People Who Ghost Others Feel More Guilt Than Their Victims Expect, Study Finds
When online conversations suddenly go silent, many people assume the other person simply does not care. However, new research suggests that this assumption is often mistaken and that people who stop responding may experience more guilt and emotional distress than those left waiting realize.
The study, titled The Pain of Ghosting? People Underestimate How Bad Their Conversation Partners Feel About Not Responding, was published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Conducted by Sophia Li, Coral Zheng and Juliana Schroeder, it examines how people feel when they ghost others and how accurately their conversation partners perceive those emotions. The findings reveal a persistent gap between the feelings of ghosters and the expectations of those they leave waiting.
What researchers mean by ghosting
In the study, ghosting was broadly defined as ending or pausing a digital conversation without explanation in circumstances where at least one participant believes the silence could be permanent. This definition includes deliberate communication cutoffs as well as accidental or temporary lapses.
Previous research has primarily examined ghosting as a strategy for ending romantic relationships. The new work, led by Sophia Li of the University of California, Berkeley, and Coral Zheng of the University of Cambridge, extends the concept to everyday digital interactions involving acquaintances and strangers.
The researchers emphasize that ghosting is partly subjective. If one person interprets an unexplained silence as ghosting, that experience is meaningful to them, even if the other participant never intended to end the relationship or did not recognize their behavior as ghosting.
Ghosters feel worse than others think
In one study, 195 adults recalled an occasion when they had either ghosted someone or been ghosted during an online conversation with a casual contact. Participants rated how badly they felt and how badly they believed the other person felt, using a five-point scale.
People who had ghosted others reported more negative emotions than the ghosted participants expected. On average, ghosters rated their distress at 2.27, while ghostees estimated that ghosters would score only 1.56. Those who had been ghosted underestimated not only the guilt and sadness experienced by ghosters but also the relief they sometimes reported.
Interestingly, ghosters were relatively accurate in estimating the emotional distress experienced by the people they had ignored. Their predictions closely matched ghostees' own reports, suggesting that those who stop responding may be more aware of the hurt they cause than their conversation partners assume.
Unintentional silence can sting more
The difference in emotional expectations was particularly pronounced when ghosting was unintentional, such as when someone forgot to respond or overlooked a message. In these situations, ghosters often felt especially bad about their failure to reply, yet ghostees did not expect them to experience such strong emotions.
This mismatch illustrates how easily people left waiting for a response may interpret silence as indifference or rejection, even when the other person feels guilty or conflicted. It also helps explain how misunderstandings can develop and intensify during digital communication.
To investigate these patterns further, researchers conducted another experiment involving 601 adults who imagined exchanging text messages with a casual friend. Participants were asked to picture themselves either ghosting the friend or being ghosted under two different circumstances.
A short reply changes the story
In the hypothetical conversations, participants considered one scenario in which the other person stopped responding entirely and another in which they sent a brief message: “Sorry, but I can’t talk right now.” This seemingly small difference significantly changed participants' emotional expectations.
Those imagining themselves as ghosters anticipated feeling considerably worse about complete silence than participants imagining themselves as ghostees expected them to feel. However, when the scenario included a short reply, the emotional gap narrowed, and both groups anticipated less distress overall.
The brief explanation also influenced self-blame among participants imagining they had been ghosted. Without a reply, approximately one in three assumed they had been annoying or had done something wrong. When a short explanation was provided, that proportion fell to about one in five, with most participants instead assuming the other person was simply busy.
Live chat experiment offers nuance
In a more realistic experiment, 229 pairs of adults participated in an eight-minute online conversation intended to help them become acquainted. Afterward, one person in each pair could choose whether to continue with a second five-minute conversation or quietly leave, allowing their partner to wait without an explanation.
Among the 175 pairs in which one participant left, the findings did not fully reproduce the pattern observed in earlier experiments. On average, those left waiting did not underestimate how badly the departing participants felt. However, they did overestimate how negatively those feelings were directed toward them personally.
Participants also frequently disagreed about whether ghosting had occurred. Those who left generally considered their behavior less characteristic of ghosting than their waiting partners did, highlighting how differently people can interpret the same interaction, particularly during brief conversations between strangers.
When the researchers examined only participants who strongly agreed that ghosting had occurred, the earlier pattern reappeared. Within this subgroup, those who left reported feeling worse than their waiting partners anticipated, reflecting the emotional misperceptions identified in the recall and hypothetical conversation studies.
Implications for digital relationships
Taken together, the findings suggest that people who are left without a reply may underestimate how conflicted ghosters feel and how much concern they retain for the relationship. This interpretation is consistent with separate research indicating that ghostees often underestimate how much ghosters care about their well-being.
The research also demonstrates how relatively small communication decisions can influence emotional responses. Even a brief message without a detailed explanation appears to reduce anticipated guilt for the sender and self-blame for the recipient, potentially easing discomfort on both sides.
The authors acknowledge several limitations. The live chat experiment involved short interactions between strangers rather than established romantic partners or close friends, where emotional investment is generally greater and reactions may be more intense.
All participants were based in the United States, leaving open questions about how cultural expectations surrounding politeness, confrontation and indirect communication might influence ghosting experiences. In some cultures, avoiding direct communication may be considered more acceptable or may produce less guilt.
Future questions for online etiquette
The findings also contribute to an ongoing discussion about how ghosting should be defined. Two people can experience the same online conversation yet interpret its ending in entirely different ways.
Beyond unexplained silence, the researchers note that many aspects of digital messaging remain insufficiently understood. Response speed, message length, tone, punctuation and emojis may all influence how people interpret another person's emotions and intentions.
For now, the studies offer a practical but measured takeaway. If an unanswered conversation leaves you feeling rejected, it may be worth considering that the other person could be experiencing more distress than you imagine. And if you are considering ending a conversation without explanation, even a brief reply may help prevent unnecessary discomfort for both people.
Article prepared by Victoria Caldwell.
