FURMAN AND SHAFFER gender differences with nonromantic partners,women who did and did not participate in Wave 5 did not differ appear to be more likely to engage in intercourse and on any of 18 primary demographic.adjustment,and have higher frequencies of intercourse with romantic romantic and sexual variables collected at Wave 1.For partners than men(Carver,Joyner,Udry,2003;Prince the purpose of this study,we limited the sample to the Bernard,1998).We expected that we would replicate Wave 5 participants who were not married,engaged,or these gender differences with romantic partners and find cohabiting with someone (N=163;86 men and 77 similar gender differences in the occurrence and fre- women). quency of light nongenital and heavy nongenital behavior With regard to sexual orientation,87%said they were with romantic partners(H4b). heterosexual(straight),whereas the remaining partici- Another purpose of the study was to obtain a better pants said they were bisexual,gay,lesbian,or question- understanding of the nature of friends with benefits. ing.We chose to retain the sexual minorities in the As previously noted,it is not clear how similar friends sample to be inclusive and because the majority of them with benefits are to other friends.Because the focus of reported that they were either bisexual or questioning relationships with friends with benefits appears to be their sexual identity. on sexual activity,we hypothesized that young adults Participants were financially compensated for com- would engage in fewer nonsexual activities with friends pleting the questionnaires.The confidentiality of the with benefits than with typical friends;at the same time, participants'data was protected by a Certificate of we hypothesized that they would engage in more non- Confidentiality issued by the U.S.Department of Health sexual activities with friends with benefits than with and Human Services. casual acquaintances because friends with benefits appear to be ongoing relationships(H5). Finally,we interviewed young adults to obtain a Measures better understanding about their conceptualization of Sexual behavior questionnaire.Participants were friends with benefits.We hypothesized that most would first asked about their sexual behavior in the last 12 require friends with benefits to be friends,and would months with three types of partners:(a)romantic part- require that there be an ongoing opportunity for sexual ners,(b)friends,and (c)casual acquaintances or some- behavior (vs.a one-time experience;H6). one they just met.The participants were told they were going to be asked about all three types in advance, and the order of the questions concerning the three rela- Method tionships was fixed to eliminate potential confusion of categories (e.g.,romantic partners are often considered Participants friends as well). After they had answered the questions about the first The participants were part of a longitudinal study three types of sexual partners,we asked them to answer a investigating the role of relationships with parents,peers, parallel set of questions about friends with benefits. and romantic partners on psychosocial adjustment in Because it was unclear how friends with benefits would adolescence and young adulthood.Two hundred 10th- be categorized and how distinct they were from other grade high school students(100 boys and 100 girls;mean categories,we indicated that the term can be defined in age=15.88 years;range=14-16 years old)were orig- different ways and asked participants to use their own inally recruited from a diverse range of neighborhoods definition of friends with benefits,even if their partners and schools in a large,Western,metropolitan area by in this category overlapped with some of their partners distributing brochures and sending letters to families in the categories they had answered about already.This residing in various zip codes and to students enrolled in strategy allowed us to examine how a term was naturally various schools in ethnically diverse neighborhoods. used and provided a means of obtaining information Designed to be relatively representative of the eth- about whom young adults consider to be friends with nicity of the United States,the sample was 11.5%African benefits.We also believed that our strategy would be less American,12.5%Hispanic,1.5%Native American,1% confusing to the participants than initially asking them Asian American,4%biracial,and 69.5%White (non- about all four categories when we expected that the Hispanic).The sample was of average intelligence and friend with benefits category overlapped with the other did not differ from national norms on 11 of 12 measures categories,especially friends.We also thought it would of adjustment (see Furman,Low,Ho,2009).In the be inappropriate to force the four categories to not over- fifth wave of data collection.which was collected in lap with each other when they were likely to overlap in 2005 through 2007,we asked about sexual activity with actuality;moreover,we thought it would be confusing different types of partners.At that time,participants ran- to ask participants about sexual behavior with friends ged in age from 19.32 to 21.93 years old (M=20.51 who were not friends with benefits,or to ask them about years);186(94 men and 92 women)of the original 200 friends with benefits who were not friends or casual participants took part in the Wave 5 assessment.Those acquaintances. 