Westem Journal of Communication Vol. 69, No. 1, January 2005, pp.

49-66

t'\ Routledqe K i^<.fc

What's Love Got To Do with It? Exploring the Impact of Maintenance Rules, Love Attitudes, and Network Support on Friends with Benefits Relationships
Mikayla Hughes, Kelly Morrison, & Kelli Jean K. Asada

Friends with benefits relationships (FWBRs) are defined as relationships between cross-sex friends in which the friends engage in sexual activity but do not define their relationship as romantic. Relationship scholars have only recently begun to examine these relationships, despite their mention in the popular media (e.g., HBO's 'Sex in the City,' MTV's 'True Life,' 'Seinfeld,' and the New York Times). This study explored the relationship between FWBRs and maintenance rules, love attitudes, and network communication and support. Respondents (N = 143) completed self-report surveys in which they described their FWBRs, their perceived rules for maintenance, perceptions of same-sex network cottmiunication and support, and the current status of their FWBRs. They also completed the short form of the love attitude scale (Hendrick, Hendrick, & Dicke, 1998). The findings suggest that people tend to communicate their FWBR experiences to their same-sex friettds atid, in general, receive supportive responses. Although attitudes toward love (e.g., agape) did not impact rules for maintenance of FWBRs, attitudes toward love did influence motivations for FWBRs and the outcomes of these relationships. Keywords: Cross-sex Friendships; Casual Sex; Friends With Benefits
George: 'Are you on this planet?!' Jerry: 'This is very advanced. We've designed a set of rules.'
Mikayla Hughes is a doctoral student, Kelly Morrison is Associate Professor, and Kelli lean K. Asada is a doctoral student in the Department of Comtnunication at Michigan State University. Due to the richness ofthis data set, other sections ofthe survey have been previously reported. Portions ofthis manuscript were presented at the International Communication Association's Annual Meeting, May 2004, New Orleans, LA. Correspondence to Mikayla Hughes, 443 Communication Arts & Sciences Building, Department of Communication, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Ml 48824-1212, USA. Email: hughes43@msu.cdu ISSN 1057-0314 (print)/lSSN 1745-1027 (online) 2005 Western States Communication Associalion DOl: 10.1080/10570310500034154

50 M. Hughes et al. (Taken from a scene from 'Seinfeld' in which Jerry is describing bis friends with benefits relationsbip to his friend George) 'I didn't know what they were until I came to this country and my friend started telling me how great they were and how much sbe liked ber friends witb benefits.' (Female Asian Undergraduate Student) Both of these quotes refer to a unique form of cross-sex friendship, the friends with benefits relationship (FWBR). Although FWBRs are important to the people who participate in them, they have only recently begun to spark interest among relational scholars. FWBRs emerge from existing cross-sex friendships and incorporate sexual activity, which can include sexual intercourse. Inclusion of sexual activity into these relationships is not designed to further the relationships romantically or increase commitment. Rather, these types of relationships are distinct in that they combine both the benefits of friendship with the benefits of a sexual relationship, yet avoid the responsibilities and commitment that romantic sexual relationships typically entail. Several researchers have examined the phenomenon of casual sex on college campuses (Herold, Maticka-Tyndale, & Mewhinney, 1998; Lambert, Kahn, & Apple, 2003; Paul & Hayes, 2002; Paul, McManus, & Hayes, 2000), but few bave specifically explored FWBRs. Mongeau, Ramirez, and Vorrell (2003) suggested that FWBRs may be more common than previously anticipated. Their results indicated that 61.7% of participants on one campus and 48.5% on another campus reported experience with FWBRs. Other than the work of Mongeau et al., the existing research that most pertains to FWBRs is research by Afifi and Faulkner (2000), who explored the occurrence of sex within a cross-sex friendship (but not one defined as an FWBR). They reported that 54% of their sample had had sex with a friend on at least one occasion. FWBRs display several unique characteristics that make them important to explore. First, they seem distinctive from other types of casual sex relationships among college students. For example, unlike the casual one-night sexual encounters described by Paul and Hayes (2002) as 'hookups', FWBRs are more stable. These relationships appear to defy the conceptualization that friendship and sexuality cannot coexist (Werking, 1997) or that sex is added into a friendsbip in order to move it relationally forward (Messman, Canary, & Hause, 2000). FWBRs are more consistent with previous definitions of casual sex that described sex lacking emotional involvement (Townsend, 1995) and sex outside the confines ofa committed relationship (Oliver & Sedikides, 1992). Furthermore, these relationships are not geared toward establishing romantic or emotional relationships. As Mongeau and colleagues (2003) noted, 'FWBRs lacked exclusivity, commitment, a desire for a romantic relationship |and] emotional attachment' (p. 11). Although FWBRs do not appear to be about romantic love, examining how love attitudes are related to FWBRs is pertinent for two reasons. First, women traditionally have been known to link love with sex (such that they won't engage in sex with someone they don't love) while men have been known to separate the two (Glass & Wright, 1985). As Cupach and Metts (1991) stated, 'men and women differ in a number of ways in their interpretations of sexual interaction and relationships' (p. 104). However, the limited

Westem Joumal of Cotntnunication 51 research on FWBRs, as well as tbe researcb on casual sex and 'bookups', indicates that women are engaging in sex without love. This practical approach to sex is consistent with women's practical approach to love, or pragmatic love attitude, which women have been found to endorse (see Hendrick & Hendrick, 1988, 1995). Second, the findings of Mongeau et al. (2003) reveal tbat one way in wbich FWBRs are created is that they devolved from prior romantic relationships. This would be consistent witb a manic form of love in which the rejected partners desperately try to cling to the remnants of their love relationships. Therefore, one goal ofthis research is to examine how attitudes about love are related to FWBRs. Another goal ofthis research is to examine how FWBRs are managed in terms of maintenance rules and perceived network support. As the quote from tbe female Asian undergraduate cited at tbe beginning of tbe paper demonstrates, FWBRs can become a conversational topic within same-sex friendships. Wbile revealing an FWBR to a samesex friend may lead to surprise or uncertainty, the cboice to disclose tbis information parallels the research that suggests college students are 'more likely to self-disclose and share activities with friends of tbe same sex' (West, Anderson, & Duck. 1996. p. 118). Consistent with this research, male participants in a study by Regan and Dreyer (1999) 'view[edl casual sex as a means of enhancing their reputation among other men' (p. 18). This implies that men communicate with their same-sex friends about their casual sex experiences as a way to boost their social status within their peer group. Furthermore, given that network support impacts the stability of romantic relationships (Parks & Adelman, 1983), it is germane to discern how network support impacts FWBRs because these relationships are sexual but often not romantic. This research was guided by an'informed curiosity' (Rozin, 2001. p. 5) regarding the phenomena of FWBRs on college campuses. As Rozin stated, 'descriptive studies are considered important' (p. 2) and are a fundamental first step in understanding a phenomena. Indeed, Mongeau and colleagues (2003) called for more detailed descriptions ofthe 'birth, life, and death of FWBRs' (p. 20) as well as information on the communication with social networks about FWBRs. In this vein, an exploratory study was designed to examine the relationsbips between maintenance rules, perceived support, love attitudes and FWBRs. A brief review of tbe literature on relational maintenance is presented next. Maintenance Because FWBRs straddle the dynamics ofa cross-sex friendship and a non-romantic sexual relationship, the friends often are confronted with multiple challenges regarding maintenance. Despite the fact that much has been written about relational maintenance (see Dindia & Baxter, 1987; Stafford & Canary, 1991 for examples of typologies) it is not known whether or how our current maintenance literature applies to FWBRs. Social Exchange Theory (e.g., Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) may provide a particularly compelling framework from which to approach FWBRs. Central to most conceptualizations of exchange theory is the idea that the people within a relationship become mutually interdependent in their exchange of resources, or rewards

52

M. Hughes et al.

and costs (Chadwick-Iones, 1976; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). As the rewards that stem from a relationship increase, the dependence on that relationship increases as well. In terms of maintenance, it is not known how this idea may or may not apply to FWBRs because although people may become dependent on certain rewards from these relationships (such as sex), current evidence suggests that people involved in FWBRs simultaneously shy away from the cost of commitment (see Mongeau et al., 2003). It seems clear that the maintenance rules that apply to a typical platonic cross-sex friendship must be modified in some way to account for the rewards (or benefits) of non-romantic sexual activity. This modification, however, assumes that a current rule structure or script exists, and as West et al. (1996) noted, one barrier to platonic crosssex friendships is the lack ofa guiding script. They stated that, '[mjuch like a movie script, cultural scripts tell us what to expect and how to behave in certain situations. Lacking guidelines for male-female friendship, couples may follow scripts for other types of relationships' (p. 122). While Messman et al. (2000) delineated a rule structure for ways to maintain the platonic status of cross-sex friendships, the maintenance of FWBRs remains unexplored. Thus, the first research question is posed: RQl: What types of rules do people describe for maintaining FWBRs? Based on the limited research on FWBRs, the current conceptualization of this relational choice is a sexual relationship devoid of romantic love. Thus, one individual difference tbat sbould infiuence bow FWBRs are maintained, the motivations toward these relationships, and their ultimate outcomes is a person's attitude towards love. For example, in their work examining the relationship between love attitudes and sex attitudes Hendrick and Hendrick (1987) stated that 'love and sex are inextricably linked, with love as the basis for much of our sexual interaction, and sex as the medium of expression for much of our loving' (p. 159). We turn now to a brief review ofthe attitudes toward love literature.

Attitudes Toward Love Lee (1973) originally forwarded the idea that one size does not fit al! when it comes to love and that people have different approaches, or attitudes, toward love. The idea of different love types also has been described by Lasswell and Lasswell (1985) in their discussion ofthe meaning of love and in Hendrick and Hendrick's (1986) extension of Lee's work with their creation ofthe Love Attitudes Scale (LAS). The love attitudes scale measures six different attitudes toward love. In brief, storgic love is described as love that evolves from a prior friendship; agapic love is described as all-giving or self-less love; manic love is described as possessive, dependent and obsessive love; pragmatic love is a practical, logical approach to love; ludic love is a game-playing approach to love; and erotic love is a romantic approach to love. Attitudes toward love have been linked with a variety of phenomena, including propensity toward using secret relational tests (Levine, Aune. & Korallus, 1994), ability to fall in and out of love (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1988; Rubin, Peplau, & Hill, 1981),and the concepts of intimacy, passion, and commitment (Levy & Davis, 1988).

Western Journal of Communication 53 A person's attitude toward love should be related to tbeir motivations for initiating FWBRs as well as the maintenance rules and ultimate outcomes of these relationships, but it is unclear how they will be related. For example, the fact that FWBRs lack commitment should appeal to ludics because they approach love as if it is a game and shy away from any form of commitment or dependence from their partner. Simultaneously, however, ludics may not be motivated toward FWBRs or may end them more quickly because they do not provide enough of a challenge (or game). Similarly, pragmatics may be rationally oriented toward approaching and maintaining FWBRs, or may completely avoid these types of relationships because they know there is no possibility ofa love relationship. Therefore, the following research questions are posed. RQ2a: How do attitudes toward love influence tbe motivations for FWBRs? RQ2b: How do attitudes toward love influence rules for maintaining FWBRs? RQ2c: How do attitudes toward love influence tbe outcomes of FWBRs? Because FWBRs still are a relatively new area for communication researchers to explore, special attention should be devoted to communication about FWBRs. For example, do people who participate in FWBRs discuss them with their friends, or do they keep their FWBRs secret? A brief review ofthe literature on communication about relationships is turned to next.

Communication about Relationships The research on communication about relationships to friends is limited. As Baxter, Dun. and Sahlstein (2001) noted, 'despite the apparent frequency with which relationships are a topic of discussion among social network members, literature on social networks generally has not addressed this phenomenon' (p. 175). In their work examining relational rules and how they are communicated among social networks, they found that rules were communicated among same-sex friendship networks in a variety of forms, including giving advice, gossiping, and sanctioning. The authors reported that communication about relationships is often unsolicited, and rules conveyed among social networks focus primarily on the qualities of desirable romantic partners, how to handle aspects of romantic relationships, and how to cultivate friendships. From a social exchange perspective, people may consider the costs and benefits associated with discussing their FWBRs with their same-sex friends. For example, some people may be reticent to reveal these relationships to their friends, possibly fearing the costs of sanctioning or disapproval. Alternatively, they may reveal their FWBRs to their friends in order to seek the rewards of support and approval. Therefore, the following research questions are posed: RQ3a: How do people describe their communication with their same-sex friendship network regarding their FWBRs? RQ3b: How do people describe the perceived support of their same-sex friendsbip network for tbeir FWBRs?

54 M. Hughes et al. If an FWBR is revealed to same-sex friends, the friends' response to this disclosure likely will impact the FWBR. For example. Parks and Adelman's (1983) work suggested that communication with a partner's network influenced whether or not relationships continued over a three month period, and perceived network support infiuenced the amount of uncertainty participants reported regarding the reiationship. Additionally, literature indicates that perceived network norms impact sexual behavior and decision making. Herold et al.'s (1998) work utilizing the Triandis model of interpersonal behavior (1980) to predict casual sex behaviors reported that whether or not peers endorsed casual sex influenced the casual sex behaviors ofthe men in their sample. This finding parallels work examining sexual infidelity by Prins, Buunk, and van Yperen (1993) who reported that normative disapproval (i.e., the degree to which networks believed that infidelity was morally wrong) infiuenced actual cheating behaviors of both men and women. Thus, it is posited that: HI: A positive relationsbip exists between perceived same-sex network support for FWBRs and tbe continuation of tbe FWBRs. Method Par ticipa tits One bundred and forty three students enrolled in an introductory communication course at a large Midwestern university participated in this research. The students were given extra course credit for their participation. The sample was largely Caucasian (65%) and female (69%). Additionally. 28% ofthe sample was African American, 2.1% Asian, i.4% Hispanic, and 3.5% other. Civen the nature ofthe research, participants took the survey home to complete in private and then returned it to a designated dropoff site. The respondents indicated their sexual orientation and only heterosexual participants (99% ofthe sample) were included in the analyses. This resulted in the elimination of one case.

Measures The survey instrument was 11 pages in length, and included measures that previously have been reported elsewhere (Asada, Hughes. & Morrison, 2003). For this study, participants completed the short form ofthe Love Attitude Scale (Hendrick, Hendrick, & Dicke, 1998) and a series of open-ended questions describing their FWBR. An FWBR was defined for participants as 'an opposite sex friend that you have, who you also have sexual activity with (this can include sexual intercourse, but can also include other types of sexual activity.) This is NOT someone you describe as your boyfriend/girlfriend.' Participants who had not had an FWBR were instructed to skip to the last page ofthe survey. If they had current or past experience with FWBRs they were instructed to continue with the survey and describe their 'current or most recent' FWBR by completing a series of open-ended questions describing their reasons or motivations for FWBRs and the current status of their FWBR. They were then asked if they had told

Western Journal of Communication 55 any of their same-sex friends about their FWBR. If they reported 'yes', they were asked what their same-sex friends said to them about their FWBR. If they reported 'no', they were instructed to describe their reasons for not telling their same-sex friends about their FWBR. The final section of the survey was completed by all participants and asked respondents to list three rules for maintaining an FWBR. Participants then reported tbeir age, sex, sexual orientation, and ethnicity. Unitizing and Coding The responses to tbe open-ended questions were unitized by two ofthe tbree autbors into single thought units. For example, in response to the question asking participants to describe their motivations toward FWBRs a participant reported 'I liked other girls as well, and did not want to be tied down.' This would be broken into two separate thought units: (a) 1 liked other girls as well, and (b) did not want to be tied down. A simple percentage of agreement was calculated to obtain intercoder reliability for unitizing, which was 85% agreement. The three authors derived the coding categories through an inductive analysis of tbe open-ended responses, listing all tbe different topical ideas that emerged from tbe data. When a response revealed a new topic, a category was created to accommodate tbat topic. The final category structure emerged after tbree iterations of discussion and practice coding between the autbors. Following agreement on tbe coding categories, tbe open-ended responses were independently coded according to tbe category scheme by two of tbe authors, and Cohen's kappa was used to measure intercoder reliability. The kappas are reported below along with the category descriptions, and ail were found to be 'good' or 'excellent' according to Fleiss (1981).' To account for any bias in the coding by the authors, two undergraduate research assistants were trained and coded 20% ofthe surveys. Cohen's kappa was used to measure their intercoder reliability, and reliability was again found to be acceptable.

Categories from the Open-ended Respotises Rules for maintenance Participants were asked to provide three rules for maintaining FWBRs, and the data revealed eight different categories. Statements consistent with the need to negotiate rules at the start ofthe FWBR were coded as negotiate rules. Rules concerning management of sexual activity such as using condoms and having sex with others were coded as sex rtiles. Commtmication rules included guidelines for honesty, conversational topics, and rules about calling on the telephone. Rules concerning keeping other acquaintances from knowing about the FWBR were coded as secrecy rules. Statements concerning the temporary nature ofthe FWBR arrangement were coded as permanence rules. Rules concerning avoiding falling in love or minimizing jealousy were categorized as etnotiotial rules, and rules concerning placing higher importance on the friendship aspect of the FWBR were coded as frietidship rtiles. The tniscellaneous category included statements

56 M. Hughes et al. Table 1 Rules for Maintenance

Rule Negotiate rules Sex Communication Secrecy Permanence Emotional Friendship Example 'Make sure each person is clear on what the relationship is' 'Don't be a fool, wrap your tool' 'No calls the next day' 'Don't tell anyone else' 'Enjoy it while you can as it is not going to last forever' 'Don't let your heart get invoived or in the way' 'You have to spend time together not getting FREAKY'

that could not be categorized with the current structure. Cohen's kappa for the intercoder reliability on this item was k = .69 (see Table 1 for list of categories and examples). Motivatiotxs for FWBRs Motivations for establishing FWBRs were solicited from participants with FWBR experience with one open-ended question. The data revealed six different categories of FWBR motivations. Responses that indicated motivations consistent with avoiding relational commitment were categorized as relationship avoidance. Statements coded in the sex motivation category indicated the desire to take part in sexual activity with a friend. Responses that indicated that FWBRs were less difficult or troublesome to maintain than romantic relationships were categorized as relationship simplicity. Statements that indicated a desire to feel connected or closer to a friend were coded as emotional connection. Watited FWBR consisted of statements that indicated a desire to specifically take part in an FWBR as the motivation. The miscellatieous category included statements that could not be categorized with the current structure. Cohen's kappa for the intercoder reliability on this item was k = .75 (see Table 2 for categories and examples). Outcomes of FWBRs One open-ended question assessed the current status of participants' FWBRs. The data revealed seven different categories of FWBR outcomes: not friends, no sex, current

Table 2
Motivation

Motivations for FWBRs

Example 'I liked other girls and did not want to be tied down' 'Why not take advantage and get some booty?' 'You bave the benefits ofa relationship without all the bullshit involved' 'I missed the intimacy I had with my ex-boyfriend' 'When both of us became single we took advantage ofthe opportunity'

Relationship avoidance Sex Relationship simplicity Emotional connection Wanted FWBR

Western Jourttal of Cotnmunication 57 FWBR, moved relationally forward, moved emotionally forward, worse, and miscellaneous. Cohen's kappa for the intercoder reliability on this item was k = .82. Friends' responses to FWBRs The responses to the open-ended question, 'how did your same-sex friend respond to this information?' revealed six categories of responses. The first category to emerge from the data was labeled approval and included responses that their friend had been supportive of this relationship. The second category was labeled disapproval and included statements that their friend had tried to discourage the relationship. The third category to emerge from the data was labeled silence and included statements that said that their friend said 'nothing.' The fourth category was labeled surprise and included descriptions of their friends laughing in disbelief or being stunned. The fifth category to emerge was labeled shared experience and included statements indicating their friends have at one time had FWBRs (see Table 3 for categories and examples). Intercoder reliability for this item wasfc= .81. Reasons for not communicating to friends about FWBRs The responses to the question 'why did you NOT tell your same-sex friend about your friends with benefits relationship?' revealed four distinct categories. The first category was labeled relevance and included statements describing that their friends did not need to know this information. The second category was labeled secrecy and included statements indicating their desire to conceal the existence of their FWBR from friends. The third category was labeled personal embarrassment (i.e., a self-oriented reason) and included statements describing that disclosure to their friends concerning tbeir FWBR would personally make tbem feel uncomfortable or even humiliated. The fourth category was labeled network disapproval (i.e., an other-oriented reason) and included statements describing thoughts that their same-sex friends would not like or would be upset by this information (see Table 4 for categories and examples). Intercoder reliability for this item wasfc= .65. Love Attitude Scale Participants completed the short form ofthe Love Attitude Scale (Hendrick etai., 1998). Each ofthe six subscales, one for each love type, consists of four items concerning beliefs Table 3
Response Approval Disapproval No response Surprise Shared experience

How Friends Respond to Communication About FWBRs

Example 'My friends think it's a great idea' 'They said I would get hurt' 'They didn't say anything' 'They laughed and acted surprised' 'A few of them were doing the same thing'

58

M. Hughes et al. Table 4 Reason Relevance Secrecy Personal embarrassment Disapproval Reasons for Not Telling Friends About FWBRs Example 'It was none of their damn business' 'We agreed not to tell anyone about it' 'She isn't very good looking' '1 thought they would look down on me'

that are consistent with the particular love style. Because each love style subscale was specified a priori to measure only one factor, confirmatory factor analysis was employed to test the measurement model (Hunter & Gerbing. 1982). The data were found to be consistent with the proposed factors. Internal consistency tests showed that the errors calculated between items measuring the same construct were not substantial. Standardized item alpha for the love attitude scales are as follows: eros, a = .78, M = 22.24, SD = 4.53;ludus,a=.74,M= 11.51, SD = 5.48; agape, a = . 8 3 , M = 17.73. SD = 5.48; mania, a = .65. M = 15.11, SD = 5.31; storge, a = .84, M = 17.67. SD = 6.55; pragma, a = .74, M = 14.53, SD = 5.69. Perceived Same-sex Network Support Scale Participants completed a five-item, seven-point semantic differential scale measuring perceived support that was created by tbe authors for this research. Specifically, they rated how their same-sex friends responded to them according to the anchors: supportive/not supportive, encouraging/discouraging, approving/disapproving, positively/ negatively, and understanding/not understanding. Because the perceived support items were specified a priori to measure only one factor, confirmatory factor analysis was employed to test the measurement model (Hunter & Gerbing, 1982). The data were found to be consistent with the proposed factor. Internal consistency tests showed that tbe errors calculated between items measuring tbe same construct were not substantial, a = .90, M = 5.72, SD = .93. Lower scores on the perceived support scale indicate lower levels of perceived support and higber scores correspond to bigher levels of perceived support.

Results The first research question asked what types of rules people described for maintaining FWBRs. Tbe frequency data indicated that the most commonly reported rules for tbe maintenance of FWBRs were emotional rules (56%, n = 81), communication rules (40.6%, n = 58), and sex rules (32.9%, n - 47). Additionally, friendsbip rules were reported by 23.1% (n - 33). secrecy rules were reported in 21.7% of tbe responses (n = 31), permanence rules were reported in 16.8% of tbe responses (/) = 24). and 7.7% of tbe responses reported the negotiate rules category (n = 11). Cbi square tests were

Westem Journal of Communication 59 performed to determine if there were any differences in maintenance rules described by people who had an FWBR and people who had not had an FWBR. The data indicated that there was a statistically significant difference in maintenance rules based on having experienced an FWBR. People who had never experienced an FWBR were more likely to provide secrecy rules compared to those who had experienced one or more FWBRs. Specifically, 30% of participants who had never experienced an FWBR reported secrecy rules compared to 14.5% of participants who had experienced at least one FWBR, ; ^ ( l , 141) = 5.42, p < .05. No other differences in rules reported, based on FWBR experience, reached statistical significance. Chi square tests also were performed to determine if there were any differences in FWBR rules reported based on participant sex. The data indicated that there were no significant differences between men and women regarding FWBR maintenance rules. The second set of research questions asked bow attitudes toward love influence tbe motivations for, maintenance rules, and outcomes of FWBRs. The data indicated a statistically significant positive correlation between the ludic love attitude and sexual motivations for FWBRs, r(73) = .25, p < .05, and a statistically significant negative correlation between the storgic love attitude and sexual motivations for FWBRs, r(73) = -.26, p < .05. No other statistically significant correlations emerged between the love attitudes and motivations for FWBRs (see Table 5). The data revealed no statistically significant correlations between attitudes towards love and FWBR maintenance rules (see Table 6). Finally, the data indicated a statistically significant positive correlation between the ludic love attitude and whether participants were currently involved with their FWBR, r(73) = .32, p < .01, a statistically significant negative correlation between the ludic love attitude and whether participants were not currently friends with their FWBR partner. r(73) = -.23. p < .05, and a statistically significant negative correlation between the eros love attitude and wbetber participants were not currently friends with their FWBR partner, r(74) = -.29, p < .05. No other statistically significant correlations emerged between the love attitudes and the outcomes of FWBRs (see Table 7). The third set of research questions asked how people described their communication with and support from their same-sex friendship network regarding their FWBRs. The descriptive statistics revealed that 79 out of 143 participants reported having had an FWBR. A total of 64 of 76 participants (84%) reported that they had told a same-sex friend about their FWBR (three cases of missing data). Regarding the responses of Table 5
Motive Relationship avoidance Sex Relationship simplicity Emotional connection Wanted FWBR
Noie. 'p < .05, two-tailed.

Correlations Between Love Attitudes and FWBR Motivations

Eros -.06 -.12 -.01 .04 .06 Agape -.17 -.08 -.22 -.04 .16 Ludus -.07 .25* .15 .04 -.15 Pragma .06 -.21 -.06 -.!9 .00 Storgic .02 -.25' .13 -.19 .09 Mania .00 .05 .08 .03 .07

60 M. Hughes et al. Table 6

Rule Negotiate rules Sex rules Communication rules Secrecy rules Permanence rules Emotional rules Friendship rules
Note, 'p < .05, two-tailed.

Correlations Between Love Attitudes and FWBR Rules

Eros .05 -.12 -.04
.10 .07

Agape
.04 .07

Ludus -.06
.10 .10

Pragma
.03 .09 .07 .00 .00

Storgic -.01 -.08

.01

Mania -.01 .08 .10 .04 .00 -.11 -.01

-.01
.11 .13

-.01
.08

-.02
.00 .13

.09 -.08

-.11 -.03

-.15
.14

-.05 -.04

-.12

same-sex friends to FWBRs, the frequency data revealed that 37.5% {n = 24) ofthe responses fit the approval category, and 36% {n = 23) ofthe responses fit the disapproval category; 25% ofthe responses (n = 16) were representative ofthe silence category. 10.9% ( = 7) ofthe responses fit the shared experience category, and 12.5% {n = 8) ofthe responses indicated the surprise category. Fifteen respondents reported that they did not tell their same-sex friends about their FWBR. Regarding participants' reasons for not telling, the frequency data indicated that 46.7% ( = 7) ofthe responses fit the relevance category, and 20% (n = 3) ofthe responses fit the secrecy category. Additionally, 13.3% {n = 2) ofthe responses fit the personal embarrassment category, and 6.7% (n - I) ofthe responses fit the network disapproval category. It was hypothesized that a positive relationship exists between perceived same-sex network support for FWBRs and the continuation of these relationships. The data indicated a statistically significant positive correlation between perceived support and current FWBR outcome, r(62) = .29, p < .05. Thus, participants were more likely to still be involved in their FWBR if they perceived their same-sex friends to be supportive of it, while they were less likely to still be involved in their FWBR if they did not perceive support from their same-sex friends. Additionally, the responses to the open-ended questions were examined in terms of their relationship to the FWBR outcomes, and Table 7 Correlations Between Love Attitude and FWBR Outcomes
Outcome No sex Not friends Current FWBR Moved relationally forward Moved emotionally forward Worse Eros -.12 .29* -.13
.09

Agape -.08
.16

Ludus -.03 -.23* .32" -.11 -.01 -.09

Pragma -.16
.21 .07

Storgic -.15
.17

Mania -.15
.15 .10

-.01
.03

-.05 .13 -.13 .20

-.10
.19 .09 .15

-.10 -.01
.08

-.03 -.01
.15

. "p<.05, two-tailed;'^p< .01, two-tailed.

Western Jourtial of Commimication 61 four statistically significant findings emerged. The data indicated a positive correlation between whether a friend had shared a similar FWBR experience and the respondent's FWBR moving emotionally forward, r(62) = .40, p < .01, a positive correlation between a friend disapproving and a respondent's FWBR becoming worse, r(62) = .40, p < .01, a positive correlation between a friend expressing disapproval and the sex in a respondent's FWBR stopping, r(62) = .26. p < .05, and a negative correlation between a friend giving no response (i.e., silence) and the respondent no longer being friends with tbeir FWBR partner. r(62) = -.27, p < .05. No otber statistically significant correlations emerged between perceived support, friends' responses and FWBR outcomes (see Table 8). Taken as a whole, the data were consistent with the hypothesis. Discussion This research was undertaken in order to further our understanding of FWBRs. The limited research on FWBRs suggests that they are relatively common on college campuses today and are important to the people who participate in them, yet tbese relationships exist within a space tbat pushes the boundaries between cross-sex friendships and non-romantic sexual relationships. Several issues merit discussion. Regarding the maintenance rules for FWBRs, seven general categories of rules emerged from the data. These rules encompassed relational issues, such as attending to the friendship and maintaining the secrecy ofthe FWBR, to rules regarding the transient nature oftbe relationship, to rules suggesting that the participants actually negotiate a rule structure for the relationship. The most commonly suggested rules were those for emotions and communication, and there were no differences between men and women regarding their proposed rules. The appearance of emotional rules as the most commonly reported type of rules supports Mongeau et al.'s (2003) description of FWBRs as friendships witb sexual intimacy but devoid of romance. Many participants suggested tbat tbe beart cannot get involved or tbat 'if you start wanting morebe JUST friends.' Furtbermore, tbe

Table 8 Correlations Between Same-sex Friends' Response, Support Scale, and FWliR Outcomes
Not Sex

Friends' response

friends Stopped
.17

Current Relationally Emotionally FWBR forward Worse Miscellaneous forward -.05 -.19
.12

Approval -.10 Disapproval -.09 No response -.27* .09 Surprise Promiscuity caution -.08 Shared experience -.06 Perceived Support .08

-.02
.05

.26*
.20 .09

-.05 -.24
.20

-.20 .40**
.00 .00

-.10
.01

-.13 -.08
.11

-.24

.29*

-.13 -.08 -.03 -.10 -.06

-.09 .04 .04 .03 .08 -.02 .05

-.13 -.08 .40**

.05

-.05 -.16 -.14

Note, 'p < .05, two-tailed; "p < .01, two-lailed.

62 M. Hughes et al. strategic nature of the types of rules parallels the strategic maintenance behaviors discussed by Dainton and Stafford (1993), who described both routine behaviors (i.e., behaviors that are not intentionally performed to maintain a relationship, but that may function to do so. such as doing laundry together) and strategic behaviors that are specifically performed in order to maintain a relationship. However, this similarity is likely due to the wording of the question, which specifically asked for maintenance rules. Conceivably, individuals in FWBRs may not have the opportunity to engage in mundane, routine behaviors such as preparing dinner together and thus may have to resort to more strategic forms of maintenance. Future research should consider incorporating a more quantitative checklist approach to ascertain the existence of tbe delineated rules, as well as include questions designed to address any routine maintenance bebaviors that may occur within FWBRs. Althougb no significant findings were discovered between love attitudes and maintenance rules, love attitudes were related to both motivations and outcomes of FWBRs. Ludic attitudes were found to be positively related to sexual motivations, wbile storgic attitudes were found to be negatively related to sexual motivations. Tbus, for ludics wbo approacb love as a game and avoid commitment, FWBRs may be appealing because tbey allow for sex without commitment as well as the challenge/game of being just friends witb a sexual partner. In contrast, for storgics wbose love relationships evolve from a deep friendsbip. sex is less likely to be a motivation for FWBRs. Tbose with storgic attitudes are not likely to initiate a sexual relationsbip with a friend just to have sexual needs fulfilled. This finding also is consistent witb the description tbat sex typically comes later in a storgic relationship, rather than early (Lasswell & Lasswell, 1985). Regarding the outcomes of FWBRs related to love attitudes, ludics were more likely to still be involved in an FWBR and to still be friends with the FWBR partner. One explanation for these findings is that because ludics avoid commitment, they may be better equipped to compartmentalize issues of sex from feelings of commitment. Therefore, ludics may deal with the emotional challenges inherent in an FWBR more effectively because they are less likely to get emotionally involved. In contrast, erotics were more likely to report not being friends with their FWBR partner anymore. An explanation for this finding is that erotics may mistakenly enter into FWBRs with the hope that tbey can turn tbem into real romantic relationships. When they discover that this is not tbe case, both tbe FWBR and tbe friendsbip end. It may be that this romantic approach to love may make adhering to the unwritten FWBR maintenance rules (e.g.. don't say T love you') quite difficult for those with an erotic love attitude. The majority of people involved in FWBRs tell their same-sex friends about the relationship. This is consistent with expectations that friends should be open and honest, which commonly exist in networks of friends (Baxter et al., 2001). The data concerning reactions of same-sex friends to the revelation that their friend is taking part in an FWBR seem to be somewhat mixed, yielding almost equivalent percentages of supportive and discouraging responses. Of those participants who did not tell their same-sex friends about their FWBR, the most frequent reason for not revealing the relationship to friends was the belief that it simply was not something their friends

Western Journal of Communication 63 needed, or even had a right, to know. The categories for reasons for not telling friends about FWBRs appear to be consistent with most of Goldsmith and Parks' (1990) perceived risks of social support. According to Goldsmith and Parks, people are reluctant to seek social support when they fear they will make a negative impression, when they want to keep information confidential, when they want to avoid burdening friends with their problems, or when they view the topic of tbe disclosure as inappropriate. Subsequent research could apply Goldsmith and Parks' typology for perceived benefits and risks of social support to reasons for communicating to others about their FWBR experiences. Finally, as predicted the continuation of FWBRs was related to the perceived support of, and the communication with, their same-sex friendship network. The idea that friends would tend to be supportive is consistent with previous research indicating that friends have an inclination to react positively to the disclosure of romantic problems (Goldsmith & Parks, 1990). Friends may be reluctant to react negatively because confronting friends concerning their sexual activities may pose a threat to the friendship. Newell and Stutman (1991) point out that if people are not overly concerned about their friend's romantic activities, expressing disapproval about their behavior may not be worth the possible negative outcomes associated with the act of confrontation. Additionally, these findings mirror previous work by Parks and Adelman (1983), which highlighted the importance of examining network communication and support as it relates to relationship survival. One direction for future research would be to pattern an FWBR study after Parks and Adelman's work, conducting a longitudinal study that also assesses the issue of uncertainty as it relates to relational stability. Limitatiotts Several limitations sbould be noted in this research. First, the sample size was predominantly female and Caucasian undergraduate college students, which reduces the generaiizability of the findings. Additionally, this was an exploratory study with a qualitative focus on describing and understanding the FWBR phenomenon. While much knowledge was gained, much still remains to be discovered; including, how these rules are negotiated, and other factors affecting the maintenance of FWBRs, such as the costs and benefits related to these relationships. Now that initial work has begun to elucidate the concepts and processes that seem relevant to FWBRs, future work should proceed and consider both qualitative and quantitative approaches. Finally, this research focused specifically on same-sex friendship network communication and support. Certainly, botb tbe support and communication processes may function differently in cross-sex friendship networks.

Conclusion The current study helps better frame and expand our current knowledge of FWBRs. Utilizing an exploratory approach, participants described the maintenance rules, communication and support processes related to FWBRs. People tend to communicate

64

M. Hughes et aL

their FWBR experiences to their same-sex friends and, in general, receive supportive responses. The influence of love attitudes also was examined, and although FWBRs have been described as lacking commitment and romance, love attitudes were related to both the motivations and outcomes of FWBRs. Future research should continue to explore this interesting type of relational choice. Notes
[ 11 For data entry each categoty was given a binary code with the number one signifying that the category was present (i.e., reported by the respondent) and the number zero signifying that the category was not present (i.e., not reported by the respondent). The goal for this coding was to create a representative list of categories, one that would demonstrate the breadth of responses reported by the participants rather than the frequency of each response. This choice was made in order to facilitate data entry purposes because the participants wrote quite extensively in response to each question. For example, the entry for the participant who reported their motivations toward FWB relationships as 'I liked other girls as well, and did not want to be tied down* would receive only one code for the relationship avoidance category being present, rather than two. Thus, the data are representative ofthe range of categories reported, rather than the depth reported for each category. The Cohen's kappas for the undergraduate research assistants ranged from .68 to .84.

[2]

References
Afifi, W. A., & Faulkner, S. L. (2000). On being 'just friends': The frequency and impact of sexual activity in cross-sex friendships, fournal of Soda! and Personal Relationships, 17, 205-222. Asada, K. |. K., Hughes, M., & Morrison, K. (2003). Motivations and barriers to friends wilh benefits relationships. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, San Diego, CA. Baxter, L. A., Dun, T., & Sahlstein, E. (2001). Rules for relating communicated among social network members. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 173-199, Chadwick-Iones, 1. K. (1976). Social exchange theory: Its structure and influence in social psychology'. New York: Academic Press. Cupach, W. R., & Metts, S. (1991). Sexuality and communication in close relationships. In K. McKinney & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Sexuality in dose relationships (pp. 93-t 10). Hillsdale, N|: Lawrence Eribaum Associates, Inc. Dainton, M., & Stafford, L. (1993). Routine maintenance behaviors: A comparison of relationship type, partner similarity, and sex differences, journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 255-271. David, L. (writer), & Cherones, T. (director). (1991). The deal [television series episode]. Seinfeld. New York: National Broadcasting Company. Dindia, K., & Baxter, L. (1987). Strategies for maintaining and repairing marital relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 143-158. Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions. New York: Wiley. Class, S. P., & Wright, T. L. (1985). Sex differences in type of extramarital involvement and marital dissatisfaction. Sex Roles. 12, 1101-1120. Coldsmith, D., & Parks, M. (1990). Communicative strategies for managing the risks of seeking social support. In S. W. Duck (Ed. with R. C. Silver), Personal relationships and social support. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hendrick, C , & Hendrick, S. S. (1986). A theory and method of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 392^02.

Westem Journal of Commtmication 65

Hendrick. C , & Hendrick, S. S. (1987). Love and sex attitudes: A close relationsbip. Iti W. H. |ones& D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships (Vol. 1, pp. 141-169). Greenwich, CT: |A1 Press. Hendrick, C , & Hendrick, S. S. (1988). Lovers wear rose colored glasses. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 161-183. Hendrick, C . Hendrick, S. S., & Dicke, A. (1998). Tbe love attitudes scale: Short form. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 147-159. Hendrick, S., & Hendrick, C. (1995). Gender differences and similarities in sex and love. Personal Relationships, 2, 55-65. Herold, E. S., Maticka-Tyndaie, E., & Mewhinney, D. (1998). Predicting intentions to engage in casual sex. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 502-516. Hunter, ]. E., & Gerbing, D. W. (1982). Unidimensionai measurement, second order factor analysis, and causal models. Research in Organizational Behavior, 4, 267-320. Lambert, T. A., Kahn, A. S., & Apple, K. ]. (2003). Pluralistic ignorance and booking up. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 129-133. Lasswell, T. E., & Lasswell, M. E. (1985). The meaning of love. In J. M. Hensiin (Ed.), Marriage and family in a changing society (pp. 198-205). New York: Free Press. Lee, J. A. (1973). The colors of love: An exploration ofthe ways of loving. Don Mills, Ontario, Canada:. New Press. Levine, T. R., Aune, K. S., & Korallus, S. (1994). The effects of love styles on relational initiation and intensification strategies. Paper presented at the annual meeting ofthe International Communication Association, Sydney, Australia. Levy, M. B., & Davis, K. E. (1988). Lovestyles and attachments styles compared: Their relations to each other and to various relationship characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5,439-471. Messman, S. J., Canary, D. J., & Hause, K. S. (2000). Motives to remain platonic, equity, and the use of maintenance strategies in opposite-sex friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 67-94. Mongeau, P. A., Ramirez, A., & Vorrell, M. (2003, February). Friends with betiefits: Initial explorations of sexual, non-romantic relationships. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Communication Association, Salt Lake City, UT. Newell, S. E., & Stutman, R. K. (1991). The episodic nature of social confrontation. In J. A. Anderson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 14 (pp. 359-392). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Oliver, M. B., & Sedikides, C. (1992). EfFect of sexual permissiveness on desirability of partner as a function of low and high commitment to relationship. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 321-333. Parks, M. R., Sc Adelman, M. (1983). Communication networks and the development of romantic relationships: An expansion of uncertainty reduction theory. Human Communication Research, 10, 55-79. Paul, E. L., & Hayes, K. A. (2002). The casualties of 'casual' sex: A qualitative exploration of the phenomenology of college students' hookups. Joumal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 639-661. Paul. E. L., McManus, B., & Hayes, A. (2000). 'Hookups': Characteristics and correlates of college students' spontaneous and anonymous sexual experiences. Journal of Sex Research, 37, 76-88. Prins, K. S., Buunk, B. P., & van Yperen, N. W. (1993). Equity, normative disapproval and extramarital relationships. Joumal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 39-53. Regan, P. C, & Dreyer, C. S. (1999). Lust? love? status? Young adults' motives for engaging in casual sex. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 11, 1-24. Rozin, P. (2001). Social psychology and science: Some lessons from Solomon Asch. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 2-14. Rubin, Z., Peplau, L. A., & Hill, C. T. (1981). Loving and leaving: Sex differences in romantic attachments. Sex Roles, 7, 821-835.

66

M. Hughes et al.

Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship type, gender, and relational characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 217-242. Thibaul, J., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley 8c Sons. Townsend, J. M. (1995). Sex without emotional involvement: An evolutionary interpretation of sex differences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 24, 173-206. Triandis, H. C. (1980). Values, attitudes and interpersonal behavior. In H. E. Howe, Jr., 8c M. M. Page (Eds.), Nebraska symposium on Motivation, 1979 (Vol. 27, pp. 195-259). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Werking, K. (1997). We're just good friends: Women and men in nonromantic relationships. New York: Guilford Press. West, L., Anderson, L > & Duck, S. (1996). Crossing the barriers to friendships between men and women. In J. T. Wood (Ed.), Gendered relationships (pp. 111-127). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.