Harming the Ones We Love: Relational Attachment and Perceived Consequences as Predictors of Safe-Sex Behavior.

Since the discovery of HIV in the early 1980s, several hundred studies have been conducted to address the predictors of condom use, and an equally large number of education programs have been implemented to increase the use of condoms. As a result, a recent report from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) showed a stabilization in the overall rate of growth in HIV infection (e.g., a drop in the annual rate of increase from 60% to 95% in the mid- to late-1980s to approximately 5% annually since 1992) and predicted that this rate will continue to decline (CDC, 1997). Despite these promising trends, other data suggest less reason for optimism. First, the frequency of condom use remains disturbingly low. For example, Bajos et al. (1994), in an international study of safe-sex behavior, found that only 40% of men and 20% of women consistently used a condom with casual sexual partners in the 12 months before the study, and only 57% of men and 44% of women reported having ever used a condom. Second, optimism regarding an overall stabilization in the rate of growth masks data showing dramatic increases in the rate of infection for certain populations. For example, the CDC report (CDC, 1997) and an analysis of those data reported by Wortley and Fleming (1997) showed a large increase in the incidence of HIV infection in young heterosexual women. Specifically, women accounted for 19% of the HIV cases reported in 1995 as opposed to 7% of cases reported in 1985, and there was a six-fold increase between 1991 and 1995 in the incidence of AIDS among women. These data imply the need to critically examine the research literature for biases that may have limited the success of extant research in explaining condom use. A close inspection of extant literature reveals a glaring omission in most efforts to understand safe-sex behavior.

Hall (1990), expressing frustration over the relatively low frequency of condom use, succinctly writes, "Given the extremities of AIDS--that it, as yet, is invariably fatal, that this plague carries an unprecedented social stigma, and that it is an especially gruesome way to die--why ... do people continue to run the risk of contracting AIDS, especially by not using a device as simple and generally available as the condom, a device which the medical establishment validates ...?" (p. 23-24). Although early scholars assumed that such seemingly irrational behavior must be due to a lack of knowledge regarding the AIDS virus and its methods of transmission, a litany of studies have shown that knowledge, in and of itself, is a poor predictor of condom use (for review, see Becker & Joseph, 1988; Geringer, Marks, Allen, & Armstrong, 1993). Instead, scholars have argued that condom-use decisions are influenced by the same conditions that shape individuals' decisions to smoke, diet, and engage in other health-related behavior. Namely, individuals will engage in such behavior if they have a positive attitude toward the behavior, trust that they are capable of performing the behavior, and believe that respected others endorse the behavior (for review, see DiClemente & Peterson, 1994). While the specific operationalizations differ according to the chosen theoretical perspective, attitudes, subjective norms, and self-efficacy generally form the foundation underlying predictions of safe-sex behavior in most studies.

However, more than most health behavior decisions, the commitment to use a condom is a decision that requires dyadic negotiation and cooperation (Metts & Fitzpatrick, 1992). As such, it involves unique interpersonal challenges that complicate its implementation. Central to this negotiation, yet mostly ignored by scholars, is the social meaning given to condoms. Underlying the majority of research on condom use, and apparent in Hall's (1990) question, is the assumption that condoms are devoid of social meaning. Researchers recognize that individuals may perceive condoms to be uncomfortable, clumsy, and impractical (all factors that influence the attitudinal component), but assume that condoms are symbolically neutral objects. In contrast, this investigation starts with the assumption that condoms carry significant social meaning that may strongly impinge on an individual's decision to request that a condom be used. Understanding these meanings may help explain individuals' seemingly irrational behavior.

THE SOCIAL MEANING OF CONDOMS

A growing body of qualitative research suggests that condoms are imbued with meanings that are threatening to the identity of both partners, as well as to the sanctity of their relationship (e.g., Lupton, 1994; Sobo, 1995). Although mostly unrecognized in research on condom use, the importance of impression management and relational maintenance as individual goals has received considerable attention in other areas of research.

The Importance of Impression Management

Leary and Kowalski (1990) note that "people have an ongoing interest in how others perceive and evaluate them" (p. 34). Hence, they often engage in goal-directed activity in which they seek to shape the impression forged by others, thereby increasing the likelihood that their desired social outcomes will be achieved (e.g., Goffman, 1959). This interest in molding others' impressions of us, otherwise labeled impression management (Tracy, 1990), self-identification (Schlenker, Britt, & Pennington, 1996), or face-work (Cupach & Metts, 1994), is pervasive and has repeatedly been shown to directly influence behavioral choices. For example, Pliner and Chaiken (1990) found that concerns with impression management led individuals to eat less when they were with members of the opposite sex than when they were with same-sex individuals. Further, Robinson and Smith-Lovin (1992) noted that individuals choose interaction partners based on identity needs, Shimanoff (1985) found that the disclosure of emotions in close relationships is partly shaped by impression management concerns, and Holtgraves (1988) argued that gambling enthusiasts are often attracted to wagering because of the opportunity it provides to present a desired identity. Although these studies make up only a small portion of the literature on impression management, they adequately demonstrate the role that it plays in shaping the most mundane to the most extraordinary of human activities.

