Experimental study shows non-loss-framed messages increase condom use willingness in cisgender men, suggesting effective health communication strategies.
The rate of barrier use during partnered sexual activities is low in men because masculinity ideologies might emphasize strong sexual desire and prioritize pregnancy prevention over sexually transmitted disease prevention. We investigated how to frame educational interventions to increase cisgender men’s willingness to use barrier contraceptives, including condoms and dental dams. Based on Regulatory Focus Theory, non-loss-framed messages (focusing on disease prevention) and gain-framed messages (focusing on pleasure) were compared to neutrally framed messages. Moderators such as masculinity ideologies and regulatory focus on sexuality were considered. In an experimental study, 725 cisgender men who have sex with women (MSW; Age: M = 30.3, SD = 8.9) from German-speaking countries in Europe received a non-loss-, gain-, or neutral-framed message informing them about the necessity of using barrier contraceptives. Participants then indicated their willingness to delay various sexual activities (penis-vaginal, penis-anal, fellatio, anilingus, cunnilingus) to ensure barrier availability. Men exposed to non-loss-framed messages were more likely to delay penis-vaginal and penis-anal sexual activities to ensure condom availability compared to those who received neutrally framed messages. Framed messages did not increase willingness to delay activities to ensure dental dam use. Masculinity ideologies were associated with reduced willingness to delay sexual activities to ensure barrier availability, whereas regulatory focus was not related to willingness to delay. The findings suggest that non-loss-framed health communication can effectively increase condom use among cisgender MSW. Future research should test health messages to enhance dental dam use by incorporating gender ideologies and refining gain-framed messages.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Komlenac et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: