How Do Alcohol and Relationship Type Affect Women's Risk Judgment of Partners with Differing Risk Histories?

Abstract

Understanding how women judge male partners' sexual risk is important to developing risk reduction programs. Applying a cognitive mediation model of sexual decision making, our study investigated effects of alcohol consumption (control, low dose, high dose) and relationship type (disrupted vs. new) on women's risk judgments of a male sexual partner in three sexual risk conditions (low, unknown, high). After random assignment to an experimental condition, 328 participants projected themselves into a story depicting a sexual interaction. The story was paused to assess primary appraisals of sexual and relationship potential and secondary appraisals of pleasure, health, and relationship concerns, followed by sexual risk judgments. In all risk conditions, alcohol and disrupted relationship increased sexual potential whereas disrupted relationship increased relationship potential in the low- and high-risk conditions. In the unknown-risk condition, women in the no-alcohol, new relationship condition had the lowest primary sexual appraisals. In all conditions, sexual appraisals predicted all secondary appraisals, but primary relationship appraisals predicted only secondary relationship appraisals. Secondary health appraisals led to increased risk judgments whereas relationship appraisals predicted lower risk judgments. Possible intervention points include helping women to re-evaluate their safety beliefs about past partners, as well as to develop behavioral strategies for decreasing hazardous drinking.

Keywords: alcohol intoxication; interpersonal relationships; sexual risk taking; social cognition.

Figure 1

Hypothesized multiple groups model. Hypothesized path valences are indicated above the arrows in the following order: Low Risk, Unknown Risk, High Risk. Zeros indicate predicted null paths.

Figure 2

Final constrained multiple groups model. Separate path models are shown for (a) low-risk, (b) unknown-risk, and (c) high-risk groups. Standardized loadings are presented. All solid line paths are significant at p < .05; all dashed paths are included in the multiple groups model, but are not significant at the p < .05 level. All paths from primary appraisals to secondary appraisals and from secondary appraisals to partner risk judgment were constrained to be equal across risk groups.

Figure 2

Final constrained multiple groups model. Separate path models are shown for (a) low-risk, (b) unknown-risk, and (c) high-risk groups. Standardized loadings are presented. All solid line paths are significant at p < .05; all dashed paths are included in the multiple groups model, but are not significant at the p < .05 level. All paths from primary appraisals to secondary appraisals and from secondary appraisals to partner risk judgment were constrained to be equal across risk groups.

Figure 2

Final constrained multiple groups model. Separate path models are shown for (a) low-risk, (b) unknown-risk, and (c) high-risk groups. Standardized loadings are presented. All solid line paths are significant at p < .05; all dashed paths are included in the multiple groups model, but are not significant at the p < .05 level. All paths from primary appraisals to secondary appraisals and from secondary appraisals to partner risk judgment were constrained to be equal across risk groups.

Figure 3

Unknown-risk group interaction: Relationship type by alcohol on primary sexual appraisal. All comparisons for the no-alcohol, new relationship condition are significant at p < .01.