<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article
  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "http://jats.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/1.0/JATS-journalpublishing1.dtd">
<article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.0" specific-use="sps-1.8" xml:lang="en" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
	<front>
		<journal-meta>
			<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">pse</journal-id>
			<journal-title-group>
				<journal-title>Psychology, Society &amp; Education</journal-title>
				<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">Psychol. soc. educ.</abbrev-journal-title>
			</journal-title-group>
			<issn pub-type="ppub">2171-2085</issn>
			<publisher>
				<publisher-name>Universidad de Córdoba</publisher-name>
			</publisher>
		</journal-meta>
		<article-meta>
			<article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">00004</article-id>
			<article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.21071/psye.v16i1.16372</article-id>
			<article-categories>
				<subj-group subj-group-type="heading">
					<subject>Article</subject>
				</subj-group>
			</article-categories>
			<title-group>
				<article-title>Psychometric properties of the RG-C <italic>Romantic Ghosting Scale</italic>: an instrumental study in a Colombian sample</article-title>
				<trans-title-group xml:lang="es">
					<trans-title>Propiedades psicométricas de la <italic>Escala de Ghosting Romántico</italic> RG-C: un estudio instrumental en una muestra colombiana</trans-title>
				</trans-title-group>
			</title-group>
			<contrib-group>
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<name>
						<surname>Herrera-López</surname>
						<given-names>Mauricio</given-names>
					</name>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/conceptualization/">Conceptualization</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/data-curation/">Data curation</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/formal-analysis/">Formal Analysis</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/funding-acquisition/">Acquisition of funding</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/investigation/">Research</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/methodology/">Methodology</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/project-administration/">Project administration</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/resources/">Resources</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/software/">Software</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/supervision/">Supervision</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/validation/">Validation</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/visualization/">Visualization</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/writing-original-draft/">Writing - original draft</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/writing-review-editing/">Writing - review &amp; editing</role>
					<xref ref-type="corresp" rid="c1">*</xref>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1b"><sup>1</sup></xref>					
				</contrib>
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<name>
						<surname>Coral-Lagos</surname>
						<given-names>Anjely</given-names>
					</name>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/conceptualization/">Conceptualization</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/data-curation/">Data curation</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/formal-analysis/">Formal Analysis</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/investigation/">Research</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/methodology/">Methodology</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/project-administration/">Project administration</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/software/">Software</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/validation/">Validation</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/visualization/">Visualization</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/writing-original-draft/">Writing - original draft</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/writing-review-editing/">Writing - review &amp; editing</role>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref>
				</contrib>
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<name>
						<surname>Enríquez-Rosero</surname>
						<given-names>Marcela</given-names>
					</name>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/conceptualization/">Conceptualization</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/data-curation/">Data curation</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/formal-analysis/">Formal Analysis</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/investigation/">Research</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/methodology/">Methodology</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/project-administration/">Project administration</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/software/">Software</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/validation/">Validation</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/visualization/">Visualization</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/writing-original-draft/">Writing - original draft</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/writing-review-editing/">Writing - review &amp; editing</role>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref>
				</contrib>
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<name>
						<surname>Herrera-Solarte</surname>
						<given-names>Luisa</given-names>
					</name>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/funding-acquisition/">Acquisition of funding</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/writing-review-editing/">Writing - review &amp; editing</role>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref>
				</contrib>
			</contrib-group>
			<aff id="aff1">
				<label>1</label>
				<institution content-type="original"> Universidad de Nariño, Pasto (Colombia)</institution>
				<institution content-type="normalized">Universidad de Nariño</institution>
				<addr-line>
						<named-content content-type="city">Pasto</named-content>
				</addr-line>
				<country country="CO">Colombia</country>
			</aff>
			<aff id="aff1b">
				<label>1</label>
				<institution content-type="original"> Universidad de Nariño, Pasto (Colombia)</institution>
				<institution content-type="normalized">Universidad de Nariño</institution>
				<addr-line>
						<named-content content-type="city">Pasto</named-content>
				</addr-line>
				<country country="CO">Colombia</country>
				<email>mherrera@udenar.edu.co</email>
			</aff>
			<aff id="aff2">
				<label>2</label>
				<institution content-type="original"> Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla (Spain)</institution>
				<institution content-type="normalized">Universidad de Sevilla</institution>
				<addr-line>
						<named-content content-type="city">Sevilla</named-content>
				</addr-line>
				<country country="ES">Spain</country>
			</aff>
			<aff id="aff3">
				<label>3</label>
				<institution content-type="original"> L’universita’ Degli Studi di Firenze, Firenze (Italy)</institution>
				<institution content-type="normalized">L’universita’ Degli Studi di Firenze</institution>
				<addr-line>
						<named-content content-type="city">Firenze</named-content>
				</addr-line>
				<country country="IT">Italy</country>
			</aff>
			<author-notes>
				<corresp id="c1">
					<label>* <italic>Corresponding author:</italic></label> Mauricio Herrera-López. Departamento de Psicología, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales, Universidad de Nariño, Ciudad Universitaria Torobajo, 52000, Pasto, Colombia. <email>mherrera@udenar.edu.co</email>
				</corresp>
				<fn fn-type="conflict" id="fn2">
					<label>Conflict of interests</label>
					<p> The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.</p>
				</fn>
				<fn fn-type="other" id="fn3">
					<label>Data availability statement</label>
					<p>The data supporting the results and conclusions of this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.</p>
				</fn>
			</author-notes>
			<!--<pub-date date-type="collection" publication-format="electronic">
				<season>Jan-Mar</season>
				<year>2024</year>
			</pub-date>
			<pub-date date-type="pub" publication-format="electronic">
				<day>30</day>
				<month>03</month>
				<year>2024</year>
			</pub-date>-->
			<pub-date pub-type="epub-ppub">
				<season>Jan-Mar</season>
				<year>2024</year>
			</pub-date>
			<volume>16</volume>
			<issue>1</issue>
			<fpage>28</fpage>
			<lpage>38</lpage>
			<history>
				<date date-type="received">
					<day>05</day>
					<month>10</month>
					<year>2023</year>
				</date>
				<date date-type="rev-recd">
					<day>03</day>
					<month>02</month>
					<year>2024</year>
				</date>
				<date date-type="accepted">
					<day>11</day>
					<month>03</month>
					<year>2024</year>
				</date>
			</history>
			<permissions>
				<license license-type="open-access" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/" xml:lang="en">
					<license-p>This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License</license-p>
				</license>
			</permissions>
			<abstract>
				<title>ABSTRACT</title>
				<p>The phenomenon of ghosting has become widespread, the stories about this experience are on the rise. However, there is a notable lack of research in Colombia addressing this phenomenon. This study contributes to the emerging field by considering the roles of involvement and emotional impact. Objective: To analyze the psychometric properties of a ghosting scale in romantic relationships, designed and applied to a Colombian sample. Methodology: The research is instrumental, cross-sectional, with a single group. The incidental sample consisted of 691 participants, aged between 18 and 40 years (<italic>M</italic> = 24.03; <italic>SD</italic> = 4.47). A 62.4% (<italic>n</italic> = 431) were women. Results: Adequate evidence of reliability and content and construct validity was recognized. Additionally, the scale is correlated with social media addiction. The scale is distributed into three factors according to the proposed theoretical framework. Conclusions: <italic>Romantic Ghosting Scale</italic> demonstrates optimal psychometric properties in terms of content and construct validity, along with excellent reliability values. The scale has a solid theoretical foundation and can be used to measure ghosting in romantic relationships, its roles, and its emotional impact on young Colombian adults.</p>
			</abstract>
			<trans-abstract xml:lang="es">
				<title>RESUMEN</title>
				<p>El fenómeno del <italic>ghosting</italic> se ha popularizado y los relatos de esta experiencia están en aumento. No obstante, existe una notable carencia de investigaciones en Colombia que aborden este fenómeno. Esta investigación contribuye al campo emergente considerando los roles de implicación y el impacto emocional. Objetivo: Analizar las propiedades psicométricas de una escala de <italic>ghosting</italic> en la relación romántica, diseñada y aplicada a una muestra colombiana. Metodología: La investigación es de tipo instrumental, de corte transversal, con un único grupo. La muestra incidental estuvo conformada por 691 participantes, con edades entre los 18 y los 40 años (<italic>M</italic> = 24.03; <italic>DT</italic> = 4.47). El 62.4% (<italic>n</italic> = 431) fueron mujeres. Resultados: se reconocieron evidencias adecuadas de confiabilidad y validez de contenido y constructo. Adicionalmente, se presenta la correlación con la adicción a las redes sociales. La escala se distribuyó en 3 factores de acuerdo con la teoría de base planteada. Conclusiones: La <italic>Escala de Ghosting Romántico</italic> muestra óptimas propiedades psicométricas en cuanto a validez de contenido y constructo, además de excelentes valores de confiabilidad. La escala tiene una base teórica sólida y puede utilizarse para medir el <italic>ghosting</italic> en la relación romántica, sus roles y su impacto emocional en jóvenes adultos colombianos.</p>
			</trans-abstract>
			<kwd-group xml:lang="en">
				<title>Keywords:</title>
				<kwd>Ghosting</kwd>
				<kwd>Romantic relationship</kwd>
				<kwd>Social networks</kwd>
				<kwd>Young adults</kwd>
				<kwd>Psychometric properties</kwd>
			</kwd-group>
			<kwd-group xml:lang="es">
				<title>Palabras clave:</title>
				<kwd>Ghosting</kwd>
				<kwd>Relación romântica</kwd>
				<kwd>Redes sociales</kwd>
				<kwd>Adultos jóvenes</kwd>
				<kwd>Propiedades psicométricas</kwd>
			</kwd-group>
			<counts>
				<fig-count count="1"/>
				<table-count count="4"/>
				<ref-count count="42"/>
				<page-count count="11"/>
			</counts>
		</article-meta>
	</front>
	<body>
		<p>In recent years, there has been a considerable rise in the use of social networks, technology, the internet and digital tools for maintaining interpersonal, especially romantic, relationships (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B34">Reyes, 2020</xref>). While they represent, to a certain extent, a mere extension of the traditional interactive functions of keeping or losing contact with others, they have also facilitated the use of various techniques for breaking up a relationship, such as ghosting (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B4">Biolcati et al., 2021</xref>). This type of online behaviour consists of suddenly or gradually interrupting or cutting off all communication with a partner, as a means of unilaterally terminating the communication and, as a result, the romantic relationship (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B18">LeFebvre, 2017</xref>). This action can therefore be interpreted as a way of ending a relationship in which there was a romantic interest or bond (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B15">Koessler et al., 2019a</xref>). Although the idea of ending a relationship by interrupting all communication has certainly existed for a long time, nowadays, due to the massive increase in the use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in relationships, ghosting has been shown to be an emergent strategy in romantic relationships (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B11">Freedman et al., 2019</xref>). Aspects of this behaviour include: a) not responding to phone calls or messages, b) stopping following or blocking the partner on social networks, c) allowing posts to be marked as “seen” but not responding to them, and d) gradually reducing communication (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B26">Navarro et al., 2020a</xref>). This behaviour differs from other relationship termination strategies because the rejected partner often has no idea what has happened, as there has been no verbal explanation of the disinterest; as a result, the rejected partner has to try to interpret what the other person’s lack of communication implies (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B11">Freedman et al., 2019</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B26">Navarro et al., 2020a</xref>).</p>
		<p>According to recent research, certain factors which could encourage this behaviour have been linked to the increased use of technology, especially the use of online communication with a romantic interest that occurs in couples, which involves certain conditions and risks, including a) the perception of flexibility in the partner’s level of commitment, b) the minimization of discomfort when rejecting unwanted suitors, c) the lack of eye contact and general depersonalization, which makes it easier to end a relationship, and d) the risk of a increasing lack of interest in the romantic relationship. Thus, those involved in the relationship may experience greater changeability and variability in online emotional relationships, since the online context makes it easier both to start relationships and to end them, due to the relative anonymity, disinhibition, and/or fewer social consequences involved when rejecting someone online (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B32">Rad &amp; Rad, 2018</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B34">Reyes, 2020</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B38">Timmermans et al., 2020</xref>).</p>
		<p>It therefore follows that ghosting can be considered a form of psychological and emotional partner violence, since it is a passive-aggressive interpersonal tactic which generates a feeling of helplessness and prevents the possibility of asking questions, expressing emotions or receiving feedback, all of which could help the rejected partner to process emotionally the painful experience of rejection and breakup (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B32">Rad &amp; Rad, 2018</xref>); it can also cause an emotional impact on the victims when they are rejected, which includes feelings of surprise, uncertainty, anger, sadness, and confusion. The experience of being rejected is understood by the victim as unfair, especially since no explanations are given (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B28">Pancani et al., 2021</xref>), and such a lack of confrontation can eventually lead victims to consider that they were the guilty party responsible for the breakup (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B18">LeFebvre, 2017</xref>).</p>
		<p>Another key aspect to consider is that the excessive use of mobile devices and social networks in romantic relationships leads to the emergence of abusive dating behaviour, as it creates more opportunities for perpetrators to carry out abusive behaviour, thus increasing the risks for victims (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B40">Víllora et al., 2019</xref>). Here, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B27">Navarro et al. (2020b</xref>) identify a significant association between increased internet use, time and online activity, and a greater risk of involvement in various manifestations of psychological violence in couple relationships (cyberdating abuse, CDA), including romantic ghosting (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B4">Biolcati et al., 2021</xref>). Furthermore, the more people follow their online friends and acquaintances on social networks, the more likely they are to be initiators and recipients of ghosting (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B27">Navarro et al., 2020b</xref>). Similarly, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B38">Timmermans et al. (2020</xref>) recognize that the increased use of online platforms could encourage ghosting by providing the tools which facilitate it, such as the possibility of blocking or deleting applications in order to interrupt the communication.</p>
		<p>A recent study by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B29">Powell et al. (2021</xref>) also suggests that involvement in ghosting could be related to greater use and abuse of ICT, and therefore, the excessive use or addiction to social networks -in other words, the uncontrolled use of online applications- could be related to a greater risk of ghosting. Although there has been little research into it, this association may not only contribute significantly to our understanding and to the conceptual definition of this phenomenon in the romantic context but may also provide new insights into the existing relationships between the various aspects of behaviour displayed in the area of online relationships (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B35">Rosero-Bolaños et al., 2022</xref>).</p>
		<p>As regards the consequences of ghosting, studies such as those by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B38">Timmermans et al. (2020</xref>) and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B26">Navarro et al. (2020a</xref>) suggest that it has an impact on the victims’ self-esteem, general well-being and mental health, as they feel powerless to defend themselves and see themselves as increasingly lonely. Along these lines, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B32">Rad and Rad (2018</xref>) conclude that ghosting can cause the contradictory feelings of relief at ending a relationship, mixed with uneasiness at the way the other person rejects or is rejected. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B20">Lefebvre and Fan (2020</xref>) examined victims’ strategies to reduce their feelings of uncertainty when experiencing ghosting, and found that they process uncertainty and ambiguity by changing the way they select a partner and seek better interpersonal communication in the future to avoid repeating the experience.</p>
		<p>As for measuring the phenomenon of ghosting, there have been very few studies which present scales or questionnaires, and a complete lack of studies in the Latin American context. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B39">Vagaš and Miško (2018</xref>) designed an instrument to evaluate and predict ghosting in the workplace, exploring the relationships and communication between employees of a company where no sentimental interests were involved. After the factor analysis, a single factor was identified, which they called the <italic>Global Ghosting Indicator</italic>, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .95. They came to the conclusion that employee ghosting is a form of negative behaviour, predominantly aimed at ignoring and avoiding contact between members of the same company. Recently, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B14">Jahrami et al., (2023</xref>) designed the GHOST scale (<italic>The Ghosting Questionnaire</italic>) based on <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B37">Shannon-Weaver’s (1949</xref>) communication theory, to explore the experience of ghosting from the victim’s perspective. As a result, a unidimensional scale composed of eight items was validated which evaluates aspects such as negligence, delay in responding, ambiguity, communication barriers, absence, inconsistency in responding, vulnerability, and withdrawal on the part of the “ghosters”. The final scale reported optimal psychometric properties for exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, as well as adequate reliability values (Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega = .74). In the Colombian context, there have been very few studies on ghosting. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B30">Pinzón-Salcedo (2019</xref>) found, in the romantic context, that the perpetrators avoid confrontation, while victims face “symbolic grief” as they are denied a traditional breakup; instead, although some breakups are definitive, they are more often gradual, with postponed conversations and cancelled arrangements, until the relationship finally fizzles out when contact is totally lost.</p>
		<p>Without belittling the contribution made by these studies, they mainly focus on processes of general interpersonal communication and ghosting in the workplace; it is therefore necessary to advance in our knowledge of how to measure ghosting specifically in the context of romantic relationships, considering the roles involved from the theory of roles in relationship violence and focusing on exploring the emotional impact caused.</p>
