The Role of Meta-Motivational States in Sexual Risk-Taking Intentions During Condom Negotiation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study applied reversal theory to better understand the motivational factors that influence sexual health decision-making during condom negotiation among young men and women. Participants (N = 440) read a vignette describing a romantic sexual encounter with a hypothetical new partner and answered embedded questions related to their attitudes and behavioral intentions. Participants who were experiencing a stronger goal-oriented (telic) state showed a more risk adverse response pattern: they perceived unprotected sex as posing a greater risk and were more likely to refuse to have unprotected sex in the hypothetical encounter. Participants who were experiencing a stronger conformist state also responded in a more risk adverse pattern: they showed a greater interest in using a condom, were more likely to initiate condom negotiation, and were less willing to agree to have unprotected sex in the hypothetical scenario. The findings of the current study also suggest that the rules domain may function based on established societal norms rather than situational norms, since the social pressure of the hypothetical scenario could have encouraged more conformist individuals to adhere to the hypothetical partner's wishes to engage in unprotected sex. The findings of current study demonstrate the utility of reversal theory and suggest that incorporating the influence of meta-motivational states into sexual risk-taking models will allow for a deeper understanding of why individuals choose to engage in behaviors that put their sexual health at risk which, in turn, will inform future interventions to encourage protective behaviors.
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 | 0.007 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".