Friends with benefits and love styles

García-Serrán, H., Torregrosa-Rodríguez, R. & Soriano-Ayala, E. (2021). Friends with benefits and love styles. MODULEMA. Revista Científica sobre Diversidad Cultural, 5, 130-150. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.30827/modulema.v5i.22355 MODULEMA | ISSN: 2530-934X | VOLUMEN 5. ARTÍCULO 8. PÁGINAS 130-150 | 130 Revista Científica sobre Diversidad Cultural FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS AND LOVE STYLES AMIGOS CON BENEFICIOS Y ESTILOS DE AMOR García-Serrán, H(1).; Torregrosa-Rodríguez, R(2). & Soriano-Ayala, E(2). (1) Servicio Andaluz de Salud. Granada (España) (2) Universidad de Almería. Almería (España) Recibido | Received: 30/09/2021 Aprobado | Approved: 02/12/2021 Publicado | Published: 17/12/2021 Correspondencia | Contact: Encarna Soriano-Ayala |[email protected] 0000-0002-9506-0625 ABSTRACT Keywords love styles relationships friendship with benefits datting Objectives: This study analyses the friendship with benefits and the different subtypes that compose it. It pretends to know the prevalence, the satisfaction, the future aspiration of the participants and the styles of love. Method: 400 people of Spanish nationality completed a questionnaire about relational links and love styles. Results: friendship with benefits is a common practice, although the romantic relationship is more prevalent and satisfactory. The styles of love are different depending on the gender and the relational link. Conclusion: this shows a changing relational universe, forms of polyamory that coexist with traditional relationships and gender roles that are transforming. RESUMEN Palabras clave estilos de amor relaciones amigos con beneficios citas Objetivos: Este estudio analiza las relaciones de amigos con beneficios y los diferentes subtipos que la componen. Pretende conocer el predominio, la satisfacción, la aspiración futura de los participantes y los estilos de amor. Método: 400 personas de nacionalidad española completaron un cuestionario sobre vínculos relacionales y estilos de amor. Resultados: los amigos con beneficios es una práctica común, aunque la relación romántica es más prevalente y satisfactoria. Los estilos de amor son diferentes según el género y el vínculo relacional. Conclusión: Se muestra un universo relacional cambiante, formas de poliamor que conviven con las relaciones tradicionales y roles de género que se están transformando. García-Serrán, H., Torregrosa-Rodríguez, R. & Soriano-Ayala, E. (2021). Friends with benefits and love styles. MODULEMA. Revista Científica sobre Diversidad Cultural, 5, 130-150. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.30827/modulema.v5i.22355 MODULEMA | ISSN: 2530-934X | VOLUMEN 5. ARTÍCULO 8. PÁGINAS 130-150 | 131 INTRODUCTION Technology has revolutionised dating and today individuals enjoy multiple opportunities to meet new people in an effort to change the hegemonic cultural order (Hand et al, 2013). In this new, globalised relationships paradigm, traditional romantic encounters exist alongside casual sexual encounters, including those known as ‘friends with benefits’ (Jonason, 2013). Committed or romantic relationships represent an exclusive monogamous sentimental union, with unconditional commitment and a high level of sacrifice (Shulman & Connolly, 2013). Conversely, casual sexual relations occur between individuals who have just met and who have no intention of meeting again. These relations frequently occur at night, in clubs and bars or parties where alcohol is abundant (Paul et al., 2000; Epstein et al., 2009). Friendships with benefits, usually meaning two friends who occasionally have sex, are included in this framework of casual encounters. The intimacy of the friendship is maintained with the added benefit of having sex with no commitment (Bisson & Levine, 2009; Puentes et al., 2008; Hughes et al., 2005). The amorous complexity of this sexual paradigm has been described by Williams et al. (2007), identifying 7 general types of friends with benefits: True Friends: This is the purest form and the most often used in theoretical definitions. These are friendships with love, respect, trust, consideration and sex. Just Sex: This is the most distant form of friendship with benefits; no deep friendship unites them, and the sexual benefits take precedence. Network Opportunism: These are acquaintances that frequent situations with abundant alcohol. They are a ‘plan B’ when no better alternative is available. Transition In: The goal is to transition to a romantic relationship, and sex is considered a compatibility test. Transition Out: Characterised by sex with exes, following a period after the breakup. Friends with benefits peaks the interest of the general public and academics, although it is not always depicted objectively, having become a stereotype for many romantic comedies portraying the transition towards a romantic relationship (Easton & Hardy, 2013). In fact, only 10-20% of friends with benefits establish permanent relationships (Bisson & Levine, 2009; Eisenberg et al., 2009; Owen & Fincham, 2011). There are several explanations for this: there are those who wish to take the relationship further, otherwise the friendship would come to an end, (Reeder, 2012), although between 18.5% and 26% end in rupture (Bisson y Levine, 2009; Owen et al., 2013), and 76% of these cases are strengthened by sex (Afifi & García-Serrán, H., Torregrosa-Rodríguez, R. & Soriano-Ayala, E. (2021). Friends with benefits and love styles. MODULEMA. Revista Científica sobre Diversidad Cultural, 5, 130-150. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.30827/modulema.v5i.22355 MODULEMA | ISSN: 2530-934X | VOLUMEN 5. ARTÍCULO 8. PÁGINAS 130-150 | 132 Faulkner, 2000). Others argue the impossibility of friendship becoming a permanent romantic relationship because of the predisposition towards Othello syndrome (Easton & Hardy, 2013; Thalmann, 2008). Friends with benefits may be included in the definition of polyamory, a term opposed to the emotional and sexual dependency found in the heteropatriarchal model. Polyamory is having more than one intimate, loving and sexual long-term relationship at the same time, with the full knowledge and consent of all partners (Easton & Hardy, 2013; Thalmann, 2008). The double standards derived from the heteropatriarchal model are applied to women who are severely judged for participating in friends with benefits relationships, while men are blameless and rewarded (Sierra et al., 2007). The majority of studies show that women are less involved (Owen & Fincham, 2011; Merriam-Pigg, 2012; Jonason et al., 2015), that they hope for the relationship to evolve into a stable union (Lehmiller et al., 2011; Williams & Adams, 2013; Jonason, 2013), and experience less psychological wellbeing (Grello et al., 2006; Merriam-Pigg, 2012; Williams & Adams, 2013; Furman & Collibee, 2014). However, the latter is questionable since research by Williams and Jovanovic (2015) showed women felt greater emotional-sexual satisfaction. Furthermore, the greater number of women in friends with benefits relationships may augur a feminist transition in sexual behaviour, towards a transformation of traditional sexual roles, in rebellion against these double standards (Green & Morman, 2008; Soriano-Ayala & García-Serrán, 2019). The foremost studies on friends with benefits focus on several themes, the motivation for initiating such a relationship, associated benefits, type of commitment; the evolution of the relationship; sexual behaviour and risk; psychological wellbeing; disadvantages; the influence of gender; sexual roles; ethnic differences; personality patterns; gender violence and infidelity (Afifi & Faulkner, 2000; Paul et al., 2000; Manning et al., 2005; Grello et al., 2006; Williams et al., 2007; Emmet, 2008; Goodboy & Myers, 2008; Bisson & Levine, 2009; Green & Morman, 2008; Eisenberg et al., 2009; VanderDrift et al., 2010; Furman y Shaffer, 2011; Wentland & Reissing, 2011; Owen & Fincham, 2011; Lehmiller et al., 2011; Weaver et al., 2011; MerriamPigg, 2012; Jonason, 2013; Owen et al., 2013; Klipfel et al., 2013; Giorgi, 2013; Williams & Adams, 2013; García et al., 2014; Adams et al., 2014; Furman & Collibee, 2014; Williams & Jovanovic, 2015; Braithwaite et al., 2015). The majority of studies use university students as subjects, which presents problems when comparing and extrapolating results. This study focuses on the love styles of the subjects, similar to Paul and collaborators (2000), Grello et al. (2006) and more recently Jonason and colleagues (2015). According to Lee’s colour wheel of love (1973) there are 6 love styles with a characteristic colour: three primary; Eros, Ludus and Storge and three secondary; Manis, Agape and Pragma. García-Serrán, H., Torregrosa-Rodríguez, R. & Soriano-Ayala, E. (2021). Friends with benefits and love styles. MODULEMA. Revista Científica sobre Diversidad Cultural, 5, 130-150. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.30827/modulema.v5i.22355 MODULEMA | ISSN: 2530-934X | VOLUMEN 5. ARTÍCULO 8. PÁGINAS 130-150 | 133 • Eros (red). Signifies physical and emotional love. It is based on love at first sight and sexual satisfaction is considered a basic need. • Ludus (blue). Love is considered a game to amuse and divert, without emotional commitment, falling in love or obligation. • Storge (yellow). Similar to brotherly or family love between spouses, cousins, parents and children. This is characterised by loyalty, commitment and based on similar interests. • Mania (purple). Characterised by holding one’s partner in high esteem and the anxious desire to love and be loved effusively, obsessively and dependently. Possessiveness and jealousy are common traits. • Agape (orange). This is the purest, most altruistic and spiritual form of love. It is based on unbreakable commitment and selfless, compassionate and unconditional love. • Pragma (green). This love is pragmatic, rational and realist, based on convenience. This is a relationship based on cooperation and symbiosis, thereby achieving the most durable relationships (Chaudhuri, 2004). Hendrick and Hendrick (1986), developed Lee’s theory