Attachment Conflict, Boundary Ambiguity, and Emotional Retraction in Asymmetric Relationships
Attachment Conflict, Boundary Ambiguity, and Emotional Retraction in Asymmetric Relationships
A Psychological Case Analysis
Abstract
This paper examines a hypothetical interpersonal case involving asymmetrical romantic investment between a male subject and a female friend who is pregnant, partnered, and experiencing depressive symptoms. The relationship is characterized by intense emotional disclosure, subsequent withdrawal, ambiguity concerning the meaning of prior interactions, and eventual establishment of firm interpersonal boundaries.
The male subject experiences the reversal as emotional whiplash and engages in self-blame and retrospective interpretation, whereas the female subject later characterizes aspects of the interaction as inappropriate, uncomfortable, or boundary violating. Drawing from attachment theory, cognitive dissonance theory, interpersonal boundary and relational uncertainty models, research on perinatal affective functioning, depression and emotion regulation, unrequited love, interpersonal surveillance, and psychodynamic defense mechanisms, this paper develops a multifactorial account of the relational rupture.
Particular attention is given to the possibility that affection and withdrawal may both have been subjectively genuine at different moments, without requiring deception or pathology. The analysis also introduces romantic leakage as a descriptive, nonclinical term for the inadvertent expression of romantic investment within an ostensibly platonic relationship.
The paper concludes that ambiguous emotional reciprocity combined with unequal investment can create self-reinforcing uncertainty, heightened monitoring, defensive reinterpretation, and distress. Healthy resolution requires acceptance of present boundaries, cessation of efforts to obtain retrospective emotional certainty, independent processing of grief and ambiguity, and careful separation of past relational meaning from present relational consent.
Keywords: attachment, unrequited love, relational uncertainty, cognitive dissonance, pregnancy, depression, interpersonal boundaries, emotional withdrawal
Introduction
Close relationships are not always organized into clearly defined categories. Friendship, emotional intimacy, romantic attraction, caregiving, and attachment can overlap, sometimes producing a relationship in which each participant understands the same interactions differently. Such ambiguity becomes especially consequential when one participant develops substantial romantic feelings while the other is committed elsewhere or otherwise unable or unwilling to form a romantic relationship.
The present case concerns a male subject who develops romantic attachment toward a female friend who is pregnant, partnered, and experiencing depression. At one stage, the female subject communicates unusually strong affection or emotionally intense interest. She subsequently retracts from that intensity, declines or avoids detailed discussion of her earlier feelings, and ultimately establishes firm boundaries.
The male subject experiences the transition as confusing and emotionally destabilizing. He questions whether his attempt to preserve the friendship while still carrying romantic feelings created pressure or contributed to the rupture. The female subject eventually describes the relationship in substantially different terms, emphasizing discomfort, inappropriate dynamics, boundary problems, or emotional pressure.
The central psychological question is not necessarily which person's narrative is “correct,” but how two people can participate in the same relationship and later construct substantially different, yet subjectively sincere, accounts of what occurred.
Attachment theory is particularly relevant because close relationships activate systems governing proximity, security, rejection sensitivity, and emotional regulation (Bowlby, 1982; Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Cognitive dissonance theory provides a complementary framework for understanding how attraction that conflicts with an existing commitment can generate psychological discomfort and motivate behavioral or interpretive change (Festinger, 1957).
Research on depression and perinatal emotion regulation suggests that stress, rumination, suppression, and affective instability may further complicate relational communication, while research on unrequited love demonstrates that admirers and rejectors frequently construct strikingly different accounts of the same relational history (Baumeister et al., 1993; Verhelst et al., 2024).
Research Questions
Literature Review
Attachment Theory and Adult Relationships
Bowlby's attachment theory conceptualized attachment as a biologically rooted behavioral system through which individuals seek proximity and security from significant others (Bowlby, 1982). Ainsworth et al. (1978) subsequently demonstrated systematic individual differences in attachment behavior. Although developed primarily through research on infants and caregivers, attachment theory was later extended to adult romantic relationships.
Hazan and Shaver (1987) proposed that adult romantic love can function as an attachment process. Modern adult attachment research commonly conceptualizes insecurity along two dimensions: attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Fraley & Shaver, 2000).
Attachment anxiety is associated with concern about abandonment, heightened sensitivity to relational threats, intensified proximity seeking, and difficulty disengaging from attachment-related cues. Attachment avoidance is associated with discomfort with dependence, suppression or deactivation of attachment needs, and increased interpersonal distance when intimacy becomes threatening.
Mikulincer and Shaver (2019) describe attachment anxiety as frequently associated with hyperactivating strategies, whereas attachment avoidance is more often associated with deactivating strategies.
pursuit, reassurance seeking, rumination
withdrawal, suppression, emotional distance
Relational Uncertainty and Boundary Ambiguity
Relational uncertainty refers to uncertainty about one's own involvement, the other person's involvement, or the status and future of a relationship (Knobloch & Solomon, 1999). Such uncertainty can heighten attention to interpersonal cues and magnify emotional reactions.
A friendship containing romantic attraction is particularly susceptible to relational uncertainty because the same behavior may carry different meanings for different participants. Frequent communication, emotional disclosure, affectionate language, private confidences, or unusually intensive support may be understood as ordinary closeness by one individual and evidence of developing romance by another.
When affectionate disclosure is followed by withdrawal without a mutually understood explanation, the recipient must reconcile apparently incompatible information. The resulting uncertainty may encourage rumination, information seeking, repeated interpretation of previous conversations, and heightened sensitivity to later interactions.
Boundary ambiguity and boundary violation are not identical. A relationship can initially contain poorly defined expectations without either participant knowingly violating an established limit. Once a clear boundary is communicated, the behavioral standard becomes substantially less ambiguous.
Cognitive Dissonance
Festinger's (1957) cognitive dissonance theory proposes that psychological discomfort occurs when an individual holds inconsistent cognitions or behaves in ways that conflict with important values or commitments.
Attraction toward someone outside a committed partnership creates a potentially powerful form of dissonance. A person may experience strong affection toward a friend while simultaneously valuing loyalty to a partner, family stability, or an identity as a committed partner or parent.
Pregnancy and impending parenthood may increase the salience of commitment, family structure, future responsibility, and relational stability, thereby increasing the psychological consequences of an emotionally ambiguous outside relationship.
Cognitive dissonance does not imply deliberate dishonesty. A person can sincerely reinterpret a relationship as circumstances, commitments, and emotional consequences change.
Pregnancy, Hormonal Change, and Affective Functioning
Pregnancy involves substantial neuroendocrine and psychosocial changes, including fluctuations in estrogen, progesterone, neurosteroids, stress-related systems, sleep, physical functioning, and social expectations. Research has identified relationships between reproductive hormonal transitions and vulnerability to mood disturbance among susceptible individuals (Schiller et al., 2015).
A more defensible interpretation is that pregnancy can sometimes function as a contextual amplifier. Fatigue, stress, changing identity, relationship concerns, impending parenthood, and altered affective regulation may intensify the emotional significance of interpersonal events.
An emotionally supportive friendship could therefore become especially salient during a period of vulnerability while, paradoxically, the perceived risks of that same relationship could later become more consequential.
Depression and Emotion Regulation
Depression is associated with characteristic difficulties in regulating negative affect. Research identifies rumination, suppression, avoidance, and difficulty disengaging from negative material as relevant mechanisms (Aldao et al., 2010; Joormann & Gotlib, 2010).
Research on perinatal depression and anxiety similarly identifies emotion-regulation processes as important transdiagnostic mechanisms during the perinatal period (Verhelst et al., 2024). Attachment representations, emotion-regulation difficulty, depressive symptoms, and anxiety can also interact during the postpartum period (Marques et al., 2018).
In the case examined here, depression could theoretically contribute to inconsistent engagement through several pathways. A person may seek intense emotional connection at one point and later experience exhaustion, guilt, withdrawal, diminished social motivation, or difficulty tolerating emotionally demanding discussion.
Depression, however, does not make a person's stated feelings unreliable and does not remove agency or responsibility.
