AIDS and Behavior

, Volume 21, Issue 10, pp 2924–2934 | Cite as

Sex Behaviors as Social Cues Motivating Social Venue Patronage Among Young Black Men Who Have Sex with Men

  • Lindsay E. Young
  • Stuart Michaels
  • Adam Jonas
  • Aditya S. Khanna
  • Britt Skaathun
  • Ethan Morgan
  • John A. Schneider
  • uConnect Study Team
Original Paper


HIV prevention programs often focus on the physical social venues where men who have sex with men (MSM) frequent as sites where sex behaviors are assumed to be practiced and risk is conferred. But, how exactly these behaviors influence venue patronage is not well understood. In this study, we present a two-mode network analysis that determines the extent that three types of sex behaviors—condomless sex, sex–drug use, and group sex—influence the patronage of different types of social venues among a population sample of young Black MSM (YBMSM) (N = 623). A network analytic technique called exponential random graph modeling was used in a proof of concept analysis to verify how each sex behavior increases the likelihood of a venue patronage tie when estimated as either: (1) an attribute of an individual only and/or (2) a shared attribute between an individual and his peers. Findings reveal that sex behaviors, when modeled only as attributes possessed by focal individuals, were no more or less likely to affect choices to visit social venues. However, when the sex behaviors of peers were also taken into consideration, we learn that individuals were statistically more likely in all three behavioral conditions to go places that attracted other MSM who practiced the same behaviors. This demonstrates that social venues can function as intermediary contexts in which relationships can form between individuals that have greater risk potential given the venues attraction to people who share the same risk tendencies. As such, structuring interventions around these settings can be an effective way to capture the attention of YBMSM and engage them in HIV prevention.


Men who have sex with men Sexual risk Social venues Social networks Exponential random graph models HIV prevention 



We would like to thank Ishida Robinson, Eve Zurawski, Billy Davis and Michelle Taylor for their invaluable support. We also thank study participants for contributing to the network cohort study.

Compliance with Ethical Standards


This study was funded by the NIH (R01DA033875 and R01MH100021).

