-concept and intimacy, with adjustment shaped by multiple personal and relational factors (Fernandes et al., 2025). Because that review focused on emerging adults, its conclusions should not be treated as a population-wide model for every age group.
8. Sadness and loneliness may create contexts in which fantasy returns
In the 2026 experience-sampling study of impairing limerence, limerent thoughts were strongly associated with negative affect, and intrusive-distracting fantasy was especially prominent during periods of sadness and loneliness (Evans et al., 2026). The design shows within-person associations in the sampled week; it does not establish that sadness or loneliness causes limerence.
After rejection, those emotional states may become more frequent because a hoped-for relationship, actual relationship, routine, or source of contact has disappeared. Fantasy can then provide temporary mental access to the person or to the imagined future that was lost. Calling this 'addiction' is unnecessary and scientifically imprecise. The evidence is compatible with ordinary cognitive-affective processes becoming unusually persistent and impairing.
Does Rejection Usually End Limerence?
There is no scientifically established rule that a clear rejection immediately ends limerence. Nor is there evidence that rejection necessarily intensifies it. The outcome varies. Some people report rapid decline when ambiguity disappears; others remain preoccupied long after they know the relationship will not happen. Current limerence studies are not yet designed to estimate the probability of either pathway.
The largest 2026 study reported episodes lasting about two years on average in its selected impairing-limerence sample (Evans et al., 2026). That number should not be interpreted as a countdown after rejection. The study measured reported episode duration, not time from a specific rejection to recovery, and it recruited people with impairing experiences. For a fuller discussion of what duration data can and cannot tell us, see How Long Does Limerence Last?.
Clear Rejection, Ambiguous Rejection, and Relationship Uncertainty
Not all rejection has the same informational structure. A clear statement such as 'I do not want a romantic relationship with you' reduces uncertainty about the other person's present decision. A slow fade, intermittent contact, friendship with romantic ambiguity, or a breakup followed by repeated reconciliation attempts can leave more questions unresolved. The psychology of those situations may differ even when the emotional experience is equally painful.
Relationship uncertainty is an established construct in relationship science. It concerns uncertainty about one's own involvement, the partner's involvement, or the relationship itself. Recent daily-diary work shows meaningful links between relationship uncertainty and relationship-focused rumination (Goodboy et al., 2026). But using that literature requires a boundary: uncertainty is not a magic explanation for limerence, and inconsistent contact should not automatically be described as intermittent reinforcement, manipulation, avoidant attachment, or breadcrumbing. Those labels require their own evidence and context.
After rejection, a useful distinction is between interpersonal uncertainty and internal uncertainty. The other person's decision may be clear while the rejected person continues to search for an explanation, a loophole, a future change, or a reason to reinterpret the answer. The first problem can sometimes be solved by communication. The second may persist even after communication has delivered all the information available.
What Persistent Thoughts After Rejection Do—and Do Not—Mean
Persistent thoughts tell you that the person or relationship remains psychologically salient. They do not, by themselves, tell you why. The same surface experience—thinking about someone repeatedly—can appear in limerence, ordinary grief, ongoing romantic love, attachment-related distress, depression, anxiety, OCD, trauma-related conditions, or no mental disorder at all. Context, function, duration, associated behaviors, distress, and impairment matter.
Persistent thinking does not prove that the relationship was uniquely meant to be
Frequency of thought is not a measure of relationship compatibility. Attention can stay fixed on outcomes that are unavailable, unresolved, emotionally charged, or repeatedly cued. The mind's persistence is psychologically real without being evidence about what the other person should feel or what the relationship objectively means.
Persistent thinking does not prove OCD
Intrusive thoughts are not exclusive to obsessive-compulsive disorder. OCD requires a broader clinical pattern involving obsessions and/or compulsions that are time-consuming, distressing, or impairing, with assessment based on diagnostic criteria rather than on one theme of thought. Limerence research cannot be substituted for an OCD evaluation.
Persistent thinking does not prove anxious attachment
Recent limerence research reports associations with insecure attachment, and breakup research often finds stronger distress among people with greater attachment anxiety. Association is not identity. Attachment patterns are dimensional, can vary across relationships and time, and do not allow a clinician—or a partner—to infer a person's entire attachment organization from post-rejection distress. For the specific evidence boundary, see Limerence and Attachment Styles.
Persistent thinking does not prove trauma or addiction
The language of 'trauma bonds,' 'dopamine addiction,' or 'withdrawal' is common online because it offers an intuitive explanation for intensity. Those formulations should not be treated as universal mechanisms. Some people with limerence report adverse experiences or psychiatric symptoms, and some neuroimaging findings overlap with systems involved in reward and craving, but overlap does not establish that limerence is an addiction or that rejection activates one fixed trauma pathway (Evans et al., 2026; van der Watt et al., 2021).
