Why Does Ghosting Hurt So Much? Rejection, Belonging, Uncertainty, and Lack of Closure
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 26, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Ghosting can hurt so much because it combines two psychologically potent experiences: rejection and uncertainty. A direct rejection gives painful information. Ghosting often removes the relationship while withholding the information that would mark a clear endpoint. In experimental dating research, both ghosting and explicit rejection produced negative emotion and lower self-esteem, but ghosted participants remained more emotionally attached and were more inclined to keep monitoring or contacting the other person. Szczesniak, Pierce, and Spielmann (2025) found this pattern in sequential dating experiments designed to compare ambiguous rejection with explicit rejection.
Multi-day experimental work strengthens the case that the difference is not only a one-moment reaction. In two studies that followed responses over several days, ghosting and rejection were both distressing, yet some adverse responses after ghosting recovered more slowly. The authors proposed uncertainty and lack of closure as likely explanations, while the design does not establish that either mechanism alone caused the slower recovery. Telari, Pancani, and Riva (2025) therefore provide unusually strong evidence for persistence over a short time window, but not evidence that every episode of ghosting produces long-term psychological harm.
The most evidence-consistent answer is that ghosting may hurt through a combination of social rejection, threat to belonging and control, ambiguity about the relationship, lack of an explicit ending, and continued cognitive engagement with unanswered questions. These mechanisms can reinforce one another, but they should not be collapsed into a single universal explanation. Ghosting is a behavior pattern, not a diagnosis, and the distress that follows it is not by itself evidence of trauma, obsessive-compulsive disorder, an attachment disorder, or any personality disorder.
What Counts as Ghosting?
In relationship research, ghosting generally refers to unilaterally ceasing communication without an explicit explanation or negotiated ending. Definitions vary at the edges: studies differ on whether ghosting must be permanent, whether it requires an established relationship, and how long a delay must last before nonresponse becomes ghosting. A 2024 research review describes the central feature as ending a social tie by cutting off contact, while also emphasizing that the field still needs better context-sensitive definitions and methods. Freedman and Powell (2024) review ghosting across romantic, platonic, and other relationships.
This matters because one unanswered message is not automatically ghosting. A delayed reply, a missed notification, a temporary withdrawal, a clear breakup followed by no further contact, and a gradual slow fade are not identical events. The distinction between abrupt unexplained disappearance and gradual disengagement is discussed separately in Ghosting vs Slow Fading.
Ghosting is also not a clinical category. There is no DSM or ICD diagnosis called ghosting, and being ghosted does not tell a clinician what diagnosis, if any, applies to the person who disappeared or the person who was left without a reply. The scientific question in this article is narrower: what mechanisms can make unexplained social rejection painful, and what does current evidence actually show?
The Core Mechanism: Rejection Without a Clear Ending
Rejection is painful even when it is explicit. A meta-analysis of 88 experimental studies found that rejection reliably worsened mood and self-esteem and frustrated needs for belonging and control. Gerber and Wheeler (2009) provide broad experimental evidence for these rejection effects. Ghosting adds something distinctive to that baseline: the recipient may have to infer whether rejection has occurred at all, when it occurred, and what the silence means.
That distinction helps explain why the question “Why does ghosting hurt so much?” cannot be answered by saying only “because rejection hurts.” Direct rejection contains an interpersonal loss, but it also contains information. Ghosting can contain the loss while withholding confirmation. The emotional system is responding to rejection while the cognitive system may still be trying to determine the status of the relationship.
1. Threatened Belonging
Human beings are strongly motivated to form and maintain stable social bonds. The classic belongingness review by Baumeister and Leary (1995) synthesized evidence that interpersonal attachment and belonging are pervasive human motives. Ghosting can therefore register as more than an unanswered message: it can signal that a social bond, a hoped-for bond, or access to another person has been withdrawn.
Ghosting-specific evidence is consistent with this broader theory. In a multi-method study of people who had both ghosted and been ghosted, ghostees reported more sadness and hurt feelings, and greater threat to control, self-esteem, belongingness, and meaningful existence, than ghosters did when describing their experiences. Freedman, Powell, Le, and Williams (2024) studied 80 participants, so the result is informative about experience but should not be treated as a population estimate.
A larger preregistered study also found that participants recalling being ghosted reported lower satisfaction of basic psychological needs than participants recalling inclusion or direct rejection. Leckfor, Wood, Slatcher, and Hales (2023) further found that a stronger individual need for closure was associated with lower needs satisfaction after ghosting and direct rejection. That result is important because it shows both a ghosting effect and an individual-difference effect without implying that everyone responds identically.