When engaging in impression management, individuals not only hope to associate themselves with a desirable identity, but also hope to disassociate from an undesirable identity (e.g., Schlenker et al., 1996). For example, a fraternity member may take pains with a prospective dating partner to separate himself from the impression that fraternity members are unfaithful partners. Consistent with this notion, Ogilvie (1987) compared the effect of (a) the distance between individuals' real identity and their undesired identity and (b) the distance between their real identity and their desired identity, on life satisfaction. His results suggest that behavior is influenced more by a desire to protect against a negative identity than by a motivation to push toward an ideal identity. Consistent with this notion, considerable research has shown that individuals go to great lengths to safeguard against "face threats," and work hard to fix their impression once it has been damaged (for review, see Cupach & Metts, 1994).

Another important component of identity management is the expectation that individuals will protect the desired identity of their interaction partners. Goffman (1967), in developing the concept of facework, and Brown and Levinson (1987), in articulating the Politeness Theory, eloquently discussed the role of individuals as protectors of others' identities, as well as their own. Goffman (1967) argued that the protection of a partner's identity is a "condition of interaction" (p. 12). In a similar vein, Brown and Levinson (1987) wrote:

   In general, people cooperate (and assume each other's cooperation) in
   maintaining face in interaction, such cooperation being based on mutual
   vulnerability of face. That is, normally everyone's face depends on
   everyone else's being maintained, and since people can be expected to
   defend their faces if threatened ... it is in general in every
   participant's best interest to maintain each other's face. (p. 61)

Perhaps in no way is the above axiom better illustrated than by considering the consequences of threatening another's identity. Several studies suggest that the outcome of such action can be severe. For example, Campbell and Muncer (1987) found that anger episodes in relationships were most commonly a result of identity attacks by a relational partner. Argyle and Henderson (1984) noted that identity threats were the rule violations most likely to lead to relationship dissolution. In extreme cases, such identity attacks (or perceived identity attacks) led to violence against the partner and, in the worst cases, murder (for review of violence research, see Gelles & Cornell, 1990). In sum, behavior that is seen as threatening to the recipient's identity typically results in at least temporary relational damage, but may produce much more severe consequences. Partly as a result of such negative reinforcement, individuals typically refrain from threatening an interaction partner's desired identity.

Yet, the level of concern with managing both our impression and that of others varies. Schlenker and colleagues (Schlenker et al., 1996; Schlenker, Britt, Pennington, Murphy, & Doherty, 1994) have outlined three primary factors that influence the importance of identity management as a goal. First, identity management is especially salient during behavior that reflects onto highly valued and central components of identity. For example, individuals whose identities are centrally tied to being intelligent will be particularly careful not to threaten that aspect of identity. Second, the successful management of identity is important to the extent that performance is tied to potentially vital positive or negative consequences. For example, if a particular behavior can result in a raise, loss of a job, relational development, or relational deterioration, the importance of identity management is high. Third, identity management is important to the extent that the behavior directly relates to highly valued rules of conduct. For example, if one believes that respecting others is an important part of proper conduct, then a behavior that reflects disrespect for others is more distress producing than a behavior that suggests ignorance. In both cases identity is threatened, but the salience of the former identity threat is typically greater than that of the latter.

These factors are especially worth noting because of their applicability to the relational context. Behavior in romantic relationships, particularly in the earlier stages of development (Swann, De La Ronde, & Hixon, 1994), is typically characterized by elevated levels of all three factors. As Berger and Kellner (1964) note, "every individual requires the ongoing validation of his world, including the validation of his identity and place in his world, by those few who are truly significant others" (p. 4).

The Implications of Condom Use for Identities

Having established that individuals are concerned about identity management, and that this concern may be magnified by certain context-specific conditions, we can turn to the role that condoms play in affecting the partners' identities. Recent evidence suggests that condoms carry meanings that directly threaten central aspects of identity. Education programs have long preached that condoms be used to protect against sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) (for a critical review of AIDS education programs, see Bolton, 1992). Partly as a result of this framing of condom use, proposing to use a condom "can imply either that one is oneself, or (more likely) that one thinks one's partner might be bisexual, promiscuous, an intravenous drug user, the previous partner of any of these people or a carrier of some STD" (Wight, 1992, p. 12).

For example, Metts and Fitzpatrick (1992) argued that individuals sometimes believe that requesting condom use implies a personal promiscuous sexual past, implicates the sexual partner as having a sexually transmitted disease, and "increases the possibility of rejection by a potential partner" (pg. 9). In a similar vein, Scott and Griffin (as cited in Wight, 1992) and Thomson and Holland (1994) found that individuals who had ready access to condoms were perceived as single-mindedly interested in short-term sexual relations. The notion that condom use may be associated with carrying an STD also appears in research conducted by Wingood, Hunter-Gamble, and DiClemente (1993). One of the interview subjects in their study refrained from requesting condom use because of the fear that her partner would ask, "You got something you don't want me to catch?" The salience of promiscuity as a given meaning associated with condom requests may be especially significant in cultures where norms restrict sex to the context of marriage. Mays and Cochran (1988), for example, argued that Hispanic and Latina women are unlikely to request that condoms be used because the cultural expectations that females be naive in the sexual arena is not consistent with AIDS preventive action. As a result, women who request condoms are often labeled as "loose."

The request that a condom be used during initial sexual intercourse is also potentially identity threatening in that it occurs prior to sexual intercourse. As such, the request may be seen as inappropriate or as "jumping the gun," thus not only damaging the requestor's identity but the partner's as well. Indeed, the lead-up to first sexual intercourse is typically fraught with ambiguity and indirectness, thus protecting the identities of both partners and allowing further progress to be rejected in an identity-protecting manner (for review, see Sprecher & McKinney, 1993). However, a request that a condom be used is a direct indicator that the requestor expects a significant advance in the sexual component of the relationship, thus violating the context of ambiguity that typically surrounds the initial sexual activity. In contrast, refraining from discussing condom use allows the subtle, identity-maintaining, sexual escalation to continue. Finally, some studies have shown that individuals are often unskilled at requesting condom use and find such requests embarrassing to both themselves and their partner (e.g., Cline, Johnson, & Freeman, 1992). Since competence is a central aspect of most individuals' identities, it is consistent that individuals may choose to engage in unprotected sex rather than risk embarrassing themselves or their partner.

In sum, given the elevated importance of identity management and the potential negative implications of condom use, individuals may very well ignore the potential threat of HIV infection in exchange for protecting against threatening central aspects of identity. As Sobo (1995) noted, "The connotations of condoms, which implicate users as philanderers and carriers of disease, need not be confronted if condoms are not used" (p. 106).

The Importance of Relationships

Although it is clear that individuals have a strong need to maintain their identities, some scholars argue that human behavior is primarily motivated by a need to belong (for review, see Baumeister & Leary, 1995). For example, Maslow (1968) placed belonging in the middle of his motivational hierarchy, before esteem needs and self actualization, and Kelly (1955) suggested that close relationships help individuals satisfy their instinctual need to understand their surroundings. Buss (1990), in articulating a sociobiological theory of human behavior, postulated that individuals have an innate need to form strong social bonds, and that such ties are ultimately motivated by survival and reproductive benefits.

This need to belong is evident in research on relational behavior. For example, Roloff and Cloven (1990) found that individuals often avoid confrontation with their partners due to a fear of relationship loss, and Afifi and Guerrero (in press) noted that similar fears strongly motivate topic avoidance in intimate relationships. As such, individuals may be unlikely to use condoms if they believe that it may threaten the relationship with their sexual partner. Indeed, recent qualitative data confirm the existence of such perceptions.

Relational Messages Associated with Condom Use

Two noteworthy relational interpretations given to condoms is that they are reserved for use in "casual" relationships and that they imply a lack of trust in the partner (Pivnick, 1993). Both of these interpretations have serious consequences for the level of intimacy in a relationship, and may result in a decreased likelihood of condom use. As Wight (1992) noted, "once there is implicit trust between partners, and this trust includes assumptions of monogamy, then persisting with condom use can be interpreted as undermining the steady relationship" (p. 17). Relatedly, Galligan and Terry (1993) discovered that condoms imply "that this person or encounter is not so special or unique" (p. 1706), a message that individuals may be especially motivated to avoid sending, given individuals' needs for belongingness. Hence, it is not surprising that Sanderson and Jemmott (1996) found the level of relational intimacy to be inversely related to the likelihood of condom use. In fact, Hammer, Fisher, Fitzgerald, and Fisher (1996) reported specifically that "concerns about questioning interpersonal trust and commitment in their relationship" (p. 375) often led individuals to refrain from requesting that a condom be used during sexual intercourse.

In sum, there is considerable evidence that behavior is motivated by concerns for identity and relational maintenance. Moreover, these goals are especially salient in cases where the consequences of failure are elevated. Therefore, one may predict that individuals are less likely to use condoms during sexual encounters with highly liked others, as compared to more casual sexual encounters. In other words, somewhat counter-intuitively, individuals should be more likely to insist that a condom be used with sexual partners with whom hopes for a long-term relationship are low than those with whom such hopes are high. Of course, that prediction assumes that individuals perceive condoms as potentially identity- and relationship-threatening objects. That may not always be the case. Indeed, a more accurate expectation may be for an ordinal interaction between the degree of concern with the potentially negative identity and relationship consequences of condom use and the degree of attachment to the relationship. Specifically, when relational attachment is high, identity or relationship threats create considerable cost (loss of face with an important other or loss of a valued relationship); thus, individuals who fear negative identity/relationship consequences will be less likely to use a condom than those who have no such fears. However, when relational attachment is low, identity/relationship threats would not result in considerable cost; thus, those who fear negative consequences and those who do not should be equally likely to use a condom. In other words, fear of negative relational and identity repercussions should only impact behavioral choices when the consequences of such repercussions are truly undesirable. This prediction is fully consistent with Schlenker and colleagues' work regarding factors that influence the importance of identity management as a goal (Schlenker et al., 1994, 1996).

