Personal Relationships 2023 Wu When Silence Speaks Louder Than Words Exploring The Experiences and Attitudes of

Received: 22 January 2023 Revised: 20 July 2023 Accepted: 23 July 2023
DOI: 10.1111/pere.12518
QUALITATIVE MANUSCRIPT
When silence speaks louder than words:

Exploring the experiences and attitudes of
ghosters
Karen Wu | Olajide Bamishigbin

Department of Psychology, California State University, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA
Correspondence
Karen Wu, Department of Psychology, Abstract
5151 State University Drive, California Ghosting has become commonplace beyond romantic
State University, Los Angeles, CA 90032,
relationships. Therefore, we aimed to broadly under-
USA.
Email: kwu25@calstatela.edu stand ghosters' (i.e., people who ghost others) experi-
ences including the process of ghosting, reasons and
attributions for ghosting, feelings and behaviors asso-
ciated with ghosting, and attitudes toward ghosting.
Thirty-four undergraduates (65% Latinx, 15% Asian,
12% Black, 8% Other ethnicity) who had ghosted
another person were interviewed in-person about
their ghosting attitudes, ghosting behaviors, and a
memorable ghosting experience. Inductive thematic
analyses informed by grounded theory yielded eight
themes: A Clear Cause, Avoidance of Confrontation,
Short-term Orientation, Ghostees as Socially Inferior,
Ignoring then Blocking, Attempts by Ghostee to
Reach Out, Mixed and Evolving Feelings, and Recog-
nition of Harm. Our findings indicate that
Statement of Relevance: Our research adds to the limited work on the consequences of ghosting from the ghoster's
perspective. In addition, while nearly all prior studies on ghosting were conducted on predominantly White samples,
most of our participants were Latinx, Asian, or Black Americans. These populations may be more interdependent and
may thus experience ghosting differently. Finally, unlike prior studies which used online surveys, we used face-to-face
semi-structured interviews which allowed for probing and an in-depth understanding of participants' experiences.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits
use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or
adaptations are made.
© 2023 The Authors. Personal Relationships published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Association for Relationship
Research.
1358 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pere Pers Relationship. 2023;30:1358–1382.

14756811, 2023, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pere.12518 by Cochrane Philippines, Wiley Online Library on [29/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
WU and BAMISHIGBIN 1359
psychological consequences for ghosters should be

further examined.
KEYWORDS
ghosting, grounded theory, interpersonal relationships,
ostracism, relationship dissolution, social rejection, thematic
analysis
1 | INTRODUCTION
Listen to silence. It has so much to say.

