The Journal of Sex Research

ISSN: 0022-4499 (Print) 1559-8519 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjsr20

Short- and Long-Term Self-Regulation and Sexual Risk-Taking Behaviors in Unmarried Heterosexual Young Adults Kristin L. Moilanen To cite this article: Kristin L. Moilanen (2015) Short- and Long-Term Self-Regulation and Sexual Risk-Taking Behaviors in Unmarried Heterosexual Young Adults, The Journal of Sex Research, 52:7, 758-769, DOI: 10.1080/00224499.2014.959881 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2014.959881

Published online: 08 Oct 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 129

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hjsr20 Download by: [University of Otago]

Date: 12 November 2015, At: 23:50

JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH, 52(7), 758–769, 2015 Copyright # The Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality ISSN: 0022-4499 print=1559-8519 online DOI: 10.1080/00224499.2014.959881

Short- and Long-Term Self-Regulation and Sexual Risk-Taking Behaviors in Unmarried Heterosexual Young Adults Kristin L. Moilanen

Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 23:50 12 November 2015

Department of Learning Sciences and Human Development, West Virginia University The goal of this study was to explore associations between short- and long-term self-regulation and dimensions of oral and coital sexual risk-taking in emerging adulthood. A total of 287 unmarried heterosexual young adults ages 18 to 26 years (62% female; 87% European American; 81% enrolled in college) provided study data via Internet surveys. High levels of long-term self-regulation predicted later initiation of oral sex and coitus, fewer lifetime coital partners, increased likelihood of condom and other contraceptive use at last intercourse, and low composite levels of coital risk. High levels of short-term self-regulation predicted reduced likelihood of condom use and high overall coital risk. The discussion focuses on the interpretation of these effects and potential directions for future research.

Sexual activity is a typical part of emerging adulthood, with approximately 80% of young men and women ages 20 to 24 years reporting ever having oral sex during their lifetime, and about 85% having ever experienced coitus (Copen, Chandra, & Martinez, 2012). Although sexual involvement is normative, it still carries risk for serious consequences: Adolescents and young adults in the United States have the highest rates of unplanned pregnancy among Western countries (United Nations Statistics Division, 2012) and annually account for a disproportionate number of new sexually transmitted infections (STIs; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013). In response, researchers have built a rich, albeit largely atheoretical literature on the varying individual, social, and contextual precursors of sexual risk-taking during the teens and early twenties (Zimmer-Gembeck & Helfand, 2008). Within the area of individual-level antecedents, there is considerable interest in how personality traits may serve as risk or protective factors for involvement in high-risk sexual activities (Hoyle, Fejfar, & Miller, 2000; Jessor, Donovan, & Costa, 1991). Supported by a sample of unmarried heterosexual young adults ages 18 to 26 years, the present study focused on individuals’ high self-regulation as a predictor of low involvement in oral and coital sexual risk-taking behaviors (i.e., low likelihood of having initiated each behavior; late age at initiation; low

Portions of this manuscript were presented at the 2014 Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence. Correspondence should be addressed to Kristin L. Moilanen, Department of Learning Sciences and Human Development, West Virginia University, P.O. Box 6122, Morgantown, WV 26506-6122. E-mail: [email protected]

lifetime number of partners; low composite risk levels; and for coital risk-taking only, high likelihood of the use of condoms and any other form of contraception at last intercourse). Self-Regulation and Sexual Behaviors Scholars define self-regulation and its assorted subcomponents in various ways across research areas and developmental periods (Berger, 2011). For the purposes of this study, self-regulation consists of individuals’ abilities to activate, monitor, inhibit, persevere, and=or adapt their behavior, attention, emotions, and cognitive strategies in response to internal or environmental feedback and in pursuit of personally relevant goals (Moilanen, 2007). This broad conceptualization of self-regulation reflects the commonalities across the various definitions in the literature, and in doing so incorporates subcomponents such as emotion regulation, lack of impulsivity, delay of gratification, effortful control, and other elements of self-control (for an expanded discussion, see Forgas, Baumeister, & Tice, 2009). The cumbersome abundance of terminology creates an illusion that these components are distinct from one another when in truth there is substantial overlap in conceptual definitions and in measurement strategies, as well as accumulating evidence of shared developmental bases of individual differences (Berger, 2011; Moilanen, 2012). Within the realm of developmental science, there is growing awareness that adolescents and young adults are able to regulate their behaviors, emotions, attention, and thoughts in pursuit of immediate or short-term goals as well as long-term objectives (Gestsdottir & Lerner, 2008; Moilanen, 2007). ‘‘Short-term’’ or ‘‘organismic’’

Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 23:50 12 November 2015

SELF-REGULATION AND SEXUAL RISK-TAKING BEHAVIORS

regulation refers to individuals’ abilities to inhibit impulses, moderate emotions, or shift attention in the moment or over limited periods of time (Gestsdottir & Lerner, 2008; Moilanen, 2007). Successful short-term self-regulation (STSR) can occur automatically, or it may require conscious self-monitoring of internal states and awareness of social-contextual conventions and demands. These abilities emerge early in development and demonstrate considerable longitudinal stability over time, which suggests that STSR is temperamentally based. In contrast, ‘‘long-term’’ or ‘‘intentional’’ selfregulation first becomes possible during the teen years (Gestsdottir & Lerner, 2008; Moilanen, 2007): Adolescents and adults are able to self-regulate intentionally over longer durations of time (i.e., weeks or months versus seconds or minutes) and in pursuit of valued, personally-relevant goals. Long-term self-regulation (LTSR) involves deliberate intentionality in selecting and prioritizing goals, developing plans to attain those objectives, monitoring progress, and adapting efforts or the actual goals in response to successes or failures over time. Individuals vary in terms of STSR and LTSR capacities, but those who are strong in STSR also tend to be strong in LTSR (Moilanen, 2007), and it is unlikely that successful LTSR is possible in the absence of at least adequate STSR (Forgas et al., 2009; Fujita, 2011; Gestsdottir & Lerner, 2008). For example, the counterproductive day-to-day behaviors of a highly impulsive individual may derail his or her progress toward long-term goals. Although several studies have explored self-regulation as a risk factor for coital forms of sexual risk-taking, to date no single contemporary theoretical model explicates potential associations between STSR, LTSR, and sexual behaviors. Theories of sexual and other risk behaviors that include personality-level elements generally omit self-regulation (e.g., Jessor et al., 1991), and conceptual models of risk-taking that include self-regulation pertain to broad-band adjustment problems (e.g., emotion regulation and externalizing problems in Morris, Silk, Steinberg, Myers, & Robinson, 2007). These conceptual frameworks not only lack necessary elements of comprehensive developmental models of sexual risk-taking but also have an exclusive and implicit focus on STSR (i.e., most researchers conceptualize self-regulation as STSR by default, without explicit consideration of the temporal context). The core hypothesis present in such research on various aspects of emotional and behavioral maladjustment is also applicable to sexual risk-taking behaviors: specifically, individuals who struggle with self-regulation (regardless of whether it is referred to as self-, emotion, or behavior regulation; impulsivity; self-control; or another synonym) are likely to act in unrestrained, sexually risky ways as a result of impulsive decision making in the ‘‘heat of the moment,’’ while under the influence of substances, or to repair negative moods (Gailliot & Baumeister, 2007; Kahn, Kaplowitz, Goodman, & Emans, 2002;

Khurana et al., 2012; Quinn & Fromme, 2010; Tull, Weiss, Adams, & Gratz, 2012). In short, inhibitory failure is the predominant hypothetical mechanism of STSR on risk-taking behaviors (i.e., young adults engage in sexual risk-taking because they are unable to control their powerful sexual urges; Gailliot & Baumeister, 2007). Perhaps as a result of STSR serving as the ‘‘default’’ aspect of self-regulation, little attention has been granted to LTSR in reference to any types of risk behaviors, and there are no known instances in which STSR and LTSR have been explored in conjunction. As is hinted in the broader literature, potential mechanisms explaining the association between LTSR and involvement in risk behaviors include (1) a lack of forethought=planning (e.g., young adults may engage in sexual risk-taking because they are not yet able to think clearly about or plan for the potential consequences of their actions; Gailliot & Baumeister, 2007; Moore & Davidson, 2006) and (2) a low degree of commitment to future goals (e.g., young adults without well-developed future plans may have little concern about the possible long-term costs of engaging in sexual activity; Fujita, 2011; Ohannessian & Crockett, 1993). The present study represents the first known effort to address these shortcomings, with a primary goal of exploring the linkages between both STSR and LTSR and sexual risk-taking during early adulthood. A secondary study goal was to explore these associations for both oral and coital forms of sexual risk-taking, as to date nearly all scholarship on sexuality and self-regulation has considered only coital forms of risk. The following literature review summarizes the evidence linking each sexual behavioral outcome to self-regulation, while acknowledging the variety of ways it has been conceptualized in the scholarship discussed in this article. Sexual initiation. The current study investigated whether high levels of STSR and LTSR reduced the likelihood that emerging adults would have initiated oral and coital activities. There is minimal and contradictory evidence linking self-regulation to sexual initiation. On the one hand, STSR at ages 12 and 13 did not predict whether teens had initiated intercourse by ages 16 and 17 years in Raffaelli and Crockett’s (2003) study of the Children of the National Longitudinal Surveys of Youth—1979 data (CNLSY-79). On the other hand, in one large-scale cross-sectional study of college students in the southern United States, participants of both sexes who reported high levels of short-term selfcontrol were significantly less likely to report ever engaging in oral sex, and the same pattern emerged for coital initiation for young men only (Vazsonyi & Jenkins, 2010). Paradoxically, in another large-scale study, high levels of impulsivity predicted whether women ages 19 to 21 had initiated coitus, but the same finding did not emerge for young men (Breakwell, 1996). As for indirect support for LTSR, in one study college students who 759

MOILANEN

Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 23:50 12 November 2015

reported high levels of future-oriented planning were less likely to report having initiated intercourse than their peers who reported low levels of future-oriented planning (Rothspan & Read, 1996). In sum, there is limited support for the hypothesis that individuals’ self-regulation is linked to their oral or coital initiation. Age of initiation. There is similarly limited evidence to support this association between STSR and timing of coital initiation, with no direct evidence of a relationship between STSR and oral sex initiation and no direct evidence of a link between LTSR and oral or coital initiation. In Raffaelli and Crockett’s (2003) analysis of the CNLSY-79 data, self-regulation assessed in early adolescence did not predict teens’ age at first intercourse by ages 16 to 17 years. Yet among a sample of young adolescents, increased likelihood of early sexual debut was associated with two elements of STSR (i.e., high levels of acting without thinking and temporal discounting; Khurana et al., 2012). Further, in a clinical sample of women ages 12 to 24 years, young women who initiated intercourse before their fifteenth birthday had higher levels of impulsivity than did female participants who initiated intercourse after turning 15 (Kahn et al., 2002). In short, there are hints that STSR may be implicated in the timing of sexual initiation, while evidence remains lacking for LTSR. Lifetime number of partners. There is fairly consistent evidence that STSR is a factor in young people’s accumulation of multiple coital partners. In particular, high levels of early adolescent self-regulation predicted low numbers of sexual partners in the past year for sexuallyexperienced CNLSY-79 youth ages 16 to 17 (Raffaelli & Crockett, 2003), and the same pattern emerged for middle adolescent emotion regulation and number of sexual partners in the past year (Hessler & Katz, 2010). In Kahn and colleagues’ (2002) study, young women who reported more than one lifetime sexual partner had higher impulsivity scores than women who reported only one sexual partner. Similarly, high impulsivity predicted high lifetime numbers of coital partners in young adults (Charnigo et al., 2013). Finally, in terms of support for LTSR, college students who reported high levels of future-oriented planning reported fewer lifetime and recent sexual partners than their peers who reported low levels of planning (Rothspan & Read, 1996). In sum, considerable evidence points to STSR as a covariate of lifetime number of coital partners, but limited information is available about the relationship between LTSR and lifetime number of coital partners, and no information is available about the relationship between STSR or LTSR and lifetime number of oral sex partners. Use of condoms and other reliable forms of contraception. The fourth and fifth risk measures were 760

use of condoms and any form of reliable contraception other than condoms at last coitus. This delineation of contraceptive use differs from existing studies, which have considered only condoms and no other methods of contraception (e.g., Kogan, Brody, Chen, & DiClemente, 2011) or have included condoms with all other methods of birth control (e.g., Kahn et al., 2002). As noted previously, young adults employ a variety of contraceptive methods in their coital experiences, with some variation attributable to the characteristics of the romantic relationship. Separating the use of condoms from all other reliable methods of birth control allows for a comparatively fine-grained analysis of young adults’ contraceptive behaviors in the present investigation: It is possible that well-regulated young people will forgo condoms and choose more convenient methods of contraception (e.g., pills) in the context of established romantic relationships, a possibility that has not yet been considered in studies to date. There is some evidence that STSR is a covariate of using any form of contraception, including condoms. Kahn and colleagues (2002) revealed that young women who used any form of contraception at last intercourse were less impulsive than young women who did not use any form of birth control at last coitus; in this and another study, the same pattern emerged for young men and women who used condoms at last coitus compared to those who did not (Kahn et al., 2002; Quinn & Fromme, 2010). In two separate investigations, high impulsivity predicted high total number of instances of unprotected intercourse in the past month (Charnigo et al., 2013), and high levels of self-regulatory problems predicted greater involvement in unprotected intercourse in the past three months in a small sample of African American young men (Kogan et al., 2011). In terms of LTSR dimensions, Moore and Davidson (2006) revealed no differences in condom use at last intercourse attributable to college women’s goal-setting frequency. Yet in another study, college students with high scores on future orientation measures were more likely to use condoms than their peers with low future orientation scores (Burns & Dillon, 2005). The inconsistent findings of previous studies support the value of separating condom from other contraceptive use in this study, which has the potential to shed new light on how self-regulation figures into the use of birth control. Composite risk indices. Following the precedents set by Raffaelli and Crockett (2003), composite indices of oral and coital risk were constructed to represent individuals’ cumulative risk across all of the outcomes discussed (i.e., ever initiated; experienced initiation by age 15; had three or more lifetime partners; and for the coital risk-taking composite only, no condom use and no other reliable birth control use at last intercourse). The cutoff for age at initiation was based on that used by Raffaelli and Crockett (2003); individuals

Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 23:50 12 November 2015

SELF-REGULATION AND SEXUAL RISK-TAKING BEHAVIORS

who experience first coitus after age 16 tend to accumulate fewer sexual partners, are more likely to use birth control, and are less likely to be diagnosed with STIs (Smith, 1997; Upchurch, Mason, Kusonoki, & Kriechbaum, 2004). Three or more lifetime partners was set as the cutoff for the present investigation, instead of two or more in the previous year as stipulated by Raffaelli and Crockett (2003). This was because the current study’s sample was chronologically older than Raffaelli and Crockett’s (2003) sample of 16- and 17-year-olds and because young adults have higher median lifetime numbers of oral, penile-vaginal, and anal sexual partners than do teenagers (i.e., for young adults ages 20 to 24 years, these medians are 4.1 partners for men and 2.6 partners for women, versus 1.8 and 1.4 for boys and girls ages 15 to 19 years; Chandra, Mosher, & Copen, 2011). Finally, while Raffaelli and Crockett (2003) considered only condom use in their risk composite, the coital risk composite index used in the present study reflects the use of condoms separately from other reliable forms of birth control at last intercourse. This is the first known investigation into a cumulative index of oral sexual risk-taking to date, but STSR is a known predictor of cumulative coital sexual risk-taking behaviors in adolescence and emerging adulthood. Specifically, high levels of STSR at ages 12 and 13 years were associated with low levels of overall risk at ages 16 and 17 years in the CNLSY-79 (Raffaelli & Crockett, 2003). In early adulthood, poor STSR predicted college-age young adults’ involvement in high composite levels of risky coital behaviors (Deckman & DeWall, 2011; Moilanen, Crockett, Raffaelli, & Jones, 2010). In short, there are data to suggest that STSR is involved in individuals’ engagement in coital risk-taking behaviors during the teens and early twenties, although similar data for LTSR and cumulative oral risk remain lacking. Control Variables Participants’ biological sex, age, and current university attendance were included as control variables. Many studies indicate that boys initiate intercourse earlier than girls (for a review, see Zimmer-Gembeck & Helfand, 2008). Older adolescents and young adults are more likely to have initiated intercourse and=or oral sex than their younger adolescent peers (Beadnell et al., 2005; Vazsonyi & Jenkins, 2010). Current university attendance was also modeled to control for differences between the two subsamples combined for analyses, although recent scholarship indicates that once prior levels of sexual risk-taking are controlled, emerging adults who attend college do not differ from their noncollege agemates on sexual risk-taking behaviors (Bailey, Haggerty, White, & Catalano, 2011). As young people often stop using condoms and shift to using other reliable methods of preventing pregnancy in the context

of long-term romantic relationships (Manlove et al., 2011), analyses predicting condom and other forms of birth control use also controlled for whether the participant was in a relationship with the last coital partner. The Current Study The primary objective of the current study was to describe associations between young adults’ short-term and long-term self-regulatory abilities and their sexual risk-taking behaviors, including dimensions of both oral and coital intercourse (i.e., ever initiated each form of risk; age at initiation; number of lifetime partners; and for coitus only, use of condoms and other reliable forms of contraception) and separate cumulative indices of oral and penetrative coital sexual risk. This goal was met in this cross-sectional, survey-based investigation involving two subsamples of unmarried heterosexual men and women ages 18 to 26 years. The core study hypothesis was that, with control variables modeled, high levels of STSR and LTSR would each be associated with low levels of all dimensions of risk (e.g., low overall levels of risk, as well as low likelihood of initiation, high age at initiation, low numbers of partners, and high likelihood of using condoms and other reliable forms of contraception at last intercourse). Method Participants and Procedures Following protocol approval from the West Virginia University (WVU) Institutional Review Board, study data were collected via anonymous Internet surveys from two distinct sources. All participants affirmed their informed consent to participation at the start of the survey. The first subsample included a total of 232 undergraduate psychology students at WVU, with data collected during the spring of 2009. All students in the subject pool were invited to participate in an investigation on self-regulation, relationships, and sexual risk-taking behaviors in exchange for a nominal amount of extra credit in psychology courses. Data from an additional 64 participants were discarded because the respondents were cohabiting or married (8% of the original sample); reported a same-sex last sexual partner (1%); were outside of the study’s focal age range (7%); or because their responses suggested that they did not read or answer the study’s questions carefully (12%; these cases were identified through incorrect answers to ‘‘reading check’’ items that instructed participants to select a specific response option), leaving a final university subject pool subsample of N ¼ 168. Subsequently, the participation of 270 young adults was secured via Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk service in the summer of 2012. Registered workers on Mechanical Turk were invited to participate if they lived in the 761

Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 23:50 12 November 2015

MOILANEN

United States and were between the ages of 18 and 26 years. These respondents were compensated with US$0.50 credit on Mechanical Turk if they met the study’s inclusion criteria and answered at least 80% of the survey questions. Data from an additional 151 participants were not included in these analyses because the respondents were cohabiting, married, separated, divorced, or did not report their current relationship status (29% of the original sample); reported a same-sex last sexual partner or declined to answer the question (3%); were not within the required age range or did not report an age in years (17%); or because their responses to ‘‘reading check’’ items suggested that they did not complete the study carefully or honestly (6%). This left a final Mechanical Turk subsample of N ¼ 119. Thus, the full analytic sample for this investigation was N ¼ 287 unmarried young adults ages 18 to 26 years (Age M ¼ 20.47, SD ¼ 1.96; 61.9% female; 87.4% European American; 1.4% Hispanic; 81.4% enrolled in college=university). The two subsamples differed slightly in their composition (see Table 1): The university subject pool subsample had a higher proportion of women and European American participants than the Mechanical Turk subsample, and the average age of the Mechanical Turk subsample was older than the university sample. The subject pool subsample reported lower levels of STSR, younger ages at first oral sex and coitus than the Mechanical Turk subsample, and increased likelihood of using birth control other than condoms at last intercourse. Measures Control variables. Participants reported their sex (0 ¼ Male, 1 ¼ Female), age in years, and whether they were currently enrolled in college (0 ¼ No, 1 ¼ Yes). The other birth control and condom use analyses also Table 1.

controlled for the respondents’ relationship with their last sexual partner (0 ¼ Last partner was a casual romantic partner, a friend, a new friend, or somebody else=other, 1 ¼ Last partner was a serious boyfriend=girlfriend). Self-regulation. Participants completed a revised version of the Adolescent Self-Regulatory Inventory (ASRI; Moilanen, 2007). This questionnaire assesses the degree to which adolescents or young adults are able to activate, monitor, maintain, inhibit, and adapt their emotions, thoughts, attention, and behavior in the moment and over extended periods of time. The short-term subscale was comprised of 24 items (sample items: ‘‘I can’t think more than one step ahead on any task’’ and ‘‘When I’m bored I fidget or can’t sit still’’). The long-term subscale included 28 items (sample items: ‘‘I give up when things take longer than I’d planned’’ and ‘‘If something isn’t going according to my plans, I change my actions to try and reach my goal’’). Participants rated how true each item was for them, ranging from 1 (Not at all true for me) to 5 (Really true for me). The psychometric qualities of the ASRI have been demonstrated in three other samples. In confirmatory factor analyses of the ASRI conducted with two samples, models with separate short- and long-term factors provided better fits to the data than models with a single combined factor (Dias, Garcia del Castillo, & Moilanen, 2014; Moilanen, 2007). The ASRI displayed high test-retest reliability in a third sample of college students, with correlations between the initial test and two-week retest scores exceeding .80 (Moilanen, 2014). Scale scores were computed by averaging the responses to all items for each subscale. Participants must have answered at least 75% of the items in each subscale to have scores calculated. High scores correspond to high levels of self-regulation. For the short-term subscale, Cronbach’s

Sample Characteristics and Study Variable Descriptive Statistics by Subsample (N ¼ 287) University Subject Pool (N ¼ 168)

Variable Female sex Age in years Currently enrolled in university Last sexual partner a romantic partner Short-term self-regulation Long-term self-regulation Ever had oral sex Age in years at oral sex initiation Number of lifetime oral sex partners Oral sexual risk composite Ever had coitus Age in years at coital initiation Number of lifetime coital partners Used condoms at last coitus Used other birth control at last coitus Coital risk composite

762

Mechanical Turk (N ¼ 119)

n

M (SD)=%

n

M (SD)=%

Range

168 168 168 146 168 168 165 140 161 165 166 136 161 143 143 166

73.2% 19.69 (1.27) 100% 63.7% 3.03 (.44) 3.59 (.48) 88.5% 16.40 (1.67) 2.32 (1.37) 1.62 (.95) 86.1% 16.72 (1.57) 2.40 (1.50) 70.6% 71.3% 2.04 (1.22)

118 119 117 102 119 119 118 93 116 118 117 94 115 99 99 117

45.8% 21.58 (2.23) 54.7% 64.7% 3.23 (.57) 3.64 (.55) 85.6% 17.25 (2.10) 2.34 (1.44) 1.51 (.89) 87.2% 17.43 (2.17) 2.34 (1.52) 63.6% 50.5% 2.23 (1.26)

0–1 18–26 0–1 0–1 1.17–5.00 1.46–4.79 0–1 11–22 0–4 0–3 0–1 11–22 0–4 0–1 0–1 0–5

SELF-REGULATION AND SEXUAL RISK-TAKING BEHAVIORS

alphas were .81 and .87 in the university subject pool and Mechanical Turk subsamples, respectively, and for the long-term subscale, these were .87 and .90.

Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 23:50 12 November 2015

Sexual risk-taking behaviors and composites. Participants completed two separate questionnaires about their involvement in oral and coital sexual behaviors. The two questionnaires shared similar structures and were modeled on the questions used by Raffaelli and Crockett (2003) in their analysis of coital risk-taking in CNLSY-79 youth. No distinction was made between fellatio or cunnilingus on the oral sex questionnaire, which respondents answered prior to the questionnaire about coitus. Ever initiated oral=coital behaviors. At the start of each questionnaire, participants indicated whether they had ever engaged in each behavior (e.g., ‘‘Have you ever had oral sex?’’). Response options included 0 (No) and 1 (Yes). Age at initiation. Participants who indicated that they had previously engaged in either oral or coital sex indicated their age in years when they first engaged in the respective behavior. Some participants who reported never engaging in oral sex or coitus did not answer this question, and in analyses these values were set to missing for all individuals who were uninitiated. Number of lifetime partners. This was assessed with a single item for each behavior (e.g., ‘‘With how many people have you ever had sexual intercourse in your lifetime?’’). Respondents selected from a list of options ranging from 0 (None) to 4 (Four or more). Some participants who reported never engaging in oral sex or coitus skipped this question, and for analyses their missing values were set to zero, representing no sexual partners. Condom and other reliable birth control method use at last intercourse. Coitally-initiated respondents answered one question about use of contraception at last intercourse (‘‘The last time you had sexual intercourse, did you or your partner use any form of birth control?’’). Participants selected either 0 (No) or 1 (Yes). Regardless of their response to this question, all coitally-initiated respondents answered an additional question about types of birth control used at last intercourse (‘‘What type(s) of birth control did you or your partner use the last time you had sexual intercourse?’’). Participants selected all applicable options from a list of common methods of contraception, including condoms (endorsed by 68.3% of sexually initiated participants); birth control pills or patch (61.7%); foam, jelly, or cream (2.1%); Depo-Provera (2.1%); diaphragm (1.3%); morning-after pill (4.6%); withdrawal (27.5%); and

natural family planning (0.4%). This information was used to create two dichotomous variables reflecting condom use at last intercourse (0 ¼ No condoms used at last intercourse, 1 ¼ Condoms were used at last intercourse), as well as other birth control use at last sex (0 ¼ No other reliable form of contraception [i.e., birth control pills or patch; foam, jelly, or cream; Depo-Provera; diaphragm] used at last intercourse; 1 ¼ One or more other reliable forms of birth control used at last intercourse). In all, 55.0% of respondents indicated that they used either condoms or other reliable methods of birth control at last intercourse, and 38.3% reported using both condoms and another reliable method of contraception at last sex. Oral sexual risk-taking composite. Mirroring the strategies employed by Raffaelli and Crockett (2003), the responses to each of the three oral sex items were dichotomized to reflect whether the young adult had ever initiated oral sex, whether initiation occurred by age 15, and whether they reported three or more lifetime oral sex partners. These dichotomized responses were then summed to create the multidimensional composite of oral sexual risk. Possible scores were 0 (Low risk: i.e., never had oral sex, or initiated oral sex after age 15, and had two or fewer lifetime partners), 1 (Moderate risk: i.e., had oral sex, and either initiated prior to age 15 or had three or more lifetime partners), and 2 (High risk: i.e., had oral sex, initiated oral sex by age 15, and reported three or more lifetime partners). Coital sexual risk-taking composite. Generally consistent with the strategies employed by Raffaelli and Crockett (2003), responses to each of the five coital items were dichotomized to indicate whether the respondents had ever initiated coitus, if initiation occurred by age 15, if they reported three or more lifetime partners, if they used any form of birth control at last intercourse other than condoms, and if they used condoms at last coitus. These dichotomized items were then summed to form the multidimensional composite index of coital sexual risk. Possible scores ranged from 0 (Low risk: i.e., never had sex, or initiated sex after age 15, had two or fewer lifetime partners and used a condom and another form of contraception at last intercourse), to 4 (High risk: i.e., sexually active, initiated intercourse by age 15, reported three or more lifetime sex partners and no condom or other contraceptive use at last intercourse). Results Preliminary Analyses Prior to hypothesis testing, bivariate correlations between the self-regulation and sexual risk-taking variables were examined (see Table 2). These analyses revealed strong, positive correlations between the STSR 763

MOILANEN

Table 2.

Bivariate Correlations

Variable

Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 23:50 12 November 2015

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Female Sex Age in Years In College Romantic Partner at Last Coitus Short-Term Self-Regulation Long-Term Self-Regulation Oral Sex Risk Composite Ever Had Oral Sex Age at First Oral Sex No. of Lifetime Oral Sex Partners Coital Sexual Risk Composite Ever Had Sexual Intercourse Age at First Intercourse No. of Lifetime Sexual Partners Condom Use at Last Coitus Other Birth Control at Last Coitus

1

2

3

.24c .21c .20b .11 .10 .15b .13a .03 .19b .05 .04 .01 .12 .20b .10

.59c .01 .21c .10 .17b .19b .23b .23c .22c .17b .22b .19b .08 .13

.06 .27c .12a .02 .07 .24c .13a .15a .13a .25c .12 .09 .12

4

5

.06 .13a .79c .10 .07 .08 .09 .04 .06 .15a .07 .16a .05 .03 .05 .08 .01 .29c .03 .17b .07 .00 .19c

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

.01 .10 .65c .10 .64c .02 .89c .64c .41c .09 .60c .42c .41c .56c c c b .02 .52 .63 .20 .54b .68c .08 .41c .01 .73c .21b .56c a c c c c .13 .70 .42 .40 .76 .80c .64c .48c .01 .01 .04 .04 .03 .44c .13 .10 .12 .11 .16a .10 .12 .39c .06 .04 .22b

Note. Blank cells are included; here correlations could not be computed because of missing data (i.e., all sexually uninitiated youth had zero sexual partners, and thus could not report an age at first intercourse or about birth control use). a p < .05; bp < .01; cp < .001 (all tests are two-tailed).

and LTSR scores, as well as between the oral and coital sexual risk-taking composites. There were no significant bivariate correlations between STSR and any of the dependent variables. High levels of LTSR were associated with low lifetime numbers of coital partners, but there were no other significant bivariate correlations with the outcome variables. Hypothesis Testing

correction criterion, three of the four models were significant (i.e., the exception was the oral risk composite model). Young women reported fewer lifetime sexual partners than young men. Older participants were more likely to report initiation and had higher lifetime numbers of partners and composite scores than younger participants. Current college attendance and STSR were not associated with any of the oral sex outcomes, but high levels of LTSR were linked to later age at initiation.

Hypotheses were tested through a total of ten regressions (four for oral and six for coital sexual behaviors). In all models, all variables (i.e., female sex, age in years, currently in college, STSR and LTSR) were simultaneously regressed upon the dependent variable. For the models predicting other birth control and condom use at last intercourse, relationship with last sexual partner was also controlled. In all four of the binary logistic regressions, the reference categories for the dummy-coded control variables were the first value of that variable (i.e., male sex, not in college, and not romantically involved with the last sexual partner). Given the collinearity of the STSR and LTSR scores and the small amount of missing data, the same models were fitted as path analyses accounting for the correlation between these two variables. The results of these two sets of analyses were identical, and thus the comparatively simpler results from the multiple regression analyses are presented here. To adjust for alpha inflation with multiple tests, a Bonferroni correction was applied to the ten multiple regression analyses, and models were considered significantly different from zero only if they reached the p < .005 level of significance (i.e., .05=10 ¼ .005).

Female Sex Age in Years In College Short-Term SR Long-Term SR F=v2 p R2

Oral sexual behaviors. Results of all oral sex models are presented in Table 3. Based on the Bonferroni

Note. SR ¼ Self-regulation. The Cox and Snell R2 is provided for the logistic regression for initiation of oral sex.  p < .05;  p < .01;  p < .001.

764

Coital behaviors. Results of all coital models are presented in Table 4. Based on the Bonferroni correction criterion, five of the six models were significant (i.e., the exception was the coital initiation model). Female participants had lower odds of condom use at last intercourse than males. Older participants were more likely to report coital initiation and had higher Table 3. Regression Results for Oral Sexual Risk-Taking Behaviors

Model Variable

Initiated Oral Sex OR

Age at First Oral Sex b

Number of Lifetime Oral Sex Partners b

Oral Risk Composite b

.59 1.55 2.10 .88 1.93 17.55 .004 .06

.01 .14 .15 .16 .23 3.92 .002 .08

.14 .22 .03 .02 .03 4.22 .001 .07

.11 .21 .13 .07 .05 2.97 .013 .05

SELF-REGULATION AND SEXUAL RISK-TAKING BEHAVIORS

Table 4.

Regression Results for Coital Sexual Risk-Taking Behaviors

Model Variable Female Sex Age in Years In College Rom. Partner Short-Term SR Long-Term SR F=v2 p R2

CoitallyInitiated OR

Age at First Intercourse b

Number of Sexual Partners b

1.30 1.33 .52

.02 .13 .19

.03 .18 .02

2.08 .45 12.39 .030 .04

.22 .23 4.22 .001 .09

.09 .22 3.83 .002 .07

Condom Use OR

Other Birth Control Use OR

Sexual Risk Composite B

.29 .93 1.51 .51 .33 2.98 24.02 .001 .10

.98 .92 1.53 1.99 .48 3.39 19.48 .003 .08

.08 .16 .02 .25 .31 3.80 .002 .06

Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 23:50 12 November 2015

Note. Rom. Partner ¼ Last coital partner was a romantic partner; SR ¼ Self-regulation. The Cox and Snell R2 is provided for the logistic regressions for coital initiation, condom use, and other birth control use.  p < .05;  p < .01;  p < .001.

lifetime numbers of sexual partners and composite risk scores. Current college students reported younger ages at first intercourse than those not currently enrolled in college. Compared to those who reported that their last sexual partner was not a romantic partner, young adults who reported that their last sexual partner was a romantic partner had reduced likelihood of condom use and increased likelihood of other birth control use at last intercourse. High levels of STSR were linked to reduced likelihood of condom use at last intercourse, and high composite levels of risk. At trend level, high levels of STSR were linked to younger ages at sexual initiation (p ¼ .054). High levels of LTSR were associated with high age at coital initiation, low numbers of lifetime sexual partners, increased odds of condom and other birth control use at last coitus, and low composite levels of risk. Discussion The goal of the current study was to explore associations between short- and long-term dimensions of self-regulation and unmarried young adults’ involvement in oral and coital sexual risk-taking behaviors. Almost without exception all preceding studies have focused exclusively on short-term elements of self-regulation and coital risk behaviors. In the absence of data on LTSR and oral sexual risk-taking, it was hypothesized that young adults reporting high levels of both SRSR and LTSR would report low levels of all forms of sexual risk behavior. Analyses suggested that while controlling for individuals’ background characteristics, the associations between these two forms of self-regulation and the focal aspects of sexual risk-taking were more complex than was initially hypothesized. SRSR and=or LTSR were significant predictors in six of the ten regression models, with suppressor effects present in all six. Further, there were stronger effects for coital than for oral sexual risk-taking. These findings are discussed in the next section.

Differential Effects of Short- and Long-Term SelfRegulation The present study is the first known inquiry into the potential impacts of LTSR in conjunction with STSR abilities. The findings surprisingly contradicted previous studies on STSR, in that STSR had few associations with the focal sexual risk-taking behaviors and none of these associations were in the hypothesized direction. A further surprise was that the effects of LTSR were enhanced by the inclusion of STSR in the models (i.e., STSR served as a suppressor variable). Conceptually, the subcomponents comprising STSR and LTSR share a common basis (Bridgett, Oddi, Laake, Murdock, & Bachmann, 2013; Gestsdottir & Lerner, 2008), and this confluence is likely responsible for the suppressor situations in the present study. For three of the regressions, further analyses revealed classical suppression (i.e., the inclusion of the STSR variable enhanced the regression coefficient for LTSR in the models predicting age at first oral sex, number of coital partners, and use of other forms of contraception at last intercourse). One possible interpretation of this finding is that STSR removed the variance representing the short-term or organismic regulatory capacities that young adults must possess to successfully engage in LTSR (i.e., representing the overlap between STSR and LTSR discussed in Gestsdottir & Lerner, 2008), which in turn directs individuals away from involvement in high-risk behaviors. As younger adolescents, highly motivated, goal-directed people who possess optimal LTSR abilities may have had strong incentives to delay sexual initiation and to use condoms, as consequences such as unplanned pregnancies could be devastating to achieving their desired objectives in life (Ohannessian & Crockett, 1993). In sum, individuals with high LTSR are likely able to prioritize their long-term goals and thus delay initiation and avoid accumulating high numbers of sexual partners because they are equipped with sufficient STSR capabilities to make goal pursuit possible. 765

Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 23:50 12 November 2015

MOILANEN

For the other three models, reciprocal or cooperative suppression was present (i.e., neither self-regulation variable predicted the outcome unless the other was included in the model), yet counter to predictions, high levels of STSR predicted high levels of two of these three sexual risk-taking behaviors (i.e., condom use and the coital risk composite). In this type of suppression situation, the inclusion of one element of self-regulation qualifies the association between the other element of self-regulation and the outcome variables. With this shared variance controlled, the opposing subcomponents of each predictor are able to emerge (Paulhus, Robins, Trzesniewski, & Tracy, 2004; Watson, Clark, Chmielewski, & Kotov, 2013). The tentative explanation for STSR removing variance in LTSR discussed previously likely still applies in this suppression situation. As for LTSR qualifying variance in STSR, two possibilities are likely. The first is that the STSR and LTSR measures may indirectly tap variations in individuals’ social competence or peer acceptance, which consequently may create differential access to romantic and sexual relationships. People who possess high levels of STSR are generally quite socially skilled, well-liked by their peers, and report having high-quality, satisfying dating and marital relationships (Eisenberg et al., 1997; Vohs, Finkenauer, & Baumeister, 2011). Such individuals demonstrating high levels of STSR may have access to potential partners and sexual opportunities at young ages (Feldman, Rosenthal, Brown, & Canning, 1995), and early initiation may subsequently lead to early cessation of condom use (O’Donnell, O’Donnell, & Stueve, 2001). It is currently unknown if LTSR shapes access to potential sexual or romantic partners via social skills or peer acceptance. Teenagers may not view their highlyregulated peers as attractive potential romantic partners if they are intensely focused on their future goals, and regardless of their actual social skills these teens may have few opportunities to engage in sexual behaviors. Further, adolescents with high LTSR may deliberately choose to avoid romantic entanglements to prevent distraction from their goal-oriented pursuits, or they may experience social constraints that discourage romantic exploration while simultaneously encouraging growth in LTSR (e.g., parental monitoring; ZimmerGembeck & Helfand, 2008). The second is that STSR and LTSR measures may tap distinct elements of how individuals balance multiple rewards and risks, which casts some doubt on the hypothesis that it is the inability to resist temptation that gives rise to risk behaviors. Recently scholars have discussed whether self-control ‘‘failures’’ may actually be calculated decisions about prioritizing competing goals, suggesting that highly-regulated individuals may use their self-control to purposely engage in potentially risky behaviors in pursuit of secondary short-term goals (Rawn & Vohs, 2011). Thus, an otherwise well-regulated 766

young adult may choose to forgo using condoms with his or her romantic partner to enhance the relationship, despite the potential risk for pregnancy and STI transmission, both of which could interfere with attaining other long-term goals. Both of these possible conceptual explanations warrant testing in future research. Distinguishing Between Individual Oral and Coital Sexual Risk-Taking Behaviors In addition to emphasizing short-term over long-term self-regulatory abilities, previous investigations on selfregulation and sexual risk-taking have focused almost exclusively on coital behaviors. The current study is among the first known attempts to fill this gap. There were seven significant effects for self-regulation on coital sexual behaviors, but just one association was observed for oral sex (i.e., age of initiation). This finding is consistent with just one prior study revealing strong effects of self-control on college students’ delayed initiation of oral sexual behaviors (Vazsonyi & Jenkins, 2010). Poor self-control may lead some young people to initiate risky forms of oral sexual activity at young ages as part of earlystarting, high-risk pathways, while high self-control may predispose others to choose oral sex as a lower risk alternative to coitus that still permits them to explore their sexuality and to enhance their relationships (Chambers, 2007). These analyses collectively indicate that selfregulation is more strongly linked to coital than to oral forms of sexual risk-taking, yet the possibility of nonlinear associations with oral sexual behaviors should be considered in future research. Effects of Control Variables Finally, the findings for control variables were generally in line with other inquiries. Consistent with the literature on sex differences in sexual behaviors, males reported greater numbers of lifetime oral sex partners and increased likelihood of using condoms at last intercourse compared to females (Chambers, 2007; Raffaelli & Crockett, 2003). For age, older participants reported higher levels of risk for the oral and coital composite variables, as well as increased likelihood of initiation and higher numbers of oral and coital partners. Older participants have had more time in which to accumulate partners than younger participants, who may have initiated intercourse only recently (Beadnell et al., 2005). Regarding college attendance, respondents who were enrolled at university reported younger ages of coital initiation than participants who were not enrolled in college. This novel association may add to the limited available information about variations in the sexual behaviors of young adults who do and do not attend college, yet caution is warranted as this contradicts Bailey and colleagues’ (2011) findings linking college attendance to low levels of involvement in high-risk

Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 23:50 12 November 2015

SELF-REGULATION AND SEXUAL RISK-TAKING BEHAVIORS

sexual behaviors. Most likely this discrepancy is due to the unique composition of the study’s sample: While all of the subject pool subsample participants were enrolled at a large public university well-known for its ‘‘party culture’’ (Franek, O’Toole, Soto, and the Staff of the Princeton Review, 2013), only about half of the Mechanical Turk subsample was enrolled in any type of college at the time of participation. Prior to university enrollment, a subset of college-bound young adults who are on relatively high-risk sexual behavioral trajectories may choose to attend ‘‘party schools’’ with cultures that are conducive to maintaining their risk involvement over time. Finally, increased likelihood of use of other forms of contraception and decreased likelihood of condom use were associated with the most recent coital partner being a serious boyfriend=girlfriend as opposed to a noncommitted partner (e.g., a friend or casual partner) (Manlove et al., 2011). Study Contributions, Limitations, and Future Directions Although the current study makes some novel contributions to the literatures on self-regulation and sexual risk-taking in emerging adulthood, it had several limitations that require attention in future research, including the use of a cross-sectional, single-informant survey design. Thus, these findings could be due to common method variance or could be artifacts of self-report measures. The limited breadth and content of the survey instrument is also a constraint. Despite differential levels of risk inherent to each behavior (D’Souza, Agrawal, Halpern, Bodison, & Gillison, 2009), questions about oral sex did not distinguish between cunnilingus or fellatio. For the items about numbers of sexual partners, researchers may wish to use an open-ended response format in which respondents enter a numeric value instead of a fixed choice format with limited options, as was done in this study. As always, scholars should employ comparatively rigorous designs (e.g., longitudinal designs, multiple informants and measurement modalities) when seeking to replicate and extend the present inquiry. Second, in addition to being the first investigation in which both STSR and LTSR were explicitly considered, this is the first inquiry into sexual risk-taking behaviors using the ASRI (Moilanen, 2007). Although not a perfect measure, the ASRI is still an improvement over many of the existing self-regulation measures currently in use: Most important, it was the first known questionnaire designed to assess adolescent-era self-regulation in developmentally appropriate ways. Many of the studies cited in this paper used questionnaires that ostensibly measure only STSR, but these measures also contain items that tap LTSR qualities (Moilanen, 2012) or other behavioral outcomes that covary with self-regulation and sexual risk-taking (e.g., Kogan et al., 2011). Further,