METHOD AND PARTICIPANTS

Procedure

Participants completed the questionnaire in the presence of the investigator or his female research assistant, either in a classroom or in a laboratory setting. In all cases, participants were separated by a comfortable distance, thus ensuring anonymity. They were instructed to read a scenario and place themselves mentally in the situation it described. The scenario was divided into two sections. The first section described the relationship and the general context in which the decision to use or not use a condom would be made. Since studies have shown that condom-use decisions made during the initial sexual episode of a relationship are based on different factors than those made during subsequent episodes (Metts & Fitzpatrick, 1992), the specific episode was held constant: Individuals were asked to imagine their behavior the first time they engaged in sexual intercourse with this hypothetical other. In fact, all of the information in the first section of the scenario was held constant across conditions. The exact wording of the scenario was based on feedback from two informal focus groups of college students, and was intended to portray as realistic a situation as possible. The scenario read as follows:

   You are in a dating relationship. Neither of you is dating anybody else and
   there is mutual desire to have sex (note: sex was earlier defined as sexual
   intercourse) with each other, but you have not yet engaged in sexual
   intercourse with one another. One night, after going to a movie, the two of
   you find yourself alone at your place. As the night progresses, the passion
   heats up between the two of you, you each help the other out of his/her
   clothes, you begin to pet each other sexually, and the activity eventually
   leads to a point where you're about to have sex. You feel it's the right
   time to have sex in this relationship.

Participants were instructed to "think of (their) behavior at that point in the sexual activity," and then were given specific background information about their relationship with this hypothetical other. Two factors were varied in the background information: (a) fear of identity and relational repercussions of condom use (high/low) and (b) relationship attachment (high/low), producing a 2 (fear) x 2 (attachment) experimental design. Participants were randomly assigned to condition.

Fear was manipulated in the background information in the following manner:

   You feel that if you were to pull out a condom now, this person will
   interpret [will not interpret] your desire to use a condom as a negative
   reflection on him/her. You feel that your desire to use a condom may have
   [will not have] negative relational consequences.

In addition to the fear manipulation, participants in the high relationship attachment condition were informed that they "really don't want to lose (their) relationship with this person," whereas those in the low desire for relational maintenance condition were asked to assume that they "don't have any strong attachment to this relationship, and see it as more temporary than permanent." Again, the specific wording of the manipulation was based on feedback from two informal focus groups and was intended to increase the realism of the scenario.

Following the scenario, participants completed several measures. Those relevant to the interests of this study, however, included a 5-item measure assessing the intention to use a condom in the situation described in the scenario (e.g., "How likely is it that you would have sex with this person without a condom?"; Cronbach's alpha = .91) and a 3-item measure assessing past condom-use behavior (e.g., "I--use a condom the first time I have sex with someone," with an accompanying scale ranging from always to never; Cronbach's alpha = .79). The measure of past condom use was included because of the established influence of past behavior on the report of future behavior. Given that the interest of this investigation lies in addressing the influence of (a) fear of repercussions, and (b) relational desire on condom use, beyond any systematic differences due to past condom-use patterns, measuring general condom use patterns was essential. For all measures, participants made ratings on a 1-to-9 Likert-type scale, with 9 indicating an elevated likelihood of condom use.

Participants

Individuals were recruited from several undergraduate courses at a mid-sized eastern university. Approximately half the sample volunteered for participation (with no special incentives) and half received extra credit for participation. One hundred and five males, 171 females, and 10 individuals who did not indicate their sex (N = 286) participated in the study. However, only data from 209 of these participants are included in this investigation. This drop in sample size reflects two decisions made prior to analysis. First, all participants who rated the scenario as unrealistic (i.e., circled less than a 5 on the 9-point Likert-type scale associated with "How difficult was it for you to imagine yourself in a situation like that described in the scenario?") were dropped from the analyses. That decision resulted in excluding 19% of the original participants (n = 54). Second, because past condom use was included as a covariate in the analysis, those whose data were missing for this measure (most commonly because they were not sexually active) were also dropped from the analyses, resulting in an additional loss of data from 23 participants (i.e., 8% of the original sample). Although the cost of these decisions was very high in terms of data loss, the gain in external validity (eliminating participants who had difficulty imagining themselves in the scenario) and analytic precision (eliminating participants based on missing data in the measure of past condom use) justifies the cost. The final adjusted sample was 209 mostly Caucasian (88%) participants (77 males, 125 females, and 7 who did not report a sex), ranging in age from 18 to 35 (M = 20.68, sd = 1.65), who were sexually active (median number of sexual partners = 4, range = 1 to 33), and who considered the scenario highly realistic (M = 7.82, sd = 1.20). Moreover, their rating of scenario realism did not differ according to condition, F(3, 205) = 1.22, p [is greater than] .05.

