‘It's Not What You Said, It's How You Said It’: Perceptions of Condom Proposers by Gender and Strategy

Abstract

We examined effects of proposer gender and condom negotiation strategy on perceptions of condom proposers in undergraduates in the southwestern regions of the US. Using a video manipulation (N=150), a female proposer was evaluated no more harshly than a male proposer, and was evaluated more positively in some ways. In a vignette manipulation (N=193) a female proposer using an Eroticization negotiation strategy (compared to Refusal of sex or Explanation of consequences) was seen as more exciting and likely to engage in sex. Surprisingly, women were harsher judges than men of a female condom proposer using an Eroticization strategy. Greater attention should be paid to the nature of condom negotiation within the framework of the sexual script.

Introduction

It is estimated that there are 19 million new cases of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) each year in the United States, and approximately half of these occur among young people under the age of 25 (CDC 2005). For both STIs and HIV/AIDS, young women are biologically more vulnerable to infection via unprotected vaginal intercourse; among women, 75% of HIV infections are a result of heterosexual contact. Data from the CDC (2008) indicate that one in four adolescent women in the United States between the ages of 14 and 19 has at least one common STI. Recent research has pointed to the behavior of condom negotiation and communication as an important intermediate outcome in the broader context of research on the causes and correlates of safer sex (Noar, Morokoff, & Harlow, 2002; Schroder, Johnson, & Wiebe, 2009). The nature of male condom use inevitably means that while males often have the direct ability to ensure condom use even if their partners do not desire condom use, females may be required to propose and negotiate condom use in the face of partner resistance. As a result, the gender dynamics within heterosexual relationships are especially critical in understanding and encouraging condom use and negotiation. Increasing effective safer sex communication across many different populations is crucial, as difficulties in condom negotiation have been cited as a barrier to condom use in multiple countries (e.g., Boer and Mashamba 2007; Sri Krishnan et al. 2007; Davila and Brackley 1999; van der Straten et al. 1998).

The current research builds upon previous work to continue the line of inquiry into the sexual double standard (Aubrey 2004; Kelly and Bazzini 2001; Marks and Fraley 2005), gender roles (Altermatt, DeWall, & Leskinen, 2003; Schroder, Johnson, & Wiebe, 2009), and sexual scripts (Rose and Frieze 1993; Serewicz and Gale 2008) as they may influence sexual health. Using the social exchange theory of sexuality, social role theory, and sexual script theory as frameworks, we examine a sexual double standard of proposing condom use (Study 1), and how negotiation strategy may affect perceptions of women who propose condoms (Study 2) in college students in the United States. Study 1 uses videos of a sexual encounter with a manipulation of the gender of the character requesting a condom be used, as well as a condition where there is no request for a condom. Study 2 uses written vignettes of a sexual encounter in which the female character uses one of three common condom negotiation strategies. Participants gave their perceptions of various character traits drawn from previous research as well as perceptions of if sex was likely to occur and whether a condom was used if in fact sex did occur in both studies. While much of the research in this area has been conducted with college student samples, and may be biased by more egalitarian gender roles, understanding how traditional gender roles and sexual scripts influence condom negotiation could be used by researchers from broader contexts to develop culturally sensitive intervention material.

Perceptions of Condom Use and Proposition

Previous research has examined the impact of the introduction of a condom into a sexual scenario (either verbally or non-verbally) has on perceptions of a male proposer and the outcome of the encounter. In one study, a male character was seen as more mature and nicer when he proposed condoms, but as more exciting and romantic when he did not propose condoms (Bryan, Aiken, & West, 1999). Additionally, males reported that sex was less likely to occur when a condom was proposed, and more likely when a condom was not proposed, while females did not discriminate among the condom conditions and believed sex was equally likely regardless of condom proposition. However, this study (Bryan et al. 1999) is also incomplete without a comparison with a female condom proposer, as condom negotiation may be imperative for females (but not males) to ensure safer sex, and among college students, condom proposers are more likely to be female than male (Allen, Emmers-Sommer, & Crowell, 2002; Noar et al. 2002).

A common perspective of sexuality includes a sexual double standard, such that women are judged harshly for the same sexual activities for which men are lauded (Aubrey 2004; Milhausen and Herold 2001; Barash and Lipton 2001). However, more recent research suggests that a sexual double standard, if it exists at all, is weaker than previously thought, such that promiscuity may now be seen as negative for both genders, but more so for women than men (Marks and Fraley 2005). However, this study examined the effect of number of sexual partners only, and does not address issues of contraception. Older research has indicated that female-initiated condom use may be negatively perceived by female college students, especially in the context of non-committed relationships (Hynie and Lydon 1995; Hynie, Lydon, & Taradash, 1997). However, these studies are similarly incomplete without comparisons with male participants.

Kelly and Bazzini (2001) examined the perceptions of female as well as male condom users with male and female participants. Participants read three scenarios depicting a casual sexual encounter in which the female character or male character provided a condom, or no condom was provided. Female participants rated the female character most favorably when she provided a condom, but they thought her male partner would perceive her least favorably. Males thought that the female character would feel more positive about herself when she provided a condom, and even more so than female participants did. Consistent with this, male participants believed a male partner would rate the female condom user more favorably than did the female participants. A weakness of this study, however, is a lack of specific and potentially multidimensional attributions about a condom proposer's personality characteristics as well as perceptions of likelihood of sex and condom use. The authors assert that this pattern of findings, where women are harsher judges of female condom users than are men, argues that women may fear violating traditional gender roles of condom use behavior that are—at least in the view of men—no longer applicable. Another weakness of this study is that it does not take into account the different ways men and women may approach asking their partner to use a condom.

Condom Negotiation Strategies

There are also multiple strategies for proposing condoms, and while nonverbal communication is definitely possible (Bird, Harvey, Beckman, & Johnson, 2001), due to the nature of condom use it may be more likely that some sort of verbal communication will occur if a woman proposes condom use. Converging evidence from studies with college students (Noar et al. 2002) and urban women (Williams, Gardos, Ortiz-Torres, Tross, & Ehrhardt, 2001) suggest that common negotiation strategies are Explanation of consequences, Refusal of sex, and Eroticization of condom use. Explanation of consequences is characterized by highlighting the importance of avoiding STIs, HIV, and pregnancy, Refusal is characterized by simple refusal of sex if a condom is not used, Eroticization of condom use is characterized by an incorporation of condoms into the sexual scenario as an erotic and fun activity. Noar et al. (2002) point out the need to examine not only which strategies are being used, but also how they may be perceived. Research suggests that these perceptions may not be trivial. Although in general it has been found that males perceive more sexual intent in female characters when interacting with a male character than females (Koukounas and Letch 2001), Hynie, Schuller, & Couperthwaite (2003) found that a female character in a vignette who carried a condom (before a sexual encounter) was seen as more willing to have sex, even when advances were resisted, and as a result invalidated her claim of sexual assault.

Theoretical Framework

Findings that show women are harsher judges of women than men are perhaps explained by the social exchange theory of sexuality (Baumeister and Vohs 2004). This model applies economic theory to sexual intercourse, in which sex is a female resource with females as suppliers and males as consumers. Females as suppliers are trying to maximize the price of their product, sex, which is negotiated within a “marketplace” of supply and demand. In order to maintain a good market price, supply must be kept low. As a result, females judge other females based on their sexual virtue because sexual permissiveness drives the price of sex down. Therefore condom proposition, especially with an Eroticization strategy, may be negatively perceived by women but not men.

Stereotypes of women and their sexuality among college students include passivity and communion, as opposed to men's agency and instrumentality (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002). Therefore, perceptions of social roles are dictated by women's comparatively lower power in general, and specifically in sexual relationships (Diekman, Goodfriend & Goodwin, 2004; Wingood and DiClemente 2000). If women are perceived as having less power, it is plausible that a female proposer will be seen as less likely to have her condom desires met than a male proposer, thus making condom use seem more likely when a male proposes condom use than a female. These stereotypical roles are also expected to guide perceptions of characters in sexual scenarios, such that conforming to traditional gender roles are expected to result in more positive perceptions (Eagly Wood, & Diekman, 2000). Perceptions of a female condom proposer may therefore be more negative than a male proposer, as this would indicate higher power in the sexual situation, a violation of gender roles. Women have also been judged by their virtue (Altermatt et al. 2003), resulting in subtypes of sex object, career woman, and housewife. Different condom negotiation strategies differ in the degree to which they conform to traditional gender roles and display agency and virtue and thus may be expected to result in different perceptions of the women who use them.

Perceptions of characters are independent of perceptions of the outcome of a sexual scenario, which may be driven more by sexual scripts. Sexual script theory suggests that behavior is scripted as a shared cultural understanding of what happens in certain scenarios, the application of the cultural understandings interpersonally, and how individuals negotiate their own desires within the script (Gagnon 1990; Simon and Gagnon 1986). Specifically, the man's part in the sexual script is proactive, while the woman's is reactive (Rose and Frieze 1993), which remains true in recent research in Midwest college students (e.g. Serewicz and Gale 2008). In other words, women have a “gatekeeper” role, in which they are the ones ultimately in charge of whether and when sex will take place (Wiederman 2005). Therefore, perceptions of the likelihood of sex are likely to be guided by perceptions of the female's sexual willingness. Simply having a condom by females has been shown to indicate sexual willingness (Hynie et al. 2003), but different negotiation strategies may indicate different levels of sexual willingness. Whether or not condom use will happen is likely to be influenced by whether or not intercourse is made contingent upon condom use by the female.

The Current Research

With a focus on the gender dynamics inherent in a heterosexual encounter, the purpose of the current research is a more complete understanding of the perceptions of women who propose condoms compared to men, and how specific condom negotiation strategies may affect perceptions of a woman who uses them. In Study 1, we expect similar results to Bryan et al. (1999), such that characters who propose condoms will be seen as more mature and nicer, but also less exciting and romantic. However, we expect this to be affected by the gender of the condom proposer such that a weak double standard will cause the effects of condom proposition to be more negative or less positive for a female character than a male character. We also expect this negative effect for female characters to be stronger in female participants according to the social exchange theory of sexuality (Baumeister and Vohs 2004). In terms of outcome of the scenarios, we expect males to see sex as more likely than females overall (Koukounas and Letch 2001), but expect males to think sex more likely when a female proposes condoms, and less likely when a male proposes condoms, while females will not be affected by condom proposition, in line with previous findings (Hynie et al. 2003; Bryan et al. 1999). Finally, while participants are expected to see condom use as more likely when a condom is proposed, due to perceptions of decreased power of women in sexual situations (Diekman et al. 2004), the effect will be weaker for a female proposer than a male proposer.

In terms of condom use negotiation strategies in Study 2, if social role theory guides perceptions, we would expect a character that uses an Eroticization strategy to be seen as less virtuous (less nice and less like a housewife, more promiscuous and more like a sex object), while a character using a Refusal strategy will be seen as more agentic (mature, career woman) than one who uses Eroticization or Explanation. An Eroticization strategy makes it very clear that the female proposer is willing to have sex, and is therefore perhaps undercutting her competitors in the sexual marketplace (Baumeister and Vohs 2004). Therefore we expect men to have more positive evaluations (nicer, more exciting, romantic, and mature, less promiscuous and like a sex object) of a female character using this strategy than women. Finally, we expect sexual script theory to guide perceptions of the outcome of the encounter, such that males will view sex as more likely overall, but most likely following use of an Eroticization and least likely following use of a Refusal strategy. Condom use will be seen as most likely in the refusal strategy, especially by males.

Study 1

To examine if a sexual double standard affects perceptions of condom proposers, Study 1 manipulated gender of a character proposing condom use in a video of a sexual scenario. We build on the work of Bryan et al. (1999) with an entirely new and updated set of videos, and add a female condom proposer condition to directly compare perceptions of male and female proposers who simply ask if their partner wants to use a condom using a direct request strategy. Our hypotheses are as follows:

• H1a–e: There will be main effects of condom proposition on perceptions of the characters, such that characters who propose a condom will be seen as (a) more mature and (b) nicer, but (c) less exciting and (d) romantic and (e) more promiscuous than characters who do not (Bryan et al. 1999).

• H2a–e: These main effects will be qualified by an interaction with gender of the character, such that perceptions of a female character will be more negatively affected by the introduction of a condom than for a male character, that is less (a) mature, (b) nice, (c) exciting, (d) romantic, and more (e) promiscuous (Hynie et al. 2003).

• H3a–e: There will be a three-way interaction between condom proposition, gender of character, and participant gender on perceptions of characters, such that the negative effects of condom proposition on female characters' (a) maturity, (b) niceness, (c) excitement, (d) romanticism, and (e) promiscuity will be more pronounced for female participants than male participants (Baumeister and Vohs 2004; Kelly and Bazzini 2001).

• H4a–b: There will be (a) a main effect of participant gender on likelihood of sex, such that males will see sex as more likely overall (Koukounas and Letch 2001). However, there will be (b) a three-way interaction between condom proposition, target gender, and participant gender on likelihood of sex, such that males will see sex as less likely to occur in the condom condition than the no condom condition with a male target, while females will see sex as equally likely in the two conditions (Bryan et al. 1999); for a female target, however, participants will see sex as more likely in the condom condition (Hynie et al. 2003).

• H5a–b: There will be a main effect of condom proposition on likelihood of condom use, such that condom use will be seen as (a) more likely in the condom condition than the no condom condition. However, this will be qualified by an interaction with character gender, such that (b) the effect will be weaker for female characters than male characters (Diekman et al. 2004).

Method

Participants

The participants in this study were a convenience sample of undergraduate students from a large western university. There were 150 participants total, 54% male. The average age was 19.0 years, sd=1.10, range 18–24, with 84.7% of participants citing their race/ethnicity as White, 4.7% Hispanic, 2% African American, 3.3% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 5.3% Other. Over 75% (113) of participants indicated that they had had sexual intercourse. The number of partners of those who were sexually experienced ranged from 1 to 21, with a median of 3. Participants in this study were from a pool of introductory psychology students and they received experimental course credit in exchange for participation. All procedures were reviewed and approved by the university-level IRB.

Design

This study was a 2 (condom proposed in scenario versus no condom proposed) × 2 (gender of target) × 2 (participant gender) between subjects design. “Gender of target” refers to which character (Jeff or Kelly) the participants were asked to rate. In the condom condition this character is the condom proposer. In other words, the participants in the study were assigned to one of four conditions: (a) condom proposed by female—rating female actor, (b) no condom—rating female actor, (c) condom proposed by male—rating male actor, (d) no condom—rating male actor. In the condom proposed, Kelly condition, 15 participants were female, 20 were male, 30 were White, 3 were African–American, 2 were “Other”, and the average age was 18.9. In the no condom, Kelly condition, 9 participants were female, 16 were male, 22 were White, 1 was African– American, 1 was Asian/Pacific Islander, 1 was “Other”, and the average age was 19.0. In the condom proposed, Jeff condition, 14 participants were female, 19 were male, 27 were White, 1 was African–American, 3 were African–American, 1 was Asian/Pacific Islander, 1 was “Other”, and the average age was 19.1. In the no condom, Jeff condition, 15 participants were female, 15 were male, 25 were White, 2 were African–American, 1 was Asian/Pacific Islander, 2 were “Other”, and the average age was 19.0. Chi-square tests revealed no significant differences in composition of conditions by gender or race, and an ANOVA revealed no difference by age.

