Content uploaded by Inga Gusarova
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Inga Gusarova on Jan 05, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
41
The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, Vol. 21 (1) 2012
Introduction
Casual relationships are gaining increased acceptance
by young people today (Manning, Giordano, &
Longmore, 2006). One type of such relationships is
“friends with benefi ts,” defi ned as a “new relational
style that blends aspects of friendship and physical
intimacy” (Owen & Fincham, 2011a, p. 311).
Consequently, most academic investigation into the
phenomenon of friends with benefi ts relationships
(FWBRs) occurred only within the last decade
(Weaver, MacKeigan, & MacDonald, 2011).
In the literature, FWBRs have been uniformly
characterized by (a) sexual intimacy, (b) ongoing
friendship, and (c) desire or agreement between the
participants to avoid offi cial romantic commitment
(Bisson & Levine, 2009; Hughes et al., 2005;
Lehmiller, VanderDrift, & Kelly, 2011; Owen
& Fincham, 2011a). This defi nition, however, is
vague. While the fi rst characteristic seems obvious,
it remains unclear whether “ongoing friendship”
is a requirement for a FWBR. Furthermore, does
every couple engaging in a FWBR “desire or agree”
to begin this form of relationship? How does this
account for those who simply “plunge into” this
form of connection? We prefer to defi ne a FWBR
as a relationship between two people who begin as
friends or acquaintances and subsequently introduce
some degree of sexual intimacy for an undetermined
period of time, which participants themselves regard
as a non-dating relationship. Existing literature
demonstrates that approximately 50 to 60% of
young people have been involved in at least one
FWBR in their lifetime (Bisson & Levine, 2009;
Hughes, Morrison, & Asada, 2005; Puentes, Knox,
& Zusman, 2008); including adolescents as young
as 14 (Chernin, Rich, & Shing, 2010).
Virtually all research on the subject of FWBRs comes
from the U.S. However, many social differences exist
between Canadians and Americans, which could
translate into “cross-cultural differences in sexual
attitudes and behaviours” (Fischtein, Herold, &
Desmarais, 2007, p. 452). For example, Canadians
report lower religiosity compared to Americans
(measured through service attendance), and 40% of
Canadians under the age of 25 do not identify with a
particular religion (Fischtein et al., 2007). Meanwhile,
religion or morality was listed as a common reason to
avoid FWBRs in the U.S. (Bisson & Levine, 2009).
Also, church attendance was inversely correlated with
the likelihood of establishing a FWBR in the U.S.
(McGinty, Knox, & Zusman, 2007).
A quantitative study of “friends with benefi ts” relationships
Inga Gusarova1, Vanessa Fraser1, and Kevin G. Alderson1
1 Division of Applied Psychology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta
Abstract: Canadian undergraduates (146 men and 135 women; ages 18-40, M = 20.9, SD = 3.4)
described their experiences with “friends with benefi ts” relationships (FWBRs). Responses were coded
and analysed using chi-square contingency tables and multinomial regression analysis. Study results
link some of the previously identifi ed advantages and disadvantages of FWBRs to relational outcomes
(whether the experience was positive, negative, or neutral; and willingness to enter a FWBR again). Most
participants reported positive (38%) or neutral (37%) FWBR experiences, yet 40% indicated they would
not enter a FWBR again. D eveloping emotional complications throughout the relationship occurred in 22%
of participants, men and women equally, and strongly predicted negative outcomes (odds ratio 9.5, p <
0.001 for negative experience; odds ratio 2.8, p = 0.007 for not wanting a FWBR again). Women were also
signifi cantly more likely than men to enter the relationship, hoping it would evolve into dating (p < 0.001),
and to express desire to avoid a FWBR in the future (odds ratio 3.3, p < 0.001). Results indicated that other
gender differences in FWBRs are nuanced, and both confi rm and depart from the traditional gender norms.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kevin Alderson, Ph.D., Division of Applied Psychology,
University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive N.W., Calgary Alberta T2N 1N4. E-mail:alderson@ucalgary.ca
The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, Vol. 21 (1) 201242
For these reasons, FWBRs may be more common
or accepted in Canada. As such, there is value in
studying FWBRs within the Canadian cultural
landscape. To date, only two Canadian studies
examining FWBRs have been published (Weaver
et al., 2011; Wentland & Reissing, 2011). Both of
these studies utilized qualitative samples of 26 and 23
participants, respectively, suggesting that additional
research in this area is warranted.
Advantages and impacts of FWBRs
The most commonly cited reasons and advantages of
FWBRs are hardly surprising: sex, particularly with
a trusted, comfortable, and safe other, while avoiding
romantic commitment (Bisson & Levine, 2009;
Weaver et al., 2011). Additional factors, described
by the same authors, include positive emotions
and the pleasure of the experience, closeness and
companionship, non-exclusivity and a sense of
freedom, and opportunity or convenience.
The mention of pleasure is consistent with other
fi ndings. Participants in FWBRs were highly likely
to report hedonism (i.e., focus on pleasure rather than
relationship) as a value (Puentes et al., 2008; Richey,
Knox, & Zusman, 2009). There is also an interesting
notion that the appeal of FWBRs may be time-limited
as a good fi t for the current stage of life. Being at
college or university is seen as an exploratory period
of personal development, with an expectation of
cultivating more serious relationships upon growing
older (Kalish, 2009; Weaver et al., 2011).
Weaver et al. (2011) provided insight into the two-fold
justifi cations for avoiding commitment. On one hand,
there is the wish to escape the drawbacks associated
with it, such as drama, complications, worry, hurt, and
“messiness” (Weaver et al., p. 46). On the other hand,
there is the desire to pursue freedom, non-exclusivity,
experimentation, and independence. Probing further,
Weaver et al. assessed how many participants were
non-exclusive in FBWRs, both through their own
study and in citing work by Patterson and Price
(2009). Patterson and Price conducted an Internet-
based survey of 297 individuals, while Weaver et
al. performed semi-structured interviews with 26
young adults. Interestingly, both studies arrived at
the exact same number: 44% of participants in each
case reported sexual relations with more than one
partner concurrently. These fi ndings demonstrate
that the majority of FWBR participants (i.e., 56%)
pursued non-committed yet exclusive liaisons. It
appears that steering clear of the effort required in
building traditional relationships may be slightly
more common than having multiple sexual partners.
Some researchers have questioned whether the
reasons for and experiences of people entering
FWBRs refl ect a conscious decision. In other words,
“How much thought is given to the decision to start
a FWBR? Epstein, Calzo, Smiler, and Ward (2009)
conceptualized FWBRs as closely related to hook-
ups, which are primarily spontaneous in nature. Once
triggered by immediate stimuli such as sexual drive,
alcohol, or stress, hook-ups follow an established
script. These authors consider the addition of
friendship and the possibility of ongoing encounters
as the only differences between FWBRs and hook-
ups. Owen and Fincham (2011a) reported that alcohol
increased the odds of engaging in a FWBR but also
that thoughtful adults were more likely to avoid
FWBRs even when alcohol was present. These two
studies suggest that the decision to enter a FWBR is
impulsive and governed by immediate cues with little
regard for future consequences.
In contrast, Bisson and Levine (2009) and Weaver et
al. (2011) found that many participants in FWBRs
were seeking trust and comfort, as well as consciously
avoiding emotional complications and potential
hurt associated with romantic commitment. Trust
and safety also advantageously distinguish FWBRs
from hook-ups, in that hook-ups are more likely
to involve a risk of pressure into unwanted sexual
activities (Paul & Hayes, 2002). These observations
suggest that the choice of FWBRs over either random
encounters or traditional dating relationships is
an examined decision. Clearly, both scenarios for
entering a FWBR, spontaneous and examined,
seem to take place. At present, it is not known how
prominent each of these scenarios is or how gender or
situational context affect the decision-making process.
Despite concerns expressed in both academic
literature and popular culture about psychological
damage, Eisenberg, Ackard, Resnick, and Neumark-
Sztainer (2009) found that casual sex presents no
increased risk of harm. Psychological well-being
43
The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, Vol. 21 (1) 2012
scores on body satisfaction, self-esteem, depressive
symptoms, and suicidal ideation “were notably
similar across sex partner categories, spanning less
than one point in many cases” (Eisenberg et al., p.
234). Bay-Cheng, Robinson, and Zucker (2009)
commented on the limitations of existing research,
noting that there is a difference between showing no
increased risk and obtaining benefi t. These authors
claim that the academic literature is as affected by the
negative bias toward sexuality as is popular culture,
since most studies are designed to investigate the
harm rather than the good outcomes arising from
adolescent sexual practices.
Sex and gender differences
Fischtein et al. (2007) reported that a majority of
men (55%) compared to a vast minority of women
(8%) would entertain the thought of sex with
someone they just met. In terms of actual behaviours
among adolescents, Manning et al. (2006) found
that signifi cantly more boys (68%) than girls (52%)
reported a non-dating sexual experience. With
respect to FWBRs in particular, gender differences
in prevalence rates have also been reported;
54% for men and 43% for women reported such
relationships (Owen & Fincham, 2011a). In contrast,
Bisson and Levine (2009) found no statistically
signifi cant gender differences in prevalence of FWBR
experience although their sample of 125 participants
was much smaller than the 889 participants in the
study by Owen and Fincham.
With respect to reasons for engaging in FWBRs,
the fi ndings indicate that men primarily want and
value sex whereas women more often emphasize
emotional connection (Lehmiller et al., 2011;
McGinty et al., 2007). Research indicates that there
is a disproportionate distribution of costs and benefi ts
for men versus women when it comes to casual sex
(Eshbaugh & Gute, 2008; Grello, Welsh, & Harper,
2006; Owen & Fincham, 2011b; Paul & Hayes,
2002). Men seem to reap the benefi ts of casual sex
which is associated with the lowest symptoms of
depression or distress. Women appear to bear the
cost in that casual sex is linked to higher prevalence
of depression and greater likelihood of emotional
ambivalence and regret afterwards. That being
said, Dworkin and O’Sullivan (2005) reported on
the expressed dissatisfaction of some men with the
cultural roles assigned to them and on their expressed
desire for more egalitarian sexual dynamics within
relationships. Other studies indicating that women
do not hold a monopoly on desiring emotional
connections to their sexual partners found signifi cant
numbers of men who expressed similar preferences
(Epstein et al., 2009) or displayed strong commitment
to the friendship and closeness aspects of FWBRs
(Lehmiller et al., 2011). Indeed, in the Epstein et
al. (2009) investigation, most men rejected non-
relational scripts and preferred ones that increased
emotional closeness.
The traditional “double standard” has been described
“as a prescriptive social standard, in which women
were permitted to engage in sexual relations only
within a committed love relationship, whereas men
were permitted to have as many sexual partners
as they wanted without condition” (Milhausen &
Herold, 1999, p. 361). By the time of their 1999
study of Canadian female undergraduate students,
Milhausen and Herold found that 99% of their
respondents stated that women could enjoy sex as
much as men do, 69% disagreed with women being
less interested in sex than men, and 76% stated that
sex was either very or somewhat important to them.
Despite such attitudes toward sex, the authors also
found that most women enforced the idea of a sexual
double standard and held negative attitudes toward
female promiscuity. However, a noticeable minority
(29%) described women with multiple partners
positively, using words such as “independent,”
“unashamed,” and “in touch with her own desires”
(Milhausen & Herold, p. 365).
Consistent with these observations, Lehmiller et
al. (2011) found that most women reported sexual
desire as a motive for initiating an FWBR, although
not a primary one. The authors speculated that the
sexual double standard and the need to legitimize sex
by emotional involvement might be the issues here
rather than women not actually wanting or enjoying
sex. Looking at heterosexual Canadian women and
casual sex in general, Weaver and Herold (2000)
found that sexual pleasure was the most common
reason for engaging in casual sex. They also reported
that direct experience was correlated with both
increased acceptance and expectation of enjoyment
from casual sex, which suggests that it was not
The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, Vol. 21 (1) 201244
necessarily personal experience but rather a socially
upheld double standard that held women back from
casual sex. This observation probably also pertains
to FWBRs, a specifi c example of casual sex. The
continuing importance of social acceptability is also
refl ected in the study by Weaver et al (2011) who
found that 77% of participants believed that women
were judged more harshly than men for taking part
in FWBRs despite the fact that the female prevalence
rate for FWBRs was 43% compared to 50% for men
(Owen & Fincham, 2011a; Puentes et al, 2008).
Bay-Cheng et al. (2009) found that FWBRs were
associated with the highest self-ratings of desire,
wanting, and pleasure compared to all other serious
and casual relationship experiences reported by
women. While the differences were large and
statistically signifi cant between FWBRs and hook-ups,
they were less so between FWBRs and committed
romantic relationships. The signifi cant differences
between FWBRs and hook-ups could be explained by
the companionate and repeated nature of the former.
Grello et al. (2006) partially supported this notion,
indicating that FWBRs, far more than hook ups,
were associated with affectionate sexual behaviours
potentially related to increased emotional intimacy
(e.g., kissing, holding hands, and hugging). Female
regret about casual sex has also been strongly
predicted by having sexual intercourse with a partner
only once and by knowing the sexual partner for less
than 24 hours (Eshbaugh & Gute, 2008). Thus, it is
the hook-up characteristics that carry the heaviest
emotional consequences for women compared to
those of FWBRs.
The dynamics of FWBRs
Does what happens during the course of FWBRs,
explain why some participants are satisfi ed with the
outcome and others are not? Common sense suggests
that one factor is the extent to which participants’
expectations are fulfi lled. By FWBR defi nition,
these expectations include a straightforward
and simple relationship without commitment or
complications. Therefore, it is not surprising that
developing unreciprocated feelings and getting hurt,
or hurting another as a result, is the most frequently
reported drawback of FWBRs. This is followed by
the loss of friendship, and other negative feelings
refl ecting emotional complications: awkwardness,
jealousy, and hurt (Bisson & Levine, 2009; Weaver
et al., 2011).
Gender may explain different levels of satisfaction
with FWBRs. Women are more likely to hope
for and discuss a change in a FWBR, while men
are more likely to wish for it to remain the same
(Grello et al., 2006; Lehmiller et al., 2011; Owen
& Fincham, 2011a). Since unreciprocated feelings
have been named as the highest source of risk and
unhappiness in FWBRs, this could contribute to the
difference in relationship satisfaction rates. If women
are more likely to enter the relationship hoping
for commitment or to develop a desire for it in the
process, they could be more likely to be unhappy
with the FWBR arrangement.
Bisson and Levine (2009) found that despite the
propensity of FWBRs to change (almost half of their
sample indicated raising questions and uncertainty
about status, future, and feelings), participants did
not engage in explicit conversations about their
relationship. A significant majority (i.e., 77%)
indicated there was no discussion of ground rules, and
conversations about relationship maintenance and
development usually weren’t initiated either. Weaver
et al. (2011) confi rmed that such communication
tends to be either indirect or superficial. To the
extent that FWBRs have ground rules (Hughes et
al., 2005; Weaver et al., 2011), these rules appear
to be understood implicitly and this understanding
may therefore vary from person to person. All of
this suggests the potential for a vicious cycle for
participants in that the desire to keep things simple
prevents relationship negotiations from taking place
and, ironically, the lack of negotiation creates the very
diffi culties that the participants were trying to avoid.
In such circumstances, some individuals may attempt
to avoid the topic. However, topic avoidance has
generally been found to be positively related to
relationship uncertainty and to the perception that
disclosure carries risks. That being said, “individuals
may sometimes prefer the unknown to the discovery
of undesirable information”(Afi fi & Burgoon, 1998,
p. 266). Afi fi and Burgoon found that people in
cross-sex friendships were more likely to avoid
conversations about the state of their relationship
and about relational norms than were people in
45
The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, Vol. 21 (1) 2012
dating relationships. While topic avoidance may
be motivated by self-protection and relationship
protection, research suggests that high levels of
avoiding discussion about relationship concerns tend
to be associated with lower levels of relationship
satisfaction across both romantic and non-romantic
relationships (Dailey & Palomares, 2004).
