Friends With Benefits Relationships Research

Running Head: FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS RELATIONSHIPS 1
Friends With Benefits Relationships: An Analysis of Intimacy, Investment and Commitment
Alexis Cruikshank
Nick Derry
Renee Miller
Arizona State University
April 29, 2016
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the different types of friends with benefits
relationships (FWBR) and how the self-esteem of individuals in these relationships affects their

FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS RELATIONSHIPS
2
investment, satisfaction, and commitment. The study was conducted through an online Google
survey, gathering participants by non-random convenience sampling. The hypotheses and
research questions formulated were tested through SPSS using an independent samples t-test, a
one-way ANOVA, a correlation, and a multiple linear regression. After analyzing the results in
SPSS, it was found that self-esteem was significantly related to the amount of satisfaction that
participants in FWBR experienced in their relationships. The more self-esteem a participant had,
the more satisfied they were with the casual nature of the relationship.
Keywords: friends with benefits, self-esteem, intimacy, satisfaction, commitment, investment,
quality of alternatives

3
Friends With Benefits Relationships: An analysis of Intimacy, Investment and Commitment
While many individuals may not want to admit it, many individuals are currently or have
previously been involved in a friends with benefits relationship . As a growing trend, we are
interested in determining how sexual satisfaction is differentiated among friends with benefits
relationships versus committed and exclusive romantic relationships. Although, sexual
satisfaction is viewed differently among individuals, sexuality and sexual satisfaction is an
integral component of romantic relationships (Birnie-Porter, 2015). However, it is also important
to determine one’s level of satisfaction in a romantic relationship in relation to the quality of
alternatives, the level of commitment and investment, as well the ways in which the relationship
affects one’s overall self-esteem.
Review of Literature
Rationale
To further examine friends with benefits relationships, it is first important to define a
friends with benefits relationship, which involves a relationship consisting of recurrent sexual
activity between partners without commitment or further expectations to progress into romantic
relationship (Birnie-Porter, 2015).These relationships typically involve young adults, and are
often characterized by lower levels of intimacy, passion, and commitment when compared to
committed, romantic relationships. (Birnie-Porter, 2015). Therefore, we are also determined to
explore Friends with benefits relationships examining the factors that affect relational
satisfaction, specifically in relation to relationship status. Our aim is to investigate:

4
H1: Respondents with higher levels of intimacy will also report higher levels of
satisfaction.
R1: What effect does the type of FWBR have on respondents’ levels of satisfaction?
R2: What is the relationship between the respondents’ satisfaction in their FWBR and
their self-esteem?
R3: What biological sex reported higher levels of commitment in their FWBR?
R4: How much do each degree of Investment (satisfaction, level of investment, quality of
alternatives) work together to have an effect on levels of commitment?
Intimacy in Friends with benefit Relationships
Friends with benefits relationships are characterized as relationships with moderate levels
of intimacy, creating a physical and emotional connection, without commitment (Owen, 2009).
Friends with relationships can also be characterised as a combination of the intimacy involved in
a friendship with the sexual intimacy of a romantic relationship (Bisson, 2009). Consequently,
partners are likely to engage in frequent sexual activities, including sexual intercourse with their
trusted partner. Although, partners avoid commitment, it is quite possible that one partner will
develop feelings for the other, often worrying that the feelings will not be reciprocated (Bisson,
2009). As intimacy between partners increase, one partner may also hope their relationship
develop and progress into a committed relationship, which may not be likely (Owen, 2009).
Commitment and Level of Investment in Friends with Benefits Relationships
Friends who engage in sex may complicate a friendship, also affecting commitment
between partners. Although not intended, it is likely that friends with benefits relationships can
lead to unreciprocated desires in relation to romantic commitment (Bisson, 2009). Since many

5
individuals view friends with benefits as an opportunity to explore future relationships, often as a
way to venture into future committed and exclusive relationships, commitment and satisfaction
are important to examine (Owen & Fincham, 2012). Therefore, partners should also consider the
amount of time and effort they are investing in the relationship, the quality of alternatives, and
the overall satisfaction they believe they are achieving in their friends with benefits relationship.
This is particularly important for the future of a friends with benefits relationships since levels of
investment, quality of alternatives, and satisfaction are determining factors, working together to
determine commitment levels in an relationship. Altogether, these factors are also capable of
predicting the duration and future of a friends with benefits relationship.
Satisfaction and Quality of Alternatives
As one of the primary indicators in determining relational quality and commitment,
satisfaction and quality of alternatives are important factors to consider when examining friends
with benefits relationships (Lehmiller, 2014). As one would suspect, being involved in a friends
with benefits relationship is less satisfying than being in a committed, romantic relationship.
Friends with benefits relationships typically leave partners with unmet needs, such as one’s need
for stability and security (Lehmiller, 2014). Likewise, Friends with benefits relationships also
report lower levels of passion and intimacy (Lehmiller, 2014). As a result, romantic relationships
report greater satisfaction, sexually and in many other aspects of their relationship compared to
partners in friends with benefits relationships (Lehmiller, 2014).
Method
Procedure

6
Participants (N = 265) included 99 (37.4%) male and 166 (62.6%) female respondents
who completed a questionnaire online. Some participants were students from large, public
universities who were offered extra credit. Participants’ ages ranged from 17 to 54 (M = 23.5,
SD = 5.13) years of age. A large majority (n =190, 72%) of respondents were Caucasian/White,
34 (12.9%) were Hispanic, 16 (6.1%) were Asian, and 10 (3.8%) were African American/Black.
The remaining 15 (5.3%) participants responded as either Native American, Pacific Islander,
Middle Eastern, or Other. Participants were asked to respond as to whether this was their current
(n = 106, 40%) or most current past FWBR (n = 159, 60%) and to keep this specific relationship
in mind when completing the remainder of the questionnaire.
Measurements
The questionnaire was comprised of 49 multiple choice or likert-type/semantic
differential questions. The questionnaire was separated into different sections relating to different
topics and scales that we were interested in using in our study, specifically: Type of FWBR,
current or current past FWBR, Satisfaction (Investment Model Scale; Rusbult, Martz & Agnew,
1998), Quality of Alternatives (Investment Model Scale), Level of Investment (Investment
Model Scale), Commitment (Investment Model Scale), Self-Esteem (Self-Esteem Scale;
Rosenberg, 1965), Intimacy (Relationship Intimacy Questionnaire; Bartholomew & Horowitz,
1991), and basic demographic questions. Participants’ responses were kept completely
anonymous unless completing the questionnaire for extra credit, in which case the participants
were to respond with the first initial of their first name, full last name, and the course number in
which they were to receive extra credit. We used three major scales for our questionnaire:
Investment Model Scale; Rusbult, Martz & Agnew, 1998 (total scale α = .96 and for subscales:
satisfaction α = .92, quality of alternatives α = .86, level of investment α = .94, and commitment

7
α = .91), Self-Esteem Scale; Rosenberg, 1965 (α = .92), Relationship Intimacy Questionnaire;
Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991 (α = .20 ) were modified from their original construction to be
compatible with our questionnaire and topic.
The different options for types of FWBRs were taken from another study on variances in
friends with benefits relationships, and participants were asked to respond in which way was
most applicable to their relationship (Mongeau, et. al., 2013). The different types of relationships
were as follows:
1. My FWBR partner and I are close friends who have sex with one another. I care,
trust and respect him/her and I consider him/her to be an important part of my life.
We interact frequently and in a variety of sexual and nonsexual contexts, but we
don’t label our relationship as romantic.
2. My FWBR partner and I interact almost exclusively for the purpose of engaging
in sexual activity. We engage in very little or no interaction outside of the sexual
encounters.
3. My FWBR partner and I hang out in the same group of mixed-sex friends and, if
neither of us finds another sexual partner for the night, we will occasionally “hook
up.” We are a sexual “sure thing” for each other at the end of the night.
4. My FWBR partner or I started a friends with benefits relationship hoping to
move it into a romantic relationship. It worked, and we became a couple.
5. We were in a FWBR first, and then our relationship turned romantic. I really
wasn’t planning on getting into a romantic relationship, it just kind of happened.
6. My FWBR partner or I started a friends with benefits relationship hoping to move
it into a romantic relationship. It didn’t happen, we never became romantic.

8
7. My FWBR partner used to be my boyfriend/girlfriend. We used to be in a
romantic relationship, then we broke up. We didn’t continue the romantic part of
the relationships, but we continued to have sex.
While these different types are not all encompassing of all FWBR relationships, they are very
broad and were a good fit for what we were studying. We did exclude candidate participants who
claimed that they were definitely never in or not sure if they had been in an FWBR previously.
Of all the participants, only 106 (40%) that the FWBR in mind when completing the
questionnaire was current, and 159 (60%) responded that the FWBR in mind was their most
recent.
The Investment Model Scale and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale consisted of questions
with Likert response options (1 = strongly disagree, 3 = neutral, and 5 = strongly agree). A few
of these questions were reverse coded to ensure respondents’ responses were accurate and to
keep the respondent paying attention. We decided on this scale because it had measures for all of
the specific qualities of Commitment that we were looking to analyze, and in turn, how likely the
individual would be to persist in their relationship. The Satisfaction subscale consisted of 10
multiple choice scaling questions, such as “I feel satisfied with my FWBR relationship.” The
Quality of Alternatives subscale included 5 items and was also used to help determine a degree
of Commitment in the Investment Model. Another contributor to the Investment Model is the
Level of Investment subscale that contained 10 questions which measured how much time and
effort had been put into said relationship, as a predictor of how committed someone would be to
their current/current past FWBR.
The Intimacy Scale contained semantic differential questions (1 = strongly disagree, 4 =
neutral, 7 = strongly agree). Some of these questions were also reverse coded to ensure response

9
accuracy. The Intimacy Scale was used to help determine correlations between commitment and
intimacy fulfillment. Only 4 questions were used from this scale, such as “I want to be
completely emotionally intimate with others, but I often find that others are reluctant to get as
close as I would like. I am uncomfortable being without close relationships, but I sometimes
worry that others don't value me as much as I value them.”
Results
Hypothesis 1: Correlation (1-tailed)
We hypothesized that respondents who reported higher levels of intimacy would also
respond with higher levels of satisfaction. After conducting the survey, H1 proven to be false.
The correlation coefficient r = -.05 indicates that levels of intimacy and levels of satisfaction are
not significantly correlated. The results suggest that the higher the respondents reported
intimacy, the less they were satisfied with the FWBR.
Research Question 1: ANOVA
Our first research question looked to compare and contrast the level of satisfaction among
the different types of FWBRs. A one-way ANOVA was run to answer this question, and the
results show that respondents in type 4 FWBR (My FWBR partner or I started a friends with
benefits relationship hoping to move it into a romantic relationship. It worked, and we became a
couple) reported the highest levels of self-esteem. These results were found as not significant:
F(6, 258) = .80, p = .57.
Research Question 2: Correlation (2-tailed)
Our next research question looked to examine the relationship between satisfaction of
respondents and their self-reported self-esteem. After analyzing the results, it was proven that

10
there was a positive correlation between satisfaction and self-esteem. The correlation coefficient
r = .17 ( p <.05) indicates that positive relationship between satisfaction and self-esteem was
statistically significant. The results suggest that the higher the respondent’s self-esteem, the more
satisfied they were with their FWBR.
Research Question 3: t-test
The following research question allowed us to examine which biological sex reported
higher levels of commitment in their FWBR. This was not a measure of fidelity (i.e. cheating,
trust, etc.) but instead more of a measure of how much participants felt like they would want to
persist in said current/current past relationship. An independent samples t-test was run and the
data revealed that male participants (M = 2.63, SD = 1.09) reported higher levels of commitment
in their FWBR than female participants (M = 2.59, SD = 1.18). The t-test produced a result that
was not significant: t(261) = .29, p > .05.
Research Question 4: Multiple Regression
Our final research question sought to examine to what degree each level of the
Investment Model (satisfaction, quality of alternatives, level of investment) affected and related
to commitment. A multiple linear regression was run to discover how much the independent
variables (satisfaction, quality of alternatives, and level of investment) each predicted the
dependent variable (commitment). It was found that the combination of the independent
variables were in fact significantly related to the level of commitment reported: F(3, 261) =
114.52, p <.001, r² = .57, adjusted R² = .56. These results indicate that 56% of the variance in the
level of commitment can be accounted for by the linear combination of satisfaction, quality of
alternatives, and level of investment. Both satisfaction (B = .20, β = .17 t = .33, p = .01) and level
of investment (B = .65, β = .61, t = 11.93, p = .00) were significant predictors of commitment in

11
FWBR. Quality of alternatives (B = .06, β = .06, t = 2.77, p = .29) was not a significant predictor
of commitment in FWBR. These results indicate that level of investment is the strongest
predictor of commitment in FWBR, as it accounts for the most unique variance in levels of
commitment.
Discussion
This study was conducted to examine the different types of friends with benefits
relationships (FWBR) and how the self-esteem of individuals in these relationships affects their
investment, satisfaction, and commitment. It also sought to look at variables such as quality of
alternatives and intimacy, and their effect on the overall satisfaction that people experienced with
their FWBR. Presently, will be a discussion of each hypothesis and research question
individually.
Hypothesis 1:
We originally hypothesized that the more a person felt intimacy in their FWBR, the more
satisfied they would be as well. Our results showed more of an opposite effect. Ever so slightly,
our data showed that the more intimacy was expressed in a relationship, the less satisfied the
respondent felt about the relationship. We can only assume that because the relationship is
specified a “friends with benefits” relationship instead of something more exclusive, that
participants are generally not truly interested in a long-term relationship, for reasons yet to be
found in potentially future research.
Research Question 1:
Next, we wanted to measure the amount of satisfaction the respondents had in their
varying types of FWBR. The results were not significant, but out of the 7 types of FWBR, the

12
highest levels of satisfaction were experienced by respondents in type 4 (My FWBR partner or I
started a friends with benefits relationship hoping to move it into a romantic relationship. It
worked, and we became a couple). The lowest amount of satisfaction was experienced in type 6
(My FWBR partner or I started a friends with benefits relationship hoping to move it into a
romantic relationship. It didn’t happen, we never became romantic). Perhaps the most interesting
result is that type 3 (My FWBR partner and I hang out in the same group of mixed-sex friends
and, if neither of us finds another sexual partner for the night, we will occasionally “hook up.”
We are a sexual “sure thing” for each other at the end of the night) had the second highest level
of satisfaction, yet it was the type that involved one of the lowest levels of commitment between
the people involved. This contradicts Lehmiller’s (2014) research that we originally studied
which stated that friends with benefits relationships commonly result in partners with unmet
needs.
The next research question we tested sought to examine the relationship between the
participants’ self-esteem levels and their overall satisfaction with their type of FWBR. Our
results indicated a significant relationship between self-esteem and satisfaction. This is
interesting because regardless of which type of FWBR they were in, having high self-esteem and
being content with themselves almost always resulted in high levels of satisfaction for the
participants.
We created our third research question to compare which biological sex experienced
higher levels of commitment in their FWBR. To our surprise, males reported higher levels of
commitment. The results for this question were not significant, so this question would be an

13
example for future research, where having a larger sample size would be beneficial to determine
whether males are significantly more committed than women in FWBR, or if it was simply a
matter of chance.
The results of the survey indicated that when it comes to the self-esteem of the people in
FWBR, the amount of self-esteem a person has significantly relates to their satisfaction with the
state of the relationship. Specifically, the two variables are positively correlated meaning that the
more self-esteem a person has, the more satisfied they were in their specific type of FWBR. The
data as such suggests that the more confident and better a person feels as an individual, the more
they enjoy their present relationship.
Limitations
While our research did a good job of optimizing our results despite our limitations, there
were a few that cannot be overlooked. One such limitation was our very low alpha value for our
Intimacy scale. This was because upon further exploration of the scale, we came to the
realization that we left out a large portion of questions that could have helped potentially make
our results more significant.
Another such limitation to our research study was our lack of previous research. There
are many studies on relationships in general that also relate to our hypotheses, but not so many
that relate specifically to “friends with benefits” relationships. Moving from there, we were also
limited in our experience in actually conducting a study and use of SPSS. With more time and
experience, we could certainly have found more correlations and relationships between other
variables.

14
Regarding our relationship types that participants were asked to most closely identify
with, there were limitations here as well. We understand that each and every relationship is
different and it is hard to specifically define different forms of these relationships for people to
categorize themselves into. We do believe that the types we used were certainly good enough for
the scope of our research contexts, but more advanced data could have been obtained given a
better spectrum. As far as the participants were concerned, we only selected participants that
responded to having been in a FWBR, and entirely excluded those who had not or were unsure if
they had been. Upon further analysis, we could have used those who have not been in a FWBR
as a control group in which we could have contrasted the different types of relationships (i.e.
typical romantic/exclusive relationships and FWBRs).
Lastly, for our purposes, we asked participants to think of just their current or most
current past FWBR. We received a lot of feedback pertaining to being in multiple current/past
FWBRs and being sure which to single out and respond to. With this in mind, it is easy to see
that different relationships can each frame a respondent’s answers differently for each. For
example, one person could be in two separate FWBRs, and feel really satisfied with one and be
very discontent with another. In the same light, one could also argue that the number of FWBRs
could affect each person’s responses as well.
Future Research
For future research, there are quite a few things that could be looked deeper into. We will
discuss a few that immediately come to mind here. For example, we only took a small glimpse at
a much larger population. Within the community of people who engage in FWBRs are those who
are in multiple relationships of varying degrees (i.e. level of exclusivity and interaction,
personal/impersonal, or just types of FWBRs). Our survey was also mostly available to certain

15
undergraduate classes at Arizona State University, and to family and friends. In the future, if we
could expand the reach of the survey to students at other universities and possibly even beyond
the scope of college-age participants, we could get a better idea of how our chosen variables
relate to friends with benefits relationships. Most importantly we could further examine the
differences between FWBRs and romantic relationships, identifying which relationships are
more satisfying in terms of research and the opinions of individuals who have experienced both
types of relationships. Lastly, although we are analyzed many different aspects of FWBRs, we
believe it would beneficial to determine overall satisfaction levels of individuals involved in
FWBR’s using a larger and more diverse population. Aside from just satisfaction, there are a
number of other qualities that could be examined as well, such as fidelity, attraction, rate of
interaction with their FWBR partner, etc. - just to name a few.
References
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a
four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226-244.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.226
Birnie-Porter, C., & Hunt, M. (2015). Does relationship status matter for sexual satisfaction? The
roles of intimacy and attachment avoidance in sexual satisfaction across five types of
ongoing sexual relationships. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 24(2), 174-183.
Bisson, M. A., & Levine, T. R. (2009). Negotiating a friends with benefits relationship. Archives
of Sexual Behavior, 38(1), 66-73.

16
Green, K. J., & Merman, M. T. (2011). The perceived benefits of the friends with benefits
relationship. Human Communication, 14, 327-346.
Lehmiller, J. J., VanderDrift, L. E., & Kelly, J. R. (2014). Sexual Communication, Satisfaction,
and Condom Use Behavior in Friends with Benefits and Romantic Partners. Journal Of
Sex Research, 51(1), 74-85.
Mongeau, P. A., Knight, K., Williams, J., Eden, J., & Shaw, C. (2013). Identifying and
Explicating Variation among Friends with Benefits Relationships. Journal of Sex
Research, 50(1), 37-47. doi:10.1080/00224499.2011.623797
Owen, J., & Fincham, F. D. (2011). Effects of gender and psychosocial factors
on‘‘Friends with Benefits’’relationships among young adults. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 40(2), 311-320.
Owen, J., & Fincham, F. D. (2012). Friends with benefits relationships as a start to
exclusive romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29(7),
982-996.
Petersen, W. (1965). Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Morris Rosenberg. Princeton
University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1965. xii 326 pp. $6.50. Science, 148(3671), 804-804.
doi:10.1126/science.148.3671.804
Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The investment model scale: Measuring
commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size.
Personal relationships, 5(4), 357-387.

17

18
Appendix (including SPSS outputs of all statistical analyses)
● H1: Respondents with higher levels of intimacy will also report higher levels of
satisfaction.
○ (Correlation: ↑ intimacy + ↑ satisfaction; positive
correlation)
○

19
R1: What effect does the type of FWBR have on respondents’ levels of self-esteem? (ANOVA)

20

21
● R2: What is the relationship between the respondents’ satisfaction in their FWBR and
their self-esteem?
● r² = (Correlation: ↕ satisfaction + ↕ self-esteem;
positive/negative?)
○
○
R3: What biological sex reported higher levels of commitment in their FWBR? (t-test)

22
R4: How much do each degree of Investment (satisfaction, level of investment, quality of
alternatives) work together to have an effect on levels of commitment?
○ (Regression: DV - commitment, IVs - satisfaction, level of investment, quality of
alternatives)

23

24

Friends With Benefits Relationships Research

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (13)

Similar to Friends With Benefits Relationships Research

Similar to Friends With Benefits Relationships Research (20)

Friends With Benefits Relationships Research