Investigates how relational context and trust affect risky sexual behaviour among university students, indicating important health intervention implications.
The purpose of this study was to investigate how relational context and trust are associated with risky sexual behaviour. A pilot study indicated that there are three different types of sexual encounters most common among university students: the one-time sexual encounter; the recurring casual sexual relationship; and the steady dating relationship. One hundred and forty-nine undergraduate university students with past sexual experience participated in the main study. The participants completed a computer administered self-report questionnaire. The results revealed high levels of risky sexual behaviour with 78.5% of the sample reporting inconsistent condom use and 50% not ever having had the appropriate tests for STIs or HIV/AIDS. Most participants reported having experienced a steady dating relationship while two-thirds had experienced a casual sexual relationship (one-time or recurring casual sexual encounter). The recurring casual sexual relationship was found to be as common as a one-time sexual encounter. As predicted, a one-way within-subjects ANOVA revealed that condoms were used most consistently in one-time sexual encounters, less consistently in recurring casual sexual relationships, and least in steady dating relationships. Also as predicted, trust in a sexual partner varied across sexual encounter types, with the lowest levels of trust reported for one-time sexual partners, higher levels for recurring casual sexual partners and the highest trust for steady dating partners. Contrary to prediction, however, trust and condom use were not correlated. The results highlight the importance of understanding sexual context when assessing risky sexual behaviour and have implications for designing effective health intervention strategies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nicolle Vincent (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: