Can a Situationship Become a Relationship? Commitment, Communication, and What Research Can Tell Us
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 26, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Yes. A situationship can become a defined relationship when both people move from ambiguity toward a shared understanding of what the relationship is, what they want from it, and what commitments they are willing to make. But current research cannot give you a defensible universal “conversion rate,” and it cannot tell you whether one particular partner will eventually commit. The strongest evidence supports a more useful question: are the two people actually moving toward shared commitment, clearer expectations, and a relationship definition—or are they remaining in the same ambiguous arrangement?
That distinction matters because situationship is a contemporary relationship label, not a diagnosis and not a standardized clinical category. Researchers have begun to operationalize situationships as romantic or sexual relationships marked by some combination of couple-like behavior, ambiguity, limited labeling, and unclear commitment, but the literature is still emerging and definitions vary across studies. Langlais et al. (2024) provided an early empirical effort to define and describe the phenomenon; newer 2025–2026 studies have started examining maintenance, communication, trust, and lived experience.
The practical implication is straightforward: becoming a relationship is not a hidden psychological event that can be inferred from texting frequency, chemistry, sex, jealousy, attachment labels, or how intense the connection feels. A transition becomes meaningful when expectations become mutually knowable and behavior begins to match the stated direction of the relationship.
What Does It Mean for a Situationship to Become a Relationship?
There is no single scientific threshold at which a situationship automatically becomes “a relationship.” Relationship labels are socially negotiated, and different couples may define commitment differently. One couple may treat exclusivity as the decisive change; another may already be exclusive but still lack a shared label or future orientation; another may define the transition through explicit partnership, integration into each other’s lives, or a mutual decision to plan beyond the immediate present.
For research purposes, the most defensible way to describe the transition is as movement from relational ambiguity toward clearer mutual definition and commitment. That wording avoids assuming that every committed relationship must be monogamous, follow the same timeline, or use the same label. It also avoids the opposite mistake: assuming that a situationship necessarily involves deception, lack of care, emotional unavailability, or exploitation.
A label by itself is also insufficient. Calling each other partners may clarify status, but commitment is a broader psychological construct involving intention to persist, attachment to the relationship, and willingness to organize choices around it. Conversely, two people may show substantial investment before they agree on a label. The transition question therefore has at least two layers: have the partners defined the relationship, and has their level of commitment actually changed?
What Direct Situationship Research Shows
Investment, Future Communication, and Prioritization
The most directly relevant current study is a 2025 mixed-methods investigation by Langlais et al. (2025). The researchers first interviewed 10 people who were currently or recently in a situationship, then used themes from those interviews in an online survey of 109 people with current or recent situationship experience. Reported maintenance themes included exclusivity, investment, whether needs were being met, communication about the future, effort, prioritizing the relationship, and trust.
In the survey analyses, greater investment, more communication about the future, and greater prioritization of the situationship were associated with higher satisfaction and commitment. Those findings are highly relevant to the question of whether a situationship can develop, because they identify relational processes that accompany commitment inside an ambiguous relationship. They do not show that these factors cause a later transition to an official relationship, and the study did not establish a percentage of situationships that eventually became defined partnerships.
This difference between association and prediction is essential. Someone can communicate about the future and still decide against commitment. Two people can invest heavily while wanting different outcomes. A partner can prioritize the connection today and change direction later. The 2025 study helps identify what is associated with commitment in situationships; it does not provide a formula for forecasting an individual couple.
Communication Frequency, Trust, and Relationship Status
A 2026 study by Langlais and Davidson (2026) examined 261 emerging adults who reported on up to three recent romantic relationship experiences. The analysis covered 468 relationship episodes and compared situationship and non-situationship experiences while examining face-to-face communication, phone calls, texting, video calls, social-media communication, and trust.
Communication frequency was associated with trust across several modalities, often in nonlinear ways. Situationship episodes were also associated with lower reported trust or perceived partner trust across several models. Most interaction effects between situationship status and communication frequency were nonsignificant, meaning the relationship between communication frequency and trust usually did not operate in a uniquely different way simply because an episode was categorized as a situationship. The study therefore does not support a rule such as “text more and the situationship will become a relationship.”
The design also matters. Participants were largely undergraduate students from one U.S. university, and they reported retrospectively on relationship experiences. The study examined trust and communication, not a prospective transition from situationship to defined partnership. It is useful evidence about relational functioning inside ambiguous relationships, but it cannot tell a reader what their own partner will do next.
Young Adults Describe Progression as Mutual, Not Automatic
A 2026 qualitative study by Anderson and Phillips (2026) interviewed 14 Australian young adults about situationship experiences. Participants described ambiguity, uneven emotional investment, technology-mediated contact, independence, and the difficulty of interpreting what the relationship meant. In their accounts, progression toward a defined relationship involved mutual commitment, communication, and emotional availability.
Qualitative research is valuable because it shows how people experience and interpret a relationship configuration from the inside. It is not a prevalence study or a transition model. Fourteen interviews cannot establish that these ingredients will produce commitment in a general population. They do, however, reinforce a pattern visible across the emerging literature: the central problem is not the absence of a magic sign. It is whether both people can make the relationship’s direction explicit enough to be jointly understood.
The Biggest Scientific Limitation: We Do Not Yet Have a Universal Transition Rate
Search results often frame the question as if psychology should be able to answer, “What percentage of situationships become relationships?” Current peer-reviewed evidence does not support a universal number. The major direct studies above use mixed-methods samples, retrospective relationship episodes, and qualitative interviews. They tell us about definitions, motivations, commitment correlates, communication, trust, and lived experience. They do not follow a large representative cohort of situationships over time and calculate a general population probability of later partnership.
That means statements such as “most situationships never become relationships,” “a situationship has a specific chance of working,” or “if it has not become official by month X, it never will” require evidence that the current literature does not provide. A population rate would also depend on how situationship is defined, the age and cultural context of the sample, whether participants themselves use the label, the relationship’s duration, exclusivity, prior history, and what counts as “becoming a relationship.”
The absence of a reliable percentage does not make the question hopeless. It changes what can be assessed. Instead of asking for a probability that research cannot responsibly supply, you can examine whether the relationship contains observable movement toward mutual commitment and whether both people endorse that direction.
What Broader Relationship Science Says About Commitment
Because direct situationship-transition research is still limited, broader relationship science provides an important adjacent evidence base. The strongest general model here is the Investment Model of commitment. An updated meta-analysis by Tran, Judge, and Kashima (2019) synthesized 202 independent samples with 50,427 participants. Across studies, satisfaction showed the strongest aggregate association with commitment, followed by investment size, while perceived quality of alternatives was negatively associated with commitment.
These findings explain why “Do they like me?” is too narrow a question. Commitment is not identical to attraction, affection, sexual chemistry, or enjoyment. People may enjoy a connection while perceiving attractive alternatives, making limited investments, or not wanting to organize their future around the relationship. Conversely, commitment can deepen as satisfaction and investment grow. The meta-analysis describes average associations across relationship research; it does not create a conversion equation for situationships.
This distinction also protects against a common online shortcut: treating intensity as proof of direction. Intense contact, longing, frequent sex, jealousy, or emotional disclosure can coexist with low commitment. The more relevant evidence is whether the relationship’s actual structure is changing—through explicit decisions, mutual expectations, and sustained investment that both people recognize.
Relationship Uncertainty Can Make the Conversation Harder
Relationship uncertainty is an established construct in relationship science and a central bridge for understanding situationships. It concerns uncertainty about involvement, the partner, and the relationship’s status or future. In a six-week longitudinal study of 135 romantic couples, Knobloch and Theiss (2011) found that greater relational uncertainty was associated with seeing relationship talk as more threatening, avoiding more relationship talk, and engaging in less of it. Lagged analyses also showed that more avoidance and less relationship talk in one week predicted more relational uncertainty the following week.
That does not mean one conversation cures uncertainty. It means ambiguity and avoidance can become mutually reinforcing. When the relationship feels uncertain, defining it can feel risky because the conversation might expose a mismatch. Avoiding the conversation can preserve the connection temporarily, but it can also leave the uncertainty unresolved.
A 2025 cross-sectional study by Şenkal Ertürk, Akyüz, and Büyükşahin Sunal (2025) also found that relationship uncertainty was statistically related to commitment within a model involving attachment insecurity. Because the design was cross-sectional, its mediation results should not be read as proof that uncertainty causally produces lower commitment or that changing uncertainty alone will change commitment. It strengthens the case for treating uncertainty as a meaningful relationship variable, not as a diagnostic label.
Commitment Mismatch Is Real, but It Is Easy to Overinterpret
A situationship often becomes especially difficult when the two people do not want the same degree of commitment at the same time. Relationship science has studied commitment asymmetry, but the evidence warns against simplistic conclusions. Stanley et al. (2017) examined 315 unmarried opposite-sex couples and found poorer relationship functioning in couples categorized as substantially asymmetrical in commitment. That work helped establish commitment imbalance as a serious dyadic question.
Later research complicates the story. Across three studies involving 6,960 couples and time frames ranging from days to years, Dobson, Ogolsky, and Stanton (2023) found that commitment asymmetry and differences in partners’ commitment trajectories did not consistently predict satisfaction or breakup once each partner’s own commitment was taken into account. The authors’ results challenge the idea that a numerical gap between partners is itself a simple prognostic signal.
For someone in a situationship, the useful lesson is not to calculate who is “the more committed person.” It is to identify the practical mismatch. One person may want exclusivity while the other does not. One may want an explicit partnership while the other wants an open-ended connection. One may want to plan months ahead while the other is comfortable staying present-focused. Those differences matter because they affect what the relationship can actually become, not because they diagnose either person.
What Counts as Evidence of Movement Toward a Relationship?
There is no validated checklist that predicts situationship conversion. Still, the direct situationship studies and broader commitment literature support watching for several kinds of observable movement. The important word is movement: a single affectionate weekend, intense text exchange, sexual encounter, introduction to friends, or jealous reaction is weak evidence when it is isolated from the relationship’s stated direction.
1. The Future Becomes Discussable
Communication about the future was associated with greater commitment and satisfaction in the 2025 situationship study. The relevant sign is not that someone casually says “we should do that someday.” It is that future-oriented conversation becomes possible without immediately dissolving into avoidance, jokes, strategic vagueness, or mutually incompatible assumptions. Future talk can still reveal that the answer is no; its value is that it makes direction visible.
2. Prioritization and Investment Become More Mutual
The same 2025 study linked investment and prioritization with commitment. In practice, this can mean both people repeatedly making room for the connection in decisions, time, plans, and effort. Investment should not be reduced to money, frequency of dates, or sacrifice. The broader commitment literature treats investments as resources tied to the relationship that would be lost or changed if it ended. The key question is whether both people increasingly organize their behavior around the relationship rather than merely enjoying it when convenient.
3. Expectations Become Explicit Enough to Test Against Behavior
A relationship can remain ambiguous because the partners have never discussed exclusivity, dating others, communication expectations, public acknowledgment, future plans, or what partner status would mean. Once expectations are spoken, behavior becomes easier to interpret. Consistency then means that the person’s actions broadly fit what they said—not that every message arrives on schedule or every interaction feels perfectly secure.
4. Trust Develops Alongside Communication
The 2026 communication study found that trust and communication frequency were related, but the associations differed by modality and were often nonlinear. That is a reason to resist simplistic rules about texting. Frequent contact can coexist with ambiguity. Low contact can reflect incompatibility, schedule, preference, distance, or waning interest. The stronger question is whether communication makes the relationship more understandable and whether each person experiences the other as increasingly reliable.
5. Both People Can Name the Direction
The clearest evidence of transition is shared definition. If one person says, “I want a committed relationship with you,” and the other says, “I want to keep this undefined,” the relationship has gained clarity even though it has not become the desired relationship. If both people agree that they want to move into a defined partnership and begin aligning expectations accordingly, the transition is no longer being inferred from clues; it is being jointly enacted.
What Does Not Reliably Predict That a Situationship Will Become a Relationship?
Several popular signs are psychologically meaningful but scientifically weak as standalone predictors. Strong chemistry does not establish commitment. Sex does not establish future intention. Daily texting does not establish exclusivity or partnership. Meeting friends does not guarantee progression. Jealousy does not prove love or commitment. Emotional disclosure can deepen intimacy without producing the same desired relationship outcome for both people.
Attachment language also cannot tell you the future of a particular situationship. Calling someone “avoidant,” “anxious,” “fearful-avoidant,” “emotionally unavailable,” or “traumatized” on the basis of ambiguous commitment substitutes a label for evidence. Adult attachment dimensions are legitimate research constructs, but they describe tendencies around closeness and security rather than revealing a hidden intention to commit. For the broader evidence base, see Attachment Styles in Relationships: Dating, Intimacy, Conflict, and Communication.
The same caution applies to popular mechanistic explanations. Inconsistent contact is not automatically a “dopamine addiction,” a “trauma bond,” or proof that intermittent reinforcement explains the relationship. Those phrases are often used online as if they settle the case. A more precise analysis starts with observable behavior, agreed expectations, relationship uncertainty, and the person’s actual stated goals.
Should You Have a “What Are We?” Conversation?
If your decision depends on whether the relationship is moving toward commitment, direct conversation is usually more informative than accumulating indirect signs. Relationship-talk research does not show that one perfect conversation can create commitment. It shows that uncertainty and avoidance of relationship talk can reinforce each other, while direct discussion makes information available that ambiguity otherwise hides.
The goal is therefore not to persuade someone into a relationship. It is to exchange enough accurate information that both people can make choices with the same basic map. A useful conversation distinguishes your preference from a demand for a predetermined answer: “I want a committed relationship and I want to know whether that is the direction you want with me.” The other person’s answer remains theirs.
Clear communication is especially important when people use the same words differently. “Exclusive,” “serious,” “dating,” “partner,” “casual,” and “seeing where it goes” can carry very different meanings. Asking what those words imply in behavior is often more useful than debating which label is correct. For a broader communication framework, see Assertive Communication in Relationships: Needs, Conflict, and Boundaries.
If the conversation repeatedly turns into a pursue-withdraw cycle—one person escalating pressure while the other disengages—the interaction pattern itself can make clarity harder. That process has its own evidence base and should not automatically be translated into attachment labels. See Demand-Withdraw Pattern in Relationships: Why One Partner Pushes and the Other Pulls Away.
A Practical Decision Framework Without Pretending to Predict the Future
Research cannot tell you exactly what another person will choose, but it can help separate evidence from hope, fear, and mind-reading. The following questions are evidence-informed decision prompts rather than a clinical protocol or a validated situationship test.
First, what relationship is being offered now? Describe the current arrangement without filling in a future outcome: how often you see each other, whether exclusivity has been discussed, what plans are made, what expectations exist, and what each person has actually said about the relationship.
Second, what do you want? “I like them” and “I want a committed relationship with them” are different statements. Clarifying your own goal prevents the entire problem from becoming an exercise in decoding the other person.
Third, has the future been discussed directly? If not, uncertainty may partly reflect missing information. If it has, treat the answer as data. “I do not know,” “not now,” “I want to keep this casual,” and “I want to build a relationship” are different answers even when affection is present in all four cases.
Fourth, is there observable movement? Compare the relationship over time rather than reacting to one especially close or distant day. Are future conversations becoming clearer? Are expectations becoming more mutual? Is investment increasing on both sides? Is stated intent matching behavior?
Fifth, what is the cost of remaining undefined? Ambiguity is not inherently harmful. Some people genuinely prefer an undefined or low-commitment relationship. The problem arises when the current arrangement conflicts with what you want, repeatedly generates distress, or requires you to postpone a decision indefinitely while hoping for a future that has not been mutually chosen.
How Long Should You Wait for a Situationship to Become a Relationship?
There is no evidence-based number of weeks or months that applies to everyone. A deadline such as “three months” may be a useful personal boundary for someone, but it is not a scientific threshold at which a situationship becomes healthy, unhealthy, promising, or doomed. Relationship development varies with age, culture, life circumstances, distance, prior history, and what the people actually want.
A better time-based question is whether new information is appearing. Waiting can make sense when both people have clearly described the same direction but need time because of concrete circumstances. Waiting becomes a different decision when the relationship repeats the same ambiguity without any shared plan, or when one person has already stated that they do not want the kind of relationship the other person is waiting for.
Personal limits matter here. You do not need a diagnosis, a scientific cutoff, or proof that someone is behaving badly to decide that an arrangement no longer fits what you want. A boundary can be based on compatibility between the current relationship and your own goals.
Can Better Communication Make Someone Commit?
Communication can increase clarity, support trust, reveal expectations, and help partners coordinate. It cannot guarantee desire or commitment. The 2026 situationship study on communication and trust found meaningful associations between communication frequency and trust, but it did not show that increasing communication causes a situationship to convert into a relationship. The 2025 study found that communication about the future was associated with commitment, but association is not proof that asking the right question creates commitment.
This is one of the most important practical limits of relationship advice. Communication is not a method for engineering another person’s preference. Its value is that it makes preferences, expectations, and incompatibilities easier to see. Sometimes a clear conversation deepens a relationship. Sometimes it confirms that two people want different things. Both outcomes reduce uncertainty.
What If the Other Person Says “I’m Not Ready” but Acts Like a Partner?
Treat words and behavior as separate pieces of evidence rather than forcing one to cancel the other. Couple-like behavior can be real: affection, sex, daily contact, care, support, time together, and emotional closeness may all matter deeply. They still do not automatically override an explicit statement that someone does not want commitment.
At the same time, “I’m not ready” can mean many things, and research cannot infer the hidden motive from that phrase alone. It may reflect timing, uncertainty, competing priorities, ambivalence, fear, preference for a less committed arrangement, or something else. The scientifically safer approach is not to diagnose the reason. It is to ask what the statement means for the relationship now: what is being offered, what is not being offered, and whether that fits both people’s goals.
What If You Are Both Exclusive but Still Undefined?
Exclusivity and relationship definition overlap but are not identical. A couple may agree not to date or have sex with other people while remaining uncertain about partnership, future plans, public identity, or long-term commitment. The reverse can also occur in consensually non-monogamous relationships, where a relationship can be clearly defined and committed without sexual or romantic exclusivity.
This is why “Are we exclusive?” and “Are we in a relationship?” are separate questions. A transition is clearest when the people involved understand the agreements that matter to them rather than assuming that one behavior carries the same meaning for everyone.
What If the Situationship Feels More Intense Than a Defined Relationship?
Intensity does not tell you whether a relationship is progressing. Uncertainty can make attention feel more urgent because unresolved questions invite monitoring, interpretation, and repeated attempts to obtain clarity. But it would be an overreach to claim that uncertainty always increases attraction or that one reinforcement mechanism explains every intense situationship.
The direct evidence is more modest: situationship research reports ambiguity, investment differences, communication concerns, and trust differences, while relational-uncertainty research shows that uncertainty can shape how people approach relationship talk. If you find yourself repeatedly analyzing messages or searching for signs, that experience may be telling you that the relationship is important and unclear. It does not by itself reveal what the other person intends.
Can a Healthy Relationship Start as a Situationship?
Yes, an initially undefined relationship can later become a satisfying committed relationship. The scientific caution is that “started as a situationship” does not itself tell us whether the later relationship will be healthy or unhealthy. Early ambiguity is one part of a relationship history, not a diagnosis of the couple’s future.
Older relationship-development research also shows that romantic relationships often change through turning points rather than smooth linear stages. In interviews with 40 couples, Baxter and Bullis (1986) identified many kinds of turning points and found that exclusivity and disengagement were among events associated with differences in relationship satisfaction. This classic work is not situationship research, but it supports a broader point: relationship development is eventful and negotiated rather than governed by one universal timeline.
Another adjacent study, Owen, Rhoades, and Stanley (2013), found that more deliberate relationship decision-making was associated cross-sectionally with relationship quality and commitment. That study does not prove that “deciding” causes better outcomes, and it should not be turned into a moral judgment about informal relationships. It is useful because it highlights the difference between letting relationship constraints accumulate without discussion and making relationship choices more explicitly.
When the Answer Is Already Clear but Hard to Accept
Sometimes uncertainty persists because the available evidence is genuinely mixed. Sometimes it persists because the desired answer and the stated answer are different. If someone repeatedly says they do not want a committed relationship, continuing to search their affectionate behavior for evidence that they secretly do want one can keep the relationship psychologically unresolved.
Accepting a stated limit does not require deciding that the other person is avoidant, narcissistic, manipulative, emotionally unavailable, afraid of intimacy, or incapable of love. It may simply mean that the two people want different relationship structures. Compatibility includes timing and commitment goals as well as attraction and affection.
When Emotional Distress Becomes the Main Problem
Situationship is not a diagnosis, and distress in an undefined relationship does not by itself indicate a mental disorder. Still, relationship uncertainty can become consuming. If you are losing sleep, struggling to work or study, repeatedly checking messages for long periods, experiencing severe anxiety or depressed mood, or feeling unable to function because of the relationship, the level of impairment deserves attention on its own terms.
A licensed mental-health professional can help with the actual difficulties present—rumination, anxiety, grief, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, depression, trauma-related symptoms, or decision-making—without treating “situationship” as a diagnosis. The appropriate clinical framework depends on the symptoms and impairment, not on the relationship label.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do situationships usually turn into relationships?
Current peer-reviewed research does not provide a reliable universal percentage. Direct situationship studies are still emerging and have not established a representative population transition rate. Any precise claim that “most” do or do not become relationships should be treated cautiously unless it is tied to a clearly defined sample, definition, and follow-up design.
Can a situationship become serious if it started casual?
Yes. Relationships can change in meaning and commitment over time. What matters is whether both people want the change and begin defining and enacting it. A casual beginning does not scientifically determine a casual ending.
Does frequent texting mean a situationship is becoming a relationship?
No. The 2026 situationship study found associations between communication frequency and trust, especially for some communication modalities, but it did not show that frequent texting predicts transition to a committed relationship. Texting is information about contact, not a substitute for relationship definition.
Does meeting friends or family mean the relationship is becoming official?
It may reflect increasing integration or importance, but it is not a validated predictor by itself. Social integration can carry different meanings across people, families, cultures, and stages of dating. Ask how the people involved define the relationship rather than treating one milestone as decisive.
What if we act like a couple but never use a label?
That configuration is close to how several situationship studies operationalize the phenomenon: couple-like behavior alongside ambiguity or lack of clear labeling and commitment. The key question is whether both people understand and want the same arrangement. Acting like a couple does not automatically create a shared agreement.
Can I tell whether someone will commit by their attachment style?
No. Attachment anxiety and avoidance are research constructs associated with relationship processes, but they do not reveal an individual person’s future intention. A specific commitment decision is better assessed through what the person says, what agreements they make, and how their behavior aligns with those agreements.
Should I set a deadline?
Psychology does not provide a universal deadline. You can set a personal limit based on your goals and tolerance for ambiguity, but that is a boundary or decision rule, not a scientific threshold. The useful question is how long you are willing to remain in the current arrangement if nothing changes.
What Research Can Tell You—and What It Cannot
The evidence supports a clear conclusion. Situationships can contain meaningful affection, investment, trust, communication, and commitment. They can also contain substantial uncertainty. Emerging research suggests that greater investment, future-oriented communication, prioritization, and trust are relevant to commitment within situationships. Established relationship science shows that satisfaction, investment, alternatives, relationship talk, and each partner’s own commitment are important parts of how romantic relationships develop and persist.
What the evidence does not provide is a universal conversion rate, a predictive checklist, a hidden-motive detector, or a way to guarantee that communication will produce commitment. The scientifically strongest answer to “Can this become a relationship?” therefore has two parts: yes, it can; and the future of this particular relationship depends on choices that only the people in it can make.
Clarity changes the problem. Once both people can say what they want and what they are willing to build, the question is no longer whether you can decode enough signals. It becomes whether the two directions match.
Related Articles
References
Anderson, S., & Phillips, M. J. (2026). All the Feels, None of the Labels: Young Adults’ Experiences of Situationships. Societies, 16(2), 42. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc16020042
Baxter, L. A., & Bullis, C. (1986). Turning Points in Developing Romantic Relationships. Human Communication Research, 12(4), 469–493. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1986.tb00088.x
Dobson, K., Ogolsky, B. G., & Stanton, S. C. E. (2023). So where do you see this going? The effects of commitment asymmetry and asynchrony on relationship satisfaction and break-up. European Journal of Social Psychology, 53(5), 890–905. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2942
Knobloch, L. K., & Theiss, J. A. (2011). Relational uncertainty and relationship talk within courtship: A longitudinal actor–partner interdependence model. Communication Monographs, 78(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2010.542471
Langlais, M. R., & Davidson, F. (2026). Can I Trust You Without Committing to You?: Examining Situationships Status, Multimodal Communication, and Trust. Sexuality & Culture. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-026-10592-9
Langlais, M. R., Guzman, P., Toohey, L., Podberesky, A., & Lee, A. (2025). Are Situationships situational?: A Mixed-Methods Study on the Motivations for Being in a Situationship. Sexuality & Culture, 29, 2945–2964. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-025-10402-8
Langlais, M. R., Podberesky, A., Toohey, L., & Lee, C. T. (2024). Defining and Describing Situationships: An Exploratory Investigation. Sexuality & Culture, 28(4), 1831–1857. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-024-10210-6
Owen, J., Rhoades, G. K., & Stanley, S. M. (2013). Sliding versus deciding in relationships: Associations with relationship quality, commitment, and infidelity. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 12(2), 135–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332691.2013.779097
Şenkal Ertürk, İ., Akyüz, A. N., & Büyükşahin Sunal, A. (2025). Attachment Insecurities and Commitment: The Mediator Role of Relationship Uncertainty. Psychological Reports. https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941251351244
Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., Scott, S. B., Kelmer, G., Markman, H. J., & Fincham, F. D. (2017). Asymmetrically committed relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34(8), 1241–1259. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407516672013
Tran, P., Judge, M., & Kashima, Y. (2019). Commitment in relationships: An updated meta-analysis of the Investment Model. Personal Relationships, 26(1), 158–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12268