<r

Arfi"l" 2o

College Students Use Implicit PersonalityTheory fnstead of Safer Sex

Sunyna S. WilliamsState University ofNew York College at Buffalo

Diane L. Kimble, Nancy H. Covell, Laura H. Weiss,Kimberly J. Newton, and Jeffrey D. Fisher

University of ConnecticutWilliam A. Fisher

University of WeSern Ontario

Many collcgc shrdants cngage in hith lcvcls of unsafc sc:<uat bchavior that putsthcm rt risk for HIV infcction. To bcttqr undcrstsnd tlrc dyuurics undcrlying cdlleXcstudcnB' unsafc bcluvior, focus group disctssionr ucre conductcd with 308 stu-dants (146 mco rnd 162 woman). Thc rcsulu stro'r*cd th!t, Lrn€ad of consistan0yusing condoms, many collcgc studcnts usc implicit pcrsoillity thcorics to jndge trcriskincss ofpotcntid sa<ual partncrs. Spocifically, psrtt€rr wlrora collcgc studcstsknow rnd likc rrc not pcrccivcd to bc risky, cvan if what studatr lnow rbout tlrcscindividuals is inelcvrnt to HIV satus. The sfid€otr &tcnninc thc riskincss of pcrtncrs thcy do not tnow wcll bascd on npcr{icid clunct€ristics that rrc dso gcncr-ally unrelatcd to HIV statns. Thcrcforc, AIDS prevantion intcrvcotims for collcgestudents mrst Gxpoec thc inctfcaivcncss of thc strdcntC u:c of implicit Froulitytheorics to dctcrnrirc potcntid psrtncrC riskincss, rnd tbc trow your prrutcr' srfcrscx gui&linc should bc abandoned.

(t) Health cxperts arc irrrcasingly conccrncd who had bccn scnnlly actirc, 75%hil not always uscd

about HIV infection among ollcgc studcnts bccausc condoms during scnral inrcrcoursc and 44Vo had hadstudcnts arc continuing to cngagc in high lcvcls of un- two or morc partners. otlrcr suryc,ys (e.9, Ablcr & S€d-

safc scnral bchavior that pus thcm at risk for infcaion lacch l9S9; DcBuono, Zinncr, Daamcq & McCor-

Mllcr, Turncr, & Moscs, l99O). t. D. Fisher and W. maclq l99O; Fishcr & Misovich, l99l) harrc obtaincdA. Fishcr (1990) found that 12o/oof cr,llcge snrdcnts had similar rcsults.bccn sc:cually activc during thc prwiors ycar; of thosc

Rcpnntcd with pcrnrission frul.Jannul of .Applid Seiat PqrchotoAr, 2412):921-933. Copyritht O 1992 by V. H. Win'ston & Son, Inc. All rights rcscrvcd

Prcpantion of ttriJuticlc was supportcd by Natiorut Institutc of Mcoul Hcalth.grant MH46t24 to ,cl&cy D. Fishcr rndWilliun A. Fishcr. Wc arc gratcful to William R. t€nd€*ing urf SEph€o J. Misovich for modcrating thc mrlcottly gutpsurd !o Kclly A. Hoopcr rnd Stcptrcn J. Misovich for thcir assistarrc i! lndyzittg atrdiotapcs of thc discussions. Wc elso thanltuo rnonymous rcvicwcrs for thcir trclpfitl cornnr€nts on rn cadicr &afi.

Corciponacmc conccndng this riicle should bc lddrcssod o Sunyor S. Williuos, Oeprtnent of Ps)€hology, Ststc Uni-

vcrsig of Ncw York Collcge rt Bulhlo, Bulhlo, btY 14222.

t77

Arficle 22

(2) Therc is €vidence that there are already appre-ciabte levels of HIV seroprevalence among college stu-dents. An Amcrican Collcge Health Association study(Gayle et al., 1990) found that I in 500 college student

blood samples was HIV+. Thcrc was substantial vari-ability among the universities sampled, and because

these blood samples are now 3 ycars ol4 thc incidenceof HIV scropositivity may have increased substantiallyin the intcrim. Morcover, according to the General Ac'counting Office/Human Resources Dcpartmcnt (1990),

thc number of AIDS emcs among pcople in thcir twen-ties incrcased 4 l% during 1989. Because of the long la'tency pcriod betwccn HMnfcction and thedwelopmcnt of AIDS, many of thosc who dwelopcdAIDS in their twenties rverc probably infected throughunsafe sexual behavior during their tccns or early twen-ties, which is the average age for collegc students.

