Why do we romanticise almostrelationships. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Hasty generalization / Oversimplification

Drawing broad conclusions about most or all people from limited evidence or a single expert’s view; simplifying complex, varied experiences into one pattern.

1) "James says that people tend to romanticise almost all relationships since they think more about what could have been than about what actually happened." 2) "He believes that almost all relationships are on the rise due to technology and social media, which have made it easier to form intimate relationships without defining where they are heading." 3) "Even so, almost all relationships can provide valuable lessons, such as revealing your values, boundaries, and emotional patterns that need to be addressed before going into healthier relationships." These statements generalise across very diverse experiences and populations without data. They present a near-universal pattern ("people tend to", "almost all relationships are on the rise", "almost all relationships can provide") based solely on one consultant psychologist’s interpretation, which may not represent all demographics, cultures, or empirical findings.

4 suggestions

Qualify the scope: change "people tend to romanticise almost all relationships" to "many people may romanticise almost-relationships" or "some people tend to romanticise almost-relationships".

Clarify the claim about prevalence: instead of "He believes that almost all relationships are on the rise", use "He believes that almost-relationships may be on the rise" and, ideally, add "though there is limited data on their actual prevalence" or cite relevant research if available.

Soften universal benefit claims: change "almost all relationships can provide valuable lessons" to "almost-relationships can provide valuable lessons for some people" or "for many people".

Add acknowledgement of variability: include a sentence such as "Experiences of almost-relationships vary widely, and not everyone romanticises them or finds them especially impactful."

Unsubstantiated claims

Presenting causal or factual statements without evidence, data, or clear sourcing beyond a single opinion.

1) "He observes that uncertainty is one of the reasons these connections feel emotionally intense... He describes how this uncertainty activates the brain’s reward system, thus making the emotional experience feel powerful and difficult to forget." 2) "He believes that almost all relationships are on the rise due to technology and social media, which have made it easier to form intimate relationships without defining where they are heading. Dating apps and digital communication have increased opportunities for undefined relationships." 3) "Hopeful imagination towards an almost-relationship can help people construct the joy or pain experienced. Since memory is limited, the mind blends facts with imagined possibilities, and this makes it difficult to separate what actually happened from what was hoped for. This further strengthens emotional attachment to the relationship." These are presented as psychological and neurobiological facts (e.g., brain’s reward system activation, rise in almost-relationships due to technology) without any reference to studies, data, or broader expert consensus. They may be plausible, but the article does not distinguish between evidence-based claims and the expert’s personal interpretation.

4 suggestions

Attribute clearly and conditionally: preface such statements with "According to James Bosse" and use language like "may" or "can" instead of definitive "is" or "does" when no data is cited.

Add references or mention evidence: e.g., "Research on uncertainty and reward processing suggests that..." and, if possible, cite or at least mention the existence of studies supporting the claim.

Clarify speculative elements: for the rise of almost-relationships, say "He believes that almost-relationships may be more common in the age of social media, although comprehensive data on this trend is limited."

Differentiate general psychological principles from specific application: e.g., "Psychological research shows that memory can blend facts with imagined possibilities; in the context of almost-relationships, this may strengthen emotional attachment."

Appeal to authority

Relying heavily on a single expert’s authority to support broad claims, without presenting other evidence or perspectives.

The article is almost entirely built around statements from one consultant psychologist, James Bosse. His quotes define what almost-relationships are, why people romanticise them, how the brain responds, how attachment patterns work, the impact on future relationships, the role of technology, and whether reconnecting is worthwhile. For example: - "Consultant psychologist James Bosse says that an 'almost relationship' is..." - "He believes that almost all relationships are on the rise due to technology and social media..." - "Personally, I think there is no value in getting back together," he says. There is no counterpoint from other experts, no mention of differing views, and no empirical data. This can give the impression that his perspective is definitive rather than one professional opinion among many.

4 suggestions

Include additional expert voices or references that either support, nuance, or challenge Bosse’s views, making clear that there is a range of professional perspectives.

Explicitly frame his statements as opinion: e.g., "In Bosse’s view," "From his clinical experience," or "He argues that..." rather than presenting them as settled fact.

Add a balancing line such as: "Other therapists note that, for some couples, reconnecting can be helpful under certain conditions, highlighting that there is no one-size-fits-all answer."

Where possible, supplement his claims with brief references to research (e.g., attachment theory, memory and imagination, effects of uncertainty) to ground them beyond personal authority.

Unbalanced reporting / Limited perspective

Presenting primarily one side or one interpretive frame without exploring reasonable alternative views or experiences.

The article consistently presents almost-relationships through a single lens: they are emotionally intense, often idealised, can hinder new relationships, and reconnection is personally seen as having "no value". For example: - "Personally, I think there is no value in getting back together," he says. There is no exploration of people who do not romanticise almost-relationships, who experience them as neutral or positive, or who have successfully reconnected and formed healthy relationships. Nor are cultural or individual differences discussed. This makes the portrayal somewhat one-dimensional and may not reflect the diversity of real experiences.

4 suggestions

Add a brief section acknowledging that experiences vary: e.g., "For some people, almost-relationships may feel less intense or may not leave a lasting impact."

Include at least one alternative expert or research-based perspective on reconnection, such as: "Some relationship counsellors suggest that reconnecting can be helpful when both partners have grown and are willing to address past issues."

Clarify that Bosse’s stance on reconnection is personal and not universal: e.g., "Bosse personally believes there is little value in getting back together, though others may disagree."

Mention that cultural, age, or personality differences can shape how people experience and remember almost-relationships.

Framing effect / Strong evaluative framing

Using language that subtly frames one course of action or interpretation as clearly preferable, without fully presenting alternatives.

The closing section strongly frames letting go and not reconnecting as the appropriate path: - "Personally, I think there is no value in getting back together," he says. - "Instead, he advises people to let go by cutting off unnecessary contact, accepting the lessons the experience has taught them and investing in their own lives. Setting healthy boundaries, remaining open to future relationships and redirecting emotional energy towards personal growth can support healing." While these are reasonable recommendations, the article does not present any nuance (e.g., conditions under which reconnection might be healthy) and thus frames one path as implicitly correct for everyone.

4 suggestions

Explicitly mark these as general suggestions, not universal prescriptions: e.g., "For many people, it can be helpful to..." instead of "he advises people to...".

Add a caveat: "However, the best course of action can depend on individual circumstances, and some may benefit from discussing options with a therapist."

Mention that reconnection can sometimes be appropriate: e.g., "In some cases, if both people have reflected and changed, carefully reconsidering the connection may be worthwhile, ideally with clear communication and boundaries."

Balance the framing by acknowledging that different coping strategies work for different individuals.