Why Do Situationships Feel So Intense? Uncertainty, Attachment, and Ambiguous Commitment
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 26, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Situationships can feel unusually intense when emotional or sexual closeness develops faster than shared certainty about what the relationship is, what each person wants, and whether the connection is moving toward commitment. The strongest scientific bridge is relationship uncertainty: established relationship research shows that uncertainty about one’s own involvement, a partner’s involvement, or the status and future of the relationship can make relational information harder to interpret and can alter how people approach relationship-defining conversations. Knobloch and Solomon’s foundational work on relational uncertainty and later Relational Turbulence Theory provide the main evidence base for this mechanism.
Direct situationship research is newer and much smaller than the broader relationship-science literature. Recent studies nevertheless show a recognizable pattern: situationships can include substantial affection, sexual involvement, time together, investment, and future-oriented hopes while remaining low in explicit commitment or clarity. In a 2024 exploratory study, situationships were distinguished by low clarity and commitment despite romantic behaviors resembling those in established relationships. A 2025 mixed-methods study found that investment, future communication, prioritization, needs, effort, exclusivity, and trust were central to why people maintained these connections. Langlais et al. (2024) and Langlais et al. (2025) are currently among the most directly relevant peer-reviewed sources.
That does not mean uncertainty automatically makes attraction stronger, that a situationship is inherently unhealthy, or that one partner has a particular attachment style. It also does not justify popular explanations such as “dopamine addiction,” “trauma bonding,” or “intermittent reinforcement” as universal mechanisms. The evidence supports a more precise account: emotional investment can coexist with low structural clarity, uncertainty can increase the amount of interpretation a relationship demands, attachment insecurity can be associated with greater relationship uncertainty, and communication can maintain connection without necessarily resolving commitment.
The Short Answer: Why Can a Situationship Feel So Intense?
A situationship may feel intense because several processes can occur at the same time: meaningful affection or sexual intimacy, uncertainty about reciprocity and status, frequent but ambiguous communication, concern about whether the relationship will progress, and sensitivity to signs of closeness or distance. These processes are related, but they are not interchangeable. A person can feel strongly attached without having a defined relationship, and a relationship can be undefined without producing intense distress.
The central mechanism supported by established relationship science is uncertainty, not “addiction.” Relational uncertainty research distinguishes doubts about the self, doubts about the partner, and doubts about the relationship as a unit. Those doubts can concern feelings, goals, norms, mutuality, current definition, and future direction. Knobloch and Solomon (1999) developed this multidimensional framework, and later measurement work has continued to treat relational uncertainty as a substantive relationship-science construct rather than an internet label.
For a situationship, that framework maps closely onto everyday questions: What do I want? What do they want? Are we exclusive? Are we dating? Are we becoming a couple? Is this temporary? Can I rely on this person? When the connection matters but these questions remain unresolved, individual messages and encounters can carry more interpretive weight.
What Is a Situationship in the Research Literature?
“Situationship” is a contemporary social and research label for an undefined or ambiguously defined romantic connection. It is not a psychiatric diagnosis, a personality type, or a formal clinical category. Current situationship research remains emerging, and definitions are still being refined. The term should therefore describe a relationship configuration rather than be used as a diagnosis of either person.
In the 2024 exploratory study by Langlais and colleagues, the researchers used qualitative interviews and reports of recent relationship experiences to distinguish situationships from other romantic relationships. Their working description emphasized romantic involvement with little clarity or labeling and low commitment, while affection, sexual behavior, and time together could resemble established relationships. The study involved 28 qualitative participants and a second phase with 261 participants reporting on recent relationship experiences, so it is useful for early operationalization rather than for universal population claims.
A later 2025 mixed-methods study examined why people maintain situationships. Ten interview participants generated themes that were then examined in a survey of 109 people with current or recent situationship experience. Exclusivity, investment, needs being met, communication about the future, effort, prioritization, and trust emerged as relevant themes; investment, future communication, and prioritization were associated with greater satisfaction and commitment in the quantitative phase.
