When Talking Is Tough: How Avoidance Shapes Our Closest Relationships

• Prevalence of Avoidance: Avoidance is nearly as common as talking in close relationships, occurring 37.6% of the time.
• Influence of Relationship Duration: Longer relationships and denser social networks reduce the likelihood of avoidance.
• Specificity in Avoidance: People often avoid discussing particular sensitive topics with specific close contacts rather than a general tendency to avoid.

Introduction

Have you ever found yourself unable to discuss a pressing issue with your closest friend? You’re not alone.

This is the phenomenon investigated by Mario L. Small of Columbia University, Kristina Brant of Pennsylvania State University, and Maleah Fekete of Harvard University. Published in the American Sociological Review, their findings suggest avoiding sharing with close family and friends is nearly as common as confiding in them.

Read on to learn more about their research into how avoidance shapes our closest relationships, and what you can do to better navigate these complex dynamics.

Background

Sociologists have long been fascinated by people’s social networks and relationships. For example, Mark Granovetter’s 1973 article, “The Strength of Weak Ties,” is among the most cited and arguably the most influential sociology journal article ever published. (Among sociologists, close family and friends are usually referred to as “strong ties,” while acquaintances are called “weak ties.”)

Strong ties are often characterized by frequent contact, reciprocity, exchange volume, relationship duration, and closeness. Marsden and Campbell (1984) found that closeness is a more reliable indicator of strong ties than other factors. However, the literature indicates that these strong ties might not always facilitate open communication.

Recent studies challenge the idea that close ties are always the best confidants. The literature on avoidance encompasses both psychological and sociological perspectives:

• From a psychological standpoint, Goffman (2017) proposed that individuals avoid others to protect themselves from stigma or embarrassment.
• Slepian (2022) and his colleagues have explored how maintaining secrets is psychologically burdensome, supporting the idea that people avoid discussing certain topics to preserve their well-being.
• Sociologically, Fingerman et al. (2004) and Lee and Szinovacz (2016) reported that close relationships, such as those with spouses, are often ambivalent and problematic. This ambivalence can lead to avoidance, particularly when discussing sensitive issues.
• Offer and Fischer (2018) supported this finding by reporting that people often find family members particularly difficult to deal with, highlighting the complexity of these relationships.

Avoidance can also stem from the obligations and reputational concerns inherent in strong relationships. Confiding in an intimate often incurs reciprocal obligations, which might deter individuals from seeking support. Additionally, because strong-tie networks are typically dense, individuals may fear that their confidences will spread, damaging their reputation. These dynamics suggest that avoidance might be a strategy to manage the potential negative consequences of confiding.

The literature indicates that avoidance is not uniformly distributed across all close relationships or topics. For example, Offer and Fischer (2018) found that only a minority of close alters were perceived as demanding or difficult, suggesting that avoidance might be limited to specific individuals.

Similarly, several researchers have explored the phenomenon of avoiding close ties when dealing with sensitive topics:

• Cowan (2014) found that people often avoid discussing unintended pregnancies with their close ties.
• Similarly, Small (2017) discovered that individuals frequently do not discuss significant personal matters with most of their important contacts.
• This avoidance behavior extends to various sensitive topics, such as personal difficulties related to school and career (Small 2017) and national presidential elections (Cowan and Baldassarri 2018; Lee and Bearman 2017, 2020).

The broader cultural and political context also plays a significant role in avoidance behaviors:

• Studies by Lee and Bearman (2017, 2020) have shown that people tend to avoid discussing important matters with their close ties during politically contentious times.
• This avoidance is particularly relevant in the current climate of heightened political partisanship and sensitivity around issues such as race, racism, identity, immigration, nationalism, abortion, reproductive rights, trans rights, feminism, mental health, and economic concerns like housing and education. The high sensitivity of these topics makes them potential landmines in interpersonal relationships, leading to avoidance.

Bearman and Parigi (2004) introduced the concept of “topic–alter dependency,” suggesting that certain topics are more likely to be discussed with specific types of alters. This concept can be extended to avoidance, positing that individuals might avoid certain topics with particular alters. For example, a person might avoid discussing politics with a politically contentious family member but feel comfortable discussing other personal issues with them. This conjunctive nature of avoidance underscores the complexity of interpersonal dynamics in close relationships.

Despite these findings, it’s unclear whether people frequently avoid their strong ties when needing a confidant or if avoidance is a rare occurrence limited to specific situations or topics. The question is crucial for understanding what being “close” means sociologically:

• If avoidance is rare, this supports the traditional view that people with strong ties naturally serve as confidants because they have built trust over time.
• However, if avoidance is common, it suggests that the accumulation of experiences in close relationships may lead to a long list of topics to avoid rather than a greater willingness to talk.
• Thus, a close relationship might mean “it’s complicated” rather than “I can trust you.”

