Four functions for four relationships: consensus definitions of university students
- PMID: 24217952
- DOI: 10.1007/s10508-013-0189-7
Four functions for four relationships: consensus definitions of university students
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.
Similar articles
-
Evaluations and Future Plans After Casual Sexual Experiences: Differences Across Partner Type.J Sex Res. 2018 Nov-Dec;55(9):1180-1191. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2017.1298714. Epub 2017 Mar 24. J Sex Res. 2018. PMID: 28339298 Free PMC article.
-
Positioning the booty-call relationship on the spectrum of relationships: sexual but more emotional than one-night stands.J Sex Res. 2011 Sep;48(5):486-95. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2010.497984. Epub 2011 May 24. J Sex Res. 2011. PMID: 20672215
-
The "booty call": a compromise between men's and women's ideal mating strategies.J Sex Res. 2009 Sep-Oct;46(5):460-70. doi: 10.1080/00224490902775827. J Sex Res. 2009. PMID: 19253133
-
Commitment and Extra-Dyadic Sexual Activity in College Students' Friends with Benefits Relationships: Moderating Effects of Gender.J Sex Res. 2023 Oct;60(8):1181-1192. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2021.2022585. Epub 2022 Jan 18. J Sex Res. 2023. PMID: 35041569 Review.
-
From distal to proximal to interactive: behavioral and brain synchrony during attraction, courtship, and sexual interaction-implications for clinical assessments of relationship style and quality.Sex Med Rev. 2023 Sep 27;11(4):312-322. doi: 10.1093/sxmrev/qead034. Sex Med Rev. 2023. PMID: 37544764 Review.
Cited by
-
Differences in Motivation to Engage in Sexual Activity Between People in Monogamous and Non-monogamous Committed Relationships.Front Psychol. 2021 Nov 3;12:753460. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.753460. eCollection 2021. Front Psychol. 2021. PMID: 34803835 Free PMC article.
-
Examining Rules in Friends with Benefits Relationships.Arch Sex Behav. 2022 Apr;51(3):1783-1792. doi: 10.1007/s10508-021-02114-5. Epub 2021 Nov 15. Arch Sex Behav. 2022. PMID: 34779977
-
Clear-Cut Terms and Culture-Sensitive Characteristics of Distinctive Casual Sexual Relationships in Portuguese Emerging Adults.Sex Cult. 2021;25(6):1966-1989. doi: 10.1007/s12119-021-09859-0. Epub 2021 Apr 10. Sex Cult. 2021. PMID: 33867786 Free PMC article.
-
Netflix and Chill? What Sex Differences Can Tell Us About Mate Preferences in (Hypothetical) Booty-Call Relationships.Evol Psychol. 2018 Oct-Dec;16(4):1474704918812138. doi: 10.1177/1474704918812138. Evol Psychol. 2018. PMID: 30428700 Free PMC article.
-
Evaluations and Future Plans After Casual Sexual Experiences: Differences Across Partner Type.J Sex Res. 2018 Nov-Dec;55(9):1180-1191. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2017.1298714. Epub 2017 Mar 24. J Sex Res. 2018. PMID: 28339298 Free PMC article.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous
