The Psychology of Situationships — Why Undefined Relationships Hurt
The evidence
What the research actually shows
Communication researchers Leanne Knobloch and Denise Solomon have shown across many studies that relational uncertainty — doubt about your own feelings, your partner's feelings, or the status of the relationship — predicts more distress, more difficulty communicating, and greater 'turbulence' in a relationship. A situationship institutionalizes exactly this uncertainty, which helps explain why an arrangement that looks low-pressure can quietly generate a great deal of anxiety.
Ambiguous romantic arrangements are often kept ambiguous on purpose. In a study of friends-with-benefits relationships, Bisson and Levine (2009) found that many partners actively avoided talking about what the relationship was, in part to sidestep awkwardness or the risk of hearing an unwanted answer. That avoidance preserves short-term comfort but leaves expectations unaligned — a recipe for one person hoping for more while the other assumes things are fine as they are.
Uncertainty is not felt equally by everyone. People higher in attachment anxiety — who are especially sensitive to signs of rejection and crave clear reassurance — tend to find undefined relationships particularly painful, since the ambiguity keeps their alarm system switched on (Mikulincer and Shaver, 2007). More broadly, chronic uncertainty is a recognized psychological stressor, and living with an unanswered 'what are we?' can erode well-being over time even when the good moments are genuinely good.
The mechanism
Why this happens
Part of what keeps people in situationships is intermittent reinforcement: affection and attention arrive unpredictably, and unpredictable rewards are among the most powerful at sustaining a behavior. The good days feel good enough to keep hope alive, and the uncertainty itself can heighten preoccupation, so the arrangement becomes surprisingly hard to leave even when it is not meeting someone's needs.
Situationships also flourish because defining a relationship requires vulnerability — stating what you want and risking rejection or loss. For someone who fears commitment, dreads difficult conversations, or wants to keep their options open, keeping things undefined avoids that exposure. The cost is that the avoidance is quietly transferred to the other person in the form of ambiguity.
The wider dating environment plays a role too. Abundant options, app-based dating, delayed commitment, and norms that make 'defining the relationship' feel high-stakes can all nudge connections into an extended in-between. This is context, not destiny — plenty of people navigate modern dating toward clarity — but it helps explain why situationships feel so common now.
By the numbers
Figures come from the studies cited at the end of this page. Numbers describe group averages and study samples, not rules about individuals.
In practice
What this looks like in real life
Two people see each other regularly for months, text daily, and have met each other's friends, but neither has said what it is. One privately assumes they are basically together; the other assumes they are keeping it casual. Nothing looks wrong on the surface, yet the mismatch quietly generates hurt every time expectations collide.
Someone notices they feel anxious after nearly every date — not because anything went badly, but because they never know whether it is leading anywhere. The ambiguity, not the person, is the source of the strain, and it tends to persist until the question of 'what are we?' is actually answered.
A situationship can also be genuinely fine when both people want the same thing and have said so — for instance, two people who agree, out loud, that they are dating casually with no expectation of more. The difference between that and a painful situationship is not the level of commitment; it is whether the expectations are shared and consensual.
Myth vs. evidence
What most people get wrong about this
The common misconception is that situationships are harmful because they lack commitment. The more accurate picture is that they tend to hurt because of ambiguity and unspoken, mismatched expectations. A clearly agreed casual relationship can feel fine, while an undefined one in which two people quietly want different things tends to hurt — even if, on paper, they are doing exactly the same things together.
People also assume the solution is simply to 'not catch feelings' or to play it cool. But suppressing what you actually want rarely works and often prolongs the ambiguity. Clarity — asking directly what each person wants and can offer — usually serves everyone better than strategic detachment, even when the honest answer is disappointing.
Why it matters
What this means for relationships
If a situationship is causing you distress, the most useful move is usually a direct, non-accusatory conversation about what each of you wants and expects — 'the talk' the arrangement was designed to avoid. Clarity can be uncomfortable, but it replaces anxious guessing with real information you can act on, whether that means aligning on a relationship, agreeing on genuinely casual terms, or stepping away.
Honesty and consent are the ethical core here. It is fair to want something casual; it is not fair to keep someone uncertain in order to keep them available. Being clear about your intentions, checking that expectations actually match, and respecting the other person's answer — including their right to want more and walk away — is what separates an honest arrangement from a quietly manipulative one.
Ambiguity vs. clarity
A side-by-side contrast to make the distinction concrete — patterns and tendencies, not rigid rules.
| Aspect | Undefined situationship | A defined arrangement |
|---|---|---|
| Expectations | Unspoken and often mismatched | Named out loud and mutual |
| The 'what are we?' question | Avoided or endlessly deferred | Answered, even if the answer is 'casual' |
| Emotional effect | Ongoing uncertainty and anxiety | Security, even when commitment is low |
| Consent and agency | Assumed rather than checked | Actively chosen by both people |
Where it varies
The nuance
There is no single verdict on situationships. For some people at some times — early dating, busy seasons of life, healing after a breakup — a defined-as-casual connection genuinely suits everyone involved. The evidence points not at a moral rule but at a practical one: ambiguity and mismatched expectations are the reliable sources of harm, and those can be reduced with honest communication.
People also differ in how much ambiguity they can comfortably tolerate. Someone secure and content with casual dating may barely feel the uncertainty that leaves a more anxious person sleepless. Neither response is wrong; knowing your own needs, and being honest about them, matters more than matching anyone else's comfort with the undefined.
The difference between an honest casual connection and a painful situationship is not the level of commitment — it is whether the expectations are shared and consensual.
Key takeaways
- A situationship is a romantic connection left deliberately undefined — more than casual, less than committed.
- Research on relational uncertainty shows that not knowing where you stand is itself a reliable source of distress.
- The harm usually comes from ambiguity and mismatched, unspoken expectations, not from a lack of commitment per se.
- Intermittent, unpredictable affection makes situationships surprisingly hard to leave, and attachment anxiety intensifies the toll.
- Clarity, honesty, and consent — actually having 'the talk' — matter more than the label; a clearly agreed casual connection can be fine.
Questions people ask about this
What is a situationship?
A situationship is a romantic-feeling connection that has not been defined — more involved than casual dating, but without the labels, expectations, or commitment of an official relationship. Its defining feature is ambiguity about where things stand.
Why do situationships cause so much anxiety?
Research on relational uncertainty finds that not knowing where you stand is itself distressing and makes communication harder. Add intermittent, unpredictable affection and unspoken expectations, and an arrangement meant to feel low-pressure can quietly generate a lot of stress.
Are situationships always bad?
No. When both people genuinely want the same thing and have said so, a casual, undefined connection can suit everyone. The harm tends to come from ambiguity and mismatched, unspoken expectations — not from a lack of commitment itself.
Why is it so hard to leave a situationship?
Intermittent reinforcement — affection that arrives unpredictably — is powerfully sticky, and the good moments keep hope alive. Uncertainty can also heighten preoccupation, so people often stay longer than the arrangement actually serves them.
How do I get clarity in a situationship?
Have a direct, calm conversation about what each of you wants and can offer, rather than hinting or waiting it out. It feels vulnerable, but it replaces anxious guessing with real information — whether that leads to a relationship, clearly casual terms, or moving on.
Does attachment style affect how situationships feel?
Yes, on average. People higher in attachment anxiety, who are sensitive to rejection and need clear reassurance, tend to find ambiguity especially painful, while more secure or avoidant people may tolerate it more easily. Individual needs vary a lot.
Research sources
These references point to the published research and established frameworks behind this page. They are provided for further reading; see our research methodology for how sources are selected.
- Knobloch, L. K., & Solomon, D. H. (1999). Measuring the sources and content of relational uncertainty. Communication Studies, 50(4), 261–278.
- Solomon, D. H., & Knobloch, L. K. (2004). A model of relational turbulence: The role of intimacy, relational uncertainty, and interference from partners in appraisals of irritations. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(6), 795–816.
- Bisson, M. A., & Levine, T. R. (2009). Negotiating a friends with benefits relationship. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38(1), 66–73.
- Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in Adulthood: Structure, Dynamics, and Change. New York: Guilford Press.
- Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Last reviewed by the Men Women Psychology editorial team.
Written and reviewed by the Men Women Psychology Editorial Team against our editorial standards. This article is educational and is not a substitute for professional advice.