		<p>Taking all this into account, the present study aims to analyse the psychometric properties of a romantic ghosting scale designed for a Colombian sample. As well as assessing the roles of involvement and the emotional impact of ghosting (a pioneering proposal in the Latin American and Colombian context), the scale analyses its place in the framework of addiction to social networks, which is on the rise in young adults, and where there is generally agreed to be a gap in our knowledge about how the construct relates to this condition. The starting hypothesis is that the <italic>Romantic Ghosting Scale</italic> (RG-C) will show optimal psychometric properties for a Colombian sample.</p>
		<sec sec-type="methods">
			<title>Method</title>
			<sec>
				<title>Participants</title>
				<p>The sample was incidental and consisted of 691 young adults aged between 18 and 40 (<italic>M</italic> = 24.03; <italic>SD</italic> = 4.47), of whom 62.4% (<italic>n</italic> = 431) were women and 37.6% (<italic>n</italic> = 260) were men. A 65.8% of the participants were from the city of Pasto, and 34.2% from other areas of Colombia, with 86.5% from urban and 13.5% from rural areas. The education levels were 19.8% high school, 8.2% technical, 3.9% technological, 60.1% undergraduate, and 8% postgraduate. Regarding marital status, 67% of participants were single and 33% reported having a partner. As for the socioeconomic stratum of the National Administrative Department of Statistics (DANE), 32.4% of the participants belonged to the low-low stratum (1), 40.5% to the low stratum (2), 20.8% to the medium-low stratum (3), 5.6% to the middle stratum (4), and 0.6% to the medium-high stratum (5). The average time of use of social networks was 53.9% between 4 to 8 hours a day and 46% from 1 to 3 hours a day.</p>
			</sec>
			<sec>
				<title>Instruments</title>
				<p>The RG-C scale was designed from the theory of ghosting and adapted to relational violence, allowing us to delimit the role of involvement and the emotional impact of the phenomenon. The starting model contains two dimensions which assess the roles of victim and aggressor, including behaviour such as blocking profiles, gradual termination of communication, not responding to messages, making excuses to avoid explanations, and the normalization of ghosting; the third dimension assesses the emotional impact, such as perceived sadness and anger, feelings of guilt, injustice, uncertainty, and confusion (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B11">Freedman et al. 2019</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B15">Koessler et al. 2019a</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B16">Koessler et al. 2019b</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B18">LeFebvre, 2017</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B26">Navarro et al., 2020a</xref>). Initially, three experts (two in the theory of ghosting and one in psychometrics) were responsible for the content validity, assessing the pertinence, relevance, and clarity of the items; next, a pilot test was carried out to assess how easy the items were to understand. By following these procedures, an initial scale of 18 Likert-type items was produced. The first 10 items are assessed using a dual response system based on the premise: “How often does/did the person use this behaviour against you?”; “How often do/did you use this behaviour against them?” Next, we proceeded with the exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of the scale, and finally a correlation was made with the variable of addiction to social networks. To do this, we used the <italic>Social Network Addiction Questionnaire</italic> (SNA), validated for Colombia by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B35">Rosero-Bolaños et al. (2022</xref>). This is made up of 24 Likert-type items, divided into three factors: 1) Obsession with social networks (OB), 2) Lack of personal control in the use of social networks (LPC), and 3) Excessive use of social networks (EU). The original SNA reports optimal internal consistency values for both the total scale (total α = .95) and for each factor: α<sub>OB</sub> = .93; α<sub>LPC</sub> = .82; α<sub>EU</sub> = .89 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B35">Rosero-Bolaños et al., 2022</xref>).</p>
			</sec>
			<sec>
				<title>Procedure</title>
				<p>The study was instrumental and transversal, with a single group (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B2">Ato et al., 2013</xref>), and it presented a minimal risk to the integrity and mental health of the participants, as it did not exceed the risks usually found in daily life (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B1">American Psychological Association, 2017</xref>). The research was framed in Law 1090 dated 2006 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B7">Congreso de la República de Colombia, 2006</xref>), and Resolution 8430 dated 1993 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B24">Ministerio de Salud de Colombia, 1993</xref>), which establish the scientific, technical, and administrative standards for health research in Colombia. The provisions of the Helsinki Declaration (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B41">WMA, 1964</xref>) were fully met. The study was endorsed by the ethics committee of the University of Nariño within the framework of Agreement No. 60 dated March 2023 (Vice Chancellor’s Office for Research and Social Interaction). The participants were of legal age and were given information regarding the objectives and methodology of the study. The voluntary and anonymous nature of participation in the study was emphasized at all times. The data was collected using the Google forms platform, for which an informed consent form was signed<bold>.</bold></p>
			</sec>
			<sec>
				<title>Data analysis</title>
				<p>First, we performed descriptive analyses, both on the sociodemographic variables and on the items of the scales. A Mardia analysis was included to determine the presence or absence of multivariate normality in the data using the R program (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B31">R Development Core Team, 2008</xref>) and the MVN library (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B17">Kormaz et al., 2015</xref>). Next, content validation was carried out by expert judges and the V-Aiken index was obtained for each item. The judges were selected using the criteria proposed by Skjong and Wentworth (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B9">Escobar &amp; Cuervo, 2008</xref>) of: a) experience, b) reputation in the scientific community, c) availability and motivation, and d) impartiality.</p>
				<p>To validate the construct, cross-validation was carried out, which consists of dividing the total sample into two random subsamples, the first used for exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and the second for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). This procedure follows the classic practice of making sequential use of the two analyses to explore the distribution of the items and then confirm the basic theoretical model of the measurement scale (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B5">Brown, 2006</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B21">Lloret-Segura et al., 2014</xref>). The EFA was carried out using the Factor 9.2 program (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B22">Lorenzo-Seva &amp; Ferrando, 2006</xref>), taking into account the Kaiser Meyer-Olkin (KMO) sampling adequacy indices, Bartlett’s sphericity, communality values, item saturations, factorial loadings obtained in the distribution of the configuration matrix, and total variance explained. The principal axis extraction method and the promax rotation method were used. In the EFA process, items with communalities below .30 and saturations below .40 were rejected (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B21">Lloret-Segura et al., 2014</xref>).</p>
				<p>The CFA was carried out using the EQS 6.2 program (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B3">Bentler &amp; Wu, 2012</xref>); to do this, we chose the least squares (LS) estimation method with robust scaling (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B6">Bryant &amp; Satorra, 2012</xref>), which is recommended for categorical variables when there is no multivariate normality (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B25">Morata-Ramírez &amp; Holgado-Tello, 2013</xref>). To assess the fit of the models, the following indices were used: Satorra-Bentler chi-square (χ<sup>2</sup> <sub><italic>S-B</italic></sub>) (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B36">Satorra &amp; Bentler, 2001</xref>), chi-square divided by the degrees of freedom (χ<sup>2</sup>/<italic>df</italic>) (≤ 5), the comparative fit index (CFI) (≥ .90), the non-normality fit index (NNFI) (≥ .90), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) (≤ .07), and the root mean square value of the covariance residuals (SRMR) (≤ .07) (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">Hu &amp; Bentler, 1999</xref>). The Akaike information criterion (AIC) was also assessed to compare the models obtained: the lower the value, the better (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B5">Brown, 2006</xref>).</p>
				<p>The internal consistency analysis was carried out using the McDonald’s omega index (ɷ ≤ .70), which is recommended for categorical variables in which there is no multivariate normality (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B8">Elosua-Oliden &amp; Zumbo, 2008</xref>), calculated with the Factor 9.2 program (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B22">Lorenzo-Seva &amp; Ferrando, 2006</xref>). Composite reliability (CR) was also measured, which indicates the general reliability of a set of items, with a CR cut-off value of .70 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B12">Hair et al., 2005</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B33">Raykov, 1997</xref>). To assess the correlation between the variables, the Rho Spearman with the social network addiction scale was used, with a significance level of .05.</p>
			</sec>
		</sec>
		<sec sec-type="results">
			<title>Results</title>
			<p>The Mardia analysis yielded an asymmetry coefficient of 171.68 (<italic>p</italic> &lt; .001) and a Kurtosis coefficient of 69.38 (<italic>p</italic> &lt; .001), which indicates non-compliance with the assumptions of multivariate normality, and descriptive analyses were obtained for both the general scale and for each of the items (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t1">Table 1</xref>). From the EFA, 3 items with communalities below .30 and saturations below .40 were rejected (RV - RA 6; IE 16 and 17), leaving a total of 15 global items, of which the first 10 were divided into two categories (aggression and victimization).</p>
			<p>
				<table-wrap id="t1">
					<label>Table 1</label>
					<caption>
						<title><italic>Table of descriptive statistics and response frequencies for each item</italic></title>
					</caption>
					<table frame="hsides" rules="groups">
						<colgroup>
							<col/>
							<col span="5"/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
						</colgroup>
						<thead>
							<tr>
								<th align="left" rowspan="2">Item</th>
								<th align="left" colspan="5"> </th>
								<th align="center">1</th>
								<th align="center">2</th>
								<th align="center">3</th>
								<th align="center">4</th>
								<th align="center">5</th>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<th align="left"> </th>
								<th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th>
								<th align="center"><italic>SD</italic></th>
								<th align="center"><italic>Sk</italic></th>
								<th align="center"><italic>K</italic></th>
								<th align="center">Fr/%</th>
								<th align="center">Fr/%</th>
								<th align="center">Fr/%</th>
								<th align="center">Fr/%</th>
								<th align="center">Fr/%</th>
							</tr>
						</thead>
						<tbody>
							<tr>
								<td align="left" rowspan="2">1.</td>
								<td align="center">RA</td>
								<td align="center">2.40</td>
								<td align="center">1.21</td>
								<td align="center">0.49</td>
								<td align="center">-0.66</td>
								<td align="center">191/27.6%</td>
								<td align="center">168/24.3%</td>
								<td align="center">170/24.6%</td>
								<td align="center">75/10.9%</td>
								<td align="center">43/6.2%</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center">RV</td>
								<td align="center">2.44</td>
								<td align="center">1.13</td>
								<td align="center">0.37</td>
								<td align="center">-0.64</td>
								<td align="center">156/22.6%</td>
								<td align="center">166/24%</td>
								<td align="center">185/26.8%</td>
								<td align="center">76/11%</td>
								<td align="center">29/4.2%</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left" rowspan="2">2.</td>
								<td align="center">RA</td>
								<td align="center">1.91</td>
								<td align="center">1.20</td>
								<td align="center">1.14</td>
								<td align="center">0.21</td>
								<td align="center">359/52%</td>
								<td align="center">113/16.4%</td>
								<td align="center">99/14.3%</td>
								<td align="center">48/6.9%</td>
								<td align="center">34/4.9%</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center">RV</td>
								<td align="center">2.02</td>
								<td align="center">1.14</td>
								<td align="center">0.86</td>
								<td align="center">-0.24</td>
								<td align="center">277/40.1%</td>
								<td align="center">135/19.5%</td>
								<td align="center">120/14.4%</td>
								<td align="center">53/7.7%</td>
								<td align="center">21/3%</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left" rowspan="2">3.</td>
								<td align="center">RA</td>
								<td align="center">2.55</td>
								<td align="center">1.31</td>
								<td align="center">0.32</td>
								<td align="center">-1.05</td>
								<td align="center">198/28.7%</td>
								<td align="center">134/19.4%</td>
								<td align="center">164/23.7%</td>
								<td align="center">109/15.8%</td>
								<td align="center">62/9%</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center">RV</td>
								<td align="center">2.53</td>
								<td align="center">1.21</td>
								<td align="center">0.30</td>
								<td align="center">-0.85</td>
								<td align="center">164/23.7%</td>
								<td align="center">146/21.1%</td>
								<td align="center">183/26.5%</td>
								<td align="center">95/13.7%</td>
								<td align="center">41/5.9%</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left" rowspan="2">4.</td>
								<td align="center">RA</td>
								<td align="center">2.42</td>
								<td align="center">1.23</td>
								<td align="center">0.46</td>
								<td align="center">-0.76</td>
								<td align="center">202/29.2%</td>
								<td align="center">161/23.3%</td>
								<td align="center">176/25.5%</td>
								<td align="center">84/12.2%</td>
								<td align="center">46/6.7%</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center">RV</td>
								<td align="center">2.46</td>
								<td align="center">1.14</td>
								<td align="center">0.46</td>
								<td align="center">-0.76</td>
								<td align="center">156/22.6%</td>
								<td align="center">166/24%</td>
								<td align="center">193/27.9%</td>
								<td align="center">74/10.7%</td>
								<td align="center">34/4.9%</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left" rowspan="2">5.</td>
								<td align="center">RA</td>
								<td align="center">2.30</td>
								<td align="center">1.30</td>
								<td align="center">0.65</td>
								<td align="center">-0.72</td>
								<td align="center">257/37.2%</td>
								<td align="center">144/20.8%</td>
								<td align="center">139/20.1%</td>
								<td align="center">72/10.4%</td>
								<td align="center">58/8.4%</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center">RV</td>
								<td align="center">2.31</td>
								<td align="center">1.21</td>
								<td align="center">0.61</td>
								<td align="center">-0.50</td>
								<td align="center">195/28.2%</td>
								<td align="center">140/20.3%</td>
								<td align="center">153/22.1%</td>
								<td align="center">49/7.1%</td>
								<td align="center">40/5.8%</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left" rowspan="2">7.</td>
								<td align="center">RA</td>
								<td align="center">2.02</td>
								<td align="center">1.23</td>
								<td align="center">0.98</td>
								<td align="center">-0.15</td>
								<td align="center">327/47.3%</td>
								<td align="center">133/19.2%</td>
								<td align="center">108/15.6%</td>
								<td align="center">58/8.4%</td>
								<td align="center">39/5.6%</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center">RV</td>
								<td align="center">2.06</td>
								<td align="center">1.17</td>
								<td align="center">0.89</td>
								<td align="center">-0.09</td>
								<td align="center">255/36.9%</td>
								<td align="center">137/19.9%</td>
								<td align="center">120/17.4%</td>
								<td align="center">41/5.9%</td>
								<td align="center">29/4.2%</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left" rowspan="2">8.</td>
								<td align="center">RA</td>
								<td align="center">1.72</td>
								<td align="center">1.12</td>
								<td align="center">1.49</td>
								<td align="center">1.24</td>
								<td align="center">418/60.5%</td>
								<td align="center">98/14.2%</td>
								<td align="center">82/11.9%</td>
								<td align="center">34/4.9%</td>
								<td align="center">28/4.1%</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center">RV</td>
								<td align="center">2.02</td>
								<td align="center">1.17</td>
								<td align="center">0.90</td>
								<td align="center">-0.15</td>
								<td align="center">257/37.2%</td>
								<td align="center">111/16.1%</td>
								<td align="center">114/16.5%</td>
								<td align="center">40/5.8%</td>
								<td align="center">25/3.6%</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left" rowspan="2">9.</td>
								<td align="center">RA</td>
								<td align="center">2.53</td>
								<td align="center">1.25</td>
								<td align="center">0.40</td>
								<td align="center">-0.86</td>
								<td align="center">174/25.2%</td>
								<td align="center">180/26%</td>
								<td align="center">159/23%</td>
								<td align="center">102/14.8%</td>
								<td align="center">55/8%</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center">RV</td>
								<td align="center">2.44</td>
								<td align="center">1.12</td>
								<td align="center">0.40</td>
								<td align="center">-0.49</td>
								<td align="center">141/20.4%</td>
								<td align="center">156/22.6%</td>
								<td align="center">185/26.8%</td>
								<td align="center">58/8.4%</td>
								<td align="center">30/4.3%</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left" rowspan="2">10.</td>
								<td align="center">RA</td>
								<td align="center">1.82</td>
								<td align="center">1.09</td>
								<td align="center">1.23</td>
								<td align="center">0.63</td>
								<td align="center">359/52%</td>
								<td align="center">146/21.1%</td>
								<td align="center">92/13.3%</td>
								<td align="center">44/6.4%</td>
								<td align="center">21/3%</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center">RV</td>
								<td align="center">2.12</td>
								<td align="center">1.12</td>
								<td align="center">0.74</td>
								<td align="center">-0.26</td>
								<td align="center">221/32%</td>
								<td align="center">143/20.7%</td>
								<td align="center">136/19.7%</td>
								<td align="center">42/6.1%</td>
								<td align="center">22/3.2%</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">11.</td>
								<td align="center">EI</td>
								<td align="center"> 2.99</td>
								<td align="center">1.28</td>
								<td align="center">0.00</td>
								<td align="center">-1.01</td>
								<td align="center">108/15.6%</td>
								<td align="center">133/19.2%</td>
								<td align="center">195/28.2%</td>
								<td align="center">133/19.2%</td>
								<td align="center">105/15.2%</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">12.</td>
								<td align="center">EI</td>
								<td align="center">3.35</td>
								<td align="center">1.27</td>
								<td align="center">-0.31</td>
								<td align="center">-0.95</td>
								<td align="center">69/10%</td>
								<td align="center">114/16.5%</td>
								<td align="center">165/23.9%</td>
								<td align="center">182/26.3%</td>
								<td align="center">154/22.3%</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">13.</td>
								<td align="center">EI</td>
								<td align="center">2.88</td>
								<td align="center">1.19</td>
								<td align="center">-0.08</td>
								<td align="center">-0.81</td>
								<td align="center">102/14.8%</td>
								<td align="center">154/22.3%</td>
								<td align="center">221/32%</td>
								<td align="center">131/19%</td>
								<td align="center">73/10.6%</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">14.</td>
								<td align="center">EI</td>
								<td align="center">3.34</td>
								<td align="center">1.47</td>
								<td align="center">-0.35</td>
								<td align="center">-1.25</td>
								<td align="center">115/16.6%</td>
								<td align="center">75/10.9%</td>
								<td align="center">118/17.1%</td>
								<td align="center">128/18.5%</td>
								<td align="center">195/28.2%</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">15.</td>
								<td align="center">EI</td>
								<td align="center">3.96</td>
								<td align="center">1.19</td>
								<td align="center">-1.00</td>
								<td align="center">0.07</td>
								<td align="center">39/5.6%</td>
								<td align="center">48/6.9%</td>
								<td align="center">114/16.5%</td>
								<td align="center">173/25%</td>
								<td align="center">302/43.7%</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">18.</td>
								<td align="center">EI</td>
								<td align="center">3.15</td>
								<td align="center">1.36</td>
								<td align="center">-0.17</td>
								<td align="center">-1.14</td>
								<td align="center">109/15.8%</td>
								<td align="center">104/15.1%</td>
								<td align="center">162/23.4%</td>
								<td align="center">146/21.1%</td>
								<td align="center">137/19.8%</td>
							</tr>
						</tbody>
					</table>
					<table-wrap-foot>
						<fn id="TFN1">
							<p><italic>Note</italic>. 1 = <italic>Never/No</italic>, 2 = <italic>Hardly ever/On few occasions</italic>, 3 = <italic>Sometimes/Maybe</italic>, 4 = <italic>Nearly always/I probably would</italic>, 5 = <italic>Always/I definitely would</italic>; Fr = Frequency, Sk = Skewness, K = kurtosis, RV = Role of victim, RA = Role of aggressor, EI = Emotional impact.</p>
						</fn>
					</table-wrap-foot>
				</table-wrap>
			</p>
			<p>As for the content validation, the judges suggested that the wording of some items be changed. The V-Aiken values for each item and for validity were optimal, obtaining a V-Aiken Total = .88 (V-Aiken pertinence = .9; V-Aiken clarity = .93, and V-Aiken relevance = .83), which indicates a high level of agreement and concordance between the judges. Item 7 obtained the lowest score (.67). Once the adjusted version was obtained, a pilot test was carried out with 38 young adults to evaluate how easy the items were to understand. We received five comments suggesting improvements to the wording of some of the statements.</p>
			<p>As regards the construct validation, the EFA analysis indicated a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin-KMO sample adequacy test of .811, and a significant Bartlett sphericity (χ<sup>2</sup> = 5021.69; <italic>df</italic> = 276; <italic>p</italic> ≤ .001). The communalities (h<sup>2</sup>) ranged between .307 (item RA-7) and .692 (item IE-14), which are acceptable results. Next, the factorial configuration was verified with a free distribution which suggests that all the items are distributed in three factors, which is consistent with the theoretical dimensions proposed; the factor saturations were also optimal and ranged between .511 (item RA-5) and .830 (item IE-14), making a total explained variance of 47.02% (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t2">Table 2</xref>).</p>
			<p>
				<table-wrap id="t2">
					<label>Table 2</label>
					<caption>
						<title><italic>Exploratory factor analysis of the Ghosting Scale</italic></title>
					</caption>
					<table frame="hsides" rules="groups">
						<colgroup>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
						</colgroup>
						<thead>
							<tr>
								<th align="left">Dimension/factor</th>
								<th align="center">Item</th>
								<th align="center">F1</th>
								<th align="center">F2</th>
								<th align="center">F3</th>
								<th align="center">h<sup>2</sup></th>
							</tr>
						</thead>
						<tbody>
							<tr>
								<td align="left" rowspan="9">Aggression/perpetrator (You to him or her)</td>
								<td align="center">RA-1</td>
								<td align="center">.643</td>
								<td align="left"></td>
								<td align="left"></td>
								<td align="center">.419</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center">RA-2</td>
								<td align="center">.645</td>
								<td align="left"></td>
								<td align="left"></td>
								<td align="center">.416</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center">RA-3</td>
								<td align="center">.776</td>
								<td align="left"></td>
								<td align="left"></td>
								<td align="center">.604</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center">RA-4</td>
								<td align="center">.719</td>
								<td align="left"></td>
								<td align="left"></td>
								<td align="center">.526</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center">RA-5</td>
								<td align="center">.511</td>
								<td align="left"></td>
								<td align="left"></td>
								<td align="center">.309</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center">RA-7</td>
								<td align="center">.531</td>
								<td align="left"></td>
								<td align="left"></td>
								<td align="center">.307</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center">RA-8</td>
								<td align="center">.604</td>
								<td align="left"></td>
								<td align="left"></td>
								<td align="center">.386</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center">RA-9</td>
								<td align="center">.596</td>
								<td align="left"></td>
								<td align="left"></td>
								<td align="center">.359</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center">RA-10</td>
								<td align="center">.667</td>
								<td align="center">.</td>
								<td align="left"></td>
								<td align="center">.442</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left" rowspan="9">Victimization (He or she to you)</td>
								<td align="center">RV-1</td>
								<td align="left"></td>
								<td align="center">.608</td>
								<td align="left"></td>
								<td align="center">.383</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center">RV-2</td>
								<td align="left"></td>
								<td align="center">.670</td>
								<td align="left"></td>
								<td align="center">.457</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center">RV-3</td>
								<td align="left"></td>
								<td align="center">.706</td>
								<td align="left"></td>
								<td align="center">.502</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center">RV-4</td>
								<td align="left"></td>
								<td align="center">.722</td>
								<td align="left"></td>
								<td align="center">.552</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center">RV-5</td>
								<td align="left"></td>
								<td align="center">.695</td>
								<td align="left"></td>
								<td align="center">.485</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center">RV-7</td>
								<td align="left"></td>
								<td align="center">.648</td>
								<td align="left"></td>
								<td align="center">.421</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center">RV-8</td>
								<td align="left"></td>
								<td align="center">.615</td>
								<td align="left"></td>
								<td align="center">.393</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center">RV-9</td>
								<td align="left"></td>
								<td align="center">.653</td>
								<td align="left"></td>
								<td align="center">.441</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center">RV-10</td>
								<td align="left"></td>
								<td align="center">.659</td>
								<td align="left"></td>
								<td align="center">.442</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left" rowspan="6">Emotional Impact</td>
								<td align="center">EI-11</td>
								<td align="left"></td>
								<td align="left"></td>
								<td align="center">.741</td>
								<td align="center">.556</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center">EI-12</td>
								<td align="left"></td>
								<td align="left"></td>
								<td align="center">.806</td>
								<td align="center">.659</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center">EI-13</td>
								<td align="left"></td>
								<td align="left"></td>
								<td align="center">.727</td>
								<td align="center">.534</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center">EI-14</td>
								<td align="left"></td>
								<td align="left"></td>
								<td align="center">.830</td>
								<td align="center">.692</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center">EI-15</td>
								<td align="left"></td>
								<td align="left"></td>
								<td align="center">.706</td>
								<td align="center">.502</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center">EI-18</td>
								<td align="left"></td>
								<td align="left"></td>
								<td align="center">.707</td>
								<td align="center">.521</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left" colspan="2">Explained variance</td>
								<td align="center">6.28%</td>
								<td align="center">26.71%</td>
								<td align="center">14.02%</td>
								<td align="left"></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left" colspan="2">Total variance explained</td>
								<td align="center" colspan="4">47.02%</td>
							</tr>
						</tbody>
					</table>
					<table-wrap-foot>
						<fn id="TFN2">
							<p><italic>Note</italic>. Extraction method: Main Axes. Rotation: promax. h<sup>2</sup> = communalities.</p>
						</fn>
					</table-wrap-foot>
				</table-wrap>
			</p>
			<p>The CFA of the 3-factor structure suggested by the EFA showed optimal fits, in addition to adequate factor weights and measurement errors: χ<sup>2</sup> <sub><italic>S-B</italic></sub> = 411.14; χ<sup>2</sup> <sub><italic>S-B</italic></sub> / (249)<italic>=</italic> 1.65; <italic>p</italic> &lt; .001; NNFI = .990; CFI = .992; RMSEA = .042 (90% CI [.035, .049]); SRMR = .075; AIC = 1310.32 (see <xref ref-type="fig" rid="f1">Figure 1</xref>).</p>
			<p>
				<fig id="f1">
					<label>Figure 1</label>
					<caption>
						<title><italic>CFA Romantic Ghosting Scale RG-C (*p ≤ .05)</italic></title>
					</caption>
					<graphic xlink:href="1989-709X-pse-16-01-28-gf1.jpg"/>
				</fig>
			</p>
			<p>The internal consistency values of Cronbach’s alpha (α) and McDonald’s omega (ɷ) obtained for the factors of the romantic ghosting questionnaire were optimal, as were the composite reliability (CR) indices (see <xref ref-type="table" rid="t3">Table 3</xref>).</p>
			<p>
				<table-wrap id="t3">
					<label>Table 3</label>
					<caption>
						<title><italic>Internal consistency values</italic></title>
					</caption>
					<table frame="hsides" rules="groups">
						<colgroup>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
						</colgroup>
						<thead>
							<tr>
								<th align="left">Scale </th>
								<th align="center">Factor/dimension</th>
								<th align="center">Cronbach’s Alpha (α)</th>
								<th align="center">McDonald’s Omega (ɷ)</th>
								<th align="center">Composite Reliability (CR)</th>
							</tr>
						</thead>
						<tbody>
							<tr>
								<td align="left" rowspan="3">RG-C</td>
								<td align="center">RV</td>
								<td align="center">.90</td>
								<td align="center">.91</td>
								<td align="center">.89</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center">RA</td>
								<td align="center">.86</td>
								<td align="center">.88</td>
								<td align="center">.89</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center">IE</td>
								<td align="center">.87</td>
								<td align="center">.88</td>
								<td align="center">.89</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left" rowspan="3">SNA</td>
								<td align="center">SMO</td>
								<td align="center">.89</td>
								<td align="center">.90</td>
								<td align="center">---</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center">LPC</td>
								<td align="center">.79</td>
								<td align="center">.81</td>
								<td align="center">---</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center">EU</td>
								<td align="center">.87</td>
								<td align="center">.83</td>
								<td align="center">---</td>
							</tr>
						</tbody>
					</table>
					<table-wrap-foot>
						<fn id="TFN3">
							<p><italic>Note</italic>. RV = Role of victim; RA = Role of aggressor; SNA = Social networks addiction; SMO = Social media obsession; LPC = Lack of personal control; EU = excessive use of social networks.</p>
						</fn>
					</table-wrap-foot>
				</table-wrap>
			</p>
			<p>Finally, the correlations with the dimensions of the <italic>Social Network Addiction Scale</italic> indicated a moderate, low value respectively; .331 (<italic>p</italic> ≤ .01) between the emotional impact of ghosting and excessive use of social networks and .281 (<italic>p</italic> ≤ .01) between the emotional impact of ghosting and lack of personal control.</p>
		</sec>
		<sec sec-type="discussion">
			<title>Discussion</title>
			<p>The aim of the present study was to analyse the psychometric properties of a ghosting scale designed for the romantic context (RG-C) in young Colombian adults. The design of the instrument started from the theoretical basis that romantic ghosting can be understood as a way of ending romantic relationships by interrupting or cutting off all the implicit communication in a relationship through the use of electronic devices and the internet (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B11">Freedman et al., 2019</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B15">Koessler et al., 2019a</xref>). This enabled us to check the theoretical robustness of the three-factor model: the role of the aggressor, the role of the victim, and emotional impact. These dimensions were initially subjected to content validation, the results of which suggested that the conceptual structure which was used to later design the items meets the criteria of clarity, relevance and pertinence. As regards construct validity, the EFA suggested that the items are distributed in a way that fits in with the three theoretical dimensions proposed. During the process, we had to delete three items. Next, the CFA confirmed these three factors, highlighting the possibility of evaluating the extra value of emotional impact, unlike the existing scales, which focus only on assessing the communication processes occurring in the role of involvement.</p>
			<p>Factor analysis, in general, highlights the relevance of evaluating specific behaviour that perpetrators use against victims, such as cutting off communication, not answering calls, and blocking the other person on social networks or applications in order to end a relationship (or potential romantic relationship) without giving any explanation. These findings help confirm the importance of analysing the roles of involvement in ghosting (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B26">Navarro et al., 2020a</xref>), and complement our understanding of the duality of the phenomenon as described in some studies, which distinguish between the non-initiators/recipients and the initiators/“ghosters” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B16">Koessler et al., 2019b</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B18">LeFebvre, 2017</xref>). Along these lines, one of the relevant items in the “role of the aggressor” factor of the CFA was the one referring to gradually reducing contact (RA-3), which is probably one of the commonest practices used by perpetrators; this aspect is reflected in the “role of the victim” factor (RV-3), since this item scored highly in the statistics, suggesting that this practice is a key part of the construct and should be seen as a common way of terminating a relationship with sentimental interest. This finding agrees with the research of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B15">Koessler et al. (2019a</xref>) and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B20">LeFebvre and Fan (2020</xref>), who also found this to be the most widespread kind of behaviour, and that the speed with which it happens can vary from a gradual decrease to the sudden termination of all contact.</p>
			<p>As for the second factor, “role of the victim”, one of the key aspects is the important contribution of the item that assesses the use of excuses or pretexts to avoid communication (RV-4), by which victims of this phenomenon receive excuses or pretexts from the aggressor to avoid communication, thus ending the relationship. As <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B39">Vagaš and Miško (2018</xref>) explained, interrupting communication by avoiding the people affected is a common practice in ghosting.</p>
			<p>Regarding the dimension of “emotional impact”, both the EFA and CFA corroborate that it is necessary to take into account the emotional responses associated with the phenomenon to produce an accurate, up-to-date theoretical delimitation of the construct. It is widely recognized, therefore, that perceived emotions such as sadness, anger, confusion, and guilt are key features, in line with the studies by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B32">Rad and Rad (2018</xref>), <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B26">Navarro et al. (2020a</xref>), and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B28">Pancani et al. (2021</xref>), who showed how being ignored online and experiencing the breakup of a romantic relationships is linked to these feelings, and that it increases the risk of psychological distress, emotional dysregulation, loneliness, and anxiety. Likewise, indifference or isolation in interactive online contexts can be considered a form of passive violence, since the person who suffers indifference can be emotionally affected (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B23">Lucio et al., 2018</xref>). One of the items in the CFA that contributes significantly to measuring this dimension refers to feeling angry when the partner, or potential partner, “blocks” you from social networks without giving any explanation (IE-14). This agrees with <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B28">Pancani et al. (2021</xref>), who highlighted that the abrupt termination of communication leads to victims of ghosting experiencing greater anger, especially if the reasons for the breakup are considered unfair.</p>
			<p>Regarding the correlations between the dimensions of ghosting and addiction to social networks, the results showed a low-moderate link between these constructs, which is a positive finding, since ghosting is conceptually different from the notion of behavioural addiction, although they share certain aspects of behaviour and components. The analysis suggests that despite being different concepts, they show a certain degree of association because they both occur in the online context. Although both phenomena take place when using social networks, addiction is more focused on developing intrapersonal processes aligned with dependency and abuse, while ghosting focuses more on interpersonal development supported mainly by the use of social networks to end a romantic relationship mediated by technology. Thus, the analyses show a link between the emotional impact of the ghosting scale and a lack of personal control and excessive use of social networks, which opens up the possibility of understanding the place of this phenomenon in the use of technology, and suggests that such abuse can eventually affect the decision to use ghosting in relationships. These findings are consistent with <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B29">Powell et al. (2021</xref>), who suggested that the use of ghosting goes hand in hand with an increased use of technology in romantic relationships. Thus, excessive use and addiction to social networks could probably lead to a greater risk of involvement in the different roles of ghosting, and therefore a greater emotional impact.</p>
			<p>In conclusion, the RG-C scale shows optimal psychometric properties in terms of content and construct validity, in addition to optimal reliability values, which demonstrates its suitability and basic theoretical robustness, meaning that it can be used to measure romantic ghosting in a population of young Colombian adults.</p>
			<p>This study contributes to the field of research into online violence with a pioneering scale for Colombia which allows us to measure this emerging online behaviour used when couples break up. Finally, the results of this study could also have practical implications by guiding therapeutic or psycho-educational processes aimed at managing the impact of a romantic breakup carried out on ICT. Similarly, the study opens up future lines of research, such as the study of guilt in ghosting and the theoretical differentiation between phenomena such as cricketing, benching, haunting, cushioning, and breadcrumbing, among others.</p>
			<p>This study has its limitations, such as the size and type of sample and the use of self-administered questionnaires, which can be affected by social desirability, in addition to the fact that the cross-sectional design, which does not allow us to measure the impact of the phenomenon over time. We suggest that in future research, longitudinal studies could be used, extending the study sample and analysing behaviour at a range of ages and in different cultural contexts.</p>
		</sec>
	</body>
	<back>
		<ref-list>
			<title>References</title>
			<ref id="B1">
				<mixed-citation>American Psychological Association. (2017). <italic>Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct</italic>. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/">https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="webpage">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<collab>American Psychological Association</collab>
					</person-group>
					<year>2017</year>
					<source>Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct</source>
					<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/">https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/</ext-link>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B2">
				<mixed-citation>Ato, M., López-García, J., &amp; Benavente, A. (2013). Un sistema de clasificación de los diseños de investigación en psicología. <italic>Anales de Psicología</italic>, <italic>29</italic>(3), 1038-1059. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.29.3.178511</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Ato</surname>
							<given-names>M.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>López-García</surname>
							<given-names>J.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Benavente</surname>
							<given-names>A</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2013</year>
					<article-title>Un sistema de clasificación de los diseños de investigación en psicología</article-title>
					<source>Anales de Psicología</source>
					<volume>29</volume>
					<issue>3</issue>
					<fpage>1038</fpage>
					<lpage>1059</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.6018/analesps.29.3.178511</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B3">
				<mixed-citation>Bentler, R., &amp; Wu, E. (2012). <italic>EQS for windows (Version 6.2)</italic> [Software]. Multivariate Software, Inc.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="software">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Bentler</surname>
							<given-names>R.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Wu</surname>
							<given-names>E</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2012</year>
					<source>EQS for windows</source>
					<comment>Software</comment>
					<publisher-name>Multivariate Software, Inc.</publisher-name>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B4">
				<mixed-citation>Biolcati, R., Pupi, V., &amp; Mancini, G. (2021). Cyber dating abuse and ghosting behaviours: Personality and gender roles in romantic relationships. <italic>Current Issues in Personality Psychology</italic>, <italic>10</italic>(3), 240-251. https://doi.org/10.5114/cipp.2021.108289</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Biolcati</surname>
							<given-names>R.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Pupi</surname>
							<given-names>V.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Mancini</surname>
							<given-names>G</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2021</year>
					<article-title>Cyber dating abuse and ghosting behaviours: Personality and gender roles in romantic relationships</article-title>
					<source>Current Issues in Personality Psychology</source>
					<volume>10</volume>
					<issue>3</issue>
					<fpage>240</fpage>
					<lpage>251</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5114/cipp.2021.108289</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B5">
				<mixed-citation>Brown, T. A. (2006). <italic>Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research</italic>. Guilford Press.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="book">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Brown</surname>
							<given-names>T. A</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2006</year>
					<source>Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research</source>
					<publisher-name>Guilford Press</publisher-name>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B6">
				<mixed-citation>Bryant, F. B., &amp; Satorra, A. (2012). Principles and practice of scaled difference Chi-Square testing. <italic>Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal</italic>, <italic>19</italic>(3), 372-398. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2012.687671</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Bryant</surname>
							<given-names>F. B.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Satorra</surname>
							<given-names>A</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2012</year>
					<article-title>Principles and practice of scaled difference Chi-Square testing</article-title>
					<source>Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal</source>
					<volume>19</volume>
					<issue>3</issue>
					<fpage>372</fpage>
					<lpage>398</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/10705511.2012.687671</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B7">
				<mixed-citation>Congreso de la República de Colombia. (2006). <italic>Ley 1090 de 2006</italic>. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.secretariasenado.gov.co/senado/basedoc/ley_1090_2006.html">http://www.secretariasenado.gov.co/senado/basedoc/ley_1090_2006.html</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="legal-doc">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<collab>Congreso de la República de Colombia</collab>
					</person-group>
					<year>2006</year>
					<source>Ley 1090 de 2006</source>
					<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.secretariasenado.gov.co/senado/basedoc/ley_1090_2006.html">http://www.secretariasenado.gov.co/senado/basedoc/ley_1090_2006.html</ext-link>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B8">
				<mixed-citation>Elosua-Oliden, P., &amp; Zumbo, B. D. (2008). Coeficientes de fiabilidad para escalas de respuesta categórica ordenada. <italic>Psicothema</italic>, <italic>20</italic>(4), 896-901.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Elosua-Oliden</surname>
							<given-names>P.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Zumbo</surname>
							<given-names>B. D</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2008</year>
					<article-title>Coeficientes de fiabilidad para escalas de respuesta categórica ordenada</article-title>
					<source>Psicothema</source>
					<volume>20</volume>
					<issue>4</issue>
					<fpage>896</fpage>
					<lpage>901</lpage>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B9">
				<mixed-citation>Escobar, J., &amp; Cuervo, A. (2008). Validez de contenido y juicio de expertos: Una aproximación a su utilización. <italic>Avances en Medición</italic>, 6(1), 27-36.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Escobar</surname>
							<given-names>J.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Cuervo</surname>
							<given-names>A</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2008</year>
					<article-title>Validez de contenido y juicio de expertos: Una aproximación a su utilización</article-title>
					<source>Avances en Medición</source>
					<volume>6</volume>
					<issue>1</issue>
					<fpage>27</fpage>
					<lpage>36</lpage>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B10">
				<mixed-citation>Forrai, M., Koban, K., &amp; Matthes, J. (2023). Short-sighted ghosts. Psychological antecedents and consequences of ghosting others within emerging adults’ romantic relationships and friendships. <italic>Telematics and Informatics</italic>, <italic>80</italic>, Article 101969. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2023.101969</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Forrai</surname>
							<given-names>M.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Koban</surname>
							<given-names>K.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Matthes</surname>
							<given-names>J</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2023</year>
					<article-title>Short-sighted ghosts. Psychological antecedents and consequences of ghosting others within emerging adults’ romantic relationships and friendships</article-title>
					<source>Telematics and Informatics</source>
					<volume>80</volume>
					<elocation-id>101969</elocation-id>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.tele.2023.101969</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B11">
				<mixed-citation>Freedman, G., Powell, D., Le, B., &amp; Williams, K. (2019). Ghosting and destiny: Implicit theories of relationships predict beliefs about ghosting. <italic>Journal of Social and Personal Relationships</italic>, <italic>36</italic>(3), 905-924. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517748791</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Freedman</surname>
							<given-names>G.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Powell</surname>
							<given-names>D.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Le</surname>
							<given-names>B.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Williams</surname>
							<given-names>K</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2019</year>
					<article-title>Ghosting and destiny: Implicit theories of relationships predict beliefs about ghosting</article-title>
					<source>Journal of Social and Personal Relationships</source>
					<volume>36</volume>
					<issue>3</issue>
					<fpage>905</fpage>
					<lpage>924</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1177/0265407517748791</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B12">
				<mixed-citation>Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., &amp; Tatham, R. (2005). <italic>Multivariate data analyses</italic> (6<sup>th</sup> ed.). Prentice-Hall.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="book">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Hair</surname>
							<given-names>J.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Black</surname>
							<given-names>W.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Babin</surname>
							<given-names>B.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Anderson</surname>
							<given-names>R.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Tatham</surname>
							<given-names>R</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2005</year>
					<source>Multivariate data analyses</source>
					<edition>6th</edition>
					<publisher-name>Prentice-Hall</publisher-name>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B13">
				<mixed-citation>Hu, L. T., &amp; Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. <italic>Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal</italic>, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Hu</surname>
							<given-names>L. T.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Bentler</surname>
							<given-names>P. M</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>1999</year>
					<article-title>Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives</article-title>
					<source>Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal</source>
					<volume>6</volume>
					<issue>1</issue>
					<fpage>1</fpage>
					<lpage>55</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/10705519909540118</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B14">
				<mixed-citation>Jahrami, H., Saif, Z., Chen, W., Helmy, M., Ghazzawi, H., Trabelsi, K., Piresi, G., Bragazzi, N., Pandi-Perumal, S., &amp; Seeman, M. (2023). Development and validation of a questionnaire (GHOST) to assess sudden, unexplained communication exclusion or “ghosting”. <italic>Heliyon</italic>, 9(6), Article e17066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17066</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Jahrami</surname>
							<given-names>H.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Saif</surname>
							<given-names>Z.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Chen</surname>
							<given-names>W.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Helmy</surname>
							<given-names>M.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Ghazzawi</surname>
							<given-names>H.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Trabelsi</surname>
							<given-names>K.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Piresi</surname>
							<given-names>G.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Bragazzi</surname>
							<given-names>N.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Pandi-Perumal</surname>
							<given-names>S.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Seeman</surname>
							<given-names>M</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2023</year>
					<article-title>Development and validation of a questionnaire (GHOST) to assess sudden, unexplained communication exclusion or “ghosting”</article-title>
					<source>Heliyon</source>
					<volume>9</volume>
					<issue>6</issue>
					<elocation-id>e17066</elocation-id>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17066</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B15">
				<mixed-citation>Koessler, R., Kohut, T., &amp; Campbell, L. (2019a). Integration and expansion of qualitative analyses of relationship dissolution through ghosting. <italic>PsyArXiv</italic>. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/3kvdx</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Koessler</surname>
							<given-names>R.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Kohut</surname>
							<given-names>T.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Campbell</surname>
							<given-names>L</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2019a</year>
					<article-title>Integration and expansion of qualitative analyses of relationship dissolution through ghosting</article-title>
					<source>PsyArXiv</source>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.31234/osf.io/3kvdx</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B16">
				<mixed-citation>Koessler, R., Kohut, T., &amp; Campbell, L. (2019b). When your boo becomes a ghost: The Association between breakup strategy and breakup role in experiences of relationship dissolution. <italic>Collabra: Psychology</italic>, 5(1), Article 29. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.230</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Koessler</surname>
							<given-names>R.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Kohut</surname>
							<given-names>T.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Campbell</surname>
							<given-names>L</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2019b</year>
					<article-title>When your boo becomes a ghost: The Association between breakup strategy and breakup role in experiences of relationship dissolution</article-title>
					<source>Collabra: Psychology</source>
					<volume>5</volume>
					<issue>1</issue>
					<elocation-id>29</elocation-id>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1525/collabra.230</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B17">
				<mixed-citation>Kormaz, S., Goksuluk, D., &amp; Zararsiz, G. (2015). <italic>Mutivariate Normality Tests: Package ‘MVN’</italic>. <italic>Versión 4.0</italic>. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.biosoft.hacettepe.edu.tr/MVN/">http://www.biosoft.hacettepe.edu.tr/MVN/</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="software">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Kormaz</surname>
							<given-names>S.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Goksuluk</surname>
							<given-names>D.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Zararsiz</surname>
							<given-names>G</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2015</year>
					<source>Mutivariate Normality Tests: Package ‘MVN’</source>
					<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.biosoft.hacettepe.edu.tr/MVN/">http://www.biosoft.hacettepe.edu.tr/MVN/</ext-link>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B18">
				<mixed-citation>LeFebvre, L. (2017). Ghosting as a relationship dissolution strategy in the technological age. En N. Punyanunt-Carter y J. S. Wrench (Eds.), <italic>Swipe right for love: The impact of social media in modern romantic relationships</italic> (pp. 219-236). Rowman &amp; Littlefield.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="book">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>LeFebvre</surname>
							<given-names>L</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2017</year>
					<chapter-title>Ghosting as a relationship dissolution strategy in the technological age</chapter-title>
					<person-group person-group-type="editor">
						<name>
							<surname>Punyanunt-Carter</surname>
							<given-names>N.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Wrench</surname>
							<given-names>J. S.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<source>Swipe right for love: The impact of social media in modern romantic relationships</source>
					<fpage>219</fpage>
					<lpage>236</lpage>
					<publisher-name>Rowman &amp; Littlefield</publisher-name>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B19">
				<mixed-citation>LeFebvre, L., Rasner, R., &amp; Allen, M. (2020). “I guess I’ll never know…”: Non-initiators account-making after being ghosted. <italic>Journal of Loss and Trauma</italic>, <italic>25</italic>(5), 395-415. https://doi.org/10.1080/15325024.2019.1694299</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>LeFebvre</surname>
							<given-names>L.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Rasner</surname>
							<given-names>R.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Allen</surname>
							<given-names>M</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2020</year>
					<article-title>“I guess I’ll never know…”: Non-initiators account-making after being ghosted</article-title>
					<source>Journal of Loss and Trauma</source>
					<volume>25</volume>
					<issue>5</issue>
					<fpage>395</fpage>
					<lpage>415</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/15325024.2019.1694299</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B20">
				<mixed-citation>LeFebvre, L., &amp; Fan, X. (2020). Ghosted?: Navigating strategies for reducing uncertainty and implications surrounding ambiguous loss. <italic>Personal Relationships</italic>, <italic>27</italic>(2), 433-459. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12322</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>LeFebvre</surname>
							<given-names>L.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Fan</surname>
							<given-names>X</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2020</year>
					<article-title>Ghosted?: Navigating strategies for reducing uncertainty and implications surrounding ambiguous loss</article-title>
					<source>Personal Relationships</source>
					<volume>27</volume>
					<issue>2</issue>
					<fpage>433</fpage>
					<lpage>459</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1111/pere.12322</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B21">
				<mixed-citation>Lloret-Segura, S., Ferreres-Traver, A., Hernández-Baeza, A., &amp; Tomás-Marco, I. (2014). El análisis factorial exploratorio de los ítems: una guía práctica, revisada y actualizada. <italic>Anales de Psicología</italic>, <italic>30</italic>(3), 1151-1169. http://dx.doi.org/10.6018/analesps.30.3.199361</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Lloret-Segura</surname>
							<given-names>S.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Ferreres-Traver</surname>
							<given-names>A.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Hernández-Baeza</surname>
							<given-names>A.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Tomás-Marco</surname>
							<given-names>I</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2014</year>
					<article-title>El análisis factorial exploratorio de los ítems: una guía práctica, revisada y actualizada</article-title>
					<source>Anales de Psicología</source>
					<volume>30</volume>
					<issue>3</issue>
					<fpage>1151</fpage>
					<lpage>1169</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.6018/analesps.30.3.199361</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B22">
				<mixed-citation>Lorenzo-Seva, U., &amp; Ferrando, P. (2006). FACTOR: A computer program to fit the exploratory factor analysis model. <italic>Behavioral Research Methods</italic>, <italic>38</italic>, 88-91. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192753</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Lorenzo-Seva</surname>
							<given-names>U.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Ferrando</surname>
							<given-names>P</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2006</year>
					<article-title>FACTOR: A computer program to fit the exploratory factor analysis model</article-title>
					<source>Behavioral Research Methods</source>
					<volume>38</volume>
					<fpage>88</fpage>
					<lpage>91</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3758/BF03192753</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B23">
				<mixed-citation>Lucio, L., Prieto, M., &amp; Carrillo, J. (2018). Manifestaciones de violencias entre alumnos de educación superior: Los usos del WhatsApp. <italic>Alteridad</italic>, <italic>13</italic>(2), 204-213. https://doi.org/10.17163/alt.v13n2.2018.04</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Lucio</surname>
							<given-names>L.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Prieto</surname>
							<given-names>M.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Carrillo</surname>
							<given-names>J</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2018</year>
					<article-title>Manifestaciones de violencias entre alumnos de educación superior: Los usos del WhatsApp</article-title>
					<source>Alteridad</source>
					<volume>13</volume>
					<issue>2</issue>
					<fpage>204</fpage>
					<lpage>213</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.17163/alt.v13n2.2018.04</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B24">
				<mixed-citation>Ministerio de Salud de Colombia. (1993). <italic>Resolución Número 8430 de 1993</italic>. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.minsalud.gov.co/sites/rid/Lists/BibliotecaDigital/RIDE/DE/DIJ/RESOLUCION-8430-DE-1993.PDF">https://www.minsalud.gov.co/sites/rid/Lists/BibliotecaDigital/RIDE/DE/DIJ/RESOLUCION-8430-DE-1993.PDF</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="legal-doc">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<collab>Ministerio de Salud de Colombia</collab>
					</person-group>
					<year>1993</year>
					<source>Resolución Número 8430 de 1993</source>
					<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.minsalud.gov.co/sites/rid/Lists/BibliotecaDigital/RIDE/DE/DIJ/RESOLUCION-8430-DE-1993.PDF">https://www.minsalud.gov.co/sites/rid/Lists/BibliotecaDigital/RIDE/DE/DIJ/RESOLUCION-8430-DE-1993.PDF</ext-link>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B25">
				<mixed-citation>Morata-Ramírez, M., &amp; Holgado-Tello, F. (2013). Construct validity of Likert scales through confirmatory factor analysis: A simulation study comparing different methods of estimation based on Pearson and polychoric correlations. <italic>International Journal of Social Science Studies</italic>, 1(1), 54-61. https://doi.org/10.11114/ijsss.v1i1.27</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Morata-Ramírez</surname>
							<given-names>M.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Holgado-Tello</surname>
							<given-names>F</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2013</year>
					<article-title>Construct validity of Likert scales through confirmatory factor analysis: A simulation study comparing different methods of estimation based on Pearson and polychoric correlations</article-title>
					<source>International Journal of Social Science Studies</source>
					<volume>1</volume>
					<issue>1</issue>
					<fpage>54</fpage>
					<lpage>61</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.11114/ijsss.v1i1.27</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B26">
				<mixed-citation>Navarro, R., Larrañaga, E., Yubero, S., &amp; Víllora, B. (2020a). Psychological correlates of ghosting and breadcrumbing experiences: A preliminary study among adults. <italic>International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health</italic>, <italic>17</italic>(3), Article 1116. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17031116</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Navarro</surname>
							<given-names>R.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Larrañaga</surname>
							<given-names>E.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Yubero</surname>
							<given-names>S.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Víllora</surname>
							<given-names>B</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2020a</year>
					<article-title>Psychological correlates of ghosting and breadcrumbing experiences: A preliminary study among adults</article-title>
					<source>International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health</source>
					<volume>17</volume>
					<issue>3</issue>
					<elocation-id>1116</elocation-id>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3390/ijerph17031116</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B27">
				<mixed-citation>Navarro, R., Larrañaga, E., Yubero, S., &amp; Villora, B. (2020b). Ghosting and breadcrumbing: Prevalence and association with online dating behavior among young adults.<italic>Escritos de Psicología-Psychological Writings</italic>, <italic>13</italic>(2), 46-59. https://doi.org/10.24310/espsiescpsi.v13i2.9960</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Navarro</surname>
							<given-names>R.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Larrañaga</surname>
							<given-names>E.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Yubero</surname>
							<given-names>S.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Villora</surname>
							<given-names>B</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2020b</year>
					<article-title>Ghosting and breadcrumbing: Prevalence and association with online dating behavior among young adults</article-title>
					<source>Escritos de Psicología-Psychological Writings</source>
					<volume>13</volume>
					<issue>2</issue>
					<fpage>46</fpage>
					<lpage>59</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.24310/espsiescpsi.v13i2.9960</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B28">
				<mixed-citation>Pancani, L., Mazzoni, D., Aureli, N., &amp; Riva, P. (2021). Ghosting and orbiting: An analysis of victims’ experiences. <italic>Journal of Social and Personal Relationships</italic>, <italic>38</italic>(7), 1987-2007. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211000417</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Pancani</surname>
							<given-names>L.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Mazzoni</surname>
							<given-names>D.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Aureli</surname>
							<given-names>N.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Riva</surname>
							<given-names>P</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2021</year>
					<article-title>Ghosting and orbiting: An analysis of victims’ experiences</article-title>
					<source>Journal of Social and Personal Relationships</source>
					<volume>38</volume>
					<issue>7</issue>
					<fpage>1987</fpage>
					<lpage>2007</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1177/02654075211000417</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B29">
				<mixed-citation>Powell, D. N., Freedman, G., Williams, K. D., Le, B., &amp; Green, H. (2021). A multi-study examination of attachment and implicit theories of relationships in ghosting experiences. <italic>Journal of Social and Personal Relationships</italic>, <italic>38</italic>(7), 2225-2248. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211009308</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Powell</surname>
							<given-names>D. N.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Freedman</surname>
							<given-names>G.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Williams</surname>
							<given-names>K. D.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Le</surname>
							<given-names>B.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Green</surname>
							<given-names>H</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2021</year>
					<article-title>A multi-study examination of attachment and implicit theories of relationships in ghosting experiences</article-title>
					<source>Journal of Social and Personal Relationships</source>
					<volume>38</volume>
					<issue>7</issue>
					<fpage>2225</fpage>
					<lpage>2248</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1177/02654075211009308</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B30">
				<mixed-citation>Pinzón-Salcedo, E. (2019). <italic>El Ghosting como fenómeno de ruptura virtual en relaciones de pareja</italic> [Undergraduate thesis, Fundación Universitaria Los Libertadores]. Institutional repository of the Fundación Universitaria Los Libertadores. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://hdl.handle.net/11371/2304">http://hdl.handle.net/11371/2304</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="thesis">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Pinzón-Salcedo</surname>
							<given-names>E</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2019</year>
					<source>El Ghosting como fenómeno de ruptura virtual en relaciones de pareja</source>
					<comment content-type="degree">Undergraduate thesis</comment>
					<publisher-name>Fundación Universitaria Los Libertadores</publisher-name>
					<publisher-name>Institutional repository of the Fundación Universitaria Los Libertadores</publisher-name>
					<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://hdl.handle.net/11371/2304">http://hdl.handle.net/11371/2304</ext-link>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B31">
				<mixed-citation>R Development Core Team. (2008). <italic>R: A language and environment for statistical computing</italic> [Manual y software de cómputo]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="software">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<collab>R Development Core Team</collab>
					</person-group>
					<year>2008</year>
					<source>R: A language and environment for statistical computing</source>
					<comment>Manual y software de cómputo</comment>
					<publisher-name>R Foundation for Statistical Computing</publisher-name>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B32">
				<mixed-citation>Rad, D., &amp; Rad, G. (2018). Cultural differences in youth perception about ghosting behavior. <italic>Journal Plus Education</italic>, <italic>20</italic>(2), 279-284.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Rad</surname>
							<given-names>D.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Rad</surname>
							<given-names>G</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2018</year>
					<article-title>Cultural differences in youth perception about ghosting behavior</article-title>
					<source>Journal Plus Education</source>
					<volume>20</volume>
					<issue>2</issue>
					<fpage>279</fpage>
					<lpage>284</lpage>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B33">
				<mixed-citation>Raykov, T. (1997). Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. <italic>Applied Psychological Measurement</italic>, <italic>21</italic>(2), 173-184. https://doi.org/10.1177/01466216970212006</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Raykov</surname>
							<given-names>T</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>1997</year>
					<article-title>Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures</article-title>
					<source>Applied Psychological Measurement</source>
					<volume>21</volume>
					<issue>2</issue>
					<fpage>173</fpage>
					<lpage>184</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1177/01466216970212006</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B34">
				<mixed-citation>Reyes, L. (2020). Del cortejo hostigante al rompimiento en línea, ciberviolencia en preparatorianos. <italic>Educa UMCH</italic>, <italic>16</italic>, 183-202. https://doi.org/10.35756/educaumch.202016.161</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Reyes</surname>
							<given-names>L</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2020</year>
					<article-title>Del cortejo hostigante al rompimiento en línea, ciberviolencia en preparatorianos</article-title>
					<source>Educa UMCH</source>
					<volume>16</volume>
					<fpage>183</fpage>
					<lpage>202</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.35756/educaumch.202016.161</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B35">
				<mixed-citation>Rosero-Bolaños, A. D., Eraso-Meléndez, J. S., Villalovoz-Galvis, F. H., &amp; Herrera-López, H. M. (2022). Validación del Cuestionario de Adicción a las Redes Sociales (ARS) en una muestra de adolescentes colombianos. <italic>Informes Psicológicos</italic>, <italic>22</italic>(2), 29-45. https://doi.org/10.18566/infpsic.v22n2a02</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Rosero-Bolaños</surname>
							<given-names>A. D.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Eraso-Meléndez</surname>
							<given-names>J. S.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Villalovoz-Galvis</surname>
							<given-names>F. H.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Herrera-López</surname>
							<given-names>H. M</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2022</year>
					<article-title>Validación del Cuestionario de Adicción a las Redes Sociales (ARS) en una muestra de adolescentes colombianos</article-title>
					<source>Informes Psicológicos</source>
					<volume>22</volume>
					<issue>2</issue>
					<fpage>29</fpage>
					<lpage>45</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.18566/infpsic.v22n2a02</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B36">
				<mixed-citation>Satorra, A., &amp; Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. <italic>Psychometrika</italic>, <italic>66</italic>(4), 507-514. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296192</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Satorra</surname>
							<given-names>A.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Bentler</surname>
							<given-names>P. M</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2001</year>
					<article-title>A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis</article-title>
					<source>Psychometrika</source>
					<volume>66</volume>
					<issue>4</issue>
					<fpage>507</fpage>
					<lpage>514</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/BF02296192</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B37">
				<mixed-citation>Shannon, C. E. (1949). Communication theory of secrecy systems. <italic>Bell System Technical Journal</italic>, <italic>28</italic>(4), 656-715. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1949.tb00928.x</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Shannon</surname>
							<given-names>C. E</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>1949</year>
					<article-title>Communication theory of secrecy systems</article-title>
					<source>Bell System Technical Journal</source>
					<volume>28</volume>
					<issue>4</issue>
					<fpage>656</fpage>
					<lpage>715</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1002/j.1538-7305.1949.tb00928.x</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B38">
				<mixed-citation>Timmermans, E., Hermans, A., &amp; Opree, S. (2020). Gone with the wind: Exploring mobile daters’ ghosting experiences. <italic>Journal of Social and Personal Relationships</italic>, <italic>38</italic>(2), 783-801. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407520970287</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Timmermans</surname>
							<given-names>E.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Hermans</surname>
							<given-names>A.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Opree</surname>
							<given-names>S</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2020</year>
					<article-title>Gone with the wind: Exploring mobile daters’ ghosting experiences</article-title>
					<source>Journal of Social and Personal Relationships</source>
					<volume>38</volume>
					<issue>2</issue>
					<fpage>783</fpage>
					<lpage>801</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1177/0265407520970287</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B39">
				<mixed-citation>Vagaš, M., &amp; Miško, D. (2018) Understanding of ghosting in re-education of human resources in an organization. <italic>Ad Alta: Journal of Interdisciplinary Research</italic>, 8(2), 298-301.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Vagaš</surname>
							<given-names>M.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Miško</surname>
							<given-names>D</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2018</year>
					<article-title>Understanding of ghosting in re-education of human resources in an organization</article-title>
					<source>Ad Alta: Journal of Interdisciplinary Research</source>
					<volume>8</volume>
					<issue>2</issue>
					<fpage>298</fpage>
					<lpage>301</lpage>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B40">
				<mixed-citation>Villora, B., Navarro, R., &amp; Yubero, S. (2019). Abuso online en el noviazgo y su relación con el abuso del móvil, la aceptación de la violencia y los mitos sobre el amor. <italic>Suma Psicológica</italic>, <italic>26</italic>(1), 46-54. https://doi.org/10.14349/sumapsi.2019.v26.n1.6</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Villora</surname>
							<given-names>B.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Navarro</surname>
							<given-names>R.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Yubero</surname>
							<given-names>S</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2019</year>
					<article-title>Abuso online en el noviazgo y su relación con el abuso del móvil, la aceptación de la violencia y los mitos sobre el amor</article-title>
					<source>Suma Psicológica</source>
					<volume>26</volume>
					<issue>1</issue>
					<fpage>46</fpage>
					<lpage>54</lpage>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B41">
				<mixed-citation>WMA. (1964). <italic>Declaración de Helsinki: Principios éticos para las investigaciones médicas en seres humanos</italic>. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.wma.net/es/policies-post/declaracion-de-helsinki-de-la-amm-principios-eticos-para-las-investigaciones-medicas-en-seres-humanos/">https://www.wma.net/es/policies-post/declaracion-de-helsinki-de-la-amm-principios-eticos-para-las-investigaciones-medicas-en-seres-humanos/</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="legal-doc">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<collab>WMA</collab>
					</person-group>
					<year>1964</year>
					<source>Declaración de Helsinki: Principios éticos para las investigaciones médicas en seres humanos</source>
					<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.wma.net/es/policies-post/declaracion-de-helsinki-de-la-amm-principios-eticos-para-las-investigaciones-medicas-en-seres-humanos/">https://www.wma.net/es/policies-post/declaracion-de-helsinki-de-la-amm-principios-eticos-para-las-investigaciones-medicas-en-seres-humanos/</ext-link>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B42">
				<mixed-citation>Yap, M., Francisco, A., &amp; Gopez, C. (2021). From best friends to silent ends: Exploring the concepts of ghosting in non-romantic relationships. <italic>International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research</italic>, 2(10), 943-950. http://dx.doi.org/10.11594/ijmaber.02.10.12</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Yap</surname>
							<given-names>M.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Francisco</surname>
							<given-names>A.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Gopez</surname>
							<given-names>C</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2021</year>
					<article-title>From best friends to silent ends: Exploring the concepts of ghosting in non-romantic relationships</article-title>
					<source>International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research</source>
					<volume>2</volume>
					<issue>10</issue>
					<fpage>943</fpage>
					<lpage>950</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.11594/ijmaber.02.10.12</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
		</ref-list>
		<fn-group>
			<title>Funding</title>
			<fn fn-type="other" id="fn1">
				<p>This work has been funded by the Vice-Rectorate for Research and Social Interaction VIIS, University of Nariño [Agreement No. 60 of 2023] Project: Love in times of sexting and dating violence: an explanatory-predictive study of violence in adolescent couples and young university students from San Juan de Pasto, Colombia.</p>
			</fn>
		</fn-group>
		<app-group>
			<app id="app1">
				<label>APPENDIX 1</label>
				<sec>
					<title> <italic>Romantic Ghosting Scale</italic> - Colombia (RG-C)</title>
					<p>The following statements are related to breakups in relationships or other people you know who you may have a romantic interest in, through ICT (applications, social networks, etc.) Please reply according to your experiences in the context of romantic interest and relationships.</p>
					<p>You should answer the first 9 statements with two responses each, based on the following questions:</p>
					<p>(1) How often do/did you use the following behaviour or action?</p>
					<p><bold>YOU use it against him/her</bold> (I have used it): includes actions you have used, use or would use against others.</p>
					<p>(2) How often do/did they use the following behaviour or action against you?</p>
					<p><bold>HE/SHE uses it against you</bold> (They have used it against me): includes actions that others have used against you.</p>
					<p>Mark or write the number you think is most suitable in the situations given.</p>
					<p>
						<table-wrap id="t4">
							<table frame="hsides" rules="groups">
								<colgroup>
									<col span="2"/>
									<col span="5"/>
								</colgroup>
								<thead>
									<tr>
										<th align="center" colspan="2" rowspan="2">Item / Each statement should be given two answers - please reply to both.</th>
										<th align="center" colspan="5">Response options</th>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<th align="center">1. Never / Not at all</th>
										<th align="center">2. Hardly ever / On few occasions</th>
										<th align="center">3. Sometimes / Maybe</th>
										<th align="center">4. Nearly always / I probably would</th>
										<th align="center">5. Always/ I definitely would</th>
									</tr>
								</thead>
								<tbody>
									<tr>
										<td align="left" rowspan="2">1. Not answering calls or messages on WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram, Tinder or any other app, without giving explanations, perhaps in order to end a relationship or romantic interest.</td>
										<td align="left">HE/SHE uses it against you</td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left">YOU use it against him/her</td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left" rowspan="2">2. Blocking social networks or apps without giving any explanation, in order to end a relationship or possible romantic interest</td>
										<td align="left">HE/SHE uses it against you</td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left">YOU use it against him/her</td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left" rowspan="2">3. Gradually withdrawing contact or reducing messages sent on social networks or electronic media, until communication is totally stopped and the relationship or possible relationship therefore ends, without giving any explanation.</td>
										<td align="left">HE/SHE uses it against you</td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left">YOU use it against him/her</td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left" rowspan="2">4. Using excuses to avoid responding to messages or continuing the communication, with the aim of ending a relationship without giving any explanations.</td>
										<td align="left">HE/SHE uses it against you</td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left">YOU use it against him/her</td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left" rowspan="2">5. Blocking the phone number or social networks to avoid communication with a person you have or had a romantic interest in.</td>
										<td align="left">HE/SHE uses it against you</td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left">YOU use it against him/her</td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left" rowspan="2">7. Blocking social networks, such as Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, TikTok, or another app, (if the application allows it) so that the partner, or potential partner, cannot contact you again.</td>
										<td align="left">HE/SHE uses it against you</td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left">YOU use it against him/her</td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left" rowspan="2">8. Cutting off or stopping all communication without giving explanations, as a normal way to end a relationship or possible romantic relationship.</td>
										<td align="left">HE/SHE uses it against you</td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left">YOU use it against him/her</td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left" rowspan="2">9. Showing interest in meeting someone and then quickly losing interest, so you stop answering messages, calls or chats.</td>
										<td align="left">HE/SHE uses it against you</td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left">YOU use it against him/her</td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left" rowspan="2">10. Terminating the communication over the internet instead of explaining the real reasons face to face</td>
										<td align="left">HE/SHE uses it against you</td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left">YOU use it against him/her</td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="center" colspan="2" rowspan="2">Item / Emotional Impact</td>
										<td align="center" colspan="5">Response options</td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="center">1. Never / Not at all</td>
										<td align="center">2. Hardly ever / On few occasions</td>
										<td align="center">3. Sometimes / Maybe</td>
										<td align="center">4. Nearly always / I probably would</td>
										<td align="center">5. Always/ I definitely would</td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left" colspan="2">11. I feel sad when someone I am romantically interested in avoids my calls and ignores me on social media without giving me an explanation.</td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left" colspan="2">12. I get angry if my partner, or potential partner, stops communicating with me.</td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left" colspan="2">13. I get angry when my partner, or potential partner, doesn’t respond to my messages or ignores me on social media</td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left" colspan="2">14. I get angry when my partner or potential partner blocks me from social networks without giving me an explanation.</td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left" colspan="2">15. I feel confused if my partner, or potential partner, never contacts me again.</td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="left" colspan="2">18. I feel it may be my fault when my partner, or love interest, blocks me from social media without explanation and ends all communication.</td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
										<td align="left"></td>
									</tr>
								</tbody>
							</table>
						</table-wrap>
					</p>
				</sec>
			</app>
		</app-group>
	</back>
	<!--<sub-article article-type="translation" id="s1" xml:lang="es">
		<front-stub>
			<article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.21071/psye.v16i1.16372x</article-id>
			<article-categories>
				<subj-group subj-group-type="heading">
					<subject>Artículo</subject>
				</subj-group>
			</article-categories>
			<title-group>
				<article-title>Propiedades psicométricas de la <italic>Escala de Ghosting Romántico</italic> RG-C: un estudio instrumental en una muestra colombiana</article-title>
			</title-group>
			<contrib-group>
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<name>
						<surname>Herrera-López</surname>
						<given-names>Mauricio</given-names>
					</name>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/conceptualization/">Conceptualización</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/data-curation/">Curación de datos</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/formal-analysis/">Análisis formal</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/funding-acquisition/">Adquisición de financiación</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/investigation/">Investigación</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/methodology/">Metodología</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/project-administration/">Administración de proyecto</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/resources/">Recursos</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/software/">Software</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/supervision/">Supervisión</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/validation/">Validación</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/visualization/">Visualización</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/writing-original-draft/">Escritura - borrador original</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/writing-review-editing/">Escritura - revisión y edición</role>
					<xref ref-type="corresp" rid="c1">*</xref>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff4"><sup>1</sup></xref>
				</contrib>
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<name>
						<surname>Coral-Lagos</surname>
						<given-names>Anjely</given-names>
					</name>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/conceptualization/">Conceptualización</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/data-curation/">Curación de datos</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/formal-analysis/">Análisis formal</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/investigation/">Investigación</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/methodology/">Metodología</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/project-administration/">Administración de proyecto</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/software/">Software</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/validation/">Validación</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/visualization/">Visualización</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/writing-original-draft/">Escritura - borrador original</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/writing-review-editing/">Escritura - revisión y edición</role>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff4"><sup>1</sup></xref>
				</contrib>
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<name>
						<surname>Enríquez-Rosero</surname>
						<given-names>Marcela</given-names>
					</name>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/conceptualization/">Conceptualización</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/data-curation/">Curación de datos</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/formal-analysis/">Análisis formal</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/investigation/">Investigación</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/methodology/">Metodología</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/project-administration/">Administración de proyecto</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/software/">Software</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/validation/">Validación</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/visualization/">Visualización</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/writing-original-draft/">Escritura - borrador original</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/writing-review-editing/">Escritura - revisión y edición</role>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff4"><sup>1</sup></xref>
				</contrib>
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<name>
						<surname>Herrera-Solarte</surname>
						<given-names>Luisa</given-names>
					</name>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/funding-acquisition/">Adquisición de financiación</role>
					<role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/writing-review-editing/">Escritura - revisión y edición</role>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff5"><sup>2</sup></xref>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff6"><sup>3</sup></xref>
				</contrib>
			</contrib-group>
			<aff id="aff4">
				<label>1</label>
				<institution content-type="original"> Universidad de Nariño, Pasto (Colombia)</institution>
				<institution content-type="orgname">Universidad de Nariño</institution>
				<addr-line>
					<city>Pasto</city>
				</addr-line>
				<country country="CO">Colombia</country>
			</aff>
			<aff id="aff5">
				<label>2</label>
				<institution content-type="original"> Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla (España)</institution>
				<institution content-type="orgname">Universidad de Sevilla</institution>
				<addr-line>
					<city>Sevilla</city>
				</addr-line>
				<country country="ES">España</country>
			</aff>
			<aff id="aff6">
				<label>3</label>
				<institution content-type="original"> L’universita’ Degli Studi di Firenze, Florencia (Italia)</institution>
				<institution content-type="orgname">L’universita’ Degli Studi di Firenze</institution>
				<addr-line>
					<city>Florencia</city>
				</addr-line>
				<country country="IT">Italia</country>
			</aff>
			<author-notes>
				<corresp id="c2">
					<label>* <italic>Autor de correspondencia:</italic></label> Mauricio Herrera-López. Departamento de Psicología, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales, Universidad de Nariño, Ciudad Universitaria Torobajo, 52000, Pasto, Colombia. <email>mherrera@udenar.edu.co</email>
				</corresp>
				<fn fn-type="conflict" id="fn5">
					<label>Conflicto de intereses</label>
					<p>Los autores declaran que no hay conflictos de intereses.</p>
				</fn>
				<fn fn-type="data-availability" id="fn6">
					<label>Declaración de disponibilidad de datos</label>
					<p>Los datos que respaldan los resultados y conclusiones de este estudio están disponibles previa solicitud al autor correspondencia.</p>
				</fn>
			</author-notes>
			<abstract>
				<title>RESUMEN</title>
				<p>El fenómeno del <italic>ghosting</italic> se ha popularizado y los relatos de esta experiencia están en aumento. No obstante, existe una notable carencia de investigaciones en Colombia que aborden este fenómeno. Esta investigación contribuye al campo emergente considerando los roles de implicación y el impacto emocional. Objetivo: Analizar las propiedades psicométricas de una escala de <italic>ghosting</italic> en la relación romántica, diseñada y aplicada a una muestra colombiana. Metodología: La investigación es de tipo instrumental, de corte transversal, con un único grupo. La muestra incidental estuvo conformada por 691 participantes, con edades entre los 18 y los 40 años (<italic>M</italic> = 24.03; <italic>DT</italic> = 4.47). El 62.4% (<italic>n</italic> = 431) fueron mujeres. Resultados: se reconocieron evidencias adecuadas de confiabilidad y validez de contenido y constructo. Adicionalmente, se presenta la correlación con la adicción a las redes sociales. La escala se distribuyó en 3 factores de acuerdo con la teoría de base planteada. Conclusiones: La <italic>Escala de Ghosting Romántico</italic> muestra óptimas propiedades psicométricas en cuanto a validez de contenido y constructo, además de excelentes valores de confiabilidad. La escala tiene una base teórica sólida y puede utilizarse para medir el <italic>ghosting</italic> en la relación romántica, sus roles y su impacto emocional en jóvenes adultos colombianos.</p>
			</abstract>
			<kwd-group xml:lang="es">
				<title>Palabras clave:</title>
				<kwd>Ghosting</kwd>
				<kwd>Relación romântica</kwd>
				<kwd>Redes sociales</kwd>
				<kwd>Adultos jóvenes</kwd>
				<kwd>Propiedades psicométricas</kwd>
			</kwd-group>
		</front-stub>
		<body>
			<p>El uso de redes sociales, la tecnología, internet y las herramientas digitales se ha incrementado como parte de las relaciones interpersonales, incluyendo aquellas de índole romántico (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B34">Reyes, 2020</xref>). Este uso asiduo se puede considerar una extensión de las interacciones tradicionales para mantener o perder contacto, lo cual facilita el despliegue de diferentes técnicas de ruptura amorosa como el <italic>ghosting</italic> (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B4">Biolcati et al., 2021</xref>). Este es un comportamiento realizado a través de dispositivos tecnológicos, que consiste en interrumpir o cesar repentina o gradualmente toda comunicación con una pareja, provocando una disolución o ruptura unilateral de la comunicación y de la relación romántica (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B18">LeFebvre, 2017</xref>). Es decir, es una acción que puede ser interpretada como una manera de finalizar una relación en la que existió un interés o vínculo romántico (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B15">Koessler et al., 2019a</xref>). Aunque la idea de terminar una relación suprimiendo toda comunicación ha existido, probablemente, desde hace mucho tiempo, en la actualidad, gracias al avance de las Tecnologías de las Relaciones, la Información y la Comunicación (TRIC), el <italic>ghosting</italic> se ha mostrado como una estrategia emergente en el contexto romántico (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B11">Freedman et al., 2019</xref>). Algunos comportamientos que caracterizan esta conducta son: a) no responder las llamadas telefónicas o mensajes, b) dejar de seguir o bloquear a la pareja en redes sociales, c) dejar en “visto” sin dar respuesta, d) reducir paulatinamente la comunicación (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B26">Navarro et al., 2020a</xref>). Esta conducta se diferencia de otras estrategias de disolución de relaciones porque la pareja abandonada no sabe qué ha ocurrido, y no existe una explicación verbal de desinterés; en consecuencia, debe interpretar lo que significa la falta de comunicación por parte del otro (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B11">Freedman et al., 2019</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B26">Navarro et al., 2020a</xref>).</p>
			<p>Recientes investigaciones reconocen que algunos aspectos que podrían favorecer esta conducta están asociados al incremento del uso de las tecnologías, especialmente en el despliegue de la comunicación virtual con un interés romántico que se da en la pareja, pues esta ofrece condiciones y riesgos particulares, entre los que se pueden destacar: a) percepción de flexibilidad en el compromiso; b) minimización de la incomodidad al rechazar a pretendientes no deseados; c) cierto grado de despersonalización o contacto visual, que facilita poner fin a una relación; y d) riesgo de una mayor falta de interés en la relación amorosa. Así pues, los involucrados en la relación pueden experimentar mayor fluidez y variabilidad en las relaciones afectivas virtuales, puesto que el contexto, por una parte, facilita iniciar una relación y, en contrapeso, hace que resulte más sencillo terminarla debido al relativo anonimato, desinhibición en línea y/o menores consecuencias sociales al abandonar a alguien (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B32">Rad y Rad, 2018</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B34">Reyes, 2020</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B38">Timmermans et al., 2020</xref>). </p>
			<p>En línea con lo anterior, el <italic>ghosting</italic> puede ser considerado una forma de violencia de pareja de tipo psicológico y emocional, siendo una táctica interpersonal pasivo-agresiva que genera impotencia e impide la posibilidad de hacer preguntas, expresar emociones o recibir retroalimentación que ayude a procesar emocionalmente la experiencia dolorosa de abandono y ruptura (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B32">Rad y Rad, 2018</xref>); por tanto, puede causar impacto emocional en las víctimas generando sorpresa, incertidumbre, enojo, tristeza y confusión. La experiencia percibida de abandono es entendida como injusta, especialmente por la ausencia de explicaciones (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B28">Pancani et al., 2021</xref>) y, eventualmente, la ausencia de confrontación puede llevar a las víctimas a considerarse responsables y culpables de la ruptura (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B18">LeFebvre, 2017</xref>). </p>
			<p>Un aspecto importante a considerar es que el uso excesivo de dispositivos móviles y de redes sociales en las relaciones románticas propicia la aparición de comportamientos abusivos en el ámbito del noviazgo, pues crea más oportunidades para que los perpetradores lleven a cabo conductas abusivas, aumentando así el riesgo para las víctimas (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B40">Víllora et al., 2019</xref>). En esta línea, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B27">Navarro et al. (2020b</xref>) identificaron una asociación significativa entre el aumento en el uso de internet, el tiempo y actividades en línea con un mayor riesgo de implicación en diversas manifestaciones de violencia psicológica en las relaciones de pareja (<italic>cyberdating abuse</italic>, CDA), entre las que se encuentra el <italic>ghosting</italic> romántico (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B4">Biolcati et al., 2021</xref>). Además, la vigilancia en línea en redes sociales a personas conocidas en línea aumenta la probabilidad de ser iniciador y receptor de <italic>ghosting</italic> (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B27">Navarro et al., 2020b</xref>). En concordancia, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B38">Timmermans et al. (2020</xref>) reconocen que el aumento en el uso de plataformas en línea podría favorecer el <italic>ghosting</italic> al proporcionar herramientas que facilitan esta conducta, como la posibilidad de bloquear o eliminar aplicaciones para interrumpir la comunicación. </p>
			<p>Recientemente destaca el estudio de <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B29">Powell et al. (2021</xref>), quienes sugieren que la implicación en <italic>ghosting</italic> podría estar relacionada con un mayor uso y abuso de las TRIC, por tanto, es posible que el uso excesivo o adicción a las redes sociales, entendida como el uso descontrolado de aplicaciones en línea, esté relacionado con mayor riesgo de <italic>ghosting</italic>. Esta asociación, poco explorada, no solo podría contribuir significativamente a comprender y definir conceptualmente este fenómeno en el contexto romántico, sino también a nuevas comprensiones de las relaciones presentes entre diversas conductas desplegadas en el ámbito virtual relacional (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B35">Rosero-Bolaños et al., 2022</xref>).</p>
			<p>En cuanto a las consecuencias del <italic>ghosting</italic>, estudios como los de <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B38">Timmermans et al. (2020</xref>) y <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B26">Navarro et al. (2020a</xref>) sugieren que este tiene un impacto en la autoestima, el bienestar general y la salud mental de las víctimas, pues se perciben impotentes para defenderse e incrementan la soledad autopercibida. En esta línea de pensamiento, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B32">Rad y Rad (2018</xref>) concluyeron que el <italic>ghosting</italic> puede provocar sentimientos contradictorios entre el alivio por dejar una relación y el malestar por la forma en que se deja o es dejado. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B20">Lefebvre y Fan (2020</xref>) examinaron las estrategias de las víctimas para reducir la incertidumbre frente al <italic>ghosting</italic>, identificando que estas procesan la incertidumbre y la ambigüedad cambiando su proceso de selección de pareja y buscando a futuro una mejor comunicación interpersonal para evitar repetir la experiencia. </p>
			<p>Respecto a la medición del <italic>ghosting</italic>, los estudios que presentan escalas o cuestionarios son escasos, reconociéndose su ausencia en el contexto latinoamericano. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B39">Vagaš y Miško (2018</xref>) diseñaron un instrumento para evaluar y predecir el <italic>ghosting</italic> organizacional, explorando la relación y comunicación entre colaboradores de una empresa que no tenían interés sentimental. Tras el análisis factorial, se identificó un solo factor al que denominaron <italic>Indicador Global de Ghosting</italic>, obteniendo un alfa de Cronbach de .95. Se concluyó que el <italic>ghosting</italic> organizacional se presenta como un comportamiento negativo, predominantemente dirigido a ignorar y evitar el contacto entre los colaboradores de la empresa. Recientemente, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B14">Jahrami et al. (2023</xref>) diseñaron la escala GHOST (<italic>The Ghosting Questionnaire</italic>), sustentada en la teoría de la comunicación de <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B37">Shannon-Weaver (1949</xref>), para explorar la experiencia del <italic>ghosting</italic> desde la perspectiva de la víctima. Como resultado se validó una escala unidimensional compuesta por ocho ítems que valoran aspectos como: negligencia, tardanza de respuesta, ambigüedad, barreras en la comunicación, ausencia, inconsistencia de respuesta, vulnerabilidad y retiro. La escala final refirió óptimas propiedades psicométricas para los análisis factoriales exploratorio y confirmatorio, además de adecuados valores de confiabilidad (alfa de Cronbach y omega McDonald’s = .74). En el contexto colombiano, los estudios sobre <italic>ghosting</italic> son escasos. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B30">Pinzón-Salcedo (2019</xref>) encontró que los perpetradores evitan la confrontación, mientras que las víctimas afrontan un “duelo simbólico”, ya que se les niega una ruptura tradicional; esto puede manifestarse como una forma de ruptura definitiva o gradual, cuando las conversaciones se postergan y los encuentros se cancelan, hasta finalmente dar por terminada la relación al perder total contacto.</p>
			<p>Sin desconocer el aporte de los estudios anteriormente mencionados, se reconoce que estos se enfocan principalmente en los procesos comunicativos interpersonales y en el ámbito organizacional. Por tanto, es necesario avanzar en el desarrollo de una medida del <italic>ghosting</italic> con énfasis en el contexto relacional romántico, considerando además los roles de implicación, desde la teoría de los roles de las violencias relacionales y enfocado en la exploración del impacto emocional suscitado.</p>
			<p>En concordancia con lo dicho, el presente estudio tiene como objetivo analizar las propiedades psicométricas de una escala de <italic>ghosting</italic> romántico, diseñada para una muestra colombiana. En complemento con la valoración de los roles de implicación y del impacto emocional del <italic>ghosting</italic> (propuesta pionera en el contexto latinoamericano y colombiano), esta escala ofrece algunos análisis referidos a su aparición en el marco de la adicción a las redes sociales, condición cada vez más frecuente en adultos jóvenes, y que se reconoce como vacío de conocimiento sobre la configuración del constructo en esta condición. La hipótesis de partida refiere que la <italic>Escala de Ghosting Romántico</italic> (RG-C) mostrará óptimas propiedades psicométricas para una muestra colombiana.</p>
			<sec sec-type="methods">
				<title>Método</title>
				<sec>
					<title>Participantes </title>
					<p>La muestra fue incidental y estuvo conformada por 691 adultos jóvenes, con edades entre los 18 y los 40 años (<italic>M</italic> = 24.03; <italic>SD</italic> = 4.47). El 62.4% (<italic>n</italic> = 431) fueron mujeres y el 37.6% (<italic>n</italic> = 260) hombres. El 65.8% de los participantes eran de la ciudad de Pasto, mientras que el 34.2% de otras áreas de Colombia. El 86.5% eran de zona urbana y el 13.5% de zona rural. Los participantes contaban con un nivel educativo de bachiller el 19.8%, el 8.2% técnico, el 3.9% tecnológico, el 60.1% pregrado y el 8% posgrado. En cuanto al estado civil, el 67% de los participantes estaban solteros y el 33% informaron tener pareja. En relación con el estrato socioeconómico del Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadística (DANE), el 32.4% de los participantes pertenecía al estrato bajo-bajo (1), el 40.5% al estrato bajo (2), el 20.8% al estrato medio-bajo (3), el 5.6% al estrato medio (4) y el 0.6% al estrato medio-alto (5). El tiempo promedio de uso de las redes sociales era 53.9% entre 4 a 8 horas diarias y el 46% de 1 a 3 horas diarias.</p>
				</sec>
				<sec>
					<title>Instrumentos</title>
					<p>La escala RG-C se diseñó desde la teoría de <italic>ghosting</italic> adaptada a las violencias relacionales, que permite delimitar el rol de implicación y el impacto emocional del fenómeno. El modelo de partida contempla dos dimensiones que valoran el rol víctima y agresor. Estas incluyen conductas como bloquear perfiles, cese paulatino de la comunicación, no respuesta de mensajes, excusas para evitar dar explicaciones, además de la normalización de la conducta fantasma; y una tercera dimensión que valora el impacto emocional, tales como la tristeza y enojo percibido, sensación de culpa, injusticia, incertidumbre y confusión (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B11">Freedman et al. 2019</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B15">Koessler et al. 2019a</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B16">Koessler et al. 2019b</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B18">LeFebvre, 2017</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B26">Navarro et al., 2020a</xref>). Inicialmente, tres expertos (dos expertos teóricos y uno en psicometría) determinaron la validez de contenido, valorando la pertinencia, claridad y relevancia de los ítems; posteriormente se realizó una prueba piloto para valorar el nivel de comprensión de los ítems. Estos procedimientos previos permitieron obtener una escala global de 18 ítems tipo Likert. Los primeros 10 ítems se valoran con un sistema de doble respuesta a partir de la premisa: “¿Con qué frecuencia te hacen o hicieron la conducta (él o ella) a ti?”; “¿Con qué frecuencia haces o hiciste la conducta a él o ella?”. Luego se procedió con el análisis factorial exploratorio y confirmatorio de la escala y finalmente se realizó una correlación con la variable de adicción a redes sociales. Para este último proceso se utilizó el <italic>Cuestionario de Adicción a Redes Sociales</italic> (ARS) validado para Colombia por <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B35">Rosero-Bolaños et al. (2022</xref>). Este está compuesto por 24 ítems tipo Likert que evalúan tres factores: 1) Obsesión por las redes sociales (OB), 2) Falta de control personal en el uso de las redes sociales (FCP) y 3) Uso excesivo de las redes sociales (UE). El ARS original reporta valores de consistencia interna óptimos tanto para la escala total (αtotal = .95) como para cada factor: α<sub>OB</sub>= .93; α<sub>FCP</sub>= .82; α<sub>UE</sub>= .89 (Rosero-Bolaños et al., 2022).</p>
				</sec>
				<sec>
					<title>Procedimiento</title>
					<p>La investigación es de tipo instrumental, transversal, con un único grupo (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B2">Ato et al., 2013</xref>). El estudio presentó un riesgo mínimo para la integridad y salud mental de los participantes, puesto que no sobrepasaría al que se encuentra en la vida cotidiana (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B1">American Psychological Association, 2017</xref>). La investigación está enmarcada en la Ley 1090 del 2006 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B7">Congreso de la República de Colombia, 2006</xref>), y la Resolución 8430 de 1993 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B24">Ministerio de Salud de Colombia, 1993</xref>), que establece las normas científicas, técnicas y administrativas para la investigación en salud en Colombia. Además, se cumplió con lo establecido por la Declaración Helsinki (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B41">WMA, 1964</xref>). El estudio fue avalado por el Comité de Etica de la Universidad de Nariño en el marco del Acuerdo n.º 60 de marzo de 2023 (Vicerrectoría de Investigaciones e Interacción social, VIIS). Los participantes eran mayores de edad y recibieron información referida al objetivo y metodología del estudio y en todo momento se enfatizó en que la participación era voluntaria y anónima. El proceso de recogida de información fue a través de la plataforma Google forms, previa firma del consentimiento informado. </p>
				</sec>
				<sec>
					<title>Análisis de datos</title>
