How to End a Situationship: Clarity, Boundaries, Grief, and Moving On
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 26, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Ending a situationship does not require both people to agree on what the connection was called. If you have decided that you no longer want to continue the romantic or sexual connection, the clearest ending is usually a direct statement of that decision, a concrete boundary about what changes next, and behavior that matches what you said.
There is an important evidence limit at the outset: psychology does not have a validated “situationship ending protocol.” Research on situationships is still emerging. The practical guidance below is therefore evidence-informed, drawing on direct situationship research, established work on relationship uncertainty and relationship talk, and broader research on romantic breakup adjustment, ghosting, and post-breakup social-media behavior.
Quick answer: how do you end a situationship?
A useful sequence is:
1. Decide whether you actually want to end the connection or whether you want a definition-and-commitment conversation.
2. Make the decision concrete: what exactly will stop—dating, sex, late-night contact, daily messaging, or all romantic contact?
3. Choose a communication channel that fits the significance and normal communication pattern of the connection.
4. State the decision early and plainly rather than making the other person infer it.
5. Give a brief honest reason if you want to, without diagnosing their motives or personality.
6. Set the boundary that matters after the conversation, then follow it consistently.
7. Expect some adjustment afterward. The absence of an official label does not make attachment, disappointment, or loss imaginary.
This is practical communication guidance, not psychotherapy and not a clinical treatment protocol.
First, what exactly are you ending?
“Situationship” is a contemporary relationship label, not a diagnosis or a standardized clinical category. Research has begun to define it more precisely, but studies do not show that every unlabeled relationship has the same rules, emotional depth, exclusivity, or future.
An exploratory 2024 study described situationships as ambiguous romantic or sexual connections that lack clear labels or commitment, while a 2025 mixed-methods study found that participants discussed themes such as exclusivity, investment, needs, future communication, effort, prioritization, and trust. In that 2025 sample, greater investment, more communication about the future, and greater prioritization were associated with higher satisfaction and commitment; these were associations, not proof that any one factor causes a situationship to improve or become a committed relationship. See Langlais et al. (2024) and Langlais et al. (2025).
A 2026 study of 261 emerging adults found that situationship status was associated with lower trust across several communication contexts compared with non-situationship experiences in that sample. The study also found that communication frequency did not simply erase the difference. Because this was a convenience sample of university students reporting past relationship experiences, it should not be treated as a population prevalence estimate or as a rule about every situationship. See Langlais and Davidson (2026).
That variability matters when you end one. You may be ending a short sexual arrangement, a months-long emotionally intimate connection, an exclusive but unlabeled bond, or something that looked like a partnership in daily life but never acquired a mutually agreed label. The appropriate amount of explanation can differ, but the central task is the same: make your own decision understandable enough that the other person is not left to infer whether contact is pausing, changing, or ending.
Why can ending a situationship feel unusually complicated?
The most useful scientific concept here is relationship uncertainty: uncertainty about yourself, the other person, or the relationship itself—such as what each person wants, how the relationship is evaluated, or where it is going. Relationship uncertainty is an established construct in relationship science, not an internet diagnosis.
Longitudinal research with dating couples has found a reciprocal pattern between uncertainty and relationship talk. In a six-week study of 135 couples, people experiencing more relational uncertainty tended to see relationship talk as more threatening, avoid more of it, and engage in less of it; greater avoidance and less relationship talk in one week were associated with more uncertainty in the next. That pattern is consistent with a loop in which uncertainty can make clarifying conversation harder, while avoiding the conversation can leave uncertainty in place. It does not mean that one conversation will automatically resolve every relationship problem. See Knobloch and Theiss (2011).
Another longitudinal study of emerging adults examined “sliding,” operationalized as avoidance of relationship-status talk. Greater relationship uncertainty predicted more avoidance of relationship talk, and more avoidance was associated with lower later dedication and satisfaction through less constructive relationship maintenance. Again, these are longitudinal associations, not a randomized demonstration that status talk itself causes a particular outcome. See Clifford (2017).
This helps explain a common practical problem: a situationship can continue partly because the exact conversation that would clarify it feels risky. Ending it therefore may require doing something the relationship has repeatedly postponed—putting an unambiguous sentence around what happens next.
Step 1: decide whether you want an ending or a definition conversation
Before deciding what to say, decide what question you are actually answering.
If your real position is, “I want a committed relationship with this person, but I do not know whether they want the same,” you may want a relationship-definition conversation. That is a different goal from ending the connection.
If your position is, “Whatever they want, I no longer want to continue this arrangement,” then you already have the information needed to end it.
Keeping those two goals separate prevents a breakup message from becoming a hidden test. “I’m done unless you finally commit” is an ultimatum about the future of the relationship; “I’ve decided not to continue this” is an ending. Either can be a legitimate choice, but they are different conversations.
A simple private check can help:
- If they offered the exact relationship you wanted today, would you genuinely want it with them?
- Are you ending because the current arrangement does not fit what you want, or mainly to provoke a response?
- What behavior would have to stop for the ending to be real?
- Are you willing to follow that boundary if they respond warmly, flirtatiously, or ambiguously later?
These questions are ordinary decision aids. They are not a psychological test.
Step 2: make the ending behaviorally specific
“Maybe we should take some space” can mean almost anything. A usable boundary names what you will do.
Depending on the connection, ending may mean:
- no more dates;
- no more sexual contact;
- no more romantic or flirtatious messaging;
- no more late-night “come over” contact;
- a temporary period without direct contact;
- contact limited to unavoidable shared responsibilities;
- friendship only, if both people genuinely want and can sustain that without using friendship as a waiting room for renewed romance.
A boundary describes your participation. “I’m not going to keep sleeping together” is a boundary. “You need to stop being emotionally unavailable” is a judgment about the other person and does not tell them what you are actually changing.
You also do not need to prove that the situationship was objectively bad enough to leave. A relationship configuration can be acceptable to one person and wrong for another. Ending it can be based on incompatibility between the arrangement and what you want.
Step 3: choose the communication channel based on context, not a universal rule
There is no strong situationship-specific evidence showing that one channel—text, phone, video, or in-person conversation—is always psychologically superior.
A reasonable evidence-informed principle is proportionality. Consider how long the connection lasted, how emotionally and practically intertwined you became, how you normally communicated, whether there are shared belongings or responsibilities, and whether a live conversation would add meaningful clarity.
Text may be proportionate when the connection was brief, mostly digital, or normally conducted by text. It can also help a person state a decision clearly when live conversation reliably turns into a confusing back-and-forth.
A phone, video, or in-person conversation may be more considerate when the connection was long, emotionally significant, highly integrated into daily life, or when both people normally handled important matters that way.
The goal is not to stage the “perfect breakup.” It is to communicate the ending clearly enough that the channel does not become another layer of ambiguity.
If you are afraid of retaliation, stalking, coercion, or violence, ordinary breakup etiquette is no longer the right framework. Prioritize safety and use specialized support rather than following a generic recommendation to meet in person.
Step 4: say the decision early
Clear does not have to mean cold. It means the other person should not have to decode the message.
A basic structure is:
1. acknowledge the connection if that feels true;
2. state your decision;
3. give one concise reason if you want;
4. state what changes next.
For example:
“I’ve valued the time we’ve spent together, but I don’t want to continue this connection. I’m looking for something different, so I’m going to stop seeing each other romantically.”
Or:
“I care about you, and I’ve realized this undefined arrangement is no longer working for me. I’m ending the romantic and sexual part of this, and I’m going to step back from contact for a while.”
Or, if the reason is simply that your interest has changed:
“I’ve thought about it, and I don’t want to keep dating or hooking up. I wanted to say that directly rather than fade out.”
These are communication examples, not empirically validated scripts. Their value is structural: they make the decision, reason, and next boundary legible.
Step 5: explain enough to be honest, but do not turn the conversation into a diagnosis
You can explain your experience without claiming access to the other person’s psychology.
Useful explanations might sound like:
- “I want a defined relationship, and this arrangement does not fit that.”
- “I do not want to continue something this uncertain.”
- “I’ve realized I’m more invested than I want to be in an undefined connection.”
- “Our expectations do not seem aligned.”
- “I’m no longer interested in continuing romantically.”
Less useful explanations are labels presented as facts about the other person: “You are avoidant,” “You are a narcissist,” “You are emotionally unavailable,” or “You are addicted to keeping me on the hook.” Ghosting, mixed signals, uncertainty, or reluctance to commit do not establish any of those conclusions.
If you have a concrete behavior to name, name the behavior: “We have repeatedly made plans and then gone weeks without contact” is more precise than a personality verdict.
Step 6: do not leave a door open that you do not intend to use
Ambiguous endings can reproduce the same uncertainty that made the relationship difficult to understand.
If your decision is final, phrases such as “maybe later,” “I just need space right now,” or “let’s see what happens” communicate possibility. Use them only if you actually mean possibility.
This matters because uncertainty does not end merely because a breakup-like conversation occurred. If contact remains flirtatious, sexual, future-oriented, or repeatedly restarted without any new agreement, the relational status can become ambiguous again.
Relationship-science research does not provide a magic wording formula, but the broader evidence on uncertainty and relationship talk supports making consequential relationship information more explicit rather than forcing the other person to infer it. Knobloch and Theiss (2011) is especially relevant here.
Step 7: follow the boundary after the conversation
The message is only one part of the ending. Your later behavior tells the other person whether the decision was real.
If you said you are ending the romantic or sexual relationship but continue sending intimate late-night messages, arranging hookups, or using each other as default emotional partners, the connection may become undefined again.
Consistency does not require hostility. It can mean politely declining invitations that recreate the old arrangement, limiting a conversation that keeps reopening a settled decision, returning belongings, changing routines, or muting digital cues that keep pulling you back into monitoring.
This is where a boundary becomes functional: it reduces repeated renegotiation of a decision you have already made.
Should you ghost a situationship?
“Ghosting” is a behavioral relationship term, not a diagnosis. A 2025 theoretical analysis proposed that ghosting involves a final, unilateral cessation of communication in a meaningful relationship with prior two-way communication, usually mediated through digital communication; it distinguished ghosting from related behaviors such as breadcrumbing. See Schokkenbroek et al. (2025).
Directly disappearing can feel easier for the person ending the connection because it avoids an uncomfortable conversation. Research does not show that ghosting has one motive, and observing the behavior does not allow anyone to infer a specific personality trait or attachment style.
There is, however, emerging experimental evidence that an unexplained communication cutoff can produce a different recovery pattern from explicit rejection. In two multi-day experiments, participants who were ghosted showed slower and more persistent adverse responses than participants who received an explicit rejection; the authors proposed uncertainty and lack of closure as possible explanations. The samples and artificial interaction paradigm limit how far the result can be generalized to real romantic relationships, but the study provides direct evidence that silence and explicit rejection are not psychologically identical. See Telari, Pancani, and Riva (2025).
For an ordinary situationship in which direct communication is feasible, a short clear ending is therefore usually more defensible than deliberately making the other person guess whether the connection is over. Safety concerns are a separate case.
What if they say, “We were never in a relationship”?
You do not need agreement about the label to end your participation.
A concise response is:
“I agree that we did not define this as a relationship. I’m still choosing not to continue the romantic or sexual connection.”
That sentence does not require either person to win an argument about whether the situationship “counted.” It moves the conversation from classification to behavior.
This distinction is useful because contemporary situationships vary substantially. Research is still working out how to define and measure them, and individual arrangements can differ in exclusivity, investment, communication, trust, and commitment. Langlais et al. (2025) supports treating those dimensions as variable rather than assuming every situationship has the same structure.
Should you end a situationship by text?
Yes, text can be an appropriate way to end a situationship. It is not automatically disrespectful, and in-person conversation is not automatically superior.
Use the channel to optimize clarity and proportionate consideration, not to satisfy a rigid etiquette rule. A text is especially understandable when texting was the relationship’s main communication mode, the connection was relatively brief, or a live conversation would make it harder to say a settled decision clearly.
A text might read:
“I’ve thought about this and I don’t want to continue seeing each other. I’ve enjoyed getting to know you, but I’m looking for something different. I’m going to step back from the romantic side of this and wish you well.”
If you want no further discussion, say so respectfully:
“I wanted to be direct rather than disappear. My decision is final, so I’m not looking to keep discussing whether we should continue.”
If you are open to one conversation, say that instead. The important part is that the message should match your actual boundary.
Do you need “closure” from the other person?
Closure is often treated in popular psychology as if it were an answer the other person must provide before you can move on. Research does not support such a simple rule.
A clear explanation can reduce some uncertainty. But another person cannot always give a fully satisfying account of why the connection developed, why their feelings changed, or why they behaved inconsistently. Their explanation can also be partial, self-protective, or genuinely uncertain.
It can help to separate two goals:
- interpersonal clarity: “Are we continuing this connection?”
- complete explanatory certainty: “Can I understand every reason this happened?”
The first can often be answered behaviorally. The second may remain incomplete.
Relationship uncertainty research shows that uncertainty concerns questions about the self, partner, and relationship and that it affects how people process relational information. That makes the desire for answers understandable, but it does not mean indefinite information-seeking will necessarily produce peace. See Knobloch and Solomon (2002).
Is “no contact” necessary after a situationship?
No. “No contact” is not a universal psychological prescription, and there is no validated situationship-specific study showing an optimal number of no-contact days.
The more useful question is functional: what level of contact allows the ending to remain an ending?
If occasional contact is genuinely neutral and both people have adjusted, complete disconnection may be unnecessary. If every message restarts hope, sexual contact, status negotiation, rumination, or monitoring, a period of reduced or no direct contact can be a reasonable evidence-informed choice.
There is especially relevant evidence about digital exposure after relationship dissolution. A 2026 paper spanning four studies, including longitudinal, experimental, and daily-diary designs, found that active observation of ex-partners on social media was associated with greater breakup distress, negative affect, and jealousy; experimentally increasing the salience of observation also increased negative affect and jealousy. The study concerned ex-partners after breakups generally, not situationships specifically, so the finding should be applied as adjacent evidence rather than a direct situationship rule. See Marshall (2026).
This makes muting, unfollowing, or otherwise reducing repeated exposure a reasonable option when social-media checking is keeping you activated. It does not mean everyone must block an ex-situationship, and blocking should not be treated as a psychological achievement in itself.
What about social media, stories, likes, and “orbiting”?
Digital contact can preserve a weak signal of connection long after direct dating has stopped. A story view, reaction, like, or occasional message can be emotionally meaningful to one person and trivial to the other. Psychology cannot infer private intention reliably from those cues alone.
If your goal is to move on, design your digital environment around what the cues do to your attention rather than what you hope they secretly mean.
Practical options include muting stories, unfollowing, removing the person from close-friends lists, archiving the chat, disabling notifications, or stopping intentional checking. These are not treatments; they are ways of changing exposure to cues that repeatedly pull attention back to the relationship.
Recent evidence makes that recommendation more than a generic “protect your peace” slogan. Marshall’s multi-study 2026 work found links between post-breakup observation and worse adjustment outcomes across several methods. A separate 2026 cross-sectional study of 232 young adults also found that post-breakup Instagram surveillance was associated with breakup-related distress, although its retrospective design and predominantly female sample limit causal and population-level conclusions. See Wegener, Bischoff, and Eichenberg (2026).
Why can grief feel real when the relationship was never official?
A label is one part of a relationship. It is not the only thing a person can lose.
You may be adjusting to the loss of regular contact, sexual intimacy, companionship, routines, a hoped-for future, a social role, or a version of yourself that existed inside the connection. None of those requires the relationship to have been officially named.
Research on romantic breakup adjustment is much larger than situationship-specific research. A 2025 systematic review of 47 studies in emerging adulthood found that breakups were associated with both negative and positive psychosocial outcomes, including changes involving psychological health, self-concept, and interpersonal intimacy. Adjustment varied substantially across people and contexts. See Fernandes, Santos, and Martins (2025).
That review does not prove that situationship endings are equivalent to conventional breakups, nor that they are harder. The stronger conclusion is narrower: romantic dissolution can affect identity, mood, and functioning, and the magnitude of a person’s reaction cannot be inferred solely from the formal label attached to the relationship.
How to move on without turning recovery into another relationship test
Moving on is not a single feeling. It is a gradual reduction in the degree to which the ended connection organizes your behavior, attention, decisions, and hopes.
Several practical steps are reasonable:
Remove the ongoing ambiguity
If you ended the relationship, avoid maintaining a second unofficial version of it. Repeated sexual contact, romantic messaging, and “just checking in” can make the status uncertain again.
Reduce cue-driven checking
If you repeatedly search their profile, inspect who they follow, reread messages, or use mutual friends’ accounts to monitor them, consider changing access to those cues. The strongest recent evidence here is on social-media observation after breakups, not on a specific “detox” duration. Marshall (2026).
Let the loss be proportionate to your experience, not the label
You do not need to exaggerate the relationship to justify sadness, and you do not need to minimize sadness because the relationship was undefined. Describe what you actually lost.
Rebuild routines that do not contain the relationship
If evenings, weekends, commuting time, a gym, a game, or a messaging routine became organized around the other person, recovery often requires more than “not thinking about them.” Put other people and activities back into the times and places where the relationship had become habitual.
Use support without making friends investigate the other person
Social support can help after romantic loss, but support is different from crowd-sourced detective work. Asking friends to monitor the person’s accounts or interpret every ambiguous cue can keep the relationship cognitively present.
Notice rumination without treating every thought as a message
Thinking about an ended connection is expected. Repetitive thought becomes more concerning when it dominates large parts of the day, drives repeated checking or contact, or interferes with sleep, work, study, eating, or ordinary functioning.
Breakup research has linked rumination with distress and adjustment, but the direction and mechanisms vary across studies and people. It is safer to treat persistent rumination as a process to observe and manage than as proof of a particular attachment style, disorder, or hidden bond.
What attachment can and cannot explain here
Attachment research can help explain why separation and uncertainty feel different across people, but an attachment label should not be used as a verdict about either person.
Broader breakup studies have found associations between attachment insecurity, coping patterns, rumination, and breakup distress. The 2025 systematic review by Fernandes and colleagues also identified insecure attachment among factors associated with more difficult adjustment in emerging adults. These findings describe group-level patterns; they do not tell you what a specific person “is,” why they ended or avoided commitment, or whether a particular situationship should continue.
If you want the broader science rather than a situationship-specific shortcut, see Adult Attachment Theory: How Anxiety and Avoidance Shape Relationships and Attachment Triggers: What Activates Anxious and Avoidant Patterns in Relationships.
What if they come back after you end it?
A renewed message is new information about contact. It is not automatically new information about commitment, compatibility, or the reasons you ended the situationship.
Before restarting, ask what has materially changed:
- Has the desired relationship structure changed?
- Have expectations about exclusivity, commitment, communication, or the future become explicit?
- Are you both choosing the same arrangement now?
- Are you considering restarting because the underlying mismatch is resolved, or because reunion temporarily relieves the discomfort of separation?
These questions are especially important in undefined relationships because affectionate contact can return faster than structural clarity.
If nothing has changed except that you miss each other, restarting may simply restore the same unresolved arrangement. That is a practical inference, not a universal law; some relationships do change after a break, but the change has to exist in behavior and agreement rather than in intensity alone.
Can you stay friends after a situationship?
Sometimes. There is no situationship-specific evidence showing that friendship afterward is always healthy or always harmful.
The relevant issue is whether “friendship” is the relationship both people actually want and can enact. If friendship means continuing emotional exclusivity, flirting, sex, romantic hope, or waiting for the other person to change their mind, the label may have changed while the underlying ambiguity has not.
You can postpone the friendship decision. “I don’t want to date, and I need some distance before I know whether friendship makes sense” is a complete answer.
What if you feel guilty for ending something that was never defined?
Lack of a label does not create an obligation to remain available.
Guilt can arise because the other person is hurt, because you care about them, or because there was never a formal agreement to “break.” None of those facts means you must continue.
A respectful ending recognizes the other person’s humanity without transferring ownership of your decision to them. You can be kind, hear their response, and still decline to renegotiate a relationship configuration you no longer want.
When should you consider professional support?
Most sadness, uncertainty, and preoccupation after an ending are not diagnoses. Professional help becomes worth considering when distress is severe, persistent, or substantially interfering with daily life.
The U.S. National Institute of Mental Health recommends seeking professional help for severe or distressing symptoms lasting two weeks or more, including major sleep or appetite changes, difficulty concentrating, loss of interest, or difficulty completing usual tasks. See NIMH: Caring for Your Mental Health.
A clinician can assess the actual symptoms and context rather than trying to diagnose you from the fact that a situationship ended. If obsessive thoughts, compulsive checking, depression, anxiety, or another clinical concern is present, it should be evaluated on its own criteria rather than relabeled as “situationship trauma,” “limerence,” or an attachment style.
What the evidence supports—and what it does not
The evidence is strongest for several narrower points:
- Situationships are an emerging research topic with measurable variation in investment, communication, trust, commitment, and expectations.
- Relationship uncertainty is a well-established relationship-science construct and is linked with how people approach or avoid consequential relationship talk.
- Direct situationship-ending protocols have not been validated.
- Romantic breakups can affect mood, self-concept, and functioning, but adjustment varies widely.
- Recent multi-method research suggests that repeated observation of an ex-partner on social media can be associated with worse breakup adjustment.
- Emerging experimental ghosting research indicates that unexplained communication withdrawal and explicit rejection can produce different recovery trajectories.
The evidence does not justify saying that every situationship is unhealthy, that anxious attachment “causes” situationships, that someone who avoids commitment has a particular personality disorder, that ghosting reveals one motive, or that a fixed period of no contact is a proven treatment.
A practical ending template
If you want one adaptable template, use this:
“I’ve thought about what I want, and I don’t want to continue this romantic/sexual connection. I’ve appreciated [something true, if you want to say it], but this arrangement no longer works for me. I’m going to [specific boundary: stop dating / stop hooking up / take space from contact]. I wanted to tell you clearly rather than leave it ambiguous.”
If you want a committed relationship and the other person does not:
“I want a committed relationship, and I understand that you don’t want the same thing. I’m not going to keep participating in an undefined connection while hoping it changes, so I’m ending this here.”
If you are simply no longer interested:
“I don’t want to continue dating or hooking up. I wanted to say that directly rather than fade out. I wish you well.”
If they challenge the label:
“We do not have to agree on what this was. I’m telling you what I’m choosing now: I’m not continuing the romantic or sexual connection.”
If they keep reopening the discussion after you have answered:
“I’ve explained my decision, and I’m not going to keep renegotiating it. I’m going to step back from contact now.”
These examples are communication tools, not clinical interventions.
FAQ
How do you know when to end a situationship?
There is no diagnostic threshold. A practical reason to end it is that the arrangement no longer matches what you want and you have decided you do not want to keep participating under the current terms. You do not have to prove that the other person behaved badly.
Do situationships need a breakup conversation?
Not every brief or casual connection requires an elaborate conversation. But when there has been ongoing two-way communication, emotional or sexual investment, or an expectation of continued contact, a short explicit ending can reduce avoidable ambiguity. The amount of conversation can be proportionate to the connection.
Is it okay to end a situationship over text?
Yes. No strong evidence shows that an in-person ending is universally better. Consider the length, investment, normal communication channel, and whether a live conversation would genuinely improve clarity.
What should I say to end a situationship without being cruel?
State the decision, keep the reason about your own needs or the mismatch, and avoid personality diagnoses. For example: “I’ve realized this arrangement is not what I want, so I’m not going to continue dating or hooking up. I wanted to tell you directly.”
Why does ending a situationship hurt if it was never official?
People can lose attachment, routines, intimacy, hope, and an anticipated future without losing an official label. Breakup research shows that romantic dissolution can affect mood, identity, and functioning, while direct situationship-specific evidence remains limited. Fernandes et al. (2025) provides a recent systematic review of breakup effects in emerging adulthood.
Should I block someone after ending a situationship?
Blocking is not universally necessary. If contact is respectful and does not interfere with adjustment, other boundaries may be enough. If repeated messages or social-media exposure keep restarting the relationship or driving monitoring, muting, unfollowing, restricting, or blocking can be reasonable tools.
How long does it take to get over a situationship?
There is no evidence-based situationship recovery timetable. Duration and label alone do not determine emotional impact. Investment, expectations, the circumstances of the ending, individual differences, ongoing contact, and coping can all matter.
Should I ask for closure?
You can ask questions if answers would be useful, but complete explanatory certainty may not be available. The most actionable form of closure is often knowing whether the connection is continuing and what your own boundary is now.
What if I want them back immediately after ending it?
Missing someone does not automatically mean the decision was wrong. Before reversing it, ask whether the problem that led you to end the situationship has actually changed. Relief from separation and resolution of the underlying mismatch are different things.
Is a painful situationship ending evidence of anxious attachment, OCD, trauma, or addiction?
No. Distress after an ambiguous romantic ending does not establish any of those conditions or explanations. Attachment patterns, OCD symptoms, trauma-related symptoms, and substance or behavioral addictions each require their own evidence and, where clinical diagnosis is involved, appropriate assessment.
Related Articles
References
Clifford, C. E. (2017). Testing the impact of sliding versus deciding in cyclical and noncyclical relationships. Personal Relationships, 24(1), 223–238. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12179
Fernandes, J. G., Santos, C., & Martins, M. V. (2025). Psychosocial effects of romantic breakups during emerging adulthood: A systematic review. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 32(5), e70139. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.70139
Knobloch, L. K., & Solomon, D. H. (2002). Intimacy and the magnitude and experience of episodic relational uncertainty within romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 9(4), 457–478. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6811.09406
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., 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
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., & 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
Marshall, T. C. (2026). Social media observation of ex-partners is associated with greater breakup distress, negative affect, and jealousy. Computers in Human Behavior, 176, 108869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2025.108869
National Institute of Mental Health. (n.d.). Caring for your mental health. Retrieved September 26, 2026, from https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/caring-for-your-mental-health
Schokkenbroek, J. M., Telari, A., Pancani, L., & Riva, P. (2025). What is (not) ghosting? A theoretical analysis via three key pillars. Computers in Human Behavior, 168, 108637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2025.108637
Telari, A., Pancani, L., & Riva, P. (2025). The phantom pain of ghosting: Multi-day experiments comparing the reactions to ghosting and rejection. Computers in Human Behavior, 172, 108756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2025.108756
Wegener, V., Bischoff, H., & Eichenberg, C. (2026). Post-breakup Instagram surveillance: Attachment style, personality traits, and breakup distress as predictors. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 29(9), 641–649. https://doi.org/10.1177/21522715261466015