(3) In order to reduce thc amount ofunsafe sex ex-hibited by many college students, it is necessary to un-derstand the dynamics associated with their unsafe

sexual behavior. While therc is a grcat deal of quantita-tirc research doctmenting the incidence of risky sexual

behavior among students (c.g., Abler & &dlacck, 1989;DeBuono ct al., 1990: Fisher & Fisher, 1990; Fishcr &Misovich, l99l), much less work has been direcred atidentiSing the rcasons undcrlying collcgc students' un-safe sex and the conditions under which it occurs. Nev-erthcless, such rescarch" which can bcst bc pcrformcdusing qualitativc mcthods (see Fishcr & Fisher, 1992),is necessar.v both to dcvclop conccptualizations of col-lege students' unsafe sc.xual practices and to design in-terventions to changc thcsc praAices (Manning Balson,Barenberg, & Moore, 1989; Parker & Carballo, 1990).To address this need, thc prescnt study attempted togain a better understanding of the dynamics underlyingcollege students' unsafc se:.rnl behavior.

Mcthod

Ovemiew

(4) This rescarch cmployed focus group techniquesto explore the dynamics of heterosexual college stu-dents' safer and unsafe sexual behavior. Focus groups,which are often used to facilitate understanding of thcpsychological underpinnings of bchavior @asch, 1987:Nix, Pasteur. & Scrvance. 1988) and can also be used tocorroborate quantitative findings (Parkcr & Carballo,1990: Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990), provide anappropriate means to perform such an analysis.

Furthermorc, thc feasibility of using this techniquc inthe area of sexuat behavior and AIDS risk reduction re-search has bcen demonstrated b,y studies conductcd withlower incomc African American women and teenagegirls (Fullilove, Fullilovc, Haynes, & Gros, 1990), Af-rican American teenage boys (Nix et al., 1988), and gay

men (Oftir, Williams, Fisher, & Fisher, l99l).

(5) In the ctrrrcnt research, groups offour to eightcollege students nrcrc asked to discuss their safer and

unsafc sonrat behavior and thcir rcasors for cngagingin those bchaviors, as well as the contocts within whichsafer and unsafe scx occurred. Both same-scx (male'only and fcmale-only) and mixed-sex focus groups wcrcconductcd to ensurc breadth of rcnrlts. That is, althoughmixcd-sex gloups may havc morc mundanc rcalism, inthat membcrs of both sexes arc present, it is possible

that college studcnts may disclose morc in same-scxgroups.r

(6) In addition, both tpes of groups were con-ducted bccausc the two qpes of groups had differentpurposcs. The same-sex groups (in which thc discus-

sions lasted about 2 hours) were run rclely for the pur-posc of exploring the dynamics of collcge studcnts'sa&r and unsafe sonral behavior. Howcver, the mixed'sex groups (in which the discussions lasted about Ihour) werc conduclcd for another purposc as well; thcywcre conducled to pcrform a quantiutive analysis to de'termine the conscqucnces for impression formation ofan individrul taking a pro- or anti-AIDS prcvention

stance during thc foors group discussion. This latterdata will not bc addrcsscd herc.

