Breadcrumbing

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Breadcrumbing, also called Hansel and Grettelling,[1] is a colloquial term used to characterize the practice of sporadically feigning interest in another person in order to keep them interested, despite a true lack of investment in the relationship.[2] It is regarded as a type of manipulation and can be either deliberate or unintentional. Breadcrumbing can occur in familial relationships, friendships, and the workplace, but it is more prevalent in romantic contexts, particularly with the surge of online dating.

In this context, breadcrumbing is an antisocial dating behavior, similar to ghosting.[3] It is referred to by this name because it involves giving a romantic interest a trail of "breadcrumbs," small bits of intermittent communication, to keep them interested without committing to a serious relationship.[4] This is intended to give the 'breadcrumbee" (the receiver) false hope[5] so that they will remain invested. Breadcrumbs might include randomly liking posts or sending flirtatious messages and require little effort from the "breadcrumber" (the sender),[4] and will often involve a demonstration and then withdrawal of interest.[5]

Whereas with ghosting the aim is to end the relationship, breadcrumbing's goal is to stop a relationship from progressing by not fully committing to it.[4] According to Stanley's theory of commitment, these objectives are not the same. This theory splits commitment into two different constructs: personal dedication and constraint commitment. Personal dedication encompasses an individual's drive to advance a relationship, something that may be lacking for breadcrumbers, while commitment constraint involves the potential consequences of ending the relationship (such as financial repercussions) that force a relationship to be maintained, which are also not present in breadcrumbing.[5][6] However, Johnson's model of commitment does also include the idea of moral commitment, unlike Stanley’s theory. Johnson's model posits that individuals feel morally obliged to maintain and commit to a relationship,[7] something that has yet to be applied to breadcrumbing.

Causes[edit]

Personality[edit]

Research has found that some of the main reasons people breadcrumb are because they are seeking attention, do not want to be alone, and/or have low self-esteem.[5] These reasons are linked to certain personality traits with certain types of people being more likely to breadcrumb, in particular those who score highly on vulnerable narcissism and hold Machiavellian views.[3] It is suggested that as vulnerable narcissists seek attention and approval from others in order to increase their self-esteem,[8] breadcrumbing is a way for them to fulfill these needs[3] without needing to commit to or end the relationship. Individuals with Machiavellian views see other people as dishonest and gullible, leading to them justifying manipulation and taking advantage of others,[9][10] for example through breadcrumbing.

Attachment Style[edit]

Breadcrumbing and insecure (avoidant or anxious) attachment styles are linked.[11] One characteristic of individuals with avoidant attachment is keeping a distance from romantic interests to avoid intimacy[11][12], which is a fundamental aspect of breadcrumbing. Individuals with anxious attachment seek validation and they may hope that by leaving gaps between communication (as in through breadcrumbing) the breadcrumbee will pursue them, providing the sought-after validation. They also demonstrate push-and pull-behaviours in relationships; they want intimacy but at the same time are afraid of being rejected, and thus push their partner away.[11] This is an instance in which breadcrumbing may occur unintentionally or without the intent to harm.

However, vulnerable narcissism and Machiavellianism are also linked to insecure attachment styles[13][14] which suggests that Dark Triad traits and breadcrumbing behavior may both be consequences of having an insecure attachment style.

These insecure attachment styles in adults are suggested to be caused in part by negative caregiving experiences during childhood, such as having a parent with depression. However, the correlation between attachment styles and caregiving experience is small and exceptions have been discovered, suggesting that other factors such as genetics play a part.[15] Although insecure attachment styles are linked to poor mental health[16] and negative behaviors such as breadcrumbing, it is suggested that they once had had evolutionary benefits. For example, Social Defense Theory suggests that having a range of attachment styles within a group meant individuals would react to danger in different ways, increasing the likeliness of the group as a whole overcoming and surviving those threats.[17] However, this theory has been subjected to criticisms, including that it lacks evidence and does not take into account all aspects of insecure attachments. It also contradicts previous theories that suggest insecure attachments benefit individuals themselves rather than groups,[18] but it does offer a possible explanation as to why insecure attachments are so prevalent. This in turn might explain why breadcrumbing is not an uncommon occurrence, with 35.6% of people having reported experiencing it.[1]

