Introduction

Many people still choose to experience romance despite the challenges of romantic relationships, such as conflict (Bouffard et al., 2022); communication problems (Ge et al., 2022) and breakups Lewandowski, 2022). This is because romantic relationships play a vital role in the life-course of young adults, fulfil the basic human need to belong (Shifron, 2010), serve as a source of deep fulfilment (Azzahra & Suhadi, 2021), protect our mental health (Braithwaite & Holt-Lunstad, 2017), shaping well-being and capacity for commitment. Romantic relationships are associated with the positive strong emotion of love, however, there can be negative strong emotions as well. Some adolescents have difficulty comprehending relationship characteristics such as jealousy and possessiveness, as they may view these actions as indications of intense romantic affection (Brar et al., 2022). The strong emotions associated with romantic relationships are also seen when the demisal of a relationship occurs(Rajabi & Nikpoor, 2018; Lim & Yap, 2022). However, phenomena such as loneliness (Ray & Shebib, 2022), asexuality (Hall & Knox, 2022), increasingly delayed marriages and a decrease in marriages overall (Ortiz-Ospina & Roser, 2020), couples choosing to live childfree (Neal & Neal, 2021, 2023) and, rising divorce rates (Ye & Shu, 2022), suggests that people may experience romantic relationships differently over the course of history.

People nowaday desire a “pure” relationship, that is a relationship where one has the liberty to stay in a relationship that fulfils their emotional and sexual needs without the restriction of traditional expectations such as marriage (Giddens, 2013). A traditional romantic relationship is expected to last a long time. Pure relationships, however, promote short-term romance which have become more prevalent and accepted in society due to social changes like the feminist movement, or technological advancements such as the invention of dating apps.

The feminist movement is one of the most significant social changes to occur within the 20th century. Feminism is defined as the advocacy of women’s rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes (Smith-Jones, 2022) and it has redefined the role of women in society. Traditionally, women were the homemakers and men were the breadwinners. The lack of autonomy prevented women from leaving their marriages at the individual level, or engaging in the economy and politics at the societal level. As the feminist movement progressed at the start of the 20th century, women were able to gain the right to vote and make decisions as to whether to pursue education or careers, or to focus on raising a family. Evidence demonstrates that employed women have fewer children than unemployed women (Moore et al., 2021). In addition, with the invention of hormonal contraception, women have the freedom to plan for parenthood. This enabled them to build their own careers and achieve financial independence without having to default to the traditional role of being stay-at-home mothers. Women are now not only allowed to vote, but they are also fighting for more representation in parliament to ensure that their voices are heard to bring about more equality and liberate society from restrictive gender roles, without facing backlash for following non-traditional paths. A clear sign of this liberalisation was the amendment to the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act (2020), also known as a “no fault divorce”, which allowed a couple to divorce without blaming or demonising one another (Thompson, 2021). The divorce rates are on the rise while marriage rates are on the decline (Divorces in England and Wales - Office for National Statistics, 2021) in the United Kingdom. Recent evidence suggests that cohabitation is also seens as the alternative to marriage (Blair et al., 2022) and it is on the rise (Berrington & Stone, 2015). Casual sexual relationships and experiences are now considered a normative component of emerging adulthood (Claxton & van Dulmen, 2013). As shown by these examples, society promotes individual liberty rather than traditional gender roles.

Technology advancements may have also contributed to the switch of perception in romantic relationships in the United Kingdom. The popularity of online dating mobile applications such as Tinder and Bumble, has led to casual relationships becoming more prevalent and accessible (Leistner et al., 2023; Vares, 2022). This is due to the convenience of its feature that allows individuals to search for potential partners of their choice on a swipe-by-swipe basis rather than going to barhops or socialisation events in the traditional way to meet a new person (Alamsyah, 2022). The popularity of mobile dating apps is shown through the number of online dating profiles that has increased from 100,000 in 2000 to 7.8 million in 2015 (Kerley, 2016). Besides that, a survey of 3900 British youths aged 18–24 found that 29% in 2022 admit to using dating apps while 14% of those who use dating apps have experienced in person meeting (YouGov, 2022). The dating application also creates a new culture where people could have unlimited choices of potential romantic partners (Klinenberg & Ansari, 2015). All of these changes required people to update their common sense understanding about romantic relationships.