Subjects

(7) Thc srbjects wcre 308 University of C,onnccri-

cut undcrgraduate studenls (146 mcn and 162 womcn)who were recruitcd both through an adrrcrtiscment inthe campus ncwspapcr and through thc univcrsity srb-ject pool to ensure a represcntative samplc. Thc indi-viduals received cithcr Sl0 or course cxperimentalcredits for thcir participation. Bascd on foctrs group

availability, the subjecs were assigned to same' ormixed-sex groups of four to eight subjccts cach. Onlyprcviously unacquainted people wcrc asigncd to the

same group, and therc wcre at least two men and tworvomen assigned to cach mixcd-scx group. Overall,there were 169 subjects (E0 mcn and 89 women) in 25

mixed-sex groups, 66 men in 13 maleonly groups, and73 rvomen in 13 femaleonly groups.l

Itn ,h. p.o.rr, ,o..r.h diffcrcncts in foors glorp disclssion content emong nrixcd+ct nulc.onln urd fcrndconly goupr rrcrt minimel. Ttrcrcforc.

rlr rcsults foc thc srnr. md nrixed-:cx groups wcra conrbirrcd.

t78

Aeticlc 22

Procedurc

(t) Thc protocols for rhc focus group discussionswcrc dcvelopcd in accordancc with cstablishcd guidc-lincs for focus group rescarch (Basctr, 1987; Knrcgcr,l98t). Thc discussion scssioru werc conducrd bytraincd modcrators who followcd a preparcd, scmi-structur€d outlinc. Thc modentors for the mixed-scxgroups wcrc fcmdc, whereas thosc for the samc-scxgroups werc of thc samc scx as thc goup membcrs. Thcparticipans and thc modcrator wer€ scatcd comfortablyin a circlg ud a multidircctiond microphonc was uscdto rccord thc scssion

(9) Bcforc the discnssion bcgan, the subjccts wercaskcd to rcad and sign an informcd consent form. Tbeywerc told that the discussion was being audiotapcd forlatcr rwicw by the rescarch teaq but wcrc assurcd thatthcir responscs werc conlidentid. It was also str€sscd

that thc purposc of thc discnssion was to find out whatcollcgc studcnts thi* and fccl about scx urd AIDS andthat subjoets should statc thcir opinions whcther or nottfuy agrccd with othcr group membcrs. Furthermore,tlrc participans rtrr€ told that thcy did not have to rnsrcr any questions that madc thcm unconrforuble ardthat thcy could withdraw from thc study at ary pointwithout loss of cither monetary rcmuncration or expcri.mcntal crcdil

(10) Af,er brid sclf-intrcductions, the discnssionbcgan Thc questiors lbcr$d on situatioru in whicb thcparticipants may harc had or rcfirod to havc unsafcscx, thc numbcr and t'"cs of scnul rclatiorships thcparticipans had cxpcricnccd, what malrcds of scxualprotcction thc participans orrently nscd ard wtry,what thcy likd ard dislikd about rsing condornq ardwhcther the panicipants thought that AIDS was a ooncern for collcge sftdents. Thcsc qrrcstions wrc &-sigrrcd to tap thc srudcnts' rlasons for cngaging inunsafe scnral bchavior.

Rgrltr rnd Discurslon

DataAnalysls

(ll) Bccausc fanr group data is collcctcd in groupscnings, it is inapFopriatc to at:taly?E thc data by con-ducling frequcncy counts ofresponscs within fixcd con-tcnt carcgorics (Basct\ 1987; Krucger, l9tE). Instca4

foor group discussiors should bc analfzcd using a sys-tcmatic process to cxl&rct and intcrprct dcscriptivcstatcments from audiotapcs or transcrips (Knrcgcr,l9tt). Basch suggcsts analping nrch dara by crcatingcatcgorics of idcas to gencnile thcmcs and backingthcsc thcmcs with illugrativc quotes from the discrs-sion participanls. Thc data amlytic proccdurcs for thcprcsent study followed thc above guidelincs. Foosgrup disarssion audiotapes werc analpcd by havingsctrcnl rcscalch assigans listcn to cach upc. Onlyvicr4oints raiscd in thc majority of groupe and by morcthan onc person in thc group wcrc considcrcd. Each tis-tercs gcncratcd scveral pcrccivcd themcs and cnractcddcscriptivc statsments ard quotes in support of thoscthemcs. Thc rcscarch assistants thcn discusscd thcir in-dividual findings with one anothcr in ordcr to dcrclopconscnsally Elidat€d concluioru.

