View Article

Abstract

Romantic relationship represents one of the most intense forms of heartbreak social pain arising out of disintegration, often leading to prolonged emotional pain. Emotional evidence from neuroimaging studies has shown that the brain processes heartbreaking in ways that are attained by physical pain, especially the anterior cingulate cortex. This review synthesizes the current findings of how the intervention in the attachment system activates the overlapping nervous circuit responsible for the perception of pain, reduces the sensitivity to the reward, and increases stress reactions. There are central neurochemical changes for this process that include dopamine and oxytocin, two major neurotransmitters that regulate relationships, motivations and emotional regulation. We discuss personal variability in further sensitivity and recover from heartbreak, informing why some individuals experience deep psychological wounds. Understanding the neurobiology of heartbreak not only deepens our understanding of human attachment and social pain, but also has important implications for developing clinical intervention targeted to reduce emotional crisis.

Keywords

heartbreak, social pain, attachment, dopamine, oxytocin, anterior cingulate cortex, neuroimaging

Introduction

Romantic relations experience disintegration - commonly called "heartbreak" - a universal human experience that crosses cultural boundaries and historical ages. Despite its omnipresent, the neurobiological underpinning of heartbreak has recently initiated a systematic examination through a lens of modern neurology. Acute emotional pain associated with relationship breakup is often more than rivals or physical pain in its subjective intensity, suggests shared neurobiological mechanisms that have developed to induce social relations and prevent relationship dissolution. Heartbreak's scientific examination sits at the intersection of several major neuro scientific domains, including social neurology, emotional neurology, and stress biology. The concept of "social pain" - as an unpleasant experience arising out of real or potential psychological distance from close people - has emerged as a central structure to understand heartbreak. This structure suggests that social rejection and loss pain shares neurobiological system with physical pain, which reflects the evolutionary significance of social connections for survival. Contemporary neuro scientific research employs several functioning approaches to investigate heart breakdown, including functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), positron emission tomography (PET), electroencephalography (EEG), and biochemical analysis of neurotransmitters. These complementary approaches have shown that Heartbreak involves complex interaction between brain areas associated with reward processing, pain perception, attachment, and emotional regulation [1, 2].

Neuroanatomical Foundations of Heartbreak

The Social Pain Network [3, 4]

Fig. 1: Social Pain Network in our brain

Neuroanatomical base of heart -breaking centers has called researchers a "social pain network" - a collection of brain areas that show frequent activation during social rejection and loss experiences. The main components of this network include the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), especially dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (DACC), and the right ventral prefrontal cortex (RVPFC). These areas display remarkable overlap with brain physical pain processing systems, providing neurobiological support for the common metaphor language used to describe heartbreak. DACC acts as an important center to process the affectionate component of both physical and social pain. The region reflects an increase in activism during the crisis related to the relationship and corrupts with subjective reports of the intensity of emotional pain. The role of DACC in pain processing is complemented by its extensive connection to limbic structures, allowing it to integrate emotional and cognitive aspects of heart breakage experience. In contrast, RVPFC plays a regulatory role in social pain processing. The region reflects an increase in activism during efforts to deal with social disappointment and is associated with low subjective crisis. The regulatory function of RVPFC can explain individual differences in heartbreak recovery, as individuals with strong prefrontal regulatory capacity may be better in modifying their emotional reactions to the loss of relationships.

Limbic System Involvement [5-8]

The limbic system plays a central role in the emotional processing aspects of the heartbreak. Amygdala, often considered the "alarm system" of the brain, increases the activation during the acute stages of the relationship dissolution. This activation is associated with increased emotional reactivity, hyper vigilance for attachment related stimuli, and strong emotional memories related to lost relationships. Hippocampus, important for memory formation and recovery, becomes very active during heart break, contributes to infiltration ideas and memories marking this experience. The role of the hippocampus in relevant memory may explain why some places, songs or objects can trigger intensive emotional reactions long after the end of a relationship. The nucleus accumbens, a major component of the brain's reward system, reflects the complex pattern of activation during heartbreak. Initially, this area can increase activation while looking at photos of the former partner, suggests continuous prize processing despite the end of the relationship. Over time, this activation is usually reduced because the brain is suitable for the absence of rewarding stimulation.

Prefrontal Cortex Regulation [9-12]

The prefrontal cortex (PFC) performs several tasks in the processing of heart breaking, including cognitive control, emotional regulation and executive decision making. dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) is particularly important for cognitive control procedures, such as attention regulation and working memory. During Heartbreak, dlPFC may be admitted to suppress ideas of infiltration about former partner and to pay attention to other activities. The ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) plays an important role in emotional regulation and self-proclaiming processing. The region reflects the converted activation pattern during heartbreak, potentially contributes to the self-centered rumor that is characterized by this experience. Connections to vmPFC's limbic structures keep it in position as a major regulatory center for managing the emotional intensity of heartbreak. Orbitofrontal Cortex (OFC) is involved in prize processing and decision making, especially in social contexts. During Heartbreak, the OFC may show changed reactions to social awards, possibly contributing to low motivation to social interaction that many individuals experience during relationship disintegration.

Fig. 2: Neurofunctional foundation of Heartbreak

Neurotransmitter Systems in Heartbreak

The Dopamine System [13-17]

The central system goes through significant disruption during heartbreak, to reward the dopamine system, processing and inspiration. The romantic relationship is associated with the release of increased dopamine in its projection goals, including nucleus accumbens and prefrontal cortex, in the romantic relationships and its launch goals. The sudden absence of awards related to the relationship after the breakup can lead to a state similar to withdrawal from drug addiction. During the acute phase of heart break, the level of dopamine can dramatically ups and downs. The initial risk for the former partner's reminder can trigger the dopamine release, which can create a pattern similar to the reinforcement that can maintain attachment behavior despite their futility. This dopaminergic reaction can explain frequent binding behaviors during the heart break, such as repeatedly checking social media or trying to contact a former partner. The role of the dopamine system in inspiration and target-directed behavior is also compromised during heart-breaking. The prefrontal cortex can contribute to low dopamine signalling anhedonia and reduce motivation which is characterized by symptoms such as depression after dissolution. Restoration of normal dopamine function is important for recovery from heartbreak and the ability to create new romantic attachments.

Oxytocin and Vasopressin [18-24]

Oxytocin and vasopressin, often referred to as "bonding hormones," play complex roles in heartbreak. These neuropeptides are released during positive social interactions and physical intimacy, contributing to the formation and maintenance of pair bonds. The disruption of oxytocin and vasopressin systems during relationship dissolution may contribute to the intense longing and separation distress experienced during heartbreak. Oxytocin levels may initially remain elevated following a breakup, potentially contributing to continued attachment behaviors and the desire for reconciliation. However, the absence of reciprocal oxytocin-releasing interactions with the former partner may lead to dysregulation of this system over time. Individual differences in oxytocin receptor genetics may influence vulnerability to heartbreak and recovery trajectories. Vasopressin, particularly important for male bonding behaviors, may also be disrupted during heartbreak. The relationship between vasopressin and territorial/protective behaviors may contribute to the jealousy and possessiveness that sometimes accompany relationship dissolution. Understanding these neuropeptide systems may provide insights into gender differences in heartbreak experiences and recovery patterns.

Serotonin and Mood Regulation [25-28]

The serotonin system, crucial for mood regulation and emotional well-being, is significantly impacted during heartbreak. Serotonin dysfunction is associated with depression, anxiety, and obsessive-compulsive symptoms—all of which are common features of the heartbreak experience. The disruption of serotonin signalling may contribute to the mood instability, sleep disturbances, and cognitive difficulties that characterize heartbreak. Serotonin's role in impulse control may also be compromised during heartbreak, potentially contributing to maladaptive coping behaviours such as substance use or self-harm. The restoration of serotonin function through time, lifestyle changes, or therapeutic interventions may be crucial for recovery from heartbreak. The interaction between serotonin and other neurotransmitter systems, particularly dopamine, may be particularly important in heartbreak. The balance between these systems influences mood, motivation, and reward processing, all of which are disrupted during relationship dissolution. Understanding these interactions may inform the development of targeted interventions for heartbreak-related distress.

Stress Response Systems [29-32]

The hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis is robustly activated during heartbreak, leading to elevated cortisol levels and chronic stress responses. This activation is adaptive in the short term, mobilizing resources to cope with the crisis of relationship loss. However, chronic activation of the HPA axis can have detrimental effects on physical and mental health. Elevated cortisol levels during heartbreak may contribute to sleep disturbances, appetite changes, immune system suppression, and cognitive difficulties. The interaction between cortisol and other neurochemical systems, particularly serotonin and dopamine, may exacerbate the negative emotional consequences of heartbreak. The noradrenergic system, involved in arousal and stress responses, is also activated during heartbreak. Increased norepinephrine release may contribute to the hyper vigilance, anxiety, and physical symptoms (such as heart palpitations) that accompany heartbreak. The gradual normalization of stress response systems is likely important for recovery from heartbreak.

Neuroplasticity and Recovery Mechanisms [33-35]

Adaptive Neuroplasticity

The brain's capacity for neuroplasticity—the ability to reorganize and form new neural connections—plays a crucial role in recovery from heartbreak. While the initial neurobiological response to relationship dissolution is largely maladaptive, the brain gradually adapts to the absence of the former partner through various neuroplastic mechanisms. Synaptic plasticity in reward-related brain regions allows for the gradual extinction of conditioned responses to relationship-related stimuli. This process, similar to extinction learning in addiction recovery, involves the formation of new neural pathways that compete with established attachment-related memories. The prefrontal cortex plays a crucial role in this process by exerting top-down control over limbic responses. Structural neuroplasticity may also contribute to recovery from heartbreak. Changes in dendritic spine density and synaptic strength in brain regions involved in social bonding may reflect the brain's adaptation to the absence of the former partner. These structural changes may be influenced by factors such as social support, physical exercise, and therapeutic interventions.

Cognitive Reappraisal and Prefrontal Function

The development of cognitive reappraisal skills—the ability to reinterpret emotional situations in less distressing ways—is a key component of recovery from heartbreak. This process involves increased activation of prefrontal control regions and their ability to modulate limbic responses. Individuals who develop effective reappraisal skills may show faster recovery from heartbreak and greater resilience to future relationship challenges. The prefrontal cortex's role in cognitive reappraisal involves multiple subregions working in concert. The dlPFC contributes to attentional control and working memory processes needed to maintain alternative interpretations of relationship events. The vmPFC integrates emotional and cognitive information to generate new emotional responses. The development of these prefrontal control mechanisms may be a key target for therapeutic interventions.

Memory Reconsolidation

The process of memory reconsolidation—the updating of existing memories when they are retrieved—may play an important role in recovery from heartbreak. Each time relationship-related memories are recalled, they become temporarily labile and subject to modification. This process provides opportunities for therapeutic interventions that can help individuals develop more adaptive memories of their past relationships. Memory reconsolidation involves complex interactions between the hippocampus, amygdala, and prefrontal cortex. Understanding these mechanisms may inform the development of interventions that can help individual’s process relationship memories in more adaptive ways, reducing the emotional intensity associated with these memories over time.

Fig. 4: The brain’s Journey through heartbreak recovery

Individual Differences and Vulnerability Factors [36-38]

Genetic Influences

Individual differences in heartbreak vulnerability and recovery are influenced by genetic factors affecting neurotransmitter systems, stress responses, and attachment behaviors. Polymorphisms in genes encoding dopamine receptors, serotonin transporters, and oxytocin receptors may influence how individuals respond to relationship dissolution. The dopamine D2 receptor gene (DRD2) has been associated with differences in reward sensitivity and addiction vulnerability. Individuals with certain DRD2 variants may be more susceptible to the addictive-like aspects of romantic attachment and may experience more difficulty during relationship dissolution. Similarly, variants in the serotonin transporter gene (5-HTTLPR) may influence vulnerability to depression and anxiety during heartbreak. Oxytocin and vasopressin receptor genes may influence attachment style and bonding behaviours. Individuals with certain genetic variants may form stronger attachments and experience more intense distress during relationship dissolution. Understanding these genetic influences may help identify individuals at risk for complicated grief following relationship loss.

Attachment Style

Attachment style, formed through early caregiving experiences, significantly influences how individuals respond to relationship dissolution. Individuals with secure attachment styles generally show more adaptive responses to heartbreak, with better emotional regulation and faster recovery. In contrast, those with insecure attachment styles may experience more intense and prolonged distress. Anxious attachment is associated with heightened activation of the attachment system during relationship threats. Individuals with anxious attachment may show increased amygdala reactivity and decreased prefrontal control during heartbreak, contributing to more intense emotional distress and slower recovery. The fear of abandonment central to anxious attachment may also lead to maladaptive coping behaviors. Avoidant attachment is characterized by suppression of attachment-related emotions and behaviors. While individuals with avoidant attachment may appear less distressed during heartbreak, they may actually show altered neural responses suggesting suppressed emotional processing. This suppression may interfere with the natural grieving process and lead to delayed or complicated recovery.

Psychological Factors

Several psychological factors influence vulnerability to heartbreak and recovery trajectories. Rumination—the tendency to repetitively focus on negative thoughts and emotions—is associated with prolonged distress and delayed recovery. Neuroimaging studies suggest that rumination involves increased activation of the default mode network and decreased prefrontal control. Emotional regulation skills are crucial for adaptive responses to heartbreak. Individuals with better emotional regulation abilities show more effective prefrontal control over limbic responses and faster recovery from relationship dissolution. These skills can be developed through therapeutic interventions and mindfulness practices. Self-esteem and self-concept clarity also influence heartbreak responses. Individuals with lower self-esteem may experience more intense distress during heartbreak, particularly if their self-concept was heavily dependent on the relationship. The process of rebuilding self-identity following relationship dissolution may be particularly challenging for these individuals.

Fig. 5: Individual differences and vulnerability factors

Therapeutic Implications and Interventions [36-38]

Pharmacological Approaches

Understanding the neurochemical basis of heartbreak has led to exploration of pharmacological interventions for severe cases of relationship-related distress. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) may be beneficial for individuals experiencing depression and anxiety following relationship dissolution. These medications can help restore serotonin function and improve mood regulation. Dopamine-modulating medications may be useful for addressing the addictive-like aspects of romantic attachment. However, care must be taken to avoid interfering with the natural grieving process or the ability to form future attachments. The use of medication should be considered in the context of the individual's overall mental health and functioning. Oxytocin-based interventions are being explored for their potential to facilitate healthy attachment and social bonding. However, the complex role of oxytocin in heartbreak means that such interventions must be carefully designed to promote healing rather than maintaining maladaptive attachment behaviors.

Psychotherapeutic Interventions

Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) has shown promise for addressing heartbreak-related distress. CBT techniques can help individuals identify and modify maladaptive thought patterns, develop better coping strategies, and improve emotional regulation skills. The focus on cognitive reappraisal in CBT aligns well with the neurobiological understanding of prefrontal control mechanisms. Mindfulness-based interventions may be particularly beneficial for heartbreak recovery. Mindfulness practices can help individuals observe their thoughts and emotions without being overwhelmed by them, potentially strengthening prefrontal control mechanisms. These interventions may also promote neuroplasticity and adaptive brain changes. Attachment-based therapies focus on understanding and modifying attachment patterns that contribute to relationship difficulties. These approaches may be particularly beneficial for individuals with insecure attachment styles who experience more intense or prolonged heartbreak.

Lifestyle Interventions

Physical exercise has been shown to promote neuroplasticity and improve mood regulation through multiple mechanisms. Exercise increases the production of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), which supports neuronal growth and survival. It also promotes the release of endorphins and other neurotransmitters that can improve mood and reduce stress. Social support is crucial for recovery from heartbreak. Strong social connections can help buffer the stress response and provide alternative sources of oxytocin and social reward. Encouraging individuals to maintain and develop social connections may be an important component of heartbreak recovery. Sleep hygiene and stress management techniques are also important for recovery. The disruption of sleep and stress systems during heartbreak can perpetuate the cycle of distress and interfere with natural recovery processes. Addressing these basic health factors may be crucial for promoting healing.

Fig. 6: Pharmacological Interventions for Heartbreak

Future Directions and Research Opportunities [39-44]

Technological Advances

Advances in neuroimaging technology continue to provide new insights into the neurobiology of heartbreak. High-resolution fMRI techniques allow for more precise mapping of brain activation patterns, while connectivity analyses reveal how different brain regions interact during heartbreak. These advances may lead to more targeted therapeutic interventions. Real-time neurofeedback technologies may allow individuals to gain direct control over their brain activity patterns during heartbreak. These approaches could help individuals develop better emotional regulation skills and promote adaptive neuroplasticity. However, more research is needed to determine the effectiveness and safety of such interventions. Wearable devices that monitor physiological markers of stress and emotional distress may provide new opportunities for early intervention and personalized treatment approaches. These devices could track markers such as heart rate variability, cortisol levels, and sleep patterns to provide real-time feedback on recovery progress.

Precision Medicine Approaches

The development of precision medicine approaches to heartbreak may involve genetic testing to identify individuals at risk for complicated grief or prolonged distress. Understanding individual genetic profiles could inform personalized treatment recommendations and help optimize therapeutic outcomes. Neuroimaging-based biomarkers may also be developed to predict recovery trajectories and treatment responses. Patterns of brain activation or connectivity could help clinicians identify individuals who may benefit from specific interventions or who may be at risk for complicated recovery.

Longitudinal Studies

Long-term longitudinal studies are needed to better understand the natural course of heartbreak recovery and the factors that influence outcomes. These studies could help identify critical periods for intervention and provide insights into the development of resilience. Prospective studies that follow individuals before, during, and after relationship dissolution would provide valuable insights into the neurobiological changes that occur during heartbreak. These studies could help distinguish between adaptive and maladaptive responses and identify early warning signs of complicated grief.

CONCLUSION

The neuroscience of heartbreak represents a rapidly evolving field that has provided important insights into the biological basis of social pain and attachment. The convergence of evidence from neuroimaging, neurochemistry, and behavioral studies has revealed that heartbreak involves complex interactions between brain systems involved in reward processing, pain perception, stress responses, and emotional regulation. Understanding the neurobiological mechanisms of heartbreak has important implications for both basic neuroscience research and clinical practice. From a basic science perspective, heartbreak research has advanced our understanding of social pain mechanisms, attachment systems, and the neural basis of human social behavior. From a clinical perspective, this research has informed the development of targeted interventions for relationship-related distress and has highlighted the importance of addressing the biological as well as psychological aspects of heartbreak. The recognition that heartbreak involves real neurobiological changes has also helped validate the subjective experience of relationship loss and has reduced stigma around seeking help for relationship-related distress. This understanding emphasizes that heartbreak is not simply a matter of "getting over it" but involves complex biological processes that take time to resolve. Future research in this field will likely focus on developing more precise models of individual differences in heartbreak vulnerability and recovery, as well as creating more effective and personalized interventions. The integration of genetic, neurobiological, and psychological factors will be crucial for advancing our understanding of this universal human experience. The study of heartbreak also has broader implications for understanding human social behavior and the evolutionary origins of social bonding. The pain of relationship loss may have evolved as a mechanism to motivate relationship maintenance and prevent the dissolution of important social bonds. This evolutionary perspective provides important context for understanding why heartbreak is such a powerful and universal human experience. As our understanding of the neuroscience of heartbreak continues to evolve, it is important to remember that this knowledge should be used to reduce suffering and promote healing. The goal is not to eliminate the capacity for deep attachment, which is fundamental to human well-being, but to help individuals navigate the inevitable challenges of relationship loss with greater resilience and hope for future connections. The neurochemistry of heartbreak represents a fascinating intersection of biology, psychology, and human experience. By continuing to unravel these complex mechanisms, we can work toward a more compassionate and effective approach to helping individuals heal from one of life's most challenging experiences. The journey from heartbreak to healing is deeply personal, but understanding the biological processes involved can provide valuable insights and hope for those navigating this difficult terrain.

REFERENCE

  1. Eisenberger, N. I. (2012). The pain of social disconnection: Examining the shared neural underpinnings of physical and social pain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 13(6), 421-434.
  2. Eisenberger, N. I., & Lieberman, M. D. (2004). Why rejection hurts: A common neural alarm system for physical and social pain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(7), 294-300.
  3. Kross, E., Berman, M. G., Mischel, W., Smith, E. E., & Wager, T. D. (2011). Social rejection shares somatosensory representations with physical pain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(15), 6270-6275.
  4. MacDonald, G., & Leary, M. R. (2005). Why does social exclusion hurt? The relationship between social and physical pain. Psychological Bulletin, 131(2), 202-223.
  5. Cacioppo, J. T., & Hawkley, L. C. (2009). Perceived social isolation and cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(10), 447-454.
  6. Lieberman, M. D., & Eisenberger, N. I. (2009). Pains and pleasures of social life. Science, 323(5916), 890-891.
  7. Wager, T. D., Atlas, L. Y., Lindquist, M. A., Roy, M., Woo, C. W., & Kross, E. (2013). An fMRI-based neurologic signature of physical pain. New England Journal of Medicine, 368(15), 1388-1397.
  8.  Younger, J., Aron, A., Parke, S., Chatterjee, N., & Mackey, S. (2010). Viewing pictures of a romantic partner reduces experimental pain. PLoS One, 5(10), e13309.
  9. Fisher, H. E., Aron, A., & Brown, L. L. (2006). Romantic love: A mammalian brain system for mate choice. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 361(1476), 2173-2186.
  10. Gündel, H., O'Connor, M. F., Littrell, L., Fort, C., & Lane, R. D. (2003). Functional neuroanatomy of grief: An FMRI study. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160(11), 1946-1953.
  11. Najib, A., Lorberbaum, J. P., Kose, S., Bohning, D. E., & George, M. S. (2004). Regional brain activity in women grieving a romantic relationship breakup. American Journal of Psychiatry, 161(12), 2245-2256.
  12. O'Connor, M. F., Wellisch, D. K., Stanton, A. L., Eisenberger, N. I., Irwin, M. R., & Lieberman, M. D. (2008). Craving love? Enduring grief activates brain's reward center. NeuroImage, 42(2), 969-972.
  13. Beauregard, M., Lévesque, J., & Bourgouin, P. (2001). Neural correlates of conscious self-regulation of emotion. Journal of Neuroscience, 21(18), RC165.
  14. Ochsner, K. N., & Gross, J. J. (2005). The cognitive control of emotion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(5), 242-249.
  15. Phan, K. L., Fitzgerald, D. A., Nathan, P. J., Moore, G. J., Uhde, T. W., & Tancer, M. E. (2005). Neural substrates for voluntary suppression of negative affect. Biological Psychiatry, 57(3), 210-219.
  16. Urry, H. L., van Reekum, C. M., Johnstone, T., Kalin, N. H., Thurow, M. E., Schaefer, H. S., ... & Davidson, R. J. (2006). Amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex are inversely coupled during regulation of negative affect. Journal of Neuroscience, 26(16), 4415-4425.
  17. Aron, A., Fisher, H., Mashek, D. J., Strong, G., Li, H., & Brown, L. L. (2005). Reward, motivation, and emotion systems associated with early-stage intense romantic love. Journal of Neurophysiology, 94(1), 327-337.
  18. Berridge, K. C., & Robinson, T. E. (2003). Parsing reward. Trends in Neurosciences, 26(9), 507-513.
  19. Fisher, H. E., Brown, L. L., Aron, A., Strong, G., & Mashek, D. (2010). Reward, addiction, and emotion regulation systems associated with rejection in love. Journal of Neurophysiology, 104(1), 51-60.
  20. Schultz, W. (2007). Multiple dopamine functions at different time courses. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 30, 259-288.
  21. Carter, C. S. (1998). Neuroendocrine perspectives on social attachment and love. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 23(8), 779-818.
  22. Donaldson, Z. R., & Young, L. J. (2008). Oxytocin, vasopressin, and the neurogenetics of sociality. Science, 322(5903), 900-904.
  23. Feldman, R. (2012). Oxytocin and social affiliation in humans. Hormones and Behavior, 61(3), 380-391.
  24. Young, L. J., & Wang, Z. (2004). The neurobiology of pair bonding. Nature Neuroscience, 7(10), 1048-1054.
  25. Carver, C. S., Johnson, S. L., & Joormann, J. (2008). Serotonergic function, two-mode models of self-regulation, and vulnerability to depression. Psychological Bulletin, 134(6), 912-943.
  26. Marazziti, D., Akiskal, H. S., Rossi, A., & Cassano, G. B. (1999). Alteration of the platelet serotonin transporter in romantic love. Psychological Medicine, 29(3), 741-745.
  27. Siever, L. J. (2008). Neurobiology of aggression and violence. American Journal of Psychiatry, 165(4), 429-442.
  28. Winstanley, C. A., Theobald, D. E., Dalley, J. W., & Robbins, T. W. (2005). Interactions between serotonin and dopamine in the control of impulsive choice. Behavioral Brain Research, 154(1), 17-30.
  29. Gunnar, M., & Quevedo, K. (2007). The neurobiology of stress and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 145-173.
  30. McEwen, B. S. (2007). Physiology and neurobiology of stress and adaptation. Physiological Reviews, 87(3), 873-904.
  31. Sbarra, D. A., & Hazan, C. (2008). Coregulation, dysregulation, self-regulation: An integrative analysis and empirical agenda for understanding adult attachment, separation, loss, and recovery. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(2), 141-167.
  32. Slavich, G. M., & Irwin, M. R. (2014). From stress to inflammation and major depressive disorder: A social signal transduction theory of depression. Psychological Bulletin, 140(3), 774-815.
  33.  Draganski, B., & May, A. (2008). Changes in gray matter induced by learning—revisited. PLoS One, 3(7), e2669.
  34. Fuchs, E., & Flügge, G. (2014). Adult neuroplasticity: More than 40 years of research. Neural Plasticity, 2014, 541870.
  35. Vago, D. R., & Silbersweig, D. A. (2012). Self-awareness, self-regulation, and self-transcendence (S-ART): A framework for understanding the neurobiological mechanisms of mindfulness. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 296.
  36. Caspi, A., Sugden, K., Moffitt, T. E., Taylor, A., Craig, I. W., Harrington, H., ... & Poulton, R. (2003). Influence of life stress on depression: Moderation by a polymorphism in the 5-HTT gene. Science, 301(5631), 386-389.
  37. Gillath, O., Shaver, P. R., Baek, J. M., & Chun, D. S. (2008). Genetic correlates of adult attachment style. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(10), 1396-1405.
  38. Lesch, K. P., Bengel, D., Heils, A., Sabol, S. Z., Greenberg, B. D., Petri, S., ... & Murphy, D. L. (1996). Association of anxiety-related traits with a polymorphism in the serotonin transporter gene regulatory region. Science, 274(5292), 1527-1531.
  39. Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. Basic Books.
  40. 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.
  41. Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Morrow, J. (1991). A prospective study of depression and posttraumatic stress symptoms after a natural disaster. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(1), 115-121.
  42. Goyal, M., Singh, S., Sibinga, E. M., Gould, N. F., Rowland-Seymour, A., Sharma, R., ... & Haythornthwaite, J. A. (2014). Meditation programs for psychological stress and well-being: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Internal Medicine, 174(3), 357-368.
  43. Hofmann, S. G., Asnaani, A., Vonk, I. J., Sawyer, A. T., & Fang, A. (2012). The efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy: A review of meta-analyses. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 36(5), 427-440.
  44. Vago, D. R., & Nakamura, Y. (2011). Selective attentional bias towards pain-related threat in fibromyalgia: Preliminary evidence for effects of mindfulness meditation training. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 35(6), 581-594.