The implications of avoidance are significant. If avoidance is prevalent, it could harm well-being more than the ability to talk helps. Avoiding close friends and family might be more detrimental than having no one to talk to. Therefore, the frequency of avoidance in close relationships warrants thorough examination to understand its full impact.

Consequently, Small et al.’s study addresses three main questions:

1. Whether avoiding close alters is rare
2. If avoidance is limited to specific alters
3. If avoidance is limited to specific topics.

Traditional views suggest avoidance should be rare, given the trust built over time and the availability of strong ties. However, other factors like ambivalence, obligations, and reputational concerns might make avoidance more common.

Methods

The term “strong tie” has various definitions, often involving indicators like frequency of contact, reciprocity, exchange volume, relationship duration, and closeness. This study focuses on “closeness,” using self-reports to define close relationships. This approach aligns with the affective perspective, allowing for an unbiased understanding of whether people trust their close ties.

Empirical research on avoidance is challenging due to its nature as a non-action. Traditional surveys often do not capture the frequency of avoidance effectively.

To measure the prevalence of avoidance in a national population, Small and his colleagues first had to define what constitutes avoidance. Avoidance is not simply the opposite of talking; it involves the deliberate act of keeping away from or refraining from a particular interaction. Research across psychology, sociology, and philosophy highlights the distinction between actions that are deliberate and those that are intuitive or habitual. This distinction is crucial for understanding avoidance, which can be either active or passive.

• Active Avoidance: This occurs when a person consciously decides not to talk to someone after reflecting on the matter. For instance, if a woman worries about having contracted a sexually-transmitted infection (STI), considers confiding in a friend but decides against it fearing judgment, this is active avoidance.
• Passive Avoidance: This occurs when a person refrains from talking to someone without deliberate consideration at the moment. For example, if the same woman refrains from discussing her STI with her father without even contemplating it, this is passive avoidance.

These forms of avoidance exist on a continuum. For example, a person might have reflected in the past on whether to talk about a similar issue, leading to habitual passive avoidance in the present.

Avoidance is also inherently difficult to observe, both qualitatively and quantitatively, because it happens in the mind of the individual:

1. Observation: An ethnographer, for example, cannot determine whether a person is avoiding another without inquiring directly.
2. Survey Design: Traditional survey methods that ask whom people talk to (like the General Social Survey) are less effective for capturing avoidance. Asking whom respondents avoid can be cognitively taxing as avoidance can occur in various forms (e.g., lying, changing the topic, not considering the topic at all). Moreover, general questions about typical behavior fail to capture situational dependencies of avoidance.

To address these challenges, Small et al. developed an original survey with the following components:

1. Name Generator: Respondents listed seven people they felt closest to, which provided a manageable yet comprehensive list of potential alters (people with whom they interact).
2. Likelihood to Talk: Respondents rated on a scale of 1 to 7 how likely they were to talk to each alter about sensitive issues in three domains: health, work, and relationships.
3. Issue Generator: Respondents described three recent sensitive personal issues they faced in these domains. This allowed for situational context in reporting avoidance.
4. Reconstructed Discussions: Respondents indicated whether they talked to each listed alter about these issues. For alters not talked to, respondents specified whether the lack of communication was due to a lack of opportunity, a conscious decision, or a general unwillingness to discuss the topic.

The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) administered their survey online in July 2019 to 1,108 U.S. adults from the AmeriSpeak® Panel, representative of the U.S. household population. Demographic characteristics of respondents and alters were recorded to ensure the data accurately represented the national population in 2019.

Subjects reported a wide range of sensitive issues:

• 84.3% of respondents reported health-related issues.
• 76.5% reported relationship-related issues.
• 68.7% reported work-related issues.
• 9.7% reported no issues at all.

This structured approach allowed the authors to capture a nuanced understanding of avoidance behavior in a national population, distinguishing between active and passive avoidance and accounting for situational dependencies. Nevertheless, the authors identify several limitations to their study:

• Scope of Domains: Small et al. only observed avoidance rates across three domains: health, work, and relationships. There may be other relevant topics not included in our study. Future research, in particular, should explore more specific topics, like abortion, sex, and politics, to understand their dynamics better.
• Number of Close Alters: The data included no more than seven close alters per respondent, which restricts the number of alter-level variables they can analyze. Most studies report that adult Americans typically have around 2.5 to 5 close alters, but studying avoidance in larger personal networks could provide new insights.
• Difficulty Proxy: The authors’ measure for difficulty, based on how likely respondents were to talk to each alter, is broad and likely combines both perception and practice. While only about a fifth of intimates were deemed difficult, they significantly influenced the average avoidance rate.
• Additional Considerations: Due to space constraints, they did not explore the differences between passive and active avoidance, the full relationship between talking, not talking, and avoidance, self-reported motivations, specific topic–alter dynamics, gender differences in avoidance rates, and other network characteristics. These areas merit further investigation.

Findings

Small et al. address their findings sequentially, answering each of the three research questions posed at the outset.

1. Is Avoiding Close Alters Rare?

To explore how often people avoid discussing personal issues with their close contacts, we calculated avoidance rates among respondents. The rate at which respondents avoided discussing issues with their close contacts (referred to as “alters”) was compared to the rate of talking to them. Avoidance rate was calculated as the proportion of times respondents avoided an alter about a topic, relative to the total number of topics discussed.

Key Findings:

• Avoidance vs. Talking: The study revealed that avoidance is almost as common as talking. Respondents avoided their close contacts 37.6% of the time, while they talked to them 36.5% of the time.
• Active vs. Passive Avoidance: Most avoidance was passive (73.7%), meaning it happened without active decision-making, compared to active avoidance (26.3%).
• Demographic Variations: Although there were some differences across demographics, the overall pattern was consistent. For example, avoidance was slightly higher among Asian or Asian American respondents (49.3%) and lower among women, who had a 9% lower avoidance rate and a 12.3% higher talking rate.

Influence of Relationship Characteristics:

• Frequency of Interaction: Surprisingly, the frequency of seeing close contacts did not significantly affect avoidance rates.
• Duration of Relationship: Longer relationships reduced avoidance. A one-standard-deviation increase in the proportion of alters known for over six years decreased the avoidance rate by 4.2 percentage points.
• Network Density: Being part of a densely connected network also reduced avoidance. A one-standard-deviation increase in network density decreased avoidance by 4.8 percentage points.

Factors Contributing to Avoidance:

• Difficult People: The presence of difficult people in one’s network increased avoidance. A one-standard-deviation increase in the proportion of difficult intimates led to a 6.2 percentage point increase in avoidance.
• Reciprocal Obligations: High reciprocal obligations (where a person receives more advice than they give) did not significantly impact avoidance rates.

In short, avoiding close alters when dealing with personal issues is not rare; it is as common as talking to them. The study challenges the expectation that people would avoid their close contacts far less often due to established trust and frequent interactions. Instead, avoidance appears to be a fundamental aspect of close relationships, influenced by factors like the duration of the relationship, network density, and the presence of difficult individuals.

2. Is Avoidance Limited to Specific Alters?

Avoidance is common, but the study authors wanted to determine if it is confined to a specific group of close alters. To address this, we shifted our analysis from the individual (ego) to the alter (those close to the individual) level.

Key Findings:

• General Avoidance: On average, respondents avoided 58.4% of their close alters at least once. This shows that avoidance is not restricted to a small group of alters but is quite widespread. Passive avoidance (47.1%) was more common than active avoidance (19.6%).
• Repeated Avoidance: About 32.3% of close alters were avoided repeatedly (on more than one issue). This suggests that while avoidance is not confined to a few alters, it also indicates that some alters have characteristics that make them more likely to be avoided repeatedly.
• Demographic Consistency: The rate at which alters were avoided was largely consistent across different demographic groups, reinforcing the idea that avoidance is a widespread phenomenon.

Characteristics of Avoided Alters:

• Difficult Alters: Alters who were perceived as difficult were more likely to be avoided. Alters classified as slightly, moderately, or very difficult had significantly higher probabilities of being avoided, with very difficult alters having an 80.7 percentage point increase in the likelihood of being avoided compared to those not considered difficult.
• Reciprocal Obligations: Alters who owed more obligations than they were owed did not significantly impact the likelihood of being avoided, suggesting that reciprocal obligations are not a primary factor in avoidance.
• Network Centrality: Alters who were more connected within the respondent’s network were less likely to be avoided. This might indicate that people are less likely to avoid those who are well-integrated into their social circles due to potential reputation concerns.
• Power Dynamics: Alters in more powerful roles (like parents, bosses, or teachers) were slightly more likely to be avoided, both in general and repeatedly. This could be due to the inherent power dynamics in these relationships.

In short, avoidance is not limited to a specific subset of close alters but is a common aspect of social interactions. While most close alters are avoided at least once, only a portion is avoided repeatedly. Difficult relationships and power dynamics play significant roles in determining which alters are avoided. This finding challenges the expectation that avoidance would be confined to a small, specific group of close contacts, highlighting instead its broad prevalence across different types of relationships and demographics.

