<r

Arfi"l" 2o
College Students Use Implicit Personality
Theory fnstead of Safer Sex
Sunyna S. Williams
ofNew York College at Buffalo
Diane L. Kimble, Nancy H. Covell, Laura H. Weiss,
Kimberly J. Newton, and Jeffrey D. Fisher
State University

University of Connecticut

William A. Fisher
University of WeSern Ontario

Many collcgc shrdants cngage in hith lcvcls of unsafc sc:<uat bchavior that puts
thcm rt risk for HIV infcction. To bcttqr undcrstsnd tlrc dyuurics undcrlying cdlleXc
studcnB' unsafc bcluvior, focus group disctssionr ucre conductcd with 308 studants (146 mco rnd 162 woman). Thc rcsulu stro'r*cd th!t, Lrnad of consistan0y
using condoms, many collcgc studcnts usc implicit pcrsoillity thcorics to jndge trc
riskincss ofpotcntid sa<ual partncrs. Spocifically, psrttrr wlrora collcgc studcsts
know rnd likc rrc not pcrccivcd to bc risky, cvan if what studatr lnow rbout tlrcsc
individuals is inelcvrnt to HIV satus. The sfidotr &tcnninc thc riskincss of pcrt
ncrs thcy do not tnow wcll bascd on npcr{icid clunctristics that rrc dso gcncrally unrelatcd to HIV statns. Thcrcforc, AIDS prevantion intcrvcotims for collcge
students mrst Gxpoec thc inctfcaivcncss of thc strdcntC u:c of implicit Froulity
theorics to dctcrnrirc potcntid psrtncrC riskincss, rnd tbc trow your prrutcr' srfcr
scx

(t)

gui&linc should bc abandoned.

had bccn scnnlly actirc, 75%hil not always uscd
condoms during scnral inrcrcoursc and 44Vo had had
two or morc partners. otlrcr suryc,ys (e.9, Ablcr & Sd-

Health cxperts arc irrrcasingly conccrncd who

about HIV infection among ollcgc studcnts bccausc

studcnts arc continuing to cngagc in high lcvcls of unsafc scnral bchavior that pus thcm at risk for infcaion
Mllcr, Turncr, & Moscs, l99O). t. D. Fisher and
A. Fishcr (1990) found that 12o/oof cr,llcge snrdcnts had
bccn sc:cually activc during thc prwiors ycar; of thosc

W.

lacch l9S9; DcBuono, Zinncr, Daamcq & McCormaclq l99O; Fishcr & Misovich, l99l) harrc obtaincd
similar rcsults.

Rcpnntcd with pcrnrission frul.Jannul of .Applid Seiat PqrchotoAr, 2412):921-933. Copyritht O 1992 by V. H. Win'
& Son, Inc. All rights rcscrvcd
Prcpantion of ttriJuticlc was supportcd by Natiorut Institutc of Mcoul Hcalth.grant MH46t24 to ,cl&cy D. Fishcr rnd
Williun A. Fishcr. Wc arc gratcful to William R. tnd*ing urf SEpho J. Misovich for modcrating thc mrlcottly gutps
urd !o Kclly A. Hoopcr rnd Stcptrcn J. Misovich for thcir assistarrc i! lndyzittg atrdiotapcs of thc discussions. Wc elso thanl
tuo rnonymous rcvicwcrs for thcir trclpfitl cornnrnts on rn cadicr &afi.
Corciponacmc conccndng this riicle should bc lddrcssod o Sunyor S. Williuos, Oeprtnent of Ps)hology, Ststc Univcrsig of Ncw York Collcge rt Bulhlo, Bulhlo, btY 14222.
ston

t77

Arficle 22

(2)

Therc is vidence that there are already appreciabte levels of HIV seroprevalence among college students. An Amcrican Collcge Health Association study
(Gayle et al., 1990) found that I in 500 college student
blood samples was HIV+. Thcrc was substantial vari-

ability among the universities sampled, and

these blood samples are now 3 ycars

because

ol4 thc incidence

of HIV scropositivity may have increased substantially

in the intcrim. Morcover, according to the General Ac'
counting Office/Human Resources Dcpartmcnt (1990),
thc number of AIDS emcs among pcople in thcir twenties incrcased 4 l% during 1989. Because of the long la'

tency pcriod betwccn HMnfcction and

the

dwelopmcnt of AIDS, many of thosc who dwelopcd

AIDS in their twenties rverc probably infected through
unsafe sexual behavior during their tccns or early twenties, which is the average age for collegc students.

