TL;DR
Get gifts for the two of you delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
A Gottman Institute article uses relationship research to examine whether trust can grow in an undefined relationship, while stressing that trust and commitment are different. The research discussed offers a lens, not a direct study of situationships, and time together alone does not establish where a couple stands.
The Gottman Institute has published an article examining whether a situationship can build trust without clear commitment, using its relationship frameworks and outside research to consider the difference. The institute says it has not specifically studied situationships, so the article offers a way to think about the issue rather than evidence that defines how such relationships develop.
The article follows Dana, a person five months into an undefined relationship. She knows the man’s work schedule, his sister’s name and which side of the bed he sleeps on. He responds to her messages and once drove across town when her car would not start. But he has not introduced her to others in a defined role, and neither has asked what the relationship is. The account is an illustrative scenario in the article, not a reported research participant or an independently verified case.
The institute’s Sound Relationship House model treats trust and commitment as separate supports for a relationship. Trust involves believing that a partner has one’s interests in mind and will be there when needed. Commitment, by contrast, is expressed through words and actions that show a person is choosing to be in the relationship. The article argues that Dana’s experience contains signs that could support trust, but does not answer whether the man intends a committed relationship.
The article also draws on the Gottmans’ concept of “bids,” or small attempts to connect, and “turning towards” those bids by responding. It cites Love Lab findings that couples who remained happily married six years later turned towards each other’s bids 86% of the time; couples who later separated or stayed together unhappily did so 33% of the time. Those figures concern the couples in that research, not situationships, and do not establish what Dana’s relationship will become.
Trust Does Not Define Commitment
The distinction matters because everyday care can feel like evidence of a relationship while leaving its terms unspoken. Someone who responds reliably or offers practical help may be showing consideration; those actions alone do not establish that both people have agreed on exclusivity, a shared future or even the label they use for the relationship. The article’s central point is that closeness and commitment are not interchangeable.
That matters to readers trying to decide what to make of an undefined relationship. Counting months or caring gestures cannot, by itself, resolve whether two people want the same thing. The article instead directs attention to patterns of mutual interest and to whether each person has made a choice about the relationship. It also cautions against reading research about married or dating couples as a direct prediction for situationships.
For Dana, learning personal details is not the only relevant question. The article asks whether the other person is also learning about her and responding to her needs, and whether the pair has discussed where the relationship is going. Those questions shift the focus from elapsed time to reciprocity and clear communication, without treating any single answer as proof of how the relationship must proceed.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Research Behind the Lens
The Gottman Institute says its work spans more than four decades of research into relationships, but the source article explicitly says it has not studied situationships specifically. It applies concepts developed in other relationship settings, including the Sound Relationship House, Love Maps—the process of knowing details about a partner’s life—and the response to bids for connection. These concepts can frame questions about an undefined relationship; they cannot settle the status of any particular couple.
The article also discusses “sliding” and “deciding,” terms researchers Scott Stanley and Galena Rhoades use for moving into a relationship step without a deliberate choice versus choosing it explicitly. It cites the National Marriage Project report “Before I Do,” based on a survey of more than 1,000 American couples moving toward marriage. The report linked deliberate choices at transitions with better outcomes than sliding through them. Its population and subject were couples moving toward marriage, not people in situationships.
A 2025 study by Langlais and colleagues, published in Sexuality & Culture, is more directly about situationships. It began with interviews of 10 people aged 18 to 30 who were in or had recently left one, then surveyed 89 college students about 109 situationship experiences. The article reports that emotional investment, future-oriented conversations and feeling prioritized were each associated with higher satisfaction and stronger commitment. The study was a snapshot of a mostly female, college-aged sample, so it cannot show how these relationships change over time.
“A bid is “the fundamental unit of emotional communication.””
— The Gottman Institute, describing Dr. John Gottman’s definition
couples communication and trust cards
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
What the Evidence Cannot Establish
The research cited does not establish whether time in a situationship generally leads to trust, commitment or a defined partnership. The 2025 study captures participants’ experiences at one point; the marriage-related research examines a different group and relationship stage. The Gottman Institute itself says it has not conducted research specifically on situationships. As a result, the evidence cannot predict Dana’s outcome or show that a particular pattern of texting, help or shared knowledge has one fixed meaning.
The article’s Dana narrative is an example, not a documented case study. It also does not provide information about the man’s intentions, whether he sees the connection differently, or whether the two have discussed exclusivity or future plans. The source material does not state the article’s publication date, and it gives no follow-up on Dana’s conversation. Those details remain unknown.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
A Conversation, Not a Calendar
The article suggests that an uncertain partner can raise the issue through a softened start-up: describe a feeling, identify the specific situation and state a positive need. Rather than opening with an accusation such as “You never tell me what we are,” the example says the person feels nervous, notes that the future has not been discussed and asks whether the other person sees the relationship going somewhere. This is a communication approach, not a guarantee of a particular response.
For Dana, the immediate next step in the article’s scenario is a conversation that could clarify what each person wants. The source does not say whether she has had it or what the man would say. Until the people involved discuss their expectations, the meaning of the relationship remains unsettled; more time may bring more familiarity, but the article presents no evidence that time alone will define their commitment.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Key Questions
What does the article mean by a situationship?
It describes a relationship with closeness but without clear agreements or a shared label. People may use the word for different situations, from an early stage before a relationship is defined to a longer-lasting undefined connection.
Can trust grow without a defined relationship?
The article says trust and commitment are distinct, and that actions such as showing up may be signs of trust. It does not establish that trust will lead to commitment or that situationships generally develop in one direction.
Does spending more time together show that a relationship is progressing?
Not on its own. The article argues that time can build familiarity but cannot answer where two people stand unless they communicate and make choices about the relationship.
What evidence does the article cite about situationships?
It cites a 2025 study involving interviews with 10 people aged 18 to 30 and a survey of 89 college students about 109 situationship experiences. The study linked emotional investment, future-oriented conversations and feeling prioritized with higher satisfaction and stronger commitment, but its snapshot design cannot show how relationships change over time.
How does the article suggest asking where things stand?
It describes a softened start-up: share how the uncertainty feels, name the fact that the future has not been discussed, and ask what the other person wants. The suggested wording is an example, not a guarantee that the conversation will produce agreement.
Source: rss
Halloween Picks
halloween
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
