“They never tired me.”
“They had such a well-behaved childhood.”
“They would quietly play on their own.”
Many individuals grow up hearing these sentences as a form of praise from their parents. For teachers, caregivers, and parents alike, such descriptions are often deeply reassuring. They paint the picture of a child who is undemanding, adaptable, and able to fit into almost any situation with little difficulty. A child’s quietness and ability to occupy themselves are frequently equated with being “less naughty” or “less problematic.”
Psychology, however, challenges this assumption. A child taking up little space in their own life does not necessarily mean that they are not struggling. On the contrary, some children express their distress not through visible behaviors, but through withdrawal from their own emotional and relational world. This form of distress, which does not create noise, often remains unnoticed, sometimes even when these children grow into adulthood.
In this article, we will explore what may be taking place in the inner worlds of so-called “undemanding” children and consider how their silence can, in some cases, represent one of the most overlooked forms of a call for help.
One of the key reasons quiet children are so positively perceived lies in the comfort they provide to the adult world. In fast-paced and demanding adult environments, a child’s quietness often becomes something that is not questioned, but rather welcomed. Educational and caregiving settings also tend to focus on behavior, meaning that actions which disrupt order or demand intervention are more readily noticed. Within this framework, the noisy child is labeled as “difficult,” while the quiet child is labeled as “good.”
In many cases, adults come to view silence as something to be rewarded. The undemanding, compliant child is gradually idealized. Yet this idealization can reinforce the child’s emotional invisibility, making their inner struggles easier to overlook and delaying recognition of their distress.
At this point, it becomes important to consider the different ways in which children express psychological strain. Developmental psychology distinguishes between two broad patterns: externalizing and internalizing. Children who externalize their difficulties tend to display aggressive behavior, emotional outbursts, impulsivity, or rule-breaking. In contrast, children who internalize their distress are more likely to withdraw, overly accommodate others, and suppress their emotional experiences. While these two patterns do not necessarily differ in depth or severity, they differ significantly in visibility.
Because externalizing behaviors disrupt the environment, they are more quickly noticed by others. Internalizing children, on the other hand, often go unnoticed precisely because they do not create visible conflict. This dynamic reinforces the belief that quiet children struggle less. In reality, the opposite may be true: internalizing distress often reflects a child’s attempt to carry their emotional burden alone, a burden that can become increasingly heavy when it remains unseen.
This tendency toward internalization should not be understood solely as a matter of temperament. It is also shaped by relational experiences and can function as an adaptive strategy. From an attachment perspective, some children, and later adults, may learn that expressing needs does not lead to adequate responsiveness. Over time, they may begin to experience their needs as a burden and gradually withdraw their demands in order to maintain relationships.
Although such individuals may appear “independent” or “self-sufficient” during adolescence, this pattern often reflects a defensive strategy that renders their inner needs invisible. From this perspective, silence becomes less a personality trait and more a learned way of coping within relationships.
This process also has important implications for emotion regulation. Healthy emotion regulation does not involve the absence of emotion, but rather the ability to recognize, tolerate, and safely express emotional experiences. In contrast, quiet and internalizing children often learn not how to regulate emotions, but how to suppress them.
While this may appear adaptive in the short term, it places the emotional burden squarely on the child. Anxiety, somatic complaints, chronic tension, and feelings of guilt can emerge as indirect expressions of this invisible load. When adults unknowingly reward silence, this cycle is further reinforced, reducing the likelihood that emotional needs will be noticed or addressed.
At this stage, the perspective of mentalization becomes particularly important. Adults naturally tend to interpret children’s distress through observable behavior. Yet an inner world exists even in the absence of outward signs. Mentalization invites us to turn toward this invisible space, to consider not only what the child does, but also what the child does not do.
Recognizing that psychological distress can be communicated through withdrawal and invisibility, rather than through overt disruption, is a fundamental step in accessing the inner worlds of quiet children.
These early patterns often continue into adulthood in different forms. Adults who struggle to set boundaries, who find it difficult to ask for help, or who remain excessively accommodating frequently describe themselves as having been “quiet,” “easy,” or “undemanding” children. Many remain unaware of how these early adaptations continue to shape their emotional and relational lives.
For this reason, it is essential to approach each child as a unique individual. It is not enough to listen only to the noise they make; we must also listen to their silence. Children who act out deserve understanding and care, but so do those who remain quiet, compliant, and unseen.
Silence is not always a sign of strength or resilience. Sometimes, the most profound calls for help come from the places where very little is heard.
References
Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA school-age forms & profiles. University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. Basic Books.
Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., & Eggum, N. D. (2010). Emotion-related self-regulation and its relation to children’s maladjustment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6, 495–525.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.121208.131208
Fonagy, P., Gergely, G., Jurist, E. L., & Target, M. (2002). Affect regulation, mentalization, and the development of the self. Other Press.
Luyten, P., Campbell, C., & Fonagy, P. (2019). Borderline personality disorder, complex trauma, and problems with self and identity: A social-communicative approach. Journal of Personality, 87(1), 88–105.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12362
Zeman, J., Cassano, M., Perry-Parrish, C., & Stegall, S. (2006). Emotion regulation in children and adolescents. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 27(2), 155–168.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00004703-200604000-00014