TL;DR Summary:
Thereâs a criterion for ranking these that has nothing to do with duration, chemistry, or whether you ever slept together. Once you see it, the ranking gets obvious and a little horrifying.
The number one spot goes to the one with the least physical evidence. No sex. Sometimes not even a kiss.
One of these ranks LOWER than youâd expect for a reason youâre not gonna like: it wrecked you loudly, and everyone knew about it.
Thereâs a psychologist at Columbia who studies secrets, and his main finding explains exactly why the one you never told anyone about is the one still running at 2am.
Three reasons these hold on this long. Only one of them is about him.
And a three-step protocol for closing the loop yourself, since nobody is coming over here to close it for you.
Letâs Talk About the Ones That âDidnât Countâ
Iâve had women describe a six-week talking stage to me in more detail than I get about their marriages.
Same specificity. More emotion. And way more shame about still being upset, because âit wasnât even a relationship, I donât know why Iâm like this.â
So lemme say something Iâve noticed after nearly a decade doing thisâŚ
Oftentimes the relationship that takes you the longest to get over is the one you canât prove happened.
Not the marriage. Not the four-year one with the shared lease and the dog you still think about.
The one with no photos, no anniversary, no mutual friends whoâd validate you, and no moment you could point to and say âthatâs when it ended.â
Iâve watched women walk out of a divorce in eleven months and still be carrying a five-month situationship from 2022 around in their purse.
Not because sheâs dramatic. Because her brain never got the one thing it needed to file it away, and Iâm gonna show you exactly what that is.
So today weâre ranking seven types of almost-relationships by how long each one keeps you.
Then the three reasons they stick (the third one is gonna sting, sorry).
And of course, a protocol for actually closing the loop, you know, I wouldnât leave you hanging :)
Letâs dive in!
First, How Iâm Ranking These
I ranked these thinking about how your nervous system keeps score.
Which means recovery time doesnât track how long it lasted or how much it hurt.
It tracks how much unfinished prediction it left behind, and how little permission you had to grieve it.
Two dials. Thatâs it.
Unfinished prediction: your brain forecast that this was going somewhere and never got a result. Confirmed or denied, either would do. It got static instead, and a prediction that never resolves stays active. Which is why youâre still running scenarios about a man who stopped texting in March.
Permission: whether anybody, including you, treated the loss as real. Witnessed grief moves. Dismissed grief goes underground and keeps running. Dr. Kenneth Doka calls this disenfranchised grief. Itâs loss the world doesnât consider legitimate, so it never gets the rituals or the check-in texts or the three days off work.
Run those two dials on any almost-relationship, and the ranking builds itself, which is how the short ones end up outranking the long ones.
Ight, letâs break âem down!
#7: The Talking Stage That Never Graduated
Four months of texting. Maybe three dates. Possibly zero.
Voice notes, memes at midnight, a thread so long it had its own inside jokes and a shared vocabulary.
And then it just... thinned out. Slower replies. Shorter ones. Now he likes your stories but doesnât respond to them, which is somehow worse than nothing???
It lands at seven because the investment was genuinely low, and thereâs usually enough absurdity available to snap you out of it (âI have never seen this man eat food in personâ).
But itâs ON the list. If youâve been carrying one for eight months while telling everybody youâre fine, youâre not crazy.
You just got hit by the cleanest reinforcement schedule ever invented.
Why It Sticks
Dopamine doesnât fire hardest for reward. It fires hardest for reward you canât predict.
A man who responds instantly every time is pleasant and forgettable.
A man who responds Tuesday instantly, vanishes Wednesday, and sends a paragraph at 1am Thursday is running a variable ratio schedule on your reward system.
As Iâve mentioned many times, this is the same schedule slot machines use, and for that same reason, itâs the hardest one to extinguish.
Then thereâs the second problem⌠You had almost no data.
You never watched him handle a canceled flight, or be boring on a Sunday, or get weird about money.
Your brain is a prediction machine, and it does not tolerate blank space, so it filled every gap with the most available material, which was YOU.
You werenât obsessed with him. You were obsessed with a character you were mostly writing. (Sorry, not sorry...)
What She Calls It in Session
Nobody walks in and says âtalking stage.â What I actually get is:
âWe were basically together, we just never really...â and then a trail off
âI know it sounds stupid because we only met up twiceâ
âIt was just really easy to talk to him, you know?â
âI think I built it up in my headâ (said as self-criticism, when itâs actually the correct diagnosis)
#6: The Friend You Started Sleeping WithâŚ
Youâve known him for years. Then one night the category changed, and nobody announced it.
Which means there was never a day it changed back.
Heâs still in the group chat, still at the birthday dinners, still gonna be at the wedding in OctoberâŚ
Number six, and the ONLY reason it isnât higher is that proximity cuts both ways: you get to watch him be mediocre in real time, which quietly does some of the work for you.
Why It Sticks
Extinction learning doesnât delete the old association.
It builds a competing one on top, and the new learning is heavily context-dependent.
Which is a technical way of saying: your brain can learn âheâs not mineâ in your apartment on a Tuesday, and then completely lose that learning the second you walk into a bar where heâs standing by the pool table doing the thing he does.
Same room, same people, same lighting. Old file reopens.
And thereâs no ending to point at. A breakup is at minimum an event.
This had no event. Nothing announced, nothing severed, nothing mourned, and the man never went anywhere.
So how would your nervous system know itâs over? Nothing ever happened.
#5: The Label Ban
He told you. Up front, first month, clear as day: heâs not looking for anything serious right now.
And then he called you every night for five months.
Met your sister. Kept a toothbrush at your place. Got visibly weird when you mentioned another guy.
So which one was the truth?
Your body already answered that question, and it wasnât wrong to.
Why It Sticks
Your attachment system doesnât run on announcements. It runs on contingency, meaning it tracks what predicts what, over and over, below the level of your opinions about it.
He said ânothing seriousâ once. Then he behaved like a partner roughly 400 times.
You weighted the 400 over the one comment.
Thatâs not a malfunction. What a man repeatedly DOES has always been the better predictor of what heâll do next than what he announced at the start.
When it ends, though, you get zero grief permission.
Not from your friends (âbabe, he told youâ), not from him (âI was always honest with youâ), and worst of all, not from yourself.
So the pain converts into something more socially acceptable, and what it converts into is self-blame.
Which you can hold indefinitely, because unlike grief, self-blame has no endpoint. Grief burns out. Self-criticism compounds.
You didnât ignore a red flag.
You correctly read five months of behavioral evidence, and he collected the benefits of a relationship while keeping a sentence in his back pocket that made it your fault.
Both things are true: he was technically honest, and what he did was unkind. Those donât cancel out.
What She Calls It in Session
âHe was just emotionally unavailableâ
âI knew what I was signing up forâ (she did not sign up for five months of it)
âThatâs on me for catching feelingsâ
âI shouldâve left at like week threeâ
#4: The On-Again, Off-Again
Four rounds. Maybe six. You genuinely canât remember if the Barcelona trip was round two or round three.
Every time you get about three weeks of clarity, he shows up different. Softer. Self-aware. Sometimes heâs been to therapy, which is the most dangerous version of him, lowkey.
Youâre probably expecting this at number one, and I get it. By sheer volume of suffering, itâs a heavyweight.
But itâs number four for a reason. Iâll explain.
Why It Sticks
Two mechanisms, stacked.
First, partial reinforcement. Behavior that gets rewarded intermittently is MORE resistant to extinction than behavior rewarded every time.
So every reunion isnât just a reunion. Itâs a training rep, and what it trains is: waiting works.
Second, the bigger one: memories become briefly editable when theyâre reactivated, then they re-stabilize.
That window is where old emotional learning actually updates.
In fact, itâs the neuroscience mechanism underneath most real therapeutic change.
You were about four weeks into that window every single time he came back.
So the file never finished updating.
It kept getting reopened at the exact moment it was starting to close, which is why you can have three years of evidence and still not KNOW your safe.
Dr. RenĂŠ Daileyâs research lab has studied cyclical relationships for over a decade, and the consistent finding is that on-off partners report more relational uncertainty and more distress than stable couples OR people who ended it cleanly.
Uncertainty is the active ingredient. Not the breakups.
So why only four?
Because you have an absolute MOUNTAIN of data on this man. Youâve seen him at his worst, repeatedly, with witnesses. Idealization canât survive that.
And you had permission. Your friends knew. They had a dossier and a group chat named after him. You cried in public about it more than once.
Loud grief is grief that gets to finish.
Thatâs the whole reason this one recovers faster than the four quiet ones below, once you actually make the final cut.
#3: The Wrong Timing One
Iâve lived this one out in real time; it sucks.
He was moving to Denver. Or he was two months out of a seven-year relationship.
Or you were in different life stages, or he was âjust not in a place to give you what you deserve,â which he said while looking devastated about it.
And the connection was REAL.
Thatâs what makes this one different from everything above it. There was something actually there.
There was also an obstacle, and the obstacle is the problem.
Why This One Wonât Close
The obstacle protected him from ever being evaluated.
You never watched him get bored of you. Never saw how he handles your bad week, whether he shows up when itâs inconvenient, or what heâs like when thereâs nothing left to be charming about.
Love is built on capacity, not potential. Who is he on average, not at his best?
And the whole thing lived at his best, because the circumstances never let it run long enough to average out.
So whatâs preserved in your memory isnât a man. Itâs an unfalsified hypothesis.
And a hypothesis you were never allowed to test stays interesting forever, which is why he shows up in your head at inconvenient times looking suspiciously well-lit.
Thereâs a second trap the other six donât have: this one gets socially rewarded.
Tell people about the wrong-timing guy, and they donât reality-test you.
They go, âaw, thatâs so sad.â Sometimes âyou never know, maybe in a few years.â
Your friends are accidentally maintaining the loop for you, which is a hell of a thing to accuse them of at brunch, so maybe donât do that lolâŚ
âThe timing was just offâ might be the most expensive sentence in modern dating, and it gets said to me at least once a week.
#2: The One That Ended Right Before It Got Real
This oneâs cruel, and itâs cruel in a very specific way.
It was ESCALATING. Thatâs the whole thing.
More frequent, more intimate, more future-tense.
He was introducing you to people. There was a trip being loosely discussed. Youâd started saying âweâ without noticing.
And then it stopped.
No fight. No obstacle. No speech.
Just a gradual cooling that you noticed about nine days after it started, and by the time you could name it, it had already happened.
Why This One Wonât Close
You lost two things, and youâve only been grieving one of them.
Him, and the version of your life youâd already started living in.
Researchers studied what happens to the self after a relationship ends, and found that the drop in self-concept clarity (how clearly you know who you are) independently predicted emotional distress.
Separate from sadness about the partner. Its own thing.
Youâd started reorganizing around a future.
Then the future got deleted, and the part of you living there had nowhere to go.
Then thereâs the ambiguity, which is the real killer.
Dr. Pauline Boss built a framework around what she calls ambiguous loss: loss with no verification, no confirmation, nothing to point at.
Her core finding across decades is that ambiguity itself freezes grief.
Not the severity of the loss. The uncertainty.
Dr. Leslie LeFebvre studied this in people whoâd been ghosted and found they engage in ongoing âaccount-making,â constructing and reconstructing explanations that never terminate, because no external information exists to stop the process.
Youâre not overthinking.
Youâre running an unbounded search on a problem with no answer key in the room :/
What She Calls It in Session
âI think I overthought it and scared him offâ
âI must have done something; it was going so wellâ
âI just want to know what happened, thatâs allâ
âIâm not even mad, Iâm just confusedâ (she is extremely mad, and the confusion is whatâs been holding the anger hostage)
#1: The Emotional Affair
One of you was taken. Maybe both of you.
