New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

The Jilted Brain

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Most of us know how terrible it feels to be in the throes of a breakup. Now scientists know what it looks like, too. Helen Fisher, an anthropologist at Rutgers University, and several neuroscience colleagues found some interesting correlations after scanning the brains of 10 women and five men who were still heartsick over losing a lover.

The investigators positioned each jilted subject in a functional magnetic resonance imaging scanner. When they asked the volunteers to look at a photograph of their former lover and at a neutral picture, they found that the same areas at play in new love — for example, the nucleus accumbens that governs reward — were still active when the forlorn looked at their lost love. But new areas were also activated, including those that regulate obsessive-compulsive thoughts and anger, suggesting a torrent of mixed emotions.

Stress regions also lit up strongly. “Being rejected in love is among the most painful experiences a human being can endure,” Fisher says. She suspects that such brain reactions moderate over time, probably by biological design, perhaps to aid self-preservation. Yet if the individuals are lucky, they will meet someone new, and the biological processes will start all over again.

SA Mind Vol 17 Issue 3This article was published with the title “The Jilted Brain” in SA Mind Vol. 17 No. 3 (), p. 10
doi:10.1038/scientificamericanmind0606-10b

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe