Sexual Relationship Power, Safer Sexual Communication, and Condom Use: A Comparison of Heterosexual Young Men and Women

Abstract

Communication is essential to negotiating safer sex, yet power dynamics make condom use difficult to manage. Guided by Dyadic Power Theory and the chilling effect, we predicted that men’s sexual relationship power is negatively curvilinearly associated with safer sexual communication, such that men will report more communication when they are relatively equal in power to their partners, whereas women’s power is positively associated with safer sexual communication. Moreover, because women have to communicate condom use desire, communication should mediate the relationship between power and condom use for women. Results supported the hypotheses and provided implications for gender-based power imbalance in sexual domains.

Keywords:

• Condom Use
• Gender Differences
• Safer Sexual Communication
• Sexual Relationship Power

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr. Jiyeon So for her support in the initial phases of this project.

Notes

1. Although condom use is often assumed the primary safer sexual behavior, it is not the only one. Many other behaviors, such as lubricant use during anal sex, also help reduce STIs (e.g., Carballo-Dieguez et al., 2000). However, due to the lack of research on other safer sex behaviors and the particular importance of condom use, this study focuses on condom use.

2. We speculate this gender difference in self-reported condom use may be attributed to male participants’ self-selection and social desirability bias, such that those who participated in this study may have and/or tend to report greater condom use.

3. Past studies (e.g., Ellen et al., 2002; Sionéan et al., 2002) suggested that individuals’ age, especially that of women, relationship status, and the frequency of sexual activities are associated with safer sexual communication and condom use. However, age, relationship length, and number of sexual activities were not significant covariates in this study.

4. Simple slope analyses examined whether both genders’ linear gradients significantly differed from zero. For men, the gradient of the simple slope was −.051, t(345) = −1.61, p = .108; for women, the gradient of the simple slope was .079, t(345) = 2.50, p = .013. Thus, only women’s linear gradient significantly differed from zero, indicating a positive linear relationship between sexual relationship power and safer sexual communication for women. Men’s linear gradient did not differ from zero and thus, there was no linear relationship between power and communication for men.

5. Simple curve analyses were conducted to determine whether both genders’ quadratic gradients significantly differed from zero. For men, the gradient of the simple curve was −.048, t(345) = −2.147, p = 0.033; for women, the gradient of the simple curve was .007, t(345) = .104, p = .917. Thus, only men’s quadratic gradient significantly differed from zero, indicating a negative curvilinear (inverted-U) relationship between sexual relationship power and safer sexual communication for men. Women’s quadratic gradient did not differ from zero and thus, there was no curvilinear relationship between power and communication for women.