Dear Editor,

Somewhere, right now, someone is composing a text they will never send. They have typed out an explanation, deleted it, typed a shorter version, deleted that too, and settled on nothing at all. Tomorrow, the silence will do the talking.

We have got very good at asking what that silence does to the person on the receiving end. We have not got very good at asking what it reveals about the person choosing it.

‘Ghosting’ cannot tell us everything about a person. It can, however, tell us something about how they chose to manage a particular relationship at a particular moment. Faced with a conversation they did not want to have, they chose withdrawal. Faced with another person’s expectation of an answer, they chose silence.

Research on ‘ghosting’ is still young, and much of it has focused on those who have been ‘ghosted’. A smaller body of work has turned to the people who initiate it, and one thing is already clear: There is no single explanation.

Studies point to factors including communication overload, attachment, personality, relationship beliefs, and attitudes towards ‘ghosting’. Some people disappear to avoid confrontation, others may feel overwhelmed, emotionally disengaged, or believe vanishing is easier than admitting their feelings have changed.

There is one important exception. When a relationship involves abuse, harassment, threats, or a genuine safety concern, disappearing without explanation may be an act of self-protection. Those situations should not be treated in the same way as withdrawal from an ordinary, non-threatening relationship.

None of these factors gives us a neat psychological profile of “the ghoster”. What they suggest is that ‘ghosting’ may tell us something about how a person responds when communication becomes difficult, unwanted, or emotionally demanding. The behaviour is not a diagnosis, neither is it psychologically meaningless.

One study comparing experiences on both sides of ‘ghosting’ found that those who were ‘ghosted’ were more likely to report sadness and hurt. Those who had done the ‘ghosting’ were more likely to report guilt and relief.

A longitudinal study found that communication overload predicted subsequent ‘ghosting’ of romantic partners. Interestingly, the study found no evidence that ‘ghosting’ a romantic partner subsequently damaged the ‘ghoster’s’ well-being. ‘Ghosting’ a friend, however, predicted increased depressive tendencies.

An isolated act of ‘ghosting’ might arise from fear, confusion, communication overload, or circumstances the person left behind may never know about.

A pattern of ‘ghosting’ is a different matter. Basic behavioural psychology gives us a useful way to think about why avoidance can become habitual. When avoiding something removes an unpleasant experience, the relief that follows can reinforce the avoidance.

Someone who ‘ghosts’ may avoid the conversation they were dreading. There is no need to explain that their feelings have changed, witness another person’s disappointment, or navigate an uncomfortable exchange. Withdrawal provides an immediate escape.

One act cannot establish a personality trait. Repeated behaviour, however, gives us more to investigate. If someone consistently turns to withdrawal in response to relational discomfort, the question becomes why disappearance keeps becoming their solution.

Could repeated avoidance make direct conversations increasingly difficult? Does habitual ghosting have implications for how someone manages intimacy and conflict in future relationships?

It is tempting, especially online, to go straight to a diagnosis, labelling the person a narcissist, psychopath, avoidant, or whatever term happens to be popular.

Psychology requires greater caution. ‘Ghosting’ is a behaviour, not a diagnosis. Repeating it does not automatically establish a mental disorder. A repeated pattern is still worth examining for what it might tell us about emotional regulation, communication, conflict management, and interpersonal responsibility.

Technology did not invent avoidance, it removed many of the obstacles to it: a message can be left on ‘read’, a number can be blocked in seconds, or someone can be removed from social media before the difficult conversation has even begun. The same technology that allows someone to escape a genuine threat can also make it remarkably easy to avoid an uncomfortable conversation or disappear when feelings have changed. A few taps can accomplish what once required a conversation.

For people who have been ghosted, there may never be a reason, an apology, or a moment of visible remorse. If we actually want to understand ‘ghosting’, however, we have to look at both people in the story.

‘Ghosting’ does not reveal whether someone is a narcissist, an avoidant, a psychopath, or simply a bad person. Psychology cannot make those judgments from a single behaviour.

What ghosting can reveal is a choice. When communication became difficult, unwanted, or uncomfortable, withdrawal became the answer. When that answer is chosen repeatedly, the pattern itself deserves attention.

Shanee A Grant

Postgraduate psychology researcher

shaneeagrant@gmail.com