Antecedents and consequences of silent treatment in close adult relationships: a systematic review

Background: The silent treatment, characterized by deliberate communication avoidance, is a common form of social exclusion that significantly impacts close adult relationships. Although, often regarded as a minor issue, its persistent use can lead to serious emotional and psychological consequences.

Methods: This systematic review aimed to consolidate research findings to identify the antecedents and consequences of the silent treatment in interpersonal relationships. Following PRISMA (2020) guidelines, 15 peer reviewed articles were analyzed, and sourced from databases and search engines including PubMed, Google Scholar, Science Direct, and Web of Science.

Results: The antecedents identified through these studies were emotional regulation, personality traits, manipulation tactics, cognitive processes, relational contexts and to some extent gender. The consequences identified for both givers and receivers of the silent treatment were decreased overall psychological health with long-term emotional distress and poor relationship satisfaction.

Conclusion: These findings emphasize the need for improved communication strategies and interventions to address the detrimental effects of silent treatment in various relational contexts.

Introduction

The “silent treatment” refers to a form of social exclusion or communication avoidance in which one person deliberately ignores or refuses to speak to another, often as a means of punishment or to express displeasure (Williams, 2007). Silent treatment is a relationship-specific form of ostracism (Zadro et al., 2008), that involves deliberate ignoring or exclusion to express disapproval or control within close relationships (Sommer et al., 2001). Unlike overt rejection, it often takes the form of “quiet silence,” where one partner emotionally withdraws and avoids interaction (Zadro et al., 2016). This quiet form of ostracism, shown through holding back, tuning out, or shutting down, reflects emotional disengagement rather than open conflict (Zadro, 2004). Unlike group-based ostracism aimed at punishment, silent treatment in adult relationships often serves to regulate emotions or assert personal boundaries (Gruter and Masters, 1986; Schachter, 1959). This behavior can manifest in various settings, including personal relationships, workplaces, and family dynamics, and its use is evident worldwide, across all cultures and types of relationships (Agarwal and Prakash, 2022). Buss et al. (1987) found that the silent treatment was one of the tactics individuals use to manipulate their partners in romantic relationships, while Falbo and Peplau (1980) identified it as a power tactic.

The conceptual picture of silent treatment can be understood with the help of several theoretical framework, the self-verification theory proposes that the people prefer the interaction confirming their self-view; perceived misrecognition can prompt withdrawal (Swann and Read, 1981; Agarwal and Prakash, 2022). The expectancy value theory holds that unmet expectations from the concerned person leads to less attraction and motivate corrective response and disengagement (Burgoon, 1993; Burgoon and Jones, 1976). Mind-Reading Expectations extend this logic - when a partner “should just know” one’s feelings, perceived neglect heightens disappointment and can elicit silence (Epstein and Eidelson, 1981; Wright and Roloff, 2015). Together, these perspectives explain silence as a response to threatened identity and unmet relational expectations, without over-specifying competing theories.

Furthermore, Smart Richman and Leary (2009) explain diverse responses to ostracism and social exclusion through the Multimotive Model of Rejection. This model proposes that experiences such as ostracism, rejection, and interpersonal withdrawal elicit similar immediate emotional reactions, including hurt feelings and lowered self-esteem. However, subsequent behavioral responses vary depending on individuals’ interpretations of the rejection experience rather than reflecting a single, uniform reaction to exclusion. According to the model, three competing motivational tendencies may be activated: efforts to restore social connection, impulses toward anger or retaliation, and tendencies to withdraw to avoid further rejection. Cognitive appraisals of the situation such as perceived fairness, expectations of relationship repair, the value placed on the relationship, and the perceived availability of alternative sources of belonging determine which motive becomes dominant. As the silent treatment is one form of ostracism (Sommer et al., 2001), it may function as an avoidant response aimed at protecting oneself from further emotional pain, a strategic attempt to prompt reconciliation, or a reaction rooted in anger when withdrawal is perceived as unjustified.

The experimental impact of silent treatment is substantial. Social exclusion activated the neural signal which activates physical pain, demonstrating its profound effect on social pain (Eisenberger et al., 2003) reduced psychological well-being, feeling of rejection and hurt emphasizing the detrimental effects on relational dynamics (Leary, 2003; Leary et al., 2006). Furthermore, it threatens the fundamental human needs for belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaningful existence (Williams, 2007, 2009). Receivers frequently report loneliness, and depression, and prolonged exposure may foster helplessness and disengagement (Baumeister and Leary, 1995; Cacioppo and Hawkley, 2003; Williams, 2001). Personality and affective variability further shape these dynamics; for instance, higher neuroticism relates to greater emotional instability, which may increase reliance on withdrawal strategies during conflict (Mader et al., 2023). However, the silent treatment is consequential form of interpersonal exclusion in close relationships. It reflects threatened identity and violated expectations, interacts with personality and emotion regulation, and varies by underlying motive.

