Download Promiscuous or Confident? Attitudinal Ambivalence Toward

Promiscuous or Confident?
Attitudinal Ambivalence Toward Condom Purchase1
DARREN W. DAHL AND PETER R. DARKE2
Sauder School of Business
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
GERALD J. GORN
Department of Marketing
Hong Kong University of Science
and Technology
Hong Kong
CHARLES B. WEINBERG
Sander School of Business
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
This research examined attitudes toward condom purchase. Recent evidence is mixed.
While some studies show attitudes have become more positive, other studies suggest that
negative attitudes still dominate. Our own research examined the possibility that such
attitudes may be ambivalent, meaning that the same individuals may simultaneously hold
both positive and negative beliefs about condom purchase. The results confirmed this
prediction. Study 1 showed that condom purchase evoked a combination of both negative
beliefs about lifestyles and positive beliefs concerning the personal confidence of the
consumer. These beliefs had competing effects on more global attitudes toward condom
purchase. Specific beliefs about condoms were shown to provide the best indication of
whether participants actually used condoms. Study 2 employed standard measures of attitudinal ambivalence. The results conceptually replicated the finding that ambivalence was
greater for those who purchased condoms compared to controls.
Research (e.g., Fisher & Fisher, 1992; Raghubir & Menon, 1998; Sheeran,
Abraham, & Orbell, 1999) has shown that social and psychological barriers to
condom use pose a serious threat to the prevention of HIV and many other
sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). One of these barriers is the stigma that
historically has been associated with condom use (Gamson, 1990; Valdiserri,
1988). According to Lupton (1994), “First used as a prophylactic against sexually
1The authors thank Dale Griffin and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments concerning a previous version of this manuscript. This research was funded by a number of grants from
the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
2Correspondence concerning this manuscript should be addressed to Peter R. Darke, Sauder
School of Business, University of British Columbia, 2053 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]
869
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2005, 35, 4, pp. 869-887.
Copyright © 2005 by V. H. Winston & Son, Inc. All rights reserved.
870
DAHL ET AL.
transmitted disease, and traditionally worn in encounters with prostitutes, the
condom before the advent of AIDS had acquired a negative image as a symbol of
furtive and socially unacceptable sexuality” (p. 304). These perceptions are
thought to contribute to negative attitudes toward condoms, as well as to the
reluctance of individuals to acquire, carry, and use them (Helweg-Larsen &
Collins, 1994; Sacco, Rickman, Thompson, Levine, & Reed, 1993).
There has been a great deal of research concerning the use of condoms over
the past decade or more. This research has examined a wide variety of issues
including the demographics of condom use, attitudes toward condoms, perceptions of condom users, and the effectiveness of intervention programs aimed at
increasing the use of condoms. In contrast, much less research has examined the
purchase of condoms. This is somewhat surprising, considering that condom purchase is an important area of investigation in its own right and that purchase is a
common antecedent to the use of condoms. The existing research on purchase
behavior has focused largely on the effects that embarrassment can have in
making consumers reluctant to buy condoms (Dahl, Gorn, & Weinberg, 1998;
Dahl, Manchanda, & Argo, 2001; Helweg-Larsen & Collins, 1994; Miller, 1996;
Sable & Libbus, 1998). For instance, Dahl et al. (1998) found that condom purchase was commonly associated with embarrassment (approximately 60% of
their sample reported some level of embarrassment). Additional studies have
suggested that this embarrassment may be a result of concerns about the social
context of condom purchase, and violations of privacy in particular. Specifically,
Dahl et al. (2001) showed that embarrassment was greater when condoms were
purchased in the presence of a social observer than when no observer was
present. Overall, there seems to be reasonable evidence that embarrassment is
one of the factors that limits condom purchase.
The current research focuses on the nature of attitudes concerning condom
purchase and examines whether such perceptions might play a role in determining whether consumers actually purchase and use condoms. We begin by briefly
reviewing past research concerning attitudes about condom use, which provides a
useful background for understanding what factors might influence purchase
behavior. We then introduce the idea that current attitudes toward condoms are
somewhat mixed in valence and suggest that this may be partly a result of the fact
that such attitudes are ambivalent. With this background, we conducted two
studies that examine the role of ambivalence in evaluations of condom purchase,
as well as discuss implications for behavior relating to condoms.
Attitudes and Condom Use
Over the past two decades, health organizations and government agencies have
committed significant resources to educational efforts and social marketing campaigns aimed at altering negative attitudes toward condoms. Initial evaluations of
PROMISCUOUS OR CONFIDENT?
871
these programs provide some evidence that attitudes toward condoms are often
more positive following intervention (Fisher, Fisher, Misovich, Kimble, & Malloy,
1996; Sanderson & Jemmott, 1996; Schuster, Bell, Berry, & Kanouse, 1998),
which is often associated with greater condom use or intended use (Fisher et al.,
1996; Sanderson & Jemmott, 1996). These intervention studies, therefore, suggest
some amount of success in increasing condom use for social programs that focus
on creating more positive attitudes.
The extent to which more positive attitudes will actually lead to behavior
change is also likely to depend on perceptions of the social consequences
attached to engaging in such behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977). Males often
think proposing the use of a condom might cause their partners to perceive them
negatively, and ultimately diminish their chance of having sexual intercourse
(Bryan, Aiken, & West, 1999). Many consumers who maintain positive attitudes
toward condoms may still fail to suggest their use at the time of a sexual encounter because of the concern that such behavior could convey a negative social
impression to others (Sacco et al., 1993). The findings are similar for perceptions
of people who carry condoms.3 Fear of negative social impressions might inhibit
carrying condoms (Wilson, Jaccard, Endias, & Minkoff, 1993). Men and women
appear to be concerned that their reputations might suffer if they are seen carrying condoms (Loxley, 1996), partly because this signals a promiscuous lifestyle
(Hillier, Harrison, & Ware, 1998). In our research focusing on condom purchasers, it seems reasonable that, like carrying condoms, purchasing condoms would
signal an intention to engage in sexual activity. Thus, perceptions of people carrying and purchasing condoms are likely to be similar.
Intervention programs also have attempted to build perceptions of selfefficacy or self-confidence in order to counteract any negative effects that social
pressure might have (Fisher et al., 1996; Jemmott & Jemmott, 1992; Sanderson
& Jemmott, 1996). For example, an intervention by Sanderson and Jemmott
attempted to build the self-confidence of individuals in communicating with
potential sexual partners about condom use through a role-playing exercise.
Increased self-confidence encourages individuals to resist pressure from partners
who prefer not to use condoms (Fisher & Fisher, 1992; Wulfert & Wan, 1993), as
well as helping individuals to cope with any negative social impressions that
might be related to condom use (Sherman, Nelson, & Steele, 2000; Steele, 1988).
Research has shown that higher personal confidence, in fact, is associated with
reports of greater condom use (Cecil & Pinkerton, 1998; McNair, Carter, &
Williams, 1998; Sanderson & Jemmott, 1996).
It is important to note that while some studies show that social programs have
been successful in creating more positive condom attitudes, evidence regarding
3Both use of condoms and carrying condoms involve potential interaction with other people.
Thus, perceptions of the users and carriers would likely overlap.
872
DAHL ET AL.
the overall valence of attitudes toward condoms is more mixed. Some studies
have suggested that attitudes toward condoms are generally positive (Minoia &
Rose, 1996; Murphy & Boggess, 1998; Richardson, Beazley, Delaney, &
Langille, 1997; Thompson, Anderson, Freedman, & Swan, 1996), whereas other
studies have indicated that negative perceptions of condoms are still the norm
(Hetherington, Harris, Bausell, Kavanagh, & Scott, 1996; Lewis, Malow, &
Ireland, 1997; Nguyen, Saucier, & Pica, 1996; Seal & Palmer-Seal, 1996). Moreover, careful examination of this literature shows that these studies have
employed a wide range of evaluative measures, which differ in terms of the level
of measurement used. Specifically, some studies have employed relatively global
measures of positiveness–negativeness toward condom use (e.g., good vs. bad),
while other studies have employed measures of more specific evaluative beliefs
(e.g., promiscuous, confident). The possibility of seeming promiscuous is a particular concern for those who maintain negative views toward condoms (De Wit,
Victoir, & van den Bergh, 1997; Hillier et al., 1998; Loxley, 1996). In summary,
the literature includes a mixture of findings that show perceptions of condom use
can be positive or negative, and we suggest that these conclusions may depend
partly on differences in the particular dependent measures employed and the
level of measurement associated with these measures (global evaluations vs. specific beliefs).
Attitudinal Ambivalence
We suggest that ambivalence (Katz, 1981) concerning the use of condoms
may play some part in the conflicting results that have been observed in the
existing literature. Attitudinal ambivalence is a structural property of evaluative
judgment that arises when an individual holds incongruent beliefs about an
attitude object (Thompson, Zanna, & Griffin, 1995). For instance, someone who
holds an ambivalent attitude toward visiting the dentist may believe that such
visits would help improve the health of their teeth, but the same individual may
not like the time, inconvenience, or physical discomfort that is also involved.
The possibility that attitudes can be ambivalent follows from the wellaccepted idea that global attitudes often reflect a combination of more specific
structural beliefs or feelings (e.g., Anderson, 1962; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975;
Rosenberg & Hovland, 1960). When inconsistencies that exist between these
more basic elements become salient, individuals are likely to experience ambivalence or conflict in their evaluations. Although people are often highly motivated
to resolve inconsistencies in the structure of their beliefs (e.g., Festinger, 1957;
Heider, 1946), the existing evidence suggests that attitudinal ambivalence may be
relatively common (Kaplan, 1972). Furthermore, ambivalent attitudes are said to
be rather unstable over time because they can be influenced easily by situational
factors that temporarily increase the salience of either the positive or negative
PROMISCUOUS OR CONFIDENT?
873
beliefs that underlie global evaluations (Bargh, Chaiken, Govender, & Pratto,
1992). For this reason, ambivalent attitudes also are believed to be relatively poor
predictors of behavior (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993).
In the context of condom use, evaluative ambivalence might help to explain
why some studies show that negative evaluations of condom users still persist,
while other studies show that such evaluations have become more positive.
Rather than being uniformly positive or uniformly negative about the use of
condoms, the ambivalence explanation suggests that many people may maintain
both positive and negative beliefs simultaneously. According to Helweg-Larsen
and Collins (1994, p. 225), it may be that condom use evokes both “negative
stigmas” and “positive halos.” Such ambivalence is also likely to lead to
relatively unstable global evaluations of condom use since ambivalent evaluations are influenced easily by factors that make relatively positive versus relatively negative beliefs more salient in the judgment context (Eagly & Chaiken,
1993). The notion of ambivalence also might provide further insight into the
question of why attitudes toward condoms are not always predictive of actual
behavior.