Building on Gidden’s (1992) concept of pure relationships, our comprehension of romantic relationships takes shape in two distinct forms: long-term (LTR) and short-term (STR). External factors, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, can exert influence on the dynamics of these relationships (Bevan et al., 2023). It is imperative to discern between short-term and long-term romantic relationships for young adults, as it profoundly shapes their life choices with far-reaching social implications. The preference for short-term romantic relationships suggests a potential departure from traditional commitment expectations, impacting emotional well-being and life planning (Gómez-López et al., 2019; Shulman & Connolly, 2013). Moreover, this inclination may have repercussions on mental health. While long-term relationships offer a robust social support system, the applicability of the same support system to short-term romantic relationships (STR) remains uncertain (Contu et al., 2023). The shift also introduces an element of uncertainty (Feiring et al., 2023); although stress about uncertainty is a universal experience, long-term relationships traditionally provide a sense of certainty that may be lacking in short-term relationships. From a broader perspective, this transition could influence the family institution (Homla-or, 2023), a crucial social structure maintaining societal equilibrium. Understanding these dynamics is essential for making informed decisions in navigating the evolving landscape of romantic connections in today’s society.

Within the scholarly exploration of the term STR dating back to 1995, such as Singh’s study on how females judge male attractiveness and desire for a short-term romantic relationship, a consistent thread emerges. (Singh, 1995). Since then, various research started to use the term STR, see Albert et al., 2021; Atay, 2021; Buss & Schmitt, 2007; Parini et al., 2021; Vaughn & Leon, 2021. Distinguishing between these relationship types involves understanding differences in temporal commitment, emotional investment, and future planning. Short-term relationships prioritize immediate gratification and limited future goals, while long-term connections underscore enduring commitment and shared aspirations. Factors such as communication styles, intimacy levels, and personal disclosure depth contribute to a clear understanding of the nuanced disparities between these two relationship types. Romantic relationship is formally defined as “mutually acknowledged ongoing voluntary interactions, commonly marked by expressions of affection and perhaps current or anticipated sexual behaviour” (Collins et al., 2009). Traditionally, a marriage is the basis of the scientific definition of the long-term romantic relationship while anything else that does not lead to marriage is considered short-term. For example, STR is defined as a single date, one-night stand or a brief affair (Albert et al., 2021), Freedman et al. (2018) associated short-term romantic relationship with casual relationship and dating someone more than once’ without an expectation of a short- or long-term relationship (Stewart et al., 2000).

Nevertheless, formal definitions developed by scientists based on law and institutional understanding may differ from what is common sense for the general public in their real life experience (Orosz, 2010). For example, if high levels of eroticismis common sense for people in a short-term romantic relationship rather than love, this would change his or her expectation towards the partner. Hence, understanding if the common sense and scientific definition are the same is important because people form social reality and their action is often based on social representation instead of the scientific definition (Mengzhen et al., 2021; Moliner & Abric, 2015; Orosz, 2010; Sachkova et al., 2021).

To understand an individual’s common sense of short and long term romantic relationships, we use the Theory of Social Representation as our underlying theory to understand this phenomena. Social representation (i) provides us with knowledge to communicate a phenomena with others; (ii) it helps with group identity formation; (iii) regulate our social behaviour on what is appropriate and what is not; (iv) it helps us to justify and rationalise our actions.

Social representation can be understood based on the ability of people using specific phrases or words (known as element) to communicate with each other about a phenomenon. Social representation provides an individual with the communicable knowledge which helps them to communicate with each other (Moliner & Abric, 2015; Orosz, 2010). It also helps individuals to form group identity and guide their socialisation behaviour. Sharing representation can serve as both a mark of membership and a catalyst for understanding the rationale for a common goal. The group identity formation is influenced by social representations because individuals who share these representations begin to develop a collective identity due to their shared view of the world (Breakwell, 1993). Most importantly, social representation serves as a tool to justify or rationalise our behaviour according to the specific situation.

