When withdrawal becomes the safest way to relate

When being easy to deal with comes at a cost

There is a particular kind of client I have learned not to mistake for someone who is simply coping well. They arrive on time, answer questions thoughtfully and rarely complain. If I get something wrong, they may say it is fine. If I ask what they needed from someone during a difficult week, the answer can take much longer.

Sometimes this is temperament. Sometimes it is good manners. But sometimes the person has become very good at making themselves undemanding because relationships have taught them that needing things is risky.

They may agree when they are angry, go quiet when they feel hurt, or wait for another person to notice something they cannot bring themselves to say. At work, they might accept a decision they think is unfair and then spend days thinking about it. In a relationship, they can pull away rather than risk an argument. In therapy, they can be warm and cooperative while privately wondering whether I understand them at all.

None of that is especially dramatic. That is partly why it can be missed.

Distance can be protective

A recent paper by Jacqueline Peters and colleagues looked at interpersonal problems in 1,800 adults from the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety. The researchers were interested in two broad parts of how people relate to others: how much they assert themselves, and how close or distant they tend to be.

One of the patterns in the paper is called cold submissive. I would be careful using that term with a client. It is research language, not a description of somebody's personality. In practical terms, it refers to a combination of keeping some interpersonal distance and having difficulty asserting yourself.

That can make sense when you know the person's history. Speaking up may once have led to ridicule, anger or rejection. Depending on somebody may have gone badly. Keeping your thoughts to yourself may have been the least costly option in a family where disagreement was not handled well.

The old strategy can keep running even when the circumstances are different. A person avoids saying what they want, other people assume they have no preference, and the person ends up feeling overlooked. They withdraw further. It can become a fairly lonely loop without anybody deliberately creating it.

This is why I am more interested in what the behaviour is doing than in attaching a label to it. When does the person disappear a little? Who brings that out in them? What are they expecting would happen if they stayed present and said what they actually thought?

What the research does and does not tell us

In the Peters study, people with a current anxiety or depressive disorder reported more interpersonal distress and, on average, a more submissive interpersonal style than people with a past diagnosis or no lifetime diagnosis. The cold submissive group also had more combined anxiety and depression and a more chronic history of these problems.

That is interesting, but it is not evidence that being withdrawn causes depression or anxiety to become chronic. The interpersonal measure was taken after most of the diagnostic history had already been collected. Years of depression or anxiety could change the way somebody relates to other people. The influence could also run both ways.

There is another reason to be cautious. Human relationships do not fall neatly into four boxes. The study grouped continuous interpersonal characteristics into categories because that is useful for analysis. Real people move around depending on who they are with, how safe they feel and what is happening in their lives.

A separate 2025 analysis pooled data from ten depression trials involving 1,282 people. People reporting greater interpersonal distress tended to have slightly poorer treatment outcomes, but the effect was small. The specific dimensions of assertiveness and closeness did not predict who would do better.

So I would not use an interpersonal questionnaire to decide what treatment somebody should receive. I would use the information to ask better questions.

What I pay attention to in therapy

I pay attention to the small moments around disagreement and need. Does the client correct me if I misunderstand something? Can they tell me an exercise was useless? What happens when I ask a question that feels too personal? Do they say no, or answer because saying no feels harder?

This matters because the same pattern that causes problems elsewhere can turn up quietly in therapy. A client who expects criticism may protect me from knowing that I have annoyed them. Someone who normally withdraws during conflict may nod through an explanation that does not fit. A symptom questionnaire will not necessarily tell me that.

The work depends on the person. In schema therapy we might look at subjugation, emotional deprivation, mistrust or the expectation that having needs will cost them something. CBT can be useful for testing predictions about what will happen if they speak more directly. Sometimes the most useful work is happening in the room, when the client is disappointed with me and manages to say so instead of retreating.

I would not try to fix withdrawal by simply pushing someone to disclose more or become more assertive. If distance has been protective, taking it away too quickly can feel like another person deciding what they should do. I want to understand when the protection is still needed and when it is now getting in the person's way.

For some people, progress is quite ordinary to look at. They correct a misunderstanding. They ask for something without apologising for it. They stay in a conversation for another minute instead of disappearing from it. Those changes can be small and still matter a great deal.