the ASRI covers a wider range of self-regulatory skills (e.g., activating, adapting, monitoring, persistence, and inhibition) than existing measures, which tend to emphasize inhibition over these other elements (Moilanen, 2012). Finally, previous studies have confirmed the two-factor structure of this instrument, have demonstrated its reliability and validity in multiple adolescent samples, and have revealed differential effects of STSR and LTSR on outcomes linked to sexual risk-taking, including academic achievement, substance use, and externalizing problems (Dias et al., 2014; Moilanen, 2007; Moilanen, 2013). Yet as this measure was originally developed for teenagers, a few of the items may not be fully relevant to young adults (e.g., one question refers to being excited about reaching big goals, such as getting a driver’s license or going to college; several others refer to school-related tasks, such as homework), but the impact of these few items should be small given the large number of questions in each factor. As such, replicating these findings with the ASRI and other developmentally appropriate tests of self-regulation is necessary. The third limitation concerns the sample composition, in that the current findings may be generalizable only to heterosexual, never-married young adults who voluntarily complete Internet surveys about sexuality. Participation bias is possible, given that individuals who hold restrictive views about sexuality tend to be less likely to agree to participate in such research (Dunne et al., 1997). Further, the vast majority of the respondents were currently pursuing post-secondary education, which also suggests that these results may not generalize to young adults from less advantaged backgrounds. It is worth noting that although many of the participants were students at a ‘‘party school,’’ WVU is located in a rural, economically disadvantaged region, and enrolls a large proportion of low income students (College Portrait, n.d.). Replication efforts in other types of educational settings and with community-based samples of emerging adults are warranted, and researchers should strive to ensure representative diversity in all relevant ways (e.g., race=ethnicity, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation). Fourth, the current investigation focused on only two individual-level predictors of sexual risk-taking, and these main effects were relatively small in size. Other scholars have documented associations with hundreds of antecedents, including some of the hypothesized mechanisms linking self-regulation and sexual risk-taking (e.g., access to partners via romantic relationships involvement, and alcohol use; Kirby, 2002), and the effects of some of these covariates appear to be moderated by gender (Zimmer-Gembeck & Helfand, 2008). For example, Crockett, Raffaelli, and Shen (2005) revealed a small but significant indirect effect of early childhood STSR on mid-adolescent sexual risk-taking via substance use in early adolescence, and these 767

Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 23:50 12 November 2015

MOILANEN

pathways between were stronger for girls than they were for boys. Thus, important next steps for research include explorations of how STSR and LTSR contribute to sexual risk-taking in conjunction with or indirectly via other known proximal antecedents of sexual risk behaviors. On an initial basis, the present study validates developmental models of self-regulation in adolescence and emerging adulthood (i.e., that self-regulation involves both short- and long-term components; Gestsdottir & Lerner, 2008; Moilanen, 2007), while challenging the assumption that momentary impulsivity is what leads to high-risk sexual involvement (Gailliot & Baumeister, 2007; Kahn et al., 2002; Khurana et al., 2012). Instead, negative outcomes were linked closely to poor LTSR and to high STSR, albeit to a lesser degree. It would be appropriate for scholars to explore whether these patterns are evidenced for other forms of social, behavioral, and psychological adjustment, particularly for those that are known antecedents of risky sexuality (e.g., early dating and substance use; Moilanen, 2013). Increased understanding of these pathways promises to inform the development of new theories of sexual risk-taking during adolescence and emerging adulthood, and this study provides evidence that such models would be incomplete if either LTSR or STSR was omitted as personality-level factors.

Acknowledgments Research assistance was provided by Debra Blaacker, Amy Gentzler, Kari Maxwell, Meredith McGinley, and Reagan Curtis. Funding This research was supported by internal grants from West Virginia University. References Bailey, J. A., Haggerty, K. P., White, H. R., & Catalano, R. F. (2011). Associations between changing developmental contexts and risky sexual behavior in the two years following high school. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 951–960. doi:10.1007=s10508010-9633-0 Beadnell, B., Morrison, D. M., Wilsdon, A., Wells, E. A., Murowchick, E., Hoppe, M., . . . Nahom, D. (2005). Condom use, frequency of sex, and number of partners: Multidimensional characterization of adolescent sexual risk taking. Journal of Sex Research, 42, 192–202. doi:10.1080=00224490509552274 Berger, A. (2011). Self-regulation: Brain, cognition, and development. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Breakwell, G. M. (1996). Risk estimation and sexual behavior: A longitudinal study of 16-21-year-olds. Journal of Health Psychology, 1, 79–91. doi:10.1177=135910539600100107 Bridgett, D. J., Oddi, K. B., Laake, L. M., Murdock, K. W., & Bachmann, M. N. (2013). Integrating and differentiating aspects

768

of self-regulation: Effortful control, executive functioning, and links to negative affectivity. Emotion, 13, 47–63. doi:10.1037= a0029536 Burns, M. J., & Dillon, F. R. (2005). AIDS health locus of control, self-efficacy for safer sexual practices, and future time orientation as predictors of condom use in African American college students. Journal of Black Psychology, 31, 172–188. doi:10.1177= 0095798404268288 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013, February). Incidence, prevalence, and cost of sexually transmitted infections in the United States [CDC Fact Sheet]. Retrieved from http:// www.cdc.gov/std/stats/STI-Estimates-Fact-Sheet-Feb-2013.pdf Chambers, W. C. (2007). Oral sex: Varied behaviors and perceptions in a college population. Journal of Sex Research, 44, 28–42. doi:10.1207=s15598519jsr4401_4 Chandra, A., Mosher, W. D., & Copen, C. (2011, March 3). Sexual behavior, sexual attraction, and sexual identity in the United States: Data from the 2006–2008 National Survey of Family Growth. National Health Statistics Reports (Report No. 36). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. Charnigo, R., Noar, S. M., Garnett, C., Crosby, R., Palmgreen, P., & Zimmerman, R. S. (2013). Sensation seeking and impulsivity: Combined associations with risky sexual behavior in a large sample of young adults. Journal of Sex Research, 50, 480–488. doi:10.1080=00224499.2011.652264 College Portrait. (n.d.). West Virginia University college portrait. Retrieved from http://www.collegeportraits.org/WV/WVU/ characteristics Copen, C. E., Chandra, A., & Martinez, G. (2012, August 16). Prevalence and timing of oral sex with opposite-sex partners among females and males aged 15–24 years: United States, 2007–2010. National Health Statistics Reports (Report No. 56). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. Crockett, L. J., Raffaelli, M., & Shen, Y.-L. (2005). Linking self-regulation and risk proneness to risky sexual behavior: Pathways through peer pressure and early substance use. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16, 503–525. doi:10.1111=j.1532-7795. 2006.00505.x Deckman, T., & DeWall, C. N. (2011). Negative urgency and risky sexual behaviors: A clarification of the relationship between impulsivity and risky sexual behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 674–678. doi:10.1016=j.paid.2011. 06.004 Dias, P. C., Garcia del Castillo, J. A., & Moilanen, K. L. (2014). The Adolescent Self-Regulatory Inventory (ASRI) adaptation to Portuguese context. Paide´ia, 24, 155–163. doi: 10.1590=198243272458201403. D’Souza, G., Agrawal, Y., Halpern, J., Bodison, S., & Gillison, M. L. (2009). Oral sex behaviors associated with prevalent oral human papillomavirus infection. Journal of Infectious Diseases, 199, 1263–1269. doi:10.1086=597755 Dunne, M. P., Martin, N. G., Bailey, J. M., Heath, A. C., Bucholz, K. K., Madden, P. A. F., & Statham, D. J. (1997). Participation bias in a sexuality survey: Psychological and behavioural characteristics of responders and non-responders. International Journal of Epidemiology, 26, 844–854. doi:10.1093=ije=26.4.844 Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S. A., Murphy, B. C., Guthrie, I. K., Jones, S., . . . Maszk, P. (1997). Contemporaneous and longitudinal prediction of children’s social functioning from regulation and emotionality. Child Development, 68, 642–664. doi:10.2307= 1132116 Feldman, S. S., Rosenthal, D. R., Brown, N. L., & Canning, R. D. (1995). Predicting sexual experience in adolescent boys from peer rejection and acceptance during childhood. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 5, 387–411. doi:10.1207=s15327795 jra0504_1 Forgas, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M. (2009). The psychology of self-regulation: An introductory review. In J. P. Forgas,

Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 23:50 12 November 2015

SELF-REGULATION AND SEXUAL RISK-TAKING BEHAVIORS R. F. Baumeister, & D. M. Tice (Eds.), Psychology of self-regulation: Cognitive, affective, and motivational processes (pp. 1–17). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Franek, R., O’Toole, K., Soto, D., & the Staff of the Princeton Review. (2013). The best 378 colleges (2014 ed.). New York, NY: Random House. Fujita, K. (2011). On conceptualizing self-control as more than the effortful inhibition of impulses. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 352–366. doi:10.1177=1088868311411165 Gailliot, M. T., & Baumeister, R. F. (2007). Self-regulation and sexual restraint: Dispositionally and temporarily poor self-regulatory abilities contribute to failures at restraining sexual behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 173–186. doi:10.1177= 0146167206293472 Gestsdottir, S., & Lerner, R. M. (2008). Positive development in adolescence: The development and role of intentional self-regulation. Human Development, 51, 202–224. doi:10.1159=000135757 Hessler, D. M., & Katz, L. F. (2010). Brief report: Associations between emotional competence and adolescent risky behavior. Journal of Adolescence, 33, 241–246. doi:10.1016=j.adolescence.2009.04.007 Hoyle, R. H., Fejfar, M. C., & Miller, J. D. (2000). Personality and sexual risk taking: A quantitative review. Journal of Personality, 68, 1203–1231. doi:10.1111=1467-6494.00132 Jessor, R., Donovan, J. E., & Costa, F. M. (1991). Beyond adolescence: Problem behavior and young adult development. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Kahn, J. A., Kaplowitz, R. A., Goodman, E., & Emans, S. J. (2002). The association between impulsiveness and sexual risk behaviors in adolescent and young adult women. Journal of Adolescent Health, 30, 229–232. doi:10.1016=S1054-139X(01)00391-3 Khurana, A., Romer, D., Betancourt, L. M., Brodsky, N. L., Giannetta, J. M., & Hurt, H. (2012). Early adolescent sexual debut: The mediating role of working memory ability, sensation seeking, and impulsivity. Developmental Psychology, 48, 1416– 1428. doi:10.1037=a0027491 Kirby, D. (2002). Antecedents of adolescent initiation of sex, contraceptive use, and pregnancy. American Journal of Health Behavior, 26, 473–485. doi:10.5993=AJHB.26.6.8 Kogan, S. M., Brody, G. H., Chen, Y.-F., & DiClemente, R. J. (2011). Self-regulatory problems mediate the association of contextual stressors and unprotected intercourse among rural, African American, young adult men. Journal of Health Psychology, 16, 50–57. doi:10.1177=1359105310367831 Manlove, J., Welti, K., Barry, M., Peterson, K., Schelar, E., & Wildsmith, E. (2011). Relationship characteristics and contraceptive use among young adults. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 43, 119–128. doi:10.1363=4311911 Moilanen, K. L. (2007). The Adolescent Self-Regulatory Inventory: The development and validation of a questionnaire of short-term and long-term self-regulation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 835–848. doi:10.1007=s10964-006-9107-9 Moilanen, K. L. (2012). Self-regulation. In R. J. R. Levesque (Ed.), Encyclopedia of adolescence (pp. 2586–2591). New York, NY: Springer. Moilanen, K. L. (2013). Predictors of latent growth in sexual risk behaviors in late adolescence and early adulthood. Journal of Sex Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080=00224499. 2013.826167 Moilanen, K. L. (2014). The Adolescent Self-Regulatory Inventory (ASRI): Development and validation. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Learning Sciences and Human Development, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia. Moilanen, K. L., Crockett, L. J., Raffaelli, M., & Jones, B. L. (2010). Trajectories of sexual risk from mid-adolescence to early adulthood. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20, 114–139. doi:10.1111=j.1532-7795.2009.00628.x

Moore, N. B., & Davidson, J. K., Sr. (2006). College women and personal goals: Cognitive dimensions that differentiate risk-reduction sexual decisions. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 577–589. doi:10.1007=s10964-006-9041-x Morris, A. S., Silk, J. S., Steinberg, L., Myers, S. S., & Robinson, L. R. (2007). The role of the family context in the development of emotion regulation. Social Development, 16, 361–388. doi:10.1111= j.1467-9507.2007.00389.x O’Donnell, L., O’Donnell, C. R., & Stueve, A. (2001). Early sexual initiation and subsequent sex-related risks among urban minority youth: The reach for health study. Family Planning Perspectives, 33, 268–275. Ohannessian, C. M., & Crockett, L. J. (1993). A longitudinal investigation of the relationship between educational investment and adolescent sexual activity. Journal of Adolescent Research, 8, 167–182. doi:10.1177=074355489382003 Paulhus, D. L., Robins, R. W., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Tracy, J. L. (2004). Two replicable suppressor situations in personality research. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 303–328. doi:10.1207=s15327906mbr3902_7 Quinn, P. D., & Fromme, K. (2010). Self-regulation as a protective factor against risky drinking and sexual behavior. Journal of Addictive Behaviors, 24, 376–385. doi:10.1037=a0018547 Raffaelli, M., & Crockett, L. J. (2003). Sexual risk taking in adolescence: The role of self-regulation and attraction to risk. Developmental Psychology, 39, 1036–1046. doi:10.1037=0012-1649. 39.6.1036 Rawn, C. D., & Vohs, K. D. (2011). People use self-control to risk personal harm: An intra-interpersonal dilemma. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 267–289. doi:10.1177= 1088868310381084 Rothspan, S., & Read, S. J. (1996). Present versus future time perspective and HIV risk among heterosexual college students. Health Psychology, 15, 131–134. doi:10.1037=0278-6133.15. 2.131 Smith, C. A. (1997). Factors associated with early sexual activity among urban adolescents. Social Work, 42, 334–346. doi:10.1093= sw=42.4.334 Tull, M. T., Weiss, N. H., Adams, C. E., & Gratz, K. L. (2012). The contribution of emotion regulation difficulties to risky sexual behavior within a sample of patients in residential substance abuse treatment. Addictive Behaviors, 37, 1084–1092. doi:10.1016= j.addbeh.2012.05.001 United Nations Statistics Division. (2012). Demographic yearbook 2012. New York, NY: United Nations. Upchurch, D. M., Mason, W. M., Kusonoki, Y., & Kriechbaum, M. J. (2004). Social and behavioral determinants of self-reported STD among adolescents. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 36, 276–287. doi:10.1363=psrh.36.276.04 Vazsonyi, A. T., & Jenkins, D. D. (2010). Religiosity, self-control, and virginity status in college students from the ‘‘Bible belt’’: A research note. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 49, 561–568. doi:10.1111=j.1468-5906.2010.01529.x Vohs, K. D., Finkenauer, C., & Baumeister, R. F. (2011). The sum of friends’ and lovers’ self-control scores predicts relationship quality. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 138–145. doi:10.1177=1948550610385710 Watson, D., Clark, L. A., Chmielewski, M., & Kotov, R. (2013). The value of suppressor effects in explicating the construct validity of symptom measures. Psychological Assessment, 25, 929–941. doi:10.1037=a0032781 Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., & Helfand, M. (2008). Ten years of longitudinal research on U.S. adolescent sexual behavior: Developmental correlates of sexual intercourse, and the importance of age, gender, and ethnic background. Developmental Review, 28, 153–224. doi:10.1016=j.dr.2007.06.001

769