This study applied a dyadic approach to condom-use research. Partners from 124 heterosexual couples independently completed a questionnaire assessing condom-related attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and intentions to use condoms. Results demonstrate the superiority of a dyadic approach to understanding couples’ condom-use intentions and behavior over traditional, individual-level approaches. The addition of partner effects to the model, via the actor–partner interdependence model, resulted in an increase in the variance accounted for in condom-use intentions and this dyadic model showed better fit compared to the individual-level model. The results suggest that consideration of relationship partners plays an important role in the prediction of safer sex intentions.
AgnewCR (1999) Power over interdependent behavior within the dyad: Who decides what a couple does? In: SeveryLJ (ed.) Advances in Population: Psychosocial Perspectives, Vol. 3. London: Jessica Kingsley, pp. 163–188.
2.
AjzenI (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes50: 179–211.
AjzenIFishbeinM (1980) Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
5.
AlbarracínDGilletteJCEarlAN, et al. (2005) A test of major assumptions about behavior change: A comprehensive look at the effects of passive and active HIV-prevention interventions since the beginning of the epidemic. Psychological Bulletin131: 856–897.
6.
AlbarracínDJohnsonBTFishbeinM, et al. (2001) Theories of reasoned action and planned behavior as models of condom use: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin127: 142–161.
7.
BanduraA (1997) Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
8.
BeadnellBBakerSAGillmoreMR, et al. (2008) The theory of reasoned action and the role of external factors on heterosexual men’s monogamy and condom use. Journal of Applied Social Psychology38: 97–134.
BermanMIFrazierPA (2005) Relationship power and betrayal experience as predictors of reactions to infidelity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin31: 1617–1627.
11.
BowenSPMichal-JohnsonP (1989) The crisis of communicating in relationships: Confronting the threat of AIDS. AIDS and Public Policy Journal4: 10–19.
12.
ByrneBM (1998) Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
CalsynDACampbellANTrossS, et al. (2011) Is monogamy or committed relationship status a marker for low sexual risk among men in substance abuse treatment? Clinical and methodological considerations. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse37: 294–300.
14.
CarminesEGMcIverJP (1981) Analyzing models with unobserved variables: Analysis of covariance structures. In: BohrnstedtGWBorgattaEF (eds) Social Measurement: Current Issues. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE, pp. 65–115.
15.
CataniaJAKegelsSMCoatesTJ (1990) Towards an understanding of risk behavior: An AIDS risk reduction model (ARRM). Health Education Quarterly17: 53–72.
16.
ClineRJWFreemanKEJohnsonSJ (1990) Talk among sexual partners about AIDS: Factors differentiating those who talk from those who do not. Communication Research17: 792–808.
17.
CochranSDMaysVM (1990) Sex, lies, and HIV. New England Journal of Medicine322: 774–775.
18.
ConleyTDMoorsACMatsickJL, et al. (2013) The fewer the merrier? Assessing stigma surrounding consensually non-monogamous romantic relationships. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy131(1): 1–30.
19.
ConleyTDMoorsACZieglerA, et al. (2012) Unfaithful individuals are less likely to practice safer sex than openly non-monogamous individuals. Journal of Sexual Medicine9: 1559–1565.
20.
CrowellTLEmmers-SommerTM (2000) Examining condom use, self-efficacy, and coping in sexual situations. Communication Research Reports17: 191–202.
21.
El-BasselNWitteSSGilbertL, et al. (2003) The efficacy of a relationship-based HIV/STD prevention program for heterosexual couples. American Journal of Public Health93: 963–969.
22.
Emmers-SommerTMAllenM (2005) Safer Sex in Personal Relationships: The Role of Sexual Scripts in HIV Infection and Prevention. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23.
Emmers-SommerTMWarberKHalfordJ (2010) Reasons for (non) engagement in infidelity. Marriage & Family Review46: 420–444.
24.
EzehAC (1993) The influence of spouses over each other’s contraceptive attitudes in Ghana. Studies in family planning24: 163–174.
FisherJDFisherWA (2000) Theoretical approaches to individual-level change in HIV-risk behavior. In: PetersonJDi ClementeRJ (eds) HIV Prevention Handbook. New York: Kluwer Academic; Plenum Press, pp. 3–55.
27.
FisherWABoroditskyR (2000) Sexual activity, contraceptive choice, and sexual and reproductive health indicators among single Canadian women aged 15-29: Additional findings from the Canadian contraception study. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality9: 79–93.
28.
FisherWAFisherJDRyeBJ (1995) Understanding and promoting AIDS preventive behavior: Insights from the theory of reasoned action. Health Psychology14: 225–264.
29.
HarmanJJAmicoKR (2009) The relationship-oriented information-motivation-behavioral skills model: A multilevel structural equation model among dyads. AIDS and Behavior13: 173–184.
30.
HarveySM (2006) Factors associated with effective contraceptive use among a sample of Latina women. Women and Health43: 1–16.
31.
HarveySMBeckmanLJGerendMA, et al. (2006) A conceptual model of women’s condom use intentions: Integrating intrapersonal and relationship factors. AIDS Care18: 698–709.
32.
HuLTBentlerPM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling6: 1–55.
33.
Ishii-KuntzMWhitbeckIBSimonsRI (1990) AIDS and perceived change in sexual practice: An analysis of a college student sample from California and Iowa. Journal of Applied Social Psychology20: 1301–1321.
34.
KashyDAKennyDA (2000) The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In: ReisHTJuddCM (eds) Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 451–477.
35.
KelleyHHBerscheidEChristensenA, et al. (1983) Close Relationships in Analyzing Close Relationships. New York: W. H. Freeman.
36.
KellyJAKalichmanSC (1995) Increased attention to human sexuality can improve HIV-AIDS prevention efforts: key research issues and directions. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology63: 907–918.
37.
KettreyHH (2016) What’s gender got to do with it? Sexual double standards and power in heterosexual college hookups. The Journal of Sex Research537(7): 754–765.
38.
KlineRB (2005) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. 2nd ed.New York: Guilford Press.
39.
KordoutisPSLoumakouMSarafidouJO (2000) Heterosexual relationship characteristics, condom use and safe sex practices. AIDS care12: 767–782.
40.
LucchettiAE (1999) Deception in disclosing one’s sexual history: Safe-sex avoidance or ignorance?Communication Quarterly47: 300–314.
41.
McDonaldRPHoMR (2002) Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods7: 64–82.
42.
MatsudaY (2017) Actor-partner interdependence model analysis of sexual communication and relationship/family planning factors among immigrant Latino couples in the United States. Health Communication325(5): 612–620.
43.
MisovichSJFisherJDFisherWA (1997) Close relationships and elevated HIV risk behavior: Evidence and possible underlying psychological processes. Review of General Psychology1(1): 72–107.
44.
NoarSMBenacCNHarrisMS (2007) Does tailoring matter? Meta-analytic review of tailored print health behavior change interventions. Psychological Bulletin133: 673–693.
45.
PascoalPMByersESAlvarezMJ, et al. (2018) A dyadic approach to understanding the link between sexual functioning and sexual satisfaction in heterosexual couples. The Journal of Sex Research55(9): 1155–1166.
46.
ProchaskaJOVelicerWF (1997) The transtheoretical model of health behavior change. American Journal of Health Promotion12: 38–48.
47.
PulerwitzJAmaroHDe JongW, et al. (2002) Relationship power, condom use and HIV risk among women in the USA. AIDS Care14: 789–800.
48.
ReeceMHerbenickDSchickV, et al. (2010) Condom use rates in a national probability sample of males and females ages 14 to 94 in the United States. The Journal of Sexual Medicine7: 266–276.
49.
RosenstockIM (1974) The health belief model and personal health behavior. Health Education Monographs2: 328–335.
50.
RossMWKellyJA (1999) Interventions to reduce HIV transmission in homosexual men. In: PetersonJLDi ClementeRJ (Eds) Handbook of HIV Prevention. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 201–216.
51.
SemaanSJarlaisDCDMalowR (2006) Behavior change and health-related interventions for heterosexual risk reduction among drug users. Substance Use and Misuse41: 1349–1378.
52.
SheeranPAbrahamCOrbellS (1999) Psychosocial correlates of heterosexual condom use: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin125: 90–132.
53.
Skakoon-SparlingSCramerKM (2020) Are we blinded by desire? Relationship motivation and sexual risk-taking intentions during condom negotiation. The Journal of Sex Research57: 545–558. DOI: 10.1080/00224499.2019.1579888.
54.
Teye Kwadjo-EKageeASwartH (2017) Predicting the intention to use condoms and actual condom use behaviour: A three-wave longitudinal study in Ghana. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being9(1): 81–105.
55.
TschannJMAdlerNEMillsteinSG, et al. (2002) Relative power between sexual partners and condom use among adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health31: 17–25.
56.
VowelsLMMarkKP (2020) Relationship and sexual satisfaction: A longitudinal actor-partner interdependence model approach. Sexual and Relationship Therapy35: 46–59. DOI: 10.1080/14681994.2018.1441991.
57.
WiedermanMWHurdC (1999) Extradyadic involvement during dating. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships16: 265–274.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