Among the two other core components of FWBRs, sex
and friendship, the evidence is mixed on which one
plays the leading role in FWBRs. Most authors have
viewed FWBRs as primarily a sexual relationship
with a focus on benefi ts (Hughes et al., 2005; Richey
et al., 2009). McGinty et al. (2007) suggest that
women’s socialization to assess relationships in terms
of emotional value refl ects a gender difference in the
importance attached to the friendship component
of FWBRs. With respect to women’s experience,
McGinty et al. note that “women regard a [FWBR]
as emotional with the emphasis on friends while men
tend to view the relationship as more casual with an
emphasis on benefi ts (sexual)” (p. 1130). Despite
the apparent emphasis on non-commitment and sex
in FWBRs, Lehmiller et al. (2011) unexpectedly
found that both men and women in their sample of
over 400 people displayed signifi cantly stronger
commitment to friendship than to the sexual part
of the relationship. They suggested that in FWBRs,
“regardless of partner’s sex, friendship comes before
benefi ts” (Lehmiller et al., p. 281).
This observation suggests that interdependence,
bonding, and avenues of social and emotional support
could be crucial to all interpersonal relationships, for
both men and women (Sprecher & Regan, 2002).
Perhaps, existing literature has focused too much on the
sexual aspects of FWBRs and somewhat overlooked the
potential support structures within these relationships.
At the same time, communication diffi culties and lack
of relationship discussions, as underlined by Bisson
and Levine (2009), could compromise the effectiveness
of these support structures.
Research objectives and hypotheses
The present study examined the experiences of
Canadian female and male undergraduate university
students who had either been in or were currently
involved in a FWBR. The data originally collected by
the second author were drawn from a qualitatively-
coded questionnaire completed by 155 men and 150
women. The current quantitative study explored
whether any of the reasons for or expectations of
FWBRs reported by participants in the original
qualitative study predicted relationship outcomes.
Three primary hypotheses that emerged from the
literature review were probed in order to understand
the dynamics of FWBRs. Secondary hypotheses
related to the effects of traditional gender roles on
FWBRs were similarly tested.
Hypothesis 1: Wishfulness
We hypothesized that participants who entered a
FWBR explicitly wanting it to progress into dating
would be less likely to report a positive experience
and less likely to engage in a FWBR again compared
to participants who entered a FWBR for any other
primary reason (such as sex, fun, or avoiding
commitment). This hypothesis checks the possible
mismatch between the relationship hopes that
participants sometimes harbour and the “no-strings”
nature of FWBRs.
Hypothesis 2: Developing unreciprocated
feelings
We hypothesized that participants who indicated
that they expected no emotional commitment, but
who found that unreciprocated feelings developed
during the course of the relationship, on either side,
would be more likely to report a negative experience
and avoid engaging in a FWBR again, compared to
the participants whose “no-strings” expectations
were met. This hypothesis tests the most commonly
mentioned disadvantage of FWBRs and seeks
to determine whether this disadvantage alone is
suffi cient to predict FWBR outcomes.
Hypothesis 3: Comfort
We hypothesized that those participants who listed
comfort as a salient reason for being in a FWBR would
be no more likely to report negative outcomes than
the average participant. This hypothesis considers
how well FWBRs address the need for comfort, and
predicts that the friendship, companionship, and
intimacy components should enable an adequate level
of support for such relationships.
Secondary Hypotheses
Since gender norms were only partially challenged
in this study, we expected that the results would
The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, Vol. 21 (1) 201246
be mixed but that traditional norms would still
hold for the majority of participants. We therefore
hypothesized that: (a) women would be more likely
than men to want a relationship change or would
indicate a desire for commitment as a reason to enter
a FWBR; and (b) women would be more likely than
men to view their experience as negative and avoid
FWBRs in the future.
Methods
This study took the extensive data on FWBRs collected
by the second author in a qualitative study (Fraser,
2010) and translated the fi ndings into a quantitative
research study. The design of the present investigation
thus has some unique aspects related to having to work
with an existing data set and its limitations.
Sampling procedure and participant
recruitment
A detailed description of sampling procedure and
questionnaire development can be found in Fraser
(2010). A briefer, but necessarily substantive,
summary is presented here to illustrate the validity
of the sampling methods involved.
Participants were recruited using the university
research participation system and compensated with a
bonus course credit. Participants were presented with
an informed consent form and an online anonymous
questionnaire. The consent form described the study
as an investigation of men and women’s perceptions,
expectations, and experiences with FWBRs, with
the intent of better understanding this type of
relationship. Anonymity was seen as a way to obtain
more honest answers on sensitive topics. To protect
anonymity, after reading the informed consent form,
the participants had to press “I agree” to participate
instead of signing. The participants were explicitly
told they could decline to answer any question or exit
the study at any time without consequence.
In an attempt to reduce the likelihood that individuals
who did not qualify for the study would proceed, those
with no experience of FWBRs were asked to refrain
from continuing. However, they were assured that they
would still receive the bonus credit. The participants
who chose to stay completed the questionnaire and
were electronically debriefed upon completion.
Participants
The data set received from Fraser (2010) included
305 participants, all of whom were undergraduate
psychology students at the University of Calgary. All
the participants reportedly had direct experience of at
least one FWBR. Seven entries were eliminated due
to duplication, two for being underage (i.e., 17-years-
old), and 15 more were dropped due to failing to
provide meaningful answers about both reasons
and expectations for engagement in the FWBR. The
remaining sample used in the analysis included 281
participants (135 women, 146 men), ranging in age
from 18 to 40 (M = 20.9, SD = 3.4).
Preliminary review of qualitative data
For the purposes of the present quantitative study,
the previously collected qualitative data (Fraser,
2010) had to be coded and translated into categories
suitable for quantitative analysis. Participants in the
qualitative study answered a total of 12 questions
but not all of the response sets could be used, e.g.,
some were dropped because no feasible research
questions emerged from either the literature review
or the review of the data itself. Given the nominal
nature of most of the data, chi-square contingency
tables test of independence was chosen as the main
method of analysis.
In order to determine how to best use secondary data
analysis to establish suitable post-hoc hypotheses, the
fi rst author read through the entire data set and then
consulted with the third author to create a preliminary
list of potential research questions. These questions
informed our decisions about which response sets
needed to be coded and which should be excluded.
A literature review was used to confi rm and refi ne
the fi nal hypotheses.
Retention and exclusion decisions
In order to assess responses to the question of
whether participants would ever engage in another
FWBR, the FWBR-related response information
based on gender, reasons, expectations, pros and
cons, and relationship outcomes was retained for the
analysis. We excluded response information on age,
ancestry, sexual orientation, whether the person was
in a FWBR at the time of the survey or in the past,
how long the current or past relationship lasted, and
whether the FWBR turned into a dating relationship.
47
The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, Vol. 21 (1) 2012
Two exclusions, age and sexual orientation, refl ect
the
process. With respect to age, the sample age range was
18-40 years but 83.6% of the participants (235 people)
were between 18- and 22-years-old, and only 10% of
the sample (28 people) were 25 or older. Consequently,
there was not enough statistical power to obtain valid
answers about age differences in FWBRs. Given
that 94.7% of participants (266 people) identifi ed
as heterosexual, the same problem of insuffi cient
statistical power applied to sexual orientation.
Coding procedure
Categorization of FWBR questions based on gender,
relationship outcomes, and the likelihood that a
participant would ever again engage in another
FWBR was relatively straightforward. In relation
to gender, all participants identifi ed as either male
or female. The relationship outcomes question was
partially closed-ended (“Would you consider your
participation in a friends with benefi ts relationship
overall a positive, negative, or neutral experience and
why?”) but the three response options left virtually
no ambiguity. Categorizing whether participants
would enter a FWBR again was also simple with
“yes”, “no” and “uncertain/depends” for everything
in between. It was far more complex to develop
categories for reasons for and expectations of FWBRs
because the information was solicited through
open-ended
questions. The expectations question
was effectively a two-part question and was broken
down as such. i.e., expectations “What were your
expectations going into a FWBR?” and expectation
fulfi llment (“Was it what you expected?”). Pros and
cons were not treated as independent predictors but
were used to better understand expectation fulfi llment.
Hence, no categories had been developed for them.
Preliminary categories for reasons, expectations,
and expectation fulfillment were developed and
illustrative examples were found and discussed. The
resulting lists of operationalized categories informed
the actual coding procedure.
The fi nal categories for reasons to engage in FWBRs
were attraction, avoiding emotional commitment,
seeking comfort, convenience, fun and experience,
closeness with a friend, wishfulness (hoping that the
FWBR develops into a more committed relationship),
spontaneity (“just happened,” as several participants
described it), wanting sexual release, seeking
uncommitted sex, and other. The categories for
expectations from FWBRs were similar and involved
avoiding emotional commitment, fun and experience,
friendship, wishfulness, no specifi ed expectations,
sexual release, uncommitted sex, and other. Response
categories for whether expectations were met
included (1) yes, (2) no, due to developing emotional
complications, (3) no, for any other reasons, (4)
mixed results, and (5) more work than expected.
Coding for reasons, expectations and expectation
fulfi llment
The first author and a second rater used the
foregoing categories to independently code reasons,
expectations, and expectation fulfi llment. While
participants sometimes listed several reasons or
expectations, a decision was made to identify the
most salient reason or expectation so that there was
only one reason and one expectation category per
participant for the analysis. Intercoder reliability
was determined by both the raw percentage of
agreement and Cohen’s kappa, with 86% and .84 for
reasons, 82% and .80 for expectations, and 65% and
.56 for expectation fulfi llment, respectively. Lower
inter-coder agreement on expectation fulfi llment
was attributed to scarcity of information (explained
fully below) in the discussion of missing values. All
disagreements were reconciled through discussion,
and only post-reconciliation categories were used in
the analysis.
Resolving categorizations
To illustrate the process of resolution, here is an
example of an expectation for a FWBR that caused
discussion: “She understood me better than anyone
else at the time and we were both comfortable around
each other.” One of the raters interpreted this as
close friendship, while the other focused on comfort
as the key word. It was decided that the participant
did not appear to be actively seeking comfort, and
was instead mostly describing a companionate
relationship with a friend. This reason was coded as
“closeness with a friend”.
Another example addresses the issue of salience: “No
expectations really, I hoped we could stay friends. It
was a spontaneous thing.” One rater paid attention to
the lack of expectations, while the other focused on
the stated desire to stay friends. It was decided that
the hope to remain friends represented an expectation,
The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, Vol. 21 (1) 201248
indicating that “no expectations really” was not fully
accurate. As a result, “I hoped we could stay friends”
was seen as more salient than “no expectations,”
because the participant was effectively saying, no
expectations aside from hoping to stay friends. The
fi nal code for this expectation was “friendship”. An
assumption was made that avoiding commitment is
a basic characteristic of FWBRs, so if a participant
decided to mention something else, it was treated as
salient. For example, “Simply attracted to the person,
wasn’t looking for a serious relationship” was coded
as “attraction” rather than “avoiding commitment”.
A decision was made to keep the two sex-related
categories for both reasons and expectations separate,
as sexual release emphasized sexual needs and desires
per se, while uncommitted sex focused on achieving
them non-exclusively or without commitment. There
were enough people in each category to enable
valid follow-up analysis to establish whether this
distinction matters.
Responses coded as “other” were treated as missing
values in the analysis. There were four of these in the
outcomes (people failed to provide an answer), three
in the expectations, and 41 in expectation fulfi llment.
For the latter two, “other” referred to situations where
expectations did not fi t any remaining category and
also to cases where participant expectations could
not be identifi ed from the information provided.
Participants frequently failed to answer the “was it
what you expected?” part of the question. For 118
people (42%), answers to pros and cons in conjunction
with reasons and expectations had to be reviewed to
estimate whether their expectations were met, and in
the end, 41 (14.6%) were still left unknown.
Here is an example of using additional information
to establish expectation fulfi llment. The reason for
entering a FWBR was, “I was afraid of committing
to a relationship.” The expectation response stated
only, “I was not thinking in the long term. Just have
fun.” The pros and cons were listed as, “It is a nice
experience in the short term. Jealousy ultimately
came into play, as it eventually developed into
feelings. One-sided feelings.” This was coded as
the “developing emotional complications” category.
Multinomial logistic regression procedure
A second analysis of relational outcome predictors
was performed using the multinomial logistic
regression (MLR). MLR is a regression model used
when both dependent and independent variables
are categorical, and the dependent variable has
three or more levels (Orme & Buehler, 2001). The
rationale behind adding the MLR analysis was its
greater statistical power compared to the chi-square
contingency tables, and as such, lower risk of Type
I error and improved ability to detect effects on the
same sample size. MLR analysis also includes odds
ratios, providing a convenient measure of effect size
and a practical interpretation for the effects. Odds
ratios are not available in SPSS chi-square crosstabs
that are greater than 2 x 2.
Several MLR analyses were run with relationship
experience assessment and willingness to enter a
FWBR again as dependent variables, with reasons,
expectations, expectation fulfi llment, and gender as
independent variables. SPSS output of the results of
each analysis included the overall model signifi cance,
and signifi cance of each parameter’s effect on the
change in dependent variable relative to a referent
category. Additionally, a post hoc analysis was
performed (willingness to enter a FWBR again by
relationship experience assessment) to help interpret
the main results.
Results
Reasons for and expectations and
outcomes of FWBRs
The most common reason to enter a FWBR was
avoiding emotional attachment; however, as an
expectation, it was only the second most common.
The most common expectation from a FWBR was the
ability to maintain a friendship. Valid percentages in
descending order for specifi c categories of the most
salient reasons and expectations are summarized in
Table 1.
In cases where expectation fulfi llment was identifi ed,
meeting expectations was the most common
result (45%), followed by developing emotional
complications (21.7%), mixed results (13.8%), no
for any other reason (12.5%), and running into more
work than expected (7.1%). Relationship experience
49
The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, Vol. 21 (1) 2012
assessments were mostly positive and neutral (37.9%
and 36.8% respectively), with only a quarter of
participants reporting a negative experience (25.4%).
Nonetheless, 40.1% of participants indicated that
they would not enter a FWBR again, 35.4% said they
would, and 24.5% were uncertain or felt it depended
on circumstances.
To test the three primary hypotheses and examine
which factors infl uenced relationship outcomes, several
chi-square contingency tables were analyzed using
IBM SPSS. The tables included: experience assessment
by reasons, expectations, and expectation fulfi llment;
willingness to enter a FWBR again by reasons,
expectations, and expectations fulfi llment; and all the
above-mentioned categories by gender. Examination
of the effect of reasons on experience assessments or
willingness to enter a FWBR again failed to produce
statistically signifi cant results. It appears that the
reasons to enter a FWBR and relationship outcomes
were independent in this sample.
Expectations analysis fared better and showed that
both experience assessments and willingness to
enter a FWBR again were linked with relational
expectations,2(12) = 24.12, p = 0.020, and 2(12) =
26.13, p = 0.010, respectively. Expectation fulfi llment
demonstrated even greater signifi cance with 2(8)
= 66.78, p < 0.001, and 2(8) = 36.78, p < 0.001,
respectively. This indicates that what the expectations
were and how they were met had a strong effect on
how the participants saw their FWBR experience and
whether they would be willing to try it again.
The MLR results (Table 2) largely confirmed
and expanded on the chi-square results, although
they threw doubt onto the role of expectations in
predicting relationship experience assessments.
While the expectations model overall showed
statistical significance with 2(12) = 23.8, p =
0.022, none of the specifi c expectations parameters
turned out to have a statistically signifi cant effect
on relationship experience assessments. At the
same time, both the overall model (2(12) = 26.5, p
= 0.009) and several of the expectations parameters
were statistically signifi cant when evaluating whether
participants would choose to enter a FWBR again.
All the statistically signifi cant results of the MLR
analyses are presented in Table 2.
Evidence for the primary hypotheses
To understand the specifi c effect of expectations and
expectation fulfi llment on relationship outcomes, the
SPSS output crosstabs were examined in detail using
residual analysis, as suggested by Haberman (1973),
and the MLR odds ratios. Adjusted residuals (AR)
translate the difference between the expected count
and a particular observed count into z-distribution,
while taking into account the overall sample size
(Bearden, 2011). Haberman concluded that AR
indicated the importance of each cell to the fi nal chi-
square value in large tables better than standardized
residuals. Therefore, this method allows for direct
comparisons between cells in the crosstabs output
in tables larger than 2 x 2. The value of AR more
extreme than +/-1.96 indicates that the cell in question
has signifi cant contribution to the obtained chi-square
value, with the equivalence of two-tailed p < 0.05. It
is important to remember that AR magnitude refl ects
Table 1 Descriptive results for reasons for entering and expectations of FWBRs
Reasons Expectations
Avoiding emotional commitment 17.8% Friendship 19.1%
Sexual release 12.8% Avoiding emotional commitment 16.9%
Fun and experience 12.5% Fun and experience 15.5%
Uncommitted sex 11.4% No specifi ed expectations 15.5%
Seeking comfort 10.3% Uncommitted sex 12.2%
Spontaneity 8.9% Sexual release 11.5%
Attraction 7.8% Wishfulness 9.4%
Wishfulness 6.4%
Closeness with a friend 6%
Convenience 5%
Other 1.1%
The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, Vol. 21 (1) 201250
only the strength of the association, while MLR odds
ratios provide a measure of the effect size.
Hypothesis 1: Wishfulness leads to
negative experiences
The results demonstrate support for this hypothesis.
Wishfulness led to a higher chance of rating the
relationship experience as negative, with AR = 3.0.
It also made the participants more likely to say no
and less likely to say yes to whether one would
enter a FWBR again, with AR = 3.1 and AR = -2.7,
respectively. In the MLR analysis, wishfulness
increased the likelihood of both saying “no” and
being uncertain by 12 and 7.5 times respectively
as compared to saying “yes” Table 2). This means
that the participants, who entered a FWBR with
expectations of progressing into dating, were indeed
much more likely to report negative experiences than
those with any other expectation.
Hypothesis 2: Unreciprocated feelings
lead to negative experiences
This hypothesis also received strong support.
Developing emotional complications produced
extreme AR values. It was associated with both
higher chances of a negative relationship assessment
and lower chances of a positive one (AR = 4.7 and
AR = -2.4 respectively), increased the likelihood of
not wanting to enter a FWBR again (AR = 2.7), and
decreased the probability of being uncertain about this
decision (AR = -2.3). Developing feelings was very
strongly associated with viewing the FWBR experience
as negative, since AR = 4.7 means p < 0.0001.
An MLR examination of the expectation fulfi llment
against experience assessments and willingness to
enter a FWBR again shows statistical signifi cance
of both the overall models (2(8) = 68.54, p < 0.001,
and 2(8) = 38.49, p < 0.001, respectively) and some
of the specifi c parameters. Developing emotional
complications increased the chances of a negative
relationship experience as compared to neutral by
9.5 times and of saying “no” rather than “yes” to
entering a FWBR again by 2.8 times. (Table 2) We
can conclude that the most commonly mentioned
disadvantage of FWBRs is indeed capable of
predicting relational outcomes.
Hypothesis 3: Comfort
Reasons for entering an FWBR were not associated
with relational outcomes in the contingency tables.
MLR analysis of relational outcomes by reasons
Table 2 Statistically signifi cant parameters for FWBR expectations and expectation fulfi llment models in the MLR
analysis
Expectations and the willingness to enter a FWBR again model
Parameter description and referent category Odds ratio p-value B (MLR coeffi cient)
Wishfulness: no compared to yes 12.0 0.001 2.485
Wishfulness: uncertain compared to yes 7.5 0.028 2.015
No expectations: no compared to yes 4.0 0.016 1.386
No expectations: uncertain compared to yes 7.0 0.005 1.946
Fun and experience: uncertain compared to yes 4.2 0.034 1.430
Expectation fulfi llment and experience assessment model
Parameter description and referent category Odds ratio p-value B (MLR coeffi cient)
Emotional complications: negative compared to neutral 9.5 < 0.001 2.252
No for any other reason: negative compared to neutral 5.8 0.002 1.760
Mixed expectations: positive compared to neutral 0.3 0.007 -1.241
More work: positive compared to neutral 0.1 0.003 -2.380
No for any other reason: positive compared to neutral 0.2 0.013 -1.464
Expectation fulfi llment and willingness to enter a FWBR again model
Parameter description and referent category Odds ratio p-value B (MLR coeffi cient)
Emotional complications: no compared to yes 2.8 0.007 1.045
No for any other reason: no compared to yes 17.0 < 0.001 2.837
More work: uncertain compared to yes 3.6 0.039 1.286
No for any other reason: uncertain compared to yes 7.9 0.014 2.069
51
The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, Vol. 21 (1) 2012
produced an error message, indicating that validity
of model fi t is uncertain (possibly due to small cell
sizes). Consequently, no support for Hypothesis 3
was found nor could any other conclusions about
reasons be drawn.
Gender differences
All gender differences in the sample were also
analyzed using adjusted residuals (AR) of crosstabs
output. Gender effects turned out to be signifi cant in
every category considered, and secondary hypotheses
were supported.
Willingness to enter a FWBR again
The fi ndings on gender infl uences on relationship
experience assessment and willingness to enter a
FWBR again are presented in their entirety in Figure
1. Women were more likely than men to view their
FWBR relationship experience as negative, 2(2) =
6.12, p = 0.047, AR = 2.4. While men were more
likely to say “yes” to participating in a FWBR in
the future, women appeared more likely to avoid
them, 2(2) = 20.51, p < 0.001, AR = 4.4 and AR =
3.5, respectively.
MLR analysis of relationship experience assessment
and willingness to enter a FWBR again by gender
both produced statistically significant models
(2(2) = 6.14, p = 0.046, 2(2) = 20.92, p < 0.001,
respectively), but only the latter also demonstrated
significance of specific parameters. Overall, the
effects of gender on relational outcomes verify the
fi ndings obtained through the chi-square contingency
tables. Men were less likely than women to be
uncertain or not want to enter a FWBR again (B =
-0.953, p = 0.004, odds ratio = 0.4, and B = -1.285, p
< 0.001, odds ratio = 0.3, respectively). These odds
ratios are equivalent to women being 2.5 times more
likely to be uncertain or 3.3 times more likely to want
to avoid future FWBRs than men.
Reasons for entering and expectations of FWBRs
In both reasons to enter a FWBR and expectations
from it, women were more likely than men to display
wishfulness; and men were more likely than women
to seek and expect sexual satisfaction and sex without
commitment, 2(10) = 40.62, p < 0.001 (AR = 3.1,
4.7, and 2.4) for reasons and 2(6) = 28.29, p <
0.001 (AR = 3.9, 3.1, and 2.0) for expectations,
respectively. At the same time, adjusted residuals
pointed to no statistically signifi cant differences in
other categories of reasons and expectations. Men
and women were very closely matched in most other
reason categories but displayed more pronounced
Figure 1 Relational outcomes of FWBRs by gender
Note: Respondents indicated whether they would engage again in a FWBR (“no”, “yes” or “neutral”) and assessed their
overall experience of participation in an FWBR (“negative”, “positive” or “neutral”).
Percentage Within Gender
The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, Vol. 21 (1) 201252
Figure 2 Expectations from FWBRs by gender.
Note: Percentages for statistically signifi cant results (* p < .001) were: women 7.5%, men 15.3% for uncommitted sex; women
6%, men 18.1% for sexual release; and women 16.4%, men 2.8% for wishfulness.
differences in expectations. The complete gender
distribution of expectations of FWBRs is show in
Fig.2 and of reasons for entering a FWBR in Fig.3.
Expectations of fulfi llment
Looking at expectation fulfillment, the only
signifi cant difference was in women being more
likely than men (20.2% versus 5.6%) (Fig.4) to
report that their expectations were not met for
reasons other than developing feelings or emotional
complications, 2(4) = 12.56, p = 0.014, AR = 3.4.
Interestingly, the difference between men and women
in reporting expectations mismatch due to emotional
complications was the smallest of all and bordering
on non-existent, with AR = +/-0.2, equivalent to p =
.492. Complete breakdown of expectation fulfi llment
by gender is displayed in Figure 4 below, with the
statistically signifi cant difference denoted with * sign.
Other results
“No specifi ed expectations” was associated with a
reduction in both positive assessments and chances
of wanting to take part in a FWBR again, with the AR
= -2.7 and AR = -2.0, respectively, but no increase in
negative assessments. MLR analysis also confi rmed
that this category led to reduced willingness to enter a
FWBR again, as participants were 7 times more likely
to be uncertain and 4 times more likely to say “no.”
The participants expecting “fun and experience” were
also 4.2 times more likely to be uncertain rather than
certain about wanting to be in a FWBR again.
The expectation of “sex without commitment”
produced AR = 2.8 for the willingness to participate
in a FWBR again. Despite comparable counts
(total of 32 and 34, respectively), the expectation
of “sexual satisfaction” per se did not produce any
statistically signifi cant AR, and neither expectation
was linked with relationship assessments. Hence, the
participants who placed emphasis on the expectation
of non-exclusive sex were uniquely more likely to
want to enter a FWBR again than any other group,
even though it seems to have had no impact on how
they assessed the relationship experience.
53
The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, Vol. 21 (1) 2012
Figure 3 Reasons for entering FWBRs by gender
Note: Percentages for statistically signifi cant results (* p < .001) were: women 6.7%, men 15.8% for uncommitted sex;
women 3%, men 21.9% for sexual release; and women 11.1%, men 2.1% for wishfulness.
.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
50.0%
Yes No - Feelings No - Other* Mixed More Work
Were Expectations Met?
Male
Female
Note: Percentages for statistically signifi cant results (* p < .001) were: women 6.7%, men 15.8% for uncommitted sex;
women 3%, men 21.9% for sexual release; and women 11.1%, men 2.1% for wishfulness.
Figure 4 FWBR expectation fulfi llment by gender
Despite the small number of respondents, “more work”
had a signifi cant effect, reducing the chances of a
positive experience compared to neutral by 10 times,
and increasing uncertainty about entering a FWBR
again by 3.4 times compared to certainty. “Mixed
expectations” had a similar effect, making the chance
of a positive experience assessment one third that of
a neutral. Not meeting expectation for reasons other
than emotional complications also had strong effects.
Compared to neutral, it increased the probability of
negative experience by 5.8 times and reduced the
probability of a positive experience by 5 times. It also
The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, Vol. 21 (1) 201254
increased the chances of both being uncertain and
saying “no” to being in a FWBR again as compared
to “yes”, by almost 8 and 17 times, respectively.
While coeffi cient of determination does not exist
for MLR, SPSS provides three estimates of pseudo
R-square (i.e., McFadden, Cox and Snell, and
Nagelkerke estimates; UCLA, n.d.). Comparing these
values, the model for expectation fulfi llment was
the strongest as it was capable of explaining 13.3%
to 28.3% of variability in experience assessment
and 7.6% to 17% of variability in the willingness to
enter a FWBR again. Pseudo R-square coeffi cients
for expectations were much lower, explaining only
4% to 9.4% of variability in experience assessment
and 4.5% to 10.5% of variability in the willingness to
enter a FWBR again. The experience assessment by
gender model had extremely low pseudo R-squares,
1% to 2.5%. The willingness to enter an FWBR again
fared better, with pseudo R-squares of 3.5% to 8.3%.
Interpretation of differences between relational
outcomes when writing the discussion prompted
MLR analysis of willingness to enter a FWBR
again by relationship experience, in order to obtain
pseudo R-square coeffi cients. The overall model was
statistically signifi cant (2(4) = 61.25, p < 0.001),
yet the pseudo R-square estimates range was only
11.9% – 25.6%.
Discussion
In terms of our hypotheses, the results indicated strong
support for wishfulness (wanting the relationship to
proceed to dating) and development of emotional
complications as potential predictors of negative
relationship outcomes (Hypotheses 1 and 2). These
fi ndings confi rmed what several other researchers
(Bisson & Levine, 2009; Weaver et al., 2011) have
reported about unreciprocated attachment being
the key disadvantage of FWBRs. Almost 22% of
the participants reported development of emotional
complications, which strongly predicted negative
experiences. These individuals were 9.5 times more
likely to report a negative experience and almost 3
times less likely to express desire to enter a FWBR
again. Wishfulness was more rare, with only 9.4%
of participants expressing this expectation, but it had
a larger effect. It increased the chances of avoiding
or being uncertain about FWBRs in the future by 12
times and 7.5 times, respectively.
Examination of reasons for engaging in a FWBR
failed to yield statistically signifi cant results, so
there was no support for Hypothesis 3, concerning
the role of comfort and availability of emotional
support inside FWBRs. There could be several
explanations for this result. First, the information
about comfort or support that FWBRs can deliver to
its participants may have been spread over a number
of questions and answers, such as relationship pros,
and not really captured well by reasons. Second, the
specifi c reasons for entering a FWBR may not be as
relevant to outcomes, as the relationship dynamics.
Expectations and expectation fulfillment reflect
how the relationship unfolds better than reasons,
which may explain their higher predictive ability.
If true, the inability to fi nd statistical signifi cance
of reasons could, in itself, be a signifi cant fi nding
as it may indicate that future research should look
elsewhere for predictors of outcomes. At the same
time, insuffi cient sample size could be the main
contributing factor to the result, since reasons had
some of the smallest cell counts.
Nonetheless, descriptive results can provide some
information about the role of friendship and comfort
in FWBRs. Comfort and closeness with a friend were
listed as the most salient reasons for entering the
relationship by a minority (i.e., 10.3% and 6%) of
the participants. While maintaining friendship was
the most frequently listed expectation, in absolute
numbers it seriously mattered to only one fi fth of
the participants (19.1%). The categories, developed
in this study, closely parallel the advantages and
disadvantages described by Bisson and Levine (2009)
and Weaver et al. (2011). Consequently, these low
frequencies likely reflect genuine differences in
prevalence, rather than in categorization between
researchers. However, the need to pick the most salient
reason or expectation prevented the present study
from discovering the total number of participants who
may have indicated that comfort was important to
them. How well the friendship component of FWBRs
supports emotional needs of participants remains a
potential direction for future research.
55
The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, Vol. 21 (1) 2012
Gender differences and similarities in
FWBRs
Support was found for both secondary hypotheses,
which predicted that prevalence of negative relational
outcomes and wishfulness would be higher among
women than men. The similar and suffi ciently large
numbers of men (n=143) and women (n=134) in
this study suggest high reliability of gender analysis.
Women were 3.3 times more likely to want to avoid
FWBRs in the future and 2.5 times more likely to be
uncertain about them than men. Women were also
signifi cantly more likely than men to have a negative
FWBR experience (32% versus 19% respectively).
As predicted, wishfulness was gendered. Consistent
with previous research (Grello et al., 2006; Lehmiller
et al., 2011; Owen & Fincham, 2011a), women were
more likely to display wishfulness than men: 11.1%
as reason, 16.4% as expectation for women; 2.1% as
reason, 2.8% as expectation for men.
The low percentage of women in our study who
identified wishfulness as a primary expectation
(16.4%) is consistent with Grello et al (2006) who
found that “fewer than one fi fth of the females who
had had casual sex experiences reported that they
thought a romance might be imminent” (p. 264).
These numbers suggest that while some women do
agree to casual sex hoping it develops into a romantic
relationship (Fraser, 2010; Impett & Peplau, 2003)
- and the tendency to do so may be persistent - such
wishfulness is not generalizable to most women.
It should be noted that Fraser (2010) found that
47% of women and 25% of men in the same dataset
expressed a wish for the relationship to turn into a
dating one based on their response to the question
“Did your friends with benefi ts relationships turn
into a dating relationship? And did you want it
to?” (Responses to this question were not used in
the present study). Fraser’s results are consistent
with much higher desire for a romantic relationship
reported by other researchers (Lehmiller et al., 2011;
Owen & Fincham, 2011a), ranging around 24% for
men and 40% to 43% for women. These differences
from our fi ndings may be explained by the fact
that we attempted to isolate wishfulness as a factor
present at the beginning of the relationship in the
context of reasons for and expectations of FWBRs.
The larger percentages reported by other authors
could include both the wishfulness upon entering a
FWBR and the feelings, developed over the course
of the relationship. Differences in time specifi cations
in how the questions were asked in different studies
may also be relevant here.
Wishfulness could partially explain, why more
women than men (20.2% versus 5.6%) reported
unmet expectations for reasons other than developing
attachment. With wishfulness from the very beginning
of the relationship, feelings do not need to develop,
as they already exist. Lack of reciprocity then leads
to increased failure to meet expectations and hopes.
As expected, the fi ndings contained much nuance
about gender roles as well. Gender difference
in experience assessments came close to being
statistically insignifi cant, and MLR analysis did not
identify either gender as a statistically signifi cant
predictor of the experience. While relational
outcomes overall conformed to the traditional gender
expectations, significant minorities of men and
women went against this trend. For men, 20% and
30% respectively reported negative experience and
unwillingness to enter a FWBR again. And quite a
number of women appeared happy with FWBRs,
indicating positive experience (32%) and saying yes
to the prospect of a FWBR in the future (24%).
Consistent with traditional gender roles, men were
signifi cantly more likely to seek uncommitted sex
and sexual release than women. However, unexpected
emotional complications occurred for both men and
women with equal prevalence. That both men and
women develop feelings is consistent with Epstein
et al. (2009) fi ndings about men desiring emotional
closeness. We found no statistically significant
differences between men and women for the other
reasons and expectations, e.g. fun and experience, or
emphasis on friendship. Interestingly, more women
than men reported avoiding emotional commitment
as the main reason to enter a FWBR (20% versus
15%), but more men than women indicated this as
primary expectation (19% versus 15%).
Explanations for the within-gender variability of
reasons, expectations, and outcomes in FWBRs could
be related to changing cultural norms. Yet several
frameworks of individual differences exist that could
The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, Vol. 21 (1) 201256
provide more insight into this matter and represent
promising areas for further research. Markey and
Markey (2007) linked prevalence of sexual partners
and non-committed sexual relationships to the
interpersonal warmth dimension of Interpersonal
Circumplex. The authors found that individuals, who
display both extreme coldness and extreme warmth,
tended to have more partners and uncommitted
relationships. Markey and Markey speculated that
the former might do so out of fear of mistreatment
and rejection, or selfi shness; while the latter may
be motivated by “an opportunity to exchange love,
intimacy, or friendship with as many people as
possible” (p. 1210). It is possible that warm and cold
individuals would differ greatly in their ability to
provide emotional support and closeness in FWBRs,
partially accounting for outcome discrepancies.
Another framework of individual differences is
sociosexuality: a continuum between individuals
who require commitment and closeness prior to sex
and those who are fully comfortable with casual
sex and multiple occasional partners (Simpson
and Gangestad, 1991). The extent of individual’s
sociosexuality and how well partners match each
other on this dimension could be related to how
comfortable or uncomfortable they may be with the
non-committed nature of FWBRs, and how likely
they are to maintain this original lack of commitment.
Unrestricted sociosexual orientation could also
explain why individuals of both genders, who placed
emphasis on the expectation of non-exclusive sex,
were more likely to want to enter a FWBR again
than any other group.
FWBR dynamics and other fi ndings
It is worth noting that while both wishfulness
and development of emotional complications had
large effects, in absolute terms they only occurred
in approximately one tenth and one fifth of the
participants. Consequently, they cannot be relied
on as a major explanation for most of relational
outcomes. This study results confi rm that the extent of
meeting expectations signifi cantly contributes to both
relationship experience assessments and willingness
to enter a FWBR again.
The association was significant even for mixed
expectation fulfi llment and running into more work
than expected, despite relatively small counts of
participants, who reported these outcomes. The
expectations-based fi ndings make so much intuitive
sense regarding relationships in general that they
hardly teach us anything about FWBRs specifi cally.
However, since the demonstrated statistical strength
of associations is extremely logical, it could be
interpreted as validation for the method itself. And as
such, it could indirectly validate other, less obvious,
fi ndings in this study.
It is clear that there are other influences on the
willingness to enter a FWBR again, beyond what the
experience was like. Almost 40% of the participants
had a positive experience and only 25% reported a
negative one. However, only 35% of the participants
stated that they would enter a FWBR again, while 40%
indicated they would not. Furthermore, according to
the MLR model, variability in the experience explains
only 11.9% to 25.6% of the variability in wanting to
be in a FWBR again. This percentage is much less
than could be expected. One reason for this fi nding
could lie in personal change experienced during the
relationship. Fraser (2010) indicated that a number
of women mentioned that “their views had changed,
and they realized that they want a real relationship”
(p. 33), while men mostly said no to a FWBR in the
future due to presently dating someone.
Combined, these results could be taken as preliminary
support for the conception of FWBRs being
something some people can grow out of, as their
expectations and desires for relationship change
(Kalish, 2009; Weaver et al., 2011). This concept and
possible gender differences within it would need to
be further verifi ed. If true, it also means that personal
characteristics and life circumstances of people, who
engage in FWBRs early on as part of sexual and
relational experimentation and those who continue to
do so later in life, may be different. This presents an
interesting suggestion for future studies, especially
since investigating FWBRs in older generations has
been neglected by research to date.
Some other fi ndings related to relational outcomes
were unexpected. It is puzzling that participants
who reported “no specifi ed expectations” or “fun
and experience” expressed reduced willingness or
higher uncertainty about entering a FWBR again.
57
The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, Vol. 21 (1) 2012
Unless both results represent a statistical anomaly
or mis-coding, it appears that simply going along for
the experience is associated with reduced chances of
a positive outcome. Potential explanations could be
related to the lack of purpose and self-awareness, as
genuinely having no expectations is unlikely. And
such lack of awareness could contribute to the failure
to negotiate an evolving relationship, as highlighted
by Bisson and Levine (2009). These results could
also be associated with overly positive expectations,
increasing chances of disappointment. But ultimately,
all that is available at this point are speculations,
which might be refi ned by future research.
While the study formulated no hypotheses about
conscientiousness of the decision to enter a FWBR,
it has something to contribute to this question. Only
8.9% of the participants listed spontaneity as a salient
reason for entering a FWBR. In the raw data, only
4 of the participants mentioned any infl uence of
alcohol at all. This fi nding is at odds with Owen and
Fincham (2011a), but there are other studies on the
role of alcohol that it is consistent with.
Wentland and Reissing (2011) used focus groups
to explore perceptions of different types of casual
sex relationships among Canadian undergraduates.
They found that drinking could be used in FWBRs
to overcome the awkwardness of initiation, but was
not perceived as part of continued relationship.
Vélez-Blasini (2008) examined casual sex behaviours
in relation to perceived costs and internal confl icts
and suggested that rational decision-making was
obvious, even when alcohol was present. Vélez-
Blasini pointed out that any behavioural research on
undergraduate populations that looks into the role
of alcohol would likely fi nd signifi cant correlations
simply because it is such a widespread part of student
experience, while the causal link may be missing.
Study limitations
The core limitation of this study arose from the
fact that a very large qualitative dataset was used to
perform quantitative research. Consequently, some
of the research direction and methods were identifi ed
working backwards from the available data, rather
than from the questions posed by literature review.
As well, some gaps identified in the literature
could not be addressed as effectively, since data
collection was not specifi cally designed to do so.
The methods section provides considerable detail
on these and other challenges and the implicit and
explicit limitations they represent so we will restrict
our comments here to a few such examples. The
quantitative analysis overall relied on taking answers
to different questions and treating them as separate
predictors which lost some of the narrative aspect that
refl ected FWBR dynamics. Categorical quantitative
analysis also required establishing one category per
question per participant and having to choose only
one main reason or expectation for the analysis.
Good inter-rater reliability could not eliminate the
limitations of this process. The age variability in the
sample combined with differences in the duration and
currency of FWBRs were also confounding factors.
Conclusion
This study has several important strengths. The
categories developed were based on rich qualitative
data, presented in participants’ own words, which
improved their ability to accurately reflect the
complexity of the phenomena at hand. Independent
coding by two raters contributed to accuracy and
validity of the categories. In the analysis itself,
combined use of adjusted residuals and MLR allowed
this study to zero in on specifi c effects and odds ratios
of different predictors, which could be challenging
when dealing with categorical variables.
To the authors’ knowledge, this is the fi rst Canadian
quantitative study of FWBRs, conducted on a
relatively large sample of 281 people. As such, it
presents a signifi cant contribution to the understanding
of FWBRs within the Canadian cultural landscape.
