Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2026 Jul 10.
Published before final editing as: J Sex Res. 2026 Apr 30:1–11. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2026.2664805

An Event-Level Investigation of Young Men’s Condom Use Resistance: Associations with Global Sex-Related Alcohol Expectancies and Daily Drinking and Sex Motives

Julia F Hammett a, Kavya Juwadi a, Raheleh Bahrami a, Weiqi Chen b, Cynthia A Stappenbeck c, Kelly Cue Davis a
PMCID: PMC13346002  NIHMSID: NIHMS2192948  PMID: 42059485

Abstract

Condom use resistance (CUR) is a sexual risk behavior that is prevalent, tied to numerous negative consequences, and more likely to occur when alcohol is consumed. To inform prevention and intervention efforts, the present study assessed young men’s alcohol use and sexual behavior over a 32-day daily diary period. Specifically, we sought to examine associations between global sex-related alcohol expectancies, event-level drinking motives, event-level sex motives, and event-level CUR during vaginal sex. Participants (N = 416) completed a baseline survey in the lab that included measures of sex-related alcohol expectancies, followed by 32 daily online surveys assessing their alcohol use and sexual behavior, including measures of drinking motives, sex motives, and CUR. A total of 106 men (~25%) reported engaging in CUR over the 32-day period. Multilevel models using a negative binomial distribution identified between-person global alcohol expectancies for sexual risk and sexual disinhibition, between-person daily enhancement drinking motives, within-person daily power-related sex motives, and between-person daily coping sex motives as the most prominent correlates of CUR at the event-level. These findings support the use of interventions that help individuals modify their perceptions about the expected effects of alcohol on mood or behavior and that provide psychoeducational information to address maladaptive sex-related alcohol expectancies and drinking and sex motives in an effort to lower CUR engagement.

Resisting the use of condoms with a partner who wishes to use them – referred to as condom use resistance (CUR) – is a prevalent sexual risk behavior (Davis, Schraufnagel, et al., 2014; Davis, Stewart, et al., 2023). CUR is tied to negative consequences for those who experience it (e.g., increased likelihood of sexually transmitted infections [STIs] and unintended pregnancies; see Chen, Hammett, Stewart, et al., 2023). Therefore, examining factors that increase the likelihood of CUR engagement is important to inform prevention and intervention efforts. Although a burgeoning body of literature has identified alcohol- and sex-related risk factors of CUR at the global level (see Davis, Stewart, et al., 2023 for a review), studies that examine risk for sexual risk behaviors in general, and for CUR in particular, at the event-level are limited. Event-level investigations are important, because they minimize concerns regarding ecological validity apparent in global questionnaire- or laboratory-based studies. Additionally, event-level investigations extend beyond the examination of differences between people (i.e., between-person effects, such as, “are men who feel more motivated to drink to cope with emotional distress more likely to engage in CUR than men who feel less motivated to drink to cope?”) to the examination of differences within the same individual (i.e., within-person effects, such as, “are men more likely to engage in CUR on days when they feel more motivated to drink to cope with emotional distress than they typically do?”) The present study set out to fill this gap by assessing young men’s alcohol use and sexual behavior over a 32-day daily diary period and by examining associations between global sex-related alcohol expectancies, event-level drinking motives, event-level sex motives, and event-level CUR.

Condom Use Resistance

CUR encompasses a variety of strategies to avoid condom use, ranging from noncoercive to coercive strategies. Noncoercive strategies include making direct requests or claiming that using a condom reduces pleasure, while coercive strategies involve those that are manipulative or violent, such as emotional manipulation (e.g., threatening to end the relationship if a condom is used), deception (e.g., falsely claiming to be free of STIs), stealthing (i.e., removing a condom before or during sex without the partner’s knowledge or consent), condom sabotage (i.e., intentionally damaging or destroying a condom), and even physical force (Davis, Schraufnagel, et al., 2014; Davis, Hammett, et al., 2023; Davis, Stappenbeck, et al., 2014). Although women can engage in CUR (see Wegner et al., 2018), CUR is most commonly perpetrated by men, reflecting broader trends in the field of sexual aggression (Davis, Schraufnagel, et al., 2014; DeGue et al., 2014). For example, in one study, 80% of young heterosexual men reported having successfully resisted the use of condoms since the age of 14 (Davis, Stappenbeck, et al., 2014), and in another study, 49% of women reported having experienced coercive CUR from a male partner since age 14 (Davis et al., 2019). It is important to note that CUR can occur across sexual contexts (Davis, Schraufnagel, et al., 2014; Wegner et al., 2018), but it is most often reported during vaginal intercourse, which carries notable consequences such as STI transmission and unintended pregnancy (Chen, Hammett, Stewart, et al., 2023). Given these significant public health implications, identifying risk factors that are associated with men’s engagement in CUR, particularly during vaginal sex, is a critical step toward informing prevention efforts, and reducing the likelihood of CUR.

Alcohol Use and Sexual Risk Behaviors

Alcohol consumption is a well-established contributor to sexual risk taking, including reduced condom use, impaired negotiation, and increased likelihood of nonconsensual sex (Cooper, 2002, 2010; George et al., 2024; Rehm et al., 2012). Numerous studies have shown that intoxicated individuals are more likely to prioritize immediate sexual desires over safer sexual practices, especially during casual sexual encounters (Davis et al., 2016, 2020; Santaguida et al., 2022). This prioritization may occur because alcohol narrows individuals’ cognitive focus, emphasizing their attention to more salient cues such as sexual arousal and diminishing their attention to less salient cues such as the perception of risks (Steele & Josephs, 1990). Importantly, in many cases, both people involved in a sexual encounter are drinking alcohol, and people engaging in CUR while intoxicated and with intoxicated partners may be less focused on their partner’s negative affect or trauma response (e.g., displeasure, anger, or fear/freezing responses). In fact, research shows that women’s intoxication and even socialization in drinking environments may be interpreted as sexual consent (see Marcantonio et al., 2025 for a scoping review), which can further increase the likelihood of sexual risk taking and aggression. Despite the growing evidence on the link between alcohol use and sexual risk behaviors, much of the existing research has focused on surveys that assess trait-level risk factors of CUR using global measures or experiments conducted in controlled laboratory settings. Therefore, further investigation is needed to explore variation in people’s alcohol use and sexual risk behaviors assessed at the event-level in real world settings.