Rumi
Silence has power. Within interpersonal relationships, silence can be used to punish others
(Williams et al., 1998). Through the silent treatment, the punisher fulfills their needs for control
while the recipient loses a “sense of belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaningful existence”
(Williams et al., 1998, p. 117).
A few decades ago, the silent treatment was mostly enacted by avoiding eye contact and ver-
bal communication (Williams et al., 1998, p. 117). Now, due to the ubiquity of modern technol-
ogy, the silent treatment has evolved into the more complex phenomenon of ghosting, which
was initially defined by LeFebvre et al. (2019, p.134) as “unilaterally ceasing communication
(temporarily or permanently) in an effort to withdraw access to individual(s) prompting rela-
tionship dissolution (suddenly or gradually) commonly enacted via one or more technological
medium(s).” Ghosting can be thought of as an extreme form of the silent treatment that ends in
relationship dissolution. Similar to the silent treatment, ghosting may lead to a drop in “control,
self-esteem, belongingness, [and] meaningful existence” (Freedman, Powell, et al., 2022, p. 1)
for the recipients, also known as ghostees.
Related patterns of relationship dissolution have been observed in earlier research, indicat-
ing that indirect and unilateral methods were already popular and used about half of the time
(Baxter, 1984). Within Baxter's model of disengagement strategies (Baxter, 1984), ghosting is
particularly similar to two of the eight trajectories identified, that is, “persevering indirectness”,
which is one-sided, indirect, and gradual; and “swift indirectness”, which is one-sided, indirect,
and quick. Persevering indirectness was in fact the most popular strategy (30%) identified in
Baxter's (1984) study.
It may not be surprising then that ghosting is currently extremely prevalent among young
adults. Among 18–35-year-old MTurkers who broke up with a romantic partner within the past
5 years, 65% had ghosted a romantic partner/interest and 72% had been ghosted by a romantic
partner/interest (Koessler et al., 2019a). Another study of 17–29-year-old Canadian undergradu-
ates (Kay & Courtice, 2022) found lower numbers at 51% and 45% respectively for connections
initiated offline, and 45% and 35% respectively for connections initiated online. These studies
may underestimate the scope of ghosting, given that ghosting often occurs in non-romantic con-
texts. Powell et al. (2021) found that 45% of participants reported being ghosted by friends. Simi-
larly, Pancani et al. (2022) found that 46% of participants wrote about a friendship rather than a
romantic relationship when asked to recall the time when they were ghosted. Yet, research is
1360 WU and BAMISHIGBIN
currently scarce in this area, possibly because of disagreements over the operationalization of
ghosting.
Therefore, we aimed to broadly understand ghosters' (the people who ghost) experiences
beyond romantic relationships, including the process of ghosting, reasons and attributions for
ghosting, feelings and behaviors associated with ghosting, and attitudes toward ghosting. Below,
we review the current definitions of ghosting and research on ghosting experiences (focusing
on the ghoster's perspective).
1.1 | What is ghosting?
Researchers have attempted to refine LeFebvre et al.'s (2019) definition of ghosting, some
choosing to narrow the definition, and others choosing to broaden the definition. Based on their
qualitative online survey of MTurkers who had experienced a romantic breakup in the past
5 years, Koessler et al. (2019a, p. 33) concluded that ghosting specifically occurs within a
romantic relationship:
Ghosting is a strategy used to end a relationship with a partner with whom roman-
tic interest once existed whereby the disengager unilaterally ceases technologically
mediated communication with the recipient (suddenly or gradually) in lieu of pro-
viding a verbal explanation of disinterest.
Other researchers have disagreed. Kay and Courtice (2022) argue that both LeFebvre et al.'s
(2019) and Koessler et al.'s (2019a) definitions suffer from major weaknesses. Both include jar-
gon that requires “27 years of schooling” according to the Flesch Kincaid Readability Test
(p. 392), which is problematic when asking participants to self-report their experiences with
ghosting. LeFebvre et al. (2019) used snowball sampling, a biased recruitment method, for the
study through which they developed their definition. Koessler et al.'s (2019a) study was biased
towards romantic relationships and their definition accordingly required ghosting to occur
within a romantic context. Kay and Courtice (2022) also did not use a representative sample.
However, through their qualitative online survey, they generated a broader and more easily
understood definition of ghosting (p. 408):
One way that people can end a relationship is by ghosting. Ghosting is when one
person suddenly ignores or stops communicating with another person, without tell-
ing them why.
Researchers also disagree on the process of ghosting. While Kay and Courtice (2022) con-
cluded that ghosting is “sudden”, others have found more nuanced patterns. According to
LeFebvre et al.'s (2019) qualitative online study, ghosting varies in both suddenness and perma-
nence. Similarly, in a qualitative study on ghosting within friendships (Yap et al., 2021), the
strategy of “slowly pulling away” (p. 945) was often used for longer friendships. Koessler et al.
(2019a) further found that ghosters would sometimes lie or make excuses prior to ghosting.
Finally, perceptions of suddenness may depend on the party. In a qualitative study, while
ghosters often thought that they gradually ghosted the ghostee, ghostees typically perceived
ghosting as sudden (Thomas & Dubar, 2021).
1.2 | Reasons for ghosting
Several studies have investigated reasons for ghosting from the perspective of both the
ghoster and the ghostee, finding that ghosting can be attributed to the ghoster, the ghostee,
the relationship, or other circumstances. Among Dutch mobile daters, both ghosters and
ghostees were more likely to blame each other than to blame themselves or the circum-
stances for ghosting (Timmermans et al., 2021). Yet, nearly half of ghosters blamed them-
selves. With regards to attributions to the ghoster, ghosters and ghostees mentioned that
ghosting often occurs because of the ghoster's lack of interest in the ghostee or preference
for other partners (e.g., LeFebvre et al., 2019; LeFebvre et al., 2020; Thomas & Dubar, 2021;
Timmermans et al., 2021). A qualitative study focusing on friendships similarly found that
loss of interest was a common reason for ghosting (Yap et al., 2021). People also attribute
ghosting to the ghoster's negative qualities, including their lack of relationship readiness,
their commitment issues, their poor communication skills, their avoidance of confrontation,
and their cowardice (e.g., LeFebvre et al., 2020; Thomas & Dubar, 2021; Timmermans
et al., 2021).
Ghosting is often attributed to the ghostee as well. People often attribute their ghosting to
the ghostees' poor personality or their inability to accept romantic rejection (Timmermans
et al., 2021). Women especially mention ghosting due to safety concerns (e.g., fear that the
ghostee might hurt them; e.g., Freedman, Hales, et al., 2022; LeFebvre et al., 2019; Thomas &
Dubar, 2021). Accordingly, an experiment using hypothetical scenarios found that people more
greatly endorsed ghosting a romantic partner when the situation threatened their safety
(Freedman, Hales, et al., 2022). Meanwhile, ghosting within friendships has been explained
through self-preservation against a “toxic” friend, the annoying personality of the friend, and
overstepping of boundaries by the friend (Yap et al., 2021).
Sometimes ghosting is attributed to characteristics of the relationship rather than the indi-
viduals. For example, ghosting is used when the relationship is incompatible (LeFebvre
et al., 2020) or when the conversation (i.e., through text) is simply not going anywhere
(Manning et al., 2019).
Finally, ghosting is often attributed to circumstances outside of the relationship, such as
the benefits and ease of ghosting. Individuals blame dating apps and technology for making
ghosting easy (Timmermans et al., 2021), such as through increased access to people
(Thomas & Dubar, 2021). Indeed, a recent study (Halversen et al., 2022) found that women
on Bumble overwhelmingly used ghosting (90%) versus direct communication (10%) to reject
matches whom they had not met in person, and that several factors (their self-disclosure, their
perceptions of the partner's self-disclosure, and their stress regarding rejecting that partner)
predicted their rejection strategy. Interestingly, in line with previous work on motivations of
disengagers (Freedman et al., 2016), within both friendships and romantic relationships, peo-
ple sometimes believe that ghosting is less hurtful than direct rejection and report ghosting
others to preserve their feelings (Manning et al., 2019; Thomas & Dubar, 2021; Timmermans
et al., 2021; Yap et al., 2021). This indicates that ghosting can be self-oriented (showing con-
cern for the self) or other-oriented (showing concern for the partner; Baxter, 1984). Yet, inten-
tion does not seem to be necessary in ghosting. Participants sometimes accidentally ghost
friends (Yap et al., 2021) or romantic interests on mobile dating apps (Timmermans
et al., 2021) by forgetting to respond to messages.
1.3 | Attitudes toward ghosting
People typically see ghosting as wrong, but still justify their own ghosting behaviors (Manning
et al., 2019). In particular, ghosting is thought to prevent closure for the ghostee, and to be inde-
fensible in long-term romantic relationships (Manning et al., 2019). There are some conditions
under which ghosting is more acceptable, such as in short or unimportant relationships
(LeFebvre et al., 2019), in friendships compared with romantic relationships (Yap et al., 2021),
when drugs or alcohol were involved in the initial meeting (Manning et al., 2019), and on dat-
ing apps (Manning et al., 2019). Accordingly, over one-fifth of Dutch mobile daters justified
ghosting others on the app by saying that they did not “owe the other person anything”
(Timmermans et al., 2021, p. 10).
1.4 | Consequences of ghosting
Several researchers have examined how ghostees behave and feel as a consequence of being
ghosted. For example, Pancani et al. (2021) found through online surveys of Italian students
that responses occurred in stages that mirrored reactions to ostracism (i.e., social exclusion
through ignoring someone). Yet, little qualitative work has examined the consequences and
reactions to ghosting from the ghoster's perspective. Earlier research (as described
by Baxter, 1984) found that indirect methods of breaking up may prolong the negative experi-
ence and are often regretted by the disengager. In line with this research, Yap et al. (2021) inter-
viewed 15 young adults who ghosted their friends, finding that they often experienced guilt and
regret. However, participants also reported positive emotions (e.g., relief) and positive effects
from ghosting, such as self-reflection and self-growth. Ultimately, many were satisfied with
their decision to ghost because “it was the best option” (p. 946). In another study that asked
about perceived consequences, participants suggested that ghosters may feel awkward and
guilty about the awkwardness of the situation rather than feeling empathy for the ghostee
(Thomas & Dubar, 2021). Participants also believed that ghosters often feel remorse, relief, and
apathy.
A few quantitative studies have tested the consequences of ghosting for the ghoster. Freed-
man, Powell, et al. (2022) used Linguistic Inquiry Word Count to analyze the narratives written
by ghosters and ghostees in an online survey, finding that consistent with qualitative reports,
ghosters experienced more guilt and relief, whereas ghostees experienced more sadness and
hurt as well as a greater lack of “control, self-esteem, belongness, and existence” (p. 1).
Research on the closely related phenomenon of ostracism may provide additional insight
into potential consequences for the ghoster. Freedman et al.'s (2016) Responsive Theory of
Social Exclusion suggests that ostracism may be an especially harmful method of rejection, even
for the perpetrator. Ostracism may deprive the target of a sense of worthiness, belonging, con-
trol, and meaning; while exhausting the perpetrator given its slow, ongoing, and effortful
nature. Similar to ghosting, ostracism “requires violating the highly ingrained social norms of
attending, acknowledging, and responding to a person” (Freedman et al., 2016, p. 9). On the
other hand, a more direct method of rejection that is “thoughtful and sincere” may be less pain-
ful for both parties given its responsiveness to the target and lower backlash/emotional labor
for the disengager. In contrast to the Responsive Theory of Social Exclusion, Koessler et al.
(2019b) found that compared with those who directly broke up with others, ghosters experi-
enced less distress, however, relationships involving ghosting were shorter and less committed.
Overall, those who initiated the breakup, including ghosters, experienced more positive emo-
tions than negative emotions.
1.5 | Characteristics of ghosters
Many quantitative studies have examined the potential characteristics of ghosters. One study
found that age (youth) predicted frequency of ghosting on mobile dating apps, but gender did
not (Timmermans et al., 2021). With regard to personal qualities, intention to ghost romantic
partners and friends has been found to be positively associated with destiny beliefs and nega-
tively associated with growth beliefs (Freedman et al., 2019). Powell et al. (2021) replicated
these findings and further found that individuals who had ghosted a romantic partner were
higher in avoidant attachment, while individuals who had been ghosted by a partner
were higher in anxious attachment. Similarly, in earlier research (Collins & Gillath, 2012), those
who were more avoidant were more likely to use indirect methods to break up. Those with dark
triad traits (i.e., psychopathy, narcissism, Machiavellianism) are also more accepting of ghosting
in romantic relationships (Jonason et al., 2021). In an online survey of 626 adults in Spain
(Navarro et al., 2021), self-esteem, hostile conflict resolution styles, and withdrawal conflict res-
olution styles were positively correlated with the intention to ghost a romantic partner, and pos-
itive conflict resolution styles were negatively correlated with the intention to ghost. However,
sense of power, moral disengagement, empathy, and assertiveness all showed no correlation
with intention to ghost. Di Santo et al. (2022) found that both sociosexual orientation and extra-
version were positively associated with ghosting others. Finally, Leckfor et al. (2023) found that
in contrast to their expectations, the need for closure did not predict a lower intent to ghost, but
instead showed a small positive correlation.
1.6 | The current study
We aimed to understand ghosters' experiences, including the process of ghosting, reasons and
attributions for ghosting, feelings and behaviors associated with ghosting, and attitudes towards
ghosting. Research on ghosting is still emerging and has typically focused on ghosting in
romantic contexts (e.g, LeFebvre et al., 2019; Timmermans et al., 2021) despite the prevalence
of ghosting in other contexts such as friendships (Pancani et al., 2022; Powell et al., 2021). In
addition, ghosting has not been clearly operationalized (e.g., Kay & Courtice, 2022). Thus, we
did not limit our definition of ghosting to romantic relationships, friendships, or any specific
contexts (e.g., technology-mediated). Although previous qualitative studies have also examined
similar research questions, replication of qualitative studies is highly encouraged, especially
given the subjective nature of qualitative work as well as differences in methodology and popu-
lation (Koessler et al., 2019a). We hope that our findings will refine the current framework for
studying ghosting.
Yet, we expand on prior research in a few ways. First, we add to the very limited qualitative
work (Yap et al., 2021) on consequences of ghosting from the ghoster's perspective. Second,
nearly all the studies on ghosting have been conducted on predominantly White samples. The
one exception we found was Yap et al. (2021) which did not report race/ethnicity/nationality
but received IRB approval in the Philippines. Our study extends the literature to non-White
populations, which is crucial given differences in cultural values regarding close relationships.
Most of our participants were Latinx (65%), Asian (15%), or Black (12%), which allows us to
examine ghosting in populations that may be more interdependent (prioritizing connections
with close others over personal goals; Markus & Kitayama, 1991) than Whites in the US and
may thus view ghosting differently. For example, Latinxs have been found to value simpatia,
which emphasizes politeness and the needs of others in interpersonal interactions (Rodríguez-
Arauz et al., 2019). Compared to White Americans, Asian Americans also use a more interper-
sonally sensitive communication style, which is at the same time more indirect and contextual
(Park & Kim, 2008).
Differences in interdependence between Black and White Americans are more nuanced.
For example, compared with Whites, Black Americans have been found to be greater in hori-
zontal individualism (valuing equality and independence), but lower in vertical individualism
(valuing hierarchy and independence; Komarraju & Cokley, 2008). While both groups value
uniqueness, White Americans have a greater preference for competition with and separation
from others (Komarraju & Cokley, 2008). The authors suggest that Black Americans may have
more difficulty with seeing themselves as separate from others given their position as a margin-
alized group in society. Black Americans' horizontal individualism may instead correspond with
greater self-expression. Overall, given their greater connection with others or attunement
towards others' needs, these cultural groups (Latinx, Asian American, Black American) might
experience ghosting, particularly ghosting others, in a more negative manner. On the other
hand, some groups (e.g., Asian Americans) may prefer this more indirect method of ending a
relationship.
Finally, we used face-to-face semi-structured interviews which allowed for probing and an
in-depth understanding of participants' experiences. Only one other study we found used face-
to-face interviews (Manning et al., 2019). Most other qualitative studies utilized online surveys
(e.g., Koessler et al., 2019a; LeFebvre et al., 2019, 2020; Timmermans et al., 2021). One held
mixed-gender focus groups to gather perceptions of emerging adults (Thomas & Dubar, 2021)
and another interviewed participants through video chat (Yap et al., 2021).
2 | METHOD
Note that this research is part of a larger study on the experiences of ghosters and ghostees,
therefore, the procedure and analytical approach are also reported elsewhere (Wu &
Bamishigbin, Unpublished manuscript).
2.1 | Participants
We recruited 37 undergraduate students (ages 18–30) at a large public university on the

