Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Structural Equation Modeling Test of an Integrated Model of Spanish Youth’s Condom Use

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
AIDS and Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Heterosexual transmission represents 26 % of newly diagnosed infection in Spanish youth. Behavioral change models have emphasized the influence of multiple variables to predict condom use behavior. The aim of this study is to examine how those variables are organized and which theory explains the condom use behavior better. A sample of 424 young heterosexuals (M age  = 20.62; SD = 2.16) filled out a battery of self-report questionnaires for assessing AIDS-related variables, personality traits and clinical variables (general, sexuality-related and health-related). A structural model was specified that included perceived pleasure and condom use self-efficacy as predictive variables. Depression and sexual compulsivity indirectly influence behavior. The final model accounted for 65.9 % of the variance in behavior. These results highlight the importance of cognitive and emotional variables as predictors of behavior (ex. expectations of pleasure and self-efficacy beliefs). This is important information for designing effective psychological interventions.

Resumen

La transmisión heterosexual representa el 26 % de los nuevos diagnósticos de VIH en los jóvenes españoles. Los modelos de cambio de comportamiento han enfatizado la influencia de múltiples variables para predecir el uso del preservativo. El objetivo del presente estudio es examinar cómo se organizan estas variables y qué teoría explica mejor esta conducta. Una muestra de 424 jóvenes heterosexuales (x edad  = 20.62; SD = 2.16) completó una batería de cuestionarios sobre Sida, rasgos de personalidad y variables clínicas (generales, sexuales y de salud). Los resultados obtenidos utilizando modelos de ecuaciones estructurales apoyan una relación directa entre uso del preservativo y autoeficacia y placer percibido. Las variables depresión y compulsividad sexual influyen indirectamente sobre la conducta. El modelo explica el 65.9 % de la varianza. Estos resultados destacan la importancia de las variables cognitivas y emocionales como predictoras del comportamiento. Esta información es importante para el diseño de intervenciones psicológicas eficaces.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad. Plan Nacional sobre el Sida. Vigilancia Epidemiológica del VIH y sida en España. Madrid: Dirección General de Salud Pública, Calidad e Innovación. http://www.msssi.gob.es/ciudadanos/enfLesiones/enfTransmisibles/sida/vigilancia/InformeVIH_SIDA_2015.pdf. Accessed Jan 2016.

  2. Ballester R, Gil MD, Giménez C, Ruiz E. Actitudes y conductas sexuales de riesgo para la infección por VIH/Sida en jóvenes españoles. Revista de Psicopatología y Psicología Clínica. 2009;14(3):181–91.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Espada JP, Escribano S, Orgilés M, Morales A, Guillén-Riquelme A. Sexual risk behaviors increasing among adolescents over time: comparison of two cohorts in Spain. AIDS Care. 2015;27(6):783–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lameiras M, Faílde JM, Bimbela JL, Alfaro N. Male condom usage in vaginal intercourse relations by spanish youngsters aged fourteenth to twenty fourth. Diversitas. 2008;4(2):401–15.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Prat J, Planes M, Gras ME, Sullman MJ. Stages of change and decisional balance for condom use with a romantic partner. J Health Psychol. 2012;17(8):1193–202.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rosenstock IM. The health belief model and preventive health behavior. Health Educ Monogr. 1966;2(4):354–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis. 1991;50:179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Reading: Addison-Wesley; 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bandura A. Social learning theory. Nueva York: General Learning Press; 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  10. DiClemente C, Prochaska J. Toward a comprehensive, transtheoretical model of change. In: Miller W, Heather N, editors. Treating addictive behaviours. New York: Plenum Press; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Zak-Place J, Stern M. Health belief factors and dispositional optimism as predictors of STD and HIV preventive behavior. J Am Coll Health. 2004;52(5):229–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Getachew G, Negussie D, Gezaheng T. Intention to use condom among students in Agena preparatory school, Guraghe Zone Ethiopia: with the application of health believe model. Arch Public Health. 2013;71(23):3–9.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Adekeye OA, Adeusi SO. Attribution patterns, attitude and knowledge of HIV/AIDS on sexual behavioural change among students of covenant university Ota, Nigeria. IFE PsychologIA: Int J. 2011;19(1):255–69.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Mashegoane S, Moalusi KP, Peltzer K, Ngoepe MA. The prediction of condom use intention among South African university students. Psychol Rep. 2004;95(2):407–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Montanaro EA, Bryan AD. Comparing theory-based condom interventions: health belief model versus theory of planned behavior. Health Psychol. 2014;33(10):1251–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Protogerou C, Flisher AJ, Wild LG, Aaro LE. Predictors of condom use in South African university students: a prospective application of the theory of planned behavior. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2013;43(S1):E23–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Tyson M, Covey J, Rosenthal HES. Theory of planned behavior interventions for reducing heterosexual risk behaviors: a meta-analysis. Health Psychol. 2014;33(12):1454–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Fazekas A, Senn ChY, Ledgerwood DM. Predictors of intention to use condoms among university women: an application and extension of the theory of planned behavior. Can J Behav Sci. 2001;33(2):103–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fekadu Z, Kraft P. Predicting intended contraception in a sample of Ethiopian female adolescents: the validity of the theory of planned behaviour. J Psychol Health. 2000;16(2):207–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Albarracín D, Johnson BT, Fishbein M, Muellerleile PA. Theories of reasoned action and planned behavior as models of condom use: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull. 2001;127(1):142–61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Hubach RD, Dodge B, Goncalves G, Malebranche D, Reece M, Van Der Pol B, et al. Gender matters: condom use and nonuse among behaviorally bisexual men. Arch Sex Behav. 2014;43(4):707–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Eggers SM, Aarø LE, Bos AE, Mathews C, de Vries H. Predicting condom use in South Africa: a test of two integrative models. AIDS Behav. 2014;14(1):135–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Senn ET, Scott-Sheldon LA, Carey PM. Relationship-specific condom attitudes predict condom use among STD clinic patients with both primary and non-primary partners. AIDS Behav. 2014;18(8):1420–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Ferrer RA, Fisher JD, Buck R, Amico KR. Pilot test of an emotional education intervention component for sexual risk reduction. Health Psychol. 2011;30(5):656–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Gurdin JB, Niego S, Park MJ, Mince J. Safer sex efficacy workshop: an adolescent STI/HIV/AIDS prevention program for college students. In: Card JJ, Benner TA, editors. Model programs for adolescent sexual health: evidence-based HIV, STI and pregnancy prevention interventions. Nueva York: Springer; 2008. p. 273–80.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Dilorio C, Dudley WN, Soet J, Watkins J, Maibach E. A social cognitive-based model for condom use among college students. Nurs Res. 2000;49(4):208–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ballester R, Gil MD, Ruiz E, Giménez C. Autoeficacia en la prevención sexual del Sida: la influencia del género. Anales de Psicología. 2013;29(1):76–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Heeren GA, Jemmott JB III, Ngwane Z, Mandeya A, Tyler JC. A randomized controlled pilot study of an HIV risk-reduction intervention for sub-Saharan African university students. AIDS Behav. 2013;17(3):1105–15.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Tung WC, Cook DM, Lu M. Sexual behavior, stages of condom use, and self-efficacy among college students in Taiwan. AIDS Care. 2011;23(1):113–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Ballester-Arnal R, Gil-Llario MD, Giménez-García C, Kalichman SC. What works well in HIV prevention among spanish young people? an analysis of differential effectiveness among six intervention techniques. AIDS Behav. 2014;19(7):1157–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ballester-Arnal R, Ruiz-Palomino E, Gil-Llario MD. HIV testing among Spanish youth: analysis of the mediating role of the big five personality and other psychological factors. AIDS Behav. 2015;19(11):2001–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Ruiz-Palomino E, Ballester-Arnal E, Gil-Llario MD. Personality as a mediating variable in condom use among Spanish youth. J Health Psychol. 2015;. doi:10.1177/1359105315605656.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. George WH, Davis KC, Masters NT, Kajumulo KF, Stappenbeck CA, Norris J, et al. Partner pressure, victimization history, and alcohol: women’s condom-decision abdication mediated by mood and anticipated negative partner reaction. AIDS Behav. 2016;20(Suppl. 1):134–46.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Xiao Z, Palmgreen P, Zimmerman R, Noar S. Adapting and applying a multiple domain model of condom use to Chinese college students. AIDS Care. 2010;22(3):332–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Harvey SM, Beckman LJ, Gerend MA, Bird ST, Posner S, Huszti HC, Galavotti C. A conceptual model of women’s condom use intentions: integrating. AIDS Care. 2006;18(7):698–709.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Carvalho T, Alvarez MJ, Barz M, Schwarzer R. Preparatory behavior for condom use among heterosexual young men: a longitudinal mediation model. Health Educ Behav. 2015;42(1):92–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Hogben M, Liddon N, Pierce A, Sawyer M, Papp JR, Black CM, Koumans EH. Incorporating adolescent females’ perceptions of their partners’ attitudes toward condoms into a model of female adolescent condom use. Psychol Health Med. 2006;11(4):449–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. VanderDrift LE, Agnew CR, Harvey SM, Warren JT. Whose intentions predict? power over condom use within heterosexual dyads. Health Psychol. 2013;32(10):1038–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Tara K, MacDonald TK, McKenna C, Mouck LC. The person and the partner: individual differences moderate the relationship between partner feedback and condom use. AIDS Behav. 2016;20(Suppl. 1):185–96.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Ballester R, Gil MD, Giménez C. El Cuestionario de Prevención del Sida (CPS): Análisis de la fiabilidad y validez. In Sida, un nuevo escenario: Proceedings of the X Congreso Nacional sobre el Sida de la Sociedad Española Interdisciplinaria de Sida. San Sebastián; Seisida; 2007. p. 135.

