ArticlePDF Available

Positioning the Booty-Call Relationship on the Spectrum of Relationships: Sexual but More Emotional Than One-Night Stands

Taylor & Francis
The Journal of Sex Research
Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Most research on human sexuality has focused on long-term pairbonds and one-night stands. However, growing evidence suggests there are relationships that do not fit cleanly into either of those categories. One of these relationships is a "booty-call relationship." The purpose of this study was to describe the sexual and emotional nature of booty-call relationships by (a) examining the types of emotional and sexual acts involved in booty-call relationships and (b) comparing the frequency of those acts in booty-call relationships to one-night stands and serious long-term relationships. In addition, the manner in which sociosexuality is associated with the commission of these acts was also examined. Demonstrative of booty-call relationships' sexual nature was individuals' tendency to leave after sex and infrequent handholding. In contrast, the romantic nature of booty-call relationships was demonstrated through the frequency of acts like kissing. The results suggest the booty-call relationship is a distinct type of relationship situated between one-night stands and serious romantic relationships.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Positioning the Booty-Call Relationship on the Spectrum of Relationships:
Sexual but More Emotional Than One-Night Stands
Peter K. Jonason
Department of Psychology, University of West Florida
Norman P. Li
School of Social Sciences, Singapore Management University
Jessica Richardson
Department of Psychology, New Mexico State University
Most research on human sexuality has focused on long-term pairbonds and one-night stands.
However, growing evidence suggests there are relationships that do not fit cleanly into either
of those categories. One of these relationships is a ‘‘booty-call relationship.’’ The purpose of
this study was to describe the sexual and emotional nature of booty-call relationships by (a)
examining the types of emotional and sexual acts involved in booty-call relationships and (b)
comparing the frequency of those acts in booty-call relationships to one-night stands and
serious long-term relationships. In addition, the manner in which sociosexuality is associated
with the commission of these acts was also examined. Demonstrative of booty-call relation-
ships’ sexual nature was individuals’ tendency to leave after sex and infrequent handholding.
In contrast, the romantic nature of booty-call relationships was demonstrated through the
frequency of acts like kissing. The results suggest the booty-call relationship is a distinct type
of relationship situated between one-night stands and serious romantic relationships.
Much research on human sexuality and romantic
relationships has focused on two polar-opposite
relationship types: long-term, committed relationships
like marriage (Buss, 1989; Christopher & Sprecher,
2000; Li, Bailey, Kenrick, & Linsenmeier, 2002) and
short-term, casual-sex relationships like one-night
stands or hook-ups (Cubbins & Tanfer, 2000; Fisher &
Byrne, 1978; Li & Kenrick, 2006; Paul, McManus, &
Hayes, 2000). Although insightful, such research is
nevertheless limited. It is common for people in nearly
all societies to form long-term bonds and marry (e.g.,
Fisher, 1992), and anonymous casual sex is variably
present in most societies (e.g., Schmitt, 2005), despite
the cultural and religious taboos or prescripts from
engaging in that behavior. However, a growing body
of evidence suggests the range of potential relationships
is larger than these two alone. Recent research expands
the variety of relationships to include ones where
partners have some degree of sexual contact and some
degree of friendship, but the partners are not in a
committed relationship. Some research has focused on
‘‘friends with benefits’’ (e.g., Afifi & Faulkner, 2000),
whereas other research has focused on ‘‘booty-call
1
relationships’’ (e.g., Jonason, Li, & Cason, 2009). In this
study, we focus on booty-call relationships.
Whatever term is used to refer to non-romantic
sexual relationships, they share several features. These
relationships appear to be simultaneously motivated
by both short-term (e.g., physical attractiveness is
prioritized) and long-term relationship (e.g., repeated
interactions) factors (Jonason et al., 2009). Both
relationships are likely to be appealing to men and
women for different reasons. The low-investment sexual
component may appeal to men (Buss & Schmitt, 1993;
Townsend, 1995; Townsend, Kline, & Wasserman,
1995; Townsend & Levy, 1990), and a prolonged period
of interaction allows women to give mates a ‘‘trial run’’
(Greiling & Buss, 2000; Impett & Peplau, 2003; Jensen-
Campbell, Graziano, & West, 1995; Li & Kenrick,
2006). If a relationship is a trial run, the partner has
likely passed the minimum threshold and is being given
We thank Laura Madson and Pamela Izzo for reviewing an earlier
version of this manuscript.
Correspondence should be addressed to Peter K. Jonason,
University of West Florida, Psychology Department Bldg. 41, 11000
University Parkway, Pensacola, FL 32514. E-mail: pjonason@uwf.edu
1
A booty-call itself ‘‘is a communication initiated towards a
non-long-term relationship partner with the urgent intent either stated
or implied, of having sexual activity and=or intercourse’’ (Jonason, Li,
& Cason, 2009, p. 3).
JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH, 47, 1–10, 2010
Copyright #The Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality
ISSN: 0022-4499 print=1559-8519 online
DOI: 10.1080/00224499.2010.497984
Downloaded By: [Jonason, Peter Karl] At: 21:27 28 July 2010
the opportunity to prove their worth as a serious
partner. Alternatively, although not particularly well
borne-out in the data, these relationships may function
as a ‘‘placeholder relationship’’ until a better relationship
comes along or as a source of stable social or emotional
support that cannot be provided in one-night stands.
2
These relationships are popular on college campuses.
Estimates suggest between 50% and 65% of college
students have experience in friends with benefits-type
relationships (Afifi & Faulkner, 2000; Puentes, Knox,
& Sussman, 2008). Alternative estimates suggest 30%
of college students report involvement in a booty-call
relationship (Jonason et al., 2009). Indeed, they are
common enough to be addressed in work on sexual
health (Singer et al., 2006). Whatever, the percentage,
it is clear friendship relationships that involve sex are
reasonably common among college participants and,
therefore, worthy of further study.
These types of relationships have proven to not only
be popular in empirical research and on college cam-
puses, but also garner interest in the popular press
(e.g., Marklein, 2002). Indeed, Men’s Health Magazine
has featured research on booty-call relationships twice
in recent years (Kylstra, 2009; Stoddard, 2010). There
has been enough popular attention to booty-call rela-
tionships that they have been studied in media research
on how images of sexuality in the media affect adoles-
cents (Ashcraft, 2003). The media attention suggests
these relationship types are of interest to the public
and, therefore, that more research is warranted.
In this study, we hope to provide evidence on what
sexual and emotional acts characterize the booty-call
relationship and how these acts might be associated with
sociosexuality. The use of sociosexuality may be
informative on the point that an emerging relationship
may be indistinguishable from a pre-established booty-
call relationship. Individuals with a restricted sociosexu-
ality are likely to be engaging in less sexual acts overall
than those who are unrestricted in their sociosexuality.
Last, we attempt to situate the booty-call relationship
on the spectrum of relationships between one-night
stands and serious romantic relationships. To do so,
we collect data in a two-phase approach to assess these
factors in one-night stands, serious romantic relation-
ships, and booty-call relationships.
One way to define the nature of a relationship is to
document the acts associated with a given relationship
(e.g., Grello, Welsh, & Harper, 2006). If booty-calls are
a hybrid of long- and short-term relationships (Jonason
et al., 2009), the types of acts involved in booty-calls
should be both emotional and sexual in nature. For
instance, the most frequently committed acts should be
ones like kissing and hugging—ostensibly, acts that
denote emotional involvement (e.g., Grello et al.,
2006)—and sexual acts like engaging in penile-vaginal sex.
Although booty-call relationships are likely to share
features with both short- and long-term relationships,
booty-calls should also be distinct from either type of
relationship. Nevertheless, they tend to align more
strongly with relationships that are short-term rather
than long-term in nature in that they are relatively sexual
in nature, physical attractiveness is a highly valued trait,
and commitment is lacking. Furthermore, although
booty-call relationships are expected to have some
emotional elements to them, they are not expected to
have particularly high levels of acts such as kissing and
handholding. Such emotional acts tend to be employed
by partners seeking or demonstrating commitment
(e.g., Grello et al., 2006) and, thus, should be relatively
lower for booty-call relationships than for more commit-
ted romantic relationships.
If booty-call relationships are more sexual than
emotional, we expect individuals to attempt to maintain
the primarily sexual nature by minimizing unnecessary
time spent together. Such time may otherwise lead to
either the progression of the relationship to a more
serious one or either partner developing feelings, thereby
undermining the convenient arrangement that booty-
call relationship partners may have worked out. To keep
the booty-call relationship a relatively sexual relation-
ship, individuals will likely need to use strategies that
keep the relationship from progressing to a more serious
relationship. One way to do this may be to leave after
sex. Therefore, we predict that the frequency of leaving
after sex will be higher in booty-call relationships than
in long-term, romantic relationships characterized by
spending time together and intimacy.
Similarly, the nature of booty-call relationships and
one-night stands are different and, therefore, we expect
the frequencies of acts committed to differ. One-night
stands are about immediate sexual gratification and
occur once, hence the name (Fisher & Byrne, 1978).
Although sex is important in booty-call relationships
(Jonason et al., 2009), they tend to occur over multiple
occasions. Multiple occasions provide more opportu-
nities for a greater range of sexual acts to be committed
within booty-call relationships—that is, with greater
‘‘time on target,’’ one can expand the sexual repertoire
the two partners engage in as both a function of time
and a sense of comfort that surely develops. For
instance, kissing various regions of the body, manual-
genital sex, and anal sex might become part of the sexual
repertoire of the pair if given enough time. In contrast,
in one-night stands, the limited interaction and immedi-
ate sexual needs likely focus individuals to do only the
‘‘essential’’ sex acts. Therefore, we predict that general-
ized kissing acts and anal and manual sex will be
committed more frequently in booty-call relationships
than in one-night stands.
2
For an alternative perspective on booty-calls—one that does not
involve evolutionary psychology—see Caruthers (2006) for an examin-
ation of how sociocultural factors may impact the development of such
relationships.
JONASON, LI, AND RICHARDSON
2
Downloaded By: [Jonason, Peter Karl] At: 21:27 28 July 2010
An additional way to understand the nature of
booty-call relationships is to examine how individual dif-
ferences, like sociosexuality (e.g., Simpson & Gangestad,
1991), relate to the commission of the acts and to com-
pare sociosexuality scores across different relationship
contexts. Individuals with an unrestricted sexuality are
more willing to engage in casual-sex behaviors, whereas
those who have a restricted sexuality are reticent about
engaging in casual-sex behaviors. Therefore, we predict
sociosexuality scores will be correlated with the com-
mission of sexual acts and not emotional acts. Similarly,
we expect individuals’ sociosexuality will be associated
with the tendency to leave booty-call relationship
partners and one-night stand partners but not to leave
their serious partners. Leaving booty-call relationship
partners after sex may be a means to minimize emotional
commitments, but leaving after sex in the context of
one-night stands is simply part of the definition of a
one-night stand.
Accounting for the large variety of sexual behavior
and attitudes has been a goal of sex research since its
inception (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948; Kinsey,
Pomeroy, Martin, & Gebhard, 1953). For instance, the
Sociosexuality Orientation Index (SOI; Simpson &
Gangestad, 1991) was designed to assess the ‘‘substantial
variability that individuals displayed across a wide array
of ...attitudes and behavior’’ (p. 870). However, much of
the research on mating has obscured the variety and
variability in human sexuality by dichotomizing the var-
iety in the sexuality of individuals. Specifically, relation-
ships and mating strategies have been assumed to
involve either long- or short-term relationships or both
(Gangestad & Simpson, 2000), but not as distinct rela-
tionships that incorporate both short- and long-term
elements (Jonason et al., 2009). Therefore, to better explore
the variety of sexuality in people’s lives, we examine one
hybrid relationship type that is garnering interest in both
academic and popular circles: the booty-call relationship.
Method
Participants, Procedures, and Measures
Prior research suggests few individuals had engaged in
booty-calls within the last year (Jonason et al., 2009).
Therefore, to be assured we had sufficiently large num-
bers of individuals who had engaged in this behavior,
we collected data in two phases. Because booty-calls were
central, the first phase focused on identifying participants
who had at least one booty-call relationship in the last
year. In both phases, student participants were directed
to a Web page hosted by an online data-collection instru-
ment after they signed up for the study.
In Phase 1, the first Web page asked participants
whether they had been in a booty-call relationship in the
past year. If they said ‘‘yes,’’ they began the study; if they
said ‘‘no,’’ they were redirected to another, unrelated
study.
3
To aid in this filtering process, we provided
participants with the definition for a booty-call: ‘‘A
communication initiated towards a non-long-term
relationship partner with the urgent intent, either stated
or implied, of having sexual activity and=or intercourse’’
(Jonason et al., 2009, p. 3). The Phase 1 sample was
composed of 123 participants (45% male and 55% female)
who received course credit for participation. The mean
age of the participants was 21.84 years (SD ¼3.15).
Eighty-six percent were heterosexual (49 males and 57
females), 6% were homosexual, and 8% (four males and
three females) were bisexual (two males and eight
females). Participants reported an average of 7.16
(SD ¼14.24) booty-call relationships in the last year, with
men (M¼7.47, SD ¼13.45) reporting equal amounts as
women (M¼6.91, SD ¼14.95), t(121) ¼0.22, ns.
In Phase 2, we sought out participants who had
experience with either one-night stands (n¼69;
males ¼17, females ¼50, unreported gender ¼2), long-
term relationships (n¼97; males ¼20, females ¼69,
unreported gender ¼8), or both in the last year. Women
reported significantly more one-night stands, v
2
(1,
N¼69) ¼16.25, p<.01; and serious romantic relation-
ships, v
2
(1, N¼97) ¼26.99, p<.01, than men did.
4
Again, participants were presented with a question that
asked whether they have had either a serious romantic
relationship or a one-night stand. If they said ‘‘yes,’’
they proceeded to the study; if they said ‘‘no,’’ they were
redirected to another, unrelated study. We did this to
make comparisons between acts committed in the con-
text of these two relationship types and acts committed
in booty-call relationships. The mean age of the parti-
cipants was 21.58 years (SD ¼4.59). Eighty-two percent
were heterosexual (19 males and 63 females), 3% (zero
males and three females) were homosexual, and 6%
(two males and four females) were bisexual (the remain-
der were nonresponsive). Individuals who participated
in Phase 1 could not participate in Phase 2.
In both phases, participants logged into a Web site to
complete a survey that asked them the frequency with
which they committed a series of acts in relation to a
partner with whom they were engaged in a one-night
stand, serious romantic relationship, or a booty-call
relationship in the last year. In each phase, only those
answers from unique IP addresses were included. Parti-
cipants were asked, ‘‘How often did you do the follow-
ing towards a person in the context of a [relationship
type]?’’ The scale ranged from 1 (not at all)to5(very
much). Participants were presented with a series of 17
3
Unfortunately, we did not keep track of this and, therefore, can-
not provide another estimate of the frequency of these relationships.
4
In most research, women report fewer sexual and romantic rela-
tionships than men do (e.g., Jonason & Fisher, 2009). This discrepancy,
we suspect, is the result of the small sample size and not veridical
differences.
POSITIONING THE BOOTY-CALL RELATIONSHIP
3
Downloaded By: [Jonason, Peter Karl] At: 21:27 28 July 2010
author-generated acts. These acts were randomly pre-
sented to participants (see Table 1 for a list of these acts).
We also used the seven-item SOI (Simpson &
Gangestad, 1991). On a scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree)to9(strongly agree), participants were asked
how much they agreed with statements like, ‘‘I can
imagine myself being comfortable and enjoying casual
sex with different partners.’’ Participants were also
asked the frequency with which they had sex with
someone only one time. The seven items were standar-
dized (zscored) and averaged before creating indexes
from Phase 1 (Cronbach’s a¼.75) and Phase 2
(a¼.64) data. In Phase 1, t(121) ¼3.59, p<.01 (Cohen’s
d¼0.65) and Phase 2, t(89) ¼3.47, p<.01 (d¼0.74),
men had a less restricted sociosexuality than women
did. Sociosexuality scores did not differ across the three
relationship types (ts¼0.11–1.10, ns).
To understand overall tendencies toward sexual and
emotional acts across the relationship durations, we
created two composite variables. We averaged all the
items that explicitly referred to sex (four items; e.g.,
manual-genital sex and penile-vaginal sex) and emotion-
al acts (10 items; e.g., handholding and kissing) for
long-term, romantic relationships (as¼.69 and .90,
respectively); short-term, casual-sex relationships (as¼
.76 and .90, respectively); and booty-call relationships
(a¼.66 and .86, respectively).
Results
We conducted two types of analyses. First, we
conducted item analyses to understand the actual acts
that characterize booty-call relationships. Second, we
conducted similar analyses using indexes of emotional
and sexual acts to understand overall trends and
associations. Data from both phases were combined in
the results because of the equivalency of the samples.