United States West Coast through the Human Subjects Research Pool and flyers posted on cam-
pus. We kept our recruiting materials open-ended, simply asking if participants had ghosted or
had been ghosted by “a romantic partner, family member, friend, or acquaintance”. Twenty-six
(70%) participated in interviews as both a ghoster and ghostee, eight (22%) participated only as
a ghoster, and three (8%) participated as only a ghostee. For this research, we analyzed and
reported findings from the 34 participants (M age = 19.74, SD = 1.85) who were interviewed on
experiences of ghosting others. Out of these 34 participants, 68% identified as female and 32%
identified as male. Participants identified as Latinx (65%), Asian/Asian American (15%), Black/
African American (12%), European/European American (3%), Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander

(3%), or Middle Eastern (3%). Eighty-eight percent identified as straight/heterosexual, 6% identi-
fied as bisexual, 3% identified as gay, and one person declined to respond.
Interviews were held from November 2019 to February 2020 until the COVID-19 pandemic
halted in-person research. Participants received one extra credit per hour of participation, and
could receive up to two extra credits for participating in both the ghoster and ghostee interviews
(1 h each). One person chose to receive a $5 Starbuck's Gift Card instead.
2.2 | Procedure
This study was approved by the university's Institutional Review Board and performed in accor-
dance with the ethical standards outlined in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki. Semi-structured
interviews were conducted by 10 trained research assistants (seven women, three men) at an
on-campus laboratory. To ensure the comfort of participants, all interviews were gender mat-
ched. At the study session, participants consented to the study and then completed a 2-to-5-min
online Qualtrics survey regarding their demographic characteristics (i.e., age, gender, sexual ori-
entation, and racial/ethnic background). Next, participants completed one or two worksheets
about a memorable experience as a ghoster, ghostee, or both. Each worksheet took approxi-
mately 10–15 min to complete. Afterward, participants were interviewed by a research assistant
about their experiences with ghosting. All interviews were audio recorded. The interviews
ranged from 12 to 55 min (M = 34.68, SD = 11.30).
Research assistants followed an interview guide (see Supplementary Online Materials for all
the prepared questions), which included three main sections: (1) Ghosting background, includ-
ing how they know when they have ghosted someone, frequency of ghosting others, who they
typically ghost, why they typically ghost others, what actions they take to ghost others, and how
they feel when they ghost others; (2) A memorable ghosting experience, including relationship
with the ghostee, the process of ghosting, reactions (behaviors and emotions) to ghosting, rea-
sons and attributions for ghosting, feelings towards and perceptions of the ghostee, and satisfac-
tion with the decision to ghost; and (3) Ghosting attitudes and opinions, including the benefits
and drawbacks of ghosting, acceptable reasons for ghosting, and perceptions of ghosters and
ghostees. In addition, research assistants were trained to ask follow-up questions to gain a
deeper understanding of the participants' thoughts and experiences. After the study sessions,
research assistants transcribed the interviews. All transcripts were checked and edited as
needed by another research assistant.
2.3 | Analyses
The research team (two lead researchers and four research assistants) analyzed the data
through inductive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) informed by grounded theory anal-
ysis (Creswell, 2009). Given the newness of the topic and the understudied population (most
participants were people of color), we used a “blank slate” inductive approach in which codes
and themes emerge entirely from the data (Braun & Clarke, 2006), We did not wish to make
assumptions about experiences of ghosting based upon prior literature or our pre-existing
beliefs.
We used the software Taguette for coding, analyzing each transcript as a whole rather than
isolating answers to individual questions (Braun & Clarke, 2006). In the initial/open coding
stage, the two lead researchers independently read through the same transcripts and tagged the
data using codes (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Creswell, 2009). Initial codes included a mixture of
descriptive codes and conceptual codes as used in grounded theory analysis (Creswell, 2009).
The lead researchers continued the process until few new codes were emerging
(at 10 interviews).
In the second stage, the lead researchers began to engage in axial/theoretical coding, for-
ming connections between the open codes (Creswell, 2009). The lead researchers independently
categorized, synthesized, and interpreted their codes and then met to discuss patterns and pre-
liminary themes, finding that they closely agreed. They then worked together to develop a code-
book with preliminary themes, including definitions and examples of each theme.
Together, they trained four research assistants (one who had conducted interviews) to code
the remaining 27 interviews. Discussions involving the entire research team allowed us to
define codes more precisely and to refine the codebook accordingly (Elliott, 2018).
In the focused coding stage (Sbaraini et al., 2011), research assistants coded interviews for
the preliminary themes through Taguette, adding new codes as needed. Coders were trained to
include the context of each code by tagging the entire response and if needed, the interviewer's
question (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Finally, one of the lead researchers engaged in further axial/
theoretical coding and selective coding (Creswell, 2009). To finalize the themes, the researcher
read through all the codes, considering the interrelations between the categories, the evidence
for each theme, and the meaning of each theme in the context of the research question.
In addition to coding the data qualitatively through Taguette, research assistants conducted
quantitative coding on close-ended interview questions including frequency of ghosting, rela-
tionship with the ghostee, and satisfaction with the decision to ghost.
Each interview was quantitatively and qualitatively coded by at least two research assistants.
A third researcher (a lead researcher) checked codes and referred to the transcripts to resolve
any discrepancies in the quantitative codes. The same researcher also worked with the research
assistants to discuss qualitative codes throughout the coding process.
2.4 | Positionality
As stated by Curran and Randall (2021), it is important for scholars to acknowledge how their
identities may inform their research, especially pertaining to the identities of participants. Our
participants were primarily from underrepresented populations within relationships research,
that is, mostly Latinx, Asian/Asian American, or Black/African American. The two lead
researchers were also from two of these ethnic/racial groups. One identifies as a cisgender
Asian American woman and the other identifies as a cisgender heterosexual Black man. Par-
tially because of these identities, the lead researchers have a special interest in advancing
research on underrepresented populations. Neither were from the majority group of Latinx par-
ticipants, which could have led to missed cultural references within the interviews, however,
this mistake was minimized given that most of the research assistants were Latinx. Of the
10 research assistants who conducted the interviews, seven were Latina women, two were
Latino men, and one was an Asian American man. All four of the research assistants who
quantitatively and qualitatively coded data were Latina women. Overall, the racial/ethnic
demographics of our research team were fairly similar to that of our sample, which likely
allowed for greater rapport in interviews as well as cultural knowledge during analysis and
interpretation.
3 | R E SUL T S
3.1 | Descriptives
Most participants ghosted sparingly. Forty-four percent of ghosters “almost never” ghosted,
followed by 28% who ghosted “once every few years”. Twenty-eight percent ghosted once a year
or more. About half (48%) said they ghosted less often than when they were younger, 37% said
they ghosted more often, and 15% said that there was little change.
With regard to the memorable experience of ghosting another person, participants men-
tioned both romantic and non-romantic relationships including friendships and family relation-
ships. Twenty-nine percent discussed ghosting a long-term partner (committed for over
6 months), 24% discussed a new friend, 18% discussed a suitor (someone romantically interested
in them), 15% discussed a long-term friend, 12% discussed a short-term partner, 6% discussed a
love interest (someone they were interested in), 6% discussed a family member, and 6% dis-
cussed an acquaintance. Note that relationships (e.g., a long-term friend who became a suitor)
were coded in multiple categories when applicable. Ghosters mentioned frequent interactions
with ghostees prior to ghosting. Seventy-three percent interacted with the ghostee at least daily,
15% interacted with them a few times a week, and 12% interacted with them once a week or
less. In terms of the ghosting strategy, 46% both ignored and blocked the ghostee, 46% only
ignored them, and 9% immediately blocked them. Half (50%) were satisfied with their decision
to ghost the person, one-third (32%) were not satisfied, and 18% were ambivalent.
3.2 | Themes
We found eight major themes (described below) regarding ghosters' experiences. Four (A Clear
Cause, Avoidance of Confrontation, Short-term Orientation, Ghostees as Socially Inferior) cor-
responded with reasons for ghosting, two (Ignoring then Blocking, Attempts by Ghostee to
Reach Out) corresponded with the process of ghosting, and two (Mixed and Evolving Feelings,
Recognition of Harm) corresponded with consequences of ghosting. These themes are also sum-
marized in Table 1. For context, we report the frequency of each theme below, however, these
counts should be interpreted with caution as greater frequency does not translate to greater
importance (Elliott, 2018).
3.2.1 | Reasons for ghosting
A clear cause (present in 33/34 interviews)

