Looking for love again? Psychologists share easy tips to help divorced singles start over. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Sensationalism / Mild clickbait framing

Using emotionally charged or overly catchy framing to attract attention or dramatise a situation.

Title: "Looking for love again? Psychologists share easy tips to help divorced singles start over" The phrase "easy tips" can oversimplify what is, in reality, a complex and often long-term emotional process after divorce. The opening reference to a bestselling book and a dramatic narrative ("painful divorce", "the challenge is no longer finding someone — it is finding the courage to trust again") also slightly dramatizes the topic, though not excessively.

3 suggestions

Change the title to something more neutral and realistic, e.g., "Psychologists share guidance to help divorced singles start dating again" instead of promising "easy tips".

In the introduction, slightly temper the dramatic framing, e.g., "For many people returning to dating after divorce, being alone can feel like protection" instead of implying this is a universal experience.

Clarify that the process can be challenging and may require time and support, rather than implying that a few tips will make it easy.

Omission of key information / Incomplete survey context

Presenting data without sufficient methodological context, which can mislead readers about its reliability or generalisability.

The article cites: "A recent survey conducted by Rebounce, a matchmaking app, among 9,839 divorced singles found that seven in 10 respondents said they have dealbreakers and non-negotiables they did not have during marriage, while six in 10 prioritise a ‘safe space’ over chemistry. Nearly 46 per cent of previously married singles are recalibrating commitment." Later, it lists: "60 of women feel intimidated and look for a way out after learning a potential partner has a history of cheating 7 in 10 Have new dealbreakers or nonnegotiables 6 in 10 Prioritise a ‘safe space’ over chemistry 39 women and 32 men no longer want to shoulder the emotional heavy lifting" Issues: - No information on how the sample was recruited (users of the app only? geography? age range?). - Percentages like "60 of women" and "39 women and 32 men" are unclear (likely 60%, 39% and 32% but not explicitly stated). - No mention of limitations (e.g., self-selected app users may not represent all divorced singles).

3 suggestions

Clarify the survey methodology: e.g., "a self-reported online survey of 9,839 Rebounce users who identified as divorced, primarily based in [region/country], conducted in [month/year]."

Correct and standardise the statistics: e.g., "60% of women", "39% of women and 32% of men" instead of ambiguous numbers.

Add a brief limitation statement: e.g., "Because the survey was conducted among users of a matchmaking app, the findings may not represent all divorced singles."

Oversimplification

Reducing complex psychological processes to simple labels or quick fixes.

Phrases such as: - "Psychologists dissect if this is the ‘I’d rather be alone’ syndrome or a wall for people to not get hurt the second time around." - "It all boils down to choosing clarity over overcorrection." - The bullet-point style under "Rethinking self protection" and "What sets the alarm bells off" can give the impression that complex trauma responses and relationship patterns can be neatly categorised and resolved through a short checklist. While the experts do add nuance (e.g., "it is not a clinical syndrome or diagnosis but a protective response"), the framing around "syndrome" and the quick bullet lists risk making nuanced psychological issues seem simpler than they are.

3 suggestions

Explicitly emphasise that these are general patterns and not exhaustive or diagnostic, e.g., "These are common patterns some people may notice, but experiences vary widely."

Avoid the term "syndrome" in a casual way; keep the expert clarification more prominent: e.g., "Some people describe this as an ‘I’d rather be alone’ phase, but Akhenia notes it is not a clinical syndrome, rather a protective response."

Add a sentence noting that working through these patterns often requires time and, in some cases, professional support, not just following a short list.

Unbalanced reporting / Favoring one side’s perspective

Presenting one group’s experiences and needs more fully than another’s, without clearly acknowledging the asymmetry.

The article primarily centres the experiences and needs of "divorced singles" and their trauma responses. New or potential partners are mentioned mainly in terms of what they should provide: "Support without becoming a therapist", "A partner can offer patience and reassurance but should not be expected to repair old wounds." Their perspective, challenges, or boundaries are not explored in similar depth. This is not a strong bias, but it does create an asymmetry: divorced singles are the main focus and are portrayed sympathetically; partners are secondary and mostly described in terms of how they should respond.

3 suggestions

Add a short section on the perspective of new partners, e.g., how they can set their own healthy boundaries and what they might reasonably expect from someone healing from divorce.

Include a sentence acknowledging that both people in a new relationship may have their own histories and vulnerabilities.

Clarify that while partners can be supportive, they also have limits and needs, to avoid implying a one-directional responsibility.

Appeal to authority (benign but present)

Relying on expert opinions to support claims, which is appropriate when transparent, but can become manipulative if used to shut down nuance or alternative views.

The article leans heavily on two named psychologists (Ketki Bagalkar and Chandni Akhenia) to frame the issue and provide guidance. This is generally appropriate, but their views are presented as the primary lens without mentioning that different therapists might conceptualise or phrase these dynamics differently.

3 suggestions

Briefly note that these are perspectives from these particular psychologists and that approaches can vary among professionals.

Where possible, connect their advice to broader, established concepts (e.g., attachment theory, trauma-informed care) to show it is part of a wider body of knowledge, not just individual opinion.

Avoid implying that their framing is the only valid way to understand post-divorce dating; a short qualifier like "according to Bagalkar" or "Akhenia suggests" (which is already used in places) should be consistently maintained.