Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 42, Issue 8, pp 1443–1449 | Cite as

Friendship After a Friends with Benefits Relationship: Deception, Psychological Functioning, and Social Connectedness

Original Paper


Friends with benefits (FWB) relationships are formed by an integration of friendship and sexual intimacy, typically without the explicit commitments characteristic of an exclusive romantic relationship. The majority of these relationships do not transition into committed romantic relationships, raising questions about what happens to the relationship after the FWB ends. In a sample of 119 men and 189 women university students, with a median age of 19 years and the majority identified as Caucasian (63.6 %), we assessed relationship adjustment, feelings of deception, perception of the FWB relationship and friendship, social connectedness, psychological distress, and loneliness. Results demonstrated that the majority of FWB relationships continued as friendships after the sexual intimacy ceased and that about 50 % of the participants reported feeling as close or closer to their FWB partner. Those who did not remain friends were more likely to report that their FWB relationship was more sex- than friendship-based; they also reported higher levels of feeling deceived by their FWB partner and higher levels of loneliness and psychological distress, but lower levels of mutual social connectedness. Higher levels of feeling deceived were related to feeling less close to the post-FWB friend; also, more sex-based FWB relationships were likely to result in post-FWB friendships that were either more or less close (as opposed to unchanged). FWB relationships, especially those that include more attention to friendship based intimacy, do not appear to negatively impact the quality of the friendship after the “with benefits” ends.


Friends with benefits Friendship attraction Cross-sex friendships College students 


  1. Afifi, W. A., & Faulkner, S. L. (2000). On being ‘just friends’: The frequency and impact of sexual activity in cross-sex friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 205–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Afifi, W. A., & Metts, S. (1998). Characteristics and consequences of expectation violations in close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 365–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baxter, L. A., & Bullis, C. (1986). Turning points in romantic relationships. Human Communication Research, 12, 469–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bisson, M. A., & Levine, T. R. (2009). Negotiating a friends with benefits relationship. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 66–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Cole, J. C., Rabin, A. S., Smith, T. L., & Kaufman, A. S. (2004). Development and validation of a Rasch-derived CES-D short form. Psychological Assessment, 16, 360–372.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Eisenberg, M. E., Ackard, D. M., Resnick, M. D., & Neumark-Sztainer, D. (2009). Casual sex and psychological health among young adults: Is having “friends with benefits” emotionally damaging? Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 41, 231–237.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Glenn, N., & Marquardt, E. (2001). Hooking up, hanging out, and hoping for Mr. Right: College women on dating and mating today. New York: Institute for American Values.Google Scholar
  8. Guerrero, L. K., & Chavez, A. M. (2005). Relational maintenance in cross-sex friendships characterized by different types of romantic intent: An exploratory study. Western Journal of Communication, 69, 339–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Guerrero, L. K., & Mongeau, P. A. (2008). On becoming “more than friends”: The transition from friendship to romantic relationship. In S. Sprecher, A. Wenzel, & J. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of relationship initiation (pp. 175–194). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  10. Halatsis, P., & Christakis, N. (2009). The challenge of sexual attraction within heterosexuals’ cross-sex friendship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 919–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hughes, M., Morrison, K., & Asada, K. J. K. (2005). What’s love got to do with it? Exploring the impact of maintenance rules, love attitudes, and network support on friends with benefits relationships. Western Journal of Communication, 69, 49–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kaplan, D. L., & Keys, C. B. (1997). Sex and relationship variables as predictors of sexual attraction in cross-sex platonic relationships between young heterosexual adults. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 191–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nangle, D. W., Erdley, C. A., Newman, J. E., Mason, C. A., & Carpenter, E. W. (2003). Popularity, friendship quantity, and friendship quality: Interactive influences on children’s loneliness and depression. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 32, 546–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. O’Meara, J. D. (1989). Cross-sex friendship: Four basic challenges of an ignored relationship. Sex Roles, 21, 525–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Owen, J., & Fincham, F. D. (2011a). Effects of gender and psychosocial factors on “friends with benefits” relationships among young adults. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 311–320.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Owen, J., & Fincham, F. D. (2011b). Young adults’ emotional reactions after hooking up encounters. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 321–330.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Owen, J., & Fincham, F. D. (2012). Friends with benefits prior to an exclusive dating relationship: A troublesome foundation? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29, 982–996.Google Scholar
  18. Owen, J., Rhoades, G., Stanley, S., & Markman, H. J. (2011). The revised Commitment Inventory: Psychometrics and use with unmarried couples. Journal of Family Issues, 32, 820–841.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Puentes, J., Knox, D., & Zusman, M. E. (2008). Participants in ‘‘friends with benefits’’ relationships. College Student Journal, 42, 176–180.Google Scholar
  20. Quirk, K., Owen, J., & Fincham, F. D. (2013). Perceptions of partner’s deception in friends with benefits relationships. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy. doi:10.1080/0092623X.2012.668513.
  21. Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Reeder, H. M. (2000). ‘I like you…as a friend’: The role of attraction in cross-sex friendship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 329–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rubin, L. B. (1985). Just friends: The role of friendship in our lives. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  24. Russell, D. W. (1996). UCLA Loneliness Scale (version 3): Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 20–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Sabourin, S., Valois, P., & Lussier, Y. (2005). Development and validation of a brief version of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale with a nonparametric item analysis model. Psychological Assessment, 17, 15–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Sapadin, L. A. (1988). Friendship and gender: Perspectives of professional men and women. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 387–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Vassar, M., & Crosby, J. W. (2008). A reliability generalization study of coefficient alpha for the UCLA Loneliness Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 601–607.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Waite, L. J., Browning, D., Doherty, W. J., Gallagher, M., Luo, Y., & Stanley, S. M. (2002). Does divorce make people happy? Findings from a study of unhappy marriages. New York: Institute for American Values.Google Scholar
  29. Werking, K. J. (1997). We’re just good friends: Women and men in nonromantic relationships. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Education and Counseling Psychology Department, College of EducationUniversity of LouisvilleLouisvilleUSA
  2. 2.Family Institute, College of Human SciencesFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA

Personalised recommendations