In the memorable ghosting scenario, nearly all ghosters pointed to a clear cause that led them
to ghost the other person. Many reported a pivotal event that involved unreciprocated feelings,
inappropriate behavior of the ghostee including clinginess and pushiness, incompatibility, or
negative interactions with the ghostee. A 19-year-old heterosexual Latina woman described the
ghostee's pushiness:
T A B L E 1 Summary of themes about ghosters' experiences.
Category Theme Sub-themes Sub-theme examples

Reasons for A clear cause Unreciprocated “…We were talking for a while and of course, I
ghosting feelings found her on Tinder so you know…I was tryna
[sic] see if you know if we'd be able to work
out more, you know, than just being friends.
But, um, after I had um, explained that I
wanted to be s—more and…they expressed
that it wasn't really in their best interest to be
dating at the moment. So, um, you know my
feelings were obviously I-I tried not to take it
as hard but, you know…even then I kinda [sic]
just took it hard so I just stopped.”
Inappropriate “I knew that he did not want the same things
behavior of as me, he wanted something way more than
ghostee I could give him at that time…he was very
persistent about it even though I told him
like, ‘You know, I-I cannot do that right
now, if we could just be friends that'd be
awesome,’ but he was very persistent very
flirtatious and…I did not want that so I just
decided to stop talking to him.”
Incompatibility “We were having a really good conversation
but then it started getting to point where…it
wasn't how I interact…and I felt like with
this person we did not relate in so many
ways and I felt like that's why we had to
like—I had to do what I had to do.”
Negative “I ghosted because I felt like she was very
interactions with negative and mean and rude so I feel like if I
ghostee would explain like, ‘This is how my 5 day
went,’ she's like ‘No, no, no, no, no let me
just talk about how I was. Let me just talk
about me.’ She's family so I mean I was okay
with it but for a while I just got tired of it
and…she was being judgmental towards a lot
of things that was going on in my life, so I felt
like I was just having to just ignore her…”
Avoidance of Ease of ghosting “I'm like dude if it does not work out it's so
confrontation easy to just not reply to people, so I'm
gonna [sic] say ghosting gives you that, that
comfort, that if it does not work out you can
easily just not reply.”
Lack of “…When I was in high school I would do
communication [ghosting] all the time. I would just, like,
skills/emotional block, block, block. I feel like it was, just…
maturity more harder, or I would just be more shy to
tell them so I would just avoid the
confrontation, but now…it's not that hard.
You just tell them…”
T A B L E 1 (Continued)

Short-term Relationships as “…On Instagram people be like, if this
orientation disposable person do not work then find-then find
another you know…”
Ghosters as players “…I love the chase of talking to girls and

having them in your—on your side and
stuff, but I did not want nothing more than
that and they probably did because of the
way I talked to them…”
Fear of commitment “I ghost people that have feelings for me
because I'm a type of person that is very
scared of commitment because I've been in
um toxic abusive relationships before and I
grew up in a household where um the
marriage and the relationship wasn't
stable…”
Ghostees as “They are weak and…they do not have the
socially ability to send—set boun-boundaries
inferior between people. Like they fall for…they
have too much hopes—they bring their
hopes too high for a certain person…”
Ghosting Ignoring then “…[I] ignored them at first because I thought
processes blocking it would just end there, but I noticed um a
lot of posting and a lot of um, like uh, I
guess direct posts towards me…so that's why
I decide to block.”
Attempts by Direct “…She started calling me and she started
ghostee to communication texting me like, ‘Why you got me blocked?’
reach out This-this and that…”
Social media “I just felt like, he thought I was gonna text
activities him, and then since he knew I had feelings
for him he started dating other girls, and he
would post about them too, and he thought
that I would text him but like, I never did.
So, I guess you could say that he would try
to do little things to try to trigger me or hurt
me, but I just, I would just let it be. I would
still ghost him. I would still ignore him.”
Mutual connections “So her mom and my mom are pretty close.
Her mom called my mom asking what is
going on. At first it was a regular
conversation…I was there through the call
and then her mom brings up my name and
she goes, ‘How is she?’…and then she asked
‘Is she busy? Is she doing anything?’ And
my mom responded, ‘No she's not. Why?’
‘Her cousin keeps trying to text her,
message her but she's not responding.’
(Continues)

Then my mom comes up with an excuse…
yea I think she reacted more to it by telling
her mom to call my mom.”
Extreme responses/ “…He would text me through another number
stalking or he had like, two Snapchats so he would
have me from one and then like since I
blocked him from that one he would go to
the second one or he'll text me from like his
sisters phone and she would go to my job.
He was like, ‘Hey, like can I talk to you?’”
Consequences Mixed and Cognitive “Like the first few seconds after, I'll feel bad
of ghosting evolving dissonance and then I would talk to myself and I'm
feelings like, ‘No, you are doing this to better
yourself’… so then I'll feel better after and
then sometimes the bad feelings come back
like…it's like a war of feeling bad and
feeling good.”
Developing “At first I did not feel bad…I think that's
remorse/regret because I was just young and kinda [sic]
immature…I did not feel anything at all.
Like it was just a quick band aid…as I grew
older I think back and I-I think like my-my
move was such selfish and bad.”
Deep sense of loss “I would cry like every day, because I lost a
person I really cared about, my best friend,
like, my childhood friend, like a person that
knew everything about me. So I would just
cry and I was angry, not with him, but with
myself. I just, I honestly, like, my head was
like all over the place, like I did not know
what to do at that point, but at that point, I
realized, like, I made so much damage that
I could not just go back and be like, ‘You
know, I'm sorry,’ so I thought that I was
going to hurt him more being in his life so I
just like left it how it was.”
Recognition of Ghosting as wrong “It's kinda [sic] the coward's way out,
harm honestly, um, be upfront about your
feelings you know, if you are gonna [sic] cut
someone off give ‘em reasons too. It's not
healthy for you and it's not healthy for the
other person, you know, there's a lot of
open-ended questions in that and you do
not wanna [sic] have those rattling around
the other person's brain.”

Permanent damage “So I felt like I gave him, like, trust issues,
to ghostee like he started developing trust issues. He
started being-he started being really rude,
so he started building this barrier around
him where he would not let people inside
anymore.”
Ghosting as “…I think if you are talking to someone and…

acceptable for you communicated your feelings and you
“good reasons” told them, ‘I'm not into this,’ and they do
not stop, then ghosting's the best thing you
can do, like, they keep like pressuring you,
texting you, calling you and you have
already communicated with them that you
do not intend to pursue any of that then
ghosting's the option.”
I knew that he didn't want the same things as me, he wanted something way more
than I could give him at that time…he was very persistent about it even though I
told him like, “You know, I-I can't do that right now, if we could just be friends
that'd be awesome,” but he was very persistent very flirtatious and…I didn't want
that so I just decided to stop talking to him.
As shown in the above quote, ghosters sometimes used direct communication with the ghostee
before ghosting. Similarly, a 19-year-old Latino man who ghosted a short-term partner said, “I
kinda [sic] explained to him, I mean, that they're always on their phone, not as much attention
that I'm giving them, and just ignoring my jokes and all.”
Although it was more common to ghost romantic suitors, sometimes people ghosted roman-
tic interests who did not reciprocate their feelings. A 19-year-old heterosexual Latino man
explained:
…We were talking for a while and of course, I found her on Tinder so you know…I
was tryna [sic] see if you know if we'd be able to work out more, you know, than
just being friends. But, um, after I had um, explained that I wanted to be s—more
and…they expressed that it wasn't really in their best interest to be dating at the
moment. So, um, you know my feelings were obviously I-I tried not to take it as
hard but, you know…even then I kinda [sic] just took it hard so I just stopped.
People typically ghosted friends or family members due to incompatibility and/or negative
interactions. One woman (Age 20, heterosexual, Latina) who ghosted a family member
described emotionally unpleasant interactions due to the ghostee's negative traits:
I ghosted because I felt like she was very negative and mean and rude so I feel like
if I would explain like, “This is how my five day went,” she's like “No, no, no, no,
no let me just talk about how I was. Let me just talk about me.” She's family so I
mean I was okay with it but for a while I just got tired of it and…she was being
judgmental towards a lot of things that was going on in my life, so I felt like I was
just having to just ignore her…
An 18-year-old bisexual Asian woman ghosted a long-term friend for similar reasons,
explaining:
I started getting really annoyed with their actions because if they would have a
problem or anything they would just continuously complain about it, and if I tried
to give her advice she would just brush it off and say like, “Okay but like this.” She
would keep going and just keep complaining and she wouldn't take any of my sug-
gestions and if I tried to help her she would just say basically, like, “Okay but that
doesn't help,” so I just got fed up with her and I just cut it off.
New friends were also ghosted due to incompatibility. “We were having a really good conversa-
tion but then it started getting to point where…it wasn't how I interact…and I felt like with this
person we didn't relate in so many ways and I felt like that's why we had to like—I had to do
what I had to do,” stated a 20-year-old heterosexual Latina woman.
Avoidance of confrontation (present in 30/34 interviews)

Ghosters frequently engaged in ghosting due to avoidance of confrontation. A 19-year-old het-
erosexual Latina woman explained her avoidance of confrontation as a character trait. “I'm the
type of person that I avoid confrontation and if the person is mad at me or if I'm bothered with
them I just block them out of my life until they talk to me again. But if they don't talk to me
again I just like-I just leave without saying anything.” Another woman (19-year-old heterosex-
ual Latina) stated that ghosting is easy and provides “comfort” in dating. “I'm like dude if it
doesn't work out it's so easy to just not reply to people, so I'm gonna [sic] say ghosting gives you
that, that comfort, that if it doesn't work out you can easily just not reply.”
Some ghosters believed that as they grew older, they became more mature and better able to
communicate and handle feelings, thus decreasing in ghosting and increasing in direct commu-
nication. “…When I was in high school I would do [ghosting] all the time. I would just, like,
block, block, block. I feel like it was, just…more harder, or I would just be more shy to tell them
so I would just avoid the confrontation, but now…it's not that hard. You just tell them…”
explained a 22-year-old heterosexual Latina woman.
Short-term orientation (present in 18/34 interviews)

Ghosters often characterized other ghosters as selfish or short-term oriented, including in pla-
tonic contexts. For example, ghosters might use other people for a specific purpose or see them
as disposable. One woman (Age 18, Asian, bisexual) explained, “…For example if they don't
want a relationship out of that person, but they only want them for something else, they only
want one thing out of that person so you're more likely to ghost them.” A 19-year-old heterosex-
ual Black man attributed ghosting to the perception of endless opportunities on social media.
“…On Instagram people be like, if this person don't work then find-then find another
you know…”
In addition, ghosters sometimes described themselves or other ghosters as “players” or “pop-
ular” with “more options”. A 22-year-old heterosexual Latina woman explained how her own
behavior informed her perception of other ghosters. “… I feel like they have to [be] players
because they probably talk to a lot of people and then once they find a little thing they don't like
they're, like, ‘block’, and then they continue talking to someone else and once they find some-
thing they're like, ‘block,’ and once they find something they like, they continue talking to
them, you know what I mean? So that's something that I used to do.” Similarly, an 18-year-old
heterosexual Asian man stated, “…I love the chase of talking to girls and having them in your—
on your side and stuff, but I didn't want nothing more than that and they probably did because
of the way I talked to them…” One woman (Age 19, heterosexual, Latina) believed that ghosters
were more popular. “…I mean if they ghost you, it's because there [sic] other people out there,
so… definitely have more options I think, perhaps they're more social in that way.”
On the other hand, a few participants mentioned fear of commitment rather than the inten-
tion of “playing” others. A 19-year-old heterosexual Latina woman said, “I ghost people that
have feelings for me because I'm a type of person that is very scared of commitment because
I've been in um toxic abusive relationships before and I grew up in a household where um the
marriage and the relationship wasn't stable…”.
Ghostees as socially inferior (present in 20/34 interviews)

The majority of ghosters ascribed negative qualities to ghostees, deeming them socially inferior
and/or awkward. Ghosters described ghostees as “clingy”, “pushy”, “annoying”, “obnoxious”,
“jealous”, “toxic”, “boring”, “clueless”, “fake”, “trying too hard”, “insecure”, “incompetent”,
“not likeable”, “shy”, “antisocial”, “weak”, and “a pushover”. For instance, when asked about
the characteristics of ghostees, a 21-year-old heterosexual Asian woman replied, “They are weak
and…they don't have the ability to send—set boun-boundaries between people. Like they fall
for…they have too much hopes—they bring their hopes too high for a certain person…” Another
woman (Age 18, heterosexual, Latina) explained how her regard for her long-term friend
dropped after she ghosted him. “…I didn't have any feelings but I—my opinions did change
about him…I used to think he was like a cool person just cause I was friends—I was friends
with him before. But now I just think that he just likes to look—he just makes up things just
for him to look good.” Yet, some felt that anyone could be ghosted.
3.2.2 | Ghosting processes
Ignoring then blocking (present in 16/34 interviews)

While ghosters used different strategies to ghost, most did not start out by blocking the ghostee.
Many describe ghosting as a process in which they first ignore the ghostee in some contexts and
then escalate to blocking if needed, such as if the ghostee kept attempting to contact them. A
19-year-old heterosexual Latina woman who ghosted a family member explained:
…after I had been ignoring her already for a while she would send accidental texts
and pictures or like, little things that would remind me of her or she would send
me requests, like follow requests. So I just ended up blocking her from my phone
so I wouldn't get any texts from her or accidental ones. But, before that, I had
ignored her and I was like, “Oh, I'm not gonna respond or anything” but then she
was just trying to reach out so I blocked her because I felt she was going to try to
reach out and I didn't want her to.
Sometimes blocking was because of public attempts by the ghostee to reach out via social media
posts or comments. When asked about her approach to ghosting, an 18-year-old heterosexual
Latina woman who ghosted a romantic suitor stated, “…[I] ignored them at first because I
thought it would just end there, but I noticed um a lot of posting and a lot of um, like uh,
I guess direct posts towards me…so that's why I decide to block.” A 19-year-old heterosexual
Black man relayed a similar experience: “…I was just deleting the comments, but then after a
minute like she would just re-post it again, and so I was like, ‘Okay, now Imma [sic] just
block you.’”
Attempts by Ghostee to reach out (present in 27/34 interviews)

In relation to the previous theme, when recalling the memorable ghosting scenario, ghosters
described attempts by the ghostee to re-establish communication through various means,
including direct communication, social media activities, and mutual connections. Sometimes
these attempts were extreme, involving in-person confrontations and new/hidden identities.
Many ghostees directly asked the ghoster for answers. A 19-year-old heterosexual Black man
who ghosted a long-term romantic partner stated, “…She started calling me and she started
texting me like, ‘Why you got me blocked?’ This-this and that…” Some ghosters mentioned
indirect attempts to communicate, often through social media activities including “friend
requests”, “likes” on their posts, and posts directed at them. One woman (Age 19, heterosexual,
Latina) believed that her long-term friend (who had started to become more than friends prior
to the ghosting) was attempting to hurt her through his social media posts.
I just felt like, he thought I was gonna text him, and then since he knew I had feel-
ings for him he started dating other girls, and he would post about them too, and
he thought that I would text him but like, I never did. So, I guess you could say that
he would try to do little things to try to trigger me or hurt me, but I just, I would
just let it be. I would still ghost him. I would still ignore him.
Family members and mutual friends were sometimes approached by the ghostee for informa-
tion. A 20-year-old heterosexual Latina woman who ghosted her cousin spoke of their mothers'
involvement:
So her mom and my mom are pretty close. Her mom called my mom asking what
is going on. At first it was a regular conversation…I was there through the call and
then her mom brings up my name and she goes, “How is she?”…and then she
asked “Is she busy? Is she doing anything?” And my mom responded, “No she's
not. Why?” “Her cousin keeps trying to text her, message her but she's not
responding.” Then my mom comes up with an excuse…yea I think she reacted
more to it by telling her mom to call my mom.
Sometimes attempts were so extreme that they might be considered stalking. When asked how
the ghostee, a short-term partner, reacted to being ghosted, a 22-year-old heterosexual Latina
woman replied, “Umm, I feel like he was very insistent at first…He would text me. Call me. He
would come to my house or—cause he knew where I lived, my parents and everything.”
Ghostees would also use other phone numbers or accounts to contact the ghoster. Another
woman (Age 20, heterosexual, Latina) who ghosted a romantic suitor stated, “…He would text
me through another number or he had like, two Snapchats so he would have me from one and
then like since I blocked him from that one he would go to the second one or he'll text me from
like his sisters phone and she would go to my job. He was like, ‘Hey, like can I talk to you?’”
3.2.3 | Consequences of ghosting
Mixed and evolving feelings (present in 29/34 interviews)

Ghosters experienced complex emotions. Ghosters were often “happy” and “relieved”, yet felt
“guilty”, “bad”, “sad”, “regretful” and “remorseful” about hurting another person, doing the
“wrong thing”, or losing a friend. Ghosters would sometimes deal with negative emotions by
justifying their actions. One woman (Age 19, heterosexual, Latina) who ghosted a new friend/
romantic suitor explained, “…First it's initial relief because you, you got them off your back and
then it's like…you feel like really bad guilt cause you realize I have been in that position before,
and it's like, it doesn't feel so nice, so I feel bad, and then I realize I do it what I do for a reason
and then like, I'm okay.” Another participant (Age 18, heterosexual, Asian, male) expressed
cognitive dissonance. “Like the first few seconds after, I'll feel bad and then I would talk to
myself and I'm like, ‘No, you're doing this to better yourself’… so then I'll feel better after and
then sometimes the bad feelings come back like…it's like a war of feeling bad and feeling good.”
An 18-year-old heterosexual Latina woman felt better after thinking about how the ghostee
(her romantic suitor) reacted. “I felt bad at first, cause it was like this sudden, just stop texting
him and he would keep like texting me and he would keep like tryna [sic] contact me or like he
would text my friends. So at first I felt bad but…because he was…so insisting it got like over-
whelming as well, so after a while I just like got over feeling bad for-for doing it.” Another par-
ticipant (19-year-old heterosexual Latino man) felt that it was “unfair” that he needed to ghost
his long-term partner, but believed that the end justified the means. “…It was hard at first. I
didn't like it. It felt really unjust in a way. Unfair that I felt that I had to do it like that. Not that
it was the right way to do it, but that I also kept telling myself it was the right thing, eventually
in the long run it was gonna [sic] help me. And it did. I feel like it did. Eventually it did cause I
just moved on.”
While some ghosters grew happy in the long run with their decision to ghost, others later
developed remorse or regret. An 18-year-old heterosexual Asian man who ghosted a new friend
2-to-3 years ago described how he regretted his “selfish” act. “At first I didn't feel bad…I think
that's because I was just young and kinda [sic] immature…I didn't feel anything at all. Like it
was just a quick band aid…as I grew older I think back and I-I think like my-my move was such
selfish and bad.” Another participant (21-year-old bisexual Latina woman) later realized that
she missed her romantic suitor.
When I first like ghosted him like I didn't really care, I was like, “Eh I really don't
care about his feelings like eh”… but then like as days went on…I felt really bad
and I felt like I-like I really did miss them and I felt like I really messed up and I
was like thinking of all the things like, him and I went out sometimes too like on
little dates and all that and I was just thinking like, “Well he-you know he was
actually a great person,” and um I don't know why like I-you know-why I did all
these things to him, “He didn't deserve that”…I guess I realized afterwards like,
“Oh you know what I think I do care more about this person than I thought,” and
I was just like just trying to suppress like those feelings.
For some ghosters, ghosting came with a deep sense of loss. A 19-year-old heterosexual Latina
woman who ghosted a long-term romantic partner described, “I felt incomplete because…that
person made me happy…he made me feel good, and um, also felt sad…disappointed because I
didn't think I would have to get to that point, of myself to ghost him…we didn't end in bad
terms, we ended in good terms and I was disappointed in myself for just doing that.” Another
woman (Age 19, heterosexual, Latina) described intense pain and considered reconciling with
her childhood friend.
I would cry like every day, because I lost a person I really cared about, my best
friend, like, my childhood friend, like a person that knew everything about me. So
I would just cry and I was angry, not with him, but with myself. I just, I honestly,
like, my head was like all over the place, like I didn't know what to do at that point,
but at that point, I realized, like, I made so much damage that I couldn't just go
back and be like, “You know, I'm sorry,” so I thought that I was going to hurt him
more being in his life so I just like left it how it was.
Yet others reported no feelings at all, typically when the relationship was perceived as insub-
stantial. A woman (Age 20, heterosexual, Latina) who ghosted a new friend stated, “I didn't
really have any feelings or anything that changed, because again we had only met for a short
period of time…” Similarly, a 19-year-old heterosexual Latino man who ghosted a short-term
relationship partner said, “…I didn't really get too attached to them, within that one-to-two
months, so didn't really feel anything after I ghosted ‘em.” A 22-year-old heterosexual Black
woman explained how ghosting friendships versus romantic connections had a different
impact. “…It doesn't really faze me eh-or make me feel any way with the guys that I ghost but
when it comes to like, friendships I do feel sad erm, because obviously this person wants to get
in contact with me erm, but I don't want to anymore. And it's not so I feel sad because I want
to connect with them it's more so I could have took a better approach as to why I don't want a
relationship anymore.”
Recognition of harm (present in 32/34 interviews)

