The Psychology of Situationships: Why People Avoid Commitment

Feeling confused about a person in a relationship is not an odd moment. In the process of getting to know someone, multiple questions about the other arise. But what about someone who is not sure about the relationship itself? For example, consider a case in which two people go out on dates, usually spend time together, are usually seen together in everyday activities, are physically affectionate to each other, but they never say that they are in a relationship, don’t post online about being together as a couple, and they avoid that question as much as possible. That could maybe be a situationship.

The “we are not together” word: situationship 

A relationship can be defined by the people inside of it. Usually, an expected answer would be “we are in a relationship”, “we are engaged”, etc. But it is not always that easy. There are terms to define other kinds of relationships, such as friends with benefits, hook-ups, and situationships. 

Situationships can be defined as a relationship with someone that involves a romantic connection as well as time spent, physical and sexual activity together, but there is no clarity, label or commitment (Langlais et al., 2024). Using the Triangular theory of love done by Sternberg, every romantic relationship involves three aspects: passion, intimacy and commitment; situationships involve two of those aspects. There is passion and intimacy but no commitment (Langlais et al.,  2024). 

In comparison to non-situationship relations, there are some similarities and some differences.  The similarities are the way the relationships are maintained by hanging out and communicating by phone or social media. The differences arise because of the way situationships are not shared on social media, and often the relationship ends because one of the people involved wants a commitment and the other part doesn’t (Langlais et al., 2024). 

Read More: Situationship Vs Relationship: Let’s find the difference

Why do people choose to be in a situationship? 

The question that remains after looking for some of the characteristics of situationships naturally is why would someone want to be in a situationship? 

Some reasons are given by Delizo et al. (2026) in their research, since it’s a form of relationship that is being more frequently seen. The reasons why someone would choose a situationship over another type of relationship are: 

• One of the most prevalent reasons is fear of commitment. People tend to want affection or carnal pleasure, unsure if they want a commitment. 
• Convenience: there is no need to plan or meet their respective families like a traditional relationship. 
• Freedom. With no definition, the couple can come and go as they please without feeling guilty and having more flexibility.
• No high standards: they can enjoy each other’s company without thinking about where the relationship is going or if it’s meeting any goal or plan for the future. 

But is everything so positive? 

Read More: How Gen Z is Rewriting the Relationship Script

Trust and situationships 

Langlais and Davidson (2026) studied further about situationships. They found that a situationship status in a relationship can be an indicator of lower trust inside the couple. Despite the type of communication that a couple in a situationship has, they can have problems of trust with their partner. 

But despite the indicator of trust, situationships do have another characteristic that differentiates them from other types of relationships. Situationships encourage flexibility, autonomy and ambiguity over the relationship. But that doesn’t mean that the relationship is a failed version of other kinds of relationships. That just means that the couple’s communication and trust dynamic is closer to a deep friendship rather than a romantic relationship (Langlais, Davidson, 2026). 

How a situationship is shown and the communication inside it 

Social media is an important part of most people nowadays. It’s everywhere. Even if some people choose their own privacy over the act of showing it to the world in a post on social media, others can still prefer to show their relationships and everyday life on the internet. Situationships are no different. 

Often, situationships are shown on social media as carefree or easygoing (Delizo et al., 2026). Couples show pictures of happiness and love without the pressure of a relationship. But that can lead to a false perception of being more desirable. What is behind those pictures is a relationship that has no expectations or commitment (Delizo et al., 2026). 

Also, the factor of communication. The lack of communication in situationships leaves those involved in it uncertain. Whether they should pursue a relationship based on the connection or just move on (Delizo et al., 2026). 

Read More: How Entertainment Media Misleads Young Romance 

The main component: ambiguity 

As previously said, situationships are ambiguous. There is no definition of what they are, whether the relationship is going somewhere or any plan at all. And that component is the one keeping one part of the couple together, since one of the reasons why this couple comes to an end, according to Langlais (2024), is that one of the parts of the couple wants a commitment to a relationship while the other doesn’t want that type of relationship. 

According to Kaşıkçı & Öztürk (2026), people with narcissistic traits can be attracted to this kind of relationship. Due to the dynamic of emotional distance, superficial connections and a lack of commitment. The situationship provides a relationship in which they can maintain an appearance of connection while the commitment is minimal and the lack of attachment feeds them the admiration they want. Without the emotional investment preventing them, there could be a situation where they could get hurt (Kaşıkçı & Öztürk, 2026).

The ambiguity also works inside the dynamic of the situationship by allowing the individuals to protect themselves from rejection or dependency while having a superficial sense of connection  (Kaşıkçı & Öztürk, 2026). As a result, the maintenance of control and emotional distance avoids vulnerabilities that could lead to deeper relationships. 

And ambiguity not only attracts narcissists. While narcissists with an avoidance attachment style prefer situationships to maintain emotional distance, people with anxious attachment find themselves in those relationships because they are attracted to individuals who keep them emotionally uncertain vulnerabilities (Kaşıkçı & Öztürk, 2026). 

The aftermath of situationships, playing with well-being 

Narcissism was also one of the findings in research by Beri (2024) among situationships. But not only that. The research was digging into the possible relationship between situationships, love bombing, narcissism and emotional abuse. Even if the correlation between love bombing and situationships gave a negative result, that was not the case for narcissism and emotional abuse. What does that mean? For someone in a situationship, there can be a risk of being in a relationship with emotional abuse (Beri, 2024). There are no shared decisions or commitment, and there is an imbalance of power inside the relationship that could potentially lead to emotional abuse.

Al Fattah et al. (2025) point out that a situationship can have consequences such as declining mental and emotional health, wasting time and vulnerability to being caught in a toxic relationship. Also, it can be mentioned that these relations can affect a person with stress (because of ambiguity), emotional distress (anxiety, depression), and cognitive distress (difficulty concentrating and feelings of dissatisfaction) (Al Fattah et al., 2025).

Anderson & Phillips (2026) also found that the power imbalance of one of the people inside the situationship being more emotionally involved than the other impacts their future relationships. The dynamic can perpetuate a cycle of emotional unavailability in future relationships. 

How to prevent someone from going into a situationship 

Changing a behaviour requires a lot of work. And leaving a relationship where a person is inside that kind of behaviour is hard to change, but it is not impossible. George (2024) summarises some advice to prevent situationships: 

• Warning signs and healthy relationships: information and education about spotting unhealthy patterns early in relationships can make a change, and internalising that information can help prevent being over in a one-sided relationship. 
• ∙Develop communication skills: being able to voice desires, expectations and limitations can prevent the lack of communication that comes with situationships and help the person to be vocal about their standards of a relationship. 
• Seeking support: if healthy communication, established boundaries and the recognition of an unhealthy relationship don’t work, a person can also seek the perspective of friends about patterns noticed or seek professional counselling assistance in case of being or having the suspicion of being in a situationship.

References +

• Al Fattah, F., Burhan, S. H., Aulia, S., Ananda, N. T., Yoza, S., Yendri, S. S., … & Rahma, E. T. (2025).  Development of the Situationship Scale (SHTS): Measuring the Psychological Impact of Statusless  Relationships. Indonesian Journal of Sports and Health Psychology, 1(02), 66-74. 
• Anderson, S., & Phillips, M. J. (2026). All the Feels, None of the Labels: Young Adults’ Experiences of Situationships. Societies, 16(2), 42. 
• Beri, R. (2024). A study on love bombing, narcissism and emotional abuse among young adults in relationships and situationships. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Approaches in Psychology,  2(6), 22-46. 
• Delizo, S. K. D., Dapliyan, Y. A. R., Ban-eg, H. T. A., Canlas, C. A. F., Yusingco, E. R., Tong, N. I. D., &  Astudillo III, A. B. (2026). Navigating Ambiguity: An In-Depth Exploration of Situationships in  Contemporary Romantic Relationships. In DLSU Senior High School Research Congress Conference  Proceedings (Vol. 5, No. 9, p. 7). 
• George, A. S. (2024). Escaping the situationship: Understanding and addressing modern relationship ambiguity among young adults. Partners Universal International Innovation Journal,  2(3), 35-56. 
• Langlais, M., Davidson, F. (2026). Can I Trust You Without Committing to You?: Examining Situationships Status, Multimodal Communication, and Trust. Sexuality & Culture (2026).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-026-10592-9
• Langlais, M., Podberesky, A., Toohey, L. et al. (2024) Defining and Describing Situationships: An  Exploratory Investigation. Sexuality & Culture 28, 1831–1857 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-024-10210-6
• Kaşıkçı, İ. F., & Öztürk, E. (2026). Apparently Normal Relationship Styles: Exploring the Intersection of Psychological Trauma and Dysfunctional Attachment Dynamics. Istanbul Gelisim University  Journal of Social Sciences, 13(1), 341-354.