Young adult participation in intimate behavior typically happens within a relationship context, but we all know little concerning the ways that particular options that come with intimate relationships impact decision-making that is sexual. Prior focus on 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 qualities and characteristics of current/most recent romantic relationships such as interaction and psychological procedures, conflict, demographic asymmetries, and timeframe and also 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 regularly, and (3) keeping exclusivity that is sexual the partnership. We identify distinct habits of danger administration among dating adults that are young realize that specific characteristics and characteristics among these relationships are associated with variants in risk administration. Outcomes using this paper recommend the necessity to give consideration to relational characteristics in efforts to target and influence young adult intimate risk-taking and lower STIs, including HIV.
Throughout the life stage of rising adulthood (Arnett 2000), many adults are maybe maybe maybe not hitched, but are intimately active (Lefkowitz and Gillen 2006). As a result, these are typically at considerable risk for publicity to sexually transmitted infections (STI). This greater visibility may be the consequence of increases in sex, and decreases in condom usage in accordance with the period that is adolescentDariotis et al. 2008; Harris et al. 2006). Of this 18.9 million brand new situations of intimately sent infections every year, about half happen among people aged 15-24 (Weinstock et al. 2004); this higher level of disease is due, in part, to adults maybe perhaps perhaps not once you understand and/or not disclosing their STI status to sex lovers ( ag e.g., Desiderato and Crawford 1995). Behaviors that place adults that are young danger for visibility to heterosexually transmitted infections (in other words., inconsistent condom use and numerous and concurrent intimate lovers) always happen within dyadic relationships. Hence, the significance of the partnership context can’t be over-stated, and scholarship is just starting to notice that comprehending the nature of sexual relationships might help avoid 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 learn more about specific, household, peer, and level that is even neighborhood on adolescent and young adult participation in high-risk intimate tasks than concerning the impact of relationship characteristics such as for instance provided interaction on sexual risk-taking therefore the handling of STI danger. Relationship procedures play a significant yet 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 cupid on recently gathered information through the Toledo Adolescent Relationships research (TARS), explores variants in danger administration inside the context of respondents’ current/most present 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) utilizing condoms regularly; and (3) maintaining sexual exclusivity. An energy associated with TARS information is the introduction of an meeting protocol that features direct assessments of the proportions of danger administration in addition to possibly essential relationship characteristics and characteristics (i.e., love, intimate self disclosure, and conflict) which may be related to variants when you look at the success regarding the individual’s efforts to manage danger. The analysis additionally is the reason old-fashioned relationship parameters such as for instance demographic asymmetries and length for the relationship as possible impacts on ways that intimate danger is handled in the context of young adult relationships.
Prior studies of intimate danger behavior have actually centered on demographic habits, links to many other issue actions, together with effect of certain wellness thinking. 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 parental approval of intimate task on condom usage ( ag 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). Proof suggests that adolescents and teenagers that are intimately inexperienced, report greater religiosity, are less educated, and whoever parents are perceived to approve of premarital activity that is sexual more frequently inconsistent or inadequate condom users or non-users. These studies have focused primarily on a specific behavior, i.e., condom or contraceptive use, and typically have not examined other aspects of intimate relationships that characterize the young adult period although useful in providing a descriptive portrait.
Another approach that is common understanding high-risk sexual behavior would be to visualize it as part of a wider issue behavior problem ( e.g., DiClemente and Crosby 2006; Jessor and Jessor 1977; Ketterlinus et al. 1992; Luster and Small 1994; Rodgers and Rowe 1990). As an example, medication and liquor usage are related to previous onset that is sexual greater amounts of intimate lovers, and much more cases of non-safe sex ( e.g., NIAAA 2002; Santelli et al. 1999); but, the relationship between liquor and condom use is inconsistent across relationship contexts and intimate connection with the partners (Leigh 2002). Increased awareness of 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 comprehending that the information, inspiration, and skills of adolescents and adults can be distinct from those of older grownups, specially pertaining to attitudes of invulnerability. However, during adolescence and into young adulthood, sexual intercourse becomes increasingly normative, and unlike delinquency, underage alcohol usage and illicit medication usage, is developmentally appropriate (Harris et al. 2002; Longmore et al. 1999). Hence, a far more multifaceted way of sexual risk-taking is needed – the one that recognizes the rewarding and status-enhancing social experiences that romantic and other intimate relationships provide and even though they are able to amplify the degree of sexual risk-taking.
One more perspective that is theoretical the intimate research/prevention arena could be the Health Belief Model (Becker 1988). This social perspective that is psychological regarding the individual’s desire to prevent disease and centers on wellness opinions and preventative actions. This method is ideal for highlighting motivational influences; nonetheless, a limitation for this and relevant approaches such as for instance Fishbein and Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein et al. 2001) is that the focus is individualistic and assumes the behavior at issue is volitional. Hence, social and situational procedures are under-emphasized, including problems surrounding the settlement of condom use.
Our framework that is conceptual emphasizes intimate relationships are not individualistic (although information will come from 1 person), but are complex social bonds which are likely incompletely described pertaining to any one construct-such as timeframe, frequency of conversation, or types of intimate relationship ( ag e.g., casual versus committed). Our multidimensional approach derives from a symbolic interactionist view of relationship exchanges ( e.g., Giordano et al. 1986; McCall and Simmons 1978). As Burgess and Huston (1979, p. 9) note: “an explicit glance at change procedures sets the phase for taking into consideration the relationship itself – as opposed to the individuals or even the bigger system as being a device of analysis. ” The partner as reference other, and the qualities of the relationship, itself, become central to a comprehensive understanding of the likelihood and manner in which sexual behavior and in turn sexual risk occur (Giordano et al. 2001) as applied to intimacy, by highlighting the dyadic character of sexual relations. The interactionist that is symbolic underscores the necessity to capture and explain these relationships whilst the actors by themselves experience them. This tradition emphasizes that definitions emerge from social interactions; hence, we explore intimate danger administration by concentrating on the individual’s view for the relationship including provided interaction, heightened emotionality, conflict, and relationship asymmetries.