“We’re Just Talking”: Constructing a Recent Trend in Emerging Adult Romantic Relationship Development

Relationship Exploration during Emerging Adulthood

Since the 1970s the median age at first marriage has been continually increasing and is now ∼30 for men and 28 for women in the United States (Julian, Citation2022), with same-gender couples experiencing their first marriage in their mid-to-late thirties on average (Payne & Manning, Citation2021). The increase in the gap between turning eighteen and first marriage creates a longer period of romantic and sexual exploration (see Olmstead, Citation2020 for a review) before moving into adult roles (Arnett, Citation2024). Many emerging adults see this as time to figure out who they are, experience the world independently, and become economically stable before establishing committed relationships (Arnett, Citation2000, Citation2024). Not surprisingly, emerging adults who have casual sexual experiences (especially those attending college) report they are too busy for commitment and feel too young to be tied down (Lyons et al., Citation2014; Olmstead, Citation2020). Indeed, recent research findings indicate a positive association between holding a later ideal age at first marriage with collegiate emerging adults’ likelihood of engaging in casual sex (Allison & Risman, Citation2017). Contemporary emerging adults report a high acceptability of premarital sex and cohabitation (Barraso, Citation2019; Horowitz et al., Citation2019), and an increased prevalence of casual sexual relationships and experiences (Olmstead, Citation2020). Accordingly, many emerging adults experience multiple relationships of varying types (Arnett, Citation2024) along the way to eventually finding a long-term partner (Willoughby & James, Citation2017).

This shift in the timing of marriage and family formation (Arnett, Citation2024) along with social and economic pressures to balance the desire for a long-term committed relationship and successful career (Shulman & Connolly, Citation2013) has led to increased diversity in casual relationship types and pathways to forming more committed relationships, increasing the potential for ambiguity and mismatched expectations (see Wentland & Reissing, Citation2014 for a review). Without a conscious effort to define their relationship status, the ongoing ambiguity increases the chances that one person assumes the relationship is monogamous, committed, or leading to a long-term relationship, while the other person does not (asymmetrical relationships; Stanley, Citation2016). This asymmetry can create greater conflict and aggression in romantic relationships (Stanley, Citation2016). Relatedly, the more uncertain a person is about their own or partner’s participation in the relationship, the less likely they are to talk about the status of the relationship, thus increasing uncertainty, turbulence, and distress (Abimosleh & Whitton, Citation2020; Knobloch and Theiss, Citation2011). Clarifying and defining the status of a romantic relationship may be more challenging for emerging adults who often have less structured communication (Knopp et al., Citation2020) and for sexual and gender minorities who may face social stigma for formalizing their relationships (Abimosleh & Whitton, Citation2020).

Emerging Adult Casual and Sexual Relationships and Experiences

Emerging adult participation in casual sexual relationships and experiences is quite common with around 70% of college students reporting they have hooked up (e.g., Olmstead et al., Citation2013) or had “physically intimate encounters between two individuals who are not in a defined, committed romantic relationship” (Olmstead, Citation2020, p. 780). Accordingly, hooking up is currently considered a normative behavior (e.g., Holman & Sillars, Citation2012) and is associated with a range of feelings, including empowerment, attractiveness, and excitement (Olmstead et al., Citation2013), as well as psychological distress (Napper et al., Citation2015). For the LGBTQ community, casual sexual behaviors have also been associated with reduced minority stress and increased connectedness to the LGBTQ community (Jaffe et al., Citation2021). Similarly, friends-with-benefits are defined as friends who engage in regular sexual behaviors with each other (Bisson & Levine, Citation2009; Lehmiller et al., Citation2014). These relationships are also common during emerging adulthood (e.g., Arnett, Citation2024) and may evolve into a romantic relationship, but this interest is rarely communicated (Owen & Fincham, Citation2011, Citation2012), which may explain why friends with benefits report worse communication about sexual activities, lower sexual satisfaction, and less satisfaction with the friendship component of their relationship than partners in committed relationships (Lehmiller et al., Citation2014). Hooking up and friends-with-benefits experiences may serve as a sort of try-out for partners and relationships (Jonason, Citation2013; Mongeau et al., Citation2013).

Just talking may have similarities to hooking up and friends-with-benefits, especially since all are off-the-record relationship phases where communication is considered less important or necessary (Knight, Citation2014). Although researchers have only begun exploring just talking in romantic relationship formation, Powell et al. (Citation2021) found that 88% of their college students and 50% of a broader emerging adult sample knew of the term “talking,” indicating it is well-integrated into emerging adults’ social constructions of sexual and relationship experiences. In the same sample, emerging adults rated just talking as in-between a friends-with-benefits relationship and dating in terms of levels of emotional intimacy, passion, commitment, and seriousness (Powell et al., Citation2021).

Accordingly, the primary purpose of just talking may not be sexual exploration since Powell et al. (Citation2021) found that emerging adults perceive there to be less physical intimacy in just talking situations than either friends-with-benefits or dating dynamics. Alternatively, emerging adults may perceive just talking as an early relationship development stage to a greater extent than hooking up and friends-with-benefits interactions. Scollo and Poutiainen (Citation2019) found that emerging adults in Finland described the goal of “talking” as getting to know the other person to assess the potential for a romantic relationship. Additionally, Twenge’s (Citation2017) iGen, references a “talking” phase, or an initial stage of romantic relationship development preceding dating. Although just talking may have a similar purpose to courtship activities from previous decades, such as “calling” on someone to get to know them before officially becoming a couple, just talking may represent a divergence from these past conceptualizations of courtship due to the intentional ambiguity around norms and definitions of just talking that is facilitated by technology (Wasserman, Citation2023).

Further, perceptions of the purpose and norms for just talking may be influenced by sexual and relationship scripts for people who identify as men and women (Arnett, Citation2024). Although there has been a movement toward more egalitarian expectations, traditional binary gendered scripts may still limit diverse expression and accurate expectations in the early stages of relationship formation for men and women in different-gender (e.g., Cameron & Curry, Citation2019) and same-gender relationships (e.g., Siegel & Meunier, Citation2019). While traditional gender scripts may also influence gender diverse emerging adults, their experiences with just talking may also be affected by stigma, trauma, and minority stress specific to sexual and relationship experiences (Dolezal et al., Citation2023). Although the majority of emerging adult men and women who identify as heterosexual, gay, or lesbian hold high expectations for getting married (Meslay et al., Citation2024; Willoughby, Citation2021; Willoughby & James, Citation2017). Meslay et al. (Citation2024) found that this expectation was not held by the majority of youth (15–21 years old) who identified as genderqueer or other genders, not on the gender binary.

Emerging Adults’ Technology Use in Relationship Development

Emerging adults use technology to initiate, maintain, and terminate romantic relationships of all types; therefore, the psychological, communicative, and relational effects of this form of communication become important for researchers to explore (LeFebvre, Citation2018; Olmstead, Citation2020; Rosenfeld, Citation2017). Approximately 95% of 18–34-year-olds own a smartphone (Silver, Citation2019) and 90% of emerging adults are social media users (Pew Research Center, Citation2019). Accordingly, emerging adults’ avid use of smartphones and social media has transformed the fundamental expression of relationships (e.g., Hetsroni et al., Citation2019; Parks, Citation2017). Specifically, constant access to social media has changed the way emerging adults date (Digital Trends Staff, Citation2016) with adoption of online dating higher among 18–24-year-olds than any other age group (Pew Research Center, Citation2020). LeFebvre (Citation2018) argued that technology-mediated communication modifies and mediates relationship development and partner interactions. Specifically, younger adults and LGB partners are more likely than other groups to use social media to demonstrate care for their partner and keep up with their partner’s life (Pew Research Center, Citation2020). This multimodal mediated communication blurs boundaries and may minimize emerging adults’ ability to navigate communication about the status of their developing romantic and intimate relationships, especially when they are just talking.

Participants

Participants (N = 52) were emerging adults from two large midwestern public universities (one in a small rural city and the other in a large metropolitan area) recruited through class announcements and fliers indicating that participants would be participating in a study about commitment and romantic relationship formation: “Even before entering a dating relationship many young single adults enter a pre-dating phase, which is often very ambiguous. The purpose of this study is to explore the trend of ‘just talking’ and how this impacts romantic relationship formation.” Undergraduate emerging adults self-selected into focus groups for women (n = 29) and men (n = 23) to attend to potential gendered dating scripts (Lamont, Citation2021) and create a balance between homogeneity, heterogeneity, as well as the diversity of experience and perceptions in the groups (Krueger & Casey, Citation2009).

Participants were not required to have engaged in just talking themselves (all participants disclosed familiarity with just talking through direct experience or witnessing close friend or sibling relationships) to reduce selection bias of people who already believed just talking was an important part of romantic relationship progression. The groups ranged from four to eight (Mdn = 6) participants. Participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 28 (M = 20.81, SD = 1.94). About 75% of participants identified as White, 15% as Hispanic, 8% as African American, and 2% as Asian American. Relationship status data was only available for participants at University 2, of which 3.8% were currently dating nonexclusively, 65.4% were dating exclusively, 3.8% were engaged, and the remaining were single. All participants in relationships at University 2 were currently in man/women relationships (see Table 1). Participant data on gender, sexual orientation, relationship history, and religiosity were not collected.

Procedures

To participate in the study, participants selected a focus group time in either a men’s or women’s focus group. The participants arrived at a conference room to complete an informed consent and short demographics survey before the focus group commenced. Focus groups were facilitated by graduate and undergraduate students with a man and woman facilitator at each focus group. Participants were provided with $15 restaurant gift cards for their participation.

Each focus group followed a semi-structured guide. To commence the discussion, facilitators provided a brief overview about how romantic relationships form and suggested that just talking is a new trend among emerging adults. This prompt helped to initiate discussion and introduce the first question: “How would you personally define the term just talking as it relates to romantic relationships?” Other questions asked participants to consider “Why do you think people get involved in just talking?” and “How does technology play a role in just talking?” “In your opinion, is commitment an element of a just talking relationship?” Throughout the discussion, facilitators asked follow-up and probing questions to seek clarity. The focus group discussions averaged 67 min (SD = 6.04) in length. At the discussion conclusion, member checking occurred in which the facilitator and co-facilitator asked the participants what they believed were some themes from their focus group discussion. These themes were written on a whiteboard and considered during the analysis. This member checking process occurred to help provide validity to the results.

Analysis

The audio data was transcribed, de-identified, and verified through the video data to ensure transcripts were accurate before analysis, resulting in 278 pages of data (or 104,058 total words). The transcripts were analyzed using a constructivist grounded theory approach that emphasizes individuals’ definitions, meanings, and actions to highlight overall individual ideologies and beliefs (Charmaz, Citation2006, Citation2009, Citation2014; Creswell, Citation2007) to inform a theoretical foundation for understanding the purpose of just talking in emerging adult coupling practices. The secondary coders were not involved in any of the data collection processes to ensure a fresh and non-biased evaluation of the data. This was one of the steps taken to ensure the validity and trustworthiness of the results.

The coders were all in their early 20s and consisted of one Latino, one Asian American, and the rest were white. All the coders knew of just talking and some experienced it themselves. Three graduate (three women) and three undergraduate (two women and one man) students were trained in initial and focused coding techniques from constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, Citation2006, Citation2014) and analyzed each focus group transcript. The coding process of sifting, sorting, and grouping codes according to categories and themes consistent with constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, Citation2014). Codes were grouped into categories based on the research questions.

Coders independently read over all transcript responses and listened to the focus group audio through several iterations until they had become immersed in participant responses. Then they coded the data for themes whereby, a detailed word-by-word, line-by-line data evaluation of the data began (see Charmaz, Citation2006, Citation2014). The coders were asked to write memos on the side of the focus group transcripts and on separate pieces of paper in both the initial and focused coding phases. Charmaz (Citation2006) clarified the importance of memo-writing when she said, “Memos catch your thoughts, capture the comparisons and connections you make, and crystallize questions and directions for you to pursue. Memo-writing creates an interactive space for conversing with yourself about your data, codes, ideas, and hunches” (p. 72). Themes and substantive significance of data were determined through analyst triangulation (Creswell, Citation2014; Patton, Citation2002). After coders performed initial coding, they met as a coding team to discuss and reflect on the initial codes they identified. Coders were then assigned to construct focused codes based on the discussion about initial codes. Once the coders had reached consensus, the coders met with the primary researchers who had also analyzed the transcripts to discuss the themes found across all coding teams for each research question, again using analyst triangulation to draw inductive conclusions about the emergent themes pertaining to the scope of the entire study as we examined themes across all research questions.

Positionality

As a student-led project, the focus group facilitators and six coding team members were undergraduate and graduate students from family science and couple and family therapy programs with a range of exposure to the idea of just talking to include a spectrum of insider and outsider perspectives on the phenomenon. Facilitator and coding team members represented members from both marginalized and majority racial/ethnic groups and religions (ranging from socially liberal to socially conservative). Authors on the paper include former facilitators for the project plus several additional authors who have been advisors on the project. The authors are all romantic relationship scholars and represent a range of perspectives on relationship development, several with expertise in gender and sexual minority populations. The authors of this paper are cisgender men and women in their 30s and 40s and are familiar with just talking, and one author had previously engaged in just talking.

How Do Emerging Adult Men and Women Conceptualize Just Talking?

The participants explained that just talking is a (1) pre-dating stage that is characterized by (2) ambiguity about commitment and an (3) unofficial romantic label that allows emerging adults space for carefully wading into the dating pool.

Reasons for Just Talking

Participants described a range of reasons they believed people engaged in just talking relationships that included both trying to avoid negative outcomes and promote positive outcomes for their personal well-being and relationships. Interestingly, some participants felt external (4) pressure to keep their options open, while others engaged in just talking to (5) protect themselves from rejection or (6) test the waters to assess whether the relationship was worth investing in long-term. Participants also expressed that some people get stuck in the just talking stage because they (7) avoid defining the relationship which can harm both partners.

Role of Technology in Just Talking

Participants repeatedly stated that technology was a primary reason and foundational aspect of just talking: As one participant explained, “I think just talking is almost here because of technology.” Another participant stated, “the foundation of just talking is social media.” Other participants explained how technology (e.g., smart phones, social media) has changed romantic relationship formation:

Just Talking as Pre-Dating

Although courtship behaviors designed to get to know someone before officially dating have occurred for decades, Wasserman (Citation2023) proposed that just talking is a fundamental shift in the processes by which people get to know each other facilitated by technological advancement. Participants in our study overwhelmingly defined just talking as a pre-dating activity designed to screen potential romantic or sexual partners better before becoming more intimate or committed. Participants also noted how technology is an essential medium that facilitates the specific behaviors and ambiguity associated with just talking. Notably, many participants in our study discussed the intentionality behind just talking—it is distinct from hooking and friends with benefits with the primary goal of figuring out what kind of relationship they want with each other. Similarly, Wasserman et al. (Citation2022) found that emerging adults in their focus groups distinguished just talking from college hookup culture due to the potential for a serious emotional connection vs. hooking up, which is based on casual sexual interactions without deeper connection.

Based on participants responses, just talking appears to be the extended process that may precede defining the relationship or DTR (Knopp et al., Citation2020). Just talking has a lot of nuance and complexity to it that implies an ongoing screening and pre-dating process that arguably culminates in DTR. This longer process stands in contrast to descriptions of DTR as a single defining conversation. Also, unlike DTR, just talking has a fluidity where the intention to explore a potential relationship can involve sexual behaviors but is not necessary before DTR. Further research is needed to link just talking and DTR as our findings on just talking could inform understanding of the negative (i.e., more cheating in DTR relationship) and numerous positive (e.g., better relationship quality) associated with DTR conversations (Knopp et al., Citation2020). It could be that the dynamics during just talking have an impact on the later outcomes following a DTR conversation when emerging adults move into a more committed relationship (Busby et al., Citation2013).

Perhaps emerging adults use just talking as one way they safeguard themselves from the potential hurt of rejection that could result from more direct ways of initiating relationships (i.e., asking someone out, going on dates), to test the waters with potential partners, and to keep their options open as a way to avoid repeating the hurt they had experienced in past relationships. Emerging adults’ motivation to just talk to avoid hurt in romantic relationships is supported by research highlighting the impact romantic relationships can have on emerging adults’ well-being and mental health (Gomez-Lopez et al., Citation2019). Further research is needed to understand the beliefs and behaviors associated with just talking that may impact emerging adults’ mental health and later romantic relationship quality and stability.

This fear of hurt from romantic relationships may stem from a history of familial divorce (Willoughby et al., Citation2020). Although many emerging adults strongly value and desire marriage (Willoughby, Citation2021), they may be hesitant to make the commitment due to exposure to their parent’s relationship instability (Amato & Patterson, Citation2017). In this way, participant responses suggest that just talking may enable emerging adults to slow down the process of getting to know each other and provide more time to evaluate whether a potential partner is worth the risk of emotional attachment. Participants descriptions of testing the waters and keeping their options open support that emerging adults are motivated to be intentional about who they commit to, due to witnessing divorce in their own families. It is important for future research to explore variations in definitions of, and motivations to engage in, just talking based on factors, such as age, gender, sexual orientation, and culture in larger diverse quantitative samples. For example, research has identified specific ways emerging adults’ hookup motives differ based on sexual orientation and community context (Snapp et al., Citation2024).

Ambiguity and Commitment During Just Talking

Stanley and Rhoades (Citation2009) proposed that commitment is an antidote to the anxiety of relationship uncertainty, and the results from our focus groups aligned with this idea. Although participants described just talking as a purposefully ambiguous stage, they did not expect that ambiguity to last and described the micro-steps toward commitment or dissolution that may occur. Participants largely agreed that just talking partners first commit to put in the effort to just talk, often beginning with texting or communicating through social media and apps followed by hanging out in person as a desire to pursue a relationship increases. Participants also reported considering how many people a person was just talking to as a reflection of whether they were seriously considering a person for a relationship or not. Participants’ responses were mixed regarding whether they only ever talked to just one person at a time or whether they talked to several people before committing to exploring a relationship’s potential with one person. This may reflect subjective personal ethical standards about how one should treat people, and perhaps more specifically people they are engaging with in early-stage casual romantic and sexual interactions.

Enacting these commitment steppingstones would require emerging adults to communicate their perception of the status of the relationship throughout the process of just talking or find alternative ways to evaluate the evolving commitment levels. For example, participants indicated that they kept their levels of commitment low and options open because its possible that the other person might be just talking to other people. This aligns with recent research on heterosexual relationship development highlighting how alternative monitoring (paying attention to romantic alternatives) and asymmetrical commitment (where one partner is more committed to the relationship than the other) are associated with increases in conflict, infidelity, and breakup (Ritchie et al., Citation2021; Stanley et al., Citation2017). Participants discussed the evolution of commitment and reduction in anxiety as people spent more time together and evaluated the relationship potential, culminating the just talking phase with moving into a formal relationship with official language (e.g., dating, boyfriend, girlfriend, partner) or ending it. Further research is needed to explore heterogeneity in the indicators emerging adults use to assess whether the just talking phase is progressing toward a romantic relationship or dissolution across demographic groups.

Just Talking as an Alternative to Dating

Counter to our expectations, participants reported messages from multiple sources that they should not be dating or engaging in committed relationships during emerging adulthood, potentially reflecting larger cultural norms for college students that this is a time for exploration and self-focused development (e.g., Konstam, Citation2019). Additionally, as mobility increases and young people become less tied to social support structures, the dominant cultural ideology that it is necessary to find “the one” or their “soulmate” to be happy (Arnett, Citation2024; Wilcox & Dew, Citation2010) may make the task of finding a long-term committed relationship feel daunting. Accordingly, just talking may be seen as an acceptable means of screening potential partners for soulmate material before investing in a more committed relationship stage that might end. We present these hypotheses cautiously as previous research has found cultural differences in the centering of romantic relationships and marriage in adult life by college attendance, racial-ethnic identity, religiosity, sexual orientation, and gender identity (e.g., Cherlin, Citation2020; Ueker, Citation2014). Accordingly, more research is needed to identify the diverse social messages that encourage and discourage just talking for emerging adults from diverse backgrounds.

While many emerging adults may manage the normative anxiety associated with beginning relationships by increasing efforts to carefully screen potential partners and transition into relationships with intentional evaluation, our results indicate that others may seek to perpetually stay in just talking relationships and avoid labeling these relationships indefinitely. Participants mentioned several negative impacts of this sliding instead of deciding through just talking (i.e., moving through relationship transitions without fully considering the implications vs. deliberative evaluation of relationship transitions for alignment with goals and values; see Stanley et al., Citation2006), including lost opportunity to find alternative partners who may be a better fit, feelings of betrayal if partners’ motivations for just talking were misaligned and undisclosed, and avoidance of clarifying commitment by people too afraid they will get hurt if they try.

