Sexual activity is often touted in popular culture as a natural remedy for daily tension and anxiety. A recent study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior provides evidence that while sex is associated with lower stress on the day it occurs, these benefits generally do not persist into the following day. The findings also suggest that the motivation behind the sexual encounter plays an important role in its emotional aftermath, as sex initiated to avoid relationship conflict was linked to increased stress levels 24 hours later.

The idea that physical intimacy can alleviate stress is not merely a product of television sitcoms or magazines. Psychological theories regarding affectionate touch suggest that physical contact reduces negative emotions through specific neurobiological pathways. Sexual activity triggers the release of hormones like oxytocin and endogenous opioids, which are known to modulate the body’s stress response.

Prior research has supported this connection to some degree, linking frequent sexual activity to higher life satisfaction and lower negative mood. However, few studies have examined the day-to-day fluctuations of this relationship or tested how long the stress-relieving effects actually last.

Previous daily-diary studies have produced mixed results and often relied on small samples of college students or older adults. The authors of the current study aimed to address these gaps by analyzing a large, pooled sample of newlywed couples to provide a more robust test of these associations.

“There’s this widespread, lay belief that sex is a natural stress reliever, but very little research has actually provided compelling empirical evidence to support this belief,” explained study author Sierra D. Peters, an assistant professor of psychology at Rhodes College. “Prior studies were small, inconsistent, and often focused on students or single individuals. Thus, our goal was to examine whether sexual activity actually does reduce stress in a high-powered study of real long-term couples. We were also interested in whether the context of sex—why couples are having it and how satisfying it is—impacts any stress-relieving properties of sex.”

To investigate the temporal relationship between sex and stress, the researchers combined data from three independent studies. The final sample included 645 individuals, comprising 319 couples. The participants were generally young adults in their mid-twenties to early thirties. All participants were in the early stages of marriage, having been wed for less than six months on average.

The research employed a daily-diary design, which allows researchers to capture real-life experiences as they happen rather than relying on retrospective memory. Couples first completed a baseline session where they provided demographic information and completed standard measures of personality and relationship satisfaction. Following this, each partner completed a survey every evening for 14 consecutive days.

On each of these 14 days, participants reported whether they had engaged in sexual activity with their partner. They also rated their daily experiences of stress and anxiety on a scale from one to seven. The researchers combined reports from both partners to ensure accuracy regarding whether sex occurred on a given day.

When sexual activity did take place, participants answered additional questions about the encounter. They rated how satisfied they were with the sex. They also indicated their motives for being intimate. Specifically, they reported the extent to which they engaged in sex to please their partner, known as an approach motive. They also reported if they had sex to avoid conflict in the relationship, known as an avoidance motive.

The researchers used advanced statistical modeling to analyze the daily fluctuations within each person and couple. They looked at the association between sex and stress on the same day. They also examined the “lagged” association to see if having sex on one day predicted stress levels on the subsequent day.

The researchers found an association between sexual activity and reduced stress on the same day. On days when couples engaged in sex, they reported lower levels of stress compared to days when they did not. This association remained significant even when the researchers accounted for other factors like daily negative mood.

This immediate reduction in stress appeared to be universal within the sample. The researchers found no evidence that the effect differed between men and women. It also did not depend on the couple’s general level of marital satisfaction. Both husbands and wives in happy or less happy marriages experienced similar same-day benefits.

However, the stress-relieving properties of sexual activity appeared to be transient. The analysis revealed that engaging in sex on a given day was not associated with reduced stress the next day. The beneficial effects observed on the day of intimacy did not carry over across a 24-hour period. This suggests that the neurobiological or psychological boost provided by sex is relatively short-lived.

“I was a little surprised to see how transient the benefits of engaging in partnered sex were; we expected them to last at least 24 hours, but they did not,” Peters told PsyPost.

The researchers also found that the quality of the sexual experience mattered for immediate well-being. People who reported higher satisfaction with the sexual encounter experienced greater reductions in stress that same day. However, like the act of sex itself, this satisfaction did not predict lower stress levels the following day.

One of the most significant findings concerned the motivations behind sexual activity. The data indicated that why people have sex is just as important as whether they have sex. When individuals engaged in sexual activity to avoid negative outcomes, such as conflict or partner disappointment, the results were detrimental.