Sex-Related Alcohol Expectancies and Condom Use Resistance

In addition to the direct cognitive effects of intoxication, people’s beliefs about the way alcohol influences their moods and behaviors, referred to as alcohol expectancies, have been tied to sexual risk behaviors. Alcohol expectancy theory highlights that people’s actions are likely to align with their alcohol-related behavioral expectations (Dermen & Cooper, 2000). These expectations tend to be self-fulfilling such that people process ambiguous information in a way that confirms their initial hypotheses, even without actually consuming alcohol (Abbey, 2011; Snyder & Stukas, 1999). Expectancies regarding the effect of alcohol on sexual experiences (i.e., sex-related alcohol expectancies) may be particularly relevant to sexual risk behaviors such as CUR. For example, individuals who expect that alcohol will lead to stronger sensations during sex may be more likely to engage in CUR as they may worry that condoms could attenuate these pleasurable sensations. Similarly, individuals who expect that alcohol will make them more likely to take sexual risks or to engage in other sexual behavior they would not engage in while sober may be more likely to resist the use of condoms. In line with these propositions, past research has linked people’s sex-related alcohol expectancies, including their beliefs about alcohol’s effect on enhancing sexual experiences, increasing sexual risk taking, and increasing sexual disinhibition, to sexual risk behaviors. For example, in a cross-sectional study, men with stronger beliefs that alcohol enhances sexual experiences were more likely to report a history of engaging in stealthing (Chen, Hammett, Eldridge, et al., 2023), and in another cross-sectional study, men who had strong beliefs that alcohol increases sexual risk taking were more likely to report a history of condom nonuse (Dermen & Cooper, 2000). Past research using a timeline follow-back approach has also shown that higher expectancies about alcohol’s disinhibition of sexual behavior were associated with decreased condom use likelihood (LaBrie et al., 2005). Given this prior evidence, it is important to examine whether associations between sex-related alcohol expectancies and general sexual risk behaviors, largely examined at the global level, extend to the specific sexual risk behavior of CUR at the event level.

Drinking and Sex Motives and Condom Use Resistance

Motivational models of alcohol propose that individuals drink to regulate both positive and negative emotions; they drink to increase, or enhance, positive emotions and to avoid, or cope with, negative emotions (Cooper et al., 1995). One possible explanation is that drinking to cope with negative emotions or to enhance positive emotions may be reflective of a trait-level tendency toward engaging in maladaptive emotion regulation strategies, which then further exacerbates the risk of alcohol-related problems such as sexual risk. In support of this proposition, past research suggests that in general, drinking motives are among the most important global predictors of behavior when intoxicated (Sjödin et al., 2021). However, although prior studies have consistently linked enhancement drinking motives to increased risky sexual behavior in cross-sectional (Dvorak et al., 2016; Looby et al., 2019) and global longitudinal (Kilwein & Looby, 2018) studies, past research on the link between drinking to cope with negative emotions and risky sexual behavior is mixed. For example, while one study showed a direct association between drinking to cope and risky sexual behaviors (Dvorak et al., 2016), another study showed that drinking to cope had no effect on risky sexual behavior (Kilwein & Looby, 2018). Finally, sex-related drinking motives (i.e., drinking to enhance sexual experiences, such as becoming more comfortable initiating sex; see Ndungu et al., 2025) have been associated with higher likelihood of stealthing (Chen, Hammett, Eldridge, et al., 2023).

Similar to holding different motivations for drinking alcohol, people may also be motivated to have sex for different reasons, and past research supports that these sex motives may increase or decrease the likelihood that people engage in risky sexual behaviors, such as CUR. For example, an alcohol administration study found that men who have sex to cope with negative emotions were more likely to engage in coercive CUR (Davis et al., 2025). A cross-sectional survey found an association between having sex to enhance pleasurable emotions and alcohol-related problems (Blanchard et al., 2018), which can include risky sexual behavior such as CUR. Lastly, having sex to feel more powerful has been experimentally linked to sexual aggression (Davis et al., 2022), as well as CUR (Davis et al., 2018; Stappenbeck et al., 2019).

However, despite the fact that people’s motivations to drink or have sex can differ from day to day, there is currently a lack of research that has specifically examined the relationship between daily drinking motives, sex motives, and CUR. For example, on days when individuals are motivated to drink alcohol or have sex to cope with negative mood, they may be more likely to engage in condom nonuse or CUR in an effort to numb their negative emotions through increased physical sensation. Similarly, on days when individuals drink alcohol or have sex to enhance positive mood, they may be more likely to engage in condom nonuse or CUR to further intensify pleasurable sensations. To evaluate these associations, intensive longitudinal data that can tease apart trait-level differences (i.e., differences in CUR between individuals who have inherently higher versus lower drinking/sex motives) from event-level differences (i.e., differences in CUR within individuals on days with higher versus lower drinking/sex motives than usual) are needed.

The Present Study

To address the aforementioned gaps and inform prevention and intervention, the present prospective study aimed to describe young men’s alcohol use and sexual behavior over a 32-day daily diary period (Aim 1/H1), and whether preexisting, global sex-related alcohol expectancies and in-the-moment, event-level drinking and sex motives are associated with event-level frequency of CUR behaviors during vaginal sex (Aim 2/H2). Based on theoretical and empirical evidence, we expected that men with greater preexisting sex-related alcohol expectancies for sexual enhancement, sexual risk taking, and sexual disinhibition would engage in more CUR behaviors over the daily diary period as compared to men with lower preexisting sex-related alcohol expectancies (H2.a; between-subjects). We also expected that men would engage in more CUR behaviors on days with greater coping, enhancement, and sex-related drinking motives compared to their own baseline (H2.b.1; within-subjects) and that men with greater drinking motives would engage in more CUR behaviors over the monitoring period as compared to men with lower drinking motives (H2.b.2; between-subjects). Finally, we expected that men would engage in more CUR behaviors on days with greater coping, enhancement, and power-related sex motives compared to their own baseline (H2.c.1; within-subjects) and that men with greater sex motives would engage in more CUR behaviors over the monitoring period as compared to men with lower sex motives (H2.c.2; between-subjects).

Method

Participants and Procedure

The current study used data collected as part of a larger project that aimed to investigate the relationships among men’s alcohol intoxication, sexual aggression perpetration, and sexual risk taking. The project utilized a multimethod approach, including (1) daily diary assessment to examine within-person variability in how emotions, alcohol, and sex function on a daily basis to predict alcohol consumption and sexual risk behavior and (2) laboratory experimentation to evaluate how acute intoxication and emotions function proximally in sexual risk taking. First, participants completed a baseline survey in the lab, followed by 32 daily diary online assessments, and then a second, experimental in-lab session with alcohol administration. The current analyses used data from the baseline survey and daily diary online assessments. The alcohol administration portion of the larger data collection is described elsewhere (see Davis et al., 2025; Kirwan et al., 2025).

Participants were recruited between 2019 and 2023 through online (Facebook, Instagram, Craigslist) and print (newspaper ads, flyers) advertisements from an urban region in the Southwestern United States. Advertisements directed potential participants to an anonymous online screening survey. Per the goals of the larger project, men were eligible to participate if they (a) were 21–30 years old, (b) were not in a long-term (i.e., 6 months or more) monogamous relationship, (c) had consumed alcohol at least twice in the past 30 days, (d) had consumed at least three drinks on one occasion within the past 6 months, (e) had sex with a woman at least twice within the past 30 days and/or intended to have sex with a woman at least twice in the next 30 days, and (f) had condomless sex with a woman at least once in the past year. Following the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism’s (NIAAA, 2023) guidelines for ethical alcohol administration research, individuals with an alcohol use disorder (Pokorny et al., 1972), medical conditions, or medication that contraindicated alcohol consumption were excluded. Arizona State University’s institutional review board approved all materials and procedures.

Once eligibility was determined through the online screening survey, a research assistant called each potential participant to describe the study and confirm eligibility and interest. Participants who agreed to participate in the study were scheduled for the first in-lab session that involved completion of the baseline survey. Upon arrival to the lab, participants provided informed consent and a male research assistant verified the participant’s name and date of birth. Participants then completed a Qualtrics survey that included information about their demographics, sex-related alcohol expectancies, and other measures.

After completion of the in-lab baseline survey, participants began the daily diary assessments starting the following Thursday. For 32 consecutive days, participants received an e-mail with a survey link before noon and were instructed to complete the surveys by 11:59 PM on the same day. In addition, a text message reminder was sent each afternoon to complete the survey. If participants failed to complete the daily survey for more than two days in a row, an additional reminder was sent via voice or text message. The daily diary assessments included measures of alcohol and drug consumption and sexual activity, including CUR, drinking motives, and sex motives. Participants were compensated $30 for completing the in-lab baseline survey and $5 for each completed daily diary assessment. Participants received a $100 bonus and were entered into a drawing for an additional $100 prize within the next three months if they completed both in-lab sessions and at least 80% of the daily diary assessments.

A total of 14,595 respondents completed the initial online screening survey, and 1,271 were deemed suitable based on the eligibility criteria. Of these 1,271 respondents, 677 completed the phone screening; the remaining 594 respondents either could not be reached or declined further participation. Of those who completed the phone screening, 420 participants attended the baseline in-lab session. One participant withdrew from the study before answering any baseline items, and another participant was removed because he was mistakenly re-enrolled after having participated previously. Of the remaining 418 participants, 416 completed at least one daily survey. All of these participants passed attention checks throughout the study that required them to correctly answer instructed response items, such as, “If you are reading this item, please check ‘I strongly disagree.’”

Measures

Baseline Survey

Sex-Related Alcohol Expectancies.

Sex-related alcohol expectancies were assessed with three subscales from the Sex-Related Alcohol Expectancies Questionnaire (Dermen & Cooper, 1994) measuring sexual enhancement (five items, e.g., “I feel closer to a sexual partner”), sexual risk taking (four items, e.g., “I am less likely to use a condom”), and sexual disinhibition (four items, e.g., “I find it harder to say no to sexual advances”) alcohol expectancies, which have shown adequate reliability (α ≥ .73) in prior research (Dermen & Cooper, 1994). Participants were asked to assess how they thought a few drinks of alcohol would affect their sexual feelings and behaviors in the areas that were listed, using 6-point scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Items in each subscale were averaged to yield composite scores for enhancement sex-related alcohol expectancies (α = .77), sexual risk sex-related alcohol expectancies (α = .87), and disinhibition sex-related alcohol expectancies (α = .73).

Daily Assessments

Alcohol Use.

After being presented with a graphic that defined the meaning of one standard drink for different types of alcohol (e.g., beer, wine, liquor), alcohol use quantity was assessed with one question that asked participants how many standard drinks they had consumed the day before, with response options ranging from 0 to 25.

Sexual Behavior and Condom Use Resistance.

Sexual behavior was assessed by asking participants how many times they had had vaginal sex the day before, with response options ranging from 0 (0 times) to 5 (5 or more times). On days participants reported having vaginal sex, they were asked to characterize their relationship with the sex partner (1 = a new partner, 2 = casual sex partner, 3 = steady sex partner) and CUR frequency was measured with the Condom Use Resistance Survey modified for use in a daily format (Davis, Stappenbeck, et al., 2014). There were 17 items tapping into coercive (six items, e.g., “Lied to her in order to get her to have sex without a condom”) and noncoercive (11 items; e.g., “Asked her to not use a condom during sex”) CUR strategies. Participants were asked to indicate whether they had engaged in any of the behaviors listed (0 = no, 1 = yes) during vaginal sexual intercourse the day before to get their partner not to use a condom. All 17 items were summed to create a frequency of CUR behaviors reported each day.

Drinking Motives.

On days participants reported consuming alcohol, their drinking motives were assessed with the Drinking Motives Questionnaire (Cooper, 1994) modified for use in a daily format. Three subscales measured motives to drink to cope with negative emotions (three items, e.g., “To forget all your problems”), enhance positive emotions (three items, e.g., “To have fun”), and drinking motives related to sex (three items, e.g., “To make sexual activity more fun”). Participants were asked to rate how motivated they were to drink alcoholic beverages the day before for each of the reasons listed, using a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). Items in each subscale were averaged to yield composite scores for coping drinking motives (ω = .70), enhancement drinking motives (ω = .74), and sex-related drinking motives (ω = .82).1

Sex Motives.

On days participants reported having sex, their sex motives were assessed with the Sexual Motivational Scale modified for use in a daily format (Cooper et al., 1998; Davis et al., 2022). Three subscales measured motives to have sex to cope with negative emotions (three items; e.g., “To cheer yourself up”), enhance positive emotions (three items; e.g., “Because it felt good”), and power-related sex motives (three items; e.g., “To feel in control”). Participants were asked to rate how inclined they were to have sex the day before for each of the reasons listed, using 5-point scales ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). Items in each subscale were averaged to yield composite scores for coping sex motives (ω = .66), enhancement sex motives (ω = .71), and power-related sex motives (ω = .73).

Data Analytic Approach

Prior to analysis, data were cleaned by examining time to complete and instructed response items. SPSS Version 29 was used to generate descriptive statistics and frequencies on alcohol use and sexual behavior in pursuit of Aim 1. To address Aim 2, we ran three separate models using Multilevel Modeling in Mplus Version 8. Missing data and non-normal distribution of the CUR frequency outcome variable were handled by using maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors (MLR) and a negative binomial distribution. Given the skewed distribution of CUR frequency, a negative binomial distribution was chosen, following best practice recommendations for modeling such skewed sexual aggression data (see Swartout et al., 2015). Sex-related alcohol expectancies were grand mean centered. Drinking motives and sex motives were included in the analyses both as grand mean centered between-person variables and as person mean centered within-person variables. Time (i.e., number of days elapsed since the laboratory session ranging from 1–32) was included as a covariate in all analyses. Model 1 (testing H2.a.1) included between-person sex-related alcohol expectancies for enhancement, reduced sexual risk, and disinhibition as predictors and CUR frequency as the outcome. Model 2 (testing H2.b.1 and H2.b.2) included between- and within-person coping, enhancement, and sex-related drinking motives as predictors and CUR frequency as the outcome. Finally, Model 3 (testing H2.c.1 and H2.c.2) included between- and within-person coping, enhancement, and power-related sex motives as predictors and CUR frequency as the outcome. Given our focus on CUR frequency as an outcome, the current analyses were restricted to men who reported having sex at least once over the 32-day daily diary period. Moreover, drinking motives were only assessed on days on which men reported alcohol use. This restriction resulted in a total of 1,412 observations (n = 304 men) for Model 1; 853 observations (n = 270 men) for Model 2; and 1,394 observations (n = 301 men) for Model 3, respectively, with valid and complete data.

