Situationship vs Relationship vs Friends With Benefits: What's the Difference?
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 26, 2026 · Editorial Policy
A situationship, a committed romantic relationship, and a friends-with-benefits arrangement can all include attraction, affection, sex, frequent contact, and genuine care. The clearest differences are usually not how intense the connection feels. They are how the relationship is defined, what commitments have been mutually agreed, whether friendship is the organizing basis of the connection, how central sexual activity is to the arrangement, and how much uncertainty remains about the relationship itself.
Current research supports treating situationship as an evolving social and research label rather than a fixed clinical category. In an exploratory mixed-methods study, researchers described situationships as romantic connections with no clear label and relatively low commitment despite behaviors that can resemble established couples; the authors also emphasized that the construct is still being defined empirically (Langlais et al., 2024). Friends with benefits, by contrast, has a longer research literature and is usually operationalized as sexual activity occurring within an existing friendship without an expectation of conventional romantic commitment, although actual FWB arrangements vary substantially (Olmstead et al., 2026).
The word relationship is broader than either label. In everyday dating language, “relationship” often means a mutually recognized romantic partnership, but relationship science does not reduce partnership quality to a single label. Researchers separately measure commitment, satisfaction, investment, alternatives, trust, interdependence, communication, and uncertainty. That distinction is important: two people can use the same label while having very different agreements, and two people can use different labels while behaving similarly.
The Short Answer: Situationship vs Relationship vs Friends With Benefits
Situationship: usually refers to a romantic or romantic-sexual connection in which the status, commitment, or future of the relationship is insufficiently defined. It may include dates, affection, sex, emotional closeness, or couple-like behavior, but those features do not by themselves settle what the relationship is.
Committed romantic relationship: in this comparison, means a partnership that the people involved mutually recognize as a romantic relationship and in which at least some expectations about commitment and relationship status are shared. It does not automatically mean marriage, lifelong commitment, monogamy, cohabitation, or sexual activity.
Friends with benefits: generally refers to a friendship that also includes recurring sexual activity, typically without an expectation of a conventional committed romance. Research shows considerable variation in how much friendship, commitment, exclusivity, emotion, and transition desire are present in actual FWB arrangements.
So the most useful shorthand is this: a situationship is organized around relational ambiguity, a committed romantic relationship around mutual recognition and commitment, and FWB around the combination of friendship and sexual involvement. These are prototypes rather than universal boxes.
A Comparison by Relationship Structure
1. Is the relationship explicitly defined?
This is the strongest practical distinction between a situationship and a defined romantic relationship. The 2024 exploratory situationship study centered lack of clarity or label in its working definition, alongside comparatively low commitment and couple-like affectionate or sexual behavior (Langlais et al., 2024). A defined romantic relationship, by comparison, contains some mutually recognized relational identity: both people understand themselves to be partners, even if they still need to negotiate exclusivity, future plans, boundaries, or the degree of commitment.
FWB can be either well defined or poorly defined. The label itself names a structural combination — friendship plus sexual involvement — and research on FWB rules has found that participants describe communication rules, sexual rules, and relationship-definition rules (van Raalte et al., 2021). That means an FWB arrangement can be clearer than a situationship when both people have explicitly agreed on what they are doing. It can also be ambiguous when their expectations differ.
2. What kind of commitment is present?
Commitment is not a simple yes-or-no property created by a label. A major meta-analysis of the Investment Model synthesized 202 independent samples with 50,427 participants and found that commitment was strongly associated with relationship satisfaction and investment, and negatively associated with the perceived quality of alternatives (Tran et al., 2019). These variables are measured continuously. Relationship science therefore gives us a better vocabulary than “serious” versus “not serious.”
Situationship research often treats commitment as low or unclear, but even within that category commitment varies. In a 2025 mixed-methods study of people currently or recently in situationships, investment, communication about the future, and prioritizing the situationship were associated with greater reported satisfaction and commitment (Langlais et al., 2025). The study used 10 interviews followed by a survey of 109 participants, so the findings are useful for describing variation within sampled situationships rather than establishing universal rules.
FWB arrangements also vary in commitment. An Internet-sample study found that satisfaction, investment, and alternatives predicted commitment within FWB relationships, and higher commitment was associated with greater desire to move toward a romantic relationship (VanderDrift et al., 2012). This is one reason the formula “FWB means neither person has feelings or wants more” is too absolute.
3. Is friendship the organizing basis?
Friendship is central to the standard FWB concept. The 2026 meta-analysis describes FWB as a casual sexual relationship that incorporates sexual activity within an existing friendship and synthesizes 38 studies across several outcome domains (Olmstead et al., 2026). Earlier work also found substantial variation in what “friends” meant in practice. A two-study typology identified seven FWB forms, ranging from strong preexisting friendships to arrangements that were closer to “just sex,” as well as several kinds of transition into or out of romance (Mongeau et al., 2013).
A situationship does not require a friendship base. It can emerge from dating, ongoing romantic contact, sexual involvement, or a connection that increasingly resembles partnership without a mutually settled status. A committed romantic relationship also does not require a prior friendship, although friendship can of course be part of it.
4. Is sexual activity required?
For FWB, sexual activity is normally part of the defining structure. The “benefits” are sexual, while the “friends” component refers to some form of friendship or ongoing friendly relationship. The exact sexual behavior, frequency, and degree of friendship vary across studies and real relationships.
For a situationship, sex is common in many descriptions but is not logically sufficient to define the category. The 2024 situationship study found affectionate and sexual behaviors that could resemble established couples, but the defining emphasis was the absence of clarity or label together with low commitment (Langlais et al., 2024). A situationship can therefore be sexual, but sexual activity alone does not make a connection a situationship.
A committed romantic relationship may be sexual or nonsexual. Sexual frequency is not a diagnostic test for whether two people are “really” partners, and relationship status should not be inferred from sexual behavior alone.
5. Is exclusivity assumed?
No label by itself reliably answers this question. Exclusivity is an agreement, not a property that can safely be inferred from the words situationship, relationship, or FWB. In an exploratory study of FWB rules among 109 U.S. college students, sexual exclusivity appeared among the rules participants described, showing that at least some FWB arrangements include exclusivity even though casual-sex relationships are often stereotyped as necessarily nonexclusive (van Raalte et al., 2021).
Likewise, an undefined situationship should not be assumed to be exclusive or nonexclusive. A defined romantic relationship may be monogamous or may operate under another consensually agreed structure. Relationship definition, commitment, and sexual exclusivity overlap in many lives, but they are conceptually separate questions.
6. How clear is the future direction?
Future orientation is often clearer in a committed romantic relationship because the relationship has a mutually recognized status and partners can negotiate what commitment means. That does not guarantee a shared long-term future, and people in defined relationships can still disagree about marriage, cohabitation, children, relocation, or duration.
Situationships are often characterized by ambiguity about whether the connection is staying as it is, becoming more committed, or ending. In the 2025 situationship study, communication about the future was one of the themes associated with greater commitment and satisfaction in that sample (Langlais et al., 2025). That finding is correlational within a relatively small emerging literature; it does not establish that one conversation will cause a situationship to become a committed relationship.
FWB arrangements can also have different trajectories. A longitudinal study followed 192 people who were in FWB relationships at the first assessment and found multiple later outcomes, including no relationship, friendship, continued FWB, and romantic relationships (Machia et al., 2020). The study is useful evidence that FWB is not one fixed trajectory, but its sample percentages should not be treated as the odds that any specific FWB will become a romance.
Situationship vs Relationship: The Main Difference Is Mutual Definition, Not Emotional Intensity
A situationship can feel intensely romantic. People may spend substantial time together, communicate every day, have sex, meet friends, show affection, experience jealousy, provide emotional support, or behave in ways outsiders interpret as “a couple.” None of those observations tells you, on its own, what commitments the two people have actually made.
The 2024 exploratory study is especially useful here because its situationship participants could display affectionate and sexual behaviors similar to non-situationship relationships while differing on relationship quality and commitment-related dimensions (Langlais et al., 2024). The category is therefore better understood through the structure of definition and commitment than through a checklist such as “texts daily,” “sleeps over,” or “acts jealous.”
A defined romantic relationship, in the sense used in this comparison, involves mutual recognition of partnership. That recognition can be minimal or extensive. Two people might simply agree that they are dating each other as partners, or they might make detailed commitments about exclusivity, future planning, shared finances, cohabitation, or family. The key difference is that the relational identity is shared rather than left largely unresolved.
Situationship vs Friends With Benefits: Ambiguity and Friendship Are the Key Axes
Situationship and FWB are frequently treated as synonyms online because both may be outside conventional committed partnership and both may include sex. Research gives good reasons to keep them distinct.
In the situationship literature, ambiguity and lack of clear labeling are central. In the FWB literature, the friendship-sex combination is central. An FWB arrangement can have explicit boundaries: “we are friends who also have sex, and this is what we have agreed.” A situationship can be emotionally and sexually close while the central question — “what is this relationship?” — remains unsettled.
The distinction is not perfectly clean because social labels evolve, people use them differently, and actual relationships can combine features. Someone may call an arrangement FWB even when romantic feelings are growing; someone else may call the same pattern a situationship because the relationship has become difficult to classify. The scientific response is not to declare one everyday label correct. It is to describe the underlying dimensions: friendship, sexual activity, romantic involvement, commitment, exclusivity, trust, future orientation, and relational uncertainty.
Relationship vs Friends With Benefits: Commitment Is More Informative Than the Word “Casual”
FWB is commonly contrasted with a committed romantic relationship because the standard research definition includes friendship and sexual activity without an expectation of conventional romantic commitment. Yet FWB research repeatedly shows heterogeneity. The 2013 typology identified multiple forms and transition patterns (Mongeau et al., 2013), and commitment research found meaningful differences among people who were currently in FWB relationships (VanderDrift et al., 2012).
So a relationship/FWB comparison should not be reduced to “feelings versus no feelings.” Friendship itself can involve attachment, affection, care, loyalty, and emotional intimacy. Nor should it be reduced to “exclusive versus nonexclusive.” Some FWB arrangements have exclusivity rules; some romantic relationships do not. The more defensible distinction is whether the connection is mutually organized as a romantic partnership or as a friendship that also includes sex.
Relationship Uncertainty Explains Why Labels Can Matter
The psychological importance of a label is not the word itself. Labels can reduce uncertainty when they summarize a shared understanding about what the relationship is, how each person sees it, and where it may be going. Relationship uncertainty is an established construct in relationship science rather than a dating-app buzzword. It concerns uncertainty about one's own involvement, a partner's involvement, and the status or nature of the relationship.
Longitudinal dyadic research followed 135 romantic couples weekly for six weeks and found a reciprocal pattern between uncertainty and relationship talk: people experiencing more relational uncertainty tended to see relationship talk as more threatening and to avoid it, while greater avoidance and less relationship talk at one point predicted more uncertainty the following week (Knobloch & Theiss, 2011). This does not prove that every undefined relationship is harmful. It does show why ambiguity and communication can become self-reinforcing parts of a relationship process.
A 2024 study of 343 adults in romantic relationships also linked relational uncertainty with variables in the Investment Model, including satisfaction, alternatives, investments, and commitment (Mikkelson & Ray, 2024). Because that study was cross-sectional, it should be read as evidence of association, not as proof that uncertainty causes low commitment or vice versa.
What 2026 Research Adds About Situationships and Trust
A 2026 study adds a useful but bounded piece of evidence. Researchers analyzed 468 recent relationship experiences reported by 261 emerging adults, using multilevel models to account for multiple experiences reported by the same person. Situationship status was associated with lower trust and lower perceived partner trust in several communication contexts, while communication frequency was positively associated with trust across many modalities (Langlais & Davidson, 2026).
The limitations matter. The participants were mainly young undergraduate students from one U.S. university, the data were observational and retrospective, and situationship status was coded from descriptions of past relationship experiences. The study does not establish that situationships cause distrust, and it does not justify predicting how much one particular partner trusts another. The authors themselves note that situationships should not be interpreted as uniformly deficient or maladaptive.
Are Situationships or FWB Less “Real” Than Relationships?
“Real” is not a useful scientific category. A connection can be emotionally consequential even when it is short, casual, undefined, or outside conventional partnership. People can experience joy, intimacy, disappointment, grief, jealousy, attachment, relief, or confusion in any of these arrangements. Those experiences do not require a formal label to become psychologically meaningful.
At the same time, a relationship label can carry practical information. It may communicate mutual recognition, expectations, boundaries, public identity, or future orientation. The value of the label depends on whether both people attach roughly the same meaning to it. Calling something a relationship does not guarantee alignment; refusing a label does not automatically prove exploitation, fear of intimacy, narcissism, avoidant attachment, or manipulation. Those are separate claims requiring separate evidence.
Which One Is Healthier? The Label Alone Cannot Answer
There is no evidence-based rule that every committed relationship is healthy, every situationship is unhealthy, or every FWB arrangement is emotionally damaging. The relevant questions concern consent, alignment of expectations, communication, trust, safety, desired level of commitment, and whether the arrangement fits what the people involved actually want.
A systematic review of 71 quantitative studies on casual sexual relationships and experiences found heterogeneous emotional outcomes rather than one uniform effect (Wesche et al., 2021). That literature is broader than FWB and should not be imported wholesale into situationship research, but it is useful as a corrective to claims that casual relationship structures have one inevitable psychological outcome.
Likewise, the 2026 FWB meta-analysis found mixed patterns across sexual features, sexual health, violence/aggression, and mental-health outcomes and emphasized the scattered and varied nature of the existing literature (Olmstead et al., 2026). A relationship label is therefore a starting point for describing structure, not a verdict on wellbeing.
How to Tell What Kind of Connection You Actually Have
Instead of trying to infer the answer from texting frequency, sex, social media behavior, or how intensely you feel, identify the dimensions that distinguish the three structures. These questions are descriptive, not a psychological test:
Definition: Have both people explicitly described the connection in the same way?
Commitment: What commitments, if any, have actually been agreed rather than assumed?
Friendship: Is friendship the central relationship and sexual activity an added component, as in the classic FWB structure?
Romance: Do both people understand the connection as romantic, or is that interpretation held mainly by one person?
Sex: Is sexual activity central, occasional, absent, or irrelevant to the relationship's identity?
Exclusivity: Has exclusivity or nonexclusivity been explicitly discussed?
Future: Is there a shared understanding of whether the connection is temporary, open-ended, developing, or intended as a continuing partnership?
Uncertainty: Are you uncertain mainly because the relationship is genuinely undefined, or because you know the definition but dislike or fear its implications?
Alignment: Do both people's stated expectations match their actual participation closely enough for the arrangement to be understandable and consensual?
These questions do not force a conventional relationship model. Two adults can choose a low-commitment, nonexclusive, or FWB arrangement and still be clear with each other. Conversely, two people can call themselves partners while holding very different assumptions. Clarity and commitment are related, but they are not the same thing.
What These Labels Do Not Tell You
They do not tell you someone's attachment style
An undefined or casual relationship is not evidence that a person is “avoidant,” and wanting clarity is not evidence that someone has an “anxious attachment style.” Adult attachment is a separate dimensional research domain. For the evidence base, measurement issues, and anxiety/avoidance model, see Adult Attachment Theory: How Anxiety and Avoidance Shape Relationships.
They do not tell you someone's motive
The same behavior can arise from different motives. A person might avoid defining a relationship because they prefer low commitment, are uncertain about compatibility, expect the connection to be temporary, have not considered the question, fear conflict, or hold another reason entirely. Research on categories and group patterns cannot reveal one person's motive from the label alone.
They do not diagnose anyone
Situationship and friends with benefits are relationship terms, not diagnoses. They are not DSM or ICD disorders, and neither label establishes a personality disorder, trauma history, compulsive process, addiction, or mental-health condition. Relationship uncertainty is a scientific construct, not a diagnosis.
They do not automatically reveal exclusivity
Exclusivity needs its own agreement. People can make exclusivity part of a defined relationship, an FWB arrangement, or an otherwise ambiguous connection. They can also explicitly agree to nonexclusivity. Guessing from the label creates avoidable uncertainty.
Common Myths About Situationships, Relationships, and FWB
Myth: A situationship is just FWB with another name
The categories can overlap, but their organizing features differ. Situationship research emphasizes ambiguity and lack of clear relationship definition. FWB research emphasizes friendship plus sexual activity. An explicitly negotiated FWB can therefore have less relationship-definition uncertainty than a situationship.
Myth: FWB means there are no feelings
Research does not support that as a universal rule. FWB arrangements vary widely, and some include meaningful friendship, emotional involvement, commitment, or a desire for transition into romance (Mongeau et al., 2013).
Myth: If you act like a couple, you are in a committed relationship
Couple-like behaviors can occur without a shared definition. Situationship research specifically describes affection, sexual behavior, and time spent together despite lack of a clear label or comparatively low commitment (Langlais et al., 2024). Behavior provides information, but commitment is an interpersonal agreement and psychological orientation, not an inference created by appearances alone.
Myth: A defined relationship is automatically exclusive
A romantic relationship label and an exclusivity agreement answer different questions. One describes the relationship's identity; the other describes agreed boundaries around other partners. They often coincide in monogamous relationships, but they should not be treated as logically identical.
Myth: Ambiguity proves manipulation
Ambiguity can be painful, convenient, mutually preferred, temporary, avoidant, strategic, accidental, or produced by mismatched assumptions. Observing uncertainty does not reveal intent. Claims such as manipulation, love bombing, coercive control, emotional unavailability, or narcissism require evidence beyond the fact that a relationship is undefined.
Can a Situationship Become a Relationship? Can FWB Become a Relationship?
Both can change form. Relationship categories describe current structure; they do not create an irreversible path. FWB research directly documents multiple trajectories over time, including continued FWB, friendship, no continuing relationship, and romantic partnership (Machia et al., 2020). Situationship studies also show variation in investment, future communication, prioritization, satisfaction, and commitment (Langlais et al., 2025).
What research cannot do is convert those group findings into a forecast for one pair. Whether a particular connection changes depends on the people involved, what they want, what they communicate, and what they decide. A label is not a prediction engine.
When the Difference Matters Most
The distinction becomes practically important when the people involved are making decisions based on different assumptions. One person may believe that frequent contact and exclusivity imply partnership while the other believes no commitment exists because no relationship was defined. One may understand FWB as a stable friendship with clear sexual boundaries while the other treats it as a transitional stage toward romance. One may use situationship to describe mutually chosen flexibility while the other experiences the same ambiguity as unwanted uncertainty.
Relationship science suggests that explicit communication can matter because uncertainty and relationship talk interact over time. But “just communicate” is not a guarantee of the outcome someone wants. A conversation can clarify that both people want commitment, that both prefer the current arrangement, or that their goals do not match. The psychological value of clarity is that it replaces some inference with shared information.
FAQ
Is a situationship technically a relationship?
In the broad interpersonal sense, yes: two people in a situationship have some form of relationship. In contemporary dating language, however, “relationship” often means a defined romantic partnership, and situationship is commonly used specifically to mark the absence of that clear definition. The apparent contradiction comes from using the word relationship at two different levels.
What is the biggest difference between a situationship and a relationship?
The most defensible distinction is mutual definition and commitment. A situationship is typically characterized by unresolved status or limited commitment; a defined romantic relationship has a mutually recognized partnership identity. Emotional intensity, sex, daily texting, or time together cannot substitute for that distinction.
What is the biggest difference between a situationship and FWB?
A situationship is primarily organized around romantic ambiguity; FWB is primarily organized around friendship plus sexual activity. FWB can be explicitly negotiated and therefore relatively clear, while a situationship can involve extensive romantic behavior without a settled label.
Can a situationship be exclusive?
Yes, in the ordinary sense that two people may agree not to date or have sex with others while leaving other aspects of their relationship undefined. Exclusivity does not by itself create a committed romantic label. The important point is whether exclusivity was actually agreed rather than inferred.
Can friends with benefits be exclusive?
They can. Research on FWB rules has documented sexual exclusivity among the rules described by some participants (van Raalte et al., 2021). That does not mean exclusivity is standard across all FWB arrangements.
Does FWB always mean no romantic feelings?
No. The standard concept distinguishes FWB from conventional romantic commitment, but studies document considerable variation in emotion, commitment, friendship strength, and desire to transition into romance (Mongeau et al., 2013).
Are situationships always unhealthy?
No. Current situationship studies report associations involving commitment, satisfaction, trust, communication, and uncertainty, but they do not justify a universal clinical judgment. Whether an arrangement works for someone depends in part on whether the structure matches their goals and whether expectations are sufficiently aligned.
Which is more serious: FWB or a situationship?
“Serious” is too imprecise to rank the categories. An FWB can involve a strong friendship, clear rules, exclusivity, or substantial commitment; a situationship can involve intense romantic investment while remaining undefined. Compare the actual dimensions — commitment, investment, exclusivity, future orientation, trust, and mutual definition — rather than the label alone.
Can relationship uncertainty exist in an official relationship?
Yes. Relationship uncertainty is not limited to situationships. People in established relationships can be uncertain about their own involvement, their partner's involvement, or the relationship's future. Situationships are especially relevant to uncertainty because unclear status is often part of the label, but the scientific construct is broader.
How do attachment styles fit into this?
Attachment-related anxiety and avoidance can shape how people experience closeness, dependence, rejection, and uncertainty, but the label of a relationship does not reveal an individual's attachment orientation. For the broader evidence on attachment within dating and partnership, see Attachment Styles in Relationships: Dating, Intimacy, Conflict, and Communication.
The Bottom Line
Situationship, relationship, and friends with benefits describe different ways of organizing intimacy, but everyday labels are imperfect. A situationship is most usefully distinguished by unresolved definition or commitment. A committed romantic relationship is distinguished by mutual recognition of partnership and some shared commitment. FWB is distinguished by the combination of friendship and sexual involvement, usually without an expectation of conventional romantic commitment.
The categories can overlap at their edges and can change over time. The strongest evidence does not support reducing them to stereotypes such as “situationships are toxic,” “FWB has no feelings,” or “a real relationship must be exclusive.” Relationship science becomes more informative when it asks what has actually been defined, what has actually been agreed, how much uncertainty exists, and whether both people understand the connection in approximately the same way.
If you are unsure which of these relationship forms you and the other person have actually agreed to, see “What Are We?” How to Define a Relationship When the Status Is Unclear.
Related Articles
References
Knobloch, L. K., & Theiss, J. A. (2011). Relational uncertainty and relationship talk within courtship: A longitudinal actor–partner interdependence model. Communication Monographs, 78(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2010.542471
Langlais, M. R., & Davidson, F. (2026). Can I trust you without committing to you?: Examining situationships status, multimodal communication, and trust. Sexuality & Culture. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-026-10592-9
Langlais, M. R., Guzman, P., Toohey, L., Podberesky, A., et al. (2025). Are situationships situational?: A mixed-methods study on the motivations for being in a situationship. Sexuality & Culture, 29, 2945–2964. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-025-10402-8
Langlais, M. R., Podberesky, A., Toohey, L., & Lee, C. T. (2024). Defining and describing situationships: An exploratory investigation. Sexuality & Culture, 28, 1831–1857. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-024-10210-6
Machia, L. V., Proulx, M. L., Ioerger, M., & Lehmiller, J. J. (2020). A longitudinal study of friends with benefits relationships. Personal Relationships, 27(1), 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12307
Mikkelson, A. C., & Ray, C. D. (2024). Commitment, relational uncertainty, and the Investment Model. Communication Research Reports, 41(2), 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2024.2351367
Mongeau, P. A., Knight, K., Williams, J., Eden, J., & Shaw, C. (2013). Identifying and explicating variation among friends with benefits relationships. The Journal of Sex Research, 50(1), 37–47. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22046972/
Olmstead, S. B., LeFebvre, L. E., & Allen, M. (2026). A meta-analysis of friends with benefits relationships: Examining sexual features, sexual and mental health, violence/aggression, and gender. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 55(3), 1045–1067. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42010181/
Tran, P., Judge, M., & Kashima, Y. (2019). Commitment in relationships: An updated meta-analysis of the Investment Model. Personal Relationships, 26(1), 158–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12268
van Raalte, L. J., Bednarchik, L. A., Generous, M. A., & Mongeau, P. A. (2021). Examining rules in friends with benefits relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34779977/
VanderDrift, L. E., Lehmiller, J. J., & Kelly, J. R. (2012). Commitment in friends with benefits relationships: Implications for relational and safe-sex outcomes. Personal Relationships, 19(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01324.x
Wesche, R., Claxton, S. E., & Waterman, E. A. (2021). Emotional outcomes of casual sexual relationships and experiences: A systematic review. The Journal of Sex Research, 58(8), 1069–1084. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32991206/