Specifically, engaging in sex with avoidance motives was associated with higher levels of stress the next day. This finding aligns with broader psychological theories regarding approach and avoidance motivation. Actions taken to evade negative experiences often result in increased anxiety and vigilance. In the context of a relationship, having sex to prevent a fight may paradoxically create the very tension the individual hopes to escape.

On the other hand, engaging in sex for approach motives, such as wanting to please a partner, showed a different pattern. There was some evidence that this motivation was linked to lower stress the next day. However, this particular finding was not as robust when the researchers controlled for other personality variables.

“One big takeaway from this research is that sex can reduce stress—but these beneficial effects appear to be fairly short-lived,” Peters explained. “We found that on days couples had sex, they felt less stressed that same day. However, those benefits didn’t carry over to the next day. Another important conclusion from this research is that why people are having sex matters. When couples had sex to avoid conflict or tension in their relationship, they actually felt more stressed, and that heightened stress carried into the next day.”

“These were small effects, but that’s typical for daily events that occur within relationships (e.g., mood, stress) which are influenced by many different things simultaneously. The changes we observed weren’t dramatic—but they were reliable across more than 8,000 days of data. In practical terms, sex isn’t the end all, be all cure for stress. It may provide a short-term buffer, but it’s probably not a substitute for addressing the underlying sources of stress.”

The study has several strengths, including its large sample size and the use of dyadic data from both spouses. Focusing on newlyweds also provided a sample where sexual frequency is typically higher than in long-term marriages. This allowed for sufficient variability in the data to detect these daily patterns.

Despite these strengths, the study is not without limitations. The data is correlational, which means researchers cannot definitively claim that sex causes the reduction in stress. It is equally plausible that days with lower stress levels simply make people more inclined to engage in sexual activity. The researchers attempted to control for prior-day stress to account for this, but the direction of causality remains a question.

Another limitation involves the demographic homogeneity of the sample. The participants were primarily heterosexual, Caucasian, and residing in the United States. They were also all newlyweds, a group that typically reports high relationship satisfaction.

“One caveat worth noting is that these data come from newlywed couples,” Peters noted. “Thus, the findings may not generalize to longer-term marriages, dating couples, or single individuals. It’s also important to remember that these data are correlational, so drawing causal conclusions is not appropriate.”

“Going forward, I’m interested in differentiating between different sources (e.g., internal versus external) and types (e.g., acute versus chronic) of stress and complementing self-report measures with physiological indicators of stress, such as cortisol or blood pressure. If the benefits of sex are primarily short-term and neurobiological, these kinds of measures may provide a clearer picture of the conditions under which sexual activity truly helps regulate different kinds of stress.”

The study, “Does Sex Today Relieve Stress Tomorrow? Examining Lagged Associations Between Partnered Sexual Activity and Stress Among Newlywed Couples,” was authored by Sierra D. Peters, Devon S. Glicken, and Andrea L. Meltzer.

A new study suggests that the total amount of warmth shared between partners matters more than whether they express it equally. While similarity often breeds compatibility in many areas of life, researchers found that maximizing affectionate communication yields better relationship quality than simply matching a partner’s lower output. These results were recently published in the journal Communication Studies.

Relationship science often relies on two competing ideas regarding how couples succeed. One concept, known as assortative mating, suggests that people gravitate toward partners with similar traits, backgrounds, and behaviors. This principle implies that a reserved partner might feel most comfortable with an equally quiet companion.

Under that theory, a mismatch in expressiveness could lead to friction or misunderstanding. The logic holds that if one person is highly demonstrative and the other is stoic, the gap could cause dissatisfaction.

Conversely, a framework called affection exchange theory posits that expressing fondness is a fundamental human need that directly fuels bonding. This theory argues that affection acts as a resource that promotes survival and procreation capabilities.

Kory Floyd, a researcher at Washington State University, led the investigation to resolve which mechanism plays a larger role in romantic satisfaction. Floyd and his colleagues sought to determine if mismatched couples suffer from imbalance or if the sheer volume of warmth compensates for disparity.

The research team recruited 141 heterosexual couples from across the United States to participate in the study. These pairs represented a diverse range of ages, ethnic backgrounds, and socioeconomic levels. The researchers looked at the couple as a unit, rather than just surveying isolated individuals.

Each participant completed detailed surveys designed to measure their typical behaviors and feelings. They reported their “trait” affectionate communication, which refers to their general tendency to express and receive warmth. This included verbal affirmation, nonverbal gestures like holding hands, and acts of support.

Participants also rated the quality of their relationship across several specific dimensions. These metrics included feelings of trust, intimacy, passion, and overall satisfaction. The researchers then utilized complex statistical models to analyze how these factors influenced one another.

They examined “actor effects,” which measure how a person’s own behavior influences their own happiness. The analysis revealed that for both men and women, being affectionate predicted higher personal satisfaction. When an individual expressed more warmth, they generally felt better about the relationship.

The team also looked for “partner effects,” determining how one person’s actions change their partner’s experience. The study produced evidence that an individual’s expressions of warmth positively impacted their partner’s view of the relationship in about half of the categories tested.

However, the primary focus was comparing the absolute level of affection against the relative similarity of affection. The researchers created a mathematical comparison to pit the “birds of a feather” hypothesis against the “more is better” hypothesis.

The data showed that the absolute level of affectionate communication was a far stronger predictor of relationship health than the relative difference between partners. In simpler terms, a couple where one person is highly demonstrative and the other is moderate scores higher on satisfaction than a couple where both are equally reserved.

While similarity did not drag relationship scores down, it simply did not provide the same boost as high overall warmth. The results indicated that for most metrics of quality, the total volume of affection matters more than who fills the bucket.

This challenges the notion that finding a “mirror image” partner is the key to happiness. Colin Hesse, a co-author from Oregon State University, noted the distinction in the team’s press release.

Hesse stated, “The study does not discount the importance of similarity in many aspects of romantic relationships but instead highlights once again the specific importance of affectionate communication to the success and development of those relationships.”

The benefits appear to stem from the stress-relieving properties of positive touch and verbal affirmation. A high-affection environment creates a buffer against conflict and builds a reservoir of goodwill.

Hesse explained, “Generally speaking, affectionate communication is beneficial both for the partner who gives it and the partner receiving it.” This suggests that even if one partner does the heavy lifting, the union still thrives.

The findings offer reassurance to couples who worry about having different love languages or expressive styles. If one partner enjoys public displays of affection and the other prefers quiet support, the relationship is likely still healthy as long as the total affection remains high.

There were, however, specific exceptions in the data regarding feelings of love and commitment. For these two specific variables, the total amount of affection was not more influential than the similarity between partners. This nuance suggests that while satisfaction and passion are driven by volume, the core sense of commitment might operate differently.

While the study offers strong evidence for the power of affection, there are limitations to consider. The sample consisted entirely of heterosexual couples, meaning the dynamics might differ in LGBTQ+ relationships. The researchers relied on self-reported perceptions, which can sometimes be biased by a person’s current mood or memory.

Additionally, the study captures a snapshot in time rather than following couples over years. Future research could investigate how these dynamics shift over decades of marriage. It would be useful to see if the need for matched affection levels increases as a relationship matures.

Scientists might also look at specific types of affection to see if verbal or physical expressions carry different weights. For now, the message to couples is that increasing warmth is rarely a bad strategy.

Hesse concluded in the press release, “We would not prescribe specific affectionate behaviors but would in general counsel people to engage in affectionate communication.”

The study, “Affectionate Communication in Romantic Relationships: Are Relative Levels or Absolute Levels More Consequential?,” was authored by Kory Floyd, Lisa van Raalte, and Colin Hesse.

A longstanding belief in the publishing world suggests that men avoid reading fiction that centers on the lives of women. However, new research indicates that a protagonist’s gender has almost no impact on whether a man wants to continue reading a story. These findings appear in the Anthology of Computers and the Humanities.

The literary marketplace has historically skewed heavily toward men. For roughly two centuries, men wrote the majority of published novels. These books focused their narrative attention primarily on male characters.

That dynamic has shifted in recent years. Women now constitute the majority of published authors. In addition, women are now more likely to purchase and read books than men are.

