When One Partner Withdraws: Understanding Stonewalling and Emotional Shutdowns

Conflict is a normal part of every relationship. Even couples who feel deeply connected will sometimes disagree, misunderstand one another, or find themselves overwhelmed by emotion. What often determines the health of the relationship is not whether conflict happens, but how each partner responds when things become emotionally charged. One of the dynamics I see most frequently in my therapy room is the moment when one partner reaches out—seeking clarity, reassurance, or resolution—and the other turns inward, becomes quiet, or emotionally disappears.

This is what we often describe as stonewalling: a pattern of emotional withdrawal or shutdown in the face of tension, conflict, or overwhelm (Gottman & Levenson, 1992). For the partner on the receiving end, it can feel like abandonment. For the partner shutting down, it is usually an attempt to cope. And when these two internal experiences collide, the relational impact can be profound.

What Stonewalling Really Is

Stonewalling is not simply silence. It is a state in which a person becomes unable to engage in a conversation due to emotional or physiological overload. Gottman’s research describes it as part of a “cascade” that unfolds when a partner becomes overwhelmed and emotionally flooded, eventually disengaging either by going quiet, looking away, or shutting down internally (Gottman, 1999).

What is often misunderstood is that stonewalling is rarely intentional. Most partners who withdraw are not trying to punish or dismiss the person in front of them. Instead, they are usually experiencing a rapid activation of the nervous system, where the stress response becomes so heightened that continued engagement feels threatening or impossible.

For some, this response begins with a tightening in the chest, a rising heart rate, or the sense that words won’t come. For others, it is a sudden emotional numbness—a sense of shutting down in order to protect themselves from further overwhelm. Behind the withdrawal is often fear, shame, or the belief that staying in the conversation will make things worse.

Why Partners Shut Down: The Nervous System Story

One of the most helpful ways to understand stonewalling is through the lens of physiology. When conflict escalates or criticism is perceived—even if unintended—the body can move into a hyper-aroused state, triggering fight, flight, or freeze responses (Porges, 2011).

In emotionally intense moments, some partners move toward fight or flight—raising their voice, seeking a quick resolution, or expressing emotion outwardly. Others move into freeze: a collapse, a mental blankness, or a sense of simply not being able to respond. This is what many couples interpret as “not caring,” when in reality the partner is deeply dysregulated.

Emotional flooding is a key part of this process. Research shows that once the heart rate passes roughly 100 beats per minute in conflict, the brain’s ability to process information and empathise becomes significantly impaired (Gottman, 1999). In these moments, stonewalling becomes the nervous system’s attempt to regain stability, even if it creates emotional distance.

The intentions and impacts of this response are often mismatched: the withdrawing partner thinks, “I’m trying to stay safe and not make this worse,” while the pursuing partner feels, “You’re not here with me. You don’t care.”

The Pain of Disconnection

For the partner who reaches out for connection or clarity during conflict, withdrawal often lands as rejection. Humans are wired for connection, and when someone we depend on suddenly becomes unavailable—emotionally or physically—it can activate deep fears of abandonment (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016).

Clients often describe this experience in powerful terms:

• “I feel like I disappear when they shut down.”

• “It’s like talking into a void.”

• “I feel punished, even if that’s not their intention.”

• “I start to panic because I don’t know what they’re feeling.”

Meanwhile, the withdrawing partner often experiences something very different:

• “I’m overwhelmed.”

• “Everything I say makes it worse.”

• “I don’t know how to express myself without escalating things.”

• “I just need space to breathe.”

This mismatch creates a pursuer–withdrawer cycle, a dynamic widely described in attachment and systemic theory (Johnson, 2004). The more one partner pursues—seeking reassurance or resolution—the more overwhelmed the other can feel, and the more they withdraw. In turn, the withdrawal increases the pursuing partner’s anxiety, leading them to push harder.

Neither partner is the problem.

The cycle is.

For the partner who reaches out for connection or clarity during conflict, withdrawal often lands as rejection.

Stonewalling vs. Silent Treatment: Why Intent Matters

It is important to distinguish stonewalling from silent treatment, because the two are often conflated but have very different emotional intentions. Silent treatment is a deliberate form of distancing used to punish, control, or express anger through exclusion. Stonewalling, by contrast, is typically an involuntary response where the partner feels unable to stay in the interaction due to emotional overload (Gottman, 1999).

Understanding this distinction helps couples move from blame to compassion. When partners see stonewalling not as a sign of indifference but as a signal of distress, new pathways for communication open.

The Role of Personal and Family History

Many withdrawing partners grew up in families where:

• conflict was chaotic or frightening

• emotions were discouraged or minimised

• they were punished for speaking up

• vulnerability didn’t feel safe

• they were expected to be “the calm one”

In these environments, shutting down became a survival strategy. Over time, this can develop into a default way of coping with relational stress.

On the other side, pursuing partners often come from environments where connection needed to be actively sought—perhaps through caretaking, managing conflict, or being hyper-attuned to the emotional climate. Their reaching out is often rooted in a longing for stability and reassurance.

Understanding these origin stories helps couples realise the patterns they enact are not character flaws, but adaptations from earlier life.

How Stonewalling Impacts the Relationship

When withdrawal becomes a repeated response, several things happen:

1. Issues go unresolved

Conversations pause the moment the withdrawing partner shuts down, and the couple may struggle to return to them in a grounded way. Over time, important topics accumulate without resolution.

2. Emotional safety erodes

The pursuing partner may hesitate to bring up needs or feelings for fear of triggering shutdown. The withdrawing partner may dread conflict, anticipating overwhelm.

3. Intimacy decreases

When emotional connection becomes unpredictable, it can affect physical intimacy, affection, and day-to-day closeness.