It also represents the fi rst attempt to explicitly link
some of the previously identifi ed advantages and
disadvantages of FWBRs—operationalized through
reasons and expectations—to relational outcomes.
This study helps to refi ne what is becoming better
understood about FWBRs and what remains
unknown, as even though FWBR research is
relatively new, it has already covered a lot of ground.
The authors believe that future research on FWBRs
would benefi t from focusing more on why, rather than
what, happens during the relationship.
The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, Vol. 21 (1) 201258
References
Afi fi , W.A., & Burgoon, J.K. (1998). “We never talk
about that”: A comparison of cross-sex friendships
and dating relationships on uncertainty and topic
avoidance. Personal Relationships, 5, 255-272.
doi:10:1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00171.x
Bay-Cheng, L.Y., Robinson, A.D., & Zucker, A.N. (2009).
Behavioral and relational contexts of adolescent
desire, wanting, and pleasure: undergraduate women’s
retrospective accounts. Journal of Sex Research,
46(6), 511-524. doi:10.1080/00224490902867871
Bearden, J. (2011). Chi-square test of independence.
Retrieved from Geneseo College, NY, Sociology
211 Statistics for Social Research website on March
2, 2012: http://www.geneseo.edu/~bearden/socl211/
chisquareweb/chisquare.html
Bisson, M., & Levine, T. (2009). Negotiating a friends with
benefi ts relationship. Archives of Sexual Behaviour,
38, 66-73. doi:10.1007/s10508-007-9211-2
Chernin, A., Rich, M., & Shing, R. (2010). Prevalence of
adolescent friends with benefi ts relationships varies by
attitude, not by age. Abstracts, 46, 35. doi:10.1016/j.
jadohealth.2009.11.084
Dailey, R.M., & Palomares, N.A. (2004). Strategic topic
avoidance: An investigation of topic avoidance
frequency, strategies used, and relational correlates.
Communication Monographs, 71, 471-496.
doi.10.1080/0363452042000307443
Dworkin, S.L., & O’Sullivan, L. (2005). Actual versus
desired initiation patterns among a sample of college
men: Tapping disjunctures within traditional male
sexual scripts. The Journal of Sex Research, 42, 150-
158. doi:10.1080/00224490509552268
Eisenberg, M.E., Ackard, D.M., Resnick, M.D., &
Neumark-Sztainer, D. (2009). Casual sex and
psychological health among young adults: Is having
“friends with benefits” emotionally damaging?
Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 41,
231-237. doi:10.1363/4123109
Epstein, M., Calzo, J., Smiler, A., & Ward, L. (2009).
“Anything for making out to having sex”: Men’s
negotiations of hooking up and friends with
benefits. Journal of Sex Research, 46, 414-424.
doi:10.1080/00224490902775801
Fischtein. D.S., Herold, E.S., & Desmarais S. (2007). How
much does gender explain in sexual attitudes and
behaviors? A survey of Canadian adults. Archives of
Sexual Behaviour, 36, 451-461. doi:10.1007/s10508-
006-9157-9
Fraser, V. (2010). A qualitative study of “friends with
benefits” relationships. (Unpublished Honours
thesis.) University of Calgary, Calgary, AB.
Available via email from alderson@ucalgary.ca or
vanessafraser33@hotmail.com
Eshbaugh, E.M., & Gute, G. (2008). Hookups and sexual
regret among college women. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 148, 77-89. doi:10.3200/SOCP.148.1.77-90
Grello, C., Welsh, D., & Harper, M. (2006). No strings
attached: The nature of casual sex in college
students. Journal of Sex Research, 43, 255-267.
doi:10.1080/00224490609552324
Haberman, S.J. (1973). The analysis of residuals in
cross-classified tables. Biometrics, 29, 205-22.
doi:10.2307/2529686
Hughes, M., Morrison, K., & Asada, K. (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, 49-66.
doi:10.1080/10570310500034154
Impett, E., & Peplau, L. (2003). Sexual compliance:
Gender, motivational, and relationship perspectives.
The Journal of Sex Research, 40, 87-100.
doi:10.1080/00224490309552169
Kalish, R. (2009). Review of the book, Hooking up:
Sex, dating, and relationships on campus, by
K.A. Bogle. Gender & Society, 23, 129-131.
doi:10.1177/0891243208320408
Lehmiller, J.L., VanderDrift, L.E., & Kelly, J.R. (2011).
Sex differences in approaching friends with benefi ts
relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 48, 275-284.
doi:10.1080/00224491003721694
Manning, W.D., Giordano, P.C., & Longmore, A.M.
(2006). Hooking up: The relationship contexts of
“nonrelationship’’ sex. Journal of Adolescent Research,
21, 459-483. doi:10.1177/0743558406291692
59
The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, Vol. 21 (1) 2012
Markey, P.M., & Markey, C.N. (2007). The interpersonal
meaning of sexual promiscuity. Journal of Research
in Personality 41, 1199-1212. doi:10.1016/j.
jrp.2007.02.004
McGinty, K., Knox, D., & Zusman, M. (2007). Friends
with benefits: Women want “friends,” men want
“benefi ts.” College Student Journal, 41, 1128-1131.
Milhausen, R.R., & Herold, E.S. (1999). Does the sexual
double standard still exist? Perceptions of university
women. The Journal of Sex Research, 36, 361-368.
doi:10.1080/00224499909552008
Orme, J.G., & Buehler, C. (2001). Introduction to multiple
regression for categorical and limited dependent
variables. Social Work Research, 25, 49-61. Retrieved
from http://swr.oxfordjournals.org/
Owen, J., & Fincham, F.D. (2011a). Effects of gender
and psychological factors on “friends with benefi ts”
relationships among young adults. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 40, 311-320. doi:10.1007/s10508-010-
9611-6
Owen, J., & Fincham, F.D. (2011b). Young adults’
emotional reactions after hooking up encounters.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 321-330. doi:10.1007/
s10508-010-9652-x
Patterson, H.M., & Price, E.L. (2009). More than “just”
friends? Perceived trust and sexual health behaviours
within the “friends with benefits” relationships.
Manuscript in preparation.
Paul, E., & Hayes, K. (2002). The casualties of
“casual” sex: A qualitative exploration of the
phenomenology of college students’ hookups. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 639-661.
doi:10.1177/0265407502195006
Puentes, J., Knox, D., & Zusman, M. (2008). Participants
in “friends with benefits” relationships. College
Student Journal, 42, 176-180.
Richey, E., Knox, D., & Zusman, M. (2009). Sexual values
of 783 undergraduates. College Student Journal, 43,
175-180.
Simpson, J.A., & Gangestad, S.W. (1991). Individual
differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent
and discriminant validity. Journal Of Personality and
Social Psychology, 60, 870-883. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.60.6.870
Sprecher, S., & Regan, P. (2002). Liking some things (in
some people) more than others: Partner preferences
in romantic relationships and friendships. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 463-481.
doi:10.1177/0265407502019004048
UCLA: Academic Technology Services, Statistical
Consulting Group. (n.d.). FAQ: What are pseudo
R-squareds? Retrieved from the UCLA Academic
Technology Services website on April 16, 2012:
http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/mult_pkg/faq/general/
Psuedo_RSquareds.htm
Vélez-Blasini, C.J. (2008). Evidence against alcohol as a
proximal cause of sexual risk taking among college
students. Journal of Sex Research, 45, 118-128.
doi:10.1080/00224490801987408
Weaver, A.D., MacKeigan, K.L., & MacDonald, H.A.
(2011). Experiences and perceptions of young adults
in friends with benefi ts relationships: A qualitative
study. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality,
20, 41-53.
Weaver, S.J., & Herold, E.S. (2000). Casual sex and
women: Measurement and motivational issues.
Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 12, 23-41.
doi:10.1300/J056v12n03_02
Wentland, J.J., & Reissing, E.D. (2011). Taking casual
sex not too casually: Exploring definitions of
casual sexual relationships. The Canadian Journal
of Human Sexuality, 20, 75-91. Retrieved from
http://sexresearchandthecity.com/wp-content/
uploads/2010/06/Taking-casual-sex-not-too-casually
pdf on April 16, 2012.
