The dinner was fine. That’s what got said to her. Fine. The word lands the way it always does — flat, sealed, impossible to argue with. She’d been talking for twenty minutes about the thing that happened at work, the one that clearly mattered to her, and the nodding happened in the right places, the wine glass got refilled, every direct question got answered with responses technically accurate and emotionally empty. By nine o’clock she was reading in the other room. By ten she was asleep. The evening ended watching something forgettable, and if anyone had asked what was wrong, the answer would have been nothing. And it would have been meant sincerely. Which is exactly the problem.
Passive aggression is not the behavior people usually think it is. It’s not the eye roll, not the sarcastic remark, not the cold shoulder deployed after an obvious argument. Those things are detectable. They give the other person something to grab onto, something to address. What’s actually being discussed here is something quieter and more total: the systematic expression of anger through its own absence. The agreement that never becomes action. The tone that communicates everything the words deny. The forgetting that is not forgetting. The silence that fills a room like weather.
If something in the first paragraph landed somewhere uncomfortable just now, stay with that. This article is about passive aggression in relationships — specifically the kind that operates below the threshold of detection, the kind a man can run for years while genuinely believing he’s the easy-going one, the patient one, the one who never causes drama. The kind that destroys intimacy so slowly and so thoroughly that by the time anyone names what happened, the relationship is already a ruin and no one is sure exactly when it fell.
The concept running through this piece is the Underground War — the full architecture of how indirect anger operates: its origins in the nervous system, its mechanics in daily life, the lies that keep it in place, and the specific steps required to end it. Not manage it. End it.
THE MOMENT: The Room That Was Fine
He was forty-one. He had not raised his voice at her in eleven years. He had never called her a name. He had never stormed out, never slammed a door, never done any of the things that would have appeared on a list of things a difficult husband does. He had, by every observable metric, been a reasonable man. He agreed with her ideas. He showed up for her events. He said the right things at the right times.
He had also, in eleven years, never once told her he was angry. Never told her when a decision frustrated him. Never said — clearly, directly, using the actual word — that he was unhappy about something. What he did instead was agree and then forget. Commit and then delay. Smile and then, very quietly, ensure that whatever had been decided didn’t quite happen. He didn’t think of it as anything. It wasn’t a strategy he was running. It was just how the friction got managed.
Sara, meanwhile, had spent eleven years trying to decode a man who refused to be decoded. She had developed a fine-tuned sensitivity to the half-second pause before he said “sure,” the particular quality of his silence when she was excited about something he wasn’t, the way certain tasks — always the ones she’d asked for — seemed to fall through a hole in the universe. She had adapted herself around him without either of them ever naming what she was adapting to.
“I don’t know what you actually think about anything.” She wasn’t angry when she said it. She was tired. And that tiredness — quiet, final, the tiredness of a woman who has been trying to connect with a man who systematically refuses connection while denying that any refusal is occurring — that is the sound the Underground War makes when it wins.
Marcus isn’t a villain. He’s not even unusual. He is, in fact, extremely common: a man who learned, somewhere in the formative years before he had language for it, that expressing anger directly was more dangerous than expressing it sideways. He built an entire relational style around that lesson. And he lived in it for so long that he stopped noticing he was doing it at all.
That’s what makes the Underground War so destructive. Not its malice — there often isn’t much of that. But its invisibility. You can’t fight what you can’t see. You can’t repair what no one will admit is broken. And you cannot build genuine intimacy with a man who has never, not once, let you see what he actually feels.
THE MECHANISM: What the Nervous System Is Actually Doing
Passive aggression is not a character flaw. It is not a choice, at least not consciously. It is a nervous system adaptation — a learned behavioral pattern that formed in response to a specific threat, and that has continued running long after the threat disappeared. Understanding why it’s so hard to stop starts with understanding where it came from.
John Gottman’s thirty-plus years of research at the University of Washington’s Love Lab identified something he called stonewalling — one of his Four Horsemen of relationship apocalypse — as the withdrawal of engagement under conditions of emotional flooding. When a person’s heart rate exceeds 100 beats per minute during conflict, the prefrontal cortex — the part of the brain responsible for detailed communication, problem-solving, and perspective-taking — essentially goes offline. What’s left is the limbic system running threat-response protocols. Fight, flee, or freeze. Stonewalling is the freeze response: the complete withdrawal of emotional availability as a survival behavior.
What Gottman also found is that men stonewall far more frequently than women — at roughly a 4-to-1 ratio in his studies. This is not because men care less. It’s because men tend to reach the physiological flooding threshold faster and take longer to return to baseline. The male cardiovascular system ruminates on conflict more intensely and for longer. The man who goes silent during an argument is often not choosing to punish his partner. He is flooded. His system has shut down access to the verbal and emotional tools he’d need to stay engaged, and withdrawal is the only move available to a brain operating in crisis mode.
