Social Media and Limerence: Checking, Digital Cues, and Obsessive Preoccupation
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 26, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Social media can make a limerent episode easier to feed because the person you are preoccupied with can remain continuously available as a stream of images, activity signals, follows, likes, comments, story views, location clues, old posts, mutual contacts, and algorithmically resurfaced reminders. The important scientific point is narrower than the popular claim that “social media causes limerence.” Current research does not establish that social media causes limerence. What it does support is a more careful account: limerence can involve unusually frequent, intrusive, immersive romantic cognition, while adjacent relationship research shows that intentional and incidental digital observation can be associated with distress, jealousy, partner monitoring, and difficulty disengaging in some contexts.
That distinction matters. A person can check someone’s profile repeatedly without having limerence, and a person can experience limerence without using social media at all. Checking is a behavior. Limerence is a descriptive and research construct centered on intense romantic preoccupation and longing. It is not a standalone diagnosis in the DSM-5-TR or ICD-11. The newer Limerence Questionnaire (LQ-11) is a research measure, not a diagnostic test.
In short: what does social media do to limerence?
For someone already strongly preoccupied with a particular person, social media can increase the number of opportunities to encounter cues, deliberately seek information, revisit memories, interpret ambiguous signals, and compare imagined possibilities with fragmentary evidence. Those opportunities can become part of the preoccupation. The strongest evidence is not yet a direct experiment in which social-media exposure is shown to create or prolong limerence itself. The evidence comes from a combination of direct limerence research and adjacent digital-relationship studies. For a focused explanation of cue ambiguity in human dating, see Mixed Signals in Dating: Why Ambiguity Is Hard to Read and What It Does to Uncertainty.
Direct limerence evidence: a 2026 quantitative and experience-sampling study found that, among people selected for impairing limerence, thoughts about the limerent object were frequent, intrusive, immersive, and closely linked with negative affect. Evans et al. (2026) did not test social media as the cause of those thoughts.
Measurement evidence: Marshall et al. (2025) developed and validated the 11-item LQ-11, with dimensions involving intense need for attachment and neglect of self and others. It is a research questionnaire; a score does not establish a psychiatric diagnosis.
Adjacent digital-relationship evidence: studies of current partners and ex-partners show that online observation and partner surveillance can be associated with relationship distress, jealousy, uncertainty-related processes, and slower post-breakup adjustment in some samples.
Plausible synthesis: when a highly salient person is always one search, tap, or notification away, repeated cue exposure can keep attention returning to that person. This is a reasonable interpretation of the combined evidence, not a demonstrated universal causal mechanism of limerence.
Popular-psychology claims such as “dopamine addiction,” “the algorithm creates a trauma bond,” or “intermittent reinforcement is why you cannot stop” go beyond what direct limerence research currently establishes.
What the newest limerence research actually shows
The most important current quantitative study is Evans and colleagues’ 2026 research in Acta Psychologica. Its first study examined a large sample of people reporting impairing limerence, while its second used experience sampling over seven days. In that second sample, limerent-object thoughts occupied a very large share of waking thought and were described as intrusive and immersive; intrusive-distracting fantasy was especially prominent, and sadness and loneliness were linked with changes in limerent cognition.
This finding helps explain why digital cues matter as a research question. If thoughts about one person already have unusually high attentional priority, a profile photo, message notification, tagged image, new follower, old chat thread, or suggested account can become another cue around which thought organizes. But Evans et al. did not manipulate Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, messaging apps, online status, or profile checking. The study therefore supports the cognitive side of the model, not the claim that a particular platform causes the state.
The LQ-11 validation study is similarly useful for construct clarity. The measure was developed in two samples of people who had experienced or were experiencing limerence. Its factors captured intense attachment need and neglect of self and others. Social-media behavior should not be reverse-engineered into a diagnosis from this work: repeatedly checking an account is neither an LQ-11 diagnosis nor proof that someone has a clinical disorder.