Rationale

The silent treatment can significantly influence emotional and psychological Wellbeing, potentially leading to stress, anxiety, and relationship deterioration for both parties involved (Gottman and Levenson, 2000; Pruitt and Carnevale, 1993). However, the underlying processes that shape this behavior have not been examined in detail, and its theoretical explanations remain limited (Williams et al., 1998). This systematic review aims to bring together the existing evidences on the antecedents and consequences of silent treatment, to clarify its mechanism and outcomes. By reviewing empirical studies and theoretical perspectives, this review seeks to provide a clearer understanding of how silent treatment emerges and its impact on individuals and relationships. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for developing interventions and improving interpersonal strategies, particularly in environments where silent treatment is prevalent.

Methods

Eligibility criteria

The eligibility criteria for this systematic review were established by following the PICO framework to ensure a comprehensive selection of relevant studies. The population (P) included studies that involved adult participants, aged 18 years and older, who were part of close interpersonal relationships such as romantic partners, spouses, family members, and friends. The intervention (I) focused on studies that specifically addressed the antecedents and consequences of silent treatment. The comparison (C) was not applicable, as this review did not require a direct comparison between interventions. The outcome (O) included studies that reported on the emotional, psychological, or relational impacts of silent treatment in close adult relationships.

Inclusion criteria required that the study design be qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-method, and the study must focus on the effects of silent treatment in interpersonal contexts. To ensure relevance and reliability, only studies published in English and with accessible full-text versions were included. Excluded were- unpublished manuscripts, conference abstracts, reviews, case studies, letters, and other types of gray literature, as these sources do not meet the methodological rigor required for systematic reviews. Additionally, studies not available in English or without accessible full texts were not considered.

Information sources and search strategies

The studies for this systematic review were identified through multiple sources, including well-established academic databases: PubMed, Google Scholar, Science Direct, Web of Science, Psycnet, and Scopus. The search strategy utilized different search queries tailored to each database. In PubMed and Science Direct, the search was conducted using the term “Silent treatment” (Title/Abstract). For Web of Science, the search included the terms [TI = (“Silent treatment”)] OR AB = (“Silent treatment”). Psycnet employed the search term “Silent Treatment,” while in Scopus, the search was conducted using TITLE-ABS-KEY (“silent treatment”). Additionally, for Google Scholar, the manual search involved keywords such as silent treatment, interpersonal, close relationships, conflict, and communication.

Selection process

The process was done in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; 2020) guidelines. The studies were collected and selected with the help of Zotero software. Duplicates were then removed. Title and abstract screening were conducted for the remaining articles. After that, screening was performed to eliminate the studies that were not accessible. Full-text screening was carried out for the remaining studies. Reasons for exclusion were recorded for all the excluded studies.

Data collection process

The following data was extracted by the authors from the selected studies: the first author, publication year, research question, objectives, study design, sample size, sample characteristics, procedure, tools, data analysis, and results. Limitations of the individual studies were also extracted.

Study risk of bias

The risk of bias in the studies was evaluated using the JBI checklist for cohort, qualitative, quasi-experimental, and analytical cross-sectional studies. The checklists used were the JBI critical evaluation tool for quasi-experimental investigations (Barker et al., 2024), for randomized controlled trials (Barker et al., 2023), for qualitative studies (Lockwood et al., 2015) and for analytical cross-sectional studies (Moola et al., 2020). There were four responses in these checklists: yes, no, unclear, or not applicable. One mark was given for the response “yes,” and zero for the rest of the responses. The final quality score for individual studies was determined through a standardization process in which, to obtain the standardized score, the score obtained in a checklist was divided by the maximum score and was then multiplied by 10. Based on these standardized scores, the studies were categorized into the following categories: strong (≥7), moderate (5–7), and weak (≤5).