And nothing happened. Thatâs the part everyone leads with, including you, and itâs the exact reason this is number one instead of unranked.
Nothing happened, technically.
No sex. Maybe not even a kiss.
What there WAS, was the entire emotional architecture of a relationship.
He knew about your dad. You knew what he sounded like when he was tired.
He was the first person you wanted to tell when anything happened, and at some point that stopped seeming remarkable.
Then it ended. He recommitted, or you ended it because you couldnât keep living in it, or someone found out, or it just went quiet.
And you told absolutely nobody.
Itâs number one because itâs the only one where all three engines run at once with the pressure valve welded shut.
Letâs start with the data.
Whatever you had was assembled entirely out of peak material.
No logistics, no dishes, no money conversations, no watching him be short with a waiter because his day was bad.
So thereâs nothing to disconfirm.
Less counter-evidence than on any of the six above this one, and more emotional intimacy.
That combination is unique to this one.
Plus the grief has nowhere to land, because guilt gets there first.
You canât be sad about him without first prosecuting yourself, and the prosecution is very good at its job.
So the sadness never gets processed as sadness. It gets filed as evidence against you.
And then the secrecy, which is where this gets dark.
Dr. Michael Slepian at Columbia has the most interesting work on this.
Across ten studies and more than 13,000 secrets, he found the harm of a secret doesnât come from the moments of actively hiding it.
Those are rare, brief, and people handle them fine.
It comes from mind-wandering to it. From being alone with it.
It was the frequency of spontaneously thinking about a secret that predicted lower well-being.
Not the frequency of concealing it.
It was never the hiding that was hurting you.
Itâs that youâve been alone with it, at red lights and in the shower and at 2am, with no one to say it out loud to and no one to tell you it made sense.
Every other loss on this list got SOMETHING.
A friend who said âhe was trash anyway.â A cry in a car with somebody in the passenger seat. One drunk 45-minute recap that got it outta your body for a night.
This one got nothing. Not a single witness, start to finish.
A loss with no witness doesnât get smaller with time. It just gets quieter, and quiet is not the same as resolved.
So itâs still running. Years later, on a random Thursday, fully intact, because it never got the one thing every other grief gets by default: somebody else agreeing it happened.
Oh, and it never arrives in session as âI had an emotional affair.â
It arrives as:
âThereâs someone from work I was close to, itâs not a big dealâ
âIt was never physical, so itâs not like it countsâ
âHeâs just a really good friend, or he wasâ
âIâve never actually said this out loud to anyoneâ
That last one is usually said about twenty minutes in, right after a long pause.
Alright, So Why Are You Still In This
The ranking explains why these are hard.
It doesnât explain what led you to each of them.
Iâve found 3 common reasons when working with my peeps.
Reason 1: Unfinished Heartbreak
Different man. Different city. Different story about why this oneâs complicated.
Same shape.
And at some point youâve done the math and landed on âI must just attract these men,â but thatâs not whatâs happening.
Whatâs actually happening is quieter and a lot more fixable: certain Parts of you find certain dynamics unusually compelling.
Not good. Not safe. Familiar.
And familiar is the thing your system keeps mistaking for right.
Because a Part that spent years doing a job is very, very good at spotting an opening to do it again.
Hereâs the roster of Parts I see the most often. See who you recognize:
The Chosen One. âIf someone this unavailable picks me, it proves Iâm enough.â
The Fixer. âHeâs not unavailable, heâs hurt.â
The Cool Girl. âDonât ask for too much.â
The Panic. âDonât lose him.â
The Translator. âThis is chemistry.â
Every one of these was built at a time in your life when it worked, and it protected something real.
Theyâre just still running the protocol in rooms where it isnât needed anymore.
The hardest part is that you almost always clock the problem correctly; you just ignore the signalâŚ
You notice: he disappears after we get close. A Part of you says: âheâs scared because he likes me so much.â
You notice: I canât bring up what I need. A Part of you says: âI just need to give him more space.â
You notice: Iâm doing all of the emotional labor. A Part of you says: ârelationships take work.â
You notice: his words and his behavior donât match. A Part of you says: âbut I know who he really is underneath all this.â
You didnât miss a red flag. Not one. You saw every one of them.
They just got explained away in under two seconds by a Part with a job to protect you.
So you donât need a better detector.
Your detector is excellent. What you need to do is listen to it.
So the question is: What did I notice, before a Part explained it away?
Thatâs the whole compass, and itâs inside of you, not outside.
Reason 2: You Were Sold on What COULD Be, Not What IS
You werenât in a relationship with him. You were in a relationship with the version of him that was always about to show up.
The one who was gonna be ready in a few months. The one who was like this because of his ex.
The one you saw ONE time, for maybe an hour, when he was open and vulnerable, and you thought, âthere he is, thatâs who he actually is.â
He wasnât. That was his ceiling, not his floor. And youâve been dating the ceiling.
And the almost is the perfect habitat for this, because it never lasts long enough to produce an average.
A real relationship forces the average on you whether you like it or not.
An almost gives you a handful of spectacular data points and cuts before the mean shows up.
You didnât misjudge him. You graded him on a sample too small to be real, and he picked the sample.
Reason 3: Some PART of You Picked the Ambiguity
An almost-relationship gives you the full experience of longing with none of the exposure.
You get to be devoted. You get the enormity of it. You get intensity a real relationship rarely delivers past month eight.
And you never once have to be fully known by someone who stays.
Now think about which of those is more dangerous to a nervous system that learned early that being fully seen gets followed by being left.
Longing is survivable. It hurts, but itâs a pain you already know how to hold.
Being chosen, consistently, by a man who sticks around long enough to see all of it? Thatâs the unrehearsed one.
If every relationship youâve picked in five years had a built-in exit, that is not bad luck, unfortunately...
Thatâs a selection strategy, and itâs protecting you from something.
And that Part of you is not sabotaging you.
It built this strategy at a point in your life when it was correct.
Something taught it that full exposure gets punished; it believed that, and itâs been running protection ever since.
Itâs not the enemy. Itâs working off a wildly outdated threat assessment, and itâs never once been asked to update.
So, what can you do about these things?
You read my mind (or did I read yours?) :)
What To Actually Do About It
Three steps, one per reason.
Figure out which reason is loudest and start there.
Step 1: Deliver the Verdict Yourself (for unfinished heartbreak)
Dr. Pauline Boss wrote a paper with Dr. Donna Carnes called âThe Myth of Closure,â arguing that closure as most people picture it (a clean external event that ends the pain) mostly doesnât exist, and waiting on it keeps people frozen for years.
So stop waiting for him to hand it over. Youâre issuing it.
This has 3 parts.
Part One
Write the behavioral record.
Every significant thing he DID, in order, with dates where youâve got them.
Only behavior. âTold me he wasnât ready, then asked to meet my sister in April.â
Not âhe was scared of intimacy.â
Motive lines are what keep this open.
A story with an unknown variable can be re-run forever, and yours has been running on that variable since the day it ended.
Part Two
Write the verdict.
One sentence, plain language, no âbut,â no generous interpretation tacked on the end.
âHe was not willing to be in a relationship with me, and he was willing to take all the benefits of one.â
Thatâs a verdict.
âI think he had a lot going on and maybe wasnât in a place to...â is a defense attorney, and sheâs been billing you for a year.
Part Three
Say it out loud, then destroy the record.
Out loud matters. Reading it silently keeps this inside the same rumination loop thatâs been failing you.
Speaking engages your body, which is the system actually holding it.
Then burn it, shred it, delete it. The destruction IS the ritual, and this loss never got one.
Hard rule: you run this ONCE. Going back to reread it isnât processing, thatâs relapse in a productive outfit.
