Safe Sex Essay, Research Paper

Many theories and much research has been conducted on contraception in general,

and more recently on condoms in particular, as a result of the AIDS epidemic

(Lear, 1995). Condom usage and AIDS education are essential tools for reducing

the impact of the disease, yet fewer than one third of sexually active college

students report consistent condom use (Seal & Palmer-Seal, 1996). It seems

that sexually active individuals rarely discuss safer sex or ask about their

partner`s sexual activity before engaging in sexual activity (Seal &

Palmer-Seal, 1996). This raises some questions as to the origin of the avoidance

of safer sex discussion. It has been found that the interpersonal reactions of

sexual partners, rather than the less direct thoughts of AIDS risk, influence

attitudes towards condoms and condom usage (Casteneda & Collins, 1995).

These personal interactions among partners in a sexual relationship are a result

of attitudes each partner carries about sex, contraception and a sexual

relationship itself. Attitudes can be ascertained by means of person perception

evaluations, which present the behaviors of a target person (e.g., introducing a

condom) and categorize the social meanings imposed on the actor within the

situation (Castenada & Collins, 1995). In order to accurately evaluate the

social meanings within a sexual relationship using a person perception paradigm,

the paradigm itself, as well as the communication patterns about the

relationship and condom usage must be assessed. Person Perception Paradigm and

This Study The efficacy of the person perception paradigm for accurately

gathering the social meanings implied by certain actions has been proven in past

research (Collins & Brief, 1995). It has been ascertained that target

subject`s behaviors within a vignette are the foundation for impressions the

participants form about the social meanings of actions. Collins and Brief have

gone on to argue that the vignette methodology is better able to collect the

social meanings derived from actions than interview questions, because often

impressions that are formed about another`s actions are not conscious attitude

formations. Behavior interpretation often occur through automatic and intuitive

means (Collins, 1997; lecture). While most research directly asks participants

what they think, person perception studies a more subtle means of gaining the

participants reactions. The current study used a person perception test to

evaluate the attitudes of participants about women in a sexual relationship when

she either proposed a condom, or said nothing about contraception, while

expressing either concern or saying nothing about her emotional state. There

were four different possible types of situations that the male observers could

have been given: the concerned female who did not propose a condom, the

concerned female who said, I have a condom with me, the female who said nothing

and did not propose a condom, and the female who said nothing about her

emotional state, but said she had a condom with her. These females were then

evaluated by male observers on various aspects of her perceived personality.

Males rated the females on such items as, if they were active or passive, if

they were promiscuous or not, etc. No other research has addressed a sexual

situation where women talk about their feelings and present a condom in a person

perception paradigm. It will be interesting to see how the male participants

assess the situation. This study used six different scales comprised of separate

items in order to accurately assess the perceptions the male observers held

about the female targets. The scales were a Sexual attractiveness scale, which

determined how sexually attractive the woman was, a Responsibility scale, which

determined the extent to which the woman was responsible, a Takes Charge scale,

which assessed the male observer`s ideas about how active the women in the

situations were and two other scales which assessed how Nice and Exciting the

woman was. It is hypothesized that there will be high correlations between the

separate items within each of these scales, which indicates that the items will

be measuring similar properties. But there will be low correlations between any

two scales and between any items and a separate scale, which will indicate that

the scales were measuring different attributes. Past Research on the Person

Perception Paradigm Past research has found that people do make judgments based

on the contraceptive choices that target persons choose and the conditions they

have made the choices under, concerning abortion decisions (Allgeier, Allgeier

& Rywick, 1979: as cited in McKinney et al., 1987). It has also been found

that contraceptive behavior is evaluated differently by an outside observer that

is exposed to a vignette depicting a sexual situation involving issues of

contraception, and personal attitudes of the target subject, such as the one

tested in this study (McKinney et al., 1987). Other studies have evaluated the

person perception design within partners involved in a sexual relationship

(Lear, 1995), and have found that people within relationships also rate their

partners actions as indicative of symbolic meanings, similar to results obtained

from observers of sexual relationship vignettes. This type of symbolic inference

has been tested in the current study. Impressions that people form of others are

based on the others actions and language they use within a social situation. In

the current study, the participants are not told what actions are taken by the

target persons within the scenario concerning contraception use, only the target

woman▓s verbal discourse is disclosed (i.e. the participants don▓t

know if she did what she said, only what she said). Therefore it is important to

evaluate communication within a sexual relationship in order to accurately

assess what the social meanings of communication in a relationships are, and

what attitudes others have about this discourse is. Communication Within The

Sexual Relationship Communication involves an assessment of shared ideas and

beliefs – - what is and is not agreed upon by the participants (Schlenker &

Weigold, 1992). One▓s audience influences the style and manner in which

one communicates – - who one▓s partner is influences how and what one says

to that partner (Schlenker & Weigold, 1992). How these communication tactics

are manifested in an early sexual relationship is relevant to the current study

because of the content of its scenario. It seems that within early sexual

relationships ambiguity around sexual communication is the norm (Lear, 1995).

