JSPR

Article

Journal of Social and

Personal Relationships
Too fast, too soon? An 2015, Vol. 32(1) 99–118
ª The Author(s) 2014
empirical investigation Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

into rebound relationships DOI: 10.1177/0265407514525086

spr.sagepub.com

Claudia C. Brumbaugh1 and R. Chris Fraley2

Abstract
A ‘‘rebound relationship’’ is commonly understood as a relationship that is initiated shortly
after a romantic breakup—before the feelings about the former relationship have been
resolved. However, little research has examined the consequences of quickly beginning
new romantic relationships after another has ended. In two studies we examined people
who experienced a breakup and assessed their well-being, their feelings about their ex-
partner, and whether they were seeing someone new. Analyses indicated that people in
new relationships were more confident in their desirability and had more resolution over
their ex-partner. Among those in new relationships, the speed with which they began their
relationship was associated with greater psychological and relational health. Overall, these
findings suggest that rebound relationships may be more beneficial than typically believed.

Keywords
Breakups, dating, disengagement/dissolution, rebound relationships, relationships

A ‘‘rebound relationship’’ is commonly understood to be a relationship that is initiated

shortly after the end of a significant romantic relationship—before the feelings about the
former relationship have been fully resolved. Although there are many reasons why
people enter into new relationships shortly after the dissolution of a previous relation-
ship, it is generally assumed that these new relationships are not ‘‘typical’’ relationships.
A rebound partner is usually thought of as a transitional mate or a stepping stone on the

1
Queens College, City University of New York, USA
2
University of Illinois, USA

Corresponding author:
Claudia C. Brumbaugh, Department of Psychology, Queens College, City University of New York, 6530
Kissena Blvd, Queens, NY 11367, USA.
Email: [email protected]
100 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 32(1)

way to a more legitimate relationship (e.g., Lue, 2012). Relationship counselors agree
with this conventional wisdom and often caution against getting involved with a new
partner too soon. Indeed, a marriage counselor on one popular Web site, About.com
(Meyer, 2012), describes rebound relationships as ‘‘misguided attempt(s) to move on
with our lives.’’ In short, it is generally believed that people who quickly venture into
new relationships run the risk of entering into those relationships for the wrong reasons
and, as a result, may be at a disadvantage.
Despite the pessimistic views that people tend to have concerning rebound rela-
tionships, there is essentially no empirical research on these relationships, nor even an
authoritative definition of them. As such, we know little about what kinds of people are
likely to be involved in rebound relationships or what functions these relationships might
serve. Moreover, it is not obvious whether such relationships are necessarily ‘‘mis-
guided’’ in the way they are portrayed in popular culture. One study that assessed the
amount of time that passed between a divorce and the next serious relationship found no
effect of time on the dissolution rates of the second relationship (Wolfinger, 2007),
suggesting that the negative implications of rebounding could be a figment of our col-
lective imagination. Indeed, it is possible that the benefits of being in a new relationship
outweigh the costs for many people, both in the short and long term.
The objective of this research is to address these issues by reporting the results of the
first prospective study on rebound relationships as well as a follow-up cross-sectional
study. In the first study, we assessed individuals who recently experienced the dissolu-
tion of a romantic relationship. We prospectively studied how various features of their
previous relationship, personalities, and reactions to the breakup predicted whether these
people began new relationships. We also examined the psychological adaptation and
relational outcomes of people who quickly entered into new relationships and compared
them to the outcomes of people who began new relationships after a longer period of
time. The second study examined similar questions, but with a larger nonprospective
sample. Before we present our findings, we review research on relationship dissolution
and discuss some of the potential costs and benefits of recoupling shortly after a breakup.

The context of relationship dissolution

To understand rebound relationships, it is necessary to understand the context in which
they develop: following the termination of another romantic relationship. Relationship
dissolution is often one of the most distressing events that an individual can experience
in life (Frazier & Hurliman, 2001) and is typically upsetting even for the initiator
(Rhoades, Kamp Dush, Atkins, Stanley, & Markman, 2011). Following the end of an
intimate relationship, people usually go through a period of grieving. During this time,
people may experience anger, sadness, and sometimes even debilitating anxiety (Chung
et al., 2003; Mearns, 1991; Sbarra & Emery, 2005). After losing a partner, people also
often experience profound loneliness (Largrand, 1988; Moller, Fouladi, McCarthy, &
Hatch, 2003). The loss of a partner is frequently accompanied by a disruption to one’s
larger social network and support system as well (Kitson, 1992). Of course, if the
relationship termination was a divorce, further serious implications can arise, such as
financial hardships, custody disputes, and geographical relocations (Wang & Amato,
Brumbaugh and Fraley 101

2000; Wickrama et al., 2006). For reasons such as these, the loss of a partner can have
widespread effects on life circumstances beyond the immediate relationship loss.
Although many outcomes associated with breakups are negative, some can be positive.
In fact, personal growth is common following breakups (Tashiro & Frazier, 2003). Leaving
a partner may allow people to gain a renewed sense of independence or change unhealthy
behaviors and ways of thinking. Research demonstrates that singles have more active
social lives than people who are in romantic relationships (Gerstel & Sarkisian, 2006;
Klinenberg, 2012). Thus, newfound time might also be used to reestablish and improve on
other relationships that may have been neglected when one was coupled. Finally, if the
previous partner was a poor match or had a negative influence on one’s psychological health,
a person may be happier and better adjusted without the partner in his or her life.

Potential functions of rebound relationships

The period following a breakup can be challenging for many people. Entering into a new
relationship might serve to assist with some of these challenges. One possibility is that
people might use rebound relationships as a coping strategy or as a means to distract
themselves from painful feelings. As noted previously, people often experience despair
and loneliness following the end of a relationship. Dating a new person may provide a
way to divert attention from these negative emotions. One study examining the hypo-
thetical benefits of rebound relationships found that rebounds may buffer the distress that
anxiously attached people experience over breakups (Spielmann, MacDonald, & Wilson,
2009). The ‘‘honeymoon period’’ that accompanies the onset of a new relationship might
also help to push unpleasant emotions and memories into the background, offering a
person a new set of ideas and emotions to fixate upon.
Another possibility is that people might use rebound relationships as a way to boost
self-confidence—to prove to themselves or others that they are desirable. Research
suggests that breakups can reduce people’s self-concept clarity, making them feel less
certain of who they are (Lewandowski, Aron, Bassis, & Kunak, 2006; Slotter, Gardner,
& Finkel, 2010). Dating a new person may help to reaffirm one’s self-concept and pro-
vide validation that one is attractive and worthy of love and attention from others. Con-
fidence has been found to be a major factor in recovery from relationship dissolution
(Frazier & Cook, 1993). Thus, people who are motivated to explore a new relationship
might benefit if, in fact, the new relationship proves to be a self-affirming one.
Rebound relationships may sometimes also be a way of filling a gap left by a former
partner, whether emotional or practical. Indeed, research shows that social rejection
motivates people to establish social connections with new potential partners (Maner,
DeWall, Baumeister, & Schaller, 2007). For some people, this process might be
somewhat symbolic and unconscious. Research has found that feelings of attachment can
unconsciously transfer from an old relationship partner to a new person when there is
some degree of similarity between the two individuals (Brumbaugh & Fraley, 2007). For
other people, filling a gap left by an ex-partner might be more explicit and instrumental.
For example, one might need certain things (e.g., transportation or financial assistance)
that a new partner can offer relatively easily.
102 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 32(1)

Finally, some people might form a new relationship for the purpose of revenge. The
experience of a breakup often elicits anger (Sbarra & Emery, 2005), and it can be
especially upsetting when one is is anxiously attached, emotionally involved, or when
one did not initiate the split (Davis, Shaver, & Vernon, 2003; Perilloux & Buss, 2008;
Spielmann et al., 2009). To vent their anger, individuals might sometimes be interested
in retaliation and making their partner feel jealous by pairing up with a new mate. They
might be similarly motivated to demonstrate to their ex-partner that they do not need
him or her, or to make the point that the former partner is not irreplaceable.

The current investigation

A common assumption is that it is necessary to stay single for a period after a breakup in
order to recover and be successful in future relationships (Snyder, 1993). However, there
is very little research that touches on the pros and cons of rebound relationships or the
validity of the claims typically made of them. The primary goal of the present study was
to examine whether entering a new relationship, and the timing of doing so, was ben-
eficial or harmful to both personal well-being and one’s new romantic relationship.
To investigate these issues, we conducted two exploratory studies. In the first, we
assessed individuals who experienced a breakup in the recent past. Importantly, we had
pre-breakup data on these individuals and their previous relationships, providing us with
the opportunity to study how individual differences in prior relationship functioning and
attachment predicted rebounding behavior. In the second study, we used a cross-
sectional design with a larger sample to further validate our findings.
We should note from the outset that there are a number of challenges in defining and
assessing rebound relationships. Implicit in the use of the term in everyday language are
the notions that a rebound relationship is one that (a) forms shortly after the dissolution of a
prior relationship, (b) forms before a person has fully recovered from a previous rela-
tionship, and (c) is motivated by a desire to distract oneself from the negative feelings
stemming from a breakup. As can be seen, some features of the lay conception of rebound
relationships partially confound the definition of the relationship with the outcomes of the
relationship. In other words, if a rebound relationship, by definition, is superficial and
occurs before one has fully recovered from a previous relationship, then it would seem
necessary that such a relationship would not bode well for psychological adaptation.
Our goal in this research was to assess rebound relationships in a way that made as
few assumptions about their outcomes as possible. Thus, we adopted two relatively
objective methods for studying rebounds. First, we examined the basic question of
whether people who started new relationships had different psychological outcomes than
people who had not, controlling for the time elapsed since the breakup. Second, among
individuals who found a new partner, we examined the amount of time that had passed
since the previous relationship ended and the new one began. This ‘‘time spent single’’
variable is a particularly useful way to operationalize rebound relationships for various
reasons. First, in popular definitions of rebound relationships, timing between rela-
tionships is an essential feature. Second, the variable of time spent single makes no
assumptions about a person’s psychological status. Moreover, it can be treated as a
Brumbaugh and Fraley 103

continuous variable, thereby obviating the need to arbitrarily classify relationships as

rebounds or non-rebounds.
We took an exploratory approach and did not make any specific hypotheses about
whether rebounds would be good or bad for people’s psychological health and relational
outcomes. Popular wisdom and advice from relationship experts would lead us to believe
that quickly beginning a new relationship might be problematic (e.g., Myerscough,
2012). On the other hand, the only existing study that could be considered a study of real-
life rebounds, which specifically assessed the longevity of subsequent relationships fol-
lowing divorce (Wolfinger, 2007), would lead us to predict that rebounding could be
beneficial, or at least not detrimental. Our goal in this research was to advance under-
standing of relationship processes and lay an initial foundation for the empirical study
of rebounds.

Study 1

Method
Participants
We obtained our participants from a separate larger longitudinal study on attachment in
romantic relationships (Fraley, Vicary, Brumbaugh, & Roisman, 2011). Participants
were recruited from a large mid-Western university as well as the local community sur-
rounding the university. For the analyses reported here, we recruited 77 people
(60 women) who broke up with their original partner during the longitudinal study.
Potential participants were contacted via e-mail and offered US$10 to participate in
an online survey about their former relationship and, if they were in a new relationship,
about their new relationship. On average, these assessments, which we will refer to as
‘‘post-breakup follow-ups,’’ took place 6.99 months (SD ¼ 3.18) after the dissolution
of the original relationship. The majority of people’s original relationships were exclu-
sive dating relationships (n ¼ 68). The median length of the original relationship was
11 months. The mean age of the participants at the post-breakup assessment was 20
years (SD ¼ 3.19) and ranged from 18 to 39 years. In all, 73% of the sample identified
as White, 15% as Asian, 4% as Black, 1% as Hispanic, and 7% as another ethnicity.
A total of 23 (93% women) participants were involved in new relationships at the time
of the post-breakup follow-up. Of those who were newly partnered, the median length of
their new relationships was 2 months (M ¼ 4.19, SD ¼ 3.84). The amount of time that
passed between the breakup with their original partner and the start of their new relation-
ship ranged from 0 to 13 months (M ¼ 3.78, SD ¼ 3.29).1

Measures
Pre-breakup assessments
We had previously-collected measures from all participants, taken while they were with
their original partner. The relevant pre-breakup variables we focus on in the present
104 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 32(1)

report include the anxiety and avoidance dimensions of adult attachment as measured
by the Experiences in Close Relationships–Revised questionnaire (Fraley, Waller, &
Brennan, 2000), rated on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) scale, and com-
mitment and satisfaction within the original partner relationship, as measured by the
Investment Model Scale (Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998) and rated on a 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) scale.

Psychological adjustment
During the post-breakup follow-up, we measured psychological functioning in multiple
ways. All participants, whether single or in a new relationship, completed the Affect-
ometer 2 (Kammann & Flett, 1983) rated on a 1 (not at all) to 5 (all of the time) scale
to measure well-being and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) which
was rated on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) scale. All participants also
completed the Specific Interpersonal Trust Scale (Johnson-George & Swap, 1982) which
was rated on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) scale; single participants were
asked to imagine how they might feel in their next relationship and dating participants
responded about their current relationship.

Feelings about ex-partners

Both single and dating participants also reported on their current feelings about them-
selves and their ex-partner. These questions, designed for the purposes of this research,
were constructed to assess (a) confidence in desirability (e.g., ‘‘I think people that
I would consider dating find me attractive’’; 3 items rated on a 1 [strongly disagree]
to 4 [strongly agree] scale); (b) residual feelings for their ex-partner (e.g., ‘‘I am reminded
of my original partner by little things throughout the day’’; ‘‘If my original partner wanted
me back, I would consider it’’; 7 items rated on a 1 [strongly disagree] to 4 [strongly agree]
scale); and (c) current contact with their ex-partner (‘‘About how frequently do you talk to
your original partner on the phone?’’ and ‘‘How frequently do you see your original part-
ner?’’) which was rated on a 1 (rarely or never) to 6 (every day) scale.

Feelings about new partners

For those people who had formed new romantic partnerships, a series of additional
questionnaires were administered. To assess current relationship adjustment, participants
responded to the Respect for Partner Scale (Frei & Shaver, 2002) which was rated on a
1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) scale and a relationship closeness ques-
tionnaire that included the Inclusion of Other in the Self scale (Aron, Aron, & Smollan,
1992) and was rated on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) scale. Dating
participants also completed questions that were designed by us to assess vengefulness
toward their ex (e.g., ‘‘I hope that my new relationship makes my ex-partner realize what
he/she is missing’’; rated on a 1 [strongly disagree] to 7 [strongly agree] scale) and how
much participants compared their new partner to their ex (e.g., ‘‘I think my current part-
ner is similar to my original partner in terms of personality’’; rated on a 1 [strongly
Brumbaugh and Fraley 105

disagree] to 7 [strongly agree] scale). Table 1 reports means, standard deviations, and
reliabilities of the above-mentioned measures.

Results
The results of Study 1 are organized in two sections. In the first section, we focus on the
distinctions between people who were still single at the post-breakup follow-up and peo-
ple who were newly dating. In the second section, we operationalize rebounding with
respect to the amount of time that transpired between the dissolution of the previous rela-
tionship and the initiation of the new relationship and examine the correlates of this con-
ceptualization of rebounding.
In each section, we focus on two sets of variables: (a) variables that were assessed
prior to the dissolution of the original relationship (i.e., attachment style and relationship
satisfaction/commitment) and (b) variables that were assessed during the post-breakup
follow-up that were designed to broadly assess psychological and relational functioning.
Because our sample size (N ¼ 77) is relatively small—especially our subsample
of people who were in new relationships following the breakup of the previous one
(n ¼ 27)—our statistical power to detect correlations was relatively low. Specifi-
cally, our power to detect a correlation of .20 or higher was 40% for our single versus
coupled analyses and only 17% for our single-only analyses (Cohen, 1988). There are at
least two constructive ways to address this limitation. One is to adjust the a threshold to
better equate the Type I and Type II error rates (Fraley & Marks, 2007). Given that this
research is the first of its kind and largely exploratory, it would not necessarily be advi-
sable to strive to maintain a low Type I error rate at the expense of being able to detect
associations that really exist. Another option is to focus our discussion more on the
parameter estimates themselves and not rely exclusively on conventional significance
testing for interpretive leverage (Fraley & Marks, 2007). For our analyses, we chose this
latter option and gave interpretive weight to correlations greater than |.10|. Nonetheless,
we report the traditional p values associated with each correlation over |.10| so that read-
ers can use conventional or revised a thresholds if they choose to do so. Readers should
keep in mind that the standard error associated with correlations based on a sample of
27 is fairly large (approximately .18 for a correlation < .50).

Single versus coupled individuals

We began by examining differences between participants who remained single after
breaking up with their previous partner and participants who subsequently formed a new
romantic relationship after breaking up with their ex-partner.2 It is important to note that
recoupling was correlated .25 (p ¼ .04) with the amount of time that had passed since the
breakup. Specifically, people who had experienced the breakup more recently were less
likely to be involved in a new relationship compared with people who experienced the
breakup longer ago. As such, we controlled for the amount of time that had elapsed since
the breakup in examining the correlations between current dating status and predictors/
outcomes.
106
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for self-reported measures.

Measure Overall mean SD a Mean (SD) singles Mean (SD) partnered

Commitment 5.51 1.29 .94 5.50 (1.29) 5.56 (1.31)

Satisfaction 5.43 1.15 .90 5.47 (1.10) 5.33 (1.31)
Attachment anxiety 3.19/3.47 1.00/1.25 .87/.92 3.15 (1.08)/3.88 (1.16) 3.31 (.88)/2.95 (1.18)
Attachment avoidance 2.64/3.07 1.05/1.04 .92/.89 2.66 (1.12)/3.33 (.91) 2.63 (.94)/2.75 (1.12)
Well-being 3.70/3.67 .70/.60 .94/.89 3.70 (.75)/3.55 (.63 3.71 (.61)/3.82 (.54)
Self-esteem 3.17/3.11 .56/.55 .90/.89 3.17 (.58)/3.05 (.59) 3.16 (.54)/3.19 (.50)
Trust 5.94/5.88 .85/.82 .86/.79 5.84 (.93)/5.66 (.79) 6.12 (.65)/6.15 (.77)
Confidence in desirability 3.15/2.83 .54/.61 .80/.61 3.07 (.57)/2.55 (.55) 3.30 (.46)/3.19 (.50)
Residual feelings for ex 2.31/2.07 .79/.62 .79/.66 2.57 (.76)/2.37 (.39) 1.81 (.58)/1.70 (.64)
Contact with ex 1.95/1.40 1.39/.94 .81/.82 2.15 (1.45)/1.60 (1.13) 1.59 (1.20)/1.16 (.52)
Respect for new partner 6.04/5.87 .83/.90 .83/.74
New relationship closeness 5.57/5.71 .82/.99 .83/.79
Vengeance toward ex 3.82/3.39 1.45/1.36 .71/.61
Comparison of new partner to ex 3.47/3.17 .94/1.33 .59/.71
Note. In a given cell, Study 1 statistics are shown first and Study 2 statistics are shown second. Higher scores on each measure indicate greater levels of the respective construct.
Brumbaugh and Fraley 107

Table 2. Correlations between dating status and adjustment—Study 1.

Dating status p Value

Prior to breakup
Attachment anxiety .10 .43
Attachment avoidance .03 .92
Commitment .01 .79
Satisfaction .08 .47
Post-breakup
Well-being .05 .68
Self-esteem .02 .88
Trust .13 .29
Confidence in desirability .23 .07
Residual feelings for ex .43 .00
Contact with ex .13 .29
Note. Dating status was coded as 0 ¼ Single and 1 ¼ Dating. The correlations are partial correlations, control-
ling for time elapsed since the breakup.

Table 2 reports the correlations between dating status (0 ¼ single, 1 ¼ dating again)
and psychological adaptation. Participants who were dating were more likely than those
who were single to report confidence in their desirability, r(76) ¼ .23, p ¼ .07. Dating
participants were also less likely to report having residual feelings for their ex-partner,
r(76) ¼ .43, p < .01, or to be maintaining contact with their ex-partner, r(76) ¼ .13,
p ¼ .29. It is noteworthy that dating status was not strongly correlated with general well-
being or self-esteem. In other words, being in a new relationship appears to be correlated
with outcomes that are specific to relational issues (e.g., confidence in dating worth) and
not necessarily to broader indices of psychological health.
Table 2 also reports the correlations between dating status and factors that were
assessed prior to the breakup of the original relationship. Attachment anxiety had a weak
association with dating status, r(76) ¼ .10, p ¼ .43, such that during the time of their
original partner relationship, individuals who were involved in a new relationship were
more anxious than now-single people. Attachment avoidance was not correlated greater
than |.10| with dating status. In addition, how committed and satisfied people were in
their previous relationship was unrelated to whether people were involved in a new rela-
tionship during the post-breakup follow-up.3

Psychological functioning and how quickly people get involved in a new

relationship
In the next set of analyses, we operationalized rebounding with respect to the number of
months that people had been single between the dissolution of their previous relationship
and the beginning of their current relationship. It is important to note that these analyses
are based on a subsample (n ¼ 27) of people who were dating someone new during the
post-breakup assessment. Table 3 reports the correlations between rebounding and var-
ious measures of relational and psychological adaptation. In general, people who were
108 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 32(1)

Table 3. Correlations between time elapsed between relationships and adjustment—Study 1.

Time elapsed p Value

Prior to breakup
Attachment anxiety .36 .06
Attachment avoidance .27 .17
Commitment .12 .54
Satisfaction .09 .66
Post-breakup
Well-being .37 .06
Self-esteem .30 .13
Trust .15 .46
Confidence in desirability .07 .71
Residual feelings for ex .05 .82
Contact with ex .27 .18
Contact with new partner .11 .57
Respect for new partner .34 .08
New relationship closeness .02 .92
Vengeance toward ex .32 .11
Comparison of new partner to ex .38 .05

single for a shorter period of time were more likely to report higher levels of well-
being, r(26) ¼ .37, p ¼ .06; self-esteem, r(26) ¼ .30, p ¼ .13; and trust, r(26) ¼ .15,
p ¼ .46. They also reported a greater degree of contact with their former partner,
r(26) ¼ .27, p ¼ .18, and they felt a stronger desire for vengeance toward their
ex-partner, r(26) ¼ .32, p ¼ .11. However, they did not indicate more residual
feelings for their previous partner, r(26) ¼ .05, p ¼ .82. In terms of their feelings
in their new relationship, people who started the relationship more quickly reported
a greater level of respect for their new partner, r(26) ¼ .34, p ¼ .08. Participants
who began their new relationship more quickly also tended to compare their new
partner to their former partner more, r(26) ¼ .38, p ¼ .05.
We also examined prospective predictors of rebounding (see Table 3). Commitment
was weakly related to time spent single such that people who had previously been in
more committed relationships took somewhat longer to become involved in new rela-
tionships. People who were more insecure were more likely to quickly get involved in
relationships. Specifically, attachment anxiety correlated .36 with time spent single
(p ¼ .06) and attachment avoidance correlated .27 with time spent single (p ¼ .17).4
We also used prospective attachment as a proxy for prior psychological health in
order to address the possibility that well-adjusted people began relationships earlier. In
other words, we wanted to verify that it was the speed of rebound, and not psychological
health beforehand, that caused us to observe the seemingly positive effects of rebound-
ing. Indeed, when we controlled for secure attachment (low anxiety and avoidance), we
still found that faster rebound was associated with higher self-esteem (r ¼ .40, p ¼ .05)
and well-being (r ¼ .59, p < .01). These supplementary analyses suggest that the psy-
chological adjustment we observed in our primary analyses was not a cause of the new
relationship but rather a consequence of the new relationship.
Brumbaugh and Fraley 109

Study 1 was a first step in identifying both prospective correlates and later outcomes
associated with rebound relationships and had the benefit of examining rebounds as they
occurred. However, the outcomes of Study 1 were somewhat indeterminate due to low sample
size, especially of our ‘‘rebounding’’ group. In Study 2, our goal was to address the limitations
of Study 1 by attempting to replicate the general pattern observed in Study 1 with a cross-
sectional sample of people who either were or were not involved in a romantic relationship.

Study 2

Method
Participants and procedure
Two hundred and sixty-four people from a large Northeastern university participated in
exchange for course credit. Of the total, 137 people were currently single and 124 were
involved in a romantic relationship. Three participants had never been in a romantic rela-
tionship and were thus omitted. Of the 124 in a romantic relationship, 3 were omitted
because they reported that they were currently involved in an affair, 9 were omitted
because they reported overlap between their previous and current relationships (i.e., a
previous affair), and 13 were omitted because they were involved in a relationship for
over 5 years. This left 236 participants who were included in the following reported anal-
yses (131 single, 105 in a relationship). All included subjects had at least one prior part-
ner, whether they were currently single or partnered.
Of those who were partnered, the median length of their current relationships
was 12 months (M ¼ 19.19, SD ¼ 17.17). Partnered people reported breaking up
with their previous partner an average of 29.43 months beforehand (range ¼ 1–84
months; SD ¼ 20.10), and single people broke up an average of 13.22 months
before (range ¼ 1–132 months; SD ¼ 15.95). The average length of the previous
relationship was 13.78 months (range ¼ 1–168 months; SD ¼ 22.76), and based on
a 1 (not at all serious) to 7 (very serious) scale, the overall reported seriousness of
the previous relationship was relatively high (M ¼ 4.41, SD ¼ 2.05).
Of the included 236 participants (125 women), 93% reported being heterosexual, 4%
bisexual, and 3% homosexual. The mean age of the participants was 21.71 years (SD ¼
5.63) and ranged from 18 to 49 years. Our sample was ethnically diverse; 34% of the
sample identified as White, 32% as Asian, 17% as Hispanic, 9% as Black, and 8% as
another ethnicity. Except for the prospective assessments, the measures completed were
identical to those used in Study 1; means, standard deviations, and reliabilities are
shown in Table 1. Participants completed all measures in a private laboratory setting,
and the study was run in groups of up to four people.

Results
Study 2 results are organized in two sections. We begin by comparing single to dating
people. Then, we focus only on coupled participants, using time between their previous
and current relationship to examine psychological and relational adjustment.
110 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 32(1)

Single versus coupled individuals

First, we examined differences between single and partnered participants. We found, as
we did in Study 1, that recoupling was correlated .41 (p < .001) with the amount of time
that had passed since the last breakup, such that those who broke up more recently were
less likely to be currently romantically involved. Thus, we again controlled for time
elapsed since the breakup in our examination of the correlations between current
romantic status and the outcome variables of interest.
Table 4 reports correlations between dating status (0 ¼ single, 1 ¼ in a relationship)
and psychological adaptation. Partnered participants were again more likely than
single participants to report more confidence in their desirability, r(227) ¼ .49, p < .01.
Partnered participants were also less likely to report lingering feelings for their ex-
partner, r(227) ¼ .45, p < .01, and partnered people again had less contact with their
ex-partner, r(227) ¼ .16, p < .05. We found a similar lack of association between dat-
ing status and self-esteem, but in Study 2 we found that well-being was associated with
romantic status, r(227) ¼ .16, p < .05, such that partnered people had higher well-being
compared with singles. Although attachment was not assessed prior to the breakup as it
was in Study 2, we found that both current anxiety, r(227) ¼ .29, p < .01, and avoid-
ance, r(227) ¼ .21, p < .05, were lower when people were in a new relationship.
Finally, the direction of the association between trust and relationship status
was repeated; partnered people were more trusting than single people, r(227) ¼ .28,
p < .01. In sum, we found that our results from Study 1 comparing singles with part-
nered people replicated.

Psychological functioning and how quickly people get involved in a new

relationship
Next, we used the number of months that people were single between the dissolution of
their previous relationship and the beginning of their current relationship. These analyses
are based on a subsample (n ¼ 105; 69 women) of people who were currently roman-
tically involved. Because participants in this sample had vast differences in how long ago
they experienced a breakup with their previous partner (1–84 months), we controlled for
time since the breakup using partial correlations. Table 5 reports the correlations
between time spent single and various measures of adjustment. As in Study 1, we
found that people who were single for a shorter period of time had higher well-being,
r(96) ¼ .23, p < .05, and a tendency to report greater self-esteem, r(96) ¼ .16,
p ¼ .12. Compared with people who waited longer, people who spent less time single
between relationships reported feeling more confident in their romantic desirability,
r(96) ¼ .26, p < .05, and had a tendency to have more contact with their new partner,
r(96) ¼ .18, p ¼ .08. A shorter period of time spent single between relationships also
corresponded to greater attachment security. Specifically, people who were less anxious,
r(96) ¼ .21, p < .05, and less avoidant, r(96) ¼ .22, p < .05, were single between relation-
ships for less time. Although we did not observe any other significant findings, the direc-
tional trends of the other associations were consistent with better outcomes when the
amount of time between relationships was shorter. In sum, for the most part, Study 2
Brumbaugh and Fraley 111

Table 4. Correlations between dating status and adjustment—Study 2.

Dating status p Value

Attachment anxiety .29 .00

Attachment avoidance .21 .00
Well-being .16 .02
Self-esteem .09 .18
Trust .28 .00
Confidence in desirability .49 .00
Residual feelings for ex .45 .00
Contact with ex .16 .02
Note. Dating status was coded as 0 ¼ Single and 1 ¼ Dating. The correlations are partial correlations, control-
ling for time elapsed since the breakup.

Table 5. Correlations between time elapsed between relationships and adjustment—Study 2.

Time Elapsed p Value

Attachment anxiety .21 .04

Attachment avoidance .22 .03
Well-being .23 .03
Self-esteem .16 .12
Trust .12 .24
Confidence in desirability .26 .01
Residual feelings for ex .13 .20
Contact with ex .01 .89
Contact with new partner .18 .08
Respect for new partner .13 .22
New relationship closeness .08 .45
Vengeance toward ex .10 .33
Comparison of new partner to ex .09 .40

Note. The correlations are partial correlations, controlling for time elapsed since the breakup.

substantiated the findings of Study 1. People who began new relationships shortly after
the dissolution of a previous relationship appeared to be relatively well-adjusted.

Aggregated results
We also conducted a meta-analysis of the associations across the two studies to assess
the overall effect of time spent single. Combining and weighting correlations across
studies, we found that less time spent single between relationships corresponded to
greater well-being (r ¼ .28, p < .001), higher self-esteem (r ¼ .19, p < .05), and
greater confidence in one’s dating desirability (r ¼ .23, p < .05). In terms of one’s
current relationship, people who were single for a shorter period of time between rela-
tionships had more contact with their current partner (r ¼ .17, p ¼ .05), more respect
for their partner (r ¼ .17, p ¼ .05), and tended to compare their current partner with
their ex-partner more (r ¼ .15, p ¼ .09).
112 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 32(1)

In sum, people who could be described as rebounding tended to have better personal
psychological outcomes and valued their new partner more. However, past relationships
influenced rebounding individuals to a greater extent in that ex-partners colored people’s
perceptions of their current partner somewhat.

Discussion
Is it unwise to enter a new relationship shortly after the dissolution of another rela-
tionship? The findings from these studies suggest that people who rapidly begin a new
rebound relationship are not necessarily any worse off than those who wait longer to get
reinvolved. In fact, in some domains, they appear to be better functioning. Our results
also suggest that finding a new partner has benefits over remaining single following a
breakup. A strength of the first study is that we were able to prospectively track people
even before they broke up. However, because that sample was quite small, the second
cross-sectional sample was useful in validating the patterns of results. Overall, this study
took an objective approach to the study of rebounds using the variable of time between
relationships and laid some groundwork in contributing to the empirical literature on
rebound relationships.

Correlates and predictors of rebounding

Contrary to what is commonly believed about the need for a ‘‘waiting period’’ following
the end of a relationship (e.g., Snyder, 1993), we found that beginning a new relationship
quickly after a breakup seemed to have positive consequences. Specifically, people who
started a new relationship quickly had higher well-being and a better opinion of them-
selves compared to those who waited longer to begin their subsequent relationship.
Because of their fairly rapid transition between partners, rebounding individuals had less
time with the single status and so their degree of well-being and self-esteem may have
been less affected. In other words, their relatively uninterrupted relationship status may
have allowed their lifestyle to flow more smoothly over this period of time and thus the
breakup may have had fewer global effects on their psychological health.
Similarly, people who rebounded quickly may have perceived some congruence
between their past and new partners. Specifically, in Study 2 we found that people who
were quick to rebound tended to compare their new partner with their ex. If people saw
similarities between their current and ex-partners, this may have also provided a sense of
stability in their lives. Previous research has shown that transference processes encour-
age people to use past partners to understand new people and allow for some continuity
in how romantic relationships are experienced (Brumbaugh & Fraley, 2006). Although
transference is thought to be an unconscious process, similar effects in which people
weigh their recent romantic past against their current situation seem to occur on a more
conscious level as well when individuals quickly transition from one partner to the next
(e.g., Rusbult et al., 1998).
We found in the first study that people who reported being insecurely attached while
they were involved with their original partner tended to begin their next relationships
more quickly than secure individuals. The fact that people who began new relationships
Brumbaugh and Fraley 113

immediately were higher functioning (e.g., they had higher self-esteem and well-being)
but also tended to be relatively insecure in their previous relationship might appear con-
tradictory at first glance. It is possible though that these attachment scores reflected par-
ticipants’ insecurity with their past partner before they went through the breakup. Indeed,
it may have been legitimate for these people to feel anxious or emotionally removed, if
they sensed their relationship was about to end. Although prior insecurity was correlated
with the tendency to begin the next relationship faster in Study 1, length of time to begin
the new relationship was not significantly associated with post-breakup reports of attach-
ment anxiety and avoidance in that study. Jumping into a new relationship quickly may
have thus lowered insecurity for our Study 1 sample (e.g., Spielmann et al., 2009) and
had other positive effects in terms of current psychological functioning. The attachment
findings of Study 2, in which people who waited a shorter time to get involved with their
next partner were more secure, fit into the overall pattern of psychological adjustment
that we observed in people who were quicker to repartner. The somewhat discrepant
findings may be a partial by-product of the design differences (prospective vs. current)
between the studies.

Post-breakup relationships: Outcomes and motivations

In our study, we assessed relationship-level patterns in addition to individual-level out-
comes. People who were fast to rebound experienced some personally beneficial out-
comes such as high self-esteem, but their new relationship outcomes and feelings
toward their ex-partner were more ambiguous. In terms of the new relationship, there
was some evidence that they saw and respected their new partner more, possibly because
they felt fortunate to have someone during their post-breakup period. However, as for
their current feelings about their previous partner, individuals who were quick to
rebound appeared to be still somewhat enmeshed in their past relationship. First, people
who quickly repartnered had more contact with their ex in our prospective study. The
brief time elapsed since the breakup may have played a role in the frequency with which
people remained in touch with their ex-partner as this effect was observed only in Study
1 where the amount of time since the breakup was shorter on average (about 7 months)
than in Study 2 (almost 2 years). As previously discussed, rebounders in Study 2 also
tended to use their past partner to understand their current partner, another indication that
rebounders were still grounded in the past. Returning to our well-being findings, people
who quickly repartnered may have had heightened well-being partially because they had
contact with two romantic partners (their ex and their current partner) and were able to
receive social and emotional support from multiple sources.
In spite of more sustained contact with the previous partner, people who quickly
rebounded did not appear to be romantically hung up on their ex-partners. This finding is
somewhat surprising since their breakup was more recent. However, this suggests that
having a new partner may effectively serve the purpose of allowing people to more
quickly get over their ex, even when the breakup occurred recently.
Rebounders were not preoccupied with their past partner, but there was some evi-
dence that they still had a desire to punish their ex-partner. Specifically, quickly getting
involved with a new partner corresponded to reports of wanting revenge in Study 1.
114 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 32(1)

Retaliatory motivations and feelings of anger early on in new relationships may indicate
that one reason people engage in rebound relationships is to vent their anger and get
revenge on past partners.

Drawbacks of remaining single

Compared with those who remained single, people who had begun dating again were
generally better off. However, these effects were fairly specific in that they pertained
mainly to relational well-being. First, single people had less self-confidence regarding
their romantic future compared with people who were dating. Because dating individuals
already demonstrated that they had the ability to attract another partner, their confidence
may have been higher than singles who could have more uncertainty about their romantic
future and ability to find a mate. Second, in Study 2 single people also were less likely
than coupled people to feel comfortable trusting and relying on others and were more
insecure in their attachment style. Finally, singles also had more unresolved feelings
about their past relationship than did dating individuals. According to the findings by
Wang and Amato (2000) and others, this is congruent with the pattern of single people
taking longer to detach from ex-partners, compared with coupled individuals.
Our prospective variables were not notable predictors of people’s tendency to initiate
a new relationship. Attachment, satisfaction, and commitment in the previous partner-
ship did not affect one’s likelihood of starting a new relationship after a breakup,
although attachment did predict how quickly people moved on to their next relationship
for those who were in relationships. The quickness with which anxious individuals began
their next relationship in the first study suggests that the sadness and anger that anxious
people typically experience over romantic loss (Davis et al., 2003; Saffrey & Ehrenberg,
2007) may facilitate new relationship formation. For people who were avoidant during
their previous relationship, a lack of distress over the loss of a partner (Fraley &
Bonanno, 2004; Lund, Caserta, & Diamond, 1986; Wortman & Silver, 1989) may also
make it easier for them to quickly begin their next relationship.

Limitations and future directions

The present studies extend the small body of literature on relationship formation fol-
lowing a breakup. Debate has existed on the value of rapidly forming a new relationship
after the dissolution of another relationship versus remaining single for a longer period of
time. The current findings suggest that there may be personal benefits to beginning a new
relationship shortly after a breakup, as well as some drawbacks for the new relationship
itself.
Our study was a first step in understanding how rebounds function; however, it was
not without limitations. One shortcoming of our studies was the timing of the post-
breakup measure, particularly in Study 2. The distant timing of the post-breakup assess-
ment in the second study (on average, 2 years after a breakup) and its cross-sectional
design were drawbacks, but the findings had considerable overlap with Study 1, which
had the benefits of being prospective and more immediate, albeit with a small sample. A
consideration regarding generalizability is that our rebounding samples had a majority of
Brumbaugh and Fraley 115

women, so our results should be replicated with a more gender-balanced sample before
firm conclusions can be drawn that these effects hold true for both men and women.
Another drawback of our samples was that they were composed mostly of college-
aged individuals. People at this age commonly have shorter term relationships, jumping
rather quickly from one relationship to the next (Seiffge-Krenke, 2003). Thus, rebound-
ing may be a loose term for this age group, as their dating pattern could often be char-
acterized an ongoing rebound cycle. This relates also to the issue of how rebound
processes might operate depending on whether a rebound occurs after a more casual ver-
sus serious relationship. Although we did not find a strong effect of commitment level in
Study 1, future work may seek to investigate distinctions between rebound patterns in
marital versus nonmarital relationships.
There is also the issue of short-term versus long-term effects of rebound relationships.
While our studies were not longitudinal, Study 1 did a better job of understanding the
initial stages of rebound relationships (average new relationship length of 4 months), and
Study 2 touched more on long-term effects (average new relationship length of 1.5
years). Based on the observed similarties between the two studies, especially for well-
being and self-esteem, we can speculate that rebounds appear to be beneficial both in the
short and long term. Future work may delve further to assess long-term longitudinal tra-
jectories of such relationships. Finally, the directionality of some effects is not defini-
tive, as the time elapsed to start a new relationship may not have necessarily caused the
psychological effects we observed. In other words, individuals’ psychological states
may have been a cause or impetus to become involved again romantically. For exam-
ple, well-adjusted individuals may have more energy, hope, and motivation to find a
new partner quickly or may be more attractive to potential partners. Using attachment
security as an indicator of psychological health was suboptimal, but it did suggest that
the positive effects of rebounds may not rest on prior adjustment upon entering a new
relationship. Future studies on similar topics could more directly investigate whether
better psychological health allows one to move on to a new relationship in quick
succession.
In accordance with the idea that time heals all wounds, a belief exists that in order to
move on after a breakup and readjust, people must give sufficient time between rela-
tionships so that they are emotionally prepared for their next relationship. However,
according to these data, rebounding appears to be associated with beneficial rather than
negative consequences. Our hope is that this study serves as a springboard for future
work on rebound relationships, a topic that is often common in people’s relational lives
and speculated on in day-to-day life but not well studied in the relationship literature.

Funding
This research was sponsored by National Science Foundation Grant BCS-0443783 to R.C.F.

Notes
1. In Study 1, a total of 12 of our coupled participants reported going on at least three casual dates
with people other than their current partner since their original breakup. In Study 2, a total of 61
dating participants reported having gone on dates with two or more people in between the
breakup with their previous partner and the start of their current relationship. In both studies,
116 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 32(1)

when we controlled for the amount of dating, it did not impact the pattern of correlations
between time elapsed between relationships and adjustment.
2. The person initiating the breakup (participant vs. partner) did not predict whether participants
formed a new relationship or remained single, nor did it predict the speed at which dating par-
ticipants moved on to their next relationship.
3. Equivalent analyses of variance performed on single versus coupled individuals revealed the
following significant and marginally significant findings: Coupled individuals tended to have
more dating confidence than singles, F(2, 67) ¼ 3.28, p ¼ .08. People who were in relationships
had fewer residual feelings for their ex, compared with singles, F(2, 67) ¼ 7.00, p ¼ .00.
4. Although not included in our primary analyses, we measured current attachment as well.
Length of time to begin the new relationship was correlated with current reports of attachment
anxiety (r ¼ .50, p ¼ .21) but not avoidance (r ¼ .03, p ¼ .95).

References
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of
interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596–612.
Brumbaugh, C. C., & Fraley, R. C. (2006). Transference and attachment: How do attachment pat-
terns get carried forward from one relationship to the next? Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 32, 552–560.
Brumbaugh, C. C., & Fraley, R. C. (2007). Transference of attachment patterns: How important
relationships influence feelings toward novel people. Personal Relationships, 14, 369–386.
Chung, M. C., Farmer, S., Grant, K., Newton, R., Payne, S., Perry, M., . . . Stone, N. (2003). Cop-
ing with post-traumatic stress symptoms following relationship dissolution. Stress and Health,
19, 27–36.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Davis, D., Shaver, P. R., & Vernon, M. L. (2003). Physical, emotional, and behavioral reactions to
breaking up: The roles of gender, age, emotional involvement, and attachment style. Person-
ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 871–884.
Fraley, R. C., & Bonanno, G. A. (2004). Attachment and loss: A test of three competing models on
the association between attachment-related avoidance and adaptation to bereavement. Person-
ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 878–890.
Fraley, R. C., & Marks, M. J. (2007). The null hypothesis significance testing debate and its impli-
cations for personality research. In R. W. Robins, R. C. Fraley, & R. F. Krueger (Eds.), Hand-
book of research methods in personality psychology (pp. 149–169). New York, NY: Guilford.
Fraley, R. C., Vicary, A. M., Brumbaugh, C. C., & Roisman, G. I. (2011). Patterns of stability in
adult attachment: An empirical test of two models of continuity and change. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 101, 974–992.
Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item-response theory analysis of
self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78,
350–365.
Frazier, P. A., & Cook, S. W. (1993). Correlates of distress following heterosexual relationship
dissolution. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 55–67.
Frazier, P. A., & Hurliman, L. (2001). Post-traumatic stress disorder following low and high mag-
nitude events. Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA.
Brumbaugh and Fraley 117

Frei, J. R., & Shaver, P. R. (2002). Respect in close relationships: Prototype definition, self-report
assessment, and initial correlates. Personal Relationships, 9, 121–139.
Gerstel, N., & Sarkisian, N. (2006). Marriage: The good, the bad, and the greedy. Contexts, 5,
16–21.
Johnson-George, C., & Swap, W. (1982). Measurement of specific interpersonal trust: Construc-
tion and validation of a scale to assess trust in a specific other. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 43, 1306–1317.
Kammann, R., & Flett, R. (1983). A scale to measure current level of general happiness. Australian
Psychologist, 35, 259–265.
Kitson, G. C. (1992). Portrait of divorce: Adjustment to marital breakdown.New York, NY: Guil-
ford Press.
Klinenberg, E. (2012). Going solo. New York, NY: The Penguin Press.
Largrand, L. E. (1988). Changing patterns of human existence: Assumptions, beliefs, and coping
with the stress of change. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher.
Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., Aron, A., Bassis, S., & Kunak, J. (2006). Losing a self-expanding rela-
tionship: Implications for the self-concept. Personal Relationships, 13, 317–331.
Lue, N. (2012). Rebound relationships in a nutshell: Transitionals, buffers and why you should
step away from the light when they’re not over their ex. Retrieved May 10, 2012, from
http://www.baggagereclaim.co.uk/rebound-relationships-in-a-nutshell-transitionals-buffers-why
-you-should-step-away-from-the-light-when-theyre-not-over-their-ex/
Lund, D. A., Caserta, M. S., & Dimond, M. F. (1986). Gender differences through two years of
bereavement among the elderly. The Gerontologist, 26, 314–319.
Maner, J. K., DeWall, N., Baumeister, R. F., & Schaller, M. (2007). Does social exclusion moti-
vate interpersonal reconnection? Resolving the ‘‘porcupine problem’’. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 92, 42–55.
Mearns, J. (1991). Coping with a breakup: Negative mood regulation expectancies following the
end of a romantic relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 327–334.
Meyer, C. (2012). What is a rebound relationship? Retrieved May 10, 2012, from http://divorce-
support.about.com/od/romanceafterdivorce/p/reboundrelation.htm
Moller, N. P., Fouladi, R. T., McCarthy, C. J., & Hatch, K. D. (2003). Relationship of attachment
and social support to college students’ adjustment following a relationship breakup. Journal of
Counseling & Development, 81, 354–369.
Myerscough, M. (2012). Rebound relationship: Are you in one? Retrieved May 10, 2012, from
http://www.therelationshipgym.com/relationship-breakdown/item/
250-rebound-relationship-are-you-in-one
Perilloux, C., & Buss, D. M. (2008). Breaking up romantic relationships: Costs experienced and
coping strategies deployed. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 164–181.
Rhoades, G. K., Kamp Dush, C. M., Atkins, D. C., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2011).
Breaking up is hard to do: The impact of unmarried relationship dissolution on mental health
and life satisfaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 366–374.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The investment model scale: Measuring com-
mitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Rela-
tionships, 5, 357–391.
118 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 32(1)

Saffrey, C., & Ehrenberg, M. (2007). When thinking hurts: Attachment, rumination, and
post-relationship adjustment. Personal Relationships, 14, 351–368.
Sbarra, D. A., & Emery, R. E. (2005). The emotional sequelae of nonmarital relationship dissolu-
tion: Analysis of change and intraindividual variability over time. Personal Relationships, 12,
213–232.
Seiffge-Krenke, I. (2003). Testing theories of romantic development from adolescence to young
adulthood: Evidence of developmental sequence. International Journal of Behavioral Develop-
ment, 27, 519–531.
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,
147–160.
Snyder, J. J. (1993). Marrying for life: The challenge of creating a lasting friendship. Saratoga,
CA: R & E Publishers.
Spielmann, S. S., MacDonald, G., & Wilson, A. E. (2009). On the rebound: Focusing on someone
new helps anxiously attached individuals let go of ex-partners. Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy Bulletin, 35, 1382–1394.
Tashiro, T., & Frazier, P. (2003). ‘‘I’ll never be in a relationship like that again’’: Personal growth
following romantic relationship breakups. Personal Relationships, 10, 113–128.
Wang, H., & Amato, P. R. (2000). Predictors of divorce adjustment: Stressors, resources, and def-
initions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 655–668.
Wickrama, K. A. S., Lorenz, F. O., Conger, R. D., Elder, G. H., Abraham, W. T., & Fang, S. A.
(2006). Changes in family financial circumstances and the physical health of married and
recently divorced mothers. Social Science and Medicine, 63, 123–136.
Wolfinger, N. H. (2007). Does the rebound effect exist? Time to remarriage and subsequent union
stability. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 46, 9–20.
Wortman, C. B., & Silver, R. C. (1989). The myths of coping with loss. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 57, 349–357.