and created a questionnaire of 42 items capable of measuring what they termed ‘love styles’, known as the Love Attitude Scale (LAS). Abbreviated versions of 18 and 24 items were later developed. (Hendrick et al., 1998). OBJETIVES This study aims to reflect the degree of prevalence, satisfaction and aspirations of people involved in a Friends with Benefits (FwB) relationship, according to the typology of Williams et al. (2007) and to identify the love styles associated with these relationships. Given that the majority of people aspire to a romantic relationship and that this is a relationship that almost everyone has experienced at least once (Easton & Hardy, 2013), particular importance is given to those that have, or had, a romantic relationship when measuring the degree of satisfaction and future aspirations in a friendship with benefits relationship. This study has the following objectives: • Define what type of FwB relationship is considered the most satisfactory according to the Williams et al., typology. • Compare the degree of satisfaction derived from romantic relationships with that of FwB. García-Serrán, H., Torregrosa-Rodríguez, R. & Soriano-Ayala, E. (2021). Friends with benefits and love styles. MODULEMA. Revista Científica sobre Diversidad Cultural, 5, 130-150. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.30827/modulema.v5i.22355 MODULEMA | ISSN: 2530-934X | VOLUMEN 5. ARTÍCULO 8. PÁGINAS 130-150 | 134 • Determine whether those with no intention of initiating or continuing a romantic relationship have the intention of starting or continuing to have FwB relationships. • Using the love styles determined by Lee (1973), followed by the conclusions reached by Hendrick & Hendrick (1986), to distinguish and understand what love styles men and women hope. • Determine and evaluate the predominant love style in each type of relationship (romantic or FwB). METHOD Participants The total sample was 400 subjects: 267 females (66.8%), 132 males (33%) with one subject (0.3%) who did not consider themselves male nor female. Requirements for participation were to have had at least one romantic relationship (RR) and/or one FwB relationship. The majority of the sample declared themselves to be heterosexual (78%); followed by bisexual (14.3%); homosexual (5.5%); pansexual (0.8%) and asexual (0.3%). Five subjects preferred not to declare their sexual orientation (1.3%). Ages ranged from 18 to 58 years (M = 25.84, SD = 7.48). Subjects originated from all of the Spanish Regional Autonomies, 77.5% from urban areas and 22.5% from rural areas. Religious beliefs were 51% atheist, (23.3%); agnostic, (20%); Christian, (1.5%); nondenominational with a personal spiritual life (1.3%); pagans represented (1%); muslims (0.5%) the remainder were Buddhist; Deist; Pantheist; believers in reincarnation; Rastafarianism and B’há’í represented 0.3% each. 65.3% did not grant any importance to religion in their lives, followed by 15.3 % who gave it little importance and 13.3% who gave it some importance. Only 5.5% gave religion quite a lot of importance and 1% gave it a lot of importance. 41.3% of the subjects held a bachelor’s or university graduate degree; 29% held the Baccalaureate or vocational training degree; 21.5% a master’s or post graduate; 4.8% had completed secondary education; 2.5% held Doctorates and just 1%, had only completed primary education. At the time of completing the questionnaire, 91 of the subjects had no relationship although they had previously had one; 174 were in a romantic relationship (46.3%); 101 were in a FwB relationship of the True Friends type (49%); 61 in the Just Sex type (33.3%); 60 in Transition In (31.7%); 39 in Transition Out; and 35 in Network Opportunism (35.4%). The fact that participants may have different types of FwB relationships at the same time and even a romantic relationship at the same time as FwB relationships, must be taken into account. This García-Serrán, H., Torregrosa-Rodríguez, R. & Soriano-Ayala, E. (2021). Friends with benefits and love styles. MODULEMA. Revista Científica sobre Diversidad Cultural, 5, 130-150. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.30827/modulema.v5i.22355 MODULEMA | ISSN: 2530-934X | VOLUMEN 5. ARTÍCULO 8. PÁGINAS 130-150 | 135 explains the fact that of 174 participants with romantic relationships, 19 simultaneously held FwB Transition In relationships (10.9%); 18 held True Friends (10.3%); 11, Just Sex (6.3%); 6, Network Opportunism (3.4%); and 6, Transition Out (3.4%). Table 1 Summary of relationships held by subjects in the sample No current relationship With past relationship In a single relationship In valrious, simultaneous relationships RR TF JS NO TI TO Several FwB RR and one FwB 91 114 34 11 7 13 3 67 60 Note. RR= Romantic Relationship; TF=True Friends; JS=Just Sex; NO=Network Opportunism; TI=Transition In; TO= Transition Out; FwB=Friends with Benefits Instruments A 3-part questionnaire was elaborated. 1. Personal details and demographics. Included questions on gender, age, address, level of education, sexual orientation, religion and its importance. The response to this last question was on a 5-point scale: 0 – None / 5 – Very important. 2. Type of current or past relationship 2.1 The aim of this section was to determine whether subjects were in, or had had a romantic relationship. The questions were: Have you had any type of romantic relationship? (Yes/No). Total number of romantic relationships. Are you currently in a romantic relationship (Yes/ No). How satisfied are you with the kind of relationship (on an oscillating scale from 0 to 5 points, with 0 – Not very / 5 – Very satisfied); the intention of maintaining the relationship or of seeking one in future (Yes/No/Not sure). 2.2 This section presents a definition of each type of FwB, according to Williams et al. (2007) with similar questions to those asked about romantic relationships but taking non-exclusivity into account. The first part of the questionnaire concludes with questions regarding the type of FwB subjects consider most satisfactory: True Friends/Just Sex/Network Opportunism/ Transition In/Transition Out/NS-NC). Not all of the variables from this section were used, leaving a large collection of data for future research. 3. The third part of the questionnaire consisted of a Love Attitudes Scale: Short Form (Hendrick et al., 1998), in a translation by the research team, since the only available format was English and did not take into consideration non-exclusivity. Double translation is carried out. A native English teacher and a Spanish teacher with a high knowledge of English and knowledge of the subject, carry out the translation of the English version into Spanish. An García-Serrán, H., Torregrosa-Rodríguez, R. & Soriano-Ayala, E. (2021). Friends with benefits and love styles. MODULEMA. Revista Científica sobre Diversidad Cultural, 5, 130-150. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.30827/modulema.v5i.22355 MODULEMA | ISSN: 2530-934X | VOLUMEN 5. ARTÍCULO 8. PÁGINAS 130-150 | 136 English teacher translates the Spanish version into English. It is verified that the content of the scale has not changed. The Spanish version is adapted to the non-exclusivity of the couple. The pilot study revealed the necessity of changing the initial response scales therefore the scales are translated and adapted: 1 = completely disagree, 5 = completely agree. The scale has 24 items of different phrases that reflect different attitudes towards love. The reliability of the Scale reached Cronbach .70. Of the 24 items, 6 different scores were obtained. Items 1 to 4 produced scores for the loving style or archetype EROS; scores 5 to 8 for LUDUS; scores 9 to 12 for STORGE; scores 13 to 16 PRAGMA; scores 17 to 20 for MANIA and 21 to 24 for AGAPE. Procedure The final questionnaire was uploaded to SurveyMonkey®, which restricts one survey per IP address, thereby limiting the chances of bias. Consisting of 52 items on 16 pages with the omission of pages lacking the necessary conditions for response, the survey was available for two months. At closure, a total of 476 responses had been recorded, of which 400 were valid. The others were rejected due to incompletion. The welcoming page of the survey informed users of the complete anonymity of the responses and the duration, approximately 10 minutes, with the only limitation for participation being the age of 18. They were informed that data would be used in research. Participants were drawn through social media such as LinkedIn®, Facebook®, WhatsApp® and public and private Facebook® groups. Ultimately, the most effective format was through a public, open Facebook event which garnered new participants. No reward or payment was offered for participation. Ethical considerations The University of Almeria Bioethics committee approved the study. Participants were anonymous and informed of the use of the data gathered for research purposes. Data analysis The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to determine whether the data distribution adjusted to a normal curve and to determine the statistical tests to apply. Frequencies and percentages were calculated to answer the first requirement, followed by the Wilcoxon test to find the possible differences between “Romantic Relationship Satisfaction” and “Satisfaction with the various types of FwB relationships”. This non-parametric test was chosen due to the nonnormal compliance of these variables. García-Serrán, H., Torregrosa-Rodríguez, R. & Soriano-Ayala, E. (2021). Friends with benefits and love styles. MODULEMA. Revista Científica sobre Diversidad Cultural, 5, 130-150. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.30827/modulema.v5i.22355 MODULEMA | ISSN: 2530-934X | VOLUMEN 5. ARTÍCULO 8. PÁGINAS 130-150 | 137 The relationship between the variables “Intention of continuing” or “intention to initiate future romantic relationships” was calculated using percentages and chi-squared tests. For the fourth and fifth objectives a multivariate analysis of variance was used (MANOVA). The size of the effect was indicated by eta partial squared (η2p), using the value limits reference proposed by Richardson (2011): .0099, .0588 y .1379, indicating the small, medium and large size of effect. SPSS 25 was used to analyse data. RESULTS Most satisfactory type of fwb relationship Of a total 330 subjects with experience in FwB relationships (82.5%), 206 (62.4%) had experienced True Friends type; 189 Transition In (57.3%); 183 Just Sex (55.5%); 143 Transition Out (43.3%); and 99 Network Opportunism (30%). A total of 151 (45.8%) rated True Friends as the most satisfactory; followed by 75 Transition In (22.7%); 36 Just Sex (10.9%); 35 unsure and unable to choose (10.6%); 19 Transition Out (5.8%) and 14 Network Opportunism (4.2%). Romantic Relationship satisfaction vs. Friends with Benefits The Wilcoxon test showed statistically significant differences in the comparison between satisfaction with romantic relationships with the variables; satisfaction with FwB relationships of type Just Sex (Z = -3.74; p = .000), Network Opportunism (Z = -4.59; p = .000), Transition In (Z = -4.19; p = .000) and Transition Out (Z = -6.67; p = .000). Specifically, it can be observed that satisfaction with romantic relationships is greater when compared to FwB relationships types: Transition In (M = 3.64; SD = .90 VS M = 3.29; SD = 1.05), Just Sex (M = 3.61; SD = 1.01 VS M = 3.18; SD = 1.14), Network Opportunism (M = 3.71; SD = .93 VS M = 2.95; SD = 1.20) and above all Transition Out (M = 3.71; SD = .90 VS M = 2.75; SD = 1.30). The only FwB relationship that was rated more satisfactory than romantic relationships was True Friends (M = 3.66; SD = 1.00 VS M = 3.77; SD = 1.03), however, this relationship was not statistically significant (Z = -.86; p = .392). Intention of continuing/initiating a romantic relationship vs. FwB Statistical analysis revealed differences when it came to a desire to maintain the FwB relationship of any type in the future, relative to whether or not there was an intention to aspire to romantic relationship or not: χ² (4, N = 196) = 20.591, (p = .000) for True Friends; χ² (4, N = 173) = 23.493, (p = .000) for Just Sex; χ² (4, N = 93) = 11.356, (p = .023) for Network Opportunism; χ² (4, N = 182) = 9.774, (p = .044) for Transition In and χ² (4, N = 139) = 14.287, (p = .006) for Transition Out. García-Serrán, H., Torregrosa-Rodríguez, R. & Soriano-Ayala, E. (2021). Friends with benefits and love styles. MODULEMA. Revista Científica sobre Diversidad Cultural, 5, 130-150. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.30827/modulema.v5i.22355 MODULEMA | ISSN: 2530-934X | VOLUMEN 5. ARTÍCULO 8. PÁGINAS 130-150 | 138 It was observed that with the exception Transition Out, where subjects were more hesitant, the majority of those that did not intend to maintain or return to a romantic relationship, did aspire to have, or continue to have, Friends with Benefits in future, particularly True Friends (81.3%) and Just Sex (72.4%). In subjects who were uncertain whether or not they wanted to maintain or initiate a stable relationship, there was a greater aspiration to have or maintain Friends with Benefits of type True Friends (60%) and Just Sex (55.6%). Although this was less than those subjects who were certain they did not want this kind of relationship. Concerning the remaining types of FwB relationships, subjects were as undecisive at the prospect of this type of relationship as of romantic relationships In those subjects who aspired to have a romantic relationship, Transition Out was the least sought after or willing to maintain (4.6%); as opposed to True Friends (39.5%), which was the only type the majority of subjects were certain of. Different loving styles according to gender and FwB relationships To contrast the nul hypothesis that observed covariant matrixes of the dependent variables (the six loving attitudes) are equal in all groups, the Ljung-Box test was performed for gender and each type of relationship studied. Of the total sample, the Ljung-Box test according to gender was not significant. Therefore, the Ho in all groups could not be ruled out (M Ljung-Box = 17.835; F = .833; p = .681). The same occurred when the sample was limited to those subjects who had friends with benefits (M Ljung-Box = 20.998; F = .976; p = .490) or who had never had FwB (M Ljung-Box = 22.475; F = .955; p = .518). The test was not significant according to whether subjects had FwB in general (M LjungBox = 20.273; F = .934; p = .546); Transition Out (M Ljung-Box = 17.287; F = .808; p = .713); Transition In (M Ljung-Box = 22.808; F = 1.068; p = .375); Network Oportunism (M Ljung-Box = 14.078; F = .654; p = .881); Just Sex (M Ljung-Box = 20.121; F = .942; p = .535); or True Friends (M Ljung-Box = 29.734; F = 1.393; p = .108). Covariance observed in all groups were equal, therefore, multivariant analysis was carried out. The MANOVA displayed statistically significant differences according to gender in the total simple (Pillai trace = .120; F(12, 392) = 4.084; p = .000). Table 2 represents the average points for love styles according to gender in addition to the significance and estimates of the effects. García-Serrán, H., Torregrosa-Rodríguez, R. & Soriano-Ayala, E. (2021). Friends with benefits and love styles. MODULEMA. Revista Científica sobre Diversidad Cultural, 5, 130-150. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.30827/modulema.v5i.22355 MODULEMA | ISSN: 2530-934X | VOLUMEN 5. ARTÍCULO 8. PÁGINAS 130-150 | 145 REFERENCES Adams, H.M., Luevano, V.X., & Jonason, P.K. (2014). Risky business: Willingness to be caught in an extra-pair relationship experience, and the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 66, 204-207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.008 Afifi, W.A., & Faulkner, S.L. (2000). On Being Just friends’: The frequency and impact of sexual activity in cross-sex friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(2), 205-222. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0265407500172003 Alonso-Arbiol, I., Shaver, P.R. & Yárnoz, S. (2002). Insecure attachment, gender roles, and interpersonal dependency in the Basque Country. Personal Relationships, 9, 479-490. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6811.00030 Bisson, M A., & Levine, T.R. (2009). Negotiating a friends with benefits relationship. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 66-73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-007-9211-2 Bradshaw, C., Kahn, A.S., y Saville, B.K. (2010). To hook up or date: Which gender benefits? Sex Roles, 62(9-10), 661-669. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9765-7 Braithwaite, S.R., Aaron, S.C., Dowdle, K.K., Spjut, K., & Fincham, F.D. (2015). Does Pornography Consumption Increase Participation in Friends with Benefits Relationships? Sexuality & Culture, 19, 513-532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-015-9275-4 Chaudhuri, M. (2004). Feminism in India. Women Unlimited. Easton, D. & Hardy, J.W. (2013). Ética promiscua. Una guía práctica para el poliamor, las relaciones abiertas y otras aventuras. Melusina. Eisenberg, M.E., Ackard, D.M., Resnick, M.D., & Neumark-Sztainer, D. (2009). Casual sex and psychological health among young adults: Is having “friends with benefits” emotionally damaging? Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 41(4), 231237. https://doi.org/10.1363/4123109 Emmett, M. (2008). Crossing the Line in Cross-sex Friendships: Effects of Past Sexual Contact and Dating Status on Relational Maintenance. Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 3490. Epstein M, Calzo JP, Smiler AP, Ward LM. (2009). Anything from making out to having sex: men’s negotiations of hooking up and friends with benefits scripts. Journal of Sex Research, 46(5), 414-424. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490902775801 Furman, W., & Collibee, C. (2014). Sexual Activity with Romantic and Nonromantic Partners and Psychosocial Adjustment in Young Adults. Archives of sexual behavior, 43(7), 1327-1341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0293-3 García-Serrán, H., Torregrosa-Rodríguez, R. & Soriano-Ayala, E. (2021). Friends with benefits and love styles. MODULEMA. Revista Científica sobre Diversidad Cultural, 5, 130-150. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.30827/modulema.v5i.22355 MODULEMA | ISSN: 2530-934X | VOLUMEN 5. ARTÍCULO 8. PÁGINAS 130-150 | 146 Furman, W., & Shaffer, L. (2011). Romantic partners, friends, friends with benefits, and casual acquaintances as sexual partners. Journal of Sex Research, 48(6), 554-564. https:// doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2010.535623 Garcia, H., Soriano, E. & Arriaza, G. (2014). Friends with benefits and Psychological Wellbeing. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 132, 241-247. Giorgi, O. (2013). Motivations and Relationship Quality of Friends with Benefits Relationships Among Emerging Adults. A Senior Project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Bachelor of Science Degree in Child Development. California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo. Gonzalez-Jimenez, A.J. & Hernández-Romera, M.M., (2014). Emotional dependency based on the gender of Young adolescents in Almería, Spain. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 132, 527-532. Goodboy, A.K., & Myers, S.A. (2008). Relational maintenance behaviors of friends with benefits: Investigating equity and relational characteristics. Human Communication, 11, 71-86. Green, K.J., & Morman, M.T., (2008). The perceived benefits of the friends with benefits relationship. Human Communication. A Publication of the Pacific and Asian Communication Association 14(4), 327-346. 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(3), 255-267. https://doi. org/10.1080/00224490609552324 Hand, M.M., Thomas, D., Buboltz, W. C., Deemer, E.D., y Buyanjargal, M. (2013). Facebook and romantic relationships: Intimacy and couple satisfaction associated with online social network use. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(1), 8-13. Hendrick, C. & Hendrick, S. (1986). A theory and method of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 392-402. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.392 Hendrick, C., Hendrick, S.S., & Dicke, A. (1998). Love Attitudes Scale: Short Form Journal of Personal and Social Relationships, 15, 147-159. https://doi. org/10.1177/0265407598152001 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-withbenefits relationships. Western Journal of Communication, 69, 49-66. https://doi. org/10.1080/10570310500034154 García-Serrán, H., Torregrosa-Rodríguez, R. & Soriano-Ayala, E. (2021). Friends with benefits and love styles. MODULEMA. Revista Científica sobre Diversidad Cultural, 5, 130-150. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.30827/modulema.v5i.22355 MODULEMA | ISSN: 2530-934X | VOLUMEN 5. ARTÍCULO 8. PÁGINAS 130-150 | 147 Jonason, P. K. (2013). Four functions of four relationships: Consensus definitions of university students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 1407-1414. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10508-013-0189-7 Jonason, P. K., Hatfield, E., & Boler, V. M. (2015). Who engages in serious and casual sex relationships? An individual differences perspective. Personality and Individual Differences, 75, 205-209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.042 Klipfel, K.M., Claxton, S.E., & van Dulmen, M.H. M. (2013). Interpersonal aggression victimization within casual sexual relationships and experiences. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(3), 557-569. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513505207 Lee, J. A. (1973). Colours of love: An exploration of the ways of loving. New Press. Lehmiller, J.J., VanderDrift, L.E., & Kelly, J.R. (2011). Sex differences in approaching friends with benefits relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 48(2-3), 275-284. https://doi. org/10.1080/00224491003721694 Lucas-Matheu, M., (2009). Sed de piel ¿Feminizar el futuro? Psimática. Manning, W.D.; Longmore, M.A.; & Giordano, P.C. (2005). Adolescent’s involvement in nonromantic sexual activity. Social Science Research, 34(2), 384-407. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2004.03.001 Márquez Otero, X. (2005). Ni contigo ni sin ti: la pareja irrompible. Revista intercontinental de psicología y educación, 7(2), 27-42. McGinty, K., Knox, D., & Zusman, M. E. (2007). Friends with benefits: Women want” friends”, men want” benefits”. College Student Journal, 41(4), 1128-1131. Merriam-Pigg, L.K. (2012). Lovers and Friends: Understanding Friends with Benefits Relationships and those Involved. Master’s Theses. Paper 4150. 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, 311320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-010-9611-6 Owen, J., Fincham, F.D., & Manthos, M. (2013). Friendship after a Friends with Benefits relationship: Deception, psychological functioning, and social connectedness. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 1443-1449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-0130160-7 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(1), 76-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490009552023 García-Serrán, H., Torregrosa-Rodríguez, R. & Soriano-Ayala, E. (2021). Friends with benefits and love styles. MODULEMA. Revista Científica sobre Diversidad Cultural, 5, 130-150. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.30827/modulema.v5i.22355 MODULEMA | ISSN: 2530-934X | VOLUMEN 5. ARTÍCULO 8. PÁGINAS 130-150 | 148 Puentes, J., Knox, D., & Sussman, M.E. (2008). Participants in “friends with benefits” relationships. College Student Journal, 42, 176–180. Reeder, H. (2012). Sex with Friends: Are There Benefits? Psychology Today. https://www. psychologytoday.com/us/blog/i-can-relate/201204/sex-friends-are-there-benefits Richardson, J.T.E. (2011). Eta squared and partial eta squared as measurements of effect size in educational research. Educational Research Review, 6, 135-147 Russianoff, P. (1981). Why do I think I’m nothing without a man? Bantam Books. Shulman, S. & Connolly, J. (2013). The Challenge of Romantic Relationships in Emerging Adulthood: Reconceptualization of the Field. Emerging Adulthood, 1(1) 27-39. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696812467330 Siebenbruner, J. (2013). Are college students replacing dating and romantic relationships with hooking up? Journal of College Student Development, 54(4), 433-438. https://doi. org/10.1353/csd.2013.0065 Sierra, J.C., Rojas, A., Ortega, V. & Martin-Ortiz, J.D. (2007). Evaluación de actitudes sexuales machistas en universitarios: primeros datos psicométricos de las versiones españolas de la Double Standard Scale (DSS) y de la Rape Supportive Attitude Scales (RSAS). International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 7, 41-60 Soriano-Ayala, E., & García-Serrán, H. (2019). Amigos con beneficios vs. sexo casual: definiendo sus comportamientos sexuales, amor, celos y creencias románticas. Universitas Psychologica, 18(2), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.upsy18-2.absc. Taormino, T. (2015). Opening Up: Una Guía para crear y mantener relaciones abiertas. Melusina Thalmann, Y. (2008). Las virtudes del poliamor. La magia de los amores múltiples. Plataforma Valor-Segura, I., Expósito, F. & Moya, M. (2014). Gender, dependency and guilt in intimate relationship conflict among Spanish couples. Sex Roles, 70(11-12), 496-505. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11199-014-0351-2 Valor-Segura, I., Expósito, F., Moya, M., & Kluwer, E. (2014). Don´t leave me: The effect of Dependency and Emotions in Relationship Conflict. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44(9), 579-633. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12250 VanderDrift, L.E., Lehmiller, J.J., & Kelly, J.R. (2010). Commitment in friends with benefits relationships: Implications for relationship and safe-sex outcomes. Personal Relationships, 19, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01324.x Weaver, A.D., MacKeigan, K.L., & MacDonald, H.A. (2011). Experiences and perceptions of young adults in friends with benefits relationships: A qualitative study. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 20(1), 41-53. García-Serrán, H., Torregrosa-Rodríguez, R. & Soriano-Ayala, E. (2021). Friends with benefits and love styles. MODULEMA. Revista Científica sobre Diversidad Cultural, 5, 130-150. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.30827/modulema.v5i.22355 MODULEMA | ISSN: 2530-934X | VOLUMEN 5. ARTÍCULO 8. PÁGINAS 130-150 | 149 Wentland, J.J., & Reissing, E.D. (2011). Taking casual sex not too casually: Exploring definitions of casual sexual relationships. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 20, 75-89. Williams, J., Shaw, C., Mongeau, P. A., Knight, K., & Ramirez, A. (2007). Peaches n’ cream to rocky road: Five flavors of friends with benefits relationships. University of Arizona at Tempe. Williams, J.C & Jovanovic, J. (2015). Third Wave Feminism and Emerging Adult Sexuality: Friends with Benefits Relationships. Sexuality & Culture, 19, 157-171. https://doi. org/10.1007/s12119-014-9252-3 Williams, L.R., & Adams, H.L. (2013). Friends with benefits or “friends” with deficits? The meaning and contexts of uncommitted sexual relationships among Mexican American and European American adolescents. Children and Youth Services Review, 35, 11101117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.04.023 Autores / Authors Saber más / To know more Herenía García-Serrán Licenciada en Psicología. Master oficial en Ciencias de la Sexología por la Universidad de Almería. Doctora por la Universidad de Almería. Trabaja en el Servicio Andaluz de Salud de Motril. 0000-0002-9994-7389 Rafael Torregrosa-Rodríguez Licensed Health Psychologist, Sexologist and Hypnotherapist. Col. AN08407. Graduated in Psychology from the University of Seville. Official Master’s Degree in Sexology Sciences from the University of Almería. Expert in Transsexuality from the COP-AO. Psychologist and Sexologist at Centro Médico Olisalud and Artea Psicología y Sexología. Member of the Sexology Working Group of the Seville delegation of the COP-AO. Member of the Spanish Society for Intervention in Sexology (SEIS). Member of the Spanish Network of Initiatives in Sexology (REIS). Co-coordinator of GNOMOS (Group of Non-Monogamies of Seville). Currently focused on research and activism in New Masculinities and Non-Monogamous Relationships (Polyamory). 0000-0002-8912-985X García-Serrán, H., Torregrosa-Rodríguez, R. & Soriano-Ayala, E. (2021). Friends with benefits and love styles. MODULEMA. Revista Científica sobre Diversidad Cultural, 5, 130-150. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.30827/modulema.v5i.22355 MODULEMA | ISSN: 2530-934X | VOLUMEN 5. ARTÍCULO 8. PÁGINAS 130-150 | 150 Encarnación Soriano-Ayala Profesora titular de la Universidad de Almería (España), y directora del grupo de investigación HUM665 “Investigación y evaluación en Educación Intercultural”. Sus líneas de investigación se centran en la educación sexual, la violencia en el noviazgo y la violencia sexual desde una perspectiva transcultural. Autora de más de 100 artículos en revistas indexadas en JCR o SJR. Ha impartido conferencias en Congresos y Seminarios Internacionales (México, Chile, Francia, Ecuador, EEUU, España). Ha realizado estancias de investigación en universidades extranjeras como la Universidad de Harvard y la Universidad de California (EEUU), Universidad de Alberta (Canadá), Universidad de Nottingham (Reino Unido), PUC de Valparaíso (Chile) y la Universidad de Montpellier (Francia). Associate Professor at the University of Almería (Spain), and Director of the research group HUM665 “Investigation and evaluation in Intercultural Education”. Her lines of research focus on sexual education, teen dating violence and sexual violence from a transcultural perspective. Author of more than 100 articles in journals indexed in JCR or SJR. She has given lectures at International Congresses and Seminars (Mexico, Chile, France, Ecuador, USA, Spain). She has carried out research stays at foreign universities such as Harvard University and the University of California (USA), University of Alberta (Canada), University of Nottingham (United Kingdom), PUC of Valparaiso (Chile), University of Montpellier (France). 0000-0002-9506-0625