The Psychology of Passive Aggression — Why Anger Goes Indirect
Last reviewed by the Men Women Psychology editorial team.
The evidence
What the research actually shows
Passive aggression sits where avoidance and suppressed anger meet. Andrew Christensen and Christopher Heavey's research on the demand-withdraw pattern (1990) describes how one partner pressing an issue while the other withdraws can entrench conflict. Withdrawal that carries unspoken resentment — going quiet, stalling, complying on the surface while resisting underneath — is a recognizable face of passive aggression, and their work shows how such patterns can become self-reinforcing in couples.
James Gross and Oliver John's work on emotion regulation (2003) distinguishes expression from suppression — pushing feelings down without voicing them. Their research associates habitual suppression with costs, including weaker social connection, partly because hidden feelings don't disappear; they often find indirect outlets. Passive aggression can be understood as suppressed anger that surfaces through behavior rather than words, since the feeling persists even when its direct expression is blocked.
John Gottman and Robert Levenson's longitudinal research (1992) found that how couples handle conflict predicts relationship outcomes over time. Indirect hostility — contempt, stonewalling, and the kind of veiled criticism passive aggression delivers — tends to corrode trust because grievances never get aired and resolved. Their work suggests it is not conflict itself but the way it is expressed that matters, and indirect expression tends to leave problems festering.
The mechanism
Why this happens
Passive aggression often grows where direct expression of anger feels unsafe or forbidden. Someone who learned early that openly objecting led to punishment, withdrawal of affection, or escalation may default to indirect resistance instead — it feels safer than confrontation while still registering a protest. In this light, the behavior is frequently a learned coping strategy rather than deliberate cruelty.
Avoidance of conflict is a major driver. For people uncomfortable with open disagreement, expressing displeasure indirectly can feel like a way to register a grievance without the perceived risk of a confrontation. Christensen and Heavey's research on withdrawal shows how this can become a stable pattern, especially when one person pursues and the other retreats, each response feeding the other.
Suppression keeps the underlying emotion alive. As Gross and John's work suggests, feelings that are pushed down rather than processed tend to leak out — through tone, delay, 'forgetting,' or subtle obstruction. The person may not even fully recognize they are angry, which is part of why passive aggression can be genuinely confusing for everyone, including the one expressing it.
In practice
What this looks like in real life
A partner who agrees to a plan but then repeatedly 'forgets' the steps involved may be expressing reluctance they didn't feel able to state directly. The behavior reads as carelessness, but underneath it can be an unvoiced objection that never made it into words.
Saying 'fine, whatever you want' in a clipped tone while clearly not meaning it is a familiar form of indirect protest — surface compliance carrying unspoken resentment. Research on withdrawal suggests this can leave the other person sensing a problem but unable to address it, since nothing was openly named.
Going quiet and withdrawing warmth after a disagreement, without explaining why, can function as a way to register displeasure indirectly. Gottman's work suggests this kind of silent punishment tends to erode trust over time precisely because the actual grievance stays unaddressed.
Myth vs. evidence
What most people get wrong about this
A common misconception is that passive aggression is always a calculated manipulation. Research suggests it more often reflects a learned, semi-automatic strategy for handling anger that felt unsafe to express directly — sometimes outside the person's full awareness. Framing it purely as scheming tends to escalate conflict rather than resolve it.
Another error is treating it as a personality verdict rather than a pattern in context. Most people slip into indirect expression sometimes, especially in environments where directness feels risky. Research on emotion regulation suggests the behavior tends to ease when the underlying feeling can be named and expressed safely — which means the conditions matter as much as the individual.
Why it matters
What this means for relationships
Because the real issue stays hidden, passive aggression tends to keep conflicts unresolved and trust slowly eroding, as Gottman and Levenson's research on conflict patterns suggests. The frustrating part for a partner is sensing that something is wrong while being told 'nothing's wrong,' which can leave them feeling both blamed and powerless to fix it.
The more constructive path, research suggests, runs through making direct expression feel safe enough to use. When both people can name grievances calmly and trust they'll be heard rather than punished, the incentive for indirect protest tends to fade. Addressing the conditions that make directness feel risky often does more than calling out each individual behavior.
Where it varies
The nuance
Passive aggression appears across genders, and the underlying mechanics — suppressed anger seeking an indirect outlet — look broadly shared. Janet Hyde's gender similarities hypothesis (2005) suggests men and women are far more alike than different on most psychological measures; any average differences in how indirect expression shows up tend to be modest, with large overlap between individuals.
It is also worth distinguishing occasional indirect expression, which nearly everyone does under stress, from an entrenched pattern. A clipped 'fine' on a hard day is not the same as a chronic style of avoiding all direct conflict. Context, history, and how safe directness feels all shape whether the behavior is a passing moment or a persistent dynamic worth addressing.
Questions people ask about this
What does psychology suggest passive aggression actually is?
Research frames it as what tends to happen when anger or a need feels too risky to express directly, so it leaks out indirectly — through silence, stalling, subtle digs, or 'forgetting.' It often reflects a learned strategy for avoiding open conflict rather than deliberate malice, and the real issue usually stays unspoken.
Is passive aggression always intentional manipulation?
Research suggests not. It more often reflects a learned, semi-automatic way of handling anger that felt unsafe to express directly, sometimes outside the person's full awareness. Framing it purely as scheming tends to escalate conflict. The underlying feeling often surfaces indirectly precisely because it isn't being consciously managed.
Why do people express anger indirectly instead of just saying it?
Often because direct expression has felt unsafe — punished, escalated, or met with withdrawal in the past. Indirect protest can feel like a way to register a grievance while avoiding feared confrontation. Gross and John's work suggests suppressed feelings tend to leak out through behavior when they aren't voiced directly.
How does passive aggression affect relationships?
Research by Gottman and Levenson suggests indirect hostility tends to erode trust over time, because grievances never get aired and resolved. A partner often senses something is wrong while being told 'nothing's wrong,' which can feel both confusing and powerless. The unresolved issue tends to keep resurfacing.
What tends to help reduce passive-aggressive patterns?
Research suggests making direct expression feel safe enough to use. When people can name grievances calmly and trust they'll be heard rather than punished, the pull toward indirect protest tends to fade. Addressing the conditions that make directness feel risky often helps more than calling out each behavior in the moment.
Are men or women more passive-aggressive?
The underlying mechanics appear broadly shared across genders. Hyde's gender similarities hypothesis suggests men and women are far more alike than different on most psychological measures. Any average differences in how indirect expression shows up tend to be modest, with large overlap between individuals of either gender.
Research sources
These references point to the published research and established frameworks behind this page. They are provided for further reading; see our research methodology for how sources are selected.
- Christensen, A., & Heavey, C. L. (1990). Gender and social structure in the demand/withdraw pattern of marital conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(1), 73–81.
- Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348–362.
- Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1992). Marital processes predictive of later dissolution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(2), 221–233.
- Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation. Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 271–299.
- Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60(6), 581–592.