The Ending Instinct - Killer Close
Why Closure Matters More to the Psyche Than to the Plot
Every story ends.
But not every story lands.
Writers obsess over plot resolutions, character arcs, final battles, tidy explanations — but psychologically, closure is something very different. It’s an instinct, a biological and cognitive need that shapes how we make decisions, how we work in teams, how we lead, and how we interpret our own lives.
Closure is not about the last page.
It’s about the nervous system completing a cycle.
Below is what the science reveals — and why it matters far beyond fiction.
Closure is a biological preference, not a narrative technique
The “need for closure” has been well-studied in psychology. It’s the tendency to want definite answers rather than leaving things uncertain or unresolved. Under pressure, this instinct intensifies — and we see hierarchy rise instinctively.
Pierro et al. (2003) showed that when groups operate under time pressure, participation becomes uneven. A few members suddenly dominate. Influence centralises. Decision-making becomes autocratic, not because of personality, but because the group’s collective nervous system demands a fast end-state.
In other words:
When uncertainty spikes, humans look for the nearest “ending.”
This isn’t a personality flaw. It’s physiology.
Leaders feel ambivalence more intensely than anyone else
Leaders live in the tension between options: competing priorities, incomplete data, political pressures, emotional consequences. Ambivalence — the tug-of-war between approach and avoidance — becomes a constant internal climate.
Simon (2006) points out that leaders are particularly vulnerable to ambivalence because they must remain open to new information while also carrying the burden of final decision-making.
This is the paradox:
The very role that requires clarity also generates chronic internal conflict.
Ambivalence isn’t indecision. It’s the emotional tax of responsibility.
And the only thing that brings the nervous system relief?
Closure.
Reflectiveness and decisiveness are not opposites — they reinforce each other
Many leaders believe they must choose: be thoughtful or be decisive.
The research disagrees.
Coffeng et al. (2023) found that reflectiveness and decisiveness are positively correlated — especially within teams shaped by participative leadership. When leaders foster trust, shared goals, and collaborative climates, teams become both more reflective and more decisive.
This matters because it counters a widespread myth: Thinking deeply does not slow teams down. It stabilises them, so they can decide well under pressure.
Reflectiveness without decisiveness is stagnation.
Decisiveness without reflectiveness is volatility.
Together, they create coherence — and with it, closure.
Closure is the psychological endpoint that allows us to move forward
Humans do not simply act. We complete cycles.
A decision is not “done” when the choice is made. It is done when the psyche experiences completion — when the internal tension that ambivalence creates is resolved.
In teams, this might look like:
clarity of direction
a shared rationale
emotional buy-in
a sense that the uncertainty has ended
In stories, closure brings resonance, not because the plot ties up neatly, but because the reader’s nervous system feels a cycle conclude.
In leadership, closure turns conflict into momentum.
In life, closure allows us to grow past our old chapters.
The instinct for endings explains far more than narrative
People crave closure not because they need simplicity, but because ambiguity carries a biological cost. The brain dislikes unclosed loops: they drain attention, generate intrusive thoughts, and keep the cortisol cycle active.
A story without closure lingers uncomfortably.
A team without closure becomes fractured.
A leader without closure becomes exhausted.
Closure isn’t about finality. It’s about integration.
It’s the point where the body and mind say:
This part of the story is complete. I’m ready for the next one.
Work With Me
If you’re a founder, leader, or high-capacity professional, you don’t need motivation — you need clarity, self-command, and psychological precision. You need a way to navigate complexity with a nervous system that stays stable under pressure.
That’s where I come in.
I combine biology, psychology, and narrative strategy to help you make decisions you can trust, break friction cycles, and build a way of working that doesn’t burn you out. My clients come to me when they want depth, honesty, and a thinking partner who won’t let them hide from themselves.
If you want to explore whether we’re a fit, you can schedule a consultation here.