Study selection

Using various databases, a total of 361 articles were identified through the specified search strategies and keywords. After removing 94 duplicates, the initial screening was conducted on the remaining 267 articles by reviewing their titles and abstracts. The inclusion criteria led to the selection of 20 articles for further examination, while 247 articles were excluded as their title and abstract didn’t align with the review focus. Specifically, most of the articles didn’t address silent treatment in close adult relationship. Among the 20 articles, the full text of one was unavailable, resulting in a review of 19 studies in total. Following the full-text review of these 19 articles, four were excluded because they did not adequately address the antecedents or consequences of the silent treatment. Hence, 15 studies were ultimately included in the review (Figure 1).

FIGURE 1

Figure 1. Showing PRISMA (2020) flow chart.

Study characteristics

For the review, 15 studies were taken. The total number of participants was calculated to be 2,417 with the sample size ranging from small studies with 10 participants (Agarwal and Prakash, 2024), to larger studies with up to 411 participants (Liu and Roloff, 2015). The most common research design was Cross-sectional (n = 9), Quasi-Experimental (n = 4), and Qualitative (n = 3). The majority of the studies used self-reported data, while some also used Semi-structured Interviews and manipulated experimental conditions (Table 1).

TABLE 1

Table 1. Showing study characteristics and findings.

Risk of bias in studies

In order to evaluate the quality of the final studies included, the JBI quality appraisal criteria were used. Through the interpretation based on the standardized JBI scores, 12 studies were identified to have a high quality (less risk of bias) and three studies had moderate quality (medium risk of bias). The reason that most of the studies had less risk of bias was the clear description of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, subjects and the study setting, and the measurement of the outcomes using valid and reliable ways. A common reason of moderate quality was not mentioning the confounding variables.

Results

The aim of this Systematic Review was to get a clear and conceptual understanding of silent treatment in close adult interpersonal relationships by identifying its antecedents and consequences. With the review of 15 articles (Table 1), the antecedents and the consequences that were identified for the givers and receivers of Silent Treatment are discussed below.

Emotional regulation found as key reason of emotional regulation. Silence was frequently used by the individuals to manage distressing emotions or to regain control during conflict (Agarwal and Prakash, 2022). Qualitative data revealed that givers described silence as a self-protective response to emotional overload, helping them avoid escalation but often creating additional tension (Agarwal and Prakash, 2024). Individual high on neuroticism was more likely to engage in silence, reflecting its connection with emotional volatility (Buss et al., 1987). The silent treatment, therefore, functions as an emotion-focused coping mechanism, offering short-term regulation but compromising relational intimacy over time.

Buss (1992) found that individuals with low agreeableness relied on coercive and withdrawn tactics, including the silent treatment, to influence partners’ behavior. Similarly, high neuroticism was linked with emotional instability and a greater likelihood of employing withdrawal strategies during relational conflict (Buss et al., 1987). Research also suggests that low self-esteem increases both the use and receipt of silent treatment, implying a cyclical dynamic in which insecure individuals perpetuate avoidance behaviors (Agarwal and Prakash, 2022; Rittenour et al., 2019). Mandal and Wierzchoń (2019) extended these findings by showing that shyness and social inhibition predict indirect conflict behaviors like sulking and silence particularly among women.

Researches revealed silent treatment as interpersonal manipulation tactics for punishing partners’ behavior. Buss et al. (1987) classified silent treatment among six manipulation tactics used to alter partners’ behavior without overt confrontation. Similarly, Cataldi and Reardon (1996) found women high on interpersonal orientation are more likely to use silence to elicit compliance or express dissatisfaction while minimizing overt conflict. This interpretation aligns with social exchange and power theories, which propose that silence can serve as a low-cost, high-impact means of control within asymmetric relationships. Hyla (2015) further observed that psychopathy linked traits such as meanness and disinhibition increase the likelihood of using silence as a manipulative tactic, indicating that moral disengagement and impulsivity intensify this behavior.

Cognitive factors also appear central to understanding the onset and persistence of silence. Liu and Roloff (2015) demonstrated that rumination and repetitive negative thinking about conflict was strongly associated with the use of both silent treatment and stonewalling. Individuals who over analyzed transgressions were more likely to withdraw communication, perpetuating emotional distance. Interestingly, cognitive reappraisal initially increased silence, perhaps as a deliberate delay to calm emotions, but reduced it over time as individuals reframed the conflict. These findings highlight the dual role of cognition in either exacerbating or mitigating silent behavior, depending on whether thought patterns promote emotional insight or fixation.

