Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Four Functions for Four Relationships: Consensus Definitions of University Students

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Archives of Sexual Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Sex that occurs among individuals with little sexual commitment who know each other nominally.

  2. Friends who also engage in sexual behavior together without any formal commitment.

  3. Sexual relationships that tend to occur among acquaintances.

  4. Predictions are confined to the potential primary functions for each relationship.

  5. For a small effect, α set to .05, and β set to .50, the necessary sample size was 193. For a medium effect, a sample of 65 was needed with an α of .05 and a β of .80.

  6. Given the imbalance in cell sizes here, no analyses were conducted on sexual orientation.

  7. No differences were detected across this distinction and, thus, further details are omitted.

  8. Participants were not provided with a definition of each relationship because the goal of the study was to use the functions to better define these relationships. Familiarity with these relationships was assumed in the method, but participants were instructed that if they had any questions to contact the researcher. No questions were submitted.

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Cho, Y., & Span, S. A. (2010). The effect of alcohol on sexual risk-taking among young men and women. Addictive Behaviors, 35, 779–785.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender difference in receptivity to sexual offers. Psychology and Human Sexuality, 2, 39–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eshbaugh, E. M., & Gute, G. (2008). Hookups and sexual regret among college women. Journal of Social Psychology, 148, 77–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Feiring, C. (1996). Concepts of romance in 15-year-old adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 6, 181–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, W. A., & Byrne, D. (1978). Sex differences in response to erotica? Love versus lust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 117–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Gangestad, S., & Simpson, J. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573–644.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, J. R., & Reiber, C. (2008). Hooking up: A biopsychosocial perspective. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 2, 192–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greiling, H., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Women’s sexual strategies: The hidden dimension of extra-pair mating. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 929–963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hatfield, E., Luckhurst, C., & Rapson, R. L. (2012). A brief history of attempts to measure sexual motives. Interpersona, 6, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenks, R. J. (1998). Swinging: A review of the literature. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 27, 507–521.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, T. A., Kahn, A. S., & Apple, K. J. (2003). Pluralistic ignorance and hooking up. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 129–133.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Manning, W., Giordano, P., & Longmore, M. (2006). Hooking up: The relationship contexts of “nonrelationship” sex. Journal of Adolescent Research, 21, 459–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Meston, C. M., & Buss, D. M. (2009). Why women have sex. New York: Henry Holt and Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen, J., & Fincham, F. D. (2011). Young adults’ emotional reactions after hooking up encounters. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 321–330.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puentes, J., Knox, D., & Sussman, M. E. (2008). Participants in “friends-with-benefits” relationships. College Student Journal, 42, 176–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, S., & Kipnis, O. (2001). Adolescent romantic relationships: A look from the future. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 337–351.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Townsend, J. M., & Wasserman, T. H. (2011). Sexual hookups among college students: Sex differences in emotional reactions. Archives of Sexual Behaviors, 40, 1173–1181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Whitehead, A. N. (1967). Science and the modern world. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author thanks Capricia Wesley for help creating the online instrument to collect data, Pamela Izzo Ray for the conversation that spawned this study, Gregory Webster, Jocelyn Wentland, Joshua Foster, and Leisha Colyn for reviewing earlier versions of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Social Sciences and Psychology, University of Western Sydney, Milperra, NSW, 2214, USA

    Peter K. Jonason

Authors
  1. Peter K. Jonason
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter K. Jonason.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jonason, P.K. Four Functions for Four Relationships: Consensus Definitions of University Students. Arch Sex Behav 42, 1407–1414 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-013-0189-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-013-0189-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation