MONGEAU,KNIGHT,WILLIAMS,EDEN.AND SHAW only one-half of those were intentionally performed. Calabrese, 1975;Solomon Knobloch,2004; Although this is not a particularly large proportion Sunnafrank.1986)and sensemaking (Weick.2001)are (Bisson Levine,2009;Perlman Sprecher,in press), likely quite useful in extending future understanding data for other transitions (e.g.,from first dates)are not how FWBRs develop. available.It is possible that only about 15%of first dates end up generating a romantic relationship.In addition, our discussion suggests that the better partners know Limitations and Directions for Future Research one another(e.g.,true friends over network opportunism Our results should be considered in light of several over just sex),the more successful the FWBR to romantic important limitations.First,our samples were limited relationship transition might be.Thus,not all FWBRs to college students at two U.S.universities.It is unclear are the same in terms of their romantic potential.Cou- how these results would generalize to other U.S.univer- ples'past communicative and physical interactions likely sities (or those in other countries),participants'non- influence the nature.and sustainability.of a future college-age cohorts,older adults,or high school stu- romantic relationship dents.Second,that students recalled past behaviors makes the direction of causality ambiguous.Third,we Making Sense of FWBRs placed cases into FWBR types based on only one partner's report.The other partners'definitions and By definition,FWBRs defy traditional scripts for sex motivations might differ. (i.e.,sex reflects intimacy and closeness;Bogle,2008) The FWBR label covers multiple relationship types, and friendship (i.e.,friends do not have sex;Werking, suggesting that it is much more complex than previously 1997).In addition,the multiple types of FWBRs indi- suggested (e.g.,Bisson Levine,2009;Hughes et al., cate that they occur in a variety of social and relational 2005).Therefore,future FWBR research should include contexts.Some FWBRs have replaced dates as a vehicle longitudinal and dyadic data collection.Such methods. for investigating romantic potential,whereas others are however,are likely complicated because some partners serial hookups.Given this variety,how do we,as scho- are strangers at the first sexual interaction,making lars,make sense of FWBRs?Has the FWBR term been dyadic first sex data difficult to obtain.In other cases, stretched so far that the moniker has effectively lost its partners apply the FWBR label after sex begins(and, meaning?Our contention is that it has not.These data in some cases,after it ends).As such,there is likely to suggest that the term FWBR is considerably broader no such thing as an ideal FWBR study.A combination than the label (and initial scholarship)suggested.How- of longitudinal.recall.and interview studies will likely ever,the same is true of the study of hookups.Initially, most effectively triangulate on the complex and mal- hookups were defined as single sexual episodes between leable nature of FWBRs strangers(e.g.,Paul Hayes,2002);however,over time, definitions of the term expanded (e.g.,Esptein et al.. 2009)as scholars were able to adjust their definitions References and approaches to study the "new"version of the phenomenon.It is also possible that the very nature of Afifi,W.A..Faulkner,S.L.(2000).On being "just friends":The FWBRs has changed over time.When the phenomenon frequency and impact of sexual activity in cross-sex friendships. (or at least the label)appeared in the late 1990s,it may Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.17.205-222.doi: 10.1177/0265407500172003 have predominately appeared as true friends(as FWBR Bailey,B.L.(1988).From front porch to back seat:Courtship in suggests).Over time,however,the FWBR label might twentieth-century America.Baltimore.MD:Johns Hopkins have expanded to fill the cracks between other relational University Press. labels. Bailey,B.L.(1999).Sex in the heartland:Politics,culture,and the Making sense of FWBRs is likely difficult for sexual/ sexual revolution.Cambridge,MA:Harvard University Press. relational partners as well.First sex with a FWB partner Berger,C.R.,Calabrese,R.J.(1975).Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond:Toward a developmental theory of has many potential relational interpretations (e.g.,a interpersonal communication.Human Communication Research, hookup,caring for a close friend,or a romantic relation- 1,99-112.doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00258.x ship transition)that likely take time to differentiate. Bisson,M.A.,Levine,T.R.(2009).Negotiating a friends with Whereas some instances are likely acknowledged as benefits relationship.Archives of Sexual Behavior,38,66-73 doi:10.1007/s10508-007-9211-2 FWBRs even before the onset of sexual activity,other Bleske,A.L.,Buss,D.M.(2000).Can men and women be just instances are only identified midstream,whereas still friends?Personal Relationships,21,131-151.doi:10.1111/ others are only labeled in retrospect.An important set j.1475-6811.2000.tb00008.x of questions,then,is how partners come to understand Bogle,K.A.(2008).Hooking up:Sex dating,and relationships on that they are in an FWBR,when they come to that campus.New York,NY:New York University Press. realization,and the information that they use to make Cohen,J.(1988).Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).Hillsdale,NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Inc. that attribution.Therefore,we believe that theories Cunningham,M.R.,Barbee,A.P.(2008).Prelude to a kiss:Non- focused on uncertainty and their reduction (Berger verbal flirting,opening gambits,and other communication 46only one-half of those were intentionally performed. Although this is not a particularly large proportion (Bisson & Levine, 2009; Perlman & Sprecher, in press), data for other transitions (e.g., from first dates) are not available. It is possible that only about 15% of first dates end up generating a romantic relationship. In addition, our discussion suggests that the better partners know one another (e.g., true friends over network opportunism over just sex), the more successful the FWBR to romantic relationship transition might be. Thus, not all FWBRs are the same in terms of their romantic potential. Cou￾ples’ past communicative and physical interactions likely influence the nature, and sustainability, of a future romantic relationship. Making Sense of FWBRs By definition, FWBRs defy traditional scripts for sex (i.e., sex reflects intimacy and closeness; Bogle, 2008) and friendship (i.e., friends do not have sex; Werking, 1997). In addition, the multiple types of FWBRs indi￾cate that they occur in a variety of social and relational contexts. Some FWBRs have replaced dates as a vehicle for investigating romantic potential, whereas others are serial hookups. Given this variety, how do we, as scho￾lars, make sense of FWBRs? Has the FWBR term been stretched so far that the moniker has effectively lost its meaning? Our contention is that it has not. These data suggest that the term FWBR is considerably broader than the label (and initial scholarship) suggested. How￾ever, the same is true of the study of hookups. Initially, hookups were defined as single sexual episodes between strangers (e.g., Paul & Hayes, 2002); however, over time, definitions of the term expanded (e.g., Esptein et al., 2009) as scholars were able to adjust their definitions and approaches to study the ‘‘new’’ version of the phenomenon. It is also possible that the very nature of FWBRs has changed over time. When the phenomenon (or at least the label) appeared in the late 1990s, it may have predominately appeared as true friends (as FWBR suggests). Over time, however, the FWBR label might have expanded to fill the cracks between other relational labels. Making sense of FWBRs is likely difficult for sexual= relational partners as well. First sex with a FWB partner has many potential relational interpretations (e.g., a hookup, caring for a close friend, or a romantic relation￾ship transition) that likely take time to differentiate. Whereas some instances are likely acknowledged as FWBRs even before the onset of sexual activity, other instances are only identified midstream, whereas still others are only labeled in retrospect. An important set of questions, then, is how partners come to understand that they are in an FWBR, when they come to that realization, and the information that they use to make that attribution. Therefore, we believe that theories focused on uncertainty and their reduction (Berger & Calabrese, 1975; Solomon & Knobloch, 2004; Sunnafrank, 1986) and sensemaking (Weick, 2001) are likely quite useful in extending future understanding how FWBRs develop. Limitations and Directions for Future Research Our results should be considered in light of several important limitations. First, our samples were limited to college students at two U.S. universities. It is unclear how these results would generalize to other U.S. univer￾sities (or those in other countries), participants’ non￾college-age cohorts, older adults, or high school stu￾dents. Second, that students recalled past behaviors makes the direction of causality ambiguous. Third, we placed cases into FWBR types based on only one partner’s report. The other partners’ definitions and motivations might differ. The FWBR label covers multiple relationship types, suggesting that it is much more complex than previously suggested (e.g., Bisson & Levine, 2009; Hughes et al., 2005). Therefore, future FWBR research should include longitudinal and dyadic data collection. Such methods, however, are likely complicated because some partners are strangers at the first sexual interaction, making dyadic first sex data difficult to obtain. In other cases, partners apply the FWBR label after sex begins (and, in some cases, after it ends). As such, there is likely to no such thing as an ideal FWBR study. A combination of longitudinal, recall, and interview studies will likely most effectively triangulate on the complex and mal￾leable nature of FWBRs. References 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, 205–222. doi: 10.1177=0265407500172003 Bailey, B. L. (1988). From front porch to back seat: Courtship in twentieth-century America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Bailey, B. L. (1999). Sex in the heartland: Politics, culture, and the sexual revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99–112. doi: 10.1111=j.1468-2958.1975.tb00258.x Bisson, M. A., & Levine, T. R. (2009). Negotiating a friends with benefits relationship. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 66–73. doi: 10.1007=s10508-007-9211-2 Bleske, A. L., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Can men and women be just friends? Personal Relationships, 21, 131–151. doi: 10.1111= j.1475-6811.2000.tb00008.x Bogle, K. A. (2008). Hooking up: Sex dating, and relationships on campus. New York, NY: New York University Press. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Cunningham, M. R., & Barbee, A. P. (2008). Prelude to a kiss: Non￾verbal flirting, opening gambits, and other communication MONGEAU, KNIGHT, WILLIAMS, EDEN, AND SHAW 46