Wright and Roloff (2015) found that partners often employed the silent treatment when they perceived emotional neglect or low empathy from their counterparts. In such cases, silence functioned as both protest and punishment expressing unmet emotional needs. Couples with low compatibility or poor communication skills tended to use silence more frequently (Buss et al., 1987), reinforcing a pattern of withdrawal and distance. In contrast, greater relational commitment predicted lower use of silence, suggesting that invested partners prefer repair-oriented strategies (Wright and Roloff, 2009). These findings indicate that the silent treatment is not only a product of personal disposition but also a reflection of the relational climate, where unmet needs, emotional neglect, and perceived inequality interact to sustain avoidance.

Evidence of showing silent treatment among the gender found mixed but significant. Women generally reported higher use of the silent treatment to communicate dissatisfaction or exert influence, while men were more likely to use overt confrontation or emotional distancing (Wright and Roloff, 2009; Cataldi and Reardon, 1996). Hyla (2015) observed that men high in meanness showed greater use of silence, correlating negatively with relationship satisfaction. Meanwhile, Mandal and Wierzchoń (2019) found that shy women tended to adopt non-verbal avoidance tactics such as sulking and silence, reflecting gendered socialization toward indirect conflict management. Collectively, these studies imply that gender moderates the function rather than the frequency of silent treatment where women tend to use it communicatively, whereas men use it defensively or as a dominance assertion. People receiving the silent treatment often feel ignored, undervalued, and experience threats to belongingness and self-esteem (Williams et al., 1998). In Agarwal and Prakash (2024), qualitative findings revealed that while some individuals gained temporary clarity or reflection after silence, most experienced relational strain and regret. Silent treatment can serve as a maladaptive response to emotional distress, emphasizing the need for better communication (Wright and Roloff, 2015).

Emotional consequences are extensive for both givers and receivers. Receivers frequently report loneliness, guilt, sadness, and reduced self-worth (Agarwal and Prakash, 2022), while givers experience anger, frustration, and emotional exhaustion when silence prolongs beyond intent (Agarwal and Prakash, 2024). Rittenour et al. (2019) observed that repeated exposure to parental silence predicted lower self-esteem and relational satisfaction among adult children, highlighting intergenerational transmission effects. Wirth et al. (2010) extended this by demonstrating that non-verbal cues such as averted gaze trigger the same exclusionary pain as verbal silence, reducing mood and increasing aggression. These findings underscore that the silent treatment elicits both social pain and physiological stress comparable to other forms of rejection.

Experimental study done by Sommer et al. (2001), Sommer and Yoon (2013) connected silent treatment to cognitive resource depletion. Ignoring or being ignored by a likeable partner impaired self-regulatory performance, while avoiding an unlikeable person preserved mental energy. These results indicate that the cognitive cost of silence depends on the social desirability of the partner, suggesting adaptive and maladaptive uses of withdrawal. Over time, habitual silence may reinforce avoidance tendencies, reducing problem-solving ability and empathy within relationships. Several studies highlight that chronic reliance on silence contributes to long-term emotional fatigue and relationship erosion. Agarwal and Prakash (2022) found that individuals often regretted prolonged silence but struggled to initiate reconciliation due to shame and fear of rejection. Liu and Roloff (2015) reported that rumination during silent episodes predicted emotional exhaustion and relational disengagement, creating self-perpetuating cycles of withdrawal. Cumulatively, these effects erode relationship satisfaction and psychological wellbeing, emphasizing the need for intervention strategies that foster open dialogue and emotional literacy.

Discussion

The systematic review has provided a clear and comprehensive summary of the available evidence about the antecedent and consequence of the silent treatment. Finding across fifteen studies reveal that silence operates as both coping strategy and an interpersonal control mechanism. The broader picture of giving the silent treatment can be understood by these findings- (i) difficulty with regulation of emotions, (ii) manipulation or power management tactic and (iii) avoidance of negative relational experiences. Gender and personality dispositions can play the significant moderator on the basis of available sociocultural factors. Consequently, these factors are influencing the overall the psychological health (i.e., psychological, emotional, cognitive, and behavioral) of an individual in the long term social relational outcomes. Overall synthesis of the reviewed studies suggests that silent treatment is not a single-purpose response, but a multi-determined interpersonal behavior emerging from the interaction of individual vulnerabilities and relational conditions.