Reference

  1. Eisenberger, N. I. (2012). The pain of social disconnection: Examining the shared neural underpinnings of physical and social pain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 13(6), 421-434.
  2. Eisenberger, N. I., & Lieberman, M. D. (2004). Why rejection hurts: A common neural alarm system for physical and social pain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(7), 294-300.
  3. Kross, E., Berman, M. G., Mischel, W., Smith, E. E., & Wager, T. D. (2011). Social rejection shares somatosensory representations with physical pain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(15), 6270-6275.
  4. MacDonald, G., & Leary, M. R. (2005). Why does social exclusion hurt? The relationship between social and physical pain. Psychological Bulletin, 131(2), 202-223.
  5. Cacioppo, J. T., & Hawkley, L. C. (2009). Perceived social isolation and cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(10), 447-454.
  6. Lieberman, M. D., & Eisenberger, N. I. (2009). Pains and pleasures of social life. Science, 323(5916), 890-891.
  7. Wager, T. D., Atlas, L. Y., Lindquist, M. A., Roy, M., Woo, C. W., & Kross, E. (2013). An fMRI-based neurologic signature of physical pain. New England Journal of Medicine, 368(15), 1388-1397.
  8.  Younger, J., Aron, A., Parke, S., Chatterjee, N., & Mackey, S. (2010). Viewing pictures of a romantic partner reduces experimental pain. PLoS One, 5(10), e13309.
  9. Fisher, H. E., Aron, A., & Brown, L. L. (2006). Romantic love: A mammalian brain system for mate choice. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 361(1476), 2173-2186.
  10. Gündel, H., O'Connor, M. F., Littrell, L., Fort, C., & Lane, R. D. (2003). Functional neuroanatomy of grief: An FMRI study. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160(11), 1946-1953.
  11. Najib, A., Lorberbaum, J. P., Kose, S., Bohning, D. E., & George, M. S. (2004). Regional brain activity in women grieving a romantic relationship breakup. American Journal of Psychiatry, 161(12), 2245-2256.
  12. O'Connor, M. F., Wellisch, D. K., Stanton, A. L., Eisenberger, N. I., Irwin, M. R., & Lieberman, M. D. (2008). Craving love? Enduring grief activates brain's reward center. NeuroImage, 42(2), 969-972.
  13. Beauregard, M., Lévesque, J., & Bourgouin, P. (2001). Neural correlates of conscious self-regulation of emotion. Journal of Neuroscience, 21(18), RC165.
  14. Ochsner, K. N., & Gross, J. J. (2005). The cognitive control of emotion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(5), 242-249.
  15. Phan, K. L., Fitzgerald, D. A., Nathan, P. J., Moore, G. J., Uhde, T. W., & Tancer, M. E. (2005). Neural substrates for voluntary suppression of negative affect. Biological Psychiatry, 57(3), 210-219.
  16. Urry, H. L., van Reekum, C. M., Johnstone, T., Kalin, N. H., Thurow, M. E., Schaefer, H. S., ... & Davidson, R. J. (2006). Amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex are inversely coupled during regulation of negative affect. Journal of Neuroscience, 26(16), 4415-4425.
  17. Aron, A., Fisher, H., Mashek, D. J., Strong, G., Li, H., & Brown, L. L. (2005). Reward, motivation, and emotion systems associated with early-stage intense romantic love. Journal of Neurophysiology, 94(1), 327-337.
  18. Berridge, K. C., & Robinson, T. E. (2003). Parsing reward. Trends in Neurosciences, 26(9), 507-513.
  19. Fisher, H. E., Brown, L. L., Aron, A., Strong, G., & Mashek, D. (2010). Reward, addiction, and emotion regulation systems associated with rejection in love. Journal of Neurophysiology, 104(1), 51-60.
  20. Schultz, W. (2007). Multiple dopamine functions at different time courses. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 30, 259-288.
  21. Carter, C. S. (1998). Neuroendocrine perspectives on social attachment and love. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 23(8), 779-818.
  22. Donaldson, Z. R., & Young, L. J. (2008). Oxytocin, vasopressin, and the neurogenetics of sociality. Science, 322(5903), 900-904.
  23. Feldman, R. (2012). Oxytocin and social affiliation in humans. Hormones and Behavior, 61(3), 380-391.
  24. Young, L. J., & Wang, Z. (2004). The neurobiology of pair bonding. Nature Neuroscience, 7(10), 1048-1054.
  25. Carver, C. S., Johnson, S. L., & Joormann, J. (2008). Serotonergic function, two-mode models of self-regulation, and vulnerability to depression. Psychological Bulletin, 134(6), 912-943.
  26. Marazziti, D., Akiskal, H. S., Rossi, A., & Cassano, G. B. (1999). Alteration of the platelet serotonin transporter in romantic love. Psychological Medicine, 29(3), 741-745.
  27. Siever, L. J. (2008). Neurobiology of aggression and violence. American Journal of Psychiatry, 165(4), 429-442.
  28. Winstanley, C. A., Theobald, D. E., Dalley, J. W., & Robbins, T. W. (2005). Interactions between serotonin and dopamine in the control of impulsive choice. Behavioral Brain Research, 154(1), 17-30.
  29. Gunnar, M., & Quevedo, K. (2007). The neurobiology of stress and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 145-173.
  30. McEwen, B. S. (2007). Physiology and neurobiology of stress and adaptation. Physiological Reviews, 87(3), 873-904.
  31. Sbarra, D. A., & Hazan, C. (2008). Coregulation, dysregulation, self-regulation: An integrative analysis and empirical agenda for understanding adult attachment, separation, loss, and recovery. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(2), 141-167.
  32. Slavich, G. M., & Irwin, M. R. (2014). From stress to inflammation and major depressive disorder: A social signal transduction theory of depression. Psychological Bulletin, 140(3), 774-815.
  33.  Draganski, B., & May, A. (2008). Changes in gray matter induced by learning—revisited. PLoS One, 3(7), e2669.
  34. Fuchs, E., & Flügge, G. (2014). Adult neuroplasticity: More than 40 years of research. Neural Plasticity, 2014, 541870.
  35. Vago, D. R., & Silbersweig, D. A. (2012). Self-awareness, self-regulation, and self-transcendence (S-ART): A framework for understanding the neurobiological mechanisms of mindfulness. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 296.
  36. Caspi, A., Sugden, K., Moffitt, T. E., Taylor, A., Craig, I. W., Harrington, H., ... & Poulton, R. (2003). Influence of life stress on depression: Moderation by a polymorphism in the 5-HTT gene. Science, 301(5631), 386-389.
  37. Gillath, O., Shaver, P. R., Baek, J. M., & Chun, D. S. (2008). Genetic correlates of adult attachment style. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(10), 1396-1405.
  38. Lesch, K. P., Bengel, D., Heils, A., Sabol, S. Z., Greenberg, B. D., Petri, S., ... & Murphy, D. L. (1996). Association of anxiety-related traits with a polymorphism in the serotonin transporter gene regulatory region. Science, 274(5292), 1527-1531.
  39. Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. Basic Books.
  40. 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.
  41. Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Morrow, J. (1991). A prospective study of depression and posttraumatic stress symptoms after a natural disaster. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(1), 115-121.
  42. Goyal, M., Singh, S., Sibinga, E. M., Gould, N. F., Rowland-Seymour, A., Sharma, R., ... & Haythornthwaite, J. A. (2014). Meditation programs for psychological stress and well-being: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Internal Medicine, 174(3), 357-368.
  43. Hofmann, S. G., Asnaani, A., Vonk, I. J., Sawyer, A. T., & Fang, A. (2012). The efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy: A review of meta-analyses. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 36(5), 427-440.
  44. Vago, D. R., & Nakamura, Y. (2011). Selective attentional bias towards pain-related threat in fibromyalgia: Preliminary evidence for effects of mindfulness meditation training. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 35(6), 581-594.

Photo
Arnab Roy
Corresponding author

Assistant Professor of Pharmacology, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medical Science and Research, Sai Nath University, Ranchi, Jharkhand 835219, India

Photo
Mahesh Kumar Yadav
Co-author

Principal In-charge, Faculty of Medical Science and Research, Department of Pharmacy, Sai Nath University, Ranchi, Jharkhand 835219, India.

Photo
Ankita Singh
Co-author

Vice Principal, Faculty of Medical Science and Research, Department of Pharmacy, Sai Nath University, Ranchi, Jharkhand-835219, India.

Photo
Indrajeet Kumar Mahto
Co-author

Assistant Professor, Faculty of Medical Science and Research, Sai Nath University, Ranchi, Jharkhand 835219, India.

Photo
Abhijit Kumar
Co-author

Faculty of Medical Science and Research, Dept. of Pharmacy, Sai Nath University, Ranchi, Jharkhand-835219, India.

Photo
Abhinav Kumar
Co-author

Faculty of Medical Science and Research, Dept. of Pharmacy, Sai Nath University, Ranchi, Jharkhand-835219, India.

Photo
Rajnish Raj
Co-author

Faculty of Medical Science and Research, Dept. of Pharmacy, Sai Nath University, Ranchi, Jharkhand-835219, India.

Photo
Niraj Kumar
Co-author

Faculty of Medical Science and Research, Dept. of Pharmacy, Sai Nath University, Ranchi, Jharkhand-835219, India.

Photo
Balram Mahto
Co-author

Faculty of Medical Science and Research, Dept. of Pharmacy, Sai Nath University, Ranchi, Jharkhand-835219, India.

Photo
Aliya Neshab
Co-author

Faculty of Medical Science and Research, Dept. of Pharmacy, Sai Nath University, Ranchi, Jharkhand-835219, India.

Photo
Avishek Raj
Co-author

Faculty of Medical Science and Research, Dept. of Pharmacy, Sai Nath University, Ranchi, Jharkhand-835219, India.

Photo
Sandeep Kumar
Co-author

Faculty of Medical Science and Research, Dept. of Pharmacy, Sai Nath University, Ranchi, Jharkhand-835219, India.

Photo
Khushboo Kumari
Co-author

Faculty of Medical Science and Research, Dept. of Pharmacy, Sai Nath University, Ranchi, Jharkhand-835219, India.

Photo
Shruti Kumari
Co-author

Faculty of Medical Science and Research, Dept. of Pharmacy, Sai Nath University, Ranchi, Jharkhand-835219, India.

Photo
Manvi Kumari
Co-author

Faculty of Medical Science and Research, Dept. of Pharmacy, Sai Nath University, Ranchi, Jharkhand-835219, India.

Photo
Mina Patel
Co-author

Faculty of Medical Science and Research, Dept. of Pharmacy, Sai Nath University, Ranchi, Jharkhand-835219, India.

Arnab Roy*, Mahesh Kumar Yadav, Ankita Singh, Indrajeet Kumar Mahto, Abhinav Kumar, Shruti Kumari, Manvi Kumari, Khusboo Kumari, Abhijit Kumar, Aliya Neshab, Niraj Kumar, Sandeep Kumar, Avishek Raj, Balram Mahto, Rajnish Raj, Mina Patel, The Neurochemistry of Heartbreak: Unravelling the Complex Interplay of Brain Regions, Emotions and Neurotransmitters in Relationship Breakups, Int. J. Sci. R. Tech., 2025, 2 (7), 216-227. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15861168

More related articles
Cognitive Properties of Coconut Oil Extract Agains...
Oyeleye Samson Adesola , Akintola Adebola Olayemi , Kehinde Busuy...
A Review on Role of Colophony in Different Formula...
Rushikesh Sanap, Sarukh Vikram, Pund Sonali, Bhad Manoj, Araj Ish...
A Review on Role of Colophony in Different Formula...
Rushikesh Sanap, Sarukh Vikram, Pund Sonali, Bhad Manoj, Araj Ish...
Related Articles
Design and Fabrication of a Pedal-Driven Rope Twisting Machine with Integrated P...
Karthikeyan K., Dins Milton J., Yuvanesh Kumar V., Manikandan M., Annamalai K., Sankarnarayanan V., ...
Cognitive Properties of Coconut Oil Extract Against Aluminum Chloride-Induced Ne...
Oyeleye Samson Adesola , Akintola Adebola Olayemi , Kehinde Busuyi David, Lawal Onaopepo Abdulwakeel...
Cognitive Properties of Coconut Oil Extract Against Aluminum Chloride-Induced Ne...
Oyeleye Samson Adesola , Akintola Adebola Olayemi , Kehinde Busuyi David, Lawal Onaopepo Abdulwakeel...
More related articles
Cognitive Properties of Coconut Oil Extract Against Aluminum Chloride-Induced Ne...
Oyeleye Samson Adesola , Akintola Adebola Olayemi , Kehinde Busuyi David, Lawal Onaopepo Abdulwakeel...
A Review on Role of Colophony in Different Formulation...
Rushikesh Sanap, Sarukh Vikram, Pund Sonali, Bhad Manoj, Araj Ishwar, ...
A Review on Role of Colophony in Different Formulation...
Rushikesh Sanap, Sarukh Vikram, Pund Sonali, Bhad Manoj, Araj Ishwar, ...
Cognitive Properties of Coconut Oil Extract Against Aluminum Chloride-Induced Ne...
Oyeleye Samson Adesola , Akintola Adebola Olayemi , Kehinde Busuyi David, Lawal Onaopepo Abdulwakeel...
A Review on Role of Colophony in Different Formulation...
Rushikesh Sanap, Sarukh Vikram, Pund Sonali, Bhad Manoj, Araj Ishwar, ...
A Review on Role of Colophony in Different Formulation...
Rushikesh Sanap, Sarukh Vikram, Pund Sonali, Bhad Manoj, Araj Ishwar, ...