Abstract
Young adult participation in intimate behavior typically does occur inside a relationship context, but we understand little concerning the ways certain options that come with intimate relationships impact decision-making that is sexual. Prior work with sexual risk using concentrates attention on medical issues instead of relationship characteristics. We draw on data through the Toledo Adolescent Relationships research (TARS) (letter = 475) to look at the relationship between characteristics and characteristics of current/most recent romantic relationships such as interaction and emotional procedures, conflict, demographic asymmetries, and length plus the handling of intimate danger. We conceptualize ‘risk management’ as encompassing multiple domain names, including (1) questioning the partner about past intimate behaviors/risks, (2) utilizing condoms consistently, and (3) keeping exclusivity that is sexual the connection. We identify distinct habits of risk administration among dating adults and discover that certain characteristics and characteristics of the relationships are connected to variants in danger administration. Outcomes with this paper suggest the necessity to give consideration to relational characteristics in efforts to target and influence young adult intimate risk-taking and minimize STIs, including HIV.
Through the life phase of growing adulthood (Arnett 2000), many adults that are young maybe maybe maybe not hitched, but are intimately active (Lefkowitz and Gillen 2006). As such, they have been at considerable danger for publicity to infections that are sexually transmitted. This greater visibility could be the consequence of increases in intercourse, and decreases in condom usage in accordance with the adolescent period (Dariotis et al. 2008; Harris et al. 2006). Associated with the 18.9 million brand brand new instances of intimately sent infections every year, about half occur among people aged 15-24 (Weinstock et al. 2004); this higher level of disease is due, to some extent, to teenagers perhaps maybe not once you understand and/or not disclosing their STI status to intercourse lovers ( e.g., Desiderato and Crawford 1995). Behaviors that place adults that are young danger for publicity to heterosexually transmitted infections (for example., inconsistent condom use and numerous and concurrent intimate lovers) fundamentally happen within dyadic relationships. Hence, the significance of the relationship context can not be over-stated, and scholarship is just starting to notice that comprehending the nature of intimate relationships might help prevent STIs ( ag e.g., Ickovics et al. 2001; Kusunoki and Upchurch 2010; Manning et al. 2009; Manlove et al. 2007; Santelli et al. 1996; Sheeran et al. 1999; Soler et al. 2000; Tschann et al. 2002). Interestingly, scientists know more about specific, household, peer, and level that is even neighborhood on adolescent and young adult involvement in high-risk sexual tasks than concerning the influence of relationship characteristics such as for example provided interaction on intimate risk-taking as well as the handling of STI danger. Relationship procedures play a significant although not well-understood part and likely express a successful and malleable arena for intervention in accordance with individual, peer, household, or demographic facets.
The existing research, drawing on recently gathered information through the Toledo Adolescent Relationships research (TARS), explores variants in danger administration in the context of respondents’ current/most recent relationship. We conceptualize the entire process of handling danger with regards to numerous domain names including: (1) questioning the partner about past intimate behaviors/risks; (2) using condoms regularly; and (3) maintaining intimate exclusivity. A strength associated with TARS information is the introduction of an meeting protocol that features direct assessments among these measurements of danger administration along with possibly relationship that is important and characteristics (i.e., love, intimate self disclosure, and conflict) that could be connected with variants into the popularity associated with individual’s efforts to manage danger. The analysis additionally makes up about conventional relationship parameters such as for example demographic asymmetries and timeframe regarding the relationship as prospective impacts on ways that sexual danger is handled in the context of young adult relationships.
BACKGROUND
Prior studies of intimate danger behavior have dedicated to demographic habits, links with other issue habits, in addition to effect of certain wellness philosophy. Utilizing nationwide, local, and clinical types of adolescents and teenagers, scholars have actually analyzed the impact of age, sex, race/ethnicity, religion/religiosity, parents’ training, and approval that is parental of task on condom usage ( e.g., Darroch and Singh 1999; Forrest and Singh 1990; Glei 1999; Katz et al. 2000; Longmore et al. 2003; Lowenstein and Furstenberg 1991; Manlove et al. 2007; Manning et al. 2009; Mosher 1990; Sonenstein et al. 1989). Evidence shows that adolescents and adults that are intimately inexperienced, report greater religiosity, are less educated, and whoever parents are sensed to accept of premarital sexual intercourse are more frequently inconsistent or inadequate condom users or non-users. Although beneficial in supplying a descriptive portrait, these research reports have concentrated mainly on a certain behavior, i.e., condom or contraceptive usage, and routinely have perhaps not analyzed other components of intimate relationships that characterize the young adult duration.
Another approach that is common understanding high-risk sexual behavior is always to notice it as an element of a wider problem behavior problem ( ag e.g., DiClemente and Crosby 2006; Jessor and Jessor 1977; Ketterlinus et al. 1992; Luster and Small 1994; Rodgers and Rowe 1990). For instance, medication and liquor usage are connected with earlier in the day onset that is sexual greater amounts of intimate lovers, and much more instances of non-safe sex ( e.g., NIAAA 2002; Santelli et al. 1999); however, the relationship between liquor and condom usage is inconsistent across relationship contexts and intimate connection with the partners (Leigh 2002). Increased focus on the linkages between different risk behaviors such as for example liquor and medication usage and behavior that is sexual been helpful, specially with furthering our knowing that the ability, inspiration, and abilities of adolescents and teenagers can be distinct from those of older grownups, particularly pertaining to attitudes of invulnerability. However, during adolescence and into young adulthood, sex becomes increasingly normative, and unlike delinquency, underage liquor usage and illicit medication usage, may be developmentally appropriate (Harris et al. 2002; Longmore et al. 1999). Therefore, an even more approach that is multifaceted intimate risk-taking is needed – the one that recognizes the rewarding and status-enhancing social experiences that romantic and other intimate relationships provide despite the fact that they could amplify the degree of intimate risk-taking.
One more theoretical perspective within the intimate research/prevention arena may be the Health Belief Model (Becker 1988). This social perspective that is psychological regarding the individual’s desire in order to avoid illness and centers around wellness opinions and preventative actions. This method was helpful for highlighting influences that are motivational nevertheless, a limitation of the and associated approaches such as for instance Fishbein and Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein et al. 2001) is the fact that the focus is individualistic and assumes the behavior under consideration is volitional. Hence, social and situational procedures are under-emphasized, including issues surrounding the settlement of condom usage.
Our conceptual framework emphasizes that intimate relationships aren’t individualistic (although information can come in one person), but they are complex social bonds which can be likely incompletely described pertaining to any one construct-such as period, regularity of conversation, or kind of intimate relationship ( ag e.g., casual versus committed). Our multidimensional approach derives from a symbolic interactionist view of relationship exchanges ( ag e.g., navigate here Giordano et al. 1986; McCall and Simmons 1978). As Burgess and Huston (1979, p. 9) note: “an explicit check change procedures sets the phase for thinking about the relationship itself – as opposed to the people or perhaps the larger system being a product of analysis. ” As placed on closeness, by showcasing the dyadic character of intimate relations, the partner as guide other, while the characteristics regarding the relationship, itself, become central to a thorough knowledge of the chance and way by which intimate behavior and as a result sexual risk happen (Giordano et al. 2001). The symbolic interactionist lens underscores the requirement to capture and explain these relationships given that actors by by themselves encounter them. This tradition emphasizes that meanings emerge from social interactions; hence, we explore intimate danger administration by centering on the individual’s view associated with the relationship including provided interaction, heightened emotionality, conflict, and relationship asymmetries.