Perhaps because the situation is not very established or familiar, safer sex

discussion usually consists of general discussion about concerns not related to

the particular relationship itself (Cline et al., 1992: as cited in Seal &

Palmer-Seal, 1996). Directness of approach on the subject of subject of sex

usually involves the male partner within a heterosexual relationship more often

than the female in early romantic situations (Lear, 1995). It will be

interesting to see how the male respondents rate a female who expresses concern

about the sexual situation, as compared to a female target who says nothing

about her emotional state. I hypothesize that the female who expresses concern

will be seen as more nice than the one who says nothing, but not very exciting.

She will be seen as responsible, but not that sexually attractive, and finally

as taking charge in the situation. Since sexual decision making is dependent on

open communication within a sexual relationship, which is not often found within

the dating stages of young, college age students (Lear, 1995), condom usage is

often conducted under constrained choices and may be hindered. This type of

inhibited discourse that is typical of early sexual relationships is reflected

in this ⌠concern■ scenario of the experiment, and is hypothesized to

elicit mixed responses. Attitudes Towards Condoms Attitudes and self-perceptions

about condom use can be approached in a behavioral way. Are attitudes about

condoms acted upon because of previous self-perceptions or do people who use

condoms adopt the attitudes that are associated with condom usage? An evaluation

of smoking sheds some light on this question. It seems that people begin to

smoke because it correlates to a pre-existing set of self-relevant beliefs (Chassin

et al., 1981). If this is also true of condom usage behaviors, then it follows

that people who think condoms and safer sex are a good idea will follow-through

and use them, but that people who do not have positive attitudes towards condoms

are not likely to gain them through usage of condoms. The idea of attitudes

affecting behaviors relates to this study, because what is being assessed is the

attitudes men have about female target▓s sexual behavior. The men will see

the woman who introduces a condom as having attitudes that are sympathetic to

condom usage. What exactly these attitudes are will be investigated. Risk

Perception Attitudes towards condoms often depend on the perceived risk of

contracting AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases as well a

person▓s perceived self-efficacy in proposing them (van der Pligt &

Richard, 1994). For example, most sexually active adolescents do not feel

susceptible towards AIDS (van der Pligt & Richard, 1994) and therefore do

not use condoms in their social interactions. The factor of low perceived risk

is recurrent and pervasive across many sexually active groups (Lear, 1995). If

the sexually active individual does not perceive themselves as at risk for

sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS, they are not very likely to use

condoms to have safer sex. If a person does see themselves as at risk for

sexually transmitted diseases other▓s perceptions of them may be different

than the perception of someone who does not think they are at risk. While it is

true that every person who is sexually active has the potential to contract a

sexually transmitted disease, this is not often recognized by sexually active

youth (Lear, 1995). Since young people often do not recognize the pervasiveness

of the problem, they may judge people who are aware of their susceptibility as

more promiscuous or in a negative light as compared to those that do not discuss

the topic of safer sex (and presumably do not bring it up because they

don▓t think they are at risk, i.e., they do not engage in sexually risky

behavior such as multiple partners). In this study, the idea of perceived risk

as presented by the female target (⌠I have a condom with me■) to the

male observers may influence their perceptions of the women. Specifically, women

who say that they have a condom with them will be perceived as more sexually

appealing, more responsible, less nice, more exciting and more ⌠takes

charge■ than the woman who does not offer a condom. Thus, women who

present condoms will be seen as more susceptible to sexually transmitted

diseases, which incurs various impressions about her personality – ones that are

different from the impressions formed by a woman who does not present a condom.

The difference between the two perceptions that men make about women who propose

condoms may be for reasons other than their perceptions of ⌠at risk■

individuals as well. Sexual Double Standard Another area that may affect how men

perceive women who propose condoms as compared to those that do not, may be a

result of a double standard. A double standard allows men to have more sexual

freedom than women. A modern adaptation of the traditional idea of the double

standard is the idea of the conditional double standard (Reiss, 1967: as cited

in Sprecher & McKinney, 1993). This standard says that men can engage in any

type of premarital sex, but that women can only engage in sex if they are in a

love relationship. Since the current study presents a sexual encounter that is

relatively new and does not specify that it is a love relationship, observers

will infer that it is not a love relationship, but more of a recreational sexual

encounter. The actions that the woman in the situation exhibits may create a

more negative view of her when she does not present a condom, than when she

does. For, although the woman in engaging in premarital sex in a casual

relationship, the woman who openly supplies a condom in this situation may be

seen as more comfortable with this type of situation than a woman who does not

offer a condom and therefore she will be evaluated as more sexual and less

⌠nice.■ These results have been found in another study which showed

that women who carried condoms with them held a stigma: they were associated

with evaluations of worthlessness (Wight, 1992; as cited in Lear, 1995). Having

a condom indicates a lack of sexual innocence, which has been perceived as

unfeminine (Lear, 1995). Lear encompassed the broad effect condom usage has on

personal perceptions of the self and others who use condoms, when she observed

that, ⌠condoms carry meanings that can differ for each sexual partner and

over time, and these meanings are illustrative of the gendered nature of

responsibility and what is considered appropriate behavior in contraception and

safer sex■ (p.1314). In summary, the purpose of this study is to assess

what impressions are formed by male participants about female targets who

express concern and propose condoms in a sexual situation. It is predicted that

a female who expresses concern will be seen as more nice, less exciting, more

responsible, less sexually attractive, and more actively involved than the

female who says nothing. Another hypothesized result of the current study is

that a female who says she has a condom with her will be seen as less nice, more

exciting, more responsible, more sexually appealing, and more ⌠takes

charge■ than the woman who says nothing. Implicit in these prediction is

the idea that the items within these scales are correlated with one another, but

that the scales themselves measure separate attributes. RESULTS Correlations The

correlation matrix (see Table 1) to be presented here includes dependent

variable groups labeled ⌠Takes Charge,■ ⌠Sexual

Attractiveness,■ ⌠Responsible,■ ⌠Nice,■ and

⌠Exciting■ scales. First the intra-scale correlations, then the

between-scale correlations, and finally the scale-item correlations of the

⌠Nice■ and ⌠Exciting■ scales will be presented. Within

Scale (Item-Item) Correlations The between item, intra-scale correlations for

the ⌠Takes Charge■ scale (the blue triangle in Table 1) were of

moderate convergent validity, as shown by their moderate correlation mean (r =

.47). The dependent variables within this scale were the Active, Brave, and

Strong items, with relatively similar correlation values of .34, .57, and .49,

respectively. The second group of intra-scale correlations, within the

⌠Sexual Attractiveness■ scale (the red triangle in Table 1), yielded

a high convergent validity (r = .51). The scale was composed of the following

items: Good in Bed, Desirable Date, Physically Attractive and Sexually

Appealing. The range of these intra-scale correlations was dispersed between r =

.32 and r = .72. The Responsible scale was composed of four items (Responsible,

Conscientious, Reliable, and Dependable) that suggest high convergent validity,

as evidence by the high correlation mean (r = .57) (as seen in the green

triangle in Table 1). The specific correlation values for the dependent

variables were dispersed evenly between r = .67 and r = .49. Table 1:

Correlation Matrix of the dependent variables in the ⌠Takes Charge,■

⌠Sexual Attractiveness,■ ⌠Responsible,■

⌠Nice■ and ⌠Exciting■ Scales 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 ⌠Takes Charge■ 1. Active 1 2. Brave .34 1 3. Strong .57 .49 1

⌠Sexual Attractiveness■ 4. Good in Bed .29 .37 .35 1 5. Desirable

Date .03 .24 .22 .32 1 6. Physically .16 .32 .32 .51 .36 1 Attractive 7.

Sexually .25 .37 .40 .67 .48 .72 1 Appealing ⌠Responsible■ 8.

Responsible .04 .21 .20 .01 .33 .10 .07 1 9. Conscientious .01 .27 .20 .01 .34

.16 .12 .61 1 10. Reliable -.06 .19 .15 -.13 .32 .03 .08 .50 .56 1 11.

Dependable -.05 .15 .16 -.00 .32 .10 .08 .58 .49 .67 1 ⌠Nice■ 12.

All dependent .00 .28 .30 .14 .53 .25 .31 .59 .57 .70 .70 1 variables within

this scale ⌠Exciting■ 13. All dependent .39 .45 .40 .62 .29 .42 .60

-.08 -.14 -.16 -.10 .06 1 variables within this scale Between Scale (Item-Item)

Correlations The between-scale, inter-item correlations were assessed for the

⌠Takes Charge,■ ⌠Sexual Attractiveness■ and

⌠Responsible■ scales. A comparison of the ⌠Takes Charge■

and ⌠Sexual Attractiveness■ scales (shown within the large yellow

rectangle in Table 1) revealed a mean correlation for the between-scale items as

r = .28: correlation values ranged from r = .03 to r =.40. Although the scale

had two outliers (r = .03 and r = .40), the two extreme values nullified each

other▓s significance in the final computation of the mean correlation

value. Thus, the average of the between-item correlations can be described as

having a moderately high discriminate validity (difference between scale items).

The second between-item correlation rectangle (the large pink rectangle in Table

1) shows the correlations between the ⌠Takes Charge■ items and the

⌠Responsible■ scale items. The mean correlation value was r = .12,

with a range of r = .27 to r = -.06, indicating that the two scales were not

correlated: their correlation values indicate high discriminate validity between

the two scales. The third between-scale correlations, which assess the

similarities between the ⌠Sexually Attractive■ and

⌠Responsible■ scales, are found within the large blue rectangle on

Table 1. The items of these scales also had a low correlation (r = .12) with a

range of r = .34 to r = -.06. The Physically Attractive dependent variable had a

higher correlation (r = .33) to the ⌠Responsible■ scale items than

the rest of the ⌠Sexual Attractiveness■ dependent variables.

Although this higher correlation raised the mean between-scale correlation

value, the scale still provide evidence for high discriminate validity. Between

Scale (Item-Scale) Correlations The scale-item correlations compared the

⌠Nice■ scale to the other scale▓s items. The ⌠Takes

Charge■ items▓ correlation values provided evidence for a high

discriminate validity compared to the ⌠Nice■ scale (r = .19) (as

seen in the small red rectangle on Table 1). The scale-item scores for Active,

Brave and Strong were r = .00, r = .28, and r = .30, respectively. The

scale-item correlations between the ⌠Sexual Attractiveness■ scale

and the ⌠Nice■ scale (seen in the small yellow rectangle in Table 1)

were slightly higher, but still held moderate discriminate validity (r = .31),

with a range of r = .14 to r = .53. The ⌠Responsible■ scale▓s

dependent variables had the highest correlation to the ⌠Nice■ scale

(r = .64), the correlations between the ⌠Responsible■ items and the

⌠Nice■ scale suggested a low discriminate validity (as seen in the

small pink rectangle in Table 1). The high correlation values of the item to

scale analyses between the ⌠Exciting■ scale and the ⌠Takes

Charge■ and ⌠Sexual Attractiveness■ items provided evidence

for a low discriminate validity between these items and the

⌠Exciting■ scale. The specific correlations between the ⌠Takes

Charge■ scale items and the ⌠Exciting■ scale were .39

(Active), .45 (Brave), .40 (Strong), resulting in a mean of r = .41 (in the

small green rectangle on Table 1). The correlations among the items within the

⌠Sexual Attractiveness■ scale (as seen in the small orange rectangle

in Table 1) provided evidence for an even lower discriminate validity when

paired to the ⌠Exciting■ scale (r = .48). Upon comparrison of the

scale-item correlations of the ⌠Takes Charge■ and the ⌠Sexual

Attractiveness■ items to the ⌠Nice■ scale (r = .19 and r =

.31, repectively), to the correlations of the ⌠Takes Charge■ and

⌠Sexual Attractiveness■ items to the ⌠Exciting■ scale (r

= .41 and r = .48, repectively), it can be seen that the ⌠Nice■

scale was less similar to these items than the ⌠Exciting■ scale (the

values for the ⌠Nice■ scale suggest lower discriminate validity).

The correlations between the ⌠Responsible■ scale items and the

⌠Nice■ scale were of lower discriminate validity (r = .64) than the

correlations between the ⌠Responsible■ items and the

⌠Exciting■ scale (r = -.12). The low correlations among the

⌠Responsible■ scale▓s dependent variables and the

⌠Exciting■ scale indicate high discriminate validity (as seen in the

small blue rectangle in Table 1). The between-scale correlation value for the

⌠Nice■ and ⌠Exciting■ scale had a low mean (r = .06),

and therefore suggested a high discriminate validity as well (as seen in the

small red square on Table 1). Analyses of Variance The independent variables of

condom proposal (either nothing was said or the female target said, ⌠I

have a condom with me■) and context sentence (either nothing was said or

the female target said, ⌠I have been concerned■) were analyzed on

the responses male participants gave on the five scales of ⌠Takes

Charge,■ ⌠Sexual Attractiveness,■ ⌠Responsible,■

⌠Nice,■ and ⌠Exciting■ in this between-subjects design.

The ⌠Takes Charge■ scale showed significant main effects of condom

proposal. Female targets were seen as significantly more ⌠Takes

Charge■ when they proposed a condom (M = 5.29) than when they did not (M =

4.52), F(1, 60) = 10.12, p = .002 (see Table 2). However, The context sentence

used did not seem to alter observers responses, because a main effect was not

statistically evident (as seen in Table 2). Similarly, no interactions were

found between the two independent variables for this scale. Table 2: Mean

Ratings of ⌠Takes Charge■ as a Function of Condom Proposal and

Context Sentence Context Sentence NOTHING CONCERN Condom NOTHING 4.63 4.4 4.52

Proposal "WITH ME" 5.27 5.31 5.29 4.94 4.87 A significant main effect

for context sentence was found for the ⌠Sexual Attractiveness■

scale. The participants rated the target as more ⌠Sexually

Attractive■ (see Table 3) when they said nothing (M= 5.36) than when they

said that they said that they were ⌠concerned■ (M = 4.89), F(1, 60)

= 7.85, p = .006. Unlike the previous scales, the rating of ⌠Sexual

Attractiveness■ did not differ in regards to the condom proposal variable

(see Table 3). The variables of condom proposal and context sentences did not

show any significant interactions amongst them. Table 3: Mean Ratings of

⌠Sexual Attractiveness■ as a Function of Condom Proposal and Context

Sentence Context Sentence NOTHING CONCERN Condom NOTHING 5.42 4.91 5.13 Proposal

"WITH ME" 5.29 4.87 5.04 5.36 4.89 As seen in Table 4, the target was

perceived as significantly more ⌠Responsible■ when she professed

that she was ⌠concerned■ (M = 5.46) than when she said nothing (M =

4.83), F(1, 16) = 60, p = .001. Although the averages for condom proposal

differed, there were no statistical differences between proposing a condom or

saying nothing for the rating of ⌠Responsibility.■ As in the other

scales▓ statistical analysis, there were no interactions found for this

scale. Table 4: Means for ⌠Responsible■ Ratings as a Function of

Condom Proposal and Context Sentence Context Sentence NOTHING CONCERN Condom

NOTHING 4.88 5.37 5.17 Proposal "WITH ME" 4.79 5.55 5.24 4.83 5.46 The

target was assessed as significantly more ⌠Nice■ (see Table 5) when

she expressed ⌠concern■ (M = 5.34) than when she said nothing (M =

5.07), F(1, 60) = 3.82, p = .052. She was also seen as statistically more

⌠Nice■ when she proposed a condom with her (M = 5.24) than when she

said nothing (M = 5.17), F(1,60) = 2.70, p = .102. There was a significant

interaction found among the independent variables F(1,60) = 7.06, p = .009.

Women who said nothing were considered more ⌠Nice■ when they did not

propose a condom (M = 4.88) than when they did (M = 4.79). But when the female

target said she was concerned, the participants rated her differently. The

observers saw the target as less ⌠Nice■ when she said nothing (M

=5.37) than when she said she had a condom with her (M = 5.55). Table 5: Mean

Ratings For The ⌠Nice■ Scale as a Function of Condom Proposal and

Context Sentence Context Sentence NOTHING CONCERN Condom NOTHING 4.88 5.37 5.17

Proposal "WITH ME" 4.79 5.55 5.24 4.83 5.46 Main effects for the

⌠Exciting■ scale (see Table 6) were found for both independent

variables as well. The female target was seen as more ⌠Exciting■

when she did not propose a condom (M = 4.47) than when she expressed that she

had a condom with her (M = 4.80), F(1, 60) = 5.59, p = .019. The female target

was also seen as more ⌠Exciting■ when she said nothing (M = 4.98)

than when she said she was ⌠concerned■ (M = 4.40), F(1, 60) = 17.35,

p = .001. Significant interactions were not rendered within this scale. Table 6:

Mean Ratings For The ⌠Exciting■ scale as a Function of Condom

Proposal and Context Sentence Context Sentence NOTHING CONCERN Condom NOTHING

5.39 5.3 5.34 Proposal "WITH ME" 4.72 5.37 5.12 5.07 5.34 DISCUSSION

This study was conducted to ascertain what types of perceptions people acquire

towards other▓s actions within a sexual situation. Specifically, what male

observers thought of women▓s actions in a sexual situation. Different

scales were formed to assess the observer▓s perceptions of the targets

actions within this situation. The women who said they were concerned about the

situation were perceived differently than the women who said nothing about the

situation. Similarly, women who proposed a condom (that she brought) was

evaluated differently than the woman who did not propose a condom. Correlation

Hypotheses Before the dependent variables could be used as gauges of different

and distinct evaluations of the targets by the observers, it had to be

ascertained that when they were grouped into larger scales the scales were

indicative of certain evaluations (i.e. the Active, Brave and Strong dependent

variables grouped all reflected an evaluation of ⌠Takes Charge■).

This was done by running some statistical analysis on the various descriptive

terms to assess first, if they were similar enough to each other to validate

their being grouped together into one scale and secondly, whether they were

different enough from each other between the items and the scales and also

between any two scales, to be considered different scales. As seen in Table 1,

the similarities within scale▓s items and the differentiations between

scales were achieved. Since the ⌠Nice■ and ⌠Exciting■

items are inherent aspects of all evaluations, one of these scales was always

slightly associated with items within the other scales, a phenomenon that has

been found within most person perception evaluations (Casteneda & Collins,

1995; Collins & Brief, 1995; Mc Kinney et al., 1987; Chassin et al., 1981).

Context Sentence: I am Concerned Vs. Nothing As hypothesized, the woman who

vocalized her feelings (⌠I am concerned■) was perceived as different

from the woman who said nothing on four of the five measurement scales. As seen

in Tables 3, 4, 5, & 6, women who were ⌠concerned■ were rated by

observers as less sexually attractive, more responsible, more nice and less

exciting as compared to the woman who said nothing. These results are similar to

rationale given to results of other studies on sexual communication. That is,

emotional reactions to a sexual situation have been hypothesized based on other

tested sexual communications, but have never been directly tested in a person

perception paradigm (Lear, 1995; Castenada & Collins, 1995). However, on the

scale that measured the female target▓s initiative (⌠Takes

Charge■ scale) there was no perceived difference recorded by the observers

between the context sentence. Originally it was hypothesized that the woman who

expressed concern would be more bold than the woman who said nothing, simply

because she voiced an opinion. Since the results did not corroborate this

hypothesis, something in the theorizing must have been incorrect. Perhaps the

problem with this reasoning was that it did not take into account the meaning of

the statement. Although the woman might have been ⌠taking charge■ by

voicing something she was not perceived as being especially brave or strong by

saying ⌠I am concerned.■ Emotional pleas to contraceptive use have

been hypothesized as less likely to elicit perceptions of competence than other

means in other studies as well (Lear, 1995). It would be interesting to pursue

the use of different types of emotional pleas in future research. Perhaps

context sentences including, ⌠I am concerned,■ as well as other

sentences such as, ⌠I▓m anxious,■ and ⌠I feel weird

about this,■ and ⌠I▓m uncomfortable■ could be used in

future studies on other▓s perceptions of how emotional feelings affect

different personality measures. Condom Proposal: ⌠With Me■ Vs.

Nothing It was hypothesized that a woman who claimed to have a condom with her

would be more ⌠Takes Charge,■ more ⌠Sexually

Attractive,■ more ⌠Responsible,■ less ⌠Nice,■ and

more ⌠Exciting■ than the woman who said nothing about a condom.

However only some of these hypotheses were confirmed by statistical analysis of

the results (as seen in Tables 2-6). Respondents did rate women who proposed a

condom as more active and initiative than the woman who said nothing. This

result corroborates other studies that view condom proposal as indicative of

self efficacy (van der Pligt & Richard, 1994; Bengel et al., 1996). Previous

studies have also predicted and found that assertiveness is correlated with

condom usage (Bengel et al., 1996). The respondents also rated the condom

proposer as less ⌠Nice■ than the woman who did not propose a condom,

as hypothesized. An interaction was found in the way the participants rated the

likability of the target. She was seen as less nice when she proposed a condom

and said nothing than when she just said nothing, but she was rated most nice

when she proposed a condom and expressed concern. This difference in tone of the

context a condom is proposed in can be observed in a previous study. Women who

introduced a condom with a theme of care and responsibility were seen as more

nice than a woman who introduced a condom and used a context sentence which

focused on the partner (without explicit care or responsibility themes) (Casteneda

& Collins, 1995). The adjective ⌠caring■ can be correlated with

the current study▓s use of the word ⌠concern.■ When a woman is

perceived as caring, it▓s ⌠nice■ of her to introduce a condom,

but if she is just focused on the partner, or as in this study, says nothing,

concern is not sensed by the participant and he rates her as less nice. Thus,

the seemingly conflicting findings of the ratings of condom proposal and concern

in this study are probably the result of relationship type; in less caring or

more casual sexual relationships, women who propose condoms are less

⌠Nice.■ Similar results have been found when observers have

evaluated the condom usage in other casual sexual relationships (Lear, 1995).

The other hypotheses were not confirmed. Women were not seen as more attractive

when they proposed a condom than when they did not. This may be because a woman

who says nothing is perceived as more mysterious and thus more sexual than a

woman who says nothing. In a similar study it was found that a condom proposal

in a relationship elicited higher ratings for ⌠Sexual

Attractiveness■ for people who proposed a condom as compared to those who

didn▓t (Castenada & Collins, 1995). As in the consideration of the

⌠Nice■ results, this difference may be because of the relationship

type. That study also found that males responded differently to this rating than

did females, and also that the ethnicity of the rater influenced their rating of

⌠Sexual Attractiveness.■ Since it has been found that sex and

ethnicity influence ratings of attractiveness for condom proposal, future

studies using this paradigm should involve both sexes and different ethnicities

in order to get a more complete picture of the exact ways the perception of

⌠Sexual Attractiveness■ of an individual differs across the

population. Surprisingly, the woman who proposed a condom was not seen as more

⌠Responsible■ than the woman who said nothing. This result seems

counterintuitive to the inferences given to safer sex behavior in sexual

encounters. One explanation of this result can be postulated based on the new

expectancies associated with sexual behavior in the era of AIDS. This is

reflected by the responses within one study on safer sex practices, where

respondents explained their lack of discussion about safer sex was because safer

sex was expected and not an area where negotiation was needed (Bengel et al.,

1996). Thus, those results can be applied to the little differentiation found

between condom proposal and no condom proposal in this study. That is, perhaps

women who did not explicitly propose a condom were not seen as less responsible

because it was assumed by the observers that a condom would be used in a sexual

situation such as the one depicted. In order to clarify the exact thought

process that the observers used to evaluate the accountability of the women

targets in the situation, future studies should include a third presentation.

This situation would depict a woman who did not propose a condom, while

indicating that she did not plan to use one. The observers might then be forced

to evaluate the women who propose or do not propose condoms differently. The

other hypothesis that was not confirmed by the statistical analysis was the

hypothesis that the woman who proposed a condom would be seen as more

⌠Exciting■ than the woman who said nothing. It was reasoned that the

woman would be seen as more exciting because using a condom might lead observers

to conclude that she was more sexually active than saying nothing would have.

Perhaps proposing a condom is less risky, and therefore condom proposal is

perceived as less exciting than saying nothing in this context. Methodological

Issues This study had a few potential problems in the way that it was

constructed. While it provided a valuable look into how females are evaluated by

males in a sexual situation, the situation may have been slightly confusing to

the participants because of a problem with the ecological validity of the

situation. For example, one of the possible scenarios an observer could have

been exposed to was a sexual scenario where the target woman says ⌠I am

concerned■ and who doesn▓t offer a condom. This manipulation lacks

ecological validity, because in the real world, if a woman said that her partner

might respond by saying ⌠what are you concerned about■ or something

to that effect, thus getting at the reason behind her concern. In this

experiment, no other explanation is given to this context sentence and observers

are left to interpret this cryptic message for themselves. It was used as part

of the experiment to see how people react to just an emotional plea and balance

the manipulation of variables, but it is not at all realistic. Perhaps the

participants who were told to respond to this a scenario were confused and not

able to complete the person perception evaluation because of the confusion.

Similarly, participants who were given the scenario where the target said

nothing about either her emotional state or a condom might have wondered what

they were supposed to be basing my evaluation on to fill out the questionnaire.

It may have been interesting to have each respondent exposed to each scenario

and use the nothing/nothing scenario as that respondent▓s baseline – -

measuring his other responses when they diverged from this baseline. A

within-subjects design is proposed for future research to compare participants

reactions to different scenarios. Another methodological issue that was

problematic in this study, that is apparent in many studies which utilize rating

scales, was that the respondents never varied much from the middle of the scale.

This showed that they did not rate the person as strongly one way or another for

any one scale. For example, on a scale of 1 to 7 (1 = Active and 7 = Passive) a

respondent for any given scenario usually rated the target as a 4. Although

there was often enough variation to suggest statistical difference between

ratings, the average rating of 4 is right in the middle of the scale and this

response is ambiguous. Perhaps the respondent didn▓t think the target was

either, or perhaps he didn▓t have any feeling about this evaluation, so he

chose neither, or perhaps he did not feel like answering the questionnaire, so

he only marks 4▓s. Any of these explanations may be correct, all with the

same outcome. There is not much variation from the middle for any of the scales,

which indicates that may be the scales need to be altered in order for more

respondents to practice more variation among their assessments. If they varied

their scoring more, the differences among the various scales would be larger and

we could tell more clearly where their perceptions lay. One possible alteration

to the scale might be to use more scales, without such dichotomous word choices,

that were more specific to the situation. For example, the Active/Passive scale

might be broken into two scales, one which measures Very Actively Involved to

Actively Involved and then another scale which rated Somewhat Actively Involved

to Passive About Issues. In this way the experimenter might be able to more

accurately gather the respondent▓s true impressions of the target in a

sexual situation. Another problem that could be addressed in future studies is

that the current study was aimed at evaluating people▓s perceptions of

sexual situation involving the use of condoms, and yet there was no mention of

the reason why condoms as opposed to other methods of contraception was given.

Since condoms are an important part of sexual disease prevention this aspect of

their use should have been one of the manipulations used. Perhaps another factor

could behave been added to the context sentence, about the target▓s

concern about AIDS or another sexually transmitted disease. A future study that

questioned participant▓s impressions of women who mentioned each type of

sexually transmitted disease that college age students are exposed to, might

help in the development of intervention strategies for combating the spread of

these diseases. How This Study▓s Findings Relate to AIDS Intervention

Programs Although this study did not specifically mention AIDS in it`s

manipulations, the results of participant`s perceptions toward a target who

introduced a condom is relevant to AIDS intervention programs. As it has been

emphasized, any sexually active person is capable of carrying the disease – -

indicating that a vast majority of the population is at risk (Surgeon General).

Because of the prevalence of people at risk and (as the current study has found)

the prevalence of different impressions about women who express concern or

propose a condom in a sexual situation, prevention models must be created to

effectively confront the disease. Personal perceptions of other`s decisions are

relevant to every facet of the AIDS intervention process. AIDS must be addressed

on the individual, familial, local organizational, and communal levels to be

effective (Flora & Thoresen, 1989), and all of these levels involve personal

perceptions of the issue. Not only do person`s perception affect people on an

individual level, people`s perceptions of others vary in response to the type of

groups others are affiliated with as well. Intervention programs must be

sensitive to the multitude of influences which affect people`s decisions in

order to be effective. As Flora & Thoresen have pointed out racial, ethnic,

socio-economic and gender status each contribute to the individual differences

that must be part of the intervention process (1989). Much more research is

needed to find out the exact ways that people perceive others who use condoms in

order to better target attitudes of the people involved in intervention

programs, so that their attitudes towards safer sex will be healthy ones.

Allgeier, E.R., Allgeier, A.R. & Rywick, T. (1979). Abortion: Reward for

conscientious contraceptive use? Journal of Sex Research, 15 281-291 Bengel, J.,

Belz-Merk, M., & Farin, E. (1996). The role of risk perception and efficacy

cognitions in the prediction of HIV-related preventative behavior and condom

use. Psychology and Health, 11(4) 505-525. Castaneda, D. & Collins, B.E.

(1995). The effects of gender, ethnicity, and close relationship themes on

perceptions of persons introducing a condom. Unpublished manuscript, University

of California, Los Angeles. Chassin, L., Presson, C.C., Sherman, S.J., Corty, E.

& Olshavsky, R.W. (1081). Self-images and cigarette smoking in adolescence.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7(4) 670-676. Cline, R.W., Johnson,

S.T. & Freeman, K.E. (1992). Talk among sexual partners about AIDS:

Interpersonal communication for risk reduction or risk enhancement? Health

Communication, 4(1) 39-56. Collins, B.E. & Brief, D.E. (1995). Using

person-perception vignette methodologies to uncover the symbolic meanings of

teacher behaviors in the Milgram Paradigm. Journal of Social Issues, 51(3)

89-106. Collins, B.E. (1997). Symbolic, self-relevant meanings of behavior.

Lecture delivered to Psych 136A. 2/27/97. Flora, J.A. & Thoresen, CE.

(1989). Components of a comprehensive stategy for reducing the risk of AIDS in

adolecents. In V. M. Mays, G.W. Albee & S.F. Schneider (Eds.), Primary

Prevention of Psychopathy: Vol. 13. Primary Prevention of AIDS: Psychological

Approaches (pp.374-389). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. McKinney, K., Sprecher, S.

& Orbuch, T.L. (1987). A person perception experiment examining the effects

of contraceptive behavior on first impressions. Basic and Applied Social

Psychology, 8(3) 235-248. Lear, D. (1995). Sexual communication in the age of

AIDS: the construction of risk and trust among young adults. Social Science

Medicine, 41(9) 1311-1323. Reiss, I.L. (1967). The social context of premarital

sexual permisiveness. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Seal, D.W. &

Palmer-Seal, D.A. (1996). Barriers to condom use and safer sex talk among

college dating couples. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 6(1)

15-33. Schlenker, B.R. & Weigold, M.F. (1992). Interpersonal processes

involving impression regulation and management. Annual Reviewof Psychology, 43

133-168. Sprecher, S. & McKinney, K. (1993). Sexuality. Newbury Park, CA:

Sage. Surgeon General`s Letter. van der Pligt, J. & Richard, R. (1994).

Changing adolescents sexual behavior: perceived risk, self-efficacy, and

anticipated regret. Patient Education and Counseling, 23(3) 187-196. Wight, D.

(1992). Impediments to safer heterosexual sex: a review of research with young

people. AIDS Care, 4(11).