Limerence and Attachment Styles: Anxiety, Avoidance, and Relationship Uncertainty
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 26, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Limerence and attachment styles are related, but the relationship is narrower and less deterministic than popular psychology often suggests. The best current direct evidence indicates a small positive association between limerence and attachment anxiety, while one 2025 validation study found no significant association between limerence scores and attachment avoidance. A separate 2026 study of people selected for impairing limerence found elevated insecure attachment in the sample, but that design does not show that insecure attachment causes limerence. Marshall et al. (2025) and Evans et al. (2026) provide the strongest recent direct evidence.
The most useful scientific bridge between the two topics is relationship uncertainty. Attachment anxiety and avoidance are established dimensions in adult attachment research, and both can be associated with uncertainty about a relationship. Limerence, meanwhile, is organized around intense person-focused preoccupation and a strong concern with reciprocation. Uncertainty can therefore be relevant to both constructs without making them the same construct and without proving that uncertainty causes limerence.
Relationship uncertainty also matters outside limerence. In undefined relationships, ambiguity about status, reciprocity, and commitment can become psychologically salient even without limerence. For a broader evidence-based overview of this relationship configuration, see What Is a Situationship? Meaning, Signs, Psychology, and Why It Feels Unclear.
Limerence is a research and descriptive psychological construct, not a standalone diagnosis in the current DSM-5-TR or ICD-11. Attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance are dimensions used in relationship research, not psychiatric diagnoses. A person's attachment scores cannot diagnose limerence, and a limerence questionnaire cannot diagnose an attachment disorder, OCD, trauma, addiction, or a personality disorder.
The Short Answer: How Are Limerence and Attachment Styles Related?
Current evidence supports an association, especially between limerence and attachment anxiety. In the 2025 validation study of the Limerence Questionnaire-11 (LQ-11), attachment anxiety correlated positively with the LQ-11 total score at r = .155 and with the instrument's Intense Need for Attachment factor at r = .171. Those are statistically significant but small correlations. Attachment avoidance was not significantly associated with the LQ-11 total score or either LQ-11 factor in that study. The full study reports these correlations directly.
That result matters because it is more precise than saying that anxious attachment “causes” limerence or that avoidant people experience a special form of limerence. The 2025 study shows covariation in a selected sample of people who had experienced limerence. It does not establish direction of effect, lifetime risk, prevalence, or a causal mechanism.
The 2026 Acta Psychologica study broadened the picture. In a large sample of 1,647 people recruited for impairing limerence, participants reported elevated insecure attachment alongside other psychological correlates. The same paper also included a seven-day experience-sampling study of 51 participants and found that thoughts about the person of focus were frequent, intrusive, immersive, and linked with negative affect. Evans and colleagues describe these as findings about impairing limerence, so they should not be generalized to ordinary attraction or every experience someone calls limerence.
Limerence and Attachment Are Different Constructs
The distinction is foundational. Limerence describes a pattern of intense romantic preoccupation centered on a particular person, with longing for reciprocation and difficulty disengaging attention. Adult attachment research describes relatively enduring but changeable patterns of expectations, emotion regulation, and behavior in close relationships. In contemporary measurement, those patterns are often represented by two continuous dimensions: attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance.
Attachment anxiety captures concerns about rejection, abandonment, availability, and reassurance. Attachment avoidance captures discomfort with dependence, closeness, vulnerability, or relying on others. People vary along both dimensions rather than fitting perfectly into fixed personality boxes. Fraley, Waller, and Brennan's psychometric work helped establish this dimensional approach, and the ECR-RS study by Fraley and colleagues further showed that attachment representations can differ across relationships.
That relationship-specific variation is especially important for limerence. Someone can function with relatively low attachment anxiety in many close relationships and still become unusually uncertain, vigilant, or preoccupied in one specific romantic connection. The presence of limerence therefore does not prove that a person has a globally anxious attachment pattern.
For the broader framework, see Adult Attachment Theory: How Anxiety and Avoidance Shape Relationships. This article stays with the limerence-specific association rather than repeating general attachment theory.
