Group chats in messaging apps have become an integral part of everyday life, connecting families, friends, and colleagues. But not everyone behaves the same way in this digital space. Some people actively share news and emojis, while others prefer to remain silent, which leaves the rest puzzled or even offended. Spanish psychologists set out to understand what really lies behind this behavior and concluded that silence in WhatsApp is a complex phenomenon with many possible meanings.
According to experts, passivity in chats does not always signal indifference. Often, it is a defensive mechanism against so-called technostress. The constant stream of messages, notifications, and the pressure to stay connected creates enormous emotional and communicative strain. In these conditions, silence becomes a form of self-regulation—a way to lower anxiety and avoid burnout. People deliberately withdraw to conserve their mental resources and resist the pressure to respond immediately. There is even a special category of users, the so-called ‘lurkers.’ They carefully read every message and follow the conversation but never join in. Their behavior is not hostility, but a conscious way to manage their time and energy.
Can silence be a sign of something more than just digital fatigue? Absolutely. Sometimes people choose not to write out of respect for others, not wanting to clutter the chat with unnecessary messages. In other cases, it’s a sign of caution or social burnout. Someone might simply observe before formulating their thoughts, or intentionally maintain emotional distance to avoid being drawn into potentially tense discussions. It’s important to understand that a lack of messages does not equate to disregard for the group or its members. Additionally, the “spiral of silence” effect should not be dismissed. If someone feels their opinion differs from the majority or senses a highly uniform atmosphere within the group, they might choose to remain silent to avoid conflict or unwanted attention. In this case, their passivity is not apathy, but strategic caution.
Personality and fears: the inner world of the “silent one”
Individual personality traits play a key role. For example, introverts by nature do not seek superficial group communication, preferring deep one-on-one conversations. For them, fast-paced exchanges in a group chat can be exhausting. The situation is quite different for people with social anxiety. Their silence is driven by fear of judgment. Questions like: “What if I say something stupid?” or “What if nobody answers me?” constantly run through their minds. This uncertainty leads them to rewrite and delete messages several times, never finding the courage to send them. For them, inaction is a self-protection strategy.
Social anxiety makes people avoid public spaces, which, in essence, include group chats. Someone suffering from it tends to overthink before sending a message, replaying every word and possible reaction from others in their head. The very fact that the text will remain in the chat history and be seen by several people at once intensifies the sense of vulnerability and scrutiny. This can be compounded by perfectionism (“if my message isn’t perfect, I won’t send it”) or low self-esteem about their communication skills. All this only reinforces the habit of staying silent. It is important to distinguish introversion from shyness or anxiety. An introvert may feel quite comfortable in a group but consciously chooses to participate less. An anxious person, on the contrary, may want to be more active but is held back by fear.
Social pressure and digital politeness
There are unwritten rules in the digital world. One says: “If you’re in a group, participate.” This leads many to feel obligated to reply, so as not to appear rude or uninterested. Those who break this rule may feel guilty or like they don’t fit in. This phenomenon, known as “telepressure,” is fueled by the very nature of messaging apps. Features like double check marks, online statuses, or “typing…” indicators foster the illusion that responses must be immediate and mandatory.
The pressure can be internal (“I must reply”) but also external: direct messages, tagging with “@”, or direct questions – all these make silence more noticeable. There’s also the fear of missing the conversation as messages flood in quickly, and a sense of reciprocity (“if someone writes to me, I’m obliged to answer”). As a result, many join the conversation not out of interest, but out of duty. This type of communication becomes a source of stress and makes it harder to disconnect from digital noise.
Silence as a healthy boundary
However, this situation can be viewed from another angle. In an age of information overload, silence may not be a sign of a problem, but rather its solution. It is an effective tool for self-care—a way to protect oneself against hyperconnectivity and maintain emotional balance. Consciously choosing not to respond is often a measured and self-protective decision that deserves respect. Just as we need a break from physical noise, we also need a break from digital noise.
When silence is a conscious choice, it serves an important adaptive function. It helps regulate emotions and reduces the stress and anxiety associated with a constant flow of information. This protects our attention and supports psychological relief at the end of the day. By setting boundaries around availability, a person does not isolate themselves, but instead finds a healthier and more sustainable way to stay connected without depleting their resources. The main thing is that this silence should not be driven by fear. In such cases, it is worth reexamining one’s approach. And to prevent misunderstandings, it is sometimes enough to simply explain your communication style: «Я все читаю, но отвечаю не сразу».