Psychological consequences[edit]

As breadcrumbing is persistent and communication does not completely end, unlike with ghosting, it can be more painful for breadcrumbees and prolong the amount of time it takes to emotionally recover.[19] Subsequently, victims of breadcrumbing are more likely to have lower life satisfaction and feel lonelier.[4] Breadcrumbees often struggle with trust issues and reduced self-esteem and experience feelings of insecurity, jealousy, and anger. This can lead to even more severe consequences for mental and physical health, with some breadcrumbees facing depression, exhaustion, and skin problems.[5] Breadcrumbing has also been found to sometimes occur simultaneously with gaslighting, for example if the breadcrumber implies the breadcrumbee is at fault,[5] which in turn has its own lasting psychological consequences.[20]

Coping strategies[edit]

Research has shown that there are effective ways to cope with being breadcrumbing that may help people minimize or avoid psychosocial consequences. These include redirecting focus away from the relationship and towards oneself.[5] One particularly common approach is reaching out to others. Social support has been shown to reduce the effects of stress on depression and anxiety,[21][22] preventing feelings of isolation,[5] and has been associated with increased happiness.[23]

Culture[edit]

As breadcrumbing is a relatively new concept, there has not yet been extensive research into its causes and consequences. Most studies looking into the phenomenon have taken place in Spain, although India has been found to have higher reported breadcrumbing rates.[11] This may be because a collectivist, more tight-knit culture like India places higher importance on interdependence, leading to an increased pressure to adhere norms[24][25], though the relative anonymity that comes with online interactions [26] may allow people to follow these norms less.[27] The relationship between insecure attachment and breadcrumbing also differs across countries; there is a higher prevalence of anxious attachment in India, while avoidant attachment is more prevalent in Spain.[11] Notably, this contradicts findings that avoidant attachment is more strongly linked to relationship problems in collectivist countries,[28] so further research is needed to clarify these cross-cultural differences[11] in relationship behaviours, particularly as they relate to breadcrumbing.

