The psychology of situationships: What they are and signs you are in one

The landscape of modern romance looks vastly different today than it did for previous generations. Young adults now navigate an environment shaped by digital technology, shifting social norms, and a changing timeline for major life events. This extended period of self-exploration during the late teens and twenties is known in psychology as emerging adulthood.

During emerging adulthood, people often prioritize personal growth, education, and career building over traditional milestones like marriage. As a result, new forms of romantic connections have emerged to fit this flexible lifestyle. One of the most prominent additions to the modern dating vocabulary is the situationship.

But what exactly constitutes a situationship, and how does a person know if they are in one? Researchers have begun studying this widespread phenomenon to understand how these ambiguous connections form, function, and eventually end.

What Exactly is a Situationship?

To understand this concept, we first have to look at its cultural origins. Writer Kayla Kibbe actually coined and popularized the term in a 2017 article for Cosmopolitan magazine. She used the word to describe a brief but intense, romantically ambiguous affair that falls somewhere between a casual hookup and a committed partnership.

To establish a clear clinical definition, Michael R. Langlais and his colleagues at Baylor University conducted an exploratory study. Their research, published in the journal Sexuality & Culture, gathered both qualitative interviews and survey data from college students. The scientists define a situationship as a romantic connection that involves spending time together and engaging in physical intimacy, but lacks clarity, labels, or commitment.

Free daily newsletter

To explain this dynamic, the researchers rely on a psychological framework called the Triangular Theory of Love. Developed by psychologist Robert Sternberg, this theory suggests that love is composed of three main ingredients. These components are intimacy, passion, and commitment.

Intimacy refers to the emotional closeness and connection two people share. Passion involves physical attraction and romantic drive. Commitment is the conscious decision to stick with a partner and plan for a shared future.

In a traditional relationship, couples typically start with high passion and intimacy, eventually building commitment over time. The researchers found that situationships tend to stall in the early stages. They feature high levels of passion and intimacy, but commitment remains low or entirely absent.

Because these relationships lack a formal label, they allow people to enjoy the benefits of a romantic partner without the official obligations. This intentional avoidance of commitment sets situationships apart from casual hookups, which focus mainly on sex. It also distinguishes them from friends with benefits arrangements, which usually lack deep romantic feelings.

The Phase of “Just Talking”

The ambiguity of modern dating often begins before a situationship is even fully established. Melissa Hardesty and her research team at Binghamton University explored the linguistic tools young adults use to navigate early romance. Their study, published in Emerging Adulthood, provides evidence that college students frequently use the phrase “just talking” to describe their budding connections.

In the context of modern dating, “just talking” is not a simple conversation between friends. Instead, it signifies a stage of exploration where two people communicate frequently and build intimacy without officially dating. Students use smartphones and social media to foster this connection slowly over time.

The scientists suggest that this vague terminology serves a protective psychological purpose. “In hookup culture, emotional attachments are taboo (though they do occur); just talking allows students to form emotional intimacy while downplaying the significance of such intimacy,” Hardesty explained. Saying you are “just talking” allows individuals to form deep attachments while saving face.

As one participant in the study noted, this phrase provides a way to categorize a relationship when traditional labels do not fit. It acts as a label without a label. This gives people the freedom to figure out their compatibility before taking any formal steps toward commitment.

The researchers conducted focus groups to further understand how students navigate this unspoken territory. They discovered that the sex and gender-integrated environments of college campuses allow people to meet potential partners naturally. Because students interact so frequently in classes and dormitories, they no longer rely on formal courtship strategies like asking someone on a traditional dinner date.

Instead, romance develops casually and ambiguously over text messages and social media platforms. The scientists suggest that this lack of a formal courtship routine makes it difficult for students to recognize when they are actually dating. By claiming they are “just talking,” students shield themselves from the vulnerability of admitting they want a serious romantic connection.

Redefining Relationship Norms

The prevalence of the situationship is a direct reflection of how younger generations view romance. Saurabh Singh at Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University suggests that young adults are radically reshaping relationship norms to fit their current values. In a paper published in the International Multidisciplinary Research Journal Reviews, he notes that today’s youth often view dating as a journey of self-exploration.

Many young adults prioritize their mental health, educational goals, and financial independence over finding a lifelong partner. They want to avoid losing their individuality within a restrictive romantic commitment. A situationship offers a middle ground, providing companionship while preserving total personal autonomy.

Additionally, there is a growing societal acceptance of diverse relationship models outside of strict monogamy. Singh provides evidence that younger demographics are increasingly open to fluid boundaries and ethical non-monogamy. This shift challenges the traditional standard that one person must fulfill all of an individual’s emotional and physical needs.

While this inclusivity fosters honest conversations, it also removes the clear relationship blueprints that guided older generations. Without a standard script to follow, young adults must negotiate their own boundaries from scratch. This constant need for negotiation often results in the vague, undefined territory of a situationship.

Signs You Might Be in a Situationship

If the line between “just talking” and dating is blurry, figuring out if you are in a situationship can be equally confusing. Sarah Anderson and Matthew James Phillips at Curtin University explored this topic in a qualitative study. Their findings, published in the journal Societies, highlight the defining characteristics of these undefined bonds.

A primary sign of a situationship is profound definitional confusion. Participants in the study frequently used spatial metaphors like “grey area” or “no man’s land” to describe their experiences. They felt caught between the casual nature of a hookup and the emotional depth of a real partnership.

This confusion often extends to practical boundaries, particularly regarding exclusivity. In many situationships, partners act like they are dating but never officially agree to stop seeing other people. This leaves individuals guessing about the rules, such as whether it is acceptable to talk to other potential partners.

Another key indicator is the lack of public visibility or integration into a wider social circle. While a person in a situationship might introduce their partner to a few close friends, they rarely share the relationship on social media. The Baylor University researchers noted that situationships are often kept off the internet entirely, maintaining a sense of secrecy.

Imbalanced Emotional Investment

Perhaps the most telling sign of a situationship is a noticeable power imbalance. The Curtin University scientists found that situationships frequently feature mismatched emotional investment. In most cases, one person desires a committed relationship while the other prefers to keep things casual.

This dynamic creates a frustrating experience for the person seeking more commitment. They often find themselves initiating conversations, planning dates, and attempting to clarify the status of the relationship. Meanwhile, the less invested partner enjoys the convenience of companionship without having to offer reciprocal effort.

This imbalance is not always malicious, but it stems from differing relationship goals. One person might view the connection as a stepping stone toward a serious commitment. The other might view it as a temporary arrangement that allows them to keep their options open.

The Influence of Digital Dating Culture

The rise of situationships is deeply connected to the technology we use to meet people. In his research, Singh suggests that dating applications have fundamentally altered how young people approach romance. He notes that these digital platforms have transformed relationship formation into a game of rapid choices.

Applications provide users with instant access to thousands of potential matches. While this convenience is unprecedented, it creates a psychological phenomenon known as the paradox of choice. When people are faced with endless options, they often find it harder to make a final decision.

This abundance of choice fosters a constant fear of missing out. A person might hesitate to commit to their current partner because they wonder if a better match is just one screen swipe away. This mindset encourages brief, superficial connections rather than deep, lasting commitments.

As a result, dating can sometimes feel like a disposable activity. Instead of working through challenges with a single partner, individuals might simply abandon the relationship and return to the application. This environment makes the noncommittal nature of a situationship highly appealing to many young adults.

The Phenomenon of Dating Fatigue

Navigating this digital landscape often leads to severe psychological exhaustion. Johanna L. Degen and Andrea Kleeberg-Niepage at Europa-Universität Flensburg studied this specific toll in the journal SN Social Sciences. They explored the underlying mechanisms behind mobile online dating fatigue.

Dating fatigue occurs when the initial excitement of using a dating application fades into frustration and cynicism. The scientists note that users frequently complain about repetitive conversations, deceptive profiles, and a lack of basic social etiquette. What starts as a fun way to meet people eventually feels like a draining chore.

To protect themselves from disappointment, users begin to invest less time and emotional energy into their dates. They might plan quick, low-cost meetings like grabbing a coffee or going for a short walk. This minimal investment ensures that they do not feel devastated if the date goes poorly.

Unfortunately, this protective strategy tends to backfire. By expecting a negative outcome and putting in minimal effort, users practically guarantee that the date will be unfulfilling. This cycle resembles a negative self-fulfilling prophecy, where pessimistic expectations create the exact disappointing reality that users want to avoid.

Seeking Alternatives: The Shift to Social Media Dating

Tired of the endless swiping and superficial chats, some young adults are looking for new ways to form connections. Degen and Kleeberg-Niepage detail this shift in their research on dating fatigue. Their findings suggest that many frustrated users are abandoning traditional dating applications in favor of platforms like Instagram.

Unlike conventional dating applications, Instagram was not originally designed for matchmaking. The scientists point out that its digital architecture slows down the dating process in a beneficial way. The platform allows users to view a person’s life, hobbies, and social circles over an extended period.

This gradual exposure provides a sense of context and social embeddedness that dating applications completely lack. Before ever initiating a conversation, a person can learn about their potential partner’s interests and daily routines. This shared knowledge creates a natural foundation for meaningful dialogue.

Users often signal their romantic interest through subtle interactions, such as liking older photos or watching video stories. This approach requires more time and effort, making the initial connection feel more intentional and authentic. The researchers provide evidence that this slower pace helps reintroduce excitement and genuine tension back into the dating experience.

The Rise of Ghosting and Casual Breakups

When a situationship finally runs its course, the ending rarely features a formal breakup conversation. The researchers at Baylor University observed that individuals in situationships often experience abrupt and informal separations. Because there is no official label to dissolve, people frequently rely on passive methods to end the connection.

One of the most common termination strategies is ghosting. This occurs when one person completely ceases all communication without providing any warning or explanation. The researchers note that ghosting finalizes the end of the relationship by creating an immediate physical and emotional distance.

This sudden disappearance is often motivated by a desire to avoid uncomfortable conflict. The person initiating the split might feel that they owe their partner nothing since the relationship was never official. This abrupt silence leaves the other person without closure, deepening their feelings of rejection and confusion.

In other cases, the situationship simply dies off and fades away gradually. The Baylor University scientists found that partners might slowly stop sending text messages and hang out less frequently until the connection vanishes. This prolonged fading process can cause immense anxiety for the partner who is still holding on to hope.

The Psychological Toll

Because situationships exist in a grey area, society often dismisses the emotional pain they cause. The end of a situationship can be incredibly difficult to process. The researchers from Curtin University report that participants described the heartbreak as “soul-crushing” and deeply damaging to their self-esteem.

One reason these breakups hurt so much is the presence of intermittent reinforcement. This is a psychological term describing a reward that is delivered unpredictably. In a situationship, a person might receive intense affection one day, followed by cold distance the next.

This unpredictability makes the connection highly addictive. The brain constantly craves the high of the good days, making it incredibly hard to walk away. When the situationship finally ends, the brain experiences a sudden drop in dopamine, leading to feelings of anxiety and depression.

Kibbe captured this emotional whiplash in her Cosmopolitan article. She described the phenomenon of the Life-Altering Three-Month Situationship. Because these relationships often end around the three-month mark, they terminate right in the middle of the honeymoon phase.

During the honeymoon phase, everything feels exciting and flawless. The individuals have not spent enough time together to discover each other’s irritating habits or major character flaws. When the connection ends prematurely, the grieving partner is left mourning a fantasy version of what could have been.

The Problem of Invalidated Grief

Adding to this pain is a lack of social support. Because a situationship is not a formal relationship, friends and family might not understand why the breakup is so devastating. The grieving person might even gaslight themselves, believing they have no right to be sad over an unofficial romance.

The scientists from Curtin University highlight this experience of emotional invalidation. Participants in their study felt that their distress did not count in the eyes of society. This lack of validation makes the healing process significantly longer and more isolating.

Judging your own feelings prevents you from processing them in a healthy way. Even a short-lived romance can trigger intense feelings of rejection and grief. Assuming that someone should move on quickly undermines the very real psychological impact of their lived experience.

Why Do People Stay in Situationships?

If situationships cause so much anxiety and pain, it raises an important question about human behavior. Why do so many people choose to stay in them? Langlais and his team at Baylor University conducted a follow-up study to find out.

Published in Sexuality & Culture, their new research provides evidence that people derive enough meaning and hope from these connections to stick around. To explain this behavior, the scientists point to Social Exchange Theory. This psychological concept suggests that people remain in relationships when the perceived rewards outweigh the costs.

Even if a situationship lacks formal structure, a person might still receive enough emotional support, physical affection, or attention to make it feel worthwhile. They tolerate the anxiety of the unknown because the immediate benefits feel too good to give up.

The researchers also rely on the Investment Model of commitment. This model explains that commitment is shaped by how much time and emotion a person has already poured into a partner. It also depends on whether the person believes they have better romantic options available elsewhere.

Individuals often stay in situationships because they have already invested heavily in the connection. They might fear the loneliness of being single or dread the process of starting over with someone new. In many cases, staying in a familiar situationship feels safer than risking rejection in the dating pool.

The Gateway to Commitment

The most prominent reason people stay is the hope for a future transition into an official partnership. “Instead, our data suggests that many people form situationships as a potential gateway to a traditional relationship, sort of like relationship purgatory,” Langlais noted. They wait in this ambiguous space to see if their partner is finally ready to commit.

When participants felt that their emotional needs were being met, they reported higher satisfaction with the situationship. Communication about the future, even if it was somewhat vague, helped reduce their anxiety. It gave them the impression that the relationship still had long-term potential.

This hope, however, is often misplaced. The Curtin University study indicates that situationships rarely evolve into committed partnerships unless specific changes occur. For a situationship to progress, both parties must demonstrate emotional availability, clear communication, and a mutual desire for commitment.

Navigating the Modern Dating Landscape

The rise of the situationship reflects a broader cultural shift in how we approach intimacy and connection. Young adults today prioritize personal freedom and flexibility, but they still crave deep emotional bonds. This tension creates a dating environment filled with both unprecedented choices and significant emotional risks.

Understanding the terminology and mechanics of modern romance can help individuals protect their mental health. Recognizing the signs of a situationship allows people to evaluate whether their needs are truly being met. If the power dynamics are imbalanced, identifying the issue is the first step toward seeking a healthier dynamic.

This cultural evolution shows that young people are not destroying love, but rather rebuilding it on their own terms. “If previous generations believed in forever, Generation Z believes in truth and that’s a love worth understanding,” Singh wrote. Navigating this new terrain requires a willingness to communicate openly and set clear boundaries.