New study reveals what really keeps people in situationships

A new peer-reviewed study is putting clearer language around a very modern problem: why so many of us end up staying in “situationships”—romantic dynamics with intimacy and routine, but no agreed-upon commitment or label.

Researchers led by Baylor University’s Mickey Langlais combined in-depth interviews with a campus survey to map the emotional engines that keep these almost-relationships running.

Their takeaways complicate the easy narrative that situationships are just placeholders or convenience.

For many young adults, they carry enough hope, meaning, and felt connection to stick around—even when the uncertainty stings.

What the study looked at

The project unfolded in two phases.

First, the team interviewed 10 people (ages 18–30) who were in, or had recently left, a situationship.

Those conversations surfaced seven recurring themes people say keep them engaged: exclusivity (assumed or discussed), investment, emotional needs being met, communication about the future, effort, prioritization, and trust.

Next came an online survey of 89 college students, who collectively reported on 109 situationships. The researchers measured two markers of relationship quality—satisfaction and commitment—then asked respondents to rate how much those seven themes fit their experiences.

The patterns aligned: when participants felt emotionally invested, prioritized, and able to talk about the future (even a little), satisfaction and commitment ran higher. Inconsistency and ambiguity didn’t automatically kill the bond; hope and felt value often propped it up. 

What stood out in the data

One surprise: simple “effort” from a partner didn’t predict satisfaction or commitment as strongly as you might expect.

What mattered more was whether emotional needs felt met—affection, attention, being understood—and whether there was at least some future-talk to ease anxiety.

As the PsyPost report puts it, people often treat situationships as a “gateway” to a more defined relationship. Or in Langlais’s words: “a potential gateway to a traditional relationship, sort of like relationship purgatory – a place where people wait to see if they are ready and want to transition to an official relationship.”

That quote captures the emotional math: uncertainty is tolerable when hope feels alive.

Another nuance: a number of interviewees believed the connection was exclusive even if the two never explicitly agreed that it was.

That tacit assumption—“we act like a couple, so we must be exclusive”—can keep people invested longer, particularly if everything else feels relationship-like.

The survey results suggest that this blend of investment, perceived exclusivity, and future-oriented conversation helps keep the engine humming, even as labels stay fuzzy. 

How classic theories help explain it

The authors frame their results with two familiar lenses in relationship science.

Social exchange theory says we stay when the rewards outweigh the costs. If time together reliably delivers closeness, fun, or validation, those “rewards” can offset the stress of uncertainty—at least for a while.

The investment model adds that commitment isn’t just about satisfaction; it’s also about what you’ve already put into the relationship and whether you believe viable alternatives exist. Hours logged, shared routines, and a sense of specialness become sunk costs that can make leaving feel riskier than staying, especially if you’re unsure you’ll find something better soon.

The paper’s quantitative findings line up with those frameworks: more investment and more perceived trajectory were linked to higher satisfaction and commitment inside situationships. In other words, many people aren’t passively drifting—they’re actively waiting, investing, and evaluating.

Why this resonates now

If you’re dating in 2025, you’re navigating a landscape shaped by dating apps, “soft launch” norms on social media, and a cultural vocabulary that makes ambiguity feel normal.

The term situationship itself only went mainstream in the late 2010s, and it gave a name to a gray zone that existed long before.

What this study adds is structure: a map of the motivations that keep that gray zone livable for many people, at least temporarily.

I’ve mentioned this before, but in a culture where we optimize everything—playlists, productivity, even meals—ambiguity becomes its own optimization: maximum closeness with minimum obligation.

But the heart rarely moves by spreadsheet. This study suggests we bargain with ourselves: the connection is real, the future is possible, and for now that’s enough.

What this means if you’re in one

News stories usually end at the findings; I don’t like to. If you’re currently in a situationship and reading this with a little knot in your stomach, here are a few practical takeaways the data supports:

• If your emotional needs are inconsistently met, clarity can be more valuable than effort. Check how often you feel understood, not just how often they show up. The study found that felt understanding was a stronger signal than generic effort.

• Hope is a variable you can test. The researchers saw that even vague conversations about “what are we?” and “where could this go?” correlated with higher satisfaction. If future-talk always gets dodged, the hope that’s keeping you in may be untethered. 

• Investment can become inertia. The more you put in, the harder it is to walk—even if the payoff isn’t improving. Recognize when sunk costs are doing the driving.

None of that is moralizing. It’s just the psych of how we work when the line between “casual” and “committed” blurs.

The bottom line

People don’t just stay in situationships because they’re afraid to be alone or because they’re commitment-phobic.

Many stay because the bond feels meaningful, because they’ve invested, and because there’s a believable story that this could turn into something official.

As Langlais said, “many people form situationships as a potential gateway to a traditional relationship,” and satisfaction climbs when there’s some future-facing talk and clear prioritization.

That won’t be everyone’s experience.

But if it’s yours, it’s not just vibes—it’s a pattern the data sees, too.