Those findings matter because they show why an undefined relationship can still matter deeply. Lack of a formal label does not imply lack of feeling, lack of intimacy, or lack of investment. It also does not prove deception, exploitation, emotional unavailability, or hidden intent.
Intensity Is Not a Single Psychological Variable
When people say a situationship feels “intense,” they may be describing different experiences: strong attraction, rapid emotional investment, longing, sexual chemistry, repeated mental replay, anxiety about losing the connection, heightened attention to messages, emotional swings after contact or silence, urgency to define the relationship, or grief when the connection changes. Research does not treat all of these as one validated “situationship intensity” construct.
This distinction prevents a common reasoning error. Strong attraction is not the same as relationship uncertainty. Relationship uncertainty is not the same as attachment anxiety. Rumination is not the same as limerence. Distress is not a diagnosis. A useful explanation asks which process is actually present rather than naming the whole experience with one popular-psychology label.
If the experience involves persistent person-focused preoccupation, difficulty disengaging attention, and strong concern with reciprocation, limerence can be a relevant descriptive comparison. Limerence is itself a research and descriptive construct rather than a standalone DSM or ICD diagnosis, and a situationship does not automatically produce it.
Relationship Uncertainty Is the Strongest Scientific Bridge
Relationship uncertainty is the clearest established mechanism for understanding why undefined relationships can require so much psychological processing. In classic work, relational uncertainty was conceptualized as doubts about involvement arising from three sources: the self, the partner, and the relationship itself. Knobloch and Solomon (1999) identified uncertainty about desire, evaluation, and goals, as well as uncertainty about relationship norms, mutuality of feelings, current definition, and the future.
That framework is especially relevant to a situationship because ambiguity can exist at several levels simultaneously. You may know that you want more but not know what the other person wants. You may know that they care but not know whether they want exclusivity. Both people may enjoy the connection while avoiding a shared definition. The psychological burden comes from unresolved relationship information, not merely from the absence of a label.
Relational Turbulence Theory later integrated relational uncertainty with interdependence processes to explain why some periods of romantic involvement are marked by stronger reactions, more difficult communication, and greater sensitivity to relational events. Solomon, Knobloch, Theiss, and McLaren (2016) describe relational uncertainty as questions about the nature of involvement in a relationship and treat it as one component of a broader relational environment.
The theory does not say that uncertainty is always harmful or that it necessarily increases attraction. It provides a framework for understanding why ambiguity about a meaningful relationship can change how events are appraised and communicated.
Why Small Signals Can Start to Feel Disproportionately Important
When the status of a relationship is clear, many events are easier to interpret because there is a shared frame. A delayed reply may still be annoying, but it does not automatically reopen the question of whether the relationship exists. In an undefined connection, the same event may seem to contain information about interest, commitment, exclusivity, or impending withdrawal.
This interpretation burden is consistent with relational-information-processing research. In a study of 120 romantic couples, greater relational uncertainty was associated with more perceived interaction difficulty and less extreme judgments about relational messages, consistent with difficulty drawing confident inferences from ambiguous relationship information. Knobloch and Solomon (2005) studied established romantic partners rather than situationships specifically, so applying the mechanism to situationships is an evidence-informed extension, not direct proof.
The practical implication is subtle: intensity may come partly from the amount of meaning assigned to uncertain cues. A warm message can feel like evidence that the relationship is becoming real; a quiet day can feel like evidence that it is disappearing. The cue itself has not become objectively more informative. The surrounding ambiguity has increased how much the person needs the cue to answer.
Uncertainty and Relationship Talk Can Form a Communication Loop
One reason ambiguity can persist is that uncertainty and relationship-defining conversation are dynamically related. In a six-week dyadic study of 135 romantic couples, people experiencing greater relational uncertainty viewed relationship talk as more threatening, avoided more relationship talk, and enacted less of it. Lagged analyses also found that avoiding more and enacting less relationship talk in one week was followed by greater relational uncertainty the next week. Knobloch and Theiss (2011) reported actor effects more consistently than partner effects, but the dyadic design also pointed to mutual influence.
