College couple

College dating still follows similar patterns as it did a decade ago. (Aruta Images/Shutterstock)

In a nutshell

  • In spite of the rise of dating apps and digital communication, college students in 2022 described romantic relationships in nearly the same four-stage progression as those in 2012, starting with “Flirtationship” and ending in “Commitment or Bust.”
  • Technology played a surprisingly minor role in how students talked about relationship development, with most seeing texting and apps as tools, not fundamental changes to how romance unfolds.
  • While core relationship stages remained stable, students in 2022 showed a shift in milestones, talking more about cohabitation and less about engagement, and expressing greater awareness of conflict and breakups as natural parts of dating.

CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — For all the panic over hookup culture and dating apps destroying romance, new research from the University of Illinois suggests college students still follow remarkably similar relationship patterns to those from a decade ago.

A study tracking how college students describe romantic relationship development found that young adults in 2022 move through nearly identical stages as their 2012 counterparts, based on comparison with another study conducted a decade prior. The new findings, published in Personal Relationships, upend popular narratives about technology fundamentally reshaping how young people form romantic connections.

“Their perspectives on relationships today aren’t that different from what they were 10 years ago — or even 10 years before that,” says lead study author Brian Ogolsky, from the University of Illinois, in a statement. “Instead, young adults are taking more diverse and multifaceted pathways through romantic partnering and considering a broader range of outcomes.”

The research reveals four distinct stages that college students consistently identify: “Flirtationship,” “Relationship Potential,” “In a Relationship,” and “Commitment or Bust.” These phases remained stable across the decade-long study period, suggesting that despite the rise of dating apps and social media, the fundamental blueprint for romance hasn’t been rewritten.

College couple
Despite many societal changes, including technology such as dating apps and young adults waiting longer to get married, two surveys of college students conducted 10 years apart showed that their expectations about romantic relationships have remained remarkably consistent, according to a new study led by Brian Ogolsky, a professor of human development and family studies at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. (Credit: Photo by Michelle Hassel)

Between 2012 and 2022, dating app usage doubled from roughly 15% to over 30% among young adults. Tinder launched in 2012, Instagram became a relationship showcase, and smartphones became pocket staples. Yet college students don’t seem to view technology as altering their romantic playbook.

“They’re thinking about relationships in broad strokes,” says Ogolsky. “And we found it interesting that the centerpiece of relationships was not dating apps, artificial intelligence, or robots, or all the other things we may have predicted 25 or 40 years ago.”

The Four Stages of Modern College Romance

Researchers analyzed responses from 259 college students across two studies conducted 10 years apart. Participants were asked to describe the typical progression of romantic relationships in their own words.

Stage one, “Flirtationship,” encompasses initial attraction and testing compatibility. Students described this as the phase where they begin noticing appealing qualities in another person. Flirting happens both online and in person, with many relationships beginning as friendships before romantic feelings develop. Communication and getting to know each other play central roles, whether through texting, social media, or face-to-face interaction.

“Relationship Potential” follows, marked by increased time together and formal dates. Students clearly distinguished this phase from actually being in a relationship. During this stage, couples go on dates but haven’t established exclusivity yet.

“In our study, we used the term ‘relationship development’ to describe the activities we were investigating, but it became clear that participants did not view early behaviors as part of being in a relationship per se,” says Ogolsky. “Instead, they viewed flirting and even dating as part of a broader pattern of interpersonal interaction that may or may not eventually lead to the formation of a relationship.”

Stage three, “In a Relationship,” involves making things official and exclusive. Students emphasized the importance of labeling the relationship status, where flirting or physical involvement with others would constitute cheating. Physical and emotional intimacy typically develop during this phase, along with the introduction of partners to friends and family.

Stage four, “Commitment or Bust,” represents a crossroads where couples either commit long-term or break up. Students described this as when partners evaluate their future together and decide whether the relationship will progress to a serious commitment like marriage or end in separation. Conflict and obstacles often emerge during this phase as couples work through deeper issues.

Technology’s Surprisingly Small Footprint

One of the study’s most unexpected findings was how little students mentioned technology when describing relationship development. While researchers expected significant changes given the technological revolution of the past decade, students in both 2012 and 2022 focused on the same fundamental elements: communication, getting to know each other, and building intimacy.

When technology was mentioned, it was described matter-of-factly as another communication channel rather than a game-changing force. Students talked about Snapchatting or texting the same way previous generations might have discussed phone calls or face-to-face conversations.

