![[Adobe Stock]](https://sp-ao.shortpixel.ai/client/to_webp,q_glossy,ret_img,w_750,h_375/https://www.psypost.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/young-couple-kissing-in-bed-750x375.jpg)
People in friends with benefits arrangements experience lower levels of relationship violence and greater sexual variety than those in committed romantic partnerships, though they also face higher sexual health risks and slightly more mental health challenges. These insights come from a new analysis summarizing decades of research on casual sexual relationships. The findings were published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior.
The concept of friends with benefits describes a unique type of casual relationship. It typically begins as a standard friendship that eventually incorporates sexual activity, but without the explicitly discussed expectations of commitment or exclusivity found in traditional romantic partnerships. The academic study of these arrangements grew out of 1990s research on friendships between men and women. Over the past two decades, interest in the topic has expanded across multiple disciplines, including psychology, communication studies, and public health.
Because researchers from different fields approached the topic using vastly different definitions and measurement tools, the existing scientific literature became highly fragmented. Some studies focused on the psychological drawbacks of casual sex, while others highlighted the relational benefits. Spencer B. Olmstead, a researcher at the University of Tennessee, led a new investigation alongside Leah E. LeFebvre of the University of Alabama and Mike Allen of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. They aimed to synthesize this scattered body of work to find out how friends with benefits relationships truly compare to other relationship types.
To accomplish this, the research team conducted a meta-analysis. A meta-analysis is a statistical technique where scientists pool data from many independent studies to identify overarching trends that might not be visible in smaller, individual projects. The researchers searched databases for empirical articles, dissertations, and presentations that specifically defined and measured aspects of friends with benefits relationships.
They ultimately identified 38 studies that met their strict inclusion criteria. Together, these studies provided a large pooled sample of thousands of participants. Because the original studies used so many different variables, the researchers grouped the data into five broad conceptual categories: sexual features, sexual health risks, violence or aggression, clinical mental health, and non-clinical mental health.
The researchers then calculated correlation coefficients to compare the data. A correlation coefficient is a statistical metric that shows how strongly two variables relate to one another. Using this metric, the team compared individuals in friends with benefits arrangements against people in other situations. These comparison groups included engaged couples, committed romantic partners, people engaging in casual hookups, people making booty calls, and single individuals.
A hookup was defined as a casual sexual encounter without expressed expectations for a relationship, which can occur between strangers or acquaintances. A booty call was defined as communication specifically intended to initiate sexual activity between people who do not consider themselves a couple and who rarely interact outside of sex.
The first category the researchers analyzed was sexual features. This grouping encompassed sexual satisfaction, the types of sexual acts performed, sexual fantasies, and the specific motivations for having sex. The analysis revealed that friends with benefits relationships involved greater sexual features overall compared to all other relationship types.
When comparing these casual arrangements directly to committed romantic partnerships, the researchers noticed distinct behavioral patterns. Individuals in committed romantic relationships reported higher rates of deep kissing and affectionate sexual touching. By contrast, individuals in friends with benefits arrangements reported higher rates of oral sex and anal intercourse. The data also revealed a gender difference within these casual arrangements. Heterosexual men reported greater sexual features in friends with benefits relationships than heterosexual women did.
Next, the team evaluated sexual health risks. This category included the frequency of condom use, the number of overall sexual partners, rates of sexually transmitted infections, and the use of drugs or alcohol during sexual encounters.
People in friends with benefits arrangements exhibited higher sexual health risks than those in committed romantic relationships or those who were entirely single. Their risk levels were roughly equal to individuals engaging in one-time casual hookups. The researchers noted that these increased risks likely stem from the nature of the arrangement. Participants in casual relationships often have a higher total number of sexual partners and may engage in multiple friends with benefits dynamics concurrently.
When looking at relationship violence and aggression, the results favored the casual arrangements. This category measured instances of physical violence, emotional abuse, psychological control, and deception.
Individuals in friends with benefits dynamics experienced lower levels of violence and aggression than those in committed romantic relationships. The study authors suggest this difference might relate to the lack of formal commitment in casual arrangements. The relative impermanence of a friends with benefits dynamic might make it harder for perpetrators to exert power and control, as it is often easier for a victim to exit a casual arrangement than a committed romantic partnership.
Finally, the researchers evaluated mental health outcomes. They divided this area into clinical and non-clinical categories. The clinical category included measurable symptoms of anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation, as well as antagonistic personality traits. The non-clinical category covered general well-being, body satisfaction, loneliness, jealousy, and everyday stress.
Across both categories, participating in a friends with benefits relationship was weakly associated with worse mental health outcomes. People in these arrangements reported slightly more mental health challenges than those in committed relationships or those who were entirely single. On non-clinical measures, they also reported more challenges than those engaging in casual hookups, but clinical mental health did not differ significantly between friends with benefits participants and those hooking up.
The researchers noted several limitations in their analysis. The most prominent caveat is that the original studies primarily relied on cross-sectional data, meaning they captured a single snapshot in time. Because of this study design, the researchers cannot determine if engaging in a friends with benefits relationship directly impacts a person’s mental health.
It is equally possible that a selection effect is at play. Individuals already experiencing higher levels of depression, anxiety, or low self-esteem might be more likely to seek out this specific type of casual relationship over a committed partnership. Longitudinal studies, which track the exact same individuals over months or years, would be needed to establish the true direction of these associations.
Additionally, the bulk of the reviewed literature focused on samples of young, white, heterosexual, and cisgender college students. College students often navigate a unique developmental period marked by high levels of exploration and inconsistent use of protective sexual measures. The results might not represent the experiences of older adults, people from different cultural backgrounds, or individuals with diverse sexual and gender identities.
The researchers recommend that future studies standardize their measurements. Many of the included studies relied on single-question surveys created by the authors, which makes comparing data across disciplines difficult. Moving forward, capturing the perspectives of both partners within the same friends with benefits arrangement could provide a more accurate picture of how people balance friendship, sexual intimacy, and personal well-being.
The study, “A Meta-Analysis of Friends with Benefits Relationships: Examining Sexual Features, Sexual and Mental Health, Violence/Aggression, and Gender,” was authored by Spencer B. Olmstead, Leah E. LeFebvre, and Mike Allen.