Item Analyses
In Table 1, we present overall means for the frequency
with which participants committed the acts across the
relationship types, in descending order. Kissing the
partner on the lips or the neck and penile-vaginal sex
were the three most-common acts, whereas penile-anal
sex, vaginal-vaginal sex, and kissing the partner on the
hand were the three least-common acts associated with
booty-call relationships. The fourth most common act
was hugging the partner, and sixth was talking to a
booty-call relationship partner after sex. These are
consistent with Jonason et al.’s (2009) approach to
booty-call relationships. Acts that are more character-
istic of some degree of emotional intimacy (e.g., kissing
on the lips) were most common in serious relationships
but were also committed frequently in the context of
booty-call relationships. This also suggests that part of
the nature of booty-call relationships contains some
degree of emotional intimacy, as per Jonason et al.
Results in Table 1 also suggest that the booty-call
relationship falls between one-night stands and serious
romantic relationships in terms of the frequency of acts.
For eight (47%) out of 17 of the acts, the booty-call
relationship was in between the one-night stand and
serious romantic partner in terms of mean frequencies.
To determine which acts are more characteristic of each
Table 1. Mean Frequencies of Committing Acts in Booty-Call Relationships (Phase 1), One-Night Stands, and Serious Relationships
(Phase 2)
One-Night Stand (n¼69) Booty-Call Relationship (n¼123) Serious Relationship (n¼97)
Variable M SD M SD M SD
Kissed my partner on the lips. 3.88 1.17 3.92 1.27
a
4.58 0.94
a
Penile-vaginal sex with my partner. 3.54 1.42 3.83 1.38 3.83 1.40
Kissed my partner on the neck. 3.03 1.36
h
3.40 1.33
h
3.70 1.21
Hugged my partner. 3.39 1.42 3.28 1.26
b
4.33 1.03
b
Kissed my partner on some other body part. 2.88 1.18
i
3.27 1.32
i
3.66 1.17
Talked with my partner after we had sex. 3.16 1.36 3.19 1.26
c
3.93 1.32
c
Fondled my partner’s breasts or chest. 2.60 1.34
j
3.16 1.44
j
3.16 1.27
Kissed my partner on the breasts or chest. 2.59 1.29
k
3.11 1.43
k
3.27 1.21
Manual-genital sex with my partner. 2.62 1.32
l
3.11 1.40
l
2.88 1.40
Oral-genital sex with my partner. 2.73 1.12 3.02 1.48 3.11 1.34
Fondled my partner’s butt. 2.52 1.37 2.80 1.38 2.88 1.40
Kissed my partner on the face (but not the lips). 2.70 1.25 2.75 1.38
d
3.36 1.21
d
Held hands with my partner. 2.99 1.52
m
2.45 1.36
e
,
m
3.97 1.23
e
Left immediately after I had sex with my partner. 2.03 1.33 2.32 1.29
f
1.41 0.64
f
Penile-anal sex with my partner. 1.28 0.72
n
1.77 1.42
n
1.52 0.88
Kissed my partner on the hand. 1.91 1.12 1.76 1.28
g
2.44 1.25
g
Vaginal-vaginal sex with my partner. 1.33 0.96 1.53 1.21 1.29 0.92
Note. Comparisons among superscripts are significant at p<.05. The scale ranges from 1 (not at all), 2 (a little), 3 (moderately), 4 (much), to 5 (very
much).
JONASON, LI, AND RICHARDSON
4
Downloaded By: [Jonason, Peter Karl] At: 21:27 28 July 2010
relationship and how the booty-call relationship is
situated between the other two, we compared the means
presented in Table 1 from Phase 1 and Phase 2. To do
so, we compared the frequency of acts from serious
romantic partners to booty-call relationships, and found
eight differences: kissing on the lips (t¼4.13, p<.01;
d¼0.59), hugging one’s partner (t¼6.43, p<.01;
d¼0.91), kissing partner on some other body part than
the face (t¼2.22, p<.05; d¼0.31), talking with one’s
partner after sex (t¼4.12, p<.01; d¼0.57), kissing
partner on the face but not the lips (t¼3.33, p<.01;
d¼1.07), holding hands with partner (t¼8.33, p<.01;
d¼1.17), and kissing partner on the hand (t¼2.84,
p<.05; d¼0.54). All of these acts were more common
in serious relationships than in booty-call relationships,
except for one: leaving immediately after sex (t¼6.10,
p<.01; d¼0.89).
We repeated this analysis procedure for one-night
stands, and found seven differences: Kissing partner’s
neck (t¼1.97, p<.05; d¼0.28), kissing some other
body part (t¼2.21, p<.05; d¼0.31), fondling partner’s
breasts or chest (t¼2.87, p<.01; d¼0.40), kissing
partner’s breasts or chest (t¼2.71, p<.01; d¼0.38),
manual-genital sex (t¼2.57, p<.05; d¼0.36), and
penile-anal sex (t¼2.97, p<.01; d¼0.44) were more
frequently committed in booty-calls than one-night
stands. In the case of holding partner’s hand, this act
appeared to be committed more frequently in the con-
text of one-night stands than booty-call relationships
(t¼2.71, p<.01; d¼0.37).
In Table 2, we present the associations between socio-
sexuality and the frequency of acts across relationships.
Consistent with our contention that the booty-call
relationship is more closely aligned with casual-sex
relationships, results suggest that an unrestricted mating
style predicts more of the sexuality of one-night stands and
booty-call relationships than serious romantic relation-
ships. For example, individuals’ scores on the SOI were
positively correlated with their tendency to leave immedi-
ately after sex for booty-call relationships and one-night
stands, but not for serious romantic relationships.
In Table 3, we examined the extent to which men and
women differ in reported acts across relationship
contexts. Sex differences were localized to a few acts.
For instance, women were more likely than men were
to report talking to their partners after having sex,
whereas men were more likely than women were to
report manual-genital sex with their partners. However,
overall, the sexes did not differ much in the acts commit-
ted across relationship contexts, suggesting men and
women do not differ in the commission of these acts
across relationship types.
Overall Analyses
We compared rates of frequency of act type (i.e.,
sexual acts vs. emotional acts) across relationship
contexts and correlated them with sociosexuality. In
doing so, we repeated the prior analyses, which used
item-level analyses, but now we used the indexes. First,
we compared the frequency of emotional and sexual acts
within each relationship context. As reported in Table 4,
frequency of sexual versus emotional acts did not
differ in booty-call relationships. Emotional acts
were more common than sexual acts in serious romantic
relationships than in booty-call relationships and, coun-
ter to what was predicted, more common in one-night
stands than booty-calls relationships.
We also compared the frequency of each type of act
between one-night stands and booty-call relationships,
Table 2. Correlations Between Sociosexuality and the Frequency of Acts Committed Across Booty-Call
Relationships (Phase 1) and One-Night Stands and Serious Relationships (Phase 2)
Variable One-Night Stand Booty-Call Relationship Serious Relationship
1. Kissed my partner on some other body part. .20 .23 .09
2. Penile-anal sex with my partner. .25 .43 .18
3. Penile-vaginal sex with my partner. .37 .21.28
4. Hugged my partner. .10 .06 .04
5. Kissed my partner on the face (but not the lips). .02 .02 .01
6. Fondled my partner’s butt. .23 .30 .08
7. Manual-genital sex with my partner. .18 .25 .08
8. Talked with my partner after we had sex. .06 .14 .05
9. Vaginal-vaginal sex with my partner. .02 .19.01
10. Kissed my partner on the lips. .01 .05 .09
11. Left immediately after I had sex with my partner. .32 .27 .18
12. Kissed my partner on the breasts or chest. .32 .31 .20
13. Oral-genital sex with my partner. .28.30 .23
14. Fondled my partner’s breasts or chest. .31.21.27
15. Kissed my partner on the hand. .06 .21.05
16. Held hands with my partner. .14 .09 .04
17. Kissed my partner on the neck. .23 .01 .15
p<.05. p<.01.
POSITIONING THE BOOTY-CALL RELATIONSHIP
5
Downloaded By: [Jonason, Peter Karl] At: 21:27 28 July 2010
and serious romantic relationships and booty-call
relationships. Emotional acts were more common in
the context of romantic relationships than booty-call
relationships (t¼5.46, p<.01; d¼0.75). Sexual acts
were more common in booty-call relationships than
serious romantic relationships (t¼2.22, p<.05;
d¼0.38).
5
When we compared the frequency of
emotional and sexual acts across relationship type for
men and women, we found no significant sex differences.
Last, we assessed the association between sociosexu-
ality and the frequency of acts across the relationship
types. In the context of one-night stands, sociosexuality
was correlated with the frequency of sexual acts,
r(59) ¼.38, p<.01. In the context of booty-call relation-
ships, sociosexuality was correlated with the frequency
of sexual acts, r(123) ¼.42, p<.01. For serious romantic
relationships, sociosexuality was correlated with the
frequency of sexual acts, r(61) ¼.25, p<.05. No other
correlations were significant.
Discussion
The goal of this study was to address the lack of
research on romantic relationships other than those
at opposite ends of the spectrum of human sexuality.
In so doing, we focused on one type of relationship:
the booty-call relationship. The booty-call relationship
has been identified as a relationship that does not fit
well within the apparent dichotomy between one-night
stands and serious romantic relationships. Although
the underlying motivations have been documented
(Jonason et al., 2009), little research has been done
to understand the nature of these relationships. This
study partially fills that gap by assessing frequency of
acts committed in the context of booty-call relation-
ships, comparing those frequencies across two other
relationship types, and assessing how associations with
sociosexuality are related across these relationship
contexts and how they vary within the contexts of
the relationships.
Booty-call relationships appear to be characterized
by a combination of emotional (e.g., kissing on the lips)
and sexual (e.g., penile-vaginal sex) acts. Emotional acts
are of particular importance to demonstrate that booty-
call relationships are distinct from one-night stands.
One-night stands occur a single time, where sexual
gratification is paramount and emotional feelings or acts
5
This difference is on the small side and, thus, we urge caution in its
over-interpretation.
Table 3. Sex Differences for the Acts Committed in Booty-Call Relationships (Phase 1) and One-Night Stands and Serious
Relationships (Phase 2)
One-Night Stand Booty-Call Relationship Serious Relationship
Variable td t d t d
Kissed my partner on the lips. 1.62 0.41 2.100.38 0.29 0.06
Penile-vaginal sex with my partner. 0.73 0.18 0.87 0.16 0.67 0.14
Kissed my partner on the neck. 0.12 0.03 0.67 0.12 0.59 0.13
Hugged my partner. 0.83 0.21 1.18 0.21 0.97 0.21
Kissed my partner on some other body part. 0.44 0.11 1.14 0.21 0.72 0.15
Talked with my partner after we had sex. 2.240.56 2.85 0.51 1.990.43
Fondled my partner’s breasts or chest. 3.96 0.99 5.13 0.94 4.58 0.98
Kissed my partner on the breasts or chest. 2.64 0.66 4.61 0.84 3.59 0.77
Manual-genital sex with my partner. 0.77 0.19 1.40 0.25 0.02 0.00
Oral-genital sex with my partner. 0.52 0.13 0.82 0.15 0.76 0.16
Fondled my partner’s butt. 3.43 0.86 5.05 0.92 1.86 0.40
Kissed my partner on the face (but not the lips). 0.90 0.23 1.07 0.20 0.40 0.09
Held hands with my partner. 1.82 0.46 0.74 0.13 0.68 0.15
Left immediately after I had sex with my partner. 0.89 0.23 0.48 0.09 0.12 0.03
Penile-anal sex with my partner. 0.60 0.15 2.280.41 0.98 0.21
Kissed my partner on the hand. 0.34 0.09 1.05 0.19 1.19 0.26
Vaginal-vaginal sex with my partner. 0.13 0.03 0.74 0.13 1.35 0.29
Note. Means and standard deviations were omitted to save space, and can be obtained by contacting Peter K. Jonason. Negative values mean women
scored higher than men.
p<.05. p<.01.
Table 4. Comparisons across Act Type by Relationship
Context
Emotional Sexual
Variable MSDMSD t d
One-night stand 2.93 1.03 2.57 0.97 3.300.36
Booty-call relationship 3.01 0.90
a
2.94 1.00
b
0.91 0.07
Serious relationship 3.68 0.88
a
2.84 0.90
b
9.710.94
Note. Comparisons among superscripts are significant at p<.05.
p<.05. p<.01.
JONASON, LI, AND RICHARDSON
6
Downloaded By: [Jonason, Peter Karl] At: 21:27 28 July 2010
are rather absent (Fisher & Byrne, 1978). In contrast,
booty-call relationships have the longevity to explore
other aspects and interests of the individuals’ sexuality.
Consistent with that, we found that booty-call relation-
ships were characterized by higher levels of kissing, in
general, as well as manual and anal sex than in one-night
stands. It may be that the limited time that characterizes
one-night stands forces individuals to prioritize a small
number of sex acts, or it may be that they do not feel
comfortable making sexual requests for less common
acts because they might lead to a global rejection and,
therefore, to no sex at all. In the relatively less tempor-
ary and more acquainted context of booty-call relation-
ships, individuals may have the freedom to explore their
sexuality more because they have more time and less
fear of being entirely rejected. Such possibilities should
be examined in the future.
Similarly, emotional acts can also demonstrate how
the booty-call relationship is distinct from serious
relationships. The frequencies of committing acts like
talking and handholding were higher in serious relation-
ships than booty-call relationships. Such acts may
denote a degree of emotional intimacy that individuals
in booty-call relationships may want to avoid. Indeed,
one glaring difference between acts committed with
serious versus booty-call relationship partners was that
leaving after sex was more frequent with booty-call
relationship partners. By minimizing acts that are
emotionally intimate and leaving after sex, partners
may effectively prevent booty-call relationships from
turning into committed, long-term relationships. For
instance, remaining after sex may lead to the develop-
ment of feelings in one partner, which will undermine
the ‘‘convenient arrangement’’ they have—perhaps
implicitly—negotiated (Jonason et al., 2009). Indeed,
men and women reported equal amounts of leaving after
sex, suggesting both partners are invested in maintaining
the casual nature of the booty-call relationship. Simi-
larly, individuals were more likely to leave after sex in
the context of booty-call relationships than one-night
stands. This may be because there is an implicit under-
standing between one-night stand partners that the
nature of the relationship is casual and temporary,
whereas the repeated encounters for booty-call relation-
ship partners requires such a strategy to maintain the
quasi-sexual nature of booty-call relationships.
However, booty-call relationships are not simply
one-night stands that repeat with the same person. They
appear to be distinct. For instance, unlike one-night
stands, booty-call relationships are characterized by an
equal amount of sexual and emotional acts. Indeed,
results suggest that one-night stands and serious roman-
tic relationships are more alike than they are different
when characterized by rates of commission of emotional
or sexual acts. Such evidence is consistent with the
contention of Jonason et al. (2009) and our previous
discussion, which suggests that focusing on one-night
stands and serious romantic relationships obscures the
complex nature of human sexuality. However, the fact
that there is this similarity between one-night stands
and serious romantic relationships could be an artifact
of our small sample size in Phase 2 across the two types
of relationships. Future work should further investigate
this issue.
One notable discrepancy is that participants who
engaged in one-night stands reported more emotional
than sexual acts. We did not predict this. However, on
second thought, this does make sense. If one-night stands
are characterized by a time constraint, few sexual acts
can occur, and the emotional acts may be used in quick
succession as means of escalating the relationship to
sex. The commission of both types of acts were most
frequent in serious relationships, which is consistent with
our time-based contention. Indeed, the use of emotional
acts to accelerate relationships to copulation—what one
might call foreplay—may be necessary in both one-night
stands and serious romantic relationships. This trend
toward increased emotional acts in serious romantic
relationships and one-night stands is demonstrated in
the results reported in Table 4, where emotional acts
were committed more frequently than sexual acts in
both types of relationships.
The fact that booty-call relationships did not differ
on the commission of either type of act may confirm
prior contentions that sexuality is not one-dimensional
(Jonason et al., 2009). Prior bipolar conceptualization
may reflect an underlying facet of time: one-night stands
being short in duration and serious relationships being
lengthy in duration. More time together may allow for
the development of comfort, and increased comfort
may facilitate a larger range of acts to be committed
of both a sexual and emotional nature. In contrast,
where time is constrained, like in one-night stands, there
are fewer sexual acts committed. Future work might
benefit from treating time in a relationship in a continu-
ous fashion instead of the de facto trichotimization used
here. This may yield interesting results about how
relationships progress from one form to another and
how the parameters of the relationship are negotiated
over time.
We found few sex differences in the acts individuals
committed across three relationship contexts. Men and
women may have a ‘‘standard’’ set of sexual acts that
they commit across various contexts. The few sex differ-
ences appeared to focus on men emphasizing the breast
and butt regions and women talking more. At least two
paradigms could account for this.
It is possible that these acts are part of the sexual
scripts that men and women have (DeLamater, 1987;
Gagnon & Simon, 1973). The sexual script of men is
characterized by sexual acts, whereas women’s sexual
script is characterized by emotional acts. For instance,
women may have been socialized to be oriented toward
relationships and to use language and communication to
POSITIONING THE BOOTY-CALL RELATIONSHIP
7
Downloaded By: [Jonason, Peter Karl] At: 21:27 28 July 2010
connect to their partners (e.g., Caruthers, 2006; Conger,
Cui, Bryant, & Elder, 2000). This could be one
explanation for the results that showed women wanted
to talk after sex more than men did.
Alternatively, and consistent with prior work on
booty-call relationships (Jonason et al., 2009), an
evolutionary perspective may be instructive. It may be
that men are predisposed to focus more on sexual fulfill-
ment as a function of their lessened need to invest in
their offspring (e.g., Buss & Schmitt, 1993). Women,
in contrast, may be predisposed to focus on emotional
acts as a means of testing a mate’s willingness to invest
as per the potentially high cost she pays for engaging in
sex (e.g., Li & Kenrick, 2006).
Two anomalous sex differences emerged in the con-
text of booty-call relationships. Women appeared to
report kissing their partners on the lips more than men
did, and men appeared to have more penile-anal sex than
women did. Although these differences may be spurious,
there are other possible explanations. For example, men
may report more penile-anal sex than women do as a
by-product of their tendency to over-report their sexual
experiences (e.g., Jonason, 2007; Jonason & Fisher,
2009) or because women underreport sexual experiences
for social desirability or to manage self-image (e.g.,
Meston, Heiman, Trapnell, & Paulhus, 1998).
Alternatively, these self-report asymmetries may be
the result of sex differences in preferred acts. For
example, women may especially value kissing their
booty-call relationship partners because they are trying
to assess their partner’s long-term potential. In contrast,
men, trying to maintain a sexual relationship, may mini-
mize kissing, as is common in both sexes for one-night
stands. As such, kissing may be more salient to women
in booty-call relationships. This conjecture is informed
by the idea that kissing may signify that two individuals
are a couple. A man’s willingness to kiss a woman in
public is likely to activate his desire to ensure his acts
are consistent with his self-concept (see Kiesler, Pallak,
& Kanouse, 1968); one solution being to see himself in
a serious relationship.
Although we have made progress toward document-
ing the nature of the booty-call relationship and differ-
entiating it from serious relationships and one-night
stands, there are various limitations. First, as mentioned
earlier, we collected data in two, between-subject phases
because few individuals had all three relationships
within a reasonable amount of time that they could
accurately report the frequency of committing the sexual
acts we asked. An alternative procedure could have been
to ask participants to report on their last serious
relationship, booty-call relationship, and one-night
stand. Although this procedure may have proven useful
to gain within-subjects data, we should be cautious of
data that asks individuals to report from many years
in the past because of the susceptibility of memory.
Nevertheless, because of our self-selective sampling
method, our cross-relationship comparisons may be
limited to being between people who have booty-call
relationships and those who are less likely to have such
relationships, rather than generalizing to how any given
individual might view each type of relationship. Ideally,
a within-subjects study would be used, where the same
participants are asked to detail the nature of their three
types of relationships. A within-subjects study would
also control for individual differences that may predict
reasons to engage in each relationship type, like socio-
sexuality. Having said that, we reported no differences
across relationship type in sociosexuality, so this con-
cern may be muted. However, what future work should
do is ask participants the name of their partner and then
make it so the questions are answered in reference to
that person, not in general.
Second, our study was descriptive in nature and,
therefore, we used ttests. This may have inflated our
Type 1 error. However, we would argue that the descrip-
tive nature of the study permits an inflation of Type 1
error to ensure reasonable power. Similarly, the descrip-
tive nature and limited theoretical framework to account
for variation in behavior in the context of booty-call
relationships, gives our predictions the air of post hoc.
We hope that, soon, researchers will have amassed
enough descriptive data on the full range of human
sexuality to create an all-encompassing paradigm.
Third, our study was limited to one less-researched
sexual act and utilized an author-generated list of acts.
There is likely a much wider range of acts that can be
used to define relationships, and future work should
replicate our results with a larger range of acts. The fact
that we utilized author-generated scales may relate to
the less than ideal rates of internal consistency for the
sexual acts index. In all three cases, the alphas for the
sexual acts scale were on the moderate-to-low side.
These alphas are likely related to the fact that scales
composed of a small number of items take a penalty
in terms of internal consistency because of the positive
relationship between number of items in a scale and
alpha (Carmines & Zeller, 1979). Indeed, the larger
emotional acts scale reinforces our point. Moreover,
alphas over .50 are reasonable in basic research
(Schmitt, 1996), despite traditional guidelines (Nunnally,
1978); therefore, we are confident in our results. How-
ever, future work might find out the variety of acts
committed in an act-frequency–nomination study (e.g.,
Jonason et al., 2009) and then subject these items to
factor analyses. This should improve scale alphas and
remove some experimenter bias. In addition, future
work should address other less-understood sexual acts
that may also not fit well into the apparent dichotomy,
such as ‘‘swinging’’ (Jenks, 1999).
Fourth, this study is limited in that it only used
single-point estimates of each relationship type. Future
research should attempt to conduct a long-term, daily
diary study where data is gathered that can track the
JONASON, LI, AND RICHARDSON
8
Downloaded By: [Jonason, Peter Karl] At: 21:27 28 July 2010
course of the types of acts and feelings that characterize
booty-call relationships over time. If one can overcome
the difficulty of getting access to those who have just
started these relationships, this type of study would
prove informative. We would expect, as time passes,
the variety of sexual acts incorporated in booty-call
relationships should expand. We would also expect both
partners to develop more feelings over time, most
notably in women. Indeed, such a study would provide
insight into the workings of these relationships, why
they occur, and why they terminate or progress to
relationships of a more serious nature.
A necessary future direction is to further elucidate the
model set forth by Jonason et al. (2009) to booty-call
relationships and relationships in general. They suggest
that relationships are not preexisting entities but,
instead, are the result of negotiations—often implicit—
that partners go through in defining the parameters of
the relationships. Most individuals likely assume that
relationships are standard, but the reality is that every
relationship is different. They are different because of
this negotiation process. We suspect factors, like mate
value (e.g., Buss & Schmitt, 1993), to be of particular
importance in these negotiations. If we think of relation-
ships as the result of the ‘‘battle of the sexes,’’ then what
the individual brings to the negotiating table will dictate
their bargaining power. Alternatively, future work
should examine (a) whether booty-call type relationships
progress to long-term ones (b) and at least three specific
reasons individuals may engage in these relationship:
trial run, placeholder, and seeking stable social or
emotional support.
In conclusion, we have examined a relationship that
is garnering interest in the media and among some
researchers. In so doing, we have tried to address the
dearth of sexuality research between the two extremes
of one-night stands and serious committed relationships.
We have demonstrated how booty-call relationships are
composed of emotional and sexual aspects by assessing
the acts individuals commit and the association between
these acts and sociosexuality across different relation-
ship contexts. In sum, we have highlighted one more
color to the rainbow of human sexuality that has, until
now, been rather bichromatic.
References
Afifi, W. A., & Faulkner, S. E. (2000). On being ‘‘just friends’’: The fre-
quency and impact of sexual activity in cross-sex friendships.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,17, 205–222.
Ashcraft, C. (2003). Adolescent ambiguities in American Pie.Youth
and Society,35, 37–70.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences
Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and
Brain Sciences,12, 1–49.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An
evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review,
100, 204–232.
Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity
assessment. Quantitative applications in the social sciences series,
Vol. 17. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Caruthers, A. S. (2006). ‘‘Hookups’’ and ‘‘friends with benefits’’:
Nonrelational sexual encounters as contexts of women’s norma-
tive sexual development. Dissertation Abstracts International,66,
5708B.
Christopher, F. S., & Sprecher, S. (2000). Sexuality in marriage,
dating, and other relationships: A decade review. Journal of
Marriage and the Family,62, 999–1017.
Conger, R. D., Cui, M., Bryant, C. M., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (2000).
Competence in early adult romantic relationships: A developmen-
tal perspective on family influences. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,79, 224–237.
Cubbins, L. A., & Tanfer, K. (2000). The influence of gender on sex: A
study of men’s and women’s self-reported high-risk sex behavior.
Archives of Sexual Behavior,29, 229–257.
DeLamater, J. (1987). A sociological perspective. In J. H. Geer &
W. T. O’Donohue (Eds.), Theories of human sexuality (pp. 237–255).
New York, NY: Plenum.
Fisher, H. (1992). Anatomy of love: A natural history of mating,
marriage, and why we stray. New York, NY: Ballantine.
Fisher, W. A., & Bryne, D. (1978). Sex differences in response to
erotica? Love versus lust. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,36, 117–125.
Gagnon, J. H., & Simon, W. (1973). Sexual conduct: The social origins
of human sexuality. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human
mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences,23, 573–587.
Greiling, H., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Women’s sexual strategies: The
hidden dimension of extra-pair mating. Personality and Individual
Differences,28, 929–963.
Grello, C. M., Welsh, D. P., & Harper, M. S. (2006). No strings
attached: The nature of casual sex in college students. Journal of
Sex Research,43, 255–267.
Impett, E. A., & Peplau, L. A. (2003). Sexual compliance: Gender,
motivational, and relationship perspectives. Journal of Sex
Research,40, 87–100.
Jenks, R. J. (1999). Swinging: A review of the literature. Archives of
Sexual Behavior,27, 507–521.
Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Graziano, W. G., & West, S. G. (1995).
Dominance, prosocial orientation, and female preferences: Do
nice guys really finish last? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,68, 427–440.
Jonason, P. K. (2007). A mediation hypothesis to account for the sex
difference in reported number of sexual partners: An intrasexual
competition approach. International Journal of Sexual Health,
19, 41–49.
Jonason, P. K., & Fisher, T. D. (2009). The power of prestige: Why
young men report having more sex partners than young women.
Sex Roles,60, 151–159.
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, 1–11.
Kiesler, C. A., Pallak, M. S., & Kanouse, D. E. (1968). Interactive
effects of commitment and dissonance. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology,8, 331–338.
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual
behavior in the human male. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders.
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C. E., & Gebhard, P. H. (1953).
Sexual behavior in the human female. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders.
Kylstra, C. (2009, September). The booty-call compromise. Men’s
Health Magazine, p. 36.
Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Linsenmeier, J. A. W.
(2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing
the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,82,
947–955.
POSITIONING THE BOOTY-CALL RELATIONSHIP
9
Downloaded By: [Jonason, Peter Karl] At: 21:27 28 July 2010
Li, N. P., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Sex similarities and differences in
preferences for short-term mates: What, whether, and why.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,90, 468–489.
Marklein, M. B. (2002, November 14). Casual sex, in newsprint;
campus advice columns don’t hold back. USA Today, p. D9.
Meston, C. M., Heiman, J. R., Trapnell, P. D., & Paulhus, D. L.
(1998). Socially desirable responding and sexuality self-reports.
Journal of Sex Research,35, 148–157.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Paul, E. L., McManus, B., & Hayes, A. (2000). ‘‘Hookups’’: Character-
istics and correlates of college students’ spontaneous and
anonymous sexual experiences. Journal of Sex Research,37, 76–88.
Puentes, J., Knox, D., & Sussman, M. E. (2008). Participants in ‘‘friends
with benefits’’ relationships. College Student Journal,42, 176–180.
Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A
48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,28, 247–275.
Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alphas. Psychologi-
cal Assessment,8, 350–353.
Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences
in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant
validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,67,
870–883.
Singer, M. C., Erickson, P. I., Badaine, L., Diaz, R., Ortiz, D.,
Abraham, T. et al. (2006). Syndemics, sex, and the city: Under-
standing sexually transmitted diseases in social and cultural
context. Social Science and Medicine,63, 2010–2021.
Stoddard, G. (2010, January). The psychology of a booty-call! Men’s
Health Magazine, p. 119.
Townsend, J. M. (1995). Sex without emotional involvement: An
evolutionary interpretation of sex differences. Archives of Sexual
Behavior,24, 171–204.
Townsend, J. M., Kline, J., & Wasserman, T. H. (1995). Low invest-
ment copulation: Sex differences in motivations and emotional
reactions. Ethology and Sociobiology,16, 25–51.
Townsend, J. M., & Levy, G. D. (1990). Effects of potential
partners’ physical attractiveness and socioeconomic status on
sexuality and partner selection. Archives of Sexual Behavior,19,
149–164.
JONASON, LI, AND RICHARDSON
10
Downloaded By: [Jonason, Peter Karl] At: 21:27 28 July 2010
... Furthermore, The Knot 2021 study of dating apps shows that although Tinder has a reputation for generating mainly casual sexual relationships, and in particular one-night stands, Tinder was responsible for pairing about a quarter of newlyweds who met online, making it the best dating app for marriage. Another surprising finding is that individuals were more likely to leave immediately after sex in the context of booty-call relationships than after one-night stands [46,47]. This is contrary to the assumption that one-night stands are less serious than booty calls. ...
... Peter Jonason and colleagues [46,47] showed that although booty-call relationships often lack romantic acts found in serious, long-term relationships (such as talking and handholding), more erotic intimate acts, such as kissing, manual sex, fondling of breasts/the chest and anal sex, were found to occur more often in booty-call relationships than in onenight stands. ...
Article
Full-text available
Enduring romantic love is highly significant for our wellbeing, and there is much scientific evidence for its value. There is also evidence that marital sex is important for the flourishing of wellbeing for both partners. Casual sexual relationships and experiences (CSREs) are often characterized in a non-normative way, as sexual behavior occurring outside a committed romantic relationship. However, the prevailing normative description is negative, perceived as superficial behavior that harms our wellbeing. Although sexual activities are linked to many psychological and physical health benefits, these are rarely attributed to casual sex. Instead, scholars and laymen have warned against the negative consequences of non-committed sex, particularly for women. Yet, positive reactions to casual sex, such as satisfaction, confidence, self-knowledge and social engagement, are stronger and more common than negative reactions. Accordingly, the two major aims of this article are to understand the complexity of CSREs better, and to substantiate the claim that in various circumstances, CSREs contribute to our wellbeing.
... The issue with conflating 'promiscuity' with these behaviors is that they all vary in their levels of emotional involvement and relationship length. For instance, more ongoing sexual relationships such as FWBs, booty calls (Jonason et al., 2009(Jonason et al., , 2011, and fuck buddies tend to involve more emotional attachment (e.g., FWBs may involve cuddling in addition to sex; Lehmiller et al., 2011), while shorter or one-time sexual relationships such as hooking up and one-night stands tend to involve little to no emotional attachment (Wentland & Reissing, 2014) in comparison. ...
Article
Full-text available
Definitions of promiscuity include a wide range of behaviors, including premarital sexual behaviors, having a high number of lifetime sexual partners, or any casual sexual behavior. The spectrum of behaviors that may relate to the concept of promiscuity may lead to our inability to compare the various findings and draw general conclusions on the topic. The purpose of the present study was to examine how adults define the term promiscuity and what associations they make with the term. Two hundred and five participants answered one open-ended question: “What is promiscuity? What type of person, personality characteristics, and behaviors come to mind when you hear the word promiscuity?” Participants’ responses were analyzed using thematic analysis. The most common theme was related to behavioral aspects of sexual behavior such as a high number of sexual partners and casual sexual relationships. When pronouns were used, they were mostly feminine. In general, people tend to negatively describe promiscuity, and the negative association may be more strongly associated with women.
... Thus, General Strain Theory is one criminological theory to which personality is relevant. Another study by Jonason, Li, and Richardson [28] found that positive emotionality was positively correlated with aggression and delinquent behavior. Likewise, Reijntjes et al. [29] stated that positive emotionality was positively correlated with bullying perpetration among adolescents. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
This essay explores personality theories as they relate to criminal behavior. According to these theories, criminal behavior is linked to the presence of certain personality traits or a specific criminal personality. Psychologists link personality to criminal behavior by examining an offender's specific traits or certain clusters of traits that drive them toward criminal behavior. This essay focuses on personality theories that attempt to explain major traits of criminal propensity, including undercontrolled vs. overcontrolled personality traits, Eysenck's Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Psychoticism dimensions, and Tellegen's Positive Emotionality, Negative Emotionality, and Constraint. Empirical evidence for each theory is presented, and the relevance of personality to criminal behavior is discussed.
... In their conceptual discussion of CSREs, Claxton and van Dulmen (2013) suggested that a closer inspection of the different CSREs indicates that the different forms of sexual encounters often are not aimed at establishing intimacy and commitment. For example, participants engaged in casual sexual contexts lack intimacy goals, such as the desire for self-disclosure and the development of mutual dependence (Epstein et al., 2009;Jonason et al., 2011). Considered together and relevant to the aim of the current study to be articulated below, participants in CSREs mainly seek and focus on sexual gratification, and less often pursue the main goals and features of a romantic relationship, such as establishing intimacy or commitment. ...
Article
While casual sexual relationships (CSREs) have become common among emerging adults, it is unknown whether these affect future relationships. Guided by a developmental perspective, the current study questions whether engagement in CSREs might be associated with the quality of future relationships by serving as a model of instability. Data were collected from 110 Israeli emerging adults at ages 23, 25, and 28. Contrary to our expectations, the level of engagement in CSREs at age 23 was associated only with a lower capacity to resolve problems and a higher tendency to downplay disagreements at age 28. However, an increase in the level of engagement in CSREs over the 5 years was associated with future negative relationship outcomes, greater avoidant romantic attachment, a tendency to conceal from one’s partner, and a lower sense of certainty and capacity to manage disagreements. Conceptually, findings suggest that when engagement in casual sex is repeated and increases over time, it might become a more stable pattern of behavior and have an adverse effect on future competence in handling a romantic relationship.
... The third type of mutʿah is an oral contract formulated in relation to what is popularly known as a 'one-night stand' (Jonason, Li and Richardson, 2011;Pedersen, Tutenges and Sandberg, 2017;Wentland and Reissing, 2014). Here, mut'a contracts are used to ritualise a sexual union only intended to last for one night. ...
Article
The article is a study based on ten semi-structured interviews to show how mut‘a , known as temporary, pleasure marriage, is practised in seven different ways in present-day Denmark. Continuous conversations with Danish Shi‘i women provide a rare insight into the discourses and emotions behind making sense of a world of love, relationships and social norms formulated as divine intentions. The practices vary from relationships, dating and online relations, to tools in therapeutic settings. Mut‘a is articulated as a formalised tool to navigate a highly gender segregated world and is only practised by individuals who hold rigid views regarding gender regulations. The study demonstrates noticeable differences between cultural interpretations of related concepts such as mahr and ‘idda , thus leading to a conversation about what constitutes Muslim law and practices. The findings contribute to a wider study of how contextual settings, such as individual experience, world-making and cognitions, aid inductive productions of social norms within Muslim law.
... Obecnie większość młodych kobiet i mężczyzn deklaruje, że chciałaby poznać na studiach swojego przyszłego małżonka (Bogle, 2008, s. 185-186). We współczesnych badaniach nad przypadkowym seksem pojawia się w wypowiedziach respondentów motyw emocjonalnej intymności (Jonason, Li, Richardson, 2010;Smiler, 2008). Co drugi student żywi nadzieję, że jednorazowa przygoda przerodzi się w tradycyjny, romantyczny związek (Garcia, Reiber, 2008, s. 192-208). ...
Article
Full-text available
W narracji biograficznej młodych dorosłych przedłużenie dojrzewania to świadome oddzielenie życia seksualnego od prokreacji i małżeństwa. Kultura „podrywu”, obrazująca wyraźną zmianę w kierunku akceptacji przez młodych dorosłych w zachodnich społeczeństwach przygodnego, nierelacyjnego seksu, wywołuje znaczne zainteresowanie w naukach społecznych. Prezentowany artykuł definiuje i opisuje społeczny konstrukt „przyjaźni z korzyścią/bonusem” definiowanej jako relacja, w której przyjaciele przeciwnej płci utrzymują ze sobą powtarzalne kontakty seksualne, wykluczają jednak romantyczne uczucie i zaangażowanie. Związki te postrzegane są jako krótkoterminowe strategie dobierania się w pary, niezwiązane z planem stworzenia stałego związku. Celem artykułu jest przedstawienie wyników badań jakościowych opartych na 42 na wpół ustrukturalizowanych wywiadach z kobietami i mężczyznami w wieku od 27 do 38 lat, zamieszkującymi z rodzicami w Warszawie. Analiza skupia się na zobrazowaniu stosunku młodych dorosłych do friendship with benefits jako jednej z form realizowanych przez nich samych relacji w intymnym związku, jak i oceny tego nowego wymiaru relacyjności w środowisku ich rówieśników.
... Recently, research has examined the different forms of sexual relationships and experiences in which emerging adults are engaging (e.g., Claxton & van Dulmen, 2013;Jonason et al., 2011;Wesche et al., 2018). CSREs is an overarching term used to describe relationships with sexual connotations or sexual behaviors that occur outside the context of a committed romantic relationship (Claxton & van Dulmen, 2013). ...
Article
Full-text available
The present study examined the role of sexual behavior and sexual satisfaction in casual sexual relationships and experiences (CSREs) on both immediate and long-term intentions to engage in further CSREs in a sample of emerging adults. We examined how four different operationalizations of sexual behavior (1) Penetrative sexual behaviors not including oral sex vs. non-penetrative sexual behaviors, (2) Penetrative sexual behaviors including oral sex vs. non-penetrative sexual behaviors, (3) Most sexually intimate behaviors, and (4) A sum score of sexual behaviors) and sexual satisfaction were associated with immediate intentions to engage in CSREs (measured during a five-day daily diary) and long-term intentions to engage in CSREs (measured one month later). Follow-up analyses examined intentions to engage in additional CSREs with a different partner. Our sample (N = 274) included both college-attending and non-college-attending emerging adults. Path analysis models indicated that more sexually intimate behaviors were associated with higher sexual satisfaction following a CSRE. Additionally, sexual satisfaction, but not type of sexual behavior, was associated with both immediate and long-term intentions to engage in CSREs above and beyond the effects of sample, gender, alcohol consumption, and previous CSREs. Follow-up analyses indicated that only alcohol consumption and gender were significantly associated with immediate intentions to engage in a CSRE, and only daily diary intentions and gender were significantly associated with long-term intentions to engage in a CSRE. Overall, these findings support previous research that suggests positive outcomes of a CSRE (sexual satisfaction) are associated with higher intentions to engage in future CSREs.
... Nevertheless, very little empirical evidence exists regarding the trajectory of romantic interest during the time period that precedes actual relationship formation, and even less evidence exists on such trajectories in relationships that never actually become dating relationships. A number of studies (primarily in the sexuality and adolescent health literatures) examine college hookups, "friends-with-benefits," and related phenomena (e.g., Calzo, 2013;Fielder et al., 2013;Garcia et al., 2012;Harden, 2014;Jonason et al., 2011;Lehmiller et al., 2014;Owen & Fincham, 2012;Wesche et al., 2018). But these studies do not typically track people's relationships with the same hookup partners over multiple time points (for an exception, see Machia et al., 2020). ...
Article
Full-text available
There are massive literatures on initial attraction and established relationships. But few studies capture early relationship development: the interstitial period in which people experience rising and falling romantic interest for partners who could—but often do not—become sexual or dating partners. In this study, 208 single participants reported on 1,065 potential romantic partners across 7,179 data points over 7 months. In stage 1, we used random forests (a type of machine learning) to estimate how well different classes of variables (e.g., individual differences vs. target-specific constructs) predicted participants’ romantic interest in these potential partners. We also tested (and found only modest support for) the perceiver × target moderation account of compatibility: the meta-theoretical perspective that some types of perceivers experience greater romantic interest for some types of targets. In stage 2, we used multilevel modeling to depict predictors retained by the random-forests models; robust (positive) main effects emerged for many variables, including sociosexuality, sex drive, perceptions of the partner’s positive attributes (e.g., attractive and exciting), attachment features (e.g., proximity seeking), and perceived interest. Finally, we found no support for ideal partner preference-matching effects on romantic interest. The discussion highlights the need for new models to explain the origin of romantic compatibility.
Article
There are indications that gender has an effect on individual risk factors and pathways to HIV diagnoses and treatment. Furthermore, there is growing recognition that to improve HIV-related health outcomes for men, it is important to understand their experiences and perspectives. Perhaps because of the physical nature of construction work, the South African construction industry is dominated by men. Given that employed men are a hard-to-reach community population group, the construction workplace offers an ideal environment for data collection and delivery of non-health-facility-based HIV prevention and treatment interventions. Furthermore, workers in the construction industry have been identified as being at a heightened risk of acquiring HIV and AIDS because of work-related travel, the ubiquity of transactional sex around worker hostels and having an increased likelihood of multiple and concurrent sex partnerships. As a consequence, this study examines the association between condom use and sexual partnerships among men working in the construction industry. A purposive cross-sectional survey was used to collect data from 450 workers across 18 construction sites in the Western Cape province of South Africa. The types of sexual partnership had three categories: regular sex partnerships, casual sex partnerships and sex worker partnerships. Frequency of condom use was determined to be highest with casual sex partners (51.2%), followed by sex workers (40.6%) and regular sex partners (25.6%). Hierarchical multiple linear regression analysis was used to examine the demographic, experiential, behavioural and cognitive predictors of condom use across the three categories of sexual partnership. The results indicate that an individual's perception of control over condom use, and the perceived threat posed by HIV and AIDS are significantly associated with consistent condom use, even after accounting for differences in partner type. Implications of the findings are discussed, and directions for future research on the association between sexual partnerships and condom use are offered.
Chapter
Why do people fall in love? Does passion fade with time? What makes for a happy, healthy relationship? This introduction to relationship science follows the lifecycle of a relationship – from attraction and initiation, to the hard work of relationship maintenance, to dissolution and ways to strengthen a relationship. Designed for advanced undergraduates studying psychology, communication or family studies, this textbook presents a fresh, diversity-infused approach to relationship science. It includes real-world examples and critical-thinking questions, callout boxes that challenge students to make connections, and researcher interviews that showcase the many career paths of relationship scientists. Article Spotlights reveal cutting-edge methods, while Diversity and Inclusion boxes celebrate the variety found in human love and connection. Throughout the book, students see the application of theory and come to recognize universal themes in relationships as well as the nuances of many findings. Instructors can access lecture slides, an instructor manual, and test banks.
Article
Full-text available
Social exchange and evolutionary models of mate selection incorporate economic assumptions but have not considered a key distinction between necessities and luxuries. This distinction can clarify an apparent paradox: Status and attractiveness, though emphasized by many researchers, are not typically rated highly by research participants. Three studies supported the hypothesis that women and men first ensure sufficient levels of necessities in potential mates before considering many other characteristics rated as more important in prior surveys. In Studies 1 and 2, participants designed ideal long-term mates, purchasing various characteristics with 3 different budgets. Study 3 used a mate-screening paradigm and showed that people inquire 1st about hypothesized necessities. Physical attractiveness was a necessity to men, status and resources were necessities to women, and kindness and intelligence were necessities to both.
Article
Full-text available
Friends with benefits relationships (FWBR) mean cross-sex friends who engage in sexual activities on repeated occasions without romantic commitment. In Poland information about this phenomenon can be found predominantly in popular press or on the Internet. In the United States the studies on FWBR have lasted only for about a decade, but they are conducted in multiple directions. One of the analysed areas are negative and problematic aspects of this kind of relationships. The aim of this article is an attempt to summarize this particular direction of research. The authors analysed the disadvantages of FWBRs, such as: the lack of direct and open communication between partners, the lack of explicit rules or rules which are difficult to accept and fulfil, a possibility of experiencing negative emotions, gender differences in attitudes toward the relationship, a high risk of social disapproval and dangerous health consequences. The authors proved that through increasing ambiguity, provoking conflicts and generating negative emotions they have negative impact on the relationship itself-by weakening it, as well as on its participants-by exposing them to the risk of negative psychological consequences. Furthermore, they create a negative image of such relationships in society-by causing their negative evaluation and discouraging people to engage in them. However, we have also emphasized the necessity to draw attention to the advantages of FWBRs, which are the subject of another very important direction of research on this phenomenon.
Article
Full-text available
We assessed the impact of two distinct forms of socially desirable responding—self‐deceptive enhancement and impression management—on sexuality self‐reports (n = 504) under anonymous testing conditions. Results revealed significant positive relationships between self‐deceptive enhancement and sexual adjustment variables for both sexes. Impression management was significantly negatively related to a number of intrapersonal (e.g., unrestricted sexual fantasies, sexual drive) and interpersonal (e.g., sexual experience, virginity status) sexual behaviors for females, and to unrestricted sexual attitudes and fantasies for males. We calculated correlations were first calculated between self‐deceptive enhancement, impression management, and personality and conservatism scores. Self‐deceptive enhancement and impression management were significantly associated with personality for males and females, and with conservatism for females only. When personality and conservatism variance were partialed out, associations between self‐deceptive enhancement and sexuality variables were eliminated, but associations between impression management and sexuality measures remained significant. These findings highlight the importance of a two‐factor approach to assessing socially desirable responding, and provide modest support for the view that response bias may intrude in self‐report sex data, even under anonymous testing conditions.
Article
Full-text available
Most evolutionary theories of human mating have focused on the adaptive benefits of short-term mating for men. Men cannot pursue a strategy of short-term mating, however, without willing women. Existing empirical evidence suggests that some women engage in short-term mating some of the time and probably have done so recurrently over human evolutionary history. The current studies tested hypotheses about the potential benefits women might derive from engaging in one type of short-term mating — extra-pair liaisons — and the contexts in which they do so. These include resource hypotheses (e.g. immediate resource accrual), genetic hypotheses (e.g. having genetically diverse offspring), mate switching hypotheses (e.g. acquiring a better mate), mate skill acquisition hypotheses (e.g. mate preference clarification) and mate manipulation hypotheses (e.g. deterring a partner's future infidelity). These hypotheses were tested by examining the perceived likelihood that women would receive particular benefits through a short-term extra-pair mating (Study 1); the perceived magnitude of benefits if received (Study 2); the contexts in which women engage in short-term extra-pair mating (Study 3); and individual differences among women in proclivity to pursue short-term matings in their perceptions of benefits (Study 4). Most strongly supported across all four studies were the mate switching and resource acquisition hypotheses. Discussion focuses on the distinction between functions and beneficial effects of short-term mating, limitations of the current studies and the consequences of women's short-term mating strategies for the broader matrix of human mating.
Article
Full-text available
Research on cross-sex friendships has noted the presence of sexual tension in many of these relationships. Yet, to our knowledge, no studies have directly examined the frequency and effect of sexual contact on friendships. This investigation provides an initial look at the prevalence of sexual activity in otherwise `platonic' cross-sex friendships and applies a recently developed model of expectation violations to understand the related consequences of that behavior. Results suggest that approximately half the heterosexual college student population has engaged in sexual activity in an otherwise platonic cross-sex friendship and that the aversive uncertainty within valence model of expectation violations serves as a good framework from which to understand the associated relational outcomes. The findings' implications for research on cross-sex friendships are discussed.
Article
Three multimethod studies (total N = 348) probed the hypothesis that women's attraction to men would be influenced by male prosocial orientation. In Study 1, prosocial men were rated as more physically and sexually attractive, socially desirable, and desirable as dates than were nonprosocial men. Dominant men were no more attractive than low-dominance men, and male dominance did not interact with male prosocial orientation in eliciting attraction from women. In Study 2, prosocial orientation was manipulated to avoid ''personalism,'' but still affected attraction. Across all measures attraction was an interactive function of dominance and prosocial tendencies. Dominance alone did not increase any form of attraction measured. In Study 3, male prosocial tendencies and dominance interacted to affect women's attraction to men. Results are discussed in terms of the place of altruism and dominance in evolutionary approaches to human interpersonal attraction.
Article
No review of the topic of swinging has been done in the last 20 years. This review is intended to update the literature. Studies estimating the incidence of swinging, the demographic and personality characteristics of swingers, along with how swingers are perceived by nonswingers are reviewed. Numerous theories explaining this behavior have been presented with a social psychological model being the primary focus here. Major reasons for getting involved in swinging, initiation into the lifestyle, effects on marriage, and dropping out of swinging are also covered. Finally, the literature dealing with some of the major problems with swinging, focusing on AIDS, are also discussed, along with the current state of swinging and suggestions for future research.
Article
Popular culture is a key site in the formation of teen knowledges about sex. Yet formal sex education programs have largely ignored this arena. In this article, the author proposes the need to critically incorporate popular culture into sex education efforts to develop programs that resonate with teens' experiences and, at the same time, allow them to construct more equitable social relations. The author illustrates how this might be done through an analysis of the recent teen film American Pie. In addition, the author identifies specific implications and resources for broader theoretical efforts to reconstruct discourses of masculinity, femininity, and sexuality.