970x125
Casual romance is often defined by companionship without commitment—enjoying the present, not planning the future. For many casual partners, flexibility means freedom, and when it comes to commitment, less is more. But in many cases, one of the dating partners begins to develop deeper feelings and a desire to take the relationship to the next level. Not wanting to scare off a noncommitted partner, how does one explore the possibility of permanence? Fortunately, studies have explored the factors that determine whether and when a couple decides to move a relationship to the next level. Research explains.
The Seduction of Situationships
M.R. Langlais et al. (2025) examined the field of romantic non-commitment in a piece labeled “Are Situationships Situational?”[i] They note that situationships have been described in lay literature as “emotional connections with someone without the label of boyfriend or girlfriend,” and empirically as relationships with romantic connection, including physical intimacy, but no clarity or commitment. Regarding satisfaction, Langlais et al. note that while situationships have become more common, they are often less satisfying than traditional relationships. So why do so many daters settle for situationships? Apparently, for many of the same reasons people enjoy serious relationships.
Investment Breeds Satisfaction
Langlais et al. found that similar to satisfaction in traditional relationships, factors such as investment, communicating about the future, and relationship prioritizing resulted in a higher level of commitment and satisfaction within a situationships. They note that their findings are consistent with investment theory and social exchange theory in that commitment to situationships may best explain why they are maintained, in spite of the lack of commitment.
Meeting of the Minds
Situationships work best when both partners are equally invested. Langlais et al. note that some young people use more casual pairings to fulfill intimacy and emotional needs, without defining the relationship with a specific label. Yet they also note what most people recognize instinctively as a complicating factor: Frequently, one of the partners hopes for more. When this power imbalance emerges, things can become complicated. True, some situationships develop into established relationships of commitment, but usually with shared levels of investment and desire for commitment.
Uncoupling Cost-Benefit
Langlais et al. note that differences in relational investment, insignificant communication about the future, and lower relational prioritization increased the “costs” of the relationship, potentially jeopardizing the chances of future commitment. They also note what many ex-partners have identified after the breakup as reasons for the dissolution, that partners who were disinterested in forming an official relationship opted to end a situationship when costs were high, which also reflects principles of social exchange theory. Accordingly, we can imagine the fear of losing a casual dating partner no doubt dissuades many people in situationships from ever having “the talk.”
Emotion Matters
Langlais et al. note that despite the fact that situationships represent a middle ground between commitment and friends-with-benefits, they often generate more emotional benefits than sexual benefits. This is good news for daters who are falling in love with a dating partner and would like to move the relationship forward. Langlais et al. suggest that open, consistent communication about emotional characteristics of a situationship can enhance relationship satisfaction, whether within the situationship or beyond.
As a practical matter, genuine interest, attention, and respect paired with positive communication create a nonthreatening, healthy environment to explore the possibility of moving a situationship toward a committed relationship.