Findings

(12) Thc resulc from thcsc analysis tcchniqucs arcpr€scnt€d in four shcctions which dcal with (a) how.stu&ns make judgmcnts of thc riskincss of thcir scxulpart[crsr O) thcir ssscssments of thcir orn pcrsonalrislc, (c) thcir rcasons for spocific incidcnts of unsafcsc:q and (d) thcir bclids about oondoms. Thcsc foursrbscstiors rcprcscnt Oc malr catcgorics of lindings.As noted abwq thcsc categorics originatcd'from whatthc srbjccts sai4 nthcr than from thc protocol qucs-

tions per sc. In othcr *ords, thc catcgorics were data-drivca Bccausc thc catcgorics r*trc daadriven and so

fcm subjccts wtre abcitrcnr or practied noninscrtirrcscx (only 13% of thoec in ttrc rltixcd-ccx groups had abstaimd from inscrtive scx duing thc prwios ytar), thcr€srlts cmphasizc condom usc 8s thc prinrluy AIDSprcwntion mctho4

(13) Judgmenu of thc risklncss of scxual pqfien.Ttrc deta suongly indicatcd that our rcspondcnts ap.pcarcd to harc a well.dcvclopcd ad gcncrally acccptcd

sct of idcas regarding which potcntid s€xuat panncrs

arc dsky for HIV infcaion ud which arc nol Wcfunrd coruisrcnt$ that partncrs whom *udcnls htovardrikz (irrcluding monoSlmous parurcrs who havc not

bcco tcstcd for HIV infcsrion) arc pcrccivcd as nol bc'ing risky. Onc s$jcct srnmcd up this vic,w by sayinS;

'Whco you gct to know thc pcrson . . . 8s soon as

'oirbcgin trusting thc pcrson . . . yor don't really hare ousc e condosr' ln cficct, nrch parocrs appcarcd ttl bc

zeIDS .i.L bdr."io. ,.r. ihrt rrr collaal crly cr erbjcar ia urc ninc&rcr fer guryr ertlc$ 0d 6il. b cn u4lc urc .nlt$t h li{h

lcrlr of unlfc rnll bchrvior corrg $lc r" L.. O&d h dh.r collc1a ordrr ilrila tcf; AHet I Scdrcdq lgtq DcBlm a d- l99o'Fr$.r f FU!r, 1990, fth.. & ML;,i4 t99l} Spccifrcrtly, S?tf of dirr b rfrr adxid.cr rrqtc Ua tsr rnllty raiw &ri5 thc -F lglprr. Of Unr rto Uf ta rnUy crirc, Cnitri 1qj .ffiF ,,.d crdilt irbt rnlt irrirn (dlurjh oly 2l!a brd ettr hd ra HNtrlood &rI 5?L lud lud tuo c tsr rnd ptr1 ud lrltt hrd bd rod rr.

17)---"

Atticlc22

considcrod not to bc risky, rcgardlcss of thc objctivcsafcncss or unsafencs of their past or prcscnt scn al bc'havior, and ectual HIV sratus was almost ncver known'

As onc man sai4 'I knew my panner really wcll bcforc

we had scrg so I didn't havc to worry about hcr scxtulhistory." Thcsc urd many othcr similar stiltcmcnts

makc it clcar that snrdcns do not usc condoms withpanners whom they know and likc.

(14) orr imprcssion is that thc tendency for sfit'dcng not to practicc safcr scx with partners thcy knowand likc (and whom thcy invariably tnst) is bascd on

thcir rcluctancc to link risk or discasc with lwing orcaring. As onc studcnt put it,'Bccansc I love hcr. . .

it's kind of hard to think that [about AIDSI.- Further'more, it is our impression that snrdcnts gcncrally do not

have scx at all with pcople thcy do not like. Intcrcst-ingly, thercforc, the only situation in which students arctikcly to usc condoms is with partncnt thcy fccl thcy donot know wcll cnough to cschew condom usc.

