Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 42, Issue 8, pp 1407–1414 | Cite as

Four Functions for Four Relationships: Consensus Definitions of University Students

Original Paper

Abstract

In this study (N = 192; 124 women, 68 men), consensus definitions of one-night stands, booty-call relationships, friends-with-benefits, and serious romantic relationships were fashioned using a sample of university students. Participants provided a Likert and forced-choice assessment of how each relationship was characterized by the functions of sexual gratification, trial run, placeholder, and socioemotional support. Serious romantic relationships were primarily used to gain socioemotional support. Friends-with-benefits relationships were motivated by seeking a placeholder until someone better came along and as a trial run for a more serious relationship. Booty-call relationships and one-night stands were motivated primarily by a desire for sexual gratification. Men ascribed a greater range of reasons to engage in sexual relationships than women did and the more short-term the relationship was in nature, the greater the emergence of sex differences in ascribed functions.

Keywords

Booty-call relationships Friends-with-benefits One-night stands Serious romantic relationships Sex differences Sociosexuality 

References

  1. Afifi, W. A., & Faulkner, S. E. (2000). On being ‘just friends’: The frequency and impact of sexual activity in cross-sex friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 205–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown, F., Feiring, C., & Furman, W. (1999). Missing the love boat: Why researchers have shied away from adolescent romance. In W. Furman, B. B. Brown, & C. Feiring (Eds.), The development of romantic relationships in adolescence (pp. 1–16). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Caruthers, A. S. (2006). “Hookups” and “friends-with-benefits”: Non-relational sexual encounters as contexts of women’s normative sexual development. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 66, 5708.Google Scholar
  5. Cho, Y., & Span, S. A. (2010). The effect of alcohol on sexual risk-taking among young men and women. Addictive Behaviors, 35, 779–785.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender difference in receptivity to sexual offers. Psychology and Human Sexuality, 2, 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Confer, J. C., Easton, J. A., Fleischman, D. S., Goetz, C. D., Lewis, D. M. G., Perilloux, C., & Buss, D. M. (2010). Evolutionary psychology: Questions, prospects, and limitations. American Psychologist, 65, 110–126.Google Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Diamond, L. M., Savin-Williams, R. C., & Dube, E. M. (1999). Sex, dating, passionate friendships, and romance: Intimate peer relationships among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adolescents. In W. Furman, B. B. Brown, & C. Feiring (Eds.), The development of romantic relationships in adolescence (pp. 175–210). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dickinson, E. R., Adelson, J. L., & Own, J. (2012). Gender balance, representativeness, and statistical power in sexuality research using undergraduate student samples. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 325–327.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  13. Epstein, M., Calzo, J. P., Smiler, A. P., & Ward, L. M. (2009). “Anything from making out to having sex”: Men’s negotiations of hooking up and friends with benefits. Journal of Sex Research, 46, 414–424.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Eshbaugh, E. M., & Gute, G. (2008). Hookups and sexual regret among college women. Journal of Social Psychology, 148, 77–89.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Feiring, C. (1996). Concepts of romance in 15-year-old adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 6, 181–200.Google Scholar
  16. Fielder, R. L., & Carey, M. P. (2010). Predictors and consequences of sexual “hook-ups” among college students: A short-term prospective study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 1105–1119.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Fisher, W. A., & Byrne, D. (1978). Sex differences in response to erotica? Love versus lust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 117–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Forster, J., Ozelsel, A., & Epstude, K. (2010). How love and lust change people’s perception of relationship partners. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 237–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fortenberry, J. D. (2003). Health behaviors and reproductive health risk within adolescent sexual dyads. In P. Florsheim (Ed.), Adolescent romantic relations and sexual behavior: Theory, research, and practical implications (pp. 279–296). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  20. Furman, W., & Hand, L. S. (2006). The slippery nature of romantic relationships: Issues in definition and differentiation. In A. C. Crouter & A. Booth (Eds.), Romance and sex in emerging adulthood (pp. 171–178). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  21. Gangestad, S., & Simpson, J. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573–644.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Garcia, J. R., & Reiber, C. (2008). Hooking up: A biopsychosocial perspective. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 2, 192–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Giordano, P. C., Longmore, M. A., & Manning, W. D. (2006). Gender and the meanings of adolescent romantic relationships: A focus on boys. American Sociological Review, 71, 260–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Greiling, H., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Women’s sexual strategies: The hidden dimension of extra-pair mating. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 929–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Greitemeyer, T. (2007). What do men and women want in a partner? Are educated partners always more desirable? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 180–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Error management theory: A new perspective on biases in cross-sex mind reading. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 81–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Hatfield, E., Luckhurst, C., & Rapson, R. L. (2012). A brief history of attempts to measure sexual motives. Interpersona, 6, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R. L. (2006). Love and passion. In I. Goldstein, C. M. Meston, S. R. Davis, & A. M. Traish (Eds.), Women’s sexual function and dysfunction: Study, diagnosis, and treatment (pp. 93–97). London: Taylor Francis.Google Scholar
  30. Hughes, M., Morrison, K., & Asada, K. J. K. (2005). What’s love got to do with it? Exploring the impact of maintenance rules, love attitudes, and network support on friends with benefits relationships. Western Journal of Communication, 69, 36–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jenks, R. J. (1998). Swinging: A review of the literature. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 27, 507–521.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Jonason, P. K., & Buss, D. M. (2012). Avoiding entangling commitments: Tactics for implementing a short-term mating strategy. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 606–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., & Cason, M. J. (2009a). The “booty call”: A compromise between men and women’s ideal mating strategies. Journal of Sex Research, 46, 460–470.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., & Richardson, J. (2010). Positioning the booty-call relationship on the spectrum of relationships: Sexual but more emotional than one-night stands. Journal of Sex Research, 47, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., Webster, G. W., & Schmitt, D. P. (2009b). The Dark Triad: Facilitating short-term mating in men. European Journal of Personality, 23, 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jonason, P. K., Luévano, V. X., & Adams, H. M. (2012a). How the Dark Triad traits predict relationship choices. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 180–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jonason, P. K., Valentine, K. A., & Li, N. P. (2012b). Human mating. In V. S. Ramachandran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 371–377). Oxford: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kenrick, D. T., Sadalla, E. K., Groth, G., & Trost, M. R. (1990). Evolution, traits, and the stages of human courtship: Qualifying the parental investment model. Journal of Personality, 58, 97–116.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Lambert, T. A., Kahn, A. S., & Apple, K. J. (2003). Pluralistic ignorance and hooking up. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 129–133.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Manning, W., Giordano, P., & Longmore, M. (2006). Hooking up: The relationship contexts of “nonrelationship” sex. Journal of Adolescent Research, 21, 459–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Maticka-Tyndale, E., & Herold, E. S. (1997). The scripting of sexual behavior: Canadian university students on spring break in Florida. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 6, 317–328.Google Scholar
  44. Meston, C. M., & Buss, D. M. (2009). Why women have sex. New York: Henry Holt and Co.Google Scholar
  45. Owen, J., & Fincham, F. D. (2011). Young adults’ emotional reactions after hooking up encounters. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 321–330.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Paul, E. L., & Hayes, A. (2002). The causalities of “casual” sex: A qualitative exploration of the phenomenology of college students’ hookups. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 639–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Paul, E. L., McManus, B., & Hayes, A. (2000). “Hookups”: Characteristics and correlates of college students’ spontaneous and anonymous sexual experiences. Journal of Sex Research, 37, 76–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Puentes, J., Knox, D., & Sussman, M. E. (2008). Participants in “friends-with-benefits” relationships. College Student Journal, 42, 176–180.Google Scholar
  49. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Schmitt, D. P., Shackelford, T. K., Duntely, J., Tooke, W., & Buss, D. M. (2001). The desire for sexual variety as a key to understanding basic human mating strategies. Personal Relationships, 8, 425–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shulman, S., & Kipnis, O. (2001). Adolescent romantic relationships: A look from the future. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 337–351.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Shulman, S., & Scharf, M. (2000). Adolescent romantic behaviors and perceptions: Age- and gender-related differences and links with family and peer relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 10, 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Singer, M. C., Erickson, P. I., Badaine, L., Diaz, R., Ortiz, D., Abraham, T., & Nicolaysen, A. M. (2006). Syndemics, sex, and the city: Understanding sexually transmitted diseases in social and cultural context. Social Science and Medicine, 63, 2010–2021.Google Scholar
  55. Smiler, A. P. (2008). “I wanted to get to know her better”: Adolescent boys’ dating motives, masculinity ideology, and sexual behavior. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 17–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Townsend, J. M., & Wasserman, T. H. (2011). Sexual hookups among college students: Sex differences in emotional reactions. Archives of Sexual Behaviors, 40, 1173–1181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Chicago: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  58. Wentland, J. J., & Reissing, E. D. (2011). Taking casual sex not too casually: Exploring definitions of casual sex relationships. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 29, 75–91.Google Scholar
  59. Whitehead, A. N. (1967). Science and the modern world. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  60. Zeigler-Hill, V., Campe, J. W., & Myers, D. M. (2009). How low will men with high self-esteem go? Self-esteem as a moderator of gender differences in minimum relationship standards. Sex Roles, 61, 491–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Social Sciences and PsychologyUniversity of Western SydneyMilperraUSA

Personalised recommendations