Marriage & Family Review Testing a Model Predicting Risky Sexual Behavior

This art icle was downloaded by: [ Universit y of Nevada Las Vegas] On: 09 Sept em ber 2014, At : 14: 32 Publisher: Rout ledge I nform a Lt d Regist ered in England and Wales Regist ered Num ber: 1072954 Regist ered office: Mort im er House, 37- 41 Mort im er St reet , London W1T 3JH, UK Marriage & Family Review Publicat ion det ails, including inst ruct ions f or aut hors and subscript ion inf ormat ion: ht t p: / / www. t andf online. com/ loi/ wmf r20 Testing a Model Predicting Risky Sexual Behavior Kat herine M. Hert lein Kennedy a , Tara M. Emmers-Sommer b & M. Alexis c a Marriage and Family Therapy Program, Universit y of Nevada, Las Vegas , Las Vegas , Nevada , USA b Depart ment of Communicat ion St udies , Universit y of Nevada, Las Vegas , Las Vegas , Nevada , USA c Depart ment of Criminal Just ice , Universit y of Nevada, Las Vegas , Las Vegas , Nevada , USA Published online: 03 Mar 2014. To cite this article: Kat herine M. Hert lein , Tara M. Emmers-Sommer & M. Alexis Kennedy (2014) Test ing a Model Predict ing Risky Sexual Behavior, Marriage & Family Review, 50: 2, 107-128, DOI: 10. 1080/ 01494929. 2013. 851638 To link to this article: ht t p: / / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 01494929. 2013. 851638 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTI CLE Taylor & Francis m akes every effort t o ensure t he accuracy of all t he inform at ion ( t he “ Cont ent ” ) cont ained in t he publicat ions on our plat form . However, Taylor & Francis, our agent s, and our licensors m ake no represent at ions or warrant ies what soever as t o t he accuracy, com plet eness, or suit abilit y for any purpose of t he Cont ent . Any opinions and views expressed in t his publicat ion are t he opinions and views of t he aut hors, and are not t he views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of t he Cont ent should not be relied upon and should be independent ly verified wit h prim ary sources of inform at ion. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, act ions, claim s, proceedings, dem ands, cost s, expenses, dam ages, and ot her liabilit ies what soever or howsoever caused arising direct ly or indirect ly in connect ion wit h, in relat ion t o or arising out of t he use of t he Cont ent . This art icle m ay be used for research, t eaching, and privat e st udy purposes. Any subst ant ial or syst em at ic reproduct ion, redist ribut ion, reselling, loan, sub- licensing, syst em at ic supply, or dist ribut ion in any form t o anyone is expressly forbidden. Term s & Condit ions of access and use can be found at ht t p: / / www.t andfonline.com / page/ t erm sand- condit ions Marriage & Family Review, 50:107–128, 2014 Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0149-4929 print=1540-9635 online DOI: 10.1080/01494929.2013.851638 Testing a Model Predicting Risky Sexual Behavior Downloaded by [University of Nevada Las Vegas] at 14:32 09 September 2014 KATHERINE M. HERTLEIN Marriage and Family Therapy Program, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA TARA M. EMMERS-SOMMER Department of Communication Studies, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA M. ALEXIS KENNEDY Department of Criminal Justice, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA Sexually transmitted disease and infection rates are continually increasing. Individuals who engage in high-risk sexual behavior (HRSB) expose themselves to multiple risks, including social, emotional, and physical risks. Overall, cultural, intrapsychic, and interpersonal scripts comingle to guide our behavior in sexual situations, yet existing theoretical models that seek to explain an individual’s decision to engage in HRSB tend to test specific elements in isolation that affect likelihood of engaging in high-risk sexual behavior rather than examining the combined influence of multiple variables on the decision-making process. In this study, we tested a five-factor model of high-risk sexual decision-making. Results indicated that the model explained approximately 50.5 % of the variance in HRSB. Findings and implications for future research are discussed. KEYWORDS decision-making, dysfunctional processes, gender, sexuality Address correspondence to Tara M. Emmers-Sommer, Department of Communication Studies, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 4505 S. Maryland Pkwy., Las Vegas, NV 89154, USA. E-mail: tara.emmerssommer@unlv.edu 107 108 K. M. Hertlein et al. Downloaded by [University of Nevada Las Vegas] at 14:32 09 September 2014 INTRODUCTION Sexually transmitted disease and infection (STD=STI) rates are continually increasing (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2008). Individuals who engage in high-risk sexual behavior (HRSB) expose themselves to multiple risks, including social, emotional, and physical risks. Such risks can impact one’s romantic and familial relationships, individual self-esteem, and overall well-being and health (Emmers-Sommer & Allen, 2005). Because of the broad scope of sexual risk that one is exposed to when participating in HRSB, many researchers attempt to understand the factors that contribute to engagement in HRSB and to what degree. A host of literature focuses independently on the individual factors, such as sexual arousal, sensationseeking (Donohew et al., 2000), sexual and relational satisfaction, and other factors that can affect an individual’s judgment with regard to sexual decision-making (Strong, Bancroft, Carnes, Davis, & Kennedy, 2005). In examining the literature on HRSB, two notable gaps emerged in our research. One gap is related to the population under investigation. Most studies have focused on adolescent risky behavior rather than that of adults (see, for example, Luster & Small, 1994; Pedlow & Carey, 2004; Serovich & Greene, 1997). In one study, Pearson, Muller, and Frisco (2006) demonstrated that parent=family structure is related to an adolescent’s sexual decision-making; yet again, the generalization to adults may be limited. Most research devoted to heterosexual adults in regard to HRSB has focused solely on the personality traits that affect sexual risk-taking (Hoyle, Fejfar, & Miller, 2000) rather than a synthesis of many factors. Second, research has focused on individual factors rather than interaction between and among the factors (Atkins, Baucom, & Jacobsen, 2001). This inhibits interpretation within a relationship because variables such as substance use, relationship exclusivity, moral development, religiosity, and sensationseeking have been found, in some cases, to mediate the sexual decisionmaking process (Pinkerton & Abrahmson, 1995). Such factors might also have a pronounced impact on or interact with a couple’s relational and sexual satisfaction. One model produced by Juhasz and Sonnenshein-Schneider (1980) suggested that HRSB can be explained with three distinct factors: socialization influences, factors germane to the situation, and cognitive factors. However, sexual and relational satisfaction are the only two variables with a relational component mentioned in the Strong et al. (2005) model and are not specifically attended to in the Juhasz and Sonnenstein-Schneider (1980) model. Other research has found that arousal (Ariely & Loewenstein, 2006) and time after a high-risk sexual activity (Richard, Van der Pligt, & deVries, 1996) are related to engagement in HRSB. The level of complexity in considering the contribution of each component highlights the validity to Pinkerton and Abrahmson’s (1995) claim that there are still many questions surrounding the factors affecting one’s decision-making process to participate in HRSB. Testing a Model Predicting Risky Sexual Behavior 109 Downloaded by [University of Nevada Las Vegas] at 14:32 09 September 2014 With such important implications and consequences existing as a result of this behavior, it is imperative to understand risky behavior as a way to prevent unnecessary and adverse consequences. The purpose of this study is to test a model of sexual decision-making in cases of HRSB that includes a cluster of variables identified in the literature as pertinent. Specifically, this study examines how five major factors operate in a person’s decision to engage in HRSB: sociodemographic factors, active sanctions, cultural socialization, relational factors, and individual factors. SCRIPTS GUIDING SEXUAL BEHAVIOR Sexual Scripts Sexual scripts provide a guide for what men and women are ‘‘supposed’’ to do regarding relationships and relational interplay. Individuals acquire sexual scripts and attendant aspects that contribute to sexual scripts in a variety of fashions, including expectations tied to their gender and gender roles (Canary & Emmers-Sommer, 1997), how men and women are portrayed in the media (Herrett-Skjellum & Allen, 1996), in sexually explicit media such as pornography (Duncan, 1990; Duncan & Donnelly, 1991; Duncan & Nicholson, 1991), and through social modeling and learning (Bandura, 1978). These factors, along with personal lived experience, contribute to our sexual scripts and relational=sexual expectations, attitudes, and behaviors. Metts and Spitzberg (1996) contend that sexual scripts are cognitive structures that influence sexual behavior. Stereotypical behavioral expectations in social interactions also comprise sexual scripts (Abelson, 1981). Overall, sexual scripts represent the culmination of three components, including cultural, interpersonal, and intrapsychic levels (Masters, Casey, Wells, & Morrison, 2012; McCormick, 2010; Simon & Ganon, 1984, 1986, 1987). Cultural Scripts Cultural factors influence sexual behavior (Mashegoane, Moalusi, Ngoepe, & Peltzer, 2002) and help guide us regarding who is acceptable to pursue and want sexually, what type of partner relationship is considered to be appropriate, at what point in time it is acceptable for partners to engage in sexual activity and where that sexual activity should occur, and how individuals are to behave and interpret their experiences (Simon & Gagnon, 1984, 1986, 1987). Emmers-Sommer and Allen (2005) argued that the ‘‘who, what, when and where’’ (p. 7) aspects of sexual activity are explained by cultural scripts. One example of the impact of cultural scripts on sexual behavior is the role of religion and faith on sexual behavior. Variables such as religion and degree of religiosity, primarily measured by church attendance Downloaded by [University of Nevada Las Vegas] at 14:32 09 September 2014 110 K. M. Hertlein et al. or importance of faith in one’s life, impact one’s sexual decision-making (Daugherty & Burger, 1984; Jensen, Newell, & Holman, 1990). A strong influence in our acquisition of cultural scripts is the media (Metts & Spitzberg, 1996). The media provides portrayals about what ‘‘should’’ occur regarding sexuality and sexual behavior and provides a powerful and influential tool. Strasburger and Donnerstein (1999) found that adolescents and children relied heavily on television and other media to learn about sexual behavior and sexuality. These findings have been echoed in other research (e.g., Ebron, 1999) and are concerning, because media portrayals of sexual behavior are often not completely accurate or are inadequate. For example, sexual portrayals in the media often do not portray unwanted sex, risky sex, condom negotiation, condom use, unexpected pregnancy, STD=STI, intravenous (IV) drug use, or the like (Emmers-Sommer & Allen, 2005). HRSB is abundant in mediated images and is often misrepresented or underplayed, with consequences getting little to no attention. Intrapsychic Scripts According to Metts and Spitzberg (1996), intrapsychic scripts reflect ‘‘individual desires, motives, and actions that create and sustain sexual arousal’’ (p. 52). Hynie, Lydon, Coté, and Wiener (1998) argued, ‘‘intrapsychic scripts are the internalization of the socially shared scripts and scenarios’’ (p. 2) and that intrapsychic scripts influence how interpersonal scripts are enacted and, in sexual situations, reflect what one personally desires and seeks out during that sexual interaction. As Emmers-Sommer and Allen (2005) noted the following (pp. 8–9): Sexuality can function to fulfill individual needs for relationships, power, physical gratification, procreation, etc. If one views sexuality as an enactment of a behavior to fulfill individual needs, the extent to which a person views a sexual interaction as fulfilling will be related to how the particular action instantiates the unique expectations for how a satisfying sexual encounter proceeds. The generation of the individual script or sequence of behavior for the satisfying encounter reflects a combination of individual, cultural, and social influence that have combined to generate in the mind of the individual the requirements and expectations for [the] script for sexual actions. Interpersonal Scripts Interpersonal scripts represent the cultural and intrapsychic scripts coming together and being enacted interpersonally. Specifically, an individual’s interpersonal script is created through his or her interpretation of the cultural script and internalization of the intrapsychic scripts (Hynie et al., 1998; Metts & Spitzberg, 1996). Hynie et al. contended that interpersonal scripts represent the convergence of personal desires and wants with social scripts; that is, interpersonal scripts represent the melding of cultural sexual Downloaded by [University of Nevada Las Vegas] at 14:32 09 September 2014 Testing a Model Predicting Risky Sexual Behavior 111 expectations with personal wants and desires. According to Emmers-Sommer and Allen (2005), sexual scripts allow one to have recognizable behavioral patterns so that all individuals involved in the sexual interaction have an understanding of what to expect and what his or her role in the interaction should be. When individuals violate interpersonal scripts, the result might be surprise, humiliation, or perceived deviance, to name a few (EmmersSommer & Allen, 2005). Those who hold confidence and efficaciousness about their sexuality and sexual behavior are likely more inclined to speak up regarding his or her role in a sexual encounter (e.g., ‘‘No sex on a first date,’’ ‘‘I’ll hook-up but I don’t want a relationship,’’ ‘‘No condom, no sex’’). Individuals who feel less efficacious or less interested in their scripts might be more inclined to engage in more HRSB. An incomplete interpersonal sexual script or the lacking efficaciousness in execution of the script or a lack of care in the scripting process contributes to HRSB. Further, when compounded with drugs or alcohol, the script might unravel further. Men or women who