Implicit Motives and Sexual Conservatism as Predictors of Sexual Behaviors

ABSTRACT

This study was designed to provide an assessment of the relationship between the two most important implicit motives and the most frequently studied sexual behaviors. A community sample of 102 men and 92 women completed measures of implicit power and affiliation-intimacy motives, sexual conservatism, social desirability, and sexual behavior. For men, high power motivation was positively associated with the number of sexual partners and the frequency of sex. There was an interaction between sexual conservatism and power motivation in women. For women low in sexual conservatism, high power motivation was positively associated with the number of sexual partners and with earlier initiation to intercourse and oral sex. There were few associations between affiliation-intimacy motivation and sexual behaviors; however, women high in this motive reported later initiation to oral sex.

Keywords:

• affiliation motivation
• gender differences
• implicit motives
• intimacy
• power motivation
• sexual behavior

Acknowledgments

Collection of this data was supported by a National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) grant (grant no. F31MH11468), a University of Michigan Rackham Dissertation/Thesis grant, and grants from the University of Michigan Psychology Department.

Notes

1. There are empirical and theoretical distinctions between affiliation and intimacy motives; however, a moderate to large correlation between the two is usually found (e.g., McAdams & Constantian, 1983, reported correlations of r = .48 for men and r = .64 for women). The coding system used for the present study incorporates elements of both affiliation and intimacy; it is therefore appropriate to review results from both literatures.

2. Heterosexual men had a statistically reliable negative correlation between affiliation-intimacy motivation and the number of sexual partners (n = 87, r = −.25, p = .02).

3. Although the interaction with sexual conservatism was predicted only for women, analyses with interaction terms were run for men, as well. As predicted, none of these product term coefficients were statistically reliable, so these interaction terms were dropped from the equation.