  41. Costa PT Jr, McCrae RR. The NEO personality inventory manual. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources; 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Cordero A, Pamos A, Seisdedos N. NEO PI-R Manual. Adaptación Española. 3rd ed. Madrid: TEA Ediciones; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Martín-Albo J, Núñez JL, Navarro JG, Grijalvo F. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: translation and validation in university students. Span J Psychol. 2007;10(2):458–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Beck AT, Steer RA, Brown GK. Manual for the Beck Depression Inventory-II. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Sanz J, Navarro ME, Vázquez C. Adaptación española del Inventario para la Depresión de Beck II (BDI-II): propiedades psicométricas en estudiantes universitarios. Análisis y Modificación de Conducta. 2003;29(124):239–88.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Leary MR. A brief version of the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale. Pers Soc Psychol B. 1983;9:371–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Castañeiras Gebrikian CE. Avances en Psicopatologia y Clínica de la Hipocondría [Doctoral dissertation unpublished]. Valencia, Universidad de Valencia; 2001.

  48. Meyer TJ, Miller ML, Metzger RL, Borkovec TD. Development and validation of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire. Behav Res Ther. 1990;28(6):487–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Gallego MJ, Botella C, Quero S, Baños RM, García-Palacios A. Propiedades psicométricas de la Escala de Miedo a la Evaluación Negativa versión breve (BFNE) en muestra clínica. Revista de Psicopatología y Psicología Clínica. 2007;12(3):163–76.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Kalichman SC, Rompa D. Sexual sensation seeking and sexual compulsivity: reliability, validity and predicting HIV risk behavior. J Pers Assess. 1995;65(3):586–601.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Ballester R, Gil MD, Ruiz E, Giménez C, Gómez S. El cuestionario de Búsqueda de sensaciones sexuales: adaptación y validación en una muestra española. Poster session presented at VI Congreso Nacional de la Asociación Española de Psicología Clínica y Psicopatología. Huelva, Spain; 2008.

  52. Ballester R, Gómez S, Gil MD, Salmerón P. Sexual Compulsivity Scale (SCS): adaptation and validation in Spanish population. J Sex Marital Ther. 2013;39(6):526–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Wallston KA, Wallston BS, DeVellis R. Development of the multidimensional health locus of control (MHLC) scales. Health Educ Monogr. 1978;6(2):160–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Lemos S, Fidalgo AM, Calvo P, Menéndez P. Salud mental de los adolescentes asturianos. Psicothema. 1992;4(1):21–48.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC. Multivariate data analysis. 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Bollen KA, Long JS. Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park: Sage; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Bowen NK, Guo S. Structural equation modeling. New York: Oxford University Press; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Crepaz N, Marks G. Are negative affective states associated with HIV sexual risk behaviors? a meta-analytic review. Health Psychol. 2001;20(4):291–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Alvy LM, McKirnan DJ, Mansergh G, Koblin B, Colfax GN, Flores SA, et al. Depression is associated with sexual risk among men who have sex with men, but is mediated by cognitive escape and self-efficacy. AIDS Behav. 2011;15(6):1171–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Chico E. Búsqueda de sensaciones. Psicothema. 2000;12(2):229–35.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Cooper ML, Wood PK, Orcutt HK, Albino AW. Personality and predisposition to engage in risky or problem behaviors during adolescence. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003;84(2):390–410.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Carnes PJ. Cybersex, courtship, and escalating arousal: factors in addictive sexual desire. Sex Addict Compuls. 2001;8(1):45–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Ingledew DK, Fergunson E. Personality and riskier sexual behaviour: motivacional mediators. Psychol Health. 2007;22(3):291–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Longman-Mills S, Carpenter K. Interpersonal competence and sex risk behaviours among Jamaican adolescents. West Indian Med J. 2013;62(5):423–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Miller JD, Lynam D, Zimmerman RS, Logan TK, Leukefeld C, Clayton R. The utility of the five factor model in understanding risky sexual behavior. Pers Indiv Differ. 2004;36(7):1611–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Lazarus RS, Folkman S. Estrés y procesos cognitivos. Barcelona: Martínez Roca; 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Nesoff ED, Dunkle K, Lang D. The impact of condom use negotiation self-efficacy and partnership patterns on consistent condom use among college-educated women. Health Educ Behav. 2015;. doi:10.1177/1090198115596168.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Caprara GV, Steca P, Cervone D, Artistico D. The contribution of self-efficacy beliefs to dispositional shyness: on social-cognitive systems and the development of personality dispositions. J Pers. 2003;71:943–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. French SE, Holland KJ. Condom negotiation strategies as a mediator of the relationship between self-efficacy and condom use. J Sex Res. 2013;50(1):48–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Abramson PR, Pinkerton SD. With pleasure: thoughts on the nature of human sexuality. Nueva York: Oxford University Press; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Higgins JA, Fenell JL. Providing for women’s pleasure in the next generation of condoms. J Sex Med. 2013;10(12):3151–3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Higgins JA, Wang Y. The role of young adults’ pleasure attitudes in shaping condom use. Am J Public Health. 2015;105(7):1329–32.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Khan SI, Hudson-Rodd N, Saggers S, Bhuiyan MI, Bhuiya A. Safer sex or pleasurable sex? rethinking condom use in the AIDS era. Sex Health. 2004;1(4):217–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Norton TR, Bogart LM, Cecil H, Pinkerton SD. Primacy of affect over cognition in determining men’s condom use behavior: a review. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2005;35(12):2493–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Pinkerton SD, Cecil H, Bogart LM, Abramson PR. The pleasures of sex: an empirical investigation. Cogn Emot. 2003;17(2):341–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Gutnik LA, Yoskowitz NA, Hakimzada AF, Patel VL. Role of emotion in decision making: a neuroeconomic approach towards understanding sexual risk behavior. J Biomed Inform. 2006;39(6):720–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Scott-Sheldon LAJ, Carey KB, Cunningham K, Johnson BT, Carey MP, The MASH Reserch Team. Alcohol use predicts sexual decision-making: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the experimental literature. AIDS Behav. 2016;20(Suppl. 1):19–39.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Prat F, Planes M, Gras ME, Sullman MJM. Perceived pros and cons of condom use as predictors of its consistent use with a heterosexual romantic partner among young adults. Curr Psychol. 2016;35:13–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Dariotis JK, Johnson MW. Sexual discounting among high-risk youth ages 18–24: implications for sexual and substance use risk behaviors. Exp Clin Psychopharm. 2015;23(1):49–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Universidad Jaume I-Fundación Bancaixa (P1 1B2006-19) and by the Spanish Foundation for AIDS Research and Prevention known as Fundación para la Investigación y la Prevención del Sida en España (exp. 36639/07), the principal investigator of which is Rafael Ballester Arnal.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Clinical and Basic Psychology and Psychobiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Jaume I University, Avda. Vicent Sos Baynat s/n, 12071, Castellón de la Plana, Spain

    Rafael Ballester-Arnal & Estefanía Ruiz-Palomino

  2. Department of Evolutionary and Educational Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Valencia, Av. Blasco Ibáñez, 21, 46010, Valencia, Spain

    María Dolores Gil-Llario

Authors
  1. Rafael Ballester-Arnal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Estefanía Ruiz-Palomino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. María Dolores Gil-Llario
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rafael Ballester-Arnal.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ballester-Arnal, R., Ruiz-Palomino, E. & Gil-Llario, M.D. Structural Equation Modeling Test of an Integrated Model of Spanish Youth’s Condom Use. AIDS Behav 21, 1407–1416 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-016-1430-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-016-1430-x

Keywords

Palabras clave

Search

Navigation