All the Feels, None of the Labels: Young Adults’ Experiences of Situationships

Abstract

Relationship dynamics in young adulthood in Australia are evolving with greater exploration of alternative relationships such as ‘situationships’—informal romantic connections where commitment and long-term relationship progression toward marriage are not prioritised—yet little is known about how young adults experience these increasingly common relationships. This qualitative study explored ‘situationship’ experiences through semi-structured interviews with 14 young adults (aged 19–25) in Australia, analysed using reflexive thematic analysis underpinned by a social constructionist epistemology. Five themes were constructed: navigating definitional confusion and ambiguous boundaries, experiencing imbalanced emotional investment, technology’s role in fostering commitment avoidance, generational shifts prioritising independence, and significant psychological impacts that are often invalidated. Participants described experiencing “soul-crushing” emotional pain while feeling that their distress did not count because ‘situationships’ were not constructed as “real relationships”. These relationships were socially normalised, yet psychologically challenging, particularly for those seeking relationship advancement, with lasting impacts on trust and commitment capacity. Essential elements for ‘situationship’ progression included emotional availability, communication, and mutual commitment. The findings contribute to relationship science by illuminating how ‘situationships’ affect young adults’ psychological wellbeing and relationship development, with practical implications for relationship counsellors and psychologists working with young adults experiencing distress in undefined romantic connections.

1. Introduction

1.1. From ‘I Do’ to ‘It’s Complicated’: Evolving Relationship Norms

Relationship dynamics are evolving across many Western nations, with societal norms and values shifting, and traditional relationship structures being reconceptualised. Internationally, marriage rates have declined, couples are marrying later in life, and cohabitation without marriage has become increasingly common, particularly among young adults [1,2]. Within Australia, these patterns are particularly evident among young adults aged 20–24, where cohabitation has become a normative relationship form and marriage is increasingly delayed [3]. Social attitudes toward relationship diversity have shifted substantially, with greater acceptance of relationships that extend beyond traditional heterosexual progression toward marriage [4]. Relationship organisation and construction are shifting from strictly conservative, traditional structures where individuals stay committed to one person and progress to marriage, to more flexible arrangements that extend beyond this approach [5,6]. These transformations reflect broader changes in how young adults conceptualise intimacy, commitment, and relationship progression in contemporary society.

Uncommitted and unstructured relationship development has shown to be more likely to occur in young adults, defined as between 18 and 25 years [7]. These untraditional relationships challenge norms around commitment, long-term relationship progression, and labelling within relationship dynamics [8]. Generational developments in young adults’ engagements in untraditional relationships reflect a shift in attitudes and values stemming from various factors such as societal norms, the cost-of-living crisis, and advancements in technology that influences how independence and commitment are perceived and prioritised [3,9,10]. Young adults in the 21st century appear to place higher value on independence and individualism than previous generations, with greater decentring of the importance of attaining a traditional monogamous long-term relationship progression or marriage [7]. Young adults are more likely to individually prepare themselves for the future based on what is important to them, rather than moving into a committed relationship, where they would be expected to consider the expectations of others [7].

Generationally, changing gender roles have encouraged female academic and career opportunities, resulting in shifts in social timing and perceived importance of achieving previously guided milestones of marriage and family formation [11,12]. As a result, engagement in untraditional relationships that do not ultimately focus on achieving these milestones has increased [11,12]. Further, young people have been shown to be more likely to engage in relationships that shift away from traditional monogamous long-term romantic relationship structures due to factors such as focusing on their education, career, prior romantic experiences, or a general disinterest in being committed to one person [13]. Relationship science has proposed a societal shift in dominant patterns of young adults choosing lifelong marriage, to greater exploration of alternative relationship formations and marital delay [14]. Therefore, young adults are the population of interest within this study as untraditional relationships are most likely to occur in this time of emerging adulthood, particularly, within an era of shifting relationship norms [7]. Understanding why young adults increasingly engage in untraditional relationship patterns requires theoretical frameworks that account for the unique developmental characteristics of this life stage. The theory of emerging adulthood provides valuable insight into these relational patterns.

1.2. Emerging Adulthood: A Time of Relational Exploration

The theory of emerging adulthood offers a developmental framework for understanding these patterns of untraditional relationship engagement among young adults [15]. Emerging adulthood is understood to be the period between the ages of 18 to 25, which predicts the delaying of commitment and continual diversity in romantic experiences [15]. In this theory, the period involves exploration and instability, and a more characterised focus on the self, rather than establishing a lasting connection with someone [15]. The period reflects greater fluidity in commitment and relationship stability which can involve random casual sexual encounters, or even romantic involvement over an extended period that ultimately does not focus on, or result in, long-lasting commitment [16,17]. Even if there is a continuous relational involvement, it is not necessarily an indication of advancement toward commitment, and can reflect convenience, difficulties with committing, or a focus on broader situational factors and other life priorities [7]. This relational description within emerging adulthood reflects the nature of a ‘situationship’.

Emerging adulthood is characterised by five key features that directly relate to ‘situationship’ experiences: identity exploration, instability, self-focus, feeling in-between, and possibilities [15]. During this period, young adults typically navigate major life transitions including completing education, establishing careers, and developing independent living arrangements. These developmental tasks create competing priorities that may make traditional committed relationships seem premature or burdensome [15]. The instability inherent in emerging adulthood—frequent changes in residence, relationships, and life directions—aligns with the temporary, undefined nature of ‘situationships’. Furthermore, the self-focused orientation of this developmental stage may make the emotional availability required for committed relationships challenging, while the sense of endless possibilities can make settling into one relationship feel limiting [16]. Thus, ‘situationships’ may represent an adaptive response to the developmental needs of emerging adults, allowing for intimate connection while maintaining the flexibility required during this transitional period.

1.3. Defining ‘Situationships’: A New Relationship Category

The relational patterns described by emerging adulthood theory closely align with a specific relationship type that has recently gained attention in both lay and academic discourse: the ‘situationship’. The term ‘situationship’ is growing in popularity among the lay literature to describe an aspect of romantic development that has less emphasis on commitment, with more of an emphasis on the present, and has begun to be explored empirically [16,18]. ‘Situationship’ has thus far been used to describe an undefined and continuous sexual, and or romantic, involvement without the need for commitment or confirmed relationship status [18]. The term is characterised by engaging in activities and possessing qualities, which reflect being in a relationship, but having no steps taken towards changing the status of said relationship towards commitment [19]. Individuals within these types of relationships can have physical and emotional intimacy, without having an established, labelled, and committed relationship, and are open to developing these relationships with multiple individuals [16]. ‘Situationships’ differ from committed romantic relationships as they are unlabelled and do not demonstrate progression towards becoming committed or having a merging of lives [20]. Other characterisations of ‘situationships’ include having limited public knowledge of the relationship, suspended relationship progression, moderated warmth, limited merging of lives, and flexibility on monogamy [20]. Monterrosa [18] concluded that ‘situationships’ were ongoing sexual or romantic liaisons, with Armstrong et al. [20] describing that these liaisons lasted 6 months or more. However as ‘situationships’ have only recently begun to be conceptualised, there is still a lack of consistency in definitions and experiences as well as empirical literature, making it unclear as to what classifies being in a ‘situationship’, and how one experiences this relationship.

Throughout this paper, ‘situationships’ serves as our primary analytical focus, reflecting both participants’ own language and a specific relational form. Where we reference related terms such as ‘ambiguous relationships’ or ‘uncommitted relationships’, we do so to situate ‘situationships’ within broader relationship scholarship and to highlight how ‘situationships’ represent a distinct phenomenon rather than simply another instance of relationship ambiguity or lack of commitment. These comparative references help clarify what makes ‘situationships’ unique as a contemporary relational experience.

While the term ‘situationship’ is contemporary, ambiguous romantic connections are not historically unprecedented. However, contemporary ‘situationships’ are distinctly shaped by digital dating platforms, late modern social structures that normalise relationship diversity, and collective discourse that names and reproduces these patterns in new ways [21]. Thus, while romantic ambiguity has historical precedents, the focus here is more on the distinctive contemporary configuration experienced by young adults today. Research has explored other forms of non-committed relationships that have previously been connected to how ‘situationships’ are conceptualised such as ‘friends with benefits’ and ‘hook-ups’ [22,23,24]. ‘Friends with benefits’ describes individuals engaging in a sexual relationship with a friend involving an agreement on adding sexual intimacy within their friendship without the labelling of commitment, and/or expectation of a romantic relationship developing [24,25]. Whereas ‘hookups’ focuses on sexual relations with no expectations and is often reflected in ‘one-night stands’ [23], rather than a pattern of sexual encounters as reflected in ‘friends with benefits’ [24]. However, a ‘situationship’ differs to the purely physical sexual nature of ‘hookups’ and ‘friends with benefits’, as it can possess qualities of emotional intimacy and is yet to be extensively explored [16]. Compared to uncommitted relationship structures, establishing committed intimate relationships has been shown to be associated with greater physical, emotional, and mental health in young adulthood [13,26]. However, the impacts of experiencing such a relationship that possesses characteristics consistent with casual relationships, and conventional romantic relationships that encompass intimacy, are unclear. It is important to explore these experiences to enable young adults to understand the impacts of experiencing such a relationship and enable them to navigate the changing landscape of relationship dynamics with greater awareness.

Understanding the dynamics of ‘situationships’ requires theoretical frameworks beyond solely developmental perspectives. Relational turbulence theory provides insight into how the relationship uncertainty and definitional ambiguity that characterise ‘situationships’ create emotional upheaval and complicate partners’ ability to coordinate their relationships [27]. The theory suggests that when relationship partners experience uncertainty about their connection or interference with routines and goals, they experience heightened emotional reactivity and relationship instability, dynamics particularly relevant to understanding ‘situationships’ where boundaries and expectations remain undefined. The investment model of commitment offers a framework for understanding power dynamics and asymmetrical emotional investment in ‘situationships’ [28]. This model proposes that commitment emerges from relationship satisfaction, investment size, and quality of alternatives. In ‘situationships’, where partners may have differing levels of satisfaction or investment, and where digital dating platforms maintain awareness of abundant alternatives, this theoretical lens helps explain how imbalanced commitment can develop and persist. Finally, theories of late modern intimacy provide crucial context for understanding how contemporary social structures enable ‘situationship’ formation. Bauman’s [29] concept of ‘liquid love’ describes how late modern society, characterised by uncertainty, individualisation, and consumer culture, transforms intimate relationships into more fragile, temporary connections that resist traditional labels and permanence. Similarly, Giddens’ [30] notion of the ‘pure relationship’, a relationship entered for its own sake and maintained only as long as it provides satisfaction to both partners, captures the conditional, present-focused nature that defines ‘situationships’. These perspectives illuminate how ‘situationships’ may represent adaptations to late modern conditions where flexibility and autonomy are prioritised over permanence and security, aligning with the broader generational and technological shifts in relationship formation.

1.4. The Psychological Significance of Intimate Connections

Given that ‘situationships’ occupy a unique relational space, offering emotional intimacy without commitment, and given the theoretical frameworks suggesting they may involve heightened uncertainty, imbalanced investment, and late modern relationship patterns, understanding their psychological implications requires consideration of what the developmental literature tells us about the importance of intimate relationships during emerging adulthood. The psychological importance of intimate relationships in young adulthood is well-established in the developmental literature. Intimate relationships during this period contribute significantly to identity formation, emotional regulation, and overall psychological wellbeing [17]. Research demonstrates that young adults in committed relationships report higher levels of life satisfaction, lower rates of depression and anxiety, and greater emotional stability compared to their single counterparts [31]. Intimate relationships provide crucial social support during the stressful transitions of emerging adulthood, offering both emotional buffering and practical assistance in navigating life challenges [7]. Furthermore, the quality of romantic relationships in young adulthood has been shown to predict long-term mental health outcomes, relationship satisfaction, and relationship skills in later life [17]. Secure intimate relationships during this period facilitate the development of attachment security, communication skills, and emotional intimacy that form the foundation for future relationship success [13]. The absence of these developmental experiences, or their occurrence within ambiguous relationship connections, may have lasting implications for young adults’ psychological development and relationship trajectories. Given these established benefits of intimate relationships, understanding how ‘situationships’—which offer some but not all aspects of intimate connection—impact young adults’ psychological wellbeing becomes particularly important.

1.5. The Current Study

Despite the established psychological benefits of intimate relationships during emerging adulthood, ‘situationships’ remain poorly understood. While this relationship form involves experiences consistent with being in a relationship yet without commitment or labelling [19], empirical understanding of how young adults experience these relationships and their psychological implications remains limited. Additionally, while previous research has explored related relationship types such as ‘friends with benefits’ and ‘hookups’ [22,23,24], and a few studies provide conceptualisations of ‘situationships’ [16,18,20], the existing literature fails to sufficiently explore young adults’ diverse experiences of this relationship type. While emerging adulthood theory, relational turbulence theory, investment model perspectives, and theories of late modern intimacy provide valuable conceptual lenses, empirical exploration of how young adults actually experience, navigate, and make meaning of ‘situationships’ remains limited. Inductive, qualitative exploration of these lived experiences can illuminate whether and how these theoretical frameworks resonate with participants’ accounts, reveal dynamics not captured by existing theories, and generate new conceptual insights about ambiguous relationships in contemporary contexts. Our study contributes theoretically by grounding abstract theoretical concepts in young adults’ lived experiences, potentially extending, refining, or challenging existing frameworks through empirically derived understanding of how contemporary ambiguous relationships function, evolve, and impact individuals. Such empirical grounding enriches theoretical understanding of relationship formation, commitment processes, and intimacy in late modernity.

Given the established psychological benefits of intimate relationships during emerging adulthood and the developmental significance of this period for relationship skill development, it is critical to understand how ‘situationships’—which provide some aspects of intimacy without commitment—impact young adults’ psychological wellbeing and relationship development. The increasing prevalence of ‘situationships’ among young adults [18], combined with their occurrence during a crucial developmental period for relationship formation, raises important questions about their psychological implications. Understanding these experiences is essential for supporting young adults in navigating the changing landscape of relationship dynamics and for informing relationship education and counselling practices. As such, the overarching research question that guided this research is “How do young adults aged between 18 to 25 years’ experience ‘situationships’?”.

2. Methods

2.1. Research Design

We utilised an inductive exploratory qualitative design, conducting semi-structured interviews which were analysed via reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative research allows for multifaceted social phenomena to be explored to gather a more nuanced understanding of human experiences [32], which may not be captured by using only quantitative methods [33]. It allows for the understanding of multiple experiences, meanings, and realities that may exist for an individual or group [34]. Exploratory qualitative research allows for investigation into social phenomena that has yet to be explored and understood in depth, identifying patterns and ideas that allow for a deeper understanding, rather than testing or confirming a hypothesis [32,35]. Our research design was also inductive, which allowed us to actively ascertain and analyse patterns in participants’ experiences [36]. Our analysis of patterns in the participants’ responses was constructed via engaging in a reflexive thematic analysis, allowing for patterns, themes, and meanings to be constructed to facilitate a greater understanding of the data [37].

We adopted a social constructionist epistemological position, which considers how knowledge is created through experiences, emphasising individuals’ meanings, and understandings of lived experiences [32]. By adopting this epistemology, meaning was constructed, where we acknowledge multiple realities exist, that consider the diversity of participants’ experiences [32]. This epistemological stance fundamentally shaped our analytical approach in several ways. First, we approached participants’ accounts not as objective representations of reality, but as meaning-making narratives shaped by cultural discourses, generational contexts, and social interactions [38]. We paid close attention to how participants used language to construct and make sense of their relational experiences, recognising that the term ‘situationship’ itself is a socially constructed category that both reflects and constitutes relational realities. Second, we remained attentive to how broader social forces, including technological platforms, generational shifts, and normative relationship discourses, shaped participants’ understandings and experiences [39]. Rather than viewing ‘situationships’ as individual choices or failures, we examined how these relationships are produced and maintained through social structures, cultural narratives, and power dynamics. Third, we recognised that meaning making is dynamic and contextual; participants’ interpretations were constructed within specific social, temporal, and cultural contexts [38]. Finally, our social constructionist stance meant acknowledging that the themes we constructed represent our interpretation of participants’ meaning making, rather than discovering pre-existing truths [39]. Through reflexive engagement throughout the research process, we remained aware of how our own social positions and assumptions influenced interpretation while centring participants’ voices and experiences [38,39].

2.2. Researcher Positionality

Sarah identifies as a female Caucasian Australian heterosexual young adult where in her everyday experiences, ‘situationships’ are frequently discussed. Matthew identifies as a male Caucasian Australian gay young adult (outside the 18–25 age range) where ‘situationships’ are also frequently discussed within his social networks. We acknowledge that our collective positionality as researchers who have witnessed the normality of ‘situationships’ amongst young adults could have guided our research process. Specifically, we recognise several potential sources of privilege and bias that may have influenced our understanding: cultural privilege stemming from a Western, individualistic cultural background where relationship choice and sexual autonomy are valued; educational privilege from accessing higher education and academic discourse about relationships; socioeconomic privilege that may have afforded relationship exploration without economic constraints; and social privilege from being embedded in social networks where ‘situationships’ are normalised and openly discussed. Additionally, Sarah’s generational position as a member of the demographic being studied provided insider knowledge but also potential assumptions about universal experiences within this age group, while Matthew’s position outside the target age range offered a different generational perspective that could both enrich understanding and introduce assumptions about younger adults’ experiences. Therefore, it was crucial that we maintained a reflexive standpoint within the ongoing process of our research. We acknowledge these inherent privileges that could have influenced the development of the understanding of the experiences of ‘situationships’ and throughout the research process, we engaged in reflexive journaling, team discussions, and continuous examination of our assumptions to become aware of these influences and mitigate the effect of our positionality on the research design, execution, and interpretation of findings.

As young adults familiar with ‘situationships’, we initially assumed participants would view them pragmatically, yet data revealed profound emotional distress that challenged this assumption and prompted us to foreground psychological impacts we had underappreciated. Our generational insider status facilitated rapport and cultural fluency with terminology, though Matthew’s outsider age position proved valuable in questioning interpretations that may have been taken for granted, such as the determinism we initially attributed to technology’s influence. Reflexive journaling and team discussions also surfaced gendered assumptions about emotional investment that data complicated, revealing individualised rather than gendered power dynamics. Through ongoing reflexive engagement, we recognised how our positions both enabled insights and risked blind spots, leveraging positionality as an analytical resource while mitigating interpretive limitations.

2.3. Participants

Participants were young adults aged between 18 and 25 years who have been in, or are currently in, a ‘situationship’. As we are conceptualising ‘situationship’ as having been continuously involved romantically, or sexually, with someone without commitment or labelling of the relationship [18], the participants needed to self-identify in this manner. Participants were able to describe both current ‘situationships’ (relationships they were actively experiencing at the time of the interview) and past ‘situationships’ (relationships that had ended prior to the interview). This temporal diversity enriched our understanding by capturing both immediate, lived experiences and retrospective meaning making processes. To recruit participants, we used purposive and snowball sampling [40]. This recruitment strategy involved sharing information about the study to personal networks and Instagram, as well as the research supervisor sharing to professional networks on LinkedIn and X. Recruited participants also shared the research with their networks. Purposive and snowball sampling allowed for participants who met the inclusion criteria to assist in understanding young adults’ experiences of ‘situationships’ and to pass on information about the research [40].

To evaluate sampling adequacy, we employed the information power model [41], which proposes that the more information power a sample holds, the fewer participants are needed. This model evaluates five dimensions that influence information power: study aim, theoretical background, sample specificity, depth of dialogue, and analytical approach. Our study demonstrated high information power across multiple dimensions, supporting adequacy with a smaller sample size. First, our research aim was narrow and specific, focused exclusively on young adults’ experiences of ‘situationships’ rather than a broad exploration of all relationship types. Second, our sample was highly specific, with clear inclusion criteria (ages 18–25, self-identified ‘situationship’ experience) that ensured participants held directly relevant experience. Third, our study was informed by established theoretical frameworks (emerging adulthood theory, relational turbulence theory, investment model, and late modern intimacy theories) that provided strong conceptual grounding to guide analysis. Fourth, the semi-structured interviews facilitated rich, in-depth dialogue, with interviews averaging 45 min and producing detailed accounts of participants’ experiences. Fifth, our analytical approach using reflexive thematic analysis with cross-case analysis enabled us to construct meaning from dense, experiential data rather than requiring larger samples for statistical categorisation.

Recruitment, data collection, and analysis proceeded iteratively, allowing us to monitor constructed patterns and assess information power throughout the study [41]. By the 14th interview, we identified strong information power with rich, detailed accounts across diverse ‘situationship’ experiences, clear pattern development across the five themes, and theoretical depth that aligned with our analytical aims. While additional participants would have added further perspectives, the combination of narrow aim, specific sample, theoretical grounding, dialogue quality, and intensive analysis indicated that our sample provided sufficient information power to address the research question. The total sample size was 14 participants aged between 19 and 25 years (M = 21.9, SD = 1.90). Detailed demographic information collected is provided in

Table 1. Participant demographic information.

Demographics	N
Gender
Man	8
Woman	5
Trans Man	1
Age (in years)
Mean	21.90
SD	1.90
Minimum	19
Maximum	25
Sexual Orientation
Heterosexual	13
Bisexual	1
Longest period being in a situationship (in months)
Mean	5.46
SD	2.16
Minimum	3
Maximum	16
Cultural Background
Australian	12
Indonesian	1
South African Indian	1

.

2.4. Materials

We developed a semi-structured interview guide containing 15 questions. A semi-structured interview was used as it allows for exploration of the participants’ experiences, thoughts, feelings, and beliefs using open-ended questions, and prompting in response to participants’ answers [42]. The interview guide was developed in conjunction with the research team and informed by the empirical literature. The questions related to the participant’s experiences of ‘situationships’. Example questions included, “What is your understanding of a situationship?” and “How do you feel about your past experiences with situationships?”. We also created a survey collecting demographics of the sample containing questions that cover cultural background, gender, age, sexual orientation, and the longest timeframe that the participant had been in a ‘situationship’. The interview guide was anticipated to take 60 min, and the demographic questionnaire was anticipated to take five minutes.

2.5. Procedure

Ethical approval was obtained from Human Research Ethics Committee of Curtin University (HREC2024-0223-2). Recruitment materials were then disseminated where interested participants contacted the research team via the lead researcher’s email. Once participants indicated their interest, they were emailed an information sheet, consent form, and demographic questionnaire. After the information sheet was read, the consent form signed, the demographic questionnaire completed, and each returned by the participant, a time for the interview was scheduled. All the interviews were conducted online via WebEx by the lead researcher. Before beginning each interview, we engaged in several ethical safeguarding procedures. Additional verbal consent for recording was obtained, and we explicitly reminded participants of their right to skip questions, take breaks, or withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. We explained that the interview would explore relationship experiences that might evoke strong emotions, and that they should prioritise their wellbeing throughout. Rapport building was prioritised to ensure participants felt comfortable sharing their experiences in a non-judgemental environment. Throughout interviews, the lead researcher monitored for signs of emotional distress and offered participants opportunities to pause, take breaks, or discontinue discussion of distressing topics. Participants were reminded they could control the depth and detail of their responses. When participants became emotional discussing difficult experiences, the researcher acknowledged their feelings, offered time to compose themselves, and checked whether they wished to continue or move to different questions. The semi-structured format allowed flexibility to adjust pacing and content responsively to participants’ emotional states, with interviews taking approximately 45 min on average. Following each interview, comprehensive debriefing was conducted verbally and in writing. Debrief materials provided to all participants via email included a summary of the study’s purpose and their contribution, contact information for the research team for any follow-up concerns or questions, information about free and confidential mental health support services available to young adults in Australia, and resources about healthy relationships. Participants were encouraged to reach out to the research team if they experienced any distress following the interview. The audio of the interview was then manually transcribed verbatim, and data was stored on a password-protected computer, as well as on the Curtin University research drive. Participant recruitment, data collection, and analysis were conducted iteratively.

2.6. Data Analysis and Quality Considerations

Braun and Clarke’s [37] reflexive thematic analysis was used to analyse the data, allowing for the construction of themes from participants’ interviews. Analysis began with the lead researcher familiarising herself with the data through continuous active reading and re-reading. This initial immersion within the data involved taking notes of any initial ideas for coding and reflexive questioning to develop a comprehensive understanding of the data set. Following familiarisation with the data, coding began, where patterns, ideas, or features of the data relevant to the overarching research question were highlighted and extracted. Coding included semantic codes where meaning was explicitly expressed, and latent codes that required interpretation going beyond what was explicitly stated. Secondary coding then took place where these initial codes were refined and developed into secondary codes. An interpretive lens was adopted, with existing and/or new codes used. Following this, initial themes were generated where codes were collated and organised to create overarching ideas within the data set, accompanied by engaging in thematic mapping. Themes were then reviewed and refined through team discussion, during which we collaboratively examined potential patterns and their boundaries, questioned our interpretations, and considered alternative readings of the data. When divergent interpretations arose, we returned to the data extracts to negotiate meaning, with these discussions informing our reflexive journaling. The final themes were constructed, which represented patterns of meaning shared throughout the interviews, and communicated through the write-up. Throughout the study, we kept an audit trail with a comprehensive record of all research decisions, thoughts, processes, as well as engaging in reflexive journaling to acknowledge and reflect on the impact of our perceptions and biases as researchers on the study. We also utilised member checking, where participants were emailed findings of the study to provide feedback. Two participants responded, and feedback was integrated into the final write-up.

3. Findings

Whilst acknowledging individual differences across participants’ experiences, there were identifiable commonalities with five overarching themes identified from young adults’ experiences of ‘situationships’. These themes include (1) Navigating the Undefined: The Ambiguous Nature of ‘Situationships’, (2) All In Versus All Options: Mismatched Emotional Investment in ‘Situationships’, (3) Swipe into ‘Situationships’: Technology’s Role in Commitment Avoidance, (4) From ‘I Do’ to ‘I’m Independent’: How Generational Shifts Fuel ‘Situationships’, and (5) Soul-Crushing but ‘Not Real’: The Psychological Toll of ‘Situationship’ Heartbreak. These five themes reveal the complex and multifaceted nature of young adults’ experiences with ‘situationships’. The findings demonstrate how definitional ambiguity, power imbalances, technological influences, generational shifts, and psychological impacts interact to create and maintain this relationship pattern. While ‘situationships’ offer flexibility and autonomy valued by young adults, they also create significant emotional challenges, and relationship cycles that impact individuals’ capacity for future commitment and trust.

3.1. Navigating the Undefined: The Ambiguous Nature of Situationships

This theme captures the definitional confusion and ambiguous boundaries that characterise ‘situationships’, highlighting how participants struggled to understand and navigate unclear relationship parameters. The definitional confusion participants experienced manifested through spatial metaphors of liminality, such as “no man’s land”, “grey area”, and “middle ground”, that captured their sense of existing between recognised relationship categories. This betweenness created particular confusion because ‘situationships’ contained emotional dimensions typically associated with committed relationships while lacking the defining features of such relationships. As one participant articulated: “It’s like this middle ground between casual and a relationship…it’s not just a sexual relationship, there’s more emotional investment, yet we aren’t together”. The disjuncture between emotional reality (investment, intimacy) and relational status (undefined, uncommitted) emerged as a source of ongoing disorientation.

The definitional ambiguity extended to practical relationship boundaries, with participants describing contradictory expectations around exclusivity. One participant captured this confusion: “You are exclusive but at the same time not…it’s confusing because you’re acting like you’re together but you’re not actually together”. Another elaborated on the specific unclear norms they encountered: “Like, are we supposed to tell each other when we’re going out? Can I talk to other people? These things just aren’t clear, and nobody talks about them directly”. These statements reveal how participants faced specific navigational challenges around communication expectations, social boundaries, and behavioural norms within situationships.

Participants also highlighted the complexity of modern dating terminology and unspoken roles. As one participant highlighted: “Dating in the modern world is really complex, lots more terms and rules, exclusive stages…nobody explains what any of it means”. Another described their confusion: “There’s all these new labels. Talking, seeing each other, exclusive but not dating, and everyone assumes you know the difference, but honestly, I’m just guessing half the time”. This reflects how evolving relationship vocabulary has created additional layers of confusion for young adults trying to understand where their connection fits within contemporary dating frameworks.

The ambiguous nature of ‘situationships’ also meant participants held conflicting views about their potential for progression. Some conceptualised them as having “no finish line” and being “dead end relationships”, while others viewed them as “stepping stones” toward committed relationships. One participant shared: “I kept thinking maybe this would turn into something real, but looking back, there were never any signs it would…it was just hope on my part”. Conversely, another shared: “For me, it felt like we were building toward something, like this was how relationships start now”. These divergent perspectives reveal how the undefined nature of ‘situationships’ creates space for mismatched expectations about relationship trajectory.

Participants also described the contrasting nature of freedom and restriction within ‘situationships’. They revealed how ‘situationships’ require “less needs” where you do not have “the boyfriend commitments that you go and hang with his family and your family and the rest of it and if you’re not together like that, you don’t have to commit to those things”. These sentiments depict the sense of greater autonomy and flexibility of ‘situationships’ as they lack defined expectations, not only in commitment, but in the everyday social conventions that characterise conventional romantic relationships. Despite this perceived freedom, participants articulated contradictory restrictions: “We were spending a lot of time together, yet the relationship was still very restrictive”. This reflects the paradoxical experience of frequent intimate contact while simultaneously restricting public knowledge and life integration.

Finally, participants reflected on the commonality of ‘situationships’ within young adulthood, proposing how, as a relationship type, it is almost constructed as normative. Participants reflected how “95% of my mates are in situationships”, and that “people are in more situationships than they are in relationships”. The normalisation of this relationship type was emphasised with a participant stating, “we are so used to this” and another describing that it is “more common now ‘cause we have all like been in one and everyone hears about being in one so it’s a bit more normalised”. This widespread normalisation, explored further in Theme 4 in relation to broader generational shifts, reveals the modern trend of ‘situationships’ with increased frequency and acceptance compared to previous generations. It reveals the influence of social dynamics in shaping young adults’ expectations and relationship norms resulting in greater engagement in alternative relationship types, where commitment and relationship progression is not prioritised.

This theme reveals how the ambiguous and undefined nature of ‘situationships’ creates significant navigational challenges for young adults. The lack of clear boundaries, evolving terminology, and absence of established norms contribute to confusion and mismatched expectations, while paradoxical experiences of freedom and restriction, combined with widespread normalisation, highlight the complex dynamics of contemporary relationship formation.

3.2. All in Versus All Options: Mismatched Emotional Investment in Situationships

This theme explores the unequal emotional investment and power imbalances that frequently characterise ‘situationships’, where one person typically desires greater commitment while the other maintains emotional distance. Power imbalances in ‘situationships’ emerged through markedly asymmetrical emotional investment, where one partner’s desire for relationship progression collided with the other’s preference for ambiguity. This imbalance was visible in effort disparities, with one participant noting she, “cared for him way more than he cared for me…it was obvious in how much effort I put in compared to him”. This created profound psychological distress for the more invested partner. The experience of wanting commitment from someone who remained emotionally distant produced what one participant described as feeling “like hell”:

If you’re the one that is committed more to that person, it feels like hell cause you care so much for that person and they might care for you but it’s like a mind fuck of why aren’t you wanting to commit.

Another participant elaborated on this dynamic: “I was always the one initiating conversations, making plans, bringing up where we stood…it was exhausting being the only one trying”. These sentiments suggest the emotional turmoil and frustration experienced by individuals who are more invested in the relationship than the other person. It highlights the psychological distress that results from an imbalance of commitment, and the uncertainty surrounding the other persons intentions or feelings. The participants emphasise the pain of caring deeply for someone who may reciprocate those feelings to some degree, but is unwilling to fully commit to the relationship, leading to confusion and emotional anguish.

Participants recognised that these power imbalances often stemmed from different relationship goals and emotional availability. One participant explained: “I think he liked the convenience of having someone who cared about him without having to give the same energy back…it worked for him, but it was destroying me”. Another mentioned: “Looking back, we wanted completely different things. I wanted to build something together, and he wanted to keep his options open while having someone reliable”. The imbalanced investment also manifested in different levels of commitment to relationship activities and future planning. As one participant described: “I was thinking about introducing him to my friends, planning things for us to do together, and he was just living day by day with no thought about where this was going”. Another shared: “I would get excited about little relationship-y things we did together, but for him it was just casual hanging out…we were experiencing the same moments totally differently”.

Some participants recognised the cyclical nature of these imbalances, acknowledging how being on the receiving end of unequal investment could influence their future relationship behaviour. One participant reflected: “After being the one who cared more and got hurt, I definitely became more guarded in the next ‘situationship’…I didn’t want to be that vulnerable person again”. This theme highlights how imbalanced emotional investment creates significant power disparities within ‘situationships’. The person seeking greater commitment often experiences emotional distress, while these dynamics can perpetuate cycles of emotional unavailability in subsequent relationships.

3.3. Swipe into Situationships: Technology’s Role in Commitment Avoidance

This theme examines how digital technology and dating platforms have fundamentally altered young adults’ approach to romantic connections, creating barriers to commitment and fostering a mindset of endless options. Technology’s role in ‘situationship’ formation operated through cultivating what might be termed a “perpetual alternatives” mindset. The infinite scroll of dating applications maintained constant awareness of other potential partners, making commitment feel risky or premature. Participants described struggling to “stay committed when you know there’s always someone new you could match with” and experiencing “excitement for potentially hitting the jackpot with someone better”, creating a paradox where abundant choice undermined satisfaction with current connections. This jackpot mentality, the sense that the ideal partner might just be one more swipe away, prevented the focused investment required for relationship deepening. These reflections reveal that the abundance of choices from social media and dating applications can create distractions and temptations that challenge young adults desire to commit. For participants, this uncertainty, hesitation, and a fear of missing out can make it harder to commit, increasing engagement in alternative relationship types such as ‘situationships’ where commitment is not essential.

With increased accessibility of online platforms, and perceived greater options for potential partners, participants suggested how this has impacted desire to commit, describing the “excitement for potentially hitting the jackpot with someone better every time and then you are never really satisfied”. One participant questioned “How are you supposed to want to go for someone when you have all these different options right in front of your face constantly?”. Another elaborated “Even when I was happy with someone, I’d still be scrolling through apps…it’s like this constant comparison shopping for people”. These statements emphasise how technology creates obstacles to developing deep, focused connections by maintaining awareness of countless alternatives. For participants, social media and dating applications have opened endless avenues for connections, simultaneously making it hard to feel satisfied with the potential connection they could develop in fear that there are more suited partners to have a relationship with. These statements emphasise the effects of constant exposure to different people making it challenging to direct attention and effort toward one person. The fear of missing out or the allure of exploring other possibilities can create obstacles when trying to pursue potential relationship progression amidst endless options.

The impact of social media on relationship perceptions was also significant. One participant observed: “Social media makes relationships seem extremely disposable which is a constant throughout pop media, social media…like everyone’s always moving onto the next person”. Another described how this affected their expectations: “You see people jumping from relationship to relationship online, and it makes commitment seem less important…like why try so hard when most things don’t work out anyway?”. These participants emphasise how the portrayal of relationships in popular media and social media can emphasise the transient nature of connections, leading to a perception that relationships are easily replaceable and temporary, impacting how individuals approach commitment in their relationships.

Participants also shared how technology changed the pace and nature of romantic communication. As one shared: “With dating apps, you can have like five different conversations going at once…it makes it harder to focus on developing something real with one person”. Another described: “The whole texting thing makes it easier to avoid serious conversations…you can just send memes and keep things surface level instead of actually talking about what you want”. Some participants also recognised how technology had shifted dating norms compared to previous generations. These technological changes intersected with the broader generational shifts in relationship values discussed in Theme 4. One acknowledged: “I think our parents had to really commit to getting to know someone because they couldn’t just swipe to find someone new…we have too many options and not enough motivation to work through challenges”. This theme reveals how digital technology, particularly dating applications and social media platforms, has created environmental conditions that favour ‘situationships’ over committed relationships. The abundance of choice, constant comparison opportunities, and shifting communication norms contribute to commitment avoidance and relationship instability.

3.4. From I Do to I’m Independent: How Generational Shifts Fuel Situationships

This theme explores how generational changes in values, religious influence, and life priorities have contributed to the normalisation of ‘situationships’ among young adults. Participants demonstrated explicit awareness of how their generation’s approach to relationships differs from previous generations, particularly in prioritising individual development over traditional relationship progression. Participants clearly articulated generational differences in relationship priorities. A shift in societal attitudes towards different relationship types was suggested as people are becoming more open-minded and inclusive recognising diversity beyond traditional norms. As one participant shared:

30 years ago, or whatever you are in a relationship to get married, and you see that as the end goal, whereas I feel like nowadays you are in them because you would love if that happened, but it’s less pressure cause a lot of people go through partners until they find the right one.

Another participant reflected: “My parents’ generation seemed to have this timeline. Date someone seriously, get engaged, get married. We don’t have that same pressure or expectation”. These reflections reveal participants’ conscious awareness of how their approach to relationships differs from previous generations.

The emphasis on independence and self-development was consistently highlighted by participants as a generational shift. One participant shared: “I think compared to my parents’ generation, we’re way more focused on building ourselves first before committing to someone else”. Another articulated it as: “We’re very independent…I want to focus on myself and my other priorities before I get serious with anyone”. A third participant elaborated: “Our generation values personal growth and career development more than previous generations…relationships are important but they’re not the main goal anymore”. The shifting emphasis placed on independence and self-reliance that attracts young adults to ‘situationships’ was consistent throughout participant’s reflections. Participants described themselves as “very independent” with a greater desire for “focus[ing] on myself” and having “other priorities”. These sentiments reflect the changing construction of young adults’ identity being more individualised, with less reliance on achieving previously guided milestones of relationship progression towards marriage. Participants reflected a shift to more individualised self-foci with greater desire for self-development and prioritising other aspects of their life before relationship progression compared to previous generations. Participants revealed they had “minimal spare time” and described that “time and effort” acted as a barrier for pursuing conventional romantic relationships. These sentiments reflect the fast-paced nature of young adults’ lifestyles and shifting priorities within the 21st century, where participants felt they could not invest the time and effort needed to meet the expectations of a traditional romantic relationship, therefore engaged in ‘situationships’.

Participants also described the societal shift of a decentring of religious beliefs around untraditional relationships as, “people aren’t as heavily religious now as they used to be”, and that alternative relationship types that do not follow the traditional route of relationship progression towards marriage were “more accepted, as well as not as much stigma”. As one highlighted: “There’s not that same pressure to follow traditional relationship paths”. Another shared: “My grandparents got married young because that’s what you did, especially in their religious community. We don’t have those same expectations or judgements about alternative relationships”. These statements highlight how a decrease in the importance of religious adherence has led to greater engagement in diverse relationships such as ‘situationships’, which do not follow traditional religious relationship progression. Combined with the technological affordances explored in Theme 3, these generational value shifts have created multiple reinforcing conditions supporting ‘situationship’ formation.

The reduced stigma around non-traditional relationships was also highlighted. One participant observed: “Alternative relationships that don’t follow the traditional route are more accepted now, as well as not as much stigma around them”. Another explained: “It’s more normal now to be in ‘situationships’ or casual relationships…people understand that not everyone wants to rush into commitment”. As such, this theme reveals how conscious generational shifts in values, reduced religious influence, and changing life circumstances have created social conditions that normalise and support ‘situationship’ engagement among young adults. Participants demonstrated clear awareness of these changes and their impact on contemporary relationship formation.

3.5. Soul-Crushing but Not Real: The Psychological Toll of Situationship Heartbreak

This theme acknowledges the significant emotional impacts of ‘situationships’ on young adults’ psychological wellbeing and self-perception, while recognising how these experiences create cycles that influence future relationship behaviour. Participants described substantial emotional consequences that were often dismissed or invalidated due to the undefined nature of ‘situationships’. Participants described their struggle with feelings of insecurity, self-doubt, and uncertainty around their self-worth when engaging in ‘situationships’. The self-described ambiguity and mixed signals in ‘situationships’ were suggested to “drive insecurity”, “wreck self-confidence”, and “can really damage someone’s self-esteem” with participants questioning “what do I lack” in their desire for progression in the relationship. These sentiments reflect how ‘situationships’ can impact on participant’s construction of self and subsequent self-worth as a result. There was a sense of personal attribution for the other person not wanting to commit to a committed and labelled relationship.

The uncertainty inherent in ‘situationships’ generated acute anxiety that participants characterised as unprecedented in intensity. Unable to “predict” or “control” how relationships would unfold, participants experienced hypervigilance about their partner’s commitment, fearing abandonment for “someone prettier” at any moment. This anxiety revealed how relational ambiguity creates conditions of persistent insecurity, where individuals felt perpetually evaluated and potentially replaceable, fundamentally undermining the emotional safety typically associated with intimate connection. These sentiments illuminate a key psychological aspect of situationships: the heightened anxiety stemming from relationship instability. The lack of clarity from undefined expectations and commitment makes it hard to foresee how the relationship will develop. The participant’s fear of being left for someone “prettier” reveals how the uncommitted nature of ‘situationships’ can foster deep-seated insecurities and a constant state of uncertainty. This uncertainty appears to create a perpetual sense of emotional vulnerability, where individuals feel they must continually prove their worth to maintain the connection. It highlights the emotional toll of navigating relationships without clear boundaries or mutual assurances, potentially impacting self-esteem and overall mental wellbeing.

Despite these acknowledged impacts, participants questioned the emotions they were experiencing and whether they were justified, in part because of the undefined nature of a ‘situationship’, describing, “when it ends, I feel like you can’t even be heartbroken cause you weren’t ‘in a relationship’” even though “it’s soul-crushing”. These sentiments reflect how as boundaries and expectations in this relationship are unclear, it is challenging to feel that the intense emotions experienced are valid, as individuals question the significance of the connection.

Participants also reflected that based on the self-described private nature of ‘situationships’, with limited sharing of it with support networks, they felt others did not understand their experiences,

…it is also tricky especially if your like friends and family aren’t necessarily involved, like support systems may not necessarily grasp this and the language you use around it. They may not understand how much this person meant to you.

This sentiment reveals how support systems may not understand the complexity of a ‘situationship’, and the emotional investment involved. The language used around ‘situationships’ may not convey the depth of feelings and significance of the connection, making it challenging for others to understand the extent of the emotions experienced when a ‘situationship’ ends. Further, a participant suggests, “…people think you couldn’t be as hurt by it, it’s like you know I won’t get hurt because it’s not a real relationship. We aren’t actually dating; no one actually attributes the pain and toll from this baby relationship”. Here, the participant suggests the perception of a ‘situationship’ not being a “real relationship” but, emphasises the emotional harm that often goes dismissed as the validity of connection in ‘situationships’ is misunderstood, creating an isolating and invalidating experience of the emotions associated with a ‘situationship’.

Participants also suggested experiencing a cycle from the effects of past ‘situationships’ impacting future relationships. For some, the cycle of being on the receiving end of the other person’s lack of commitment can then result in them being the instigator of a ‘situationship’ in the next relationship. A participant described not being able to “trust that people are going to be committed”, and as a result, not wanting to “put all your eggs in one basket” as they suggested if they did that, they were “going to get hurt”. These sentiments reveal the ‘situationships’ cycle, where young adults may not want to commit as they have done previously to avoid potential emotional hurt. The nature of this cycle was elaborated on by a participant’s reflection, “…there [are] more people getting into situationships every day and then that’s an extra 20 people that have now gone through one and realised they can’t trust people, so it is always going to accumulate and keep going”. Another participant reflected that after being the person who was more emotionally invested in progressing the relationship, “I don’t wanna go through that pain again”. These statements emphasise a cycle that when individuals experience ‘situationships’, where trust is broken or not established, it can create barriers in future relationships, making it difficult to want to trust and commit to another person to prevent the same emotional investment that led to them getting hurt.

Although there were tensions around whether a ‘situationship’ could ever eventuate into a relationship, participants reflected on what would be needed for this relationship to progress. Participants reflected the need for “commitment from both parties” and to “communicate properly” as it reduces “the uncertainty of what the other person is feeling, which is what causes these situationships”. This sentiment reveals young adults’ perception around the need for commitment and that increased communication can decrease confusion, allowing for expectations and wants to become explicit so that individuals can make informed choices about whether they want to remain in the relationship. Participants also reflected that individuals need to be “emotionally available” and that “emotional availability at the start determines whether the situationship is a situationship”. These phrases reflect that when an individual is not fully present or open emotionally in a relationship, it can create a dynamic where the connection lacks the depth needed for a committed partnership. This emotional unavailability can result in a ‘situationship’ where an individual does not have the emotional capacity to participate in the greater expectations of a committed relationship.

This theme encapsulates how the lack of clarity within ‘situationships’ can impact self-esteem and perpetuate emotional instability and anxiety. The vast impacts of ‘situationships’ can create a cycle in future relationships where an individual may instigate a ‘situationship’ as trust is lacking, and individuals attempt to prevent themselves from enduring the same emotional toll. For a ‘situationship’ to evolve emotional availability, communication, and commitment is essential. Without these elements, the relationship may remain in a state of uncertainty and lack of commitment as conceptualised by a ‘situationship’.

4. Discussion

Our research explored how young adults experience ‘situationships’ in contemporary Australia. Semi-structured interviews analysed via reflexive thematic analysis allowed for the construction of five themes that encapsulate young adult’s experiences of ‘situationships’: (1) the definitional confusion and ambiguous boundaries that characterise ‘situationships’, (2) the unequal emotional investment and power imbalances frequently present, (3) how digital technology creates barriers to commitment, (4) generational shifts in values that normalise ‘situationships’, and (5) the significant psychological impacts that are often dismissed due to the undefined nature of these relationships.

Participants struggled with the definitional confusion and ambiguous boundaries that characterise ‘situationships’, consistently describing these relationships as existing in a ‘grey area’ or ‘no man’s land’. This definitional confusion operates as more than semantic imprecision; it functions as a mechanism maintaining power asymmetries within relationships. By resisting clear categorisation, ‘situationships’ deny those seeking commitment the relational vocabulary necessary to articulate expectations or advocate for needs. This extends previous conceptualisations [16,18,20] by revealing how ambiguity itself generates distress, impacting participants’ ability to make informed decisions about emotional investment. The paradox participants described, experiencing autonomy from traditional relationship expectations while simultaneously feeling constrained by undefined parameters, represents a novel finding. From a feminist perspective, this contradiction reveals how definitional ambiguity disproportionately disadvantages those seeking clarity, allowing one partner to avoid accountability while the other bears the emotional labour of navigating undefined terrain. The widespread normalisation participants described (with “95% of mates” in ‘situationships’) suggests these relationships have become a dominant, yet unstable, pattern, creating social norms that lack clear guidelines while generating documented distress. This aligns with relational turbulence theory [27], which predicts relationship uncertainty generates heightened emotional reactivity and instability. Our findings extend this theory by demonstrating how turbulence becomes normalised and chronic rather than transitional.

Our research illuminated the unequal emotional investment and power imbalances that frequently characterise ‘situationships’, where one person typically desires greater commitment while the other maintains emotional distance. Consistent with previous research [16,18], this imbalance appears structural rather than incidental. However, while Monterrosa [18] found relationship development operating on men’s terms, our findings reveal power dynamics to be individualised rather than explicitly gendered, dependent on whoever is less invested. This shift may reflect generational changes or broader cultural movements toward gender equality, though power asymmetries persist in new forms. Our findings extend Langlais et al.’s [16] observation that ‘situationships’ end due to imbalanced dynamics by revealing how this imbalance persists throughout relationships, creating ongoing emotional turmoil. What appears as individual emotional unavailability may reflect rational adaptation to environments rewarding optionality over commitment. The investment model [28] illuminates this dynamic: when dating platforms maintain constant awareness of high-quality alternatives while satisfaction remains ambiguous, commitment becomes irrational for those with lower investment. Yet this rationality operates unevenly: while some participants strategically leveraged ambiguity to maintain options, others experienced it as relational trap, unable to name distress or legitimately end what was never officially begun. The cyclical nature of these imbalances, where experiencing unequal investment influences future relationship behaviour, represents a novel contribution, suggesting ‘situationships’ may function as training grounds for emotional detachment.

Digital technology and dating platforms fundamentally alter young adults’ approach to romantic connections, creating environmental conditions that favour ‘situationships’ over committed relationships. Participants highlighted how social media and dating applications provide avenues for constant comparison of potential partners. This aligns with the previous literature revealing that increased use of dating applications can lead to partner choice overload, where increased options increase the perceived risk of making suboptimal partner choices [43,44,45]. However, our findings extend this understanding by showing how choice overload specifically manifests in the maintenance of ‘situationships’ rather than just partner selection difficulties. The constant awareness of alternatives appears to prevent the deep investment required for relationship progression. The ‘jackpot mentality’ that participants described suggests that dating apps create a perpetual state of relationship dissatisfaction by maintaining hope for better alternatives. This pattern exemplifies Bauman’s [29] liquid love, where late modern consumer culture transforms intimate relationships into temporary, disposable connections. Digital platforms materialise this liquidity, creating algorithmic intimacy, or relationships mediated by infrastructures designed to maximise user engagement rather than relational stability.

Generational changes in values, religious influence, and life priorities have contributed to the normalisation of ‘situationships’ among young adults. Participants provided nuanced understandings of how societal shifts have influenced ‘situationship’ occurrence, including changing emphasis around marriage, diminishing religious influence, and shift toward individualism. These findings align with previous research on societal changes shaping diverse relationship formation beyond marriage [9,10,11,12,14]. The participants’ explicit awareness of generational differences, with clear articulation of how their approach differs from previous generations, suggests conscious rejection of traditional relationship timelines rather than unconscious drift. This consciousness indicates that ‘situationships’ may represent an intentional adaptation to contemporary life circumstances rather than simply a failure to achieve traditional relationships. This resonates with Giddens’ [30] pure relationship theory: connections entered for their own sake and maintained only while satisfying both partners. Yet our findings reveal a paradox: while theoretically democratic, ‘situationships’ frequently reproduce power asymmetries through new mechanisms. The emphasis on independence and self-development as generational priorities aligns with the theory of emerging adulthood [15,46], but our findings suggest this theory may only fully explain the experiences of those who initiate ‘situationships’ rather than those maintained in ambiguous relationships by their partners.

Participants revealed some of the significant emotional impacts of ‘situationships’ on young adults’ psychological wellbeing, while recognising how these experiences create cycles influencing future relationships. Previously, Langlais et al. [16] revealed that relationship quality of ‘situationships’ was low and began to explore stress felt by young adults in these relationships. Our findings elaborate significantly on this by providing insights into the exacerbated sense of anxiety and insecurity experienced by participants. The decrease in self-esteem, self-confidence, and self-attribution questioning represents a substantial contribution to understanding ‘situationship’ impacts. Our findings differ markedly from Armstrong et al. [20], who presented findings from midlife participants revealing that ‘situationships’ offered protection from emotional harm. Instead, we found that the uncertainty of these relationships fostered emotional anguish. This difference likely reflects age-related factors, where midlife individuals may have different emotional resources, relationship expectations, and life circumstances that make ‘situationships’ less psychologically damaging than they are for emerging adults who are still developing relationship skills and identity.

Finally, the discussion of invalidation represents a novel finding not previously explored in the ‘situationship’ literature. Participants’ struggles to acknowledge their emotions as valid due to lack of labelling and defined expectations reveals how social recognition of relationship types impacts individual psychological processing. The paradox participants described, experiencing ‘soul-crushing’ pain from relationships that ‘were not real’, highlights how societal relationship hierarchies can compound individual distress. Furthermore, ‘situationships’ were suggested as becoming more normalised and accepted as a relationship type, yet young adults still maintained a boundary of limited public knowledge and integration of this relationship with family and friends. This finding aligns with previous research by Armstrong et al. [20] and Langlais et al. [16]; however, this finding differs in that it reveals a potential link to participants feeling as if their experiences of ‘situationships’ were invalidated. Participants reflected that support networks may not understand the emotional involvement within this relationship, and they themselves emphasised how they struggled to acknowledge their emotions as valid due to the lack of labelling and defined expectations within this relationship type. Young adults’ feeling invalidated in their experiences of ‘situationships’ represents a critical finding absent from the previous literature. This invalidation operates at multiple levels: interpersonally (partners dismissing emotional investment), socially (support networks unable to recognise distress), and internally (participants questioning their own feelings’ legitimacy). That participants experience “soul-crushing” pain from relationships deemed “not real” reveals how the structural conditions documented across our theme translate into embodied psychological harm, suggesting ‘situationships’ produce a new form of relational precarity.

4.1. Implications

Our findings both extend and problematise key theoretical frameworks. While emerging adulthood theory [15,46] predicts exploratory, commitment-resistant relationships during ages 18–25, our findings reveal the theory’s individualistic limits: it better explains emotionally distant partners’ motivations than relationship dynamics involving individuals with different developmental orientations. The research extends relational turbulence theory [27] by demonstrating how relationship uncertainty becomes chronic rather than transitional, with implications for prolonged ambiguity’s psychological toll. The investment model [28] successfully predicts asymmetrical commitment, yet our findings reveal how digital platforms structurally produce conditions (abundant alternatives, uncertain satisfaction), perpetuating imbalanced investment. Most significantly, while Bauman’s [29] liquid love and Giddens’ [30] pure relationship accurately predict conditional, present-focused connections, these frameworks underestimate psychological harm and power asymmetries, suggesting late modern intimacy theories require feminist revision to account for how apparently choice-based relationship forms perpetuate emotional labour and harm. This necessitates theoretical frameworks capable of analysing structural constraint alongside individual development. Collectively, our findings contribute to the concept of relational precarity to relationship science; to understand how structural conditions (technological, economic, cultural) produce intimate relationships characterised by chronic uncertainty, power asymmetries, and psychological harm despite their normalised prevalence.

The findings have multiple practical implications for supporting young adults navigating contemporary relationship landscapes. By documenting the specific challenges and emotional impacts of ‘situationships’, this research could extend societal understanding and recognition of these relationships, potentially reducing the invalidation many participants experienced and enabling young adults to navigate these relationships while protecting their emotional wellbeing. Supporting young adults might involve reframing relationship guidance away from disposability rhetoric toward sustainability, encouraging practices that honour emotional investment and promote relational transparency regardless of commitment level. The research provides guidance for healthy relationship education programs. Programs could include contemporary relationships beyond casual and committed dynamics. The inclusion of ‘situationships’ within these programs could assist in preparing to help young adults to better navigate the complexities of ‘situationships’ and improve romantic relationship quality. Specifically, programs could address establishing clear communication about relationship expectations early in connections, recognising signs of emotional investment imbalances, developing strategies for protecting emotional wellbeing in uncertain relationships, and understanding how technology impacts commitment decisions. The findings also highlight the need for awareness around digital dating’s impact on relationship formation. Educational initiatives could encourage young adults to develop online habits that support rather than hinder personal connections, such as limiting simultaneous conversations, focusing attention on developing existing connections before seeking new ones, and recognising how constant options impact satisfaction with current relationships.

The research provides evidence-based insights for practitioners working with young adults experiencing relationship distress. By identifying specific areas of ‘situationships’ that contribute to relationship distress, including definitional ambiguity, emotional investment imbalances, technology-driven commitment avoidance, and invalidated emotional experiences, practitioners can tailor therapeutic approaches to address those issues more effectively. Specifically, clinicians can help clients establish clear communication about relationship expectations and boundaries early in ‘situationships’, develop strategies for managing anxiety and uncertainty in ambiguous relationships, recognise and validate the real emotional pain experienced even in undefined relationships, assess whether current ‘situationships’ have potential for progression based on mutual commitment, communication, and emotional availability, and understand how past ‘situationship experiences may be impacting current relationship behaviour and trust levels. The findings also reveal what young adults perceive as essential for ‘situationships’ to develop into committed relationship, such as mutual commitment from both parties, clear communication to reduce uncertainty about feelings and expectations, and emotional availability from the outset. Practitioners can use this knowledge to help clients evaluate their relationships and make informed decisions about continued investment or relationship termination.

4.2. Strengths, Limitations, and Future Research Directions

This research addressed a significant gap in the literature by exploring an increasingly common relationship type in young adulthood. The qualitative methodology allowed for rich, nuanced understanding of diverse experiences that quantitative methods might not capture [47]. The study’s age-specific focus on 18–25-year-olds was methodologically appropriate given that this developmental period of emerging adulthood is when ‘situationships’ most commonly occur, allowing for deep understanding of how these relationships intersect with unique developmental tasks and social contexts. However, limitations affect the transferability of the findings. The study’s sample was predominantly heterosexual, Caucasian, Australian young adults, which limits transferability to other populations, particularly those from non-Western cultures, diverse sexual orientations, and different racial or ethnic backgrounds. While some participant diversity existed, ethical restrictions prevented linking demographic information to responses, limiting analysis of how different backgrounds might influence ‘situationship’ experiences and our ability to examine within-sample variation. Given qualitative research’s emphasis on context-dependent transferability rather than statistical generalisability, readers should consider whether findings resonate with their own contexts rather than assuming universal applicability. Additionally, snowball sampling may have resulted in participants from similar social networks providing information about the study with similar backgrounds or beliefs [48], potentially limiting the diversity of perspectives captured.

Future research should prioritise cross-cultural and longitudinal perspectives to advance understanding of ‘situationships’. Cross-cultural studies could examine how ‘situationships’ manifest across cultural contexts with varying relationship norms, religious influences, and gender role expectations. While gender patterns emerged in our data, particularly regarding emotional investment and power dynamics, future research should intentionally examine how gender shapes ‘situationship’ experiences and outcomes through purposive sampling and gender-focused analysis. Additionally, exploring how cultural values, family expectations, and community norms shape ‘situationship’ experiences across diverse cultural contexts and sexual orientations would illuminate whether the patterns identified here reflect Western-specific relationship dynamics or broader contemporary phenomena. Additionally, research examining ‘situationships’ across age demographics would reveal whether these dynamics function differently at midlife [20] than in emerging adulthood. Critically, future longitudinal studies examining how ‘situationships’ evolve across broader life transitions and societal changes would reveal whether these relationships represent temporary adaptations to emerging adulthood or have lasting impacts on relational capacity and relationship trajectories. While quantitative research could complement these qualitative insights by examining associations between dating platform use and ‘situationship’ formation at scale.

5. Conclusions

This research provides valuable insights into how young adults experience ‘situationships’, revealing them to be complex relationship dynamics characterised by definitional ambiguity, emotional investment imbalances, technological influences, generational value shifts, and significant but often invalidated psychological impacts. The study raises awareness of how social influences impact relationship commitment perceptions and demonstrates how the undefined nature of ‘situationships’ can perpetuate emotional instability and impact future relationship capacity. The identification of specific elements essential for ‘situationship’ progression, such as mutual commitment, clear communication, and emotional availability, provides practical guidance for young adults navigating these relationships. A striking pattern across participants’ accounts was the sense of disposability, both feeling disposable to partners and viewing partners as replaceable, reflecting broader rhetoric of precarity facing young adults across employment, housing, and social connection in late modernity. Future relationship support for this cohort might productively be framed around sustainability, fostering relationships that resist throwaway culture and instead prioritise mutual care, transparency, and long-term wellbeing. By increasing understandings of ‘situationship’ experiences, this research enhances young adults’ awareness while enriching relationship science through broader explorations of diverse relationship types. The findings highlight the need for updated relationship education, clinical approaches, and social recognition that acknowledge the psychological reality of these increasingly common but previously understudied relationships.