Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 48, Issue 2, pp 557–575 | Cite as

Motivations for Sexual Behavior and Intentions to Use Condoms: Development of the Regulatory Focus in Sexuality Scale

  • David L. RodriguesEmail author
  • Diniz Lopes
  • Marco Pereira
  • Marília Prada
  • Margarida V. Garrido
Original Paper


Despite recurrent efforts to prevent sexually transmitted diseases through the use of condoms, HIV infections are still prevalent across Europe. Recent research framed by the regulatory focus theory has shown that prevention (vs. promotion)-focused individuals are more likely to adopt strategies to protect their health. Therefore, these individuals should also be more motivated to use condoms, because they are more likely to perceive greater health threats. In two cross-sectional preregistered studies (combined N = 520 Portuguese participants; databases available at, we developed the new Regulatory Focus in Sexuality scale (Study 1), and tested if the association between prevention focus and intentions to use condoms was mediated by the perception of health threat (Study 2). Results from Study 1 suggested that the scale is reliable and valid. Results from Study 2 showed, as expected, that a predominant focus on prevention was associated with more condom use intentions with casual and regular sexual partners, because individuals perceived greater threat to their health. Additional exploratory analyses further showed that this mediation occurred only for individuals without a romantic relationship and was independent of how salient the condom use norm was. In contrast, for romantically involved individuals, there was no evidence for the mediation by perceived health threat. Instead, a predominant focus on prevention was positively associated with condom use intentions with the regular partner, but only when the condom use norm was more salient. Taken together, these results emphasize the importance of examining individual motivations for safe sex practices.


Regulatory Focus in Sexuality scale Condom use intentions Perceived health threat HIV prevention STI prevention Motivation 



Part of this research was partially funded by Fundação Portuguesa para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT) with Grants awarded to CIS-IUL, ISCTE-IUL (UID/PSI/03125/2013), to DLR (SFRH/BPD/73528/2010), MP (IF/00402/2014) and to MVG (PTDC/MHC-PCN/5217/2014), and by a Marie Curie fellowship (FP7-PEOPLE-2013-CIG/631673) awarded to MVG.


  1. Alaei, K., Paynter, C. A., Juan, S.-C., & Alaei, A. (2016). Using preexposure prophylaxis, losing condoms? Preexposure prophylaxis promotion may undermine safe sex. AIDS, 30, 2753. Scholar
  2. Albarracín, D., Gillette, J. C., Earl, A. N., Glasman, L. R., Durantini, M. R., & Ho, M.-H. (2005). A test of major assumptions about behavior change: A comprehensive look at the effects of passive and active HIV-prevention interventions since the beginning of the epidemic. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 856–897. Scholar
  3. Albarracín, D., Kumkale, G. T., & Johnson, B. T. (2004). Influences of social power and normative support on condom use decisions: A research synthesis. AIDS Care, 16, 700–723. Scholar
  4. Arnett, J. (2012). New horizons in emerging and young adulthood. In A. Booth, S. Brown, N. Landale, W. Manning, & S. McHale (Eds.), Early adulthood in a family context (pp. 231–244). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arnett, J. (2015). Socialization in emerging adulthood: From the family to the wilder world, from socialization to self-socialization. In J. Grusec & P. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 85–108). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  6. Aryee, S., & Hsiung, H.-H. (2016). Regulatory focus and safety outcomes: An examination of the mediating influence of safety behavior. Safety Science, 86, 27–35. Scholar
  7. Avraham, R., Dijk, D. V., & Simon-Tuval, T. (2016). Regulatory focus and adherence to self-care behaviors among adults with type 2 diabetes. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 21, 696–706. Scholar
  8. Bentler, P. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246. Scholar
  9. Berkowitz, A. D. (2004). The social norms approach: Theory, research, and annotated bibliography. Trumansburg, NY: Author.Google Scholar
  10. Birenbaum, A., & Sagarin, E. (1976). Norms and human behavior. New York, NY: Praeger.Google Scholar
  11. Browne, M., & Cudeck, R. (1989). Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24, 445–455. Scholar
  12. Byrne, B. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York, NY: Routledge Academic.Google Scholar
  13. Cesario, J., Grant, H., & Higgins, E. (2004). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Transfer from “feeling right”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 388–404. Scholar
  14. Chen, Y., Li, X., Zhou, Y., Wen, X., & Wu, D. (2013). Perceived peer engagement in HIV-related sexual risk behaviors and self-reported risk-taking among female sex workers in Guangxi, China. AIDS Care, 25, 1114–1121. Scholar
  15. Cialdini, R. B., Demaine, L. J., Sagarin, B. J., Barrett, D. W., Rhoads, K., & Winter, P. L. (2006). Managing social norms for persuasive impact. Social Influence, 1, 3–15. Scholar
  16. Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reeevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 201–234). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Scholar
  17. Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015–1026. Scholar
  18. Conley, T. D., Matsick, J. L., Moors, A. C., & Ziegler, A. (2017). Investigation of consensually nonmonogamous relationships: Theories, methods, and new directions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 205–232. Scholar
  19. Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Ziegler, A., & Karathanasis, C. (2012). Unfaithful individuals are less likely to practice safer sex than openly nonmonogamous individuals. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 9, 1559–1565. Scholar
  20. de Visser, R. (2005). One size fits all? Promoting condom use for sexually transmitted infection prevention among heterosexual young adults. Health Education Research, 20, 557–566. Scholar
  21. DGS. (2015). Atitudes e comportamentos da população portuguesa face ao VIH [Attitudes and behaviors of Portuguese individuals regarding HIV]. Lisboa, PT: DGS. Retrieved December 19, 2017 from
  22. ECDC. (2017). HIV/AIDS surveillance in Europe 2016. Stockholm, SE: ECDC. Retrieved December 19, 2017 from
  23. Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1001–1013. Scholar
  24. Gailliot, M., & Baumeister, R. (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. Scholar
  25. Hart, T., Peterson, J. L., & Community Intervention Trial for Youth Study Team. (2004). Predictors of risky sexual behavior among young African American men who have sex with men. American Journal of Public Health, 94, 1122–1124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hayes, A. F. (2015). An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50, 1–22. Scholar
  27. Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  28. Higgins, E. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300. Scholar
  29. Higgins, E., Friedman, R., Harlow, R., Idson, L., Ayduk, O., & Taylor, A. (2001). Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention pride. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 3–23. Scholar
  30. Holmes, K., Levine, R., & Weaver, M. (2004). Effectiveness of condoms in preventing sexually transmitted infections. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 82, 454–461.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Hynie, M., Macdonald, T. K., & Marques, S. (2006). Self-conscious emotions and self-regulation in the promotion of condom use. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1072–1084. Scholar
  32. Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1984). LISREL 6: User’s guide. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
  33. Kiene, S. M., Barta, W. D., Zelenski, J. M., & Cothran, D. L. (2005). Why are you bringing up condoms now? The effect of message content on framing effects of condom use messages. Health Psychology, 24, 321–326. Scholar
  34. Latkin, C. A., Forman, V., Knowlton, A., & Sherman, S. (2003). Norms, social networks, and HIV-related risk behaviors among urban disadvantaged drug users. Social Science and Medicine, 56, 465–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Leder, S., Florack, A., & Keller, J. (2015). Self-regulation and protective health behaviour: How regulatory focus and anticipated regret are related to vaccination decisions. Psychology & Health, 30, 165–188. Scholar
  36. Ludolph, R., & Schulz, P. J. (2015). Does regulatory fit lead to more effective health communication? A systematic review. Social Science and Medicine, 128, 142–150. Scholar
  37. Martins, H. (2017). Infeção VIH e SIDA: A situação em Portugal a 31 de dezembro de 2016 [HIV and AIDS infection: Data from Portugal at December 31, 2016]. Lisboa: Instituto Nacional de Saúde Doutor Ricardo Jorge. Retrieved December 19, 2017 from
  38. Melnyk, V., van Herpen, E., Fischer, A. R. H., & van Trijp, H. C. M. (2013). Regulatory fit effects for injunctive versus descriptive social norms: Evidence from the promotion of sustainable products. Marketing Letters, 24, 191–203. Scholar
  39. Miner, M. H., Peterson, J. L., Welles, S. L., Jacoby, S. M., & Rosser, B. R. S. (2009). How do social norms impact HIV sexual risk behavior in HIV-positive men who have sex with men? Multiple mediator effects. Journal of Health Psychology, 14, 761–770. Scholar
  40. Mogilski, J., Memering, S., Welling, L., & Shackelford, T. (2017). Monogamy versus consensual non-monogamy: Alternative approaches to pursuing a strategically pluralistic mating strategy. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 407–417. Scholar
  41. Molden, D. C., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Categorization under uncertainty: Resolving vagueness and ambiguity with eager versus vigilant strategies. Social Cognition, 22, 248–277. Scholar
  42. Muthén, L., & Muthén, B. (2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  43. Okun, M. A., Ruehlman, L., Karoly, P., Lutz, R., Fairholme, C., & Schaub, R. (2003). Social support and social norms: Do both contribute to predicting leisure-time exercise? American Journal of Health Behavior, 27, 493–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. (2008). Beyond global sociosexual orientations: A more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1113–1135. Scholar
  45. Protogerou, C., & Johnson, B. T. (2014). Factors underlying the success of behavioral HIV-prevention interventions for adolescents: A meta-review. AIDS and Behavior, 18, 1847–1863. Scholar
  46. Reno, R. R., Cialdini, R. B., & Kallgren, C. A. (1993). The transsituational influence of social norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 104–112. Scholar
  47. Rodrigues, D. L., & Lopes, D. (2013). The Investment Model Scale (IMS): Further studies on construct validation and development of a shorter version (IMS-S). Journal of General Psychology, 140, 16–28. Scholar
  48. Rodrigues, D. L., & Lopes, D. (2017). Sociosexuality, commitment, and sexual desire for an attractive person. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 775–788. Scholar
  49. Rodrigues, D. L., Lopes, D., & Kumashiro, M. (2017a). The “I” in us, or the eye on us? Regulatory focus, commitment and derogation of an attractive alternative person. PLoS ONE, 12, e0174350. Scholar
  50. Rodrigues, D. L., Lopes, D., & Pereira, M. (2016). “We agree and now everything goes my way”: Consensual sexual nonmonogamy, extradyadic sex, and relationship satisfaction. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 19, 373–379. Scholar
  51. Rodrigues, D. L., Lopes, D., & Pereira, M. (2017b). Sociosexuality, commitment, sexual infidelity, and perceptions of infidelity: Data from the Second Love web site. Journal of Sex Research, 54, 241–253. Scholar
  52. Rodrigues, D. L., Lopes, D., & Smith, C. V. (2017c). Caught in a “bad romance”? Reconsidering the negative association between sociosexuality and relationship functioning. Journal of Sex Research, 54, 1118–1127. Scholar
  53. Rothman, A. J., & Updegraff, J. A. (2010). Specifying when and how gain-and loss-framed messages motivate healthy behavior: An integrated approach. In G. Keren (Ed.), Perspectives on framing (pp. 257–278). London, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  54. Rusbult, C., Martz, J., & Agnew, C. (1998). The Investment Model Scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357–387. Scholar
  55. Sakaluk, J. K., & Gillath, O. (2016). The causal effects of relational security and insecurity on condom use attitudes and acquisition behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45, 339–352. Scholar
  56. Shaw, A., Rhoades, G., Allen, E., Stanley, S., & Markman, H. (2013). Predictors of extradyadic sexual involvement in unmarried opposite-sex relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 50, 598–610. Scholar
  57. Sheeran, P., Abraham, C., & Orbell, S. (1999). Psychosocial correlates of heterosexual condom use: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 90–132. Scholar
  58. Smith, R. D., Delpech, V. C., Brown, A. E., & Rice, B. D. (2010). HIV transmission and high rates of late diagnoses among adults aged 50 years and over. AIDS, 24, 2109–2115. Scholar
  59. Updegraff, J. A., & Rothman, A. J. (2013). Health message framing: Moderators, mediators, and mysteries. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 668–679. Scholar
  60. Uskul, A. K., Keller, J., & Oyserman, D. (2008). Regulatory fit and health behavior. Psychology & Health, 23, 327–346. Scholar
  61. von Sadovszky, V., Draudt, B., & Boch, S. (2014). A systematic review of reviews of behavioral interventions to promote condom use. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 11, 107–117. Scholar
  62. Winterheld, H. A., & Simpson, J. A. (2011). Seeking security or growth: A regulatory focus perspective on motivations in romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 935–954. Scholar
  63. Workowski, K. A., & Bolan, G. A. (2015). Sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines, 2015. MMWR Recommendation Report, 64, 1–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Yuan, K., & Bentler, P. (2000). Three likelihood-based methods for mean and covariance structure analysis with nonnormal missing data. Sociological Methodology, 30, 165–200. Scholar
  65. Zhou, Q., Wu, Y., Hong, Y. A., Yang, C., Cai, W., Zhu, Y., et al. (2017). Association between perceived social norm and condom use among people living with HIV/AIDS in Guangzhou, China. AIDS Care, 29, 91–97. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • David L. Rodrigues
    • 1
    Email author
  • Diniz Lopes
    • 1
  • Marco Pereira
    • 2
  • Marília Prada
    • 1
  • Margarida V. Garrido
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Social and Organizational PsychologyInstituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), CIS-IULLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Faculty of Psychology and Education SciencesUniversity of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal

Personalised recommendations