Many individuals use silent treatment as a way to manage their negative emotions as a response to emotional distress (Agarwal and Prakash, 2022; Buss et al., 1987; Wright and Roloff, 2015). When individuals feel that they are misunderstood or misjudged, they experience discomfort. To protect their self-view, they may withdraw from the interaction. Agarwal and Prakash (2022) explained this by suggesting that when individuals feel that their identity or feelings are not recognized by others, they might use the silent treatment to maintain their sense of self and emotional balance. Such behavior aligns with self-verification processes, whereby individuals disengage from interactions that threaten their perceived identity. However, while silence may temporarily regulate emotion, it also prevents the repair of relational ruptures, leading to enduring dissatisfaction. Across different designs and samples, the findings consistently show that silence may lessen immediate emotional arousal for the giver but, over time, erodes intimacy and leaves underlying issues unresolved, creating a paradox of short-term relief and long-term relational cost.

When used as a manipulation tactic, the silent treatment is used to either control the situation or to terminate unwanted behavior (Buss et al., 1987; Cataldi and Reardon, 1996). Expectancy Violation Theory (Burgoon, 1993) and Mind-Reading Expectations (Epstein and Eidelson, 1981) provide theoretical support, suggesting that individuals resort to silence when relational expectations are breached or empathy is lacking. In this sense, silence becomes a communicative signal of disapproval and an effort to restore perceived relational order. Wright and Roloff (2015) found that such unmet expectations can lead individuals to use the silent treatment as a way of expressing dissatisfaction or to punish the partner for failing to meet these unspoken needs. Negative situations that often trigger the use of the silent treatment include feelings of emotional neglect from a partner, having an unresolved grievance, or avoiding confrontation (Wright and Roloff, 2015; Wright and Zimmermann, 2019). Partners may perceive conversation as risky and choose silence as a safer, though ultimately counterproductive, response. This behavior illustrates avoidance-oriented coping in which short-term conflict reduction substitutes for authentic engagement. Taken together, the included studies indicate that silence functions as “communication by withdrawal,” where the lack of response itself becomes a message used to influence, protest, or punish when direct dialogue feels too threatening or unproductive.

Personality factors strongly predict the likelihood of using the silent treatment. Low agreeableness and high neuroticism consistently correlate with its use (Buss, 1992; Buss et al., 1987), confirming links between emotional instability and withdrawal behavior (Mader et al., 2023). Low self-esteem also contributes, as individuals lacking confidence in their worth both employ and receive silence more often (Agarwal and Prakash, 2022; Rittenour et al., 2019). Gender moderates these tendencies- women typically adopt silence to express grievances or de-escalate conflict, reflecting socialization toward relational maintenance (Wright and Zimmermann, 2019; Vigil, 2009). Conversely, men high in meanness or psychopathy-related traits use silence coercively, linking it to dominance and reduced satisfaction (Hyla, 2015). Collectively, these findings highlight that the antecedents of silence blend personality, emotional vulnerability, and situational context. This pattern suggests that silent treatment is not random or purely situational; rather, it reflects relatively stable dispositional tendencies that shape how individuals cope with threat, anger, and unmet needs in close relationships.

The consequences of silent treatment significantly impact both the individual using it and the recipient. The receivers of silent treatment frequently report feeling ignored, undervalued, guilty and lonely (Agarwal and Prakash, 2022). They experience feelings of exclusion and neglect, and reduced satisfaction with their basic human need, especially feeling a threat to their need for belongingness (Wirth et al., 2010; Agarwal and Prakash, 2022). They experience reduced self-esteem, leading to decreased relationship satisfaction (Buss et al., 1987; Hyla, 2015; Rittenour et al., 2019). While it may provide temporary emotional relief for the giver of the silent treatment, the long-term effects tend to be detrimental, fostering relational deterioration (Wright and Roloff, 2015). However, when followed by constructive dialogue, silent treatment can sometimes yield deeper insights and facilitate relationship growth (Agarwal and Prakash, 2024). The reviewed evidence therefore suggests that the eventual transition from silence back to dialogue is critical: when withdrawal is followed by repair-oriented communication, it may facilitate reflection, but when it remains unresolved, it consolidates disconnection and chronic dissatisfaction. The giver may also face different consequences based on how much they like the receiver, because while giving the silent treatment to an unlikeable can help them save their self-regulatory resources, giving it to a likeable person can deplete the giver of their cognitive and physical performance by making them give up much more easily (Ciarocco et al., 2001).

Long-term consequences of silent treatment show a cycle of emotional exhaustion and unresolved issues, affecting both individual wellbeing of both, the target and the source, and relational dynamics (Rittenour et al., 2019; Liu and Roloff, 2015). This explains why James (1890) considered it to be worse than the harshest form of punishment. Silent treatment generally has negative effects on individuals. However, it is important to view it from both the giver’s and the receiver’s perspectives. Theoretically, (Burgoon, 1993; Burgoon and Jones, 1976) some people may use silent treatment to distance themselves from unpleasant or stressful situations, which might serve a self-protective purpose. From the receiver’s side, though, its meaning and impact are often unclear, leading to emotional hurt and negative consequences.