(3)

In order to reduce thc amount ofunsafe sex exhibited by many college students, it is necessary to understand the dynamics associated with their unsafe
sexual behavior. While therc is a grcat deal of quantitatirc research doctmenting the incidence of risky sexual
behavior among students (c.g., Abler & &dlacck, 1989;
DeBuono ct al., 1990: Fisher & Fisher, 1990; Fishcr &
Misovich, l99l), much less work has been direcred at
identiSing the rcasons undcrlying collcgc students' unsafe sex and the conditions under which it occurs. Neverthcless, such rescarch" which can bcst bc pcrformcd
using qualitativc mcthods (see Fishcr & Fisher, 1992),
is necessar.v both to dcvclop conccptualizations of college students' unsafe sc.xual practices and to design interventions to changc thcsc praAices (Manning Balson,
Barenberg, & Moore, 1989; Parker & Carballo, 1990).
To address this need, thc prescnt study attempted to
gain a better understanding of the dynamics underlying
college students' unsafc se:.rnl behavior.

Mcthod

This rescarch cmployed focus group techniques

to explore the dynamics of heterosexual college students' safer and unsafe sexual behavior. Focus groups,
which are often used to facilitate understanding of thc
psychological underpinnings of bchavior @asch, 1987:

Nix, Pasteur. & Scrvance. 1988) and can also be used to

corroborate quantitative findings (Parkcr & Carballo,
1990: Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990), provide an

appropriate means
Itn

rlr

,h. p.o.rr,

search has bcen demonstrated b,y studies conductcd with

lower incomc African American women and teenage
girls (Fullilove, Fullilovc, Haynes, & Gros, 1990), African American teenage boys (Nix et al., 1988), and gay
men (Oftir, Williams, Fisher,

& Fisher, l99l).

(5)

In the ctrrrcnt research, groups offour to eight

college students nrcrc asked to discuss their safer and
unsafc sonrat behavior and thcir rcasors for cngaging
in those bchaviors, as well as the contocts within which
safer and unsafe scx occurred. Both same-scx (male'
only and fcmale-only) and mixed-sex focus groups wcrc
conductcd to ensurc breadth of rcnrlts. That is, although
mixcd-sex gloups may havc morc mundanc rcalism, in
that membcrs of both sexes arc present, it is possible
that college studcnts may disclose morc in same-scx
groups.r

(6)

In addition, both tpes of groups were conducted bccausc the two qpes of groups had different
purposcs. The same-sex groups (in which thc discussions lasted about 2 hours) were run rclely for the purposc of exploring the dynamics of collcge studcnts'
sa&r and unsafe sonral behavior. Howcver, the mixed'
sex groups (in which the discussions lasted about I
hour) werc conduclcd for another purposc as well; thcy
wcre conducled to pcrform a quantiutive analysis to de'
termine the conscqucnces for impression formation of
an individrul taking a pro- or anti-AIDS prcvention
stance during thc foors group discussion. This latter
data

will not bc addrcsscd herc.

Subjects

(7)

Thc srbjects wcre 308 University of C,onnccricut undcrgraduate studenls (146 mcn and 162 womcn)
who were recruitcd both through an adrrcrtiscment in
the campus ncwspapcr and through thc univcrsity srb-

ject pool to ensure a represcntative samplc. Thc indi-

Ovemiew

(4)

Furthermorc, thc feasibility of using this techniquc in

the area of sexuat behavior and AIDS risk reduction re-

,o..r.h

rcsults foc thc

to

perform such an

analysis.

viduals received cithcr Sl0 or course cxperimental

credits for thcir participation. Bascd on foctrs group
availability, the subjecs were assigned to same' or
mixed-sex groups of four to eight subjccts cach. Only
prcviously unacquainted people wcrc asigncd to the
same group, and therc wcre at least two men and two
rvomen assigned to cach mixcd-scx group. Overall,
there were 169 subjects (E0 mcn and 89 women) in 25
mixed-sex groups, 66 men in 13 maleonly groups, and
73 rvomen in 13 femaleonly groups.l

diffcrcncts in foors glorp disclssion content emong nrixcd+ct nulc.onln urd fcrndconly goupr rrcrt minimel. Ttrcrcforc.

srnr. md nrixed-:cx

groups wcra conrbirrcd.

t78

Aeticlc 22
Procedurc

foor group discussiors should bc analfzcd using a systo cxl&rct and intcrprct dcscriptivc
statcments from audiotapcs or transcrips (Knrcgcr,
tcmatic process

(t)

Thc protocols for rhc focus group discussions

wcrc dcvelopcd in accordancc with cstablishcd guidclincs for focus group rescarch (Basctr, 1987; Knrcgcr,
l98t). Thc discussion scssioru werc conducrd by
traincd modcrators who followcd a preparcd, scmistructurd outlinc. Thc modentors for the mixed-scx
groups wcrc fcmdc, whereas thosc for the samc-scx
groups werc of thc samc scx as thc goup membcrs. Thc
participans and thc modcrator wer scatcd comfortably
in a circlg ud a multidircctiond microphonc was uscd
to rccord thc scssion

(9)

Bcforc the discnssion bcgan, the subjccts werc

askcd to rcad and sign an informcd consent form. Tbey
werc told that the discussion was being audiotapcd for
latcr rwicw by the rescarch teaq but wcrc assurcd that
thcir responscs werc conlidentid. It was also strsscd
that thc purposc of thc discnssion was to find out what
collcgc studcnts thi* and fccl about scx urd AIDS and
that subjoets should statc thcir opinions whcther or not
tfuy agrccd with othcr group membcrs. Furthermore,
tlrc participans rtrr told that thcy did not have to rn
srcr any questions that madc thcm unconrforuble ard

that thcy could withdraw from thc study at ary point

without loss of cither monetary rcmuncration or expcri.
mcntal

crcdil

l9tt).

Basch suggcsts analping nrch dara by crcating

of idcas to gencnile thcmcs and backing
thcsc thcmcs with illugrativc quotes from the discrssion participanls. Thc data amlytic proccdurcs for thc

catcgorics

prcsent study followed

grup disarssion

thc above guidelincs. Foos

audiotapes werc analpcd by having

sctrcnl rcscalch assigans listcn to cach upc. Only

vicr4oints raiscd in thc majority of groupe and by morc
than onc person in thc group wcrc considcrcd. Each tistercs gcncratcd scveral pcrccivcd themcs and cnractcd
dcscriptivc statsments ard quotes in support of thosc
themcs. Thc rcscarch assistants thcn discusscd thcir in-

dividual findings with one anothcr in ordcr to dcrclop

conscnsally Elidatd concluioru.
Findings

(12)

Thc resulc from thcsc analysis tcchniqucs arc

in four shcctions which dcal with (a) how
.stu&ns make judgmcnts of thc riskincss of thcir scxul
part[crsr O) thcir ssscssments of thcir orn pcrsonal
prscntd

rislc, (c) thcir rcasons for spocific incidcnts of unsafc

sc:q and (d) thcir bclids about oondoms. Thcsc four
srbscstiors rcprcscnt Oc malr catcgorics of lindings.
As noted abwq thcsc categorics originatcd'from what

thc srbjccts sai4 nthcr than from thc protocol qucs-

(10)

Af,er brid sclf-intrcductions, the discnssion

bcgan Thc questiors lbcr$d on situatioru in whicb thc
participants may harc had or rcfirod to havc unsafc
scx, thc numbcr and t'"cs of scnul rclatiorships thc
participans had cxpcricnccd, what malrcds of scxual
protcction thc participans orrently nscd ard wtry,
what thcy likd ard dislikd about rsing condornq ard
whcther the panicipants thought that AIDS was a oon
cern for collcge sftdents. Thcsc qrrcstions wrc &sigrrcd to tap thc srudcnts' rlasons for cngaging in

Judgmenu of thc risklncss of scxual pqfien.

Ttrc deta suongly indicatcd that our rcspondcnts ap.

unsafe scnral bchavior.

pcarcd to harc a well.dcvclopcd

tions per sc. In othcr *ords, thc catcgorics were datadrivca Bccausc thc catcgorics r*trc daadriven and so
fcm subjccts wtre abcitrcnr or practied noninscrtirrc
scx (only 13% of thoec in ttrc rltixcd-ccx groups had ab
staimd from inscrtive scx duing thc prwios ytar), thc
rsrlts cmphasizc condom usc 8s thc prinrluy AIDS
prcwntion mctho4

(13)

ad

gcncrally acccptcd

of idcas regarding which potcntid sxuat panncrs

arc dsky for HIV infcaion ud which arc nol Wc
funrd coruisrcnt$ that partncrs whom *udcnls htov
sct

Rgrltr rnd

Discurslon

DataAnalysls

(ll)

Bccausc fanr group data is collcctcd in group

scnings, it is inapFopriatc to at:taly?E thc data by conducling frequcncy counts ofresponscs within fixcd contcnt carcgorics (Basct\ 1987; Krucger, l9tE). Instca4

ardrikz (irrcluding monoSlmous parurcrs who havc not

bcco tcstcd for HIV infcsrion) arc pcrccivcd as nol bc'
ing risky. Onc s$jcct srnmcd up this vic,w by sayinS;
'Whco you gct to know thc pcrson . . . 8s soon as
o
bcgin trusting thc pcrson . . . yor don't really hare'oir
usc e condosr' ln cficct, nrch parocrs appcarcd ttl bc

,.r. ihrt rrr collaal crly cr erbjcar ia urc ninc&rcr fer guryr ertlc$ 0d 6il. b cn u4lc urc .nlt$t h li{h
unlfc rnll bchrvior corrg $lc r" L.. O&d h dh.r collc1a ordrr ilrila tcf; AHet I Scdrcdq lgtq DcBlm a d- l99o'
Fr$.r f FU!r, 1990, fth.. & ML;,i4 t99l} Spccifrcrtly, S?tf of dirr b rfrr adxid.cr rrqtc Ua tsr rnllty raiw &ri5 thc -F lgl
prr. Of Unr rto Uf ta rnUy crirc, Cnitri 1qj .ffiF ,,.d crdilt irbt rnlt irrirn (dlurjh oly 2l!a brd ettr hd ra HN
trlood &rI 5?L lud lud tuo c tsr rnd ptr1 ud lrltt hrd bd rod rr.
zeIDS

lcrlr

.i.L bdr."io.

of

---"

17)

Atticlc22
considcrod not to bc risky, rcgardlcss of thc objctivc
safcncss or unsafencs of their past or prcscnt scn al bc'
havior, and ectual HIV sratus was almost ncver known'
As onc man sai4 'I knew my panner really wcll bcforc
we had scrg so I didn't havc to worry about hcr scxtul
history." Thcsc urd many othcr similar stiltcmcnts
makc it clcar that snrdcns do not usc condoms with
panners whom they know and likc.

cxplaincd,

dcng not to practicc safcr scx with partners thcy know

and likc (and whom thcy invariably tnst) is bascd on

thcir rcluctancc to link risk or discasc with lwing or

caring. As onc studcnt put it,'Bccansc I love hcr. . .
it's kind of hard to think that [about AIDSI.- Further'
more, it is our impression that snrdcnts gcncrally do not
have scx at all with pcople thcy do not like. Intcrcstingly, thercforc, the only situation in which students arc
tikcly to usc condoms is with partncnt thcy fccl thcy do
not know wcll cnough to cschew condom usc.

(17)

to HIV stahrs spccifically, whcthcr they know and like

thc partncr and whcther a prwiorsly unknown partricr
las ccrtain srpcrficial uais. Pcrccivcd rclationships
among clraraacristics, srch as the perception that a
panner whom onc knows or who is from a small town

known potcntid panners. our fgcus group data indi-

is not risky, are callcd implici! ncrsonality thcorics

(c.g., Schncider, llastorf, & Ellspottlu 1979). Clcarly,
college snrdens arc nsing an implicit personality theory

to determine thc riskincs of scnal panncrs, nthcr

than consistcntly practicittg safcr scr

ocplainc4 '[f lhcy'rc . . .24, thcy'vc bccn

around6 morcycanthansomeone. .. who's tt.... If
they'rc drcssd up like a slut. . . thqy'rc usally a slul"
Another subject smmcd up this rcliancc on supcrficial
orcs by sayrn& 'lf I [wcrcl in thc bar-hopping Ncw
York sccne and mecting stray womcn . . . thcn I'd
worry about gening AIDS.- ln addition to using thc
abovc orcs, [any men appcar to pcrccivc womcn thcy
havc just ma who usc oral contraccptivcs to bc risky.
As one man sai4 'You don't want to trust sonrcone
who jrst went on thc pill.' OfEr a al. (1991) fonnd a
similar rcliancc on npcrficial arcs in judging the riskincss of potential partnets among

g4f mcn.

(16)

Bccausc of thcir confidencc in thcir abilitics to

asscs a panner's riskines, most objccts indicated that

thcy would only corsidcr rsing oondoms during scx

with panncrs thcy fccl thcy do not know well cnough
and whom they perccivc might bc risky. A ggical responsc was,

'If

you just met them, you usc a condom. .

if it's long-tcnn, you arcn't going to wony.' Thereforr,

lhc subjccls somctimcs indicatod that thcy would usc
condoms at thc bcginning of a rclatioruhip, bcfore they
fccl that they kncw the partncr suficiently. One subjccr

From thcsc findings, it is clear that college students appear to judgc thc riskiness of scnral partncns
bascd on clraractcristics that are not rclatcd objcctively

catcd that s$dcnts oftcn seem to rcly on simplc rulcs to

labcl somconc as risky for HIV ittfcction (and thercforc,
to decidc cither to usc a condom or not to have scx with
that pcrson). Thcy tcnd to assume that risky pcoplc are
thosc who &css prwocativcly, whom one mct in bars,
who rcrc older than most college studcnts, who are
from large cities, or who are ovcrly anxions for
As

scr

lto usc condomsl for

life.-

When judging the riskincss of prwiously utt-

onc student

important

cithcr onc-night stands or thc bcginning of rclatiotuhipe

whcrc you jr.rst really don't know cnough about thc pcrson yct.- Anothcr summcd up thc praailing view by
sayln& 'At fi6t you shotld usc a condom. Thcn, oncc
you gct to know hcr, you should discuss other mearu of
birth control." Thc snrdcnts reportcd that oncc thcy fccl
th,at they know thcir paflnrs, usually in ways unrelatcd
to HIV s!atu!s, thcy dmoei inwriably ccasc uing condoms. A t;Dical rcsponsc was, 'I'm mostly uing thc
pill sincc my rclationship, but if it's a ncw panncr . . .
[I woutdl delinitely usc a condom.- Whcn askcd what
hc urculd nccd to know about a panncr to dccidc to stop
*know
rsing condoms, one man said hc would want to
how shc livcs, know hcr fricnds, [talkl to hcr about her

(14) orr imprcssion is that thc tendency for sfit'

(15)

'It's

(18)

tmplicit pcrrcnality thcorics are often adaPtivg

cven if thcy arc not entirely accuna,te, bccausc they al.

low peoplc to intcrprct thcir socid worl4 Howcver, the
usc of ur implicit pcrsonality thcory for asccrtaining a
partncr's AIDS risk is cxtremely unreliablc and potentidly faul. Bccausc thc only w:ly to accuratcly dctcrminc somcone's AIDS dsk is through knowlcdge of
that pcrson's HIV slatus, thc ttsc of any other oret to et'
scss risk will of,cn prwide a dangerous, falsc scnsc of
sccurity. Thereforc, hcalth cducation efrorts to rcducc
AIDS risk bchavior among collegc s$dcnls (ud pet'
hape othcrs as wcll) must cxposc thc incfcetivencss of

thcir usc of implicit penonality thcorics to asscss thc

riskincss of partncn or potcntial pattners. Furtlrcrmorc,
it mun bc cmphasizcd thag in thc abscncc of spccific
knowlcdgc rcgarding thc penner's HIV stattrs, knowing
onc's partncr and bcing npnotamous do not consitutc
safer scrt.

(19)

Ironicalln onc ofthc safcr scx guidclincs that

has been widcly prcmotcd in many largc ciroilation
pamphles srch as the Surgcon Gcrrcral's R4ort on Ac'
quircd Immune Dcficicncy Syndromc (U.S. Dcpartment

Ito

Arcicle 22
of Hcath and Human Scrvices, 1986) is rhe exhortation
to "know your partncr." Although this g.ridcline is intcnded to refcr to knowing onc's panner.s scxual his-

happcned to gay pcoplc. but it would ncrer happcn ro

me." Clcarly. most snrdents pcrccive thcmsch.cs to bc
vcry socially distant from thc ty?ical pcrson with AIDS.
According to Weinstein (19t0, 1988), rhc grcatcr thc

tory (and of coursc, acting on that knowlcdge), college

studcns. and probably many othcrs as *cll. appcar to

have misintcrprcted it. In cfrect, they are using thc
gridclinc to strengthen thcir bcliefs rhat rhsy arc not bcing unsafe if thcy know thcir partnerc, cvcn if thc ways
in which they know them are cntircly irrclcvant to
AIDS risk. Furthcrmorc. cvcn if one docs considcr

perccived socid distancc bctrrecn oneself and the qgical viAim of a partiorlar misfornrng thc lcss pcrsonatty
nrlncrablc onc will fccl to that misfortune, rcgardlcss of
objcctivc rislc

(23)

one's paruler's sc:rual history, it is dangcrous to infcr a

negative HIV staNs from a nonpromiscuous so<rul his-

'tory. Clcarly, the "know your partncr" guidclinc

.

Thc major practical implicarion of this finding

is that AIDS prevcntion efforr must cmphasizc studcnts' personal vulncrability to HIV infcction. To in-

wlnerability, studcnts may nccd to bc

confiontcd with cascs of heterosc:crully transmittcd HIV
infcclion among collcgc studcnts. In addition, onc could
prGcnt students with statistics rcgarding thc alarming
incidcnce of scnrally transmittod discascs (STDs) and
creasc pcrccivcd

has

bacldircd and should bc abandoncd.

(20)

Evcn lcs cryptic safcr scx guidclines nrch as

thc advicc to'take prccautions whencvcr you have scx

a long-term monogamous rclationship" (c.g..

Amcrican Collcgc Hcalth Association, 198?) crcatc
problcms. Collcgc studcns sccm to misintcrprct such
advicc to mcan that monogamy itsclf corstitutcs safer
scx, crcn scrial monog;amy in thc abscncc of objective
knowledge regarding one's panner's HIV status. ThcGfore, studcnts oftcn appear to be using such advice to
bolner their bclicfs that they nccd to usc condoms only
with partncrs whom thcy do not know. Unfornrnatcly,
pamphlets containing thc 'know your partncr' and
*take prccautions
outsidc a long-term monogamous rc-

who nsc condoms was,

usc'condoms . . . for birtlr
control. That's what ['m worricd aboul' Another sub-

lationshiy'' guidelines arc srill bcing distributed.

jcct

(2t)

about

outside

unwantcd prcgnansy on their own campuses, couplcd

with the rcminder that AIDS is uansmittcd in the samc
way. This could bc followed by a pcnonal risk audit to
cmphasizc that the sftdcnts arc engaging in bchavior
that pus thcm at risk for HMAIDS.

(24,

'I

Assesmtcnts of personal risk Whilc they judge

thcir partners' riskiness bascd on impticit pcrsonality
theorics, our respondcnts do not gcncnlly sGGrn to @or
sider themsclvcs to bc at risk for HIV infcstion, regardlcss of whether or not they engagc in safcr scl For
example, one srbjcct sai4'l'm not involvcd with oncnight stands, so I don't worry about it [AIDSI too
much.- Anothcr sai4 'l'd *ory if I [arrcntlyl had
multiplc partners." Some do not eyen fcel that AIDS

'l

it

more about prcgnansy than I do

[AIDS|." Bccausc thcir primary conccrn is

*r

thctical to condom usc. Thercfore, AIDS prwcntion

higilig[t thc fact that thc pill doe

not prwidc protcction from HIV infcction or odrcr'
STD, and campus hcalth profcssionals shonld advisc in
dividtuls who rpccira prcscriptions for onl contracep
intcrrrcntioru mtst

jcct summcd it up,'Pcrrcnally, I'm not really wonicd

about AIDS on this campns. . . . I'd bc willing to ba
that therc arcn't too many scr ouBidc homoscnrats.'

(227

adminc('I think

prgnanqr, most snrdcnts arc not likcly to nsc condoms

in thc context of a rclationship if the fcmalc partncr is
on thc pill. As one man sai4 'Bcfore she was on thc
pill nscd condoms; nw $re don't' A woman cxplaincd, 'I know that if I'm on it [thc pilll that I tcnd to
thint lcss. . . laboutl protcction agains discasc.' Unfornuurcly, nsc of onl conUaceptivcs appcars to bc anti-

should be a concern on a collcgc campus. As onc sub.

Howwcr, wcn thosc who may fecl that AIDS

shonld bc a concern on ermpus do not sccm to fccl per.
rcnally nrlncrablc becausc thcy do not rcally beliarc
that hetcroscnral collcgc students arc at risk As onc
student sai4
don't know anybody [who hasl AIDS,
I'vc ncver sccn anybody [who hasl AIDS, ['m not gay,
and it scems. rcgardlcss [ofl what rhc facts arc . . . likc

For most of our respondens, thc risk of preg-

nancy is far morc salicnt than thc risk of AIDS or other

STD. In dris contcxt, a qpical respoilr among thosc

tirrcs to use condoms as well.

(25)

Reasons

lor

incldents of unmlc ser.

Banrc

most collcgc snrdcnts do not really bcliarc that thcy are

at risk for HIV infcction, many oftcn cng4ge in scxual
behavior that thcy acknowlcdge is objcctively unsafe.

Thcrc arc t*o roair rqrsons or respordcils

cngagng in spccific insanccs of unsafc scr

glrc for

it's mostly gay guys that gct iL" Another cmlaincd, (26, Onc of thc most frcquently mcntioncd Gasons
'['vc always fclt that it wasn't sorncthing that was go- for cngaging in unsafc bchsvior was alcohol impair'
ing to afrcct me. . . . It happcncd to drug uscrs and it mcnL Onc frank responsc lt?s, 'I gucss thcrc... larcl

Itl

Article 22
(1991) found that gay men expressed a similarly suong
dislike of condoms.

episodes whcrc you gct really, really [drunk], and things

happen, and you forget about consequences." Another

student sai( 'Most times, yes, I use a rubber, but it's

happcncd that I didn't usc anything whcn I [was

drunkl." Collegc studenls nccd to bc uught techniques
to prevent thc unsafc combination of scx and alcohol in-

(30) . In addition to feeling that condoms arc unpleasant to usc, many students sm to feel that the use

of condoms has undcsirablc social implications. Many

respondents indicatcd that requesting that a condom be
uscd may imply that onc distruss one's partneq that is,
that one belicves the partner has been promiscuou or

toxication. For cxample, students could be cncouraged

to choosc not to drink or to drir* lcss when they anticipate the possibility of having sex. Alternatively, if they
arc dnrnk or anticipate bccoming drunh they could be
encoumged to ask fricnds to not allow them to leavc a

will not bc monogamous. Onc subjcct summed up this

vicw by sayrng, 'If it's som@ne [with whoml I have to
use a condorq it's rcmeone I don't trust." Furtherrnorc,
disorssing condom usc prior to having scx with someone for the first timc might imply that one expected to
have so<, which might bc perceivcd as socially inappropriatc. As one subjcct put
I was going to havc
pullcd
scx and I
out a condom, it would look bad."
Thcse findings suggct that AIDS prcvention intcnrcn-

social cvent with a potential se:<ual partncr.

(27t-

Another frcquently mcntioncd.reason for bcing

unsafc is ovcrwhclming lust. As one student admiUcd,
'"Therc's bccn a couplc of timcs . . . that you do givc in
becausc it's like the moment." Another cxplained that,

it,'[q

*In the hcat of thc momcnt you don't thir* about it

[AIDSI." [t must bc cmphasizcd to college students
that, if thcy makc condom use habitual and they carry
condoms with theq thcy will bc far lcs likely to forget
to usc them in thc heat of passion. Offrr et al. (1991)

tions should scck to alter pcrcrived social norms

regarding condom usc, so that requcsting condom use
would not carry undesirable implications regarding
one's trust ofone's partner or one's social appropriateness (cf. Fishcr, l98t).

found the same tendensy among gay mcn to attributc

spccific incidens ofunsafe scx to passion.

(2E)

Conclusions

Beliefs about condoms.

In order for

college
students to usc condoms consistently, rcgardless of thc
temptations ofrered by particular situations or their be-

liefs about thcir partners' riskiness, they must havc

positive feelings about condom usc. Unfortunately, studcnS reported almost unanimously that they do not like
using condoms and belicvc that using them interfercs
with thcir cnjoyment of sex. Onc subjccr summed up
this vicw by saying, *I think condoms rcally suck . . . .
When I finally rhought about maybc gcrting AIDS I bcgan to pscudo [somctimcsl use them. I don't like thern,
though."

(29)

Overall, collcge students reporred feeling that

condoms arc unpleasant to usc, primarily becausc they
decrease sens:ltion and spontaneity. A q/pical response
was, "I don't likc condoms at all. I hate them. I can tell
the difference, and I don't likc it." More specifically,
one subject explained, "l can't stand
the spontaneity
how it's ruined, and the smell of condoms . . . makes
me sick." Even studcnts who reported always using
condoms oftcn reported not cspccially enjoying thcm.
Furthermore, many students rcported feeling that condoms are inconvenient, bccause one must remember to
buy them and have them available. As one subject explained, "You get sick oftaking a condom everyrvhere;
it's a real hassle." Clearly, college students need to bc
taught ways to be more comfortable with condom use
and to have pleasurable sex with condoms. Oflir ct al.

(31)

The main themc that emerged from the results

was that college students' judgments of a partictlar
partner's riskincss arc not based on the rclevant objectivc criterion of HIV status. Instead, students use an implicit personality theory to dctcrmine a partncr's
riskiness. In addition, students do not believe that they
themselves are at risk for HIV infcstion. Thcrefore, thcy
oftcn cngage in behavior that is unsafe, bccausc thcy do
not pcrceivc the nccd for using condoms (which they do
not like), cxcept whcn having scx with a partncr whom
thcy fecl they do not know wcll cnough and pcrccive
may bc risky. Futurc rescarch should conlirm these
qualitative findings with more rigorous quantiultive
mcthods. For cxample, onc could cxpcrimentally cxaminc thc influencc of various characteristics of a stimulus
prson on subjea judgments of the riskiness of that person for transmitting HIV. Finally, thc main findings of
this study hare several praaical implications for AIDS
prevention with college students, which have bcen discussed throughout the Findings scction. In conclusio&
collcge students need to understand that thcy are wlnerable to HIV infection and can drastically reduce
their HIV risk by abandoning thcir biased judgmens of
partners' riskiness and, instead, engaging in pleasurable safer scx.

r82