Online dating app
Dating apps are just a new tool for college students to use to find a connection. (© terovesalainen – stock.adobe.com)

There has been widespread concern about dating apps creating a “hookup culture” or altering relationship formation. While hookup culture has dominated research on college relationships, the actual students in this study rarely mentioned hooking up, and when they did, it was often in the context of established relationships rather than casual encounters.

This contradicts the perception that casual hookup culture is rampant on college campuses and suggests students still associate physical intimacy with more committed relationships.

Shifts in Relationship Milestones

While the overall progression remained consistent, researchers identified some telling changes in how students view relationship milestones. In 2012, students more frequently mentioned engagement as part of typical relationship development. By 2022, they were more likely to discuss moving in together instead.

This shift reflects broader demographic trends showing Americans are marrying later and living together before marriage more frequently. Students now perceive more variability in how people define their relationships and are considering a broader range of outcomes than they did a decade ago.

Students in 2022 also described social integration differently. While 2012 participants focused on meeting the family, 2022 students talked more broadly about integrating into each other’s social networks, including friends alongside family members.

Students also frequently mentioned that relationships often begin as friendships, supporting research showing that the “friends to lovers” pathway is common but understudied. This contradicts assumptions that most college relationships begin through hookups or dating apps.

Students in 2022 also mentioned more instances of relationship conflict and breakups compared to the 2012 participants, suggesting they may be more realistic about relationship challenges or more willing to acknowledge when relationships don’t work out.

Dating Isn’t Broken

Recent opinion pieces have declared that dating is broken, but these claims may be premature. College students don’t describe a broken system but rather one that has evolved while maintaining core patterns.

Technology appears to have simply provided new tools for age-old relationship behaviors. The fundamental human need to connect, test compatibility, and build intimacy remains unchanged, even if the methods have evolved.

Paper Summary

Methodology

Researchers conducted two separate studies at the same Midwestern university, collecting data in 2012 and 2021-2022. The first study included 126 college students aged 18-29, while the second included 133 students in the same age range. Participants completed online surveys asking them to describe, in their own words, the typical phases of romantic relationship development. Researchers used qualitative coding to identify common themes and patterns, with multiple team members coding responses to ensure reliability. The 10-year gap was chosen to capture changes during a period of significant technological advancement in dating and social media.

Results

Four consistent stages emerged across both time periods: Flirtationship (initial attraction and compatibility testing), Relationship Potential (increased time together and dating), In a Relationship (official exclusivity and deeper intimacy), and Commitment or Bust (deciding between long-term commitment or breakup). The progression remained remarkably similar between 2012 and 2022, with technology mentioned infrequently despite its increased prevalence. Key differences included less mention of engagement and more discussion of cohabitation in 2022, plus broader conceptualization of social network integration beyond just family.

Limitations

Both samples came from a single Midwestern university and were less racially diverse than the broader population. Different research teams coded the two datasets, potentially introducing bias. The study relied on participants’ perceptions of typical relationship development rather than tracking actual relationships. Responses showed heteronormative and mononormative biases, and the descriptive approach may have missed nuanced details that in-depth interviews could capture.

Funding and Disclosures

This research was supported by USDA/NIFA HATCH grant ILLU-793-349. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Publication Information

The paper “The Progression of College Student Romantic Relationship Development: Stability and Change Over 10 Years” is authored by Brian G. Ogolsky, Kiersten Dobson, Matthew Rivas-Koehl, Ghada Kawas, and Jennifer L. Hardesty. It was published in Personal Relationships (Volume 32, Article e12590) in 2025.

About StudyFinds Analysis

Called "brilliant," "fantastic," and "spot on" by scientists and researchers, our acclaimed StudyFinds Analysis articles are created using an exclusive AI-based model with complete human oversight by the StudyFinds Editorial Team. For these articles, we use an unparalleled LLM process across multiple systems to analyze entire journal papers, extract data, and create accurate, accessible content. Our writing and editing team proofreads and polishes each and every article before publishing. With recent studies showing that artificial intelligence can interpret scientific research as well as (or even better) than field experts and specialists, StudyFinds was among the earliest to adopt and test this technology before approving its widespread use on our site. We stand by our practice and continuously update our processes to ensure the very highest level of accuracy. Read our AI Policy (link below) for more information.

Our Editorial Process

StudyFinds publishes digestible, agenda-free, transparent research summaries that are intended to inform the reader as well as stir civil, educated debate. We do not agree nor disagree with any of the studies we post, rather, we encourage our readers to debate the veracity of the findings themselves. All articles published on StudyFinds are vetted by our editors prior to publication and include links back to the source or corresponding journal article, if possible.

Our Editorial Team

Steve Fink

Editor-in-Chief

John Anderer

Associate Editor

Leave a Reply