Limerence After Rejection Versus Ordinary Breakup Rumination
The boundary is not a single symptom. Many people think frequently about a former partner after a breakup, especially when the separation was unwanted or recent. Romantic breakup is a meaningful loss, and repetitive thought can occur during otherwise ordinary adjustment. A 2025 systematic review documents wide variation in negative and positive psychosocial outcomes after breakup rather than one uniform recovery trajectory (Fernandes et al., 2025).
Limerence becomes a more useful descriptive concept when the experience is organized around intense, involuntary, person-specific romantic preoccupation and a strong need for reciprocation, especially when fantasy, cue interpretation, or neglect of other parts of life becomes prominent. Even then, the word describes a pattern; it does not determine treatment or diagnosis. The broader construct is explained in Limerence: What It Is, Signs, Causes, and What Research Shows.
Why Social Media Can Be Especially Potent After Rejection
A rejected relationship once tended to lose informational bandwidth. Today, it can remain available in fragments: a profile change, new follower, story view, old photograph, mutual friend's post, dating-app appearance, or algorithmic reminder. Each fragment can invite interpretation. For someone already preoccupied, the issue is not merely exposure to the person but exposure to new ambiguous data about the person.
Marshall's 2026 multi-study work is particularly important because it separates active observation—intentionally checking an ex—from passive observation—encountering an ex without deliberately searching. Active observation was the more consistent predictor of later breakup distress, while experimental salience and passive exposure also affected some short-term outcomes (Marshall, 2026). This is substantially better evidence than the popular claim that 'every check gives your brain a dopamine hit.' The studies measured psychological outcomes, not a dopamine cycle.
Earlier research also found that post-breakup online surveillance was associated with dependence, distress, and attachment-related variables (Fox & Tokunaga, 2015). These studies support reducing deliberate observation when it is clearly prolonging distress, while leaving room for individual context.
What Can Help When Limerence Continues After Rejection?
There is not yet a validated, limerence-specific treatment protocol supported by randomized clinical trials. That means practical guidance should distinguish direct limerence evidence from evidence-informed suggestions drawn from breakup, rumination, attention, and mental-health research. The goal is not to promise a cure. It is to reduce the conditions that repeatedly reactivate preoccupation, restore ordinary functioning, and seek appropriate care when symptoms are severe.
Treat the rejection as information about the relationship boundary
If the other person has clearly declined or ended the relationship, recovery does not require proving that the rejection was fair, perfectly explained, or emotionally satisfying. Their decision is sufficient information for behavioral boundaries. Respecting that boundary also protects both people from a cycle in which new contact is repeatedly used to test whether the answer has changed.
This is ordinary communication and boundary guidance, not a clinical intervention. If contact is required because of work, shared parenting, family, school, or other obligations, the relevant goal may be structured, task-focused contact rather than complete avoidance.
Reduce deliberate cue-seeking when you can see that it restarts the loop
The best direct evidence for this recommendation comes from breakup research rather than limerence trials. Active observation of ex-partners on social media predicted more breakup distress across multiple study designs (Marshall, 2026). Muting, unfollowing, removing shortcuts, disabling memories, or asking friends not to send updates can therefore be understood as environmental changes that reduce repeated cue exposure.
The principle is not 'never see the person again.' It is to notice whether you are repeatedly creating new opportunities to inspect, decode, or reactivate the person. If checking reliably produces another hour of analysis, the checking behavior is a practical target even before anyone knows the full psychological mechanism.
Stop using certainty-seeking as the only route to relief
After rejection, the mind may generate questions that appear answerable but have no stable endpoint: Why exactly did they stop wanting me? What did that message really mean? What if I had acted differently? Do they miss me? Will they come back? One answer may briefly reduce distress and then create another question.
There is no limerence-specific trial showing that one cognitive technique reliably stops this process. An evidence-informed approach is to separate questions with actionable answers from questions that function mainly as repeated reassurance or reconstruction. If a question has been answered well enough to guide behavior, continuing to solve it may add thought without adding useful information.
Do not make total thought elimination the success criterion
A thought appearing is not the same as choosing to elaborate it. The old suppression experiments suggest that forceful attempts not to think about a former partner can have paradoxical effects in some circumstances (Wegner & Gold, 1995). A more realistic target is often reduced engagement: noticing the thought, deciding whether it contains actionable information, and returning attention to the current task rather than beginning another full mental investigation.
Rebuild parts of life that became organized around the person
Breakup research on self-concept suggests that recovery involves more than emotional detachment. Poorer self-concept recovery can precede poorer well-being (Mason et al., 2012). That makes ordinary rebuilding psychologically relevant: restoring routines, friendships, interests, roles, physical environments, and future plans that are not organized around the rejected relationship.