do not feel comfortable with such discussions, however, might be more inclined to revert to script and what she or he believes she or he should do. Interpersonal scripts might also manifest in terms of morality development and sexual behavior. McCabe and Killackey (2004), for example, found that moral development was an important factor in sexual decision-making. Specifically, the authors examined sexual decision-making in young women. Tracking their behavior for 6 months using a modified form of the theory of planned behavior, the authors examined the young women’s intention to partake in six different sexual behaviors at Time 1 and then their subsequent behavioral participation at Time 2. Whereas the constructs of theory of planned behavior were solid in terms of predicting intention to engage in sexual behavior, the theory did not predict well actual behavior. The authors found that the most salient predictors of HRSB were positive past experience and perceived behavioral control. Intention to engage in behaviors was not a salient predictor of behavior. Sexual Scripts and Gender Young boys and girls begin learning about sexual scripts quite early. As noted above, the media plays a strong role in sexual behavioral modeling. The impact of the media on cultural, sexual scripts pervades as we enter later adolescence and into adulthood. Research indicates the power of sexuality and sexual violence in films (Emmers-Sommer, Triplett, Pauley, Hanzal, & Rhea, 2005; Emmers-Sommer, Pauley, Hanzal, & Triplett, 2006). Despite changes over the years regarding women’s increased presence in the workplace and educationally, research demonstrates that dating scripts are still quite traditional in nature. Most people still expect that man pay for the date and men’s and women’s sexual expectations for the date vary depending on where the date took place (Emmers-Sommer et al., 2010). Downloaded by [University of Nevada Las Vegas] at 14:32 09 September 2014 112 K. M. Hertlein et al. The media plays a role regarding what sexual behavior is expected on the date in the first place. For example, the use of coercion or violence to obtain sex is justified in some sexually violent or pornographic media portrayals (e.g., Allen, Emmers, Gebhardt, & Giery, 1995). What is mediated, as noted, contributes to the cultural script and plays a role in the interpersonal script. Given what is scripted for us, a man might believe he should pay for the date, should try to attempt that kiss goodnight, and make efforts to see how far he can get sexually with his date. The woman might believe she should oblige the man’s kiss goodnight or oblige his sexual advances, even if uninterested or uncomfortable, because she might believe she ‘‘owes’’ him something for the evening (Emmers-Sommer, 2002). According to Emmers-Sommer and Allen (2005), ‘‘anxiety and uncertainty about sexual scripts creates the pressure to avoid actions that could possibly be interpreted negatively by the partner’’ (p. 9). Thus, individuals, even without the influences of substances, might engage in HRSB because of mediated influences, past experiences with dating scripts, personal sexual desires, or succumbing to pressure of lack of efficacy in executing the interpersonal script. As noted above in McCabe and Killackey’s (2004) study, intention had little to do with sexual behavior, but past experience and perceived behavioral control did influence sexual behavior. Thus, if HRSB is part of one’s script and past experience and he or she perceive poor behavioral control (e.g., cannot resist urges or partner, or behavior control influenced by drugs and=or alcohol), then one could argue that the continuance of engagement in HRSB is likely. JUSTIFICATION FOR STUDY Overall, cultural, intrapsychic, and interpersonal scripts comingle to guide our behavior in sexual situations. However, existing theoretical models that seek to explain an individual’s decision to engage in HRSB tend to test specific elements in isolation that affect likelihood of engaging in HRSB rather than examining the combined influence of multiple variables on the decisionmaking process (Atkins et al., 2001). This is problematic because variables such as substance use, relationship exclusivity, moral development, religiosity, and sensation-seeking have been found, in some cases, to mediate the sexual decision-making process (Pinkerton & Abrahmson, 1995). No study to date, however, has included all these variables in one coherent model. Another limitation with the extant literature is the limited generalizability. Much of the literature focuses on one group of individuals or a specific group within the population, such as gay men (Kalichman, Tannenbaum, & Nachimson, 1998; Meyer-Bahlburg et al., 1991), ethnic minorities (Robinson, Scheltema, & Cherry, 2005; Thompson-Robinson et al., 2005), and adolescents (see, for example, Luster & Small, 1994; Pedlow & Carey, 2004; Serovich & Greene, 1997). Further, studies that have combined two or more factors Downloaded by [University of Nevada Las Vegas] at 14:32 09 September 2014 Testing a Model Predicting Risky Sexual Behavior 113 tended to focus on minorities combined with adolescents, again limiting generalizability (see, for example, Deardorff, Tschann, Flores, & Ozer, 2010). Few studies, however, are devoted to explaining the high-risk sexual decision-making processes of the majority population of heterosexual men and women. In fact, most of the literature devoted to adult heterosexual men and women in regard to HRSB has focused solely on the personality traits that affect sexual risk-taking (Hoyle et al., 2000). Finally, sexual scripts, albeit a contributing factor, do not fully explain variance in sexual behavior. Other factors, although related, might explain unique variance. These factors are explicated below in the discussion of the model. Our research question was to explore the extent by which each of these main factors contribute, both singularly and collectively, to one’s engagement in HRSB. Proposed Model The model we tested has five factors: sociodemographic, active sanctions, cultural=socialization, relational factors, and individual factors. The sociodemographic factor includes variables such as age, relationship stage, ethnicity, sex and orientation, socioeconomic status, and education, many of which have been demonstrated in previous literature to be related to HRSB. Based on findings that sanctions impact one’s decision to engage in extradyadic sexual activity (Emmers-Sommer, Warber, & Halford, 2010), active sanctions refer to factors comprised of personal sanctions, social sanctions, legal sanctions, and relationship sanctions. METHODS For the purpose of this research project, HRSB was defined as any sexual behavior that might expose an individual and=or his or her partner to significant physical or emotional consequences to health and safety (e.g., oral= vaginal=anal intercourse without a condom, having sex with an IV drug user, having sex with someone who already has an STI, engaging in sex with multiple partners, etc.). This was measured through participants’ self-report responses to an item inquiring about their participation in ‘‘risky’’ sexual experiences. In total, we evaluated 26 variables across five factors (see Table 1 for factors and variables). Instruments . Factor 1: Sociodemographic: Items subsumed in this factor include age, parent= family structure, relationship stage, religion, ethnicity, sex and sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and education level. Religiosity was 114 K. M. Hertlein et al. TABLE 1 Variables and Factors Tested Factor Individual Downloaded by [University of Nevada Las Vegas] at 14:32 09 September 2014 Sociodemographic Cultural Active sanctions Relational Variables Alternatives Substance usage Sexual drive Extramarital sexual permissiveness Intimacy and sexual decision-making Self-enhancement and sexual decision-making Sexual sensation-seeking Ethnicity Education Age Religion Socioeconomic status Sex Parent=family structure Relationship stage Sex role stereotyping Sexual fantasy Sexual conservatism Pornography usage Personal sanctions Legal sanctions Social sanctions Relational sanctions Commitment Investment Relationship satisfaction Past experience with infidelity Denotes the relational variables unique to HRSB models. . . . assessed with a three-item, unidimensional scale (Greenberg, 1985) (Cronbach’s a ¼ .79) (Appendix A). Factor 2: Active sanctions: This factor evaluated the impact of personal, legal, relational, and social sanctions on one’s propensity to be unfaithful (Cronbach’s a ¼ .68). Factor 3: Cultural Socialization: Instruments in this factor included the Derogatis Sexual Functioning Inventory (DSFI; Derogatis, 1975) Sexual Fantasy scale, and the DSFI (Cronbach’s a ¼ .83), Sexual Conservatism scale (Cronbach’s a ¼ .87). Participants were also asked about the frequency of their pornography usage. Factor 4: Relational Factors: For this factor we used the Rusbult, Martz, and Agnew’s (1998) measures of commitment (Cronbach’s a ¼ .87) and investment (Cronbach’s a ¼ .91). Sexual satisfaction was assessed with two measures, one measuring sexual satisfaction and the other asking participants to rank their satisfaction, both from the DSFI (Cronbach’s a ¼ .83). To assess HRSB as it relates to family history, past relational experience were asked. Testing a Model Predicting Risky Sexual Behavior 115 APPENDIX A Description of Inventories and Sample Item Factor Instrument Downloaded by [University of Nevada Las Vegas] at 14:32 09 September 2014 Sociodemographic Greenberg religiosity factor Active sanctions factor Sanctions scale Cultural socialization factor Burt (1980) role stereotyping DSFI Sexual Fantasy scale Description 3 items 1 ¼ strongly agree 4 ¼ strongly disagree Likert type scale 4 items 1 ¼ strongly disagree 9 ¼ strongly agree Likert type scale 10 items 1 ¼ strongly agree 7 ¼ strongly disagree Likert type scale 20 items Dichotomous DSFI Sexual Conservatism scale Relational factor Individual factor 30 items –2 ¼ strongly disagree, 2 ¼ strongly agree Likert type scale 7 items Rusbult et al. (1998) 1 ¼ do not agree at all, Commitment 9 ¼ agree completely measure Likert type scale Rusbult et al. (1998) 5 items Investment measure 1 ¼ do not agree at all, 9 ¼ agree completely Likert type scale Sample items ‘‘Religion is very important to me’’ ‘‘My religion influences the way I act.’’ ‘‘People are monogamous because they fear social sanctions (e.g., family, friends would disapprove of a person’s cheating)’’ ‘‘People are monogamous because they fear legal sanctions (e.g., being sued for divorce on the grounds of infidelity).’’ ‘‘It is acceptable for the woman to pay for the date’’ ‘‘A woman should never contradict her husband in public.’’ ‘‘Having more than one sexual partner at a time’’ ‘‘Dressing in clothes of the opposite sex.’’ ‘‘Premarital intercourse is beneficial to later marital adjustment’’ ‘‘Sex is morally right only when it is intended to produce children’’ ‘‘I am committed to maintaining my relationship with my partner’’ ‘‘I want our relationship to last a very long time.’’ ‘‘I have put a great deal into our relationship that I would lose if the relationship ended’’ ‘‘I feel very involved in our relationship—like I have put a great deal into it.’’ ‘‘Usually, I am satisfied with my sexual partner’’ ‘‘I feel I do not have sex frequently enough.’’ 0 ¼ could not be worse, 8 ¼ could not be better ‘‘The people other than my partner are very appealing’’ ‘‘My needs for intimacy, companionship, etc. would easily be fulfilled elsewhere=with another person.’’ ‘‘Would you accept an extrarelational encounter in which physical pleasure is your focus even through your mate would not accept your having such a relationship?’’ ‘‘Would you accept an extra-relational encounter in which physical pleasure is your focus if your mate would accept your having this type of relationship?’’ ‘‘flirting,’’ ‘‘sexual intercourse’’ ‘‘long term sexual relationship.’’ DSFI Sexual satisfaction (I) 10 items True=False DSFI Sexual Satisfaction (II) Rusbalt et al. (1998) Alternatives scale 1 item Rank order 5 item 1 ¼ do not agree at all 9 ¼ agree completely Likert type scale Schwartz & Reis (1995) Extramarital Permissiveness scale 4 items 1 ¼ definitely 4 ¼ never Likert type scale Buunk (1998) Extramarital Intentions 5 items 1 ¼ certainly not 5 ¼ certainly yes Likert type scale ‘‘My desire to be a virgin when I marry.’’ 24-item ‘‘My church’s teachings about the use of 1 ¼ of no importance birth control.’’ 5 ¼ extremely important Likert type scale Juhasz and SonnensheinSchneider (1978) Sexual Decisionmaking Kalichman et al. (1994) 9 item 1 ¼ not at all like me 4 ¼ Very much like me Likert type scale ‘‘I like wild, ‘uninhibited’ sexual encounters’’ ‘‘I feel like exploring my sexuality.’’ 116 Downloaded by [University of Nevada Las Vegas] at 14:32 09 September 2014 . K. M. Hertlein et al. Factor 5: Individual Factors: This factor is composed of a variety of measures that tap into the individual factors that impact HRSB. Included in this were Rusbult et al.’s (1998) Alternatives scale (Cronbach’s a ¼ .85) and Buunk’s (1998) Extramarital Intentions scale (Cronbach’s a ¼ .88). Given a host of previous research also supports the notion that alcohol and other substances contribute to engagement in risky sexual behavior (see, for example, Hall, Fals-Stewart, & Fincham, 2008), alcohol and substance usage was assessed using a four-item scale developed by the research team. Participants completed the Sexual Drive Attitude scale from the DSFI, which assesses frequency of a variety of sexual behaviors, as well as a modified version of Schwartz and Reis’ (1995) Extramarital Permissiveness scale (modified to fit all relationship types) (Cronbach’s a ¼ .84). Participants then addressed the Sexual Sensation-Seeking scale (Kalichman et al., 1994). Sexual decision-making was assessed by participants’ responses to two scales within Juhasz and Sonnenshein-Schneider’s (1978) Sexual Decision-making questionnaire (Intimacy & Sex and SelfEnhancement) (Cronbach’s a ¼ .89).1 Participants Participants were recruited both online via Usenet message boards as well as from an introductory-level undergraduate courses at a large, metropolitan university in the southwestern United States. Students who chose to participate were rewarded with extra credit in their courses. Usenet is a world-wide distributed discussion system consisting of a set of ‘‘newsgroups’’ with names that are classified hierarchically by subject. ‘‘Articles’’ or ‘‘messages’’ are posted to these newsgroups by people on computers with the appropriate software; these articles are then broadcast to other interconnected computer systems via a wide variety of networks. Some newsgroups are ‘‘moderated’’; in these newsgroups, the articles are first sent to a moderator for approval before appearing in the newsgroup. Usenet is available on a wide variety of computer systems and networks, but the bulk of modern Usenet traffic is transported over the Internet. This study was approved by a university institutional review board. Sample A total of 871 people participated in the survey over an approximate 18-month period. The participants in the study ranged in age from to 17 to 60, with an average age of 21.25 (standard deviation ¼ 5.052). Approximately 40.8% of those in the study were men (n ¼ 355) and 56.4% women (n ¼ 491). 1 We also used other inventories to assess the other factors, but again, as our research as presented here focused on relational factors, they are not included within the text. See Appendix A for information on other scales used. Downloaded by [University of Nevada Las Vegas] at 14:32 09 September 2014 Testing a Model Predicting Risky Sexual Behavior 117 The 25 participants who did not report gender were not included in further analyses, dropping the sample size to 846. Participants were asked to self-report ethnicities with which they identified. Seven reported three ethnic identifications and 62 reported two ethnic identifications. The ethnic affiliations reported were White (non-Hispanic, n ¼ 476, 51.2%) followed by Hispanic (n ¼ 166, 17.9%), African American (n ¼ 123, 13.2%), Asian (n ¼ 94, 10.1%), Pacific Islander (n ¼ 35, 3.8%), and Native American (n ¼ 13, 1.4%). The rest of the sample was composed of people identifying as ‘‘Other’’ (n ¼ 22). The total number was higher than 846 due to multiple ethnicities being reported. Approximately 35% of the respondents indicated they were seriously dating one partner (n ¼ 298), with 30% of the respondents not dating anyone (n ¼ 254), 16.5% reporting they were dating one partner (n ¼ 140), 8% reporting they were married (n ¼ 68), 5.4% reporting they were casually dating multiple partners (n ¼ 46), 4% reporting they were engaged (n ¼ 34), and less than 1% indicating they were seriously dating multiple partners (n ¼ 6). Procedures Data were collected anonymously via an Internet survey. In extant research addressing the effect of confidentiality on self-report behavior, several researchers (see, for example, Emmers-Sommer & Burns, 2005; Singer, Von Thurn, & Miller, 1995) found that participant assurances of confidentiality regarding their behavioral self-reports increase data quality when the data are sensitive in nature. RESULTS We entered the variables belonging to each factor into blocks onto PASW version 18.0. Because some of the relational factors go across factors, we examined what each item contributes to our overall understanding of decision-making with regard to HRSB. Data were normally distributed for both men and women on the risky sexual behavior variable, although men (mean ¼ 4.75, standard deviation ¼ 2.75, n ¼ 355) scored significantly higher on risky sexual behavior than women (mean ¼ 3.48, standard deviation ¼ 2.15, n ¼ 491), t ¼ 7.57, p < .001, df ¼ 677. Data were analyzed through a block regression enter method. Descriptive information on the variables can be found in Table 2, and correlations can be found in Table 6. Variance Explained The model explained 50.5% of the variance in the model explaining HRSB for both men and women combined for the whole data set but increased to 57.0% when we only included cases where participants indicated they were in a relationship. For men, the model explained 48.2% of the variance 118 K. M. Hertlein et al. TABLE 2 ANOVA TABLE – Gender Model Men Relation Sanction Downloaded by [University of Nevada Las Vegas] at 14:32 09 September 2014 Cultural Individual Socio Women Relation Sanction Cultural Individual Socio Regression Residual Total Regression Residual Total Regression Residual Total Regression Residual Total Regression Residual Total Regression Residual Total Regression Residual Total Regression Residual Total Regression Residual Total Regression Residual Total Sum of squares df 350556 1315.21 1350.77 105.10 1245.66 1350.77 656.64 694.12 1350.77 732.90 617.86 1350.77 762.23 588.53 1350.77 41.68 1107.92 1149.60 104.14 1045.45 1149.60 462.30 687.29 1149.60 581.89 567.70 1149.60 604.55 545.04 1149.60 6 207 213 12 201 213 14 199 213 26 187 213 34 179 213 6 260 266 12 254 266 14 252 266 26 240 266 34 232 266 Mean square F Sig. 5.29 6.35 .93 .47 8.75 6.19 1.41 .16 46.90 3.48 13.44 .00 28.18 3.30 8.53 .00 22.41 3.28 6.81 .00 6.94 4.26 1.63 .13 8.67 4.11 2.10 .01 33.02 2.72 12.10 .00 22.38 2.36 9.46 .00 17.78 2.34 7.56 .00 in HRSB (Table 4). For women, the model predicted 45.6% of HRSB. For both men and women, three of the five factors contributed significantly to the variance: the cultural factor, the individual factor, and the sociodemographic TABLE 3 Descriptive Statistics Age Fantasy Conservative Sanction Commitment Investment Alternative Conservatism Decision n Minimum Maximum Mean Standard deviation Cronbach’s a 844 871 787 861 697 840 738 829 778 0 0 46 4 7 4 6 9 23 60 20 117 28 63 36 54 63 103 21.25 5.25 75.49 18.91 51.12 26.83 29.72 35.32 56.27 5.05 3.67 10.24 4.66 12.48 8.19 10.24 10.13 15.80 .73 .72 .87 .91 .85 .83 .89 119 Testing a Model Predicting Risky Sexual Behavior TABLE 4 Model Summary Downloaded by [University of Nevada Las Vegas] at 14:32 09 September 2014 R Total model Sanctions .318 Cultural .664 Individual .722 Relational .728 Sociodemographic .737 Model for those only in a relationship Relational .173 Sanction .349 Cultural .698 Individual .783 Sociodemographic .795 Regression for men Relational .162 Sanction .279 Cultural .697 Individual .737 Sociodemographic .751 Regression for women Relational .190 Sanction .301 Cultural .634 Individual .711 Sociodemographic .725 R2 Adjusted R2 Standard error of the estimate .101 .440 .521 .530 .543 .087 .429 .499 .501 .505 2.296 1.816 1.701 1.698 1.690 .030 .122 .487 .614 .631 .006 .074 .455 .567 .570 2.339 2.258 1.733 1.543 1.539 .026 .078 .486 .543 .564
.002 .023 .450 .479 .482 2.520 2.489 1.867 1.817 1.813 .036 .091 .402 .506 .526 .014 .048 .369 .453 .456 2.064 2.028 1.651 1.538 1.532 TABLE 5 ANOVA Table: Men and Women Combined Model Sanction Regression Residual Total Cultural Regression Residual Total Individual Regression Residual Total Relation Regression Residual Total Socio Regression Residual Total Sum of squares df Mean square F p 273.933 2,442.542 2,716.476 7 463 470 39.133 5.275 7.418 .000 1,196.022 1,520.453 2,716.476 9 461 470 132.891 3.298 40.293 .000 1,416.575 1,299.901 2,716.476 21 449 470 67.456 2.895 23.300 .000 1,439.220 1,277.256 2,716.476 27 443 470 53.304 2.883 18.488 .000 1,475.842 1,240.634 2,716.476 36 434 470 40.996 2.859 14.341 .000 120 K. M. Hertlein et al. factor. The sanctions factor was significant for women but not for men (F ¼ 2.109, df ¼ 266, p ¼ .017, and F ¼ 1.413, df ¼ 213, p ¼ .162, respectively). The remaining two factors (relational and sanctions) were not significant for men or women (F ¼ .933, df ¼ 213, p ¼ .472 and F ¼ 1.630, df ¼ 266, p < .139, respectively) (Table 5). Downloaded by [University of Nevada Las Vegas] at 14:32 09 September 2014 DISCUSSION Consistent with our literature review, our data support the contention that the sexual scripts and the cultural, intrapsychic, and interpersonal components of those scripts have a significant impact on likelihood of engaging in HRSB. As noted above, three factors for men and four for women were significant. Individual sanctions explained unique variance for both men and women in the model. The measures within this factor focused on an individual’s propensity to engage in reckless behavior. The factor considered things such as an individual’s perception of how many alternatives he or she had to the current relationship—the more alternatives one has, the more likely he or she is to stray or engage in reckless behavior (e.g., Emmers-Sommer et al., 2010). It also included a person’s sexual permissivity—that is, the likelihood to stray with or without a partner’s knowledge and acceptance of the affair. This factor also includes an individual’s likelihood of using substances, such as drugs or alcohol, and considers one’s sexual drive and sensation-seeking, self-enhancement, and intimacy. These personal inclinations affect one’s HRSB and relate to sexual script theory (Metts & Spitzberg, 1996). Cultural scripts provide models for what is ‘‘right’’ and ‘‘wrong,’’ yet such scripts are heavily influenced by the media. Mediated messages often glamorize risky sex, drug use and its euphoric states, additional sexual rushes from substance inclusion, and so on. Some films, such as Requiem for a Dream and Trainspotting, were criticized for the sexualization of drug use. An individual’s intrapsychic script focuses on one’s own personal desires. An individual’s propensity and desire to be risky and reckless influence, as do cultural scripts, how one’s interpersonal script with a partner plays out. The factor that contributed the most unique variance to the model was the cultural factor, which included gender role stereotyping, sexual fantasy, sexual conservatism, and pornography usage. Men and women often receive variant sociocultural messages with regard to sex. Men are acculturated to believe they should be sexually proactive and active, to relish conquests, to engage in numerous short-term pair bonded unions, and to be championed for ‘‘playing the field.’’ Women, on the other hand, are socialized to be more demure and chaste with their sexuality, to focus on mate and relational quality as opposed to personal needs or goals, including personal sexual gratification, and are frowned upon for sexual permissiveness and Downloaded by [University of Nevada Las Vegas] at 14:32 09 September 2014 TABLE 6 Correlation Matrix Age Fantasy 121 Age Pearson’s r p (2-tailed) n 844 Fantasy Pearson’s r p (2-tailed) n .125 .000 844 Conserv Pearson’s r p (2-tailed) n Sanction Pearson’s r p (2-tailed) n
.080 .020 835 Commit Pearson’s r p (2-tailed) n .029 .440 690 Invest Pearson’s r p (2-tailed) n .097 .005 831 Conservatism Pearson’s r p (2-tailed) n Decision Pearson’s r p (2-tailed) n Alternative Pearson’s r p (2-tailed) n Conserv Sanction Commit Invest DSFIATT Decision Alternative Risky sex Relationship satisfaction DSFI sexual satisfaction scale 1 1 871 
.446 .000 787  .078 .021 861
.092 .011 768 .105 .003 813    1 787 1
.054 .131 778 861
.126 .001 697 .111 .005 639
.002 .958 690 .006 .866 840 .066 .067 767 .054 .122 832  .560 .000 829  
.490 .000 763  .432 .000 716
.184 .000 759
.196 .000 778
.068 .066 730 .123 .001 738    
.082 .033 680 1 697 .674 .000 692 .129 .000 821
.201 .000 677 .105 .004 771 .060 .132 629   .045 .220 731  
.574 .000 612 1 840 1
.085 .016 815 829 .066 .070 757
.233 .000 748 
.397 .000 730 .250 .000 717  1 778
.035 .364 667 1 738 (Continued ) Downloaded by [University of Nevada Las Vegas] at 14:32 09 September 2014 TABLE 6 Continued Age 122 Conserv Sanction Commit Invest DSFIATT Decision .560 .000 829
.490 .000 763 .129 .000 821
.201 .000 677
.085 .016 815 1.000 .000 829
.233 .000 748 .250 .000 717 829 .020 .572 801
.263 .000 663
.228 .000 795 .036 .314 785
.075 .044 730 .217 .000 704 .036 .314 785 809 .263 .000 661 .215 .000 796 .061 .089 784  .061 .089 784
.548 .000 793 Pearson’s r p (2-tailed) n self-report satisfaction Pearson’s r p (2-tailed) n
.018 .605 796
.028 .424 809 DSFI satisfaction scale Pearson’s r p (2-tailed) n .028 .437 797 .064 .068 809  .105 .003 813 Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed). Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).  Relationship satisfaction Fantasy Combination of .039 .292 741 
.141 .000 739
.007 .841 801  
.052 .159 729 Alternative Risky sex
.149 .000 701 DSFI sexual satisfaction scale 1 1 1 809 Downloaded by [University of Nevada Las Vegas] at 14:32 09 September 2014 Testing a Model Predicting Risky Sexual Behavior 123 ‘‘promiscuity’’ (e.g., Byers, 1996; Emmers-Sommer, 2002; Frith & Kitzinger, 2001). Because women are socially conditioned to be the relational gatekeeper and harmonizer, they may often be put into tenuous sexual situations where they are faced with a choice of obliging the partner or following their own desires. If a partner wants to engage in risky sexual behavior and the woman does not (e.g., unprotected vaginal or anal intercourse), she has a choice to make. Given women are often socialized, by virtue of their gender and reduced power and privilege, to act as obligatory agents, they might begrudgingly oblige the male partner’s risky sexual request. Related to this factor, a woman’s pornography usage, particularly as a coviewer, and partner’s sexual fantasizing explained variance, as did one’s sexual conservatism. From a sexual script theory standpoint, what can occur, and to the detriment of the woman, is her privileging a man’s intrapsychic script (i.e., his personal wants and desires) over her own intrapsychic script. Compounded with the cultural script in place privileging male power, the interpersonal script can play out privileging the male partner’s sexuality as opposed to her own (or her own safety). In some ways, we are at a crossroads because, despite traditional sexual script existence and conditioning, there is increased recognition of women as breadwinners, as being independent, and as being sexually proactive (e.g., ‘‘cougars’’). As such, there is increased mediated focus on women in more male-oriented roles, although there has not been longitudinal study regarding the acceptance of such images and whether such representations translate to behavior and the responses to such behavior. The sociodemographic factor was significant as well for both men and women and explained unique variance in the model. This factor included ethnicity, age, education level, religiosity, gender, socioeconomic status, parental= family structure, and relational stage. What was interesting in this investigation is that more variance in the model was explained for both men and women if those in relationships were analyzed only. One might expect individuals who are in less-risky relationships are more monogamous. However, individuals often abandon condom use in favor of other forms of birth control, such as the pill, when relational development advances (Metts & Fitzpatrick, 1992). The elimination of condoms in a relationship could be risky if one or both partners engage in risk behaviors such as unprotected sex or IV drug use. Finally, the factor of active sanctions was significant for women but not for men. Active sanctions involve personal, legal, social, and relational sanctions (Emmers-Sommer et al., 2010). This measure was developed to address reasons individuals would or would not be unfaithful in a relationship (Emmers-Sommer et al., 2010). Personal sanctions include self-guilt or shame. Legal sanctions include, for example, being sued for divorce due to infidelity or having legal action taken against an individual due to indiscretions. Social sanctions include individuals in one’s social network, for example, frowning upon one’s sexual behavior, feeling judged, or being ostracized for one’s behavioral choices. Finally, relational sanctions are 124 K. M. Hertlein et al. the consequences one might receive from a relational partner due to the indiscretions (e.g., terminating the relationship, threatening to terminate the relationship, silent treatment, etc.). Women’s scripts vary from men’s, as mentioned earlier, in that women are socialized to be the relational gatekeeper and harmonizer. That perspective might explain why sanctions could serve to hold a woman back in terms of engaging in reckless sexual behavior (e.g., consequences for my partner, children, family, etc.). Downloaded by [University of Nevada Las Vegas] at 14:32 09 September 2014 LIMITATIONS There were three main limitations to this study. As is true with many of the studies on HRSB, our sample was one of convenience from a local university. This university, however, functions more of a commuter campus than a traditional university setting and, as such, represents a more diverse student population. Future research should focus on replicating these findings with a sample drawn from a population more representative of a more non–college-aged adult population. Second, the sheer number of variables in the data contributed to the consideration that 800 participants were not yet an adequate sample size for a path or structural modeling analysis in this exploratory project. Scholars might consider using our findings here to inform future models and to pare down the number of variables to run an appropriate model. Third, and finally, the conceptualization and operationalization of ‘‘risky sex’’ varies from person to person and the contexts=circumstances vary. For example, an individual might engage in unprotected sex with multiple partners, but those partners just happen to be STI free as opposed to someone who engages in unprotected sex with one partner, but he or she engages in IV drug use, is non-monogamous, or has an STI. As such, one must consider risky behavior as opposed to risk outcomes and the circumstances that exist a priori. CONCLUSION Several important implications emerge from these findings. First, as an early attempt to understand how many factors work collectively to explain participation in HRSB, future models should consider incorporating cultural, sociodemographic, and individual factors. It would also be of interest to identify whether these findings persevere should researchers select different instruments. Second, there is little support for the impact of relationship variables such as relationship or sexual satisfaction. Future research may determine that they need to measure these variables differently or not at all. Third, there is some evidence to support the contention that the paths of HRSB may be different between men and women. Future research should incorporate both the variables of gender and information about sex Testing a Model Predicting Risky Sexual Behavior 125 role=gender role stereotyping to better understand differences in the paths for HRSB for men and women. Downloaded by [University of Nevada Las Vegas] at 14:32 09 September 2014 REFERENCES Abelson, R. P. (1981). Psychological status of the script concept. American Psychologist, 36, 715–729. Allen, M., Emmers, T., Gebhardt, L., & Giery, M. A. (1995). Exposure to pornography and acceptance of rape myths. Journal of Communication, 45, 5–26. Ariely, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2006). The heat of the moment: The effect of sexual arousal on sexual decision making. Behavioral Decision Making, 19, 87–98. Atkins, D. C., Baucom, D. H., & Jacobson, N. S. (2001). Understanding infidelity: Correlates in a national random sample. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 735–749. Bandura, A. (1978). Social learning theory of aggression. Journal of Communication, 28, 12–29. Buunk, B. P. (1988). The extramarital behavioral intentions scale. In C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Sexually-related measures. A compendium, (pp. 99–100). Lake Mills, IA: Graphic Publishing. Byers, E. S. (1996). How well does the traditional sexual script explain coercion?. Review of a program of research. In E. S. Byers & F. O’Sullivan (Eds.), Sexual coercion in dating relationships, (pp. 7–26). New York, NY: Hawthorne. Canary, D. J., & Emmers-Sommer, T. M. (1997). Sex and gender differences in personal relationships. New York, NY: Guilford. Centers for Disease Control, & Prevention. (2008). National Center for HIV=AIDS, viral hepatitis, STD, and TB prevention. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/ nchhstp/docs/NCHHSTP-Annual-Report-508c.pdf Daugherty, L. R., & Burger, J. M. (1984). The influence of parents, church, and peers on the sexual attitudes and behaviors of college students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 13, 351–359. Deardorff, J., Tschann, J. M., Flores, E., & Ozer, E. J. (2010). Sexual values and risky sexual behaviors among Latino youths. Journal of Sex Research, 41, 23–32. Derogatis, L. R. (1975). Derogatis Sexual Functioning Inventory (DSFI): Preliminary scoring manual. Baltimore, MD: Clinical Psychometric Research. Derogatis, L. R., & Melisaratos, N. (1979). The DSFI: A multidimensional measure of sexual functioning. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 5, 244–281. Donohew, L., Zimmerman, R., Cupp, P. S., Novak, S., Colon, S., & Abell, R. (2000). Sensation seeking, impulsive decision-making, and risky sex: Implications for risk-taking and design interventions. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 1079–1091. Duncan, D. (1990). Pornography as a source of sex information for university students. Psychological Reports, 66, 442. Duncan, D., & Donnelly, J. (1991). Pornography as a source of sex information for students at a private Northeastern university. Psychological Reports, 68, 782. Duncan, D., & Nicholson, T. (1991). Pornography as a source of sex information for students at a Southeastern university. Psychological Reports, 68, 802. Downloaded by [University of Nevada Las Vegas] at 14:32 09 September 2014 126 K. M. Hertlein et al. Ebron, A. (1999). What your kids want to know about sex, drugs, and violence. Family Circle, 112, 44–46. Emmers-Sommer, T. M. (2002). Sexual coercion and resistance. In M. Allen, R. W. Preiss, B. M. Gayle & N. Burrell (Eds.), Interpersonal communication: Advances in meta-analysis, (pp. 315–343). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Emmers-Sommer, T. M., & Allen, M. (2005). Safer sex in personal relationships: The role of sexual scripts in HIV infection and prevention. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Emmers-Sommer, T. M., & Burns, R. J. (2005). The relationship between exposure to Internet pornography and sexual attitudes toward women. Journal of Online Behavior, 1 (4). Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/63041/. Emmers-Sommer, T. M., Farrell, J., Gentry, A., Stevens, S., Eckstein, J., Battocletti, J., & Gardener, C. (2010). First date sexual expectations: The effects of who asked, who paid, date location and gender. Communication Studies, 61, 339–355. Emmers-Sommer, T. M., Pauley, P., Hanzal, A., & Triplett, L. (2006). Love, suspense, sex and violence: Men’s and women’s film predilections, exposure to sexually violent media, and their relationship to rape myth acceptance. Sex Roles, 55, 311–320. Emmers-Sommer, T. M., Triplett, L., Pauley, P., Hanzal, A., & Rhea, D. (2005). The impact of film manipulation on men and women’s attitudes toward women and film editing. Sex Roles, 52, 683–695. Emmers-Sommer, T. M., Warber, K., & Halford, J. (2010). Reasons for (non) engagement in infidelity. Marriage and Family Review, 46, 420–444. Frith, H., & Kitzinger, C. (2001). Reformulating sexual script theory: Developing a discursive psychology of sexual negotiation. Theory and Psychology, 11, 209–232. Greenberg, J. S. (1985). Health and wellness: A conceptual differentiation. Journal of School Health, 55, 403–406. Hall, J. H., Fals-Stewart, W., & Fincham, F. D. (2008). Risky sexual behavior among married alcoholic men. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 287–292. Herrett-Skjellum, J., & Allen, M. (1996). Television programming and sexual stereotypes: A meta-analysis. In B. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 19, (pp. 157–186). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hoyle, R. H., Fejfar, M. C., & Miller, J. D. (2000). Personality and sexual risk taking: A quantitative review. Journal of Personality, 68, 1203–1231. Hynie, M., Lydon, J. E., Coté, S., & Wiener, S. (1998). Relational sexual scripts and women’s condom use: The importance or internalized norms. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 370–380. Jensen, L., Newell, R. J., & Holman T. (1990). Sexual behavior, church attendance, and permissive beliefs among unmarried young men and women. Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion, 29, 113–117. Juhasz, A. M., Sonnenshein-Schneider, M. (1980). Adolescent sexual decisionmaking: Components and skills. Adolescence, 15, 743–750. Kalichman, S. C., Johnson, J. R., Adair, V., Rompa, D., Multhauf, K., & Kelly, J. A. (1994). Sexual sensation seeking: Scale development and predicting AIDS-risk behavior among homosexually active men. Journal of Personality Assessment, 62, 385–397. Kalichman, S. C., Tannenbaum, L., & Nachimson, D. (1998). Personality and cognitive factors influencing substance use and sexual risk for HIV infection among gay and bisexual men. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 12, 262–271. Downloaded by [University of Nevada Las Vegas] at 14:32 09 September 2014 Testing a Model Predicting Risky Sexual Behavior 127 Luster, T., & Small, S. A. (1994). Factors associated with sexual risk-taking behaviors among adolescents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 622–632. Mashegoane, S., Moalusi, K. P., Ngoepe, M. A., & Peltzer, K. (2002). Sexual sensation seeking and risky sexual behavior among South African university students. Social Behavior and Personality, 30, 475–484. Masters, N. T., Casey, E., Wells, E. A., & Morrison, D. M. (2013). Sexual scripts among young heterosexually active men and women: Continuity and change. Journal of Sex Research, 50, 409–420. McCabe, M. P., & Killackey, E. J. (2004). Sexual decision making in young women. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 19, 15–27. McCormick, N. B. (2010). Preface to sexual scripts: Social and therapeutic implications. Sexual and Relational Therapy, 25, 91–95. Metts, S., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1992). Thinking about safer sex: The risky business of ‘‘know your partner’’ advice. In T. Edgar, M. A. Fitzpatrick, & V. S. Freimuth (Eds.), AIDS: A communication perspective, (pp. 1–20). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Metts, S., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1996). Sexual communication in interpersonal contexts: A script-based approach. In B. R. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 19, (pp. 49–91). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Meyer-Bahlburg, H. F. L., Exner, T. M., Lorenz, G., Gruen, R. S., Gorman, J. M., & Ehrhardt, A. A. (1991). Sexual risk behavior, sexual functioning, and HIV-disease progression in gay men. Journal of Sex Research, 28, 3–28. Pearson, J., Muller, C., & Frisco, M. L. (2006). Parental involvement, family structure, and adolescent sexual decision making. Sociological Perspective, 49, 67–90. Pedlow, C. T, & Carey, M. P. (2004). Developmentally appropriate sexual risk reduction interventions for adolescents: Rationale, review of interventions, and recommendations for research and practice. Society of Behavioral Medicine, 27, 172–184. Pinkerton, S. D., & Abramson, P. R. (1995). Decision making and personality factors in sexual risk-taking for HIV=AIDS: A theoretical integration. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 713–723. Richard, R., Van Der Pligt, J., & De Vries, N. (1996). Anticipated regret and time perspective: Changing sexual risk-taking behavior. Journal of Behavior Decision Making, 9, 185–199. Robinson, B. E., Scheltema, K., & Cherry, T. (2005). Risky sexual behavior in low-income African American women: The impact of sexual health variables. Journal of Sex Research, 42, 224–237. Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The investment model scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357–391. Schwartz, I. M., & Reiss, I. L. (1995). The scaling of premarital sexual permissiveness revisited: Test results of Reis’s [sic] new short form version. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 21, 78–86. Serovich, J. M., & Greene K. (1997). Predictors of adolescent sexual risk taking behaviors which put them at risk for contracting HIV. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26, 429–444. Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (1984). Sexual scripts. Society, 22, 52–60. Downloaded by [University of Nevada Las Vegas] at 14:32 09 September 2014 128 K. M. Hertlein et al. Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (1986). Sexual scripts: Permanence and change. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15, 97–120. Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (1987). A sexual scripts approach. In J. H. Greer & W. T. O’Donohue (Eds.), Theories of human sexuality, (pp. 363–383). New York, NY: Plenum. Singer, E., Von Thurn, D. R., & Miller, E. R. (1995). Confidentiality assurances and response: A quantitative of the experimental literature. Public Opinion Quarterly, 59, 66–77. Strasburger, V. C., & Donnerstein, E. (1999). Children, adolescents, and the media. Issues and solutions. Pediatrics, 103, 129–139. Strong, D. A., Bancroft, J., Carnes, L. A., Davis, L. A., & Kennedy, J. (2005). The impact of sexual arousal on sexual risk-taking: A qualitative study. Journal of Sex Research, 42, 185–191. Thompson-Robinson, M. V., Richter, D. L., Shehog, M. L., Weaver, M., Trahan, L., Sellers, D. B., & Brown, V. L. (2005). Perceptions of partner risk and influences on sexual decision-making for HIV prevention among students at historically black colleges and universities. Journal of African American Studies, 9, 16–28.