Why Some Breakups Leave You Feeling Shattered, According to Research

By Amanda LaMela

Not all breakups are created equal. Some are painful but understandable. You grieve, you reflect, and eventually you integrate the experience. However, some breakups feel destabilizing in ways that are hard to describe. You replay conversations. You question your memory. You doubt your instincts. You may even find yourself wondering whether the entire relationship meant something different to you than it did to the other person.

When that happens, it’s common to assume the distress must reflect something about you. You might blame your attachment style, sensitivity level, or inability to “move on.” However, relationship research suggests alternative explanations. In many cases, prolonged distress has less to do with the depth of the relationship and more to do with how the relationship ended. 

Below are several studies exploring different breakup behaviors and why certain endings are uniquely destabilizing:

A Relationship’s Ending Matters More Than the Length

A persistent cultural belief is that the intensity of breakup pain should correspond to the length or seriousness of the relationship. Long relationship? Deep pain. Short relationship? Mild pain. But that’s not what the data show. Across five studies, psychologists Tara Collins and Omri Gillath (2012) examined modern breakup strategies and their emotional consequences. Participants reported how a partner ended a relationship, how they felt afterward (including distress and anger), and whether they remained connected.

Their findings were consistent. Even when controlling for relationship length, satisfaction, commitment, and who initiated the breakup, the method of termination predicted the relationship’s psychological outcomes. Direct, clear, face-to-face conversations were associated with lower distress. Indirect strategies (avoidance, withdrawal, mediated communication) were associated with more anger, confusion, and lingering emotional activation.

There is a straightforward explanation for why a short but confusing relationship can be more destabilizing than a longer one that ended clearly. Humans are wired to make meaning out of endings. When endings are ambiguous or indirect, the nervous system remains activated because the brain continues searching for missing information.

Breakup Behavior Reflects Personality Structure

A 2023 study, conducted by Dr. Lauren Phillips, examines how personality structure (specifically, trait narcissism) influences the strategies individuals utilize to dissolve romantic and sexual relationships. By shifting the focus from general relationship distress to the specific mechanics of termination, the research provides a clearer picture of how internal traits drive external social behaviors.

The research investigated a sample of 297 cisgender, heterosexual men in the United States, aged 18 to 29, who had previously ended a relationship of at least three months. Participants completed the Break-Up Strategies Questionnaire (BSQ). This measure assesses the likelihood of using seven specific breakup tactics: open confrontation, avoidance/withdrawal, distant/mediated communication, manipulation, de-escalation, positive tone/self-blame, and cost escalation. Participants were then assessed using The Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI), which breaks narcissism into facets such as entitlement, exploitativeness, authority, superiority, and self-sufficiency.

A notable strategy analyzed in the study is cost escalation. “Cost escalation” refers to intentionally increasing unpleasantness in the relationship. This often looks like picking fights, withdrawing warmth, or creating tension to push the other partner to initiate the breakup.

The data suggests that higher levels of trait narcissism are significant predictors of several indirect breakup strategies. However, not all narcissism necessarily leads to destructive endings. Entitlement and exploitative tendencies were the strongest predictors of manipulation, indirect communication, and cost escalation. Traits sometimes considered more adaptive, like authority and self-sufficiency, were not meaningfully associated with harmful breakup strategies. 

When entitlement and exploitative tendencies dominate, breakups are more likely to be handled in ways that protect the initiator’s self-image rather than facilitate mutual closure. These breakups are structured to minimize vulnerability for the person leaving, even if that increases confusion or distress for the person left behind.

Detached Does Not Mean Unaffected

Another assumption many people carry is that the partner who appears least emotional must be the least impacted. Moroz, Chen, Daljeet, and Campbell (2018) tested this assumption directly. They studied individuals who had experienced a breakup within the previous six months and assessed both Dark Triad traits (narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy) and breakup distress.

Based on prior studies showing that Dark Triad traits correlate with lower relationship commitment, the researchers predicted that individuals higher in these traits would report less breakup distress. They assumed that if a person isn’t deeply invested in a relationship, the ending wouldn’t hurt as much. They were wrong.

The trait that stood out was Machiavellianism, characterized by a tendency toward control, strategy, and interpersonal manipulation. Individuals high in this trait actually reported more breakup distress, not less. When researchers accounted for trait overlap, Machiavellianism was the driving force. Psychopathy’s association with distress disappeared when controlling for Machiavellianism, suggesting that strategic control was a meaningful component.

These findings demonstrate that low relational warmth does mean emotional invulnerability. Individuals who prioritize control may experience heightened distress when that control is lost. The distress may center on disrupted power dynamics rather than genuine attachment or longing. This does not excuse harmful breakup behavior, but it challenges the assumption that the person who appears more composed is less affected.

Attachment Styles Predict Exit Patterns

Across five studies, Collins and Gillath’s (2012) findings align with attachment theory. Individuals high in attachment avoidance were more likely to use indirect strategies such as withdrawal or mediated communication. Individuals high in attachment anxiety were more likely to use strategies that keep the door open, such as positive tone, de-escalation, and ambiguity. 

This study helps clarify why some breakups feel unfinished. Avoidant individuals tend to distance abruptly with little warning. Anxious individuals may soften or prolong endings in ways that maintain access to the relationship and preserve the possibility of reconnection. Both patterns can produce confusion for the other partner.

Collins and Gillath extended this work experimentally. In two of the studies, participants were randomly assigned to a brief writing exercise designed to activate different attachment states temporarily. Some were primed to feel secure by recalling a relationship in which they felt safe and supported. Others were primed with anxious or avoidant themes. A control group completed a neutral task. Afterward, participants imagined ending a hypothetical relationship and indicated which breakup strategies they would use.

The security primer interacted with each person’s existing attachment tendencies, reducing harmful strategy preferences. For individuals high in avoidance, feeling momentarily secure reduced their tendency to choose withdrawal and indirect strategies. For individuals high in anxiety, feeling secure reduced their preference for setting unclear boundaries and engaging in self-blame. When the attachment system is dysregulated, people default to the strategies that protect them. When they feel secure, those strategies become less necessary.

What This Means for Recovery

If you are still carrying distress from a breakup that felt unclear, indirect, or manipulative, you are not alone. Indirect or ambiguous breakups predict worse outcomes by leaving cognitive loops open. Ambiguity can diminish self-trust, provoke rumination, and incite self-doubt as an attempt to reconstruct missing meaning. Understanding the behavioral dynamics of the ending can reduce self-blame.  Interested in this topic and want to learn more? Check out PAD’s YouTube video on understanding and recovering from destabilizing breakups.

If you are working through a breakup that still feels unfinished, therapy can offer a structured, contained environment to facilitate healing. Therapy provides space to organize the narrative, examine distortions, and restore a sense of coherence.

References

Brewer, G., Parkinson, M., Pickles, A., Anson, J., & Mulinder, G. (2023). Dark Triad traits and relationship dissolution. Personality and Individual Differences, 204, 112045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.112045

Collins, T. J., & Gillath, O. (2012). Attachment, breakup strategies, and associated outcomes: The effects of security enhancement on the selection of breakup strategies. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(2), 210–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.01.008

Phillips, L. A. (2023). Trait Narcissism as a Predictor of Break-Up Strategies for Sexual and Romantic Relationships among Cisgender, Heterosexual Emerging Adult Males Doctoral Dissertation.

Moroz, S., Chen, S., Daljeet, K. N., & Campbell, L. (2018). The Dark Triad and break-up distress. Personality and Individual Differences, 132, 52–59.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.05.022

Sprecher, S., Felmlee, D., Metts, S., Fehr, B., & Vanni, D. (1998). Factors associated with distress following the breakup of a close relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(6), 791–809.