Sexual Risk Taking Intentions Under the Influence of Relationship Motivation, Partner Familiarity, and Sexual Arousal
Bibliographic record
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.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".