Materials

Participants watched one of four videos in groups of 1–10. Random assignment was done at the level of the group. The video depicted a typical college party with a beer keg, music, and games. Kelly and Jeff meet when they both reach to fill up their glasses at the keg. They play a game with the group and focus their conversation on one another as the party continues. After beginning to kiss, the couple decides to move to the target character's bedroom. They kiss again on the bed and Kelly unbuttons and removes Jeff's shirt while he begins to unbutton hers. In the no condom condition the scene ends at this point as the character kiss. In the condom condition, either Kelly removes a condom from her nightstand or Jeff removes one from his pocket and then says “I have a condom. Do you want to use it?” as it is placed in the partner's hand. Before the partner has a chance to answer, the video ends. The scenarios were pilot tested with written descriptions of the videos with 22 undergraduate participants. When asked if the situation was realistic for undergraduates overall, 95% of pilot participants felt that the scenario was realistic or somewhat realistic.

Personality and Outcome Measures

After viewing the scenario participants were asked to think about the impression formed of the target character by their partner. The survey began with 30 adjectives taken from Bryan et al.'s (1999) exploratory factor analysis labeled exciting, mature, romantic, nice and promiscuous. Participants rated the target character on 1–7 semantic differential scales of each adjective. The Exciting scale consisted of the adjectives bold, assertive, bland (reverse-scored), adventurous, and spontaneous, α=.69. The romantic scale consisted of the adjectives romantic, affectionate, warm, passionate, cool, and smooth, α=.80. The mature scale consisted of the adjectives mature, responsible, cautious, dependable, and conscientious, α=.83. The nice scale consisted of the adjectives thoughtful, respectful, moral, considerate, and sincere, α=.83. Promiscuity was assessed with a single item ranging from promiscuous (1) to not promiscuous (7), reverse-scored.

The next few questions asked for opinions about the outcome of the encounter: did they have intercourse, what are the chances they used a condom if they did have intercourse, and are they likely to start a relationship? These questions were evaluated on 9-point scales (e.g., 1 = no chance they had intercourse to 9 = 100% sure they had intercourse). Participants were then asked about how realistic the situation in the scenario was on a scale from 1 to 3 (not at all realistic, somewhat realistic, very realistic). Data were analyzed using ANOVAs with participant gender, target gender, and condom condition as fixed variables. All tests were two-tailed tests.

Results

Manipulation Checks

There were two manipulation checks. The first was to verify that participants correctly perceived whether or not condom proposition had taken place in the scenario. Participants were asked to think of whether or not Kelly/Jeff had a condom in the video. In the no condom condition, 71% of participants believed that there was no condom and 27% could not remember. Only 2% incorrectly perceived that there was a condom. In the condom condition, 94% of participants correctly believed that there was a condom and 2% could not remember. Only 4% incorrectly perceived that there was no condom. Those who incorrectly answered this question were excluded from analyses, although those who could not remember were retained, as research has shown that stimuli affect perceptions and behavior even when not presented consciously (Bargh et al. 1996). When asked if the situation was realistic for undergraduates, only one participant said the vignette was not at all realistic (M=2.6). Overall, participants saw the characters favorable, with means on the positive variables varying from 4.95, sd=.95 (mature), to 5.29, sd=.85 (romantic), and the mean on promiscuity relatively low at 2.83, sd=1.22 on 1–7 scales. Participants in general perceived a high likelihood that sex would take place (M=7.46, sd=1.23) and condoms would be used (M=6.76, sd=1.67) on 9-point scales. A MANOVA was conducted to test for overall participant gender differences in the dependent variables. Wilks' Lambda test indicated no significant difference [F(7, 136)=1.67, ns]. The effects of the condition (condom or no condom), participant gender, gender of the condom proposer and their interactions on participant decisions for how Jeff saw Kelly or Kelly saw Jeff were examined in a series of ANOVAs.

Personality and Outcome Perceptions

See Table 1 for a summary of significant findings. There was a main effect of condition on maturity and romanticism, such that the target was seen as more mature and less romantic in the condom condition than the no condom condition, confirming Hypothesis 1a and 1d. However, there was no support for Hypotheses 1b, 1c or 1e. There was a significant condition × target gender interaction on the characters' promiscuity such that proposing condoms did not affect ratings of Jeff's promiscuity, while Kelly was seen as less promiscuous when she proposed condom use as compared to when she did not. This is in direct opposition to Hypothesis H2e, and there was no support for Hypotheses 2a–d. There was also no support for a three-way interaction between condom proposition, target gender, and participant gender (H3a–e). There were no effects of target gender, condom proposition, or participant gender on the likelihood that the couple in the video went on to have sex (Ha–b). This might be due to a ceiling effect such that the mean on the 9-point scale was 7.4 (sd=1.20), suggesting that the scenario itself was a powerful influence on perceptions of whether sex occurred between the couple. When asked whether the couple used a condom if they did have sex, as expected (H5a) there was a main effect of condition such that participants in the condom condition were much more likely to expect that the couple used a condom, but gender of proposer did not moderate this relationship (H5b). Surprisingly, and not predicted in hypotheses, there was also a main effect of participant gender such that men, in general, were more likely to think that the couple would use a condom.

Table 1.

Perceptions of characters and outcome by condition (condom proposition or not), participant gender, and target gender.

	Condom	No condom	F	F	F	F
			Condition	Participant gender	Target gender	Condition × target gender
Maturea:	5.39	4.34	63.52***	ns	ns	ns
Males	5.32	4.35
Females	5.48	4.33
Romantica	5.07	5.41	7.24**	ns	11.29**	ns
Jeff:	4.78	5.24
Males	4.88	5.31
Females	4.64	5.16
Kelly:	5.35	5.59
Males	5.48	5.54
Females	5.18	5.65
Promiscuousa	2.74	3.08	ns	ns	4.58*	4.28*
Jeff:	3.18b	3.10b
Males	3.15	2.95
Females	3.21	3.26
Kelly:	2.31b	3.06c
Males	2.30	2.75
Females	2.33	3.44
Used a Condomd:	7.59	5.73	65.93***	5.02*	ns	ns
Males	7.68	6.12
Females	7.48	5.23

^a1–7 scale, higher scores indicate higher perceptions of the attribute

^b,cDifferent superscripts denote significantly different simple effects. df = (1, 142); ns = non-significant.

^d1–9 scale, higher scores indicate higher perceived likelihood

^*p<.05,

^**p<.01,

^***p<.001

Discussion

Our first hypothesis was partially confirmed, with condom proposers seen as more mature and less romantic than characters who did not propose condoms. However, our second hypothesis was not supported. Kelly was not evaluated more harshly than Jeff, and in fact was seen as less promiscuous when she proposed a condom than when she did not. Finally, our third hypothesis was not supported such that perceptions did not differ based on participant gender. We could not reliably examine our fourth hypothesis, possibly due to the low levels of variability and ceiling effects on this variable. Finally, proposing a condom did lead to higher perceptions of actual condom use, partially confirming our fifth hypothesis, but participants saw condom use as equally likely no matter who proposed condom use, although male participants in general saw condom use as more likely than female participants. In the Bryan et al. (1999) study, it was found that Jeff was seen as more exciting and romantic when he did not propose condom use compared to when he did. The current study did not show any main effects for the exciting or nice variables for either Jeff or Kelly, though there was still a main effect of condition on romantic ratings, such that both Jeff and Kelly were seen as more romantic in the no condom condition. This might be an implicit barrier to encouraging sexually active young people to use condoms, since a trait such as being romantic might be particularly salient and desirable in the context of a sexual encounter (Bryan et al. 1999). Importantly, however, this phenomenon does not depend on the gender of the condom proposer.

The expectations that proposing condom use would result in women being more negatively perceived were not borne out, suggesting that the double standard of sexuality is not being applied to perceptions of condom proposition, consistent with recent research (Conley and Collins 2002; Kelly and Bazzini 2001). This also suggests that violations of gender roles and traditional sexual scripts do not have negative consequences for women in the domain of directly requesting that a condom be used in a casual sex scenario.

Study 2

The results of Study 1 indicated that a female condom proposer is not viewed more negatively as compared to a male proposer, at least when she uses a direct request strategy of proposing condoms. In reality, however, women are more likely to propose condoms (Allen et al. 2002; Noar et al. 2002), or at least be the active partner in negotiating condoms (Carter et al. 1999), so the direct comparison of male versus female proposers only provides a part of the picture. Prior research has shown a number of different strategies women may use to propose condom use, so perhaps it is not so much that she proposes condom use that drives perceptions of a female condom proposer—as this may be somewhat normative—but how she chooses to propose condom use. Thus, we focus only on female condom proposers in Study 2 and specifically on the impact of method of condom proposition on evaluations and perceptions of her. We examined multi-dimensional perceptions of a female character's personality in a written vignette proposing condom use using one of the three strategies. To examine if strategies may result in activating certain subtypes of women, we also examined how much participants perceived the proposer as displaying attributes associated with housewives, career women, and sex objects. We then examined the perceived likelihood of sexual intercourse and condom use occurring with each of the three strategies. Our hypotheses are as follows:

• H1a–f: If social role theory guides perceptions, we expect a female character will be judged to be less virtuous, that is less (a) nice, (b) romantic, and (c) in line with a housewife subtype, and more (d) promiscuous and (e) in line with a sex object subtype if she uses a Eroticization condom negotiation strategy compared to Refusal or Explanation. She will be judged to be more agentic, that is more (e) mature (f) exciting, and (g) in line with a career woman subtype if she uses a Refusal strategy compared to Eroticization or Explanation (Altermatt et al. 2003).

