Table 5.

Means (and SDs) and Test of Significant Differences of Condom Use Resistance Tactics among Classes

	Condom Positive / Low Hostility	Condom Negative / Moderate Hostility	Condom Negative / High Hostility	GzLM Wald χ² (df = 2)
Condom use resistance tactics
Risk-Level Reassurance	7.31 (12.42)_a	14.73 (18.18)_b	19.55 (20.76)_b	17.49^***
Seduction	7.48 (12.67)_a	16.50 (18.61)_b	18.53 (19.53)_b	19.65^***
Reduced Sensitivity	4.55 (10.88)_a	11.18 (17.36)_b	15.75 (20.59)_b	12.79^**
Direct Request	3.61 (9.72)_a	8.61 (15.80)_b	10.95 (16.57)_b	9.49^**
Relationship and Trust	1.60 (5.09)_a	3.62 (10.40)_b	4.25 (6.66)_b	8.43*
Emotional Consequences	1.27 (4.31)_a	3.34 (9.02)_b	2.88 (5.46)_a,b	7.44*
Deception	0.38 (1.89)_a	2.82 (9.44)_b	4.05 (10.31)_b	27.59^***
Condom Sabotage	0.12 (0.62)_a	0.77 (5.86)_b	1.30 (3.00)_a,b	8.26*
Withholding Sex	0.07 (0.40)_a	1.96 (9.11 )_b	0.80 (3.38)_b	95.36^***
Physical Force	0.01 (0.16)	0.01 (0.09)	0.60 (3.33)	4.25, ns

Note. Means with differing subscripts are significantly different at p < .05. Race (white versus non-white) and education were statistically controlled in all models predicting condom use resistance tactics.

^***

p < .001.

^**

p < .01.

^**

p < .05.