3
‘ 3.91.113 >3" ‘

2.125
o‘fi,

A;
w»
3”

-

r
his"
1.4. ”4 w

wzu-P
3“." 4
“:3" .‘m'f‘f
.m-U
,«

«R
.f

 

 

.Mrm
on "‘

.2-3-2: gum-v: :,.-‘ A v'fl
I:
V 6:351:31"

a.

A

'5." ‘
,. ,- » EW} _ :25 31b . .
4 1 4 . ‘ 4 ml wit-gt.
{51 ~ ‘ “W‘-
{_ I as; i {II

it
I

5
‘3‘
g
3:. .

I: TIE

 

 

“7 [1,11
v" "

m {505/ 2

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

“HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO”: NEGOTIATING A
FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS RELATIONSHIP

presented by
Melissa A. Bisson

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

M. A. degree in Communication

s //’:‘ I ’

Major Professor’s Signature
//¢ 7271 24, 2&7

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

u” ’~ 7. V‘

"0' v ”V-

 

LlBRARY l

MIChIQan State

1%

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

 

 

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE
PM) {“995 2700;31:ng EidIl, 7
113m 6 52605.
gm“ 2%

 

050123 2067,“ 7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJClRC/DataDuepes-sz

 

“HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO”: NEGOTIATING A
FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS RELATIONSHIP

By

Melissa A. Bisson

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Communication

2004

ABSTRACT

“HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO”: NEGOTIATING A
FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS RELATIONSHIP

By

Melissa A. Bisson

Evidence exists of a new type of relationship known as “friends with benefits.” Friends
with benefits are two people who are otherwise just friends but have sex. Friends with
benefits fit neither the traditional definition of a friendship nor a romantic relationship. A
conceptual framework was developed for “friends with benefits” relationships. Study one
(N = 125) investigated the prevalence of these relationships, how sex can complicate a
friendship, and why individuals engage in this relationship using an open-end
questionnaire. The results indicated that a majority of individuals (60.0%) have had this
type of relationship, that sex complicates friendships by bringing forth desires for
commitment, and that these relationships are desirable because they incorporate trust and
comfort while avoiding romantic commitment. A second study was conducted to
determine what relational negotiation strategies are used by participants in these
relationships. A sample of 90 undergraduate students who had a friends with benefits
relationship responded to a questionnaire investigating relational negotiation in these
relationships. The results indicated that people in friends with benefits relationships most
often avoid relational negotiation. These results are discussed along with limitations and

conclusions.

Copyright by
MELISSA A. BISSON
2004

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Eric Kuznicki for inspiring me to explore this topic and for
your support and encouragement throughout this process. You were an important part of
this paper by listening and motivating me as well as the many hours you devoted as a
coder. Your constant confidence in me was inspiring. I also thank my colleagues for their
ongoing advice and generosity for allowing me to collect data in their courses.

To Dr. Levine I wish to say thank you for your patience. You were instrumental
in helping me formulate my ideas and allowing me to take this paper in the direction I
chose to. Your expertise and guidance are what make this paper what it is for which I
owe you much gratitude. I would also like to thank my second reader, Dr. Smith and my

external examiner, Dr. Dwyer for their valuable insights into my work.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................... vii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................. viii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................. 1
Definition Issues ............................................................................. 3
Stemberg’s Triangle Theory of Love ..................................................... 5
Conceptual Definition of Sex ............................................................... 7
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................... 9
Friends with Benefits ........................................................................ 9
A Refined Definition of Friends with Benefits ......................................... 10
Impact Sexual Activity has on Friendships ............................................. 11
CHAPTER 3: STUDY 1 ............................................................................ 13
Method ....................................................................................... 13
Participants ......................................................................... 13
Procedure ........................................................................... 1 3
Measures ............................................................................ 13
Analysis ............................................................................. 14
Results ........................................................................................ 14
Summary of Results ............................................................... 23
Discussion ................................................................................... 24
CHAPTER 4: STUDY 2 ............................................................................ 27
Relational Negotiation Strategies ........................................................ 27
Method ....................................................................................... 3O
Participants ......................................................................... 30
Procedure ........................................................................... 30
Measures ........................................................................... 31
Love Scale .......................................................................... 32
Analysis ............................................................................. 32
Results ....................................................................................... 32
Summary of Results ............................................................... 48
Discussion ................................................................................... 50
Limitations .................................................................................. 54
Conclusion .................................................................................. 55
APPENDICES ....................................................................................... 56
Informed Consent Form ............................................................................ 56
Friends with Benefits Questionnaire ............................................................... 57
Informed Consent Form ............................................................................. 59

 

Fnend5\

REFERI

 

 

Friends with Benefits Questionnaire Study 2 ................................................... 60

REFERENCES ...................................................................................... 68

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Sternberg’s Types of Love ................................................................. 6
Table 2. Advantages of a Friends with Benefits Relationship ................................. 18
Table 3. Reasons to Engage in a Friends with BenefitsRelationship ....................... 20
Table 4. Disadvantages of a Friends with Benefits Relationship ............................. 21
Table 5. Reasons Not to Engage in a Friends with Benefits Relationship ................... 22

Table 6. Intimacy, Passion, and Commitment in a Friends with Benefits Relationship. . .35
Table 7. Questions that Arose in the Friends with Benefits Relationship .................... 37
Table 8. Initiating Discussion in the Friends with Benefits Relationship... . . 39
Table 9. How Discussion was brought up in the Friends with Benefits Relationship ....... 40
Table 10. What was Discussed in the Friends with Benefits Relationship ................... 41
Table 11. Ground Rules in the Friends with Benefits Relationship .......................... 42

Table 12. Negotiating the Ground Rules in the Friends with Benefits Relationship ....... 43

Table 13. Issues in the Friends with Benefits Relationship .................................... 45
Table 14. Dealing with Issues with in the Friends with Benefits Relationship ............. 46
Table 15. Outcomes of the Friends with Benefits Relationship ............................... 48

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Select Examples of Stemberg’s Triangles of Love ................................... 5

viii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Common to literatures spanning several disciplines is an accepted distinction
between friendships and romantic relationships (e. g., Davis & Todd, 1985; Fehr, 1996;
Brogan, 2002). Recently, however, evidence of a new type of relationship has been
obtained that neither fits the traditional definition of a friendship nor a romantic
relationship, yet has characteristics of both. This unique relationship has become known
as a ”friends withpgwnfiefits” relationship.

Mongeau, Ramirez, and Vorell (2003) describe the nature of friends with benefits
relationships as “attempt[ing] to combine the communicative and psychological intimacy
(i.e., warmth and closeness) of a fi'iendship with the sexual intimacy of a romantic
relationship while at the same time eschewing the ‘romantic’ label” (Mongeau et al.,
2003, p. 3). People in fi'iends with benefits relationships opt to engage in sexual activity
with a friend as opposed to a “hook-up” characterized by “a sexual encounter between
two people who are brief acquaintances or strangers, usually lasting only one night
without the expectation of developing a relationship” (Paul, McManus & Hayes, 2000;
Paul & Hayes, 2002) or beginning a romantic relationship. This unique relational type is
a category all its own and challenges the previous conceptual definitions of fi'iends and
romantic partners and the distinction between the two. Labeling this DEW typoof _
“relationship a fi'iendshipisconsistent with the fact that these individuals are not _

. romantically committedgnd- do not share a romantic love for one another. But, consistent
with romantic relationships, these people engage in prepeatedmsexual actrvrty,wh1chhas

gaditionallybeen linked to a romantic relationship.

Although friends with benefits relationships are apparently widespread and recent
research has investigated this phenomenon (Mongeau et al., 2003), the existing research
concentrates on initial exploratory issues of the nature of fi'iends with benefits‘and its
prevalence. Mongeau et al. (2003) call for future research to provide a more detailed
description and explanation of the nature, birth, life, and death of friends with benefits
relationships.

Given that sexual activity is typically unexpected in friendships (Working, 1997),
this can create a considerable amount of uncertainty about the relationship state (Afifi &
Burgoon, 1998), and having a sexual relationship can complicate fi'iendships (Sapadin,
1988). Why some people chose to engage in sexual activity with a friend will be explored
to determine why individuals prefer to engage in a friends with benefits relationship as
opposed to beginning a romantic relationship. Further, little is known about how these
potential complications affect relationship dynamics and communication patterns. The
primary aim of this paper is to investigate-how individualsnegotiate friends withbenefits
relationships.

Toward this end, a conceptual framework is developed and conceptual definitions
of “friendship”, “romantic relationship”, and “fi'iends with benefits” are first provided.
Second, the existing research on friends with benefits relationships is reviewed. Third,
the paper will investigate how sex can complicate a friendship and determine why
individuals chose to engage in a friends with benefits relationship as opposed to a
romantic relationship or hook-up with a stranger. Data investigating these issues is
reported from the first study. Finally, a second study determines what relational

negotiation strategies are used by participants in these relationships.

Definition Issues

Some definitions of fi'iendship do not clearly identify the boundaries between
fiiendships and romantic relationships. For example, Sapadin (1988) describes a fiend as
someone whom we are intimate, someone we trust, depend on, care for, and are close to,
is accepting, sharing, and one whom we enjoy. In another example, “friends are described
as providing encouragementtemotional support, empathy, and bolstering one’s self-
concept, all of which made possible by anhunderlying sense of trust, loyalty, and
comnfitrnenfiKdeVries, 1996, p. 252). Thus, fi'iendship is built on trust, support,
commitment (decisions to devote oneself to a relationship and work to maintain it),
acceptance, engaging in shared activities and depending on one another. However,
romantic relationships also exhibit these qualities. Thus, according to these definitions,
“friendship” could easily be substituted for “romantic relationship” or even “family.”
Therefore, definitions such as these do not distinguish between types of relationships.

More typically, however, definitions of a friendship explicitly exclude “romantic
love” and “sexual desire” to differentiate friendships from romantic relationships. For
example, fiiends have a liking for one another and lovers love one another (Brehm,
Miller, Perlrnan & Campbell, 2002), friendships involve an “attraction of the spirit and
not the body” (W erking, 1997, p. 30) and friendship is a “non-sexual relationship of two
people, based upon shared experience and characterized by mutual personal regard,
understanding, and loyalty” (Armstrong, 1985, p. 212). These definitions specify that
friends are not sexually intimate. As Werking (1997) asserts, “sexual activity in a

friendship signals the end of the ‘friendship’ and the beginning of a love relationship

since romance and sexuality are so closely aligned in romantic ideology” (Werking,
1997,p.30)

Another aspect to consider in the definition of friendship and romantic
relationship is exclusivity. According to Brehm et a1. (2002), romantic relationships, as
opposed to friendships, involve a fascination with one’s partner and a desire for
exclusiveness (Brehm et al., 2002). However, exclusivity is a central component of best
friend relationships in that they choose to be exclusive with one another in relation to
other friends (Laird, Pettit, Dodge, & Bates, 1999). Nevertheless, exclusivity is a criterion
that often separates friends from romantic partners.

In sum, friendships and romantic relationships are more similar than different
(Sprecher & Regan, 2002). Both types of relationships involve interdependence, trust,
enjoyment of the other’s company, engaging in shared activities, and mutual acceptance.
Exclusivity, romantic love, and sexual desire and activity distinguish the two types of
relationships according to some scholars, but these criteria are not universally accepted or
universally applicable.

One limitation in all the definitions reviewed thus far is a tendency to use criteria
that define these terms as categorical rather than as varying in degrees. Taking into.
account both gradations in relational constructs and people’s own understanding of the
qualities of their relationships might allow for a more flexible conceptual approach
conclusive for understanding a non-traditional relationship type like friends with benefits.

Stemberg’s (1986, 1987) triangle theory of love offers this type of flexibility.

Sternberg ’s Triangle Theory of Love

Stemberg (1986, 1987) proposed three building blocks which determine different
types of love and that are useful in distinguishing some types of relationships from
others. These building blocks are intimacy, passion, and commitment. Intimacy includes
the feelings of warmth, understanding, communication, support, and sharing. Passion is
characterized by physical arousal and desire. Finally, commitment includes decisions to
devote oneself to a relationship and the desire to maintain it. Moreover, these three
categories can be further described as the emotional (intimacy), physical (passion) and
cognitive (commitment) elements that form a loving relationship.

In Stemberg’s theory, intimacy, passion, and commitment are each one side of a
triangle that describes the love individuals can share. These sides of the triangle range in
intensity and this can be visually depicted by varying the length of each side of a triangle.
Thus, with all these high and low combinations of the three building blocks, various

triangles are formed. Figure 1 demonstrates a few examples.

 

Intimacy Passion Commitment Passion

Intimacy Passion

 

 

 

 

Commitment Commitment Intimacy

 

Figure 1

Select Examles of Stemberg’s Triangles of Love

 

intensit.‘
displayS
and third
intensity
intensifie
triangles
total of ei
types of It
Table l

\_

I nfa

Fatu
COn

Stern

CharaCterism

\‘ -'
ailing degrt

 

According to Stemberg’s theory, relationships differ based on the level of
intensity of intimacy, passion, and commitment. The first triangle in the above example
displays equal intensities of intimacy, passion, and commitment. The sides of the second
and third triangles are not equal. The second triangle (or relationship) has a greater
intensity of passion as compared to intimacy and commitment. The third triangle displays
intensified levels of passion and commitment in relation to intimacy. Hence, these three
triangles represent different relationships from each other. As these intensities change, a
total of eight different relationships are formed. Table 1 contains a listing of these eight

types of love in relation to the level of intensity of intimacy, passion, and commitment.

 

 

 

 

Table 1
Stemberg’s Tmes of Love
Building Blocks
Intimacy Passion Commitment

Type of Love
Non-love Low Low Low
Liking High Low Low
Infatuated love Low High Low
Empty love Low Low High
Romantic love High High Low
Companionate love High Low High
F atuous love Low High High
Consummate love High High High

_. x—«V.-- v-w vac-Atmvrv—a- _~ -——. -.... w .r _...V_rfi-~. ._r_»-—." -

 

Stemberg does not categorically differentiate friendships from romantic
relationships, but rather, he differentiates the two by the intensity of these three
characteristics. The building blocks of intimacy, passion, and commitment can exist in

varying degrees in relationships, and some degree of one does not entail some degree of

another. Romantic relationships typically differ from a fiiendship in the level of these
building blocks, especially passion and commitment. If select characteristics of a
romantic relationship (i.e., interdependency, commitment, trust, sexual activity,
exclusivity, and love) were placed into a friendship with lower intensity, this relationship, v
according to Stemberg, would be a friendship. On the contrary, if these characteristics
were placed into a fi'iendship with high intensity, this friendship would be a romantic
relationship.

Friends with benefits relationships are a hybrid of friendships and romantic
relationships. Using Stemberg’s Triangle Theory of Love as an aid, a traditional
friendship is a relationship comprised of moderate to high intensity levels of intimacy and
low intensity levels of commitment and passion with an overriding aspiration for a
companion. Alternatively, a romantic relationship is a relationship comprised of moderate
to high intensity levels of intimacy, commitment, and passion or the desire for, utilizing
passion as a means of expressing physical and emotional affection. Friends with benefits
relationships have levels of passion consistent with romantic relationships, but lack the
romantic commitment typical of romantic relationships.

Conceptual Definition of Sex

Friends with benefits relationships are comprised of two major terms: “friends”
and “with benefits.” The benefits refer to the sexual activity that occurs in an otherwise
platonic friendship. However, a lack of empirical data on how Americans as a population
define what constitutes as having “had sex” and what counts as engaging in sexual

activity is still a current public debate (Sanders & Reinisch, 1999). Determining which

 

behavic

essentia

behavior
that oral
respondc
that Ame
constitute
activity u
I

penile-an.

friends “I

 

 

behaviors individuals consider as having “had sex” is important because sex is an
essential element in defining a fiiends with benefits relationship.

Sanders and Reinisch (1999) show that individual attitudes vary regarding
behaviors defined as having “had sex.” More than half (59%) of respondents indicated
that oral-genital contact did not constitute having “had sex” with a partner. Few (19%)
responded similarly regarding penile-anal intercourse. These findings support the view
that Americans hold widely divergent opinions about what behaviors do and do not
constitute as having “had sex.” For the scope of this research, “had sex” and sexual
activity will be defined as including genital touching, oral intercourse, penile-vaginal, and
penile-anal intercourse. Nevertheless, it should be recognized that what counts as a

friends with benefits relationship depends on the definition of having sex.

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Friends with Benefits

Friends with benefits relationships were defined as “cross-sex fiiends in an
otherwise platonic fiiendship (i.e., not defined as dating or romantic relationships) engage
in some degree of sexual intimacy on repeated occasions” (Mongeau, et al., 2003, p. 3).
Research has found that a considerable percentage of university students are engaging in
sexual activity with a friend (Afifi & Faulkner, 2000; Mongeau, et al., 2003; Reeder,
2000). Afifi and Faulkner (2000), for example, report that fifty-one percent of their
college student sample reported having had sex with a cross-sex fi'iend with whom they
had no intentions of dating at the time of the sexual activity. Moreover, thirty-four
percent of the participants reported engaging in sexual activity on multiple occasions with
the same friend. “In other words, for one-third of individuals, having sex in cross-sex
fiiendships was more than a one-time ‘experiment’” (Afifi & Faulkner, 2000, p. 217).
Also reporting substantial levels of prevalence, Mongeau et al. (2003) found that over
half (61.7%) of their college student sample in Ohio had engaged in a friends with
benefits relationship and nearly half (48.5%) did so in Arizona.

In addition, Mongeau et al. (2003) found the average length of time friends knew
each other before having sex was 3 months. Of the friends with benefits relationships that
ended, it was reported that the lack of continuance was a result of distance (participant
moved back home or vacation was over), relational issues (relationship evolved into a
romantic one, individual found a romantic partner, ended the sexual relationship to save
the friendship, or one wanted more out of the relationship than the other) and emotional

issues (boredom or relationship was getting “old”). Finally, Mongeau et al. (2003)

concluded that attitudes toward friends with benefits relationships differed depending on
participant experience with the relationship. If the participant had a positive experience,
friends with benefits relationships were viewed in a more positive manner than those who
had a negative experience with them.
A Refined Definition of Friends with Benefits

As stated earlier, fiiends with benefits relationships have been defined as “cross-
sex friends in an otherwise platonic fiiendship (i.e., not defined as dating or romantic
relationships) engage in some degree of sexual intimacy on repeated occasions”
(Mongeau, et al., 2003, p. 3). This definition could be improved. First, fiiends with
benefits relationships need not be cross-sex. Second, the “some degree of sexual activity”
is ambiguous and can be specified more precisely and redefined based on results of study
1, reported later in this paper. Finally, fi'om the current author’s perspective, the sexual
activity need not take place on repeated occasions. Granted, in order for a relationship to
exist there needs to be an ongoing state of being interrelated. Therefore, if these
individuals only had one sexual encounter, this may not be an adequate example of a
friends with benefits relationship, per se, but it does meet the criteria of friends having
sex. Therefore, engaging in one sexual encounter with a friend may be a special kind of
friends with benefits relationship. With these provisions, a refined definition is proposed.
Friends with benefits relationships are defined as friends in an otherwise platonic
friendship (i.e., not defined as dating or romantic relationships) who engage in sexual
intimacy consisting of genital touching, oral intercourse, penile-vaginal, and/or penile—

anal intercourse.

10

According to this definition, once fiiends engage in sex the relationship has
evolved into a different relationship to the one previously held. The impact sexual
activity has in these friendships becomes important in determining how to negotiate this
relationship. Before relational negotiation strategies of friends with benefits relationships
can be discussed, the impact sexual activity has on these fiiendships will be examined.
Impact Sexual Activity has on Friendships

Pogrebin (1987) found that no pair of 150 cross-sex fiiends had mixed sex and
friendship successfully. Consistent with this, a majority (79%) of Sapadin’s (1988)
respondants claimed, “having a sexual relationship complicates friendships” (p. 396).
However, just how sex complicates a friendship has yet to be determined. In order to
establish adequate relational negotiation strategies to a fiiends with benefits relationship,
the foundation must be set to determine how sex complicates these friendships.

The contention that sexual activity makes fiiendships more complicated, difficult
to manage, and creates increased pressure for involvement has been briefly addressed in
few studies (e.g., Pogrebin, 1987; Sapadin, 1988; Afifi & Faulkner, 2000; Reeder, 2000).
Moreover, several studies have focused on general attitudes regarding casual premarital
sex (e.g., Hunt, 1974; Sprecher, McKinney & Orbuch, 1987; Oliver & Hyde, 1993), sex
with multiple partners (Gentry, 1998), and sexual satisfaction among dating couples
(Byers, Demmons & Lawrance, 1998). Nevertheless, no research, to the author’s
knowledge, has sought to determine why individuals choose to engage in casual sex with
a fiiend and precisely how friendships become more complicated. Moreover, if sex does
complicate a friendship, what are the advantages of adding sex to a friendship and why

would individuals choose to do so? These questions are really perceptions and based on

11

only one member of a dyad. With this in mind, the lack of empirical work in these areas
justifies the following research questions pertaining to the perception:

RQl: How does having sex with a fiiend complicate the fiiendship?

RQ2: What are the advantages (if any) of a fi'iends with benefits relationship?

RQ3: What are the disadvantages (if any) of a fiiends with benefits relationship?

RQ4: Why do individuals engage in friends with benefits relationships?

RQ5: Why do individuals choose not to engage in friends with benefits relationships?
These five questions were addressed in study 1. This study also sought to replicate the

results of Afifi & Faulkner (2000) and Mongeau et al. (2003).

12

CHAPTER 3: STUDY 1
Method

Participants

One hundred twenty-five undergraduates (65 females and 60 males) from
communication courses at a large Mid-westem university participated in the study. The
sample was almost evenly split between the sexes (52% female and 48% male). The
participants ranged in age from 17 to 40 (M = 20.26, SD = 2.56). All participants received
extra credit or course credit, depending on the instructor’s wishes, in exchange for their
participation.
Procedure

Upon arrival to the study, participants were informed that the research involved
opinions regarding friends with benefits relationships and past or current‘involvement
with them. The participants were then told their responses were to be as open and honest
as possible taking into account the personal and possibly embarrassing nature of the topic
and that the questionnaire would take approximately twenty minutes. After defining a
fiiends with benefits relationship to the participants, which also was stated on the
questionnaire as “friends who have sex”, they completed a self-report survey containing
open and closed-ended questions afier they provided written consent (see Appendix A for
consent form).
Measures

Participants were provided with a definition of friends with benefits, asked if they
thought people could have sex while being just fiiends, and if they were currently in a

friends with benefits relationship. Friends with benefits were defined as “when people

13

who are ‘just fiiends’ have sex.” Following those responses were specific questions to be
completed by those who answered “yes” to engaging in a friends with benefits
relationship. If a participant had never had this type of relationship, instructions were to
complete the demographic information and the open-ended section of the questionnaire
(to be discussed later). If participants had a fiiends with benefits relationship(s), questions
ranged from inquiring the frequency of the sexual activity, what type of sex occurred in
this relationship, the outcome of this/these relationship(s) and the sex of the partner.
Finally, demographic questions were completed regarding the participant’s sex and age.

The back side of the questionnaire required all participants to respond to open-
ended questions inquiring the major benefits (if any) of a friends with benefits
relationship, the disadvantages (if any), why the participant believed individuals engage
in these relationships, and why the participant believed individuals do not (see Appendix
B for questionnaire).
Analysis

Two trained coders independently coded all responses. Intercoder reliability was
determined by the percentage of agreement and Cohen’s kappa was calculated for each
question category. The intercoder reliabilities were adequate, with a mean percentage of
raw agreement equal to 91% and a mean kappa of .84. Any disagreements were resolved
by discussion and post-resolution data are reported. Results were analyzed on SPSS for
Windows.

Results
Determining if people can have sex and remain fiiends was crucial. If a majority

of participants indicated that people cannot be “just friends” after having sex, then a

14

friends with benefits relationship could not exist. With two participants leaving this
question blank, results indicated that over half (61.8%, or 76 participants) believe one can
be “just friends” afier having sex regardless if the participant had been involved in this
type of relationship (42 males, 34 females).

All participants were asked if they had ever had sex with someone whom they
considered “just a friend.” A majority (60.0%, or 75 participants) have had a fiiends with
benefits relationship at some point in their life (40 males, 35 females).

Of the participants that had a friends with benefits relationship (75 participants), a
majority (80.0%, or 60 participants) believe one can be just friends after having sex (34
males, 26 females), while few (18.9%, or 14 participants) say no (5 males, 9 females),
with one participant leaving this question blank. Similarly, of the participants that have
not had a friends with benefits relationship (50 participants), a majority (67.3%, or 33
participants) believe one cannot be just fiiends after having sex (12 males, 21 females),
while few (28.6%, or 14 participants) say yes (7 males, 7 females), with one participant
leaving this question blank.

The next question asked whether or not the participant was currently in a friends-
with benefits relationship. Of the 75 participants who stated they had been in this type of
relationship, over one-third (36.0%, or 27 participants) were currently engaging in sex
with “just a fiiend” (17 males, 10 females).

Of the individuals who had a fiiends with benefits relationship, the next item of
information revealed was the frequency of the sexual activity. The options were to
indicate the fi'equency of sexual activity in all the friends with benefits relationships they

have engaged in regardless if it was one relationship or many. Results indicated that

15

relatively few people (18.7%, or 14 participants) who had a friends with benefits
relationship had sex only once with their fiiend(s). A little more than half (54.7%, or 41
participants) had sex occasionally with their friend(s) and slightly less than one-third
(29.3%, or 22 participants) had an ongoing sexual relationship with a friend(s). In sum,
over two-thirds of individuals who have/had a friends with benefits relationship are/were
engaging in sex on multiple occasions.

Participants indicated the type of sex they had in their fiiends with benefits
relationship(s). Results revealed 3 participants identified open mouth to mouth kissing as
the only “sex” engaged in. However, these individuals were not classified as having a
fiiends with benefits relationship and were not used in the percentages reported above.
Two participants (2.7%) engaged in oral sex only, 1 participant (1.3%) engaged in
touching genitals only, 17 participants (22.7%) only had sexual intercourse, 6 participants
(8.0%) engaged in all BUT sexual intercourse, 42 participants (56.0%) had all four sexual
acts in their fi'iends with benefits relationship(s), and the other 7 participants (9.3%) had
some other combination of these factors.

Participants were asked to indicate the sex of their friends with benefits partner(s).
Almost all (98.7%, or 74 participants) had sex with an opposite-sex friend and (1.3%, or
1 participant) indicated involvement with a same-sex fiiend. None of the participants
indicated having friends with benefits relationships with both same and opposite sex
friends.

The outcomes of these relationships were assessed. Of the possible outcomes,
individuals could select any of four choices. Nearly one-third of participants (30.7%, or

23 participants) remained fiiends with benefits with their current partner. Additionally,

16

over one-third (38.7%, or 29 participants) remained friends, but no longer have sex. A
small percentage (10.7%, or 8 participants) stated the relationship evolved into a romantic
one. Lastly, almost one-third indicated they no longer had any type of relationship with
this person (28.0%, or 21 participants). It was not uncommon for participants to indicate
more than one outcome since multiple friends with benefits relationships occurred
(therefore the percentages do not add up to 100%).

To code the open-ended responses, coders read all responses and identified
characteristics that emerged. Distinguishable grouping characteristics focused on the
individual (e.g., physical, emotional, and psychological), the couple (e.g., friendship), and
third parties (e.g., society). The coders applied these characteristics to form categories for
each open-ended response and added or removed distinct categories as they pertained to a
particular question.

Of the responses, an overriding theme of advantages to engaging in a fiiends with
benefits relationship was that no commitment or no strings attached was involved.
Another related and prevalent response was that one could have sex. With one participant
leaving this question blank, responses were categorized and percentages calculated for no
responsibility (“no commitment/accountability/strings” and “don’t have to care about
them”) at 35.6% responding, physical (“get to have sex”) at 33.2%, comfort (“it’s
someone you know/trust/are comfortable with” and “they will be there for you”) at
12.5%, social (“you can still be single”) at 6.3%, none (“there are no advantages”) at
5.3%, couple/partner (“relationship could become serious” and “friendship may

strengthen”) at 4.3%, other (“no teasing”, “helps if you are lonely , it is cheap”, and

‘you’ll never break-up”) at 1.9%, and the last category as emotional (“ego boost” and

17

“gain confidence as an attractive person”) at .01%. The majority of responses came from
the no responsibility category while the least responses came from the emotional
category.

It was not uncommon for participants to indicate more than one advantage
(therefore the frequencies do not add up to the total number of participants for this
research question nor the others that follow). Because of this, each coding category was
treated as a separate variable and counted as present or not present. Cohen’s kappa was
calculated on SPSS for Windows for each variable and averaged among them to
determine the overall kappa for the category in this question and the others that follow.
Table 2 provides a summary of these fi'equencies, percentages, and Cohen’s kappa per
variable. Average k = .83.

Table 2

Advantages of a Friends with Benefits Relationship (N = 124)

mm)—

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency Categorical % Overall % k

Advantage Category

No Responsibility 74 59.7% 35.6% .87
Physical ' 69 55.6% 33.2% .95
Comfort 26 21.0% 12.5% .93
Social 13 10.5% 6.3% 8.0
None 11 8.9% 5.3% 1 .0
Couple/Partner 9 7.3% 4.3% .88
Other 4 3.2% 1.9% .20
Emotional 2 1.6% .01% 1.0

M 1 fit‘ an; — awn “in—i u KWP‘ -- cat—la ‘v’v ---u.~ “1w v-- Hm ”M .u. am - “KW—— qr”. ....i gr... H‘U— “whim—Aw“ v—s—v Am‘i-D—FF -m“nn-.-H

Note. Categorical percent was calculated by the variable frequency over total participants.
Overall percent was calculated by the variable frequency over total frequency.

A variety of responses were given to the question of why one may choose to

engage in friends with benefits relationships. An overriding theme was that no

18

commitment or no strings attached was involved. Another related and prevalent response
was that one can have sex. With one participant leaving this question blank, responses
were categorized and percentages calculated for the motivation categories for no
responsibility (“no commitment/accountability/strings" and “don’t have to care about
them”) at 31.1% responding, physical (“get to have sex”) at 30.2%, opportunity
(“convenient”, “have fiiends that are into it”, and “not currently in a committed
relationship”) at 10.6%, comfort (“someone you know/trust/ are comfortable with”) at
8.5%, couple/partner (“one or both have feelings for the other” and “to get closer to your
friend”) at 5.5%, emotional (“gain confidence” and “ego boost”) at 5.1%, other (“more
fun”, “good practice to get better at sex”, and “sounds like a good idea”) at 3.4%, outside
factors (“alcohol”, “experimenting”, “lonely”, and “a spur of the moment”) at 3.0%, and
the last category as social (“society tells us to feel good”, “it’s the thing to do in college”,
“become a player”, and “don’t want to be alone”) at 2.5%. The majority of responses
came from the no responsibility category while the least responses came from the social
category. Table 3 provides a summary of these frequencies, percentages, and Cohen’s

kappa per variable. Average k = .78.

19

Table 3

Reasons to Engage in a Friends with Benefits Relationship (N = 124)

 

.—s ..—....-u .-.-.-.._. -.-_...—— ‘.—_- .., - -. *vo.

 

Frequency Categorical % Overall % k

Motivation Category

No Responsibility 73 58.9% 31.1% .90
Physical 71 57.3% 30.2% .92
Opportunity 25 20.2% 10.6% .71
Comfort 20 16.1% 8.5% .92
Couple/Partner 13 10.5% 5.5% .80
Emotional 12 9.7% 5.1% .69
Other 8 6.5% 3.4% .15
Outside Factors 7 5.6% 3.0% 1.0
Social 6 4.8% 2.5% .91

 

 

Note. Categorical percent was calculated by the variable frequency over total participants.
Overall percent was calculated by the variable frequency over total frequency.

An overwhelming reported disadvantage of a friends with benefits relationship is
that one person could develop feelings for the other and this may not be reciprocated.
Another frequently related response was the potential loss of the friendship. With one
participant’s response not included, responses were categorized and percentages
calculated for couple/partner (“feelings develop for the other and it may not be
reciprocated”, “you get to know your friend too well”, “difficult break-up”, “can become
serious”, “puts stress on the fiiendship”, and “gets weird/complicated”) at 42.2%
responding, friendship (“lose a fiiend” and “ruins friendship”) at 18.3%, emotional
(“hostility and jealousy”, “hurt feelings”, “loss of self-esteem”, and “could feel used”) at
17.8%, no responsibility (“you don’t get to be in a romantic relationship” and “sex is
meaningless”) at 8.4%, physical (“pregnancy” and “AIDS/STD”) at 6.3%, other (‘you

9’ 66

might not be the only fiiend with benefits”) at 3.1%, social (“become a player , people

20

gossip”, and “other fiiends would be disgusted”) at 2.6%, and the last category as none
(“no disadvantages”) at 1.0%. The majority of responses came from the couple/partner
category while the least responses came from the none category. Table 4 provides a
summary of these frequencies, percentages, and Cohen’s kappa per variable. Average k =
.91.

Table 4

Disadvéantaws of a Friends with Benefits Relationship (N = 1.24)

 

 

Frequency Categorical % Overall % k

 

Disadvantage Category

Couple/partner 81 65.3% 42.4% .85
Friendship 35 28.2% 18.3% .92
Emotional 34 27.4% 17.8% .86
No Responsibility 16 12.9% 8.4% .88
Physical 12 9.7% 6.3% .95
Other 6 4.8% 3.1% .83
Social 5 4.0% 2.6% 1.0
None 2 1.6% 1.0% 1.0

 

 

Note. Categorical percent was calculated by the variable frequency over total participants.
Overall percent was calculated by the variable frequency over total fi'equency.

A variety of responses were given to the question of why one may not engage in
these relationships. An overriding theme was the desire to share sex with someone that
you have feelings for and that person reciprocates that feeling. Another related and
prevalent response was that they do not want to lose the friendship. Responses were
categorized and percentages calculated for the motivation categories for responsibility
(“want to share intimacy with someone who feels the same way”, “not that kind of
person”, “want to keep friends and lovers separate”, and ‘firvant a committed

relationship”) at 25.6% responding, fi'iendship (“don’t want to lose friend” and “don’t

21

want to ruin friendship”) at 20.0%, couple/partner (“don’t want to lose respect for the
other”, “don’t want one to develop romantic feelings”, “don’t want to get attached”, and
“don’t want to make things complicated/weird/awkward”) at 17.8%, social (“morality”
and “religious”) at 16.7%, emotional (“don’t want hurt feelings” and “don’t want to feel
used”) at 5.6%, physical (“risk of pregnancy/AIDS/STD”, “not attracted to friends”, and
“don’t want to have sex”) at 5.0%, opportunity (“don’t have friends that are into that”,
“situation never came up”, “don’t have the guts to put the moves on my friends”, and
“one is in a romantic relationship”) at 4.4%, other (“they’re smart”) at 2.8%, and the last
category as psychological (“not mature enough to handle this type of relationship”, “can’t
see the consequences”, and “can’t separate friends and lovers”) at 2.2%. The majority of
responses came from the responsibility category while the least mentioned responses
came from the psychological category. Table 5 provides a summary of these frequencies,
percentages, and Cohen’s kappa per variable. Average k = .83.

Table 5

Reasons Not to Engage in fia Friends with Benefits Relationship (N = 125)

I- v. .- ACE-v-1“

 

 

F reguency Categorical % Overall % k

 

Motivation Category

Responsibility 46 36.8% 25.6% .90
Friendship 36 28.8% 20.0% .94
Couple/partner 32 25 .6% 1 7.8% .69
Social 30 24.0% 16.7% .96
Emotional 1 0 8.0% 5 .6% .80
Physical 9 7.2% 5.0% .88
Opportunity 8 6.4% 4.4% .94
Other 5 4.0% 2.8% .56
Psychological 4 3.2% 2.2% .79

 

 

Note. Categorical percent was calculated by the variable frequency over total participants.
Overall percent was calculated by the variable frequency over total frequency.

