![Mediation by Sexual Health Threat
Sec/Anx vs.
Avo
Perceived
Sexual Health
Threat
Implicit
Preferences
Total Effect [c]: β = -.18*
95% CI (.-02, .04)](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/ssss13talk-140616204737-phpapp01/85/Effects-of-Attachment-on-Condom-Use-Attitudes-and-Behavior-23-320.jpg)
Effects of Attachment on Condom Use Attitudes and Behavior
- 1. Effects of Attachment on Condom Use Attitudes and Behavior John K. Sakaluk, M.A. Omri Gillath, Ph.D. University of Kansas
- 2. Outline 1. Determinants of condom use 2. Attachment theory 3. Present results from 4 experiments 1. What do results mean for condom use promotion
- 4. Critiques of Pure Reasoned Action “Oversimplified” WHO, 2012 “Mechanistic” Feeney & Raphael, 1992 “Ignoring important interpersonal and affectional nature of sexual relationships” Ciesla et al., 2004
- 5. Our Relational Focus: Attachment Attachment theory—an account of emotional bonding in close relationships What’s a baby/person in distress to do? Bowlby 1969/1982 Extensions to adult romantic/sexual relationships Fraley & Davis, 1997; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007
- 6. Internal Working Models of Self and Other Anxious- Preoccupied Secure Fearful Avoidant Dismissive Avoidant Positive Other Negative Other Positive SelfNegative Self
- 7. Internal Working Models of Self and Other Anxious- Preoccupied Secure Fearful Avoidant Dismissive Avoidant Positive Other Negative Other Positive SelfNegative Self
- 8. Internal Working Models of Self and Other Anxious- Preoccupied Secure Fearful Avoidant Dismissive Avoidant Positive Other Negative Other Positive SelfNegative Self
- 9. Attachment and Condom Use Research Feeney et al (1999, 2000): Avoidants like condoms more/use condoms more Anxious like condoms less/use condoms less Bogaert & Sadava (2002): Secures don’t like/use condoms Anxious like/use condoms Kershaw et al. (2007): Avoidants and anxious both don’t like/use condoms
- 10. Goals and Predictions of Our Research Examine the causal effects of attachment on condom use attitudes and behaviors Priming attachment styles Gillath et al., 2008; Sakaluk, 2013 General hypotheses: Secure/Anxious share positive working model of other (esp. when sex-related) Security/Anxiety should cause more negative condom use attitudes/less behavior
- 11. Study 1 (n = 335) Control Prime Security Prime Anxiety Prime Avoidance Prime
- 12. Self-Reported (Explicit) Condom Use Attitudes If I always (never) used condoms every time I had penile-vaginal intercourse, it would be… Caring Selfish Smart Stupid Responsible Reckless Safe Dangerous Protective Risky Respectful Insulting Right Wrong (αs = .93, .95); Higher scores = more positive evaluation Sakaluk & Muehlenhard, 2012
- 14. Discusison Priming attachment styles that involve positive working models of other lead to self-report preferences for condom use No examination of mediating mechanism
- 15. Study 2 Health behavior theories suggest perceiving threat to health as necessary precursor to taking action Hochbaum, 1958; Rosenstock, 1960 Perceived sexual health threat as mediator of attachment effects on condom use attitudes
- 16. Study 2 (n = 145) Control Prime Security Prime Anxiety Prime Avoidance Prime
- 17. Perceived Sexual Health Threat (α = .65) 1-7 scale (1 = not at all; 7 = extremely) 1. How safe do you feel having sex with your partners? 2. How confident are you that partners would not give you a sexually transmitted infection? 3. How suspicious are you of your partners cheating?
- 18. Mediation by Sexual Health Threat Sec/Anx vs. Avo Perceived Sexual Health Threat Explicit Attitudes Total Effect (c): β = -.87** Direct Effect (c’): β = -.67* β = -.60** β = -.19* 95% CI (-.01, -.50) Bootstrapped N = 10,000
- 19. Discussion Positive working models of other lower perceptions of sexual health threat more negative attitudes towards condom use Studies 1-2 limited to self-report (explicit) measures Vulnerable to socially desirable responding Explicit attitudes require motivation/opportunity to translate to behavior
- 20. Study 3 What about implicit attitudes? Automatic, and not always consciously accessible What kind of behaviors are implicit attitudes good at predicting? Socially sensitive behaviors Greenwald et al., 2009 When motivation/opportunity for deliberate consideration are low Fazio, 1990
- 21. Study 3 (n = 89) Control Prime Security Prime Anxiety Prime Avoidance Prime
- 22. Positive Negative Condom Use Condom Non- Use SexyDisgusting
- 23. Mediation by Sexual Health Threat Sec/Anx vs. Avo Perceived Sexual Health Threat Implicit Preferences Total Effect [c]: β = -.18* 95% CI (.-02, .04)
- 24. Study 3 Discussion Same effect on implicit attitudes, but not mediated by sexual health threat perceptions Poor measurement of threat perceptions to blame? (α = .40) Studies 1-3 limited to study of self-report and finger movements—what about behavior? Unfortunate that security has negative effect given other benefits of secure attachment style Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007
- 25. Study 4 Mikulincer & Shaver’s (2007) review of security priming effects 1. Increased mental health/well-being Mikulincer et al., 2006 2. Decreased intergroup aggression/hostility Mikulincer & Shaver, 2001 3. Increased levels of altruism/pro-social behavior Mikulincer et al., 2003
- 26. Benefits of Security Mikulincer & Shaver’s (2007) review of security priming effects 1. Increased mental health/well-being (e.g., Mikulincer et al., 2006) 2. Decreased intergroup aggression/hostility (e.g., Mikulincer & Shaver, 2001) 3. Increased levels of altruism/pro-social behavior Mikulincer et al., 2003
- 27. Study 4 (n = 228) Control Prime Security Prime Anxiety Prime Avoidance Prime
- 28. Results 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 Control Security Anxiety Avoidance Self-Focus Other-Focus Security (v. control) x Framing interaction: eβ = 0.59, p = .03
- 29. Summary and Limitations Consistent effect of security across Studies 1-4 Effect of anxiety did not carry over to behavior Ad-hoc measurement of sexual health threat perceptions was a limiting factor for Studies 2-3 Although Studies 1-2 diverse in age, otherwise homogenous samples across Studies 1-4
- 30. Conclusions and Future Directions Relational factors play important role in condom use evaluation/behavior Security effect in particular warrants consideration for sexual health promotion Examining causal effects of attachment on broader indicators of sexual health
- 31. Security Prime “I had a boyfriend for six years and we got along from the first moment we met…and I had no fear of abandonment. I don't think he did either….we grew very close and for awhile it seemed we'd be together forever.” “My husband and I have that kind of relationship. We are in love, trust each other, depend in each other for everything and share our feelings.”
- 32. Anxiety Prime “He felt like a sieve through which my affection poured through.” “When in public I would try to hold their hand or put my arm through theirs, but they would kinda brush me off…even when we were alone in the house, they pulled away when I would touch them...”
- 33. Avoidance Prime “When I was ready to break up with a boyfriend, every physical gesture he made was painful and unendurable. I did not want to be close or intimate, I just wanted to escape his physical presence.” “I met a man in whom I had a casual interest…He quickly became enamored of me, much more so than I of him. He wanted me to meet his family, move in with him, pick out his clothes, name his pets, etc. It gave me the creeps.”
- 34. Control Prime “A new girl at work started about 1 week ago. She is very standoffish, a know it all and worst of all she is the boss’s friend” “I know a guy from work. I do not talk to him except for a few small conversations in passing. He seems nice. He talks to many people at work.”
Editor's Notes
- #8: -we don’t really talk about fearful avoidants too much
- #9: For the present research, we are most interested in the working model of other: anxious/secures share a positive one (kinda true, but esp. so in matters of sex)
- #10: Limited by inconsistent findings that are exclusively correlational and self-report based
- #26: Lowered accessibility of trauma-related thoughts for those suffering from PTSD Gave less hotsauce (operationalized as aggression) to outgroup confederate Increased self-reports of self-transcendent values (e.g., benevolence—concern for close others)
- #27: Lowered accessibility of trauma-related thoughts for those suffering from PTSD Gave less hotsauce (operationalized as aggression) to outgroup confederate Increased self-reports of self-transcendent values (e.g., benevolence—concern for close others)
- #32: Try to remember a close relationship in which you felt that the goal of getting close to your partner was achieved with relative ease, a relationship in which you felt comfortable being dependent on your partner or comfortable with your partner being dependent upon you, a relationship in which you did not worry that you would be abandoned or that your partner would get too close to you.
- #33: Try to remember a relationship in which you felt that your partner refused to create a connection as close as you wanted, in which you often feared that your partner did not really love you or did not wish to stay with you, in which you felt that you want to merge completely with your partner, and this desire sometimes distanced your partner from you.
- #34: Try to remember a close relationship in which you did not feel comfortable getting close to your partner, you had difficulty trusting in your partner completely and had difficulty being dependent on your partner, a relationship in which you felt tense when your partner got too close, and often felt as though your partner wanted a relationship more intimate than what you were ready for.
- #35: Try to remember a relationship with someone you know, who is not very close to you (i.e., an acquaintance).