Evaluations of friends-with-benefits relationship scenarios: Is there evidence of a sexual double standard?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
More than half of university students report having had a friends-with-benefits relationship (FWBR), i.e., recurring sexual activity between friends who do not define their relationship as romantic, yet little is known about how people in FWBRs are judged by others. For instance, is there a sexual double standard whereby women are judged more negatively than men? In the present study, 404 university students read one of four randomly assigned scenarios describing an FWBR (scenarios varied on character gender and FWBR experience) and then completed measures of their judgment of the main character, their predictions about the relationship depicted, their beliefs about whether the character should keep the relationship secret, and their perception of how the character would be judged by peers. Two respondent-level variables (respondent gender; respondent FWBR experience) were also examined as predictors. Half of the participants (52.5%) had themselves experienced an FWBR, with a majority evaluating these experiences positively. Male respondents rated scenario characters more positively and made more positive relationship predictions than did female respondents. Respondents who had personal experience of their own FWBR rated characters more positively and made more positive relationship predictions than those who had never experienced an FWBR. There was no evidence of a sexual double standard in character judgments. However, relationship predictions and estimates of others' judgments were more negative when the character was female and there was a greater perceived need for secrecy. Thus, the current research did not support the existence of a sexual double standard for FWBRs, but may have suggested the perception of one.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".