Choosing the danger we think we know: Men and women's faulty perceptions of sexually transmitted infection risk with familiar and unfamiliar new partners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is essential that we gain a clearer understanding of why young adults in Canada may fail to appropriately protect themselves from STI/HIV transmission. Partner familiarity plays an important role in judgements of partner safety. Previous research has indicated that young people believe that unprotected sex with a new/casual partner poses a greater risk than with a regular partner (Crawford, Turtle, & Kippax, 1990). However, a clear distinction must be made between familiar and unfamiliar new partners, as individuals have been shown to rely upon irrelevant factors, such as attractiveness and familiarity, to judge the relative safety of new sexual partners (e.g., Canin, Dolcini, & Adler, 1999; Kelly & Kalichman, 1995; Williams et al.; 1992). The current study aimed to examine the impact of partner familiarity on perceptions of partner appeal and STI transmission risk. Eighty-two undergraduate students (53 women) were presented with eight different vignettes and judged the hypothetical partners presented in each scenario. Vignette partners who were described as being familiar were judged to be more appealing sexually and romantically, more trustworthy, and lower risk for STI transmission. These findings support the idea that familiarity can be established relatively quickly and that familiarity indeed impacts perceptions of new sexual partners, such that individuals may engage in increased risk-taking with more familiar new partners, despite knowing next to nothing about their sexual history. Further, the current findings suggest that partner familiarity is an important dimension to consider when examining sexual risk-taking with casual or new sexual partners.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".