Personality and Sexual Risk Taking:
A Quantitative Review
Rick H. Hoyle
Michele C. Fejfar
Joshua D. Miller
University of Kentucky
ABSTRACT Findings from a quantitative review of the empirical research
literature on normal personality and sexual risk taking are reported. The review
focuses on domains identified in major models of normal personality representing the psychobiological and taxonomic perspectives. Focal sexual risk-taking behaviors were number of partners, unprotected sex, and high-risk sexual
encounters (e.g., sex with a stranger). A comprehensive search produced 53
studies relevant to the review. A striking feature of the results is the paucity of
research on domains of normal personality and sexual risk taking for all domains
other than sensation seeking, which accounted for 64% of the effect sizes. The
preponderance of studies (81%) took the psychobiological perspective and were
published since 1990 (75%). Among the substantive findings were effects for
sensation seeking, impulsivity, and agreeableness on all sexual risk-taking
behaviors considered. Additionally, there were effects on specific behaviors for
neuroticism and conscientiousness. The implications of these findings for future
research on normal personality and sexual risk taking are discussed.
During the writing of this article, Rick Hoyle was supported, in part, by grants from the
National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA-05312 and DA-09569) and the Center for
Substance Abuse Prevention (SP-07967). Joshua Miller was supported by a fellowship
from the Commonwealth of Kentucky Research Challenge Trust Fund.
Correspondence concerning this manuscript should be addressed to Rick H. Hoyle,
Department of Psychology, 106-C Kastle Hall, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
40506-0044. Electronic mail correspondence should be sent to rhoyle@pop.uky.edu.
Journal of Personality 68:6, December 2000.
Copyright © 2000 by Blackwell Publishers, 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148,
USA, and 108 Cowley Road, Oxford, OX4 1JF, UK.
1204
Hoyle et al.
The impact of risky sexual behavior is staggering. More than 12 million
cases of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) are reported every year in
the United States (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1997b),
making STD the most common reportable disease in the United States
(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1998c). As of June 1998,
more than 350,000 U.S. citizens were living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection or the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1998a); most
were infected through sexual transmission (Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, 1996; Kalichman, Greenberg, & Abel, 1997). And it is
estimated that 48% of all pregnancies in the United States, more than
three million per year, are unintended (Henshaw, 1998). At the personal
level, these sex-related outcomes have life-altering health and economic
consequences. At the societal level, they are a significant burden on the
nation’s health care system, with HIV patients alone requiring more than
two million days of care per year (National Center for Health Statistics,
1996).
In the years since the outbreak of AIDS in the late 1970s, the volume
of behavioral research on sexual risk taking has increased dramatically.
A major focus of this research literature is the explanation of behaviors
that contribute to the spread of HIV; however, the kind of sexual activity
that can lead to HIV infection can also result in the contraction of other
STDs and unintended pregnancy. A key concern of behavioral researchers is pinpointing the factors that underlie sexual behaviors that
have a relatively high probability of resulting in such aversive and costly
outcomes. Motivated by this concern, the purpose of this article is to
document the contribution of empirical research inspired by major theories of normal personality to the understanding of sexual behaviors that
can result in HIV infection, the acquisition of other STDs, and unintended
pregnancy. After a brief overview of sexual risk-taking behavior, we
develop predictions regarding sexual risk taking from several prominent
models of normal personality. We then report the results of a meta-analysis of research on the association between higher-order dimensions of
normal personality and sexual risk taking. We conclude with a discussion
of the implications of the findings for models of sexual risk taking and
interventions designed to discourage such behavior.
Personality and Sexual Risk Taking
1205
Sexual Risk-Taking Behavior
The most significant risks with which sexually active people must
contend are HIV infection, acquisition of an STD (e.g., gonorrhea,
chlamydia, syphilis), and unintended pregnancy. The correct and consistent use of condoms is a highly effective means of reducing the risk of
sexual transmission of HIV and other STDs as well as unintended
pregnancy. Limiting sexual activity to a single, uninfected partner is
another highly effective means of managing the risks associated with
sexual activity. Despite the efficacy of these widely publicized risk-reduction strategies, many sexually active people do not routinely take
measures to lower the risk of infection and unintended pregnancy.
Unprotected Sex
Failure to correctly and consistently use condoms during sexual intercourse places sexually active people at substantial risk of infection or
pregnancy. Although the vast majority of sexually active people are aware
of the preventive efficacy of condoms, most do not use them on a
consistent basis (Hays, Kegeles, & Coates, 1990; Hingson, Strunin,
Berlin, & Heeren, 1990; Thurman & Franklin, 1990). For instance,
Thurman and Franklin (1990) found that, although 97% of the college
students they surveyed knew that condom use was an effective means of
avoiding HIV infection and STDs, only about 40% translated this knowledge into action. A study of HIV-seropositive men and women found that
two-thirds had been sexually active and 40% had engaged in unprotected
sex during the 2 weeks immediately following notification that they were
HIV infected (Cleary et al., 1991). Interventions that increase knowledge
about AIDS and favorability of attitudes toward AIDS-preventive behavior typically do not produce commensurate increases in safer-sex behaviors such as condom use (Fisher & Misovich, 1990). Unprotected sex
remains a prevalent risk behavior among sexually active people.
Multiple Partners
Along with abstinence and conscientious condom use, monogamy is a
highly recommended and efficacious strategy for reducing sexual transmission of HIV and other STDs. Yet, the sexual activity of many people
extends to multiple partners and relationships within which the level of
1206
Hoyle et al.
commitment and sexual fidelity is low (Temple, Leigh, & Schafer, 1993).
For instance, Arnett (1998) found that 25% of a sample of unmarried,
sexually active people in their 20s had sex with two or more partners
during the past year; 5% of the sample had sex with five or more partners
during the same period. In a more heterogeneous sample, college students
and community members reported between one and three sexual partners
during the previous year, but students reported the desire for four partners
and community members the desire for eight partners in the next year
(Seto, Lalumière, & Quinsey, 1995). Despite warnings against sexual
activity outside a mutually monogamous relationship (e.g., Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, 1997a), a subset of sexually active
people seek out multiple partners.
High-Risk Encounters
In addition to unprotected sex and sex with multiple partners outside a
committed relationship, certain situational factors increase the likelihood
that HIV infection, an STD, or an unintended pregnancy will result from
a sexual encounter. In a survey of a probability sample of U.S. men and
women, 13% of the men and 8% of the women reported drinking during
their most recent sexual experience (Temple et al., 1993). Those percentages climb to 20% and 25%, respectively, for their most recent sexual
experience with a new partner. The use of alcohol and other substances
prior to a sexual encounter significantly impairs perceptions of risk
(Norris, Nurius, & Dimeff, 1996), even contributing to positive expectations regarding the outcomes of risky sexual behavior (Fromme, Katz, &
D’Amico, 1997). Thus, the likelihood of unprotected sex or other risky
behavior in a sexual encounter is elevated by the consumption of alcohol.
Other situational factors that pose a risk of infection or pregnancy
concern characteristics of the partners in a sexual encounter. Sex between
strangers or individuals not in a committed relationship, or casual sex,
poses a variety of risks, including HIV and STD infection as well as
interpersonal violence. The risks associated with casual sex often are
exacerbated by the use of alcohol. Temple et al. (1993) found that 70%
of sexual experiences with a new partner outside a committed relationship were accompanied by alcohol use; such experiences in a committed
relationship were accompanied by alcohol use only 30% of the time. Men
who have sex with men and women who have sex with women also are
at increased risk for HIV infection (Centers for Disease Control and
Personality and Sexual Risk Taking
1207
Prevention, 1998b; Chu, Hammett, & Buehler, 1992). In each type of
sexual encounter, the increased risk primarily stems from the reduced
likelihood of condom use.
As detailed in the next section, there is reason to believe that different
aspects of personality underlie different risky sexual behaviors. Thus, in
our meta-analysis of the research on personality and sexual risk taking,
we consider separately the three categories of high-risk sexual behavior
we have identified: multiple sexual partners, unprotected sex, and sexual
encounters in situations that favor infection or unintended pregnancy.
Personality Perspectives on Sexual Risk Taking
Although the five-factor model is enjoying growing acceptance by personality researchers (Costa & McCrae, 1995; Goldberg, 1993; John,
1990), most research on personality and sexual risk taking either predates
the dominance of the five-factor model or eschews that model for one of
several competing models. Rather than endorsing a single model of
personality, we consider the role of personality from the perspective of
a number of major models. We restrict our focus to higher-level factors,
or domains, as assessed by instruments designed in accord with the
conceptualization of the model by its originator. For the purpose of
reviewing and generating hypotheses from the models, we organize them
according to their foundational assumption: biological underpinnings or
empirically derived taxonomy.1
Psychobiological Perspectives
At the domain level, Eysenck’s psychoticism-extraversion-neuroticism
(PEN) model of personality (e.g., Eysenck, 1990; Eysenck & Eysenck,
1985) posits three biologically based superfactors. Psychoticism concerns the likelihood of a psychotic episode and, to a lesser extent,
aggression; it is associated with level of testosterone. Extraversion is
1. We originally included the interpersonal circumplex model (Wiggins, 1979) in this
section; however, we were unable to find any empirical work on the circumplex model
of personality and sexual risk taking. As such, we do not include that model in our review.
At the conceptual level, predictions for power/dominance would correspond to those for
extraversion and love/warmth to those for agreeableness in the five-factor model.