Most ghosters believed that ghosting causes harm or even permanent damage, and that direct
communication is ideal. They often referred to ghosting as “selfish”, “immature”, and “wrong”;
and stated that ghosting results in lack of closure for the ghostee along with negative emotions
such as confusion, hurt, sadness, anger, and feelings of worthlessness. A 22-year-old heterosex-
ual Latina woman stated, “I think it's very immature…we need to learn how to communicate,
we need to learn how to confront and if unpleasant feelings are going to come like you need to
learn how to acknowledge them, how to deal with them, how to cope with them and um, I
don't think people should be ghosted, at all.” Another woman (Age 19, heterosexual, Latina)
believed that ghosting was harmful for both the ghoster and ghostee. “It's kinda [sic] the cow-
ard's way out, honestly, um, be upfront about your feelings you know, if you're gonna [sic] cut
someone off give ‘em reasons too. It's not healthy for you and it's not healthy for the other per-
son, you know, there's a lot of open-ended questions in that and you don't wanna [sic] have
those rattling around the other person's brain.” Similarly, a 22-year-old heterosexual White
man stated, “…I don't think there's a good reason to ever ghost somebody…I mean you're at
least robbing them of closure if you're robbing them of nothing else.” For some, being ghosted
made them understand the harmful nature of ghosting. “This whole situation of me getting
ghosted, um, kinda [sic] just made me realize, like, “Damn, like, karma is true!”, you know?
[laughs] But then it also just made me realize, like, damn, like, I kinda [sic] understand how
this other person felt…Like, kinda [sic] made me put myself into their shoes, and, now I'm just
like reflecting and I'm just like, so this is how it feels,” explained an 18-year-old Latina woman.
Some ghosters further felt that ghosting could lead to permanent damage for the ghostee. A
19-year-old heterosexual Latina woman described how her long-term friend's personality chan-
ged as a result. “So I felt like I gave him, like, trust issues, like he started developing trust issues.
He started being-he started being really rude, so he started building this barrier around him
where he wouldn't let people inside anymore.” An 18-year-old heterosexual Asian man also
described how these fears could impact ghostees.
Because you're basically just leaving someone on the-on the edge of the cliff…the
other person deserves to know why you're choosing to cut them off out of your
life…if you don't then the other person is just going to keep wondering their whole
life like, ‘What did I do wrong, is something wrong with me?’ And the other person
will be afraid to let another person in their life because they're afraid that-that will
happen again.
Others described how ghosting could lower a person's self-esteem or confidence. A 19-year-old
heterosexual Asian woman who ghosted a new friend stated, “…he started questioning himself
and asking like, ‘Oh what did I do wrong?’…he started asking, ‘Oh what's the matter what's the
problem like did I hurt you or did I do anything wrong with you?’…He started to question him-
self in a way that kind of lowered down his confidence as well.” A 22-year-old heterosexual
Black woman described how her experience on the other side as a ghostee informed her beliefs.
“…Going through being ghosted, it did make me feel like low about myself and my appearance
and had me question was he really into me? Did he really like me? For what I look like? Or did
he not? …So it can really hurt somebody self-esteem …”.
Although attitudes toward ghosting were generally negative, ghosters often felt that ghost-
ing was acceptable for “good reasons” such as physical danger, stalking, harassment, pushiness,
persistence, “toxic” people, and not knowing the ghostee well (e.g., if the ghostee is a stranger).
A 22-year-old heterosexual Latina woman explained when ghosting should be used. “…I think
if you're talking to someone and…you communicated your feelings and you told them, ‘I'm not
into this,’ and they don't stop, then ghosting's the best thing you can do, like, they keep like
pressuring you, texting you, calling you and you've already communicated with them that you
don't intend to pursue any of that then ghosting's the option.”
4 | DISCUSSION
We set forth to explore and provide a rich description of ghosting from the ghosters' perspective.
Our findings mostly replicated prior research on ghosting. Through in-person semi-structured
interviews, we found eight major themes corresponding with reasons for ghosting (A Clear
Cause, Avoidance of Confrontation, Short-term Orientation, Ghostees as Socially Inferior), the
process of ghosting (Ignoring then Blocking, Attempts by Ghostee to Reach Out), and conse-
quences of ghosting (Mixed and Evolving Feelings, Recognition of Harm).
Consistent with prior quantitative and qualitative research (e.g., LeFebvre et al., 2019;
LeFebvre et al., 2020; Thomas & Dubar, 2021; Timmermans et al., 2021; Yap et al., 2021),
ghosters attributed ghosting to various causes including the situation (e.g. incompatibility,
unreciprocated feelings of either the ghoster or ghostee, the ease of ghosting), their own disposi-
tion (e.g., fear of confrontation, immaturity, selfishness, being a “player”), and the ghostee's
negative traits or behavior (e.g., clinginess, pushiness, toxicity). Ghosters' reports supported
prior quantitative findings that immaturity (Timmermans et al., 2021), poor conflict resolution
styles (Navarro et al., 2021), avoidant attachment (Powell et al., 2021), sociosexuality (Di Santo
et al., 2022), and extraversion (Di Santo et al., 2022) contribute to ghosting tendencies. Interest-
ingly, while prior research suggests that in romantic contexts, people ghost to reject the ghostee
(e.g., LeFebvre et al., 2019; LeFebvre et al., 2020; Thomas & Dubar, 2021; Timmermans
et al., 2021), we found that people also ghost after rejection by the ghostee.
Importantly, ghosting was not limited to romantic relationships. In their memorable ghost-
ing experiences, about one-third of participants discussed ghosting platonic friends, family
members, or acquaintances. Incompatibility and negative traits of the ghostee were common
reasons to ghost friends and family members. Ghosting sometimes included avoiding in-person
encounters or confrontations. Therefore, we agree with Kay and Courtice (2022) that
researchers should use broad definitions of ghosting rather than limiting ghosting to
technology-mediated behaviors and romantic contexts. Of note, like in other studies (Koessler
et al., 2019a; Thomas & Dubar, 2021; Yap et al., 2021), some of our participants mentioned a
gradual process of ghosting that escalates from negative interactions, to ignoring in limited con-
texts, to ignoring on a larger scale and blocking. Furthermore, some reported resorting to ghost-
ing after talking to the ghostee about the issue. This process supports LeFebvre et al.'s (2019)
and Koessler et al.'s (2019a) claims that ghosting can be gradual.
Most of the prior research on consequences of ghosting focused on the ghostee's experience.
However, our findings coincide with limited research suggesting that ghosters feel a mixture of
positive and negative emotions (Freedman, Powell, et al., 2022; Yap et al., 2021). We further
found that to cope with the guilt and cognitive dissonance, ghosters may try to rationalize their
actions, convincing themselves that the end justified the means. Many would waver between
feelings of empathy for the ghostee (resulting in guilt) and feelings of conviction that they did
the right thing. In contrast to a prior study (Thomas & Dubar, 2021) which found through focus
groups that ghosters felt guilty due to the potential awkwardness of an encounter rather than
empathy for the ghostee, many of our participants expressed a clear understanding of the hurt
that they caused the ghostee. Some even referred to their own experiences of being ghosted to
explain the damage that they caused. Such differences in empathy might be due to cultural
background. Thomas and Dubar's (2021) sample was mostly White, whereas our sample was
mostly Latinx and Asian American and thus might be more interpersonally sensitive (Park &
Kim, 2008; Rodríguez-Arauz et al., 2019). Other possible explanations are that the focus group
setting led to less empathy, or that those who participated in the focus group lacked personal
experience as a ghoster (given that participants were not required to have ghosted someone or
have been ghosted before).
In addition, we found that some ghosters became satisfied with their decision to ghost over
time, whereas others developed remorse (after maturing emotionally), regret, or a deep sense of
loss (due to missing the ghostee). Others, however, felt little concern for the ghostee (typically
because they did not know them well) and therefore reported no feelings. Given the complexity
and variation of these emotions, we encourage longitudinal research on psychological conse-
quences for ghosters that considers the roles of attributions, cognitive dissonance, personality,
and relationship type.
Next, similar to past research (Pancani et al., 2021, 2022), we identified another important
consequence of ghosting, that is, attempts by the ghostee to reach out. These attempts occurred
through various means and ranged from relatively mild (e.g., “likes” on the ghoster's posts, pub-
lic posts seemingly directed at the ghoster) to extreme (e.g., showing up at the ghoster's home,
contacting the ghoster from other phone numbers or social media accounts). Sometimes third
parties like friends and family were involved, further complicating the scenario. Ghostees'
responses seemed to affect ghosters' emotions, sometimes reinforcing their belief that ghosting
was the correct action, and other times contributing to their guilt.
Finally, we found that in line with past research (Manning et al., 2019), most ghosters recog-
nized the hurtful nature of their behavior, which contributed to their mixed feelings about
ghosting and their cognitive dissonance. Ghosters typically named direct communication as the
ideal way to end a relationship and felt that ghosting was “selfish”, “immature”, and “wrong”.
As past research identified (Manning et al., 2019), ghosters believed that ghosting results in a
lack of closure and an array of negative emotions for the ghostee. Some participants mentioned
permanent damage to the ghostee, including trust issues and low self-esteem/confidence.
Therefore, from our participants' perspective, ghosting is typically a self-oriented strategy of
breaking up, whereas direct communication is other-oriented (Baxter, 1984).
Also consistent with other studies (e.g., Freedman, Hales, et al., 2022; LeFebvre et al., 2019;
Thomas & Dubar, 2021), ghosters felt that ghosting was acceptable for “good reasons” including
physical danger, harassment, pushiness, “toxic” people, and not knowing the ghoster well. Ulti-
mately, half were satisfied with their decision to ghost.
4.1 | Limitations, implications, and future research
Our study is one of the only qualitative studies on ghosting that used face-to-face semi-
structured interviews. Aside from Manning et al. (2019), who also used in-person interviews,
and Yap et al. (2021), who used video call interviews, prior qualitative studies used online sur-
veys (e.g., Koessler et al., 2019a; LeFebvre et al., 2019, 2020; Timmermans et al., 2021) or focus
groups (Thomas & Dubar, 2021). There are strengths and weaknesses of our method. Unlike
online surveys, in-person semi-structured interviews allow for probing and a rich description of
the participant's experience. Unlike focus groups, one-on-one interviews do not suffer from
issues of conformity. Finally, there are fewer distractions and easier interactions (due to more
non-verbal cues) compared to in video-call interviews (Lobe et al., 2022). However, interviewer
characteristics or interviewing style could impact the interviewees' responses. Social desirability
bias may indeed be a greater issue than in an online survey (Bergen & Labonté, 2020). In addi-
tion, we were unexpectedly forced to end data collection because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
However, we believe that our sample size was sufficient as we reached data saturation in the
analysis.
In relation, given our small convenience sample of undergraduate students, results cannot
be generalized to the broader population. Yet, unlike prior studies which relied on majority
White samples, our study included mostly Latinx (65%), Asian (15%), and Black (12%) individ-
uals. Through this racially diverse sample, we mostly replicated prior research on ghosting,
although unlike prior research (Thomas & Dubar, 2021), we found the presence of empathy.
Future quantitative research might directly compare ghosting across cultural groups and assess
the role of cultural values in ghosting experiences, including ghosting attitudes, attributions,
emotions, and behaviors.
Next, our findings largely relied on a “memorable” experience of ghosting another person.
This may be why we did not capture accidental reasons for ghosting such as forgetting to
respond (Timmermans et al., 2021; Yap et al., 2021). It is likely that “casual” ghosting may not
have as much of an emotional impact on the ghoster.
Finally, as with other qualitative research, we cannot make any causal inferences from our
findings. Future researchers should use a quantitative approach to examine ghosting experi-
ences longitudinally or to test potential causal relationships in ghosting experiences. For exam-
ple, how does cognitive dissonance affect ghosters' attributions about ghosting and their
subsequent ghosting behaviors? How do attributions (e.g., to themselves, the ghostee, or the sit-
uation) affect ghosters' emotions, behaviors, self-views, views of the ghostee, and moral judg-
ment, and vice versa?
Given that ghosting was not limited to romantic relationships, future research should
account for type of relationship or even delve into ghosting in understudied domains (friend-
ships, family relationships, workplace). Finally, we suggest that researchers further examine the
interactive nature of ghosting, particularly in the aftermath of ghosting as ghosters and ghostees
navigate an uncomfortable situation. How might post-ghosting interactions shape the thoughts,
feelings, and subsequent behaviors of each party?
A C K N O WL E D G M E N T S
We thank our research assistants for their work on this project: Rocio Nunez, Katherine Mata,
Emerald Aueyong, Edith Hernandez, Jessica Merino Ibanez, Leslie Teutla, Crystal Esposito,
Tania Zepeda, Gabriel Acosta, Angie Quintanilla, Denise Preciado, Gillian Almanza, Kraig
Saito, Henry Salgado, Elizabeth Gutierrez, Abhiravi Charathram, Angel Nunez, and Sharon
Lanre Oreppo.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest/competing interests.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data used in the research are not available. The materials used in the research are available.
The materials can be obtained by emailing the corresponding author Karen Wu at kwu25@
calstatela.edu.
ORCID
Karen Wu https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0792-1745
R EF E RE N C E S
Baxter, L. A. (1984). Trajectories of relationship disengagement. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
1(1), 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075840110
Bergen, N., & Labonté, R. (2020). “Everything is perfect, and we have no problems”: Detecting and limiting
social desirability bias in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 30(5), 783–792. https://doi.org/10.
1177/104973231988935
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2),
77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Collins, T. J., & Gillath, O. (2012). Attachment, breakup strategies, and associated outcomes: The effects of secu-
rity enhancement on the selection of breakup strategies. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(2), 210–222.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.01.008
Creswell, J. W. (2009). The analysis of qualitative data. In K. F. Punch (Ed.), Introduction to research methods in
education (pp. 170–205). SAGE Publications.
Curran, M. A., & Randall, A. K. (2021). Positionality statements. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/pb-assets/

assets/14756811/Positionality-Statements-1621354517813.pdf
di Santo, J. M., Montana, D., Nolan, K., Patel, J. P., Geher, G., Marks, K., Redden, C., McQuade, B.,
Mackiel, A., & Link, J. (2022). To ghost or to be ghosted: An examination of the social and psychological cor-
relates associated with ghosting. EvoS Journal: The Journal of the Evolutionary Studies Consortium, 12,
43–62.
Elliott, V. (2018). Thinking about the coding process in qualitative data analysis. The Qualitative Report, 23(11),
2850–2861. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2018.3560
Freedman, G., Hales, A. H., Powell, D. N., Le, B., & Williams, K. D. (2022). The role of gender and safety con-
cerns in romantic rejection decisions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 102, 104368. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104368
Freedman, G., Powell, D. N., Le, B., & Williams, K. D. (2019). Ghosting and destiny: Implicit theories of relation-
ships predict beliefs about ghosting. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(3), 905–924. https://doi.
org/10.1177/026540751774879
Freedman, G., Powell, D. N., Le, B., & Williams, K. D. (2022). Emotional experiences of ghosting. The Journal of
Social Psychology, 1–20, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2022.2081528
Freedman, G., Williams, K. D., & Beer, J. S. (2016). Softening the blow of social exclusion: The responsive theory
of social exclusion. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01570
Halversen, A., King, J., & Silva, L. (2022). Reciprocal self-disclosure and rejection strategies on bumble. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 39(5), 1324–1343. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211055759
Jonason, P. K., Kaźmierczak, I., Campos, A. C., & Davis, M. D. (2021). Leaving without a word: Ghosting and
the dark triad traits. Acta Psychologica, 220, 103425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2021.103425
Kay, C., & Courtice, E. L. (2022). An empirical, accessible definition of “ghosting” as a relationship dissolution
method. Personal Relationships, 29, 386–411. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12423
Koessler, R. B., Kohut, T., & Campbell, L. (2019a). Integration and expansion of qualitative analyses of relation-
ship dissolution through ghosting. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/3kvdx
Koessler, R. B., Kohut, T., & Campbell, L. (2019b). When your boo becomes a ghost: The association between
breakup strategy and breakup role in experiences of relationship dissolution. Collabra: Psychology, 5(1), 1–
18. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.230
Komarraju, M., & Cokley, K. O. (2008). Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism-collectivism: A com-
parison of African Americans and European Americans. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology,
14(4), 336–343. https://doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.14.4.336
Leckfor, C. M., Wood, N. R., Slatcher, R. B., & Hales, A. H. (2023). From close to ghost: Examining the relation-
ship between the need for closure, intentions to ghost, and reactions to being ghosted. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 40(8), 2422–2444. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075221149955
LeFebvre, L. E., Allen, M., Rasner, R. D., Garstad, S., Wilms, A., & Parrish, C. (2019). Ghosting in emerging
adults' romantic relationships: The digital dissolution disappearance strategy. Imagination, Cognition and
Personality, 39(2), 125–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276236618820519
LeFebvre, L. E., Rasner, R. D., & Allen, M. (2020). “I guess I'll never know…”: Non-initiators account-making
after being ghosted. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 25(5), 395–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/15325024.2019.
1694299
Lobe, B., Morgan, D. L., & Hoffman, K. (2022). A systematic comparison of in-person and video-based online
interviewing. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21, 160940692211270. https://doi.org/10.1177/
16094069221127068
Manning, J., Denker, K. J., & Johnson, R. (2019). Justifications for “ghosting out” of developing or ongoing
romantic relationships: Anxieties regarding digitally-mediated romantic interaction. In A. Hetsroni & M.
Tuncez (Eds.), It happened on tinder (pp. 114–133). Institute of Network Cultures.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation.
Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
Navarro, R., Larrañaga, E., Yubero, S., & Víllora, B. (2021). Individual, interpersonal and relationship factors
associated with ghosting intention and behaviors in adult relationships: Examining the associations over
and above being a recipient of ghosting. Telematics and Informatics, 57, 101513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tele.2020.101513
Pancani, L., Aureli, N., & Riva, P. (2022). Relationship dissolution strategies: Comparing the psychological conse-
quences of ghosting, orbiting, and rejection. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace,
16(2), Article 9. https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2022-2-9
Pancani, L., Mazzoni, D., Aureli, N., & Riva, P. (2021). Ghosting and orbiting: An analysis of victims' experi-
ences. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(7), 1987–2007. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0265407521100041
Park, Y. S., & Kim, B. S. (2008). Asian and European American cultural values and communication styles among
Asian American and European American college students. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology,
14(1), 47–56. https://doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.14.1.47
Powell, D. N., Freedman, G., Williams, K. D., Le, B., & Green, H. (2021). A multi-study examination of attach-
ment and implicit theories of relationships in ghosting experiences. Journal of Social and Personal Relation-
ships, 38(7), 2225–2248. https://doi.org/10.1177/026540752110093
Rodríguez-Arauz, G., Ramírez-Esparza, N., García-Sierra, A., Ikizer, E. G., & Fernandez-G omez, M. J. (2019).
You go before me, please: Behavioral politeness and interdependent self as markers of Simpatía in Latinas.
Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 25(3), 379–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000232
Sbaraini, A., Carter, S. M., Evans, R. W., & Blinkhorn, A. (2011). How to do a grounded theory study: A worked
example of a study of dental practices. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.
1186/1471-2288-11-128
Thomas, J. O., & Dubar, R. T. (2021). Disappearing in the age of hypervisibility: Definition, context, and per-
ceived psychological consequences of social media ghosting. Psychology of Popular Media, 10(3), 291–302.
https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000343
Timmermans, E., Hermans, A.-M., & Opree, S. J. (2021). Gone with the wind: Exploring mobile daters' ghosting
experiences. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(2), 783–801. https://doi.org/10.1177/
026540752097028
Williams, K. D., Shore, W. J., & Grahe, J. E. (1998). The silent treatment: Perceptions of its behaviors and associ-
ated feelings. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 1(2), 117–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/
136843029801200
Yap, M. A., Francisco, A. M., & Gopez, C. (2021). From best friends to silent ends: Exploring the concepts of
ghosting in non-romantic relationships. International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Edu-
cation Research, 2(10), 943–950. https://doi.org/10.11594/ijmaber.02.10.12
S UP PO RT ING IN FOR MAT ION

Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section
at the end of this article.
How to cite this article: Wu, K., & Bamishigbin, O. (2023). When silence speaks louder
than words: Exploring the experiences and attitudes of ghosters. Personal Relationships,
30(4), 1358–1382. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12518

Personal Relationships 2023 Wu When Silence Speaks Louder Than Words Exploring The Experiences and Attitudes of

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Personal Relationships 2023 Wu When Silence Speaks Louder Than Words Exploring The Experiences and Attitudes of

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Received: 22 January 2023 Revised: 20 July 2023 Accepted: 23 July 2023

When silence speaks louder than words:

Karen Wu | Olajide Bamishigbin

1358 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pere Pers Relationship. 2023;30:1358–1382.

psychological consequences for ghosters should be

Listen to silence. It has so much to say.

1.1 | What is ghosting?

1.2 | Reasons for ghosting

1.3 | Attitudes toward ghosting

1.4 | Consequences of ghosting

1.5 | Characteristics of ghosters

1.6 | The current study

We recruited 37 undergraduate students (ages 18–30) at a large public university on the

African American (12%), European/European American (3%), Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander

3.2.1 | Reasons for ghosting

A clear cause (present in 33/34 interviews)

T A B L E 1 Summary of themes about ghosters' experiences.

Category Theme Sub-themes Sub-theme examples

Category Theme Sub-themes Sub-theme examples

Ghosters as players “…I love the chase of talking to girls and

Category Theme Sub-themes Sub-theme examples

Category Theme Sub-themes Sub-theme examples

Ghosting as “…I think if you are talking to someone and…

Avoidance of confrontation (present in 30/34 interviews)

Short-term orientation (present in 18/34 interviews)

Ghostees as socially inferior (present in 20/34 interviews)

3.2.2 | Ghosting processes

Ignoring then blocking (present in 16/34 interviews)

Attempts by Ghostee to reach out (present in 27/34 interviews)

3.2.3 | Consequences of ghosting

Mixed and evolving feelings (present in 29/34 interviews)

Recognition of harm (present in 32/34 interviews)

4.1 | Limitations, implications, and future research

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Curran, M. A., & Randall, A. K. (2021). Positionality statements. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/pb-assets/

S UP PO RT ING IN FOR MAT ION

You might also like