Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34779977›Full record

ArticleArchives of sexual behavior2022

Examining Rules in Friends with Benefits Relationships.

Lisa J van Raalte, Lori A Bednarchik, Mark A Generous, Paul A Mongeau

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of sexual behavior, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Lisa J van RaalteDepartment of Communication Studies, Sam Houston State University, P.O. Box 2299, Huntsville, TX, 77341, USA. lisa.vanraalte@shsu.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-0053-7401
Lori A BednarchikHugh Downs School of Human Communication, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA.
Mark A GenerousDepartment of Communication, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, CA, USA.
Paul A MongeauHugh Downs School of Human Communication, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA.
Arizona State University · USCalifornia State Polytechnic University · USSam Houston State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Establishing communicative and behavioral boundaries in romantic relationships provides partners with a greater sense of relational stability and certainty. For romantic relationships, these boundaries, such as sexual exclusivity, are relatively straightforward. For casual sex relationships, however, the relational rules are less stable and certain. This exploratory study examined rules in friends with benefits relationships (FWBRs) for 109 college students in the USA. Responses to open-ended questions were collected through an online questionnaire, and data were qualitatively analyzed through an inductive thematic analysis. The data were structured into communication rules, sexual rules, and relational definition rules. Results provide overlap and extension of previous work investigating rules in FWBRs. Notably, participants reported sexual exclusivity as an important rule. Additionally, potentially competing discourses in FWBR rules were best understood through the lens of relational dialectics. Findings reflect a tension in terms of relational work, as partners struggle with maintaining their sexual and friendship relationship while not falling into the "territory" of romantic relationships.

Indexed as

FriendsSexual PartnersCommunicationHumansInterpersonal RelationsSexual BehaviorFriends with benefits relationshipsRelational dialecticsRelational rulesRelationship talkSexual communication

Identifiers

PMID34779977
OpenAlexW3211656386

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.