I go through the full version of this process in my free masterclass, including what to do when the verdict wonât stick and you catch yourself relitigating it a week later.
Step 2: Capacity Column, Potential Column (for what COULD be)
Two columns on one page.
Left column, capacity: what he consistently, repeatedly provided. Things that happened more than twice.
Right column, potential: what he said, implied, showed you once, or what you filled in yourself.
Be brutal about the sorting. âHe was so emotionally intelligentâ goes right, unless he used that intelligence ON you in a moment when it cost him something.
Then count. For most women running this, the left column has four items and the right one runs off the page.
That gap is the relationship youâve been grieving.
It never existed outside your head, and Iâm not saying that to be cruel.
Iâm saying it because you canât grieve your way out of something that didnât happen.
You can only stop maintaining it.
Step 3: Find the PART That Keeps Picking the Exit (for choosing the ambiguity)
Steps one and two clean up what already happened.
This one is about what happens next.
And actually do it, donât just read it. Hour alone, phone in another room.
Find it in your body. Picture yourself with someone stable, consistent, available, who isnât going anywhere. Notice what happens physically. Chest tightens? Something drops? Sudden boredom (the most common one, and the most misread)? Donât analyze it. Just locate it.
Notice how you feel toward it. Annoyed? Ashamed? See if you can find even 5% curiosity instead. You canât get to know a part of yourself youâre currently prosecuting.
Unblend. âThis is a part of me. Itâs not all of me.â Youâre not a woman addicted to unavailable men. Youâre a woman with a PART of her thatâs committed to keeping an exit open.
Ask what itâs afraid would happen if it didnât do this job. Donât tell it itâs wrong. Just ask. The answer is almost always some version of if he never fully has me, he can never fully leave. If something from age 6 shows up, thatâs not a tangent. Thatâs the source.
Update it. That part gathered its information when you were small, had no power, and couldnât leave. Nobodyâs told it youâre an adult with your own money, your own home, and the demonstrated ability to survive being left. Tell it. Not as a mantra. As new information for a system working off a file it wrote decades ago.
Then two rules, so you donât end up back here in March with somebody new:
The ambiguity clock. Undefined is fine early. Undefined past a point you set IN ADVANCE, in writing, before youâre attached, is information. Pick the number today. Eight weeks, ten, whatever fits your life. Deciding what youâll tolerate while youâre already bonded isnât deciding; thatâs negotiating with yourself on his behalf.
The narration catch. The second you hear yourself explaining his potential to a friend, thatâs the tripwire. Not a red flag about him. A data point about which column youâre living in.
These are small reps. Theyâre boring.
And theyâre the difference between reading this blog and not doing this again next year.
One Last Thing
The thing youâve been calling âIâm still not over himâ has mostly never been about him.
Itâs been a question your brain hasnât been able to close, and a grief that nobody ever gave you permission to have.
Neither of those requires his participation to resolve, which is convenient, because he was never going to participate.
Youâve been waiting on a verdict from a man who left the building.
You can issue it yourself this week, and your nervous system will accept it, because it was never about who delivered it.
It was about whether it ever got delivered at all.
The ones you canât prove happened are still real.
You just have to be the one who says so.
Start there.
Everything else gets easier once that loop is closed, promise!
Youâve got this, and until next time⌠Live Heroically đ§
Ready to Complete Heartbreak in 63 Days?
Start Here: She Rises Community.
Inside is a 63-day program of the exact things I did myself to go from wrecked to regulated using neuroscience.
Plus, Youâll Have Access To:
A 63-day program to go from wrecked to regulated
Live coaching calls with me every week
A team of IFS practitioners
Private workshops and masterclasses with therapists and scientists
1-on-1 sessions
A room full of women doing this beside you
If youâre ready to become emotionally available, develop secure attachment, and attract healthy potential partners, this is for you!
The first 7 days are free. Join below!
