Condom use behavioural skills mediate the relationship between condom use motivation and condom use behaviour among young adult heterosexual males: An information-motivation-behavioural skills analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the relationship between condom use motivation and condom use behavioural skills, and their direct and mediated influence on condom use consistency from the perspective of the Information-Motivation-Behavioural Skills (IMB) model of health behaviour. Participants were 149 currently sexually active heterosexual males aged 18–24 (M=18.6). The motivation component of the IMB model was operationalized with measures of attitudes toward condoms and perceptions of social norms, while assessing the implementation of negotiation strategies that can be used to obtain or avoid condom use operationalized the behavioural skills component. Results indicated that condom use motivation was positively correlated with specific condom use obtaining strategies, and condom use consistency was negatively correlated with certain condom use avoiding strategies. Moreover, specific condom negotiation strategies partially mediated the relationships between motivational constructs and condom use consistency. These findings confirm the propositions of the IMB model, illustrate the utility of measurement of behavioural skills in relation to implementation of specific actions, and highlight the need for interventions to focus on dyadic negotiation and communication strategies as important influences on condom use consistency. Implications for future research and theoretical refinement are discussed.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".