Young Men and Relationship Breakdown: A Grounded Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intimate partner relationship breakdown is a significant risk factor for suicide in men. Linked to this risk is the emotional upheaval tied to grief and loss—an area that has received little research attention in young men. This study aimed to theorize the emotional and social processes by which young men react to and recover from relationship breakdown. Twenty-two Australian men (aged 19–30 years) who had been through a breakup in the preceding three years participated in individual semi-structured interviews. Constructivist grounded theory was used to analyze interviews and explicate a theory of post-breakup reaction and recovery, that was conceptually advanced with a masculinities framework. Our theory highlighted a process of mixing emotions , where diverse emotions interacted to exacerbate or buffer a core of sadness. The mixing of emotions often spilled into overwhelm, indicated by massing emotions and featuring suicidality for some young men. In response, young men mobilized varied strategies for managing emotions , featuring interlinked processes of withdrawing , distracting , and expressing . With time, recovering was indicated by prioritizing self , wherein participants purposefully centered their needs as requisite to healing. This comprised triaging influences , where young men simultaneously engaged social supports, amid disregarding peer advice to immediately re-partner as this was deemed incompatible with recovering. Finally, in reconciling , young men took on their breakup experiences as a source of learning and resilience. Findings add to the growing body of evidence centering healthy adjustment to relationship breakdown as critical for suicide prevention in men.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".