Hence, we would like to explore the social representation of romantic relationships to further understand how young adults formulate their common sense understanding about romance. As experiences such as relationship status (e.g. single or in a relationship) might also affect how an individual perceives romantic relationships, we also intend to explore how relationship status changes their social reality about STR and LTR. Social representation can be understood using the structural approach (Moliner & Abric, 2015). According to the structural approach, social representation elements can be organized into dual systems, the central core and peripheral. The core elements are made up of a limited number of beliefs, consensus among group members, is stable over time, unconditional belief and non-negotiable. It is related to the group’s values, norms and history. The peripheral elements are characterized in an opposite way of the central core.

In summary, due to social change and technological advancement, young adults may have changed their perception towards romantic relationships. It is important to understand how people form their common sense understanding to react to this new phenomena. Hence, in this study, we aimed to (Research question 1) describe how young adults distinguish STR and LTR and (Research question 2) if current relationship status changes young adults’ social representation of STR and LTR.

Method

Ethical Considerations

We obtained an ethical review approval from the university’s ethics committee.

Study Design

The social representation of STR and LTR were obtained using free association and rank-frequency techniques (Moliner & Abric, 2015). Data was obtained using an online survey format hosted by Qualtrics software company. We believe online surveys are the most fitting method for our study because, to understand social representation, respondents must be allowed to freely associate and express thoughts on romance without external influences, fostering an authentic representation. This approach strengthens the accuracy and reliability of our data by minimising potential external impacts. This study was also used in various social representation studies (de Mendonça Figueirêdo Coelho et al., 2023; Giacomozzi et al., 2023; Mengzhen et al., 2021, 2023; Novais et al., 2023).

Respondents

There were 229 respondents aged between 18 and 33 (M = 19.66; SD = 2.72) participated in this research. They are all self-reported British citizens and students. For relationship status, 125 or 54.59% are singles; 79 or 34.50% are in a relationship; 15 or 6.55% reported “it is complicated”. Other characteristics include: 196 or 85.59% were female, 149 or 65.07% reported to be heterosexual, 202 or 88.21% were white.

Measure

To understand the social representation of STR, respondents were asked “Think about Short-term romantic relationships. What words or phrases come to your mind? Please, write five words or phrases.” The words and phrases written are the elements of social representation. The same method was used to evoke the elements for LTR.

Data Analysis

There are two types of analysis that were used in this study. We first carried out the content coding and followed by prototypical analysis. The Interface de R pour les Analyses Multidimensionnelles de Textes et de Questionnaires (IRaMuTeQ) software (Souza et al., 2018) was used to run the prototypical analysis.

Content Coding

The main purpose of content coding is to group the words or phrases of the same meaning belonging to the same semantic class. For example: excitement and excite were recorded into exciting. The initial re-coding was performed by researchers within the team. In order to verify the accuracy of the re-coding, we asked 10 impartial individuals to confirm whether the original words or phrases and the recorded words or phrases carried the same meaning. The average agreement percentage between the pairs of responses reached 85.30%. Based on this favourable outcome, we considered it a satisfactory result and moved forward with the prototypical analysis.

Prototypical Analysis

We carried out prototypical analysis (Vergès, 1992) to distinguish consensual words within social representations, categorising them into the central core or the periphery (Vuillot et al., 2020). The method is based on a response distribution that approximates Zipf’s distribution—an inverted power law with an exponent close to -1, suggesting a relationship between the frequency and rank of words in a corpus, applicable to various languages (Wachelke & Wolter, 2011). This approach organises elements based on their frequency, determined by significantly higher word or expression usage and the average level of importance for each unit of analysis (Cristea et al., 2020). Prominent words are identified by crossing these indicators—those cited more frequently than the median evocation frequency and by respondents with a smaller rank, on average, likely forming the central core of the social representation (Vuillot et al., 2020). Conversely, various combinations of frequency and rank define words in the periphery. Frequently cited but later-ranked words are considered unstable and susceptible to change within the representation, while less frequent and earlier-ranked items may be redundant or specific to the central core. Finally, these less frequent and later-ranked items are not crucial in the current representation but may gain importance in the event of adaptation to change.

In the context of this study, in other words, central core elements consist of elements with high frequency and high association levels. These elements appear in respondents’ minds immediately when they think about romantic relationships and are deeply rooted in the collective memory of the social group (Orosz, 2010). There are three levels of peripheral elements: (i) First peripheral consists of elements with high frequency but low importance level; (ii) Contrasted elements consist of elements that are low in frequency but high in importance level; (iii) Second peripheral elements consist of words or phrases that have low frequency and low importance level.

Procedures

Following approval from the university’s ethics committee, we promoted the research through the university’s SONA system to attract potential participants. The SONA system is a digital platform specifically designed for recruiting from a pool of participants (see Rasse et al., 2020; Warmelink et al., 2019). Those interested would access the survey website by clicking on the provided URL. After implying consent to participate in the research, respondents answered questions related to STR and LTR as explained in the measure section. The sequence in expressing their opinion about STR and LTR were randomized automatically by the software. This means, some respondents first wrote their opinion about STR, followed by LTR while some would start by writing their opinion about LYR first. This is to ensure the reliability of the data collected. Before exiting the survey, respondents answered all the demographic questions. We then run the content coding following my prototypical analysis. Results were presented and discussed.

Result

In total, respondents illustrated each term (STR and LTR) with 1145 words or phrases. We followed the suggestion from Dvoryanchikov et al. (2014) and excluded words or phrases that had less than 5% frequency from the total sample size. Table 1 showed the central core and peripheral elements of both STR and LTR.

Table 1 The elements of STR and LTR
Full size table

To answer research question 1, in the central core elements (refer to Table 1), the respondents clearly differentiate what it meant to be STR and LTR. For STR, the respondents communicate about it using 5 words: “fun”, “exciting”, “quick”, “fling” and “passion”. For LTR, they used completely different words to describe the phenomena: “love”, “commitment”, “trust”, “loyalty”.

For the elements in the first peripheral zone, STR is represented by “sex” while LTR only evokes 2 elements which are “happy” and “comfortable”.

In the contested zone, STR is represented by 7 elements: “love”, “confusing”, “brief”, “temporary”, “fleeting”, “incompatible”, “honeymoon” while LTR is represented by 2 elements: “stability”, “marriage”. Second peripheral zone for STR represented by 7 elements: “casual”, “lack of commitment”, “intense”, “dating”, “new”, “happy”, and “experience. LTR is represented by : “friendship”, “communication”, “intimacy”, “family”, “safe”, “security”, “compromise”, “understanding”, “support”, “future”, “dedication”, “passion”, “caring” and “fun”.

To answer research question 2, we conducted an intersectional analysis by comparing the core elements of groups who are currently in a relationship versus those who are currently single. The results showed that two similar elements are used to describe short-term relationships (STR): “fling” and “passion”. STR was differentiated by those who are in a relationship using the term “fun”, while single individuals used the term “exciting” as the differentiation term. For long-term relationships (LTR), both groups used “love”, “commitment”, and “trust” as core elements. However, those who are in a relationship also emphasized the importance of “loyalty”. For more detailed information on the elements, please refer to Table 2.

Table 2 The elements for STR and LTR for those who are in a relationship and single
Full size table

In total, we would like to highlight four (4) important observations based on the result.

  1. (i)

    The central core elements of short-term relationships (STRs) and long-term relationships (LTRs) are completely different. STRs are associated with “fun,“ “excitement,“ “quickness,“ “flings,“ and “passion,“ while LTRs are associated with “love”, “commitment”, “trust”, and “loyalty”.

  2. (ii)

    While “sex” is an important component of romantic relationships, it only appears in the first peripheral zone for STRs and not for LTRs.

  3. (iii)

    “fling” and “passion” are agreed upon by both those who are currently in a relationship and single as the core representation of short-term relationships (STRs). Those who indicate that they are in a relationship use the term “fun,“ while those who are single use the term “exciting” to differentiate their representation for STRs.

  4. (iv)

    For long-term relationships (LTRs), “love,“ “trust,“ and “commitment” are important for both those who are in a relationship and those who are single. However, those who are currently in a relationship use the additional term “loyalty” to represent the concept of a romantic relationship.

Discussion

Grounded in a structural approach towards the theory of social representation framework, this study aimed to discern the underlying values and norms prevalent among young British adults concerning LTR and STR. Two primary research questions were addressed, focusing on the distinctions made by young adults between STR and LTR, as well as the potential changes in relationship status on their social representation of these concepts. Within this section, we present an in-depth analysis of four significant findings derived from the study, offering potential explanations and interpretations.

Firstly, the core elements of short-term relationships (STRs) and long-term relationships (LTRs) are distinctly different, as our respondents clearly distinguished between the two concepts despite both involving romantic relationships. Although past studies suggest that it may be challenging to distinguish between long-term and short-term relationships as a romantic relationship is developing and partners are getting to know each other (Eastwick et al., 2018), our research showed the opposite. We suggest that future research should consider the length of a relationship when understanding the concepts of STRs and LTRs. This distinction allows for the formation of unique social realities and expectations for each. While scientific definitions often use negative connotations such as “one-night stand” and “brief affair” (Albert et al., 2021) to describe STRs, in reality, STRs are associated with positive experiences such as “fun”, “excitement”, “quickness”, “flings”, and “passion”, which are linked to pleasure and enjoyment. Unlike sustaining a relationship over the long haul can be difficult (Raz et al., 2007), STRs are also associated with youthful energy, spontaneity, and immediate gratification, which may be attributed to the young adults’ culture that cherishes instant gratification (Laskowski, 2020). STR allows for immediate pleasure and enjoyment of the relationship. This positive evaluation may also be a result of the feminist movement, where both genders are no longer judged negatively for engaging in STRs (Oren & Press, 2019). Thus, it is anticipated that more young adults will engage in and enjoy STRs.

Long-term romantic relationships (LTRs) are typically associated with concepts such as “love”, “commitment”, “trust”, and “loyalty”, which individuals seek to acquire in such a relationship. These elements highlight the importance of emotional intimacy, support, thoughtfulness, and deliberate actions as the foundation for building a long-lasting and meaningful relationship based on deep emotional connections and values. This traditional model of romantic relationships is often linked to marriage (Liefbroer & Rijken, 2019), as reflected in Christian wedding vows such as “to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do us part, according to God’s holy law, in the presence of God I make this vow” (Anastasia et al., 2020). Although the study showed that young adults no longer view marriage as a crucial life event when defining LTRs, the terms they used to describe LTRs still reflect the core concepts of marriage.

Secondly, while sex is an important component of romantic relationships, it only appears in the first peripheral zone for STRs and not for LTRs. We expected “sex” to be illustrated by respondents under the central core zone for STRs as people who are in STRs prioritise physical attractiveness (Li et al., 2013), but that did not happen. This expectation arose because most definitions of STRs associate that relationship with casual sex. This is probably because young British adults prioritise emotional connection over physical pleasure, which is in line with recent data from Western Europe that showed people place more value on emotional investment than sexual attraction (Martins & Baumard, 2023). We speculate this may be due to the rise of dating apps and social media, which make it easier for people to find physical pleasure but not meaningful emotional connections. As for LTRs, the absence of sex suggests that individuals in LTRs prioritise other aspects of the relationship, even though sex is often considered a crucial component of romantic relationships.

Thirdly, both individuals who are currently in a relationship and single individuals agree that “fling” and “passion” are the main characteristics of short-term relationships (STRs). However, those who are in a relationship tend to use the word “fun” to describe STRs, while single individuals tend to use the word “exciting” to distinguish their perception of STRs. The words “fun” and “exciting” generally refer to a positive emotional experience and something enjoyable as explained in the previous paragraph. However, in the context of STRs, we attribute it to three potential factors: individual past experiences, social norms, and emotional attachment which would be discussed further.

One’s prior experience in a romantic relationship can shape their outlook on future relationships (Jamison & Sanner, 2021). For instance, individuals often gravitate towards partners with comparable characteristics to their past partners (Park & MacDonald, 2019). We speculate that individuals who are currently in a relationship may have had previous experience with STRs and may view them more pragmatically as a way to have fun without the commitment of a long-term relationship. On the other hand, single individuals who may not have had such experiences may view short-term relationships as exciting because of the novelty and uncertainty they offer.

Additionally, there may be different social norms surrounding STRs for individuals in relationships versus those who are single. For example, individuals in relationships may feel more pressure to downplay the excitement or passion associated with STRs, while single individuals may feel more free to express their enthusiasm. This is due to the social norms that expect people in a relationship to be loyal to their partner (Rodriguez et al., 2015; Seidman, 2015). Furthermore, individuals who are in a relationship may have emotional attachment to their partner and, therefore, may see short-term relationships as less emotionally significant and more fun (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2014). Single individuals, on the other hand, may not have that emotional attachment and may view short-term relationships as more exciting because of the emotional intensity and novelty they provide.

Lastly, In long-term relationships (LTRs), both single individuals and those in a relationship prioritise the values of “love,“ “trust,“ and “commitment.“ One similarity between all these terms is that they involve emotional investment. Love is an intense emotion that reflects a deep caring and affection for another person. Trust and commitment, on the other hand, both require a willingness to be vulnerable and rely on the other person in some way. The evocation of these terms about LTRs showed that young adults still cherish the benefit that they enjoy from emotional investment like traditional marriage.

It is interesting to note that those who are currently in a romantic relationship also consider “loyalty” a crucial aspect of their commitment. Loyalty has been known to be an important component that contributes to positive relationship quality and is often far more important than other factors such as physical attractiveness or financial resources (Rodriguez et al., 2015). We postulate that when one is in a committed romantic relationship, their focus shifts from ‘I’ to ‘we’. This means that the person is constantly considering their partner’s feelings, needs, and desires. As a result, loyalty becomes an important component of the relationship because it involves a deep level of trust between partners. In a close relationship, there may be private matters that you share with your partner, such as sexual preferences or fetishes, that could be embarrassing if made public. Therefore, loyalty is essential to maintain the trust and respect necessary for a healthy relationship.

On the other hand, when you are single, all your secrets and desires remain with you, and there is no need to share them with anyone. The trust you have in yourself is the most important, and if someone were to betray your trust, it would be a breach of your personal boundaries. The respondents’ present relationship experiences led them to realise that committed relationships require sacrificing and compromising for the benefit of the relationship, which is why loyalty is highly esteemed by those who are in them. Our findings support the notion that although adults may view romantic relationships as desirable, satisfying, and important at this stage of life, they acknowledge that they entail trade-offs and sacrifices (Watkins & Beckmeyer, 2020).

We want to acknowledge some limitations of our study. Firstly, we must stress that we did not focus on understanding how social progressions such as the feminist movement and technological advancements have influenced contemporary values and norms regarding romantic relationships. Instead, such progressions served as motivating factors to understand contemporary perceptions towards romantic relationships. Secondly, we analysed data from a majority of females in the UK, which limits the generalizability of our findings to other genders and cultures. Thirdly, several factors, including age, sex, sexual orientation, and past relationships, can influence young people’s orientation towards STR or LTR. However, these aspects are not considered in this study. A future investigation should assess and differentiate respondents’ perspectives based on these potential influencing factors, specifically examining their representation in both STR and LTR contexts. Fourthly, it is essential to acknowledge the limited sample size and the non-representative nature of the data, and the online nature of the study introduces a potential bias. When drawing inferences from this study, readers should consider these factors. Finally, it is fundamentally exploratory research and future research is needed to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the concept of romantic relationships.

Conclusion

This research suggests that we need to understand and acknowledge the norms of young adults towards romantic relationships, as indicated by this research. By doing so, we can provide better assistance to young adults in establishing healthy relationships, which is a crucial aspect of emotional support. The study revealed that although young adults still crave emotional bonding, they are less concerned with adhering to the traditional model of marriage and forming long-term relationships. To increase clarity and understanding in romantic relationships, it may be helpful for young adults to communicate their intentions upfront, whether they are interested in a short-term or long-term relationship. Our research findings suggest that people generally have positive attitudes towards either type of romance. For those seeking a short-term relationship, focusing on fun, excitement, and passion and clearly communicating these intentions to potential partners may be beneficial. On the other hand, if the goal is a long-term relationship, prioritising qualities such as love, commitment, trust, and loyalty and seeking out partners who share these values could be helpful.