Consequences of Casual Sex Relationships and Experiences on Adolescents’ Psychological Well-Being: A Prospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Casual sexual relationships and experiences (CSREs) are still considered to be detrimental to the psychological well-being of youth even though findings remain inconclusive. Most studies have focused on emerging adulthood. Using a prospective design based on a representative sample of high school students in the province of Québec, we measured sexually active adolescents' (N = 2,304) psychological well-being six months after engaging in these relationships while controlling for prior well-being. We analyzed two forms of CSREs, friends with benefits (FWB) and one-night stand (ONS) relationships, as well as levels of sexual intimacy. The results show that CSREs had a small impact (small effect sizes) on subsequent psychological well-being, especially among girls; FWB relationships involving penetrative contact increased girls' psychological distress and both their alcohol and drug consumption. ONSs including sexual touching increased girls' psychological distress and their drug use. None of the CSREs influenced boys' psychological well-being. The findings underscored the importance of using caution when arguing that CSREs are detrimental or harmless to the psychological well-being of adolescents. The results also highlight the importance of taking into account gender and forms of CSREs in prevention and health interventions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".