556gender differences with nonromantic partners, women appear to be more likely to engage in intercourse and have higher frequencies of intercourse with romantic partners than men (Carver, Joyner, & Udry, 2003; Prince & Bernard, 1998). We expected that we would replicate these gender differences with romantic partners and find similar gender differences in the occurrence and fre￾quency of light nongenital and heavy nongenital behavior with romantic partners (H4b). Another purpose of the study was to obtain a better understanding of the nature of friends with benefits. As previously noted, it is not clear how similar friends with benefits are to other friends. Because the focus of relationships with friends with benefits appears to be on sexual activity, we hypothesized that young adults would engage in fewer nonsexual activities with friends with benefits than with typical friends; at the same time, we hypothesized that they would engage in more non￾sexual activities with friends with benefits than with casual acquaintances because friends with benefits appear to be ongoing relationships (H5). Finally, we interviewed young adults to obtain a better understanding about their conceptualization of friends with benefits. We hypothesized that most would require friends with benefits to be friends, and would require that there be an ongoing opportunity for sexual behavior (vs. a one-time experience; H6). Method Participants The participants were part of a longitudinal study investigating the role of relationships with parents, peers, and romantic partners on psychosocial adjustment in adolescence and young adulthood. Two hundred 10th￾grade high school students (100 boys and 100 girls; mean age ¼ 15.88 years; range ¼ 14–16 years old) were orig￾inally recruited from a diverse range of neighborhoods and schools in a large, Western, metropolitan area by distributing brochures and sending letters to families residing in various zip codes and to students enrolled in various schools in ethnically diverse neighborhoods. Designed to be relatively representative of the eth￾nicity of the United States, the sample was 11.5% African American, 12.5% Hispanic, 1.5% Native American, 1% Asian American, 4% biracial, and 69.5% White (non– Hispanic). The sample was of average intelligence and did not differ from national norms on 11 of 12 measures of adjustment (see Furman, Low, & Ho, 2009). In the fifth wave of data collection, which was collected in 2005 through 2007, we asked about sexual activity with different types of partners. At that time, participants ran￾ged in age from 19.32 to 21.93 years old (M ¼ 20.51 years); 186 (94 men and 92 women) of the original 200 participants took part in the Wave 5 assessment. Those who did and did not participate in Wave 5 did not differ on any of 18 primary demographic, adjustment, and romantic and sexual variables collected at Wave 1. For the purpose of this study, we limited the sample to the Wave 5 participants who were not married, engaged, or cohabiting with someone (N ¼ 163; 86 men and 77 women). With regard to sexual orientation, 87% said they were heterosexual (straight), whereas the remaining partici￾pants said they were bisexual, gay, lesbian, or question￾ing. We chose to retain the sexual minorities in the sample to be inclusive and because the majority of them reported that they were either bisexual or questioning their sexual identity. Participants were financially compensated for com￾pleting the questionnaires. The confidentiality of the participants’ data was protected by a Certificate of Confidentiality issued by the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. Measures Sexual behavior questionnaire. Participants were first asked about their sexual behavior in the last 12 months with three types of partners: (a) romantic part￾ners, (b) friends, and (c) casual acquaintances or some￾one they just met. The participants were told they were going to be asked about all three types in advance, and the order of the questions concerning the three rela￾tionships was fixed to eliminate potential confusion of categories (e.g., romantic partners are often considered friends as well). After they had answered the questions about the first three types of sexual partners, we asked them to answer a parallel set of questions about friends with benefits. Because it was unclear how friends with benefits would be categorized and how distinct they were from other categories, we indicated that the term can be defined in different ways and asked participants to use their own definition of friends with benefits, even if their partners in this category overlapped with some of their partners in the categories they had answered about already. This strategy allowed us to examine how a term was naturally used and provided a means of obtaining information about whom young adults consider to be friends with benefits. We also believed that our strategy would be less confusing to the participants than initially asking them about all four categories when we expected that the friend with benefits category overlapped with the other categories, especially friends. We also thought it would be inappropriate to force the four categories to not over￾lap with each other when they were likely to overlap in actuality; moreover, we thought it would be confusing to ask participants about sexual behavior with friends who were not friends with benefits, or to ask them about friends with benefits who were not friends or casual acquaintances. FURMAN AND SHAFFER 556