Results

Aim 1: Demographics and Descriptive Analyses

The average age of the analytic sample (N = 416) was 24.37 years (SD = 2.80). A majority of the sample identified as White (n = 289, 69.5%), with the remaining participants identifying as multiracial (n = 47, 11.3%), Asian American (n = 18, 4.3%), Black/African American (n = 18, 4.3%), Native American (n = 5, 1.2%), and Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian (n = 1, 0.2%). Nineteen participants (4.6%) indicated that their race was not listed, and an additional 19 participants (4.6%) did not report their race. A total of 116 participants (27.9%) identified as Hispanic/Latino, evidencing less racial/ethnic diversity than the community from which the sample was drawn (only 40% White and 58% non-Hispanic; U.S. Census Bureau, 2023). Slightly more than half of the participants (n = 213, 51.2%) had an annual household income below $50,000 and the majority were employed (n = 330, 79.3%), with most indicating that they had a full-time job (n = 215, 65.2%). Most participants indicated that they had completed some college (n = 183, 44.0%) or graduated from college (n = 151, 36.3%). About half of the participants were students (n = 212, 51.0%), and most of those who were students indicated that they were enrolled full-time (n = 181, 85.4%).

The 416 men in the analytic sample provided data across 1 to 32 days (M = 21.13 days, SD = 9.20), for a total of 8,790 days. Of these 8,790 days, 3,984 days (45.3%) involved alcohol consumption. Men reported drinking alcohol on 0 to 30 days (M = 9.58 days, SD = 6.41) and consuming 0 to 255 drinks across the 32-day period (M = 44.19 drinks, SD = 38.97). The 399 men who consumed alcohol at least once during the 32-day period reported drinking 1 to 15 drinks per drinking day (M = 4.57 drinks, SD = 2.29). A total of 1,425 days (16.2%) involved vaginal sex. Men had vaginal sex on 0 to 24 days (M = 3.43 days, SD = 3.95) across the 32-day period. The 305 men who had vaginal sex across the 32-day period reported having vaginal sex 1 to 60 times (M = 6.98 sex acts, SD = 7.40). Moreover, 864 days (9.8% of all days; 60.6% of vaginal sex days) involved both alcohol and vaginal sex. There were 271 men who reported at least one day that involved both alcohol and vaginal sex (M = 3.19, SD = 2.54). Finally, 304 men provided data on CUR during vaginal sex on 1,412 days (men were only asked about CUR on days on which they had vaginal sex). Of these 1,412 days, 205 days (14.5%) involved one or more CUR behaviors. Most of these 205 days (n = 189 days, 92.2%) involved only behaviors that tapped into noncoercive CUR tactics, five days (2.4%) involved only behaviors that tapped into coercive CUR tactics, and nine days (4.4%) involved behaviors that included a combination of noncoercive and coercive tactics. Men engaged in 0 to 10 CUR behaviors per day and 0 to 21 CUR behaviors across the reporting period. The 106 men who reported engaging in CUR across the 32-day period reported engaging in an average of 1 to 4.20 CUR behaviors per CUR day (M = 1.51 CUR behaviors, SD = 0.82). Of the 205 days that involved CUR, 33 (16.1%) were with a new partner, 58 (28.3%) were with a casual sex partner, and 113 (55.1%) were with a steady sex partner. Although CUR was not more likely on days on which men drank alcohol (ϕ = .02, p = .49), men who drank alcohol more frequently during the reporting period also engaged in CUR behaviors more frequently (ϕ = .16, p = .01).

Aim 2: Alcohol Expectancies, Drinking and Sex Motives, and CUR Frequency

Means, standard deviations, and ranges of the Aim 2 study variables are shown in Table 1. At the bivariate level, men who held greater sex-related alcohol expectancies for enhancement, sexual risk taking, and disinhibition drank more alcohol (r = .07, .05, and .04, respectively, all p < .01) and engaged in more CUR (r = .16, .16, and .15, respectively, all p < .001). In support of H2.a (Table 2/Model 1), controlling for time and all other sex-related alcohol expectancies, there were significant between-person associations between sex-related alcohol expectancies for sexual risk taking and CUR frequency (β = .26, p = .01) and between sex-related alcohol expectancies for disinhibition and CUR frequency (β = .19, p = .02), indicating that men who held greater alcohol expectancies for sexual risk taking and disinhibition engaged in more CUR over the 32-day period as compared to men who held lower alcohol expectancies. The between-person association between sex-related alcohol expectancies for enhancement and CUR frequency was not statistically significant.

Table 1.

Means, standard deviations, and ranges of the Aim 2 main study variables.

Predictors Min Max Mean SD
MODEL 1 (n = 1,412 days, 304 men)
Frequency of CUR Behaviorsa 0.00 10.00 – –
Between-Person SRAE Enhancement −2.83 2.17 0.00 0.91
Between-Person SRAE Sexual Risk −2.52 2.48 0.00 1.33
Between-Person SRAE, Disinhibition −2.58 2.42 0.00 1.09
MODEL 2 (n = 853 days, 270 men)
Frequency of CUR Behaviorsa 0.00 8.00 – –
Between-Person DM Coping −0.31 3.69 0.00 0.69
Between-Person DM Enhancement −1.91 2.09 0.00 1.05
Between-Person DM Sex −0.55 3.45 0.00 0.86
Within-Person DM Coping −2.29 2.95 0.00 0.36
Within-Person DM Enhancement −2.48 2.17 0.00 0.63
Within-Person DM Sex −2.17 2.17 0.00 0.49
MODEL 3 (n = 1,394 days, 301 men)
Frequency of CUR Behaviorsa 0.00 10.00 – –
Between-Person SM Coping −2.87 1.13 0.00 0.90
Between-Person SM Enhancement −0.38 3.62 0.00 0.71
Between-Person SM Power −0.49 3.51 0.00 0.84
Within-Person SM Coping −3.20 2.33 0.00 0.54
Within-Person SM Enhancement −1.83 2.67 0.00 0.38
Within-Person SM Power −2.88 3.04 0.00 0.43
Open in a new tab

CUR = Condom Use Resistance, SRAE = Sex-Related Alcohol Expectancies, DM = Drinking Motives, SM = Sex Motives.

Between-person variables were grand mean centered, within-person variables were person mean centered.

a

Because frequency of CUR behaviors was treated as a count variable in the main analytic models, no mean and standard deviation are provided.

Table 2.

Associations between global sex-related alcohol expectancies, event-level drinking motives, sex motives, and condom use resistance (Aim 2).

