InterpersonalMANIPULATIVE

Stonewalling

What it is

Refusing to engage in communication or negotiation, shutting down dialogue entirely.

How it works

By completely withdrawing from discussion — refusing to answer questions, giving monosyllabic responses, or physically leaving — the stonewaller prevents resolution and forces the other party into helplessness. The target often concedes simply to get any engagement at all.

Real-world examples

  • •A partner who walks out of every difficult conversation and refuses to revisit the topic.
  • •A manager who ignores repeated emails requesting a meeting about a raise.
  • •A negotiating party that goes completely silent to pressure the other side into making concessions.

Ethical guidelines

  • ●Needing a brief pause is healthy; sustained refusal to engage is manipulative.
  • ●If you need time, communicate a specific timeframe for resuming the discussion.
  • ●Address discomfort with conflict directly rather than shutting down.

How to defend against it

  • ►Name the pattern calmly: "I notice you are withdrawing. I need us to discuss this."
  • ►Set a clear boundary: you will not accept indefinite silence on important matters.
  • ►Seek mediation from a neutral third party if stonewalling persists.

From the Defense Playbook

DEAR MANtakes practice

A structured way of asking for something or saying no, taken from dialectical behavior therapy: Describe, Express, Assert, Reinforce, while staying Mindful, Appearing confident, and Negotiating.

Every playbook entry states how strong its evidence is and when not to use it. Browse the full playbook.

References

  1. Gottman, J. M. (1994). What Predicts Divorce? The Relationship Between Marital Processes and Marital Outcomes. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
    Origin of 'stonewalling' as one of the 'Four Horsemen': the listener withdraws, gives minimal or monosyllabic responses and stops signalling engagement — the behaviour pattern the entry describes — and this pattern predicts relationship dissolution.
  2. Christensen, A., & Heavey, C. L. (1990). Gender and social structure in the demand/withdraw pattern of marital conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(1), 73–81
    The demand/withdraw research: the partner who wants change presses for discussion while the other withdraws, and withdrawal preserves the status quo for the withdrawer — the entry's claim that shutting down dialogue prevents resolution and pressures the other party to concede.
Last reviewed
Suggest a correction

Detect Stonewalling in any text

Paste any message, email, or article into our free Manipulation Detector to see if Stonewalling or other techniques are being used on you.

Try the Detector FreeCreate Free Account