JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH.50(1).37-47.2013 Copyright The Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality Routledge ISSN:0022-4499 print/1559-8519 online Taylor Francis Group D0L:10.1080/00224499.2011.623797 Identifying and Explicating Variation among Friends with Benefits Relationships Paul A.Mongeau,Kendra Knight,and Jade Williams Hugh Downs School of Human Communication,Arizona State University Jennifer Eden Department of Communication,Northern Illinois University Christina Shaw Hugh Downs School of Human Communication,Arizona State University This two-study report identifies and validates a typology containing seven types of"friends with benefits relationships"(FWBRs).Study I asked heterosexual students to define the term FWBR and to describe their experience with the relationship type.Qualitative analysis of these data identified seven types of FWBRs (true friends,network opportunism,just sex, three types of transition in [successful,failed,and unintentionalJ,and transition out).Study 2 quantitatively differentiates these relationship types in the amount of nonsexual interaction, strength of the friendship at the first sexual interaction,and history of romantic relationships with the FWBR partner (before the FWBR,after it,or both).Results from both studies clearly suggest that FWBRs represent a diverse set of relationship formulations where both the benefits (ie.,repeated sexual contact)and the friends (i.e.,relationship between part- ners)vary widely.In many cases,FWBRs represent a desire for,or an attempt at,shifting the relationship from friends to a romantic partnership.Other implications are discussed,as are limitations and directions for future research.The diverse nature of FWBRs provides challenges for researchers that likely require multiple methods and theoretical frames. One of the few constants surrounding heterosexual the predominant sexual standard was "permissiveness courtship in the United States is change,as each gener- with affection."where sexual interaction was acceptable ation alters premarital romantic and sexual norms and if and only when partners were firmly committed to one practices(Bailey,1988;Wells Twenge,2005).Whether another(Perlman Sprecher,in press;Sprecher,1989). the result of a sexual revolution or a series of more Campus sexual standards in the 21st century's first gradual evolutions(Bailey,1999),the past half-century decade are quite permissive (Bogle,2008;Perlman witnessed drastic shifts in premarital sexual attitudes Sprecher,in press)and center on "hookups,"which and behaviors (Wells Twenge,2005).For example, are typically defined as strangers or acquaintances who in the 1950s and early 1960s,the predominant sexual engage in sexual interaction without expecting future standard was abstinence.where intercourse was reserved interaction (e.g.,Bogle,2008;Paul Hayes,2002).This for marriage(Perlman Sprecher,in press).A sexually investigation focuses on identifying and explicating charged campus tradition of the day was the "panty the nature of "friends with benefits relationships" raid,"where men would storm female dormitories,rifle (FWBRs),a permissive sexual practice closely related through dresser drawers,steal coeds'lingerie,and to hookups.In FWBRs,friends,who are not in a proudly display the loot (Bailey,1999).In the 1970s, romantic relationship,engage in multiple sexual interac- tions without the expectation that those interactions Study I data were presented to the National Communication reflect romantic intents or motivations (Epstein,Calzo Association meeting in Chicago,IL (November 2007),and Study 2 Smiler,Ward,2009).Given our definition,FWBRs data were presented at the National Communication Association meet- ing in San Diego,CA (November 2008).We thank Artemio Ramirez differ from hookups in two ways:First,FWBRs are for his help in Study I data collection,as well as Jason Peterson and more likely than hookups to occur between friends Merideth Bruck for their help in the Study I data analysis. Thus,FWBRs likely create expectations of more non- Correspondence should be addressed to Paul A.Mongeau,Hugh sexual interaction than do hookups.Second,sexual Downs School of Human Communication,Arizona State University interaction in FWBRs,more than in hookups,is likely P.O.Box 871205,Tempe,AZ 85287-1205.E-mail:paul.mongeau@ to be repeated. asu.edu
Identifying and Explicating Variation among Friends with Benefits Relationships Paul A. Mongeau, Kendra Knight, and Jade Williams Hugh Downs School of Human Communication, Arizona State University Jennifer Eden Department of Communication, Northern Illinois University Christina Shaw Hugh Downs School of Human Communication, Arizona State University This two-study report identifies and validates a typology containing seven types of ‘‘friends with benefits relationships’’ (FWBRs). Study 1 asked heterosexual students to define the term FWBR and to describe their experience with the relationship type. Qualitative analysis of these data identified seven types of FWBRs (true friends, network opportunism, just sex, three types of transition in [successful, failed, and unintentional], and transition out). Study 2 quantitatively differentiates these relationship types in the amount of nonsexual interaction, strength of the friendship at the first sexual interaction, and history of romantic relationships with the FWBR partner (before the FWBR, after it, or both). Results from both studies clearly suggest that FWBRs represent a diverse set of relationship formulations where both the benefits (i.e., repeated sexual contact) and the friends (i.e., relationship between partners) vary widely. In many cases, FWBRs represent a desire for, or an attempt at, shifting the relationship from friends to a romantic partnership. Other implications are discussed, as are limitations and directions for future research. The diverse nature of FWBRs provides challenges for researchers that likely require multiple methods and theoretical frames. One of the few constants surrounding heterosexual courtship in the United States is change, as each generation alters premarital romantic and sexual norms and practices (Bailey, 1988; Wells & Twenge, 2005). Whether the result of a sexual revolution or a series of more gradual evolutions (Bailey, 1999), the past half-century witnessed drastic shifts in premarital sexual attitudes and behaviors (Wells & Twenge, 2005). For example, in the 1950s and early 1960s, the predominant sexual standard was abstinence, where intercourse was reserved for marriage (Perlman & Sprecher, in press). A sexually charged campus tradition of the day was the ‘‘panty raid,’’ where men would storm female dormitories, rifle through dresser drawers, steal coeds’ lingerie, and proudly display the loot (Bailey, 1999). In the 1970s, the predominant sexual standard was ‘‘permissiveness with affection,’’ where sexual interaction was acceptable if and only when partners were firmly committed to one another (Perlman & Sprecher, in press; Sprecher, 1989). Campus sexual standards in the 21st century’s first decade are quite permissive (Bogle, 2008; Perlman & Sprecher, in press) and center on ‘‘hookups,’’ which are typically defined as strangers or acquaintances who engage in sexual interaction without expecting future interaction (e.g., Bogle, 2008; Paul & Hayes, 2002). This investigation focuses on identifying and explicating the nature of ‘‘friends with benefits relationships’’ (FWBRs), a permissive sexual practice closely related to hookups. In FWBRs, friends, who are not in a romantic relationship, engage in multiple sexual interactions without the expectation that those interactions reflect romantic intents or motivations (Epstein, Calzo, Smiler, & Ward, 2009). Given our definition, FWBRs differ from hookups in two ways: First, FWBRs are more likely than hookups to occur between friends. Thus, FWBRs likely create expectations of more nonsexual interaction than do hookups. Second, sexual interaction in FWBRs, more than in hookups, is likely to be repeated. Study 1 data were presented to the National Communication Association meeting in Chicago, IL (November 2007), and Study 2 data were presented at the National Communication Association meeting in San Diego, CA (November 2008). We thank Artemio Ramirez for his help in Study 1 data collection, as well as Jason Peterson and Merideth Bruck for their help in the Study 1 data analysis. Correspondence should be addressed to Paul A. Mongeau, Hugh Downs School of Human Communication, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 871205, Tempe, AZ 85287-1205. E-mail: paul.mongeau@ asu.edu JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH, 50(1), 37–47, 2013 Copyright # The Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality ISSN: 0022-4499 print=1559-8519 online DOI: 10.1080/00224499.2011.623797
MONGEAU,KNIGHT.WILLIAMS.EDEN.AND SHAW College students understand the sexual scripts sur- 2009;Reeder,2000).Thus,strings cannot differentiate rounding both hookups and FWBRs (Epstein et al., FWBRs from romantic relationships because many 2009).According to script theory,"sexuality is learned cases,as we attempt to demonstrate,lie between from culturally available'sexual scripts'that define what emotion-free FWBRs and emotion-laden romantic counts as sex,how to recognize sexual situations,and relationships what to do in relational and sexual encounters"(Kim et al.,2007,p.146;see also Gagnon Simon,1973). Friends with Benefits Epstein et al.demonstrated substantial variation in how hookups occur,but provided no data on FWBRs. A second reason why FWBRs vary is the nature of Our reading of the literature suggests similar variation partners'friendships.The FWBR literature describes among FWBRs (e.g.,Bisson Levine,2009;Epstein variation in benefits (from only kissing to oral/vaginal et al.,2009;Hughes,Morrison,Asada,2005; intercourse:Bisson Levine,2009):however,the nature Lehmiller,VanderDrift,Kelly,2010;Mongeau, of the friends has gone unquestioned.Mongeau et al. Ramirez,Vorell,2003).As the FWBR label likely cov- (2003),however,indicated that FWBR partners differ ers(and obscures)a variety of relational types,the extant in how well they know each other.Consistent with the FWBR literature lacks depth.Therefore,the primary common definition,many FWBR partners know each goals of this investigation were to review the literature other well and care for each other before initiating with a specific focus on how FWBRs vary,to identify sexual contact(Reeder,2000),perhaps allowing them types of FWBRs in students'descriptions and definitions to investigate romantic potential (Bleske Buss, (Study 1),and to validate those types by demonstrating 2000).On the other hand,some FWBR partners initiate that they differ systematically(Study 2). sexual interaction soon after initially meeting(Knight, 2008;Mongeau et al.,2003).In addition,some FWBRs include romantic history.Some FWBRs morph into Variety among Friends with Benefits Relationships romantic relationships(Bisson Levine,2009),whereas (FWBRs) others represent the "smoldering embers"of a past romantic relationship (e.g.,Mongeau et al.,2003,p.19). The extant literature assumes that FWBRs are a In summary,given the variety we see in the FWBR singular relationship type.At the same time,however, literature,this two-study report attempted to identify it provides evidence of variation in both the presence and explicate variation among FWBRs.Specifically, of romantic motivations and nature of the friendship Study 1 attempted to identify different types of FWBRs. (e.g.,Bisson Levine,2009;Hughes et al.,2005;Leh- Study 2,in turn,attempted to validate these types by miller et al.,2010;Mongeau et al.,2003).We consider investigating differences in pre-sexual interaction, each characteristic in turn. friendship strength,and romantic history. The Nature of "Strings" Study 1 Ideally,FWBRs are simple:Friends have sex repeat- Method edly with "no strings attached"(e.g.,Bisson Levine, 2009;Epstein et al.,2009;Hughes et al.,2005;Levine Participants and procedures. Participants included Mongeau,2010).The absence of strings suggests a undergraduate students in communication classes at lack of romantic ties,motivations,or expectations that two very large public U.S.universities (one Southwest- restrict extra-dyadic behavior (Hughes et al.,2005). ern,one Midwestern),who received extra credit for their Friends add sex to an existing friendship (Knight's, participation.The Southwestern sample included 177 2008,"add sex and stir"approach)to avoid drama participants,predominately women (n=111;62.7%). inherent in romantic relationships. Although ethnicity and age were not measured,past sam- In many cases,the reality of FWBRs is actually ples from this pool were predominately Whites of typical quite complex.Some FWBR partners do have romantic college age.The Midwestern sample included 102 parti- feelings.When romantic interest is mutual,a FWBR can cipants (39 males,61 females,and two with no report; become a romantic relationship (Afifi Faulkner,2000; Mage=20.47,SD=3.52).Participants self-identified as Bisson Levine,2009).Conversely,unreciprocated Caucasian (81.4%),African American (9.8%),Asian romantic feelings are common in FWBRs and generate American (3.9%),Hispanic American(2%),and "other" discomfort (Bisson Levine.2009:Hughes et al..2005: (1%).Over one-half of the participants(51.4%)reported Mongeau et al.,2003),perhaps leading to dissolution personal experiences with FWBRs.Approximately one because one partner wanted something more(e.g.,a real in eight participants(11.9%)indicated being in a FWBR relationship;Knight,2008).In other cases,FWBRs rep- at the time of the data collection. resent a compromise,with one partner waiting for the Methods were approved by both campuses' other to develop romantic feelings (Epstein et al., institutional review boards.Students in upper-and 38
College students understand the sexual scripts surrounding both hookups and FWBRs (Epstein et al., 2009). According to script theory, ‘‘sexuality is learned from culturally available ‘sexual scripts’ that define what counts as sex, how to recognize sexual situations, and what to do in relational and sexual encounters’’ (Kim et al., 2007, p. 146; see also Gagnon & Simon, 1973). Epstein et al. demonstrated substantial variation in how hookups occur, but provided no data on FWBRs. Our reading of the literature suggests similar variation among FWBRs (e.g., Bisson & Levine, 2009; Epstein et al., 2009; Hughes, Morrison, & Asada, 2005; Lehmiller, VanderDrift, & Kelly, 2010; Mongeau, Ramirez, & Vorell, 2003). As the FWBR label likely covers (and obscures) a variety of relational types, the extant FWBR literature lacks depth. Therefore, the primary goals of this investigation were to review the literature with a specific focus on how FWBRs vary, to identify types of FWBRs in students’ descriptions and definitions (Study 1), and to validate those types by demonstrating that they differ systematically (Study 2). Variety among Friends with Benefits Relationships (FWBRs) The extant literature assumes that FWBRs are a singular relationship type. At the same time, however, it provides evidence of variation in both the presence of romantic motivations and nature of the friendship (e.g., Bisson & Levine, 2009; Hughes et al., 2005; Lehmiller et al., 2010; Mongeau et al., 2003). We consider each characteristic in turn. The Nature of ‘‘Strings’’ Ideally, FWBRs are simple: Friends have sex repeatedly with ‘‘no strings attached’’ (e.g., Bisson & Levine, 2009; Epstein et al., 2009; Hughes et al., 2005; Levine & Mongeau, 2010). The absence of strings suggests a lack of romantic ties, motivations, or expectations that restrict extra-dyadic behavior (Hughes et al., 2005). Friends add sex to an existing friendship (Knight’s, 2008, ‘‘add sex and stir’’ approach) to avoid drama inherent in romantic relationships. In many cases, the reality of FWBRs is actually quite complex. Some FWBR partners do have romantic feelings. When romantic interest is mutual, a FWBR can become a romantic relationship (Afifi & Faulkner, 2000; Bisson & Levine, 2009). Conversely, unreciprocated romantic feelings are common in FWBRs and generate discomfort (Bisson & Levine, 2009; Hughes et al., 2005; Mongeau et al., 2003), perhaps leading to dissolution because one partner wanted something more (e.g., a real relationship; Knight, 2008). In other cases, FWBRs represent a compromise, with one partner waiting for the other to develop romantic feelings (Epstein et al., 2009; Reeder, 2000). Thus, strings cannot differentiate FWBRs from romantic relationships because many cases, as we attempt to demonstrate, lie between emotion-free FWBRs and emotion-laden romantic relationships. Friends with Benefits A second reason why FWBRs vary is the nature of partners’ friendships. The FWBR literature describes variation in benefits (from only kissing to oral=vaginal intercourse; Bisson & Levine, 2009); however, the nature of the friends has gone unquestioned. Mongeau et al. (2003), however, indicated that FWBR partners differ in how well they know each other. Consistent with the common definition, many FWBR partners know each other well and care for each other before initiating sexual contact (Reeder, 2000), perhaps allowing them to investigate romantic potential (Bleske & Buss, 2000). On the other hand, some FWBR partners initiate sexual interaction soon after initially meeting (Knight, 2008; Mongeau et al., 2003). In addition, some FWBRs include romantic history. Some FWBRs morph into romantic relationships (Bisson & Levine, 2009), whereas others represent the ‘‘smoldering embers’’ of a past romantic relationship (e.g., Mongeau et al., 2003, p. 19). In summary, given the variety we see in the FWBR literature, this two-study report attempted to identify and explicate variation among FWBRs. Specifically, Study 1 attempted to identify different types of FWBRs. Study 2, in turn, attempted to validate these types by investigating differences in pre-sexual interaction, friendship strength, and romantic history. Study 1 Method Participants and procedures. Participants included undergraduate students in communication classes at two very large public U.S. universities (one Southwestern, one Midwestern), who received extra credit for their participation. The Southwestern sample included 177 participants, predominately women (n ¼ 111; 62.7%). Although ethnicity and age were not measured, past samples from this pool were predominately Whites of typical college age. The Midwestern sample included 102 participants (39 males, 61 females, and two with no report; Mage ¼ 20.47, SD ¼ 3.52). Participants self-identified as Caucasian (81.4%), African American (9.8%), Asian American (3.9%), Hispanic American (2%), and ‘‘other’’ (1%). Over one-half of the participants (51.4%) reported personal experiences with FWBRs. Approximately one in eight participants (11.9%) indicated being in a FWBR at the time of the data collection. Methods were approved by both campuses’ institutional review boards. Students in upper- and MONGEAU, KNIGHT, WILLIAMS, EDEN, AND SHAW 38
VARIATION AMONG FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS lower-division communication classes were invited to expanded.Discussion resulted in identification,labeling, participate in a study on current campus dating norms. and definition of FWBR types.Seven relational types The FWBR term was not used in the study invitation emerged:true friends,just sex,network opportunism, materials.Students were given a copy of the survey, transition in (including successful,failed,and uninten- instructed to complete it outside of class,and asked to tional),and transition out. return it to their instructor. The FWBR section of the survey first asked parti- Results cipants to define FWBRs in their own words.On a sub- sequent page,FWBRs were defined as follows: Although participants described their FWBRs in myriad ways,the one (and only)point of agreement involveing]platonic friends (i.e.,those not involved in a was sexual activity.That being said,however,the nature romantic relationship)who engage in some degree of of the activity varied across responses.Some responses sexual intimacy on multiple occasions.This sexual described intercourse (oral or vaginal).whereas others activity could range from kissing to sexual intercourse described less intimate sexual activity (e.g.,kissing)or and is a repeated part of your friendship such that it is used ambiguous terms (e.g.,making out).Beyond sex, not just a one-night stand. responses markedly diverged on emotional investment, communication (intra-and interdyadic),secrecy,exclu- Following the definition,participants reported their sivity,obligations,investment,and dating. experience with FWBRs and,if they had any,described Seven types of FWBRs.Analyses of participants' how sexual involvement began,how the FWBR differed responses identified seven distinguishable FWBR types from a "typical"romantic relationship,and (if it had that differed in social,interactive,and relational charac- ended)why it ended. teristics.Specifically,these types differed in the nature of the relationship and interactions between partners. Data Analysis including history of,or desire for,romantic relation- ships.The types include true FWBRs,just sex,network The analytic plan for Study 1 was emergent.Follow- opportunism,three types of transition in (successful, ing Mongeau,Jacobsen,and Donnerstein's(2007)work failed,and unintentional),and transition out.Each of on dates,we originally attempted a content analysis these types is described,and an example provided,in to identify FWBRs'essential characteristics.Analysis turn. began in an emic fashion (i.e.,categories emerged from The true friends type reflects the traditional FWBR the data,as no previous typology existed;Lindlof definition (i.e.,close friends who have sex on multiple Taylor,2002).Initially,two authors and a research occasions;e.g.,Bisson Levine,2009;Epstein et al., assistant jointly coded several pages of data to establish 2009).Participants express love,trust,and respect for consistency using thought-turns as the unit of analysis. an important friend who is considered a safe sexual or data "chunks"(Lindlof Taylor,2002,p.219). partner (Levine Mongeau,2010).Partners frequently Through constant comparison,each chunk was either interact in varied contexts.True friends appear similar given an existing code or a new code was developed. to,but are not labeled as,romantic relationships.For We then met weekly to discuss subsequent coding. example,one participant defined FWBRs as follows: Despite many weeks of refining and redefining catego- "It means someone who you know and care about as ries,we could not reach acceptable intercoder reliability. a friend/person who you also happen to have a sexual In considering our inability to achieve reliability,we relationship with"(Participant 039B) uncovered a flaw in a guiding assumption.Following Conversely,just sex partners interact almost exclus- the literature of the day,we had assumed that FWBRs ively to arrange and carry out sexual interaction.Other represented a singular relationship type such that open than sexual encounters.little interaction occurs between and axial coding should identify essential characteristics. partners.In these cases,the "friend"in FWBR is a mis- In (re)reading the data,variation across responses nomer as partners engage,essentially,in serial hookups became clear that violated the singularity assumption. (Paul Hayes,2002).One participant defined FWBRs For example,some participants described close,intimate as follows:"You don't really care about the person in friendships,whereas others referred to FWBRs as inter- a special way,but s/he is just there when you are feeling actions between strangers.Rejecting the singularity sexual"(Participant 039A). assumption led to our second analytic phase-the Third,network opportunism involves sexual interac- identification of FWBR types. tion between friends (although not particularly close The first three authors returned to the data as a ones)who share network links.Those shared links allow whole,and independently developed typologies contain- partners to interact,typically while consuming alcohol. ing four to six FWBR types.Discussion revealed con- These partners engage in sexual activity if neither has siderable overlap among typologies,and disagreements found a different sexual partner for the night.In short, were resolved such that categories collapsed and these partners act as a sexual fail-safe.Given the 39
lower-division communication classes were invited to participate in a study on current campus dating norms. The FWBR term was not used in the study invitation materials. Students were given a copy of the survey, instructed to complete it outside of class, and asked to return it to their instructor. The FWBR section of the survey first asked participants to define FWBRs in their own words. On a subsequent page, FWBRs were defined as follows: involve[ing] platonic friends (i.e., those not involved in a romantic relationship) who engage in some degree of sexual intimacy on multiple occasions. This sexual activity could range from kissing to sexual intercourse and is a repeated part of your friendship such that it is not just a one-night stand. Following the definition, participants reported their experience with FWBRs and, if they had any, described how sexual involvement began, how the FWBR differed from a ‘‘typical’’ romantic relationship, and (if it had ended) why it ended. Data Analysis The analytic plan for Study 1 was emergent. Following Mongeau, Jacobsen, and Donnerstein’s (2007) work on dates, we originally attempted a content analysis to identify FWBRs’ essential characteristics. Analysis began in an emic fashion (i.e., categories emerged from the data, as no previous typology existed; Lindlof & Taylor, 2002). Initially, two authors and a research assistant jointly coded several pages of data to establish consistency using thought-turns as the unit of analysis, or data ‘‘chunks’’ (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002, p. 219). Through constant comparison, each chunk was either given an existing code or a new code was developed. We then met weekly to discuss subsequent coding. Despite many weeks of refining and redefining categories, we could not reach acceptable intercoder reliability. In considering our inability to achieve reliability, we uncovered a flaw in a guiding assumption. Following the literature of the day, we had assumed that FWBRs represented a singular relationship type such that open and axial coding should identify essential characteristics. In (re)reading the data, variation across responses became clear that violated the singularity assumption. For example, some participants described close, intimate friendships, whereas others referred to FWBRs as interactions between strangers. Rejecting the singularity assumption led to our second analytic phase—the identification of FWBR types. The first three authors returned to the data as a whole, and independently developed typologies containing four to six FWBR types. Discussion revealed considerable overlap among typologies, and disagreements were resolved such that categories collapsed and expanded. Discussion resulted in identification, labeling, and definition of FWBR types. Seven relational types emerged: true friends, just sex, network opportunism, transition in (including successful, failed, and unintentional), and transition out. Results Although participants described their FWBRs in myriad ways, the one (and only) point of agreement was sexual activity. That being said, however, the nature of the activity varied across responses. Some responses described intercourse (oral or vaginal), whereas others described less intimate sexual activity (e.g., kissing) or used ambiguous terms (e.g., making out). Beyond sex, responses markedly diverged on emotional investment, communication (intra- and interdyadic), secrecy, exclusivity, obligations, investment, and dating. Seven types of FWBRs. Analyses of participants’ responses identified seven distinguishable FWBR types that differed in social, interactive, and relational characteristics. Specifically, these types differed in the nature of the relationship and interactions between partners, including history of, or desire for, romantic relationships. The types include true FWBRs, just sex, network opportunism, three types of transition in (successful, failed, and unintentional), and transition out. Each of these types is described, and an example provided, in turn. The true friends type reflects the traditional FWBR definition (i.e., close friends who have sex on multiple occasions; e.g., Bisson & Levine, 2009; Epstein et al., 2009). Participants express love, trust, and respect for an important friend who is considered a safe sexual partner (Levine & Mongeau, 2010). Partners frequently interact in varied contexts. True friends appear similar to, but are not labeled as, romantic relationships. For example, one participant defined FWBRs as follows: ‘‘It means someone who you know and care about as a friend=person who you also happen to have a sexual relationship with’’ (Participant 039B). Conversely, just sex partners interact almost exclusively to arrange and carry out sexual interaction. Other than sexual encounters, little interaction occurs between partners. In these cases, the ‘‘friend’’ in FWBR is a misnomer as partners engage, essentially, in serial hookups (Paul & Hayes, 2002). One participant defined FWBRs as follows: ‘‘You don’t really care about the person in a special way, but s=he is just there when you are feeling sexual’’ (Participant 039A). Third, network opportunism involves sexual interaction between friends (although not particularly close ones) who share network links. Those shared links allow partners to interact, typically while consuming alcohol. These partners engage in sexual activity if neither has found a different sexual partner for the night. In short, these partners act as a sexual fail-safe. Given the VARIATION AMONG FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS 39
MONGEAU,KNIGHT.WILLIAMS.EDEN.AND SHAW common social network,network opportunism likely discussion of hookups).Thus,the primary goal of Study involves more interaction than just sex.but with less I became to unpack the variety underlying students' breadth,depth,and frequency than true friends.One descriptions of FWBRs.Analyses suggested seven types participant described his or her FWBRs this way:"We of FWBRs(true friends,just sex,network opportunism, hung out and talked like normal friends but at the end transition in [successful,unintentional,and failed],and of the night (or party),we ended up in bed together transition out)that differ in friendship strength and instead of leaving each other"(Participant 066B). romantic history.The nature of romantic "strings"has Transition in FWBRs precede romantic relationship the most important implications for sexual and non- development (e.g.,Afifi Faulkner,2000;Bisson sexual interaction,so we discuss it briefly here. Levine,2009).Interactions in these FWBRs lead to,or reflect,romantic feelings.There is variation,however, FWBRs and romantic strings.In these data, among transition in cases.For example,some transition in FWBRs represent intentional attempts at romantic FWBRs are frequently juxtaposed with romantic rela- tionships.Given the normative nature of sexual interac- relationship initiation (some successful,others not).In other cases,the romantic transition appears to be an tion in very early relationship stages (e.g.,Bogle,2008; unintended byproduct of the sexual interaction. Wells Twenge,2005),some transition in FWBRs likely Given this variation,we divided the transition in type act as a bridge between platonic and romantic entangle- ments.Given that romantic relationship transitions into three parts:successful,unintentional,and failed. engender relational uncertainty (Mongeau,Serewicz, Successful transition in represents intentionally and effectively using a FWBR to initiate a romantic relation- Henningsen,Davis,2006;Solomon Knobloch, ship.For example,"I knew he was afraid of ruining the 2004),some FWBRs may facilitate uncertainty red- friendship,but I wanted more,and it worked.We are uction about the partner and his or her romantic poten- and have been a couple"(Participant 065A).Second, tial and interest.In this sense,FWBRs may serve an in unintentional transition in,a FWBR leads to a roman- investigative function previously fulfilled by first dates tic relationship,although it was not the respondent's (Mongeau,Serewicz,Therrien,2004). In addition,transition out FWBRs involve sexual original intent.For example.one participant described their FWBR as follows:"We didn't call ourself a couple interaction with a past romantic partner (i.e.,ex-sex). There are several potential advantages to ex-sex.First, but we were having sex just about everyday [sic ..Eventually it turned into us dating and actually participants considered their FWBR partner as a"safe" showing emotions for eachother [sic]instead of just hav- sexual partner (likely both in terms of safe-sex practices ing sex with nothing"(Participant 067C).Finally,in and not intentionally inflicting emotional or physical failed transition in,one or both partners attempted, pain).Second,ex-sex is likely familiar,both in terms unsuccessfully,to generate a romantic transition,but of the partner and his or her sexual(dis)likes that make interactions more predictable and,perhaps,enjoyable. continued sexual interactions.For example,one partici- pant said of their FWBR,"I wanted to make [the Third,sleeping with a former partner may be seen as relationship]more serious,he wanted to be single and advantageous to those desiring sexual interaction with- out increasing the number of lifetime sexual partners. not tied down"(Participant 096B). Finally,transition out FWBRs reflect sexual interac- Finally,fanning sexual flames might facilitate rekindling tions between partners from a terminated romantic partners'emotional connections. relationship.Partners no longer label their relationship Ex-sex appears in several recent investigations (e.g., as romantic,but continue sexual interactions:"We were Afifi Faulkner,2000;Dailey,Rossetto,Pfiester, Surra.2009:Koenig-Kellas,Bean.Cunningham, a couple,then I broke up with her but we continued the FWB kind of relationship for about five more months" Cheng,2008;Smith Morrison,2010).Dailey et al. (Participant 019A). suggested that some dating relationships are intermittent (i.e.,on again-off again)such that FWBRs might represent an intermediate position between exclusively Study 1 Discussion dating and totally terminated.Again,this suggests that Consistent with the literature of the time(e.g.,Bisson some FWBRs represent an intermediate position between friendships and romantic interactions. Levine,2009;Hughes et al.,2005;Mongeau et al., 2003),we began this project assuming that FWBRs represented a single relationship type.Numerous read- Utility and implications of the FWBR label.Given ings of our data led us to reject the unitary assumption our results,the FWBR label covers (obscures)a variety and to an alternative reading of the literature.Thus, of relationship genres.The wide swath of relationships although college students have a common understand- called FWBRs parallels the strategic use of hookup to ing of FWBRs (e.g.,Bisson Levine,2009;Epstein describe nearly any sexual interaction in nearly any rela- et al.,2009;Hughes et al.,2005),actual practice reflects tional context(Epstein et al.,2009;Paul Hayes,2002). substantial variation (cf.the Epstein et al.,2009, The term hookup says a lot(i.e.,some sexual interaction 40
common social network, network opportunism likely involves more interaction than just sex, but with less breadth, depth, and frequency than true friends. One participant described his or her FWBRs this way: ‘‘We hung out and talked like normal friends but at the end of the night (or party), we ended up in bed together instead of leaving each other’’ (Participant 066B). Transition in FWBRs precede romantic relationship development (e.g., Afifi & Faulkner, 2000; Bisson & Levine, 2009). Interactions in these FWBRs lead to, or reflect, romantic feelings. There is variation, however, among transition in cases. For example, some transition in FWBRs represent intentional attempts at romantic relationship initiation (some successful, others not). In other cases, the romantic transition appears to be an unintended byproduct of the sexual interaction. Given this variation, we divided the transition in type into three parts: successful, unintentional, and failed. Successful transition in represents intentionally and effectively using a FWBR to initiate a romantic relationship. For example, ‘‘I knew he was afraid of ruining the friendship, but I wanted more, and it worked. We are and have been a couple’’ (Participant 065A). Second, in unintentional transition in, a FWBR leads to a romantic relationship, although it was not the respondent’s original intent. For example, one participant described their FWBR as follows: ‘‘We didn’t call ourself a couple but we were having sex just about everyday [sic]. ... Eventually it turned into us dating and actually showing emotions for eachother [sic] instead of just having sex with nothing’’ (Participant 067C). Finally, in failed transition in, one or both partners attempted, unsuccessfully, to generate a romantic transition, but continued sexual interactions. For example, one participant said of their FWBR, ‘‘I wanted to make [the relationship] more serious, he wanted to be single and not tied down’’ (Participant 096B). Finally, transition out FWBRs reflect sexual interactions between partners from a terminated romantic relationship. Partners no longer label their relationship as romantic, but continue sexual interactions: ‘‘We were a couple, then I broke up with her but we continued the FWB kind of relationship for about five more months’’ (Participant 019A). Study 1 Discussion Consistent with the literature of the time (e.g., Bisson & Levine, 2009; Hughes et al., 2005; Mongeau et al., 2003), we began this project assuming that FWBRs represented a single relationship type. Numerous readings of our data led us to reject the unitary assumption and to an alternative reading of the literature. Thus, although college students have a common understanding of FWBRs (e.g., Bisson & Levine, 2009; Epstein et al., 2009; Hughes et al., 2005), actual practice reflects substantial variation (cf. the Epstein et al., 2009, discussion of hookups). Thus, the primary goal of Study 1 became to unpack the variety underlying students’ descriptions of FWBRs. Analyses suggested seven types of FWBRs (true friends, just sex, network opportunism, transition in [successful, unintentional, and failed], and transition out) that differ in friendship strength and romantic history. The nature of romantic ‘‘strings’’ has the most important implications for sexual and nonsexual interaction, so we discuss it briefly here. FWBRs and romantic strings. In these data, FWBRs are frequently juxtaposed with romantic relationships. Given the normative nature of sexual interaction in very early relationship stages (e.g., Bogle, 2008; Wells & Twenge, 2005), some transition in FWBRs likely act as a bridge between platonic and romantic entanglements. Given that romantic relationship transitions engender relational uncertainty (Mongeau, Serewicz, Henningsen, & Davis, 2006; Solomon & Knobloch, 2004), some FWBRs may facilitate uncertainty reduction about the partner and his or her romantic potential and interest. In this sense, FWBRs may serve an investigative function previously fulfilled by first dates (Mongeau, Serewicz, & Therrien, 2004). In addition, transition out FWBRs involve sexual interaction with a past romantic partner (i.e., ex-sex). There are several potential advantages to ex-sex. First, participants considered their FWBR partner as a ‘‘safe’’ sexual partner (likely both in terms of safe-sex practices and not intentionally inflicting emotional or physical pain). Second, ex-sex is likely familiar, both in terms of the partner and his or her sexual (dis)likes that make interactions more predictable and, perhaps, enjoyable. Third, sleeping with a former partner may be seen as advantageous to those desiring sexual interaction without increasing the number of lifetime sexual partners. Finally, fanning sexual flames might facilitate rekindling partners’ emotional connections. Ex-sex appears in several recent investigations (e.g., Afifi & Faulkner, 2000; Dailey, Rossetto, Pfiester, & Surra, 2009; Koenig-Kellas, Bean, Cunningham, & Cheng, 2008; Smith & Morrison, 2010). Dailey et al. suggested that some dating relationships are intermittent (i.e., on again-off again) such that FWBRs might represent an intermediate position between exclusively dating and totally terminated. Again, this suggests that some FWBRs represent an intermediate position between friendships and romantic interactions. Utility and implications of the FWBR label. Given our results, the FWBR label covers (obscures) a variety of relationship genres. The wide swath of relationships called FWBRs parallels the strategic use of hookup to describe nearly any sexual interaction in nearly any relational context (Epstein et al., 2009; Paul & Hayes, 2002). The term hookup says a lot (i.e., some sexual interaction MONGEAU, KNIGHT, WILLIAMS, EDEN, AND SHAW 40
VARIATION AMONG FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS occurred)without saying what did or did not happen. In summary,Study I provides evidence of multiple Our suspicion is that the same is likely true of FWBR types suggested in the literature (e.g.,Bisson FWBR to the point where it appears difficult to deter- Levine,2009;Furman Hand,2006;Hughes et al., mine the difference between hookups and FWBRs. 2005;Mongeau et al.,2003).Not all participants,how- Hookups can involve relational partners (e.g.,friends ever,had experiences with FWBRs.Thus,the data and even romantic partners;Epstein et al.,2009), might contain both scripted(e.g.,definitions from part- and FWBRs can occur between relative strangers. icipants without FWBR experiences)and experiential Moreover,hookups (i.e.,sexual encounters)occur elements.Such a combination might make the data look within FWBRs.Thus,the use of both terms is likely more similar to the dominant script than if we had strategically ambiguous. included only experiential data.Moreover,given that The ambiguous use of FWBR may be useful in at we did not initially set out to identify FWBR types, least two contexts.First,"[U]sing a nonrelational label many questions remained.Therefore,Study 2 specifi- at first may be one way of dealing with the uncertainty cally investigated differences among,and frequency of, that comes in the first stages of dating"(Epstein et al., the seven FWBR types. 2009,p.421).Given the normative nature of non- relational sex on U.S.college campuses (Bogle,2008), relational implications of early sexual interactions are Study 2 likely unclear (e.g.,does it have romantic implications or was it a drunken hookup?).Using the FWBR label Two primary questions drove Study 2.The most might allow partners to avoid talking about their important goal was to validate the relational types.Spe- relationship and its trajectory,as the label does not need cifically,FWBR types should differ systematically in to be discussed or defined (Knight,2008).Second,the nonsexual interactions,romantic history,and friendship FWBR label might also be useful in on again-off again strength.Second,Study I methods did not allow us to relationships (Dailey et al.,2009),when it is unclear determine the frequency of the seven FWBR types. whether a couple is together or not.In both these cases, Therefore,we also considered how frequently each nonrelational labels such as FWBR may reflect(or gloss FWBR type occured (including gender differences in over)relational uncertainty or minimize perceptions of these reports). relational involvement to both the partner and the social network (Epstein et al.,2009). The FWBR label might also be useful in dealing Validating FWBR Types with the social network.For example,when a romantic Given our definitions,the seven FWBR types should transition was attempted but failed,the FWBR label differ in friendship strength,nonsexual interaction, may be superior to admitting that a couple tried dating, and romantic history.To validate our typology,Study 2 but it did not pan out.In such cases,the FWBR label focused on differences among FWBR types in these is used only retrospectively.The FWBR label can also variables.Small and/or nonsignificant differences across hide relational uncertainty from the social network just FWBR types would greatly hinder the validity and util- as it can with the partner.Calling a potentially budding ity of our typology. romantic relationship a FWBR might be superior to First,by definition,FWBRs types should differ in the admitting uncertainty about the relational definition, frequency of nonsexual interactions and friendship trajectory,and the partner's motivations.Finally, strength.Specifically,FWBR types characterized by the FWBR label might provide a socially appropriate closeness and trust (e.g.,true friends and successful tran- label for serial hookups with a stranger.Such com- sition in)should reflect more nonsexual interactions municative practices further blur the distinction and a stronger friendship at the initiation of sexual between relational and nonrelational sex (e.g.,Epstein activity,than marginally-related partners or those who etal.,2009). have contrasting relational goals(i.e.,just sex and failed Ambiguous use of the FWB label can be disadvan- transition in).Other FWB types(network opportunism tageous,as it can obscure differences in partners'desires and transition out)were expected to fall between these and expectations-that is,although two people extremes. explicitly agree to the FWBR label and appear to be Second,FWBR types should,by definition,differ in on the same page,they might actually think about the romantic experience.Participants in successful and relationship in fundamentally different ways.The com- unintentional transition in categories should report mon FWBR script(Epstein et al.,2009)could aggravate having a romantic relationship following their FWBR, such misunderstandings.For example,Partner A might whereas transition out partners should report a desire a "booty call,"whereas Partner B wants to move romantic relationship before the FWBR.Network toward a romantic relationship.In such cases,the per- opportunism,failed transition in,and(particularly)just son who wants "more"is probably at a distinct dis- sex FWBRs should be unlikely to include romantic advantage(Sprecher,Schmeeckle,Felmlee,2006). experiences 41
occurred) without saying what did or did not happen. Our suspicion is that the same is likely true of FWBR to the point where it appears difficult to determine the difference between hookups and FWBRs. Hookups can involve relational partners (e.g., friends and even romantic partners; Epstein et al., 2009), and FWBRs can occur between relative strangers. Moreover, hookups (i.e., sexual encounters) occur within FWBRs. Thus, the use of both terms is likely strategically ambiguous. The ambiguous use of FWBR may be useful in at least two contexts. First, ‘‘[U]sing a nonrelational label at first may be one way of dealing with the uncertainty that comes in the first stages of dating’’ (Epstein et al., 2009, p. 421). Given the normative nature of nonrelational sex on U.S. college campuses (Bogle, 2008), relational implications of early sexual interactions are likely unclear (e.g., does it have romantic implications or was it a drunken hookup?). Using the FWBR label might allow partners to avoid talking about their relationship and its trajectory, as the label does not need to be discussed or defined (Knight, 2008). Second, the FWBR label might also be useful in on again-off again relationships (Dailey et al., 2009), when it is unclear whether a couple is together or not. In both these cases, nonrelational labels such as FWBR may reflect (or gloss over) relational uncertainty or minimize perceptions of relational involvement to both the partner and the social network (Epstein et al., 2009). The FWBR label might also be useful in dealing with the social network. For example, when a romantic transition was attempted but failed, the FWBR label may be superior to admitting that a couple tried dating, but it did not pan out. In such cases, the FWBR label is used only retrospectively. The FWBR label can also hide relational uncertainty from the social network just as it can with the partner. Calling a potentially budding romantic relationship a FWBR might be superior to admitting uncertainty about the relational definition, trajectory, and the partner’s motivations. Finally, the FWBR label might provide a socially appropriate label for serial hookups with a stranger. Such communicative practices further blur the distinction between relational and nonrelational sex (e.g., Epstein et al., 2009). Ambiguous use of the FWB label can be disadvantageous, as it can obscure differences in partners’ desires and expectations—that is, although two people explicitly agree to the FWBR label and appear to be on the same page, they might actually think about the relationship in fundamentally different ways. The common FWBR script (Epstein et al., 2009) could aggravate such misunderstandings. For example, Partner A might desire a ‘‘booty call,’’ whereas Partner B wants to move toward a romantic relationship. In such cases, the person who wants ‘‘more’’ is probably at a distinct disadvantage (Sprecher, Schmeeckle, & Felmlee, 2006). In summary, Study 1 provides evidence of multiple FWBR types suggested in the literature (e.g., Bisson & Levine, 2009; Furman & Hand, 2006; Hughes et al., 2005; Mongeau et al., 2003). Not all participants, however, had experiences with FWBRs. Thus, the data might contain both scripted (e.g., definitions from participants without FWBR experiences) and experiential elements. Such a combination might make the data look more similar to the dominant script than if we had included only experiential data. Moreover, given that we did not initially set out to identify FWBR types, many questions remained. Therefore, Study 2 specifi- cally investigated differences among, and frequency of, the seven FWBR types. Study 2 Two primary questions drove Study 2. The most important goal was to validate the relational types. Specifically, FWBR types should differ systematically in nonsexual interactions, romantic history, and friendship strength. Second, Study 1 methods did not allow us to determine the frequency of the seven FWBR types. Therefore, we also considered how frequently each FWBR type occured (including gender differences in these reports). Validating FWBR Types Given our definitions, the seven FWBR types should differ in friendship strength, nonsexual interaction, and romantic history. To validate our typology, Study 2 focused on differences among FWBR types in these variables. Small and=or nonsignificant differences across FWBR types would greatly hinder the validity and utility of our typology. First, by definition, FWBRs types should differ in the frequency of nonsexual interactions and friendship strength. Specifically, FWBR types characterized by closeness and trust (e.g., true friends and successful transition in) should reflect more nonsexual interactions, and a stronger friendship at the initiation of sexual activity, than marginally-related partners or those who have contrasting relational goals (i.e., just sex and failed transition in). Other FWB types (network opportunism and transition out) were expected to fall between these extremes. Second, FWBR types should, by definition, differ in romantic experience. Participants in successful and unintentional transition in categories should report having a romantic relationship following their FWBR, whereas transition out partners should report a romantic relationship before the FWBR. Network opportunism, failed transition in, and (particularly) just sex FWBRs should be unlikely to include romantic experiences. VARIATION AMONG FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS 41