That’s the acute version. The chronic version — what’s being called the Underground War here — is something that develops over years, not minutes. Attachment researcher Sue Johnson, who developed Emotionally Focused Therapy, describes what happens in long-term patterns of emotional withdrawal: the person who learns early that expressing needs leads to rejection, shame, or punishment develops what Johnson calls deactivating attachment strategies. They suppress awareness of their own attachment needs. They minimize the importance of the relationship to themselves. They develop a studied self-sufficiency that reads as independence but functions as emotional avoidance.
The neuroscience underneath this is straightforward. When a child expresses anger — naturally, as children do — and the response is punishment, withdrawal of affection, escalation, or shaming, the brain registers a threat association: anger = danger to the attachment bond. The amygdala, which is in the business of threat detection, encodes this association rapidly and retains it durably. Over subsequent years, any internal experience of anger triggers the same threat response. The anger doesn’t disappear — emotions are not something that simply switch off — but it goes underground. It finds expression through the only channels that feel safe: indirection, delay, forgetting, withdrawal, the weaponization of compliance.
Stan Tatkin, whose work on the PACT model of couples therapy focuses on the psychobiology of attachment, describes passive aggression as “protest behavior in a person who believes direct protest will cost them the relationship.” The passive-aggressive man is not trying to be cruel. He is trying to survive. His nervous system has a rule — direct anger destroys everything — and he has been following that rule so long and so consistently that he has forgotten he’s following a rule at all. It just feels like how relationships work.
The research on cortisol and chronic anger suppression adds another layer. A 2013 study published in Psychosomatic Medicine by Karina Davidson and colleagues at Columbia University found that trait anger suppression — the habitual tendency to not express anger — was associated with significantly elevated systolic blood pressure, higher inflammatory markers, and increased cardiovascular risk over a ten-year follow-up period. The body does not know the anger is going underground. It just knows the threat is present and the response is being blocked. The arousal stays. The cortisol stays. The cardiovascular load stays. The man who never shows his anger is not calm. He is pressurized.
This is the mechanism behind the Underground War: anger that cannot be expressed directly doesn’t dissolve. It pressurizes. And pressurized things find exit points. In relationships, those exit points are the forgetting, the delay, the withdrawal, the “sure” that means anything but — all of the indirect behaviors that allow the anger to move without ever allowing it to be seen.
THE LIE: What Conventional Wisdom Gets Dangerously Wrong
The first lie is that passive aggression is primarily a communication problem. It is not. It is a safety problem. The man running the Underground War is not withholding communication because he hasn’t been taught the right words. He’s withholding it because somewhere in his nervous system, honesty about anger feels like a threat to everything he has. Giving him I-statement templates does not address that threat. It gives him more sophisticated vocabulary for the performance he’s already running.
The second lie is that confronting the pattern directly will resolve it. This is the move partners almost universally attempt and almost universally regret. Say: “You’re being passive-aggressive again.” He hears: “You are defective.” His shame activates. His defensiveness rises. And because his primary coping mechanism for uncomfortable feelings is withdrawal and denial, he — passive-aggressively — denies being passive-aggressive. The confrontation hasn’t illuminated the pattern. It has activated the exact response mechanism the confrontation was trying to interrupt. The result is further from resolution than the starting point.
The third lie, and the most destructive one, is that the passive-aggressive man is fine. That he’s just introverted, or thoughtful, or “not a big emotions person.” This is the story he tells himself, and the story the people around him often accept, because it is more comfortable than the alternative. The alternative is that he is in a low-grade emotional emergency at all times — running a chronic suppression load that is damaging his relationships, his body, and his access to his own inner life — and that the apparent calm is not equanimity. It is numbness. The man who never seems bothered isn’t at peace. He’s dissociated. Those are not the same thing, and treating them as the same thing is how the Underground War runs for decades without being named.
The fourth lie is that the solution is anger management — specifically, anger reduction. This is the advice the culture gives men who have anger problems, and it is spectacularly wrong for this particular problem. The passive-aggressive man does not need to feel less anger. He needs to feel it more — more consciously, more directly, more accessibly. He needs to reclaim anger as a legitimate emotion rather than suppressing it further. Anger management protocols designed for explosive anger actively worsen passive aggression by reinforcing the foundational belief that anger must be controlled and hidden rather than expressed cleanly. Teaching a man who already buries his anger to be even better at burying it is not therapy. It is an upgrade to the machinery of the Underground War.
