Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 May 30.
Published in final edited form as: J Sex Res. 2022 Jan 18;60(8):1181–1192. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2021.2022585

Commitment and Extra-Dyadic Sexual Activity in College Students’ Friends with Benefits Relationships: Moderating Effects of Gender

Rebecca A Thomas a, Monica C Yndo b, Rebecca Weston c
PMCID: PMC12124867  NIHMSID: NIHMS2075603  PMID: 35041569

Abstract

Friends with benefits relationships (FWBRs) are a common form of relationship for college students that combine aspects of friendship with sex, yet little is known about commitment in these relationships and whether they are more similar to casual relationships or to romantic relationships. We investigated associations between investment, alternatives, and satisfaction, with commitment (per the Investment Model) in college students’ FWBRs and examined how associations between variables differ by participant and partner gender. Primary analyses were conducted with male-female FWBRs (n = 252). Male-male (n = 19) and female-female (n = 4) FWBRs are described. Investment was the strongest predictor of commitment for participants in male-female FWBRs, with commitment higher among women than men when investment was high. Additionally, participants’ perceptions that their own and their partners’ commitment was asymmetrical, as well as reports of extra-dyadic sexual activity (i.e., sex outside the FWBR) correlated with lower commitment to the FWBR. Overall, results suggest that FWBRs can be distinguished not only from other casual sexual relationships such as hookups but can also be differentiated from romantic relationships. Future research and intervention work should measure commitment and investment to predict how these relationships can persist, as well as transition, over time.

College students commonly report participating in multiple forms of relationships that involve sexual activity. While many college students report involvement in romantic relationships (e.g., Thomas & Weston, 2020), they also report participating in casual sexual relationships and experiences (CSREs; Claxton & van Dulmen, 2013) that may or may not be exclusive or romantic. CSREs include one-night stands, hookups, casual dating, and “ex-sex.” Between 53% and 84% of college students participate in hookups and one-night stands, generally defined as one time or short-term encounters involving sexual activity without commitment (Garcia et al., 2012), with some differences by gender in participation rates (Claxton & van Dulmen, 2013; Gute & Eshbaugh, 2008; Lambert et al., 2003; Paul et al., 2000). CSREs have been described as on a continuum from hookups to casual dating that correspondingly vary in commitment, sexual activity frequency, and extra-dyadic sexual activity (e.g., Wesche et al., 2018).

One common type of CSRE among college students, the friends with benefits relationship (FWBR), is defined as a sexual relationship between two people in a non-romantic friendship (Puentes et al., 2008; VanderDrift et al., 2012). College students have described FWBRs as the best of both worlds, with the emotional closeness and companionship of a close friend combined with a casual sexual relationship (Weaver et al., 2011). Mongeau et al. (2013) classified participants’ FWBRs as ranging from those with an emphasis on the friendship side (e.g., close, long-time friends who have had sex more than once) to an emphasis on the “benefits” side (e.g., repeated hookups between partners in the same social network). The friendship component appears to be particularly important for defining the relationship type because it signifies potential for commitment to the partner. Research on various subtypes of CSREs suggests FWBRs may involve greater commitment to the FWBR and more frequent sexual activity than hookups (e.g., Rodrigue et al., 2015; Wentland & Reissing, 2011; Wesche et al., 2021) but lower commitment and less sexual exclusivity than in a dating relationship (e.g., Hadden et al., 2019; Rodrigue et al., 2018). Taken together, past research does not clearly indicate whether FWBRs are more like hookups or more like dating relationships, or if they are a distinct type of CSRE in terms of characteristics and outcomes.

A primary goal of this study was to understand whether college students’ FWBRs are more like hookups or like dating relationships in terms of commitment and sexual activity, including extra-dyadic activity. Distinguishing between FWBRs and other relationships is important given public health implications and mental health outcomes. While involvement in FWBRs is associated with benefits of being more emotionally close to a partner (Lehmiller et al., 2014), higher commitment to a partner is also associated with riskier sexual activity such as less frequent condom use (VanderDrift et al., 2012). For female students, low commitment sexual experiences are correlated with negative physical and mental health outcomes (e.g., Grello et al., 2006; Owen et al., 2010).

Differences by gender appear to exist in approaches to FWBRs, perceptions of FWBRs, and outcomes. For example, men have reported sex as a stronger motive for participating in a FWBR than women while women have been more likely to report an emotional connection as a motive for entering a FWBR and were more likely than men to want the FWBR to transition to a romantic relationship (Lehmiller et al., 2011; Mongeau et al., 2013; Owen & Fincham, 2011). These differences in approaches and desired outcomes may explain why women tend to report more unmet expectations in FWBRs than men (Gusarova et al., 2012). Considering that over half of participants on multiple college campuses report experiencing FWBRs (e.g., McGinty et al., 2007; Puentes et al., 2008) and that differences between men and women in FWBRs are found inconsistently for relational, physical, and mental health outcomes (e.g., Gusarova et al., 2012; Lehmiller et al., 2014; Owen & Fincham, 2011; VanderDrift et al., 2012; Williams & Jovanovic, 2015), the current study sought to investigate the interaction between gender (men, women) and college students’ commitment in FWBRs. Like Machia et al. (2020) and others who have examined commitment in FWBRs, we drew from well-established and broader relationship research on commitment to determine how FWBRs are similar to and/or different from hookups and romantic relationships.

Commitment in Intimate Relationships

Commitment is defined as the intent to persist in a relationship (Rusbult et al., 1998). Thibaut and Kelley’s (1959) interdependence theory proposes that when the ratio of rewards received from the partner to costs perceived in the relationship exceeds not only our expectations for relationships, but also expectations for what could be experienced in an alternate relationship, we will be more satisfied in the relationship, and dependent on our partners, thereby committed to the relationship. Depending upon partners’ definitions of rewards and costs, FWBRs could be considered a high reward (e.g., friendship, sexual activity) and low cost (e.g., demands for exclusivity) relationship. Rusbult (1980) added to interdependence theory, noting the investment (e.g., time, effort, funds, mutual friends) put into the relationship impacts the perceived costs of ending the relationship, such that greater investments serve to increase commitment.

Rusbult et al. (2001) proposed the Investment Model, based in interdependence theory, to explain commitment. They suggested three factors predict commitment: satisfaction, alternatives, and investment. Satisfaction, or the degree to which individuals feel positive affect and need fulfillment in a relationship, correlates positively with commitment. Although the needs of men and women in FWBRs may differ, to the extent that those needs are met, partners in FWBRs are expected to be satisfied and therefore committed to the relationship.

The perceived quality of alternatives is the degree to which individuals think that their needs can be fulfilled outside of the current relationship. Perceived alternatives correlate negatively with commitment. As the number of potential other relationships increases, whether FWB or romantic, we would expect the commitment to the FWBR to decrease.

Finally, investment size, or the level of resources attached to a relationship (material or emotional), correlates positively with commitment. Women tend to report more emotional involvement in FWBRs than men (McGinty et al., 2007) and are more likely than men to report a desire to transition to a romantic relationship (Lehmiller et al., 2011). We therefore expected that women might be more likely than men to invest time and effort into the FWBR.

The association of satisfaction, alternatives, and investment with relational commitment proposed by Rusbult (2001, 2001) were supported in Le and Agnew’s (2003) meta-analysis for both men and women, for same- and other- sex relationships, in multiple cultures, and multiple relationship types (e.g., dating, married). Thus, the model explains variability in commitment to romantic partners across many groups. Le and Agnew found differences in the strength of association between investment and commitment by relational exclusivity; the association was weaker for engaged, cohabiting, or married couples than for dating couples (nonexclusive or exclusive). Although differences by gender were not found, analyses for gender were collapsed across relationship types. Therefore, we tested the utility of the Investment Model in explaining commitment for men and women in FWBRs.

Application of the Investment Model to FWBRs

If, as expected, FWBRs function more like romantic relationships than like hookups in terms of commitment, then the empirically supported Investment Model should explain commitment in FWBRs as it does in romantic relationships. Support for the expected associations between perceived alternatives and investment, specifically, are of interest for FWBRs. When fewer alternatives are perceived (including not being in a relationship), commitment to the FWBR should be higher. As time in the relationship increases, even if effort remains relatively low, commitment to the relationship is expected to increase. A perceived lack of alternatives together with investment can thus explain commitment to unsatisfying relationships. This is not to say that all FWBRs are unsatisfying, but support for the Investment Model in FWBRs would explain why partners continue in relationships that are not satisfying. Le and Agnew’s (2003) results for relational exclusivity would seem to suggest that investment may be more important for explaining commitment in FWBRs than satisfaction.

To date, only VanderDrift et al. (2012) have examined commitment in FWBRs using the Investment Model. VanderDrift et al. surveyed an online sample of adults (mean age = 28 years) in FWBRs. Participants reported moderate commitment to both the friendship and sexual aspects of their FWBRs. While the Investment Model successfully predicted participants’ overall commitment to the friendship, sexual relationship, and FWBR in general, VanderDrift et al. found no association between alternatives and commitment. They attributed this lack of an association to the more casual nature of the FWBR. VanderDrift et al. (2012) reported no gender differences in average commitment.

Although they did not test the ability of the Investment Model in explaining commitment, Machia et al. (2020) also examined commitment in an online sample of adults in FWBRs (mean age = 29 years). Men reported higher levels of commitment to the FWBR than women and more men than women wanted to continue the relationship as a FWBR (61% vs. 37%, respectively). Others have also found male college students are more likely than female students to participate in FWBRs (Puentes et al., 2008). Male students are also more likely than female students to say they would enter a FWBR again if they had a chance, while female students are more likely to report their expectations were not met (Gusarova et al., 2012). These gender differences in satisfaction may be explained, in part, by perceptions of partners’ commitment to the FWBR.

Perceived Symmetry in Commitment

One of the most common concerns voiced in Weaver et al.’s (2011) qualitative study was a fear of unequal feelings developing in a FWBR, where one individual could develop deeper feelings that their FWB did not reciprocate. Partners in FWBRs often report concern about different relationship expectations (i.e., one partner expects sexual exclusivity while the other does not; e.g., Bisson & Levine, 2009; Weaver et al., 2011). Asymmetrical commitment is not uncommon in romantic relationships (Rhoades et al., 2010; Stanley et al., 2011, 2006, 2010, 2004) and is associated with negative outcomes (Oriña et al., 2011; Rhoades et al., 2012), even for partners high in individual commitment (Stanley et al., 2017). Whether perceived symmetry in commitment is important for relational outcomes in FWBRs is not known. Therefore, the current study sought to investigate college students’ perceptions of how their commitment aligned with their FWBR partner’s commitment to the relationship and how perceived symmetry in commitment was associated with satisfaction, investment, alternatives, and overall commitment.

Extra-Dyadic Sexual Activity and Commitment in FWBRs

Perception of partners’ commitment is likely impacted by sexual activity outside of the relationship. While not always the case, it is common culturally for college students to define romantic relationships as sexually exclusive (i.e., an agreement that neither partner will participate in extra-dyadic sexual behavior), and this agreement often occurs at a point when both partners decide they want to increase commitment to the relationship (Knopp et al., 2020). However, because students in FWBRs may be more likely to intentionally include extra-dyadic sexual activity in FWBRs compared to romantic relationships (e.g., Weaver et al., 2011; Wentland & Reissing, 2011), commitment and extra-dyadic sexual activity may not correlate in the same way in FWBRs as they do in romantic relationships. For example, if an individual enters a FWBR because they want a more casual relationship that is open to extra-dyadic sexual activity, they may be more committed to the FWBR (i.e., want the FWBR to persist) as long as it allows for extra-dyadic sexual activity. Therefore, we investigated the correlation between extra-dyadic sexual activity and commitment in FWBRs.

We also considered gender as related to extra-dyadic sexual activity and commitment. Lehmiller et al. (2011) found men were more likely than women to report multiple concurrent FWBRs, and men reported more sexual partners than women in CSREs (Lyons et al., 2015). However, Machia et al. (2020) found no differences in extra-dyadic sexual activity in FWBRs by gender.

The Current Study

The current study focused on college students’ commitment to their FWBRs and examined how commitment related to gender and extra-dyadic sexual activity. We focused on college students and emerging adults in college specifically because this population is more likely than other age groups to engage in FWBRs and therefore more likely at risk for negative health outcomes. In addition, because very little is known about Hispanic students’ experiences with FWBRs (see Eaton et al., 2016 for an exception) despite a 134% increase in college enrollment for Hispanics from 2000 to 2016 (deBrey et al., 2019), the current study sought to replicate and extend previous research on college students’ commitment and extra-dyadic sexual activity in FWBRs.

Past research on commitment in FWBRs has combined participants in male-female, female-female, and male-male FWBRs (e.g., 88.2% participants were “heterosexual” in VanderDrift et al., 2012). While research on male-male and female-female romantic relationships has found that the investment model works similarly for same and other sex relationships (e.g., Kurdek, 2008), gender dynamics in relationships differ depending on both participant and partner gender. Therefore, the current study included both participant and partner gender as a variable in the analyses and focused on investigating commitment in male-female FWBRs, with limited description of male-male and female-female FWBRs.

We proposed three hypotheses related to the Investment Model in FWBRs and addressed two research questions. The following hypotheses are specific to male-female FWBRs. When possible, we also explored these variables in male-male and female-female FWBRs; however, those results should be seen as secondary and interpreted as exploratory.

Hypothesis 1:

Past research on FWBRs suggested that gender could moderate associations between Investment Model variables and commitment. We expected the positive associations between investment and satisfaction with commitment to be stronger for women than men.

Research Question 1: Is the pattern of associations between satisfaction, alternatives, and investment with commitment in the Investment Model for FWBRs similar to romantic relationships? In other words, does the model explain commitment in FWBRs in the same way as in romantic relationships or is there evidence that FWBRs function differently?

Hypothesis 2:

We predicted that participants who perceived equal commitment would be more satisfied in their FWBRs.

Hypothesis 2a: Past research suggesting men and women may engage in FWBRs for different reasons (e.g., for sex or emotional closeness, respectively) led us to expect that there may be differences between partners in perceived equality of commitment to the FWBR. Given that men have tended to report greater satisfaction in FWBRs than women and satisfaction is associated with relational commitment, we expected men to be more likely to perceive their commitment was equal to their FWBR partners’ commitment.

Hypothesis 3:

Consistent with literature on CSREs, we expected a higher proportion of male participants to report extra-dyadic sexual activity compared to female participants.

Research Question 2: Does extra-dyadic sexual activity relate to commitment as measured by the Investment Model (satisfaction, perception of alternatives, investment, and overall commitment) in college students’ FWBRs?