1208
Hoyle et al.
based on cortical arousal, with chronic over- and underarousal corresponding to introversion and extraversion, respectively. Finally, neuroticism is believed to be a function of thresholds of activation of the
sympathetic nervous system, emotionally unstable people evincing a
relatively low threshold of activation.
In 1976, Eysenck published Sex and Personality, in which he attempted to use the PEN model to explain variability in sexual behaviors
such as frequency of intercourse, preference for different partners, and
anxiety regarding sexual relations. Although Eysenck’s analysis did not
focus specifically on sexual risk taking, it is not difficult to develop
hypotheses from the PEN model regarding such behaviors based on his
analysis. Eysenck predicted that people high on psychoticism would be
more inclined to participate in socially disapproved sex acts. His survey
studies revealed greater promiscuity among respondents high in psychoticism. Thus, we predict a positive association between psychoticism
and number of partners as well as high-risk sexual encounters; the PEN
model does not suggest a definitive prediction regarding psychoticism
and condom use. Eysenck posited that extraverts would be promiscuous,
playful, and interested in variety, predictions that generally were supported by his data. We expect a positive association between extraversion
and all high-risk sexual behaviors discussed earlier. In theory, neuroticism should be associated with fear and anxiety regarding sexual contact
and, therefore, relatively low sexual involvement. This leads to the
prediction that neuroticism, if associated with sexual risk taking at all,
would be negatively correlated with number of partners and high-risk
sexual encounters. The prediction regarding condom use is not clear from
Eysenck’s analysis, but the expected lack of experience and disgust
regarding certain aspects of sexual relations leads to the prediction that
the higher a person is in neuroticism the more likely he or she is to engage
in unprotected sex. There is reason to believe that any effect sizes
involving PEN domains will be small; in two large-scale survey studies,
Eysenck (1976) found correlations between the PEN domains and sexual
behavior to be very low.
Another biological perspective is the alternative five-factor model
(Zuckerman, Kuhlman, Joireman, Teta, & Kraft, 1993), which emerged
from factor analyses of personality measures used in psychobiological
research (Zuckerman, Kuhlman, & Camac 1988). In the alternative
five-factor model, neuroticism-anxiety corresponds to neuroticism and
sociability corresponds to extraversion in the PEN model. Aggression-
Personality and Sexual Risk Taking
1209
hostility concerns the tendency toward negative interpersonal behavior.
Activity captures the need for a busy life that requires hard work and poses
challenges. Finally, impulsive sensation seeking involves experience
seeking without thinking.
Although impulsive sensation seeking departs somewhat from the
traditional notion of sensation seeking (Arnett, 1994; Zuckerman, 1979),
predictions regarding its association with sexual risk taking should be the
same. Pinkerton and Abramson (1992, 1995), in their decision-making
model of risky sex, view risk-related dimensions of personality such as
sensation seeking as a significant influence on the decision to enact a
sexual behavior because of their effect on people’s tolerance of risk and
the value they place on sexual activities that place them at risk (e.g.,
multiple partners, casual sex). Because high sensation seekers have a high
tolerance for risk and place a high value on high-risk activities, sensation
seeking should be positively correlated with all forms of sexual risk
taking. Regarding the remaining domains in the alternative five-factor
model, the predictions for neuroticism-anxiety and sociability would
correspond to those for neuroticism and extraversion from the PEN
model. There is, at present, no sound basis for venturing a prediction
regarding the role of activity and aggression-hostility in sexual risk
taking.
A relatively new psychobiological perspective is Cloninger’s neuropsychopharmacological model of personality (Cloninger, Svrakic, &
Przybeck, 1993). According to the model, the three fundamental traits of
novelty seeking, harm avoidance, and reward dependence are related to
levels of dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine, respectively. Conceptually, novelty seeking is highly similar to sensation seeking and, therefore, would be expected to correlate positively with sexual risk taking.
Harm avoidance evinces the emotional instability characteristic of
neuroticism in the PEN model, leading to the prediction of weak but
negative correlations with most forms of sexual risk taking. The link
between reward dependence, which concerns behavioral maintenance as
a function of responses to reward and punishment regarding those
behaviors, and sexual risk taking is not clear, although features of reward
dependence such as attention to details and careful decision making
would suggest a negative relationship with sexual risk taking, particularly
unprotected sex. There is reason to believe that these three dimensions
work interactively to influence risky behavior (e.g., Wills, Vaccaro, &
1210
Hoyle et al.
McNamara, 1994); however, there have not been empirical tests of this
hypothesis in the realm of sexual risk taking.
A biologically based dimension of personality not represented in pure
form at the domain level in any of the major models of personality is
impulsivity, which refers to the tendency to act without attending to the
consequences of one’s actions. Although impulsivity is coupled with
sensation seeking in the alternative five-factor model and encompassed
by psychoticism and extraversion in the PEN model, it has received
sufficient attention in research on sexual risk taking to warrant consideration in pure form in our meta-analysis. We would expect impulsivity
to be positively associated with all forms of sexual risk taking.
