Sexual Risk Taking Intentions Under the Influence of Relationship Motivation, Partner Familiarity, and Sexual Arousal

ABSTRACT

Condom negotiation is typically a dyadic process, influenced by a host of factors that can impact sexual health decision-making. The current paper investigated the influence of sexual arousal, relationship motivation, and partner familiarity on sexual risk taking intentions in women and men. In Study 1, 331 participants were recruited online and responded to items assessing condom use intentions. Participants higher in relationship motivation were more likely to consider perceived partner desire for condom use when considering initiating condom negotiation. In Study 2, 169 undergraduate students participated in a sexual arousal manipulation and responded to scenarios depicting sexual encounters with more or less familiar hypothetical partners. Participants reported greater sexual risk taking intentions with more (vs. less) familiar hypothetical partners. Men (vs. women) showed greater risk taking intentions overall. Higher sexual arousal was associated with increased sexual risk-taking intentions, regardless of gender. With less familiar partners, participants higher in relationship motivation showed somewhat greater concern that insisting on condom use would interfere with the sexual encounter, though concern was greatest among men for both more and less familiar partner types. These findings offer some support for the notion that a stronger orientation toward forming long-term relationships can facilitate sexual risk taking behavior.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge Robin Milhausen, Jessica Wood, Serge Desmarais, and Raymond McKie. Support (emotional, implicit, and/or tangible) from these colleagues was instrumental for the completion of this work.

Notes

¹ At the suggestion of a reviewer, we re-ran these analyses, controlling for self-reported condom use frequency. All the associations noted above held. Among LRM participants, condom use frequency was not a significant predictor, though it was significant among HRM participants (β = .186, B = 2.05, SE = .51, p < .001).