The extent to which partners are motivated to remain in an ambiguously defined relationship may be driven, in part, by feeling less romantically attached to their partner (Stanley et al., Citation2010). Specifically, anxious attachment can be defined as being distrustful of a relationship while also continually yearning for further closeness with a partner, whereas people demonstrating avoidant attachment yearn for closeness with a partner but fear becoming too close and therefore do not easily express warmth, affection, or love (Shaver et al., Citation1988). For example, partners who just talk to “lessen the blow” may feel insecure in their relationships and thus avoid clarifying ambiguity and transitioning to a more committed stage of the relationship to protect themselves from the heartache of a relationship ending that they have invested in and “avoid feeling vulnerable for a longer period of time.” For the anxiously attached individual, sustained relationship ambiguity may be threatening, but the fear of driving a partner away by their efforts to clarify the status of the relationship may prove a greater threat, especially if their just talking partner is avoidant (Stanley et al., Citation2010). More research is needed specifically exploring how attachment styles may be differentially associated with the various motivations driving just talking behaviors.

Unfortunately, based on our findings, although it may seem that a just talking has “all the perks of dating, but none of the consequences,” remaining in a just talking relationship without clear communication of intentions may leave others who yearn for more with “a broken heart” and feeling “played.” Additionally, although literature indicates that heterosexual and LQBTQ + partners may construct and define commitment in similar ways (see Pollitt et al., Citation2022), displays of commitment to a developing relationship may be a protective factor for emerging adults who experience minority stress due to marginalized identities they or their partners hold (e.g., Gamarel et al., Citation2019). Accordingly, more research is needed to understand common positive and negative psychosocial outcomes for diverse populations of emerging adults who engage in this process and the external (e.g., parental expectations, discrimination) and internal forces (e.g., attachment) that motivate emerging adults to stay in just talking relationships perpetually.

Technology Facilitates Just Talking

It was also clear our participants felt that multiple aspects of just talking have been shaped by the ubiquitous nature of technology in the lives of recent cohorts of emerging adults, thus reducing barriers to finding just talking partners, easing their anxiety over how to communicate, and making it easier to maintain just talking relationships. This aligns with recent research outlining how couples’ relationship commitment and intimacy are affected by technology with increased relationship intimacy emerging through these mediated communicative interactions (Campbell & Murray, Citation2015; Hertlein & Blumer, Citation2014). Specifically, anxiously attached individuals may benefit from the ability to take the time to craft their reactions to potential significant others through text or email to manage conflict and the image they are presenting (e.g., Sharabi & Dykstra-DeVette, Citation2019). Furthermore, the increased use of technology and social media may create an environment where screening processes for potential partners can take place more conveniently (Tokunaga, Citation2016).

Participants in our study also indicated that technology-mediated relationship development processes may also have some drawbacks, namely that the screening process may be based partially on superficial characteristics or an image of a person that is different from behavior partners can expect from each other face-to-face. Further, in line with the voices of our participants, some scholars have noted that having too many options for potential partners can make it more difficult to commit (Stanley, Citation2016) and can potentially lead individuals to feel overwhelmed, less content, and ultimately less satisfied (see Schwartz, Citation2016). Additionally, the ambiguity and potential for mixed agendas during just talking may require clear communication to navigate, which can be more difficult through technology-based communication (texting, Snapchat, Twitter, etc.), making it more difficult to clearly assess and communicate levels of intimacy and commitment. More research is needed on the use of mediated communication in just talking relationships and the evolution of technology use in relationships that progress to more emotionally intimate stages. Further research could identify more specifically how technology facilitates the various aspects of just talking relationships.

Strengths and Limitations

As one of the first studies to explore the role of just talking in the relationship development process of emerging adults, our qualitative approach allowed us to identify a range of characteristics and motivations for just talking from undergraduate emerging adults at a rural and urban university. Given these strengths, the results of the current study should be interpreted in the context of several limitations. First, the focus group method builds consensus which helped us arrive at a clear definition and conceptualization of why emerging adults may just talk but does not allow for in-depth exploration of diversity in individual or minority group experiences. Accordingly, since our sample is predominantly white, we focused on cisgender emerging adults and have limited information on other aspects of participants’ identities and experiences (e.g., sexual orientation, religiosity, relationship history), more research is needed to explore variability in just talking experiences and motivations for emerging adults form diverse backgrounds and identities. Additionally, although participants disclosed a wide range of relationship histories that informed their experience, more research is needed to identify how the number of past romantic partners, direct experience with just talking, and age at when they began dating influences emerging adults’ perceptions of just talking and relationship progression.

Accordingly, more exploration is to capture diversity in just talking conceptualizations and experiences since communication styles and beliefs about initiating romantic and sexual relationships may vary across and within cultural groups (i.e., emerging adults who identify with marginalized sexual, gender, racial, and ethnic groups; live in rural vs. urban contexts; are not enrolled in college; and engage in consensual non-monogamous relationships). Additionally, as technology use patterns change across time, research will be needed to understand the presence and role of just talking across the lifespan. More research is also needed with longitudinal or retrospective data to understand the impact of prior just talking experiences on subsequent mental and relationship health outcomes.

Implications

The results of our study have substantial implications for educators, clinicians, and other helping professionals serving emerging adults. First and foremost, our results offer a starting point for common language and understanding of just talking and its many components. For example, if an emerging adult in therapy mentions a current person they are talking to, the therapist may have a general understanding that this person may not be considered an exclusive partner, could presently be within a screening period with the client, and may be using a variety of mediums for connecting. Overtly discussing motivations and rational behind engaging in just talking patterns with others, may assist emerging adults to reduce ambiguity in their relational lives and thus provide clarity, purpose, and direction within their relational decision making. However, as indicated within the present study, with just talking being purposely ambiguous in many ways, we encourage helping professionals to assist emerging adults to clarify their purpose for just talking, expectations during just talking relationships, relationship assessment criteria, and how they can best communicate those expectations and their own levels of commitment to just talking partners.

Further, with ambiguity, frustration with desired outcomes, and other potentially troublesome dimensions of just talking, clinicians and emerging adult clients may find clarity in therapeutic modalities that promote authentic communication practices and problem solving. For example, Satir Experiential Family Therapy (SEFT; Satir & Baldwin, Citation1983) emphasizes effective communication practices to improve individual self-esteem while also improving connection, balance, problem solving, and trust within relationships. SEFT could be involved in helping coach an emerging adult to improve skills related to communication to assist them in more clearly offering intentions, desires, and needs within a given relationship (Ghanbari Hashemabadi et al., Citation2020). Additionally, SEFT offers a lucid map for clinicians and clients to add clarity, structure, and authenticity in relationships. More specifically, clinicians may find it beneficial to explore with clients engaging just talking relationships problematic communication styles, such as placating, blaming, computing, and distracting as well as the ramifications of such approaches. Further, by clinicians promoting congruent communication, as SEFT posits, it could potentially reduce the ambiguity that is often present in these types of relationships. Reducing the ambiguity may reduce stress and frustration while improving individual self-esteem and the likelihood of connection, satisfaction, and success within the relationship (Satir, Citation1988).

Other clinical modalities, such as Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Couples (Epstein & Baucom, Citation2000), Gottman Method Couples Therapy (Gottman Institute, Citation2024), and Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT; Johnson, Citation2004), could also be beneficial for those navigating the complexities of just talking as they emphasize unambiguous communication. Further, these approaches uniquely build individual confidence in oneself, a critical component in navigating just talking relationships. Lastly, these modalities value the individual and complex systems and relationships that the individual is a part of. This systemic understanding is important as it may help the emerging adult better explore their own unique needs and goals within a relationship and assist them in exploring and valuing others’ unique needs and goals.

Additionally, as commonly found in intake assessments (McHenry et al., Citation2018), results of the present study posit that a simple question regarding relationship status with answers, such as single, dating, engaged, or married may not sufficiently capture an individual’s present romantic relationship involvement. Many participants indicated that just talking being a place between single and in a dating relationship or “pre-dating” and can be occurring with multiple people, it may be advantageous for helping professionals to include just talking. The present study also offers expanded dimensions for helping professionals to consider when treating or serving emerging adults. For example, results indicated that many emerging adults engage in just talking behaviors to avoid commitment and/or rejection. For helping professionals treat mental or social health concerns it may be advantageous to understand how these reasons to engage in just talking are indicative of, or furthering, an individual’s presenting concerns. Helping emerging adults clarify their motivations behind and expectations for engaging in just talking relationships and communicating them clearly with potential partners could go a long way in reducing adverse emotional, relational, and physical health outcomes for all involved.