Zadro et al. (2008) demonstrated that ostracism involving a romantic partner has particularly silent interpersonal meaning, as partners are typically expected to meet core needs such as belonging and validation. This indicated that partner based withdrawal can prompt an individual to reassess the relationship itself. People who gave silent treatment shows the showed decreased performance on a physical stamina task and they gave up more quickly on unsolvable puzzles compared to people who didn’t give silent treatment (Ciarocco et al., 2001). Across the studies included, chronic or repeated use of silence appears to shift from a short-term coping response to a maladaptive interpersonal pattern that undermines psychological safety, reduces problem-solving, and weakens long-term relationship stability.

Limitation and future directions

This systematic review provides valuable insights into the antecedents and consequences of the silent treatment in close relationships, still there are several limitations that must be acknowledged. First, the majority of the studies included in the review rely on self-reported data, which can be prone to biases such as social desirability or inaccurate recollections. The studies included in the review mostly associated with romantic or marital relationships, which limits the understanding of silent treatment in close relationships. Additionally, there was limited research on the receiver’s traits and how they influence the likelihood of receiving silent treatment, which could be an important factor in understanding the dynamics of this behavior. Furthermore, the review synthesizes findings from only 15 studies, and this relatively small body of research limits the conclusions about the phenomenon. Although the studies examined the emotional and psychological consequences through qualitatively and cross-sectional researches. But there is a need for more longitudinal research to explore the long-term effects of the silent treatment on relationships and individual well-being. More empirical researches are required to understand the impact of different types of silent treatment (e.g., passive-aggressive vs. temporary withdrawal) and whether they produce different outcomes in relationships. More diverse and representative samples, including from different cultures, could further enhance the understanding of how silent treatment functions in different relational dynamics.

Implications

The findings of the review highlight that the silent treatment is a multi-determined emotional response that can be interpreted as an outcome of individuals’ motives for using it. From a clinical and counseling perspective, it can be addressed as part of therapeutic intervention in relationship dynamics. The review showed an association between silent treatment and loneliness, emotional exhaustion, and long-term relationship dissatisfaction. Practitioners can assess the frequency and causes of silence in the relationship, and interventions can be provided to enhance emotional awareness, communication skills, and conflict resolution techniques. This may help individuals replace withdrawal with more adaptive strategies. Importantly, silence may not always be harmful when used for emotional regulation, but prolonged and unresolved silence can have negative impacts on relationship dynamics in the long term.

Therefore, therapeutic efforts should focus on facilitating the transition from silence to constructive dialogue rather than simply discouraging withdrawal altogether. Evidence from the review also highlighted gendered patterns, where women tend to use silence communicatively, while men may use it defensively or coercively. This suggests that interventions should be sensitive to gendered expectations around emotional expression and communication, rather than adopting a one-size-fits-all approach.

Finally, the review underscores the broader relational and psychological costs of chronic silent treatment. For relationships, persistent silence can normalize avoidance and disengagement, increasing the risk of long-term instability. These implications emphasize the importance of addressing silent treatment not only as an individual behavior but as a relational pattern, which requires mutual awareness and repair-oriented responses.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the silent treatment is a complex behavior with both emotional and relational consequences for those who give and receive it. The antecedents of this behavior include emotional regulation issues, manipulation tactics and power tactics, and reactions towards the negative or unenviable conditions of relationship, often linked to personality traits such as neuroticism and low agreeableness. While the silent treatment can temporarily relieve emotional distress for the giver. It tends to have long-term detrimental effects, including feelings of isolation, low self-esteem, and decreased relationship satisfaction for the receiver. Although there are instances where constructive dialogue after the silent treatment can lead to positive outcomes. The overall impact of this behavior is generally negative, contributing to relational deterioration over time. Given the psychological and emotional toll, it takes on both individuals involved. Addressing the underlying causes and improving communication strategies in relationships is essential for reducing the harmful effects of the silent treatment. Future research should aim to explore more diverse populations with more experimental understanding form both receiver and givers perspective.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in this article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author contributions

AD: Writing – original draft, Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. RK: Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Writing – original draft. AS: Writing – review & editing, Methodology. RT: Formal analysis, Software, Writing – review & editing. AY: Validation, Writing – review & editing. VS: Resources, Writing – review & editing. SS: Validation, Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Agarwal, S., and Prakash, N. (2022). When silence speaks: Exploring reasons of silent treatment from perspective of source. Intern. J. Trend Sci. Res. Dev. 6, 2456–6470.