THE PROTOCOL: Ending the Underground War
This is a sequence, not a menu. Each step creates the conditions for the next one. Skipping to step four doesn’t work, because step four requires the nervous system preparation that steps one through three provide.
Step one: Name the Underground War first, privately. Before saying anything to anyone else, a private reckoning with what’s actually been happening needs to happen. Not flagellation. A clear-eyed acknowledgment. The last three times “fine” got said when it wasn’t. The last three times silence descended in a way that was not neutrality. Look at the list. Call it what it is: anger has been getting expressed through indirection because direct anger felt too dangerous. That’s the Underground War. Naming it — not to a partner, not yet, just privately — is the first act of ending it. A war can’t be stopped while its existence is being denied.
Write down the last three times an agreement got made and then quietly ensured not to happen.
Step two: Locate the original lesson. The Underground War started somewhere. Most commonly: a parent whose anger was explosive, who taught, viscerally, that anger is something that destroys rooms. Or a parent whose love was conditional on being agreeable, who withdrew when things got difficult. Or a dynamic where expressing dissatisfaction brought consequences painful enough that suppression became the obvious survival choice. None of this requires years of therapy to identify. It requires one honest hour with a piece of paper. Ask: where did the lesson land that showing anger was more dangerous than hiding it? The answer will not be subtle. The answer is usually a very specific person in a very specific repeated dynamic, and it’s probably already known.
Step three: Practice saying the actual thing in low-stakes situations first. Decades of suppression don’t reverse into full emotional transparency in one conversation. The nervous system doesn’t work that way. What’s possible is accumulating evidence, gradually and repeatedly, that honesty about wants and feelings does not destroy the relationship. Start with food. When someone asks where to eat and the automatic response is “I don’t care” — notice that there is a preference, there’s always a preference, and say the actual thing. “I’d rather not Italian tonight. Can we do Thai?” That’s it. That’s the exercise. The goal isn’t the restaurant. The goal is the experience of stating a preference clearly and surviving the response. Do this ten times across ten different low-stakes situations. Each one lays down a tiny thread of neural evidence that contradicts the old rule. This isn’t a metaphor for the bigger work. This is the bigger work, in its smallest unit.
Step four: Learn the language of clean anger. Clean anger is different from explosive anger and different from suppressed anger. It has three components: a feeling statement, a specific cause, and a request. “I’m frustrated because we’ve talked about this twice and nothing’s changed — I need us to actually decide what we’re doing about it.” That’s the whole structure. Feeling. Cause. Request. No contempt. No character assassination. No inventory of historical grievances. No silent treatment deployed as an alternative. Just the feeling, named directly, delivered to the person it belongs to, in the moment it arises. The first time this happens for real — with a real person, about a real grievance — it will feel like stepping off a cliff. Hands may shake. The voice may change register. That physical response is a nervous system receiving information that contradicts forty years of training. Let it happen. The cliff is not a cliff. It’s solid ground.
Step five: Make the repair conversation. This step is optional only in the sense that growth is optional. A partner who has been living in the Underground War deserves the repair conversation — not because a performance of guilt is owed, but because she has been living in a relational environment that was constructed around her, and she has a right to understand what that environment was. Tell her what’s been happening. Not using the clinical label. Using the specific truth: the “fines” that weren’t fine, the forgotten tasks that weren’t forgotten, the silences that were not neutrality. Tell her what was underneath them. Tell her it’s changing. This conversation will be uncomfortable. She will likely have feelings about it that are significant and not all of them will be warm. That is correct. The job in that conversation is not managing her response. The job is staying present with it — sitting with her reaction without withdrawing, denying, or explaining it away. That presence, uncomfortable and imperfect, is the first real thing she’ll have been offered in the relationship. It is worth more than years of careful performance.
Step six: Build accountability into the new pattern. The Underground War has years of neural momentum behind it. Backsliding will happen. The “fine” will escape before it can be caught. The task will get forgotten in the old way. When this happens — not if, when — the move is not shame. The move is a rapid acknowledgment: “I just did the thing. What I actually want to say is this.” Catching it within hours or days and naming it directly is still enormously more honest than letting it calcify into the old pattern. The goal is not perfection. The goal is a progressively shorter lag between the indirect behavior and the direct correction, until eventually the indirect behavior stops being the first move and the direct one is.
THE PROOF: What the Data Shows About Indirect Anger in Relationships
Stonewalling — the withdrawal of engagement during conflict — emerged as one of four behaviors with the highest predictive power for divorce. Gottman’s model achieves roughly 94% accuracy in predicting which couples will divorce when the Four Horsemen (criticism, contempt, defensiveness, stonewalling) are present in their conflict patterns. Of the four, stonewalling was most strongly associated with the emotional withdrawal pattern that precedes relationship dissolution: the point where one or both partners stops emotionally investing in the connection because the cost of trying has repeatedly exceeded the return.
What the Gottman data also showed — and this is the part most people skip — is the positive ratio research. In stable, satisfied relationships, Gottman found a consistent 5:1 ratio of positive to negative interactions. For every one critical or negative exchange, there were five positive ones: moments of genuine engagement, expressed appreciation, playful contact, turned-toward bids for connection. In relationships heading toward dissolution, that ratio inverted. And in relationships where passive aggression was the dominant pattern, the ratio was particularly devastating, because most of the “positive” interactions weren’t positive at all — they were performed positivity, agreed-upon surface calm that contained no actual warmth. They registered as neutral on the interaction coding. A 5:1 ratio cannot be built on neutral.
Research by Kipling Williams at Purdue University on the neuroscience of ostracism is also directly relevant here. Williams used fMRI to study what happens in the brain during experiences of social exclusion, including the silent treatment. The finding: the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex — the same brain region that processes physical pain — activates during social exclusion with the same intensity as during physical injury. The silent treatment registers in the receiving brain as pain. Not metaphorical pain. Neurologically equivalent pain. The silent treatment is not composure. It is, from the perspective of the nervous system receiving it, assault.
Williams also found that even brief periods of ostracism — as short as two to three minutes in controlled laboratory settings — produced measurable decreases in self-reported belonging, self-esteem, sense of control, and sense that one’s existence is meaningful. Brief exclusions in a lab. Now consider what years of emotional withdrawal and intermittent silent treatment does to a partner’s fundamental sense of self. The Underground War doesn’t just damage the relationship. It damages the person living inside it.
Finally, James Pennebaker’s research at the University of Texas at Austin on expressive writing and disclosure found something that directly contradicts the suppression strategy: people who wrote about traumatic or emotionally significant experiences with honesty and specificity showed improved immune function, lower cortisol levels, and better long-term health outcomes than people who didn’t disclose. The body has a physiology of withholding, and it costs. Pennebaker’s work suggests the cost is not just emotional — it’s biochemical. Disclosure, even private disclosure, appears to allow the nervous system to complete the threat-response cycle that suppression leaves permanently open. The man who keeps burying his anger is not just emotionally isolated. He is running an ongoing physiological load that he will eventually pay for in ways that have nothing to do with his marriage.
THE HARD TRUTH: What Nobody Wants to Hear About This Pattern
The difficult corollary is this: people-pleasing and passive aggression are the same pattern at different stages. The people-pleaser is a man who is still managing the suppression. The passive aggressor is a man whose suppression has overflowed. Recognition of the people-pleasing pattern in oneself means the Underground War is already present — it just hasn’t fully surfaced yet. The overflow is coming.
The other hard truth is about what the Underground War costs the person running it. Not just the relationship — though it costs that too, comprehensively. It costs access to one’s own inner life. Every year of chronic suppression lays down additional dissociation between felt experience and expressed experience. Men who have been running this pattern for decades routinely report that they genuinely don’t know what they feel — not as a figure of speech, but as a real description of their interior experience. So long in the performance of not-feeling that the signal itself has been lost. Asked “what are you angry about?” and the honest answer is “I don’t know.” That is not composure. That is a man who has lost the map to himself.
The lesson learned early was that anger would destroy everything. The evidence, in nearly every relationship shaped by the Underground War, is that the suppression of anger is what does the destroying. Anger — owned, expressed directly, with precision and without contempt — is not a weapon. It is information. It is the signal that something in the relationship requires attention. A partner who receives that signal can respond to it. A partner who receives only the forgetting and the silence and the performed agreeableness has nothing to work with. She is alone in the relationship, and eventually she will be alone in fact.
The question is not whether the Underground War can be ended. It can. The question is whether there’s willingness to feel the full weight of the terrifying thing — the honest, direct expression of what’s actually felt — and do it anyway. Everything worth having in a relationship lives on the other side of that moment.
THE FAQ: Passive Aggression in Relationships
What is passive aggression in a relationship, and how does it differ from conflict avoidance?
Passive aggression is the expression of anger through indirect means — forgetting, delaying, performing compliance while sabotaging outcomes, and using withdrawal as punishment. Conflict avoidance is driven by fear of confrontation: the conflict-avoidant person wants the disagreement to stop and withdraws to escape the discomfort. The passive-aggressive person wants to win the disagreement without being seen fighting. Fear drives avoidance; anger drives passive aggression. They frequently co-occur, but the treatment differs: avoidance responds to nervous system regulation work, while passive aggression requires reclaiming direct anger expression as a safe behavior. Confusing the two leads to mismatched interventions that make both patterns worse.
Can a relationship survive passive aggression, and what does recovery actually require?
Yes, if the person running the pattern genuinely stops running it — not manages it more carefully, but actually changes the fundamental behavior. Recovery requires three things: an honest acknowledgment (to oneself and eventually to a partner) of what the pattern has been doing, a sustained practice of direct anger expression starting in low-stakes situations, and patience from both partners during the transition period when the old pattern will repeatedly re-emerge before the new one is stable. Gottman’s research suggests that couples who successfully shift their conflict pattern from stonewalling-withdrawal to honest engagement show measurable improvements in relationship satisfaction within six months. The recovery is real. It requires the Underground War to end completely, not be refined.
Why do passive-aggressive people deny being passive-aggressive when confronted?
Because confrontation activates the exact shame-anger loop that created the pattern. When a partner says “you’re being passive-aggressive,” the passive-aggressive person hears an identity-level accusation — not a description of behavior but a statement about who they are. Shame fires. Anger activates. The anger can’t go direct (that’s the whole pattern), so it goes sideways: more denial, more wounded innocence, more “I really don’t know what you’re talking about.” The confrontation hasn’t interrupted the pattern; it’s triggered it. More effective is addressing the specific impact without labeling the pattern: “When you agreed to handle that and it didn’t happen, I felt like I couldn’t count on you.” That’s a behavior and a feeling, not a diagnosis, and it gives the person something to respond to without activating the full shame cascade.
What’s the connection between passive aggression and childhood attachment patterns?
The connection is direct and structural. Sue Johnson’s Emotionally Focused Therapy research identifies passive aggression as a prototypical deactivating attachment strategy — a way of managing the threat of rejection by never making a direct emotional bid that could be refused. Children who learned that expressing needs or anger led to punishment, withdrawal of love, or escalating conflict develop this deactivating pattern early. The amygdala encodes the threat association (anger = danger to the bond) and the behavioral adaptation forms around it. By adulthood, the pattern operates below conscious awareness: the person doesn’t experience themselves as suppressing anger. They experience themselves as being fine. The original attachment wound is what makes stability feel foreign and emotional honesty feel catastrophic.
How does the silent treatment actually affect the person receiving it?
At a neurological level, more severely than most people realize. Kipling Williams’ fMRI research at Purdue confirmed that the brain regions activated by social exclusion — including the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex — are identical to those activated by physical pain. Two to three minutes of ostracism in laboratory conditions produces measurable drops in self-reported belonging, self-esteem, and sense of meaningful existence. Extended silent treatment in a relationship doesn’t register to the receiving partner’s nervous system as “he needs space.” It registers as rejection and threat to the attachment bond. The emotional and psychological damage is real, cumulative, and often permanent if the pattern continues. The partner of a serial silent-treatment user doesn’t just feel hurt. She develops hypervigilance, chronic anxiety about the stability of the relationship, and eventually the protective detachment that precedes leaving.
What’s the fastest way to recognize passive aggression in yourself before it causes damage?
Watch for the gap between what gets said and what gets done. Consistently agreeing to things and then not doing them — or doing them in a degraded way, or at the last possible moment — that gap is information. Also watch for the internal experience when someone makes a request: is there a flash of resistance immediately overridden with “sure”? That flash is the anger. The override is the suppression. The forgetting is the anger finding its exit. A useful daily practice: before saying “fine” or “sure” or “whatever you want,” pause for five seconds and check whether it’s actually meant. If not, say what is meant instead. This will feel disproportionately difficult. That difficulty is a direct measure of how deeply the Underground War has been running.
How is passive aggression related to stonewalling in marriage?
Stonewalling is passive aggression’s acute cousin. Stonewalling is the withdrawal of engagement during a specific conflict — the shutdown, the one-word responses, the physical departure from the conversation. Passive aggression is the chronic version of the same underlying pattern: anger that finds expression through absence, indirection, and the systematic refusal to be fully present or fully honest. Both are driven by emotional flooding and the belief that direct anger will damage or destroy the relationship. The difference is time scale: stonewalling is situational, passive aggression is architectural. A man who regularly stonewalls in acute conflict and chronically runs indirect anger expression between conflicts is running both patterns simultaneously, and the combination is among the most reliable predictors of relationship deterioration in Gottman’s longitudinal data.
References
Editorial StandardsCorrectionsMedical DisclaimerAbout Our ContentAffiliate DisclosureSite Map