RESULTS

An ANCOVA was performed to test the prediction, with relationship desire and fear of identity/relationship repercussions as the independent variables, the intention to use a condom as the dependent variable, and the report of past condom use as the covariate. The analysis produced nonsignificant fear, F(1, 204) [is less than] 1, ns, and attachment effects, F(1,204) [is less than] 1, ns, but a significant covariate effect, F(1,204) = 94.78, p [is less than] .001, and a significant interaction effect, F(1,204) = 4.71, p [is less than] .05. Further examination of the simple effects, and associated means, showed that participants in the high relationship attachment condition had lower intentions of using a condom if they perceived negative consequences (M = 7.23, sd = 1.48; mean and standard deviation calculated after removing the effect of the covariate) than if they did not (M = 7.69, sd = 1.47), t(98) = 1.62, [P.sub.one-tail] = .05. Moreover, the intentions of participants in the low relationship attachment condition did not differ according to the likelihood of negative consequences, t(105) = 1.53, p [is greater than] .05 (see Figure 1). While apparently supporting the hypothesis fully, a closer examination of the means in the attenuated relational desire condition, together with the near significance of the mean differences in that condition (p = .13), suggests an intriguing counter-intuitive trend that is too strong to ignore. Rather than the expected ordinal interaction, a strong disordinal interaction resulted, with individuals in the low relationship attachment condition displaying a trend toward greater intentions to use a condom when its use was likely to lead to relationship and identity threats (M = 7.77, sd = 1.48), than when it was not (M = 7.33, sd = 1.49). In other words, individuals who were asked to imagine that they did not have a strong attachment to the sexual partner, and saw the relationship as more temporary than permanent (the operationalization of low relational desire), seemed more willing to use a condom when the use would hurt the relationship than when it would not.

[Figure 1 ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

DISCUSSION

The primary purpose of this investigation was to test the role of relationship and identity goals as influences on safe-sex decisions, given varying meanings associated with condoms. As discussed earlier, several recent studies suggest that condoms are imbued with meanings that are both identity threatening and potentially damaging to relationships. For example, Helweg-Larsen and Collins (1994) noted that the use of condoms may suggest to others that the user is "promiscuous, inappropriate and a poor friend" (p. 225). Relatedly, Galligan and Terry (1993) argued that the introduction of condoms into a sexual encounter damages the romantic ideal of sex and found that "attitudes relating to the more emotional concerns of destroying romance and fear of negative implications have a major impact on sexual behavior" (p. 1704). Although this investigation does not address the extent to which such meanings are adopted by individuals, it is among the first to empirically investigate the consequences of such meanings. Results suggest that the degree of relational attachment interacts with the perceived relational and identity consequences of condom use to influence safe-sex decisions in a somewhat unusual manner. The implications for our understanding of condom use patterns and, relatedly, for prevention programs are noteworthy.

Perceived Negative Consequences Within High Relationship Attachment

The results of this investigation support the long-held claim that individuals do their utmost to protect valued relationships and identities (for reviews, see Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Schlenker et al., 1996). In this case, our desire to protect our identities and valued relationships has a very serious consequence. Specifically, for participants asked to envision an initial sexual encounter with a partner for whom they have a strong relationship attachment, beliefs that condom use would have negative relationship and identity consequences produces decreased intentions to practice safe sex, as compared to those who were led to believe that condom use would not have such consequences. In other words, individuals contemplating the use of a condom during initial sexual intercourse in a desirable relationship may choose not to do so if they fear negative consequences from that choice. A fear of relational destruction and identity threat leads individuals to risk their lives and those of their most desirable partners.

Yet, in an odd way, when one considers research on cognitive biases, the decision to not practice safe sex under these conditions seems somehow rational. Boulton, McLean, Fitzpatrick, and Hart (1995) reported that "the most common ground for concluding that condoms were not necessary was the belief that neither they nor their partner were infected" (p. 623). Indeed, a long history of research on implicit personality theories confirms the notion that individuals consistently rely on particular traits as good indicators of others (for review, see Dweck, 1996). And so it is with sexual behavior and sexual risk (Thompson, Anderson, Freedman, & Swan, 1996; Williams et al., 1992). Individuals assume that others whom they know or like, or who have favorable characteristics, are safe (e.g., Middleton, Harris, & Hollely, 1994; Nzioka, 1996). Friends of friends are assumed to be free from sexually transmitted diseases (e.g., Lear, 1997). In fact, the decision to have sexual intercourse with someone almost guarantees that an implicit assumption has been made that the person is not infected with an STD. Moreover, even when faced with information that suggests their partner may be a sexual risk, individuals engage in dissonance reduction that leads to conclusions about the partner's STD status that are consistent with the decision to not practice safe sex (Gold, Karmiloff-Smith, Skinner, & Morton, 1992).

In sum, condoms have been marketed as a device used to protect against disease. However, individuals typically have concluded that their partners are safe by the time they decide to engage in sexual intercourse; hence, they may not find it necessary to use a condom. In addition, if they fear that the request for condom use may damage a desirable relationship (whether because of identity or relational implications), then a decision to use a condom in a relationship with desirable others makes little sense: Individuals would be risking their identity and that of their partner, and also threatening the relationship, to use a condom with someone who they have already decided is safe. Of course, these fears are most likely unfounded, and the implicit theories about the partner's safety are often incorrect. But at the time, the decision to not use a condom appears to be a rational one to the decision maker.

Although considerably more research must explore the extent to which such negative perceptions surrounding condoms exist, the extant evidence, together with the results of this investigation, suggest that prevention programs should begin to incorporate components that help shape the perceived implications of condom use. Willig (1995) notes that a somewhat similar change in persuasive strategies occurred in the 1980s and resulted in a great increase in seatbelt use. Although different in many ways from the challenge facing STD-prevention programs, the challenge of increasing seatbelt use was similar in a very important way: A significant change in the persuasive campaign had to be made so that emphasis was placed on reshaping the meaning of the behavior. Originally, a passenger's desire to use a seatbelt was interpreted as a slight against the driver, and suggested distrust. Today, seatbelts are recognized as important devices to maintain personal safety, and are not imbued with meaning about the driver or his/her abilities or trustworthiness. In a somewhat similar fashion, the request to use a condom currently may imply that the partner is diseased, and suggests that the partner may not be trustworthy. Obviously the analogy is a loose one, but the challenge of altering the meaning of behavior is real. Efforts must be made to change the meaning of condoms to one that emphasizes the commitment to personal health and safety, an identity-enhancing message rather than one that implies identity or relationship threatening messages.

Perceived Negative Consequences Within Low Relationship Attachment

While the data associated with intentions in highly desirable relationships are consistent with theoretical rationales surrounding our desire to protect valued identities and relationships, the data associated with the low relationship attachment situations are somewhat puzzling. Given the relatively low cost associated with identity or relational loss with such relational partners, the belief was that the decision to practice safe sex in such a relational context should be unrelated to relationship and identity concerns. However, the results of this investigation suggest otherwise. A boomerang effect seems to occur in these situations: Individuals become more likely to use a condom when under the impression that condom use may be injurious to the relationship and to identities than if they perceive no such negative consequences. This pattern of means only approaches significance; thus, we should be cautious not to overinterpret its significance. Nevertheless, the disordinal interaction is striking (see Figure 1), and the order of means in the low attachment condition deserves an explanation. Returning to the specific operationalization of the independent variables may prove helpful in understanding these results. Restated in operational terms, the discovered pattern is that those who were asked to envision that (a) they didn't "have any strong attachment to this relationship, and (saw) it as more temporary than permanent" (i.e., the low relationship attachment condition) and (b) believed that their partner would "interpret (their) desire to use a condom as a negative reflection on him/her" and that condom use "may have negative relational consequences" were less likely to intend condom use than those in the low attachment condition who were asked to envision that condom use would not have negative consequences. One explanation for this order of means may come from research on relationship dissolution. Specifically, studies have shown that individuals often dissolve relationships by gradually increasing their partner's costs associated with continued pursuit of the relationship (for review, see Duck, 1982). In this case, insisting to use a condom when fully aware of the partner's disapproval of condom use increases the partner's costs related to this relationship. Since individuals have little relational attachment, insisting on condom use may serve to advance the dissolution of a relationship that holds little value anyway.

An alternative explanation comes from research on cognitive dissonance. A long history of scholarship has shown that individuals seek to reduce the tension/dissonance arising from actions that are not consistent with relevant cognitions (for review, see Aronson, 1997). The methods for reducing this dissonance are many. In this investigation, some participants were essentially asked to envision that they had decided to have sex with someone with whom they had little relational commitment. Although it only asked them to envision it (not perform it), the nature of the cognitions (especially given that subjects rated it as relatively realistic) may have created thoughts or memories that produced dissonance. The easiest way to resolve the dissonance would have been to make sure that they reported their intention to practice safe sex. The dissonance and, relatedly, the strength of the dissonance-reduction pursuit were most likely heightened when participants read that the partner in the scenario had unfavorable views toward condom use. In response, the participants' commitment to using condoms (thereby reducing dissonance created by their decision to engage in sex) may have increased.

Both of these explanations carry several assumptions about the participants' cognitive workings that are untestable in the current investigation. Moreover, these explanations are intended to elucidate a pattern that may not be replicable, given the lack of significance in the simple effect test. However, as noted earlier the trend is striking enough that it deserves explanation. Future research should (a) determine whether the pattern discovered in the low attachment condition of this investigation is replicable and, if it is, (b) address the extent to which the explanations offered here provide an accurate account of that pattern. Finally, additional research should be conducted to assess the degree to which individuals assign negative social meanings to condoms. This investigation provides some evidence of the impact that such negative-meaning assignments have, but does not offer a conclusion about how widespread are such meanings. The answer to these questions will have very important implications for our understanding of safe-sex behavior and may contribute in unexpected ways to the content of prevention programs.

CONCLUSION

This investigation has emphasized how social meaning interacts with identity and relationship concerns to predict condom use. It has been argued that prevention programs and persuasive campaigns must be dedicated to altering the social meaning of condoms. Clearly, several factors contribute to the ultimate decisions involving safe-sex behavior. In fact, although the analysis produced a significant interaction between the two independent variables, the spread of the means across the conditions was relatively small. Undoubtedly, fears surrounding identity and relationship issues are but one piece of the puzzle. However, recognizing such fears and their inherent interpersonal nature may help considerably in our attempt to better understand the reasons underlying the common decision to not practice safe sex. Of course, it is important to keep in mind that participants who did not perceive the scenario as realistic or who had not engaged in sexual intercourse were excluded from the analysis. While that decision increased the validity of our results in some ways (e.g., by relying on self-reports of behavior in realistic, rather than completely hypothetical, scenarios), it may have also limited their generalizability. It is important to keep in mind that I can make no claims regarding the applicability of these findings to those who have never engaged in sexual intercourse or who would not consider sexual intercourse with the person described in the scenario. Future efforts should be directed toward further understanding the place of identity and relationship motivations in the complex structure of factors influencing safe-sex behavior.

The author wishes to thank the editor and two anonymous reviewers for their assistance with various aspects of this manuscript. An earlier version of this manuscript was presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Jerusalem, July, 1998.

Address correspondence to Dr. Walid A. Afifi, 234 Sparks Bldg., Speech Communication Department, Penn State University, University Park, PA 16802; e-mail: [e-mail].

REFERENCES

Afifi, W. A., & Guerrero, L. K. (in press). Motivations underlying topic avoidance in close relationships. In S. Petronio (Ed.), Balancing the secrets of private disclosures. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Argyle, M., & Henderson, M. (1984). The rules of friendship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1, 211-237.

Aronson, E. (1997). The theory of cognitive dissonance: The evolution and vicissitudes of an idea. In C. McGarty & S. A. Alexander (Eds.), The message of social psychology: Perspectives on mind in society (pp. 20-35). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Bajos, N., Beltzer, N., Ducot, B., Moatti, J., Spira, A., & Warszawki, J. (1994). At risk behaviour and methods of protection. In A. Spira, N. Bajos, & A. Group (Eds.), Sexual behaviour and AIDS (pp. 198-219). Aldershot, England: Avebury.

Baumeister, R. E, & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.

Becker, M. H., & Joseph, J. G. (1988). AIDS and behavioral change to reduce risk: A review. American Journal of Public Health, 78, 394-410.

Berger, P., & Kellner, H. (1964). Marriage and the construction of reality. An exercise in the microsociology of knowledge. Diogenes, 46, 1-24.

Bolton, R. (1992). AIDS and promiscuity: Muddles in the models. In R. Bolton & M. Singer (Eds.), Rethinking AIDS prevention (pp. 7-85). New York: Gordon and Breach.

Boulton, M., McLean, J., Fitzpatrick, R., & Hart, G. (1995). Gay men's accounts of unsafe sex. AIDS Care, 7, 619-630.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Buss, D. M. (1990). The evolution of anxiety and social exclusion. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 196-210.

Campbell, A., & Muncer, S. (1987). Models of anger and aggression in the social talk of women and men. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 17, 489-511.

Centers for Disease Control (1997). HIV and AIDS trends. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Cline, R. J., Johnson, S. J., & Freeman, K. E. (1992). Talk among sexual partners about AIDS: Interpersonal communication for risk reduction or risk enhancement? Health Communication, 4, 39-56.

Cupach, W. R., & Metts, S. (1994). Facework. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

DiClemente, R. J., & Peterson, J. L. (Eds.). (1994). Preventing AIDS: Theories and methods of behavioral interventions. New York: Plenum Press.

Dweck, C. (1996). Implicit theories as organizers of goals and behavior. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 69-90). New York: Guilford Press.

Duck, S. (Ed.). (1982). Personal relationships 4: Dissolving personal relationships. New York: Academic Press.

Galligan, R. F., & Terry, D. J. (1993). Romantic ideals, fear of negative implications, and the practice of safe sex. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1685-1711.

Geringer, W., Marks, S., Allen, W., & Armstrong, K. (1993). Knowledge, attitudes, and behavior related to condom use and STDs in a high risk population. The Journal of Sex Research, 30, 75-83.