Unrequited Love and Asymmetrical Emotional Investment
Baumeister et al. (1993) found that unrequited love can be distressing for both the person seeking greater intimacy and the person declining it. Particularly significant is the difference in how the two roles remember and narrate the relationship.
Would-be lovers may emphasize positive interactions, perceived encouragement, mutuality, and ambiguity. Rejectors may place greater emphasis on discomfort, unwanted pursuit, guilt, pressure, and difficulty communicating rejection.
Two different retrospective narratives do not automatically mean that one participant is lying. Each person may organize memory around a different phase of the relationship and around the events that became most emotionally consequential to that person.
Bringle et al. (2013) likewise described several forms of unrequited love, including attraction to unavailable individuals and unequal levels of romantic investment. Friendship is especially relevant because romantic relationships frequently emerge from friendship, making some affectionate friendship behaviors inherently difficult to classify (Stinson et al., 2022).
Case Analysis
Initial Emotional Disclosure
The female subject's strong emotional disclosure can be interpreted through several psychological frameworks.
First, it may have reflected genuine attraction or attachment at that moment. Emotional experience is not a contractual promise of future consistency. A person may sincerely experience affection and later decide that the relationship should not continue in the same form.
Second, unusually intense disclosure may reflect a need for emotional closeness during psychological vulnerability rather than a settled intention to establish a romantic relationship.
Third, attachment-system activation may increase proximity seeking during periods of stress. A trusted friend who provides safety, affirmation, understanding, or emotional regulation can temporarily become especially important.
Fourth, ordinary friendship ambiguity may contribute. Friends-to-lovers transitions occur often enough that emotionally intimate friendship behaviors cannot always be neatly categorized as either romantic or platonic.
Abrupt Emotional Retraction
The subsequent retreat can also be understood through several mechanisms.
An attachment-based formulation would consider possible deactivation. When intimacy becomes threatening or consequential, some individuals suppress attachment-related thoughts, minimize closeness, or create distance.
A cognitive-dissonance formulation produces a similar prediction through a different pathway. If emotional intimacy with a friend increasingly conflicts with loyalty to a partner, family identity, impending parenthood, or personal values, withdrawal can reduce psychological conflict.
Depressive symptoms may further reduce tolerance for difficult or emotionally demanding conversations.
Finally, withdrawal may simply represent genuine boundary recognition. A person can voluntarily participate in increasing emotional intimacy and later decide that the situation no longer feels appropriate or sustainable.
Earlier affection and later withdrawal do not necessarily cancel each other out. Both can represent authentic psychological states occurring at different points in time.
Cognitive Dissonance and Retrospective Reframing
The movement from strong affection toward a later characterization of the relationship as inappropriate requires particular caution.
One possible mechanism is dissonance reduction. If acknowledging prior attraction creates guilt or threatens a present relationship, a person may increasingly organize the history around the reasons distance became necessary.
Psychodynamic theory offers related concepts. Defensive avoidance, rationalization, selective reinterpretation, or projection can reduce anxiety connected with interpersonal conflict or guilt (Cramer, 2000; Freud, 1966).
Yet the same outward behaviors can have entirely nondefensive explanations. Refusing to discuss past feelings can be avoidance, but it can also constitute a legitimate interpersonal boundary. Describing another person's behavior as pressuring can theoretically serve defensive purposes, but it can also accurately describe that person's subjective experience.
Romantic Leakage in an Intended Platonic Friendship
Romantic feelings influence attention, expectations, emotional salience, communication frequency, availability, jealousy, disappointment, and interpretation. A person may therefore sincerely intend to preserve a friendship while still behaving in ways influenced by romantic attachment.
The male subject might consciously believe that he is attempting to be a supportive friend, while subtle behaviors continue to communicate hope, exceptional emotional investment, sensitivity to the female subject's choices, or desire for reassurance.
From the female subject's perspective, such interactions may eventually feel emotionally loaded. Conversations that once felt supportive can begin to carry perceived expectations. Attempts to clarify the past may feel like attempts to reopen a romantic question she considers resolved.
From the male subject's perspective, the same behaviors may represent a genuine effort to preserve a valued friendship while accepting that a romantic relationship is unavailable.
Romantic leakage does not require manipulation. It can arise because conscious intentions and unresolved attachment do not always move in perfect alignment.
Defense, Avoidance, and Emotional Cutoff
Defense mechanisms are generally conceptualized as largely automatic methods of managing emotional conflict rather than as deliberate deception (Cramer, 2000).
Avoidance may reduce immediate exposure to distress. Reframing can transform an ambiguous relationship into a clearer narrative. Rationalization can produce an internally coherent explanation for emotionally complicated behavior. Projection, if genuinely present, involves attributing unacceptable feelings or motives to another person.
Emotional cutoff can similarly reduce immediate exposure to unresolved relational conflict.
The critical limitation is that identical behavior can have multiple explanations. Withdrawal may be defensive, or it may simply be a boundary. A negative retrospective interpretation may reduce dissonance, or it may reflect genuine recognition of previously tolerated discomfort.
Partner Monitoring and Surveillance
If monitoring by the female subject's partner actually occurred, it could meaningfully alter communication. Research on electronic partner surveillance has associated monitoring with jealousy, attachment anxiety, distrust, and relationship processes (Marshall et al., 2013; Tokunaga, 2011).
Under actual or perceived observation, a person may become more cautious about messages, reduce emotionally ambiguous communication, avoid conversations that could be misunderstood, or establish sharper boundaries with third parties.
If an outside friendship has already become a source of tension within the primary relationship, communication may change abruptly as the individual attempts to stabilize that primary relationship.
The Male Subject's Experience of Emotional Whiplash
“Emotional whiplash” is not a clinical diagnosis, but it describes the subjective experience that may follow rapid movement from perceived reciprocity to rejection or emotional distance.
Several processes can intensify this experience.
First, contradictory relational cues produce prediction failure. The male subject develops a model in which intense emotional closeness signifies a special mutual connection. Abrupt withdrawal makes that model unreliable.
Second, relational uncertainty encourages retrospective analysis. The individual may repeatedly revisit conversations, affectionate statements, timing, messages, and subtle behaviors in an effort to determine what was genuine.
Third, rejection activates attachment processes. Greater attachment anxiety may intensify reassurance seeking and difficulty disengaging, although similar reactions can occur even in relatively secure individuals after unusually ambiguous relational ruptures.
Fourth, the later negative reframing of the relationship creates narrative disorientation. The male subject is no longer processing only the loss of a hoped-for relationship. He is also attempting to reconcile the possibility that interactions he experienced as mutual are now remembered by the other person as uncomfortable or inappropriate.
Self-Blame and the Search for Causal Control
The male subject's belief that he destroyed the friendship simply by continuing to care romantically may represent an understandable attempt to create causal coherence.
Self-blame can paradoxically restore a sense of control. If one identifiable mistake caused the loss, the event appears explainable and potentially preventable. The more difficult possibility is that some relational conflicts emerge from incompatible circumstances, unresolved feelings, or different expectations that neither participant can fully control.
The male subject may nevertheless be responsible for particular behaviors if they continued after boundaries became explicit. Repeated romantic discussion, demands for explanation, persistent reassurance seeking, or treating friendship as a route back toward romance can create pressure regardless of benevolent intent.
Romantic feelings themselves are not boundary violations. The clinically relevant distinction is between an internal emotional state and the behavior directed toward another person after that person's boundaries have become clear.
Discussion
A Multifactorial Interpretation
The most parsimonious formulation is not a single-cause explanation but an interacting sequence.
The female subject may initially have experienced genuine emotional closeness or attraction during a psychologically vulnerable period. Emotional intimacy with the male subject may have provided support or attachment regulation. As the implications of that intimacy became more salient, competing commitments, pregnancy-related life changes, guilt, depression, attachment-related strategies, partner concerns, or recognition of relational risk may have increased pressure to withdraw.
The male subject, having received earlier cues that appeared reciprocal, interpreted withdrawal against the background of prior intimacy. Because the transition lacked a mutually satisfying explanation, relational uncertainty increased. His attempt to preserve friendship may then have remained influenced by unresolved romantic attachment, producing romantic leakage.