Predictors b β p
MODEL 1: Sex-Related Alcohol Expectancies
Within-Person
Time (Covariate) −0.02 −.15 .02
Between-Person
Sex-Related Alcohol Expectancies, Enhancement 0.21 .12 .06
Sex-Related Alcohol Expectancies, Sexual Risk 0.33 .26 .01
Sex-Related Alcohol Expectancies, Disinhibition 0.29 .19 .02
MODEL 2: Drinking Motives
Within-Person
Time (Covariate) −0.01 −.08 .21
Drinking Motives, Coping 0.06 .02 .39
Drinking Motives, Enhancement 0.21 .13 .08
Drinking Motives, Sex 0.24 .12 .08
Between-Person
Drinking Motives, Coping 0.17 .07 .30
Drinking Motives, Enhancement 0.57 .31 .01
Drinking Motives, Sex 0.33 .15 .09
MODEL 3: Sex Motives
Within-Person
Time (Covariate) −0.02 −.20 <.001
Sex Motives, Coping 0.06 .02 .39
Sex Motives, Enhancement 0.08 .05 .29
Sex Motives, Power 0.60 .26 <.001
Between-Person
Sex Motives, Coping 0.67 .27 .01
Sex Motives, Enhancement 0.27 .12 .08
Sex Motives, Power 0.06 .03 .39
Open in a new tab

Between-person variables were grand mean centered, within-person variables were person mean centered.

Bivariate correlations showed that men who had greater coping, enhancement, and sex-related drinking motives drank more alcohol (r = .04, .54, and .27, respectively, all p < .05) and engaged in more CUR (r = .09, .15, and .18, respectively, all p < .01). H2.b.1 was not supported as none of the within-person associations between drinking motives and CUR frequency were statistically significant. In support of H2.b.2 (Table 2/Model 2), controlling for time and all other drinking motives, there was a significant between-person association between enhancement drinking motives (β = .31, p = .01) and CUR frequency, demonstrating that men who had greater motives to drink alcohol to enhance positive emotions engaged in more CUR over the 32-day period as compared to men who had lower enhancement drinking motives. All other between-person associations between drinking motives and CUR frequency were not statistically significant.

Finally, men who had greater enhancement sex motives had more sex over the reporting period (r = .10, p < .001) and men who had greater coping and power-related sex motives engaged in more CUR (r = .16 and .15, respectively, both p < .001) at the bivariate level. In support of H2.c.1 (Table 2/Model 3), controlling for time and all other sex motives, there was a significant within-person association between power-related sex motives (β = .26, p < .001) and CUR frequency, demonstrating that on days during which men had greater power-related sex motives compared to their own baseline, they engaged in more CUR. Additionally, in support of H2.c.2, there was a significant between-person association between coping sex motives (β = .27, p = .01) and CUR frequency, indicating that men who had greater sex motives to cope with negative emotions engaged in more CUR over the 32-day period as compared to men who had lower coping sex motives. All other within- and between-person associations between sex motives and CUR frequency were not statistically significant.

Discussion

The current study set out to describe higher risk young men’s alcohol use and sexual behavior over a 32-day daily diary period, and to identify correlates of CUR frequency at the daily level, including preexisting sex-related alcohol expectancies and in-the-moment drinking and sex motives. In this study, 16.2% of the total reported days over the assessment period included vaginal sex; the majority (60.6%) of these vaginal sex days involved alcohol and 15.5% of these vaginal sex days involved CUR. Of the 416 men in the analytic sample, 25.5% reported engaging in CUR over the 32-day period. These event-level data provide novel insights, highlighting the high prevalence of CUR among this relatively high risk group of young male adults, even when assessed over a short period of time. While previous work (Davis, Stappenbeck, et al., 2014) has shown that 80% of young men have engaged in CUR in their lifetime (i.e., since age 14), our findings provide evidence that those who engage in CUR do so regularly, as about a quarter of our sample endorsed CUR within only a 32-day assessment period. It is important to note that men in the current sample were composed of a relatively high risk group, having been selected on the basis of their regular drinking and recent casual sex with a woman, and thus, the findings may not generalize to the broader population of young adult men. Nevertheless, these high rates point to a need to increase awareness about CUR and educate young men and women about its associated risks, along with safer sex practices (e.g., condom use) that can be implemented to avoid these risks without interfering with sexual pleasure.

In addition to offering strong ecological validity, our data extend prior work. While most previous studies (e.g., Dermen & Cooper, 2000; LaBrie et al., 2005) have focused on between-person associations of alcohol- and sex-related variables and CUR, which measure whether individuals who score higher on these variables engage in more CUR as compared to individuals who score lower on these variables, we also examined within-person associations. Rather than comparing individuals to other people on key behaviors or traits, these within-person analyses allow for comparison of the way individuals behave on a given day compared to their own baseline or average (e.g., do individuals engage in more CUR on days on which they endorse greater sex motives compared to their own average?). Partially supporting the hypotheses, the present analyses highlighted between-person global alcohol expectancies for sexual risk and sexual disinhibition (H2.a), between-person daily enhancement drinking motives (H2.b.2), within-person daily power-related sex motives (H2.c.1), and between-person daily coping sex motives (H2.c.2) as the most prominent correlates of CUR frequency at the event-level. Importantly, these associations were significant when controlling for other alcohol expectancies, drinking, and sex motives in the models, thus underscoring unique associations with CUR frequency.

These findings are aligned with alcohol expectancy and motivational models (Abbey, 2011; Snyder & Stukas, 1999; Steele & Josephs, 1990) and map onto prior cross-sectional and experimental work examining alcohol- and sex-related expectancies and motives in the context of sexual risk behavior (e.g., Davis et al., 2025; Dermen & Cooper, 2000; Dvorak et al., 2016; LaBrie et al., 2005). Men who hold general expectations that alcohol will make them more likely to take sexual risks and be disinhibited or carefree during sexual situations – behaviors that young men are likely to perceive as adventurous and enjoyable, thus resulting in positive emotions – may be more likely to act accordingly when they find themselves in such situations. These men may then feel more motivated to drink to enhance the positive emotions they expect to experience while drinking during the sexual encounter. Consequently, alcohol’s myopic effects (Steele & Josephs, 1990) may narrow men’s attention toward pleasurable sexual cues and decrease their perception of risk, thereby increasing the likelihood of risk taking behaviors, such as CUR.

Our results showing that men engage in more CUR on days on which they were more motivated to have sex to make them feel powerful and when they held stronger coping sex motives than average may point to men’s maladaptive strategies for using CUR in an attempt to overcome perceived shortcomings and negative emotions. For example, it is possible that men who experienced set-backs on certain days attempted to regain their power via engaging in CUR, especially among those who had general tendencies to use sex to cope when feeling low. This finding is aligned with previous work showing that individuals who see themselves as being denied power (and who may thus look for ways to cope with associated negative emotions) appear to have a stronger desire to feel powerful and are more likely to use sexually aggressive or risky tactics toward that end (Williams et al., 2017). Common underlying traits such as impulsivity and sensation seeking (Hendershot et al., 2007) may also help explain why men who were more motivated to have sex for power or coping were also more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviors such as CUR.

Finally, although we were surprised that there were no statistically significant within-person associations between drinking motives and CUR (H2.b.2) in the present data, it is possible that these effects were simply too small to be captured in the current analyses. While motives related to sex may be more obviously related to sexual risk behaviors such as CUR on a daily basis, associations between motives for a different, yet related, kind of behavior – drinking – and CUR may be comparatively weaker, and thus, these effects may have not reached statistical significance in the daily analyses conducted here. Future studies examining these associations across longer periods of time and/or among larger samples may have more power to assess these nuanced relationships.

Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions

This study provided novel evidence that elucidates the relationship between global sex-related alcohol expectancies, daily drinking motives, daily sex motives, and daily CUR frequency. One of the major strengths of the current study includes its multi-method approach, examining both between- and within-person effects via a baseline survey and 32 daily diary assessments. To our knowledge, this is the first study to specifically examine event-level associations between these constructs, providing important information to inform theory and practice.

Nevertheless, results should be interpreted in the context of their limitations. First, the use of self-report measures means that participants’ responses were subject to self-report bias. It is possible that participants responded in socially desirable ways, resulting in underestimates of their CUR frequency. Moreover, the current study only measured sex-related alcohol expectancies at baseline. Recent work suggests that alcohol expectancies, including sex-related alcohol expectancies, can fluctuate depending on situational cues (Ramirez et al., 2020; Read & Curtin, 2007; Woerner et al., 2025). Therefore, it is possible that participants’ baseline sex-related alcohol expectancies do not accurately reflect their situation-specific sex-related alcohol expectancies. It is also noteworthy that CUR frequency was measured only on days when vaginal sex took place. However, resistance attempts may occur even when sex ultimately does not take place (e.g., when a partner refuses sex). Although this approach is consistent with the broader literature of CUR that focuses on successful attempts (e.g., Davis et al., 2016, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2025), we acknowledge that the decision to limit measurement to vaginal sex days may have led to an underestimation of resistance events. Additionally, per the eligibility criteria of the larger project, which involved an alcohol administration experiment, our sample was composed of a relatively high risk group of men (i.e., men who were regular, non-problematic drinkers, had engaged in recent casual sex with a woman, and were not in a monogamous relationship), and most men identified as non-Hispanic White. Consequently, findings from this study might not be generalizable to, or might be attenuated in, a broader population of young men, including men who engage in different drinking patterns, men who have sex with men, men who are in monogamous or committed relationships, and men who are more racially/ethnically diverse, as well as to women. Prior studies suggest that individuals with different drinking patterns possess different alcohol expectancies, which are associated with risky sexual behaviors (Stappenbeck et al., 2013), and that men who have sex with men also experience CUR (Davis et al., 2025; Ferrari et al., 2025; Latimer et al., 2018). However, more research is needed to examine the relationships between sex-related alcohol expectancies, drinking motives, and sex motives across these different and potentially more diverse populations.

Future research could consider employing additional methods for collecting reports of CUR incidents. For example, asking the partners of those who engage in CUR to report on their alcohol-related CUR experiences may further elucidate the dynamic interplay and possible dyadic dynamics of this phenomenon. Moreover, using ecological momentary assessment to gather situation-specific sex-related alcohol expectancies data, as well as recruiting from more diverse populations could help enhance the generalizability of the current findings. Finally, additional work is needed to tease apart mechanisms of the links between sex-related alcohol expectancies, drinking motives, sex motives, and CUR frequency at the event level. For example, per the Confluence Model of Sexual Aggression (Malamuth et al., 1991), attitudes toward women and sex more broadly may be important factors to consider in future work. Given prior work showing that some individuals interpret a partner’s intoxication and socialization in drinking contexts as sexual consent (Marcantonio et al., 2025), research could also consider examining how alcohol expectancies for a partner affect men’s likelihood of engaging in CUR at the event level. Additionally, including moderators such as delay discounting, sensation seeking, and heavy episodic drinking (Celio et al., 2016; Kirwan et al., 2022; Murray et al., 2023) and mediators such as alcohol use, condom use motivation, sexual and relationship interests (Davis, 2010; Kalichman et al., 2003; Zawacki, 2011) could help further understand the complex interplay of sex-related alcohol expectancies, drinking motives, sex motives, and CUR, and inform the design of interventions to decrease CUR risk. Finally, although this study’s focus on any kind of CUR is important – especially given the current findings hinting at the possibility that men may have repeatedly resisted condom use with the same woman, which might constitute some form of coercion even if the tactic itself was not coercive – future work explicitly examining differences between noncoercive and coercive CUR at the daily level may be useful. Larger samples, longer daily assessment time-frames, and recruiting an even higher-risk group may result in greater perpetration base rates and allow for analyses that differentiate between different forms of CUR.

Clinical Implications

Results from this study provide empirical evidence to support the development and application of interventions that could help reduce CUR frequency. Given the significant between-person effects of alcohol expectancies and drinking motives, alcohol expectancy challenge interventions could be useful in lowering CUR. Alcohol expectancy challenge interventions are aimed at modifying perceptions about the expected effects of alcohol on one’s moods or behaviors in order to reduce the likelihood of subsequent risky behaviors (Darkes & Goldman, 1993). Addressing expectancies about the effect of alcohol to increase risk taking and lower disinhibition could have potential for reducing the likelihood and frequency of engaging in CUR. Moreover, personalized normative feedback interventions have shown efficacy in reducing alcohol-related risky sexual behaviors (Lewis et al., 2014). Given the current study’s findings showing that men engaged in more CUR on days with higher power-related sex motives, psychoeducational approaches providing information about egalitarian sexual relationships could be incorporated into just-in-time adaptive interventions to deliver contextual, person-, and time-specific information to lower CUR engagement. Once developed, it is crucial to evaluate the long-term effect of these interventions across different populations and situations, including situations that do and do not involve alcohol.

Conclusions

The present study represents an important initial examination of alcohol use and sexual behavior at the event level, including the ways in which global and event-specific factors are associated with CUR frequency. Our findings suggest that CUR is a common practice among young men who have sex with women. Moreover, our findings highlight preexisting sex-related alcohol expectancies for sexual risk and sexual disinhibition, daily enhancement drinking motives, and daily power and coping sex motives as the most prominent correlates of CUR frequency. Future research should continue to examine global and event-level risk factors of CUR, along with mechanisms of the link between sex-related alcohol expectancies and alcohol and sex motives to CUR, to further inform prevention and intervention efforts.

Funding

Manuscript preparation was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism: R37AA025212 (PI: Davis). This content is solely the responsibility of the authors, does not represent the official views of the NIAAA, and NIAAA had no other role in the research other than financial support. The authors report no real or perceived conflicts of interest, including financial, personal, or other.

Footnotes

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

1

Because Cronbach’s alpha – used to assess internal consistency for global measures such as our sex-related alcohol expectancies scales – focuses on between-person differences and is thus not appropriate for intensive longitudinal data focused on within-person change, internal consistency for the daily drinking and sex motives subscales were assessed via omega (ω), using an SEM-based approach (see Laurenceau & Bolger, 2022; McDonald, 1999). Like alpha, omega indicates how consistently items in a given scale measure the same underlying construct. To calculate omega, we used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Acceptable reliability for omega is generally a value of .70. Internal consistency was not calculated for the CUR frequency scale because it is a behavioral measure and thus, items were not expected to be correlated with one another.

Data Availability Statement

The data used in this study are available by contacting the first author.