3. Is Avoidance Limited to Particular Topics?

The study examined whether avoidance is confined to specific topics, especially those that are frequent or sensitive.

1. Topic Subject Matters:

• General Avoidance: Avoidance is not limited to particular topics. The average avoidance rate across topics is 37.7%, but it varies significantly, from 17.0% for unemployment issues to 65.6% for sexual issues.
• Common Topics: Topics like sex and politics, which were expected to be highly avoided, indeed showed higher avoidance rates (50.6% for politics). Other frequently avoided topics included financial stress, domestic disputes, and mental health issues.
• Frequency and Avoidance: There is a low correlation between how often a topic occurs and how often it is avoided (−0.044). Highly avoided topics do not occur more frequently; they account for only 18.3% of the total issues reported.

2. Topic Sensitivity:

• Secrecy: Respondents considered 61.3% of their issues as secret, with an average avoidance rate of 44.4%.
• Embarrassment: 38.4% of issues were classified as embarrassing, with a 43.2% avoidance rate.
• Combined Sensitivity: Issues that were both secret and embarrassing had the highest avoidance rates (45.5%), while issues that were neither had the lowest (28.8%).

3. Topic–Alter Conjunction:

• Conjunction Score: The study assessed how people avoid different alters for different topics. The average topic–alter conjunction score was 0.72, indicating a high degree of specificity in avoidance behavior.
• Avoidance Patterns: Only 7.8% of respondents avoided all alters on any issue they avoided, and 31% of alters avoided on any issue were avoided on all issues.

In short, avoidance is not confined to specific topics or a small number of highly avoided topics. While certain sensitive topics like sex and politics are avoided more frequently, they do not occur often enough to account for the overall high prevalence of avoidance. Both the subject matter and the sensitivity of the topics contribute to avoidance rates, with secrecy playing a more significant role than embarrassment. Additionally, avoidance behavior is specific to the combination of topics and alters, indicating that people avoid certain intimates for particular issues rather than having a general tendency to avoid.

What Can You Do?

Based on the findings from Small et al.’s study and the broader literature, several actionable steps and strategies can be proposed for individuals seeking to navigate the complexities of close relationships and avoid the pitfalls of avoidance:

1. Recognize and Understand Avoidance

• Self-awareness: Be conscious of when and why you avoid discussing certain topics with close contacts. Reflect on whether this avoidance is active (a deliberate choice) or passive (an automatic reaction).
• Acknowledge Patterns: Identify patterns in your avoidance behavior. Are there specific individuals or topics that you consistently avoid? Understanding these patterns can help you address underlying issues.

2. Improve Communication Skills

• Open Dialogues: Foster open and honest communication with your close ties. Create an environment where sensitive topics can be discussed without fear of judgment or repercussion.
• Express Boundaries: Clearly communicate your boundaries and encourage others to do the same. This can help manage expectations and reduce the fear of reciprocal obligations.

3. Build Trust Gradually

• Small Steps: Start with less sensitive topics to build trust gradually. As comfort levels increase, you can progress to more sensitive issues.
• Consistency: Consistently show empathy and understanding when others confide in you. This helps in building a foundation of trust and reliability.

4. Manage Difficult Relationships

• Address Ambivalence: Recognize and address ambivalence in close relationships. Seek to understand and mitigate the factors that contribute to mixed feelings.
• Seek Mediation: In cases of significant difficulty, consider seeking mediation or counseling to improve communication and resolve conflicts.

5. Leverage Diverse Support Networks

• Varied Confidants: Diversify your support network to include both strong and weak ties. Sometimes, weak ties can offer a different perspective and provide a safe space for discussing sensitive issues.
• External Resources: Utilize external resources such as support groups, professional counselors, or helplines for issues that may be too sensitive to discuss within your close network.

6. Foster a Supportive Environment

• Empathy and Support: Encourage a culture of empathy and support within your close relationships. Being supportive and non-judgmental can reduce the tendency for others to avoid discussing sensitive issues.
• Normalize Discussions: Normalize the discussion of sensitive topics by regularly engaging in conversations about them. This can help reduce the stigma and fear associated with these issues.

7. Address Power Dynamics

• Empowerment: Empower individuals in less powerful positions by validating their experiences and providing them with the space to express their concerns.
• Equalize Power: Strive to equalize power dynamics in relationships where one party holds more power. Open and honest communication can help mitigate the impact of these dynamics.

Do you find any of these results surprising? How has avoidance affected your own close relationships? Share your experiences in the comments.

Stay informed and inspired! Subscribe to our newsletter, “Society This Week,” and get a free copy of our exclusive report, “Peaceful, Powerful: 225 Nonviolent Tactics for Impactful Activism!”