We used the ideas concerning condom use as the basis for making predictions
concerning attitudes and perceptions for the purchase of condoms. In general, we
predict that attitudes toward condom purchase will be somewhat ambivalent in
the sense that conflict will exist in the underlying beliefs relating to condom
purchase. In order to test these ideas, we conducted two studies in which participants read a brief scenario and were asked to formulate evaluations of someone
purchasing condoms. Our first study tested for ambivalence regarding condom
purchase at the level of specific positive and negative beliefs related to condom
purchase, and examined whether these beliefs would have competing effects on
more global evaluations. This study also examined the implications that an
ambivalent attitude structure might have for actual condom use. The second
study sought to confirm that attitudes toward condom purchase were ambivalent
relative to attitudes toward other types of purchases using standardized measures
of attitudinal ambivalence.
Study 1
Our first study examines a number of specific positive and negative beliefs
that seem likely to serve as a source of ambivalence for evaluations of condom
purchase. Based on previous research concerning perceptions of condom use,
we predict that condom purchase will be viewed positively in the sense that it
should convey an image of personal confidence (consistent with modern communication messages), but at the same time this behavior also might convey the negative stigma of a sexually promiscuous lifestyle. In addition, standard attitude
measures are included as well as open-response evaluations in order to examine
874
DAHL ET AL.
the effects that conflicting beliefs about condom purchase have on more global
evaluations of condom purchase. Finally, a behavioral measure of condom use is
used to examine whether global evaluations or specific beliefs will be better
predictors of behavior.
Method
Mason Haire shopping-list technique. When designing our experiments, we
considered a number of methodological issues relating to past studies that have
investigated attitudes toward condoms. For instance, many intervention studies
have used within-subject, before–after research designs. Furthermore, most
studies overtly ask participants about their views of condoms. However, these
procedures are potentially vulnerable to a social responsibility bias that may
cause people to exaggerate their approval of condoms (Dahl, Gorn, & Weinberg,
1997; Raghubir & Menon, 1996). Because of this concern, we used a less obtrusive method of getting participants to make evaluations about condom purchase
known as the Mason Haire shopping-list technique (Haire, 1950).
The Mason Haire technique was developed originally in the early 1950s to
investigate negative perceptions of housewives who purchased instant coffee
(Haire, 1950; see also Webster & Von Pechmann, 1970). The basic procedure
involves giving participants a shopping list that contains the target item (in addition to a number of other products) and then asking them to develop impressions
of the person who owns the list. The advantage is that participants may be more
likely to express their true thoughts and evaluations using this relatively subtle
procedure, compared to when they are asked directly about such perceptions.
Furthermore, responses using the Mason Haire technique also have been shown
to predict the respondents’ own purchase behavior (Haire, 1950).
Participants and design. Participants were 290 university students (135
male, 155 female) who received course credit for their participation. Each
person read a brief scenario describing a shopping trip, which was varied according to a 3 × 2 between-subjects experimental design. The two experimental factors were the content of a shopping list described in the scenario (control vs.
condom vs. cigarette) and the gender of the person said to own the shopping
list. The cigarette condition was included so that there would be a comparison
group in which both specific and global perceptions were likely to be uniformly
negative. The gender variable was included because some studies have suggested
that this is important in determining perceptions of condom use (Hillier et al.,
1998; Loxley, 1996; Sacco et al., 1993). These studies have provided evidence
that women feel more disadvantaged and uncomfortable when purchasing condoms (Hillier et al., 1998). Both specific attributional measures as well as more
global evaluations of the shopping-list owner were used as the main dependent
variables.
PROMISCUOUS OR CONFIDENT?
875
Procedure. Participants read a scenario in which they were told to imagine
they had found a shopping list on the ground in a local retail mall. Gender was
varied by directly telling participants that the owner of the shopping list was either
male or female. The content of the shopping list described in the scenario was also
manipulated. In the control condition, items on the shopping list consisted of pens,
gum, socks, milk, and a magazine. Additional items were added in order to create
a shopping list that also included condoms, and another list that included cigarettes (but not condoms). Thus, the control shopping list had five items, whereas
the condom and cigarette lists had six items each. The scenario concluded by asking participants to take a few minutes to think about the personality traits, values,
and lifestyles that might best describe the owner of the shopping list.
Measures. After reading the scenario, participants completed a questionnaire
containing the dependent measures. They first wrote their overall impressions of
the shopping-list owner by describing what the person would be like in a general
sense. Two judges classified these verbal impressions into positive (e.g., “well
liked,” “the type of guy who is popular”), negative (e.g., “I wouldn’t like her,”
“poor impression”), or other categories (e.g., “she is probably in her 20s”). Interrater reliability was over 90%, with disagreements resolved through discussion
with the first author.
Of the 612 valenced impressions, 65.5% were positive and 34.5% were negative in valence. The number of negative statements made by each person was
subtracted from the positive statements to create an overall verbal impression
score. Participants next rated a battery of items that served as the main measure
of global attitude toward the shopping-list owner, including: likable, nice, cold,
and bad person. Each item was rated using a 6-point scale ranging from -3 (disagree) to +3 (agree). To facilitate interpretation, each rating was rescaled from 1
to 6, and negative items were reverse scored. The scores were averaged to form
an overall attitude index (α = .70).
Participants then completed a second battery of items concerning more specific beliefs. These focused largely on perceptions of confidence and promiscuity, since the literature often has associated these perceptions with condom use.