2. Uncertainty About What Happened
Ghosting is an uncertainty-producing event. The recipient may wonder whether the other person is busy, overwhelmed, ill, angry, uninterested, frightened, dating someone else, reconsidering the relationship, or simply finished. Research cannot identify the correct explanation from silence alone. The uncertainty itself, however, is psychologically meaningful because it leaves multiple possible relationship states active at once.
Relationship science treats relational uncertainty as an established construct rather than a dating-app slogan. It concerns uncertainty about one's own involvement, a partner's involvement, or the relationship itself. Foundational work by Knobloch and Solomon (2002) examined how relational uncertainty changes across levels of intimacy. The English Psychology Hub's full scientific treatment is available in Relationship Uncertainty: What It Is and How It Affects Anxiety, Trust, and Commitment.
Ghosting does not simply create “uncertainty” in the everyday sense of feeling confused. It can remove the usual interpersonal channel through which uncertainty would be resolved. Asking the other person what they mean works only if the other person answers. That is why repeated attempts to obtain certainty can become part of the post-ghosting experience: the information source is also the person who has stopped supplying information.
3. Lack of Closure
“Closure” is often used loosely in popular psychology, but ghosting research gives the idea a more specific meaning: an explicit endpoint and enough interpersonal information to stop treating the relationship as an unresolved question. Qualitative research by LeFebvre and Fan (2020) examined how people who had been ghosted tried to reduce uncertainty and navigate the ambiguous loss of the relationship. Their two Mechanical Turk studies identified multiple strategies people used to seek answers and described the consequences of unresolved ambiguity.
The strongest recent experimental evidence does not require assuming that closure is a mysterious psychological substance. In the 2025 sequential dating studies, participants who were ghosted remained more emotionally attached than participants who received explicit rejection and reported intentions to keep monitoring the other person's social media or dating-app status and to maintain contact attempts. Szczesniak et al. (2025) interpreted this as evidence that ambiguous rejection can impede disengagement.
A careful formulation is therefore: lack of an explicit ending is a well-supported feature of ghosting and a plausible mechanism for continued engagement, but the field has not shown that one measurable quantity called “closure” explains every person's distress. Some people may need little explanation to disengage; others may have a high need for closure, greater relationship investment, or more unanswered relational questions.
4. Loss of Control and Agency
A direct rejection may be unwelcome, but it gives the recipient a defined piece of social information. Ghosting can deny even that. The recipient cannot negotiate the ending, ask a question, clarify a misunderstanding, or know whether another message would be appropriate. This reduction in agency maps onto broader rejection research showing that social exclusion can frustrate a need for control. Gerber and Wheeler's meta-analysis found especially strong effects of experimental rejection on control.
Ghosting-specific recall research likewise reports threatened control among recipients. Freedman et al. (2024) found greater fundamental-need threat among ghostees than ghosters. This does not mean a recipient literally had a right to control another person's participation in a relationship. It means the mode of ending can abruptly remove opportunities for ordinary interpersonal response and meaning-making.
Why the Mind Can Keep Returning to the Person
After ghosting, repeated thoughts can serve several different functions. A person may be trying to determine whether the silence is final, reconstruct the last interaction, search for a cause, evaluate their own behavior, predict whether contact will resume, or decide what to do next. These processes can look similar from the outside while reflecting different psychological questions.
The 2025 experimental work is especially useful here because it measured behavior-related intentions rather than only asking whether participants felt bad. Ghosted participants showed continued attachment and greater intentions to monitor or contact the target than explicitly rejected participants. Szczesniak et al. (2025) therefore support the idea that ambiguous rejection can keep the relational problem cognitively and behaviorally active.
Relationship-specific rumination is also associated with relational uncertainty in dyadic research. In a study of 120 dating couples, Imai, Okura, and Takahashi (2016) found associations between relationship-focused rumination and relational uncertainty for both partners. Because the data were correlational, they do not prove that uncertainty causes rumination or that rumination causes uncertainty. They do, however, support treating repetitive relationship thinking and uncertainty as connected processes rather than as interchangeable diagnoses.
