The four phases of dating in 2025 (and how people move between them)

I’ve spent years writing about relationships, and if there’s one refrain I hear from readers, it’s this: “Dating is broken.”

But new research out of the University of Illinois suggests something far less dramatic—and far more helpful.

The script many of us use to make sense of modern romance hasn’t shattered; it’s simply branching into more paths. That nuance matters if you’re trying to figure out what’s “normal” for you right now.

What researchers are actually seeing

Here’s the gist. Researchers surveyed more than 250 college students at two points in time—2012 and early 2022—and asked them to describe the typical order of a romantic relationship.

The results? People in both cohorts mapped out the same four phases of development, even as their routes through those phases diversified over the decade. In other words, the story structure stayed familiar; the plot twists multiplied.

That’s a striking counterpoint to the doom scroll. As the University of Illinois’ Brian Ogolsky put it, “College students in our study did not share this perception of dating as a broken system… Instead, young adults are taking more diverse and multifaceted pathways through romantic partnering and considering a broader range of outcomes.”

I love this line because it reframes the conversation from “What’s wrong with dating?” to “What paths are opening up?”

The four phases, explained in plain language

When I translate the study’s language into day-to-day experience, here’s what the phases look like. (Note: these are not rules; they’re patterns people recognize.)

Flirtationship. This is where interest flickers to life—online or off. Think DM banter, eyes meeting across a coffee line, or the friend-of-a-friend you can’t stop teasing. It’s curiosity, play, and testing shared interests without any obligations. The researchers describe it as “first sparks of attraction” and the early fanning of those sparks.

Relationship potential. If the chemistry feels mutual, you start spending more intentional time together. You talk—a lot. You ask better questions. You watch how the other person moves through their real life. Friendship isn’t an afterthought here; it’s central. Many participants even used the word “dating” most often in this phase, which tells us that “dating” (as an activity) and “being in a relationship” (as a status) are not the same in people’s minds.

In a relationship (a.k.a. “official”). At some point, definition becomes part of the bond. Labels aren’t everything, but they do signal mutual expectations and care. The study notes that exclusivity and monogamy were widely implied here, and conversations about sex tended to gather around the moment of defining the relationship—less about “hookup culture,” more about clarity between two people. 

Commitment or bust. Eventually, most pairs hit a fork in the road. Do we build something long-term, and if so, what does that look like for us? Here’s the update for 2025: compared with 2012, fewer students assumed “engagement right after we go official.” Cohabitation or other forms of commitment showed up more often as legitimate next steps. That doesn’t mean marriage is off the table; it means there are more tables to sit at. 

So what actually changed in 10 years?

Two big shifts stood out to me when I read through the materials:

1) The shape of commitment is expanding. In 2012, the common mental model was: official → engaged. In 2022, participants were more likely to imagine multiple possible “nexts,” like moving in together, delaying engagement, or committing in nontraditional ways. To me, this isn’t evidence of indecision—it’s evidence of agency. People are customizing the final act of the story to fit their actual lives. 

2) Social worlds widened. A decade ago, integrating a partner meant “introduce them to the family.” In 2022, students talked about weaving a partner into broader networks—friends and family, on and offline. Anyone who has watched a soft-launch on Instagram knows this terrain: our relational ecosystems now include group chats, hobby circles, Discord servers, and neighbors who share sourdough starters. That wider weave changes how quickly (and publicly) a relationship “counts.”

One surprise: despite tech saturating our lives, participants didn’t center apps or AI when describing relationship prototypes. As Ogolsky noted, “When we ask people about relationship prototypes, they’re not talking about technology… the centerpiece wasn’t dating apps, artificial intelligence or robots.” The human choreography—interest, conversation, clarity, decision—still anchors the story. (Again, from the News Bureau.)

How people move between phases now

If you’re currently swiping or sorting out feelings for someone in your friend group, here’s where the research meets the sidewalk.

Movement is nonlinear. People loop back. You can drift from “relationship potential” back to “flirtationship” if life gets messy or the spark needs air. You can also jump faster than you expected—say, from “potential” to “official”—because spending more time together in real contexts (workouts, errands, travels with friends) accelerates clarity. The study doesn’t put a stopwatch on any of this, and that’s important. It validates variety.

Gateways matter. The pivot from “potential” to “official” is often a conversation about definitions and expectations. In my own work, I’ve seen people delay this chat because it feels, well, middle-school-ish to “define the relationship.” But as noted by the Illinois team, this is exactly where most people place talks about exclusivity and sex—meaning the gateway is less a label and more a boundary-setting moment. Skipping it can make the rest of the path foggy.

Commitment has more exits—and more entrances. Because there are more legitimate expressions of commitment (living together, civil partnerships, long-haul exclusivity without a wedding), partners can feel less pressure to choose the route and more freedom to choose their route. That flexibility can be healthy—provided both people are choosing the same road.

What this means if you’re dating in 2025

If you’re feeling discouraged, I get it. As a former analyst, my brain likes certainty; as a writer (and a human), I’ve learned relationships don’t trade on certainty—they trade on clarity. This research gives us a shared dictionary for that clarity.

Stop diagnosing the whole system. Start mapping your path. The phrase “dating is broken” collapses a billion human stories into one complaint. The study encourages a more useful question: Which phase are we in, and what would help us move—forward or apart—intentionally? That framing puts agency back in your hands.

Treat “dating” as exploration, not proof. Participants repeatedly distinguished between “dating” and “being in a relationship.” If you’re in the “relationship potential” phase, you don’t owe a performance of coupledom. You owe honesty, attention, and curiosity. Personally, I’ve found that flipping the goal from “Will this work?” to “What can I learn about us this week?” lowers the pressure and improves the data.

Use definition as care. Some of the knottiest heartbreak I see comes from avoiding the official conversation because it feels awkward. Yet that’s the pivot most people report making before they move toward deeper physical and social integration. In newsy terms: status updates stabilize behavior. In human terms: saying what we are lets us be it.

Expect multiple legitimate commitments. If your path includes cohabitation before engagement, or a shared mortgage before rings—welcome to the era the study documents. That doesn’t make your commitment less; it makes it different. What matters is that you and your partner share the same understanding of what “commitment” entails.

A quick note on hype versus evidence

You’ve probably read takes claiming that hookup culture defines everything. The dataset here points to a quieter reality: in the 2022 cohort, only nine participants even referenced “hookups,” and the authors suggest some were using the term loosely for sex in any context. I’m not here to deny anyone’s experience of casual encounters; I’m here to note that panic headlines rarely capture the whole picture. 

For balance, I also looked at independent coverage summarizing the same study—from outlets like Forbes and Psychology Today—and they echo the four-phase structure while highlighting the move toward broader commitment options. Cross-checking those summaries against the original university release and ScienceDaily write-up helps ensure we’re not just recycling trendy labels.

Bottom line

If you’re navigating love this year, take heart: our romantic instincts are sturdier than the zeitgeist suggests.

The four phases—flirtationship, relationship potential, official, commitment—still organize how many people think about love. The innovation is in the routes we travel between them.

So ask yourself: Where am I, really? If you’re flirting, can you give it a little more oxygen? If you’re sensing potential, can you ask better questions? If you’re hovering near official, can you have the conversation you’ve been putting off? And if you’re eyeing commitment, can you name the shape that actually fits your life?

That’s not a broken system. That’s a living one—and you get to co-author it.