• H2: We expect females will judge female condom proposers who violate gender roles by using an Eroticization strategy more harshly than males (Baumeister and Vohs 2004; Kelly and Bazzini 2001).

• H3: Males will view sex as more likely overall than females (Koukounas and Letch 2001).

• H4: If sexual scripts are guiding perceptions, participants will see sex as (b) most likely to occur following use of the Eroticization strategy and less likely following use of a Refusal strategy (Serewicz and Gale 2008; Wiederman 2005).

• H5a–c: (a) In line with Study 1, we expect males to see condom use as more likely than females. If sexual scripts are guiding perceptions, we expect (b) condom use to be seen as most likely following a Refusal strategy, (c) especially by males (Wiederman 2005).

Method

Participants

The participants in this study were a convenience sample of undergraduate students from a large southwestern university. There were 193 participants total, 48% male. The average age was 19.6 years, sd=2.72, range 18–25. One 30-year old participant was dropped from analysis. Approximately 44% cited their ethnicity as Hispanic, 39% White, 6% Asian/Pacific Islander, 3% Native American, 2% African American, 2% multi-racial, and 4% Other. Most (81%) were sexually experienced. Of those, there was a median of 3 sex partners (range 1–40). Participants in this study were from a pool of introductory psychology students and they received experimental course credit in exchange for participation. All procedures were reviewed and approved by the university-level IRB.

Design and Materials

The study was a 3 (condom negotiation strategy) × 2 (participant gender) between-subjects design. Participants were randomly assigned to read one of three vignettes. Each vignette described a sexual scenario in which the female character proposed condoms using one of the three strategies described above. The following passage was used:

Matt and Allison sit next to each other in their Psychology class. They started talking after class 1 day, and have gone out on a few dates and found that they have a lot of similar interests. On their last date, they made out for a long time, and it was clear that they are both very attracted to each other. Tonight Allison has come over to Matt's apartment to study for a test they have later in the week. They finish studying and are just hanging out, listening to music and talking. They get closer and closer until eventually they start making out and then taking off their clothes, both are very aroused.

The last sentence of the passage was the manipulation. For the Explanation strategy it was: “Allison tells Matt that she is concerned about STIs and AIDS, and they should use a condom so that they are safe”. For the Refusal strategy it was: “Allison tells Matt that she won't have sex with him unless he puts on a condom”. For the Eroticization strategy it was: “Allison starts whispering in Matt's ear about how hot sex will be if they use a condom, how uninhibited and sexy she will feel, all the while kissing his neck”. In the Explanation condition, 34 participants were female, 28 were male, 33 were Hispanic, 21 were White, 4 were Asian/Pacific Islander, 1 was multi-racial, 3 were “Other”, and the average age was 19.1. In the Refusal condition, 31 participants were female, 33 were male, 29 were Hispanic, 25 were White, 3 were Asian/Pacific Islander, 1 was African–American, 3 were “Other”, and the average age was 19.6. In the Eroticization strategy, 34 participants were female, 30 were male, 22 were Hispanic, 27 were White, 4 were Asian/Pacific Islander, 3 were African–American, 2 were multi-racial, 3 were “Other”, and the average age was 19.3. Chi-square tests revealed no significant differences in composition of conditions by gender or race, and an ANOVA revealed no difference by age.

After reading the vignette, participants were asked to rate the female character on 1–5 scales of the same scales used in Study 1 and Bryan et al. (1999): exciting (α=.56), mature (α=.70), nice (α=.83), and romantic (α=.87). Promiscuity was measured in this study again with one item from promiscuous to not promiscuous. We also measured scales of the subtypes of women, taken from Altermatt et al. (2003): career woman (ambitious, determined, goal-oriented, smart, progressive, sophisticated, strong-minded; α=.78); housewife (caring, devoted to family, faithful, gentle, maternal, sensitive, sympathetic; α=.82); and sex object (attentive to appearance, beautiful, fashion conscious, flirtatious, good figure, seductive; α=.58). Participants were also asked to indicate the chances that the characters will have sex, and the chances that they will use a condom if they do have sex on 1–5 scales. ANOVAs were conducted on all dependent variables, with pairwise comparisons of the three negotiation strategies, participant gender, and the interaction. All tests were two-tailed tests.

Results

In general, participants rated the female character in the mid-to-high range of favorability of positive attributes, ranging from 3.71, sd=.54 (exciting) to 3.94, sd=.78 (mature), with promiscuity mean at 3.27, sd=1.08 on 5-point scales. There was also medium to high perceptions of the different subtypes from 3.42, sd=.72 (housewife) to 3.75, sd=.56 (career woman) on 5-point scales. Participants also saw a relatively high likelihood of sex (M=3.10, sd=.57) and medium likelihood of condom use (M=2.87, sd=.70) on 5-point scales. A MANOVA was conducted to test for overall participant gender differences in the dependent variables. Wilks' Lambda test indicated a significant difference [F(10, 177)=2.18, p<.05]. Pairwise tests revealed no differences between the Explanation and Refusal strategies on any variables. In other words, the participants distinguished between a character who used a nontraditional strategy within the sexual script (Eroticization) versus traditional strategies (Refusal and Explanation). For simplicity the Refusal and Explanation strategies were combined and compared to Eroticization. See Table 2 for a summary of significant results. Participants saw the female proposer as less nice, more promiscuous, and less like the housewife subtype when she used the Eroticization strategy confirming Hypotheses 1a, 1c, 1d. She was also seen as more exciting, contrary to Hypothesis 1f, suggesting that “exciting” may be referencing virtue rather than agency. Some results were moderated by participant gender, such that females saw the character who used the Eroticization strategy as less mature, less nice, and more promiscuous while strategy did not affect these perceptions for males, confirming Hypothesis 2. There were no effects of negotiation strategy or participant gender on perceptions of the character being in line with the career woman or sex object subtypes, and therefore no evidence for Hypotheses 1e or 1 g. Participants also perceived the couple as more likely to have sex when the female used the Eroticization strategy, confirming Hypothesis 4. There were no differences in likelihood the couple would use a condom if they had sex, and therefore no evidence for H5a–c.

Table 2.

Perceptions of characters and outcome by negotiation strategy and participant gender.

	Eroticization	Refusal, explanation	F	F
			Eroticization vs refusal, explanation	Strategy × participant gender
Excitinga	3.94	3.83	6.50**	ns
Males	3.81	3.67
Females	4.05	3.78
Housewifea	3.23	3.52	7.02**	ns
Males	3.35	3.50
Females	3.12	3.54
Maturea	3.67	4.08	12.11***	8.12**
Males	3.83b	3.90b
Females	3.52b	4.26c
Nicea	3.53	3.91	9.00**	5.20*
Males	3.73b	3.81b
Females	3.36b	4.01c
Promiscuousa	3.56	3.12	6.66*	10.50**
Males	3.30b	3.41b
Females	3.79b	2.86c
Chance have sexa	3.27	3.02	8.18**	ns
Males	3.30	3.08
Females	3.24	2.95

No differences were observed between the Refusal and Explanation strategy conditions

^a1–5 scale, higher scores indicate higher perceptions of the attribute or higher perceived likelihood

^b,cDifferent superscripts denote significantly different simple effects. df = (1, 192); ns = non-significant.

^*p<.05,

^**p<.01,

^***p<.001

Discussion

Both men and women saw a female who used an Eroticization strategy to propose condom use as more exciting and less like a housewife, which partially confirms our first hypothesis, and suggests that social role theory may be contributing to perceptions of condom proposers. On the other hand, we would expect to see negative reactions (or at least perceptions in line with the high agency subtype of career woman) to the Refusal strategy as well, but this strategy was seen as equivalent to an Explanation strategy. Additionally, women (but not men) judged a female who used an Eroticization strategy as less nice, less mature, and more promiscuous, suggesting that females are harsher on females who highlight their sexuality, in line with the social exchange theory of sexuality (Baumeister and Vohs 2004). Sex was seen as more likely to occur following an Eroticization strategy, confirming some aspects of sexual script theory in which it is the female's sexual willingness that serves as the main cue in whether or not sex will take place. Finally participants saw condom use as equally likely in the three scenarios. Although perhaps surprising from the perspective of sexual script theory, this suggests that all three of these condom negotiation strategies may be effective in the short term, even though they alter perceptions of the women who use them.

A widely-held concern men and women may have concerning condom negotiation is the interruption of the “spontaneous” nature of sex (Diekman et al. 2000). A conversation about condoms, especially one that involves the possible consequences of not using a condom, may be difficult to accomplish in the “heat of the moment”. As such, a condom negotiation strategy that incorporates condom use into the experience of sex itself, such as an Eroticization strategy, may be most effective at alleviating these concerns, especially considering that men did not perceive this strategy as negative. Intervention material that teaches women to use such strategies and show how they are perceived by males would be feasible if it is fears of negative evaluation that are driving the negative perceptions of women, especially given the fact that the strategies were seen as equally effective in ensuring condom use. However, if social exchange theory is guiding perceptions, such material may not be accepted by women, even with the knowledge that it is effective and that her male partner will not view her negatively.

General Discussion

At first glance the two sets of findings may seem contradictory, but we believe that the two studies are reflecting two different processes. Study 1 is examining a typical double standard, whether males and females are judged differently even though they are performing the same exact behavior, as condom proposition may violate traditional gender roles and sexual scripts when females do it but not when males do it. We find no evidence for such a double standard, although condom proposition results in ambivalent perceptions of the proposer. Additionally, perceptions of women's lower power in sexual scenarios would suggest a female character being perceived as less likely to have her condom desires met, which was also not borne out. Study 2 assumes that since females are more likely to propose condoms (Allen et al. 2002) and this is perhaps expected (Kelly and Bazzini 2001), that it may be the manner in which they do so that affects how they are seen. In Study 1, the target character was seen as more mature when he or she proposed a condom compared to when he or she did not, regardless of target gender or participant gender, while in Study 2 females (although not males) found a female character who used an Eroticization strategy less mature than when she used a Refusal or Explanation strategy. Therefore, while there may be no sexual double standard in the perceptions of males versus females so long as they are using a direct request strategy, this equality and lack of negative judgment of female condom proposers may depend upon the way in which she chooses to negotiate condom use.

An aspect of the interaction in which heterosexual condom use takes place that may be missing from the social role and script perspectives, is the different motivations and goals men and women may have within a sexual encounter. Cooper, Shapiro, & Powers, 1998 conclude that, on average, men's main goal is to ensure that sexual activity takes place, while women's main goal is to maintain a positive relationship, perhaps by maintaining a positive image. It is possible that participants are projecting their own gendered perspectives on the vignette. Therefore, women may be reacting negatively to eroticized condom proposition because they sees the potential for damaging the prospect of a future relationship, while men are evaluated the woman who used the Eroticization strategy equally as favorably, as this method of proposition is consistent with the goal of having sex. The fact that men did not often distinguish among the three negotiation strategies suggests that condom proposition, no matter which strategy is used, is an indication that the man will achieve his goal of having sex. However, there is extremely high within-gender variation in sexual motivation (Baumeister et al. 2001) and goals (e.g., Simpson and Gangestad 1991). Thus it is perhaps not gender per se that drives these differences in perception, and future research might more explicitly measure motivations and goals as predictors or moderators of the perceptions of condom proposers.

Limitations

Some limitations for the findings in both of our studies should be highlighted. These studies, as well as many of the studies providing the theoretical framework, were conducted on liberal college campuses, which may suggest that the particular samples are less traditional and more sexually open than the general population. More egalitarian norms of sexuality could also result in social desirability effects. In Study 1, the characters were drinking alcohol, and although this was consistent across the videos, the presence of alcohol may have colored participants' perceptions of the characters on average. Additionally, there was a minor difference in how Jeff and Kelly physically presented with condom in the condom condition, with Jeff removing the condom from his pocket while Kelly had it in her nightstand. It perhaps would have been better to perhaps have both characters remove the condom from their pocket. Participants also watched the video in groups, which could potentially violate assumptions of independence, although interaction among the participants was minimal. We also recognize that single-item measures such as that used to measure promiscuity can be unreliable, and despite our best efforts, another limitation of the current work is some low reliabilities in our scales making significant results less likely. Finally, it should be noted that two different media were used in Study 1 (video) and Study 2 (written vignettes). While videos may have higher external validity, written vignettes allow for participants to imagine the characters for themselves, perhaps minimizing idiosyncratic effects of the situations.

Future Directions and Conclusions

Type of relationship was not manipulated in either study, which may also have implications for perceptions of condom negotiation. The context of the sexual encounter in Study 1 was a casual, perhaps one-night, affair, while the characters in Study 2 were establishing a new relationship. Research specifically examining how different types of relationships (and relationship motivations) affect these perceptual processes is therefore warranted. Although in casual sexual situations condom communication usually takes place at the last minute when clothes are already off (Edgar and Fitzpatrick 1993), condom negotiation may still affect one's perceptions of the sex partner, and this could affect the subsequent relationship. While the perceptions that one has of a partner “in the heat of the moment” may well be unlikely to change whether they have sex at that moment, it is the case that these perceptions have consequences for the relationship moving forward. If a woman is concerned about being viewed as promiscuous because she used an eroticization strategy, it is probably unlikely to change whether he has sex or even uses a condom. However, as Bryan et al. (1999) discuss, it might cause him to view her as a bad relationship partner and thus unworthy of pursuit after a single sexual encounter. On the other hand, if a partner is actively seeking a long-term relationship such as presented in Study 2, and proposing a condom makes a partner view the proposer as mature and responsible, this has positive relational consequences moving forward. So, there are both immediate consequences of negotiation (will a condom be used?) as well as longer term consequences of the perceptions of a condom proposer based on the nature of that negotiation.

A more comprehensive picture of perceptions of the various sexual encounters depicted across the two studies would have resulted from asking participants to rate both characters in the scenarios, and should be addressed in future research. We examined the three condom negotiation strategies in isolation in Study 2 in order to draw conclusions related to social role theory and sexual script theory. Realistically however, both women and men may use multiple strategies at a time to negotiate condoms (Noar and Edgar 2008). A full picture of the influence of gender and negotiation strategy on perceptions of condom proposers would include perceptions of both male and female characters using the different negotiation strategies, with participants' own condom use, condom attitudes, and norms of sexuality and liberalness as plausibly important covariates.

Gender imbalances are inherent to the practical nature of the male condom, and negotiation skills and effectiveness play a large role in determining successful condom use for women. Greater attention needs to be devoted to condom negotiation within the framework of the sexual script men and women possess, different understandings of what condom negotiation means within the context of the sexual relationship for men and women, and how goals and motivations are related to the fear of a negative evaluation from a partner. This line of research has implications for both basic research on gender roles, the impact of goals and motivations on relationship initiation, maintenance, and satisfaction, as well as applied research into the development of sexual risk reduction intervention content for men and women on how to more effectively communicate with partners when the goal is to engage in safer sex practices.