Method

Participants

Participants were college students in an Introduction to Psychology course at a large university, designated as a Hispanic Serving Institution in the southwest. All students in the course are required to either participate in research or complete an alternative assignment for course credit. Students interested in research participation must complete a pre-screen composed of questions assembled by all researchers. Pre-screen questions include: “How many romantic relationships have you been in during the last 12 months?” and “How many friends with benefits relationships have you been in during the last 12 months?” Students who reported at least one of either type of relationship were able to see the study description posted online through the SONA platform. This study was described as about college students’ behaviors with romantic partners and friends with benefits. Interested students signed up for the online study and were directed to a Qualtrics survey link. Students received course credit for participating in the 35-minute survey.

Participants in the current study were drawn from a larger study that asked participants about both current and past romantic relationships and FWBRs during the last year. In the consent form, participants were told that they could leave the survey at any time and still receive course credit. The study was approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board (IRB).

Given the potential for retrospective recall about commitment in past relationships to be biased, only participants who reported on at least one current FWBR were included in this study (N = 288). Participants who were younger than 18 years old or older than 30 years old were excluded from the sample to focus on FWBRs for emerging adults. Additionally, since participant gender and partner gender played a significant role in the analyses, only participants who provided information on both variables were included in the final sample (N = 275). FWBRs were defined for participants as nonromantic relationships that combine aspects of friendship and sex. This definition was provided at the beginning of the survey to avoid confusion noted by researchers about inconsistencies in participants’ definitions of FWBRs.

Measures

Demographics

Participants were asked standard demographic questions (e.g., age, year in college, gender). At the start of the survey section on relationships, all participants were asked to list nicknames or initials for up to three partners they had been involved with during the past year and asked to indicate whether each partner was a romantic partner or FWB. No instructions were provided about which type of relationships should be listed first. Participants reported on current and past romantic and FBWRs in all possible permutations. Participants were asked questions about each of those three relationships in separate blocks (e.g., satisfaction in relationship with Partner 3, sexual activity with Partner 3). Using the piping feature of Qualtrics, each relationship section included the nickname or initials listed by participants at the start of the relationship section and in many of the measure items.

In addition to measures described below, participants were asked within each block whether the relationship was current. Response options included yes, no, and other (with fill-in option). For this study, only data from the current FWBR reported by participants were analyzed. We examined 108 open-ended responses to the fill-in option to ensure no current relationships were missed. Responses from 56% (n = 60) of open-ended responses indicated the relationship was ongoing (e.g., “on and off,” “every so often,” “she cheats on her boy-friend with me,” “trying to get away”) or described a relationship consistent with FWBRs (e.g., “currently FWB,” “as needed basis”) and were included in analyses.

Of the 275 participants reporting at least one current FWBR, 24% (n = 66) reported one other current relationship (romantic, n = 41, or FWBR, n = 25), and 2% (n = 6) reported two other concurrent relationships (romantic, n = 4, or FWBR, n = 2). With 27 participants (63% female) reporting on multiple concurrent FWBRs, we decided to analyze only the data describing the first reported current FWBR to avoid making subjective decisions about which relationship is most important to participants. For example, if a participant described 1) a past romantic relationship, 2) a current FWBR, and 3) a current FWBR, we analyzed data for Partner 2.

Participants were asked, “Which best describes the gender of the friends with benefits (FWB) that you have had in the last 12 months?” Participants who responded with “all my FWBs were female” or “all my FWBs were male” were included in the analyses. For the 15 participants in FWBRs who selected “Most of my FWBs have been female (male)” or “my FWBs have been both male and female,” we examined responses to open-ended questions about the partner (e.g., are you equally committed?) for use of binary gender pronouns (he, she, him, her). We were able to code six of these 15 FWBRs through analyzing the open-ended comments. We used participants’ self-reported gender and gender of FWB partners to code current FWBRs. Most participants reported male-female FWBRs (n = 252) and descriptive statistics for these participants are provided in Table 1. Note that we did not define the “Current Relationship Status” categories for participants. Therefore, while most participants in FWBRs identified as being “Single,” Table 1 shows others identified as “Dating, not exclusive” or “Married.” A very small proportion described male-male (n = 19) and female-female (n = 4) FWBRs.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics for participants in male-female friends with benefits relationships.

Women
(n = 170)		 Men
(n = 82)
Age in Years (M, SD) 18.88, 1.24 19.76, 1.89
Race (n, %)
 Hispanic 91, 53.5% 50, 61.0%
 Caucasian 38, 22.4% 16, 19.5%
 African-American 25, 14.7% 8, 9.8%
 Asian 11, 6.5% 2, 2.4%
 Other 5, 2.9% 6, 7.3%
Investment Model (Scored 1–9; M, SD, α)
 Satisfaction 5.90, 2.43, .803 6.35, 2.06, .756
 Perception of Alternatives 4.38, 2.43, .805 5.17, 2.43, .844
 Investment 5.35, 2.51, .875 5.62, 2.43, .819
 Commitment 5.63, 2.65, .882 5.57, 2.50, .896
Number of Relationships: Past 12 Months
 Friends with Benefits Relationships
  M, SD 3.11, 2.13 3.06, 2.30
  Mode 1 1
 Romantic Relationships
  M, SD 0.99, 0.79 1.22, 1.24
  Mode 1 1
Gender of Partner: Past 12 Months (n, %)
 Friends with Benefits Relationships
  All of my FWBs have been female 0, 0% 81, 98.8%
  Most of my FWBs have been female 0, 0% 0, 0%
  My FWBs have been both male and female 1, 0.6% 1, 1.2%
  Most of my FWBs have been male 2, 1.2% 0, 0%
  All of my FWBs have been male 167, 98.2% 0, 0%
 Romantic Relationships
  All of my RRs have been female 0, 0% 60, 100%
  Most of my RRs have been female 0, 0% 0, 0%
  My RRs have been both male and female 2, 1.6% 0, 0%
  Most of my RRs have been male 1, 0.8% 0, 0%
  All of my RRs have been male 120, 97.6% 0, 0%
Current Relationship Status (n, %)
 Single 99, 58.2% 47, 58.0%
 Dating, exclusive 18, 10.6% 11, 13.6%
 Dating, not exclusive 50, 29.4% 18, 22.2%
 Married 1, 0.6% 2, 2.5%
 Other, Blank 2, 1.2% 3, 3.7%
Open in a new tab

Investment Model Variables

Participants reported on their commitment to each of their relationships in the past year using the modified version of the Investment Model Scale (Rusbult et al., 1998) used by VanderDrift et al. (2012) in their study on commitment in FWBRs. The measure contains 8 items measuring commitment to the FWBR in general, with 2 items measuring satisfaction (e.g., I feel satisfied in this relationship), 2 items measuring perception of alternatives (e.g., My other options for FWBs are desirable), 2 items measuring investment (e.g., I feel very involved in this FWBR), and 2 items measuring overall commitment (e.g., I am committed to maintaining this relationship). Response options for each item range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree). To compute satisfaction, perception of alternatives, investment, and commitment, relevant items were averaged. Values for all variables fell within the same 1–9 response scale. All participants were asked to respond to each item as they currently felt in their FWBR. Reliability information by gender for all subscales is in Table 1.

Participants were also asked, “Are you and <partner name> equally committed to your relationship?” We used an open-ended question due to the number of participants who used the optional text boxes to fill in details about their commitment in a pilot survey. The open-ended format allowed us to easily code yes/no responses but still gave participants the option to provide additional detail. Overall, 260 participants responded to this question. Most participants responded with a simple “yes” (or “yeah”) or “no” (or “nah,” or “nope”) and responses were coded accordingly. Some (23.5%) responses were more detailed. Of these 60, most were still able to be coded (e.g., “more me than him” and “PROBS NOT” were coded as no), resulting in data for 89% (n = 232) of participants. Two participants did not respond to these items, and 26 responses did not fit into the yes/no categories (e.g., “not sure,” “sorta,” “no clue”).

Extra-dyadic Sexual Activity

Immediately following questions about sexual activity participants engaged in with their FWBRs, extra-dyadic sexual activity was measured using two items that read, “While you were with <partner name>, did you participate in any of the following behaviors with anyone else?” and “While you were with <partner name>, do you think <partner name> participated in any of the following behaviors with anyone else?” Participants were allowed to select as many of the following options as applicable: kissing, sexual touching, mutual masturbation, oral sex, vaginal intercourse, anal intercourse, other (fill in option; VanderDrift et al., 2012). These sexual activities were not defined for participants in the survey; therefore, participants may have varied slightly in their interpretations of the specific behaviors. Additionally, these behaviors do not specify which partner(s) performed or received certain behaviors, such as whether the participant or their partner performed oral sex. However, we feel that the answers participants provided paint a picture of whether participants were engaging in sexual activity with other partners besides their FWBs at the time of data collection.

Results

All 275 participants included in this study reported current participation in a FWBR, and identified their gender as male or female, with 63.3% (n = 174) of participants self-reporting as female, and 36.7% (n = 101) as male. Most participants were Hispanic (56%, n = 154). Of female participants, 97.7% (n = 170) reported on their FWBR with a male partner and 2.3% (n = 4) reported on their FWBR with a female partner. Of male participants, 81.2% (n = 82) reported on their FWBR with a female partner and 18.8% (n = 19) reported on their FWBR with a male partner. Participants who responded to some items/scales but not others (i.e., responded to the commitment questions but not the sexual activity questions) were only included in the analyses where they provided complete data. We did not have sufficient power for analyses to test our hypotheses with the 23 participants in male-male or female-female FWBRs. We explored associations as described at the end of this section.

Hypothesis 1 and Research Question 1: Moderation of the Investment Model by Gender

To test the expected moderating effect of gender on associations between investment, alternatives, and satisfaction with commitment, we estimated a moderated multiple regression with the 252 participants in a male-female FWBR. Gender was entered in the first step and the model was not significant, adjusted R2 = .00, F (1, 250) = 0.04, ns. Investment, satisfaction, and commitment were grand mean centered and added to the model in the second step. All investment model variables were significant and the increase in explained variance was significant, ΔR2 = .70, F (3, 247) = 195.71, p < .001. Each of the three investment model variables were multiplied by gender to create interaction terms that were entered in the third and final step. The final model was significant, adjusted R2 = .70, F (7, 244) = 85.70, p < .001, but inclusion of the interaction terms in step 3 did not significantly increase explained variance, ΔR2 = .001, F (3, 244) = 1.95, ns. Coefficients are shown in Table 2. Main effects for satisfaction and alternatives were significant and in the expected directions. Although no main effect occurred for gender, the association between investment and commitment was moderated by gender. A simple slopes analysis illustrated in Figure 1 shows that women were less committed than men when investment was lower (−1 SD below the mean) but were more committed than men when investment was higher (+1 SD above the mean). The moderation by gender partially supported Hypothesis 1. Coefficients in Table 2 show the main effect of investment contributed the most to explained variance in commitment to FWBRs. These results addressed Research Question 1, suggesting that investment is relatively more important in explaining commitment in FWBRs, in contrast to romantic relationships where satisfaction is generally more strongly associated with commitment (Le & Agnew, 2003).

Table 2.

Final model for moderated regression analysis: commitment in male-female friends with benefits relationships.

Variable B SE(B) β t p
Gender −0.281 0.195 −.051 −1.441 .151
Alternatives −0.125 0.046 −.118 −2.731 .007
Investment 0.771 0.052 .738 14.922 <.001
Satisfaction 0.200 0.053 .179 3.792 <.001
Gender x Alternatives 0.025 0.081 .013 0.31 .757
Gender x Investment −0.232 0.101 −.124 −2.302 .022
Gender x Satisfaction 0.167 0.114 .076 1.46 .146
Open in a new tab

Note. Gender was entered in step 1; Alternatives, Investment, and Satisfaction were grand mean centered and entered in step 2. Interaction terms were entered in step 3. Step 3 results are presented above (N = 252). Gender is coded as 0 = women, 1 = men. Significant predictors are in bold.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Association between investment and commitment moderated by gender in male-female FWBRs (N = 252).

Hypothesis 2: Perceptions of Equality of Commitment in FWBRs

We investigated participants’ perceptions of whether they and their partner were equally committed to the FWBR. After coding responses to an open-ended question about equality of commitment to the FWBR as yes, equally committed or no, not equally committed, we tested Hypothesis 2 that proposed equally committed partners would be more satisfied than partners reporting different levels of commitment. This hypothesis was tested with a 2 (gender: male, female) x 2 (commitment equality: equal, not equal) multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with Investment Model variables (satisfaction, perception of alternatives, investment, and overall commitment) as dependent variables. The multivariate interaction was not significant, Pillai’s Trace F(4, 222) = 0.307, p = .873, partial η2 = .006, however the hypothesized multivariate main effect for commitment equality was significant, Pillai’s Trace F (4, 222) = 6.084, p < .001, partial η2 = .099, and the main effect approached significance for gender, Pillai’s Trace F(4, 222) = 2.317, p = .058, partial η2 = .040.

Given the significance of the multivariate tests, univariate level analyses were examined. A significant univariate main effect of commitment equality occurred for satisfaction, F(1, 225) = 24.069, p < .001, partial η2 = .097, with those who perceived equal commitment reporting greater satisfaction (M = 6.82, SD = 1.95) than those who perceived unequal commitment (M = 5.18, SD = 2.47), as expected. A significant univariate main effect of commitment equality occurred for investment, F(1, 225) = 5.778, p = .017, partial η2 = .025, with those who perceived equal commitment reporting greater investment (M = 5.86, SD = 2.40) than those who perceived unequal commitment (M = 5.01, SD = 2.52). A significant univariate main effect of commitment equality occurred for overall commitment, F(1, 225) = 9.228, p = .003, partial η2 = .039, with those who perceived equal commitment reporting greater overall commitment (M = 6.11, SD = 2.52) than those who perceived unequal commitment (M = 5.10, SD = 2.60). There was also a significant univariate main effect of gender for alternatives, F(1, 225) = 7.049, p = .008, partial η2 = .030, with men reporting that they perceived more alternatives (M = 5.16, SD = 2.46) compared to women (M = 4.25, SD = 2.41).

Hypothesis 2a proposed men would be more likely than women to perceive their commitment was equal to their FWBR partners’ commitment. We conducted a chi-square analysis for the 230 participants in male-female relationships with full data for this analysis. Perceptions of equal commitment differed by gender χ2(1, N = 229 = 7.316, p = .007), with a greater proportion of men reporting that they perceived themselves and their partner as being equally committed (66.2%, n = 51) compared to women (47.4%, n = 72), as expected.

Hypothesis 3: Extra-Dyadic Sexual Activity in FWBRs

Participants were asked to report their extra-dyadic sexual activity while they were in their current FWBR. A chi-square analysis tested the hypothesis that a higher proportion of male participants would report extra-dyadic sexual activity compared to female participants. Contrary to expectations, results did not differ significantly by participant gender, χ2(1, N = 249) = .026, p = .873; a little under half of both men (46.9%) and women (45.8%) reported that they did not engage in any of the sexual activity listed (kissing, sexual touching, mutual masturbation, oral sex, vaginal intercourse, anal intercourse) with another partner while they were involved in their FWBR. While gender differences were not significant for each sexual activity, there were slight differences across men and women (See Table 3).

