Conflict Avoidance, Ghosting, and the Refusal to Repair: When Silence Becomes Punishment

Conflict avoidance is often framed as a preference for peace. In practice, it frequently functions as a refusal to tolerate discomfort — both one’s own and that of others. One of its most damaging expressions in adult relationships is ghosting: the sudden withdrawal of contact, communication, or presence in response to tension, disagreement, or accountability. While often minimised as avoidance or emotional overwhelm, ghosting can operate as a form of punishment — one that inflicts harm while allowing the avoidant party to preserve a self-image of innocence or emotional superiority.

It is essential to distinguish this behaviour from legitimate boundary-setting. Disengaging from relationships where boundaries are repeatedly violated, where one is chronically dismissed, manipulated, or harmed, is not avoidance; it is self-protection. Ghosting, by contrast, occurs in situations where discomfort could be addressed, repaired, or clarified — but is instead bypassed through disappearance.

Psychologically, conflict avoidance is not neutrality. It is an active strategy designed to manage anxiety, shame, or fear of emotional exposure. Individuals who habitually avoid conflict often lack the internal capacity to sit with interpersonal discomfort — particularly emotions such as guilt, anger, disappointment, or vulnerability.

Herman (1992) notes that when individuals lack tools for relational repair, they default to withdrawal as a means of regaining emotional control. Rather than engaging in the complexity of rupture and repair, the avoidant individual opts for disappearance. The nervous system experiences this as relief; the relational system experiences it as abandonment.

Ghosting is often defended as self-care, but in many cases it functions as withholding — of explanation, closure, accountability, and basic relational respect. Silence becomes a weapon precisely because it allows harm without confrontation.

Punitive ghosting typically involves:

Baumeister et al. (2007) describe ostracism — including social exclusion and silence — as a potent form of punishment that activates deep psychological distress. Unlike overt conflict, ghosting offers no resolution. It externalises discomfort while avoiding responsibility for the impact caused.

Relational maturity is not defined by the absence of conflict, but by the capacity to navigate it. Ruptures are inevitable in any meaningful relationship. Repair is what distinguishes adult relational functioning from avoidant patterns.

Those who ghost in response to conflict often lack:

emotional regulation skills,

tolerance for guilt or accountability,

capacity for relational repair,

differentiation between boundaries and avoidance,

willingness to be seen as imperfect.

Instead of addressing the issue, the avoidant individual protects their self-concept by erasing the relational context altogether. In doing so, they displace the emotional labour onto the other person, who is left to process the rupture alone.

It is crucial to be precise here. Boundaries involve clear communication, proportional response, and self-respect. Ghosting involves withdrawal without explanation, proportionality, or repair.

Legitimate disengagement occurs when:

In these contexts, silence is not punishment; it is survival.

Ghosting becomes problematic when it replaces communication in situations where repair is possible — when it is used to avoid discomfort rather than prevent harm.

For the recipient, being ghosted can result in:

For the avoidant individual, the costs are less immediately visible but equally damaging:

Avoidance offers short-term relief at the cost of long-term relational capacity.

In spiritual or self-help contexts, ghosting is sometimes justified through language of “protecting energy,” “not engaging with negativity,” or “choosing peace.” While discernment and boundaries are essential, moralising avoidance obscures the ethical responsibility inherent in relationship.

Welwood (1984) describes this pattern as spiritual bypassing: using spiritual concepts to avoid psychological and relational work. When silence replaces honesty, and withdrawal replaces repair, spirituality becomes a shield rather than a path toward integrity.

Conflict avoidance and ghosting are not neutral behaviours. When used to evade accountability or punish through silence, they undermine trust, intimacy, and growth. Mature relationships require the capacity to tolerate discomfort, communicate honestly, and engage in repair when ruptures occur.

Boundaries protect the self from harm. Ghosting protects the self from discomfort.

The difference matters.

Choosing growth over avoidance means learning to stay present when things become uncomfortable — not indefinitely, not at the cost of self-respect, but long enough to honour the humanity of the other and the integrity of the relationship. Without that capacity, silence becomes cruelty disguised as calm, and avoidance becomes a form of power exercised without responsibility.

Baumeister, R.F., DeWall, C.N., Ciarocco, N.J. and Twenge, J.M. (2007) ‘Social exclusion impairs self-regulation’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(4), pp. 589–604.

Herman, J. (1992) Trauma and Recovery. New York: Basic Books.

Welwood, J. (1984) ‘Principles of inner work: Psychological and spiritual’, Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 16(1), pp. 63–73.