					<p>Inicialmente se realizaron análisis de tipo descriptivo, tanto de las variables sociodemográficas como de los ítems de las escalas. Se incluyó el análisis de Mardia para determinar la presencia o ausencia de normalidad multivariante de los datos a través del programa R (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B31">R Development Core Team, 2008</xref>) usando la librería MVN (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B17">Kormaz et al., 2015</xref>). Posteriormente, se procedió a realizar la validación de contenido a través de la obtención del índice V-Aiken para cada ítem por parte de jueces expertos, los cuales se seleccionaron teniendo en cuenta los criterios propuestos por Skjong y Wentworht (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B9">Escobar y Cuervo, 2008</xref>), que son: a) experiencia, b) reputación en la comunidad científica, c) disponibilidad y motivación e d) imparcialidad.</p>
					<p>Para la validación de constructo se procedió a realizar una validación cruzada que consiste en dividir la muestra total en dos submuestras aleatorias; la primera se utiliza para el análisis factorial exploratorio (AFE) y la segunda submuestra para un análisis factorial confirmatorio (AFC). Este procedimiento responde a la práctica clásica de hacer un uso secuencial de los dos análisis que explora la distribución de los ítems y luego confirma el modelo teórico de base de la escala de medida (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B5">Brown, 2006</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B21">Lloret-Segura et al., 2014</xref>). El AFE se realizó con el programa Factor 9.2 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B22">Lorenzo-Seva y Ferrando, 2006</xref>), considerando los índices de adecuación muestral Kaiser Meyer-Olkin (KMO), la esfericidad de Barlett, los valores de comunalidad, las saturaciones de los ítems, las cargas factoriales obtenidas en la distribución de la matriz de configuración y la varianza total explicada. Se usó el método de extracción de ejes principales y el método de rotación promax. En el proceso de AFE se suprimieron los ítems que presentaron comunalidades por debajo de .30 y saturaciones inferiores a .40 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B21">Lloret-Segura et al., 2014</xref>).</p>
					<p>El AFC se realizó con el programa EQS 6.2 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B3">Bentler y Wu, 2012</xref>); para este análisis se eligió el método de estimación <italic>least squares</italic> (LS) con escalamiento robusto (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B6">Bryant y Satorra, 2012</xref>), recomendado para variables de naturaleza categórica y con ausencia de normalidad multivariante (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B25">Morata-Ramírez y Holgado-Tello, 2013</xref>). Para valorar el ajuste de los modelos se utilizaron los índices chi-cuadrado de Satorra-Bentler (χ<sup>2</sup> <sub>S-B</sub>) (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B36">Satorra y Bentler, 2001</xref>), chi-cuadrado partido por los grados de libertad (χ<sup>2</sup>/<italic>gl</italic>) (≤ 5); el índice de ajuste comparativo (CFI) (≥ .90), el índice de ajuste de no normalidad (NNFI) (≥ .90), el error de aproximación cuadrático medio (RMSEA) (≤ .07) y el valor medio cuadrático de los residuos de las covarianzas (SRMR) (≤ .07) (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">Hu y Bentler, 1999</xref>). También se valoró el criterio de información de Akaike (AIC) para comparar los modelos obtenidos, siendo mejor el de menor valor (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B5">Brown, 2006</xref>). </p>
					<p>El análisis de consistencia interna se realizó con el índice omega de McDonald’s (ɷ ≤ .70), recomendado para variables categóricas y con ausencia de normalidad multivariante (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B8">Elosua-Oliden y Zumbo, 2008</xref>), calculado con el programa Factor 9.2 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B22">Lorenzo-Seva y Ferrando, 2006</xref>). También se determinó la confiabilidad compuesta (CC), que indica la fiabilidad general del conjunto de ítems. El valor de corte para la CR fue .70 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B12">Hair et al., 2005</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B33">Raykov, 1997</xref>). Para valorar la correlación entre las variables se usó el Rho Spearman con la <italic>Escala de Adicción a Redes Sociales</italic>. El nivel de significatividad adoptado fue de .05.</p>
				</sec>
			</sec>
			<sec sec-type="results">
				<title>Resultados</title>
				<p>El análisis de Mardia arrojó un coeficiente de asimetría de 171.68 (<italic>p</italic> &lt; .001) y un coeficiente de Kurtosis de 69.38 (<italic>p</italic> &lt; .001), indicando el incumplimiento de los supuestos de normalidad multivariante, y se obtuvieron los análisis descriptivos tanto para la escala general como para cada uno de los ítems (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t5">Tabla 1</xref>). A partir del AFE se eliminaron 3 ítems que presentaron comunalidades por debajo de .30 y saturaciones inferiores a .40 (RV - RA 6; IE 16 y 17), quedando un instrumento de 15 ítems globales; de los cuales los primeros 10 se califican en dos sentidos (agresión-victimización).</p>
				<p>
					<table-wrap id="t5">
						<label>Tabla 1</label>
						<caption>
							<title><italic>Tabla de estadísticos descriptivos y frecuencias de respuestas por cada ítem</italic></title>
						</caption>
						<table>
							<colgroup>
								<col/>
								<col span="5"/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
							</colgroup>
							<thead>
								<tr>
									<th align="left" rowspan="2">Ítem</th>
									<th align="left" colspan="5"> </th>
									<th align="center">1</th>
									<th align="center">2</th>
									<th align="center">3</th>
									<th align="center">4</th>
									<th align="center">5</th>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<th align="left"> </th>
									<th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th>
									<th align="center"><italic>DT</italic></th>
									<th align="center"><italic>As</italic></th>
									<th align="center"><italic>K</italic></th>
									<th align="center">Fr/%</th>
									<th align="center">Fr/%</th>
									<th align="center">Fr/%</th>
									<th align="center">Fr/%</th>
									<th align="center">Fr/%</th>
								</tr>
							</thead>
							<tbody>
								<tr>
									<td align="left" rowspan="2">1.</td>
									<td align="center">RA</td>
									<td align="center">2.40</td>
									<td align="center">1.21</td>
									<td align="center">0.49</td>
									<td align="center">-0.66</td>
									<td align="center">191/27.6%</td>
									<td align="center">168/24.3%</td>
									<td align="center">170/24.6%</td>
									<td align="center">75/10.9%</td>
									<td align="center">43/6.2%</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center">RV</td>
									<td align="center">2.44</td>
									<td align="center">1.13</td>
									<td align="center">0.37</td>
									<td align="center">-0.64</td>
									<td align="center">156/22.6%</td>
									<td align="center">166/24%</td>
									<td align="center">185/26.8%</td>
									<td align="center">76/11%</td>
									<td align="center">29/4.2%</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left" rowspan="2">2.</td>
									<td align="center">RA</td>
									<td align="center">1.91</td>
									<td align="center">1.20</td>
									<td align="center">1.14</td>
									<td align="center">0.21</td>
									<td align="center">359/52%</td>
									<td align="center">113/16.4%</td>
									<td align="center">99/14.3%</td>
									<td align="center">48/6.9%</td>
									<td align="center">34/4.9%</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center">RV</td>
									<td align="center">2.02</td>
									<td align="center">1.14</td>
									<td align="center">0.86</td>
									<td align="center">-0.24</td>
									<td align="center">277/40.1%</td>
									<td align="center">135/19.5%</td>
									<td align="center">120/14.4%</td>
									<td align="center">53/7.7%</td>
									<td align="center">21/3%</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left" rowspan="2">3.</td>
									<td align="center">RA</td>
									<td align="center">2.55</td>
									<td align="center">1.31</td>
									<td align="center">0.32</td>
									<td align="center">-1.05</td>
									<td align="center">198/28.7%</td>
									<td align="center">134/19.4%</td>
									<td align="center">164/23.7%</td>
									<td align="center">109/15.8%</td>
									<td align="center">62/9%</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center">RV</td>
									<td align="center">2.53</td>
									<td align="center">1.21</td>
									<td align="center">0.30</td>
									<td align="center">-0.85</td>
									<td align="center">164/23.7%</td>
									<td align="center">146/21.1%</td>
									<td align="center">183/26.5%</td>
									<td align="center">95/13.7%</td>
									<td align="center">41/5.9%</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left" rowspan="2">4.</td>
									<td align="center">RA</td>
									<td align="center">2.42</td>
									<td align="center">1.23</td>
									<td align="center">0.46</td>
									<td align="center">-0.76</td>
									<td align="center">202/29.2%</td>
									<td align="center">161/23.3%</td>
									<td align="center">176/25.5%</td>
									<td align="center">84/12.2%</td>
									<td align="center">46/6.7%</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center">RV</td>
									<td align="center">2.46</td>
									<td align="center">1.14</td>
									<td align="center">0.46</td>
									<td align="center">-0.76</td>
									<td align="center">156/22.6%</td>
									<td align="center">166/24%</td>
									<td align="center">193/27.9%</td>
									<td align="center">74/10.7%</td>
									<td align="center">34/4.9%</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left" rowspan="2">5.</td>
									<td align="center">RA</td>
									<td align="center">2.30</td>
									<td align="center">1.30</td>
									<td align="center">0.65</td>
									<td align="center">-0.72</td>
									<td align="center">257/37.2%</td>
									<td align="center">144/20.8%</td>
									<td align="center">139/20.1%</td>
									<td align="center">72/10.4%</td>
									<td align="center">58/8.4%</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center">RV</td>
									<td align="center">2.31</td>
									<td align="center">1.21</td>
									<td align="center">0.61</td>
									<td align="center">-0.50</td>
									<td align="center">195/28.2%</td>
									<td align="center">140/20.3%</td>
									<td align="center">153/22.1%</td>
									<td align="center">49/7.1%</td>
									<td align="center">40/5.8%</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left" rowspan="2">7.</td>
									<td align="center">RA</td>
									<td align="center">2.02</td>
									<td align="center">1.23</td>
									<td align="center">0.98</td>
									<td align="center">-0.15</td>
									<td align="center">327/47.3%</td>
									<td align="center">133/19.2%</td>
									<td align="center">108/15.6%</td>
									<td align="center">58/8.4%</td>
									<td align="center">39/5.6%</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center">RV</td>
									<td align="center">2.06</td>
									<td align="center">1.17</td>
									<td align="center">0.89</td>
									<td align="center">-0.09</td>
									<td align="center">255/36.9%</td>
									<td align="center">137/19.9%</td>
									<td align="center">120/17.4%</td>
									<td align="center">41/5.9%</td>
									<td align="center">29/4.2%</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left" rowspan="2">8.</td>
									<td align="center">RA</td>
									<td align="center">1.72</td>
									<td align="center">1.12</td>
									<td align="center">1.49</td>
									<td align="center">1.24</td>
									<td align="center">418/60.5%</td>
									<td align="center">98/14.2%</td>
									<td align="center">82/11.9%</td>
									<td align="center">34/4.9%</td>
									<td align="center">28/4.1%</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center">RV</td>
									<td align="center">2.02</td>
									<td align="center">1.17</td>
									<td align="center">0.90</td>
									<td align="center">-0.15</td>
									<td align="center">257/37.2%</td>
									<td align="center">111/16.1%</td>
									<td align="center">114/16.5%</td>
									<td align="center">40/5.8%</td>
									<td align="center">25/3.6%</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left" rowspan="2">9.</td>
									<td align="center">RA</td>
									<td align="center">2.53</td>
									<td align="center">1.25</td>
									<td align="center">0.40</td>
									<td align="center">-0.86</td>
									<td align="center">174/25.2%</td>
									<td align="center">180/26%</td>
									<td align="center">159/23%</td>
									<td align="center">102/14.8%</td>
									<td align="center">55/8%</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center">RV</td>
									<td align="center">2.44</td>
									<td align="center">1.12</td>
									<td align="center">0.40</td>
									<td align="center">-0.49</td>
									<td align="center">141/20.4%</td>
									<td align="center">156/22.6%</td>
									<td align="center">185/26.8%</td>
									<td align="center">58/8.4%</td>
									<td align="center">30/4.3%</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left" rowspan="2">10.</td>
									<td align="center">RA</td>
									<td align="center">1.82</td>
									<td align="center">1.09</td>
									<td align="center">1.23</td>
									<td align="center">0.63</td>
									<td align="center">359/52%</td>
									<td align="center">146/21.1%</td>
									<td align="center">92/13.3%</td>
									<td align="center">44/6.4%</td>
									<td align="center">21/3%</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center">RV</td>
									<td align="center">2.12</td>
									<td align="center">1.12</td>
									<td align="center">0.74</td>
									<td align="center">-0.26</td>
									<td align="center">221/32%</td>
									<td align="center">143/20.7%</td>
									<td align="center">136/19.7%</td>
									<td align="center">42/6.1%</td>
									<td align="center">22/3.2%</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left">11.</td>
									<td align="center">EI</td>
									<td align="center"> 2.99</td>
									<td align="center">1.28</td>
									<td align="center">0.00</td>
									<td align="center">-1.01</td>
									<td align="center">108/15.6%</td>
									<td align="center">133/19.2%</td>
									<td align="center">195/28.2%</td>
									<td align="center">133/19.2%</td>
									<td align="center">105/15.2%</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left">12.</td>
									<td align="center">EI</td>
									<td align="center">3.35</td>
									<td align="center">1.27</td>
									<td align="center">-0.31</td>
									<td align="center">-0.95</td>
									<td align="center">69/10%</td>
									<td align="center">114/16.5%</td>
									<td align="center">165/23.9%</td>
									<td align="center">182/26.3%</td>
									<td align="center">154/22.3%</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left">13.</td>
									<td align="center">EI</td>
									<td align="center">2.88</td>
									<td align="center">1.19</td>
									<td align="center">-0.08</td>
									<td align="center">-0.81</td>
									<td align="center">102/14.8%</td>
									<td align="center">154/22.3%</td>
									<td align="center">221/32%</td>
									<td align="center">131/19%</td>
									<td align="center">73/10.6%</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left">14.</td>
									<td align="center">EI</td>
									<td align="center">3.34</td>
									<td align="center">1.47</td>
									<td align="center">-0.35</td>
									<td align="center">-1.25</td>
									<td align="center">115/16.6%</td>
									<td align="center">75/10.9%</td>
									<td align="center">118/17.1%</td>
									<td align="center">128/18.5%</td>
									<td align="center">195/28.2%</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left">15.</td>
									<td align="center">EI</td>
									<td align="center">3.96</td>
									<td align="center">1.19</td>
									<td align="center">-1.00</td>
									<td align="center">0.07</td>
									<td align="center">39/5.6%</td>
									<td align="center">48/6.9%</td>
									<td align="center">114/16.5%</td>
									<td align="center">173/25%</td>
									<td align="center">302/43.7%</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left">18.</td>
									<td align="center">EI</td>
									<td align="center">3.15</td>
									<td align="center">1.36</td>
									<td align="center">-0.17</td>
									<td align="center">-1.14</td>
									<td align="center">109/15.8%</td>
									<td align="center">104/15.1%</td>
									<td align="center">162/23.4%</td>
									<td align="center">146/21.1%</td>
									<td align="center">137/19.8%</td>
								</tr>
							</tbody>
						</table>
						<table-wrap-foot>
							<fn id="TFN4">
								<p><italic>Nota</italic>. 1 = <italic>Nunca/No</italic>, 2 = <italic>Casi nunca / Pocas ocasiones</italic>, 3 = <italic>A veces / Quizás</italic>, 4 = <italic>Casi siempre / Probablemente sí</italic>, 5 = <italic>Siempre / Definitivamente sí</italic>. Fr = Frecuencia, As = Asimetría, K = curtosis, RV = Rol víctima, RA = Rol agresor, IE = Impacto emocional.</p>
							</fn>
						</table-wrap-foot>
					</table-wrap>
				</p>
				<p>En la validación de contenido, por sugerencia de los jueces, se hicieron algunos ajustes en la redacción de algunos ítems. Los valores V-Aiken para cada ítem y por validez fueron óptimos obteniéndose un V-Aiken total = .88 (V-Aiken pertinencia = .9; V-Aiken claridad = .93 y V-Aiken relevancia = .83), lo que indica un alto nivel de acuerdo y concordancia entre los jueces. El ítem 7 obtuvo el puntaje más bajo, siendo de .67. Una vez obtenida la versión ajustada, se realizó una prueba piloto con 38 adultos jóvenes con el fin de evaluar la comprensión de los reactivos. Se recibieron cinco observaciones que sugerían mejorar la redacción de algunas de las afirmaciones.</p>
				<p>Respecto a la validación de constructo, el análisis AFE indicó una prueba de adecuación muestral Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin-KMO de .811 y una esfericidad de Bartlett significativa (χ<sup>2</sup> = 5021.69; <italic>gl</italic> = 276; <italic>p</italic> ≤ .001). Las comunalidades (h<sup>2</sup>) oscilaron entre .307 (ítem RA-7) y .692 (ítem IE-14), resultados aceptables. Posteriormente se comprobó la configuración factorial con una distribución libre que sugiere que todos los ítems se distribuyen en tres factores, coherente con las dimensiones teóricas planteadas; las saturaciones factoriales fueron óptimas y oscilaron entre .511 (ítem RA-5) y .830 (ítem IE-14), logrando una varianza total explicada de 47.02% (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t6">Tabla 2</xref>).</p>
				<p>
					<table-wrap id="t6">
						<label>Tabla 2</label>
						<caption>
							<title><italic>Análisis factorial exploratorio Escala de Ghosting</italic></title>
						</caption>
						<table>
							<colgroup>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
							</colgroup>
							<thead>
								<tr>
									<th align="left">Dimensión/factor</th>
									<th align="center">Ítem</th>
									<th align="center">F1</th>
									<th align="center">F2</th>
									<th align="center">F3</th>
									<th align="center">h<sup>2</sup></th>
								</tr>
							</thead>
							<tbody>
								<tr>
									<td align="left" rowspan="9">Agresión /perpetrador (Tú a él o ella)</td>
									<td align="center">RA-1</td>
									<td align="center">.643</td>
									<td align="left"></td>
									<td align="left"></td>
									<td align="center">.419</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center">RA-2</td>
									<td align="center">.645</td>
									<td align="left"></td>
									<td align="left"></td>
									<td align="center">.416</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center">RA-3</td>
									<td align="center">.776</td>
									<td align="left"></td>
									<td align="left"></td>
									<td align="center">.604</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center">RA-4</td>
									<td align="center">.719</td>
									<td align="left"></td>
									<td align="left"></td>
									<td align="center">.526</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center">RA-5</td>
									<td align="center">.511</td>
									<td align="left"></td>
									<td align="left"></td>
									<td align="center">.309</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center">RA-7</td>
									<td align="center">.531</td>
									<td align="left"></td>
									<td align="left"></td>
									<td align="center">.307</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center">RA-8</td>
									<td align="center">.604</td>
									<td align="left"></td>
									<td align="left"></td>
									<td align="center">.386</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center">RA-9</td>
									<td align="center">.596</td>
									<td align="left"></td>
									<td align="left"></td>
									<td align="center">.359</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center">RA-10</td>
									<td align="center">.667</td>
									<td align="center">.</td>
									<td align="left"></td>
									<td align="center">.442</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left" rowspan="9">Victimización (Él o ella a ti)</td>
									<td align="center">RV-1</td>
									<td align="left"></td>
									<td align="center">.608</td>
									<td align="left"></td>
									<td align="center">.383</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center">RV-2</td>
									<td align="left"></td>
									<td align="center">.670</td>
									<td align="left"></td>
									<td align="center">.457</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center">RV-3</td>
									<td align="left"></td>
									<td align="center">.706</td>
									<td align="left"></td>
									<td align="center">.502</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center">RV-4</td>
									<td align="left"></td>
									<td align="center">.722</td>
									<td align="left"></td>
									<td align="center">.552</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center">RV-5</td>
									<td align="left"></td>
									<td align="center">.695</td>
									<td align="left"></td>
									<td align="center">.485</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center">RV-7</td>
									<td align="left"></td>
									<td align="center">.648</td>
									<td align="left"></td>
									<td align="center">.421</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center">RV-8</td>
									<td align="left"></td>
									<td align="center">.615</td>
									<td align="left"></td>
									<td align="center">.393</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center">RV-9</td>
									<td align="left"></td>
									<td align="center">.653</td>
									<td align="left"></td>
									<td align="center">.441</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center">RV-10</td>
									<td align="left"></td>
									<td align="center">.659</td>
									<td align="left"></td>
									<td align="center">.442</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left" rowspan="6">Impacto emocional</td>
									<td align="center">EI-11</td>
									<td align="left"></td>
									<td align="left"></td>
									<td align="center">.741</td>
									<td align="center">.556</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center">EI-12</td>
									<td align="left"></td>
									<td align="left"></td>
									<td align="center">.806</td>
									<td align="center">.659</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center">EI-13</td>
									<td align="left"></td>
									<td align="left"></td>
									<td align="center">.727</td>
									<td align="center">.534</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center">EI-14</td>
									<td align="left"></td>
									<td align="left"></td>
									<td align="center">.830</td>
									<td align="center">.692</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center">EI-15</td>
									<td align="left"></td>
									<td align="left"></td>
									<td align="center">.706</td>
									<td align="center">.502</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center">EI-18</td>
									<td align="left"></td>
									<td align="left"></td>
									<td align="center">.707</td>
									<td align="center">.521</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left" colspan="2">Varianza explicada</td>
									<td align="center">6.28%</td>
									<td align="center">26.71%</td>
									<td align="center">14.02%</td>
									<td align="left"></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left" colspan="2">Varianza total explicada</td>
									<td align="center" colspan="4">47.02%</td>
								</tr>
							</tbody>
						</table>
						<table-wrap-foot>
							<fn id="TFN5">
								<p><italic>Nota</italic>. Método de extracción: Ejes Principales. Rotación: promax. h<sup>2</sup> = comunalidades. </p>
							</fn>
						</table-wrap-foot>
					</table-wrap>
				</p>
				<p>El AFC de la estructura de 3 factores sugeridos por el AFE mostró ajustes óptimos, además de pesos factoriales y errores de medida adecuados: χ<sup>2</sup> <sub>S-B</sub> = 411.14; χ<sup>2</sup> <sub>S-B</sub> / (249) <italic>=</italic> 1.65; <italic>p</italic> &lt; .001; NNFI = .990; CFI = .992; RMSEA = .042 (90% CI [.035, .049]); SRMR = .075; AIC = 1310.32 (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="f2">Figura 1</xref>).</p>
				<p>
					<fig id="f2">
						<label>Figura 1</label>
						<caption>
							<title><italic>AFC Escala Ghosting Romántico RG-C (*p ≤ .05)</italic></title>
						</caption>
						<graphic xlink:href="1989-709X-pse-16-01-28-gf2.jpg"/>
					</fig>
				</p>
				<p>Los valores de consistencia interna alfa de Cronbach (α) y omega de McDonald’s (ɷ) obtenidos para los factores del cuestionario de <italic>ghosting</italic> romántico fueron óptimos, al igual que los índices de confiabilidad compuesta (CC) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t7">Tabla 3</xref>).</p>
				<p>
					<table-wrap id="t7">
						<label>Tabla 3</label>
						<caption>
							<title><italic>Valores de consistencia interna</italic></title>
						</caption>
						<table>
							<colgroup>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
							</colgroup>
							<thead>
								<tr>
									<th align="left">Escala</th>
									<th align="center">Factor/dimensión</th>
									<th align="center">Alpha de Cronbach (α)</th>
									<th align="center">Omega de McDonald’s (ɷ)</th>
									<th align="center">Confiabilidad compuesta (CC)</th>
								</tr>
							</thead>
							<tbody>
								<tr>
									<td align="left" rowspan="3">RG-C</td>
									<td align="center">RV</td>
									<td align="center">.90</td>
									<td align="center">.91</td>
									<td align="center">.89</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center">RA</td>
									<td align="center">.86</td>
									<td align="center">.88</td>
									<td align="center">.89</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center">IE</td>
									<td align="center">.87</td>
									<td align="center">.88</td>
									<td align="center">.89</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="left" rowspan="3">ARS</td>
									<td align="center">OR</td>
									<td align="center">.89</td>
									<td align="center">.90</td>
									<td align="center"></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center">FCP</td>
									<td align="center">.79</td>
									<td align="center">.81</td>
									<td align="center"></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center">UE</td>
									<td align="center">.87</td>
									<td align="center">.83</td>
									<td align="center"></td>
								</tr>
							</tbody>
						</table>
						<table-wrap-foot>
							<fn id="TFN6">
								<p><italic>Nota</italic>. RV = Rol víctima; RA = Rol agresor; ORS = Obsesión por las redes sociales; FCP = Falta de control personal; UE = Uso excesivo de las redes sociales.</p>
							</fn>
						</table-wrap-foot>
					</table-wrap>
				</p>
				<p>Finalmente, las correlaciones con las dimensiones de la <italic>Escala de Adicción a Redes Sociales</italic> indicaron un valor moderado y bajo respectivamente: .331 (<italic>p</italic> ≤ .01) entre el impacto emocional del <italic>ghosting</italic> y el uso excesivo de las redes sociales; y .281 (<italic>p</italic> ≤ .01) entre el impacto emocional del <italic>ghosting</italic> y la falta de control personal.</p>
			</sec>
			<sec sec-type="discussion">
				<title>Discusión</title>
				<p>El presente estudio tuvo como objetivo analizar las propiedades psicométricas de una escala de <italic>ghosting</italic> diseñada para el contexto romántico (RG-C) en adultos jóvenes colombianos. El diseño del instrumento partió desde una base teórica que permite entender el <italic>ghosting</italic> romántico como una forma de terminar una relación con interés romántico, cesando o cortando la comunicación implícita en una relación, mediante el uso de dispositivos electrónicos e internet (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B11">Freedman et al., 2019</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B15">Koessler et al., 2019a</xref>). Esto permitió corroborar la robustez teórica del modelo de tres factores: rol agresor, rol víctima e impacto emocional. Estas dimensiones fueron inicialmente sometidas a una validación de contenido, cuyos resultados sugieren que la estructura conceptual utilizada y trasladada a la elaboración de los ítems cumple con los criterios de claridad, pertinencia y relevancia. En cuanto a la validez de constructo, el AFE sugirió que los ítems se distribuyen de forma coherente con las tres dimensiones teóricas planteadas. En este proceso fue necesario eliminar tres ítems. Posteriormente, el AFC confirmó los tres factores, resaltando la posibilidad de evaluar el impacto emocional, siendo este un valor agregado, a diferencia de las escalas existentes, que se limitan a la valoración de los procesos de comunicación inmersos en el rol de implicación. </p>
				<p>El análisis factorial en general destaca la relevancia de evaluar conductas particulares que despliegan los perpetradores sobre las víctimas, tales como el cese de la comunicación, no responder llamadas, bloquear al otro de las redes sociales o aplicaciones con el fin de terminar una relación o posible relación sentimental sin brindar ninguna explicación. Estos hallazgos corroboran la importancia de analizar los roles de implicación del <italic>ghosting</italic> (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B26">Navarro et al., 2020a</xref>) y complementan la comprensión de la dualidad del fenómeno descrita en algunos estudios, entendida como las categorías de no-iniciadores o receptores y los iniciadores o emisores de <italic>ghosting</italic> (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B16">Koessler et al., 2019b</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B18">LeFebvre, 2017</xref>). En esta línea, en el AFC uno de los ítems de relevancia en la dimensión “rol agresor” fue el que hace alusión a reducir paulatinamente el contacto (RA-3), siendo esta probablemente una de las prácticas más desplegadas por el perpetrador; aspecto corroborado en el factor “rol víctima” (RV-3), puesto que dicho ítem reflejó un aporte estadístico alto, lo cual sugiere que esta práctica es fundamental en el constructo evaluado y podría ser interpretada como una forma de culminar una relación en la que existió interés sentimental. Este hallazgo concuerda con investigaciones como las de <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B15">Koessler et al. (2019a</xref>) y <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B20">LeFebvre y Fan (2020</xref>), que identifican que esta conducta tiene un mayor despliegue y que la velocidad a la que se produce puede variar entre el cese inmediato del contacto o una disminución progresiva del mismo. </p>
				<p>En cuanto al segundo factor, “rol víctima”, merece ser resaltado el aporte factorial del ítem que valora el uso de excusas o pretextos para evitar la comunicación (RV-4); esto sugiere que las personas que han sido víctimas de este fenómeno han recibido excusas o pretextos por parte del agresor para evitar la comunicación y así dar por terminada la relación. Como explican <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B39">Vagaš y Miško (2018</xref>), en el <italic>ghosting</italic> existe una tendencia a interrumpir la comunicación evitando a las personas afectadas. </p>
				<p>En cuanto a la dimensión “impacto emocional”, los AFE y AFC corroboran que las respuestas emocionales asociadas al fenómeno son aspectos relevantes y necesarios para avanzar en la delimitación y actualización teórica del constructo. En este sentido, se reconoce que emociones percibidas como la tristeza, el enojo, la confusión y la culpa son centrales; en línea con lo encontrado en los estudios de <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B32">Rad y Rad (2018</xref>), <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B26">Navarro et al. (2020a</xref>), y <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B28">Pancani et al. (2021</xref>), quienes identificaron que ser ignorado a través de internet y experimentar una ruptura amorosa o de las relaciones románticas está asociado con estos sentimientos que incrementan el riesgo de malestar psicológico, desregulación emocional, soledad y ansiedad. De igual manera, la indiferencia o aislamiento en los contextos de interacción en línea puede ser considerada como violencia pasiva, pues la persona que sufre la indiferencia puede verse afectada emocionalmente (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B23">Lucio et al., 2018</xref>). En el AFC, uno de los ítems que contribuye de manera significativa a medir esta dimensión alude a sentir enojo cuando la posible pareja “te bloquea” de las redes sociales sin dar explicaciones (IE-14); esto va en concordancia con lo mencionado por <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B28">Pancani et al. (2021</xref>), quienes resaltan que el cese abrupto de la comunicación conlleva a que las víctimas de <italic>ghosting</italic> experimenten mayor enojo, especialmente si se consideran injustos los motivos de la ruptura.</p>
				<p>Respecto a las correlaciones entre las dimensiones del <italic>ghosting</italic> y la adicción a redes sociales, los resultados mostraron una correlación baja-moderada entre los constructos; aspecto favorable, pues el <italic>ghosting</italic> se diferencia conceptualmente de la noción de adicción conductual, pero al parecer guardan relación en algunas de sus conductas y componentes. El análisis sugiere que son dos conceptos distintos, pero con cierto grado de asociación por compartir el contexto virtual. Si bien los dos fenómenos comparten el ámbito del uso de redes sociales, la adicción a estas tiene su foco en el desarrollo de procesos intrapersonales alineados con la dependencia y el abuso, mientras que el <italic>ghosting</italic> tiene su foco en el desarrollo interpersonal apoyado principalmente por el uso de las redes sociales para la finalización de una relación romántica mediada por la tecnología. Así pues, los análisis reflejan una asociación entre el impacto emocional de la escala de <italic>ghosting</italic> con la falta de control personal y el uso excesivo de las redes sociales, lo que abre la posibilidad de entender el fenómeno en función del uso de las tecnologías, sugiriendo que el abuso eventualmente puede afectar la decisión o la posibilidad de la aparición del <italic>ghosting</italic> en las relaciones de pareja. Estos hallazgos son coherentes con lo encontrado por <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B29">Powell et al. (2021</xref>), quienes sugieren que el despliegue del <italic>ghosting</italic> se ha relacionado con un mayor uso de la tecnología en las relaciones sentimentales. Así pues, probablemente, el uso excesivo y adicción a las redes sociales podría predisponer un mayor riesgo de implicación en los diferentes roles del <italic>ghosting</italic> y, por tanto, un mayor impacto emocional.</p>
				<p>En conclusión, la escala RG-C muestra óptimas propiedades psicométricas en cuanto a validez de contenido y constructo, además de óptimos valores de confiabilidad, lo cual evidencia su idoneidad y robustez teórica de base, pudiendo ser utilizada para medir el <italic>ghosting</italic> romántico en población joven adulta colombiana.</p>
				<p>Este estudio contribuye al campo de investigación de las ciberviolencias, siendo una escala pionera en Colombia que permite la medición de esta ciberconducta emergente en las rupturas de pareja. Finalmente, los resultados de este estudio también podrían tener implicaciones prácticas al orientar procesos terapéuticos o psicoeducativos encaminados al manejo del impacto de la ruptura amorosa a través de las TRIC. Igualmente, el estudio abre líneas futuras de investigación, como el estudio de la culpa en el <italic>ghosting</italic> y la diferenciación teórica respecto a fenómenos como el <italic>cricketing</italic>, <italic>benching</italic>, <italic>haunting</italic>, <italic>cushioning</italic> y <italic>breadcrumbing</italic>, entre otros. </p>
				<p>Las limitaciones del estudio están relacionadas con el tamaño y tipo de muestra y el uso de cuestionarios autoaplicados proclives a la deseabilidad social, además de que fue un estudio con diseño de tipo transversal que no permite medir el impacto del fenómeno a lo largo del tiempo. Se sugiere, para futuras investigaciones, disponer estudios longitudianles, ampliar la muestra de estudio y analizar el comportamiento en diferentes edades y contextos culturales.</p>
			</sec>
		</body>
		<back>
			<fn-group>
				<fn fn-type="supported-by" id="fn4">
					<label>Fuentes de financiación</label>
					<p>Este trabajo ha sido financiado por la Vicerrectoría de Investigación e Interacción Social VIIS, Universidad de Nariño [Acuerdo nº. 60 de 2023], proyecto: El amor en los tiempos del <italic>sexting</italic> y el <italic>dating violence</italic>: un estudio explicativo-predictivo de las violencias en parejas adolescentes y jóvenes universitarios de San Juan de Pasto, Colombia.</p>
				</fn>
			</fn-group>
			<app-group>
				<app id="app2">
					<label>ANEXO 1</label>
					<sec>
						<title><italic>Escala Ghosting Romántico</italic> - Colombia (RG-C)</title>
						<p>Las siguientes afirmaciones se relacionan con las rupturas de relaciones de pareja o personas que conoces con un interés romántico, a través de las TRIC (aplicaciones, redes sociales, etc.) Por favor responde de acuerdo con tus vivencias en el contexto romántico y de pareja.</p>
						<p>Las primeras 10 afirmaciones tienen doble vía de respuesta, a partir de las siguientes preguntas: </p>
						<p>¿Con qué frecuencia haces o hiciste la siguiente conducta o acción?: </p>
						<p><bold>TÚ hacia él o ella</bold> (Lo he hecho): incluye acciones que tú hiciste, haces o harías a otros.</p>
						<p>¿Con qué frecuencia te hacen o te hicieron la siguiente conducta o acción?: </p>
						<p><bold>ÉL o ELLA hacia ti</bold> (Lo han hecho conmigo): incluye acciones que otros han tenido contigo.</p>
						<p>Marque o escriba el número que considere más apropiado de acuerdo con las situaciones ofrecidas.</p>
						<p>
							<table-wrap id="t8">
								<table>
									<colgroup>
										<col span="2"/>
										<col span="5"/>
									</colgroup>
									<thead>
										<tr>
											<th align="center" colspan="2" rowspan="2">Ítem / Las afirmaciones tienen doble vía de respuesta, responda por favor las dos </th>
											<th align="center" colspan="5">Opciones de respuesta </th>
										</tr>
										<tr>
											<th align="center">1. Nunca/ No </th>
											<th align="center">2. Casi nunca/ Pocas ocasiones</th>
											<th align="center">3. A veces/ Quizás</th>
											<th align="center">4. Casi siempre/ Probablemente sí</th>
											<th align="center">5. Siempre/ Definitivamente sí</th>
										</tr>
									</thead>
									<tbody>
										<tr>
											<td align="left" rowspan="2">1. No responder llamadas o mensajes de WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram, Tinder u otra, sin dar explicaciones, quizás con el fin de terminar cualquier tipo de relación o intención sentimental.</td>
											<td align="left">ÉL o ELLA hacia ti</td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
										</tr>
										<tr>
											<td align="left">TÚ hacia él o ella</td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
										</tr>
										<tr>
											<td align="left" rowspan="2">2. Bloquear de redes sociales o apps sin dar explicaciones, con el fin de terminar una relación o posible relación sentimental.</td>
											<td align="left">ÉL o ELLA hacia ti</td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
										</tr>
										<tr>
											<td align="left">TÚ hacia él o ella</td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
										</tr>
										<tr>
											<td align="left" rowspan="2">3. Reducir paulatinamente el contacto o mensajes por redes sociales o medios electrónicos, hasta dejar de tener total comunicación y así dar por terminada una relación, o posible relación, sin dar explicaciones.</td>
											<td align="left">ÉL o ELLA hacia ti</td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
										</tr>
										<tr>
											<td align="left">TÚ hacia él o ella</td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
										</tr>
										<tr>
											<td align="left" rowspan="2">4. Utilizar excusas para evitar responder mensajes o seguir comunicado, con el objetivo de terminar cualquier tipo de relación sin dar explicaciones.</td>
											<td align="left">ÉL o ELLA hacia ti</td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
										</tr>
										<tr>
											<td align="left">TÚ hacia él o ella</td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
										</tr>
										<tr>
											<td align="left" rowspan="2">5. Bloquear el número celular o redes sociales para evitar la comunicación con una persona con la que existe o existió un interés sentimental.</td>
											<td align="left">ÉL o ELLA hacia ti</td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
										</tr>
										<tr>
											<td align="left">TÚ hacia él o ella</td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
										</tr>
										<tr>
											<td align="left" rowspan="2">7. Bloquear por redes sociales: Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, TikTok, u otra app, (si la aplicación lo permite) para que la pareja, o posible pareja, no pueda volver a contactarse.</td>
											<td align="left">ÉL o ELLA hacia ti</td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
										</tr>
										<tr>
											<td align="left">TÚ hacia él o ella</td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
										</tr>
										<tr>
											<td align="left" rowspan="2">8. Cortar o cesar toda comunicación sin dar explicaciones, siendo una forma normal de terminar una relación o posible relación sentimental.</td>
											<td align="left">ÉL o ELLA hacia ti</td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
										</tr>
										<tr>
											<td align="left">TÚ hacia él o ella</td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
										</tr>
										<tr>
											<td align="left" rowspan="2">9. Mostrar interés por conocer a alguien y después perder el interés rápidamente, hasta dejar de contestar mensajes, llamadas o chats.</td>
											<td align="left">ÉL o ELLA hacia ti</td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
										</tr>
										<tr>
											<td align="left">TÚ hacia él o ella</td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
										</tr>
										<tr>
											<td align="left" rowspan="2">10. Terminar la comunicación a través de internet en lugar de explicar las verdaderas razones.</td>
											<td align="left">ÉL o ELLA hacia ti</td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
										</tr>
										<tr>
											<td align="left">TÚ hacia él o ella</td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
										</tr>
										<tr>
											<td align="center" colspan="2" rowspan="2">Ítem / Impacto emocional</td>
											<td align="center" colspan="5">Opciones de respuesta</td>
										</tr>
										<tr>
											<td align="center">1. Nunca/ No</td>
											<td align="center">2. Casi nunca/ Pocas ocasiones</td>
											<td align="center">3. A veces/ Quizás</td>
											<td align="center">4. Casi siempre/ Probablemente sí</td>
											<td align="center">5. Siempre/ Definitivamente sí</td>
										</tr>
										<tr>
											<td align="left" colspan="2">11. Me siento triste cuando alguien en quien estoy interesado/a sentimentalmente evita mis llamadas y me ignora en las redes sociales sin darme explicaciones.</td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
										</tr>
										<tr>
											<td align="left" colspan="2">12. Me enojo si mi pareja, o posible pareja, deja de comunicarse conmigo.</td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
										</tr>
										<tr>
											<td align="left" colspan="2">13. Me enojo cuando mi pareja, o posible pareja, no responde mis mensajes o me ignora en redes sociales.</td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
										</tr>
										<tr>
											<td align="left" colspan="2">14. Me enojo cuando mi pareja o posible pareja me bloquea de las redes sociales sin darme explicaciones.</td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
										</tr>
										<tr>
											<td align="left" colspan="2">15. Me siento confundido/a si mi pareja, o posible pareja, nunca más se vuelve a comunicar conmigo.</td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
										</tr>
										<tr>
											<td align="left" colspan="2">18. Siento que puede ser mi culpa cuando mi pareja, o persona de interés amoroso, me bloquea de las redes sociales sin explicaciones para terminar la comunicación.</td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
											<td align="left"></td>
										</tr>
									</tbody>
								</table>
							</table-wrap>
						</p>
					</sec>
				</app>
			</app-group>
		</back>
	</sub-article>-->
</article>