Gelles, R. J., & Cornell, C. P. (1990). Intimate violence in families (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Overlook.

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Pantheon.

Gold, R. S., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Skinner, M. J., & Morton, J. (1992). Situational factors and thought processes associated with unprotected intercourse in heterosexual students. AIDS Care, 4, 305-323.

Hall, D. R. (1990). Notes on the erotic economy: The condom in the age of AIDS. Journal of American Culture, 13, 23-27.

Hammer, J. C., Fisher, J. D., Fitzgerald, P., & Fisher, W. A. (1996). When two heads aren't better than one: AIDS risk behavior in college-age couples. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 375-397.

Helweg-Larsen, M., & Collins, B. E. (1994). The UCLA Multidimensional Condom Attitudes scale: Documenting the complex determinants of condom use in college students. Health Psychology, 13, 224-237.

Holtgraves, T. M. (1988). Gambling as self-presentation. Journal of Gambling Behavior, 4, 78-91.

Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton.

Lear, D. (1997). Sex and sexuality: Risk and relationships in the age of AIDS. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 34-47.

Lupton, D. (1994). The condom in the age of AIDS: Newly respectable or still a dirty word? A discourse analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 4, 304-320.

Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. New York: Van Nostrand.

Mays, V. M., & Cochran, S. D. (1988). Issues in the perception of AIDS risk and risk reduction activities by Black and Hispanic/Latina women. American Psychologist, 43, 949-957.

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.

Middleton, W., Harris, P., & Hollely, C. (1994). Condom use by heterosexual students: Justifications for unprotected intercourse. Health Education Journal, 53, 147-154.

Nzioka, C. (1996). Lay perceptions of risk of HIV infection and the social construction of safer sex: Some experiences from Kenya. AIDS Care, 8, 565-579.

Ogilvie, D. M. (1987). The undesired self: A neglected variable in personality research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 379-385.

Pivnick, A. (1993). HIV infection and the meaning of condoms. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, 17, 431-453.

Pliner, P., & Chaiken, S. (1990). Eating, social motives, and self-presentation in women and men. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 240-254.

Robinson, D. T., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1992). Selective interaction as a strategy for identity maintenance: An affect control model. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 12-28.

Roloff, M. E., & Cloven, D. H. (1990). The chilling effect in interpersonal relationships: The reluctance to speak one's mind. In D. D. Cahn (Ed.), Intimates in conflict: A communication perspective (pp. 49-76). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Sanderson, C. A., & Jemmott, J. B., III (1996). Moderation and medication of HIV-prevention interventions: Relationship status, intentions, and condom use among college students. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 2076-2099.

Schlenker, B. R., Britt, T. W., & Pennington, J. (1996). Impression regulation and management: Highlights of a theory of self-identification. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Vol. 3. The interpersonal context (pp. 118-147). New York: The Guilford Press.

Schlenker, B. R., Britt, T. W., Pennington, J., Murphy, R., & Doherty, K. J. (1994). The triangle model of responsibility. Psychological Review, 101, 632-652.

Shimanoff, S. B. (1985). Rules governing the verbal expression of emotions between married couples. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 49, 147-165.

Sobo, E. J. (1995). Choosing unsafe sex: AIDS risk and denial among disadvantaged women. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Sprecher, S., & McKinney, K. (1993). Sexuality. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Swann, W. B., De La Ronde, C., & Hixon, J. G. (1994). Authenticity and positivity strivings in marriage and courtship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 857-869.

Thompson, S. C., Anderson, K., Freedman, D., & Swan, J. (1996). Illusions of safety in a risky world: A study of college students' condom use. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 189-210.

Thomson, R., & Holland, J. (1994). Young women and safer (hetero)sex: Context, constraint, and strategies. In S. Wilkinson & C. Kitzinger (Eds.), Women and health: Feminist perspectives (pp. 13-32). London: Taylor & Francis.

Tracy, K. (1990). The many faces of facework. In H. Giles & W. P. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 209-226). New York: John Wiley.

Wight, D. (1992). Impediments to safer heterosexual sex: A review of research with young people. AIDS Care, 4, 11-23.

Williams, S. S., Kimble, D. L., Covell, N. H., Weiss, L. H., Newton, K. J., Fisher, J. D., & Fisher, W. A. (1992). College students use implicit personality theory instead of safer sex. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 921-933.

Willig, C. (1995). "I wouldn't have married the guy if I'd have to do that:" Heterosexual adults' constructions of condom use and their implications for sexual practice. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 5, 75-87.

Wingood, G. M., Hunter-Gamble, D., & DiClemente, R. J. (1993). A pilot study of sexual communication and negotiation among young African American women: Implications for HIV prevention. Journal of Black Psychology, 19, 190-203.

Wortley, P. M., & Fleming, P. L. (1997). AIDS in women in the United States. Journal of the American Medical Association, 2 78, 911-916.

Manuscript accepted January 20, 1999

Walid A. Afifi Pennsylvania State University