Are There Really any Benefits? - Michelle Reis's Portfolio



Are There Really Any Benefits?:A Study on Friends-With-Benefits and the Roles Uncertainty and Liking Play in the RelationshipMichelle ReisCandice KlinikowskiEmily KaupBryant UniversityAbstractThe main purpose of this study was to gain further insight into the complicated and unique cross-sex dyad that is becoming popular across the nation: a friends-with-benefits relationship (FWBR). A sample of 183 college students were surveyed to determine what advantages and disadvantages, typical outcomes, and actual percentage of students are, or have been, in a FWBR. This study also examined which gender is more likely to participate in this particular relationship, as well as how relational and partner uncertainty will affect liking and loving in a FWBR compared to a traditional romantic relationship. The research findings are summarized and suggestions for future studies are provided.Keywords: friends-with-benefits, partner uncertainty, relational uncertainty, liking, casual sexAre There Really any Benefits?: A Study on Friends-With-Benefits and the Roles Uncertainty and Liking Play in the RelationshipDylan:?Let's have sex like we're playing tennis.Jamie:?[laughing]?Get the hell outta here!Dylan:?Don't laugh! This could be great. This could take all the weirdness out of it.Jamie:?Well, we talked about this. I don't like you like that.Dylan:?I don't like you like that either. That's why it's perfect.(Taken from a scene from the movie Friends with Benefits in which Jamie and Dylan are discussing getting involved in a friends-with-benefits Relationship.) The above quote refers to a relatively new and unique cross-sex friendship that has gained popularity on college campuses across the United States. This latest friendship trend has been labeled a “friends-with-benefits relationship (FWBR).” FWBRs are typically formed from pre-existing cross-sex friendships; the difference is that these friends engage in sexual activity with one another, including sexual intercourse (Bisson & Levine, 2009). Such physical intimacy is not intended to lead to the development of any sort of traditional, romantic relationship; it is a purely a physical act. According to Hughes, Morrison, and Asada (2005), these types of relationships are distinct because they combine the benefits of friendship with the benefits of a sexual relationship, while avoiding the responsibilities and commitment that romantic, sexual relationships typically entail. Furthermore, FWBR are unique since they are more stable than ‘hook-ups,’ also known as a one-night sexual encounter, and are not at all about romantic love or liking (Paul & Hayes, 2002).In theory, this type of relationship appears to be uncomplicated though the reality is that there are many possible problems that could arise from engaging in a FWBR. One major concern is that the FWBRs could potentially lead to the development of negative emotions regarding the relationship and the friendship. This is likely due to one participant in the FWBR developing romantic feelings that are not reciprocated by the other person. Such an issue could eventually break up the relationship and friendship between both parties. These negative emotions can also arise because of increased relational uncertainty, which was defined by Knobloch and Solomon (1999) as the degree of confidence people will have in the level of commitment they see within a relationship.The research was guided by a general curiosity in the FWBR phenomena that has gained prominence with college students. Very limited amounts of research exist on this topic, especially when it involves uncertainty, which plays a role in all types of relationship. The topic is also considered taboo and is not openly discussed by participants because it is motivated by sexual desires. Acknowledging engagement in this relationship has the potential to negatively affect an individual’s reputation. It is important to gain more information on FWBRs because of the relationship’s growing popularity in both media (through films like Friends with Benefits and No Strings Attached) and social situations on college campuses. For these reasons, the study was designed to examine the relationship between uncertainty, liking, and loving in a FWBR as well as a way to gather information and opinions about this unique, emerging relationship. A brief review of literature delving deeper on the subject of uncertainty and liking/love is presented next.Defining Relational UncertaintyRelational uncertainty is defined as “the degrees of confidence people have in the level of involvement they observe within a relationship” (Knobloch & Solomon, 1999). It is initiated by three interrelated sources within a relationship: the self, the partner, and the relationship itself (Berger & Bradac, 1982). Self-uncertainty involves one’s doubts about their own involvement in the relationship; partner uncertainty incorporates one’s questions about their partner’s involvement in the relationship; and relationship uncertainty involves one’s doubts about the relationship as a whole, aside from self and partner concerns (Knobloch & Solomon, 2002). Self and partner uncertainty for individuals within the relationship are important however, relationship uncertainty has a greater affect. This is because it shows concern for the people within the relationship as a whole compared to self and partner uncertainty’s apprehension about the individuals (Berger & Bradac, 1982). This study will focus on partner and relational uncertainty among romantic relationships which will later be compared to partner and relationship uncertainty among FWBRs.Uncertainty and Liking in Romantic RelationshipsRelational uncertainty can be linked to a variety of developing stages within romantic relationships. For example, uncertainty created by a specific conflict may lead to visible increases or decreases in liking/loving within the relationship (Siegert & Stamp, 1994). Similarly, jealousy may lead to an increase or decrease in one’s expectations of the relationship (Guerrero & Andersen, 1998). In other words, doubts created from relational uncertainty could affect one or both partners’ satisfaction with the relationship.In the first phase of liking relations, uncertainty focuses on the attitudes and personality characteristics of an individual that are pursued by another. Even though uncertainty exists in order to understand the individual better, the status of the relationship itself may already be quite clear (Knobloch & Solomon, 2002). For example, cross-sex friends have a defined status as “friends,” but if one starts to develop feelings for the other, they will try to “get to know” the other person to reduce uncertainty and gain predictability. During the second phase of liking, impersonal liking – one individual’s feelings for another – transitions to interpersonal liking, in which both partners having feelings for one another. At this point in the developing relationship, participants may experience heightened degrees of relational uncertainty because they can no longer determine appropriate behaviors (Solomon, 1997) and questions arise about mutual commitment (Afifi & Burgoon, 1998). Once partners are able to establish mutual liking and commitment, relational uncertainty should subside (Aune, Aune, & Buller, 1994). Nevertheless, just because the two individuals agree on liking and commitment it does not mean relational uncertainty will fully disappear (Honeycutt, 1993). Previous research also suggests that relational uncertainty will peak in relationships as a result of underlying relationship difficulties (Knobloch & Solomon, 2002). An example of such research is the use of “secret tests” to gain information when managing liking (Bell & Buerkel-Rothfuss, 1990). This tactic motivates participants to utilize indirect communication patterns during the phases of relational liking (Solomon, 1997). These speculations imply an association between liking and relational uncertainty that occurs when partners transition from causal dating to a romantic relationship (Knobloch & Solomon, 2002).Uncertainty and Liking in Friends-With-Benefits RelationshipsA friendship typically excludes romantic love and sexual contact which differentiates friendships from romantic relationships (Bisson & Levine, 2009). However, recent evidence shows the emergence of a new relationship type, a FWBR, which fits neither the friendship nor romantic relationship molds (Bisson & Levine, 2009). A FWBR occurs when a male and female friend become physically attracted to one another and engage in sexual activity. Even though such intimate, physical contact is generally intended for traditional, romantic relationships, the “title” of a committed relationship is not applied due to the lack of emotional objectives. Due to the unique dynamics of a FWBR, a common inquiry about this relationship type is how it begins.Research suggests that the relational uncertainty phases, like the uncertainty phases previously stated for romantic relationships, play a similar role in the initial stages of the FWBR (Bisson & Levine, 2009). For example, cross-sex friends have a defined relationship as “friends,” but when one develops sexual liking for the other, he/she may want to further the relationship to satisfy these desires. This can create uncertainty in the desired individual because he/she is unsure of how to handle the other’s feelings. Furthermore, uncertainty may arise about the original friendship. Participants worry that sex may complicate the relationship and they may not be able to remain friends after sexual activity (Bisson & Levine, 2009). The friendship can become a FWBR if there is mutual liking between the two friends. As mentioned earlier, with mutual liking and commitment established, uncertainty should subside (Bisson & Levine, 2009). A FWBR should be the same because there is an “established commitment” is the agreement of mutual liking and sexual activity. However, if one individual starts to express an increase or decrease in liking, the other’s uncertainty could heighten. For instance, if a partner showed an increase in liking and wanted to transition to a romantic relationship, the other partner’s liking could increase or decrease based on the level of uncertainty that they feel. If they do not want a romantic relationship, their liking may decrease because they are not interested in fostering a romantic relationship, they question why the other feels this way, and do not know how it will affect their initial friendship when the feelings are unrequited. However, if they decide that they want transition into a romantic relationship, liking can increase and uncertainty can decrease because the feelings of transition are mutual. On the other hand, uncertainty may surface with the increase of liking because of the question of the relationship’s label and future (Bisson & Levine, 2009).This literature would therefore suggest that there is greater potential for relational uncertainty in FWB relationships compared to romantic relationships. Therefore, the following hypotheses were created:H1a:Relational Uncertainty will be higher in a heterosexual FWBR than a heterosexual traditional romantic relationship.H1b:Partner Uncertainty will be higher in a heterosexual FWBR than a heterosexual traditional romantic relationship.FWBRs form a grey area between traditional, romantic relationships and ordinary friendships. Participants in FWBRs have a heightened level of liking because they were already friends previously but the content of the relationship expanded. FWBRs focus on sex; there is no spoken set of rules about the relationship. Because of the lack of rules, uncertainty can rise (Bisson & Levine, 2009) leading to the development of the following hypotheses:H2a:There will be a negative relationship between liking and relationship uncertainty in a FWBR.H2b:There will be a negative relationship between liking and partner uncertainty in a FWBR.Friends-With-Benefits RelationshipsThe existence of cross-sex friendships has always been a relationship dynamic intriguing to multiple researchers (e.g. Afifi & Burgoon, Afifi & Faulkner, Bleske & Buss, Fuhrman, Flannagan, &Matamoros, Guerrero & Chavez, Kaplan & Keys, Messman, Canary & Hause, and Monsour). Many individuals can recall their first cross-sex friendship; one most likely began in preschool or middle school and several others probably existed later in life. This bond between males and females has been heavily researched due to the face that they present an unusual dynamic in the studies of heterosexual relationships. What complicates this relationship is that it plays two roles at the same time. Its first role is that of a friendship, where “attraction of the spirit” takes the place of sexual contact and exclusivity. Second, the role of being a potential romantic relationship is involved, in which feelings of sexual desire may persist and the appeal for exclusivity may grow (Afifi & Faulkner, 2000). The competing cultural scripts can pose a challenge to sexuality, but there are examples in which no sexual tension has threatened the position of these friendships. However, research shows that many of these cross-sex friendships are characterized by a minimal degree of sexual attraction from one participant in the relationship (Afifi & Faulkner, 2000). This assumption has been supported by several studies, including Kaplan and Keys’ 1997 study in which 58% of the participants in their research reported small levels of sexual attraction to their cross-sex partner. There has always been a clear distinction between friendships and romantic relationships until recently, when a new relationship type that merged the characteristic of the two gained popularity (Bisson & Levine, 2009). A FWBR has been described in many ways. Bisson and Levine (2009) explained that a FWBR occurred when people who are ‘just friends’ have sex. This definition, however, does not take many things such as commitment into account. Hughes, et al. (2005) explained that 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. The researches in this study combined these descriptions and created this definition for a FWBR: “an agreement between two people who are friends, and are physically attracted to one another, to become involved in a sexual relationship. These friends are not considered committed to one another, and may begin relationships with others at any given time.” This relationship phenomenon is a current trend on college campuses across the United States with between 50-60% of students reporting to have been involved in a FWBR (Weaver, MacKeigan, & MacDonald, 2011). Both participants in an FWBR engage in sexual activity with one another, as well as “friendship activities” such as going out with a large group of friends (Weaver, et al., 2011). The challenge of this type of relationships lies in the occurrence of sexual activity while being able to separate the interaction from emotion. Research conducted by Afifi and Faulkner (2000) showed that 51% of college students that participated in their study reported having sexual intercourse with a friend that they did not intend to date at the time, with 34% of those students also reporting that it occurred with the same friend on multiple occasions. Though individual attitudes towards sex in a male-female friendship differ largely, there is a general consensus about the expected impact of such relations (Afifi & Faulkner, 2000). There are many benefits to FWBR that college students have identified throughout various studies. In Afifi and Faulkner’s (2000) research, 67% of those that reported to have engaged in some type of sexual activity with a friend believed that this physical contact had increased the relationship’s quality. Other frequently perceived and discussed advantages to these sexually-charged relationships have included the lack of romantic relational commitment, easy access to sex, and trust in their partner (Weaver et al., 2011). Weaver, et al. research offered other aspects of FWBRs that their college-aged participants stated in interviews. The most intriguing outcome showed that the students enjoyed the relationships because it combined the best of traditional relationships – sex, intimacy, and companionship – with the best of casual relationships – independence, casualness, and freedom. At the same time, these relationships allow the participants to avoid the negative aspects of traditional, romantic relationships such as commitment, drama, complications, and more.Though there are many possible advantages of a FWBR, there are also a variety of negative implications that may be faced. Having one participant in the FWBR develop emotional feelings for the other individual has been the principal disadvantage to becoming involved sexually with a friend. Weaver et al.’s study revealed that one-sided relationships have notably caused the most emotional damage when participating in FWBRs. The results of this study showed that 92% of students that have participated in a FWBR found this to be the chief disadvantage. Damage to the friendship, as well as the creation of negative emotions, have been other substantial, noted drawbacks (Weaver, et al., 2011).Numerous studies have found that sexual activity between cross-sex friends is a common occurrence. For example, Afifi & Faulkner (2000) used information from previous studies (Fuiman et al. (1997), O’Sullivan & Gaines (1998), Monsour (1992), and Bleske & Buss (2000)), to determine that a majority participate in FWBRs. This research found that FWBRs are prevalent in our society but it does not describe the demographics of the sample or which sex initiated the relationship. Also, current research (Bisson & Levine, 2009 and Weaver, et al., 2011) does offer some explanation as to why individuals would or would not participate in this new type of relationship, but this research is limited so more information would strengthen previously gather data. Thus, we ask the questions:R1:Do college students believe that males and females can have sex and remain friends??R2:What percentage of heterosexual college students have been or are involved in a FWBR?R3:Which biological sex is more likely to participate in friends-with-benefits relationships?R4:What is the typical outcome of a FWBR? (e.g. “No longer involved).R5a:What do individuals believe are the biggest advantages of becoming involved in a FWBR?R5b:What do individuals believe are the biggest disadvantages of becoming involved in a FWBR?R6a:Why do college students participate in FWBRs?R6b:Why would college students choose to not participate in a FWBR?MethodParticipantsOne hundred and eighty-three undergraduate college students from 24 different schools across the United States participated in this research. Twenty-four percent of the participants were males (n=44) while 58% were females (n=106). Eighteen percent of the participant surveyed did not provide the biological sex that they identify with (n=33). Approximately 35% of the overall participants were between the ages of 18 and 20 (n=65), 46% were between the ages of 21 and 23 (n=84), and 19% did not provide their age group (n=34). When asked if they have been, or are currently involved, in a FWBR, about 81% of respondents said that they have participated in one. The survey sample was largely made up of students that identify themselves as Caucasian (69%). Additionally, 5% were Hispanic, 2% African American, 2% Asian-Pacific Islander, 1% Native American, and 4% classified themselves as ‘Other’. Due to the delicate nature of the study, participants were asked to complete a consent form before filling out a confidential online survey that ensured anonymity. Respondents were asked to indicate their sexual orientation and only those identified themselves as heterosexual (100% of the sample) were included in the analysis.Procedure and DesignParticipants were informed that the research would ask questions pertaining both FWBR and traditional, romantic relationships. A questionnaire made up of six different sections was used to gather data, and was administered to a variety of college students using social media sites. Those who completed the survey were then asked to pass it along to their peers, but this was not a requirement. In the first section, participants were provided with a definition of a FWBR, and then asked if they thought individuals could have sex while remaining friends. FWBRs were defined as ‘an agreement between two people who are friends, and are physically attracted to one another, to become involved in a sexual relationship. ?These friends are not considered committed to one another, and may begin relationships with others at any given time.’ Based on this definition, participants were then asked to complete four open-ended questions (e.g. “List up to 3 possible advantages of a FWBR.”). These questions, their response categories, as well as the format for this section, were based on a previous study conducted by Bisson and Levin (2009) regarding negotiations in FWBRs. At the end of the first section, participants were asked if they had ever been or were presently involved in a FWBR, as well as if they were currently in a traditional, romantic relationship. Participants who had been or were in a FWBR were asked to continue onto Section Two, which featured several open-ended questions that were specific to FWBRs. Participants who had never been in a FWBR, but were involved in a traditional, romantic relationship were asked to skip to Section Three, which consisted of relationship-focused questions. Participants that had not participated in either relationship type were directed to the end of the survey and thanked for their time.Participants directed to Section Two, were asked questions about the FWBRs regarding the frequency of the sexual activity, what sexual activities occurred in this relationship (e.g., kissing, touching genitals,), the relationship’s outcome (e.g., remained FWB, just friends,), and the biological sex of their partner (Bisson & Levine, 2009). Multiple answers were permitted. Questions about problems that arose in the relationship (e.g. “What questions arose about the relationship after sexual activity occurred?”) followed, and multiple responses were allowed once again. In order to generate categories for the open-ended responses, Bisson and Levine’s study was applied.In Section Three, participants identified as being currently involved in a traditional, romantic relationship, though they may have been involved in a FWBR at some point in their past. These respondents were asked questions that primarily focused on maintenance behaviors (e.g. frequent relationship discussion, spending money on each other), ground rules (e.g. no cheating, honesty, constant sex,), and topics that arise when arguments occur (e.g. strength of relationship, emotions, distance). One of the researchers developed the questions in this section based on the questions posed in the previous section about participants in FWBRs. Multiple responses were allowed. To derive categories for the open-ended responses, a researcher read all replies and identified characteristics that emerged and created categories for coding.Sections Four and Five were completed by all individuals that have participated in previous or current FWBRs and/or those in a current traditional, romantic relationship. The questionnaire then instructed participants to recall either their current or most recent FWBR or if they were in a current romantic relationship, they were to reflect on that romance. Participants were then asked to keep this relationship in mind as they completed the next two sections. Section Four featured an edited version of a Relationship Uncertainty Scale (Knobloch & Solomon, 1999) which required participants to assess the level of partner and relational uncertainty in the relationship. It contained 19 questions on partner uncertainty (e.g. “How committed your partner is to the relationship?”) and 16 questions on relational uncertainty (e.g. “The boundaries for appropriate and/or inappropriate behavior in this relationship?”) that were both rated along a seven-point Likert scale (1 = “Completely Uncertain,” to 7 = “Completely Certain”). The composite measure for relational (M =6.30 for relationships, M=4.28 for FWBR; SD = 1.10 for relationships, SD=1.16 for partner FWBR) and partner (M=6.60 for relationships; M= 4.27 for FWBR; SD=.69 for relationships, SD=1.0 for FWBR) uncertainty displayed acceptable reliability (α = .98, α=.96).Section Five included the Love/Liking Scale created by Rubin (1970) in a study on romantic love. This scale assessed the levels participants liked or loved the significant other chosen before completing Section Four. Thirteen questions were posed regarding a love scale (e.g. “If my partner were feeling badly, my first duty would be to cheer him/her up.”) rated along a seven-point Likert scale (1 = “Not True,” to 7 = “Definitely True”), as well as 13 questions on a liking scale (e.g. “When I am with my partner, we are almost always in the same mood”). The composite measure for loving and liking displayed acceptable reliability (α =.93, α =.94).The final section of the questionnaire asked for demographic information on the participant, including their gender, age, and ethnicity.ResultsHypothesis H1a and H1bHypothesis H1a stated that relational uncertainty will be higher in a heterosexual FWBR than a heterosexual traditional romantic relationship. An independent t-test was conducted to determine if the type of relationship (FWBR or romantic relationship) would have an effect on relational uncertainty. The Levene’s test for equality of variances was not significant, (F = 1.53, p>.05), therefore equality of variances can be assumed: t (130) =10.09, p<.001. This information indicates that there is a significant difference between relational uncertainty in a FWBR as compared to a traditional, romantic relationship. Romantic relationships were shown to have higher levels of certainty. The effect size, shown by Cohen’s D, was 1.72, which means there is a great difference to the amount of relational uncertainty in FWBRs compared to romantic relationships. Therefore, this hypothesis is supported. Hypothesis H2b stated that partner uncertainty would be higher in a FWBR than a traditional romantic relationship. Once again, an independent t-test was conducted to test this hypothesis. The Levene’s test for equality of variances was significant (F=7.24, p<.05) so equality of variances cannot be assumed: t (125) = 15.7, p<.001. Evidence shows a significant difference between partner uncertainty in a FWBR and partner uncertainty in a romantic relationship. Romantic relationships have higher levels of partner certainty. Cohen’s D reveals a major difference of partner certainty in romantic relations to FWBRs with 2.67. Hence, the hypothesis is supported.Hypothesis H2a and H2bHypothesis H2a was intended to determine if a negative relationship exists between relational uncertainty and liking in a FWBR while hypothesis H2b aimed to verify whether or not a negative relationship existed between partner uncertainty and liking in a FWBR. To conduct this analysis a Pearson Product-Moment correlation was conducted for each hypothesis. Relational uncertainty was found to have no correlation to liking in a FWBR, r (63) =.23, p>.05. This is considered a weak relationship. Partner uncertainty was also found to have no correlation with liking in a FWBR, r (63) =.23, p>.05. This too is considered to be a weak relationship. The practical significance of this study does not, however, have meaning due to the fact that the results are not statistically significant. Based on these results, it has been proven that both these hypotheses were not supported.Research Questions One & TwoThere has recently been an increase in media focus on the supposed wide-spread popularity of FWBRs. Research Questions 1 and 2 were created in order to discover if college-aged students truly believed this relationship was plausible, and also how popular the relationships truly are. These questions were answered using frequencies. Research Question 1 asked: “Do college students believe that males and females can have sex and remain friends?”? The results indicated that 88% of participants (N=144) believe that men and women can have sexual encounters and still remain friends. Research Question 2 was created to assess how many college students actually have been or are currently involved in a FWBR. From a sample of 172, 81% revealed they have been or are in a FWBR. According to this data, FWBR are actually very popular among college students. Research Question ThreeWhile there are studies that have analyzed the difference between men and women when it comes to casual sex, there are only limited amounts of research done on FWBRs, which include a casual sex element in the friendship. According to Townsend (1995), men are more likely than women to be involved sexually with a partner without there being any emotional involvement or marital potential. For this reason, one would assume that men would typically engage in FWBRs more. However, the research on FWBRs has never actually sought to determine which sex is more likely to engage in this type of relationship. Research Question 3 therefore asked what biological sex is more likely to participate in a FWBR in an effort to further the assumption men are more interested in sex than women are. A frequency distribution of the participants’ likelihood was done to test this research question. Interestingly, the results revealed that 82% of women are more likely to participate in a FWBR, compared to 80% of men. The difference is significant, although the margin is small (2% difference). Research Questions Four and Five A & BDue to the fact that FWBRs are centered on casual sexual encounters, they can be considered by some to be a taboo topic. For this reason, information about individual’s experiences with FWBRs and the status of this relationship are typically not discussed or known. Bisson and Levine (2009) developed questions that can be asked in order to better learn about advantages, disadvantages, and relationship outcome. Discovering this information is important in order to better understand the functions of this new relationship type. Research Question 4 examined what is the typical outcome of a FWBR. The research indicated that 29% were no longer involved, 26% were just friends, 25% remained in a FWB, and 14% are now romantically involved (n=68). Therefore, the results indicate that the majority of FWBRs (54%) will dissolve.Research Questions 5a and 5b were created in order for researchers to have a better understanding of what college students believe are advantages and disadvantages to being involved in a FWBR. The four advantages most frequently listed by the 184 participants were having sex (38%), no commitment (19%), less stress (11%), and more trust between partners (11%). The top four disadvantages were found to be negative emotions (34.7%), harming the friendship (18.1%), the development of feelings (15.3%), and the negative consequences of sex (i.e. pregnancy, STDs) (15.3%). Research Questions Six A & BFinally, the last two research questions were created to determine exact reasons why college students would choose to or not to get involved in a FWBR. These questions aim to reveal what the appeal of this specific relationship is. Research Question 6a asked why students would become involved in a FWBR. The results indicated that the fact that there is no commitment in a FWBR (30.6%), the convenience of sex (16.7%), having sex (16.7%), and the fact that it is less stressful than a romantic relationship (15.3%) (n=183) to be the greatest determinants for beginning a FWBR. Research Question 6b discussed reasons why a college student would choose to not be involved in a FWBR. Surprisingly, the lack of commitment in a FWBR was the number one reason that individuals would choose to not be in a FWBR (26.4%). Other reasons included the causing of negative emotions (i.e. jealousy, heartbreak) (22.2%) and harm that can be done to the friendship (12.5%).Results for Research Questions 5a, 5b, 6a, and 6b have shown support for prior research conducted on FWBR by Bisson and Levine (2009), as well as Weaver, MacKeigan, and MacDonald (2011).For tables pertaining to the results acquired, please see all tables in Appendices A-C. DiscussionHypothesis H1a and H1bHypothesis One was broken into parts a and b in order to illustrate the difference in the levels of partner and relational uncertainty between FWBRs and traditional, romantic relationships. Data acquired for part A used the Relationship Uncertainty Scale (Knobloch, & Solomon, 1999) and supported the original assumption that relational uncertainty would be higher in heterosexual FWBRs than in similar heterosexual romantic relationships. Communication is likely a large element in determining the level of uncertainty in the relationship. Research done by Bisson and Levine shows that when relational questions arise in FWBRs, the vast majority focus on uncertainty however, a majority of respondents also stated that when relational questions arose, they were never discussed (2009). In order to reduce the level of uncertainty, it is important for the individuals in the relationship to talk about the issues. However, talking about the relationship has been identified as a highly off-limits topic in both platonic and intimate relationships (Baxter & Wilmot, 1985). Further research conducted by Ward and Kahn (2003) reveals that men are likely to avoid discussing important issues in an intimate relationship. These findings indicate that though communication is a crucial part in reducing relationship uncertainty, it is often ignored. The levels of communication in traditional, romantic relationships are higher as more time is invested in getting to know one another and developing an emotional relationship (Sternberg, 1986). This allows the couple to develop less room for uncertainty in their romance. It is for this reason that uncertainty was found to be lower in romantic relationships throughout the study. FWBRs focus on the physical advantages rather than a romantic connection, therefore conversations about uncertainty will occur less frequently, causing uncertainty levels to remain high within this specific relationship.The results for Hypothesis H1b also were acquired using Knobloch and Solomon’s (1999) uncertainty scale however the focus was on partner uncertainty. The research proved that there is a significant difference between partner uncertainty in a FWBR and partner uncertainty in a traditional, romantic relationship. Partner uncertainty in a traditional, romantic relationship will be significantly lower than partner uncertainty in a FWBR. After reading the limited amount of literature on FWBRs, it is not surprising that uncertainty levels would be higher in this particular relationship. Once again, communication, as stated above, will play a large role in reducing uncertainty. Individuals in a FWBR typically have been shown to avoid conversations about what each partner wants out of the relationship. It is generally understood that both individuals are looking for sexual gratification. Also, individuals in romantic relationships typically have several ritualistic behaviors that they use in order to continuously decrease uncertainty. Bruess and Pearson (1997) identified seven types of rituals that couples in romantic relationships use: couple-time rituals, idiosyncratic/symbolic rituals, daily routines and tasks, expressions of intimacy, communication (or everyday talk) rituals, patterns/habits/mannerisms, and spiritual rituals. All of these will decrease uncertainty. FWBRs, however, are not shown, or have not yet to be shown, to have rituals. Instead, the relationship is about sexual gratification and maintaining the friendship. Hypothesis H2a and H2bHypothesis H2a and H2b tested to see if a negative relationship would exist between uncertainty and liking in a FWBR. Because the study focuses on both relationship uncertainty and partner uncertainty, the hypothesis was separated into two sections, H2a and H2b, in order to better understand the results. H2a compared the difference between liking and relationship uncertainty in a FWBR, while H2b compared the difference between liking and partner uncertainty in a FWBR. To make these comparisons, a Pearson product-moment correlation was used. This test was utilized because it measures the degree to which two quantitative variables are linearly related in a sample (changes in one variable corresponds to changes in another variable) (Wrench, Maddox, Richmond, & McCroskey, 2008). Based on the results for H2a and H2b, it was shown that there is no significance between liking and relationship uncertainty or partner uncertainty in a FWBR. As mentioned earlier, research suggests that the relational uncertainty phases, like the uncertainty phases stated for romantic relationships, play a similar role in the initial stages of a FWBR. This means that when mutual liking and commitment are established, uncertainty should subside (Bisson & Levine, 2009). However, if one individual shows an increase or decrease in liking, the other’s uncertainty could heighten. This data led to the belief that partner and relational uncertainty would affect liking in a FWBR. When the results showed there was no correlation between the two variables, it was important to ask why. The first reason may stem from the fact that this is a non-committable relationship. In other words, two people can become sexually involved with “no strings attached.” This is able to happen because of the certainty involved about the relationship. The partners understand each other’s intentions and aren’t uncertain if they want more than what was discussed. Even if there is no discussion about the relationship, based on the previous definition created for this study it is implied that the FWBR is strictly sexual, and no emotions should be involved. This means that individuals are entering the relationship with the same levels of uncertainty and liking that they had in the friendship. The liking will not be affected due to the lack of uncertainty. Adding to this idea is Knobloch’s (2007) statement that at low levels of intimacy, partners should experience limited relational turbulence as they enact casual, scripted, and independent patterns of relating. This applies to a FWBR due to the fact that they are operating independently and therefore at low levels of intimacy. Although sexual intercourse occurs and this is considered an intimate act, there are typically no other actions taken in a FWBR to deepen the relationship.Another reason may stem from the fact that because no commitment is involved, the relationship is more enjoyable and stress-free. In a traditional, romantic relationship, stress can arise when an unplanned event takes place causing issues and problems to surface. These surfaced complications can then cause uncertainty among partners as they try to decipher what they now want and expect from the relationship and their partner. In an FWBR these issues wouldn’t necessarily occur (Knobloch, 2007). Because there is no commitment, no issues should arise after unplanned events, such as one person involved in the FWBR seeing someone else or the relationship coming to an end, making it less stressful than a committed relationship.Research Questions One, Two, and FourThe research questions were developed in order to further the understanding of the complex and unique FWBR. According to a study conducted by Hughes, et al. (2005), the limited amount of research that has been done on FWBRs suggests that they are not only common on college campuses today, but they are considered to be a very important relationship to those individuals who are involved in them. According to the results of RQ2, 81% of students (N=182) that participated in the study are in or have been in a FWBR. This proves that the limited studies on FWBR are correct in their assumptions that the relationship is prevalent among college students. The results of RQ1 could provide an answer for why it is so common. RQ1 asked if college students believed that men and women could have sexual relations and still remain friends. 88% of participants believed that men and women could remain friends. Therefore, a possible reason for so many college-aged men and women becoming increasingly involved in a FWBR is because they begin them under the impression that the sexual activity will not have any adverse effects on the friendship. College students may believe that this relationship will actually combine both the benefits of friendship with the benefits of a sexual relationship, but will avoid the responsibilities and commitment that are typically associated with romantic sexual relationships (Hughes, et al., 2005). The results for the fourth research question also serves as further evidence that sexual relations between friends does not adversely affect the relationship. While the typical outcome of a FWBR is that the individuals are no longer involved with each other (29 %,) another 26% of participants are remain just friends. This means that although the relationship will dissolve, which is expected due to the lack of commitment, friendships do typically go unaffected. If other college individuals see these results in their everyday life, it gives them more incentive to want to be in a FWBR of their own. This would explain why the relationship is becoming so popular amongst college-aged students.Another reason that college students could participate in a FWBR is that it is more stable than a casual ‘hookup.’ A hookup is a sexual encounter that usually lasts only one night between two people who are strangers or brief acquaintances. These strangers rarely continue on to deepen the relationship, let alone see each other again (Paul & Hayes, 2002). For many individuals, this is not a favorable situation. There is a higher chance of getting STDs from too many of these types of encounters due to the fact that the individuals who participate do not know each other and therefore will not disclose if they do have an STD or not. There could also be a huge amount of damage done to an individual’s reputation if others found out they engage in multiple ‘hookups.’ This is particularly true of females, who may be called derogatory names by others if it is discovered she has had multiple nonromantic, sexual partners. A FWBR would allow participants to engage in sexual activities with a nonromantic partner without a negative effect on reputation. This person would also be a friend, someone who they knew and trusted.Research Question ThreeOne of the most interesting results of this research was the discovery that women were more likely to participate in a FWBR than men. According to this study, 82% of women said that they have been or were currently involved in a FWBR, while 80% of men stated that they have or are in a FWBR. Although this is a small difference, it is still significant. This is because in previous studies, women traditionally have been known to link love with sex; so much so that that they won't engage in sex with someone they don't love or at least care about, while men have been known to separate the two (Glass & Wright, 1985). Men are also more willing than women to engage in sexual relations in the absence of emotional involvement and marital potential. They also are more likely to seek sexual relations with a variety of partners for the sake of variety (Townsend, 1995). All of this data would suggest that men would be more likely to engage in a FWBR. A reason that women may actually be more likely to engage in a FWBR is because females may comply and engage in sexual behavior with a casual sex partner if they believe or want the relationship to evolve into a new romance (Grello, Welsh, & Harper, 2000). College-aged women may be initially attracted to their male friends, and simply be too shy or scared to vocalize their feelings. If this male friend, however, engages in sexual activities with them, they may believe that this is the first step to becoming an exclusive couple. Based on the study’s findings, however, a majority of the time this is not the case.Research Questions Five A & B and Six A & BThe final set of research questions were created in order to discover what college student’s believed were the advantages, disadvantages, and reasons to or not to become involved in a FWBR. The biggest advantages of being involved in a FWBR, according to the study, was having sex (38%), no commitment (19%), and the fact that FWBR are less stressful and are with a person you trust (11.2%). These answers were similar to the ones given for why participants believed college students in particular participate in FWBRs (No commitment(30.6%), convenience and to have sex (16.7%), less stress/easier (15.3%)).The lack of commitment and stress appear to go hand-in-hand. College is a time where students are bombarded with semester-long projects, group assignments, midterms, finals. Outside of classroom obligations, they may also be involved with a sports team or club/organization. All of these activities are both time consuming and stressful, making it difficult to also have time to find and build a relationship, which can also be time consuming and stressful. Based on observations, it appears that a romantic relationship requires individuals to find adequate time to spend with each other while also spending money on dates and gifts for one another. This can be demanding for individuals who must somehow balance the relationship with school and other activities. College students also do not typically have a lot of money, and trying to find the funds to go on multiple dates can also be prove difficult. A FWBR allows individuals to enjoy physical intimacy without worrying about balancing the other person into their lives in this way.Life on a college campus is also typically characterized as a time where sexual activity with multiple partners is widely accepted. This is possibly because this is a transitional period into adulthood, and therefore experimentation is necessary for college students to become the adults they will be in the future. This is a possible reason why ‘have sex’ is the most popular advantage of a FWBR. Alcohol consumption is another reason why casual sex may be another positive factor in FWBRs. Alcohol consumption appears to have a direct link with casual sex; typically the more alcohol is consumed, the more the probability of a casual sex encounter increases (Leigh & Schafer, 1993). The gender of individuals who will engage in casual sex when alcohol is present typically makes little difference; both males and females will engage in casual sex behaviors when alcohol is involved (Cooper, 2002). Alcohol consumption lowers sexual inhibitions and increases perceptions of attraction to members of the opposite sex. This will increase the likelihood of casual sexual encounters (Jones, Jones, Thomas, & Piper, 2003). This is another reason why having sex and the idea of no commitment would be advantageous to being in a FWBR. With alcohol consumption, individuals are more likely to engage in casual sex with multiple partners. If they are in a FWBR, individuals will already have a partner to engage in sexual activities with when alcohol is consumed, making the activity convenient, pleasurable, and less stressful. There were similarities once again when participants gave the disadvantages of a FWBR and reasons why college students may not participate in this relationship. The categories of causing negative emotions (i.e. jealousy), and harming the friendship were found in both Research Question 5B and 6 B. A third and fourth disadvantage of a FWBR would be the development of feelings and the negative consequences of sex (i.e. pregnancy). The development of feelings and a FWBR causing negative emotions can be tied together. One party could develop feelings for the other and wish to deepen the relationship, while the other may not. In order to not damage the friendship or the FWBR, the individual that develops feelings may keep their liking or love of their partner to themselves. The partner who does not develop feelings could continue the FWBR as normal, meaning that they could also be engaging in sexual activities with another person. This will lead to negative emotions, such as jealousy. Jealousy has been defined as ‘‘a protective reaction to a perceived threat to a valued relationship, arising from a situation in which the partner’s involvement with an activity and/or another person is contrary to the jealous person’s definition of their relationship’’ (Hansen, 1991, p. 213). The individual who is jealous may believe that their partner is becoming romantically involved with an individual, or may choose to end their FWBR to be with another. They may also begin to have low self-esteem if their partner begins to change the frequency of their encounters because they are with others. Other jealousy-related emotional reactions include sadness, anger, frustration, guilt, fear, insecurity, and surprise (Bevan & Hale, 2006).These negative emotions will, inevitably, harm the friendship. When jealousy occurs, individuals will ruminate, or mull over, the interaction (Bevan & Hale, 2006). This means that whatever problems are occurring will play over and over in an individual’s mind, making it impossible for them to get over. This will lead to more negative emotions, and possibly could immensely lower the liking of the partner or FWBR. Also, if any negative consequences such as pregnancy or STDs arise as a result of the FWBR, the friendship, which could’ve been very important to both individuals, will change. The friendship could dissolve and both individuals may never speak or interact with each other again, or, in the case of a pregnancy, the two may have to make important decisions about keeping the child, and they could find that they are not compatible with one another, but now have no choice but to be in each other’s lives. These are the risks that college students must consider when deciding to get involved in a FWBR.An interesting finding was that the number one reason why college students may not become involved in a FWBR is due to the lack of commitment (26.4%). FWBR are categorized as having little to no commitment, this much has been proven, and although some may believe this is an advantage, others clearly believe that it is a deterrent. This will be especially true of women, who, as previously mentioned, will typically associate sex with love (Glass & Wright, 1985). The lack of commitment can once again lead to negative emotions, sexual consequences, and also can discourage individuals who may get into a FWBR in order to deepen the relationship between themselves and a cross-sex friend. The lack of commitment will cause more uncertainty for individuals, because they will be unsure of their partner’s intentions for the relationship. LimitationsAlthough the research was carefully created, there were several unavoidable limitations that have acted as possible obstacles to the results. Several of the limitations occurred in the set up and conduction of the survey itself. The primary difficulty in conducting the survey was solely administering it online and allowing participants to complete it at their leisure. Although this was done to ensure anonymity and because participation was not mandatory in any way, many issues arose. One issue with this method of administering a questionnaire, especially on a topic involving sexual relations, is that many participants will not (and did not) take it seriously. Many answers to sexual questions were inappropriate and unusable because they did not make sense. For example, when asked to give advantages of a FWBR, one participant answered ‘sex with a snowman,’ which does not have any relevance and had to be marked as a ‘missing’ answer. This provided a challenge when coding. Furthermore, the questions in the survey were not mandatory for completion which resulted in the omission of certain responses by some participants. Another issue with administering the survey online was that it was somewhat time-consuming due to the length of the scales used. In the online survey, no indication was provided about when participants would be close to completion. Therefore, many individuals ceased their involvement in the survey at various points throughout its course. Perhaps page numbers could have helped to retain some respondents. The challenge in this limitation arose in gathering and analyzing the data as some the amount of replies did not correspond to the overall sample size. For instance, before the scales included in the survey, participants were asked to identify if they were considering their current FWBR or most recent FWBR, or their current traditional, romantic relationship. Responses to this were not consistently provided, making it impossible to completely accurately determine the different levels of uncertainty, loving, and liking between FWBRs and traditional, romantic relationships. Also, after analyzing data the researchers discovered that many of the survey questions were not necessary to the research and could have been omitted. This would have shortened the questionnaire and more participants may have been willing to finish the entirety of the survey.Additionally, limitations resulted from the sample of individuals surveyed. First of all, the majority of the study’s participants identified as being biologically female. The imbalanced ratio could have skewed the results as the biological sexes of the participants were not evenly surveyed. This means that the results of research question 3 could be inaccurate. Secondly, though the survey intended to survey a wide variety of college students, the majority of the participants either attended Bryant University and Arizona State University. Though the two schools are vastly different in many ways, there was minimal variety in geography.Future ResearchThe results of the study indicate that women are slightly more likely to participate in a FWBR than males. A possible future study may consider focusing on the difference in perceived advantages and disadvantages between men and women. In conjunction with this, there may be a difference in the biological sexes about the desired outcome of the FWBR. Unrequited love in the FWBR also deserves to be given more attention, as developing feelings was found to be a disadvantage to being in a FWBR. Biological sex can also come into play here, due to the fact that there could be differences between men and women on who is more likely to develop feelings in this relationship.Another area that needs study is how alcohol use will affect how a FWBR is created, and maintained. Alcohol use is prominent on college campuses, and has been shown to have an effect on the frequency of casual sex (Cooper, 2002). FWBRs are primarily about casual sex, so it would be interesting to note if alcohol would affect the relationship in anyway.Lastly, this study, along with others done on the topic, was conducted solely on heterosexual FWBRs. Further studies can be done on homosexual FWBRs, and if they differ in any way to a heterosexual FWBR.References BIBLIOGRAPHY \l 1033 Afifi, W. A., & Burgoon, J. K. (2005). "We never talk about that": A comparison of cross-sex friendships and dating relationships on uncertainty and topic avoidance. Personal Relationships, 5(3), 255-272. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00171.xAfifi, W. A., & Faulkner, S. L. (2000). On being 'just friends': The frequency and impact of sexual activity in cross-sex friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(2), 205-222. doi:10.1177/02654075007203Aune, K. S., Aune, R. K., & Buller, D. B. (1994). The experience, expression, and perceived appropriateness of emotions across levels of relationship development. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134(2), 141-150. doi:10.1080/00224545.1994.9711377Baxter, L. A. (1990). Dialectical contradicitions in relationship development. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7(1), 69-88. doi:10.1177/0265407590071004Baxter, L. A., & Wilmot, W. W. (1985). Taboo Topics in Close Relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2(3), 253-269. doi:10.1177/0265407585023002Bell, R. A., & Buerkel-Rothfuss, N. L. (1990). S(he) loves me, s(he) loves me not: Predictors of relational information-seeking in courtship and beyond. Communication Quarterly, 38(1), 64-82. doi:10.1080/01463379009369742Berger, C. R., & Bradac, J. J. (1982). Language and social knowledge: Uncertainty ininterpersonal relationships. London: Edward Arnold.Bevan, J. L., & Hale, J. L. (2006). Negative jealousy-related emotion rumination as consequences of romantic partner, cross-sex friend, and sibling jealousy expression. Communication Studies, 57(4), 363-379. doi:10.1080/10510970600945907Bisson, M. A., & Levine, T. R. (2009). Negotiating a friends with benefits relationship. Archives of sexual behavior, 38(1), 66-73. doi:10.1007/s10508-007-9211-2Bleske, A. L., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Can men and women be just friends? Personal Relationships, 7(2), 131-151. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2000.tb00008.xBruess, C. J., & Pearson, J. C. (1993). 'Sweet pea' and 'pussy cat': An examination of idiom use and marital satisfaction over the life cycle. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10(4), 609-615. doi:10.1177/0265407593104009Canary, D. J., & Laura, S. (1992). Relational maintenance strategies and equity in marriage. Communication Monographs, 59(3), 243-267. doi:10.1080/03637759209376268Cooper, M. L. (2002). Alcohol use and risky sexual behavior among college students and youth: Evaluating the evidence. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 101-117. Retrieved from , R. W., Flannagan, D., & Matamoros, M. (2009). Behavior expectations in cross-sex friendships, same-sex friendships, and romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 16(4), 575-596. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2009.01240.xGlass, S. P., & Wright, T. L. (1985). Sex differences in type of extramartial involvement and marital dissatisfaction. Sex Roles, 12(9/10), 1101-1120. doi:10.1007/BF00288108 Grello, C. M., Welsh, D. P., & Harper, M. S. (2006). No strings attached: The nature of casual sex in college students. Journal of Sex Research, 43(3), 255-267. doi:10.1080/00224490609552324Guerrero, L. K. (1998). Attachment-style difference in the experience and expression of romantic jealousy. Personal Relationships, 5(3), 273-291. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00172.xGuerrero, L. K., & Chavez, A. M. (2005). Relational maintenance in cross-sex friendships characterized by different types of romantic intent: An exploratory study. Western Journal of Communication, 69(4), 339-358. doi:10.1080/10570310500305471Hansen, G. L. (1991). Jealousy: Its conceptualization, measurement, and integration with family stress theory. In P. Salovey (Ed.), The Pychology of Jealousy and Envy (pp. 211-230). New Yorl: Guilford Press.Honeycutt, J. M. (1993). Components and functions of communication during initial interaction, with extrapolations to beyond. Communication Yearbook, 16, 461-490.Hughes, M., Morrison, K., & Asada, K. J. (2005). What's love got to do with it? Exploring the impact of maintenance rules, love attitudes, and network support on friends with benefits relationships. Western Journal of Communication, 69(1), 49-66. doi:10.1080/10570310500034154Impett, E. A., & Peplau, L. A. (2003). Sexual compliance: Gender, motivational, and relationship perspectives. The Journal of Sexual Research, 40(1), 87-100. doi:10.1080/00224490309552169Jones, B. T., Jones, B. C., Thomas, A. P., & Piper, J. (2003). Alcohol consumption increases attractiveness ratings of opposite-sex faces: A possible thirs rout to risky sex. Addiction, 98(8), 1069-1075. doi:10.1046/j.1360-0443.2003.00426.xKaplan, D. L., & Keys, C. B. (1997). Sex and relationship variables as predictors of sexual attraction in cross-sex platonic friendships between young heterosexual adults. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14(2), 191-206. doi:10.1177/0265407597142003Knobloch, L. K. (2007). Perceptions of turmoil within courtship: Associations with intimacy,relational uncertainty, and interference from partners.?Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,?24(03), 363-384. doi: 10.1177/0265407507077227?Knobloch, L. K., & Solomon, D. H. (1999). Measuring the sources and content ofrelational uncertainty.?Communication Studies, 50(4),?261-278. doi: 10.1080/10510979909388499?Knobloch, L. K., & Solomon, D. H. (2002). Intimacy and the magnitude and experience ofepisodic relational uncertainty with romantic relationships.?Personal Relationships, 9(4),?457-478. doi: 10.1111/1475-6811.09406Knobloch, L.K,& Solomon, D.H. (2003). Responses to changes in relational?????uncertaintywithin dating relationships: Emotions and communication strategies.?Communication Studies,?54(3), 282-305. doi: 462244221Leigh, B., & Schafer, J. C. (1993), Heavy drinking occasions and the occurrence of sexualactivity.?Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 7(1), 197-20. Retrieved from Ebsco?Meeks, B. S., Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1998). Communication, love andrelationship satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,15(6), 755-773. doi: 10.1177/0265407598156003Messman, S. J., Canary, D. J., & Hause, K. S. (2000). Can men and women just befriends?.?Personal Relationships,?17(1), 67-94. doi: 10.1177/0265407500171004?Monsour, M. (1992). Meanings of intimacy in cross- and same-sex friendships.?Journal ofand Personal Relationships,?9(2), 277-295. doi: 10.1177/0265407592092007?O’Sullivan, L. F., & Gaines, M. E. (1998). Decision-making in college students’heterosexual dating relationships: ambivalence about engaging in sexual activity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(3),?347-363. doi: 10.1177/0265407598153003?Paul, E. L., McManus, B., & Hayes, A. (2000). “hookups”: Characteristics and correlates ofcollege students' spontaneous and anonymous sexual experiences.?Journal of Sex Research,?37(1), 76-88. doi: 10.1080/00224490009552023?Paul, E.L., &?Hayes, K. A. (2002). The casualties of 'casual' sex: a qualitative explorationof the phenomenology of college students' hookups.?Journal of Social and PersonalRelationships,?19(39), 639-661. doi: 10.1177/026540750219500Pearson, J.C., Child, J.T., & Carmon, A.F. (2010). Rituals in committed romanticrelationships: The creation and validation of an instrument.?Communication Studies, 61(4),?464-483. doi:10.1080/10510974.2010.492339?Townsend, J. M. (1995). Sex without emotional involvement: An evolutionaryinterpretation of sex differences.?Archives of Sexual Behavior,?24(2), 173-206. Retrieved from?, B. C., & Pearson, J. C. (1986). The effects of relationship type, partner intent, andgender on the selection of relationship maintenance strategies.?CommunicationMonographs, 53(4),?354-364. doi: 10.1080/03637758609376149?Siegert, J. R., & Stamp, G. H. (1994). ‘‘Our first big fight’’ as a milestone in thedevelopment of close relationships.?Communication Monographs, 61(4),?345–360.doi: 10.1080/03637759409376342Solomon, D. H. (1997). A developmental model of intimacy and date requestexplicitness.?Communication Monographs, 64(2),?99-118. doi: 10.1080/03637759709376409Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship type,gender and relational characteristics.?Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8(2),217-242. doi: 10.1177/0265407591082004?Sternberg, R.J. (1986). A triangular theory of love.?Psychological Review, 93(2),?119-135.doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.119Ward, C. B. (2003). Why do men distance> Factors predictive of male avoidance of intimateconflict. Family Therapy, 1-11. Retrived from EbscoWeaver, A. D., MacKeigan, K. L., & MacDonald, H. A. (2011). Experiences and perceptionsof young adults in friends with benefits relationships: a qualitative study.?The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 20(1), 41-53. Retrieved from Ebsco.?Wrench, J. S., Thomas-Maddox, C., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C.(2008).?Quantitative research methods for communication. (pp. 01-537). New York, NY: Oxford University Press Inc.Appendix ATable 1.1t-test on Relational Uncertainty in Friends-with-Benefits Relationships Compared to Romantic Relationships (H1a)Group StatisticsReluncertUNR1NMeanStd. DeviationStd. Error Mean1646.27471.104050.138012684.28171.161020.14079Leven’s Test for Equality of Variances?FSig.ReluncertEqual Variances Assumed1.5310.218?Equal Variances Not AssumedIndependent Samples TestIndependent Samples Testt-test for Equality of Means?tdfSig. (2-tailed)Mean DifferenceReluncertEqual Variances Assumed10.0931300.0001.99296?Equal Variances Not Assumed10.109129.9850.0001.99296Independent Samples Test???t-test for Equality of Means??Std. Error Difference95% Confidence Interval of the Difference??LowerUpperReluncertEqual Variances Assumed?0.19745?0.19715 1.602321.602922.383612.38301??Equal Variances Not AssumedTable 1.2t-test on Partner Uncertainty in Friends-with-Benefits Relationships Compared to Romantic Relationships (H1b)Group Statistics?UNR1NMeanStd. DeviationStd. Error MeanPatuncert1676.55790.694330.08483?2714.26851.002970.11903Independent Samples TestLevene’s Test for Equality of Variances?FSig.PatuncertEqual Variances Assumed7.239?0.008??Equal Variances Not AssumedIndependent Samples Testt-test for equality of Means?tdfSig. (2-tailed)Mean DifferencePatuncertEqual Variances Assumed15.5031360.0002.28942?Equal Variances Not Assumed15.663124.9680.0002.28942Independent Samples Test???t-test for Equality of Means??Std. Error Difference95% Confidence Interval of the Difference??LowerUpperPatuncertEqual Variances Assumed.14767.146161.997382.000142.581452.57869??Equal Variances Not AssumedTable 2.1Correlations between Relational Uncertainty and Liking in FWBRs (H2a)Correlations??LikeRelational UncertaintyLikePearson Correlation1.000?630.2310.06963?Sig. (2-tailed)?NRelational UncertaintyPearson Correlation0.2310.069631.000?68?Sig. (2-tailed)?N**Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed)Table 2.2Correlations between Partner Uncertainty and Liking in FWBRs (H2b)Correlations??LikePartner UncertaintyLikePearson Correlation1.000?630.2330.06663?Sig. (2-tailed)?NPartner UncertaintyPearson Correlation0.2330.066631.000?71?Sig. (2-tailed)?N**Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed)Appendix BTable 1.1Percentages of College Students that Believe Men and Women can be Friends and Have Sex (RQ1)Table 1.2Percentages of College Students That Are or Have Been Involved in a FWBR (RQ2)StatisticsQ6NValid182?Missing1Q6??FrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValid114880.981.381.3?23418.618.7100?Total18299.5100?MissingSystem10.5??Total?183100??Table 1.3Percentages of Women Who Have Been or Are Currently in a FWBR (RQ3)Q6NValid106?Missing0Q6??FrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValid18782.182.182.1?21917.917.9100?Total106100100?Table 1.4Percentages of Men Who Have Been or Are Currently in a FWBR (RQ3)StatisticsQ6NValid43?Missing1Q6??FrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValid13579.581.481.4?2818.218.6100?Total4397.7100?MissingSystem12.3??Total?44100??Table 1.5Typical Outcomes of FWBRs (RQ4)StatisticsAppendix CTable 1 Descriptive results from FWB participants studyQuestion PercentSexMale80Female82Advantage of FWBRNo commitment19Having sex38Less Stress11.2Disadvantages of FWBRCause Negative Emotions34.7Harm Friendship18.1Develop feelings & Negative Consequences of sex15.3Who do college students participate?No commitment30.6Convenience and to have sex16.7Less stress / easier15.3Why do college students choose not to participate in FWBR?Lack of commitment26.4Cause of negative emotions22.2Harming the Friendship12.5Appendix DTable 1.1Frequencies of Data as a Whole, Gender Frequencies, and Age-Range (D1 and D2) Table 1.2Demographics for Ethnicity and Current Relationship Status (D3 and D4)Table 1.3Frequencies for University Currently Attending (D5)Table 1.4Frequencies for Current Major of Participants (D6)Table 1.5Frequencies of Class Standing and Whether Participant Lives on or Off Campus (D7 and D8) ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download