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b Navarro, Raúl; Larrañaga, Elisa; Yubero, Santiago; Villora, Beatriz (2020). "Ghosting and breadcrumbing: prevalence and association with online dating behavior among young adults". Escritos de Psicología - Psychological Writings. 13 (2): 46–59. ISSN 1138-2635.
  2. ^ Khattar, Vivek; Upadhyay, Shreya; Navarro, Raúl (8 February 2023). "Young Adults' Perception of Breadcrumbing Victimization in Dating Relationships". Societies. 13 (2): 41. doi:10.3390/soc13020041. ISSN 2075-4698.
  3. ^ a b c Willis, Megan L.; Oliver, Eliza; March, Evita (1 June 2023). "Dating in the dark: Vulnerable narcissism predicts inauthentic self-presentation in online dating". Telematics and Informatics. 81: 101985. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2023.101985. ISSN 0736-5853.
  4. ^ a b c d Navarro, Raúl; Larrañaga, Elisa; Yubero, Santiago; Víllora, Beatriz (January 2020). "Psychological Correlates of Ghosting and Breadcrumbing Experiences: A Preliminary Study among Adults". International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 17 (3): 1116. doi:10.3390/ijerph17031116. ISSN 1660-4601. PMC 7037474. PMID 32050561.
  5. ^ a b c d e f g h Khattar, Vivek; Upadhyay, Shreya; Navarro, Raúl (February 2023). "Young Adults' Perception of Breadcrumbing Victimization in Dating Relationships". Societies. 13 (2): 41. doi:10.3390/soc13020041. ISSN 2075-4698.
  6. ^ Stanley, Scott M.; Markman, Howard J. (1992). "Assessing Commitment in Personal Relationships". Journal of Marriage and Family. 54 (3): 595–608. doi:10.2307/353245. ISSN 0022-2445. JSTOR 353245.
  7. ^ Johnson, Michael P.; Caughlin, John P.; Huston, Ted L. (1999). "The Tripartite Nature of Marital Commitment: Personal, Moral, and Structural Reasons to Stay Married". Journal of Marriage and Family. 61 (1): 160–177. doi:10.2307/353891. ISSN 0022-2445. JSTOR 353891.
  8. ^ Zeigler-Hill, Virgil; Clark, C. Brendan; Pickard, Jessica D. (August 2008). "Narcissistic Subtypes and Contingent Self-Esteem: Do All Narcissists Base Their Self-Esteem on the Same Domains?". Journal of Personality. 76 (4): 753–774. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00503.x. ISSN 0022-3506. PMID 18482357.
  9. ^ Monaghan, Conal; Bizumic, Boris; Williams, Todd; Sellbom, Martin (March 2020). "Two-dimensional Machiavellianism: Conceptualization, theory, and measurement of the views and tactics dimensions". Psychological Assessment. 32 (3): 277–293. doi:10.1037/pas0000784. ISSN 1939-134X. PMID 31750680.
  10. ^ Rauthmann, John F. (July 2013). "Investigating the MACH–IV With Item Response Theory and Proposing the Trimmed MACH*". Journal of Personality Assessment. 95 (4): 388–397. doi:10.1080/00223891.2012.742905. ISSN 0022-3891. PMID 23186231.
  11. ^ a b c d e f Khattar, Vivek; Huete, Nuria; Navarro, Raúl (25 October 2023). "Attachment insecurity and breadcrumbing engagement in young adults: a cross-sectional, cross-country study in India and Spain". BMC Psychology. 11 (1): 356. doi:10.1186/s40359-023-01404-y. ISSN 2050-7283. PMC 10601106. PMID 37880762.
  12. ^ Agishtein, Peryl; Brumbaugh, Claudia (December 2013). "Cultural variation in adult attachment: The impact of ethnicity, collectivism, and country of origin". Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology. 7 (4): 384–405. doi:10.1037/h0099181. ISSN 1933-5377.
  13. ^ Ináncsi, Tamás; Láng, András; Bereczkei, Tamás (February 2015). "Machiavellianism and Adult Attachment in General Interpersonal Relationships and Close Relationships". Europe's Journal of Psychology. 11 (1): 139–154. doi:10.5964/ejop.v11i1.801. PMC 4873099. PMID 27247647.
  14. ^ Miller, Joshua D.; Hoffman, Brian J.; Gaughan, Eric T.; Gentile, Brittany; Maples, Jessica; Keith Campbell, W. (October 2011). "Grandiose and Vulnerable Narcissism: A Nomological Network Analysis: Variants of Narcissism". Journal of Personality. 79 (5): 1013–1042. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00711.x. PMID 21204843.
  15. ^ Fraley, R Chris; Roisman, Glenn I (1 February 2019). "The development of adult attachment styles: four lessons". Current Opinion in Psychology. Attachment in Adulthood. 25: 26–30. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.02.008. ISSN 2352-250X. PMID 29510301.
  16. ^ MIKULINCER, MARIO; SHAVER, PHILIP R. (February 2012). "An attachment perspective on psychopathology". World Psychiatry. 11 (1): 11–15. doi:10.1016/j.wpsyc.2012.01.003. ISSN 1723-8617. PMC 3266769. PMID 22294997.
  17. ^ Ein-Dor, Tsachi; Mikulincer, Mario; Doron, Guy; Shaver, Phillip R. (March 2010). "The Attachment Paradox: How Can So Many of Us (the Insecure Ones) Have No Adaptive Advantages?". Perspectives on Psychological Science. 5 (2): 123–141. doi:10.1177/1745691610362349. ISSN 1745-6916. PMID 26162120.
  18. ^ Frankenhuis, Willem Eduard (1 November 2010). "Did Insecure Attachment Styles Evolve for the Benefit of the Group?". Frontiers in Psychology. 1: 172. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00172. ISSN 1664-1078. PMC 3125537. PMID 21738510.
  19. ^ Rodríguez-García, Mª Carmen; Márquez-Hernández, Verónica V.; Granados-Gámez, Genoveva; Aguilera-Manrique, Gabriel; Martínez-Puertas, Helena; Gutiérrez-Puertas, Lorena (December 2020). "Development and Validation of Breadcrumbing in Affective-Sexual Relationships (BREAD-ASR) Questionnaire: Introducing a New Online Dating Perpetration". International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 17 (24): 9548. doi:10.3390/ijerph17249548. ISSN 1661-7827. PMC 7766626. PMID 33419336.
  20. ^ Hailes, Helen P.; Goodman, Lisa A. (5 October 2023). ""They're out to take away your sanity": A qualitative investigation of gaslighting in intimate partner violence". Journal of Family Violence. doi:10.1007/s10896-023-00652-1. ISSN 1573-2851.
  21. ^ Wang, Xingmin; Cai, Lin; Qian, Jing; Peng, Jiaxi (13 November 2014). "Social support moderates stress effects on depression". International Journal of Mental Health Systems. 8 (1): 41. doi:10.1186/1752-4458-8-41. ISSN 1752-4458. PMC 4242489. PMID 25422673.
  22. ^ Roohafza, Hamid Reza; Afshar, Hamid; Keshteli, Ammar Hassanzadeh; Mohammadi, Narges; Feizi, Awat; Taslimi, Mahshid; Adibi, Peyman (October 2014). "What's the role of perceived social support and coping styles in depression and anxiety?". Journal of Research in Medical Sciences. 19 (10): 944–949. ISSN 1735-1995. PMC 4274570. PMID 25538777.
  23. ^ Araki, Satoshi (9 September 2023). "The Societal Determinants of Happiness and Unhappiness: Evidence From 152 Countries Over 15 Years". Social Psychological and Personality Science. doi:10.1177/19485506231197803. ISSN 1948-5506.
  24. ^ Gelfand, Michele J.; Raver, Jana L.; Nishii, Lisa; Leslie, Lisa M.; Lun, Janetta; Lim, Beng Chong; Duan, Lili; Almaliach, Assaf; Ang, Soon; Arnadottir, Jakobina; Aycan, Zeynep; Boehnke, Klaus; Boski, Pawel; Cabecinhas, Rosa; Chan, Darius (27 May 2011). "Differences Between Tight and Loose Cultures: A 33-Nation Study". Science. 332 (6033): 1100–1104. Bibcode:2011Sci...332.1100G. doi:10.1126/science.1197754. hdl:1813/75456. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 21617077.
  25. ^ Chadda, Rakesh K.; Deb, Koushik Sinha (January 2013). "Indian family systems, collectivistic society and psychotherapy". Indian Journal of Psychiatry. 55 (Suppl 2): S299-309. doi:10.4103/0019-5545.105555. ISSN 0019-5545. PMC 3705700. PMID 23858272.
  26. ^ Thomas, Jhanelle Oneika; Dubar, Royette Tavernier (July 2021). "Disappearing in the age of hypervisibility: Definition, context, and perceived psychological consequences of social media ghosting". Psychology of Popular Media. 10 (3): 291–302. doi:10.1037/ppm0000343. ISSN 2689-6575.
  27. ^ Krysowski, Eryk; Tremewan, James (April 2021). "Why Does Anonymity Make Us Misbehave: Different Norms or Less Compliance?". Economic Inquiry. 59 (2): 776–789. doi:10.1111/ecin.12955. ISSN 0095-2583.
  28. ^ Friedman, Mike; Rholes, W. Steven; Simpson, Jeffry; Bond, Michael; Diaz-Loving, Rolondo; Chan, Clare (March 2010). "Attachment avoidance and the cultural fit hypothesis: A cross-cultural investigation". Personal Relationships. 17 (1): 107–126. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01256.x.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breadcrumbing&oldid=1220169713"