Supporting Research
Fisher, H. E., Brown, L. L., Aron, A., Strong, G., & Mashek, D. (2010). Reward, addiction, and emotion regulation systems associated with rejection in love. Journal of Neurophysiology, 104(1), 51-60. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00784.2009
Aron, A., Fisher, H., Mashek, D. J., Strong, G., Li, H., & Brown, L. L. (2005). Reward, motivation, and emotion systems associated with early-stage intense romantic love. Journal of Neurophysiology, 94(1), 327-337. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00838.2004
Boss, P. (2007). Ambiguous loss theory: Challenges for scholars and practitioners. Family Relations, 56(2), 105-110. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2007.00444.x
Boss, P., & Carnes, D. (2012). The myth of closure. Family Process, 51(4), 456-469. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12005
Doka, K. J. (Ed.). (2002). Disenfranchised grief: New directions, challenges, and strategies for practice. Research Press.
LeFebvre, L. E., Allen, M., Rasner, R. D., Garstad, S., Wilms, A., & Parrish, C. (2019). Ghosting in emerging adultsâ romantic relationships: The digital dissolution disappearance strategy. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 39(2), 125-150. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276236618820519
LeFebvre, L. E., & Fan, X. (2020). Ghosted?: Navigating strategies for reducing uncertainty and implications surrounding ambiguous loss. Personal Relationships, 27(2), 433-459. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12322
LeFebvre, L. E., Rasner, R. D., & Allen, M. (2020). âI guess Iâll never knowâŚâ: Non-initiators account-making after being ghosted. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 25(5), 395-415. https://doi.org/10.1080/15325024.2019.1694299
Slotter, E. B., Gardner, W. L., & Finkel, E. J. (2010). Who am I without you? The influence of romantic breakup on the self-concept. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(2), 147-160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209352250
Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1986). Love and the expansion of self: Understanding attraction and satisfaction. Hemisphere.
Dailey, R. M., Rossetto, K. R., Pfiester, A., & Surra, C. A. (2009). A qualitative analysis of on-again/off-again romantic relationships: âItâs up and down, all around.â Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26(4), 443-466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407509351035
Dailey, R. M., Pfiester, A., Jin, B., Beck, G., & Clark, G. (2009). On-again/off-again dating relationships: How are they different from other dating relationships? Personal Relationships, 16(1), 23-47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2009.01208.x
Monk, J. K., Ogolsky, B. G., & Oswald, R. F. (2018). Coming out and getting back in: Relationship cycling and distress in same- and different-sex relationships. Family Relations, 67(4), 523-538. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12336
Slepian, M. L., Chun, J. S., & Mason, M. F. (2017). The experience of secrecy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000085
Slepian, M. L., & Moulton-Tetlock, E. (2019). Confiding secrets and well-being. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(4), 472-484. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550618765069
Ferster, C. B., & Skinner, B. F. (1957). Schedules of reinforcement. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Bouton, M. E. (2004). Context and behavioral processes in extinction. Learning & Memory, 11(5), 485-494. https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.78804
Monfils, M. H., Cowansage, K. K., Klann, E., & LeDoux, J. E. (2009). Extinction-reconsolidation boundaries: Key to persistent attenuation of fear memories. Science, 324(5929), 951-955. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1167975
Schiller, D., Monfils, M. H., Raio, C. M., Johnson, D. C., LeDoux, J. E., & Phelps, E. A. (2010). Preventing the return of fear in humans using reconsolidation update mechanisms. Nature, 463(7277), 49-53. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08637
Schwartz, R. C., & Sweezy, M. (2020). Internal Family Systems therapy (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
Leave a Comment
Which one did I rank wrong? Lemme know below!
This article is educational in nature and not a substitute for therapy. If attachment wounds or relational trauma are impacting your well-being, working with a trauma therapist can help your nervous system relearn safety in connection.
So good! And of course the payoff from doing this work is freedom from these almost loves, which opens up space for real love.
I just went through #3. Itâs been brutal. This article was so helpful to me! Thank you!