The female subject may subsequently have experienced those residual signals as continued pressure or boundary ambiguity. Her need for clearer separation would therefore increase. As the relationship became more conflictual, her retrospective narrative may increasingly emphasize the interactions that best explain her present discomfort.
Meanwhile, the male subject may become increasingly focused on earlier evidence of reciprocity because those memories explain why the eventual rejection seems so difficult to reconcile.
Attachment Styles: Utility and Limits
Attachment theory is useful for describing regulatory strategies but should not be converted into amateur diagnosis.
Sudden withdrawal does not prove avoidant attachment. Persistent confusion after rejection does not establish anxious attachment. An approach-withdrawal pattern does not, by itself, establish fearful-avoidant attachment.
The strongest attachment-based conclusion is narrower: emotional closeness followed by perceived relational threat can activate different regulatory strategies, and hyperactivation and deactivation can interact to produce escalating pursuit-distance cycles (Fraley & Shaver, 2000; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2019).
Relational Ethics and Asymmetrical Investment
The ethical problem in asymmetric relationships is not the mere existence of unequal feelings. Romantic asymmetry is common and frequently arises without deliberate choice.
The central ethical issue is behavior after the asymmetry becomes known.
The more romantically invested person must avoid making continued access, emotional disclosure, reassurance, reconsideration, or explanation into obligations imposed on the less invested person.
Conversely, the less invested person does not need to demonstrate that every earlier interaction was entirely platonic in order to establish a present boundary.
Present relational consent takes precedence over historical ambiguity.
Even compelling evidence of earlier mutual attraction would not create a present entitlement to renewed romantic consideration. At the same time, accepting a current boundary does not require the rejected individual to erase or disown his private recollection of earlier emotional intimacy.
1. “I reasonably experienced some earlier interactions as emotionally or romantically reciprocal.”
2. “The relationship is not reciprocal now, and the current boundary must be respected.”
Healthy Disengagement and Boundary Maintenance
1. Treat the Present Boundary as Controlling
A current, clearly communicated boundary should be treated as definitive unless the individual who established it later chooses, independently and explicitly, to change it.
Historical ambiguity does not create a continuing right to seek clarification indefinitely.
2. Separate Emotional Processing From Interpersonal Contact
Grief, embarrassment, anger, tenderness, uncertainty, and disagreement about the relationship's history may need substantial processing. That processing does not necessarily need to occur with the person who established the boundary.
Journaling, psychotherapy, reflection, trusted social support, and ordinary passage of time can provide mechanisms for integrating the experience without requiring repeated interpersonal reopening of the dispute.
3. Recognize When Friendship Is Not Emotionally Neutral
Continued friendship is not automatically the healthiest outcome. When romantic attachment remains active, frequent emotional contact may perpetuate hope, vigilance, jealousy, or interpretive ambiguity.
Temporary or indefinite distance can therefore be protective rather than punitive.
4. Reduce Monitoring
Repeatedly checking social media, relationship status, indirect communications, partner behavior, or subtle interpersonal signals can prolong attachment-related distress.
Post-dissolution online monitoring has been associated with attachment, dependence, and breakup distress (Fox & Tokunaga, 2015).
5. Make Responsibility Behavior-Specific
Global conclusions such as “I ruined everything because I loved her” are psychologically less useful than examining identifiable behaviors.
A more constructive question is whether specific actions continued after a boundary was clearly expressed and, if so, what could be handled differently in future relationships.
6. Do Not Restore Friendship Solely Because Acute Distress Subsides
A sustainable platonic relationship would require both people to desire it, both to understand its boundaries similarly, and the previously romantically invested individual to be capable of participating without maintaining a covert expectation that circumstances will eventually change.
Conclusion
The case illustrates how emotional disclosure, attachment, depression, pregnancy-related stress, competing relationship commitments, and unequal romantic investment can interact to produce a relationship whose meaning changes over time.
Psychological theory does not support reducing such a sequence to manipulation by one participant or boundary violation by the other.
Attachment theory explains why relational closeness and threatened loss can activate pursuit or withdrawal. Cognitive dissonance theory explains why attraction inconsistent with an existing commitment can generate pressure to distance or reinterpret. Research on pregnancy and perinatal depression identifies biological and affective factors that may intensify emotion-regulation challenges without deterministically producing particular relational behavior.