What the 2025 LQ-11 Study Actually Found About Attachment
Marshall and colleagues developed and validated the LQ-11 across two samples of people who reported current or past limerence. Study 1 included 269 participants and Study 2 included 401. The final 11-item measure had two correlated factors: Intense Need for Attachment and Neglect to Self and Others. The authors reported good internal reliability and construct validity.
The attachment analysis came from Study 2. Participants completed the Experiences in Close Relationships—Relationship Structures questionnaire, using its global attachment scores for anxiety and avoidance. Attachment anxiety showed a small positive correlation with the LQ-11 total score and with Intense Need for Attachment. It was not significantly related to the Neglect factor. Attachment avoidance was not significantly related to either factor or to the total score.
This pattern is useful because it places a limit around a popular claim. The data support some overlap between limerence and attachment anxiety, especially the part of limerence involving intense attachment need. The data do not support a simple claim that higher avoidance was associated with higher limerence in this sample.
The study also has important limits. Participants were recruited online and were required to have experienced at least one episode of limerence. The design was cross-sectional and correlational. The study can tell us how scores co-occurred in that sample; it cannot tell us that anxious attachment preceded limerence, caused it, or made a particular person become limerent.
What the 2026 Impairing-Limerence Study Adds
Evans and colleagues studied a more severe, selected form they called impairing limerence. Study 1 included 1,647 participants and identified insecure attachment among a broader set of psychological correlates. Study 2 followed 51 participants for seven days using experience sampling and found that person-focused thoughts appeared in about half of sampled waking thought episodes in that selected group. The PubMed record reports the design and findings.
The paper is important because it is the largest quantitative study of impairing limerence to date and because experience sampling captures cognition in everyday life rather than relying only on retrospective summaries. It also requires careful interpretation. Recruitment for impairing limerence means the sample is not a population prevalence sample. Associations with insecure attachment, anxiety, depression, adverse childhood experiences, obsessive-compulsive cognitive traits, or maladaptive daydreaming do not mean that any one of those variables is the cause of limerence.
The authors offer a causal interpretation in their discussion, but the observational parts of the evidence do not by themselves establish a causal pathway. For readers, the strongest take-away is therefore descriptive: insecure attachment was elevated in this selected impairing-limerence sample, and limerent cognition was frequent and affectively intense. Causality remains an open research question.
Limerence and Anxious Attachment
Attachment anxiety is the attachment dimension with the clearest direct empirical link to limerence so far. That is consistent with conceptual overlap: both can involve sensitivity to possible rejection, concern about whether a valued person is available, and strong emotional investment in signs of closeness or distance. The direct 2025 finding, however, was a small correlation rather than evidence that the constructs are interchangeable.
An anxious attachment pattern can include repeated attempts to obtain reassurance or clarity when a relationship feels threatened. Limerence can include repeated interpretation of messages, memories, social cues, or imagined future interactions because reciprocation feels unresolved. At the level of lived experience, these processes can look similar. Scientifically, similarity of surface behavior does not show that the same mechanism is operating in every case. The same caution applies when limerence repeats across different people; recurrence alone does not identify an attachment style. See Serial Limerence: Why Intense Romantic Fixation Can Repeat Across Different People.
This is why it is more accurate to say that attachment anxiety may be one correlate or vulnerability marker within some limerent experiences than to say that anxious attachment is “what limerence really is.” The dedicated Anxious Attachment Style article covers the broader attachment pattern, its evidence base, and its relationship implications.
Does anxious attachment cause limerence?
No current study establishes that causal claim. The LQ-11 study was cross-sectional, and the 2026 impairing-limerence study identified correlations in selected samples. A causal test would require stronger longitudinal or experimental designs capable of showing temporal ordering and ruling out competing explanations. At present, several possibilities remain open: attachment anxiety may increase vulnerability to some forms of preoccupation; intense limerence may temporarily raise attachment-related anxiety; both may reflect shared third variables; or the relationship may differ across people and contexts.
Limerence and Avoidant Attachment
The direct evidence for attachment avoidance is weaker and, in one important study, null. Marshall and colleagues found no significant association between avoidant attachment and the LQ-11 total score, Intense Need for Attachment, or Neglect to Self and Others. Those null correlations are reported in the study's Table 3.
That finding does not prove that a highly avoidant person can never experience limerence. A correlation near zero at the group level does not exclude individual cases. It does mean that claims such as “avoidant people become limerent only at a distance,” “avoidants obsess over unavailable people,” or “limerence is how avoidants experience intimacy” go beyond the direct evidence currently available.
Adult attachment avoidance is independently associated with patterns of discomfort with closeness and dependence. Relationship science also links avoidance with relationship outcomes, but those findings should not be imported as if they were limerence findings. For the general construct, see Avoidant Attachment Style: Signs, Triggers, Relationships, and the Dismissive-Avoidant Pattern.
What about fearful-avoidant attachment?
The label fearful-avoidant is commonly used for a pattern high in both attachment anxiety and avoidance. Because direct limerence studies have not yet established a robust profile for this combined pattern, it should not be presented as a special limerence subtype. A person high on both dimensions may experience both strong concerns about rejection and discomfort with closeness, but whether that combination increases, decreases, or changes limerence requires direct research. The broader pattern is covered in Fearful-Avoidant Attachment Style.
Can Securely Attached People Experience Limerence?
Yes, current evidence does not justify treating secure attachment as immunity from limerence. “Secure” usually refers to relatively low attachment anxiety and avoidance. It does not mean a person never experiences romantic uncertainty, intrusive thoughts, rejection, intense attraction, or temporary dysregulation in a particular relationship.
The relationship-specific attachment literature is especially relevant here. In a very large online sample, Fraley and colleagues found that people can hold distinct attachment representations across different relationships and that relationship-specific measures often predict relationship-specific outcomes better than broad attachment measures. That evidence supports a more flexible interpretation than a fixed “secure person versus insecure person” model.
A person who is generally low in anxiety and avoidance could therefore still experience limerence toward one person. Current studies do not provide reliable population probabilities for how often that happens. For the broader construct, see Secure Attachment Style: Signs, Relationships, and How Security Works.
Relationship Uncertainty Is the Strongest Scientific Bridge
Relationship uncertainty refers to uncertainty about one's own involvement, a partner's involvement, or the relationship itself. It is an established construct in relationship science and is especially useful here because it connects attachment processes with ambiguous relationship states without collapsing those topics into a single diagnosis or personality label.
In a 2025 cross-sectional study of 276 people with romantic partners, both attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance were associated with greater relationship uncertainty, and the statistical model linked greater uncertainty with lower commitment. The reported indirect effects were larger for attachment anxiety than avoidance. Ertürk, Akyüz, and Büyükşahin Sunal (2025) explicitly tested this mediation model.
The word mediation needs care. A cross-sectional mediation model can show that observed associations are statistically consistent with a proposed pathway. It cannot demonstrate that attachment insecurity first caused uncertainty and that uncertainty then caused lower commitment. Longitudinal evidence is needed for temporal ordering.
Dyadic research provides additional adjacent evidence. In a study of 272 heterosexual dating couples, insecure attachment orientations were associated with episodic self- or partner-uncertainty after participants described a relationship-threatening event, and some uncertainty variables statistically mediated associations with fear or anger. Niehuis et al. (2016) analyzed actor and partner effects, which is stronger relational context than a single-person survey but still does not establish a universal causal mechanism.
Earlier relationship-science work also found a negative linear association between relationship uncertainty and intimacy in 341 dating relationships. Solomon and Knobloch (2001) helped establish relational uncertainty as a measurable construct long before it became popular language for situationships or mixed signals.
Why Uncertainty May Matter in Limerence
Reciprocation is central to classic descriptions of limerence, and newer research continues to treat the desire for attachment and reciprocation as important. When another person's feelings or intentions remain unclear, the mind has more unresolved information to interpret. That can create conditions for repeated attention to cues, replaying conversations, imagining future outcomes, or seeking reassurance.
This is a plausible mechanism, and uncertainty is also discussed in the recent limerence literature. The 2024 scoping review by Bradbury, Short, and Bleakley describes uncertainty about reciprocation as one factor discussed in the limerence literature. Yet the underlying evidence base remains small, and the review synthesizes heterogeneous sources. It does not establish a dose-response rule in which more uncertainty automatically produces more limerence.
It is therefore useful to distinguish three levels of evidence. Direct limerence evidence shows associations between limerence and attachment anxiety or insecure attachment in recent studies. Established adjacent relationship science shows that attachment insecurity and relationship uncertainty can co-occur and that uncertainty relates to commitment, intimacy, and emotional reactions. A further interpretation—that unresolved reciprocity helps maintain limerent preoccupation in a particular person—is plausible and consistent with theory, but is not yet a fully tested universal causal pathway.
Why “Intermittent Reinforcement” Is Not a Complete Explanation
Popular accounts often say that inconsistent attention creates limerence through intermittent reinforcement, as if the relationship were a slot machine. That analogy may be intuitively appealing, but the current limerence literature has not established a general reinforcement-learning mechanism that explains all cases.
Variable availability, ambiguous cues, or occasional reassurance can certainly matter to a person's experience. The more defensible scientific description is that uncertain relationship information may invite repeated monitoring and interpretation, especially for someone high in attachment anxiety. Calling that pattern “intermittent reinforcement” should be treated as a hypothesis or analogy unless a study directly tests reinforcement schedules in limerence.
Attachment Activation Is Not the Same as Limerence
Attachment-related distress can become more noticeable when closeness, availability, commitment, or separation feels threatened. A delayed reply, conflict, ambiguous plan, or possible breakup can activate concerns about the relationship. Those reactions can happen without limerence.
Limerence is more specifically organized around persistent preoccupation with one person and the wish for reciprocation. Someone can have attachment anxiety across relationships without becoming limerent. Someone can experience a limerent episode while having relatively low attachment anxiety in other relationships. And someone can have avoidant attachment tendencies without any limerent preoccupation.
For a focused explanation of relationship situations that activate attachment patterns, see Attachment Triggers: What Activates Anxious and Avoidant Patterns in Relationships.
Limerence, Rumination, and Repeated Cue Interpretation
Rumination and repetitive thinking are common themes in limerence research. The recent scoping review describes limerence alongside fixation and rumination, while the 2026 experience-sampling study showed that thoughts about the person of focus could be highly frequent and intrusive in people selected for impairing limerence. Bradbury et al. (2024/2025) and Evans et al. (2026) provide complementary forms of evidence.
Attachment anxiety can also involve heightened concern about relationship threat and reassurance. The overlap makes it plausible that uncertainty could become a focus of repeated thought. Still, repetitive cue interpretation is not specific to either limerence or anxious attachment. It can occur during ordinary dating uncertainty, after rejection, during grief, in jealousy, or as part of clinically significant obsessive-compulsive symptoms. Context, function, duration, distress, and impairment matter.
Does Limerence Mean You Have an Attachment Disorder?
No. Limerence is not an attachment disorder diagnosis, and adult attachment “styles” used in relationship research are not psychiatric diagnoses. The current DSM-5-TR update framework and the WHO ICD-11 clinical diagnostic manual do not establish limerence as a standalone disorder.
The LQ-11 is a research measure. Its score can quantify features represented by that instrument, but it cannot diagnose limerence as a mental disorder, determine a person's attachment style with clinical authority, or identify the cause of someone's romantic preoccupation. The same principle applies to online attachment quizzes: a score can be informative about self-reported tendencies, but it should not be treated as a psychiatric diagnosis.
Does Limerence Mean You Have Childhood Trauma?
No. The 2026 impairing-limerence study reported elevated adverse childhood experiences in its selected sample, but an association at the group level does not tell us that a particular person's limerence was caused by trauma. It also does not show that trauma is necessary for limerence. The study itself reports multiple correlates rather than a single demonstrated cause.
This distinction matters because causal stories can become self-sealing: once someone is told that limerence “must” reflect an attachment wound or childhood trauma, almost any memory can be interpreted to confirm the theory. A stronger approach is to examine the person's actual history, current relationship context, patterns across relationships, and functioning without assuming a cause in advance.
Can You Infer the Other Person's Attachment Style From Mixed Signals?
No. A person's delayed replies, inconsistency, reluctance to define a relationship, withdrawal, or change in availability cannot by themselves establish avoidant attachment, fearful-avoidant attachment, narcissism, manipulation, emotional unavailability, or any other psychological profile.