Social media checking: one behavior, several possible functions
“Checking” can look identical from the outside while serving different psychological functions. One person opens a profile out of ordinary curiosity. Another is looking for reassurance that the relationship still matters. Another is trying to infer whether a date is seeing someone else. Another is revisiting an ex after a breakup. Another is scanning for evidence that an ambiguous connection is becoming more reciprocal. Another simply encounters a post passively because the platform surfaces it.
This is why frequency alone is a weak psychological explanation. The more useful questions are what triggers the checking, what the person expects to learn or feel, what happens immediately afterward, whether the information resolves anything, and whether the behavior is beginning to displace sleep, work, study, relationships, self-care, or ordinary attention.
The same caution applies to motive attribution. A person who posts inconsistently, watches stories, likes old photos, disappears, returns, follows, unfollows, or leaves a message unread may be sending a deliberate interpersonal signal, may be acting habitually, may be managing privacy, may be ambivalent, or may have a reason the observer cannot see. Digital traces contain behavior; they do not automatically reveal intention.
Digital cues can increase information without producing clarity
Relationship uncertainty is an established construct in relationship science. Foundational work by Knobloch and Solomon (2002) treated uncertainty as uncertainty about the self, the partner, and the relationship. Social media can add a dense layer of observable data to that uncertainty without necessarily resolving it.
A story view confirms that a story was viewed. It does not specify why. A like confirms an interaction with a post. It does not establish romantic intention. A new follow, an unfollow, a profile change, a playlist, a vague caption, a location tag, a “seen” receipt, or a late-night online indicator can become psychologically meaningful because the observer already cares about the answer. The digital cue is real; the inferred meaning can remain uncertain.
This distinction is supported by adjacent surveillance research. In a study of 328 college students, Fox and Warber (2014) found that attachment style predicted both relational uncertainty and interpersonal electronic surveillance, but relational uncertainty itself did not predict surveillance in their model. That result is especially useful because it blocks an overly simple story in which uncertainty automatically causes checking.
A newer study of geolocation tracking, which is a different form of digital monitoring rather than social-media observation, reached a similarly cautionary conclusion. Among 333 users, Wang and Chen (2025) found no evidence that intensive tracking simply produced greater relational clarity; more intensive tracking correlated with greater definition uncertainty. Because the design was cross-sectional and concerned location-sharing technology, it should not be treated as proof about limerence. It does, however, challenge the assumption that more digital information necessarily means less uncertainty.
Active checking and passive exposure are psychologically different
Intentional checking is active: searching a name, opening a profile, reviewing followers, revisiting photos, reading old messages, examining comments, or checking whether someone is online. Passive exposure happens when the platform presents the person without a deliberate search: a suggested post, mutual friend’s photo, “memories” feature, algorithmic recommendation, repost, tagged image, or notification.
The distinction has empirical support in post-breakup research. Marshall (2026) reported four studies with 762 participants using longitudinal, experimental, and daily-diary methods. Active observation of ex-partners was linked with greater breakup distress, and experimentally increasing the salience of observation increased negative affect and jealousy; passive observation was also associated with same-day negative affect in diary data. These are unusually informative data for a digital-relationship question because they go beyond a single cross-sectional survey.
The boundary is crucial: ex-partner observation after a breakup is not identical to limerence, and breakup distress is not a limerence outcome by definition. The study therefore provides adjacent evidence that repeated digital exposure to a highly salient romantic person can matter for emotional adjustment. It does not prove that muting a limerent object is a validated treatment for limerence.
Earlier work points in the same general direction while carrying stronger causal limitations. Marshall (2012) found that Facebook surveillance of former partners was associated with greater breakup distress, more negative feelings, sexual desire and longing, and lower personal growth in a sample of 464 participants. Fox and Tokunaga (2015) found in 431 participants that post-dissolution distress predicted online monitoring, especially among people who had not initiated the breakup. These studies show association and modeled pathways, not a universal one-way causal rule.
Why checking can feel compelling during limerence
Three properties of the digital environment are especially relevant: cue availability, low-friction information seeking, and interpretive ambiguity. None needs a claim about “dopamine addiction” to be psychologically meaningful.
1. Cue availability
Before networked social media, encountering a romantic interest often required a shared place, a phone call, a letter, or information from another person. Now the person may remain available as a searchable digital object even when there is no current conversation. That changes the opportunity structure of attention. An urge that once had nowhere immediate to go can be converted into an action in seconds.
2. Low-friction information seeking
Checking has a very low behavioral cost: unlock, search, scroll. The action can therefore be repeated even when each check produces little useful information. For someone already preoccupied, the next check may be framed as an attempt to settle one small question—Are they online? Did they see it? Who is that person? Why did they remove that photo?—while the resulting information generates several new questions.
3. Ambiguous evidence
Many social-media cues are semantically thin. They become rich only after interpretation. This makes them unusually compatible with rumination because the mind can revisit the same cue under multiple hypotheses. A viewed story can be evidence of interest, boredom, habit, politeness, algorithmic placement, or nothing psychologically important at all. The platform records an event; the observer supplies a model of meaning.
For limerence, that ambiguity is especially relevant because reciprocation matters psychologically. The person is not merely collecting facts about another human being; they may be trying to answer a personally consequential question about possibility, rejection, closeness, or future connection. Social media can provide many micro-signals without providing a definitive answer.
The evidence ladder: what we know, what we infer, and what remains popular psychology
Direct evidence in limerence
Direct evidence supports intrusive and immersive preoccupation, fantasy, mood-linked cognitive dynamics, attachment-related correlates, and functional impact in people reporting impairing limerence. The strongest current anchors are Evans et al. (2026) and the LQ-11 validation work. Neither establishes a social-media-specific causal pathway.
Established adjacent relationship science
Research on electronic partner surveillance, post-breakup social-media observation, digital jealousy, and relational uncertainty shows that digital monitoring can be entangled with distress and relationship functioning. For example, a two-year longitudinal study of 322 young adults in relationships found that social-media jealousy was associated with more electronic partner surveillance and with lower relationship satisfaction one year later. Métellus et al. (2025) focused on current romantic relationships, not limerence.
Plausible interpretation
A plausible synthesis is that when one person already has unusually high attentional and emotional salience, easy access to that person’s digital traces can repeatedly reactivate attention and create new material for fantasy, comparison, reassurance seeking, or rumination. This synthesis fits the direct limerence findings and the adjacent digital-relationship literature, but it should be described as a synthesis rather than as a proven limerence mechanism.
Popular-psychology explanation
The language of “dopamine addiction,” “withdrawal,” “variable-ratio rewards,” “trauma bonds,” and “nervous-system dysregulation” is common online. These phrases can sound mechanistic while outrunning the evidence. Social platforms do use variable and unpredictable forms of feedback, but an inconsistent romantic interaction is not automatically a laboratory reinforcement schedule, and limerence is not established as a substance-like addiction by the studies above. A metaphor can be vivid without being a validated causal model.
Does social media make limerence last longer?
The direct answer is that current evidence is insufficient to give a universal causal answer. Research has not yet established a duration effect in which people with limerence who use social media are shown to remain limerent longer than otherwise comparable people who do not. Claims that social media “extends limerence by months or years” therefore exceed the evidence.
What can be said more securely is that digital exposure can preserve access to cues after contact would otherwise have declined, and post-breakup studies show associations between observing an ex online and worse adjustment. Duration of limerence itself is a separate question; our evidence review of how long limerence lasts explains why retrospective estimates and selected samples should not be converted into a universal timeline.
Current partner, ex-partner, crush, or undefined relationship: context changes the meaning
When the person is an ex-partner
The evidence base is strongest here. The relationship and breakup are known events, observation can be measured against post-breakup adjustment, and recent multi-method research can distinguish active from passive exposure. Even here, an association between observation and distress is not proof that every person should block every ex or that observation is always the primary cause of distress.
When the person is a current partner
Electronic partner surveillance research suggests that checking can be related to attachment, jealousy, and relationship functioning. The longitudinal work by Métellus and colleagues is useful because it tracks young adults over two years. Yet partner surveillance is not equivalent to limerence, and consensual digital practices can have very different meanings across couples.