Research on unrequited love demonstrates that admirers and rejectors frequently develop different narratives of the same relationship. Boundary and relational uncertainty theories explain why ambiguity can magnify distress until explicit limits become necessary.
The female subject may have expressed genuine affection and later genuinely experienced discomfort. The male subject may have reasonably interpreted earlier interactions as reciprocal and later behaved in ways that unintentionally communicated unresolved romantic investment. Neither proposition requires the other to be false.
Healthy resolution does not require discovering a single definitive account of what every previous interaction “really meant.” It requires distinguishing past emotional meaning from present consent.
The male subject's task is to accept the current boundary without requiring the female subject to validate his interpretation of the past. The female subject's present boundary can be respected without requiring the male subject to conclude that every prior experience of emotional intimacy was imaginary.
When relational ambiguity becomes chronically painful, disengagement is not necessarily evidence that the relationship lacked value. It may instead be the clearest method of preventing continued asymmetrical attachment from producing additional pressure, confusion, and emotional injury.
References
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Aldao, A., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Schweizer, S. (2010). Emotion-regulation strategies across psychopathology: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(2), 217–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.11.004
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.226
Baumeister, R. F., Wotman, S. R., & Stillwell, A. M. (1993). Unrequited love: On heartbreak, anger, guilt, scriptlessness, and humiliation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(3), 377–394. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.3.377
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment (2nd ed.). Basic Books. (Original work published 1969)
Bringle, R. G., Winnick, T., & Rydell, R. J. (2013). The prevalence and nature of unrequited love. SAGE Open, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013492160
Cramer, P. (2000). Defense mechanisms in psychology today: Further processes for adaptation. American Psychologist, 55(6), 637–646. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.6.637
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
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
Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theoretical developments, emerging controversies, and unanswered questions. Review of General Psychology, 4(2), 132–154. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.4.2.132
Freud, A. (1966). The ego and the mechanisms of defence (C. Baines, Trans.). International Universities Press. (Original work published 1936)
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511
Joormann, J., & Gotlib, I. H. (2010). Emotion regulation in depression: Relation to cognitive inhibition. Cognition and Emotion, 24(2), 281–298.
Knobloch, L. K., & Solomon, D. H. (1999). Measuring the sources and content of relational uncertainty. Communication Studies, 50(4), 261–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510979909388499
Linehan, M. M. (2015). DBT skills training manual (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
Marshall, T. C., Bejanyan, K., Di Castro, G., & Lee, R. A. (2013). Attachment styles as predictors of Facebook-related jealousy and surveillance in romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 20(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2011.01393.x
Marques, R., Monteiro, F., Canavarro, M. C., & Fonseca, A. (2018). The role of emotion regulation difficulties in the relationship between attachment representations and depressive and anxiety symptoms in the postpartum period. Journal of Affective Disorders, 238, 39–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2018.05.013
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2019). Attachment orientations and emotion regulation. Current Opinion in Psychology, 25, 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.02.006
Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. State University of New York Press.
Priem, J. S., & Solomon, D. H. (2011). Relational uncertainty and cortisol responses to hurtful and supportive messages from a dating partner. Personal Relationships, 18(2), 198–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2011.01353.x
Schiller, C. E., Meltzer-Brody, S., & Rubinow, D. R. (2015). The role of reproductive hormones in postpartum depression. CNS Spectrums, 20(1), 48–59. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1092852914000480
Stinson, D. A., Cameron, J. J., & Hoplock, L. B. (2022). The friends-to-lovers pathway to romance: Prevalent, preferred, and overlooked by science. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(2), 562–571. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211026992
Tokunaga, R. S. (2011). Social networking site or social surveillance site? Understanding the use of interpersonal electronic surveillance in romantic relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 705–713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.08.014
Verhelst, P., Sels, L., Lemmens, G., & Verhofstadt, L. (2024). The role of emotion regulation in perinatal depression and anxiety: A systematic review. BMC Psychology, 12, Article 529. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-02033-9
Comments
Post a Comment