This demographic change has sparked concern among some cultural commentators. There is an anxiety that literary fiction is becoming a pursuit exclusive to women. This worry often centers on the idea that boys and men are losing interest in reading as the representation of women increases.

Data from the industry shows a strong division between authors and readers based on gender. Men tend to read books written by men. Conversely, women tend to read books written by women.

Industry stakeholders often attribute this separation to a specific reader preference. They assume men are simply less willing to read books featuring women protagonists. This assumption suggests that publishers should release more stories centering on men to maximize their potential audience.

Federica Bologna, a doctoral student in information science at Cornell University, led a team to investigate this assumption. Co-authors included Ian Lundberg from the University of California, Los Angeles, and Matthew Wilkens from Cornell University. They noted that previous research on this topic was scarce.

Earlier studies on reader preferences often relied on small groups or interviews rather than large-scale data. Some of these smaller studies suggested that men prefer male protagonists. Others suggested that women were indifferent to character gender.

Bologna and her colleagues sought to determine if the gender of a character actually causes a reader to stop reading. They designed an experiment to isolate gender as a single variable. The team recruited approximately 3,000 participants living in the United States.

The participant pool was evenly split between men and women to ensure balanced data. The researchers excluded participants who identified as non-binary due to data limitations. The resulting sample size provided high statistical power for the analysis.

Participants read two short stories written specifically for the study. The researchers created original fiction to ensure no participant had seen the text before. One story focused on a character named Sam who goes hiking in the desert.

The second story depicted a character named Alex sketching in a coffee shop. The authors chose the names Sam and Alex because they are gender-neutral. This allowed the researchers to swap the genders of the characters without changing their names.

Crucially, the team randomized the pronouns used in each version of the stories. Half the participants read a version where Sam the hiker was a woman using “she/her” pronouns. In this version, Alex the artist was a man using “he/him” pronouns.

The other half of the participants read a version where the genders were swapped. For them, Sam was a man and Alex was a woman. This design ensured that the plot, setting, and dialogue remained identical for all readers.

Only the perceived gender of the main character changed between the groups. This approach is known as a vignette experiment. It allows researchers to attribute any difference in reader response directly to the specific variable they manipulated.

After reading the passages, participants had to answer comprehension questions. This step verified that they had actually read and understood the text. They were then asked to choose which of the two stories they would prefer to continue reading.

The researchers compared the probability of a reader selecting a story based on the protagonist’s gender. If the industry assumption were correct, men would be much less likely to choose the story when the protagonist was a woman. The results contradicted this prevailing wisdom.

When the protagonist was a woman, men chose the hiking story 76 percent of the time. When the protagonist was a man, men selected the hiking story 75 percent of the time. The statistical difference between these two numbers was effectively zero.

The presence of a female protagonist did not reduce the men’s desire to read the story. Being randomly assigned a female character increased the probability of a man choosing that story by only 0.8 percentage points. This result was not statistically distinguishable from having no effect at all.

Matthew Wilkens, an associate professor of information science, noted the clarity of the result. “This supposed preference among men for reading about men as characters just isn’t true. That doesn’t exist,” said Wilkens.

He emphasized that these findings challenge the anecdotes often cited in the publishing world. “That is contrary to the limited existing literature and contrary to widespread industry assumptions,” Wilkens added.

Women participants showed a different pattern than the men. They displayed a modest preference for stories featuring women. Women selected the hiking story 77 percent of the time when it featured a woman.

This probability dropped to 70 percent when the character was a man. The data suggests that while women leaned toward characters of their own gender, men remained indifferent. The gender of the character did not appear to be a deciding factor for male readers.

The authors acknowledged certain limitations in their experimental design. The study relied on just two specific short stories. It is possible that the genre of the story influences reader preferences in ways this experiment did not capture.

For instance, men might read more mysteries or thrillers. Those genres often feature male protagonists. If the study had used a different genre, the results might have differed.

Future research would need to randomize genre to see if that changes the outcome. Additionally, the use of unpublished fiction limits how well the study mimics real-world bookstores. In a bookstore, fame and marketing play a large role in what people choose.

However, using unpublished text provided strong internal validity. It prevented participants from recognizing the story or guessing the study’s intent. This ensures the responses were genuine reactions to the text itself.

Another limitation involved the demographics of the participants. The researchers excluded respondents with gender identities other than man or woman. This was necessary because they could not gather enough data on those groups to reach a statistical conclusion.

Bologna and her colleagues hope to include nonbinary readers in future work. Understanding how gender-nonconforming readers interact with character gender is a gap in the current science.

The study leaves open the question of why men predominantly read books by men. Since character gender is not the cause, other factors must be at play. The authors suggest that socialization or gendered expectations may influence reading habits.

Society may condition boys to view reading as a feminine activity. This could discourage them from reading at rates equal to girls. Alternatively, men may simply prefer the specific topics or writing styles found in books authored by men.

Despite these open questions, the study offers a clear message to publishers. The fear that writing about women will alienate male readers appears unfounded. Fiction editors need not reserve female protagonists for books marketed solely to women.

“Readers are pretty flexible,” Wilkens said. “Give them interesting stories, and they will want to read them.”

Bologna hopes this work will encourage the publishing industry to promote more books with a variety of girl and women characters. The team suggests that the industry creates a self-fulfilling prophecy by assuming men will not read about women. By breaking this cycle, publishers could offer a more diverse range of stories to all readers.

In future work, the researchers hope to explore whether these findings apply to other media. They question whether similar assumptions drive creators to avoid female protagonists in video games. If the same pattern holds, it would suggest that content creators across media are underestimating their male audience.

The study, “Causal Effect of Character Gender on Readers’ Preferences,” was authored by Federica Bologna, Ian Lundberg, and Matthew Wilkens.

Public expressions of gratitude are generally viewed as positive social glue that strengthens relationships and signals warmth. However, new research suggests that offering effusive thanks may come with a hidden cost to one’s perceived social standing.

A series of studies indicates that when individuals express intense gratitude, observers often view them as having lower status and power relative to the person they are thanking. This research was published in Social Psychological and Personality Science.

Social scientists have historically emphasized the benefits of gratitude. It creates social bonds and signals that a person is friendly and responsive. Many organizations even institutionalize this practice through “gratitude walls” or dedicated communication channels to foster a positive culture. The authors of the current study wanted to investigate a potential downside regarding how competence and influence are perceived.

They noted that while gratitude signals warmth, it might also signal a lack of agency. Agency refers to traits like competence, assertiveness, and control. In social hierarchies, individuals with higher rank typically possess more agency and control over resources.

Because high-ranking individuals are often the ones dispensing favors and resources, they are frequently on the receiving end of gratitude. The researchers hypothesized that observers might intuitively associate intense displays of gratitude with a lower position in the social hierarchy.

“The overwhelming majority of research on gratitude highlights its positive effects. But—inspired in part by work showing that hierarchical relationships can become further entrenched when higher power groups help lower power groups—we had an intuition that sometimes when you express thanks, you might be subordinating yourself to another person,” said study author Kristin Laurin, a professor of psychology at the University of British Columbia.

To test this hypothesis, the researchers conducted two initial studies involving approximately 800 participants recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk. The team designed vignettes describing a workplace scenario.

In these scenarios, one colleague performed a favor for another, such as facilitating a meeting with a manager. The researchers included photographs to vary the gender and race of the characters to ensure the results were not driven by demographics.

Participants first rated the status of both characters based solely on the knowledge that a favor occurred. Following this, they viewed the thanker’s response. The researchers manipulated this response to be either mild or intense. A mild response was a simple phrase like “Great, thanks.” An intense response included phrases like “I’m incredibly grateful” and “I really owe you.”

The researchers found that the intensity of the gratitude significantly shaped perceptions of status. When the thanker was highly effusive, observers upgraded their perception of the helper’s status. The person receiving the thanks was seen as having more respect and influence than the person giving the thanks. This effect occurred even though the favor itself was identical in all conditions.

The researchers sought to replicate these findings across a broader range of contexts in two subsequent studies. These studies recruited roughly 740 participants from Prolific. The scenarios extended beyond the workplace to include academic settings, social media interactions, and casual encounters like a café visit. For instance, one scenario involved a student getting help with study notes.

A potential issue in the first studies was that mild gratitude might look like rudeness, which is a violation of social norms. To address this, the researchers asked participants to categorize various expressions of thanks as “appropriate,” “not enough,” or “too much.” Participants then viewed a gratitude expression that fell within the “appropriate” range but was either on the high or low end of intensity.

Participants rated both the status and power of the characters. Status was defined as respect and admiration. Power was defined as control over resources. The results reinforced the earlier findings. When thankers expressed mild gratitude, observers tended to view the helper as having less relative rank. When thankers expressed intense gratitude, the helper maintained a higher perceived rank.

The researchers also attempted to understand why this shift in perception occurs. They measured whether observers thought the thanker valued the help more or wanted to build a stronger relationship.

While intense gratitude did signal a desire for affiliation, these factors did not explain the shift in perceived status. The link between gratitude and low rank appeared to be a direct inference made by the observers.

The final set of studies moved away from hypothetical scenarios to real-world data. The researchers collected actual work-related messages exchanged by working adults. They presented these messages to over 650 participants across three separate studies. The participants viewed screenshots of emails and instant messages containing expressions of thanks.

Trained coders analyzed the messages for different types of intensity. They looked for “relative intensity,” which meant the message was primarily dedicated to expressing thanks rather than discussing other business. They also coded for “verbal amplification,” such as using extra adjectives, and “nonverbal amplification,” such as using exclamation points or emojis.

The participants rated the sender’s status, power, warmth, and competence. The findings revealed a nuanced pattern. When a message was primarily focused on gratitude, the sender was perceived as having lower status and power compared to the recipient. These senders were also viewed as less competent and assertive.

The use of nonverbal cues like emojis also tended to lower perceptions of rank. However, simply adding more words to say thanks did not consistently lower perceived status.

In some cases, verbose thankers were actually seen as having higher agency. The researchers speculated that managers might often use longer, praise-filled messages to encourage employees, which complicates the interpretation of verbal length.

“When we tested our predictions in a particular real-world context—emails sent in the workplace—we were surprised that using emojis and punctuation (like exclamation marks), or using extra words to express more effusive gratitude, actually did not result in thankers appearing lower status,” Laurin told PsyPost. “Instead, what made them appear lower status was sending an email that was solely or primarily about gratitude (as opposed to expressing thanks while also delivering other content).”

“This study was correlational, so we can’t rule out confounds: Maybe the more effusive thankers tended to be in management positions, or maybe lower status employees instinctively avoid emojis because they worry about how they’ll come across. But for now the key takeaway from these real-world studies appears to be that if you want to express gratitude without losing status, it might be safest to do so when you also have something else to say.”

The results suggest that while gratitude makes a person seem nicer, it can inadvertently signal lower professional standing. People often face a trade-off between appearing warm and appearing powerful.

That publicly expressing thanks can make observers think you have lower status than the person you are thanking. Many times that may be a price people are willing to pay, especially given gratitude’s other benefits, but it is a cost to bear in mind. The researchers note that this does not mean people should stop saying thank you.

“The effects are not huge, so the takeaway message is definitely not that you should never express gratitude if you care about your status!” Laurin clarified. “It may simply be worth asking yourself if you have a compulsion to overdo the gratitude, for example expressing it multiple times for the same favor. If so, it may be worth being aware that this may lead others to make assumptions about your status and power.”

As with all research, there are some caveats. The samples were entirely American. Cultural norms regarding hierarchy and gratitude vary significantly around the world. In some cultures, effusive gratitude might not carry the same connotations of submission.

The researchers are interested in how these dynamics play out in intergroup contexts. It remains to be seen how gratitude affects power dynamics between members of minority and majority groups.

“One of our inspirations for this project came from thinking about intergroup dynamics and pre-existing status relations: We wondered if gratitude hits differently when its expressed by a member of a minorities group to a member of a dominant group, compared to the reverse,” Laurin said. “Our initial forays into exploring this have not turned up reliable differences, but the broader question remains unresolved.”

The study, “Does Saying “Thanks a Lot” Make You Look Less Than? The Magnitude of Gratitude Shapes Perceptions of Relational Hierarchy,” was authored by Kristin Laurin, Kate W. Guan, and Ayana Younge.