“What Are We?” How to Define a Relationship When the Status Is Unclear
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 26, 2026 · Editorial Policy
“What are we?” is a short question carrying several different decisions at once. Are you dating casually or building a relationship? Are you exclusive? Are you both free to see other people? Is this connection expected to continue? Are the feelings and practical commitments roughly reciprocal? Is one person treating an undefined arrangement as temporary while the other is already organizing life around it as a partnership?
Psychology cannot answer those questions by decoding texting frequency, sex, affection, social-media behavior, pet names, sleepovers, jealousy, or how often someone says they miss you. Those cues can matter, but they do not create an agreed relationship status by themselves. When the status of a relationship matters to your choices, the most reliable route to clarity is explicit communication about the relationship.
Relationship science gives this problem a more precise frame. Relational uncertainty refers to questions people have about their own involvement, a partner’s involvement, or the relationship itself. Research has repeatedly connected uncertainty with how people interpret and manage relationship talk. That makes the “what are we?” conversation more than a dating ritual: it is one way people try to reduce ambiguity around expectations, commitment, exclusivity, and direction.
This article is a practical, evidence-informed guide to defining a human relationship when the status is unclear. It is not a clinical protocol, and an uncertain relationship is not a diagnosis. The aim is to help you ask better questions, hear the answer that is actually given, and decide what that answer means for your own choices.
What Does “What Are We?” Actually Ask?
In everyday dating language, “what are we?” usually means: What shared understanding do we have about this relationship? A label may be part of the answer, but the label is only one layer. Two people can use the same word—dating, exclusive, partners, boyfriend and girlfriend—while holding different assumptions about sex, contact, emotional responsibility, future plans, or what would count as a breach of trust.
A useful relationship-definition conversation therefore moves from vague identity to concrete expectations. “Are we in a relationship?” may matter. So may “Are we exclusive?”, “Are either of us dating other people?”, “What are you hoping this becomes?”, “What does commitment mean to you right now?”, and “What should each of us reasonably expect from the other?”
There is no scientifically required label for every romantic connection. Some people deliberately prefer casual, open, nonexclusive, nontraditional, or slowly developing relationships. Clarity means that the people involved understand the arrangement well enough to make informed choices. It does not mean every relationship must become exclusive, conventional, or permanent.
When people call an unlabeled connection a “situationship,” they are using a contemporary relationship term, not a clinical category. The word can describe ambiguity, but it does not by itself establish deception, exploitation, nonexclusivity, absence of commitment, or absence of genuine feeling.
If you are using “situationship” to describe the ambiguity, see What Is a Situationship? Meaning, Signs, Psychology, and Why It Feels Unclear for the dedicated definition, research status, and boundaries of the term.
Why an Unclear Relationship Can Feel So Mentally Demanding
Ambiguity creates questions that observation alone cannot settle. A warm weekend may seem to imply growing commitment; a delayed reply may seem to imply withdrawal; frequent texting may feel intimate without answering what the relationship is. The mind naturally tries to infer a coherent pattern from incomplete information, yet ambiguous cues often support several plausible interpretations.
Foundational research on relational uncertainty treats uncertainty as relationship-specific rather than proof that one person has a particular personality style or disorder. Relational Turbulence Theory later placed uncertainty within a broader account of how transitions and interdependence can shape appraisals, emotions, and communication in romantic relationships.
The crucial distinction is between uncertainty that exists and the story you tell yourself about why it exists. You may accurately know that the relationship has not been defined. You usually cannot know, from that fact alone, whether the other person is afraid, avoidant, confused, strategically keeping options open, moving slowly, assuming you already agree, or simply wanting something different. A DTR conversation replaces some inference with information.
For the full scientific construct behind ambiguity in romantic relationships, see Relationship Uncertainty: What It Is and How It Affects Anxiety, Trust, and Commitment.
Why the Defining-the-Relationship Conversation Can Feel So Difficult
The paradox of relationship uncertainty is that the moment when clarity would be useful can also be the moment when asking for clarity feels most threatening. People may fear that naming the issue will force a decision, expose unequal investment, create embarrassment, or end a connection that still feels promising.
A six-week longitudinal study of 135 romantic couples found that people experiencing greater relational uncertainty tended to appraise relationship talk as more threatening, avoid more of it, and engage in less of it. Lagged analyses also found that greater avoidance and less relationship talk in one week predicted more uncertainty the following week (Knobloch & Theiss, 2011). This does not mean every postponed DTR conversation causes uncertainty. It does show how avoidance and uncertainty can become mutually sustaining across time.
A 30-day intensive longitudinal study of 202 college-aged dating partners, producing 5,240 daily observations, reported a similar within-person pattern: on days when people experienced more relationship uncertainty than usual, they engaged in less relationship talk than usual (Bolkan et al., 2024). People whose uncertainty was more volatile or carried over more strongly from day to day also reported less relationship talk on average. The design supports dynamic association, not a simplistic one-way causal story.
A small 2025 qualitative study of 26 emerging adult women in ambiguous dating relationships adds descriptive detail. Participants reported fear of rejection, loss of intimacy, damage to self-esteem, and anticipated partner avoidance among barriers to initiating a DTR conversation (Konieczna, 2025). Because the sample was narrow and qualitative, these themes should be understood as experiences reported by those participants rather than universal motives across genders or populations.
Before You Ask: Decide What You Actually Need to Know
A vague question often produces a vague answer. Before starting the conversation, identify which uncertainty is affecting your decisions. You may care about the public label, but you may care even more about exclusivity, sexual-health expectations, dating other people, communication patterns, emotional investment, future direction, or whether both people are making room for the relationship in their lives.
Try to distinguish a preference from a requirement. “I would like more frequent contact” is different from “I am only willing to continue if we are exclusive.” Both can be legitimate. The distinction matters because a relationship-definition conversation works best when it reveals actual compatibility rather than disguising a nonnegotiable need as a casual question.
It also helps to separate what is true now from what might happen later. “What are we now?” and “Where could this go?” are different questions. A person may describe the present arrangement clearly while remaining genuinely uncertain about a long-term future. Conversely, someone may talk enthusiastically about the future while avoiding any present commitment. Asking both questions reduces the chance that a hopeful future statement substitutes for a current agreement.
When Is It Reasonable to Have the “What Are We?” Conversation?
Research does not provide a universal number of dates, weeks, sexual encounters, or text messages after which a relationship must be defined. A rigid timetable would ignore differences in dating culture, age, distance, prior friendship, nonmonogamy, sexual orientation, personal preference, and the pace at which people become interdependent.
A more useful trigger is practical consequence. It is reasonable to seek clarity when the undefined status begins to affect choices you need to make: whether to date other people, whether to become sexually exclusive, how to manage sexual-health risk, how much time or emotional energy to invest, whether to plan ahead, how to introduce each other, or whether continuing under the current terms still works for you.
You do not need to prove that the relationship has reached an objective milestone before asking. The relevant fact is that the answer matters to your decisions. Asking for information is different from demanding a particular answer.
How to Start the Conversation Without Turning It Into a Test
The strongest evidence in this area concerns relationship talk and uncertainty, not a validated script for DTR conversations. The following approach is therefore evidence-informed communication guidance rather than a clinical intervention protocol.
Begin with your own perspective and the decision you need to make. Direct language reduces the burden of decoding hints. For example: “I like what we’re doing, and I’ve realized I need to understand how you see this. Are you thinking of us as a relationship, something casual, or are you still figuring that out?”
If exclusivity matters, ask about exclusivity directly instead of assuming a relationship label answers it: “Are we agreeing not to date or sleep with other people?” If sexual-health decisions depend on the answer, make those expectations explicit as their own topic.
If future direction matters, ask a future-direction question rather than a hidden commitment question: “Are you interested in seeing whether this develops into a committed relationship?” That wording allows a person to distinguish present interest from a promise they cannot honestly make.
Avoid turning the conversation into a mind-reading challenge. “Why have you been giving me mixed signals?” asks the other person to defend your interpretation before the practical question has been answered. “I’m not sure what we’ve agreed this is” keeps the focus on shared definition.
Do not hide your own position so thoroughly that the other person has to guess it. If you want a committed relationship, say so. If you are open to continuing casually, say that. If you are not willing to remain in an undefined arrangement, that information belongs in the conversation too.
What to Clarify in a Relationship-Definition Conversation
Current status
Ask how each person describes the relationship as it exists today. You are looking for a shared description, not a psychologically perfect label. If one person says “we’re dating exclusively” and the other says “we’re casually seeing each other,” the difference is more important than which phrase sounds more official.
Exclusivity
Never use frequency of contact, sex, jealousy, affection, or meeting friends as a substitute for an exclusivity agreement. Exclusivity is an expectation that should be made explicit. People can feel emotionally close while remaining nonexclusive, and people can agree to exclusivity without yet choosing a long-term label.
Commitment
Commitment is not simply intensity. Ask what each person is willing to organize around the relationship now: time, priority, reliability, future planning, or constraints on other romantic options. In a 2025 situationship study, participants described investment, communication about the future, prioritization, effort, needs, exclusivity, and trust among themes involved in maintaining these relationships; investment, future communication, and prioritization were statistically associated with greater satisfaction and commitment in that sample (Langlais et al., 2025). The study used a small mixed-methods sample, so it supports these factors as relevant themes and correlates rather than a universal formula.
Direction
Some people can state the present arrangement while remaining uncertain about the future. Ask whether the relationship is intentionally staying casual, actively moving toward greater commitment, or genuinely undecided. “I don’t know yet” is an answer about current certainty; it is not the same as “yes,” and it is not automatically the same as “no.”
Expectations
Clarify expectations that would create conflict if they remained implicit: how often you expect contact, whether you make plans in advance, whether either person is dating others, what privacy means, how much emotional support is expected, and what either person would consider a breach of trust. Relationships do not need identical rules, but rules that matter need to be knowable.
How to Listen to the Answer You Actually Get
The purpose of the conversation is not to extract the preferred label at any cost. It is to obtain information that lets both people choose knowingly. That means the quality of the answer matters as much as the label.
A clear answer identifies a present position: “I want an exclusive relationship with you,” “I want to keep this casual,” “I do not want exclusivity,” or “I’m interested in continuing, but I’m not ready to call this a committed relationship.” You may like or dislike the answer, but it gives you something concrete to decide about.
An uncertain answer can also be honest: “I don’t know yet.” If that is the answer, the next useful questions are practical. What exactly is uncertain? What arrangement applies while the uncertainty continues? Is either person free to date others? What would need to happen for the question to become clearer? Is there a timeframe that matters to either person?
A nonanswer is different from uncertainty. Changing the subject, repeatedly postponing without engaging, mocking the question, giving incompatible answers, or refusing to discuss expectations leaves the relationship undefined. You do not need to diagnose the motive behind that behavior to use the information. The observable fact is that a shared definition is currently unavailable.
What If They Say, “I Don’t Like Labels”?
A dislike of labels can be genuine, but it does not remove the need for informed expectations. You can move from identity language to behavior: Are we exclusive? Are we dating other people? Are we treating this as an ongoing romantic partnership? What are we each free to do? What are we each expecting the other person to do?
If the behavioral expectations are clear and mutually acceptable, the absence of a conventional label may not be a problem. If “I don’t like labels” is the only available answer to every practical question, the uncertainty remains. Psychology cannot tell you why the person is avoiding definition; you can still decide whether the arrangement works for you.
What If They Say They Need More Time?
Needing time is compatible with genuine interest, ambivalence, competing life circumstances, or many other possibilities. The relevant question is whether the temporary arrangement is one you freely want to participate in.
Ask what “more time” means operationally. Are you exclusive during that period? Are you still dating other people? Are you continuing at the same level of emotional or sexual involvement? When would it be reasonable to revisit the question? A timeframe is not a device for forcing certainty; it is a way to prevent two people from silently living under different assumptions.
You are also allowed to decide that the current level of uncertainty costs more than the potential future relationship is worth to you. That is a preference and boundary decision, not a clinical judgment about either person.
What If You Want Different Things?
A DTR conversation can reveal incompatibility rather than resolve it. One person may want exclusivity and commitment while the other wants a casual or open arrangement. Neither answer needs to be pathologized. The practical question is whether there is a mutually acceptable relationship available between those positions.
