SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating the Risk and Attractiveness of Romantic Partners When Confronted with Contradictory Cues

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
AIDS and Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Research shows that people engage in “risky” sex with “safe” partners and in “safer” sex with “riskier” partners. How is the determination of “risky” or “safe” status made? Factorial survey methodology was used to randomly construct descriptions of romantic partners based on attractive and/or risky characteristics. Respondents evaluated 20 descriptions for attractiveness, health risk, likelihood of going on a date, likelihood of unprotected sex, and likelihood of STD/HIV infection. Respondents were most attracted to and perceived the least risk from attractive descriptions and were least attracted to and perceived the most risk from the risky descriptions. The differences between the “conflicting information” descriptions are attributable to a primacy effect: descriptions that began with attractiveness information but end with risk information were evaluated more positively than those that began with risk and ended with attractive information.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (France)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agocha, V., & Cooper, M. (1999). Risk perceptions and safer-sex intentions: Does a partner’s physical attractiveness undermine the use of risk-relevant information? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 746–759.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albarracín, D., Johnson, B., Fishbein, M., & Muellerleile, P. (2001). Theories of reasoned action and planned behavior as models of condom use: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 142–161.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bull, S., & McFarlane, M. (2000). Soliciting sex on the internet: What are the risks for STD/HIV? Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 27, 545–550.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bull, S., McFarlane, M., & Rietmeijer, C. (2001). HIV/STI risk behaviors among men seeking sex with men online. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 988–989.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Conley, T., & Collins, B. (2002). Gender, relationship status, and stereoty** about sexual risk. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1483–1494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeVisser, R., & Smith, A. (2004). Which intention? Whose intention? Condom use and theories of individual decision making. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 9, 193–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dijstra, P., Buunk, B., & Blanton, H. (2000). The effect of target’s physical attractiveness and dominance on STD-risk perceptions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 1738–1755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donner, A., & Klar, N. (2000). Design and Analysis of Cluster Randomization Trials in Health Research. London: Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eyre, S., & Millstein, S. (1999). What leads to sex? Adolescent preferred partners and reasons for sex. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 9, 277–307.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein, M., Hennessy, M., Yzer, M., & Douglas, J. (2003). Can we explain why some people do and some people do not act on their intentions? Psychology, Health and Medicine, 8, 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein, M., Hennessy, M., Yzer, M., & Curtis, B. (2004). Romance and risk: Romantic attraction and health risks in the process of relationship formation. Psychology, Health and Medicine, 9, 273–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein, M., & Jarvis, B. (2000). Peterman et al. failure to find a behavioral surrogate for STD incidence: What does it really mean? Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 27, 452–455.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gebhardt, W., Kuyper, L., & Greunsven, G. (2003). Need for intimacy in relationships and motives for sex as determinants of adolescent condom use. Journal of Adolescent Health, 33, 154–164.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gold, R., Skinner, M., Grants, P., & Plummer, D. (1991). Situational factors and thought processes associated with unprotected intercourse in gay men. Psychology and Health, 5, 259–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenland, S., Schlesselman, J., & Criqui, M. (1986). The fallacy of employing standardized regression coefficients and correlations as measures of effect. American Journal of Epidemiology, 123, 203–208.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Halkitis, P., & Parsons, J. (2003). Intentional unsafe sex (barebacking) among HIV-positive gay men who seek sexual partners on the Internet. AIDS Care, 15, 367–378.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, V., Hennessy, M., McCoy-Roth, M., Barrett, D., Curtis, B., Trentacoste, M. et al. (2005). When risky is attractive: Sensation seeking and romantic partner selection. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 311–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hennessy, M., MacQueen, K., McKirnan, D., Buchbinder, S., Judson, F., Douglas, J. et al. (1996). A factorial survey study to assess the acceptability of HIV vaccine trial designs. Controlled Clinical Trials, 17, 209–220.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hennessy, M., MacQueen, K., & Seals, B. (1995). Using factorial surveys for designing intervention programs. Evaluation Review, 19, 294–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hennessy, M., Manteuffel, B., DiIorio, C., & Adame, D. (1997). Identifying the social contexts of effective sex refusal. Journal of American College Health, 46, 27–34.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hennessy, M., Mercier, M., Williams, S., & Arno, J. (2002a). Client preferences for STD/HIV prevention programs. Evaluation and Program Planning, 25, 117–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hennessy, M, Williams, P, Mercier, M., Malotte, C. (2002b). Designing partner notification programs to maximize client participation: A factorial survey approach. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 29, 92–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hovland, A. (1958). The role of primacy and recency in persuasive communications. In E. Mccoby, T. Newcomb, & E. Hartley, (Eds.), Readings in Social Psychology. New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston. pp. 137–149.

  • Hox, J., Kreft, I., & Hermkens, P. (1991). The analysis of factorial surveys. Sociological Methods and Research, 19, 493-510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoyle, R., Fejfar, M., & Miller, J. (2000). Personality and sexual risk taking: A quantitative review. Journal of Personality, 68, 1203–1231.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jarvis, B. (1998). MediaLab Research Software, Version 3.0. New York: Empirisoft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, M. (1993). Why don’t young adults protect themselves against sexual transmission of HIV? Possible answers to a complex question. AIDS Education & Prevention, 5, 220–233.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kurzban, R., & Weeden, J. (2005) HurryDate: Mate preferences in action. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 227–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, P. (1998). A Guide to Econometrics. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kershaw, T., Ethier, K., Niccolai, L., Lewis, J., & Ickovics, J. (2003). Misperceived risk among female adolescents: Social and psychological factors associated with sexual risk accuracy. Health Psychology, 22, 523–532.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Knox, D., Daniels, V., Sturdivant, L., & Zusman, M. (2001). College student use of the internet for mate selection. College Student Journal, 33, 158–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maticka-Tyndale, E. (1991). Sexual scripts and AIDS prevention: Variations in adherence to safer-sex guidelines by heterosexual adolescents. Journal of Sex Research, 28, 45–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFarlane, M., Bull, S., & Rietmeijer, C. (2000). The internet as a newly emerging risk environment for sexually transmitted diseases. Journal of the American Medical Association, 284, 443–446.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Millstein, S., & Halpern-Felsher, B. (2003) Perceptions of risk and vulnerability. Journal of Adolescent Health, 31S, 10–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Misovich, S., Fisher, J., & Fisher, W. (1997). Close relationships and elevated HIV risk behavior: Evidence and possible underlying psychological processes. Review of General Psychology, 1, 72–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montano, D., Kasprzyk, D., vonHaeften, I., & Fishbein, M. (2001). Toward an understanding of condom use behaviors: a theoretical and methodological overview of Project SAFER. Psychology, Health and Medicine, 6, 139–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, D. (1998). Design and Analysis of Group-randomized Trials. New York: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nickerson, R. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowak, K. (2003). Sex categorization in computer mediated communication (CMC): Exploring the utopian promise. Media Psychology, 5, 83–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ohanian, R., & Cunningham, C. (1987). Application of primacy-recency in comparative advertising. Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 10, 99–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul, E., & Hayes, K. (2002). The casualties of ‘causal’ sex: a qualitative exploration of the phenomenology of college students’ hookups. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 639–661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterman, T., Lin, L., Newman, D., Kamb, M., Bolan, G., Zenilman, J. et al. (2000). Does measured behavior reflect STD risk? An analysis of data from a randomized controlled behavioral intervention study. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 27, 446–451.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pratto, F., & John, O. (1991). Automatic vigilance: The attention-grabbing power of negative social information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 380–391.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, F., & Malotte, C. (1996). Using stages of change to assess intervention readiness outcome in modifying drug-related and sexual HIV risk behaviors of IDUs and crack users. Drugs and Society, 9, 109–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, P., & Nock, S. (1982). Measuring Social Judgments: A Factorial Survey Approach. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seto, M., Lalumiere, M., & Quinsey, V. (1995). Sensation seeking and males’ sexual strategy. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 669–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheeran, P., Abraham, C., & Orbell, S. (1999). Psychosocial correlates of heterosexual condom use: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 90–132.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist, M., Cvetkovish, G., & Gutscher, H. (2002). Risk preference predictions and gender stereotypes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87, 91–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spielman, L., Pratto, F., & Bargh, J. (1988). Automatic affect. The American Behavioral Scientist, 31, 96–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomkovick, C., & Dobie, K. (1995). Applying hedonic pricing models and factorial surveys at Parker Pen to enhance new product success. Journal of Product Innovation Management 12, 334– 345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, S., Kimble, D., Covell, N., Weiss, L., Newton K., & Fisher J, et al (1992). College students use implicit personality theory instead of safer sex. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 921–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wonnacott, T., & Wonnacott, R. (1986). Regression: A Second Course in Statistics. Malabar: Krieger Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by NIMH grant MH 62983. We thank Nicole Trentacoste and Vani Henderson for comments on earlier drafts and Aram Aghazarian and Herbert Simons of the Department of Speech Communication, Temple University, for providing space and resources for data collection on their campus.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Public Policy Center, Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania, 3620 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA

    Michael Hennessy, Martin Fishbein & Brenda Curtis

  2. Department of Psychology, Western Connecticut State University, 181 White Street, Danbury, CT, 06810, USA

    Daniel W. Barrett

Authors
  1. Michael Hennessy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Martin Fishbein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Brenda Curtis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Daniel W. Barrett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Hennessy.

Appendix

Appendix

Attributes and aspects used to construct the romantic partner descriptions

Male partner’s name

High risk attribute 4

1. Brian

1. can be described as a “free spirit”

2. Michael

2. can be described as “living in the moment”

3. Paul

Low attractiveness attribute 1

4. Tony

1. thinks that cleanliness is over-rated

5. James

2. smokes cigarettes

6. Jason

Low attractiveness attribute 2

7. Mark

1. is often pessimistic

8. Peter

2. often feels unfulfilled

9. Ray

3. is agnostic in religious orientation

10. David

Moderators attribute

11. Richard

1. is a social drinker

12. Vance

2. is open minded toward new ideas

Female partner’s name

3. carries a laptop most of the time

1. Julia

High attractiveness attribute 1

2. Kim

1. is faithful to friends and acquaintances

3. Debby

2. is trustworthy in dealing with friends and acquaintances

4. Jane

High attractiveness attribute 2

5. Carmen

1. is supportive of others

6. Leslie

2. does not use drugs

7. Terri

High attractiveness attribute 3

8. Lily

1. does not smoke

9. Nicole

2. wants to go on to graduate school

10. Pam

High attractiveness attribute 4

11. Rebecca

1. is self-confident

12. Sharon

2. is generally happy with life

High risk attribute 1

Low risk attribute 1

1. enjoys sexual experimentation

1. strives to live responsibly

2. believes that the more sexual experience, the better

2. believes that sex should be saved for someone really special

High risk attribute 2

Low risk attribute 2

1. can be described as

1. strives to live cautiously

“secretive and mysterious”

2. wears glasses

2. wants to spend exciting nights together

3. likes to attend cultural events

High risk attribute 3

 

1. uses drugs occasionally

 

2. believes that life is short and one should live life to the fullest

 
  1. Note. The name of the potential partner plays no role in the analysis or study. It was merely included to make the descriptions more realistic and less redundant. Similarly, the moderator variables play no role in the analysis here

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hennessy, M., Fishbein, M., Curtis, B. et al. Evaluating the Risk and Attractiveness of Romantic Partners When Confronted with Contradictory Cues. AIDS Behav 11, 479–490 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-006-9156-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-006-9156-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation