People involved in friends with benefits relationships tend to report more varied sexual experiences and lower levels of violence or aggression than those in committed romantic relationships, but they may also report greater sexual health risks and slightly poorer mental health outcomes. These patterns emerge from a meta-analysis published in Archives of Sexual Behavior.
The study, titled A Meta-Analysis of Friends with Benefits Relationships: Examining Sexual Features, Sexual and Mental Health, Violence/Aggression, and Gender, provides one of the most comprehensive summaries to date of the potential benefits and trade-offs associated with this form of relationship.
Friends with benefits relationships generally involve an existing friendship combined with recurring sexual activity without explicit expectations of romantic commitment or exclusivity. Unlike one-time hookups or booty calls, these arrangements typically involve an ongoing social connection, placing them somewhere between casual sexual encounters and committed romantic relationships.
How the study was conducted
Researchers Spencer B. Olmstead, Leah E. LeFebvre and Mike Allen sought to synthesize a fragmented body of research. Over the past two decades, researchers in psychology, communication and public health have examined casual sexual relationships using varying definitions, measures and participant samples.
The team conducted a meta-analysis, statistically combining results from multiple independent studies to identify broader patterns. They searched academic databases for empirical research that clearly defined and measured friends with benefits relationships, including dissertations and conference presentations.
In total, 38 studies met the inclusion criteria, representing thousands of participants. Outcomes were grouped into five broad domains: sexual features, sexual health risks, violence or aggression, clinical mental health and non-clinical mental health.
Sexual behavior and satisfaction
Overall, friends with benefits relationships were associated with higher scores on measures grouped under sexual features compared with other relationship categories. These measures included sexual satisfaction, variety of sexual activities, sexual fantasies and motivations for sex.
When compared specifically with committed romantic relationships, participants in committed relationships reported more deep kissing and affectionate touching. Those in friends with benefits relationships reported higher rates of oral sex and anal intercourse.
These differences suggest variation in reported sexual behavior between relationship types, although they should not be interpreted as evidence that one arrangement is inherently more sexually satisfying or fulfilling than another.
The researchers also identified gender differences among heterosexual participants, with men in friends with benefits relationships reporting higher levels on some sexual-feature measures than women. However, such differences do not by themselves establish why men and women reported different experiences.
Sexual health and risk factors
Friends with benefits relationships were also associated with higher sexual health risk measures than committed romantic relationships and sexual inactivity. This domain included condom use, number of sexual partners, self-reported sexually transmitted infections and alcohol or drug use associated with sexual activity.
Their overall risk profile was more similar to that reported among people engaging in hookups. Multiple or overlapping sexual partnerships could potentially increase exposure to sexually transmitted infections, particularly when barrier protection is not used consistently.
However, the meta-analysis cannot establish that the friends with benefits relationship structure itself causes greater sexual risk. Individual behavior, partner number, condom practices and substance use can differ considerably between people within the same relationship category.
Violence and aggression patterns
In contrast, friends with benefits relationships were associated with lower levels of violence or aggression than committed romantic relationships. Measures in this category included physical aggression, emotional abuse, psychological control and deception.
One possible explanation is that friends with benefits relationships often involve fewer structural ties, such as shared finances, cohabitation or formal commitments, potentially making it easier to leave an unwanted arrangement.
However, this remains an interpretation rather than evidence that weaker commitment directly prevents coercion or violence. The finding represents an average difference across studies and does not mean that friends with benefits relationships are inherently safer or free from abuse.
Mental health outcomes and well-being
The meta-analysis also examined clinical and non-clinical mental health measures. Clinical outcomes included symptoms such as anxiety and depression, while non-clinical measures included well-being, body satisfaction, loneliness, jealousy and stress.
Overall, friends with benefits involvement showed small associations with poorer mental health outcomes in some comparisons. These findings should not be interpreted as evidence that casual sexual relationships cause psychological problems.
On some non-clinical measures, participants in friends with benefits relationships reported more difficulties than people engaging in hookups. For clinical mental health measures, however, differences between friends with benefits participants and those reporting hookups were not statistically significant.
The overall pattern therefore appears modest and varies depending on both the comparison group and the particular psychological outcome being measured.
Limits of current research
A major limitation is that much of the underlying research was cross-sectional. These studies capture associations at a particular point in time and cannot determine whether relationship type influences mental health or whether people with different psychological characteristics are more likely to enter particular relationship arrangements.
Selection effects therefore remain an important alternative explanation. However, it would be speculative to assume that people with anxiety, depression or low self-esteem specifically choose friends with benefits relationships because they want intimacy without commitment unless longitudinal evidence demonstrates such a pathway.
The samples were also relatively narrow. Much of the research involved young, white, heterosexual, cisgender U.S. college students, limiting how confidently the results can be generalized to older adults, different cultural populations or LGBTQ+ communities.
Campus environments may also differ from other social contexts in ways that influence sexual behavior and relationship expectations. More diverse samples are needed to determine whether the same patterns appear across different ages, cultures and communities.
What future studies should explore
The researchers call for greater consistency in how friends with benefits relationships are defined and measured. Differences between studies make it difficult to compare findings and establish reliable conclusions across the literature.
Research involving both people in the same relationship could also provide a fuller picture. One participant’s account cannot necessarily reveal whether partners have matching expectations about exclusivity, emotional involvement or the future of the relationship.
Longitudinal research could examine how these arrangements develop over time, including whether they end, return to friendship or develop into romantic partnerships. Such studies would also help clarify whether changes in mental health or sexual behavior precede or follow changes in relationship status.
Overall, the meta-analysis suggests that friends with benefits relationships differ from committed partnerships and hookups across several dimensions, but the results do not support a simple conclusion that one relationship type is healthier or more harmful than another. Greater sexual variety, higher sexual-health risk measures, lower average aggression and small differences in psychological well-being need to be understood within the limitations of the available research.