When the relationship is undefined
An undefined or emerging relationship can produce many unanswered questions about reciprocity, commitment, exclusivity, and future direction. Social media supplies additional data while often leaving those core questions unresolved. This is one reason digital behavior can become a substitute for direct relationship information: the person tries to infer a relationship from traces rather than from an explicit conversation. That pattern can coexist with limerence, but it does not define limerence.
When there has never been a relationship
Here the gap between digital knowledge and interpersonal knowledge can be especially large. A person may know where someone traveled, what music they like, who comments on their posts, and what they looked like five years ago without knowing how that person understands the relationship—or whether they think there is one. High information density can create familiarity without reciprocity.
Mixed signals, breadcrumbing, ghosting, and the temptation to read the feed as a mind
Popular relationship language often enters the same search space as limerence. Mixed signals, breadcrumbing, ghosting, and slow fading describe patterns of communication or relationship behavior with different levels of scientific standardization. None allows a reader to diagnose a person’s attachment style, personality, motives, or capacity for intimacy from a social-media trace alone.
For someone in limerence, these labels can become interpretive shortcuts: “They viewed my story, so the ghosting was not real”; “They liked a photo, so this must be breadcrumbing”; “They posted a song, so it is a message to me.” Sometimes a digital action is intentional communication. Sometimes it is not. The scientifically defensible position is to separate the observable behavior from the inferred motive.
The focus here is narrower: how relationship-specific digital cues and repeated checking can interact with romantic preoccupation, without using those cues to infer another person’s motive or clinical characteristics.
Social media checking is not automatically OCD, addiction, stalking, or an attachment style
A single behavior does not establish a clinical category. Repeated checking can occur in ordinary attraction, jealousy, breakup distress, grief, relationship uncertainty, limerence, compulsive patterns, or simply as a habit. The same surface behavior can belong to very different psychological structures.
Relationship OCD is a clinical differential that requires attention to obsessions, compulsions, reassurance seeking, checking, impairment, and diagnostic criteria. Limerent preoccupation and compulsive checking can overlap phenomenologically with some OCD-like experiences without becoming the same condition. Likewise, anxious attachment can be associated with monitoring in some studies without making “anxious attachment” a diagnosis inferred from an Instagram habit.
If attachment is part of your question, our article on limerence and attachment styles reviews the association without treating attachment categories as destiny.
A 2025 scoping review by Bradbury, Short, and Bleakley discusses digital access and social media as possible enablers of fixation in a review framed partly around pathways toward stalking. That is not evidence that limerence itself equals stalking. Most romantic preoccupation does not justify a prediction of harmful behavior, and safety-relevant pursuit or privacy violations require their own assessment rather than a label applied retrospectively to ordinary checking.
A useful working model: cue → check → interpretation → emotional shift → renewed attention
One practical way to understand a checking loop is to map the sequence without pretending that the sequence has already been validated as a universal limerence mechanism.
Cue: a notification, memory, idle moment, lonely mood, mutual friend’s post, or thought of the person.
Check: opening the profile, search results, story list, messages, followers, or activity status.
Interpretation: deciding what the new information might mean about reciprocity, rejection, rivals, availability, or future contact.
Emotional shift: relief, hope, disappointment, jealousy, anxiety, excitement, or renewed longing.
Renewed attention: the information generates more questions, fantasy, comparison, or another urge to check.
The first two steps are observable behaviors. The later steps vary by person and context. The loop is therefore best used as a descriptive self-observation tool, not as a diagnostic test. Its scientific plausibility comes from evidence on intrusive limerent cognition plus digital observation and surveillance research; direct experimental confirmation of this exact loop in limerence is still needed.
What can help when social media is feeding the preoccupation?
There is no validated “social-media detox protocol” for limerence. Practical recommendations should therefore be labeled for what they are: evidence-informed ways to reduce cue exposure and interrupt checking opportunities, not a proven cure.