Specifically, participants rated the likelihood that the owner of the shopping list
was confident, reckless, insecure, immoral, uptight, and promiscuous. Ratings for
each attribute were made on 6-point scale ranging from -3 (very unlikely) to
+3 (very likely). These responses were also rescaled from 1 to 6. A factor analysis
indicates that these items were related to two underlying dimensions. Items that
loaded onto the first dimension (promiscuous, reckless, and immoral) were averaged to construct an index of negative lifestyle attributions (α = .73). Items
loading onto the second dimension were averaged to form an index labeled confidence attributions (α = .66), which included confident, uptight (reverse scored),
and insecure (reverse scored) ratings. Finally, participants indicated whether they
actually used condoms (Yes or No).
876
DAHL ET AL.
Table 1
Mean Scores for Dependent Variables by Experimental Condition: Study 2
Dependent variable
Experimental
condition
Coded verbal
impressions
M
SD
Control total
1.29 1.85
Male only
1.35 2.06
Female only 1.24 1.64
Condoms total
0.99 2.14
Male only
0.68 2.31
Female only 1.28 1.94
Cigarettes total -0.41 1.97
Male only
-0.11 2.00
Female only -0.69 1.92
General
impression
ratings
Confidence
ratings
Negative
lifestyle
ratings
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
4.72
4.77
4.67
4.54
4.44
4.64
4.16
4.31
4.02
0.57
0.56
0.58
0.71
0.75
0.67
0.81
0.62
0.94
4.04
4.03
4.05
4.58
4.47
4.69
3.84
4.10
3.60
0.83
0.89
0.78
0.86
0.96
0.75
0.97
0.93
0.96
2.81
2.93
2.70
3.20
3.25
3.16
3.64
3.61
3.67
1.02
1.06
0.96
0.93
0.92
0.95
0.92
0.82
1.01
Results and Discussion
Specific beliefs. An ANOVA was computed for the belief indexes, with
list content and gender of the owner as the two independent factors. The ANOVA
for beliefs about confidence shows a significant main effect for the content factor, F(2, 284) = 17.87, p < .001; as well as a significant Content × Gender interaction, F(2, 284) = 4.23, p < .05. Means are provided in Table 1. Interestingly, the
owner of the condom shopping list was rated as more confident (M = 4.58) than
were the owners of either the cigarette shopping list (M = 3.84), F(1, 288) =
33.64, p < .001; or the control shopping list (M = 4.04), F(1, 288) = 18.40, p <
.001. There were no differences in confidence attributions between the control
and cigarette conditions, F(1, 288) = 2.46, ns. The interaction with gender shows
that females who purchased cigarettes were rated significantly lower in confidence (M = 3.60) than were males with the cigarette list (M = 4.10), F(1, 288) =
6.45, p < .05. While this interaction suggests that gender is relevant to perceptions of cigarettes, there were no significant gender effects for condom (or control) purchases.
The ANOVA for negative lifestyle beliefs produced only a significant main
effect of list content, F(2, 284) = 17.69, p < .001. Further comparisons show that
PROMISCUOUS OR CONFIDENT?
877
Table 2
Cross-Tabulated Frequencies for Confidence and Negative Lifestyle Beliefs by
Experimental Group: Study 2
Confidence
Control
Low negative lifestyle
High negative lifestyle
Total negative lifestyle
Condom
Low negative lifestyle
High negative lifestyle
Total negative lifestyle
Cigarette
Low negative lifestyle
High negative lifestyle
Total negative lifestyle
Low
High
Total
31
25
56
24
19
43
55
44
99
8
18
26
27
44
71
35
62
97
8
54
62
5
27
32
13
81
94
the condom list owner was rated significantly higher on the negative lifestyle
index than was the control list owner, F(1, 288) = 8.12, p < .01. The cigarette
shopping-list owner received higher scores on the negative lifestyle index (M =
3.64) than did the owners of either the condom list (M = 3.20), F(1, 288) = 9.86,
p < .01; or the control list (M = 2.81), F(1, 288) = 35.76, p < .001.
Overall, these findings suggest that condom purchase led to the belief that the
owner was both a confident person and engaged in a negative lifestyle (compared
to controls). Further analyses were conducted in order to determine whether it
was the same individuals who held these contradictory beliefs. A split using the
median values of the confidence and negative lifestyle ratings in the control condition was used to divide participants into groups that were relatively high versus
low on each of the belief measures. This enabled us to identify whether each
participant simultaneously made both positive and negative attributions relating
to confidence and promiscuity, which is consistent with the main notion of
ambivalence. Table 2 provides frequency counts for each shopping-list condition.
As expected, the proportion of participants who made both positive confidence
attributions and negative lifestyle attributions was highest in the condom condition (45.4%), and significantly larger than the proportion found in the control
878
DAHL ET AL.
(19.2%, Z = 3.93, p < .001) or cigarette conditions (28.7%, Z = 2.37, p < .01). In
contrast, the majority of participants in the cigarette condition (57.4%) consistently made more negative attributions on both the confidence and lifestyle
dimensions. Overall, these findings provide more direct evidence that beliefs
about condom purchase were truly ambivalent (participants in the condom condition made both more positive and more negative attributions, compared to
controls), whereas the beliefs concerning cigarette purchases were uniformly
negative.
Overall attitudes. The overall attitude indexes also were investigated using an
ANOVA, with list content and gender of the owner as the two independent
factors (Table 1). The ANOVAs reveal a significant shopping-list main effect on
both measures, F(2, 284) = 15.87 and 19.76, ps < .001, respectively. Further
comparisons indicate that the control and condom lists were not significantly different, F(1, 288) = 3.13, ns; whereas the owner of the cigarette list was evaluated
more negatively (M = 4.15) than were the owners of either the condom list (M =
4.54), F(1, 288) = 14.29, p < .001; or the control list (M = 4.72), F(1, 288) =
31.02, p < .001. The same pattern was observed for coded responses: Verbal
impressions for the owners of the condom and control lists did not differ significantly, F(1, 288) = 1.14, ns; while the owner of the cigarette list (M = -0.41) was
evaluated more negatively than were either the owner of the condom list (M =
0.99), F(1, 288) = 23.81, p < .001; or the owner of the control list (M = 1.29),
F(1, 288) = 35.64, p < .001.4
Regression analyses. Regression analyses were conducted to test the relationship between the specific confidence and negative lifestyle beliefs concerning
condom purchase, as well as overall attitudes (Table 3). Both negative lifestyle
and confidence scores should be significant predictors of overall attitudes in the
condom condition, as conceptually one would expect these beliefs to drive more
global evaluations. These regressions explained a significant amount of variance
for both the verbal response measure (R2 = .24), F(2, 94) = 14.41, p < .001; and
the attitude ratings (R2 = .32), F(2, 94) = 22.17, p < .001. In both instances, the
negative lifestyle index had a significant negative influence on overall attitudes:
ratings, t(95) = -5.27, p < .001; and verbal response, t(95) = -4.89, p < .001. The
4Verbal impressions also were coded for the specific beliefs of interest (i.e., negative or positive
lifestyle attributions and confidence attributions). This coding indicates a relatively small number of
specific beliefs. This is not surprising, given that the open-response question asked for general evaluations of the shopper, rather than specific beliefs. We note, however, that the condom shopping-list
owner received significantly more negative lifestyle attributions (M = -0.08) than did the owner in
both the control condition (M = 0.03), F(1, 288) = 9.80, p < .01; and the cigarette condition (M =
0.00), F(1, 288) = 5.11, p < .05. Marginal differences also were shown for confidence attributions:
condom, M = 0.12; control M = 0.04; cigarette M = 0.03; condom versus control, F(1, 288) = 2.25,
p < .10; condom versus cigarette, F(1, 288) = 2.66, p < .10.
PROMISCUOUS OR CONFIDENT?
879
Table 3
Regression Analyses: Condom Shopping List
Variable
Overall impression index
Lifestyle index
Confidence index
β
t
p
-.35
.23
-5.27
3.20
<.001
<.01
-4.89
1.44
<.001
.16
Multiple R2 = .32, F(2, 94) = 22.17, p < .001
Coded verbal impression index
Lifestyle index
-.45
Confidence index
.13
Multiple R2 = .24, F(2, 94) = 14.41, p < .001
confidence index had a positive impact on attitudes: ratings, t(95) = 3.20, p < .01;
and verbal responses, t(95)= 1.44, p < .20.5
Condom use. Self-reports of current condom use by participants in the
condom condition were dummy coded (0 = Yes, 1 = No); and point biserial correlations were computed between this measure, negative lifestyle attributions,
confidence attributions, and global attitude ratings. Interestingly, the lifestyle
attribution measure was a significant predictor of reported condom use (r = .21,
p < .05). The stronger the negative lifestyle attributions made by participants, the
less likely they were to report using condoms themselves. Confidence attributions, global attitude ratings, and verbal evaluations were not related significantly
to condom use (rs = .03, .15, and -.11, ns). Overall, only negative attributions
toward condom purchase predicted actual condom use. More global evaluations
of condom purchase were relatively poor predictors of behavior, presumably
because of the ambivalence associated with these evaluations.
Summary
The results of our first study suggest that the overall impressions of condom
purchase were relatively neutral compared to controls, and even somewhat positive relative to the purchase of cigarettes. In and of themselves, these findings
5For the impression ratings, regressions utilizing negative lifestyle and confidence ratings as predictor variables were shown to be significant for the control and cigarette conditions (R2 = .26 and
.11, respectively). In contrast, regressions involving verbal impressions as the dependent variable
were not significant for the control and cigarette conditions (R2 = .06 and .03, respectively).
880
DAHL ET AL.
seem encouraging, since they suggest that condom purchase may no longer be
evaluated negatively as far as overall impressions are concerned. However, the
specific beliefs that underlie these more general evaluations show that participants were not simply neutral about condom purchase, but rather there were
indications of ambivalence toward condoms. As predicted, condom purchase was
seen as both more positive and more negative (relative to controls) with respect
to the specific beliefs evoked by this behavior. Furthermore, there was direct evidence to suggest that it was the same individuals who made both positive and
negative attributions for condom purchase (again relative to controls). This
means that while control and condom purchases were similar in terms of the
global evaluations involved, the pattern of beliefs that underlie these evaluations
was strikingly different. This study also specifically identified negative lifestyles
and personal confidence as a source of conflict underlying ambivalence toward
those who purchase condoms. Finally, specific beliefs about promiscuity were
the best predictors of participants’ own behavior concerning the use of condoms,
while general impressions were not good predictors of behavior.
Study 2
The second study was conducted in order to re-examine the difference
between condom purchase and control purchase using more standardized measures of ambivalence. The dependent variables included in Study 1 were based
on the kinds of measures that typically are used in the condom literature. This
was necessary to show that the mixed conclusions in the existing literature for
the valence of evaluations toward condoms may be explainable in terms of
the level of measurement employed. The results of Study 1 suggest that some
contradiction existed in the valence of responses measured at the level of specific
beliefs about condom purchase, and that these beliefs had competing effects on
more global evaluations. These results were interpreted to be consistent with an
ambivalent attitude structure. However, it was desirable to get more direct evidence to validate this interpretation. Study 2 uses a number of standardized
measures of attitudinal ambivalence in order to replicate conceptually the main
findings in our initial study, and to verify further that attitudes toward condom
purchase are in fact ambivalent.
Method
Participants and design. Participants were 69 university students (31 male,
38 female) who received course credit for their participation. The second study
utilizes a 2 × 2 between-subjects experimental design in which the content of a
shopping list described in the scenario (control vs. condom) and the gender of the
person said to own the shopping list are the manipulated factors. The procedure
utilized in the second study is identical to that employed in the first study. The
PROMISCUOUS OR CONFIDENT?
881
central difference in the second study is in the dependent measures employed;
namely, direct measures of ambivalence (Priester & Petty, 2001; Thompson et al.,
1995) for impressions of the shopping-list owner were used as the main dependent variables.
Measures. After reading the scenario, a questionnaire containing the dependent measures was completed. Participants were asked to indicate their reaction
to the owner of the shopping list by completing two standard measures of attitudinal ambivalence. This measurement approach differs from the classic Mason
Haire study, which used an open-response, thought-listing measure.
The first ambivalence measures we used followed the procedure of
Thompson et al. (1995). Participants were asked first to rate the positive qualities
of the shopping-list owner, while ignoring any negative qualities. Specifically,
they rated how positive and favorable their impressions of the target person were,
using 4-point scales ranging from 1 (not at all) to 4 (extremely; α = .77). Participants were then instructed to ignore any positive qualities of the shopping-list
owner, and complete a set of negative impression ratings. These included perceptions of how negative and unfavorable the target was, and these items were rated
on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 4 (extremely; α = .77).
An index of implied ambivalence was calculated by computing the absolute
difference between the positive and negative ratings and subtracting this from the
average of the positive and negative ratings,
(P + N)/2 - | P-N |
This formula accounts for the absolute magnitude of both the positive and
negative ratings, as well as the level of consistency between these ratings (see
Thompson et al., 1995, for a detailed description). Higher scores indicate greater
ambivalence toward the target.
The second measure of ambivalence was taken from Priester and Petty (2001)
and dealt with the level of subjective ambivalence experienced when forming
impressions of the shopping-list owner. Specifically, participants were asked to
rate whether they experienced no indecision versus maximum indecision;
whether they experienced no conflict versus maximum conflict; and whether
their reaction was completely one-sided versus completely mixed. These items
were rated using 7-point scales ranging from -3 (no decision, no conflict, one
sided) to +3 (maximum indecision, maximum conflict, completely mixed).
Reponses were averaged to construct an index of felt ambivalence (α = .69) in
which higher scores indicate greater ambivalence.
Results and Discussion
Both measures of ambivalence were investigated using a two-way ANOVA,
with shopping-list content and gender of the owner as the independent factors.
882
DAHL ET AL.
The ANOVA for the implied ambivalence scores shows only a significant main
effect for the content factor, F(1, 65) = 11.97, p < .001. Participants who rated the
owner of the condom shopping list had higher ambivalence scores than did those
who rated the owner of the control shopping list (M = 1.68 vs. 1.14). The felt
ambivalence index also shows a significant main effect for the content factor,
F(1, 65) = 12.25, p < .001. Participants who rated the owner of the condom list
felt significantly more ambivalent about their evaluations (M = 0.41) than did
participants who rated the owner of the control shopping list (M = -0.44). Finally,
the two measures of ambivalence were significantly correlated with each other
(r = .32, p < .01).
These findings provide additional evidence for our prediction that evaluations
of condom purchase are relatively ambivalent or mixed in valence. For both the
implied and subjective measures, participants indicated significantly higher
levels of ambivalence concerning their judgment of condom purchase compared
to evaluations of a purchase that did not include condoms.
General Discussion
The results of the two studies are consistent with our main prediction that attitudes toward the purchase of condoms are relatively ambivalent. Study 1 showed
that condom purchase tended to evoke a mixture of both positive and negative
beliefs in the same individuals, which resulted in competing effects on more
global evaluations. Further, this ambivalence was shown to have important implications for predicting the behavior of the participants themselves. Using standard
measures of implied and subjective ambivalence, Study 2 provided additional
evidence supporting this conclusion.
The current research may be helpful in understanding the somewhat contradictory findings that have been observed in recent condom research. As mentioned, many studies have suggested that attitudes toward condoms are relatively
positive, while other studies have concluded that these attitudes are still largely
negative. Our research showed a mixture in the valence of evaluations for condom purchases, depending on the level of measurement. For instance, condom
purchase was viewed as moderate in valence when global evaluations were
considered, somewhat positive in valence when specific beliefs about confidence
were considered, and somewhat negative in valence when specific beliefs about
promiscuity were considered. This was because such attitudes are relatively
ambivalent, and therefore valence varied considerably depending on whether
specific or general aspects of evaluation were examined.
Furthermore, the instability associated with ambivalent attitudes also may
have played some part in producing the contradictions observed in past studies.
Ambivalent attitudes are thought to be easily influenced by relatively subtle
aspects of the judgment context, which can temporarily increase the salience of
PROMISCUOUS OR CONFIDENT?
883
either positive or negative beliefs about the attitude object (Bargh et al., 1992).
Both the level of measurement issue and the instability associated with ambivalent evaluations may have contributed to the inconsistencies observed in past
studies.
The ambivalence associated with attitude toward condoms was shown to have
important implications for behavior. In particular, only specific beliefs relating to
the promiscuity associated with condoms were predictive of whether participants
reported actually using condoms. Positive beliefs and global evaluations were not
significant predictors of behavior. This study examined one specific positive
belief; that is, self-confidence. Further investigation of other positive specific
beliefs (e.g., responsibility) may find a significant link to behavior. Nevertheless,
the finding that global evaluations were unrelated to condom use is consistent
with past suggestions that ambivalent attitudes are relatively poor predictors of
behavior (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Moore, 1973, 1980).
These findings also provide an explanation as to why consumers often seem
reluctant to purchase and use condoms. The fact that negative perceptions of
promiscuity predicted condom use may mean that there is something about the
purchase situation that tends to focus consumers on concerns about negative
social evaluation. If so, the current findings suggest that evaluations or behavior
might be altered by priming the salience of positive beliefs or by altering the
environment so as to reduce any potential priming of negative social impressions.
In the latter case, if paying a cashier for condoms in a store triggers an impression
of a person who engages in promiscuous behavior, then the purchase environment might be altered to eliminate this trigger. Rather than paying for condoms at
the cash register, the use of in-store vending machines (like stamp or candy
machines) would help to avoid interaction with the cashier and might reduce the
possibility that negative social impressions are primed. Alternately, encouraging
purchase from professional pharmacists, who are more likely to view condom
purchase as a positive behavior, might help prime more positive evaluations of
condom purchase.
Additionally, rather than focusing specifically on the priming of beliefs,
affective priming might be used also to subtly alter more global evaluations of
condom purchase directly. Numerous studies have demonstrated that affective
priming is capable of producing more positive attitudes in other contexts
(Niedenthal, Rohmann, & Dalle, 2003). It is possible that affective primes
included in advertising, or at the point of purchase, would have similar effects on
evaluations of condom purchase. It also would be interesting to know whether
ambivalent attitudes (i.e., evaluations of condom purchase) are particularly reactive to affective primes compared to less ambivalent attitudes (i.e., evaluations of
cigarette purchase). Future research should examine these possibilities.
Finally, this research used a relatively subtle shopping-list technique to
investigate the sensitive topic of condom purchase. This method seems useful in
884
DAHL ET AL.
situations in which consumers may feel reluctant to reveal directly their personal
concerns about engaging in a particular behavior, or in which social desirability
may bias responses positively. The advantages of the technique were demonstrated by the fact that perceptions concerning the owner of the shopping list
were predictive of the participants’ own behavior. This technique may prove useful in investigating the purchase of other highly sensitive products and services
(e.g., adult diapers, hemorrhoid cream, dandruff shampoo).
References
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude–behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888-918.
Anderson, N. H. (1962). Application of an additive model to impression formation. Science, 138, 817-818.
Bargh, J. A., Chaiken, S., Govender, R., & Pratto, F. (1992). The generality of the
automatic attitude activation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
62, 893-912.
Bryan, A. D., Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1999). The impact of males proposing
condom use on perceptions of an initial sexual encounter. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 275-286.
Cecil, H., & Pinkerton S. D. (1998). Reliability and validity of a self-efficacy
instrument for protective sexual behaviors. Journal of American College
Health, 47, 113-121.
Dahl, D. W., Gorn, G. J., & Weinberg, C. B. (1997). Condom carrying behavior
among students. American Journal of Public Health, 87, 1059-1060.
Dahl, D. W., Gorn, G. J., & Weinberg, C. B. (1998). The impact of embarrassment on condom purchase behaviour. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 89,
368-370.
Dahl, D. W., Manchanda, R. V., & Argo, J. A. (2001). Embarrassment in
consumer purchase: The roles of social presence and purchase familiarity.
Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 473-481.
De Wit, R., Victoir, A., & van den Bergh, O. (1997). “My mind’s made up by the
way that I feel”: Affect, cognition, and intention in the structure of attitudes
toward condom use. Health Education Research, 12, 15-24.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. New York, NY:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row
Peterson.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fisher, J. D., & Fisher, W. A. (1992). Changing AIDS-risk behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 455-474.
PROMISCUOUS OR CONFIDENT?
885
Fisher, S. D., Fisher, W. A., Misovich, S. J., Kimble, D. L., & Malloy, T. E.
(1996). Changing AIDS risk behavior: Effects of an intervention emphasizing
AIDS risk reduction information, motivation, and behavioral skills in a college student population. Health Psychology, 15, 114-123.
Gamson, J. (1990). Rubber wars: Struggles over the condom in the United States.
Journal of the History of Sexuality, 1, 262-282.
Haire, M. (1950). Projective techniques in marketing research. Journal of
Marketing, 14, 649-656.
Heider, F. (1946). Attitudes and cognitive organization. The Journal of Psychology, 21, 107-112.
Helweg-Larsen, M., & Collins, B. E. (1994). The UCLA Multidimensional Condom Attitudes scale: Documenting the complex determinants of condom use
in college students. Health Psychology, 13, 224-237.
Hetherington, S. E., Harris, R. M., Bausell, R. B., Kavanagh, K. H., & Scott, D. E.
(1996). AIDS prevention in high-risk African American women: Behavioral,
psychological, and gender issues. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 22, 9-21.
Hillier, L., Harrison, L., & Ware, D. (1998). When you carry condoms, all the
boys think you want it: Negotiating competing discourses about safe sex.
Journal of Adolescence, 21, 15-29.
