Journal·Image library

When Uncertainty Becomes a Hiding Place

By Cleo Marsh · Published May 17, 2026 · 5 min read

You can be genuinely unsure whether to stay. You can also be protecting yourself from a preference by never letting the math finish.

From outside, those can look identical: long talks, lists, sudden certainty that fades. From inside, they do not always feel the same. Ambivalence sits with two truths and feels the weight of both. Avoidance, in the Janis and Mann sense, buys relief by delaying the moment when one truth has to matter more.

In Decision Making (Janis and Mann, 1977), they study people facing high stakes choice under threat. One pattern they describe is defensive avoidance: shrinking the conflict by not looking, postponing, or hoping time solves what is actually a tradeoff. Naming the pattern is not the same as calling you a coward. It is a map of how minds work under fear.

That map matters for relationships because love decisions are rarely clean. Staying costs a version of yourself you would become if you stayed. Leaving costs a shared world you still cherish in places. It is reasonable to stall when the price is real.

You can feel both options as losses without being melodramatic. That feeling is why Janis and Mann keep showing up outside textbooks. They were writing about stakes, not about love specifically, yet the emotional arithmetic matches: when both paths hurt, the mind reaches for delay tricks that look like prudence from the outside.

It is still worth asking whether the stall is gathering information or running the reassurance loop.

Fear of the road not taken

Erich Fromm wrote about the anxiety of freedom in Escape from Freedom (Fromm, 1941): modern choice can feel heavier than traditional scripts because you cannot outsource meaning to a single path handed down. You do not need his whole political frame to recognize the emotional part. Choosing a partner means killing off alternate futures in a small but painful way. That loss can make stalling feel kind when it also protects you from saying a direction out loud where another person could hear it.

Festinger's work on cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) adds a quieter mechanism. When behavior and belief disagree, pressure builds to bring them back in line. Sometimes that means honest updating. Sometimes it means sudden certainty that fades the next day, or a story about your partner that grows one sided to match what you are already doing in private.

A public overview of the monograph’s place in psychology is easy to find (see Wikipedia: A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance); the 1957 edition remains the anchor text in Festinger (1957).

The unfinished tally as shelter

Uncertainty can be a hiding place when it never meets a fact you keep half stepping past: the night you went quiet for a week, the boundary they crossed twice, the tenderness you still want and keep apologizing for wanting.

Sometimes the hiding is merciful at first. It holds the relationship in a tentative space while you look for proof that would make the call obvious. Proof rarely arrives as a lightning bolt. It arrives as a pile of small Tuesdays. If you keep resetting the count each time you feel guilty, the tally never closes.

Unfinished is not proof you are faking. It can be proof both sides carry weight. Hiding place shows up when the uncertainty story never ages. Months pass. New evidence arrives. The conclusion stays theoretically suspended while your behavior slowly commits in one direction without you saying so.

Janis and Mann would call part of that defensive avoidance because it reduces today's conflict at the cost of tomorrow's stack of unsaid things.

A check that is curious, not a verdict

You can ask, without forcing an answer: If I were less afraid of being wrong, what would I admit about what I already know?

If you need a quieter version, try: What would I do next week if I stopped asking the internet to vote? That question is not a command. It is a way to hear your own voice without the performance layer turned up.

If the question spikes shame, notice whether the shame is about choosing or about visibility. Sometimes the relationship problem is secondary to the terror of owning a preference out loud.

If the question opens grief, that grief may be ambivalence doing honest work. Grief does not always point to leave. Sometimes it points to commitment with eyes open.

You might notice you argue both sides eloquently and still feel blank when someone asks what you want. That can track defensive avoidance: keeping the dilemma abstract so you never have to say the preference out loud where it can be touched. It can also track genuine torn love. The difference is often whether new information moves you or only new adrenaline does.

This is adjacent to the fork in Why You Already Know If This Relationship Is Done: not everyone already knows. Some people do, and the loop keeps the label off.

Related reflections:

• Why You Already Know If This Relationship Is Done
• What Decision Paralysis Is Protecting
• When You Feel Like You Already Know but Can't Admit It

Editorial reflection, not therapy. If pressure, control, or fear shape your relationship, prioritize safety planning with qualified support rather than self diagnosis from an article.

Living in maybe can be honest. It can also be a way to avoid admitting the loss you already feel coming. Use the relationship reflection prompts if you want language for the pattern, not a guess forced into certainty.