A more recent 30-day intensive longitudinal study of 202 college-aged dating partners produced 5,240 daily observations. On days when people experienced higher relationship uncertainty than usual, they engaged in less relationship talk than usual. People whose uncertainty was more volatile or carried over more strongly from day to day also reported less relationship talk on average. Bolkan and colleagues (2024) additionally found that attachment insecurity predicted person-specific patterns in these month-long processes.
Neither study was a situationship experiment. Together, however, they support an important adjacent mechanism: uncertainty can coexist with avoidance of the very conversations that could clarify the relationship. That can leave both the emotional connection and the unanswered questions intact.
Emotional Investment Can Outpace Explicit Commitment
A situationship can contain many ingredients that normally signal a consequential relationship: affection, sex, regular contact, disclosure, shared routines, future talk, prioritization, and growing investment. What may lag behind is explicit agreement about status, expectations, exclusivity, or future direction. That mismatch can make the relationship psychologically consequential before it becomes structurally clear.
Direct research supports the existence of that mismatch. The 2024 exploratory situationship study found that people categorized as being in situationships could show romantic behaviors and emotional or sexual investment even though their relationships were characterized by lower clarity and commitment. The 2025 follow-up study found that investment, future communication, and prioritization were associated with satisfaction and commitment within situationships.
A 2026 qualitative study of 14 Australian young adults adds a different kind of evidence. Participants described ambiguous boundaries, unequal emotional investment, technology-mediated dynamics, and psychological impacts that could feel invalidated because the relationship lacked a recognized label. Anderson and Phillips (2026) is valuable for understanding lived experience, but its small qualitative sample cannot establish prevalence, average effects, or causal pathways.
The broader point is that formal commitment and emotional significance do not move in lockstep. A relationship can remain undefined while becoming personally important.
Attachment Can Amplify Sensitivity to Uncertainty Without Determining the Outcome
Adult attachment research offers another relevant layer, especially when a person is highly sensitive to signs of rejection or availability. Attachment anxiety describes a dimension involving concerns about rejection, abandonment, and a partner’s availability; attachment avoidance involves discomfort with dependence and closeness. These are relationship-science dimensions, not psychiatric diagnoses or fixed identities.
A 2025 cross-sectional study of 276 people in romantic relationships found that both attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance were associated with greater relationship uncertainty, and the statistical model linked greater uncertainty with lower commitment. The authors tested mediation, but the design was cross-sectional. It cannot establish that attachment insecurity causes uncertainty or that uncertainty causally reduces commitment.
A broader Nature Reviews Psychology review summarizes evidence that attachment anxiety and avoidance can shape cognitive, emotional, and behavioral responses in stressful couple contexts. That body of work supports treating attachment as a moderator of how ambiguity may be experienced, rather than as an automatic explanation for every situationship.
For the general framework, see Adult Attachment Theory: How Anxiety and Avoidance Shape Relationships. For the attachment-anxiety-specific overview, see Anxious Attachment Style: Signs, Triggers, Relationships, and What Research Shows. This article stays focused on situationship intensity rather than repeating general attachment theory.
Does Uncertainty Make You Want Someone More?
Sometimes uncertainty has increased attraction in controlled studies, but the effect is not a universal law. A well-known 2011 experiment asked college women to view Facebook profiles of men who had supposedly evaluated them. Participants told that the men’s level of liking was uncertain reported greater attraction than participants told the men liked them either a lot or an average amount. Whitchurch, Wilson, and Gilbert (2011) demonstrated a narrow uncertainty effect in an early-attraction laboratory paradigm.
Other evidence points in the opposite direction. Across six studies involving potential and established partners, Birnbaum and colleagues (2018) found that uncertainty about a partner’s intentions could reduce sexual desirability, while expressions of romantic interest increased certainty and appeal. Their established-relationship studies also linked greater perceived partner regard with lower uncertainty and greater desirability.
These findings are exactly why “uncertainty makes you more attracted” should not be used as a blanket explanation for situationship intensity. Effects depend on context, what is uncertain, how interest is perceived, the stage of the relationship, and the outcomes being measured.
The evidence supports a more careful statement: uncertainty can change attention, interpretation, and attraction under some conditions. It can also reduce attraction. No study establishes that ambiguity is a reliable method for intensifying a relationship or that inconsistency automatically creates an addiction-like bond.
Trust: Frequent Contact Is Not the Same as Clear Commitment
Digital communication can make a situationship feel continuously present. Texting, social media, phone calls, and video calls allow connection to continue between in-person encounters. But communication frequency and relationship clarity are different variables.
The most direct recent evidence comes from a 2026 Sexuality & Culture study of 261 emerging adults who reported on their last three romantic relationship experiences. Multilevel models showed that communication frequency was positively associated with trust across most modalities, often in nonlinear ways. Situationship status was also a reliable predictor of lower trust in the partner and lower perceived partner trust in several models.
Most interactions between communication frequency and situationship status were nonsignificant, which means communication did not operate in a dramatically different way simply because an experience was categorized as a situationship. One exception involved perceived partner trust at high texting frequency, which the authors interpreted as potentially compensatory. The full study used a university convenience sample, retrospective relationship reports, and coder-classified situationship status, so it should not be turned into a causal claim about texting.
This is a useful corrective to a common internet story. A large volume of messages can create closeness and continuity while leaving commitment ambiguous. High contact does not by itself tell you whether the relationship is exclusive, future-oriented, or mutually defined.
Ambiguous Commitment Creates a Structural Mismatch
The phrase “ambiguous commitment” describes a practical mismatch rather than a diagnosis: people may behave in ways that carry relational meaning while the shared obligations attached to those behaviors remain unclear. The relationship can therefore generate emotional stakes without a settled rulebook.
That mismatch has several possible forms. One person may be more invested than the other. Both may be invested but reluctant to define the future. The pair may agree on the present but not discuss exclusivity. They may have strong intimacy but different timelines. They may use the same label while privately assigning different meanings to it.
Research on “sliding” versus actively deciding relationship status provides adjacent longitudinal evidence. In a study of 244 emerging adults in cyclical and noncyclical relationships, avoidance of relationship talk was associated with earlier relationship uncertainty and predicted lower later dedication and satisfaction through less constructive relationship maintenance. Clifford and colleagues (2017) did not study situationships as a distinct category, so it supports the communication mechanism rather than a claim that every undefined relationship follows this trajectory.
Why the Relationship Can Feel Bigger Than Its Label
A label summarizes an agreement; it does not measure the amount of emotion already invested. People can share sex, affection, routines, vulnerability, daily contact, mutual support, travel, social circles, or future-oriented fantasies before they reach a shared definition. When those experiences accumulate, the relationship can occupy substantial psychological space even if the answer to “What are we?” remains unresolved.
The intensity can increase when actions imply closeness but commitment remains difficult to infer. Each positive interaction can support one interpretation, while each ambiguous or distancing interaction supports another. This does not require a partner to be intentionally “sending mixed signals.” Inconsistent information can arise from genuine ambivalence, changing preferences, unclear communication, different expectations, or simply two people interpreting the same relationship differently.
Research cannot identify a particular partner’s motive from the pattern alone. The scientifically responsible question is what information the behavior provides about the relationship, not what diagnosis or hidden personality trait supposedly explains the person.
A Mechanism Map: What Is Directly Supported and What Is an Interpretation?
Direct situationship evidence: recent studies support that situationships can combine romantic or sexual investment with low clarity or commitment, that investment and future communication relate to satisfaction and commitment, and that situationship status has been associated with lower trust in several communication contexts. These findings come mainly from emerging-adult samples and should not be generalized to all ages or cultures. Langlais et al. (2024), Langlais et al. (2025), and Langlais and Davidson (2026) are the main direct quantitative anchors.
Established adjacent relationship science: relational uncertainty is a well-developed construct. Longitudinal, dyadic, daily, and theoretical research connects uncertainty with information processing, perceived interaction difficulty, relationship talk, and broader relational turbulence. Knobloch and Theiss (2011) and Bolkan et al. (2024) are especially useful because they examine change over time rather than relying only on one-time correlations.
Plausible interpretation: when intimacy and investment are high while shared definition remains low, uncertainty may make cues feel unusually consequential and may sustain repeated interpretation of the relationship. This synthesis fits the direct situationship evidence and the broader uncertainty literature, but it has not yet been tested as a single causal model of “situationship intensity.”
Popular-psychology explanations: claims that situationships are inherently addictive because of dopamine, that every inconsistent contact pattern is intermittent reinforcement, or that intense uncertainty proves a trauma bond are not established by the current situationship literature. Such explanations should be treated as popular metaphors unless a specific mechanism has been directly measured.
What a Situationship Does Not Tell You About Either Person
A situationship does not diagnose anxious attachment, avoidant attachment, narcissism, emotional unavailability, commitment phobia, trauma, OCD, addiction, or a personality disorder. None of those conclusions follows from relationship ambiguity alone.
Likewise, one behavior does not reveal a motive. Delayed texting does not establish manipulation. Reluctance to define a relationship does not establish avoidant attachment. Wanting clarity does not establish anxious attachment. Strong preoccupation does not establish OCD. The same outward behavior can emerge from different preferences, circumstances, communication habits, or psychological processes.
Current diagnostic systems do not list “situationship” as a mental disorder. The DSM-5-TR and ICD-11 organize recognized mental disorders and diagnostic criteria; situationship is a relationship term, not a clinical diagnosis.
When Intensity Is Mutual, When It Is Mismatched, and When It Becomes Costly
Intensity can be mutual. Two people may prefer an undefined relationship, value flexibility, and experience little distress. In that case, ambiguity may be an agreed feature rather than a problem waiting to be solved.
Intensity can also be mismatched. One person may experience the connection as temporary while the other experiences it as developing toward partnership. Research on situationships suggests that communication about the future, prioritization, and investment are relevant to commitment and satisfaction, but those group-level associations cannot predict what a specific partner will decide. Langlais et al. (2025) supports asking about these dimensions, not mind-reading them.
The experience becomes practically costly when the relationship repeatedly conflicts with a person’s own needs or when uncertainty consumes disproportionate attention, disrupts sleep or work, or produces persistent distress. Those consequences deserve attention even though the relationship itself is not a diagnosis. If distress is persistent or functioning is impaired, a licensed mental health professional can help assess the actual pattern rather than assigning an internet label.
What Helps: Evidence-Informed Clarity Rather Than a Made-Up Clinical Protocol
There is no established clinical treatment protocol for “situationship intensity.” Practical guidance should therefore be described as evidence-informed communication and decision-making, not therapy.
Start by separating your own position from your prediction about the other person. Ask yourself what kind of relationship you want, whether exclusivity matters, what level of contact feels sustainable, and whether you want the connection to progress. Self-clarity does not guarantee relationship clarity, but it reduces one source of uncertainty.
Then ask concrete questions rather than trying to infer a complete relationship from cues. “Are we dating other people?” “Do you want this to become a committed relationship?” “What does this relationship mean to you right now?” “Are we both comfortable with how it is?” Clear questions can produce information that message analysis cannot.
Relationship-science findings make this strategy reasonable because uncertainty and relationship talk are linked over time. Knobloch and Theiss (2011) and Bolkan et al. (2024) show that greater uncertainty can coincide with less relationship talk; reversing that pattern by initiating a conversation is a practical inference, not a tested situationship intervention.
Use behavior and explicit agreement together. Affection, frequent texts, sex, gifts, or regular weekends together can indicate involvement, but they do not substitute for agreement about exclusivity, commitment, or future direction. The goal is not to interrogate every signal. It is to reduce the number of crucial questions that remain answerable only by guessing.
Finally, decide what you will do with the answer you receive. Clarity is useful even when the answer is not the one you wanted. A direct conversation cannot guarantee commitment; it can make the information environment more accurate.
Situationship Intensity and Limerence: Related Possibilities, Different Constructs
Some people in situationships experience limerence-like preoccupation, especially when reciprocation or the future remains uncertain. That overlap is possible, but the concepts should remain separate. A situationship describes a relationship configuration. Limerence describes an intense pattern of person-focused longing and preoccupation.