Compromise is possible when the issue is negotiable. It is less useful when one person agrees to a relationship structure they already know they do not want simply to preserve access to the other person. Clarity is valuable partly because it makes that tradeoff visible.
A mismatch is not evidence that one person communicated badly. Two people can communicate clearly and discover that they want different things. The conversation has still succeeded if it replaces false assumptions with usable information.
Does Frequent Texting Mean You Are in a Relationship?
No single communication frequency defines relationship status. People can text constantly in an undefined relationship, communicate less often in a secure committed relationship, or shift patterns with work, distance, health, family responsibilities, and personal habits.
A 2026 study of 261 emerging adults who reported on recent romantic experiences found that communication frequency across several channels was associated with trust in complex, often nonlinear ways, while situationship status was associated with lower trust in several models (Langlais & Davidson, 2026). Most interactions between situationship status and communication frequency were nonsignificant. The practical lesson is modest: communication frequency can carry relationship information, but it is not a reliable substitute for an explicit agreement about status or commitment.
The same caution applies to good-morning texts, daily check-ins, location sharing, meeting friends, staying over, sexual intimacy, public affection, or spending holidays together. These behaviors may be meaningful evidence about closeness and investment. They do not, by themselves, tell you what both people have agreed.
Situationships, Clarity, and the DTR Conversation
“Situationship” is a contemporary social label for a relationship configuration or state that is often experienced as less clearly defined than a conventional committed relationship. It is not a DSM or ICD diagnosis, and researchers are still developing the evidence base. Different studies operationalize the term differently, so it should not be treated as one universal relationship type.
The 2025 mixed-methods study by Langlais and colleagues found that participants discussed communication about the future, investment, prioritization, trust, effort, exclusivity, and whether needs were met when describing why situationships continued (Langlais et al., 2025). The 2026 trust study extended the emerging literature to communication modalities and trust (Langlais & Davidson, 2026). Both studies are useful because they examine the contemporary phenomenon directly; both also require caution because their samples do not establish population prevalence or universal rules.
A DTR conversation does not have to convert a situationship into a conventional relationship to be useful. It can clarify that both people actually prefer the current arrangement, reveal that they mean different things by it, establish exclusivity or nonexclusivity, or show that one person wants a transition the other does not want.
For a side-by-side distinction among common relationship configurations, see Situationship vs Relationship vs Friends With Benefits: What's the Difference?.
Relationship Uncertainty, Commitment, and Attachment: Keep the Claims Separate
Uncertainty can coexist with attachment anxiety, avoidance, secure attachment, limerence, ordinary early dating, a situationship, a long-distance relationship, or a transition in an established partnership. One construct does not diagnose another.
A 2025 cross-sectional study of 276 partnered adults found that attachment anxiety and avoidance were associated with greater relationship uncertainty and that uncertainty statistically mediated their associations with lower commitment (Şenkal Ertürk et al., 2025). Because the study was cross-sectional, that mediation model does not establish a temporal or causal pathway. It cannot justify claims such as “anxious attachment causes unclear relationships,” nor can it diagnose an attachment style from someone’s desire for clarity.
For the broader evidence on attachment in romantic relationships, see Attachment Styles in Relationships: Dating, Intimacy, Conflict, and Communication. Wanting a relationship to be defined, by itself, is not a test of attachment style.
What If the Conversation Makes the Relationship Worse?
Sometimes clarity changes a relationship because it reveals information that ambiguity had allowed both people to postpone. If one person learns that the other does not want the same type of relationship, the conversation may be followed by disappointment, distance, or an ending. That sequence does not prove that asking the question damaged an otherwise compatible relationship.
The alternative is not a cost-free state. Longitudinal and daily-diary research shows that uncertainty and avoidance of relationship talk can travel together over time. The choice is therefore rarely between “safe ambiguity” and “risky clarity.” It is between different ways of managing a relationship whose status already matters.
There can still be good reasons to choose timing carefully. Do not start a high-stakes conversation when either person is intoxicated, rushing out the door, in the middle of another conflict, or unable to leave the setting comfortably. Timing is about creating enough attention and agency for an honest answer, not about waiting for a magical moment when rejection becomes impossible.
