Leaving Without Closure

Many people experience distress not because a relationship or situation ended, but because it ended without explanation, repair, or resolution.

Popular psychology often frames closure as necessary for healing. However, contemporary psychological research suggests that closure is not always achievable, nor always beneficial, particularly in relationships or systems characterised by power imbalance or relational ambiguity (Freyd, 2018; Prilleltensky, 2014). For some individuals, the insistence on closure can prolong distress rather than resolve it.

The cultural expectation of closure

Western psychological narratives frequently emphasise understanding, insight, and narrative completion as markers of recovery. Research on meaning-making shows that people are encouraged to integrate experiences into coherent stories, even when the social conditions required for such integration are absent (Prilleltensky, 2014).

In relational or institutional contexts where accountability is uneven, closure may be structurally unavailable. Studies on organisational power indicate that those with less power are often expected to make sense of endings that were never fully explained to them (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014; Williams & Dempsey, 2018). In such cases, seeking closure can become a solitary and exhausting task.

When closure is unsafe or unrealistic

Psychological research on institutional betrayal suggests that in contexts where harm has been minimised, denied, or reframed, attempts to seek explanation or repair may lead to further invalidation (Freyd, 2018).

Similarly, studies of relational ambiguity show that returning to the source of confusion often reproduces the original dynamic rather than resolving it (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). Individuals may leave these conversations feeling more uncertain than before.

In such circumstances, leaving without closure may represent self-protection rather than avoidance.

The psychological cost of staying for answers

Research on rumination and unresolved stress indicates that prolonged efforts to extract meaning from unresponsive systems or relationships are associated with increased anxiety, emotional exhaustion, and diminished self-trust (Prilleltensky, 2014; Fonagy & Allison, 2014).

Clinically, people often describe:

• replaying conversations in search of a “final” explanation

• drafting messages they never send

• delaying departure in the hope that things will eventually make sense

• doubting their right to leave without permission or understanding

Studies on epistemic trust suggest that when meaning is repeatedly withheld or destabilised, individuals may begin to doubt the legitimacy of their own conclusions (Fonagy et al., 2017).

Leaving as an act of orientation

Contemporary psychological frameworks increasingly recognise that departure can be a regulatory act rather than a failure of resilience. Research on autonomy and agency shows that choosing to disengage from unresponsive contexts can restore a sense of psychological coherence (Prilleltensky, 2014).

Leaving without closure does not mean denying loss. It means recognising when further explanation is unlikely to emerge and when continued engagement is likely to incur further cost. From this perspective, leaving becomes a way of re-establishing orientation rather than achieving resolution.

What replaces closure

Psychological research suggests that when interpersonal closure is unavailable, individuals often benefit from shifting the focus from explanation to containment (Fonagy & Allison, 2014).

Containment may involve:

• acknowledging what was experienced without requiring validation

• allowing ambiguity to remain unresolved

• relocating meaning-making from the relationship to the self

Studies indicate that this process can support the gradual restoration of epistemic trust — confidence in one’s own interpretations — even in the absence of external confirmation (Fonagy et al., 2017).

A note on permission

From a clinical perspective, leaving without closure is not a failure to process. It is often a recognition that the conditions for processing are no longer present.

You do not need a final conversation. You do not need an agreed narrative. You do not need the other party’s understanding. Research suggests that acknowledging the limits of a relationship or system — and exiting accordingly — can be an important step in protecting psychological wellbeing (Freyd, 2018; Prilleltensky, 2014).