This does not mean distracting yourself until you never feel grief. It means giving attention alternative structures in which to operate. The more daily life contains roles and goals that have independent value, the less every quiet moment has to be filled by the lost relationship.
Use the existing evidence on breakup coping without turning it into a universal prescription
The 2026 longitudinal post-dissolution study found that desire for reconciliation, relational anxiety, acceptance, reappraisal, and self-medicating coping had different associations with distress trajectories, with the authors emphasizing that replication is needed (Dailey et al., 2026). The 2025 systematic review similarly found that adjustment varies and is influenced by multiple coping and personal resources (Fernandes et al., 2025).
The evidence therefore favors individualized recovery over one internet formula. A strategy that is useful for one person can be irrelevant or counterproductive for another. For a fuller practical guide that preserves these evidence boundaries, see How to Stop Limerence: What Helps, What Can Make It Worse, and When to Get Support.
When Professional Support Makes Sense
Professional support becomes more important when romantic preoccupation is consuming large parts of the day, repeatedly disrupting sleep, work, study, parenting, finances, eating, or other relationships; when repeated contact or monitoring feels difficult to control; when the rejection has triggered severe anxiety or depressive symptoms; or when the person is unsure whether the experience may be part of OCD or another mental-health condition.
A clinician can assess the actual symptom pattern rather than treating 'limerence' as a diagnosis. If OCD is present, treatment should follow the evidence base for OCD. If depression, anxiety, trauma-related symptoms, or another condition is present, treatment should follow the evidence for that condition. If the main problem is adjustment to a breakup or rejection, therapy can focus on the loss, rumination, behavior, self-concept, emotion regulation, and relationship context without forcing the experience into a diagnostic category.
If rejection-related distress includes thoughts of suicide, self-harm, violence, or an inability to stay safe, seek urgent local emergency or crisis support. That level of risk is a safety issue rather than a question about whether the experience technically qualifies as limerence.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can limerence get worse after rejection?
It can feel more intense after rejection for some people, but research has not established a universal causal rule that rejection makes limerence worse. Rejection can increase distress, loss, longing, and attention to the relationship, while a clear answer may reduce uncertainty for others. Current limerence research is not yet strong enough to estimate who will follow which trajectory.
Why am I still thinking about someone who rejected me?
Several processes may contribute: the person may already have become a dominant attentional target; desire for reconciliation may remain active; rumination may repeatedly reactivate memories; social media may supply new cues; sadness or loneliness may increase fantasy; and the breakup may require rebuilding parts of the self that had become organized around the relationship. None of these explanations can be assigned to an individual without context.
Does a clear 'no' automatically stop relationship uncertainty?
It can resolve uncertainty about the other person's current decision, but it may not resolve every internal question about why the rejection happened, whether the future could change, or what the relationship meant. Relationship uncertainty is an established scientific construct, but applying it to post-rejection limerence is partly an inference from adjacent relationship research rather than a directly tested causal model.
Is no contact an evidence-based treatment for limerence?
No. There is currently no validated limerence-specific clinical protocol showing that 'no contact' is a treatment. However, breakup research provides evidence that deliberate social-media observation of an ex can be associated with worse recovery, so reducing unnecessary monitoring and repeated cue exposure can be an evidence-informed practical choice (Marshall, 2026). Required or appropriate contact may need a different plan.
Should I block or unfollow the person?
That is a boundary and environment decision rather than a diagnosis or universal treatment rule. If seeing the person's updates reliably restarts checking, fantasy, or distress, muting or unfollowing can reduce repeated exposure. Blocking may be useful when stronger boundaries are needed. Shared work, parenting, or other obligations can make structured contact more appropriate than complete disconnection.
How long can limerence last after rejection?
There is no validated post-rejection timeline. The 2026 impairing-limerence study reported episodes lasting about two years on average in its selected sample, but that was not a study of time from rejection to recovery and should not be used as an individual prognosis (Evans et al., 2026).
Does thinking about the person every day mean I am still in love?
Not necessarily. Thought frequency can reflect romantic love, limerent preoccupation, grief, habit, unresolved meaning, environmental cues, rumination, or other processes. Love, limerence, and persistent thinking overlap but are not interchangeable. See Limerence vs Love for the construct-level distinction.
Can I use the LQ-11 to diagnose myself?
No. The LQ-11 is a research questionnaire developed to measure dimensions of limerence in research samples (Marshall et al., 2025). It is not a DSM or ICD diagnostic instrument, and no score establishes a psychiatric diagnosis.
Is limerence after rejection the same as OCD?
No. Limerence and OCD can share surface features such as intrusive thinking or repetitive checking, but limerence is a descriptive/research construct and OCD is a recognized clinical disorder with diagnostic criteria and an established treatment evidence base. Persistent romantic preoccupation should not be used to diagnose OCD, and limerence research should not replace OCD assessment or treatment evidence.
Can social media alone keep limerence going?
Research cannot support that causal claim. Social-media observation can predict or experimentally increase some forms of breakup distress and negative affect, but limerence itself is more complex. Digital exposure is best understood as one potentially modifiable source of cues, not a complete explanation.
The Bottom Line
Rejection can settle the relationship without instantly settling the mind. In current evidence, persistent post-rejection preoccupation is best understood as a convergence of romantic salience, intrusive cognition, rumination, hope for reconciliation, repeated cues, emotional context, and the work of reorganizing life after a loss. Direct limerence evidence is still young, while breakup and relationship-science research provides stronger adjacent evidence for several of these processes.
The useful response is therefore neither to romanticize the persistence nor to pathologize it automatically. The rejection defines the interpersonal boundary. Recovery concerns what happens next inside attention, behavior, routine, self-concept, and support. If the thoughts are intense but manageable, evidence-informed changes to checking, cue exposure, rumination habits, and daily structure may help. If they are severely impairing or tied to broader mental-health symptoms, professional assessment can identify what is actually happening and which established evidence base applies.
For the broader symptom-led question—including attraction, uncertainty, relational rumination, limerence, and OCD differentials—see Why Can’t I Stop Thinking About Someone?
Related Articles
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2026). Updates to DSM-5-TR criteria and text. https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm/updates-to-dsm/updates-to-dsm-5-tr-criteria-text
Dailey, R. M., Zhang, Z., Zhong, L., Kearns, K., Varga, S., & Lee, S. (2026). A preliminary test of the Comprehensive Model of Post-Dissolution Distress: Predicting initial and over time changes in distress following romantic dissolution. Personal Relationships, 33(3), e70085. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.70085
Evans, C., Panton, S. O., Strawson, W. H., Floyd, E., Kellett, S., & Poerio, G. L. (2026). Love, longing and obsession: Features, correlates, comorbidities, and real-time cognitive-affective dynamics of limerence. Acta Psychologica, 267, 107043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2026.107043 · PubMed
Fernandes, J. G., Santos, C., & Martins, M. V. (2025). Psychosocial effects of romantic breakups during emerging adulthood: A systematic review. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 32(5), e70139. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.70139 · PubMed
Fisher, H. E., Brown, L. L., Aron, A., Strong, G., & Mashek, D. (2010). Reward, addiction, and emotion regulation systems associated with rejection in love. Journal of Neurophysiology, 104(1), 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00784.2009 · PubMed
Fox, J., & Tokunaga, R. S. (2015). Romantic partner monitoring after breakups: Attachment, dependence, distress, and post-dissolution online surveillance via social networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(9), 491–498. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2015.0123
Goodboy, A. K., Dillow, M. R., Bolkan, S., Chiasson, R. M., & Vendemia, M. A. (2026). Relationship uncertainty and person-specific dynamics of partner rumination and relational turbulence in day-to-day life. Human Communication Research. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqag001
Marshall, L., Waldeck, D., Pancani, L., Churchill, S., & Tyndall, I. (2025). Development and validation of the Limerence Questionnaire (LQ-11). Psychological Reports. https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941251394980 · PubMed
Marshall, T. C. (2012). Facebook surveillance of former romantic partners: Associations with postbreakup recovery and personal growth. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(10), 521–526. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0125 · PubMed
Marshall, T. C. (2026). Social media observation of ex-partners is associated with greater breakup distress, negative affect, and jealousy. Computers in Human Behavior, 176, 108869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2025.108869
Mason, A. E., Law, R. W., Bryan, A. E. B., Portley, R. M., & Sbarra, D. A. (2012). Facing a breakup: Electromyographic responses moderate self-concept recovery following a romantic separation. Personal Relationships, 19(3), 551–568. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2011.01378.x · PMC
Senkans, S., McEwan, T. E., Skues, J., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (2016). Development of a Relational Rumination Questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 90, 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.10.032
Spielmann, S. S., MacDonald, G., Joel, S., & Impett, E. A. (2016). Longing for ex-partners out of fear of being single. Journal of Personality, 84(6), 799–808. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12222 · PubMed
van der Watt, A. S. J., Spies, G., Roos, A., Lesch, E., & Seedat, S. (2021). Functional neuroimaging of adult-to-adult romantic attachment separation, rejection, and loss: A systematic review. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 28(3), 637–648. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10880-020-09757-x · PubMed
Wegner, D. M., & Gold, D. B. (1995). Fanning old flames: Emotional and cognitive effects of suppressing thoughts of a past relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(5), 782–792. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.5.782 · PubMed
World Health Organization. (2024). Clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements for ICD-11 mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240077263