Persistent thinking after ghosting can overlap phenomenologically with limerence, especially when romantic preoccupation was already intense or becomes organized around rejection. That overlap does not mean that every person who thinks repeatedly about a ghoster is experiencing limerence. The specific post-rejection pattern is examined in Limerence After Rejection: Why Obsessive Thoughts Can Continue After the Relationship Ends.
Does Ghosting Hurt More Than Direct Rejection?
Sometimes the evidence says yes, but the answer depends on what outcome is measured and what kind of relationship is being studied. It is more accurate to compare specific effects than to declare ghosting universally worse.
In a 2022 recall experiment comparing ghosting, orbiting, and explicit rejection, Pancani, Aureli, and Riva (2022) found that ghosting produced worse outcomes than direct rejection on several measures, including stronger feelings of exclusion and more negative construals of the dissolution. Because participants recalled past episodes, memory and selection effects remain possible.
The 2025 sequential dating experiments provide stronger causal evidence for immediate outcomes. Ghosting and explicit rejection both caused negative emotion and reduced self-esteem, while ghosting produced more continued attachment and monitoring intentions. Szczesniak et al. (2025) suggest that the distinctive cost of ghosting may lie less in making every emotion more intense at once and more in making disengagement harder.
The multi-day experiments by Telari et al. (2025) found that both ghosting and rejection harmed emotional and relational outcomes, while ghosting showed slower or more persistent adverse trajectories across several days. Study 1 involved 46 participants in six days of daily chat with a confederate; Study 2 involved 90 participants across nine days. These are valuable experimental designs, but still short-duration studies of controlled social interactions rather than clinical follow-up of established couples.
The correct conclusion is therefore narrower than the common headline “ghosting always hurts more than rejection.” Current evidence supports a distinctive ambiguity and disengagement cost in several experimental and recall paradigms. It does not establish that every ghosting episode is more painful than every direct breakup, nor that the difference persists for months or years in all populations.
Why Relationship Context and Investment Matter
A two-day dating-app exchange, a three-month undefined relationship, a long friendship, and a multi-year romantic partnership can all end through unexplained silence, but they do not carry the same history, expectations, interdependence, or investment. Current ghosting research samples these contexts unevenly, which is one reason population-level claims should be modest.
A particularly useful counterweight to exaggerated claims comes from a 2026 randomized controlled trial. Langlais, Pons, Dechert, Murvich, and Bigalke (2026) randomly assigned 112 university emerging adults in a simulated potential-romance setting to ghosting, courteous ending, or control conditions and found no meaningful effect of the ghosting manipulation on objective or subjective sleep quality. The interaction was brief and low-investment, so the null result cannot settle the impact of high-investment real-world ghosting. It does show why one should not assume that every ghosting episode produces broad physiological or clinical disruption.
The 2024 review by Freedman and Powell similarly emphasizes methodological, sample, and context differences across the ghosting literature. A stronger scientific model therefore treats relationship investment and context as potential moderators to be measured, rather than assuming that the word “ghosting” identifies one uniform psychological event.
Ghosting Across Cultures: A Known Behavior, Not One Universal Experience
Ghosting is not confined to one English-speaking dating culture. In two studies spanning 12 countries, including the United States, Canada, Brazil, India, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, South Africa, Ghana, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Ukraine, Freedman and Powell (2026) found that ghosting was widely known while attitudes, intentions, and self-reported behavior differed by country.
Those findings matter for pain as well as prevalence. Social norms influence what silence means, what level of response is expected, and how direct a relationship ending is supposed to be. The 2026 cross-national studies were designed to compare knowledge, attitudes, intentions, and behaviors rather than to estimate a universal effect size for distress. They therefore support cultural variability in the phenomenon without showing that one country experiences ghosting as more painful than another.
What Ghosting Does Not Tell You About the Other Person
Silence is behavior. It is not a transparent window into motive, attachment style, empathy, personality, or emotional state. A person who stops responding may be avoiding discomfort, losing interest, feeling unsafe, misjudging what the relationship requires, feeling guilty, procrastinating, or acting for reasons that research cannot recover from the recipient's side alone. The same outward behavior can arise from different motives.
This point is supported directly by experimental research. Park and Klein (2024) found across multiple experiments that people who were ghosted tended to underestimate how much ghosters cared about their well-being and underestimated the role of other-oriented motives in some ghosting decisions. Their findings do not make ghosting considerate; they show that the recipient's inference “they disappeared, therefore they never cared” is not reliably licensed by the behavior.
Very recent work reaches a related conclusion from the ghoster's emotional side. Across recalled experiences, imagined scenarios, and a live-interaction paradigm, Li, Zheng, and Schroeder (2026) found that ghostees underestimated how bad ghosters felt about not responding. The gap was larger when nonresponse was unintentional and smaller when a short response was sent instead. Again, this does not identify the motive in any specific case. It demonstrates why mind-reading from silence is scientifically unreliable.
For the same reason, ghosting alone does not justify labeling the other person narcissistic, avoidantly attached, manipulative, emotionally unavailable, abusive, or incapable of intimacy. Those are separate claims requiring separate evidence. A behavior can be hurtful without functioning as a diagnostic test of the person who enacted it.
Why Ghosting Can Affect Self-Esteem Without Defining Your Worth
Interpersonal rejection can temporarily alter how people evaluate themselves. The experimental rejection meta-analysis by Gerber and Wheeler (2009) found a moderate reduction in self-esteem after rejection. In ghosting-specific experimental work, both ghosted and explicitly rejected participants reported lower self-esteem than accepted participants. Szczesniak et al. (2025) measured this as an immediate response to a rejection manipulation.
A drop in state self-esteem is a psychological response, not evidence that the rejection revealed an objective truth about the recipient's value. Ghosting supplies very little explanatory information, which means self-blaming interpretations can easily outrun the available facts. “I was not answered” is observable. “I was not answered because I am unlovable” is an interpretation, and the research on ghosters' motives shows why that interpretation cannot be inferred from silence.
Is Ghosting an Ambiguous Loss?
Ghosting researchers have explicitly used ambiguous-loss frameworks to describe the tension between relational absence and unresolved psychological presence. LeFebvre and Fan (2020) used ambiguous loss and uncertainty reduction theory to study how recipients navigated unanswered endings.
The comparison is useful when it is kept proportional. “Ambiguous loss” is a broader family and clinical concept that has been applied to severe circumstances such as missing persons and dementia as well as relational ambiguity. Saying that ghosting can have an ambiguous-loss structure does not mean a dating-app nonresponse is equivalent in magnitude, consequence, or clinical significance to those circumstances. The shared feature is unresolved status, not equal severity.
Is Ghosting Trauma?
Ghosting can be painful, destabilizing, humiliating, or intensely upsetting. Those experiences are real. The scientific ghosting literature reviewed here does not support treating ghosting itself as a diagnosis or automatically describing every episode as psychological trauma.
Research has documented hurt feelings, sadness, threatened psychological needs, uncertainty, lower self-esteem, continued attachment, and slower short-term recovery in some paradigms. It has also documented null findings, including no detected sleep effect in a brief low-investment experimental context. The evidence therefore supports a range of responses rather than a universal clinical outcome.
If distress becomes persistent, severe, or functionally impairing—for example, if sleep, work, eating, safety, or daily functioning are substantially disrupted—the important question is the person's actual symptoms and functioning, not whether the event can be given a dramatic label. Clinical assessment should evaluate those symptoms on their own terms.
Does Ghosting Hurt Because the Brain Treats It Like Physical Pain?
Popular explanations often say that the brain “cannot tell the difference” between ghosting and physical injury. That is stronger than the ghosting evidence supports. General social-rejection neuroscience has investigated overlap between neural systems involved in social and physical pain, but the studies discussed in this article do not show that being ghosted is neurologically identical to being physically injured.
For this search intent, the better-supported mechanisms are behavioral and psychological: rejection, threatened belonging and control, uncertainty about relationship status, lack of an explicit endpoint, ongoing attachment, and continued monitoring or contact intentions. Those mechanisms are directly represented in ghosting studies. A vivid neuroscience metaphor is not needed to explain why the experience can hurt.
What Can Help After Being Ghosted?
There is no validated clinical “ghosting recovery protocol.” Practical advice should therefore be labeled accurately. The following steps are evidence-informed ways of reducing unnecessary uncertainty and protecting functioning; they are not a treatment package proven in randomized trials for ghosting.
Separate the observable fact from the unknown explanation
The observable fact may be: “They stopped responding after we had been in regular contact.” The unknown explanation may include dozens of possibilities. Keeping those categories separate prevents an absence of information from turning automatically into a negative verdict about your worth, attractiveness, intelligence, attachment style, or future relationships.
This distinction is especially justified by research showing that ghostees systematically underestimate ghosters' care or negative feelings in some paradigms. Park and Klein (2024) and Li et al. (2026) both show that the internal state of the silent person can differ from what the recipient imagines.
Decide what information is realistically obtainable
When communication has stopped, repeated attempts to obtain a definitive explanation may or may not produce more information. The research does not identify one universally correct number of messages to send. A reasonable boundary is to decide what one clear, respectful attempt at communication would look like in your context—and what you will do if there is still no response.
This is ordinary communication guidance, not a clinical protocol. The point is to shift from unlimited uncertainty-seeking to a defined decision rule you control. If there are safety concerns, harassment, coercion, or legal issues, a generic dating-communication rule is not sufficient and the relevant safety context should govern what happens next.
Notice whether checking is giving information or only restarting the question
Checking online status, rereading messages, monitoring social media, or repeatedly opening a dating profile can feel like information gathering. Sometimes it provides actual information; often it produces another ambiguous cue. The 2025 experimental dating work found that ghosted participants intended to monitor the target online more than explicitly rejected participants. Szczesniak et al. (2025) did not test whether reducing monitoring speeds recovery, so that recommendation should remain an evidence-informed inference rather than a proven intervention.
Allow a relationship to be over before every question is answered
An explanation can be meaningful, but an explanation is not the only possible marker of an ending. When the behavioral evidence becomes clear enough that contact has ceased, a person can make a decision about their own participation even without access to the other person's full reasons. This is not certainty about motive. It is a boundary about what you will treat as an available relationship.
For people who remain caught in relationship-specific doubt, the broader science of relationship uncertainty can help distinguish “I do not know why they did this” from “I must know why before I can act.” Those are psychologically different problems.
Use support for the distress you actually have
If the main experience is ordinary sadness or disappointment, support may mean friends, routine, sleep, work, exercise, and time. If the main problem is persistent intrusive romantic preoccupation after rejection, the relevant evidence may be closer to limerence after rejection. If symptoms become severe or substantially impair daily functioning, a licensed mental-health professional can assess the symptoms themselves rather than treating “being ghosted” as a diagnosis.
What Current Research Can and Cannot Tell Us
Ghosting research has improved rapidly. The field now includes preregistered experiments, multi-day experimental paradigms, cross-national comparisons, reviews, qualitative work, and live-interaction studies. The 2025–2026 literature is substantially more informative than older discussions based almost entirely on anecdotes or retrospective dating-app surveys.
Several limitations remain. Many studies use emerging-adult or university samples. Some ask participants to recall past ghosting, which introduces memory and selection biases. Some simulate early-stage dating rather than established relationships. Measures and definitions of ghosting vary. Long-term prospective studies of high-investment relationships are still limited. Evidence about mechanisms is often stronger for association or plausible interpretation than for isolated causal pathways.
The strongest current conclusion is therefore layered. Direct evidence shows that ghosting can produce rejection-related distress and can sustain attachment or monitoring more than explicit rejection in controlled dating paradigms. Ghosting-specific and broader rejection research support threats to belonging, self-esteem, and control. Qualitative and relational research supports uncertainty and lack of closure as central features. Multi-day experiments show slower recovery on some outcomes. Yet effect size, duration, and clinical significance vary by person and context, and one episode of ghosting cannot diagnose either party.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why does ghosting hurt so much even if we were never officially together?
Relationship labels are only one source of psychological investment. Expectations, frequency of contact, perceived possibility, attraction, self-disclosure, and uncertainty can all matter before a formal relationship exists. Experimental studies of early dating show that ghosting can produce negative emotion and continued attachment even in developing rather than established relationships. At the same time, a brief low-investment interaction may produce much smaller effects, as the 2026 sleep trial illustrates.
Does ghosting hurt more than a breakup?
There is no universal ranking. Direct studies comparing ghosting with explicit rejection find that both can be painful, with ghosting showing distinctive costs in exclusion, continued attachment, monitoring intentions, and slower recovery in some paradigms. A high-investment explicit breakup can still be far more painful than a low-investment ghosting episode. The scientifically defensible comparison is outcome by outcome and context by context.
Why do I keep checking their social media after being ghosted?
Checking can function as an attempt to reduce uncertainty: Is the person active? Did they leave the app? Are they seeing someone else? Are they likely to return? Experimental research shows greater monitoring intentions after ghosting than after explicit rejection. That does not make checking a disorder. It indicates that an ambiguous ending can keep information-seeking active.
Does ghosting mean the person never cared about me?
No. Silence does not allow that conclusion. Experiments by Park and Klein found that ghostees underestimated how much ghosters cared about their well-being, and 2026 research by Li and colleagues found that ghostees underestimated how bad ghosters felt about not responding. These are group-level findings, not proof about any specific person, but they directly contradict the idea that ghosting reliably reveals indifference.
How long should it take to get over being ghosted?
Research does not provide a valid universal timeline. Multi-day experimental work shows that some responses to ghosting can recover more slowly than responses to direct rejection over days, but that is not a clinical timetable for real relationships. Duration will depend on relationship context, investment, previous uncertainty, ongoing digital exposure, the person's broader stress load, and what the loss represented.
Is ghosting emotional abuse?
Ghosting is a behavior description, not an abuse diagnosis. Unexplained withdrawal can be hurtful and, in some contexts, can occur within a broader pattern of coercion or abuse. The behavior alone does not establish that pattern, motive, or diagnosis. Safety and abuse assessment require the broader relationship context.
Can ghosting cause anxiety or depression?
Ghosting studies document negative emotion, uncertainty, threatened psychological needs, and lower self-esteem. Those outcomes are not the same as a diagnosed anxiety or depressive disorder. A study that finds sadness, worry, or lower mood after rejection cannot by itself establish that ghosting causes a clinical disorder. If symptoms are persistent or impairing, they should be assessed as symptoms rather than inferred from the event label.
Do I need an explanation from the person who ghosted me in order to move on?
An explanation may help, but research does not show that recovery requires receiving one. What ghosting uniquely removes is reliable access to the other person's account of what happened. That means waiting for perfect interpersonal certainty can leave the recipient dependent on a source that may never respond. A person can choose an endpoint for their own participation without claiming certainty about the other person's motives.
Related Articles
References
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. PubMed · DOI
Freedman, G., & Powell, D. N. (2024). Ghosting: A common but unpopular rejection strategy. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 18(12), e70026. DOI
Freedman, G., & Powell, D. N. (2026). A cross-national comparison of ghosting knowledge, attitudes, intentions, and behaviors in friendships and romantic relationships spanning twelve countries. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, OnlineFirst. DOI
Freedman, G., Powell, D. N., Le, B., & Williams, K. D. (2024). Emotional experiences of ghosting. The Journal of Social Psychology, 164(3), 367–386. PubMed · DOI
Gerber, J., & Wheeler, L. (2009). On being rejected: A meta-analysis of experimental research on rejection. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(5), 468–488. PubMed · DOI
Imai, T., Okura, M., & Takahashi, Y. (2016). Worrying weighs on your partner's heart: Exploring how rumination about a romantic relationship is associated with relational uncertainty using dyadic data. Japanese Journal of Communication Studies, 44(2), 135–153. DOI
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. DOI
Langlais, M. R., Pons, A., Dechert, O., Murvich, A. M., & Bigalke, J. A. (2026). Resilience to ghosting? A randomized controlled trial examining the consequences of ghosting on sleep quality in potential romantic relationships. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1742356. PubMed · DOI
Leckfor, C. M., Wood, N. R., Slatcher, R. B., & Hales, A. H. (2023). From close to ghost: Examining the relationship between the need for closure, intentions to ghost, and reactions to being ghosted. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 40(8), 2422–2444. DOI
LeFebvre, L. E., & Fan, X. (2020). Ghosted?: Navigating strategies for reducing uncertainty and implications surrounding ambiguous loss. Personal Relationships, 27(2), 433–459. DOI
Li, S., Zheng, C., & Schroeder, J. (2026). The pain of ghosting? People underestimate how bad their conversation partners feel about not responding. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, advance online publication. PubMed · DOI
Pancani, L., Aureli, N., & Riva, P. (2022). Relationship dissolution strategies: Comparing the psychological consequences of ghosting, orbiting, and rejection. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 16(2), Article 9. DOI
Park, Y., & Klein, N. (2024). Ghosting: Social rejection without explanation, but not without care. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 153(7), 1765–1789. PubMed · DOI
Szczesniak, A. L., Pierce, M. E., & Spielmann, S. S. (2025). Give up the ghost: Emotional and behavioral responses to ambiguous rejection. Personal Relationships, 32(3), e70018. DOI
Telari, A., Pancani, L., & Riva, P. (2025). The phantom pain of ghosting: Multi-day experiments comparing the reactions to ghosting and rejection. Computers in Human Behavior, 172, 108756. DOI