Taxonomic Perspectives
An alternative means of construing normal personality involves grouping
traits according to higher-order influences that account for their empirical
commonality. Such taxonomic models often emerge from factor analyses
of responses to a large number of trait terms (e.g., Goldberg, 1992a) or
questionnaire items (e.g., Church & Burke, 1994). Because such models
are inherently atheoretical (McAdams, 1992; cf. McCrae & Costa, 1996),
the confident derivation of predictions from such models is not possible.
Yet, because such models include aspects of theory-based models such
as the PEN model, we can in some cases develop predictions based on
the representation of different aspects of theory-based models in domains
of the empirically derived taxonomic models.
Perhaps the most prominent of the taxonomic models is the five-factor
model (Digman, 1990). The five-factor model, like all taxonomic models
of personality, attempts to encompass all aspects of personality. Thus, it
is perhaps not surprising that there is substantial overlap between the
five-factor model and the psychobiological models described earlier.
Indeed, at the conceptual level neuroticism and extraversion are highly
similar to domains in the PEN and alternative five-factor models. Agreeableness is analogous to aggression-hostility in the alternative five-factor
model and aspects of psychoticism in the PEN model. In line with our
reasoning regarding these domains, we do not see a clear-cut prediction
regarding the association between agreeableness and sexual risk taking,
and extant research does not suggest an important role for agreeableness
in sexual behavior (Costa, Fagan, Piedmont, Ponticas, & Wise, 1992).
The domain of conscientiousness reflects the degree to which a person
Personality and Sexual Risk Taking
1211
is well organized, disciplined, and deliberate. We would expect a negative
association between conscientiousness and sexual risking, particularly
unprotected sex, which involves some measure of unpreparedness and
lack of deliberation. Openness to experience, which is unique to the
five-factor model (and varies somewhat across versions of the model),
concerns flexibility, curiosity, and open-mindedness. These latter two
features of openness lead us to predict positive, though perhaps weak,
correlations between openness and risky sexual behaviors such as sex
with strangers and with different partners.
A more parsimonious taxonomic model is Tellegen’s (1985) threefactor model. Facets of constraint include control, harm avoidance, and
traditionalism. The control facet corresponds to conscientiousness from
the five-factor model, leading us to predict that constraint, like conscientiousness, will correlate negatively with sexual risk-taking behavior.
People high on positive emotionality are active and involved in life in
ways that give rise to positive emotions. And negative emotionality in
Tellegen’s model reflects the tendency to experience negative emotions as
well as unpleasant interpersonal relations. Positive and negative emotionality combine aspects of the various models described thus far (Church, 1994),
leaving their theoretical role in risky sexual behavior unclear.
The Present Analysis
The goal of the present study was to evaluate in a comprehensive manner
the status of empirical research on the role of high-level domains of
personality in sexual behaviors that contribute to HIV infection, transmission of STDs, and unintended pregnancies. To accomplish this, we
gathered reports of empirical research relevant to this question, and
organized the findings according to which risky sexual behaviors and
which personality domains they involved. Then, by combining results
across studies, we could evaluate the relative success of each model at
accounting for variability in sexual risk taking.
METHOD
Selection of Studies
We searched two comprehensive databases for articles describing empirical
research on risky sexual behavior and at least one personality domain from the
models described earlier. PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/) is
1212
Hoyle et al.
a public access search service that provides access to MEDLINE and PreMEDLINE. PsycINFO (http://members.apa.org/welcome/) is an online search
service available by subscription to members of the American Psychological
Association. In each case we searched the entire database from the earliest
entries to March of 1999. We crossed each of a series of personality terms with
each of a series of terms for sexual risk taking. Personality terms used in the
search were psychoticism, neuroticism, extraversion, positive emotionality,
negative emotionality, constraint, neuroticism, emotional stability, extraversion, surgency, openness, intellect, agreeableness, conscientiousness, dominance, warmth, novelty seeking, harm avoidance, reward dependence, sensation
seeking, and impulsivity. Terms for sexual risk taking were sexual behavior,
sexual risk taking, HIV, AIDS, STD, unsafe sex, risky sex, unprotected sex,
condom use, abstinence, and unintended pregnancy. These terms yielded 635
citations of potential relevance to our review. Examination of abstracts and,
when necessary, text of the articles reduced this number to 41 citations of
published articles that reported findings from 45 studies relevant to the analysis.2
An electronic mail query to subscribers to the Society for Personality and Social
Psychology Listserv netted eight additional, unpublished studies, bringing the
total to 53 studies from which effect sizes were extracted.
Exclusion Criteria
To be included in the analysis, each study identified by the search had to meet
two criteria. The study had to include a standard measure of at least one
domain-level factor from one of the personality models described earlier.
