Amount of Concurrent and you can Lifetime FWB People


Most participants indicated current involvement in only one FWB relationship (M = 1.39, SD = 1.03). Specifically, 76% of participants indicated having just one FWB partner, 16% had two, and 8% had three or more. Although the majority of participants seemed to suggest exclusive involvement with just one FWB partner, these data indicate that a sizeable minority did not practice monogamy in their FWB relationships. Also, supporting our hypothesis about sex differences in number of current FWB partners, results of an analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed that men reported significantly more numerous concurrent FWB partners (M = 1.64, SD = 1.18) than women (M = 1.31, SD = 0.97), F(1, 404) = 7.99, p < .01.

With regard to the total number of promo kód flirt4free FWB relationships participants have had in their lifetime, the average was 4.80 (SD = 6.84). Consistent with the aforementioned finding that men were likely to have more concurrent FWB partners than women, men also indicated having had more FWB partners in their lifetime (M = 7.44, SD = ) compared to women (M = 3.91, SD = 4.08), F(1, 402) = , p < .001.

Dating Initiation

In terms of reasons for starting a FWB relationship, both sex (60%) and emotional connection (35%) were cited with relative frequency, consistent with expectations. In fact, the vast majority of participants (77%) indicated that one or both motives played a role in starting their FWB relationship. To examine sex differences in reasons for beginning such relationships, the dichotomous relationship initiation variables were submitted to chi-square analyses. Results indicated that men (72%) were more likely than women (56%) to cite a desire for sex as a primary motivator, ? 2 (1, N = 411) = 8.07, p < .01. In contrast, women (37%) were more likely than men (25%) to cite a desire for emotional connection as a primary motivator, ? 2 (1, N = 411) = 5.35, p < .05. These findings are consistent with our predictions that men and women would differ in terms of how frequently they reported sexual and emotional connection motives as reasons for beginning their FWB relationships.

Dating Commitment

With respect to FWB commitment, participants appeared to be relatively strongly committed to both the friendship (M = 6.47, SD = 2.29) and to the sexual relationship (M = 5.63, SD = 2.40), with both means appearing above the midpoint of the scale. A paired t test revealed that, overall, participants reported significantly greater commitment to the friendship than to the sexual relationship, t(406) = 7.57, p < .001.

Second, between-sex contrasting was indeed conducted to decide if dedication to brand new intimate and you will relationship aspects of the connection differed for men and you will females. Regarding the friendship, whether or not women (Yards = 6.57, SD = dos.26) evidenced a higher level from partnership than simply people (Meters = 6.19, SD = dos.35), result of a keen ANOVA showed that which huge difference wasn’t tall, F(step one, 407) = dos.09, ns. At exactly the same time, regarding the newest sexual relationships, in the event boys (M = 5.86, SD = dos.19) had large amounts of commitment than simply females (M = 5.55, SD = 2.46), result of a keen ANOVA indicated that so it difference wasn’t extreme, F(1, 405) = step one.twenty five, ns. Therefore, even though the development of way for every type regarding commitment dropped on the expected direction, the fresh new mathematical show failed to support all of our hypotheses.

We then conducted within-sex comparisons to determine whether commitment to the friendship was stronger or weaker than commitment to the sexual aspect of the relationship within each sex. As hypothesized, results of a paired t test revealed that women were significantly more committed to the friendship compared to the sexual aspect of their FWB relationship, t(306) = 7.45, p < .001. Contrary to expectations, a paired t test revealed that men were also more committed to the friendship compared to the sexual aspect of their FWB relationship, t(101) = 1.99, p < .05.