Motivations and Relationship Quality of Friends with Benefits Relationships Among Emerging Adults

This study was conducted to understand more about college-aged students’ motivations for Friends with Benefits (FWB) relationships, and the quality of those relationships. These casual relationships are gaining acceptance among college populations, but we understand little about gender differences in engaging in them. An online survey was created and participants were recruited from various groups and classes on campus. From this pool of students, 233 undergraduate students completed the survey. Measures included five motivation categories: sex, wanted FWB, relationship avoidance, friendship, and relationship simplicity (Hughes, Morrison, and Asada, 2005), in addition to six relationship quality aspects: satisfaction, commitment, intimacy, trust, passion, and love (Fletcher, Simpson, and Thomas, 2000). Findings suggested that Cal Poly men and women have similar motivations for engaging in these relationships. However, men reported being more satisfied and feeling more trust in these relationships than women. FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS RELATIONSHIPS 3 As a developmental period, adolescence is characterized by rapidly increasing brain changes, physical body maturation, and more dependence on social experiences with peers. It is also a time when the first romantic relationships can develop. The types of romantic or sexual relationships that occur depend on a variety and combination of social, biological, and cultural factors. One modern example is a Friends With Benefits Relationship (FWB) in which two friends are sexually involved but are not romantically committed to each other as in a traditional, romantic relationship (Hughes, Morrison, & Asada, 2005; Lehmiller, VanderDrift, & Kelly, 2011; Gusarova, Fraser, & Alderson, 2012). This type of relationship can be placed under the umbrella of casual sex because it is an example of sexual intimacy with a nonromantic partner (Grello, Welsh, & Harper, 2006). However, it differs from the slang term hookup that describes a one time sexual activity with an unfamiliar partner that is uncommitted and unplanned (Garcia, Reiber, Massey, & Merriwether, 2012). In this chapter, the topics of attachment theory, motivation for and involvement in romantic relationships, and the component of sexuality within romantic relationships are established as essential foundational pieces for research on friends with benefits relationships. From there, the case can be made that the various motivations adolescents may have for entering friends with benefits relationships merits more attention and research. Attachment Theory Some researchers have posited that the theory of attachment, credited to John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth, extends far beyond the scope of infant attachments and can be applied to romantic relationships in adolescence and adulthood (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Until Hazan and Shaver’s research in 1987, psychologists had not studied this possible connection between the work of Bowlby, Aisnsworth, and romantic relationships. Therefore, in their study, Hazan and FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS RELATIONSHIPS 4 Shaver (1987) proposed that attachment styles are continuous throughout the lifespan and affect relationships with romantic partners as well as primary caregivers. They discuss the internal working model, originally proposed by Bowlby, as the way in which a person forms expectations of the people in his or her world. Specifically, this research team hypothesized that a majority of their sample would be securely attached. In addition, they proposed that these attachment styles would lead participants to have different experiences within their relationships and have different internal working models of themselves within the context of a romantic relationship. Those with secure attachments would emphasize trust and friendship, and would think they are likable. Participants with avoidant attachments would have little to no trust or closeness and would deny their need for love. Lastly, those with anxious/ambivalent attachments would find love easily, but never true love, and would be more likely to doubt themselves in relationships when compared to the other two attachment styles. Hazan and Shaver (1987) created a survey that was printed in a newspaper, and asked for responses. With these, they found support for all hypotheses. The securely attached participants (56%) were more likely to describe their romantic relationships in terms of trust and acceptance of their romantic partner, while avoidant participants (25%) emphasized fear and jealousy, and anxious/ambivalent participants (19%) described extreme highs and lows of passion and jealousy. In terms of internal models and the nature of romantic love, securely attached participants believed that real love exists, but participants with avoidant or anxious/ambivalent attachments did not believe in real or true love. Hazan and Shaver (1987) later repeated this study because of the limitations that resulted from the nature of the newspaper survey. In this second part, 108 undergraduates were surveyed and completed the same questionnaire published in the newspaper study. Once again, the three hypotheses from the initial study were confirmed, giving their research more credibility after FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS RELATIONSHIPS 5 their initial limitations were accounted for. This work concerning the connection between infant attachment styles and attachment later in life laid the groundwork for future studies in the realm of romantic relationships. Motivations for Romantic Relationships In addition to the work on attachment theory, it is important to consider the motivations for entering into romantic relationships as essential background information for understanding these relations in adolescence. In his synthesis of research concerning adolescent romantic relationships, Collins (2003) briefly discussed the multitude of viewpoints on the initiation of these relations. From his research, he first reported that cultural influences account for some of the differences in initiating dating, but also explained that the physical and hormonal changes in puberty may also play a role. Lastly, research has proposed that familial or social problems can be yet another factor that contributes to adolescent pursuit of romantic involvement. Collins (2003) postulated that these divergent theories of motivations could lead to different relationship satisfaction outcomes. In line with Collins’s (2003) proposal, prior research conducted by Seligman, Fazio, and Zanna (1980) proposed that different motivations would lead to different outcomes in the way people felt about their romantic partner. Using the attribution theory as a basis for understanding motivation, Seligman et al. (1980) researched the connections between intrinsic and extrinsic motivations and different levels of liking and loving a romantic partner. An intrinsic motivation would be finding personal satisfaction in dating someone attractive (Sigall & Landy, 1973 as cited in Seligman, Fazio, & Zanna, 1980). An extrinsic motivation would be enjoying the popularity or social advancement for dating someone who is attractive (Sigall & Landy, 1973 as cited in Seligman, Fazio, & Zanna, 1980). They hypothesized that people who were more FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS RELATIONSHIPS 6 concerned with the extrinsic rewards of a relationship would be less in liking or in love with their partner. Nineteen undergraduate couples that had been dating less than a year were randomly assigned to one of three groups: intrinsic, extrinsic, or no set. All participants filled out a questionnaire indicating the frequency of certain dating activities. Those in the intrinsic group completed phrases about their partner that contained the phrase “because I” while those in the intrinsic group completed responses that included “in order to”. These phrases were previously correlated in other research as indicative of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations (Salanick, 1974 as cited in Seligman, Fazio, & Zanna, 1980). Lastly, the questionnaire contained items from Rubin’s (1973) Loving and Liking Scale. Results indicated that there were no significant differences in the types of dates the couples participated in but the intrinsic group scored significantly higher in love than the extrinsic group. Scores from the liking scales did not produce a significant result. The results of this study not only support the initial hypotheses but also the notion from the Collins (2003) research that suggests that different motivations lead to different relationships, including those formed in adolescence. Adolescent Romantic Relationships Many studies have conducted research on adolescent romantic relationships and provides a foundation from which to understand more specific types of relationships like Friends With Benefits Relationships. One of the more meaningful romantic relationship topics for the study of FWBs is romantic partner selection. That is, who adolescents are generally attracted to and who they choose to be in a relationship with. In one study, 78 adolescents in the sixth, seventh, and eighth grades completed a questionnaire that assessed partner selection in early adolescence and how these selections my help influence behavior (Simon, Aikins, & Prinstein, 2008). Researchers measured many peer-rated topics including perceived popularity, physical FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS RELATIONSHIPS 7 attractiveness, sadness, aggression, and victimization. In addition, one measure assessed selfreported sadness. Simon et al. (2008) found that adolescents had similar scores of popularity, body appearance, physical attractiveness, and self-rated sadness as their partner before they started their romantic relationship. This suggests that adolescents select romantic partners based on certain similar attributes or based on popularity. In terms of changing adolescent functioning, friends were not the only influence. Simon et al. (2008) suggest that who an adolescent selects as a