Effects of affective arousal on risky sexual decision-making in US emerging adult college students

ABSTRACT

Affect has been linked to risky sexual decision-making and may be particularly important for college students. Research has overlooked the role of affective arousal, rather focusing exclusively on affective valence. Other decision-making factors that may be impacted by affective states, such as sexual abdication (i.e. yielding sexual decision-making), have also been disregarded. Using a 2 × 2 randomized-factorial design, this experimental study investigated the effects of affective arousal on intentions to engage in condomless sex with heterosexual college students (N = 136; 50% women). Potential indirect effects of sexual abdication were also explored. Results demonstrated no main effect of affective arousal on intentions to engage in condomless sex, yet indicated an indirect effect through sexual abdication. This is the first experimental data about the relationship between affective arousal and sexual decision-making. Findings suggest affective causes of sexual risk warrant further investigation.

KEYWORDS:

• Affect
• sexual risk behaviour
• college students
• condom use

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr. Stephen A. Maisto, PhD and Dr. Emily B. Ansell, PhD for their contributions to this work. The authors would also like to express their gratitude to the study participants for their participation in this research.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution (Syracuse University Office of Research Integrity and Protections, IRB #17-341) and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. For the perceived realism index, 13% (n = 36) of participants provided ratings < 3 (Not realistic at all_A = 3, Not realistic at all_C = 4). Additionally, for the partner type index, 10% (n = 27) of participants provided ratings > 2 (Very serious_A = 2, Very serious_C = 0). Given that for these manipulation checks we relied on average ratings from the entire sample, data from participants who provided ratings outside of the target ranges were retained in all analyses. This decision was based on statistical power considerations based on the sample size, and is consistent with previous work in this area (e.g. Woolf & Maisto, 2008; Skakoon-Sparling et al., 2016).

Additional information

Funding

No funding was received to conduct this research.