Literature DB >> 17028997

Evaluating the risk and attractiveness of romantic partners when confronted with contradictory cues.

Michael Hennessy1, Martin Fishbein, Brenda Curtis, Daniel W Barrett.   

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17028997      PMCID: PMC2879144          DOI: 10.1007/s10461-006-9156-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AIDS Behav        ISSN: 1090-7165


  20 in total

1.  Personality and sexual risk taking: a quantitative review.

Authors:  R H Hoyle; M C Fejfar; J D Miller
Journal:  J Pers       Date:  2000-12

2.  Theories of reasoned action and planned behavior as models of condom use: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  D Albarracín; B T Johnson; M Fishbein; P A Muellerleile
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 17.737

Review 3.  Perceptions of risk and vulnerability.

Authors:  Susan G Millstein; Bonnie L Halpern-Felsher
Journal:  J Adolesc Health       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 5.012

4.  What leads to sex? Adolescent preferred partners and reasons for sex.

Authors:  S L Eyre; S G Millstein
Journal:  J Res Adolesc       Date:  1999

5.  Psychosocial correlates of heterosexual condom use: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  P Sheeran; C Abraham; S Orbell
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 17.737

6.  The Internet as a newly emerging risk environment for sexually transmitted diseases.

Authors:  M McFarlane; S S Bull; C A Rietmeijer
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2000-07-26       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Does measured behavior reflect STD risk? An analysis of data from a randomized controlled behavioral intervention study. Project RESPECT Study Group.

Authors:  T A Peterman; L S Lin; D R Newman; M L Kamb; G Bolan; J Zenilman; J M Douglas; J Rogers; C K Malotte
Journal:  Sex Transm Dis       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 2.830

8.  Soliciting sex on the Internet: what are the risks for sexually transmitted diseases and HIV?

Authors:  S S Bull; M McFarlane
Journal:  Sex Transm Dis       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 2.830

9.  Why don't young adults protect themselves against sexual transmission of HIV? Possible answers to a complex question.

Authors:  M L Keller
Journal:  AIDS Educ Prev       Date:  1993

10.  Misperceived risk among female adolescents: social and psychological factors associated with sexual risk accuracy.

Authors:  Trace S Kershaw; Kathleen A Ethier; Linda M Niccolai; Jessica B Lewis; Jeannette R Ickovics
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 4.267

View more
  10 in total

1.  Confirming preferences or collecting data? Information search strategies and romantic partner selection.

Authors:  Michael H Hennessy; Marty Fishbein; Brenda Curtis; Daniel Barrett
Journal:  Psychol Health Med       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 2.423

2.  How Do Alcohol and Relationship Type Affect Women's Risk Judgment of Partners with Differing Risk Histories?

Authors:  Jeanette Norris; Preston A Kiekel; Diane M Morrison; Kelly Cue Davis; William H George; Tina Zawacki; Devon Alisa Abdallah; Angela J Jacques-Tiura; Cynthia A Stappenbeck
Journal:  Psychol Women Q       Date:  2013-06-01

3.  Impressions of HIV risk online: Brain potentials while viewing online dating profiles.

Authors:  Ralf Schmälzle; Martin A Imhof; Alex Kenter; Britta Renner; Harald T Schupp
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 3.282

4.  Social networking and online recruiting for HIV research: ethical challenges.

Authors:  Brenda L Curtis
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 1.742

5.  Safer sex media messages and adolescent sexual behavior: 3-year follow-up results from project iMPPACS.

Authors:  Michael Hennessy; Daniel Romer; Robert F Valois; Peter Vanable; Michael P Carey; Bonita Stanton; Larry Brown; Ralph DiClemente; Laura F Salazar
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2012-11-15       Impact factor: 9.308

6.  Young Adults Make Rational Sexual Decisions.

Authors:  Laura E Hatz; Sanghyuk Park; Kayleigh N McCarty; Denis M McCarthy; Clintin P Davis-Stober
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2020-07-06

7.  Multiple method contraception use among African American adolescents in four US cities.

Authors:  Jennifer L Brown; Michael Hennessy; Jessica M Sales; Ralph J DiClemente; Laura F Salazar; Peter A Vanable; Michael P Carey; Daniel Romer; Robert F Valois; Larry K Brown; Bonita Stanton
Journal:  Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2011-07-18

8.  Does attractiveness influence condom use intentions in women who have sex with men?

Authors:  Anastasia Eleftheriou; Seth Bullock; Cynthia A Graham; Shayna Skakoon-Sparling; Roger Ingham
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-05-23       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Visual cues that predict intuitive risk perception in the case of HIV.

Authors:  Ralf Schmälzle; Freda-Marie Hartung; Alexander Barth; Martin A Imhof; Alex Kenter; Britta Renner; Harald T Schupp
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-02-20       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Does attractiveness influence condom use intentions in heterosexual men? An experimental study.

Authors:  Anastasia Eleftheriou; Seth Bullock; Cynthia A Graham; Nicole Stone; Roger Ingham
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-06-17       Impact factor: 2.692

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.