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Institutional and/or National Research Committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Adimora AA, Schoenbach VJ, Doherty IA. HIV and African Americans in the southern United States: sexual networks and social context. Sex Transm Dis. 2006;33(7):S39–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arnold E, Bailey MM. Constructing home and family: how the ballroom community supports African American GLBTQ youth in the face of HIV/AIDS. J Gay Lesbian Soc Serv. 2009;21(2–3):171–88.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Binson D, Woods WJ, Pollack L, Paul J, Stall R, Catania JA. Differential HIV risk in bathhouses and public cruising areas. Am J Public Health. 2001;91(9):1482–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Catania JA, Gibson DR, Chitwood DD, Coates TJ. Methodological problems in AIDS behavioral research: influences on measurement error and participation bias in studies of sexual behavior. Psychol Bull. 1990;108(3):339–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). CDC fact sheet: new HIV infections in the United States 2016. Accessed 11 Sep 2016.
  6. 6.
    Contractor NS, Wasserman S, Faust K. Testing multitheoretical, multilevel hypotheses about organizational networks: an analytic framework and empirical example. Acad Manag Rev. 2006;31(3):681–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Doherty IA, Schoenbach VJ, Adimora AA. Sexual mixing patterns and heterosexual HIV transmission among African Americans in the southeastern United States. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr (1999). 2009;52(1):114–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Elwood WN, Greene K, Carter KK. Gentlemen don’t speak: communication norms and condom use in bathhouses. J Appl Commun Res. 2003;31(4):277–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Friedman S, Aral S. Social networks, risk-potential networks, health, and disease. J Urban Health. 2001;78(3):411–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Friedman S, Cooper HL, Osborne AH. Structural and social contexts of HIV risk among African Americans. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(6):1002–8. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.140327.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Frost SDW. Using sexual affiliation networks to describe the sexual structure of a population. Sex Transm Infect. 2007;83(Suppl 1):i37–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fujimoto K, Williams ML, Ross MW. Venue-based affiliation networks and HIV risk-taking behavior among male sex workers. Sex Transm Dis. 2013;40(6):453–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fujimoto, K., Wang, P., Ross, M. W., & Williams, M. L. (2015). Venue-mediated weak ties in multiplex HIV transmission risk networks among drug-using male sex workers and associates. Journal Information, 105(6).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goel S, Salganik MJ. Assessing respondent-driven sampling. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2010;107(15):6743–7. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1000261107.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Grov C. HIV risk and substance use in men who have sex with men surveyed in bathhouses, bars/clubs, and on venue of recruitment matters. AIDS Behav. 2012;16(4):807–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Grov C, Parsons JT, Bimbi DS. Sexual risk behavior and venues for meeting sex partners: an intercept survey of gay and bisexual men in LA and NYC. AIDS Behav. 2007;11(6):915–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grov C, Hirshfield S, Remien RH, Humberstone M, Chiasson MA. Exploring the venue’s role in risky sexual behavior among gay and bisexual men: an event-level analysis from a national online survey in the US. Arch Sex Behav. 2013;42(2):291–302.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hallfors DD, Iritani BJ, Miller WC, Bauer DJ. Sexual and drug behavior patterns and HIV and STD racial disparities: the need for new directions. Am J Public Health. 2007;97(1):125–32.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Heckathorn DD. Respondent-driven sampling: a new approach to the study of hidden populations. Soc Probl. 1997;44(2):174–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kalichman SC, Kelly JA, Stevenson LY. Priming effects of HIV risk assessments on related perceptions and behavior: an experimental field study. AIDS Behav. 1997;1(1):3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Keegan B, Gergle D, Contractor N. Do editors or articles drive collaboration? Multilevel statistical network analysis of Wikipedia coauthorship. In: Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on computer supported cooperative work, 11 Feb 2012. New York: ACM; 2012. p. 427–36.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kelly JA. Popular opinion leaders and HIV prevention peer education: resolving discrepant findings, and implications for the development of effective community programmes. AIDS Care. 2004;16(2):139–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Khanna AS, Michaels S, Skaathun B, Morgan E, Green K, Young L, Schneider JA. Preexposure prophylaxis awareness and use in a population-based sample of young Black men who have sex with men. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(1):136–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Koskinen J, Daraganova G. Dependence graphs and sufficient statistics. In: Lusher D, Koskinen J, Robins G, editors. Exponential random graph models for social networks. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2013. p. 77–90.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Latkin CA, Forman V, Knowlton A, Sherman S. Norms, social networks, and HIV-related risk behaviors among urban disadvantaged drug users. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56(3):465–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Laumann EO, Ellingson S, Mahay J, Paik A, Youm Y. The sexual organization of the city. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2005.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Matzat U, Snijders C. Does the online collection of ego-centered network data reduce data quality? An experimental comparison. Soc Netw. 2010;32(2):105–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM. Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annu Rev Sociol. 2001;27:415–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Morris M, Kretzschmar M. Concurrent partnerships and transmission dynamics in networks. Soc Netw. 1995;17(3):299–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Morris M, Goodreau S, Moody J. Sexual networks, concurrency, and STD/HIV. In: Sexually transmitted diseases. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2007. p. 109–26.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Niekamp A-M, Mercken LAG, Hoebe CJPA, Dukers-Muijrers NHTM. A sexual affiliation network of swingers, heterosexuals practicing risk behaviours that potentiate the spread of sexually transmitted infections: a two-mode approach. Soc Netw. 2013;35(2):223–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Potterat JJ, Rothenberg RB, Muth SQ. Network structural dynamics and infectious disease propagation. Int J STD AIDS. 1999;10(3):182–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Raymond HF, Bingham T, McFarland W. Locating unrecognized HIV infections among men who have sex with men: San Francisco and Los Angeles. AIDS Educ Prev. 2008;20(5):408–19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rhodes T, Singer M, Bourgois P, Friedman SR, Strathdee SA. The social structural production of HIV risk among injecting drug users. Soc Sci Med. 2005;61(5):1026–44. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.12.024.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rice E. The positive role of social networks and social networking technology in the condom-using behaviors of homeless young people. Public Health Rep. 2010;125:588–95.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rice E, Milburn NG, Rotheram-Borus MJ. Pro-social and problematic social network influences on HIV/AIDS risk behaviours among newly homeless youth in Los Angeles. AIDS Care. 2007;19(5):697–704.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rice E, Holloway I, Winetrobe H, Rhoades H, Barman-Adhikari A, Gibbs J, et al. Sex risk among young men who have sex with men who use Grindr, a smartphone geosocial networking application. J AIDS Clin Res. 2012;S4:1–8.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Robins G, Lusher D. Illustrations: simulation, estimation and goodness of fit. In: Lusher D, Koskinen J, Robins G, editors. Exponential random graph models for social networks: theory, methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2013. p. 167–86.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Robins G, Pattison P. Interdependencies and social processes: dependence graphs and generalized dependence structures. In: Carrington PJ, Scott J, Wasserman S, editors. Models and methods in social network analysis, vol 28. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2005. p. 192–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Robins G, Pattison P, Kalish Y, Lusher D. An introduction to exponential random graph (p*) models for social networks. Soc Netw. 2007;29(2):173–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rothenberg R, Baldwin J, Trotter R, Muth S. The risk environment for HIV transmission: results from the Atlanta and Flagstaff network studies. J Urban Health. 2001;78(3):419–32.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Schneider J. Sociostructural 2-mode network analysis: critical connections for HIV transmission elimination. Sex Transm Dis. 2013;40(6):459–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Schneider J, Cornwell B, Jonas A, Behler R, Lancki N, Skaathun B, et al. Network dynamics and HIV risk and prevention in a population-based cohort of Young Black Men Who have Sex with Men. Netw Sci. 2017;5(1):1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Schneider J, Cornwell B, Ostrow D, Michaels S, Schumm P, Laumann EO, Friedman S. Network mixing and network influences most linked to HIV infection and risk behavior in the HIV epidemic among Black men who have sex with men. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(1):e28–36.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Shah NS, Iveniuk J, Muth SQ, Michaels S, Jose J-A, Laumann EO, Schneider JA. Structural bridging network position is associated with HIV status in a younger Black men who have sex with men epidemic. AIDS Behav. 2014;18(2):335–45.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Shumate M, Palazzolo ET. Exponential random graph (p*) models as a method for social network analysis in communication research. Commun Methods Meas. 2010;4(4):341–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Tourangeau R, Rips LJ, Rasinski K. The psychology of survey response. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wang P. ERGM extensions: models for multiple networks and bipartite networks. In: Exponential random graph models for social networks: theory, method and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2013.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wang P, Robins G, Pattison P. PNet: a program for the simulation and estimation of exponential random graph models. University of Melbourne; 2006.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wang P, Robins G, Pattison P, Lazega E. Exponential random graph models for multilevel networks. Soc Netw. 2013;35(1):96–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wang P, Robins GL, Pattison PE, Koskinen JH. MPNet: program for the simulation and estimation of (p*) exponential random graph models for multilevel networks. Melbourne: Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne; 2014.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Wasserman S, Faust K. Social network analysis: methods and applications, vol. 8. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Wasserman S, Pattison P. Logit models and logistic regressions for social networks: I. An introduction to Markov graphs and p. Psychometrika. 1996;61(3):401–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Wasserman S, Robins G. An introduction to random graphs, dependence graphs, and p*. Models Methods Soc Netw Anal. 2005;27:148–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Woods WJ, Binson D. Public health policy and gay bathhouses. J Homosex. 2003;44(3–4):1–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Woods WJ, Binson DK, Mayne TJ, Gore LR, Rebchook GM. HIV/sexually transmitted disease education and prevention in US bathhouse and sex club environments. AIDS. 2000;14(5):625–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chicago Center for HIV EliminationChicagoUSA
  2. 2.University of Chicago MedicineChicagoUSA
  3. 3.University of Chicago Public Health SciencesChicagoUSA
  4. 4.NORC at University of ChicagoChicagoUSA
  5. 5.Threat Tec, LLCHamptonUSA
  6. 6.ChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations