OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the differences between the situational factors of risky and safer sexual encounters in college students. DESIGN: Descriptive. SETTING: Community-dwelling college students from a large Midwestern university. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were 84 college students ages 18 to 20 years. Fifty-five were female (67.5%), the majority (95.2%) were White, and all reported being heterosexual. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Use of safer or risky practices in last or most memorable sexual encounter. RESULTS: Important situational characteristics of safer encounters were negative ambiance of the place, type of partner, unattractive qualities of the partner, communication with the partner, and having the encounter because of feeling desire. Important situational characteristics of risky encounters were a cozy ambiance, partner's attractiveness inducing desire, asking directly for the encounter, and encounters occurring after celebration or partying. CONCLUSIONS: Many characteristics were similar for both risk groups. However, practitioners can tailor interventions to make clients aware of factors that were more prevalent in risky sexual encounters, such as having the encounter with a boyfriend or girlfriend and having an encounter after drinking alcohol and partying.
OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the differences between the situational factors of risky and safer sexual encounters in college students. DESIGN: Descriptive. SETTING: Community-dwelling college students from a large Midwestern university. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were 84 college students ages 18 to 20 years. Fifty-five were female (67.5%), the majority (95.2%) were White, and all reported being heterosexual. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Use of safer or risky practices in last or most memorable sexual encounter. RESULTS: Important situational characteristics of safer encounters were negative ambiance of the place, type of partner, unattractive qualities of the partner, communication with the partner, and having the encounter because of feeling desire. Important situational characteristics of risky encounters were a cozy ambiance, partner's attractiveness inducing desire, asking directly for the encounter, and encounters occurring after celebration or partying. CONCLUSIONS: Many characteristics were similar for both risk groups. However, practitioners can tailor interventions to make clients aware of factors that were more prevalent in risky sexual encounters, such as having the encounter with a boyfriend or girlfriend and having an encounter after drinking alcohol and partying.