YOUNG ADULT DATING RELATIONSHIPS AND ALSO THE HANDLING OF SEXUAL RISK

YOUNG ADULT DATING RELATIONSHIPS AND ALSO THE HANDLING OF SEXUAL RISK

Abstract

Young adult participation in intimate behavior typically happens inside a relationship context, but we all know little concerning the ways that particular options that come with intimate relationships impact intimate decision-making. Prior focus on sexual risk using concentrates attention on health problems 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 relationships that are romantic as interaction and psychological processes, conflict, demographic asymmetries, and period 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) making use of condoms regularly, and (3) keeping sexual exclusivity within the partnership. We identify distinct habits of risk administration among dating adults that are young discover that certain characteristics and characteristics of those relationships are connected to variants in danger administration. Outcomes using this paper recommend the requirement to think about relational characteristics in efforts to target and influence adult that is young risk-taking and lower STIs, including HIV.

Throughout the life phase of rising adulthood (Arnett 2000), many adults that are young maybe perhaps not hitched, but are intimately active (Lefkowitz and Gillen 2006). As a result, they truly are at considerable danger for visibility to infections that are sexually transmitted. This greater publicity could be the outcome 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 brand new situations of intimately sent infections every year, about half happen among people aged 15-24 (Weinstock et al. 2004); this higher rate of illness is due, in component, to teenagers perhaps maybe not once you understand and/or not disclosing their STI status to intercourse partners ( ag e.g., Desiderato and Crawford 1995). Behaviors that place young adults at risk for exposure to heterosexually transmitted infections (i.e., inconsistent condom use and numerous and concurrent intimate lovers) fundamentally happen within dyadic relationships. Hence, the significance of the connection context can not be over-stated, and scholarship is starting to notice that comprehending the nature of intimate relationships can help avoid STIs ( 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 also neighborhood degree impacts on adolescent and young adult participation in high-risk intimate tasks than concerning the impact of relationship characteristics such as for example provided interaction on intimate risk-taking plus the handling of STI danger. Relationship procedures play an essential yet not well-understood role and likely express a successful and malleable arena for intervention in accordance with individual, peer, family members, or demographic facets.

The present research, drawing on recently gathered information through the Toledo Adolescent Relationships research (TARS), explores variations in danger administration inside the context of respondents’ current/most present relationship. We conceptualize the entire process of handling danger when it comes to numerous domain names including: (1) questioning the partner about past sexual behaviors/risks; (2) utilizing condoms regularly; and (3) keeping exclusivity that is sexual. A power associated with the TARS information is the introduction of a job interview protocol which includes direct assessments of the measurements of danger management in addition to possibly relationship that is important and characteristics (for example., love, intimate self disclosure, and conflict) which may be connected with variations into the success regarding the individual’s efforts to manage danger. The analysis additionally makes up old-fashioned relationship parameters such as for example demographic asymmetries and period for the relationship as prospective impacts on ways risk that is sexual handled in the context of young adult relationships.

BACKGROUND

Prior studies of intimate danger behavior have actually centered on demographic habits, links to many other issue habits, and also the effect of particular health values. Utilizing nationwide, local, and medical 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 ( 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 implies that adolescents and teenagers that are intimately inexperienced, report greater religiosity, are less educated, and whoever parents are observed to accept of premarital sexual intercourse are 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 included in a wider issue 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 alcohol use are related to earlier in the day intimate onset, greater variety of intimate lovers, and much more cases of non-safe sex ( ag e.g., NIAAA 2002; Santelli et al. 1999); nevertheless, 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 sexual behavior has been helpful, especially with furthering our knowing that the ability, inspiration, and abilities of adolescents and adults are very distinct from those of older grownups, especially with regard to attitudes of invulnerability. Nonetheless, during adolescence and into young adulthood, sexual intercourse becomes increasingly normative, and unlike delinquency, underage liquor usage and illicit medication usage, could be developmentally appropriate (Harris et al. 2002; Longmore et al. 1999). Therefore, a far 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 and even though they could amplify the amount of intimate risk-taking.

Yet another perspective that is theoretical the intimate research/prevention arena could be the Health Belief Model (Becker 1988). This social mental viewpoint focuses in the individual’s desire in order to avoid disease and centers on wellness opinions and preventative habits. This method was ideal for highlighting influences that are motivational but, a limitation with this and relevant approaches such as for example Fishbein and Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein et al. 2001) is the fact that focus is individualistic and assumes the behavior at issue is volitional. Thus, social and processes that are situational under-emphasized, including dilemmas surrounding the negotiation of condom usage.

Our framework that is conceptual emphasizes intimate relationships aren’t individualistic (although data can come from 1 person), but are complex social bonds which are likely incompletely described pertaining to any one construct-such as length, regularity of conversation, or types of sexual relationship ( ag e.g., casual versus committed). Our approach that is multidimensional derives 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 check trade procedures sets the phase for taking into consideration the relationship itself – as opposed to the individuals or perhaps the bigger system 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 due to the fact actors by by themselves encounter them. This tradition emphasizes that definitions emerge from social interactions; hence, we explore intimate danger administration by concentrating on the view that is individual’s of cupid relationship including provided interaction, heightened emotionality, conflict, and relationship asymmetries.

Leave a Reply