How to Handle Mixed or Changing Answers
People can communicate warmth and uncertainty at the same time. Someone can care deeply and still be unwilling to commit. Someone can want exclusivity and still be unsure about the long-term future. Someone can change their mind. Those combinations feel confusing because affection and commitment are linked in everyday expectations, but they are not identical.
When behavior appears inconsistent, describe the inconsistency before assigning a motive: “We talk every day and spend most weekends together, but you’ve also said you don’t want a relationship.” That identifies observable information. It avoids turning “mixed signals” into a diagnosis of manipulation, avoidance, narcissism, or emotional unavailability.
If an answer changes, update your understanding from the new explicit information. Previous commitment does not guarantee permanent commitment, and previous uncertainty does not make later commitment impossible. A defined relationship is an ongoing agreement, not a one-time psychological certification.
A Practical Way to Structure the Conversation
You can make the discussion concrete by moving through five ordinary questions rather than searching for the perfect speech.
First: How do we each describe what is happening now? This establishes the present status without forcing a future promise.
Second: Are we exclusive, nonexclusive, or still undecided? If sexual-health choices depend on this answer, discuss those choices explicitly rather than assuming that “exclusive” means the same thing to both people.
Third: What do we each expect from the relationship right now? Talk about contact, time, reliability, dating other people, emotional support, privacy, and other expectations that would matter if violated.
Fourth: What direction does each person want? “I want this to become a committed relationship,” “I want to keep it casual,” and “I’m genuinely undecided” are meaningfully different answers.
Fifth: Given those answers, what does each person choose? The conversation becomes useful when information changes or confirms a real decision. You may continue under the same terms, redefine the relationship, agree to revisit the question, or decide the arrangement does not fit.
What a DTR Conversation Cannot Tell You
It cannot guarantee that a relationship will last. It cannot prove another person’s hidden motive. It cannot establish that someone is emotionally available, secure, avoidant, narcissistic, traumatized, manipulative, or commitment-phobic. It cannot transform a mismatch into compatibility simply because both people communicated well.
It also cannot create certainty about every future state. Relationship decisions always contain some uncertainty because people cannot promise exactly how feelings and circumstances will evolve. The useful distinction is between uncertainty about the future and ambiguity about the current agreement.
Finally, ordinary relationship talk should not be used as a substitute for safety assessment in a coercive or abusive situation. If a person fears retaliation, control, threats, or violence, the practical problem is different from a routine DTR conversation and deserves safety-focused support.
What If You Keep Repeating the Conversation but Nothing Becomes Clear?
Repeated conversations can create the appearance of progress while leaving the actual agreement unchanged. If you have asked direct questions and repeatedly receive no usable answer, the next step may be to decide what you are willing to participate in under the current conditions rather than searching for a more persuasive version of the same question.
You can state your own choice without diagnosing the other person: “I’m looking for an exclusive relationship, and I don’t want to continue indefinitely without knowing whether that is what we’re building.” That sentence defines your participation. It does not claim to know why the other person is uncertain.
The most important information may be that the relationship is currently unable to produce a shared definition. Whether that changes later is a future question. Your present decision still has to be made with the information available now.
Common Mistakes When Trying to Define the Relationship
Treating intensity as commitment. Strong chemistry, frequent sex, constant messaging, jealousy, or emotional disclosure can feel relationship-like while leaving commitment unspoken.
Treating a label as complete information. “We’re together” can still hide major disagreements about exclusivity, future plans, or boundaries unless those expectations are discussed.
Using hints when the answer matters. If you need clarity, indirect tests and strategic withdrawal create more material to interpret rather than a shared agreement.
Trying to infer a diagnosis from hesitation. Reluctance to define a relationship does not establish avoidant attachment, trauma, narcissism, fear of intimacy, or any personality disorder.
Treating uncertainty as a promise. “Maybe later” is not the same as a future commitment. It is a statement of current uncertainty unless something more specific is agreed.
Treating a mismatch as a communication failure. Two people can communicate clearly and discover that they want different things. Clarity has succeeded even when the relationship does not continue in the form one person hoped for.
When Relationship Uncertainty Is Causing Significant Distress
Feeling nervous before a relationship-definition conversation is common and does not by itself indicate a mental disorder. Consider additional support when uncertainty is contributing to persistent sleep disruption, inability to function at work or school, overwhelming anxiety, compulsive checking or reassurance seeking, severe mood symptoms, or patterns that feel difficult to manage on your own.
Professional support can help with distress, decision-making, communication, or any separate clinical symptoms that are present. Clinical assessment should address the person’s symptoms, impairment, history, and context rather than trying to infer a diagnosis from one relationship label or one partner behavior.
The Bottom Line
When the status of a relationship is unclear, the central task is to replace assumptions with shared information. Ask what the relationship is now, whether it is exclusive, what each person expects, what direction each person wants, and what you will each choose given the answer.
Relationship uncertainty is a well-established construct in relationship science, and research suggests that uncertainty can make relationship talk feel threatening while avoidance of that talk can accompany continuing uncertainty. New situationship research also shows that communication, trust, investment, future discussion, and commitment are relevant to how ambiguous relationships are experienced, while still leaving substantial limits on what can be generalized.
The point of asking “what are we?” is not to force uncertainty out of another person. It is to learn whether there is enough shared understanding for you to choose the relationship you are actually in.
FAQ
Is it okay to ask “what are we?” first?
Yes. Initiating a relationship-definition conversation is a communication choice, not evidence that you are more needy, more invested, or psychologically insecure. The answer may reveal asymmetry in what each person wants, but the act of asking does not create that asymmetry.
How long should you date before defining the relationship?
There is no evidence-based universal deadline. Ask when the undefined status affects decisions that matter to you, such as exclusivity, dating other people, sexual health, emotional investment, or future planning.
Can you define the relationship by text?
A text conversation can communicate explicit agreements, and some people find writing easier for difficult topics. Research does not establish one universally superior channel for DTR conversations. Choose a format that lets both people understand the questions, respond voluntarily, and clarify misunderstandings. For a complex or emotionally charged discussion, synchronous conversation may make follow-up easier.
Does exclusivity mean you are officially in a relationship?
Not necessarily. Exclusivity is one relationship agreement. A couple can agree not to date or have sex with others while still differing about labels, commitment, or future direction. Ask the separate questions if those differences matter.
What does it mean if someone refuses to define the relationship?
It means that a shared definition is not currently available. It does not, by itself, tell you why. You can decide what that observable fact means for your willingness to continue without assigning a psychological motive.
Is a situationship automatically unhealthy?
No. “Situationship” is a contemporary relationship label, not a clinical diagnosis. An ambiguous or low-commitment arrangement may work for people who knowingly want it. Problems arise when expectations conflict, important information is missing, trust is low, or the arrangement persistently conflicts with one person’s needs.
Does wanting clarity mean I have anxious attachment?
No. Wanting clarity about exclusivity, commitment, or relationship status does not diagnose an attachment style. Attachment anxiety is a broader dimensional construct assessed across relationship patterns; one preference or conversation is insufficient for that conclusion.
What if the answer is “I don’t know”?
Treat “I don’t know” as current uncertainty. Ask what the arrangement is while that uncertainty continues, what choices each person is free to make, and whether either person has a timeframe or boundary that matters. Then decide whether those terms work for you.
What if we already act like a couple?
Couple-like behavior can be meaningful, but it is not a substitute for an agreement when status matters. If your decisions depend on exclusivity, commitment, or future direction, ask about those expectations explicitly.
Related Articles
References
Bolkan, S., Goodboy, A. K., Dillow, M. R., Chiasson, R. M., & Vendemia, M. A. (2024). Dynamic and daily partner-specific processes of relationship uncertainty and enacted relationship talk. Communication Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502241285997
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
Konieczna, G. (2025). Barriers to engaging in “relationship talks” in dating relationships from women’s perspective. Psychology of Family and Education, 73(31), 147–164. https://doi.org/10.71358/pw.2532
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., et al. (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
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
Solomon, D. H., Knobloch, L. K., Theiss, J. A., & McLaren, R. M. (2016). Relational Turbulence Theory: Explaining variation in subjective experiences and communication within romantic relationships. Human Communication Research, 42(4), 507–532. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12091