22

Summary of Results

Over half of participants believe one can be “just friends” after having sex
regardless of whether or not the participant had been involved in this type of relationship.
Of the participants that had a fiiends with benefits relationship, a majority believe one
can be just friends after having sex, while a majority of participants that have not had a
friends with benefits relationship believe one cannot be just fiiends after having sex. A
majority of participants have also had a fiiends with benefits relationship at some point in
their life.

Of the 78 participants who stated they had been in this type of relationship,
nearly one-third were currently engaging in sex with “just a friend.” Over two-thirds of
individuals who have/had a friends with benefits relationship are/were engaging in sex on
multiple occasions. Slightly over half of the participants had all four sexual acts in their
friends with benefits relationship(s). Assessing the outcome once the sexual activity ends,
roughly one-third remained friends and no longer have sex, and another one-third no
longer had any type of relationship with this person.

RQl inquired about how having sex with a friend complicates the fiiendship.
Findings report that sex complicates friendships by bringing forth desires for
commitment.

RQ2 sought what the advantages were (if any) of a fiiends with benefits
relationship. An overriding theme as an advantage to engaging in a friends with benefits
relationship was to have sex with no commitment.

RQ3 sought to determine what the disadvantages were (if any) of a friends with

benefits relationship. A disadvantage of a friends with benefits relationship is that one

23

person could fall in love or have feelings for the other while the other just wants to
remain friends.

RQ4 inquired about why individuals would choose to engage in friends with
benefits relationships. On average, a response as to why one may choose to engage in this
type of relationship comes from being able to have sex with no commitment.

RQ5 sought to determine why individuals would not choose to engage in friends
with benefits relationships. On average, a response as to why one may not engage in this
type of relationship comes from the inability to experience commitment in these
relationships when a committed romantic relationship is desired for sexual activity to
occur.

Discussion

According to study 1, a fiiends with benefits relationship is begun to enable the
individuals to have “sex without meaning” with someone they know, trust and feel
comfortable with. However, from the current author’s perspective, “sex without
meaning” is not what romantic partners do. Romantic partners engage in sexual activity
not only for the pleasure, but to express physical and emotional feelings for one another
(of, Hill & Preston, 1996). Therefore, the same sexual activity is not the same in both
relationships, so fiiends with benefits may not be a hybrid between the two types of
relationships initially. Consistent with this, an overwhelming majority of participants
indicated the disadvantage of a friends with benefits relationship is that one person
usually becomes attached and if the other does not feel the same, feelings become hurt.
Initially the intent was to have “sex without meaning” but as the relationship continues,

the sex becomes “sex with meaning” that can be linked to a romantic relationship. This

24

finding, too, suggests that fiiends with benefits relationships are different from romantic
relationships.

One of the primary goals for this paper was to determine if and how sex can
complicate a friendship. Findings from study 1 provide some answers to this question.
First, sex can complicate a friendship by acting as a catalysis for romantic feelings
brought forth by either one or both participants since some people regard sex as a
romantic activity. Sex therefore causes hurt feelings if one partner does not feel the same.
The “weirdness” or “awkwardness” could be accounted for by these hurt feelings.
Further, since the most common reason for having a friends with benefits relationship is
to avoid the commitment that is usually identified by a romantic relationship, moving in
that direction would defeat the purpose. Second, some participants stated it was difficult
to separate a fiiends with benefits partner from a lover and this caused confusion.

The question regarding why individuals chose to begin a friends with benefits
relationship as opposed to a romantic relationship or hook-up with a stranger was also
answered. Regarding the preference of engaging in sex with a fiiend as opposed to a
hook-up with a stranger, participants responded that it was easy or safe to have sex with a
fiiend because you trusted that person and were comfortable and familiar with them.
Some mentioned the friend’s history was known so it made the fear of AIDS/STD’s
diminish. Concerning choosing a fiiends with benefits relationship as opposed to a
romantic relationship, the latter is not initiated because individuals “want their cake and
eat it, too. ” These individuals want to fulfill sexual needs or desires yet at the same time
want a relationship that involves “no commitment”, “has low maintenance”, and “not

time consuming.” A select few mentioned specific commitment issues as, “don’t have to

25

call them”, “don’t have to worry about their feelings”, and “doesn’t involve the hassle
and time consumption of going out to dinner and remembering important dates.”

In reviewing the responses to all categories, some startling information was
brought forth. First, a majority of individuals stated an advantage of a fiiends with
benefits relationship is “get to have sex with no strings attached” while the overriding
disadvantage is “one usually wants to be more than just fiiends.” However, this is a
contradiction. If the advantage is to have no strings attached, why is the common theme
regarding the disadvantage stating people get attached? There is a struggle in these
relationships and it becomes evident that this relationship is not “fool proof” regarding
attachment and commitment. The emotional attachment and desire for the partner to be
committed by one person raises an interesting issue regarding relational negotiation.
Once discrepancies between the individuals in a relationship become known (i.e., “Do we
treat each other as fiiends or something more?”, “Is the relationship still a fiiendship or
becoming a romantic relationship?”, or “I feel you want more out of the relationship than
do 1.”), relational negotiation strategies must be used to maintain this relationship. The

next section of this paper will discuss relational negotiation strategies.

26

CHAPTER 4: STUDY 2
Relational Negotiation Strategies

Based on the initial information regarding friends with benefits relationships
reported above (i.e., frequency, type of sex, outcome, advantages, and disadvantages),
more intricate issues surrounding these relationships can be discussed. This next section
will build on this initial exploration and attempt to make sense of the “life” of these
relationships in relation to negotiation strategies. With this new relationship come
questions about the roles in the relationship, relationship status, relationship expectations,
and the communication in these relationships. As mentioned in the introduction, sexual
activity is typically unexpected in fiiendships (Werking, 1997) and when it is introduced,
this can create a considerable amount of uncertainty about the relationship state (Afifi &
Burgoon, 1998). In order for the friendship to “not get weir ”, these issues need to be
determined and then addressed when sex is introduced by the individuals involved. No
research, to the current author’s knowledge, exists on what issues must be dealt with in
these relationships concerning the relationship state. Therefore, the first research question
for study 2 is posed:

RQ6: Once sexual activity is introduced into a previously platonic fiiendship, what
questions arise concerning the relationship as a result of this sexual activity?

The impact sexual activity has on a friendship can certainly be debated.
Nevertheless, it plays an important role in this relationship that must be negotiated by the
individuals involved. However, the relational negotiation strategies discussed by fiiends
with benefits partners to deal with these concerns have not been addressed in previous

research. This leads to the second research question:

27

RQ7: What types of relational negotiation strategies are used in friends with benefits
relationships?

Assuming that friends typically have a greater sense of understanding, increased
comfort around one another, feel free to talk more openly, and can be more blunt around
one another than with a stranger or acquaintance may be a reason friends with benefits
relationships are sought as opposed to hooking up with a stranger. In study 1, one reason
individuals choose to engage in a friends with benefits relationship is due to the fact these
friends have a bond and a trust for one another that strangers do not. Research on trust
and trustworthiness suggests that the perceived trustworthiness of another will be
positively related to willingness to negotiate with that person (Christen, 2001 ).

Baxter and Wilrnot (1985) report that talking about a relationship tops the list of
taboo topics for both platonic and intimate couples. Of their participants, only three stated
they could talk about any topic with their partners. The rest of the participants indicated
that some topics were better left unsaid, with more than two-thirds citing the relationship
itself as the most taboo discussion topic. Most said that they avoided talking about the
relationship with their partner if it was known that the two desired different levels of
commitment within the relationship.

Additionally, Ward and Kahn (2003) found that many male partners consistently
avoid or withdraw from negotiating important issues in intimate relationships. To
determine if this trend also applies to males in a friends with benefits relationship, the
next research question is posed:

RQ8: Are there sex differences in relational negotiation strategies in fiiends with benefits

relationships?

28

Therefore, the relationship negotiation process is examined here. This study
explores the relationships between negotiators’ perceptions of the negotiation situation,
their communicative behavior and the negotiation outcome expectations (i.e., maintaining
good relations with the partner, joint gain, or seeking individual gain) (Olekalns & Smith,
2003). The negotiations of the friends with benefits partners will be examined to
determine what is being said and what the desired outcomes are.

Moreover, the research questions regarding the negotiation strategies will focus
on direct and indirect negotiations and if individuals are opting to openly discuss the
issues directly, attempting to solve them in an indirect manner, or ignoring the issues
completely.

As stated earlier, from the current author’s perspective, the sexual activity need
not take place on repeated occasions. If individuals in a fiiends with benefits relationship
only had one sexual encounter, this may be a special kind of fiiends with benefits
relationship. If this is indeed the case, this research seeks to determine if the relational
negotiation strategies differ from the strategies of a friends with benefits relationship
where the individuals engaged in repeated sexual activity. To explore this issue further,
the final research question is presented:

RQ9: What are the differences between single instance occurrences of having sex with a
fiiend and having an ongoing fiiends with benefits relationship in terms of relational

negotiation strategies?

29

 

Method

Participants

Ninety undergraduates (47 females and 43 males) from communication courses at
a large Mid-westem university participated in the study. The sample was almost evenly
split between the sexes (52.2% female and 47.8% male). The participants ranged in age
from 17 to 31 (M = 21.28, SD = 1.90). All participants received extra credit or course
credit, depending on the instructor’s wishes, in exchange for their participation. All
participants provided informed consent (see Appendix C for consent form). Target
participants were those that had engaged in a friends with benefits relationship on at least
one occasion. Those who had not had this type of relationship filled out an alternative
questionnaire for equivalent credit.
Procedure

Upon arrival to the study, participants were informed the research involves
relational negotiation in friends with benefits relationships. The participants were told
their responses are to be as open and honest as possible taking into account the personal
and possibly embarrassing nature of the topic and that the questionnaire takes
approximately thirty minutes. After defining a fiiends with benefits relationship to the
participants, which was also stated on the questionnaire, if they had been in a friends with
benefits relationship and were willing to participate, the self-report surveys were
completed. If this type of relationship had not occurred for the participant, they were
instructed to complete the supplementary questionnaire. Both consent forms and surveys
(i.e., for the current study and the alternative) were given to all participants to ensure

privacy. The uncompleted survey and consent form was returned along with the

30

completed ones. Once all surveys were complete, participants were debriefed on the
nature of the study.
Measures

Participants completed a self-report survey containing open and closed-ended
questions in which they indicated how they negotiated issues in their friends with benefits
relationship. Demographic information and the Triangle Love Scale (Stemberg, 1988)
constituted the closed-ended questions. The open-ended section of the questionnaire
sought to discover what relational negotiation strategies individuals in friends with
benefits relationships use (see Appendix D for questionnaire).

Participants were provided with a definition of fiiends with benefits, asked if they
have ever been involved in this relationship and if so the number of friends with benefits
partners, sexual occurrence, length of friendship before sex was added, and the friends
with benefits relationship longevity. Friends with benefits relationships was defined as
“when people who are just friends have sex.” If the participant had multiple friends with
benefits relationships, instructions were to refer to their current or most recent
relationship to complete the remainder of the questionnaire. Next, the Triangular Love
Scale (Stemberg, 1988) was presented. Finally, specific questions were asked pertaining
to relational negotiation strategies and outcomes were included. These questions
addressed if having sex was openly discussed, who initiated the talk, if ground rules were
established, if so, how they were negotiated, if complications arose, how these were

negotiated, and about the current state of the relationship.

31

Love Scale

The 45-item Stemberg (1988) Triangular Love Scale was used. The scale
consisted of three dimensions with fifteen items for each. The dimensions are intimacy,
passion, and commitment. The participants rated their agreement with the statements on a
scale of one to nine, where 1 means “not at all” and 9 means “extremely so.” This
instrument has been found to be both valid and reliable in previous research, with alpha
coefficients for the three components at .83 for passion, .85 for intimacy, and .93 for
commitment (Aaron & Westbay, 1996). For each component (intimacy, passion, and
commitment) there are fifteen questions which yield sub-scores for each component. An
example of a question assessing intimacy is question 7, “I am actively supportive of my
fiiend’s well being.” An example of a question measuring passion is question 22, “Just
seeing my fiiend excites me.” An example of a question measuring commitment is
question 37, “I am committed to maintaining my relationship with my fiiend.”
Analysis

Two trained coders independently coded all responses. Intercoder reliability was
determined by the percentage of agreement and Cohen’s kappa was calculated for each
question category. The intercoder reliabilities were adequate, with a mean percentage of
raw agreement equal to 90.9% and a mean kappa of .91. Any disagreements were
resolved by discussion and post-resolution data are reported. Results were analyzed on
SPSS for Windows.

