Safe and Unsafe Sexual Intentions and Behavior: The Effects of Norms and Attitudes1

Cindy Gallois · Yoshihisa Kashima · Deborah J. Terry · Malcolm McCamish · Perri Timmins · Anita Chauvin

24 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Applied Social Psychology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Behavioral Health and Interventions HIV/AIDS Research and Interventions Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health

Abstract

A study of 85 heterosexual men, 85 heterosexual women, and 82 homosexual men was undertaken to examine the variables that influence intentions to engage in different sexual practices and actual sexual behavior. On the basis of Fishbein and Ajzen's (1975) theory of reasoned action, it was predicted that the strength of intentions would be related to whether behavior was in accord with intentions. Consistent with expectations, the strength of intention to engage in six different sexual practices (e. g., vaginal intercourse, anal intercourse, oral sex) and the three strategies that modify the risk of HIV transmission (sex with an exclusive partner, sex wearing a condom, and looking for a new partner) predicted actual behavior. Second, it was proposed that attitudes toward one's sexual practices and norms would be related to intentions to engage in safe sex. To reflect differential levels in the safety of behavioral intentions, five safety intention groups were formed: (a) nonpenetrative sex, (b) penetrative sex in an exclusive relationship with a condom, (c) penetrative sex in an exclusive relationship without a condom, (d) penetrative sex in a nonexclusive relationship with a condom, and (e) penetrative sex in a nonexclusive relationship without a condom. Norms, rather than attitudes, distinguished the five safety intention groups. the groups intending to engage in safe sex (nonpenetrative sex or penetrative sex with a condom) perceived lower levels of social approval for their sexual practices than the noncondom groups. Additional analyses showed that past behavior had a stabilizing effect on the intention‐behavior relationship, but only for the nonpenetrative and noncondom safety intention groups.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 24 citations exist upstream.

References

1975Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research 1986Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control 1974The Health Belief Model and Preventive Health Behavior 1980Emotional Conservatism: The Basis of Social Behavior?1985Intention, perceived control, and weight loss: An application of the theory of planned behavior.1981Attitudes, intentions, and behavior: A test of some key hypotheses.1974A new approach to explaining sick-role behavior in low-income populations.1979Variables that moderate the attitude-behavior relation: Results of a longitudinal survey.

Cited by

2007Motivational Models and Volitional Processes in the Promotion of Health Behaviors.2010The Prediction of Sexual Risk Behaviors among College Students Using the Theory of Planned Behavior

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.