4. Resentment builds silently

Even when the relationship looks calm on the surface, the underlying distance can create loneliness for both partners.

This is why stonewalling—or emotional shutdown—is one of the strongest predictors of relational distress when left unaddressed (Gottman & Levenson, 2000). The good news is that it is also highly treatable.

How Couples Can Break the Pattern

Working through stonewalling is not about blaming the withdrawing partner or asking them to “just communicate more.” It’s about helping both partners understand the pattern, regulate their nervous systems, and create new ways of staying connected during difficult moments.

Below are core therapeutic principles—woven into an integrative relationship therapy approach—that help couples shift this dynamic.

1. Slowing Down the Interaction

When conversations move too quickly, the withdrawing partner’s nervous system becomes overwhelmed before they’ve had a chance to process what’s happening. Slowing down conversations—pausing, speaking gently, and grounding before responding—helps both partners stay present.

Emotionally focused therapy (EFT) emphasises the need for slower, more attuned emotional exchanges so each partner can hear the other’s underlying needs rather than react to the surface behaviours (Johnson, 2004).

2. Recognising Early Signs of Shutdown

Most withdrawing partners experience early cues long before they fully disengage. Noticing these early signs can prevent complete collapse. Some describe feeling “hot,” dizzy, or blank. Others feel a sense of shame rising, like they are failing the conversation.

Teaching partners to recognise and communicate these signs helps to interrupt the cycle before the shutdown occurs—a key skill in Gottman-informed work as well.

3. Creating Structured, Safe Time-Outs

A time-out is not abandonment. It is a regulated pause with the aim of returning to the conversation in a calmer state. Research consistently shows that taking at least 20–30 minutes to physiologically de-escalate significantly reduces emotional flooding (Gottman, 1999).

Time-outs are most effective when they include:

• a clear statement (“I can feel myself shutting down; I need a break”)

• reassurance (“I want to come back to this”)

• a specific return time

• accountability to actually return

This structure helps the pursuing partner feel secure and keeps the withdrawing partner emotionally safe.

4. Softening the Approach

Pursuers often escalate not from anger but from fear: fear of losing connection, fear of being left, fear of not mattering. But escalation—even when unintended—can intensify withdrawal. Approaching conversations with softness, curiosity, and emotional vulnerability helps the withdrawing partner remain present.

EFT research shows that when the pursuing partner shares softer emotions—such as “I miss you,” or “I’m scared of feeling disconnected”—the withdrawer’s defensive responses decrease significantly (Johnson, 2004).

5. Supporting the Withdrawer’s Voice

Many withdrawing partners struggle to identify or articulate their emotions in the heat of conflict. Therapy helps them build emotional vocabulary, tolerate discomfort, and express needs before shutting down.

They often discover that their partner doesn’t want perfect words—just presence. When withdrawers feel they are allowed to be imperfect and vulnerable, they stay engaged for longer.

6. Bringing Compassion to Both Sides

Neither partner benefits when the cycle becomes framed as:

• one being “too much”

• the other being “not enough”

Instead, the goal is mutual understanding:

• The pursuer longs for closeness, clarity, and reassurance.

• The withdrawer longs for calm, safety, and emotional stability.

Both are understandable. Both are human needs. Therapy helps each partner speak about these longings directly, rather than expressing them through the reactive behaviour of pursuing or withdrawing.

What Healing Looks Like

Over time, couples who address stonewalling begin to experience profound shifts:

• Conversations become safer and more regulated.

• Both partners feel heard rather than criticised or overwhelmed.

• The withdrawer stays in the conversation for longer without panicking.

• The pursuer becomes less urgent and more grounded.

• Both partners report feeling closer, more affectionate, and more emotionally connected.

Importantly, conflict becomes an opportunity for understanding rather than a precursor to distance. Couples learn not just to manage difficult moments but to repair more effectively, building resilience into the relationship.

Final Thoughts

Stonewalling is not a sign that a partner doesn’t care. It is a sign that they are overwhelmed, frightened, or struggling to stay emotionally engaged under pressure. When couples learn to understand the physiology behind shutdown, recognise the emotional meanings beneath each partner’s response, and slow the cycle down, the dynamic becomes highly workable.

I often tell couples: the goal is not to eliminate conflict, but to create safety within it. When partners learn to stay connected—even imperfectly—during hard conversations, the relationship becomes more secure, more intimate, and more resilient.

Mark Ryan BA (Hons), MBACP, is an integrative psychotherapist and relationship specialist at Rise & Grow Therapy. Working from clinics in Pimlico, Kensington and Angel, he supports individuals and couples in understanding communication patterns, strengthening emotional connection, and moving through periods of stress or conflict. Mark’s work is rooted in attachment theory, trauma-informed practice and evidence-based relationship therapy.

Stonewalling is not a sign that a partner doesn’t care. It is a sign that they are overwhelmed, frightened, or struggling to stay emotionally engaged under pressure.

References

Gottman, J. (1999). The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work. Crown.

Gottman, J., & Levenson, R. (1992). Marital processes predictive of later dissolution: Behaviour, physiology, and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(2), 221–233.

Gottman, J., & Levenson, R. (2000). The timing of divorce: Predicting when a couple will divorce over a 14-year period. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(3), 737–745.

Johnson, S. (2004). The Practice of Emotionally Focused Couple Therapy: Creating Connection. Routledge.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2016). Attachment in Adulthood: Structure, Dynamics, and Change. Guilford Press.

Porges, S. (2011). The Polyvagal Theory: Neurophysiological Foundations of Emotions, Attachment, Communication, and Self-Regulation. Norton.