Google Scholar

Agarwal, S., and Prakash, N. (2024). Psychological Costs and Benefits of Using Silent Treatment. Berlin: ResearchGate.

Google Scholar

Barker, T. H., Habibi, N., Aromataris, E., Stone, J. C., Leonardi-Bee, J., Sears, K., et al. (2024). The revised JBI critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias in quasi-experimental studies. JBI Evid. Synt. 22, 378–388. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-23-00268

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Barker, T. H., Stone, J. C., Sears, K., Klugar, M., Tufanaru, C., Leonardi-Bee, J., et al. (2023). The revised JBI critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias for randomized controlled trials. JBI Evid. Synt. 21, 494–506. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-21-3-494

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Baumeister, R. F., and Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychol. Bull. 117, 497–529. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Burgoon, J. K. (1993). Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional communication. J. Lang. Soc. Psychol. 12, 30–48. doi: 10.1177/0261927X93121003

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Burgoon, J. K., and Jones, S. B. (1976). Toward a theory of personal space expectations and their violations. Hum. Commun. Res. 2, 131–146. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1976.tb00706.x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Buss, D. M. (1992). Manipulation in close relationships: Five personality factors in interactional context. J. Personal. 60, 477–499. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00981.x

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Buss, D. M., Gomes, M., Higgins, D. S., and Lauterbach, K. (1987). Tactics of manipulation. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 52, 1219–1229. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.52.6.1219

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cacioppo, J. T., and Hawkley, L. C. (2003). Social isolation and health, with an emphasis on underlying mechanisms. Perspect. Biol. Med. 46(3. Suppl), S39–S52. doi: 10.1353/pbm.2003.0049

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cataldi, A. E., and Reardon, R. (1996). Gender, interpersonal orientation, and manipulation tactic use in close relationships. Sex Roles 35, 205–218. doi: 10.1007/BF01433107

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ciarocco, N. J., Sommer, K. L., and Baumeister, R. F. (2001). Ostracism and ego depletion: The strains of silence. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 27, 1156–1163. doi: 10.1177/0146167201279008

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., and Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science 302, 290–292. doi: 10.1126/science.1089134

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Epstein, N., and Eidelson, R. J. (1981). Unrealistic beliefs of clinical couples: Their relationship to expectations, goals, and satisfaction. Am. J. Fam. Therapy 9, 13–22. doi: 10.1080/01926188108250420

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Falbo, T., and Peplau, L. A. (1980). Power strategies in intimate relationships. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 38, 618–628. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.38.4.618

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gottman, J. M., and Levenson, R. W. (2000). The timing of divorce: Predicting when a couple will divorce over a 14-year period. J. Marriage Fam. 62, 737–745. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00737.x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gruter, M., and Masters, R. D. eds (1986). Ostracism: A Social and Biological Phenomenon. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Google Scholar

Hyla, M. A. (2015). “Three faces of psychopathy in a romance: Triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy and the use of influence tactics in close relationship - Preliminary study,” in Proceedings of the 4th Biannual CER Comparative European Research Conference: International Scientific Conference for PhD Students of EU Countries (Sciemcee Publishing), 188–191. Available online at: http://www.sciemcee.org/library/proceedings/cer/cer2015_proceedings02.pdf

Google Scholar

James, W. (1890). The Principles of Psychology. New York, NY: Dover Publications.

Google Scholar

Leary, M. R. (2003). Commentary on self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis (1995). Psychol. Inquiry 14, 270–274. doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2003.9682891

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Leary, M. R., Twenge, J. M., and Quinlivan, E. (2006). Interpersonal rejection as a determinant of anger and aggression. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 10, 111–132. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr1002_2

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Liu, E., and Roloff, M. E. (2015). Exhausting silence: Emotional costs of withholding complaints. Negotiat. Conf. Manag. Res. 8, 25–40. doi: 10.1111/ncmr.12043

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lockwood, C., Munn, Z., and Porritt, K. (2015). Qualitative research synthesis: Methodological guidance for systematic reviewers utilizing meta-aggregation. Intern. J. Evidence-Based Healthcare 13, 179–187. doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000061

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mader, N., Arslan, R. C., Schmukle, S. C., and Rohrer, J. M. (2023). Emotional (in)stability: Neuroticism is associated with increased variability in negative emotion after all. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 120:e2212154120. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2212154120

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mandal, E., and Wierzchoń, A. (2019). Shyness, self-presentation, adonization, and influence tactics in close relationships. Curr. Issues Personal. Psychol. 7, 189–202. doi: 10.5114/cipp.2019.88276

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Moola, S., Munn, Z., Tufanaru, C., Aromataris, E., Sears, K., Sfetcu, R., et al. (2020). “Chapter 7: Systematic reviews of etiology and risk,” in JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis, eds E. Aromataris and Z. Munn (Adelaide, SA: JBI).