Table 3.

Reports of extra-dyadic sexual activity and perceptions of partner’s extra-dyadic sexual activity in male-female friends with benefits relationships.

Men
 Women
Participants’ Extra-Dyadic Behavior
(n = 81)		 Perception of Partner’s Extra-Dyadic Behavior
(n = 74)		 Participants’ Extra-Dyadic Behavior
(n = 168)		 Perception of Partner’s Extra-Dyadic Behavior
(n = 161)
Extra-Dyadic Behavior n, % n, % n, % n, %
None 38, 49.6% 36, 48.6% 77, 45.8% 75, 46.6%
Kissing 35, 42.7% 32, 43.8% 90, 53.6% 80, 49.7%
Sexual Touching 29, 35.4% 20, 27.4% 63, 37.5% 66, 41.0%
Mutual Masturbation 13, 15.9% 12, 16.4% 26, 5.5% 28, 17.4%
Oral Sex 23, 28.0% 17, 23.3% 52, 31.0% 46, 28.6%
Vaginal Intercourse 28, 31.4% 20, 27.4% 56, 33.3% 54, 33.5%
Anal Intercourse 1, 1.2% 0, 0% 5, 3.0% 9, 3.8%
Open in a new tab

Participants were also asked about their perception of their FWB partner’s extra-dyadic sexual activity and were excluded for missing data if they did not know or said they were unsure of their partner’s behaviors. Perceptions of partners’ extra-dyadic sexual activity did not differ by gender, χ2(1, N = 235) = .087, p = .768; a little under half of both women (46.6%) and men (48.6%) reported that they did not think their partner engaged in any extra-dyadic sexual activity (kissing, sexual touching, mutual masturbation, oral sex, vaginal intercourse, anal intercourse). Table 3 shows participants’ reports of their own extra-dyadic behaviors in male-female FWBRs and participants’ perceptions of their partner’s extra-dyadic behaviors.

To further investigate patterns of extra-dyadic behaviors, we looked at participants’ reports of their own extra-dyadic sexual activity together with perceptions of their partner’s extra-dyadic sexual activity. There was no significant difference by gender, with equal proportions of men and women falling into the four categories. Interestingly, the largest group included participants who both engaged in extra-dyadic sexual activity and thought their partners do also (42.1% of women, n = 67 and 42.5% of men, n = 31). This was followed by participants who reported no extra-dyadic sexual activity and perceived their partners also did not engage in extra-dyadic behavior (39.7% of men, n = 29 and 34.6% of women, n = 55). Smaller proportions of participants reported that they did not engage in sexual activity with other partners, but they thought their FWB had (6.8% of males, n = 5 and 9.4% of females, n = 15) or reported they engaged in extra-dyadic sexual activity but did not think their FWB had done the same (11% of men, n = 8 and 13.8% of women, n = 22).

Research Question 2: Extra-Dyadic Sexual Activity and Commitment in FWBRs

Research Question 2 addressed the relationship between participants’ extra-dyadic behavior and perceptions of their partners’ extra-dyadic behavior and commitment to the FWBR. The groups created to test Hypothesis 3 above were used: neither partner participated in extra-dyadic sexual activity (neither); both partners participated in extra-dyadic sexual activity (both); participant participated in extra-dyadic sexual activity, but their partner did not (self only); FWB partner participated in extra-dyadic sexual activity, but participant did not (partner only). Participants who did not provide data for our measure of extra-dyadic sexual activity that could be coded and/or did not provide investment model data were excluded from the analyses.

Given the significant main effect for gender when testing for differences in Investment Model variables, gender was included as a covariate in a one-way MANCOVA examining the role of perceptions of extra-dyadic behavior (neither, both, self only, partner only) on satisfaction, perception of alternatives, investment, and overall commitment. Gender was a significant multivariate covariate, Pillai’s Trace F(4, 224) = 2.735, p = .030, partial η2 = .047. A significant multivariate main effect emerged for perceptions of extra-dyadic behavior, Pillai’s Trace F(12, 678) = 3.049, p < .001, partial η2 = .051. A significant univariate main effect occurred for alternatives, F(3, 227) = 8.869, p < .001, partial η2 = .105. Participants who reported that neither they nor their partner engaged in extra-dyadic sexual activity scored significantly lower on perceived alternatives (M = 3.68, SD = 2.33) than those who reported both partners engaged in extra-dyadic behaviors (M = 5.42, SD = 2.46; p < .001), or self only (M = 4.62, SD = 2.28; p = .046). Participants who reported both engaged also differed significantly from partner only (M = 4.10, SD = 1.96; p = .028). A significant univariate main effect occurred for commitment F(3, 227) = 4.634, p = .004, partial η2 = .058. Those who reported that both have engaged in extra-dyadic behavior (M = 5.05, SD = 2.48) reported significantly lower commitment compared with those who perceived that neither they nor their partner engaged in extra-dyadic sexual activity (M = 6.30, SD = 2.40; p = .001) and those who reported partner-only extra-dyadic sexual activity (M = 6.48, SD = 2.76; p = .020). Those who reported self-only extra-dyadic sexual activity (M = 5.30, SD = 2.66) did not differ from any other group on commitment.

Male-Male and Female-Female FWBRs

So few participants reported on current male-male or female-female FWBRs that we did not have sufficient power to test hypotheses. We explored associations for the 19 participants who reported male-male FWBRs. We did not conduct analyses with the data from the 4 participants reporting on female-female FWBRs.

H1 and RQ1: Investment Model

We explored the associations between investment model variables for participants in male-male FWBRs (n = 19). The same pattern of associations seen in the larger sample was evident in this small group. Commitment was almost redundant with investment, r = .93. Satisfaction was also strongly related to commitment, r = .58. Perception of alternatives was less associated but in the expected direction, r = −.39.

H2: Equality of Commitment

Over half of the participants in male-male FWBRs (52.9%, n = 9) perceived themselves and their partner to be equally committed. Just under half did not perceive the level of commitment to be equal (47.1%, n = 8). Men who reported equality of commitment reported greater satisfaction and more alternatives (M = 6.78, SD = 1.58; and M = 5.67, SD = 2.10, respectively) compared to those who reported being unequally committed (M = 5.81, SD = 2.69; and M = 5.19, SD = 2.66). Men who perceived unequal commitment reported greater investment and greater overall commitment (M = 5.94, SD = 3.28; and M = 5.62, SD = 3.47, respectively) compared to those who reported being equally committed (M = 4.11, SD = 1.93; and M = 4.33, SD = 2.32).

H3: Extra-Dyadic Sexual Activity

Most participants perceived that both they and their partners participated in extra-dyadic behaviors (63.2%, n = 12), followed by neither partner participating in extra-dyadic sexual activity (21.1%, n = 4). Smaller proportions of participants reported that only they had participated in extra-dyadic sexual activity (10.5%, n = 2), or only their partner participated in extra-dyadic sexual activity (5.3%, n = 1).

RQ2: Extra-Dyadic Sexual Activity and Commitment

Most of the participants in male-male FWBRs reported that both themselves and their partner engaged in extra-dyadic sexual activity (both, n = 12). These participants reported moderate levels of satisfaction (M = 6.75, SD = 1.64), investment (M = 5.75, SD = 2.52), alternatives (M = 5.67 SD = .203), and commitment (M = 5.67, SD = 2.85). The remaining subsamples were too small for any meaningful analyses.

Discussion

The primary purpose of this study was to determine whether commitment and sexual activity, including extra-dyadic activity, in FWBRs is similar to hookups or similar to dating relationships. To accomplish this, we investigated how gender (male and female) moderated college students’ commitment to FWBRs. In our analyses, we measured commitment using the Investment Model, as has been done in past research on FWBRs (i.e., VanderDrift et al., 2012). We also asked participants whether they and their FWB partner were equally committed to the relationship and asked about extra-dyadic sexual activity in the FWBR. In our analyses, we investigated how these variables related to each other, and investigated differences in both participant and partner gender. While we primarily focused on male-female relationships for this study, we were able to explore some associations for college students in male-male FWBRs.

Hypothesis 1 and RQ 1: The Investment Model and Gender in College Students’ FWBRs

We predicted gender would moderate the association between investment model variables (satisfaction and investment in particular) and commitment, with the association being stronger for women. This hypothesis was partially supported for male-female relationships, with the most interesting results occurring in the relationship between investment and commitment. Investment, rather than other variables such as satisfaction, was the strongest predictor of commitment in FWBRs for all participants, consistent with VanderDrift et al.’s (2012) study of FWBRs. However, in our study, women were even more likely to report higher commitment if they were more invested, relative to men in male-female FWBRs. While the relationships between all the investment model variables were significant, investment appears to be the primary driver of commitment in college students’ FWBRs.

Finding that investment was the strongest predictor of overall commitment in FWBRs is interesting because it distinguishes FWBRs from not only more short-term CSREs, such as hookups and one-night stands, but also from romantic relationships. In terms of CSREs, it is unlikely that individuals would report being invested in a one time or short-term encounter, but they could potentially report satisfaction and perception of alternatives for other CSREs. In terms of romantic relationships, Le and Agnew’s (2003) meta-analysis showed that the proportion of variance in commitment typically explained by Investment Model variables (R2 values typically above .60) in romantic relationships is similar to what was found here and by VanderDrift et al. (2012). Le and Agnew found that satisfaction consistently explained the most variance in commitment for those in romantic relationships. However, in FWBRs, participants’ investment, material and emotional, heavily influenced participants’ relational commitment. This investment could explain why some individuals, particularly women, might stay in a FWBR even if they aren’t experiencing high levels of satisfaction, and could also explain why some individuals might want to transition from a FWBR into a romantic relationship.

More generally, similar to results by VanderDrift et al. (2012), participants reported moderate commitment to their FWBRs on average; however, variance in these responses was high. While some college students’ FWBRs may be low in commitment, other individuals may be highly committed to their FWBRs. Measuring investment may be a good way to explain this variability and separate which FWBRs are more enduring than others.

Hypothesis 2: Gender and Equality of Commitment

In addition to measuring commitment in FWBRs via the Investment Model, we asked participants whether they and their FWB partner were equally committed to the relationship. In line with Stanley and colleagues’ (Rhoades et al., 2012; Stanley et al., 2017) research on romantic relationships, we expected participants who perceived equal commitment would be more satisfied in their FWBR. Since men have reported that they would be more likely to engage in another FWBR compared to women (Gusarova et al., 2012), we also expected that men would be more likely to report equal commitment. Our hypotheses were supported, suggesting that even if participants choose FWBRs due to a preference for ambiguity (Rhoades et al., 2010; Stanley et al., 2011, 2006, 2010, 2004), negative effects of asymmetrical commitment (i.e., less satisfaction) are still experienced.

In male-female FWBRs, half of female participants and one third of male participants perceived their partners’ commitment to differ from their own level of commitment, suggesting that, as in romantic relationships (e.g., Stanley et al., 2017), commitment discrepancies occur in college students’ FWBRs. This is unfortunate because perception of equal commitment was not only related to satisfaction, but to investment and overall commitment as well. It is possible that those who perceived equal commitment were more likely to invest time and resources into the FWBR, or that higher investment may have led to increased conversations with their FWBs about their commitment. While past research has found small proportions of participants in FWBRs communicate about what they want in their relationships (e.g., Karlson & Traeen, 2013; Mongeau et al., 2019; Weaver et al., 2011), it is possible that investment may correlate with these kinds of conversations. Overall, these results suggest that it is better for both partners to have similarly low commitment than for them to have asymmetrical commitment; however, those who perceived symmetrical commitment were more likely to report higher commitment as well.

While the results for male-male FWBRs should be interpreted as exploratory, some interesting differences in trends occurred for this group. While those who reported equal commitment were more satisfied, they also perceived more alternatives, and reported less investment, and less commitment. Since investment was the primary driver of commitment in male-female FWBRs, it is interesting that men in male-male FWBRs who were equally committed were satisfied but not more likely to want to maintain the relationship. While further research in this area is needed, our preliminary results suggest dynamics in male-male FWBRs may differ from male-female FWBRs, at least when equal commitment is concerned.

Hypothesis 3: Commitment and Extra-Dyadic Sexual Activity in FWBRs

Overall, a little under half of participants in male-female FWBRs reported no extra-dyadic sexual activity during the time of the FWBR. This proportion is higher than past samples (e.g., Lehmiller et al., 2014; Machia et al., 2020), and may be due to cultural differences in sample. Our study was conducted at a HSI with a majority Hispanic sample. This context is important because differences in approaches to relationships appear to exist by ethnicity. For example, Hispanic college students were more likely than non-Hispanic students to go on dates than “hang out” or hook up (Eaton & Rose, 2011). Event scripts for dating, hanging out, and hooking up also varied by gender and Hispanic ethnicity in Eaton et al.’s (2016) study of college students’ sexual scripts.

Our results still support the idea that while FWBRs are often described as being “non-exclusive,” in practice, many of them occur without participants engaging with other sexual partners. Additionally, most participants in male-female FWBRs reported that they thought their FWB matched their extra-dyadic sexual behavior; for example, those who engaged in extra-dyadic behavior assumed their partner did as well. This suggests that a higher proportion of college students perceive discrepancies in commitment in their FWBRs compared to discrepancies in sexual activity. While FWBRs are common on college campuses, and aspects of college life may normalize casual sex (e.g., Hamilton & Armstrong, 2009), some have found that campus norms do not influence some forms of CSREs like hooking up (Berntson et al., 2014). The potential influence of campus norms on extra-dyadic sexual activity in FWBRs should be considered in future research.

We did not find the expected gender differences for extra-dyadic sexual activity in male-female FWBRs. This is in line with our finding that most participants perceived partners’ extra-dyadic activity to match their own extra-dyadic sexual activity. It is important to note that our sample includes men and women who chose to participate in FWBRs. Therefore, the lack of gender differences may be because college students’ reasons for engaging in FWBRs are different than their reasons for engaging in other CSREs such as hookups. The lack of gender differences could also be due to other variations within gender dynamics; for example, Hamilton and Armstrong (2009) found social class is important in women’s participation in CSREs. While some students may be drawn to multiple forms of CSREs at different times, other students who prefer not to engage with multiple partners, or who would not desire a one-night stand, might be drawn to FWBRs due to their unique elements. For example, some students may engage in FWBRs because of the friendship aspects, the potential for investment, or their enduring nature.

Research Question 2: Extra-Dyadic Sexual Activity and Commitment in FWBRs

Lastly, this study investigated the relationship between participants’ extra-dyadic sexual activity and their commitment to the FWBR. For those in male-female FWBRs, participants’ extra-dyadic sexual activity related to higher perceptions of alternatives and lower commitment. This could suggest several things, for example, those who perceived more alternatives may have been more likely to pursue other sexual relationships, or those who were already in a relationship (i.e., married participants) may have been less committed to the FWBR. However, it is interesting to consider that extra-dyadic sexual activity did relate to lower commitment in FWBRs, as past research suggests that it is common for college students to discuss reducing extra-dyadic sexual activity as they increase overall commitment within their romantic relationships (Knopp et al., 2020). It is possible that college students’ approaches to their FWBRs are somewhat similar to romantic relationships in this respect. It is also important to note that there was not a significant relationship between extra-dyadic sexual activity and satisfaction or investment (the largest predictor of commitment), suggesting that participants in both groups could have been satisfied, or invested, in the FWBR.

In male-male FWBRs, participant extra-dyadic sexual activity related to lower perceptions of alternatives, and higher satisfaction, investment and commitment. While results for male-male FWBRs should be seen as preliminary, given the high proportion reporting extra-dyadic activity, one interpretation of this result is that most men in these FWBRs preferred their relationships to be “non-exclusive,” and were more satisfied and more committed as a result.

Research Limitations

While this research offers further clarification on FWBRs in college environments, there are several limitations. First, we used a binary classification of gender. While gender has traditionally been operationalized as male and female, more recent work has pushed back on the gender binary and suggested that gender and sexuality should be investigated in a way that allows for more diversity (e.g., Hammack et al., 2019). We appreciate this perspective, and although participants were given options to fill in information about their gender, most identified as male or female. Although we also asked about gender of all FWBR and romantic partners in the last year on a scale from all male to all female, allowing for same or different binary cisgender relationships to be described, nonbinary and transgender participants may not have perceived the options as relevant. Differentiating between males and females in FWBRs may not lead to applicable results for all college student FWBRs but may shed light on valuable dynamics for many. While we focused on male and female college students, future research on FWBRs should investigate additional gender identities.

Second, we did not employ a dyadic methodology. While dyadic data collection may be complicated by participants’ involvement in multiple concurrent relationships, perceptions of participants’ partners’ sexual activity and commitment are likely different than what their partners would have reported had we been able to survey partners. However, measuring participants’ perceptions of their FWBRs is valuable, as their perceptions may be more useful in predicting commitment than the actual behavior of their partners.

Third, we measured perceptions of equal commitment using an open-ended question. Therefore, most participants who reported unequal commitment did not elaborate on whether they or their FWB were more committed. In addition, considering the current sample contained primarily freshman and sophomore students, further research is needed to fully represent college students’ FWBRs, especially for juniors and seniors.

Finally, this study was conducted at a Hispanic serving institution with a majority Hispanic sample. Hispanic students are underrepresented in research on FWBRs. While this study advances our understanding of Hispanic students’ FWBRs, these results may not generalize to other college student samples.

Implications for Future Research

Overall, the results of the current study suggest that future research should continue to investigate the discrepancy in college students’ commitment to their FWBRs, and motivations for engaing (or not engaging) in extra-dyadic sexual activity during FWBRs. While outside of the scope of the current study, some previous research on FWBRs has suggested that there may be FWBR “subtypes” (e.g., Karlson & Traeen, 2013; Mongeau et al., 2013, 2019). For example, some individuals in FWBRs place more emphasis on the friendship component of the FWBR, while others emphasize the sexual side of the relationship. Additionally, FWBRs that were once romantic relationships, or FWBRs that have since transitioned into romantic relationships may differ from other subtypes of FWBRs. These subtypes of FWBRs may differ in average commitment and sexual activity, including decisions around extra-dyadic sexual activity. Therefore, future research may consider these subtypes in the investigation of college students’ commitment and sexual activity in FWBRs.

Conclusion

Overall, results suggest FWBRs can be distinguished not only from CSREs such as hookups but also from romantic relationships, specifically in terms of the association between investment and commitment. Characteristics such as commitment in FWBRs vary in college student populations, and variables such as participant gender, partner gender, and extra-dyadic sexual activity, can impact commitment and potentially risky sex behaviors. Additionally, seeing the pattern of results for male-female FWBRs differed from our very exploratory findings for male-male FWBRs, considering gender dynamics within these relationships is important. Understanding the diversity within FWBRs is important for individuals who conduct research in this area, as well as for those who work in college and university environments. For example, if a student says that they are involved in a FWBR, it would be erroneous to assume the student is not committed to the relationship, or to assume extra-dyadic activity is occurring. Moreover, awareness that partners’ commitment to the FWBR is often asymmetrical and associated with lower satisfaction is important for understanding the impact of FWBRs on mental health outcomes. Prospective research on FWBRs is especially important, as the dynamics examined here can influence relationship outcomes and predict how these relationships evolve or dissolve over time.

Footnotes

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References

  1. Berntson MA, Hoffman KL, & Luff TL (2014). College as context: Influences on interpersonal sexual scripts. Sexuality & Culture, 18(1), 149–165. 10.1007/s12119-013-9180-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bisson MA, & Levine TR (2009). Negotiating a friends with benefits relationship. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38(1), 66–73. 10.1007/s10508-007-9211-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Claxton SE, & van Dulmen MH (2013). Casual sexual relationships and experiences in emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 1(2), 138–150. 10.1177/2167696813487181 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. de Brey C, Musu L, McFarland J, Wilkinson-Flicker S, Diliberti M, Zhang A, Branstetter C, and Wang X (2019). Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2018 (NCES 2019–038). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved January 5, 2021 from https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/ [Google Scholar]
  5. Eaton AA, Rose SM, Interligi C, Fernandez K, & McHugh M (2016). Gender and ethnicity in dating, hanging out, and hooking up: Sexual scripts among Hispanic and white young adults. The Journal of Sex Research, 53(7), 788–804. 10.1080/00224499.2015.1065954 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Eaton AA, & Rose S (2011). Has dating become more egalitarian? A 35 year review using Sex Roles. Sex Roles, 64(11–12), 843–862. 10.1007/s11199-011-9957-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Garcia JR, Reiber C, Massey SG, & Merriwether AM (2012). Sexual hookup culture: A review. Review of General Psychology, 16(2), 161–176. 10.1037/a0027911 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Grello CM, Welsh DP, & Harper MS (2006). No strings attached: The nature of casual sex in college students. The Journal of Sex Research, 43(3), 255–267. 10.1080/00224490609552324 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Gusarova I, Fraser V, & Alderson KG (2012). A quantitative study of “friends with benefits” relationships. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 21(1), 41–59. [Google Scholar]
  10. Gute G, & Eshbaugh EM (2008). Personality as a predictor of hooking up among college students. Journal of Community Health Nursing, 25 (1), 26–43. 10.1080/07370010701836385 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Hadden BW, Harvey SM, Settersten RA Jr, & Agnew CR. (2019). What do I call us? The investment model of commitment processes and changes in relationship categorization. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10 (2), 235–243. 10.1177/1948550617745115 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Hamilton L, & Armstrong EA (2009). Gendered sexuality in young adulthood: Double binds and flawed options. Gender & Society, 23(5), 589–616. 10.1177/0891243209345829 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Hammack PL, Frost DM, & Hughes SD (2019). Queer intimacies: A new paradigm for the study of relationship diversity. The Journal of Sex Research, 56(4–5), 556–592. 10.1080/00224499.2018.1531281 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Karlsen M, and Træen B (2013). Identifying ‘friends with benefits’ scripts among young adults in the Norwegian cultural context. Sexuality & Culture 17, 83–99. 10.1007/s12119-012-9140-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Knopp K, Rhoades GK, Stanley SM, & Markman HJ (2020). “Defining the relationship” in adolescent and young adult romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,37(7), 2078–2097. [Google Scholar]
  16. Kurdek LA (2008). A general model of relationship commitment: Evidence from same-sex partners. Personal Relationships, 15(3), 391–405. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2008.00205.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Lambert TA, Kahn AS, & Apple KJ (2003). Pluralistic ignorance and hooking up. The Journal of Sex Research, 40(2), 129–133. 10.1080/00224490309552174 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Le B, & Agnew CR (2003). Commitment and its theorized determinants: A meta-analysis of the investment model. Personal Relationships, 10(1), 37–57. 10.1111/1475-6811.00035 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Lehmiller JJ, VanderDrift LE, & Kelly JR (2011). Sex differences in approaching friends with benefits relationships. The Journal of Sex Research, 48(2–3), 275–284. 10.1080/00224491003721694 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Lehmiller JJ, VanderDrift LE, & Kelly JR (2014). Sexual communication, satisfaction, and condom use behavior in friends with benefits and romantic partners. The Journal of Sex Research, 51(1), 74–85. 10.1080/00224499.2012.719167 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Lyons HA, Manning WD, Longmore MA, & Giordano PC (2015). Gender and casual sexual activity from adolescence to emerging adult-hood: Social and life course correlates. The Journal of Sex Research, 52(5), 543–557. 10.1080/00224499.2014.906032 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Machia LV, Proulx ML, Ioerger M, & Lehmiller JJ (2020). A longitudinal study of friends with benefits relationships. Personal Relationships, 27(1), 47–60. 10.1111/pere.12307 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. McGinty K, Knox D, & Zusman ME (2007). Friends with benefits: Women want “friends,” men want “benefits.” College Student Journal, 41 (4), 1128–1132. [Google Scholar]
  24. Mongeau PA, Knight K, Williams J, Eden J, & Shaw C (2013). Identifying and explicating variation among friends with benefits relationships. The Journal of Sex Research, 50(1), 37–47. 10.1080/00224499.2011.623797 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Mongeau PA, van Raalte LJ, Bednarchik L, & Generous M (2019). Investigating and extending variation among friends with benefits relationships: Relationship maintenance and social support. Southern Communication Journal, 84(5), 275–286. 10.1080/1041794X.2019.1641837 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Oriña MM, Collins WA, Simpson JA, Salvatore JE, Haydon KC, & Kim JS (2011). Developmental and dyadic perspectives on commitment in adult romantic relationships. Psychological Science, 22 (7), 908–915. 10.1177/0956797611410573 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Owen JJ, Rhoades GK, Stanley SM, & Fincham FD (2010). “Hooking up” among college students: Demographic and psychosocial correlates. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(3), 653–663. 10.1007/s10508-008-9414-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Owen J, & Fincham FD (2011). Effects of gender and psychosocial factors on “friends with benefits” relationships among young adults. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(2), 311–320. 10.1007/s10508-010-9611-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Paul EL, McManus B, & Hayes A (2000). “Hookups”: Characteristics and correlates of college students’ spontaneous and anonymous sexual experiences. The Journal of Sex Research, 37(1), 76–88. 10.1080/00224490009552023 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Puentes J, Knox D, & Zusman ME (2008). Participants in “friends with benefits” relationships. College Student Journal, 42(1), 176–180. [Google Scholar]
  31. Rhoades GK, Stanley SM, & Markman HJ (2010). Should I stay or should I go? Predicting dating relationship stability from four aspects of commitment. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(5), 543–550. 10.1037/a0021008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Rhoades GK, Stanley SM, & Markman HJ (2012). A longitudinal investigation of commitment dynamics in cohabiting relationships. Journal of Family Issues, 33(3), 369–390. 10.1177/0192513X11420940 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Rodrigue C, Blais M, Lavoie F, Adam BD, Goyer M-F, & Magontier C (2018). Passion, intimacy, and commitment in casual sexual relationships in a Canadian sample of emerging adults. The Journal of Sex Research, 55(9), 1192–1205. 10.1080/00224499.2017.1399195 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Rodrigue C, Blais M, Lavoie F, Adam BD, 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(3), 215–227. 10.3138/cjhs.243-A1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Rusbult CE, Arriaga XB, & Agnew CR (2001). Interdependence in close relationships. In Fletcher GJO, and Clark MS (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of social psychology, Vol. 2: Interpersonal processes (pp. 359 – 387). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  36. Rusbult CE, Martz JM, & Agnew CR (1998). The investment model scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5(4), 357–387. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00177.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Rusbult CE (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16(2), 172–186. 10.1016/0022-1031(80)90007-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Stanley SM, Rhoades GK, & Fincham FD (2011). Understanding romantic relationships among emerging adults: The significant roles of cohabitation and ambiguity. In Fincham FD & Cui M (Eds.), Romantic relationships in emerging adulthood (pp. 234–251). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  39. Stanley SM, Rhoades GK, & Markman HJ (2006). Sliding versus deciding: Inertia and the premarital cohabitation effect. Family Relations, 55(4), 499–509. 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2006.00418.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Stanley SM, Rhoades GK, Scott SB, Kelmer G, Markman HJ, & Fincham FD (2017). Asymmetrically committed relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34(8), 1241–1259. 10.1177/0265407516672013 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Stanley SM, Rhoades GK, & Whitton SW (2010). Commitment: Functions, formation, and the securing of romantic attachment. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 2(4), 243–257. 10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00060.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Stanley SM, Whitton SW, & Markman HJ (2004). Maybe I do: Interpersonal commitment and premarital or nonmarital cohabitation. Journal of Family Issues, 25(4), 496–519. 10.1177/0192513X03257797 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Thibaut JW, & Kelley HH (1959). The social psychology of groups. Wiley. [Google Scholar]
  44. Thomas RA, & Weston R. (2020). Exploring the association between hostile attribution bias and intimate partner violence in college students: Romantic relationships and friends with benefits. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 29(5), 557–576. 10.1080/10926771.2019.1587561 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. VanderDrift LE, Lehmiller JJ, & Kelly JR (2012). Commitment in friends with benefits relationships: Implications for relational and safe-sex outcomes. Personal Relationships, 19(1), 1–13. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01324.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Weaver AD, MacKeigan KL, & MacDonald HA (2011). Experiences and perceptions of young adults in friends with benefits relationships: A qualitative study. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 20(1/2), 41– 53. [Google Scholar]
  47. Wentland JJ, & Reissing ED (2011). Taking casual sex not too casually: Exploring definitions of casual sexual relationships. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 20(3), 75–91. [Google Scholar]
  48. Wesche R, Claxton SE, Lefkowitz ES, & van Dulmen MHM (2018). Evaluations and future plans after casual sexual experiences: Differences across partner type. The Journal of Sex Research, 55(9), 1180–1191. 10.1080/00224499.2017.1298714 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Wesche R, Claxton SE, & Waterman EA (2021). Emotional Outcomes of Casual Sexual Relationships and Experiences: A Systematic Review. The Journal of Sex Research, 58(8), 1069–1084. 10.1080/00224499.2020.1821163 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Williams JC, & Jovanovic J (2015). Third wave feminism and emerging adult sexuality: Friends with benefits relationships. Sexuality & Culture, 19(1), 157–167. 10.1007/s12119-014-9252-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES