![[Adobe Stock]](https://sp-ao.shortpixel.ai/client/to_webp,q_glossy,ret_img,w_750,h_375/https://www.psypost.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/young-couple-laughing-750x375.jpg)
A new study published in Sexuality & Culture explores the emotional and psychological reasons why young adults maintain “situationships”—romantic relationships that lack clear commitment or labels. Although previous research has shown that situationships are generally less satisfying than traditional relationships, the new findings suggest that some individuals still derive enough meaning, hope, and emotional connection from them to stay.
Situationships have become increasingly common, particularly among emerging adults navigating a shifting dating landscape shaped by social media, dating apps, and evolving relationship norms. The term was first popularized in 2017 by a writer at Cosmopolitan magazine and refers to relationships that fall somewhere between casual hookups and committed partnerships.
People in situationships often engage in emotional intimacy, spend time together, and are sometimes sexually involved, but the relationship lacks clarity about where it is going—or whether it is even going anywhere at all.
Despite their growing popularity, situationships often leave participants feeling uncertain or emotionally vulnerable. Previous studies suggest they tend to offer lower relationship quality and rarely evolve into more established romantic commitments. This raises an important question: If situationships are generally unsatisfying, why do so many people choose to remain in them?
To answer this, a team of researchers led by Mickey Langlais conducted a mixed-methods study that combined qualitative interviews and a quantitative survey. Their goal was to identify the motivations for staying in a situationship and determine whether those motivations were linked to higher satisfaction or commitment.
“My research team and I have been studying situationships for the past three years,” explained Langlais, an assistant professor in the Department if Human Sciences and Design in Robbins College of Health and Human Sciences at Baylor University. “Last year, we published a study that defined and described situationships. During this study, we noticed that the quality of situationships (i.e., relationship satisfaction and commitment) were lower than other types of relationships. We were curious why individuals would be motivated to be in relationships (i.e., situationships) that were low quality.”
The study began with in-depth interviews of 10 participants who were either currently in or had recently been in a situationship. These individuals, aged 18 to 30, were asked to describe their relationship, explain what led them into it, and reflect on what kept them involved.
Through a thematic analysis of the interview transcripts, researchers identified seven recurring themes: exclusivity, investment, emotional needs being met, communication about the future, effort, prioritization, and trust. These themes represented the key emotional factors that participants cited as influencing their decisions to maintain their situationships.
For example, some participants believed they were exclusive with their partner even though the topic had never been explicitly discussed. Others described investing significant time and emotional energy, sometimes in the hope that the situationship would eventually become an official relationship.
Many expressed that their emotional needs were being fulfilled—even if inconsistently—which made it hard to walk away. Communication about the future, or the avoidance of it, was also a critical factor. In some cases, the lack of future planning kept the relationship ambiguous but allowed participants to keep hope alive.
To expand on these findings, the researchers then designed an online survey based on the themes identified in the interviews. They recruited 89 college students, who collectively reported on 109 situationship experiences. The survey measured relationship quality using two metrics: satisfaction and commitment. It also included items assessing the seven key themes from the interviews. Participants rated the extent to which these themes applied to their own situationship, using a 1-to-7 scale.
The quantitative results largely confirmed what the interviews had suggested. Emotional investment, communication about the future, and prioritizing the relationship were significantly linked to both greater satisfaction and stronger feelings of commitment. In other words, the more participants felt invested, hopeful about the future, and valued by their partner, the more likely they were to feel good about staying in the situationship—even if the relationship had no clear label.
Interestingly, some variables, such as partner effort, were not as strongly linked to relationship satisfaction or commitment as one might expect. But emotional needs being met—whether through affection, attention, or feeling understood—stood out as a powerful predictor. Communication about the future, even if vague, also appeared to help reduce anxiety and bolster the sense that the relationship had potential.
“We were expecting that some participants would be sexually motivated to maintain a situationship or because they had fears of committing towards the future,” Langlais told PsyPost. “Instead, our data suggests that many people form situationships as a potential gateway to a traditional relationship, sort of like relationship purgatory – a place where people wait to see if they are ready and want to transition to an official relationship. It is still possible that individuals fear commitment or have other motivations for maintaining a situationship, so we advocate for more studies to explore this relationship type.”
The study draws on two well-known psychological theories to help explain these findings: social exchange theory and the investment model. Social exchange theory suggests that people stay in relationships when they perceive the rewards to outweigh the costs. In the case of situationships, even if the relationship lacks formal structure, individuals may still feel that they are getting enough emotional or physical benefit to justify staying. The investment model adds another layer, suggesting that commitment is shaped not just by satisfaction, but also by how much someone has invested and whether they see better alternatives elsewhere.
In this context, individuals may stay in situationships because they’ve invested time, energy, and emotion—and because they’re unsure whether a better or more committed partner is actually available. For some, the situationship may represent a safer or more comfortable option than risking rejection in a new relationship or enduring the loneliness of being single. This could explain why people continue to engage in what is, on the surface, a relationship format associated with more ambiguity and lower satisfaction.
“The results of this study suggest that many individuals hope that situationships evolve into established romantic relationships, which explains their interest in forming and maintaining a situationship,” Langlais explained. “Additionally, those in situationships are more satisfied when they communicate about the future and if their partner prioritizes the situationship above other relationships.”
Although the findings help clarify why situationships persist despite their downsides, the study has some limitations. The data were cross-sectional, meaning the researchers could not assess how situationships or participants’ perceptions changed over time. It’s also possible that people who volunteered for the study had particularly memorable or emotionally charged experiences with situationships, which may have shaped the findings.
The participants were mostly female and college-aged, which means the results may not generalize to older adults or more diverse populations. “This fall, we are conducting a follow-up study focusing exclusively on males to see if we find similar patterns for forming and maintaining situationships,” Langlais noted.
Despite these caveats, the study offers important insights for individuals, couples, and mental health professionals. For people currently in a situationship, understanding these underlying dynamics may help them decide whether to stay, communicate more effectively, or seek something different. For counselors or therapists working with young adults, the results suggest that it’s not just the absence of commitment that matters, but how emotionally invested someone feels, whether they believe the relationship is going somewhere, and whether their needs are being met.
“I want to commend my co-authors for their hard work with this project,” Langlais said.
The study, “Are Situationships situational?: A Mixed-Methods Study on the Motivations for Being in a Situationship,” was authored by M. R. Langlais, P. Guzman, L. Toohey, A. Podberesky, and A. Lee.