Separate active checking from passive exposure
For several days, notice whether you are deliberately seeking the person or whether the platform is bringing the person to you. The distinction matters because the intervention differs. Search behavior can be made less convenient; passive exposure can sometimes be reduced through mute, unfollow, recommendation, memory, notification, or content-control settings.
Reduce the cues that reliably restart the loop
If viewing the person reliably leads to prolonged rumination or distress, reducing exposure is a reasonable evidence-informed step. The strongest adjacent support comes from Marshall’s 2026 multi-method work on ex-partner observation, which found worse emotional outcomes around active and passive observation in post-breakup contexts. This is not a limerence treatment trial, so the recommendation should remain proportionate to the evidence.
Make checking less frictionless
You can remove a saved search, shortcut, notification, pinned chat, old photo widget, or browser bookmark without making a dramatic interpersonal statement. Small changes to access can be useful when the goal is to create enough delay for a deliberate choice. Blocking is one option in some contexts, but it is not psychologically required for every person and should not be treated as a ritual that guarantees recovery.
Decide what information you actually need
If you are in an active relationship or practical contact is required, the goal may be selective boundaries rather than zero contact. Ask which digital information is necessary for communication and which information is being collected in the hope that it will answer a relationship question it cannot reliably answer.
Do not turn the feed into a reciprocity test
If the core question is whether someone wants a relationship, a pattern of likes and views usually has lower informational value than explicit communication and consistent behavior over time. That does not mean direct conversation always produces the answer a person wants; it means the platform is a poor substitute for a relationship definition.
Work with the broader limerence process, not only the app
If the preoccupation remains intense after cue exposure is reduced, the problem is broader than access to a profile. Our How to Stop Limerence guide separates direct limerence intervention evidence from evidence-informed strategies borrowed from adjacent research.
What may make the cycle worse
Repeated “just one more check” searches when the previous check did not resolve the underlying question.
Using alternate accounts, mutual friends, archived pages, or indirect searches to bypass a boundary you set for yourself.
Treating every ambiguous cue as a puzzle whose correct interpretation will finally provide certainty.
Repeatedly comparing yourself with people who appear in the other person’s feed.
Saving, cataloging, or repeatedly replaying digital material when doing so expands rather than settles the preoccupation.
Using popular diagnostic labels to explain the other person instead of staying with observable behavior and your own decisions.
Expecting a single block, unfollow, or deletion to erase intrusive thoughts immediately, then interpreting continued thoughts as evidence that the strategy “failed.”
These are not signs of moral failure. They are behaviors and expectations that can be examined for function and impact. The practical target is often not “never think about this person again,” but less time organized around monitoring, interpreting, and waiting for the next cue.
When to seek professional support
Consider professional support when romantic preoccupation is consuming large amounts of time, repeatedly disrupting sleep or concentration, interfering with work or study, damaging existing relationships, leading to escalating checking or contact that you feel unable to control, or occurring alongside significant anxiety, depression, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, self-harm thoughts, or other mental-health concerns.
A clinician does not need to accept limerence as a formal diagnosis to work with the problems that are actually present: intrusive thoughts, rumination, compulsive checking, rejection distress, mood symptoms, relationship uncertainty, or functional impairment. If OCD symptoms are central, evidence-based OCD assessment and treatment should guide care rather than treating limerence research as a substitute.
If digital behavior is crossing consent, privacy, harassment, or safety boundaries, the task changes. The priority becomes stopping harmful behavior, respecting boundaries, and obtaining appropriate support. That issue should not be minimized by calling it “just limerence.”
Frequently asked questions
Does social media cause limerence?
Current research does not establish social media as a direct cause of limerence. Direct limerence studies document intrusive romantic cognition and impairment, while adjacent digital-relationship studies show that online observation can be associated with distress, jealousy, monitoring, and relationship processes. The causal bridge between platform exposure and the onset or duration of limerence remains insufficiently tested.
Why do I keep checking their social media even when it makes me feel worse?
The behavior may be serving information seeking, reassurance seeking, hope, comparison, habit, emotional contact, or an attempt to reduce uncertainty. The fact that a check produces distress does not guarantee that the urge disappears. A useful next step is to identify what question you expect the check to answer and whether the answer actually becomes clearer afterward.