Jemmott, L., & Jemmott, J. (1992). Increasing condom-use intentions among
sexually active Black adolescent women. Nursing Research, 41, 273-279.
Kaplan, K. J. (1972). On the ambivalence–indifference problem in attitude theory
and measurement: A suggested modification of the semantic differential technique. Psychological Bulletin, 77, 361-372.
Katz, I. (1981). Stigma: A social psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: McGrawHill.
Lewis, J. E., Malow, R. B., & Ireland, S. J. (1997). HIV/AIDS risk in heterosexual college students: A review of a decade of literature. Journal of American
College Health, 45, 147-158.
Loxley, W. (1996). Sluts or sleazy little animals? Young people’s difficulties with
carrying and using condoms. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 6, 293-298.
Lupton, D. (1994). The condom in the age of AIDS: Newly respectable or
still dirty word? A discourse analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 4, 304-320.
McNair, L. D., Carter, J. A., & Williams, M. K. (1998). Self-esteem, gender, and
alcohol use: Relationships with HIV risk perception and behaviors in college
students. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 24, 29-36.
Miller, R. (1996). Embarrassment. New York, NY: Guilford.
Minoia, J., & Rose, M. A. (1996). Attitudes toward condom use among female
college students. Journal of the New York State Nurses’ Association, 27, 4-7.
Moore, D. L. (1973). Ambivalence in attitude measurement. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 33, 481-483.
886
DAHL ET AL.
Moore, D. L. (1980). Validation of the Attitude Toward Any Practice scale
through the use of ambivalence as a moderator variable. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 40, 205-208.
Murphy, J. J., & Boggess, S. (1998). Increased condom use among teenage
males, 1988-1995: The role of attitudes. Family Planning Perspectives, 30,
276-280, 303.
Nguyen, M. N., Saucier, J. F., & Pica, L. (1996). Factors influencing the intention
to use condoms in Quebec sexually inactive male adolescents. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 18, 48-53.
Niedenthal, P. M., Rohmann, A., & Dalle, N. (2003). What is primed by emotion
concepts and emotion words? In J. Musch & K. C. Klauer (Eds.), The
psychology of evaluation: Affective processes in cognition and emotion
(pp. 307-333). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Priester, J. R., & Petty, R. E. (2001). Extending the bases of subjective attitudinal
ambivalence: Interpersonal and intrapersonal antecedents of evaluative tension. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 19-34.
Raghubir, P., & Menon, G. (1996). Asking sensitive questions: The effects of type
of referent and frequency wording in counterbiasing methods. Psychology
and Marketing, 13, 633-652.
Raghubir, P., & Menon, G. (1998). AIDS and me, never the twain shall meet: The
effects of information accessibility on judgments of risk and advertising
effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 52-63.
Richardson, H. R. L., Beazley, R. P., Delaney, M. E., & Langille, D. B. (1997).
Factors influencing condom use among students attending high school in
Nova Scotia. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 6, 185-196.
Rosenberg, M. J., & Hovland, C. I. (1960). Cognitive, affective, and behavioral
components of attitudes. In C. I. Hovland & M. J. Rosenberg (Eds.), Attitude
organization and change: An analysis of consistency among attitude components (pp. 1-14). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Sable, M. R., & Libbus, M. K. (1998). Beliefs concerning contraceptive acquisition and use among low-income women. Journal of Health Care for the Poor
and Underserved, 9, 262-275.
Sacco, W. P., Rickman, R. L., Thompson, K., Levine, B., & Reed, D. L. (1993).
Gender differences in AIDS-relevant condom attitudes and condom use.
AIDS Education and Prevention, 5, 311-326.
Sanderson, C. A., & Jemmott, J. B. (1996). Moderation and mediation of HIVprevention interventions: Relationship status, intentions, and condom use
among college students. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26,
2076-2099.
Schuster, M. A., Bell, R. M., Berry, S. H., & Kanouse, D. E. (1998). Impact of a
high school condom availability program on sexual attitudes and behaviors.
Family Planning Perspectives, 30, 67-72, 88.
PROMISCUOUS OR CONFIDENT?
887
Seal, D. W., & Palmer-Seal, D. A. (1996). Barriers to condom use and safer sex
talk among college dating couples. Journal of Community and Applied Social
Psychology, 6, 15-33.
Sheeran, P., Abraham, C., & Orbell, S. (1999). Psychosocial correlates of heterosexual condom use: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 90-132.
Sherman, D. A., Nelson, L. D., & Steele, C. M. (2000). Do messages about health
risks threaten the self? Increasing the acceptance of threatening health messages via self-affirmation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26,
1046-1058.
Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity
of the self. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 261-302). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Thompson, M. M., Zanna, M. P., & Griffin, D. W. (1995). Let’s not be indifferent
about (attitudinal) ambivalence. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 361-386). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Thompson, S. C., Anderson, K., Freedman, D., & Swan, J. (1996). Illusions of
safety in a risky world: A study of college students’ condom use. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 26, 189-210.
Valdiserri, R. O. (1988). Cum hastis sic clypeatis: The turbulent history of the
condom. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 64, 237-245.
Webster, F. E., Jr., & Von Pechmann, F. (1970). A replication of the shopping list
study. Journal of Marketing, 34, 61-63.
Wilson, T. E., Jaccard, J., Endias, R., & Minkoff, H. (1993). Reducing the risk of
HIV infection for women: An attitudinal analysis of condom-carrying behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1093-1110.
Wulfert, E., & Wan, C. K. (1993). Condom use: A self-efficacy model. Health
Psychology, 12, 346-353.