Mel Robbins calls the silent treatment manipulative, but psychological research offers a more complicated explanation. Sometimes withdrawing from conflict is an attempt to regulate emotions. Other times, silence becomes a way to punish, control or avoid accountability. Understanding the difference matters.
You have an argument with someone you care about. Maybe they said something hurtful, dismissed your feelings or pushed a conversation further than you were prepared to go. Rather than continue arguing, you stop talking. You don’t answer the phone, respond to messages or explain what you’re feeling. Hours turn into days, and the other person is left wondering what happened. From your perspective, you’re protecting your peace. From theirs, you’re withholding communication to make them suffer. Both people may be experiencing the same silence in completely different ways.
Motivational speaker and podcast host Mel Robbins has taken a firm position on the behavior. In an episode of The Mel Robbins Podcast, she identified the silent treatment as a subtle form of disrespect, describing it as manipulative and potentially emotionally abusive when someone withdraws affection or communication to punish another person. Her argument reflects a growing conversation about emotional maturity, boundaries and accountability in relationships. But it also raises an important consideration that can get lost in discussions about toxic behavior: Is every refusal to communicate an attempt to control someone, or can silence sometimes be a legitimate coping mechanism?
Why Some People Shut Down Instead of Speaking Up
For some people, withdrawing during an argument is less about exercising power than managing an emotional response they cannot immediately control. Conflict can produce anxiety, anger, embarrassment or feelings of being overwhelmed. Rather than risk saying something hurtful, they retreat. Others have learned through childhood experiences or previous relationships that confrontation leads to criticism, rejection or escalation. Silence becomes familiar because it temporarily removes them from an uncomfortable situation, even when it does little to resolve the underlying conflict.
A 2026 systematic review published in Frontiers in Psychology examined 15 peer-reviewed studies on the silent treatment in close adult relationships. Researchers identified several motivations, including emotional regulation, avoidance of conflict, self-protection and deliberate manipulation. Their findings suggest that silence can provide temporary relief for the person withdrawing while simultaneously causing distress for the person being ignored. The review also associated prolonged or repeated silent treatment with poorer relationship satisfaction and psychological well-being, although the researchers acknowledged limitations in the available studies, including reliance on self-reported experiences.
These findings complicate the assumption that silence always communicates malicious intent. Someone who feels emotionally flooded during an argument may genuinely need time to process what happened before speaking. But an understandable reason for withdrawing does not automatically make the behavior harmless. When one person disappears emotionally without explanation, the other person may experience that absence as rejection, punishment or abandonment. The person seeking distance may be calming themselves while unintentionally intensifying the conflict they hoped to escape.
When Silence Becomes a Form of Control
Consider two situations. In the first, someone tells their partner that they’re upset and need the evening to collect their thoughts, promising to revisit the conversation the following morning. In the second, someone becomes angry, refuses to acknowledge their partner for several days and resumes speaking only after receiving an apology. Both involve a period without conversation, but the circumstances and expectations are considerably different. The first creates space for emotional regulation while preserving communication. The second can establish a pattern in which affection and attention become conditional on the other person’s willingness to surrender.
Psychologist Kia-Rai Prewitt, speaking to the Cleveland Clinic, explains that withholding communication can be intentional or unintentional and that the circumstances and motivation matter when determining whether the behavior is abusive. When silence is repeatedly used to punish, intimidate or compel compliance, it can become a form of emotional manipulation. The person receiving it may begin apologizing simply to restore communication, even when they do not believe they did anything wrong. Over time, the relationship can become organized around avoiding another period of withdrawal rather than addressing disagreements openly.
The effects extend beyond the immediate argument. The 2026 research review found that recipients of silent treatment frequently reported loneliness, diminished self-esteem and feelings of exclusion. For the person withholding communication, silence may create a temporary sense of control without addressing the original problem. This helps explain why the behavior can become repetitive. The argument ends, the immediate discomfort subsides and neither person develops the communication skills necessary to prevent the same conflict from resurfacing.
Taking Space Is Not the Same as Giving Someone the Silent Treatment
Relationship researchers at the Gottman Institute describe stonewalling as withdrawing or disengaging during conflict, sometimes because a person has become physiologically overwhelmed. Their recommended response is to communicate the need for a break, use that time to calm down and return to the conversation when both parties are better prepared to engage. A pause, in that context, is not a refusal to deal with the problem. It is an effort to make a productive conversation possible.
That approach also recognizes that no one should be required to remain in an argument indefinitely. People have different emotional thresholds, processing styles and capacities for conflict. Someone who needs an hour, an evening or a longer period to sort through difficult emotions is not necessarily being immature or manipulative. What matters is whether the withdrawal is communicated, whether reasonable expectations are established and whether there is an eventual willingness to address the issue. In unsafe or threatening circumstances, maintaining distance without further engagement may be necessary for personal protection. Healthy communication does not require continued access to someone who poses a risk.
This is where the popular language of protecting your peace becomes complicated. The phrase can describe a legitimate boundary, particularly when someone is removing themselves from repeated disrespect or conflict. But it can also become an explanation for avoiding uncomfortable conversations or refusing accountability. A boundary concerns what a person is willing to participate in and how they will respond when that limit is crossed. Manipulation attempts to influence another person’s behavior through pressure, uncertainty or the withdrawal of emotional connection. Silence can accompany either, which is why the broader pattern matters more than the absence of words alone.
What Happens After the Silence Matters Most
Robbins’ criticism identifies a genuine problem: people can use silence to punish others while presenting their withdrawal as emotional self-care. But describing all silence as manipulation risks overlooking people who have difficulty regulating emotions, need additional processing time or are stepping away from harmful interactions. Research supports a more careful understanding. The silent treatment can serve as an avoidance-based coping response, but when it becomes prolonged, repetitive or punitive, it can undermine both emotional well-being and relationship stability.
The more useful measure may be what happens once the immediate emotions have settled. Does the person return willing to discuss what happened? Can both individuals express their concerns without retaliation? Is the silence temporary and understood, or does it leave someone repeatedly guessing what they must do to restore the relationship? A person can need distance without intending harm, just as another person can experience that distance as deeply hurtful. Both realities deserve consideration. Silence may prevent an argument from escalating in the moment, but on its own, it rarely provides the understanding necessary to resolve one. Protecting your peace and maintaining healthy relationships do not have to be competing priorities. Sometimes the strongest boundary is knowing when to stop talking. The more difficult skill is knowing how, and when, to begin again.