Attachment can be relevant to both without turning them into one phenomenon. For the narrower evidence on limerence and attachment, see Limerence and Attachment Styles: Anxiety, Avoidance, and Relationship Uncertainty. That article reviews current limerence-specific evidence and keeps it separate from general attachment theory.
The distinction matters for search intent and for psychological accuracy: feeling intense about an undefined relationship is not enough to conclude that someone has limerence, and having limerence does not require a situationship.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why can a situationship feel stronger than an official relationship?
Because emotional significance and formal status are different dimensions. A situationship can include attraction, intimacy, regular contact, investment, and future hopes while leaving commitment unclear. Research supports that emotionally and sexually invested situationships exist, but it does not show that undefined relationships are generally “stronger” than committed relationships. Langlais et al. (2024) provides direct exploratory evidence.
Does uncertainty make a situationship more addictive?
Current evidence does not establish “situationship addiction” or a universal dopamine-based mechanism. Uncertainty can affect attraction and information processing, but studies show mixed effects: Whitchurch et al. (2011) found greater attraction under uncertainty in one early-attraction paradigm, while Birnbaum et al. (2018) found that uncertainty could reduce sexual desirability. “Addictive” is therefore a metaphor unless an addiction construct is actually assessed.
Does anxious attachment cause situationships to feel intense?
No causal conclusion follows from the current evidence. Attachment anxiety is associated with sensitivity to rejection and availability in broader relationship research, and a 2025 cross-sectional study found attachment anxiety and avoidance associated with relationship uncertainty. Şenkal Ertürk et al. (2025) cannot establish the direction of causation.
Can someone have real feelings in a situationship?
Yes. A relationship label does not determine whether feelings are genuine. Direct situationship research describes emotional and sexual investment, affection, time together, trust concerns, and future communication. What remains uncertain is how those feelings relate to mutual commitment and future plans.
Are situationships always unhealthy?
No. Research does not support treating the category itself as inherently unhealthy. Some people may prefer ambiguity or limited commitment; others may find it distressing. The relevant questions are whether expectations are compatible, whether communication is adequate, whether consent and boundaries are respected, and whether the relationship fits each person’s goals.
Why do texts feel so important in a situationship?
When relationship status is unclear, communication can seem to carry information about interest and future direction. Established relational-uncertainty research links uncertainty with difficulty interpreting relational information. Direct 2026 situationship research also shows that communication modality and trust are related, but texting frequency by itself does not reveal commitment. Langlais and Davidson (2026) is the most directly relevant current study.
Can a very intense situationship turn into a committed relationship?
Intensity alone cannot predict that outcome. The 2025 situationship study found that investment, future communication, and prioritization were associated with greater satisfaction and commitment, but those are group-level associations. A specific partner’s future intention requires direct information from that person rather than inference from intensity.
Is a situationship a mental health diagnosis?
No. Situationship is a contemporary relationship term and an emerging research category. It is not a standalone diagnosis in DSM-5-TR or ICD-11.
Related Articles
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2025). Updates to DSM-5-TR criteria and text. https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm/updates-to-dsm/updates-to-dsm-5-tr-criteria-text
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
Birnbaum, G. E., Kanat-Maymon, Y., Mizrahi, M., Barniv, A., Nagar, S., Govinden, J., & Reis, H. T. (2018). Are you into me? Uncertainty and sexual desire in online encounters and established relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 85, 372–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.04.023
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
Clifford, C. E., Vennum, A., Washburn-Busk, M., & Fincham, F. D. (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
Knobloch, L. K., & Solomon, D. H. (1999). Measuring the sources and content of relational uncertainty. Communication Studies, 50(4), 261–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510979909388499
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., & Solomon, D. H. (2005). Relational uncertainty and relational information processing: Questions without answers? Communication Research, 32(3), 349–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650205275384
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
Overall, N. C., Pietromonaco, P. R., & Simpson, J. A. (2022). Buffering and spillover of adult attachment insecurity in couple and family relationships. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1, 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-021-00011-1
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
Whitchurch, E. R., Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2011). “He loves me, he loves me not…”: Uncertainty can increase romantic attraction. Psychological Science, 22(2), 172–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610393745
World Health Organization. (2024). Clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements for ICD-11 mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240077263