Content uploaded by Paul A Mongeau
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Paul A Mongeau on Jun 02, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rsjc20
Southern Communication Journal
ISSN: 1041-794X (Print) 1930-3203 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsjc20
Investigating and Extending Variation among
Friends with Benefits Relationships: Relationship
Maintenance and Social Support
Paul A. Mongeau, Lisa J. van Raalte, Lori Bednarchik & Mark Generous
To cite this article: Paul A. Mongeau, Lisa J. van Raalte, Lori Bednarchik & Mark Generous
(2019): Investigating and Extending Variation among Friends with Benefits Relationships:
Relationship Maintenance and Social Support, Southern Communication Journal, DOI:
10.1080/1041794X.2019.1641837
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1041794X.2019.1641837
Published online: 19 Jul 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
View Crossmark data
Investigating and Extending Variation among Friends with
Benefits Relationships: Relationship Maintenance and Social
Support
Paul A. Mongeau
a
, Lisa J. van Raalte
b
, Lori Bednarchik
a
, and Mark Generous
c
a
Hugh Downs School of Human Communication, Arizona State University, Tempe, USA;
b
Department of
Communication Studies, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, USA;
c
Department of Communication, California
State Polytechnic University, Pomona, USA
ABSTRACT
The considerable diversity in friends with benefits relationships (FWBR) is
largely unexplored. Therefore, this investigation focuses on differences in
the communication of relationship maintenance and social support across
FWBR types. Given that communication influences relationship initiation,
maintenance, and termination, the frequency of maintenance and support
behaviors should differ dramatically across FWBR types. Large differences
appeared across five of seven relational maintenance, and all five social
support, dimensions, which further validate differences among FWBR types
and place communication at the heart of these differences. To overcome
limitations of FWBR types, a two-dimensional model of FWBRs (closeness
and romantic desire) is introduced to more simply explicate diversity.
Finally, we discuss practical and theoretical implications of both the results
and the dimensional perspective.
KEYWORDS
Casual sex; emerging adults;
friends with benefits
relationships; relational
maintenance; social support
Considerable research attempted to map the space between one-night stands and committed
romantic relationships (e.g., Hughes, Morrison, & Asada, 2005; Jonason, Li, & Cason, 2009; Paul,
McManus, & Hayes, 2000). One commonality among these early research efforts is that simple labels
hid considerable diversity. Initially, hookups (Paul et al.), booty calls (Jonason et al.), and –the
present focus –friends with benefits relationships (FWBRs; Hughes et al.) were all defined as
representing casual sex. That is, sexual interaction (ranging from kissing to oral, vaginal, or anal
intercourse) in each of these relationship types was thought to occur outside of, and with no
aspirations for, romantic relationships (Mongeau, van Raalte, Generous, & Bednarchik, 2016).
Over the past decade, scholarly understanding of these relationship types expanded dramatically.
Specifically, research indicated that hookups (Epstein, Calzo, Smiler, & Ward, 2009), booty calls
(Jonason, Li, & Richardson, 2011), and FWBRs (Mongeau, Knight, Williams, Eden, & Shaw, 2013)all
vary in closeness and partners’romantic desire. In particular, booty calls and FWBRs “appear to be
simultaneously motivated by both short-term …and long-term relationship …factors”(Jonason et al.,
2011, p. 486). Moreover, the relative importance of short-term and long-term considerations varies
across cases (e.g., Epstein et al.; Jonason et al.; Mongeau et al.). Thus, although some instances are
temporary, other represent “one of the primary ways heterosexual college students form committed
relationships”(Reid, Elliott, & Webber, 2011, p. 546; see also England, Shafer, & Fogarty, 2008).
More specifically, early definitions of FWBRs centered on friends who have sex with no strings
attached (i.e., no romantic desire; Hughes et al., 2005; Mongeau, Ramirez, & Vorell, 2003). Several
studies, however, identified considerable diversity in FWBRs (e.g., Karlsen & Træen, 2013; Mongeau
CONTACT Paul A. Mongeau Paul.Mongeau@ASU.edu Hugh Downs School of Human Communication, Arizona State
University, P. O. Box 871205, Tempe, AZ 85287
© 2019 Southern States Communication Association
SOUTHERN COMMUNICATION JOURNAL
https://doi.org/10.1080/1041794X.2019.1641837
et al., 2013; Rodrigue et al., 2015). This diversity suggests that FWBRs are neither all meaningless
flings between acquaintances, nor are they all close, romantically-motivated close friendships
(Jonason, 2013). Therefore, FWBRs represent a constellation of relational forms, rather than
a single entity, that have important implications for the ways in which partners communicate with
one another. Therefore, the primary goal of this study is to investigate how the communication of
relationship maintenance and social support differs across FWBR types. These communicative
behaviors are important because they help to define a relationship (Mikkelson, Floyd, & Pauley,
2011; Stafford, 2011) and, therefore, should represent important ways in which FWBRs differ. The
following review of literature will first address relational and communicative differences between
FWBR types, as well as argue for the importance of studying relational maintenance and social
support within them.
Diversity in FWBRs
Although platonic friends have long had sex (Reay, 2014), the FWBR label emerged in the late 1990s
to describe sex between friends that came with no strings attached (i.e., no romantic desire or extra-
dyadic restrictions; Hughes et al., 2005; Mongeau et al., 2003). Hughes et al. defined FWBRs as
relationships between friends who had sex, but did not consider their relationships as romantic.
Thus, FWBRs were supposed to be simple and unitary: friends who have sex without a romantic
label or a desire for one (Bisson & Levine, 2009; Mongeau et al.).
Three recent studies challenged the assumption that all FWBRs are the same. Karlsen and Træen
(2013) reported three FWBR scripts; Rodrigue et al. (2015) identified five classes of casual sexual
relationships and experiences (four of which appear to be FWBRs); and Mongeau et al. (2013)
identified seven FWBR types. All three typologies depict variation in partners’relational closeness.
First, partners in Mongeau et al.’strue friends FWBRs know each other well, care for one another
deeply, have sex repeatedly, but do not consider their relationship to be romantic. This is consistent
with the Karlsen and Træen’sgood friends script and Rodrigue et al.’sintimate and sexual partner-
ship class. At the opposite end of the spectrum, Mongeau et al. described just sex FWBRs as serial
hookups where communication centers exclusively on facilitating sexual interaction. This is con-
sistent with Karlsen and Træen’slovers script and Rodrigue et al.’smostly about sex class. Between
these extremes, Mongeau et al. described network opportunism FWBRs, where partners share social
network links and act as a mutual sexual failsafe.
The FWBR typologies (Karlsen & Træen, 2013; Mongeau et al., 2013; Rodrigue et al., 2015) also
highlight links between FWBRs and romantic relationships (see also, e.g., Lovejoy, 2015; Weaver,
MacKeigan, & MacDonald, 2011; Wentland & Reissing, 2011). In three of Mongeau et al.’s FWBRs
types, partners desire romantic transitions. In some cases, the desired transition from a FWBR to
a romantic relationship occurs (successful transition in; see also Knight, 2014), while other attempts
fail (failed transition in; likely consistent with Karlsen and Træen’son the hook script). In other cases,
the transition occurs but is not partners’initial intent (accidental transition in). Finally, transition out
FWBRs occur when former romantic partners begin having sex again, which is consistent with
Rodrigue et al.’sex-romantic partnership class. In short, it appears that not all FWBR partners are
friends and they do not all eschew romantic feelings.
Although performed in different countries and using different methods, the three FWBR typol-
ogies exhibit considerable overlap (Karlsen & Træen, 2013; Mongeau et al., 2013;Rodrigue et al.,
2015). All three typologies describe variation in partner closeness and at least some connection with
romantic desire or history. This similarity clearly indicates that FWBRs represent a constellation of
relational forms and that it is inappropriate to characterize them as any one thing (Olmstead, Pasley,
& Fincham, 2017). Some FWBRs are close, meaningful, relationships; others are mere flings; and still
others represent all the points between (Jonason, 2013). The current study adopts Mongeau et al.’s
(2013) typology because it contains the greatest diversity and nuance in describing FWBR types.
2P. A. MONGEAU ET AL.
If FWBR types are useful from an empirical perspective, they should correspond with variation in
a number of cognitions and behaviors, including how partners communicate with one another.
Therefore, this study investigates the extent to which the communication of relationship mainte-
nance and social support differs across FWBR types. These particular behaviors were chosen because
they help to define relationships and, as a consequence, should reflect important ways in which
FWBRs differ. If the FWBR types do not differ in communication that reflects the nature of the
relationship, the utility of the typology would be called into question.
Communication and FWBR types
Communication occurs at both content (i.e., what partners talk about) and relational levels (i.e., how
partners view each other and the relationship; Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967). Along similar
lines, relationship schemas (i.e., relationship knowledge structures) influence both the encoding and
decoding of relational messages (e.g., Baldwin, 1995; Planalp, 1985). Given both views, message
interpretations depend, in part, upon current and/or desired future relationships. Although FWBR
types differ in closeness and romantic desire (Karlsen & Træen, 2013; Mongeau et al., 2013; Rodrigue
et al., 2015), few data speak to the communicative implications of those differences. While the
amount of interaction differs across FWBR types (Mongeau et al., 2013), we know little about the
nature of partners’communication (Weger, Cole, & Akbulut, 2018). Because interaction influences
relational development, maintenance, and definitions (Duck, 1994; Miller & Steinberg, 1975), it is
important to examine the communicative differences among FWBR types.
The current study explores relational maintenance and social support as exemplars because, within
ongoing relationships, they reflect important relational characteristics (e.g., Cutrona, 1996;Stafford,
2011); can be communicated explicitly and/or implicitly (i.e., at both the content and/or relational levels,
Mikkelson et al., 2011; Xu & Burleson, 2001); and can help define the relationship. Three important
assumptions frame the current study. First, message interpretations partially depend upon the nature of
the relationship and/or its desired trajectory (Duck, 1994; Planalp, 1985; Watzlawick et al., 1967). Second,
support and maintenance dimensions differ in the extent to which they directly reflect partners’relation-
ships. Third, FWBR types differ in the present, and desired future, relationships between partners
(Karlsen & Træen, 2013; Mongeau et al., 2013; Rodrigue et al., 2015). Combining these assumptions,
we expect that there will be substantial differences between the FWBR types in the amount of relationship
maintenance behaviors (i.e., RMBs) and social support received from the partner. Moreover, when the
relational implications of communication behaviors are overt (e.g., emotional support or relational talk
RMB) we expect to find the greatest variation across FWBR types.
Relational maintenance in FWBRs
The primary function of RMBs “is to sustain partners’desired relational features, such as satisfaction,
commitment, liking, and love”(Stafford, 2011, p. 280). Important relational characteristics (e.g.,
satisfaction, commitment, and liking) predict RMB use (Canary, Stafford, & Semic, 2002; Dainton &
Aylor, 2002; Stafford, 2011). In the FWBR context, if there is no relationship to maintain (e.g., just
sex, failed transition in), then we would expect partners to exchange few RMBs. When partners are
important to each other’s lives, on the other hand, many more RMBs should be reported (e.g., true
friends or successful transition in).
Only one study (Weger et al., 2018) investigated RMBs across the diversity of FWBRs. Weger
et al. paired the Guerrero and Chavez (2005) relational maintenance measure with the Mongeau
et al. (2013) FWBR typology. They report, “Generally speaking, platonic cross-sex friends engaged in
more frequent maintenance than casual sex friendships, and less frequent maintenance than either
true FWBs or transition in relationships”(p. 15). The Guerrero and Chavez measure, however,
represents a farrago of concepts (including both RMBs and social support), sometimes in the same
factor (e.g., emotional support and positivity). Thus, we investigated RMBs utilizing Stafford’s(2011)
widely-utilized and validated measure.
SOUTHERN COMMUNICATION JOURNAL 3
Stafford (2011) reported seven RMB dimensions (i.e., positivity, understanding, self-disclosure,
relational talk, assurances, tasks, and networks). Given that these dimensions were investigated in
both friendships (Ledbetter, 2010) and dating relationships (Guerrero, Eloy, & Wabnik, 1993), we
expect the RMBs to be valid indicators in FWBRs as well. These dimensions differ in the extent to
which behaviors focus directly on the nature of the relationship. Those RMBs that explicitly reflect the
nature of the relationship (present and/or future) should exhibit the greatest variation among FWBR
types. Relational talk and assurances, for example, explicitly tap relational realities and desires, which
are likely to be openly shared only in instances where partners are close (e.g., true friends)and/orhave
romantic desire (e.g., successful transition in). Conversely, these same behaviors are likely avoided in
FWBRs where there is less of a relationship to maintain (e.g., just sex, network opportunism;Knight,
2014). Those RMB dimensions that lack direct relational implications (e.g., positivity and under-
standing) are likely to vary less across types. For example, acting positively and being an understanding
partner may be equally possible in all FWBR types. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1: Means for RMB dimensions will differ substantially across FWBR types; specifically, participants
in true friends, successful transition in, and accidental transition in FWBRs are expected to report
more RMBs than just sex, network opportunism, and failed transition in FWBR types.
Social support in FWBRs
Xu and Burleson (2001)defined social support as “assistance that people provide to others when
helping them cope with life challenges and situational demands”(p. 535). Social support can come in
a number of forms and from a variety of sources. Sarason and Sarason (2009), for example, argued
that support can come from strong ties (i.e., close and intimate relationships), weak ties (strangers
and acquaintances), and through community embeddedness. In the context of strong ties, social
support “communicate[s] caring that validate the other’s worth, feelings, or actions”(Cutrona, 1996,
p. 10); is strongly related to intimacy and closeness (Beets, Cardinal, & Alderman, 2010); and
generates many personal, health, and relational benefits (Taylor, 2011).
Social support, like RMBs, is generally considered multidimensional. One popular typology
includes emotional, esteem, network, tangible, and informational forms of support (Cutrona, 1996;
Xu & Burleson, 2001). Also, like RMBs, some support dimensions are more directly linked to
relationships than are others. Mikkelson et al. (2011) demonstrated that although relational closeness
is significantly associated with provision of all forms of social support, the link is particularly strong
for esteem and emotional support, as they explicitly reflect partner’s feelings. Thus, FWBRs asso-
ciated with closeness, intimacy, and/or romantic desire (true friends, successful and accidental
transition in) should report considerably more social support than those lacking those characteristics
(e.g., just sex, failed transition in, and network opportunism). Support dimensions that do not rely
explicitly on the relationship (e.g., tangible or information) are expected to vary less strongly across
FWBR types. This leads to our second hypothesis:
H2: Social support means will differ substantially across FWBR types; specifically, participants
reporting true friends, successful transition in, and accidental transition in FWBRs will report
considerably more support from partners than just sex, network opportunism, and failed transition
in FWBRs.
Method
We tested hypotheses with data generated from two similar, but separate, samples (i.e., RMBs in
Sample 1 and social support in Sample 2) using identical procedures. Given identical methods and
analyses, we provide a single method, results, and discussion section.
4P. A. MONGEAU ET AL.
Participants
Sample 1
Participants included students (N=240), including n= 130 females (54.17%), n= 103 males (42.92%),
n= 2 other (0.83%), and n = 5 no report (2.08%) enrolled in upper- and lower-division communica-
tion classes at a large Southwestern university. Participants’mean age was 21.75 years (SD =3.74).
Most participants received extra credit in return for their participation. Participants self-identified as
White (n=151,62.92%),Hispanic(n= 32, 13.33%), Asian (n= 28, 11.67%), mixed race (n=11,
4.58%), African American (n= 10, 4.17%), Native American (n= 2, .83%), other (n=2,.83%),andno
response (n= 4, 1.67%). Participants included freshmen (n= 30, 12.50%), sophomores (n=60,
25.00%), juniors (n= 80, 33.33%), seniors (n= 63, 26.25%), graduate students (n=2,.83%)andno
response (n= 5, 2.08%). Participants self-identified as heterosexual (n= 217; 90.42%), homosexual
(n= 5, 2.08%), bisexual (n=8,3.33%),other(n=4,1.66%),andnoresponse(n=6,2.50%).
Sample 1 participants reported on either a current (n= 108, 45.00%), or past FWBR (n=132,
55.00%). Reported FWBR types included true friends (n= 61, 25.42%), just sex (n= 44, 18.33%),
accidental transition in (n= 33, 13.75%), transition out (n= 30; 12.50%), network opportunism (n=28,
11.67%), successful transition in (n= 22; 9.17%), and failed transition in (n= 22, 9.17%). Average
relationship length was 13.20 months (SD = 14.88) and did not differ across FWBR types. Terminated
FWBRs ended an average of nine months before the data collection (median =6months).
Sample 2
Participants were undergraduate students (n=417), including n= 214 males (51.32%), n= 197
females (47.24%), and n= 6 no report (1.44%) enrolled primarily in introductory communication
classes at the same large Southwestern university. Participants’mean age was 19.82 (SD = 2.49). Most
participants received extra credit in return for their participation. Participants self-identified as
White (n= 295; 70.74%), Hispanic (n= 49, 11.75%), mixed race (n= 27, 6.47%), Asian (n= 19,
4.56%), African American (n= 12, 2.88%), other (n= 8, 1.92%), Native American (n= 2, 0.48%), and
no report (n= 5, 1.20%); as well as heterosexual (n= 387, 92.81%), bisexual (n= 13, 3.12%),
homosexual (n= 7, 1.70%), other (n= 4, 0.96%), and no report (n= 6, 1.43%). The sample
represented freshmen (n= 190, 45.6%), sophomores (n= 75, 17.98%), juniors (n= 74, 17.7%),
seniors (n= 73, 17.5%), and no report (n= 5, 1.20%).
Sample 2 participants reported on a current (n= 197, 47.24%) or a past FWBR (n= 220, 52.76%).
The FWBRs represented true friends (n= 113, 27.09%), just sex (n= 68, 16.31%), network
opportunism (n= 64, 15.35%), accidental transition in (n= 48, 11.51%), transition out (n=48,
11.51%), successful transition in (n= 41, 9.83%), and failed transition in (n= 35; 8.39%). Average
relational length was 10.42 months (SD = 17.31) and did not differ significantly across FWB types.
Average time since the demise of terminated FWBRs was just over 7 months (median = 5 months).
Procedure
Upon receiving IRB approval, participants in both samples were invited to access an online
survey. Participants provided consent and then began the survey. Data from participants with
FWBR history (defined as “friends, who are not in a romantic relationship, that engage in
multiple sexual interactions without the expectation that those interactions reflect romantic
intents or motivations;”Mongeau et al., 2013, p. 37) are reported here. Participants with multiple
FWBRs were asked to consider their most recent relationship. Participants reported on commu-
nication behavior (relationship maintenance or social support) only while the relationship was an
FWBR.
SOUTHERN COMMUNICATION JOURNAL 5
Instrumentation
FWBR type
Both samples completed a FWBR-type measure developed by Mongeau et al. (2013)that included
a brief description of each type and asked participants to indicate the description that best fit their
experience.
Relational maintenance
Sample 1 participants completed Stafford’s(2011)28-itemRelational Maintenance Behavior Measure
modified to tap interactions with their FWBR partners. Each item was accompanied by a seven-
interval Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Participants indicated the extent to
which their partner engaged in each behavior (as we consider recall of the partner’sbehaviorwould
be less influenced by self-serving biases). Dimensions included positivity (M=5.74,SD =1.17,
α= .94); understanding (M=5.17,SD =1.28,α= .79); self-disclosure (M=4.78,SD =1.56,α=.91);
relationship talk (M=4.32,SD =1.77,α= .95); assurances (M=3.77,SD =1.77,α=.88);shared
tasks (M=4.11,SD =1.53,α=.93);andnetworks(M=3.89,SD =1.46,α=.80).
Social support
Sample 2 participants completed Xu and Burleson (2001)35-item Experienced Support Scale that
assessed received social support from their FWB partner. Each item was accompanied by a five-
interval Likert-type scale (1 = don’t receive a lot at all,5=receive a great deal). Seven items measured
each of five support dimensions, including emotional (M= 3.24, SD = 0.96, α= .89); esteem
(M= 3.41, SD = 1.00, α= .93); network (M= 2.77, SD = 1.03, α= .90); information (M= 2.89,
SD = 1.08, α= .94); and tangible (M= 2.70, SD = 1.12, α= .92).
Results
Sample 1: relational maintenance across FWBR types
Hypothesis 1 predicted substantial variation in reported RMBs across FWBR types. Specifically,
participants in true friends, successful transition in, and accidental transition in FWBRs were
predicted to report more RMBs than those in just sex, network opportunism, and failed transition
in FWBR types. Separate one-way ANOVAs with Bonferroni correction (α= .007) and Scheffé post-
hoc tests were performed.
Of the seven RMBs, five varied significantly and substantially across FWBR types. Only positivity,
F(6, 233) = 0.41, p= .87, ɳ
2
= .01, and understanding, F(6, 232) = 1.46, p= .19, ɳ
2
=.04,did not differ
across FWBR types. Significant RMB differences across types were all substantial in size (see Table 1
for group means and post-hoc test results). Generally speaking, participants in successful transition in
and accidental transition in FWBRs reported having received significantly more RMBs when compared
with just sex, network opportunism,andfailed transition in FWBRs. This pattern generally holds for
reports of self-disclosure F(6, 239) = 8.25, p<.001,ɳ
2
=.19;relationshiptalk,F(6, 231) = 11.81,
Table 1. Sample 1 mean values of relational maintenance behaviors by FWBR type.
FWBR Type Self- Disclosure Relationship Talk Assurances Shared Tasks Networks
Just Sex 3.97
a
3.53
ab
2.60
ab
3.21
a
2.98
a
Network Opportunism 3.70
a
2.79
a
1.99
a
3.48
a
3.39
a
Transition Out 5.20
ab
4.96
bc
4.66
cd
4.20
ab
3.61
ab
Failed Transition In 4.57
ab
3.89
abc
3.26
abc
3.27
a
3.22
a
True Friends 5.18
ab
4.47
abc
3.95
bcd
4.26
ab
4.23
ab
Accidental Transition In 5.61
b
5.40
c
5.11
d
5.17
b
4.99
b
Successful Transition In 5.08
ab
5.41
c
5.14
d
5.32
b
4.85
b
Note. Within columns, means lacking a common subscript differed significantly (p< .007).
6P. A. MONGEAU ET AL.
p< .001, ɳ
2
=.23;assurances,F(6, 232) = 23.29, p< .001, ɳ
2
= .37; shared tasks, F(6, 230) = 11.98,
p<.001,ɳ
2
= .24; and network support, F(6, 230) = 12.31, p< .001, ɳ
2
= .24. Data are, for the most
part, consistent with Hypothesis 1.
Sample 2: social support across FWBR types
Hypothesis 2 predicted substantial differences in social support across FWBR types. Again, partici-
pants in true friends, successful transition in, and accidental transition in FWBRs were predicted to
report receiving more social support than those in just sex, network opportunism, and failed
transition in FWBR types. One-way ANOVAs were conducted on social support dimensions with
a Bonferroni correction (α= .01) and Scheffé post-hoc tests.
Significant and substantial FWBR type differences appeared for all five social support dimensions.
Although specific differences vary across dimensions, participants in accidental transition in and
successful transition in FWBRs reported receiving more supportive messages than failed transition in,
network opportunism, and just sex FWBR types (see Table 2 for group means and post-hoc results).
This pattern typically follows for emotional support, F(6, 377) = 21.98, p< .001, ɳ
2
= .26; esteem
support, F(6, 377) = 12.48, p< .001, ɳ
2
= .17; network support, F(6, 377) = 12.33, p< .001, ɳ
2
= .16;
information support, F(6, 377) = 15.63, p< .001, ɳ
2
= .20; and tangible support, F(6, 377) = 15.03,
p< .001, ɳ
2
= .19. These data are consistent with Hypothesis 2.
Discussion
The current investigation provides further validation of the seven-category typology of FWBRs
presented by Mongeau et al. (2013) by offering evidence of substantial communicative (i.e., relational
maintenance and social support) variation among types. Initial studies assumed that FWBRs were
isomorphic (e.g., Bisson & Levine, 2009; Hughes et al., 2005; Mongeau et al., 2003), despite evidence
to the contrary (Mongeau et al., 2013). More recently, research identified the presence of consider-
able variation in closeness and romantic desires among FWBRs (Karlsen & Træen, 2013; Mongeau
et al., 2013; Rodrigue et al., 2015). Working with well-established measures (Stafford, 2011;Xu&
Burleson, 2001) utilized in a wide variety of relational contexts, including both friendships
(Ledbetter, 2010) and dating relationships (Guerrero et al., 1993), we hypothesized that reports of
received RMBs (Sample 1) and social support (Sample 2) would differ strongly across FWBR types.
Those FWBRs that reflect closeness and/or romantic desire (e.g., successful transition in, accidental
transition in, and true friends) were expected to report receiving considerably more RMBs and social
support than those that lacked those qualities (i.e., just sex and network opportunism). Moreover, it
was expected that RMBs and support dimensions that directly reflected the nature of the relationship
and partners’feelings (e.g., relationship talk and assurances RMBs, as well as emotional and esteem
support) would reflect particularly large differences across types. Our results are, in large part,
consistent with our hypotheses.
Table 2. Sample 2 mean values of social support dimensions by FWBR type.
FWBR Type Emotional Esteem Network Informational Tangible
Just sex 2.44
a
2.71
a
2.06
a
2.05
a
1.99
a
Network opportunism 2.79
ab
3.10
ab
2.65
ab
2.53
ab
2.35
ab
Failed in 3.11
abc
3.14
ab
2.51
ab
2.73
ab
2.29
ab
Transition out 3.31
bcd
3.58
bc
2.61
ab
2.96
bc
2.75
abc
True friends 3.55
cd
3.65
bc
3.02
bc
3.20
bc
2.89
bcd
Successful in 3.80
d
3.83
bc
3.48
c
3.56
c
3.62
d
Accidental in 3.80
d
3.91
c
3.11
bc
3.30
bc
3.22
cd
Note. Within columns, means lacking a common subscript differed significantly (p< .01).
SOUTHERN COMMUNICATION JOURNAL 7
Significant and substantial differences across FWBR types appeared for five of seven RMB
dimensions and all five social support dimensions. Consistent with Weger et al. (2018), reports of
network opportunism, failed transition in, and just sex FWBR types consistently indicated few RMBs
and little social support. What these partners are not talking about likely defines their relationship
(Duck, 1994). Conversely, FWBRs that transitioned to a romantic relationship (whether or not it was
partner’s initial intent; i.e., accidental and successful transition in FWBRs) consistently reflected
considerable RMBs and support. Nonsexual interactions, in these cases, appear mutually affirming,
intimate, and represent communicative benefits of FWBRs (Owen & Fincham, 2012). Thus, FWBRs
that transition to romantic relationships likely do so because of the positive communication between
partners (Duck; Guerrero et al., 1993; Guerrero & Mongeau, 2008).
Ratings of positivity and understanding RMBs did not differ significantly across FWBR types.
What these dimensions have in common is that neither explicitly reflects the nature of the relation-
ship. Partners can act positively and in an understanding manner (i.e., “demonstrating understand-
ing, cooperation, and patience”Stafford, 2011, p. 284) equally well with an acquaintance or a close
friend, and whether or not they desire a romantic relationship. This is likely why these two
dimensions have the highest overall mean values for all the RMBs. These results are also consistent
with our expectation that RMB dimensions that lack direct relational implications will exhibit the
smallest differences across FWBR types. On the other end of the spectrum, dimensions that clearly
reflect the state of the (present and desired future) relationship, and partners’feelings toward one
another, vary strongly across groups (i.e., assurances RMBs and emotional support). These results
illustrate nuances both among the FWBR types and the specific dimensions investigated.
It is interesting that the relative standing of transition out and true friends FWBRs varied across
dimensions. Transition out means were relatively high for self-disclosure, relationship talk, and assur-
ances RMBs, as well as esteem support. All of these behaviors have explicit relational implications. On
the other hand, means are low for social network RMBs and tangible and network support. Together,
these results suggest that partners may be performing private relational work to rekindle a romantic
flame before making it official for fear of raising the social network’s wrath (Dailey, Brody, & Knapp,
2015). Transition out FWBRs might represent a wide variety of relationships, depending on when and
how the romantic part of the relationship ended and partners' interaction since that event.
True friends FWBRs exhibit high levels of self-disclosure RMBs and esteem support (again, both
dimensions with explicit relational implications), but low levels of tangible and network support.
Such a pattern suggests that partners are communicatively attempting to balance sex and a close
nonromantic friendship, but doing so privately. Partners may be concerned with losing the sub-
stantial time and emotion invested if a romantic transition goes awry or if partners’network(s)
object (Dailey et al., 2015; Guerrero et al., 1993; Guerrero & Mongeau, 2008).
In summary, the Mongeau et al. (2013) FWBR types differ substantially in received RMBs and
social support. Thus, our results indicate that the Mongeau et al. typology clearly taps important
sources of variability among FWBRs. One question that remains is how to best represent and capture
that variability. Statistically speaking, having a single independent variable with seven levels is
inelegant. Therefore, to provide a more graceful description of diversity among FWBRs (and,
potentially, hookups and booty calls), we present a dimensionally-based model.
A dimensional model of FWBRs
Although the present data suggest that the Mongeau et al. (2013)typology taps important sources of
variation among FWBRs, its categorical nature may attenuate our understanding of that diversity. To
provide a simpler and potentially more useful explanatory platform from which to base future
research, we propose a two-dimensional model where FWBRs differ along closeness and romantic
desire dimensions (see Figure 1). We chose the dimensions because closeness (Aron, Aron, &
Smollan, 1992) appears in all three FWBR typologies (Karlsen & Træen, 2013; Mongeau et al.,
2013; Rodrigue et al., 2015), while romantic desire (i.e., wanting both a sexual and romantic
8P. A. MONGEAU ET AL.
relationship) appears primarily in Mongeau et al. Despite definitional proscriptions (e.g., Bisson &
Levine, 2009; Hughes et al., 2005; Mongeau et al., 2003), some FWBRs are intentionally designed to
generate a real relationship (Knight, 2014; Mongeau et al., 2013; Reid et al., 2011).
Figure 1 provides a preliminary view of how FWBR types might fit in the two-dimensional
structure. Closeness represents the x-axis (increasing from left to right) and romantic desire the
y-axis (increasing from bottom to top). We placed the seven FWBR types into the model based on
Mongeau et al. (2013), the present results, and intuition. Moving from left to right along the bottom
of Figure 1,just sex, network opportunism, and true friends FWBRs all reflect little romantic desire,
but differ in closeness. At the top of the model, failed transition in and successful transition in are
similar in romantic desire, but differ in closeness.
This model highlights the nuanced nature of FWBRs as reflected in our results. First, the model
foregrounds diversity that exists both within and between FWBR types. For example, the oval shape
of accidental transition in suggests that partners initially lack romantic interest, but might be
strangers (on the left), acquaintances (in the middle), or good friends (on the right). In addition,
the circle surrounding transition out FWBRs is larger than those designating the other types because
partners likely vary initially in both closeness and romantic desire (depending on when and how
partners’earlier romantic breakup occurred).
Second, like all relationships, FWBRs are dynamic (Miller & Steinberg, 1975). Thus, many
relationships’placement along the dimensions will change over time. For example, by definition,
partners in both accidental and failed transition in types experience changes in romantic desire over
time (although in opposite directions). In addition, Mongeau et al. (2013) reported that successful
and accidental transition in FWBRs as being initially below average in friendship strength, such that
something clearly changes as these types develop. The dimensional view may generate a clearer and
more complete understanding of how FWBRs change over time.
Third, the dimensional perspective can highlight the dyadic nature of FWBRs. In short, FWBR
are dyadic relationships, but research to date has taken an individual perspective. A dyadic
Romantic
Desire
lufsseccuSdeliaF
noitisnarTnoitisnarT
In In
Transition
Out
Closeness
Accidental Transition In
Just Network True
Sex Opportunism Friends
Figure 1. A two-dimensional (based on closeness and romantic desire) representation of the seven types of FWBRs (Mongeau
et al., 2013).
SOUTHERN COMMUNICATION JOURNAL 9
perspective is important because the extent to which partners (dis)agree on the nature of their
FWBRs (and its trajectory) likely has important implications for the relationship’s future (Bisson &
Levine, 2009; Karlsen & Træen, 2013). Romantic desire, for example could be mutual (e.g., successful
transition in) or unilateral (failed transition in or Karlsen & Træen’son the hook script). Both
partners’(meta)perceptions of closeness and romantic desire likely influence FWBR development.
An initial hypothesis might be that the greater the difference between partners’(meta)perceptions of
closeness and romantic desire, the more precarious the FWBR will be.
Extending dimensions beyond FWBRs
Our dimensional perspective (i.e., closeness andromantic desire) may also accurately capture
diversity in both booty calls (Jonason et al., 2009,2011) and hookups (Epstein et al., 2009).
Jonason et al. (2009) initially described booty calls as a compromise between one partner’s
sexual desire and the other’s relational desires. That romantic desire can be unilateral or shared
helps to explain how these interactions have superseded, at least partially, events such as the
first date as means of establishing college students’romantic relationships (England et al., 2008;
Reid et al., 2011). Pleasurable sexual interactions can generate, and implicitly communicate,
closeness and romantic desire (Epstein et al.; Reid et al.). Thus, closeness and romantic desire
dimensions could shed important light on variation in hookups and booty calls in addition to
FWBRs.
Limitations and directions for future research
The present results improve our understanding of the communicative diversity across FWBRs,
however, the data are limited. First, we did not observe interactions. We do not know how RMBs
and support are enacted in FWBRs (or what FWBR partners consider these message types to be).
Future research, then, should explore what messages and message types partners see as important to
the development or deterioration of their FWBRs. Understanding this issue would provide impor-
tant insight into the workings of FWBRs.
This study’s second limitation lies in the ambiguity inherent in FWBRs that become romantic
(i.e., successful and accidental transition in). We instructed participants to consider communication
only while their relationship was an FWBR, however, this task may be difficult as it may be unclear
when an FWBR ends and a romantic relationship begins. Moreover, relational schemas suggest that
message recall is filtered through current relationship knowledge structures (e.g., Baldwin, 1995;
Planalp, 1985). Thus, we cannot be entirely confident that participants are not making judgements
based on their romantic relationship. Regardless, RMBs and social support in FWBRs (particularly
those with inherent relational implications) likely facilitate romantic relationship transitions. Thus,
future research should investigate other communication phenomenon that reflect, and help to define
FWBRs (e.g., affection, Floyd & Morman, 1998, and pillow talk; Denes, 2012). Such interactions
should also reflect the diversity of FWBRs (typologically and/or dimensionally). Longitudinal
research would also be useful to determine how these message types create change over time in
FWBRs (e.g., how they morph into romantic relationships), from both individual and dyadic
perspectives.
In conclusion, multiple studies (Karlsen & Træen, 2013; Mongeau et al., 2013; Rodrigue et al.,
2015) highlight the folly of describing FWBRs as a single relational form. Specifically, it is inadvisable
to paint FWBRs with broad strokes (just as is true with hookups, booty calls, or romantic relation-
ships). It is inappropriate to claim, for example, that FWBRs are any one entity. More research is
needed to explicate variation among FWBRs and other casual sex relationships in an effort to better
understand these surprisingly complex relational types.
10 P. A. MONGEAU ET AL.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal
closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,63, 596–612. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596
Baldwin, M. W. (1995). Relational schemas and cognition in close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships,12, 547–552. doi:10.1177/0265407595124008
Beets, M. W., Cardinal, B. J., & Alderman, B. L. (2010). Parental social support and the physical activity-related
behaviors of youth: A review. Health Education & Behavior,37, 621–644. doi:10.1177/1090198110363884
Bisson, M. A., & Levine, T. R. (2009). Negotiating a friends with benefits relationship. Archives of Sexual Behavior,38,
66–73. doi:10.1007/s10508-007-9211-2
Canary, D. J., Stafford, L., & Semic, B. A. (2002). A panel study of the associations between maintenance strategies and
relational characteristics. Journal of Marriage and Family,64, 395–406. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00395.x
Cutrona, C. E. (1996). Social support in couples: Marriage as a resource in times of stress. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
doi:10.4135/9781483327563
Dailey, R. M., Brody, N., & Knapp, J. (2015). Friend support of dating relationships: Comparing relationship type,
friend and partner perspectives. Personal Relationships,22, 368–385. doi:10.1111/pere.12086
Dainton, M., & Aylor, B. (2002). Routine and strategic maintenance efforts: Behavioral patterns, variations associated
with relational length, and the prediction of relational characteristics. Communication Monographs,69,52–66.
doi:10.1080/03637750216533
Denes, A. (2012). Pillow talk: Exploring disclosures after sexual activity. Western Journal of Communication,76,
91–108. doi:10.1080/10570314.2011.651253
Duck, S. W. (1994). Meaningful relationships: Talking, sense, and relating. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
England, P., Shafer, E. F., & Fogarty, A. C. (2008). Hooking up and forming romantic relationships on today’s college
campuses. The Gendered Society Reader,3, 531–593.
Epstein, M., Calzo, J. P., Smiler, A. P., & Ward, L. M. (2009). Anything from making out to having sex”: Men’s
negotiations of hooking up and friends with benefits scripts. Journal of Sex Research,46, 414–424. doi:10.1080/
00224490902775801
Floyd, K., & Morman, M. T. (1998). The measurement of affectionate communication. Communication Quarterly,46,
144–162. doi:10.1080/01463379809370092
Guerrero, 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, 339–358. doi:10.1080/
10570310500305471
Guerrero, L. K., Eloy, S. V., & Wabnik, A. I. (1993). Linking maintenance strategies to relationship development and
disengagement: A reconceptualization. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,10, 273–283. doi:10.1177/
026540759301000207
Guerrero, L. K., & Mongeau, P. A. (2008). On becoming “more than friends”: The transition from friendship to
romantic relationship. In S. Sprecher, A. Wenzel, & J. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of relationship initiation (pp.
175–194). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Hughes, M., Morrison, K., & Asada, K. J. 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
Jonason, P. K. (2013). Four functions for four relationships: Consensus definitions of university students. Archives of
Sexual Behavior,42, 1407–1414. doi:10.1007/s10508-013-0189-7
Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., & Cason, M. J. (2009). The “booty call”: A compromise between men’s and women’s ideal
mating strategies. Journal of Sex Research,46, 460–470. doi:10.1080/00224490902775827
Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., & Richardson, J. (2011). Positioning the booty-call relationship on the spectrum of relation-
ships: Sexual but more emotional than one-night stands. Journal of Sex Research,48, 486–495. doi:10.1080/
00224499.2010.497984
Karlsen, M., & Træen, B. (2013). Identifying ‘friends with benefits’scripts among young adults in the Norwegian
cultural context. Sexuality & Culture,17,83–99. doi:10.1007/s12119-012-9140-7
Knight, K. (2014). Communicative dilemmas in emerging adults’friends with benefits relationships: Challenges to
relational talk. Emerging Adulthood,2, 270–279. doi:10.1177/2167696814549598
Ledbetter, A. M. (2010). Content-and medium-specific decomposition of friendship relational maintenance:
Integrating equity and media multiplexity approaches. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,27, 938–955.
doi:10.1177/0265407510376254
SOUTHERN COMMUNICATION JOURNAL 11
Lovejoy, M. C. (2015). Hooking up as an individualistic practice: A double-edged sword for college women. Sexuality
& Culture,19, 464–492. doi:10.1007/s12119-015-9270-9
Mikkelson, A. C., Floyd, K., & Pauley, P. M. (2011). Differential solicitude of social support in different types of adult
sibling relationships. Journal of Family Communication,11, 220–236. doi:10.1080/15267431.2011.554749
Miller, G. R., & Steinberg, M. (1975). Between people: A new analysis of interpersonal communication. Chicago, IL:
Science Research Associates.
Mongeau, P. A., Knight, K., Williams, J., Eden, J., & Shaw, C. (2013). Identifying and explicating variation among
friends with benefit relationships. The Journal of Sex Research,50,37–47. doi:10.1080/00224499.2011.623797
Mongeau, P. A., Ramirez, A., & Vorell, M. (2003, February). Friends with benefits: An initial investigation of a sexual but
not romantic relationship. Paper presented at the Western States Communication Association, Salt Lake City, UT.
Mongeau, P. A., van Raalte, L. J., Generous, M. A., & Bednarchik, L. (2016). Friends with benefits relationships. In
C. Sheehan (Ed.), The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Family Studies (Vol. 2, pp. 884–888). Malden, MA: Wiley-
Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781119085621.wbefs500
Olmstead, S. B., Pasley, K., & Fincham, F. D. (2017). College men’s involvement in friends with benefits relationships.
College Student Journal,50, 398–403.
Owen, J., & Fincham, F. D. (2012). Friends with benefits relationships as a start to exclusive romantic relationships.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,29, 982–996. doi:10.1177/0265407512448275
Paul, E. L., McManus, B., & Hayes, A. (2000). “Hookups”: Characteristics and correlates of college students’
spontaneous and anonymous sexual experiences. Journal of Sex Research,37,76–88. doi:10.1080/
00224490009552023
Planalp, S. (1985). Relational schemata: A test of alternative forms of relational knowledge as guides to
communication. Human Communication Research,12,3
–29. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1985.tb00064.x
Reay, B. (2014). Promiscuous intimacies: Rethinking the history of American casual sex. Journal of Historical Sociology,
27,1–24. doi:10.1111/johs.12012
Reid, J. A., Elliott, S., & Webber, G. R. (2011). Casual hookups to formal dates: Refining the boundaries of the sexual
double standard. Gender & Society,25, 545–568. doi:10.1177/0891243211418642
Rodrigue, C., Blais, M., Lavoie, F., Adam, B. D., Magontier, C., & Goyer, M. F. (2015). The structure of casual sexual
relationships and experiences among single adults aged 18–30 years old: A latent profile analysis. The Canadian
Journal of Human Sexuality,24, 215–227. doi:10.3138/cjhs.243-A1
Sarason, I. G., & Sarason, B. R. (2009). Social support: Mapping the construct. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships,26, 113–120. doi:10.1177/0265407509105526
Stafford, L. (2011). Measuring relationship maintenance behaviors: Critique and development of the revised relation-
ship maintenance behavior scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,28, 278–303. doi:10.1177/
0265407510378125
Taylor, S. E. (2011). Social support. In H. S. Friedman (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of health psychology (pp. 189–214).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication: A study of interactional
patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
Weaver, A. D., MacKeigan, K. L., & MacDonald, H. A. (2011). Experiences and perceptions of young adults in friends
with benefits relationships: A qualitative study. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality,20,41–53.
Weger, H., Cole, M., & Akbulut, V. (2018). Relationship maintenance across platonic and non-platonic cross-sex
friendships in emerging adults. The Journal of Social Psychology,159,15–29. doi:10.1080/00224545.2018.1439876
Wentland, J. J., & Reissing, E. D. (2011). Taking casual sex not too casually: Exploring definitions of casual sexual
relationships. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality,20(3), 75–91.
Xu, Y., & Burleson, B. R. (2001). Effects of sex, culture, and support type on perceptions of spousal social support: An
assessment of the “support gap”hypothesis in early marriage. Human Communication Research,27, 535–566.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2001.tb00792.x
12 P. A. MONGEAU ET AL.
