Find the word you heard
You heard a word, or you already use one for what keeps happening. Look up what it means, where it comes from, and what it cannot tell you.
Stonewalling means withdrawing from the other person during an argument. A word like this describes what happens; it does not explain why someone does it or who they are. You can take what happened seriously without knowing your partner's motive.
Where to start: Know the word? Find it under its letter below. Not sure what to call it? Start from what happened in I can't name it yet.
Attachment style · Demand-withdraw · Emotional flooding · Four Horsemen · Pursue-withdraw · Silent treatment · Stonewalling · Time-out
To check whether a word fits what you see, read its first sentence and what it cannot tell you. Under each word you find the library pages that start from that kind of moment.
Attachment style is a term for recurring patterns in how people relate in romantic relationships, with three classic styles: secure, anxious and avoidant.[1] Cindy Hazan and Phillip Shaver carried the idea from infants and parents over to adult romantic love in 1987.[1]
In 2000, researchers listed whether a style stays the same or changes over a lifetime as an open question.[2] The word describes a tendency, not who a person is, and it does not tell you what your partner feels.
Demand-withdraw is the research name for a pattern in which one partner seeks connection or change and the other tries to end the conversation and keep distance; this library calls it pursue-withdraw.[3][4]
Emotional flooding is feeling overwhelmed during an argument by a partner's negative emotion, when that emotion feels sudden and too strong, with a sense that thinking clearly is hard.[5]
It is a term from couples research, where a questionnaire has been built to measure it.[5] The word describes how a moment feels from the inside; it does not excuse what is said.
The Four Horsemen is John Gottman's name for four conflict behaviours: criticism, contempt, defensiveness and stonewalling.[6] The name describes behaviour in arguments; it is not a verdict on a person or a forecast for a relationship.
Pursue-withdraw is a pattern in which one partner seeks connection or change and the other tries to end the conversation and keep distance.[4] Andrew Christensen and Christopher Heavey studied it under the name demand-withdraw.[3]
Daniel Wile describes it as a sequence that repeats, with each partner responding to the other's move.[7] It describes what happens between two people, not who started it or why someone pulls back.
The silent treatment is deliberately avoiding communication with someone.[8] In a study by Kipling Williams and colleagues, people described it as not talking and avoiding eye contact.[9] Silence alone does not show why someone is silent or that they mean to punish.
Stonewalling is withdrawing from the other person during an argument.[10] It is the fourth of the conflict behaviours John Gottman called the Four Horsemen.[6][10] It names withdrawal during the argument itself,[10] while the silent treatment means deliberately avoiding communication.[8] It is not a verdict on a person, and it cannot tell you why your partner went quiet.
In couples therapy, a time-out is a pause in an argument that both partners have agreed on.[11] A named pause with a way back differs from silence that is forced or has no end.
Karen Rosen and colleagues described this negotiated form for couples in 2003.[11] Therapists also teach time-out as a tool for self-control during conflict.[12]
Start from a moment instead of a word. If more than one fits, the topic page How do we stop having the same argument? helps you pick one.
What lovlov isn’t
If you don’t feel safe, or you’re not sure, here’s where to turn →
The evidence
Every entry rests on a source checked by its DOI (research studies, two clinical descriptions and one textbook chapter, each read as an abstract or summary). They support the definitions, where research uses each word and who named it; they cannot tell you why your partner does something or what will happen in your relationship.
No entry uses a frequency or an effect figure, and the sentences that say what a word cannot tell you are our own editorial limits, not findings.
Study: Two questionnaire studies that carried attachment theory from infants to adult romantic love.
Supports here: that adult attachment styles were described as secure, avoidant and anxious, and that the idea was carried over to romantic love in 1987.
What it cannot show: Questionnaire studies from the 1980s; they describe styles, not what any one person is like.
Study: Review of romantic attachment theory thirteen years after it was first proposed.
Supports here: that continuity and change in attachment security was one of the questions the review named as open.
What it cannot show: A review from 2000; it names the question, it does not answer it for anyone.
Study: Observational study of 31 married couples in two discussions.
Supports here: the demand-withdraw pattern as a subject of their research.
What it cannot show: A small, older sample of married couples; its average gender difference is not used.
Study: Observational study of 63 couples in a moderate conflict discussion.
Supports here: what the pattern is: one partner seeks connection, change and resolution, the other seeks to end the discussion and limit closeness.
What it cannot show: Mixed-sex couples only; its gender findings are not used.
Study: Development of a 15-item questionnaire with 453 couples.
Supports here: what flooding means: feeling overwhelmed by a partner's negative emotion, felt as unexpected and intense, with a sense that thinking is impaired.
What it cannot show: It measures how flooded people say they feel, not what causes it.
Study: Questionnaire study of 170 people in established romantic relationships.
Supports here: that John Gottman grouped criticism, defensiveness, contempt and stonewalling as the Four Horsemen.
What it cannot show: Used here only for the naming; its figures on attachment and the four behaviours are not used.
Study: Clinical essay on pursuit and distance in couples.
Supports here: that pursuit and withdrawal can be described as a circle of moves between both partners.
What it cannot show: A clinical description, not a study.
Study: Systematic review of 15 studies on the silent treatment in close adult relationships.
Supports here: the definition of the silent treatment as deliberate communication avoidance.
What it cannot show: It summarises what is known; it cannot say what any single silence means.
Study: Two studies in which students described giving and receiving the silent treatment.
Supports here: that the silent treatment was described mostly as no talking and avoided eye contact.
What it cannot show: Students, not couples; it describes reports, not how often it happens.
Study: Textbook chapter on the Four Horsemen as a framework for family conflict.
Supports here: that stonewalling, the fourth horseman, means withdrawing from the other person.
What it cannot show: A chapter summary was read, not the full chapter.
Study: Clinical description of a negotiated time-out, taught to both partners.
Supports here: a time-out both partners agree on, described for couples in 2003.
What it cannot show: Not a controlled study; it comes from work with couples where there had been low-level violence, and it warns that a time-out taught to only one partner can be misused.
Study: Randomised trial of a very short treatment with 55 quarrelling couples.
Supports here: that time-out was taught as a self-control tool in conflict.
What it cannot show: Its result on relationship quality is not used here; the dictionary makes no effect claims.