Can story views, likes, or online status tell me whether they are interested?
They can tell you that a specific digital event occurred. They usually cannot establish the motive behind it or the status of a relationship. Interpretation becomes especially vulnerable to overreading when the observer already has a strong desire for reciprocation.
Will unfollowing or blocking cure limerence?
There is no clinical trial showing that unfollowing or blocking is a cure for limerence. Reducing exposure can be a rational strategy when digital cues reliably restart checking and rumination, and post-breakup research supports the idea that social-media observation can impede adjustment in some contexts. Intrusive thoughts may continue after exposure is reduced.
Is checking their profile a compulsion?
It can feel compulsive, but the word “compulsion” has a specific role in OCD assessment. Repetition alone is not enough to diagnose OCD. Clinical evaluation considers the thought-behavior relationship, distress, time, impairment, attempts to resist, reassurance patterns, and the broader diagnostic picture.
Is limerence a social-media addiction or dopamine addiction?
The current limerence evidence base does not establish “dopamine addiction” as the scientific explanation. Reward and motivation are reasonable research domains, but a neurochemical slogan is not a substitute for direct evidence. Limerence is currently better described as a research and descriptive construct involving intense romantic preoccupation, not as a formally recognized addiction diagnosis.
Does anxious attachment explain why I check?
Attachment anxiety is associated with some forms of digital partner monitoring and with limerence-related variables in research, but it is not a deterministic explanation for one person’s behavior. In Fox and Warber’s study, attachment style predicted electronic surveillance while relationship uncertainty did not; other studies show different pathways depending on context. Attachment should be treated as one possible correlate, not a verdict.
What if I need to keep following the person for work, co-parenting, school, or a shared community?
The relevant goal may be functional contact with less unnecessary exposure. Keep the channels needed for the real-world task, reduce optional monitoring where possible, and define what information is necessary. A boundary can be selective rather than absolute.
What the evidence supports—and what it does not
The strongest current conclusion is modest but useful. Limerence can involve high-frequency intrusive romantic cognition. Digital platforms can keep a salient person perceptually and informationally available. In current-partner and post-breakup research, digital monitoring and observation are sometimes associated with jealousy, distress, uncertainty-related processes, and poorer adjustment. A 2026 multi-method ex-partner study strengthens the case that observation itself can have short-term and longitudinal emotional consequences in that context.
The evidence does not support a universal formula in which social media creates limerence, uncertainty always causes checking, every inconsistent cue functions as intermittent reinforcement, checking proves OCD, or attachment style explains a particular person from afar. The more accurate model is contextual: digital cues can become part of an already powerful attention-and-meaning system, and their effects depend on the person, relationship, stage of the relationship, type of exposure, and what the checking is doing psychologically.
That is also the practical advantage of a careful model. You do not need a dramatic diagnosis or a speculative brain story to change a behavior that is taking too much of your attention. You can reduce cue exposure, make checking less automatic, stop treating ambiguous traces as privileged access to another person’s mind, and seek support when the preoccupation is impairing daily life.
For the wider question of why one person can stay cognitively active—including uncertainty, rumination, rejection, and limerence—see Why Can’t I Stop Thinking About Someone?
Related Articles
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2022). What is the DSM? Official APA resource.
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
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
Fox, J., & Warber, K. M. (2014). Social networking sites in romantic relationships: Attachment, uncertainty, and partner surveillance on Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(1), 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0667
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
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
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
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
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
Métellus, S., Vaillancourt-Morel, M.-P., Brassard, A., & Daspe, M.-È. (2025). Attachment anxiety and relationship satisfaction in the digital era: The contribution of social media jealousy and electronic partner surveillance. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 51(4), e70074. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.70074
Wang, S. S., & Chen, S.-T. (2025). Digital surveillance and relational uncertainty: The role of geolocation tracking in romantic relationships. Social Science Computer Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393251361455
World Health Organization. (2024). Clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements for ICD-11 mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders. Official WHO publication.