Reverse psychology and the Rebound relationships

I've been thinking a lot about the situations that a lot of us are in where our exes began dating somebody very soon after the break-up. A lot of people classify these as rebounds, but sometimes they work out. I have a theory that if the dumpee remains in the picture, the rebound will become a successful relationship; while if the dumpee leaves, the dumper is more likely to become newly attracted to the missing dumpee, and return. To elaborate.... From reading some situations on ENA it seems to me that a dumper's "rebound" relationship is more likely to last if the dumpee remains in the picture in some capacity, whether as a friend or as the ex trying to "win back" the dumper. I feel like this gives the dumper control over the dumpee, knowing that he/she is a sure thing, which therefore decreases the dumper's attraction to the dumpee. The dumper can then freely pursue this new person, while knowing that (just in case) the ex is waiting on the sidelines. I've even read about some of these "rebound" relationships leading to engagement and marriage when the dumpee is still in contact. One case in particular I have heard of - the dumpee told the dumper that she feared he was going to be engaged soon to the new person, which he wrote off as absurd. But...it came true several months later. It's like in some twisted way the dumper played on the dumpee's fear - made that fear a reality - to maintain control over her feelings. I think it's a completely unconscious decision to manipulate in this way, but in a very twisted way, it makes sense... It seems that the more often a dumpee wins back the dumper is by exiting the picture completely while the dumper pursues this new person. I think it gives the dumper a chance to realize that the "sure thing" they had (due to his/her initial attempts to reconcile and get back together) is gone and that once the excitement of the new person wears off, they miss their ex. It's a matter of reverse psychology - we always want what we think we can't have. And we don't miss what we have until it's gone. Does anyone have examples that would "prove" this theory? Or examples that completely negate it?