(15) When judging the riskincss of prwiously utt-known potcntid panners. our fgcus group data indi-catcd that s$dcnts oftcn seem to rcly on simplc rulcs tolabcl somconc as risky for HIV ittfcction (and thercforc,to decidc cither to usc a condom or not to have scx withthat pcrson). Thcy tcnd to assume that risky pcoplc arethosc who &css prwocativcly, whom one mct in bars,who rcrc older than most college studcnts, who arefrom large cities, or who are ovcrly anxions for scr Asonc student ocplainc4 '[f lhcy'rc . . .24, thcy'vc bccnaround6 morcycanthansomeone. .. who's tt.... Ifthey'rc drcssd up like a slut. . . thqy'rc usally a slul"Another subject smmcd up this rcliancc on supcrficialorcs by sayrn& 'lf I [wcrcl in thc bar-hopping NcwYork sccne and mecting stray womcn . . . thcn I'dworry about gening AIDS.- ln addition to using thcabovc orcs, [any men appcar to pcrccivc womcn thcyhavc just ma who usc oral contraccptivcs to bc risky.As one man sai4 'You don't want to trust sonrconewho jrst went on thc pill.' OfEr a al. (1991) fonnd asimilar rcliancc on npcrficial arcs in judging the riski-ncss of potential partnets among g4f mcn.

(16) Bccausc of thcir confidencc in thcir abilitics toasscs a panner's riskines, most objccts indicated thatthcy would only corsidcr rsing oondoms during scxwith panncrs thcy fccl thcy do not know well cnoughand whom they perccivc might bc risky. A ggical re-sponsc was, 'If you just met them, you usc a condom. . .

if it's long-tcnn, you arcn't going to wony.' Thereforr,lhc subjccls somctimcs indicatod that thcy would usccondoms at thc bcginning of a rclatioruhip, bcfore theyfccl that they kncw the partncr suficiently. One subjccr

cxplaincd, 'It's important lto usc condomsl for .

cithcr onc-night stands or thc bcginning of rclatiotuhipewhcrc you jr.rst really don't know cnough about thc pcr-son yct.- Anothcr summcd up thc praailing view bysayln& 'At fi6t you shotld usc a condom. Thcn, onccyou gct to know hcr, you should discuss other mearu ofbirth control." Thc snrdcnts reportcd that oncc thcy fcclth,at they know thcir pafln€rs, usually in ways unrelatcdto HIV s!atu!s, thcy dmoei inwriably ccasc uing con-doms. A t;Dical rcsponsc was, 'I'm mostly uing thcpill sincc my rclationship, but if it's a ncw panncr . . .

[I woutdl delinitely usc a condom.- Whcn askcd whathc urculd nccd to know about a panncr to dccidc to stoprsing condoms, one man said hc would want to

*know

how shc livcs, know hcr fricnds, [talkl to hcr about herlife.-

(17) From thcsc findings, it is clear that college stu-dents appear to judgc thc riskiness of scnral partncns

bascd on clraractcristics that are not rclatcd objcctivelyto HIV stahrs spccifically, whcthcr they know and likethc partncr and whcther a prwiorsly unknown partricrlas ccrtain srpcrficial uais. Pcrccivcd rclationshipsamong clraraacristics, srch as the perception that apanner whom onc knows or who is from a small townis not risky, are callcd implici! ncrsonality thcorics(c.g., Schncider, llastorf, & Ellspottlu 1979). Clcarly,college snrdens arc nsing an implicit personality theoryto determine thc riskincs of scnal panncrs, nthcrthan consistcntly practicittg safcr scr

(18) tmplicit pcrrcnality thcorics are often adaPtivgcven if thcy arc not entirely accuna,te, bccausc they al.low peoplc to intcrprct thcir socid worl4 Howcver, theusc of ur implicit pcrsonality thcory for asccrtaining apartncr's AIDS risk is cxtremely unreliablc and poten-

tidly faul. Bccausc thc only w:ly to accuratcly dctcr-minc somcone's AIDS dsk is through knowlcdge ofthat pcrson's HIV slatus, thc ttsc of any other oret to et'scss risk will of,cn prwide a dangerous, falsc scnsc ofsccurity. Thereforc, hcalth cducation efrorts to rcducc

AIDS risk bchavior among collegc s$dcnls (ud pet'hape othcrs as wcll) must cxposc thc incfcetivencss ofthcir usc of implicit penonality thcorics to asscss thcriskincss of partncn or potcntial pattners. Furtlrcrmorc,it mun bc cmphasizcd thag in thc abscncc of spccificknowlcdgc rcgarding thc penner's HIV stattrs, knowingonc's partncr and bcing npnotamous do not consitutcsafer scrt.

(19) Ironicalln onc ofthc safcr scx guidclincs thathas been widcly prcmotcd in many largc ciroilationpamphles srch as the Surgcon Gcrrcral's R4ort on Ac'quircd Immune Dcficicncy Syndromc (U.S. Dcpartment

Ito

Arcicle 22

of Hcath and Human Scrvices, 1986) is rhe exhortationto "know your partncr." Although this g.ridcline is in-tcnded to refcr to knowing onc's panner.s scxual his-tory (and of coursc, acting on that knowlcdge), collegestudcns. and probably many othcrs as *cll. appcar tohave misintcrprcted it. In cfrect, they are using thcgridclinc to strengthen thcir bcliefs rhat rhsy arc not bc-ing unsafe if thcy know thcir partnerc, cvcn if thc waysin which they know them are cntircly irrclcvant toAIDS risk. Furthcrmorc. cvcn if one docs considcrone's paruler's sc:rual history, it is dangcrous to infcr anegative HIV staNs from a nonpromiscuous so<rul his-

'tory. Clcarly, the "know your partncr" guidclinc has. bacldircd and should bc abandoncd.

(20) Evcn lcs cryptic safcr scx guidclines nrch asthc advicc to'take prccautions whencvcr you have scxoutside a long-term monogamous rclationship" (c.g..Amcrican Collcgc Hcalth Association, 198?) crcatcproblcms. Collcgc studcns sccm to misintcrprct suchadvicc to mcan that monogamy itsclf corstitutcs saferscx, crcn scrial monog;amy in thc abscncc of objectiveknowledge regarding one's panner's HIV status. ThcG-fore, studcnts oftcn appear to be using such advice tobolner their bclicfs that they nccd to usc condoms onlywith partncrs whom thcy do not know. Unfornrnatcly,pamphlets containing thc 'know your partncr' and*take prccautions outsidc a long-term monogamous rc-lationshiy'' guidelines arc srill bcing distributed.

(2t) Assesmtcnts of personal risk Whilc they judgethcir partners' riskiness bascd on impticit pcrsonalitytheorics, our respondcnts do not gcncnlly sGGrn to @orsider themsclvcs to bc at risk for HIV infcstion, regard-lcss of whether or not they engagc in safcr scl Forexample, one srbjcct sai4'l'm not involvcd with onc-night stands, so I don't worry about it [AIDSI toomuch.- Anothcr sai4 'l'd *ory if I [arrcntlyl hadmultiplc partners." Some do not eyen fcel that AIDSshould be a concern on a collcgc campus. As onc sub.jcct summcd it up,'Pcrrcnally, I'm not really wonicdabout AIDS on this campns. . . . I'd bc willing to bathat therc arcn't too many €scr ouBidc homoscnrats.'

(227 Howwcr, wcn thosc who may fecl that AIDSshonld bc a concern on ermpus do not sccm to fccl per.rcnally nrlncrablc becausc thcy do not rcally beliarcthat hetcroscnral collcgc students arc at risk As oncstudent sai4 'l don't know anybody [who hasl AIDS,I'vc ncver sccn anybody [who hasl AIDS, ['m not gay,and it scems. rcgardlcss [ofl what rhc facts arc . . . likcit's mostly gay guys that gct iL" Another cmlaincd,'['vc always fclt that it wasn't sorncthing that was go-ing to afrcct me. . . . It happcncd to drug uscrs and it

happcned to gay pcoplc. but it would ncrer happcn rome." Clcarly. most snrdents pcrccive thcmsch.cs to bcvcry socially distant from thc ty?ical pcrson with AIDS.According to Weinstein (19t0, 1988), rhc grcatcr thcperccived socid distancc bctrrecn oneself and the qgi-cal viAim of a partiorlar misfornrng thc lcss pcrsonattynrlncrablc onc will fccl to that misfortune, rcgardlcss ofobjcctivc rislc

(23) Thc major practical implicarion of this findingis that AIDS prevcntion efforr must cmphasizc stu-dcnts' personal vulncrability to HIV infcction. To in-creasc pcrccivcd wlnerability, studcnts may nccd to bcconfiontcd with cascs of heterosc:crully transmittcd HIVinfcclion among collcgc studcnts. In addition, onc couldprGcnt students with statistics rcgarding thc alarmingincidcnce of scnrally transmittod discascs (STDs) andunwantcd prcgnansy on their own campuses, couplcdwith the rcminder that AIDS is uansmittcd in the samcway. This could bc followed by a pcnonal risk audit tocmphasizc that the sftdcnts arc engaging in bchaviorthat pus thcm at risk for HMAIDS.

(24, For most of our respondens, thc risk of preg-nancy is far morc salicnt than thc risk of AIDS or otherSTD. In dris contcxt, a qpical respoilr among thoscwho nsc condoms was, 'I usc'condoms . . . for birtlrcontrol. That's what ['m worricd aboul' Another sub-jcct adminc('I think more about prcgnansy than I doabout it [AIDS|." Bccausc thcir primary conccrn ispr€gnanqr, most snrdcnts arc not likcly to nsc condomsin thc context of a rclationship if the fcmalc partncr ison thc pill. As one man sai4 'Bcfore she was on thcpill *r nscd condoms; nw $re don't' A woman cx-plaincd, 'I know that if I'm on it [thc pilll that I tcnd tothint lcss. . . laboutl protcction agains discasc.' Unfor-nuurcly, nsc of onl conUaceptivcs appcars to bc anti-thctical to condom usc. Thercfore, AIDS prwcntionintcrrrcntioru mtst higilig[t thc fact that thc pill doenot prwidc protcction from HIV infcction or odrcr'STD, and campus hcalth profcssionals shonld advisc individtuls who rpccira prcscriptions for onl contraceptirrcs to use condoms as well.

(25) Reasons lor incldents of unmlc ser. Banrcmost collcgc snrdcnts do not really bcliarc that thcy are

at risk for HIV infcction, many oftcn cng4ge in scxualbehavior that thcy acknowlcdge is objcctively unsafe.

Thcrc arc t*o roair rqrsons or respordcils glrc forcngagng in spccific insanccs of unsafc scr

(26, Onc of thc most frcquently mcntioncd Gasons

for cngaging in unsafc bchsvior was alcohol impair'mcnL Onc frank responsc lt?s, 'I gucss thcrc... larcl

Itl

Article 22

episodes whcrc you gct really, really [drunk], and thingshappen, and you forget about consequences." Anotherstudent sai( 'Most times, yes, I use a rubber, but it'shappcncd that I didn't usc anything whcn I [wasdrunkl." Collegc studenls nccd to bc uught techniquesto prevent thc unsafc combination of scx and alcohol in-toxication. For cxample, students could be cncouragedto choosc not to drink or to drir* lcss when they antici-pate the possibility of having sex. Alternatively, if theyarc dnrnk or anticipate bccoming drunh they could beencoumged to ask fricnds to not allow them to leavc asocial cvent with a potential se:<ual partncr.

(27t- Another frcquently mcntioncd.reason for bcingunsafc is ovcrwhclming lust. As one student admiUcd,'"Therc's bccn a couplc of timcs . . . that you do givc inbecausc it's like the moment." Another cxplained that,*In the hcat of thc momcnt you don't thir* about it[AIDSI." [t must bc cmphasizcd to college studentsthat, if thcy makc condom use habitual and they carrycondoms with theq thcy will bc far lcs likely to forgetto usc them in thc heat of passion. Offrr et al. (1991)found the same tendensy among gay mcn to attributcspccific incidens ofunsafe scx to passion.

(2E) Beliefs about condoms. In order for collegestudents to usc condoms consistently, rcgardless of thctemptations ofrered by particular situations or their be-liefs about thcir partners' riskiness, they must havcpositive feelings about condom usc. Unfortunately, stu-dcnS reported almost unanimously that they do not likeusing condoms and belicvc that using them interfercswith thcir cnjoyment of sex. Onc subjccr summed upthis vicw by saying, *I think condoms rcally suck . . . .When I finally rhought about maybc gcrting AIDS I bc-gan to pscudo [somctimcsl use them. I don't like thern,though."

(29) Overall, collcge students reporred feeling thatcondoms arc unpleasant to usc, primarily becausc theydecrease sens:ltion and spontaneity. A q/pical responsewas, "I don't likc condoms at all. I hate them. I can tellthe difference, and I don't likc it." More specifically,one subject explained, "l can't stand - the spontaneity

- how it's ruined, and the smell of condoms . . . makesme sick." Even studcnts who reported always usingcondoms oftcn reported not cspccially enjoying thcm.Furthermore, many students rcported feeling that con-doms are inconvenient, bccause one must remember tobuy them and have them available. As one subject ex-plained, "You get sick oftaking a condom everyrvhere;it's a real hassle." Clearly, college students need to bctaught ways to be more comfortable with condom useand to have pleasurable sex with condoms. Oflir ct al.

(1991) found that gay men expressed a similarly suongdislike of condoms.

(30) . In addition to feeling that condoms arc un-pleasant to usc, many students s€€m to feel that the use

of condoms has undcsirablc social implications. Manyrespondents indicatcd that requesting that a condom beuscd may imply that onc distruss one's partneq that is,that one belicves the partner has been promiscuou orwill not bc monogamous. Onc subjcct summed up thisvicw by sayrng, 'If it's som@ne [with whoml I have touse a condorq it's rcmeone I don't trust." Furtherrnorc,disorssing condom usc prior to having scx with some-one for the first timc might imply that one expected tohave so<, which might bc perceivcd as socially inappro-priatc. As one subjcct put it,'[q I was going to havcscx and I pullcd out a condom, it would look bad."Thcse findings suggct that AIDS prcvention intcnrcn-tions should scck to alter pcrcrived social normsregarding condom usc, so that requcsting condom usewould not carry undesirable implications regardingone's trust ofone's partner or one's social appropriate-ness (cf. Fishcr, l98t).

Conclusions

(31) The main themc that emerged from the resultswas that college students' judgments of a partictlarpartner's riskincss arc not based on the rclevant objec-tivc criterion of HIV status. Instead, students use an im-plicit personality theory to dctcrmine a partncr'sriskiness. In addition, students do not believe that theythemselves are at risk for HIV infcstion. Thcrefore, thcyoftcn cngage in behavior that is unsafe, bccausc thcy donot pcrceivc the nccd for using condoms (which they donot like), cxcept whcn having scx with a partncr whomthcy fecl they do not know wcll cnough and pcrccivemay bc risky. Futurc rescarch should conlirm thesequalitative findings with more rigorous quantiultivemcthods. For cxample, onc could cxpcrimentally cxam-inc thc influencc of various characteristics of a stimulusp€rson on subjea judgments of the riskiness of that per-son for transmitting HIV. Finally, thc main findings ofthis study hare several praaical implications for AIDSprevention with college students, which have bcen dis-cussed throughout the Findings scction. In conclusio&collcge students need to understand that thcy are wl-nerable to HIV infection and can drastically reducetheir HIV risk by abandoning thcir biased judgmens ofpartners' riskiness and, instead, engaging in pleasur-able safer scx.

r82