References

  1. Abbey A (2011). Alcohol’s role in sexual violence perpetration: Theoretical explanations, existing evidence and future directions. Drug and Alcohol Review, 30(5), 481–489. 10.1111/j.1465-3362.2011.00296.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Blanchard BE, Stevens AK, Acosta IS, Talley AE, Brown JL, & Littlefield AK (2018). The influence of motives on alcohol- and sex-related behaviors among female college students. Drug & Alcohol Dependence, 185, 120–126. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.11.039 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Celio MA, MacKillop J, Caswell AJ, Mastroleo NR, Kahler CW, Barnett NP, Colby SM, Operario D, & Monti PM (2016). Interactive relationships between sex-related alcohol expectancies and delay discounting on risky sex. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research, 40(3), 638–646. 10.1111/acer.12988 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Chen W, Hammett JF, Eldridge N, & Davis KC (2023). Associations among alcohol-related factors and men’s nonconsensual condom removal perpetration. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 38 (21–22), 11383–11399. 10.1177/08862605231180209 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Chen W, Hammett JF, Stewart RJ, Kirwan M, & Davis KC (2023). Receipt of coercive condom use resistance: A scoping review. The Journal of Sex Research, 61(3), 399–413. 10.1080/00224499.2023.2204297 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cooper ML (1994). Motivations for alcohol use among adolescents: Development and validation of a four-factor model. Psychological Assessment, 6(2), 117–128. 10.1037/1040-3590.6.2.117 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cooper ML (2002). Alcohol use and risky sexual behavior among college students and youth: Evaluating the evidence. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, S14(s14), 101–117. 10.15288/jsas.2002.s14.101 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Cooper ML (2010). Toward a person × situation model of sexual risk-taking behaviors: Illuminating the conditional effects of traits across sexual situations and relationship contexts. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 98(2), 319–341. 10.1037/a0017785 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Cooper ML, Frone MR, Russell M, & Mudar P (1995). Drinking to regulate positive and negative emotions: A motivational model of alcohol use. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 69(5), 990–1005. 10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.990 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Cooper ML, Shapiro CM, & Powers AM (1998). Motivations for sex and risky sexual behavior among adolescents and young adults: A functional perspective. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 75 (6), 1528–1558. 10.1037/0022-3514.75.6.1528 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Darkes J, & Goldman MS (1993). Expectancy challenge and drinking reduction: Experimental evidence for a mediational process. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 61(2), 344–353. 10.1037/0022-006x.61.2.344 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Davis KC (2010). The influence of alcohol expectancies and intoxication on men’s aggressive unprotected sexual intentions. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 18(5), 418–428. 10.1037/a0020510 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Davis KC, Gulati NK, Neilson EC, & Stappenbeck CA (2018). Men’s coercive condom use resistance: The roles of sexual aggression history, alcohol intoxication, and partner condom negotiation. Violence Against Women, 24(11), 1349–1368. 10.1177/1077801218787932 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Davis KC, Hammett JF, Chen W, Stewart R, & Kirwan M (2023). A scoping review of nonconsensual condom removal (“stealthing”) research. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 25(1), 215–230. 10.1177/15248380221146802 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Davis KC, Jacques-Tiura AJ, Stappenbeck CA, Danube CL, Morrison DM, Norris J, & George WH (2016). Men’s condom use resistance: Alcohol effects on theory of planned behavior constructs. Health Psychology, 35(2), 178–186. 10.1037/hea0000269 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Davis KC, Kirwan M, Chen W, Hammett JF, Eldridge N, & Stappenbeck CA (2025). Men’s coercive condom use resistance: The roles of alcohol and emotional factors. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 86(2), 271–280. 10.15288/jsad.23-00413 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Davis KC, Kirwan M, Wegner R, Neilson EC, & Stappenbeck CA (2020). Effects of alcohol, condom request style, and state anger on men’s condom use resistance. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 81(4), 454–461. 10.15288/jsad.2020.81.454 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Davis KC, Neilson EC, Kirwan M, Bird ER, Eldridge N, George WH, & Stappenbeck CA (2022). The interplay of sexual arousal and power-related emotions in men’s alcohol-involved sexual aggression intentions. The Journal of Sex Research, 59(6), 765–779. 10.1080/00224499.2021.1972923 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Davis KC, Schraufnagel TJ, Kajumulo KF, Gilmore AK, Norris J, & George WH (2014). A qualitative examination of men’s condom use attitudes and resistance: “It’s just a part of the game”. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(3), 631–643. 10.1007/s10508-013-0150-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Davis KC, Stappenbeck CA, Masters NT, & George WH (2019). Young women’s experiences with coercive and noncoercive condom use resistance: Examination of an understudied sexual risk behavior. Women’s Health Issues, 29(3), 231–237. 10.1016/j.whi.2019.01.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Davis KC, Stappenbeck CA, Norris J, George WH, Jacques-Tiura AJ, Schraufnagel TJ, & Kajumulo KF (2014). Young men’s condom use resistance tactics: A latent profile analysis. The Journal of Sex Research, 51(4), 454–465. 10.1080/00224499.2013.776660 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Davis KC, Stewart R, Kirwan M, Chen W, & Hammett JF (2023). Coercive condom use resistance: A scoping review. Psychology of Violence, 13(5), 361–373. 10.1037/vio0000481 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. DeGue S, Valle LA, Holt MK, Massetti GM, Matjasko JL, & Tharp AT (2014). A systematic review of primary prevention strategies for sexual violence perpetration. Aggression & Violent Behavior, 19(4), 346–362. 10.1016/j.avb.2014.05.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Dermen KH, & Cooper ML (1994). Sex-related alcohol expectancies among adolescents: Scale development. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 8(3), 152–160. 10.1037/0893-164X.8.3.15 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Dermen KH, & Cooper ML (2000). Inhibition conflict and alcohol expectancy as moderators of alcohol’s relationship to condom use. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 8(2), 198–206. 10.1037//1064-1297.8.2.198 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Dvorak RD, Kuvaas NJ, Kilwein TM, Wray TB, Stevenson BL, & Sargent EM (2016). Are drinking motives associated with sexual “hookups” among college student drinkers? Journal of American College Health, 64(2), 133–138. 10.1080/07448481.2015.1081912 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Ferrari W, Costa PA, Couto MT, & Nascimento M (2025). Invisible victims: Addressing the sexual and health consequences of stealth breeding for Brazilian gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 73(3), 1–22. 10.1080/00918369.2025.2480766 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. George WH, Blayney JA, & Davis KC (2024). Impact of acute alcohol consumption on sexuality: A look at psychological mechanisms. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 20(1), 301–331. 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-080921-075423 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Hendershot CS, Stoner SA, George WH, & Norris J (2007). Alcohol use, expectancies, and sexual sensation seeking as correlates of HIV risk behavior in heterosexual young adults. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 21(3), 365–372. 10.1037/0893-164X.21.3.365 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Kalichman SC, Cain D, Zweben A, & Swain G (2003). Sensation seeking, alcohol use and sexual risk behaviors among men receiving services at a clinic for sexually transmitted infections. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 64(4), 564–569. 10.15288/jsa.2003.64.564 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Kilwein TM, & Looby A (2018). Predicting risky sexual behaviors among college student drinkers as a function of event-level drinking motives and alcohol use. Addictive Behaviors, 76, 100–105. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.07.032 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Kirwan M, VanDaalen RA, Eldridge N, & Davis KC (2022). Sensation seeking and alcohol expectancies regarding sexual aggression as moderators of the relationship between alcohol use and coercive condom use resistance intentions. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 37(2), 309–317. 10.1037/adb0000822 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Kirwan M, Westemeier O, Hammett JF, Stappenbeck CA, & Davis KC (2025). Integrating the confluence model and I3 model to predict sexual assault perpetration intentions. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 39(8), 689–701. 10.1037/adb0001059 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. LaBrie J, Earleywine M, Schiffman J, Pedersen E, & Marriot C (2005). Effects of alcohol, expectancies, and partner type on condom use in college males: Event-level analyses. The Journal of Sex Research, 42(3), 259–266. 10.1080/00224490509552280 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Latimer RL, Vodstrcil LA, Fairley CK, Cornelisse VJ, Chow EPF, Read TRH, & Bradshaw CS (2018). Non-consensual condom removal, reported by patients at a sexual health clinic in Melbourne, Australia. PLOS ONE, 13(12), e0209779. 10.1371/journal.pone.0209779 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Laurenceau JP, & Bolger N (2022, June). Analyzing intensive longitudinal data [Online workshop]. CenterStat. [Google Scholar]
  37. Lewis MA, Patrick ME, Litt DM, Atkins DC, Kim T, Blayney JA, Norris J, George WH, & Larimer ME (2014). Randomized controlled trial of a web-delivered personalized normative feedback intervention to reduce alcohol-related risky sexual behavior among college students. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 82(3), 429–440. 10.1037/a0035550 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Looby A, Bravo AJ, Kilwein TM, Zimmerman L, & Pearson MR (2019). Alcohol-related protective behavioral strategies as a mediator of the relationship between drinking motives and risky sexual behaviors. Addictive Behaviors, 93, 1–8. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2019.01.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Malamuth NM, Sockloskie RJ, Koss MP, & Tanaka JS (1991). Characteristics of aggressors against women: Testing a model using a national sample of college students. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 59(5), 670–681. 10.1037/0022-006X.59.5.670 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Marcantonio TL, Leone RM, Mays K, Thrash A, Meadows M, Manauis C, Willis M, LeRoux S, & Jozkowski KN (2025). How does alcohol use relate to sexual consent? A scoping review. The Journal of Sex Research, 62(9), 1762–1780. 10.1080/00224499.2025.2555494 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. McDonald RP (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  42. Murray GE, Palfai TP, Kratzer MPL, Maisto SA, & Simons JS (2023). Sexual alcohol expectancies moderate the relation between alcohol use and sexual behavior among men who have sex with men. Alcohol (Fayetteville, N.Y.), S0741–8329(23)003452. 10.1016/j.alcohol.2023.12.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. (2023). NIAAA guidance for conducting alcohol administration studies with human participants, 2023. https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/research/guidelines-and-resources/guidance_conducting_alcohol_administration_studies_human_participants [Google Scholar]
  44. Ndungu RW, Hammett JF, Peddle AK, Jaffe AE, Duckworth JC, & Stappenbeck CA (2025). Sexual self-objectification and sex-related drinking motives among college women: Do emotion regulation and distress tolerance matter? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 54(5), 1907–1917. 10.1007/s10508-025-03138-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Pokorny AD, Miller BA, & Kaplan HB (1972). The brief MAST: A shortened version of the Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test. American Journal of Psychiatry, 129(3), 342–345. 10.1176/ajp.129.3.342 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Ramirez JJ, Rhew IC, Patrick ME, Larimer ME, & Lee CM (2020). A daily-level analysis of moderators of the association between alcohol expectancies and alcohol use among college student drinkers. Substance Use & Misuse, 55(6), 973–982. 10.1080/10826084.2020.1717535 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Read JP, & Curtin JJ (2007). Contextual influences on alcohol expectancy processes. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 68(5), 759–770. 10.15288/jsad.2007.68.759 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Rehm J, Shield KD, Joharchi N, & Shuper PA (2012). Alcohol consumption and the intention to engage in unprotected sex: Systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies. Addiction, 107(1), 51–59. 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03621.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Santaguida M, Dubé S, Williams M, Eidus C, Vachon D, & Johnson A (2022). Alcohol myopia and high-risk sexual behavior among college students. In Lykins AD (Ed.), Encyclopedia of sexuality and gender (pp. 1–10). Springer. [Google Scholar]
  50. Sjödin L, Larm P, Karlsson P, Livingston M, & Raninen J (2021). Drinking motives and their associations with alcohol use among adolescents in Sweden. Nordisk Alkohol- & Narkotikatidskrift, 38(3), 256–269. 10.1177/1455072520985974 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Snyder M, & Stukas AA Jr. (1999). Interpersonal processes: The interplay of cognitive, motivational, and behavioral activities in social interaction. Annual Review of Psychology, 50(1), 273–303. 10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.273 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Stappenbeck CA, Gulati NK, & Davis KC (2019). A prospective examination of men’s condom use resistance: Event-level associations with sexual aggression, alcohol consumption, and trait anger. The Journal of Sex Research, 56(8), 947–956. 10.1080/00224499.2019.1620162 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Stappenbeck CA, Norris J, Kiekel PA, Morrison DM, George WH, Davis KC, Zawacki T, Jaczques-Tiura AJ, & Abdallah DA (2013). Patterns of alcohol use and expectancies predict sexual risk taking among non-problem drinking women. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 74(2), 223–232. 10.15288/jsad.2013.74.223 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Steele CM, & Josephs RA (1990). Alcohol myopia: Its prized and dangerous effects. The American Psychologist, 45(8), 921–933. 10.1037/0003-066X.45.8.921 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Swartout KM, Thompson MP, Koss MP, & Su N (2015). What is the best way to analyze less frequent forms of violence? The case of sexual aggression. Psychology of Violence, 5(3), 305–313. 10.1037/a0038316 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. U.S. Census Bureau. (2023). American community survey 5-year estimates. http://censusreporter.org/profiles/16000US0455000-phoenix-az/ [Google Scholar]
  57. Wegner R, Lewis MA, Davis KC, Neilson EC, & Norris J (2018). Tactics young women use to resist condom use when a partner wants to use a condom. The Journal of Sex Research, 55(7), 817–823. 10.1080/00224499.2017.1376305 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Williams MJ, Gruenfeld DH, & Guillory LE (2017). Sexual aggression when power is new: Effects of acute high power on chronically low-power individuals. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 112 (2), 201–223. 10.1037/pspi0000068 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Woerner J, Cooper R, Papp LJ, Neilson EC, Davis C, Dvorak RD, & Dunn ME (2025). Within- and between-person fluctuations in men’s sex-related alcohol expectancies and perceptions of sexual interest in a hypothetical sexual scenario. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 39(3). 10.1002/acp.70067 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  60. Zawacki T (2011). Effects of alcohol on women’s risky sexual decision making during social interactions in the laboratory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35(1), 107–118. 10.1177/0361684310384106 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data used in this study are available by contacting the first author.

RESOURCES