The same observable behavior can arise from many different reasons: ambivalence, competing priorities, low interest, stress, uncertainty, a preference for slower pacing, conflict avoidance, another relationship, practical constraints, or a stable interpersonal tendency. Research can describe associations at the group level; it cannot reveal an individual's motive from one behavior.
This is one reason the article focuses on the reader's uncertainty and preoccupation rather than diagnosing the other person. Broader dating and communication effects of attachment are covered in Attachment Styles in Relationships: Dating, Intimacy, Conflict, and Communication.
What Adult Attachment Research Adds Beyond Limerence Studies
The adult attachment evidence base is far larger than the limerence evidence base. Meta-analytic work shows that both attachment anxiety and avoidance are associated with lower relationship satisfaction and commitment, with relationship duration moderating some associations. Hadden, Smith, and Webster (2014) synthesized this literature.
Those findings help contextualize why attachment dimensions matter in romantic relationships. They should not be converted into limerence-specific claims. An association between attachment anxiety and relationship satisfaction does not prove that anxious attachment produces romantic obsession; an association between avoidance and commitment does not prove that avoidant people use limerence to avoid intimacy.
The scientific advantage of keeping these literatures separate is clarity. We can use established attachment science to understand dimensions and relationship context, while using direct limerence studies to decide what has actually been demonstrated about limerence.
Can Attachment Patterns Change?
Attachment orientations are not immutable identities. Research supports both continuity and change, and relationship-specific representations can differ. That makes it more accurate to think in terms of tendencies and contexts than permanent labels.
This article does not turn attachment change into a limerence treatment protocol. The question of how attachment patterns change belongs to the broader attachment literature; see Can Attachment Style Change? Stability, Life Events, and Earned Security. Current limerence research has not validated a treatment in which changing an attachment score is established as the mechanism that stops limerence.
What Helps When Limerence and Attachment Anxiety Co-Occur?
There is not yet a validated clinical protocol specifically for “limerence plus anxious attachment.” Practical steps should therefore be described as evidence-informed rather than as a proven treatment package.
One useful step is to separate observations from interpretations. “They replied two days later” is an observation. “They are avoidant and secretly afraid of intimacy” is an interpretation. “This delay means I am about to be abandoned” is another interpretation. Keeping those levels separate reduces the temptation to treat uncertainty as knowledge.
A second step is to notice what behaviors actually reduce or expand the amount of mental territory occupied by the person. Repeatedly rereading messages, checking social media, asking multiple people to interpret a cue, or rehearsing imagined conversations can keep attention anchored to the same unresolved question. Direct limerence evidence on eliminating those behaviors is limited, so the goal is not to present a prohibition as a clinical treatment. The more modest aim is to observe whether a behavior restores functioning or prolongs preoccupation.
A third step is to clarify the relationship when clarification is appropriate and safe. Relationship uncertainty is a real construct, and some uncertainty can be resolved only through communication or through accepting that the available information is insufficient. Clarity does not guarantee that limerence will disappear, but it can reduce the amount of unresolved relational information available for repeated interpretation.
A fourth step is to protect ordinary functioning. Sleep, meals, work, study, friendships, exercise, caregiving, and other valued activities matter even when romantic preoccupation is intense. The LQ-11 includes neglect of self and others as one of its measured dimensions, which makes functional balance directly relevant to how limerence is currently being operationalized. Marshall et al. (2025) is the source for that measurement model.
When Professional Support Makes Sense
Professional support can be useful when preoccupation is persistent, causes marked distress, disrupts sleep or appetite, interferes with work or study, damages existing relationships, or leads to repeated behavior that violates another person's boundaries. The goal of assessment is to understand the person's actual pattern, not to force it into a limerence label.
A clinician may need to distinguish romantic preoccupation from other conditions when symptoms suggest a broader clinical picture. Intrusive thoughts, compulsions, depressive symptoms, trauma symptoms, severe anxiety, or other psychiatric concerns require their own evidence base and diagnostic assessment. Limerence research should not substitute for established assessment and treatment standards for those conditions.
What the Evidence Supports—and What It Does Not
The evidence supports several conclusions with reasonable confidence. Limerence is a distinct research and descriptive construct centered on intense person-focused romantic preoccupation. Recent studies have improved measurement and characterization. Attachment anxiety shows a small positive association with limerence in the 2025 LQ-11 validation study. Insecure attachment was elevated in a 2026 selected sample of people with impairing limerence. Relationship uncertainty is an established relationship-science construct associated with attachment insecurity and relationship outcomes.
The evidence does not establish that anxious attachment causes limerence, that avoidance produces a special “distance-based” limerence subtype, that secure attachment prevents limerence, that trauma is the hidden cause of every episode, or that intermittent reinforcement is a universal maintenance mechanism. It also does not permit diagnosis of another person's attachment style from mixed signals or relationship ambiguity.
That narrower conclusion is scientifically stronger. Attachment matters, especially attachment anxiety, but it is one part of a developing evidence base. Relationship uncertainty offers a promising bridge between attachment processes and limerent preoccupation, and longitudinal research is now needed to establish temporal and causal pathways.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is limerence always caused by anxious attachment?
No. The 2025 LQ-11 study found a small positive association between attachment anxiety and limerence scores, not a causal effect. The current evidence does not show that anxious attachment is necessary or sufficient for limerence.
Can someone with avoidant attachment experience limerence?
Yes, it is possible at the individual level. However, the 2025 LQ-11 validation study found no significant association between attachment avoidance and limerence scores. Claims about a distinctive avoidant form of limerence remain speculative without stronger direct evidence.
Can a securely attached person experience limerence?
Yes. Current research does not establish secure attachment as protection against limerence. Attachment representations can also be relationship-specific, so a person's general pattern does not dictate every romantic response.
Is limerence an attachment disorder?
No. Limerence is a research and descriptive construct and is not a standalone DSM-5-TR or ICD-11 diagnosis. Adult attachment anxiety and avoidance are relationship-science dimensions rather than psychiatric diagnoses.
Does relationship uncertainty make limerence worse?
Uncertainty is theoretically and descriptively relevant to limerence, and established relationship science links uncertainty with attachment insecurity and relationship outcomes. Direct longitudinal evidence showing that increasing uncertainty causes limerence to intensify is still limited. It is accurate to call uncertainty a plausible maintaining context rather than a proven universal cause.
Does limerence mean I have childhood trauma?
No. A 2026 study of impairing limerence found elevated adverse childhood experiences at the group level, but that association cannot determine the cause of one person's experience.
Can the LQ-11 diagnose limerence or attachment style?
No. The LQ-11 is a research measure developed to assess limerence-related features. It is not a psychiatric diagnostic test, and it does not diagnose attachment style, OCD, trauma, addiction, or personality pathology.
Should I call someone avoidant because they send mixed signals?
No. Mixed signals describe ambiguous or inconsistent behavior. They do not identify a person's attachment orientation or motive. Attachment assessment requires a broader pattern and, in research, validated measurement rather than inference from a few interactions.
Related Articles
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2025). 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
Bradbury, P., Short, E., & Bleakley, P. (2025). Limerence, hidden obsession, fixation, and rumination: A scoping review of human behaviour. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 40, 417–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-024-09674-x
Ertürk, İ. Ş., Akyüz, A. N., & Büyükşahin Sunal, A. (2025). Attachment insecurities and commitment: The mediator role of relationship uncertainty. Psychological Reports. https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941251351244
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
Fraley, R. C., Heffernan, M. E., Vicary, A. M., & Brumbaugh, C. C. (2011). The Experiences in Close Relationships—Relationship Structures questionnaire: A method for assessing attachment orientations across relationships. Psychological Assessment, 23(3), 615–625. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022898
Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 350–365. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.350
Hadden, B. W., Smith, C. V., & Webster, G. D. (2014). Relationship duration moderates associations between attachment and relationship quality: Meta-analytic support for the temporal adult romantic attachment model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18(1), 42–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868313501885
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
Niehuis, S., Reifman, A., Fischer, J. L., & Lee, K.-H. (2016). Do episodic self- and partner-uncertainty mediate the association between attachment orientations and emotional responses to relationship-threatening events in dating couples? Cognition and Emotion, 30(6), 1232–1245. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2015.1050999
Solomon, D. H., & Knobloch, L. K. (2001). Relationship uncertainty, partner interference, and intimacy within dating relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18(6), 804–820. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407501186004
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