Google Scholar

Pruitt, D. G., and Carnevale, P. J. (1993). Negotiation in Social Conflict. Boston, MA: Brooks/Cole.

Google Scholar

Rittenour, C. E., Kromka, S. M., Saunders, R. K., Davis, K., Garlitz, K., Opatz, S. N., et al. (2019). Socializing the silent treatment: Parent and adult child communicated displeasure, identification, and satisfaction. J. Fam. Commun. 19, 77–93. doi: 10.1080/15267431.2018.1543187

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Schachter, S. (1959). The Psychology of Affiliation. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.

Google Scholar

Smart Richman, L., and Leary, M. R. (2009). Reactions to discrimination, stigmatization, ostracism, and other forms of interpersonal rejection: A multimotive model. Psychol. Rev. 116, 365–383. doi: 10.1037/a0015250

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sommer, K. L., and Yoon, J. (2013). When silence is golden. J. Soc. Personal Relationships 30, 901–919. doi: 10.1177/0265407512473006

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sommer, K. L., Williams, K. D., Ciarocco, N. J., and Baumeister, R. F. (2001). When silence speaks louder than words: Explorations into the intrapsychic and interpersonal consequences of social ostracism. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 23, 225–243. doi: 10.1207/S15324834BASP2304_1

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Swann, W. B. Jr., and Read, S. J. (1981). Self-verification processes: How we sustain our self-conceptions. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 17, 351–372. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(81)90043-3

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Vigil, J. M. (2009). A socio-relational framework of sex differences in the expression of emotion. Behav. Brain Sci. 32, 375–390. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X09991075

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Williams, K. D. (2001). Ostracism: The Power of Silence. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Google Scholar

Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 58, 425–452. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085641

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Williams, K. D. (2009). “Ostracism,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed. M. P. Zanna (New York, NY: Academic Press), doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)00406-1

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Williams, K. D., Shore, W. J., and Grahe, J. E. (1998). The silent treatment: Perceptions of its behaviors and associated feelings. Group Processes Intergroup Relations 1, 117–141. doi: 10.1177/1368430298012002

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wirth, J. H., Sacco, D. F., Hugenberg, K., and Williams, K. D. (2010). Eye gaze as relational evaluation: Averted eye gaze leads to feelings of ostracism and relational devaluation. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 36, 869–882. doi: 10.1177/0146167210370032

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wright, C. N., and Roloff, M. E. (2009). Relational commitment and the silent treatment. Commun. Res. Rep. 26, 12–21. doi: 10.1080/08824090802636967

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wright, C. N., and Roloff, M. E. (2015). You should just know why I’m upset: Expectancy violation theory and the influence of mind-reading expectations on responses to relational problems. Commun. Res. Rep. 32, 10–19. doi: 10.1080/08824096.2014.989969

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wright, A. G. C., and Zimmermann, J. (2019). Applied ambulatory assessment: Integrating idiographic and nomothetic principles of measurement. Psychol. Assess. 31, 1467–1480. doi: 10.1037/pas0000740

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zadro, L. (2004). Ostracism: Empirical Studies Inspired by Real-world Experiences of Silence and Exclusion. Sydney NSW: University of New South Wales. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).

Google Scholar

Zadro, L., Arriaga, X. B., and Williams, K. D. (2008). “Relational ostracism,” in Social Relationships: Cognitive, Affective, and Motivational Processes, eds J. P. Forgas and J. Fitness (Hove: Psychology Press), 305–319.

Google Scholar

Zadro, L., Godwin, A., Svetieva, E., Sethi, N., Iannuzzelli, R., and Gonsalkorale, K. (2016). “Creating the silence: Ostracism from the perspective of the source,” in Ostracism, Exclusion, and Rejection, 1st Edn, eds K. D. Williams and S. A. Nida (Milton Park: Taylor & Francis), 130–145. doi: 10.4324/9781315308470-14

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar