# Situationship or Relationship? How to Find Out
> Half of under-35s have been in one. Here is why undefined relationships persist, what the ambiguity actually costs you, and how to end it in one conversation.
Written by Ahmet Abiç (Founding editor). Reviewed by Noah Cortez (Stanford Journalism Program). Published August 18, 2026.
Source: https://gritwright.com/social/situationship/
---
import Figure from '../../../components/Figure.astro';
import ResearchNote from '../../../components/ResearchNote.astro';
import PressNote from '../../../components/PressNote.astro';
import dtrSofa from '../../../assets/guides/social/dtr-sofa.webp';
import dtrWaiting from '../../../assets/guides/social/dtr-waiting.webp';
Four months in. You see each other most weeks, you have met one or two of their friends, and if somebody asked you to describe what this is you would need three sentences and a disclaimer.
The advice you will find on this is almost entirely people telling you what a situationship is, as though the problem were vocabulary. The problem is not vocabulary. It is that there are specific, documented reasons why an undefined thing stays undefined, and knowing them changes what you do about it.
## The short answer
The default outcome of not asking is not clarity later. It is more of this.
| The part people get wrong | What is actually going on |
| --- | --- |
| How common | Half of US adults aged 18 to 34 say they have been in one |
| Why it persists | People are biased towards continuing relationships, not resolving them |
| What it actually costs | Uncertainty itself drives the stress response, more than a bad answer would |
| Why waiting feels right | Your read on the thing moves day to day, so certainty never arrives |
| What ends it | One conversation, opened with your own position rather than a question |
## How common this actually is
Before treating this as a personal failure, it is worth [seeing the size of it](https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/48492-half-of-18-to-34-aged-americans-have-been-in-a-situationship), because the shape of the modern early relationship is genuinely different from the one most advice was written for.
YouGov polled 1,110 American adults on situationships, defining one as a romantic connection in a grey area, **neither strictly platonic nor officially a committed relationship.**
**Two in five Americans (39%) said they had been in one.** Among **18 to 34 year olds that rose to 50%.**
On how they start, the answer is less online than the discourse assumes: **55% began in person.** Social media initiated 17% overall and **29% among 18 to 34 year olds**, while dating apps started 7%.
Half of your age group. Which means this is not a thing that happens to people who chose badly, it is the default shape of an early connection when nobody says anything.
It also means the person on the other side has almost certainly been here too, which matters when you get to the part about asking. You are not introducing an exotic concept into their life.
## Why it persists, and it is not that they are stringing you along
The most useful research finding on this subject is not about situationships at all. It is about [a general bias in how people make relationship decisions](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8597186/), and once you see it the whole thing makes sense.
The authors challenge the standard picture of dating as a test phase in which people carefully evaluate each other for long-term fit. That picture, they argue, **assumes people are well equipped to reject poorly suited partners**, and the evidence says they are not.
They review evidence for **a progression bias**: a systematic tilt towards decisions that favour **the initiation, advancement and maintenance** of romantic relationships, present from the moment any romantic interest develops rather than only once commitment is high.
Their summary of what the bias explains: **why getting into a relationship is often easier than getting out of one, and why being in a less desirable relationship is often preferred to being in no relationship at all.**
Among the mechanisms they catalogue: relationship investments create barriers to leaving, concern for the other person's feelings creates barriers to leaving, fear of being single creates barriers to leaving, and breakup decisions tend to be **deliberative and effortful** in a way that continuing is not.
That last line is the whole thing. Continuing requires no decision. Ending requires a decision. So in any situation where nobody is forced to decide, the outcome is continuation, and it will look from the inside like a choice both people are making when it is actually the absence of one.
This should change how you read the other person's behaviour. The standard interpretation of a partner who will not define things is that they are keeping options open at your expense, and sometimes that is true. Far more often, the same bias is operating on them: they have not decided to stop, deciding is effortful, and the current arrangement requires nothing.
Neither reading gets you out. Both point at the same move, which is that someone has to introduce a decision, because the system will not produce one by itself.
## The ambiguity is the expensive part
People delay this conversation because they are afraid of the answer. There is [good experimental evidence](https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms10996) that the answer is not the thing hurting them.
Forty-five participants learned a probabilistic link between images and painful electric shocks, where the probabilities shifted unpredictably over time. **Subjective stress ratings, pupil diameter and skin conductance all tracked the evolution of uncertainty**, and salivary cortisol confirmed the stressor was working.
The key structural finding: **uncertainty is highest when the estimated probability of the bad outcome is around 50%**, following an inverted U. Stress responses were tuned to that, not to how bad the outcome was.
Participants were also **slowest to make decisions under conditions of maximal uncertainty**, a correlation the authors report at r = 0.99.
The state that maximises the stress response is not "this is going badly." It is "it is about even." Which is the precise description of a relationship nobody has defined, and it explains something people find confusing about their own reaction: why four months of a pleasant undefined thing can leave you more depleted than a clean rejection did.
The second finding is the harder one to read about yourself. People were slowest to decide when uncertainty was highest, meaning the state that most demands a decision is the state that most impairs making one. That is not a character flaw. It is a documented feature of how humans behave under uncertainty, and it is why this conversation tends to get postponed for months by people who are perfectly decisive about everything else.
## Sliding, not deciding
There is a related line of research on what happens when couples move through relationship transitions without deciding to, and [one recent study](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12636531/) is worth quoting carefully, including its own caveat.
Researchers followed **485 adults who moved in with a partner**, surveyed across up to 11 waves between 2007 and 2012, and asked what their reasons for moving in had been.
**Moving in to spend more time together predicted better relationship functioning afterwards.** Moving in **to test the relationship predicted worse functioning and a higher likelihood of it ending.** Moving in out of convenience predicted neither.
The authors are careful about causation, and so is this article: their conclusion is that **reasons for cohabitation appear to reflect pre-existing relationship quality rather than to impact it.** The reason is a symptom, not a cause.
Read as a symptom rather than a cause, it is still useful, and it applies well beyond moving in.
"Let us see where this goes" is the situationship equivalent of moving in to test the relationship. It is not the cause of the problem. It is the visible sign that neither person is currently choosing this, and in the cohabitation data that state of affairs was the one associated with worse outcomes.
The distinction worth carrying is between drifting into things and deciding on them. It applies to defining a relationship, to sleeping together, to meeting each other's people, to moving in later. None of those improve because they happened without discussion. They just become harder to reverse, which is exactly what the progression bias research predicts.
## Waiting until you are sure is waiting on a moving number
The most common reason people give for not asking yet is that they are not certain how they feel. [A German study from Mainz](https://presse.uni-mainz.de/beziehungszufriedenheit-kann-im-verlauf-weniger-tage-und-selbst-waehrend-eines-tages-deutlich-schwanken/) published last year says something inconvenient about that.
Two studies, one of **593 couples** and one of **150 couples**, collected reports of relationship satisfaction daily and several times within a single day.
The finding: satisfaction **fluctuates markedly over a few days and even within one day**, with larger swings across days than within them.
Lead author Louisa Scheling's framing is that these fluctuations are normal, and that they can also point to unmet needs in the relationship, which makes them a signal to communicate about rather than a verdict to act on.
That was measured in established couples, not in undefined ones, and the transfer is an inference rather than a finding. But the inference is not a wild one: if the satisfaction of settled couples moves this much day to day, the read you are taking on a four-month-old ambiguous thing is not a stable instrument either.
Which means "I will ask when I am sure" is a plan that has no completion condition. You will be sure on a Tuesday and unsure on the Thursday, and the four months become eight.
The practical substitute is a different trigger. Not certainty about the person, which is not available, but a judgment about the arrangement: is the not-knowing costing you something. If it is, the conversation is due, regardless of how you happen to feel about them this week.
## What you are actually asking for
Before the conversation, it is worth being precise with yourself about what you want, because "are we a thing" bundles together three separate questions and people routinely get an answer to one while thinking they got an answer to another.
**Exclusivity** is about whether either of you is seeing other people. It is a factual arrangement, it can be agreed in one sentence, and it is the one most people actually mean when they raise this.
**A label** is about what you call it to other people. It sounds like the trivial one and it is not, because a label is a public commitment and public commitments behave differently from private ones. Telling their friends you are their boyfriend costs something to undo, which is precisely why it means something.
**Commitment** is about intent for the future, and it is the slowest of the three. It is also the one nobody can honestly give you at four months, and asking for it directly tends to produce either a lie or a panic.
The research literature that the progression bias review draws on makes a related distinction that is useful here, between dedication, meaning wanting a future with this person, and constraint, meaning the accumulated costs of leaving. Investments, shared possessions, entangled friend groups and simple time all raise constraint whether or not dedication follows. The reason to ask early is that constraint accumulates on its own and dedication does not.
So decide which of the three you are asking about, ask for that one, and do not let the answer to the easy one stand in for the hard one. Agreeing to be exclusive is not the same as agreeing to be together, and a great many people have discovered that six months later.
## The version where you are the one avoiding it
Most writing on this assumes the reader is the person who wants more. It is worth staying with the other case for a moment, because half the situationships in that YouGov figure have someone on the other side of them, and the research says something uncomfortable about how that position is usually arrived at.
The [progression bias review](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8597186/) lists, among the barriers that keep people in relationships they are not choosing, **concern for the partner's feelings**. Not cynicism, not strategy. Not wanting to hurt someone is one of the documented mechanisms by which people stay in something they have privately stopped wanting.
If that is you, the honest thing to notice is that the kindness is not working as kindness. The other person is not being spared anything by the ambiguity, they are being placed in the exact state the stress research says is the most costly one available, and they are paying for it in a currency you do not see.
There is also a self-interested case. An undefined arrangement that you are maintaining out of reluctance to end it is consuming the time and attention you would otherwise be spending on something you actually want. The constraint side keeps accumulating for you too.
What to do about it is simple to say and unpleasant to do. Say the true thing, once, kindly and without a long preamble, and accept that the discomfort belongs to you rather than being something to be distributed over the next several months. [Saying no without starting a fight](/social/how-to-say-no/) is the general skill here and it is worth building before you need it.
## How to actually ask
The mechanics matter more than people expect, because most attempts fail in the same two ways: they are launched at the wrong moment, and they ask a question instead of stating a position.
**Say what you want first.** "So what are we?" hands the entire question to the other person while revealing nothing, which is why the usual answer is a shrug. The version that works puts your position on the table and then asks for theirs.
**Pick a moment with room after it.** Not as you are leaving, not at the end of a night out, not by text at midnight. Early in an evening, sober, somewhere you can keep talking afterwards, because whatever the answer is you will both want somewhere to put it.
**Ask once and let it be answered.** The temptation, when the reply is vague, is to soften the question until it disappears. Repeating it in a smaller form teaches the other person that vagueness works.
**Do not build a case.** This is not a negotiation and there is no evidence to present. Naming what you want and asking what they want is the whole conversation.
**Have a position on the answer before you ask.** Know what you will do if they say no, or say they are not ready, because otherwise you will hear whatever version of the answer is easiest to keep going on.
## What to say, more or less
You do not need a script and it will not sound like you if it is one. What follows is the shape, not the wording.
Open with the true positive thing, because it usually is true and because it makes clear this is not an ultimatum. "I have really liked the last few months."
Then say what you want in plain terms. Not "I was wondering if maybe we could be a bit more official at some point." Something answerable: "I would like this to be an actual relationship."
Then ask, once, and stop talking. "Where are you with that?"
The silence after that will be uncomfortable and you should let it run. Most people fill it, and what they fill it with is the answer.
## What the answers mean
There are effectively four, and only one of them is ambiguous in a way worth tolerating.
**Yes.** Straightforward, and the thing to do is agree what it changes in practice, because a label with no changes attached tends to dissolve back into the previous arrangement.
**No, I want to keep it as it is.** Also clear, and it is information you asked for. What follows is your decision rather than a further negotiation.
**I am not ready.** This is the one people spend a year on. It is a real state, and it is also the standard way of declining without refusing. The way to test which one you are hearing is whether it comes with anything specific attached: something they are waiting on, something with a shape. If it comes with nothing, treat it as the answer it functionally is.
**Deflection.** A joke, a subject change, a "why are we doing labels." Deflection is an answer. Nobody who wants a relationship with you responds to being offered one by changing the subject.
## If the answer is not the one you wanted
The progression bias research has one more thing to say here, and it is not comfortable.
Getting out is harder than staying, for reasons that are motivational, cognitive and biological rather than rational. Concern for their feelings, the investment already made, and plain fear of being single all pull in the same direction, and they will all feel like good judgment at the time.
Knowing that the pull exists is most of the defence. When you find yourself constructing a reason why staying in an arrangement you have just been told will not change is actually the sensible option, you are watching a documented bias produce an argument, not reasoning your way to a conclusion.
The other thing worth holding on to is the finding at the centre of [what makes a relationship work](/social/what-makes-a-relationship-work/): what predicts a good relationship is much more about the pairing and much less about the individual than people assume. One person declining to make something of this says something about this combination, not about your prospects.
## What this does not fix
Defining a relationship changes its status, not its quality, and it is worth being precise about the difference.
It does not make an unsuitable person suitable. A label on the wrong thing produces a worse situation with a clearer name.
It does not stop the underlying uncertainty of early relationships, which is real and unavoidable. What it removes is the specific, gratuitous uncertainty of not knowing what the other person thinks, which is the kind you can end with a sentence.
It does not tell you whether to stay, which is a harder question and gets its own guide.
And it will not always go your way. About half the people your age have been through this, which means a lot of them have had the conversation and heard something they did not want. The alternative on offer is not a better answer. It is the same answer, later, after more of the thing the research says is costing you most.