Results
Of the individuals who had a friends with benefits relationship, the first item of

information revealed was the number of friends with benefits partners. With one

32

participant leaving this question blank, results indicated that the range was between 1 to
15 friends with benefits partners, the average being three partners (M = 2.53, SD = 2.13).
Participant’s number of fiiends with benefits partners and sex was submitted to a two
independent samples t-test to assess sex differences. The mean number of partners for
males (M = 3.12, SD = 2.56) was significantly higher than females (M = 1.98, SD = 1.45),
t (87) = 2.60, p = .01, two-tailed.

The next question (and the remainder of the questionnaire) was to be answered
only using the information from the participant’s current or most recent fiiends with
benefits partner. This question sought to determine how long the individuals were friends
before adding sex. With one participant leaving this question blank, the average length of
time the friends knew each other was slightly over one year, or 14 months (M = 14.23,
SD = 19.78). The range was between not knowing each other to being friends for 11
years.

The next question asked how long the friends with benefits relationship lasted.
With 10 responses not included due to the relationship with their partner being currently
intact, the average length of time was six months (M = 6.04, SD = 7.48). The range was
one day to four years.

The next questions pertained to the Stemberg (1 98 8) Triangular Love Scale.
According to the scale, a score of one through five indicates a low rating, six through
seven indicates a moderate rating, and eight through nine indicates a high rating
Stemberg (1988). The average intimacy score was moderate (M = 6.44, SD = 1.66), the
average passion score was low (M = 4.70, SD = 1.49), and the average comrrritrnent score

was low (M = 4.73, SD = 1.66). Averages among the items for intimacy, passion, and

33

commitment revealed participants have moderate intimacy feelings toward their friends
with benefits partner, low passion, and low commitment. This, according to Stemberg,
indicates the majority of friends with benefits participants experienced the liking type of
love for their friend, concluding that the individuals were “just friends” at the time of
sexual activity. These results were consistent with previous research using friendships
and the love scale (cf., Harris, 1983).

The average intimacy, passion, and commitment scores were submitted to
matched pairs t-tests. When participants rated their intimacy, passion, and commitment
for their fiiends with benefits partner, intimacy was significantly higher than passion t
(89) = 11.42, p < .01, two-tailed and commitment t (89) = 13.27, p < .01, two-tailed.
Passion and commitment however were not significantly different fiom one another t (89)
= -0.19, n. s., two-tailed.

Among the rating categories, intimacy had roughly a third of the participants in
each category. Passion had most of the participants (71.1%) scoring in the low category.
Finally, commitment had a majority of the participants (71.1%) scoring in the low

category. Table 6 lists these findings.

34

Table 6

 

Intimacy, Passion, and Commitment in a Friends with Benefits Relationship

--~ -— -oc—on v.---~ _...-~-.

 

 

 

 

Rating
Low Moderate High
Percentages
Triangle Love Category
Intimacy 30.0% 37.8% 32.2%
Passion 71 .1% 25.6% 3.3%

Commitment 71.1%

-G.MMW.._~ ---.-.. . .: an..- _ . ..... 1.. -,_. ..‘ ... .

23.3% 5.6%

a... -n -- —.u.—-.- .-- _-.-- ~s.--~..--..u._- ._-M——.q ..... . . ..._ ..

 

The next question asked which best reflected the frequency of the sexual activity
in the friends with benefits relationship. The categories were: had sex only once, had sex
more than once but it was not intended to be an ongoing part of the relationship, or the
sex was indented to be an ongoing part of the relationship. Results indicated that few
(6.7%, or 6 participants) had sex only once with their current or most recent friend. A
little more than half (51.1%, or 46 participants) had sex more than once with their fiiend
but it was not intended to be an ongoing part of the relationship. Finally, less than half
(42.2%, or 38 participants) indicated the sex was intended to be an ongoing part of the
relationship. On average, most participants had sex more than once with their friends
with benefits partner, but it was not intended to be an ongoing part of the relationship.

The first research question sought to discover once sexual activity was introduced
into a previously platonic friendship, what questions arose concerning the relationship as

a result of this sexual activity. The responses were almost evenly split between

35

indicating, yes, there were questions that arose (48.9%, or 44 participants), and no there
were not (51.1%, or 46 participants).

To code the open-ended responses, coders read all responses and identified
characteristics that emerged. Distinguishable grouping characteristics focused on the
individual (e.g., feelings), the couple (e.g., future, friendship, and maintenance), and third
parties (e. g., other fiiends). The coders applied these characteristics to form categories for
each open-ended response and added or removed distinct categories as they pertained to a
particular question.

Of the participants that indicated that questions arose, several responses were
given. An overriding theme was the uncertainty of the title or role of the individuals in
this new relationship. Another related and prevalent response was how the relationship
was to be maintained. Responses were categorized and percentages calculated for title
(“what does this mean” and ‘yvhat are we”) at 25.9% responding, maintenance (‘th0 can
we/are we going to tell”, “how committed are we going to be”, “are we going to see other
people”, “how are we going to make this work”, and “how are we supposed to act
afterwards”) at 22.4%, fixture (“will we start a romantic relationship”, “will I continue my
current romantic relationship”, and “should we continue to do this”) at 20.7%, feelings
(“how do you feel about what we did”, “are we too close”, “how much do you like me”,
and “how long had we been attracted to each other”) at 10.3%, friendship (“will this ruin
the friendship”) at 8.6%, other (“have you been tested for STD’s”, “is this right”, “did we

cheat on our partners”, and “do you do this with anyone else”) at 6.9%, and the last

category as why (‘that are the intentions” and “why did we do this”) at 5.2%. The

36

majority of responses came from the title category while the least mentioned responses
came from the why category.

It was not uncommon for participants to indicate that more than one question
arose (therefore the frequencies do not add up to the total number of participants for this
research question nor the others that follow). Because of this, each coding category was
treated as a separate variable and counted as present or not present. Cohen’s kappa was
calculated on SPSS for Windows for each variable and averaged among them to
determine the overall kappa for the category in this question and the others that follow.
Table 7 provides a summary of these frequencies, percentages, and Cohen’s kappa per
variable. Average k = .87.

Table 7

Questions that Arose in the Friends with Benefits Relationship (N = 44)

 

 

Frequency Categorical % Overall % k

 

Question Category

Title 15 34.1% 25 .9% 1.0
Maintenance 1 3 29.5% 22.4% .89
Future 12 27.3% 20.7% .82
Feelings 6 13.6% 10.3% 1.0
Friendship 5 1 1 .4% 8.6% .75
Other 4 9.1% 6.9% 1.0
Why 3 6.8% 5.2% .65

 

an -—--r ‘—

 

 

Note. Categorical percent was calculated by the variable fi'equency over total participants.
Overall percent was calculated by the variable frequency over total frequency.

The next question asked if the sexual activity was “unexpected” and seemed to

“just happen” for the individuals in their fiiends with benefits relationship. The possible

answers were: the sexual activity was “unexpected” and seemed to “just happen”, we

37

were intentionally having sexual activity, or the sexual activity was sometimes intentional
and sometimes “unexpected.” Results indicate that the average sexual activity was
sometimes intentional and sometimes “unexpected.” Several (34.4%, or 31 participants)
indicated the sexual activity was always “unexpected”, about one fourth (24.4%, or 22
participants) stated the sexual activity was always intentional, and the remainder (41.4%,
or 37 participants) revealed the sexual activity was both intentional and “unexpected.”

Next, a question was asked concerning if the participant and their friends with
benefits partner openly discussed having sex together, and if so, who initiate it and what
was talked about. The responses were almost evenly split between indicating yes sex was
discussed (46.7%, or 42 participants), and no it was not (53.3%, or 48 participants).

Of the participants that indicated sex was openly discussed, several responses
were given. Responses were categorized and percentages calculated for who initiated the
conversation, how it was brought up, and what was talked about. Only 31 participants
indicated who initiated the conversation. An overriding theme rested in that the other
partner initiated the discussion of sexual activity (no sex differences were discovered).
Responses were categorized and percentages calculated for other (“other initiated it”) at
14.4% responding, both (“we both initiate it”) at 10.0%, self (“I initiated it”) at 7.8%, and
the last category as mixed (“other initiated and I initiated at times”) at 2.2%. The majority
of responses came from the other category while the least mentioned responses came
from the mixed category. Since the overall percents and categorical percents would have
resulted in identical outcomes due to participants stating only one response each, the

overall percent was replaced with the percent of the sample to include the total number of

38

participants. Table 8 provides a summary of these frequencies, percentages, and Cohen’s
kappa per variable. Average k = .88.
Table 8

Infirtirg Disgssion in the Friends with Benefits Relationship

-. r-n‘ «Iv-um n— -+ -m;nz-....-a—. «Viz-nunr— -v c. HA-‘un- - nan-Dc uAm-u— or -- v-v" gnu "-1.4- mum-”I'm“. . - ... . ”an ..- - -2... ...r.__~ . . i _ .-. .— .3... _ . . .

 

 

Frequency Categorical % % of Sample k

 

Discussion Initiator

None 59 -- 65.6% --

Other 13 41.9% 14.4% .90
Both 9 29.0% 10.0% .75
Self 7 22.6% 7.8% .92
Mixed 2 6.5% 2.2% .66

 

 

Note. Categorical percent was calculated by the variable frequency over total participants
in the category (N = 31). Percent of sample was calculated by the variable frequency over
total participants (N = 90).

Additionally, responses included how the conversation was initiated. Only ‘14
participants indicated how the discussion of sexual activity was brought up. An
overriding theme rested in that the discussion was brought up by making jokes to lighten
the mood. Responses were categorized and percentages calculated for joking (“jokes were
made to lighten the mood”) at 8.9% responding, first sexual activity (“it was brought up
after the first sexual encounter”) at 3.3%, hinting (“I told other how I thought it would be
cool to find someone who enjoyed sex as much as I did”) at 1.1%, past relationships
(“we were discussing past relationships”) at 1.1%, and the last category as wondering
(“wondered what sex would be like with that person”) at 1.1%. The majority of responses
came from the joking category while the least mentioned responses came from the
hinting, past relationships, and wondering categories. Since the overall percents and

categorical percents would have resulted in identical outcomes due to participants stating

39

only one response each, the overall percent was replaced with the percent of the sample
to include the total number of participants. Table 9 provides a summary of these
frequencies, percentages, and Cohen’s kappa per variable. Average k = .85.

Table 9

How Discussion was brflght up in the Friends with Benefits Relationship

 

 

Frequency Categorical % % of Sample k
How Discussion was brought up

None 76 - 84.4% --

Joking 8 51.7% 8.9% .93
First Sexual Activity 3 21.4% 3.3% .85
Hinting 1 7.1% 1.1% 1.0
Past Relationships 1 7.1% 1.1% .66
Wondering 1 7.1% 1.1% .66

 

Eh.~——-w,—4——ncxom r-ll— an -- —-— an a» m... --- pawl-m aural—queer .—- W

Note. Categorical percent was calculated by the variable fiequency over total participants
in the category (N = 14). Percent of sample was calculated by the variable frequency over
total participants (N = 90).

 

Few (N = 31, 34.4%) participants stated what was talked about regarding sexual
activity in these relationships. An overriding theme rested in that the discussion focused
on the expectations of the sexual activity. Responses were categorized and percentages
calculated for expectation (“limits”, “comfort level”, and “frequency”) at 30.6%
responding, eflects on relationship (“do we want this to go anywhere” and “jealousy of
other friends”) at 19.4%, justifying sexual activity (“we are both adults” and “this would
have happened earlier if not in a romantic relationship”) at 16.7%, approval (“making
sure other was okay with the situation”) at 13.9%, other (“friends” and “recently getting
out of a relationship with a friend of the partner”) at 5.6%, performance (“how good it

was” at 5.6%, rotection (“ rotection” and “other sexual partners”) at 5.6%, and the last
P P

40

category as continuance (“to see if we’d keep having sex”) at 2.8%. The majority of
responses came from the expectation category while the least mentioned responses came
from the continuance category. Table 10 provides a summary of these frequencies,
percentages, and Cohen’s kappa per variable. Average k = .94.

Table 10 ’

What was Discussed in the Friends with Benefits Relationship (N = 31)

‘4fi‘n‘JH71/1-‘vs- _ a a... -— “ ‘—I-|—v -‘ wflh ->\ .- r -. "IUth‘mmrrI—ofl v-—- “mu-“A. -y—Wmm‘ -.

 

Frequency Categorical % Overall % k

 

Sexual Activity Topic

Expectation 1 1 35.5% 30.6% .95
Effects on Relationship 7 22.6% 19.4% .82
Justifying Sexual Activity 6 19.4% 16.7% .82
Approval 5 16.1% 13.9% .90
Other 2 6.5% 5.6% 1.0
Performance 2 6.5% 5.6% 1 .0
Protection 2 6.5% 5.6% 1 .0
Continuance 1 3.2% 2.8% 1 .0

 

u... --< m-~...an.—-—-~. .rv-w—v war-run .-. o. --¢u-”,mfl—yflgu-m .u.m.._-..-—

 

Note. Categorical percent was calculated by the variable fi'equency over total participants.
Overall percent was calculated by the variable frequency over total frequency.

A question inquired if any ground rules had been established for the fiiends with
benefits relationship. A majority (65.6%, or 59 participants) indicated no ground rules
were established, while the remainder (34.4%, or 31 participants) answered yes.

Of the participants indicating ground rules were established, an overriding theme
of rules pertained to disclosing the relationship and establishing the acceptance to see
other people. Responses were categorized and percentages derived for third party (“don’t
tell anyone/ex’s”, “we can see other people”, ‘Vve should let people know what was
happening”, “no other friends with benefits relationships”, and “be honest about sexual

activity with others”) at 47.4% responding, maintenance (“no talk of future”, “have to

41

disclose if one develops romantic feelings”, “no emotional attachment”, “no jealousy”,
“if others found out we would end it with no questions asked”, “we’d do everything
romantic couples do, just don’t have a title”, and “I can only call her, but she can’t call

9, 6‘

me”) at 34. 2%, sexual activity (“how far we would go, no loud sex if others are
around”, “sex can’t be a regular thing”, and “no public displays of affection”) at 13.2%,
and the last category as fiiendship (“this will not effect our friendship”) at 6.7%. The
majority of responses came from the third party category while the least mentioned
responses came from the friendship category. Table 11 provides a summary of these
frequencies, percentages, and Cohen’s kappa per variable. Average k = .90.

Table 1 1

Ground Rules 1n the Friends with Benefits Relationship (N= 1.)-..3

Mn-u- wr-u-m—n-x-‘m --.—- u—u-u- m- rum.” w—m-n 1‘“ -'10 ufiflbm m-w— ane- - a—m-a- -w_-m«- H- -m mo- vain-mm-“ u-sw’ --. --..--p---.—-—.,--...~-...-. n..—-.~-~.—_-‘.A.-. -.-.~-..-._-_

 

Frequency Categorical % Overall % k

 

Ground Rule Category

Third Party 18 60.0% 47.4% 1.0
Maintenance 13 43.3% 34.2% .91
Sexual Activity 5 16.7% 13.2% .88
Friendship 2 6. 7% 5. 3% .80

 

 

w- W, J“.- “M“.V. “Hm“... ”dummwfldwa -—. v- Mn“- 4- o—II—u-

Note. Categorical percent was calculated by the variable frequency over total participants.
Overall percent was calculated by the variable frequency over total frequency.

 

The second research question sought to discover what types of relational
negotiation strategies are used in friends with benefits relationships. Of the participants
indicating they established ground rules, the next question asked how these rules were
negotiated. Since only 31 participants established ground rules, which is the maximum
number of participants that can use negotiation, this leaves 59 participants not negotiating

due to no ground rules established. With 7 participants leaving this question blank (total

42

now 66 participants not using negotiation), results indicate that few friends with benefits
partners are negotiating the rules of the relationship. The majority of responses came
from the mutually agreed category. Since the overall percents and categorical percents
would have resulted in identical outcomes due to participants stating only one response
each, the overall percent was replaced with the percent of the sample to include the total
number of participants. Table 12 provides a summary of these frequencies, percentages,
and Cohen’s kappa per variable. Average k = .97.

Table 12

Negotiating the Ground Rules in the Friends with Benefits Relationship

 

 

Frequency Categorical % % of Sample k

Bases for Agreement

None 66 -- 73.3% --
Mutually Agreed 10 41.7% 11.1% .88
I set the rules, other agreed 4 16.7% 4.4% .88
Talked 4 16.7% 4.4% 1 .0
Mutual Understanding 2 8.3% 8.3% 1.0
Compromised 1 4.2% 2.2% 1 .0
If you won’t, I won’t I 4.2% 2.2% 1.0
Negotiated 1 4.2% 2.2% 1 .0
Other set the rules, I agreed 1 4.2% 2.2% 1.0

 

 

Note. Categorical percent was calculated by the variable frequency over total participants
in the category (N = 24). Percent of sample was calculated by the variable frequency over
total participants (N = 90).

The third research question sought to discover if sex differences emerged when
negotiating these relationships. Since little relational negotiation is occurring in these
relationships, no sex differences were discovered. The fourth research question sought
differences between single instance occurrences of having sex with a friend and having

an ongoing fiiends with benefits relationship in terms of relational negotiation strategies.

43

Again, no discoveries were revealed. Of the participants that had sex only once in their
friends with benefits relationship (6 participants), no instance of establishing ground rules
were reported, and therefore no negotiation occurred.

A question was asked if the participant experienced any issues or complications in
their friends with benefits relationship, and if so, how these issues were dealt with. The
responses were almost evenly split indicating issues had been experienced (53.3%, or 48
participants), and none were evident (46.7%, or 42 participants).

Of the participants that experienced issues, an overriding theme was the status of
the relationship. With one participant’s response not included, responses were
categorized and percentages derived for status (“should we begin a romantic relationship
or stay just fiiends”, “our future”, “relationship started to evolve into a romantic one”,
“I/partner wanted more”, and “couldn’t agree on the level of commitment”) at 35.6%
responding, maintenance (“lack of communication”, “mixed signals on comfort level”,
“sex put strain on the friendship”, “what the relationship entailed”, “fought a lot”, “how
the friendship operated outside the sex”, and “limits were set, but problems arose in the
grey areas”) at 20.3%, feelings (“insecurity”, “jealousy”, and “felt used”) at 18.6%, other
(“I/other began a romantic relationship with someone else”) at 17.0%, partner (“other
became standoffish”, “other got annoying”, “other pressured a romantic relationship”,
“wondering if other relationships were happening”) at 6.8%, and the last category as third
party (“gossip from other people”) at 1.7%. The majority of responses came from the
status category while the least mentioned responses came from the third party category.

Table 13 provides a summary of these frequencies, percentages, and Cohen’s kappa per

variable. Average k = .89.

44

Table 13

Issues in the Friends with Benefits Relationship (N = 47)

 

 

Frequency Categorical % Overall % k

 

Issues Category

Status 21 44.7% 35.6% .91
Maintenance 12 25.5% 20.3% .85
Feelings 1 1 23.4% 18.6% .95
Other 10 21.3% 17.0% .73
Partner 4 8.5% 6.8% .88
Third Party 1 2.1% 1.7% 1.0

 

M

 

Note. Categorical percent was calculated by the variable frequency over total participants.
Overall percent was calculated by the variable frequency over total frequency.

Of the participants that indicated what issues were experienced, responses were
given as to how they dealt with them. The theme concentrated on opting to change the
status of the relationship. Responses were categorized and percentages derived for
change of status (“made the relationship official”, “ended all contact”, and “went back to
being just fiiends”) at 35.8% responding, discussion/negotiation (“negotiated new terms
of action”, “discussions or arguments”, and “I compromised”) at 24.5%, nothing (“stayed
fiiends with benefits instead of more”, “kept it to myself”, “didn’t care about the issue”,
and “summer vacation was over [time ran out]”) at 20.8%, avoidance (“avoided t0pic”,
“avoided each other”, “denied everything”, and “ignored it”) at 13.2%, and the last
category as other (“still dealing” and “poorly”) at 5.7%. The majority of responses came
from the change of status category while the least mentioned responses came from the
other category. Table 14 provides a summary of these frequencies, percentages, and

Cohen’s kappa per variable. Average k = .93.

45

Table 14

Dealing with Issues in the Friends with Benefits Relationship (N = 48)

_..-. - .u -..-....-..-. ~.p-. .-— n —- -¢.-.

 

 

Frequency Categorical % Overall % k

Dealing Category

Change of Status 19 40.0% 35.8% .90
Discussion/negotiation l 3 27.1% 24.5% 1 .0
Nothing 1 1 22.9% 20.8% .82
Avoidance 7 14.6% 13.2% .93
Other 3 6.3% 5.7% 1.0

 

 

Note. Categorical percent was calculated by the variable frequency over total participants.
Overall percent was calculated by the variable frequency over total fiequency.

The question was asked if the participant was currently friends with benefits with
this person. With one participant leaving this question blank due to uncertainty if their
friends with benefits relationship was still occuning, a majority of responses indicated
the fiiends with benefits relationship was not continuing. Almost all participants (77.5%,
or 69 participants) were not in a friends with benefits relationship with this person, and
few (22.5%, or 20 participants) were currently in a friends with benefits relationship with
this person.

The next question asked if the friends with benefits relationship was no longer
occurring, what the outcome was. The categories were: we went back to being just
fiiends, we became a romantic/dating couple, we went our separate ways and no longer
have any relationship, or other. With one participant leaving this question blank due to
uncertainty if their friends with benefits relationship was still continuing, results indicated
a third (34.8%, or 31 participants) went back to being just friends with their friends with

benefits partner. Responses were almost evenly split between going their separate ways

46

resulting in no longer having any type of relationship (21.3%, or 19 participants) and
other (18.0%, or 16 participants). A few (3.4%, or 3 participants) became a
romantic/dating couple. These findings are consistent with study 1.

The “other” category was explained by the participant. These topics ranged from
the fiiendship is not what it used to be, lost contact, met someone else, became
acquaintances, to went on a break but are now fiiends. The majority of responses came
from the friends, but not the same category while the least mentioned responses came
from the went on a break but are now friends category. Since the overall percents and
categorical percents would have resulted in identical outcomes due to participants stating
only one response each, the overall percent was replaced with the percent of the sample
to include the total number of participants. Table 15 provides a summary of these

frequencies, percentages, and Cohen’s kappa per variable. Average k = .90.

47

Table 15

Outcomes of the Friends with Benefits Relationshp)

 

 

Frequency Categorical % % of Sample k

 

(N = 89)
Relationship Outcome
Still Friends with Benefits 20 -- 22.5% --
Remain Friends 31 -- 34.8% --
Went Our Separate Ways 19 -- 21.3% --
Became Romantic 3 -- 3.4% --
Other 16 -- 18.0% --
(N = 16)
Friends, but not the same 7 43.8% 7.9% .85
Lost contact 3 18.8% 3.4% 1.0
Met someone else 3 18.8% 3.4% 1.0
Acquaintances 2 12.5% 2.2% .66
Went on a break, now friends 1 6.3% 1.1% 1.0

 

._. .— _._

Note. Categorical percent was calculated by the variable frequency over total participants
in the category (N = 16). Percent of sample was calculated by the variable frequency over
total participants (N = 89).

The final question inquired about the sex of the fiiends with benefits partner. The
responses were almost evenly split between the sexes (52.2% male and 47.8% female).
Two participants indicated a friends with benefits relationship with someone of the same
sex.

Summary of Results

The typical participant engaged in a friends with benefits relationship with three
partners. The average length of time the friends knew each other before adding sex was
slightly over one year, or 14 months. The average length of time the friend with benefits

relationship lasted was six months. Most participants had sex more than once with their

48

friends with benefits partner, but it was not intended to be an ongoing part of the
relationship. Additionally, the sexual activity was often sometimes intentional and
sometimes “unexpected.” Few participants were currently in a friends with benefits
relationship with this person and went back to being just fiiends with their friends with
benefits partner.

The majority of fiiends with benefits participants indicated experiencing moderate
intimacy with their friend, while the passion and commitment scores were low.
Therefore, according to Stemberg, the participant experienced the liking type of love for
their fiiend, concluding that the individuals were just friends at the time of sexual
activity.

For questions regarding if the participant experienced a rise in questions about the
friendship once sexual activity was added, if an open discussion of sexual activity
occurred, and experienced any issues or complications within the friends with benefits
relationship, the responses were almost evenly split. When asked if ground rules were
established, a majority indicated that there were none.

RQ6 asked once sexual activity is introduced into a previously platonic
friendship, what questions arise concerning the relationship as a result of this sexual
activity. An overriding theme of the questions that arose due to the addition of sexual
activity was the title of the relationship (i.e., are we a romantic couple, are we still just
friends, or are we friends with benefits).

A common theme revealed by participants when asked who brought up the issue
of sexual activity was that the other partner was initiating the discussion, it was brought

up by making jokes, and the discussion focused on expectations concerning the sexual

49

activity. Of the participants indicating that ground rules were established, an overriding
theme was third party concerns pertaining to disclosing about the relationship and
establishing that they were allowed to see other people. Of the participants that
experienced issues, the theme concentrated on the status of the fiiends with benefits
relationship. A majority of responses indicated participants were not trying to work out
the issues that arose and opted to simply change the status of the relationship.

RQ7 sought to determine what types of relational negotiation strategies are used
in fiiends with benefits relationships. Results indicate friends with benefits partners are
most often not negotiating the rules of the relationship, therefore, no strategies were
reported.

RQ8 inquired if there were sex differences in relational negotiation strategies in
friends with benefits relationships. Due to little relational negotiation emerging in these
types of relationships, no sex differences were reported.

RQ9 sought to determine what were the differences between single instance
occurrences of having sex with a friend and having an ongoing friends with benefits
relationship in terms of relational negotiation strategies. Because only 6 participants
indicated having sex once with their friends with benefits partner, no differences were
reported.

Discussion

Study 1 revealed that friends with benefits relationships are currently prevalent
among college students. One interesting question concerns how long these relationships
have been around and trends in prevalence over time. Since these relationships have not

been studied until recently, it is unclear how long these relationships have been in

50

existence and if they had always been called “friends with benefits.” Speculatively, the
relationship type, although less prevalent, has probably long existed, but the label is more
recent.

The finding that little relational negotiation is occurring in these relationships is
unsettling. If a majority of participants indicate a potential problem of fiiends with
benefits relationships is that one usually develops more feelings than the other and the
relationship becomes “weird,” it is puzzling why these individuals do not discuss these
issues once they become a problem. On average, most participants had sexual activity
more than once with their friends with benefits partner, but it was not intended to be an
ongoing part of the relationship. Given that the sexual activity was not intended, may
perhaps be why few participants reported negotiating the relationship. Also, the answer
may rest in why the relationship was begun. Study 1 suggests that friends with benefits
relationships are often formed out of a desire for a relationship with no strings attached.
Once sexual activity and ground rules are discussed, perhaps that becomes a “string” that
these individuals do not want. If this relationship is supposed to be a fun thing and
nothing more, deliberating over rules might take the fun out of it. If sexual activity and
rules are discussed, that could make the relationship “real,” which may not be what the
friends are searching for. This begs the question of whether or not fiiends with benefits
relationships could ever work from a communication standpoint.

Baxter and Wilrnot (1985) report that talking about a relationship tops the list of
taboo topics for both platonic and intimate couples. Two-thirds of their sample cited the
relationship itself was the most taboo discussion topic and they avoided talking about the

relationship with their partner if different levels of commitment were revealed. Results of

51

study 2 are consistent with these findings. Discussing the relationship, the rules, or the
issues that emerged were not common among the responses. Also, since the desire for
commitment in these relationships can become lopsided resulting in different levels,
perhaps this is why discussion is not occurring.

Parks (1982) has challenged the view that disclosure is not necessarily good and
intimacy is not always the goal in interpersonal communication. Parks argued that there
were plenty of effective interpersonal communication relationships that were not based
on intimacy and disclosure but which were based instead on social necessity. Perhaps
friends with benefits relationships are not doomed because they are not communicating; it
could be the case that intimacy and disclosure is not needed to maintain these
relationships.

According to the responses, it appears as though partners had implicitly
established ground rules to not negotiate. It could be that no negotiation is needed. Since
these individuals are friends, perhaps they already agree because friends usually like the
same things. Since very little negotiation is occurring in these relationships, it could be
due to idiosyncratic negotiation between friends. It could also be that the fiiendship was
not worth long deliberation of the rules. If a difficult issue arose, perhaps the fiiendship
was disposable from the beginning and trying to establish ground rules to protect that
friendship is not worth the effort. The participants may also seek this relationship as a
short-term investment, so establishing rules is not needed. Consistent with this are
findings from the Stemberg (1988) Triangle Love Scale that commitment is low.

Study 2 was consistent with Stemberg’s claims that fiiends experience low

passion for one another. In fiiends with benefits relationships, the friends are engaging in

52

sexual activity, but the sex is geared toward convenience and physical satisfaction rather
than as a means of passion exhibited for one another.

Terminated fiiendships due to previously being fiiends with benefits (i.e., partners
went their separate ways and not longer have any type of relationship) can be
unrepresentative when assessing outcomes of friends with benefits relationships. To
conclude the friends with benefits relationship caused the friendship to be terminated can
be misleading. All the participants were college students. It could be possible that they no
longer have any type of relationship because people move away and relationships during
these years get lost due to loss of contact. Further exploration is needed to determine
what caused the individuals to dissolve all contact.

The results of study 2 demonstrated that males report more partners than females.
Why this is the case is unclear. It could be a reporting bias with males padding their
numbers or females decreasing theirs to appear less promiscuous. It could also be that
women view love differently and where a male might consider a partner to be friends
with benefits, a female might consider it a hook-up or a dating relationship. This
difference in reporting the number of sexual partners is consistent with previous research
(e.g., Thomhill & Gangestad, 1994).

It appears that upper classman reported less friends with benefits relationships
than lower classman. Since the questionnaire asked to report all friends with benefits
partners throughout their life, the numbers should be relatively the same or upper
classman should have been reporting more since they typically are older. The reverse
seemed to be true, however. It could be that over time and exposure to communication

courses, these older individuals separate once classified friends with benefits

53

relationships into other categories. A percent cannot be provided since the University
Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects did not allow reporting of those that
did not have this type of relationship. This was a general observation by the author.

It is interesting to note that the established rules for the friends with benefits
relationship focused on how the individuals were to keep the relationship from evolving
into something more, yet no rules were established to keep the relationship from
lessening back into a platonic friendship. Examples of these rules could entail the
individuals referring to the relationship as a friends with benefits relationship and not just
a friendship, or establish minimum sexual activity to maintain the status.

Finally, study 1 and study 2 exhibit commonalities. First, the frequency and
outcomes of the relationships were consistent. Second, the themes of engaging in sexual
activity as a means of feeling comfortable with a friend while still fulfilling sexual desires
without romantic commitment were evident in both studies.

Limitations

The research procedure in study 2 required participants to self-report, which can
lead to errors in recall and biases (Harvey, Christensen, & McClintock, 1983).
Participants had to recall how they felt about their fiiends with benefits partner at the
time of the sexual activity. Therefore, the responses to the scale may not be completely
accurate. Because only one partner of the dyad was responding, critical concerns, issues,
questions, and rules may not have been reported. An important further step would be to
assess a friends with benefits relationship with both partners while the relationship is
current. Recall tasks may be difficult and could be avoided if participants noted the rise in

questions or issues as they occurred.

54

College students were used as participants, thus excluding an older population.
Since little negotiation strategies were discovered, it could be due to the fact younger
individuals do not employ these strategies where older individuals may. The next step is
to use a non-college sample to clearly determine if relational negotiation occurs in these
relationships or not.

The current study focused on comparing the communication in a friends with
benefits relationship to that of a romantic relationship as supported by Baxter and Wilrnot
(1995). This excluded the communication comparison of these individuals to that of
fiiends not engaging in these relationships. Perhaps the communication in friends with
benefits relationships (or lack there of) is more consistent with a friendship than with a
romantic relationship.

Conclusion

Since fiiends with benefits relationships are understudied in communication
research, I feel the results of this study will serve as a foundation to aid in further
exploration. The results of these studies are a useful beginning in the long overdue
exploration of non-typical relationships. Light has been shed on the dangers of previously
held concepts of fiiendships and romantic relationships. I believe this research
demonstrates the potential strengths and weaknesses of these relationships and as well as

how they “live.”

55

APPENDIX A

INFORMED CONSENT FORM

Title of Study: F rienrb with Benefits

Researcher: Dr. Timothy R. Levine e-mail: levinet@msu.edu
Department of Communication Office: CAS 482
Michigan State University Phone: 432-1124
Information

We are interested in people’s experiences with and opinions about a type of relationship that
might be called “friends with benefits.” Friends with benefits are when friends have sex. You
will be asked to fill out a very short questionnaire containing several open and closed-ended
questions. You will not be identified on the questionnaire, and responses will only be reported in
aggregate. All answers are CONFIDENTIAL, and your privacy will be protected to the
maximum extent allowable by law. The questionnaire should take less than 20 minutes to
complete, and is only two pages long.

Participation in this study is voluntary, and you may withdraw your consent to participate at any
time without penalty.

While this study is not expected to yield any immediate benefit to the individual participants, it
will add to the general store of Communication knowledge. There are no anticipated risks
associated with participation, but some questions ask about sex and may be embarrassing.

You will receive extra-credit in your class in exchange for your participation if your instructor
has previously agreed to provide extra-credit. If you would receive extra-credit in exchange for
your participation, you can get an equivalent amount of credit by doing an alternative should you
choose not to participate in this study.

The final results of the study will be made available, probably by the end of Spring of 2004. To
obtain the report, please contact Tim Levine at the above address.

For questions regarding your rights as a human subject of research, contact UCRIHS Chair. Ashir Kurnar, M.D.,
Telephone: (517) 355-2180, Email: ucrihs@msu.edu

I voluntarin agee toparticipate in this stag.

 

 

 

 

Print your name Your signature Date

 

 

Your instructor’s name Class and section you are receiving extra or research credit in

56

APPENDIX B

Friends with Benefits Questionnaire

Recent research has studied a phenomena called “Friends with Benefits. ” Friends with benefits
are when people who are “just friends, ” have sex. Please answer the following questions about
fi'iends with benefits. Please answer as honestly and accurately as possible.

1. If you have sex with someone, can you be just fiiends? Yes No

2. Have you ever had sex with some one who you considered “just a friend” at the time
of sex (circle one)?

Yes No (If no, skip to question #8)

3. If yes, are you currently in a “friends with benefits” relationship? Yes No

4. Was/is the sex in your “fiiends with benefits” relationship(s) (circle all that apply)?

A) a one time only thing B) an occasional thing C) an ongoing thing

5. What types of “sex” did you have with your friend (circle all that apply)?
A) Open mouth to mouth kissing C) Touching genitals
B) Oral Sex D) Sexual intercourse
6. What happened to your fiiends with benefits relationship(s) (circle all that apply):
A) We remain friends with benefits
B) We remain friends, but no longer have sex.
C) We became a romantically involved couple (i.e., the relationship evolved from
a friendship into a romantic relationship).

D) I am no longer in any kind of relationship with this person.

7. Was/were your fiiends with benefits relationship(s) (circle one)

A) Same Sex B) Opposite Sex C) Both
8. Your sex: Male Female
9. Your Age:

Please turn the questionnaire over and continue on the back

57

Now, please provide us with some of your opinions about “friends with benefits. ”

10. What are the major advantages (if any) of “friends with benefits” relationships?

11. Why do you think some people engage in “friends with benefits” relationships?

12. What are the major disadvantages (if any) of a “fiiends with benefits” relationship?

13. Why do you think some people do apt engage in “friends with benefits”
relationships?

58

APPENDIX C

INFORMED CONSENT FORM

Title of Study: Friends with Benefits

Researcher: Dr. Timothy R. Levine e—mail: levinet@msu.edu
Department of Communication Office: CAS 482
Michigan State University Phone: 432-1124
Information

We are interested in people’s experiences with “friends with benefits” relationships. Friends with
benefits are when fi'iends have sex. If you are participating in this study then you are currently in
or have had a friends with benefits relationship. You will be asked to fill out a questionnaire
containing several open and closed-ended questions. You will not be identified on the
questionnaire, and responses will only be reported in aggregate. All answers are

CON FIDENTIAL. and your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.
The questionnaire should take about 30 minutes to complete, and is eight pages long.

Participation in this study is voluntary. You may choose not to participate at all, or you may
discontinue your participation at any time without penalty or loss of benefits.

While this study is not expected to yield any immediate benefit to the individual participants, it
will add to the general store of Communication knowledge. There are no anticipated risks
associated with participation, but some questions ask about sex and may be embarrassing.

You will receive extra-credit in your class in exchange for your participation if your instructor
has previously agreed to provide extra-credit. If you would receive extra-credit in exchange for
your participation, you can get an equivalent amount of credit by doing an alternative should you
choose not to participate in this study.

The final results of the study will be made available, probably by the end of Spring of 2004. To
obtain the report, please contact Tim Levine at the above address.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are
dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact - anonymously, if you wish
- Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving Human
Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, e-mail address:
ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

I volpuntarily agree to participate in this study.

 

 

 

Print your name Your signature Date

 

 

Your instructor’s name Class and section you are receiving extra or research credit in

59

 

APPENDIX D

Friends with Benefits Questionnaire Study 2

This study is interested in a relationship known as “friends with benefits ” and how they are
negotiated by the individuals involved. A friends with benefits relationship is when ”justfi'iends ”
have sex. Sex is characterized as genital touching, genital-oral intercourse, and sexual
intercourse @enile-vaginal or penile-anal). Please answer the following questions as openly and
honestly as possible.

1. According to the definition above, have you ever had a fiiends with benefits
relationship?

a) Yes b) No (If no please proceed to next questionnaire)

2. How many different friends with benefits relationships have you had?

 

If you ’ve had more than one, please refer to your current or most recent fi'iends with
benefits relationship to answer the remainder of the questionnaire.

3. How long were you fiiends before you first had sex with your friend?

 

4. How long did this fiiends with benefits relationship last?

 

5. Your sex: a) Male b) Female

6. Your age:

60

Please answer the next questions with your current or most recent fiiends with benefits
relationship in mind. Please rate and circle the importance of each statement on a scale
of I (not at all) to 9 (extremely). Be sure to score each question as honestly as you can.

 

mu_ _., .7.._, ..,._ _.-____._ .. ., . .... .. . .. ._ .... mm“--.

not at all ...........’.-moderately:.’ .................. hextremely so

7. I am actively supportive of my friend’s well being.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
8. I have a warm relationship with my friend.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
9. I am able to count on my friend in times of need.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10. My friend is able to count on me in times of need.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
11. I am willing to share myself and my possessions with my friend.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
12. I receive considerable emotional support from my fiiend.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
13. I give considerable emotional support to my friend.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
14. I communicate well with my friend.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
15. I value my fiiend greatly in my life.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

61

 

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

I feel close to my friend.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 have a comfortable relationship with my fiiend.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
I feel that I really understand my friend.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
I feel that my friend really understands me.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
I feel that I really can trust my fiiend.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 share deeply personal information about myself with my fiiend.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Just seeing my friend excites me.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

I find myself thinking about my friend frequently during the day.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

My relationship with my friend is very romantic.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

I find my fiiend to be very personally attractive.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
I idealize my fiiend.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

62

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

1 cannot imagine another person making me as happy as my friend does.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

I would rather be with my friend than with anyone else.
2 3 4 5 6 ’ 7 8 9

There is nothing more important to me than my relationship with my friend.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

I especially like physical contact with my friend.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

There is something almost “magical” about my relationship with my fiiend.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

I adore my friend.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

I cannot imagine life without my friend.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
My relationship with my friend is passionate.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
When I see romantic movies or read romantic books I think of my friend.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
I fantasize about my friend.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
I know that I care about my fiiend.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

63

38.

39.
us.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

I am committed to maintaining my relationship with my friend.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Because of my commitment to my friend, I would not let other people come between

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

I have confidence in the stability of my relationship with my friend.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

I could not let anything get in the way of my commitment to my fiiend.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

I expect my love for my fiiend to last for the rest of my life.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

I will always feel a strong responsibility for my friend.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
I view my commitment to my friend as a solid one.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
I cannot imagine ending my relationship with my fiiend.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
I am certain of my love for my fiiend.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
I view my relationship with my friend as permanent.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
I view my relationship with my fiiend as a good decision.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

64

49. I feel a sense of responsibility toward my friend.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

50. I plan to continue my relationship with my friend.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

51. Even when my friend is hard to deal with, I remain committed to our relationship.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

52. In your current or most recent friends with benefits relationship, which best reflects
the frequency of sex?

a) We had sex only once b) We had sex more than once, but it was not
intended to be an ongoing part of the relationship

c) The sex was intended to be an ongoing part of the relationship
53. Once sexual activity was introduced into the friendship, did any questions arise
concerning the relationship as a result of this sexual activity?

a) Yes b) No

If yes, what were they?

 

 

 

 

54. Was this sexual activity “unexpected” and seemed to “just happen”?
a) Yes b) No, we were intentionally having sex

c) Sometimes intentional and sometimes unexpected

65

55. Did you and your friend openly discuss having sex together?
a) Yes b) No

If yes, how did it come up (who initiated it) and what was talked about?

 

 

 

 

 

 

56. Were any “ground rules” established? a) Yes b) No (If no skip to #58)

If yes, what?

 

 

 

 

 

 

57. If yes to #56, how was this negotiated (how did you settle on what you did)?

 

 

 

 

 

66

58. Did you experience any “issues” or “complications” with your friends with benefits
relationship?

a) Yes b) No (If no skip to #60)

If yes, what were they?

 

 

 

 

 

59. If yes to #58, how did you deal with these “issues” or “complications”?

 

 

 

 

 

60. Are you currently in a friends with benefits relationship with this person?
a) Yes b) No
61. If no, what happened to the relationship afier you stopped having sex?

a) We went back to being just fiiends
b) We became a romantic/dating couple

c) We went our separate ways and no longer have any relationship
d) Other

 

62. The sex of your fiiends with benefits partner that was used to answer the following
questions:

a) Male b) Female

67

REFERENCES

Afifi, W. A., & Burgoon, J. K. (1998). “We never talk about that”: A comparison of
cross-sex fiiendships and dating relationships on uncertainty and topic avoidance.
Personal Relationships, 5, 255-272.

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.

Armstrong, R. L. (1985). Friendship. Journal of Value Inquiry, 19, 211-216.

Aron, A., & Westbay, L. (1996). Dimensions of the prototype of love. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 535-551.

Baxter, L.A., & Wilrnot, W. (1985) Taboo topics in close relationships. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 2, 253-269.

Brehm, S., Miller, R., Perlrnan, D., & Campbell, S. (2002). Intimate Relationships. (3rd
ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Brogan, W. A. (2002). Gadarner’s praise of theory: Aristotle’s fiiend and the reciprocity
between theory and practice. Research-in-Phenomenology, 32, 141-155.

Byers, E. s., Dernmons, s., & Lawrance, K. (1993). Sexual satisfaction within dating
relationships: A test of the interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 257-267.

Christen, C. T. (2001). Predicting willingness to negotiate: The effects of perceived
power and trustworthiness in a model of strategic communication. Dissertation
Abstracts International Section A: Humanities & Social Sciences, 62(4-A), 1270.

Davis, K. E., & Todd, M. L. (1985). Assessing friendship: Prototypes, paradigm cases,
and relationship description. In S. Duck & D. Perlrnan (Eds), Understanding
personal relationships: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 17-3 8). London: Sage.

deVries, B. (1996). The understanding of friendship: An adult life course perspective. In
C. Magai & S. McFadden (Eds), Handbook of emotion, aging, and the life course
(pp. 249-268). New York: Academic Press.

Fehr, B. (1996). Friendship processes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gentry, M. (1998). The sexual double standard: The influence of number of relationships

and level of sexual activity on judgments of women and men. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 22, 505-511.

68

Hale, J ., & Lemieux, R. (1999). Intimacy, passion, and commitment in young romantic
relationships: Successfully measuring the triangular theory of love. Psychological
Reports, 85, 497-503. [On-line] Available March 17, 2004, from WebSPIRS on-
line database PsycINFO, Item 0265-4075.

Harris, P. L. (1983). What children know about the situations that provokes emotion. In
M. Lewis & C. Saami (Eds), The Socialization of Aflect. New York: Plenum.

Harvey, J., Christensen, A., & McClintock, E. (1983). Research methods. In H. H.
Kelley, E. Berscheid, A. Christensen, J. Harvey, T. Huston, G. Levinger, E.
McClintock, A. Peplau, & D. Peterson (Eds), Close Relationships (pp. 449-485).
New York: Freeman.

Hill, C. A., & Preston, L. K. (1996). Individual differences in the experience of sexual
motivation: Theory and measurement of dispositional sexual motives. Journal of
Sex Research, 33, 27-45.

Hunt, M. (1974). Sexual behavior in the 1970 ’s. Chicago: Playboy Press.

Laird, R. D., Pettit, G. 8., Dodge, K. A., & Bates, J. E. (1999). Best fiiendships, group
relationships, and antisocial behavior in early adolescence. Journal of Early
Adolescence, 19, 413-437.

Mongeau, P. A., Ramirez, A., & Vorell, M. (2003). Friends with benefits: initial
explorations of sexual, non-romantic, relationships. Unpublished manuscript,
Arizona State University at Tempe.

Olekalns, M., & Smith, P. L. (2003). Testing the relationships among negotiators’
motivational orientations, strategy choices, and outcomes. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 101-117.

Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 114, 29-51.

Parks, M. R. (1982). Ideology in interpersonal communication: Off the couch and into the
world. In M. Burgoon (Ed), Communication Yearbook 5, (pp. 79-107). New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Paul, E. L., & Hayes, K. A. (2002). The causalities of ‘casual sex’: A qualitative
exploration of phenomenology of college students’ hookups. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 19, 639-661.

Paul, E. L., McManus, B., & Hayes, A. (2000). “Hookups”: Characteristics and

correlations of college students’ spontaneous and anonymous sexual experiences.
Journal of Sex Research, 3 7, 76-88.

69

Pogrebin, L. C. (1 987). Among friends. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Reeder, H. M. (2000). ‘I like you as a friend’: The role of attraction in cross-sex
fiiendship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1 7, 329-348.

Sanders, S. A., & Reinisch, J. M. (1999). Would you say you had sex if. . .? Journal of the
American Medical Association, 281, 275-277.

Sapadin, L. (1988). Friendships and gender: Perspectives of professional men and
women. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 387-403.

Sprecher, S., McKinney, K., & Orbuch, T. L. (1987). Has the double standard
disappeared? An experimental test. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 24-31.

Stemberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93, 119-135.

Stemberg, R. J. (1987). The triangle of love: Intimacy, passion, commitment. New York:
Basic Books.

Stemberg, RJ. (1988). The triangle of love. New York: Basic Books.

Sprecher, S., & Regan, P. (2002). Liking some things (in some people) more than others:
Partner preferences in romantic relationships and friendships. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 1 9, 463-481.

Thomhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (1994). Human fluctuating asymmetry and sexual
behavior. American Psychological Society, 5, 297-302.

Ward, C. A., & Kahn, J. H. (2003). Why do men distance? Factors predictive of male
avoidance of intimate conflict. Family Therapy, 30, 1-11.

Werking, K. J. (1997). We ’re just good friends: Women and men in nonromantic
relationships. New York: Guilford.

Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1993). Reliability and aspects of the construct validity of Stemberg’s

Triangular Love Scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, I 0, 475-
481.

70

   

llililjiiliiilijiilijljiil