Excluded were studies that involved ad hoc, abbreviated, or nonstandard measures of personality domains. For instance, a number of studies used only a single
subscale or a small sample of items from the Sensation Seeking Scale. Second,
we included only those effect sizes that reflected the association between
personality and sexual risk-taking behavior. The plethora of studies that focused
on attitudes toward sexual risk taking were not included in the analysis. Also
excluded were studies that focused on sexual behavior that would not pose a
direct risk for disease contraction or pregnancy (e.g., frequency of intercourse
with a single partner, preference for particular positions during intercourse).
2. Of the 587 irrelevant citations, 369 (63%) resulted from inclusion of the term
dominance, which, in our initial search, was included in order to locate studies on sexual
risk taking that used the interpersonal circumplex. As noted earlier, no such studies were
found. Most citations that included the term dominance referred to sexual behavior of
nonhuman species.
Personality and Sexual Risk Taking
1213
Coded Information
In addition to an effect size, the primary information extracted from each article
or manuscript was personality domain and type of sexual risk-taking behavior.
Personality domain was coded as corresponding either to the PEN model
(psychoticism, extraversion, neuroticism), the alternative five-factor model
(neuroticism-anxiety, sociability, aggression-hostility, activity, impulsive sensation seeking), the neuropsychopharmacological model (novelty seeking, harm
avoidance, reward dependence), the five-factor model (neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness), or Tellegen’s model (constraint, positive emotionality, negative emotionality). Sexual risk taking was
categorized either as sex with multiple partners, unprotected sex, or other
high-risk sexual encounters. The latter included such behaviors as sex with a
stranger and sexual activity accompanied by drug or alcohol use.
Initially, studies were coded for a number of characteristics that might serve
to moderate the effects of interest. These include personality measure used, year
of publication, percentage females in the sample, type of design—cross-sectional or longitudinal, and population—college student, high-risk (e.g., men who
have sex with men), or noncollege/typical risk. With the exception of sensation
seeking, there were not enough effect sizes to permit moderator analyses. Thus,
these characteristics served primarily as a basis for describing the literature from
which effect sizes were drawn.
Effect Size Calculation
Pearson r was chosen as the index of effect size. Virtually all studies were
correlational in nature and, therefore, required none of the typical translation of
test statistics and p-values to rs. For each personality domain and category of
sexual risk taking, Fisher z-transformed rs were combined to obtain a mean
effect size. Means were transformed back to rs for presentation.
RESULTS
Table 1 includes a complete listing of studies that contributed effect sizes
to the analysis. From each study, we extracted an effect size for each
pairing of a personality domain and a sexual risk-taking behavior. For
studies that included more than one sexual risk-taking behavior, we
also computed a mean effect size for each personality domain across
behaviors.
Examination of the descriptive characteristics of the studies provides
an informative view of the state of the literature on personality and sexual
Table 1
Characteristics of Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis
Study
Arnett (1990)
Arnett (1991)
Arnett (1996)
Sample 1
Sample 2
Arnett (1998)
Ball & Schottenfeld (1997)
Barnes et al. (1984)
Beard et al. (1974)
Benotsch et al. (1998)
Black et al. (1997)
Study 1
Study 2
Bogaert & Fisher (1995)
Breakwell (1996)
Caspi et al. (1995)
Clift et al. (1993)
Cohen & Fromme (1999)
Cooper et al. (2000)b
Fergusson & Lynskey (1996)
Fontaine (1994)
N
a
Model
Domain
Outcome(s)
145
64
Zuckerman
Zuckerman
SS
SS
unprot
unprot, hrisk
133
346
140
67
307
308
64
Zuckerman
Zuckerman
Zuckerman
Zuckerman
Eysenck
Eysenck
Five Factor
SS
SS
SS
ISS,N-A,A-H
P,E,N
E,N
E,N,A,C,O
unprot, hrisk
unprot, hrisk
#part, unprot, hrisk
#part, hrisk
hrisk
unprot
#part, unprot, hrisk
Zuckerman
Zuckerman
Zuckerman, Eysenck
SS
SS
SS,P
I
PE,NE,Co
I
ISS
E,N,SS,I
NS
P,N,E
hrisk
hrisk
#part
#part
hrisk
unprot, hrisk
#part, unprot
#part, unprot, hrisk
hrisk
unprot, hrisk
52
217
215
576
842
387
858
1496
953
74
Tellegen
Zuckerman
Eysenck, Zuckerman
Cloninger
Eysenck
Hart (1973)
Hartzler (1998)
Horvath & Zuckerman (1993)
Husted & Edwards (1976)
Kalichman et al. (1997)
Kalichman et al. (1996)
Kalichman et al. (1994)
Kalichman & Rompa (1995)
Sample 1
Sample 2
Kalichman et al. (1997)
Kraft & Rise (1994)
McCown (1991)
McCown (1993)
Miller et al. (2000)
Newcomb & McGee (1991)
Schenk & Pfrang (1986)
Schroth (1996)
Seal & Agostinelli (1994)
Seto et al. (1995)
Sample 1
Sample 2
Sheer & Cline (1994)
Sheer & Cline (1995)
Stein et al. (1994)
Temple et al. (1993)
206
522
447
20
223
99
106
296
158
193
1184
86
109
474
595
498
100
185
58
221
234
267
438
569
Eysenck
Cloninger
Zuckerman
Zuckerman
Zuckerman
Zuckerman
Zuckerman
N,E
NS,HA,RD
SS,I
SS
SS
SS
SS
hrisk
unprot
hrisk
#part
unprot
#part, unprot
#part, unprot
Zuckerman
Zuckerman
Zuckerman
Zuckerman
Eysenck
Eysenck
Five Factor
Zuckerman
Zuckerman, Eysenck
Zuckerman
Tellegen
SS
SS
SS
SS
P,N,E
P,N,E
E,N,A,C,O
SS
SS,E,N
SS
Co
#part, unprot
#part, unprot
hrisk
#part, unprot, hrisk
hrisk
hrisk
#part
hrisk
hrisk
#part, unprot
hrisk
Zuckerman
Zuckerman
Zuckerman
Zuckerman
Zuckerman
Zuckerman
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS,I
#part, hrisk
#part, hrisk
#part, unprot
#part, unprot
hrisk
unprot
Study
Testa & Livingston (1998)
Testa et al. (1999)
Trobst et al. (1999)
Vollrath et al. (1999)
White & Johnson (1988)
Witte & Morrison (1995)
Wright & Reise (1997)
Wulfert et al. (1999)
Zuckerman et al. (1972)
Zuckerman et al. (1976)
N
a
48
59
406
683
1034
92
350
183
98
144
Table 1 (cont.)
Model
Zuckerman
Zuckerman
Five Factor
Five Factor
Zuckerman
Zuckerman
Five Factor
Zuckerman
Zuckerman
Domain
SS,I
SS,I
E,N,A,C,O
E,N,A,C,O
SS,I
SS
E,N,A,C,O
I
SS
SS
Outcome(s)
#part, hrisk
#part, hrisk
#part, unprot
hrisk
unprot
unprot, hrisk
hrisk
#part
hrisk
#part
Note. SS = sensation seeking; ISS = impulsive sensation seeking; N-A = neuroticism-anxiety; H-A = hostility-aggression; E = extraversion; P =
psychoticism; N = neuroticism; A = agreeableness; C = conscientiousness; O = openness; PE = positive emotionality; NE = negative emotionality;
Co = constraint; I = Impulsivity; NS = novelty seeking; HA = harm avoidance; RD = reward dependence; #part = number of partners; unprot =
unprotected sex; hrisk = other high risk sexual encounters.
aWithin some studies that included multiple outcomes, Ns varied across outcomes. In those instances, the tabled N is a mean of the Ns for the individual
outcomes.
bEffect sizes used in our meta-analysis vary from those in the published report; the complete set of effect sizes is available from the authors on request.
Personality and Sexual Risk Taking
1217
risk taking. Of the 53 studies identified, only five were published prior
to 1984; a full 75% were published after 1990. The median percentage
of females is 50; however, samples in 16 studies, or 30%, were all male
and samples in six studies, or 11%, were all female. Eighty-one percent
of the studies considered personality as prescribed by one of the psychobiological models; 64% focused exclusively on sensation seeking. All
but one study used a cross-sectional design. In summary, the literature
on personality and sexual risk taking is relatively new and dominated by
one-shot surveys inspired by psychobiological models of personality.
Psychobiological Perspectives
Unweighted mean effect sizes for the PEN model appear in the first three
lines of Table 2.3 Overall, there is evidence of a small effect for extraversion and minimal-to-no effect for psychoticism and neuroticism.4
With regard to particular types of sexual risk taking, there was some
evidence of a moderate effect of psychoticism on number of partners and
unprotected sex; however, these effects are based on single studies of
relatively small samples (Bogaert & Fisher, 1995; Fontaine, 1994) and,
therefore, should be viewed as tentative. Consistent with Eysenck’s
(1976) reasoning, extraversion was associated with high-risk sexual
encounters.5
As noted earlier, a preponderance of the research relevant to this review
featured sensation seeking. As revealed in the second section of the upper
panel of Table 2, sensation seeking was positively correlated with all
categories of sexual risk taking. We found only one study that had
considered other domains from the alternative five-factor model (Ball &
Schottenfeld, 1997). Results from this study indicated that both aggression-hostility and neuroticism-anxiety correlate positively with sexual
risk taking. Surprisingly, the effect size for aggression-hostility exceeds
3. Weighted means differed trivially from the unweighted means shown in Table 2.
Weighted means are available by request from the first author.
4. The overall effect for psychoticism is based on five studies among which the finding
of an r = .34 between psychoticism and unprotected sex by Fontaine (1994) is an extreme
case. When that effect size is removed, the mean effect size drops to r = .04.
5. Recall that extraversion in the PEN model includes elements of impulsivity. Given the
relatively weak effect for extraversion in the five-factor model, it seems likely that the
effect for extraversion in the PEN model is an overestimate attributable to undercurrents
of impulsivity.
Table 2
Unweighted Mean Effect Size (r) and Number of Studies by Personality Domain and Outcome
Outcome
Personality Domain
Number
of partners
Unprotected
sex
High-risk
encounter
Overall
Psychobiological Perspectives
PEN model
psychoticism
extraversion
neuroticism
Alternative five-factor model
(impulsive) sensation seeking
aggression-hostility
neuroticism-anxiety
.20
(1)
(0)
(0)
.34
.08
–.05
(1)
(2)
(2)
.04
.15
.03
(4)
(6)
(6)
.07
.14
.03
(5)
(7)
(7)
.25
.30
.27
(18)
(1)
(1)
.13
(18)
(0)
(0)
.21
.32
.24
(20)
(1)
(1)
.19
.31
.25
(34)
(1)
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
.22
–.02
–.00
(1)
(1)
(1)
.09
(1)
(0)
(0)
.15
–.02
–.00
(2)
(1)
(1)
.15
(4)
.13
(3)
.10
(4)
.12
(8)
.11
(3)
.20
(2)
.08
(4)
.06
(5)
Psychopharmacological model
novelty seeking
harm avoidance
reward dependence
Impulsivity
Taxonomic Perspectives
Five-factor model
neuroticism
extraversion
agreeableness
conscientiousness
openness
Tellegen
positive emotionality
negative emotionality
constraint
.01
–.16
–.08
–.06
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
–.09
–.23
–.26
–.01
(0)
(0)
(0)
Note. Numbers in parentheses denote number of studies on which effect size is based.
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
.04
–.21
–.11
.04
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
.06
–.20
–.12
.01
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(0)
(0)
(0)
.01
.11
–.23
(1)
(1)
(2)
.01
.11
–.23
(1)
(1)
(2)
1220
Hoyle et al.
that for sensation seeking; however, it is important to note that this effect
size comes from a single study of a small, high-risk sample.
Sensation seeking was the lone personality domain on which there
were sufficient effect sizes to allow for moderator analyses. Eleven
studies included both number of partners and unprotected sex as outcomes. A within-study comparison of effect sizes revealed a significantly
stronger effect of sensation seeking on number of partners (mean r = .28)
than on failure to use a condom (mean r = .14), F(1, 9) = 6.02, p < .05.
Overall effect size for sensation seeking was unrelated to year of publication (r = .06) or percentage of females in the sample (mean r = –.09).
A comparison of overall effect size across population revealed a stronger
effect of sensation seeking on sexual risk taking among college students
and high-risk populations (rs = .24 and .27, respectively) compared to
the noncollege/typical risk population (r = .13).6
Research based on Cloninger’s psychopharmacological model was
scarce, revealing only the expected positive effect size for novelty seeking.
Impulsivity was positively correlated with all forms of sexual risktaking behavior. As is apparent from the pattern shown in Table 2, this
effect was modest and varied trivially across type of sexual risk taking.
Taxonomic Perspectives
Surprisingly, relatively few studies have considered sexual risk taking in
the context of the five-factor model. The pattern of effects produced by
these studies across domains and type of sexual risk taking is shown in
the bottom portion of Table 2. Looking first at the overall effect, only
agreeableness and conscientiousness are related to sexual risk taking; as
6. More fine-grained, exploratory analyses suggested differential effectiveness of measures of sensation seeking for predicting different types of sexual risk taking. For instance,
Form V of the Sensation Seeking Scale (SSS) outshone the impulsive sensation-seeking
subscale from the Zuckerman-Kuhlman Personality Question (ZKPQ) for predicting
number of partners (rs were .33 and .19, respectively); however, the ZKPQ appeared to
be superior for predicting other high-risk sexual encounters (.27 vs. .19). Results of these
exploratory analyses coupled with the addition of explicit impulsivity items to the ZKPQ
subscale suggest caution when comparing or integrating results based on the different
measures.
Personality and Sexual Risk Taking
1221
typically conceptualized, both dimensions are negatively correlated with
sexual risk taking. Moving to effect sizes for specific categories of sexual
risking taking, it is apparent that agreeableness is negatively correlated
with all three categories of sexual risk taking. As predicted, the strongest
effect of conscientiousness is for failure to use a condom.7 Neuroticism
is positively correlated with unprotected sex and, to a lesser extent, sex
with multiple partners.
We identified only two studies that investigated sexual risk taking from
the perspective of Tellegen’s (1985) model. Results from the single study
that included negative emotionality indicated a small effect for that
domain. As expected, the effect for constraint was negative and stronger
than for any other factor in the model. Positive emotionality, considered
in single study, evinced no association with sexual risk taking.
DISCUSSION
Five substantive findings, four expected and one not, emerged from our
quantitative review. First, it comes as no surprise that sensation seeking
predicts all forms of sexual risk taking covered by our review. Although
the recent reconceptualization of sensation seeking to include impulsivity
(Zuckerman et al., 1993) may prove important for predicting particular
risk-taking behaviors, findings from the lone published study that coupled impulsivity with sensation seeking do not suggest a shift in the
strength of the effect on sexual risk taking (Ball & Schottenfeld, 1997).
At least one study has considered mechanisms that might account for the
association between sensation seeking and a host of risky behaviors
(Horvath & Zuckerman, 1993). Surprisingly, differences in risk appraisal
between high and low sensation seekers do not account for differences
in risk-taking behaviors by high and low sensation seekers. Rather, after
engaging in a high-risk activity, high sensation seekers evaluate the
activity as less risky. This finding, coupled with the finding that high
sensation seekers view novel activities as less risky than do their low
sensation-seeking counterparts (Zuckerman, 1979) suggest a complex
process by which risk appraisal and sensation seeking influence risky
behavior (cf. Pinkerton & Abramson, 1992, 1995). A potentially profitable direction for future research on mediators of the sensation-seeking–
7. Because of the small number of studies, it was not possible to formally compare these
effect sizes.
1222
Hoyle et al.
risk-taking relationship is biological mechanisms such as neurotransmission (e.g., Bardo, Donohew, & Harrington, 1996).
After sensation seeking, impulsivity was the most frequently studied
personality domain in the literature on sexual risk taking. We found a
consistent, though not strong, positive association between impulsivity and
sexual risk taking. A drawback to continued research on impulsivity and
problem behavior is the inconsistent placement of impulsivity in the major
models of personality. Whereas the alternative five-factor model couples
impulsivity with sensation seeking at the highest level of the personality
hierarchy (Zuckerman et al., 1993), impulsivity is spread across extraversion and psychoticism in the PEN model (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985)
and encompassed nominally by neuroticism (impulsiveness facet) and
conceptually by conscientiousness (deliberation facet) in the five-factor
model (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Moreover, nontrivial differences in the
conceptualization of impulsivity across these models poses problems for
research aimed at pinpointing the processes by which impulsivity influences sexual risk taking. As impulsivity is featured most prominently and
developed most fully in the alternative five-factor model, research focused on the mechanisms that underlie the effect of impulsivity on sexual
risk-taking would be best informed by the alternative five-factor model.
Conscientiousness, which shares features of impulsivity and sensation
seeking (Zuckerman et al., 1993), was negatively associated with sexual
risk taking, but the effect was primarily confined to unprotected sex. This
pattern was predicted and is consistent with behavioral tendencies captured by conscientiousness such as preparedness, planfulness, and attention to detail. The strength and specificity of this effect coupled with the
focus of HIV and STD prevention programs on condom use suggests a
potentially important role for conscientiousness in the development of
prevention programs that target sexually active people.
Our results provide conflicting evidence regarding the role of neuroticism in sexual risk taking. Neuroticism as conceptualized in the PEN
model evinced no association with sexual risk taking. In studies taking
the perspective of the five-factor model, neuroticism was weakly associated with number of partners but moderately correlated with unprotected
sex. The lone study that investigated sexual risk taking from the perspective of the alternative five-factor model indicates an effect for neuroticism
similar in magnitude to that for sensation seeking (Ball & Schottenfeld,
1997); because this effect was for a small, high-risk sample, the generality of the effect is unclear. In the relatively small number of papers that
Personality and Sexual Risk Taking
1223
address the effect of neuroticism on sexual risk taking, there is consensus
that neuroticism probably is not systematically related to sexual risk
taking. In fact, Zuckerman and Kuhlman (2000) argue that neuroticismanxiety in the alternative five-factor model is not likely to be related to
any risk-taking behavior. As noted earlier, Eysenck (1976) argued that
the anxiety and disgust associated with neuroticism suggest that people
high in neuroticism would not engage in much sexual behavior at all. And
neuroticism from the five-factor model is associated with lower sexual
satisfaction, but, otherwise, is not a strong predictor of sexual behavior
(Costa et al., 1992). In summary, although there is some evidence in the
literature that neuroticism is predictive of sexual risk taking, it is not clear
from the major models of personality that an effect would be expected
and what mechanism would underlie an effect for neuroticism.
An unexpected finding, and one that warrants attention in future
research, is the negative association between agreeableness and sexual
risk taking. This effect is better understood by considering the negative
pole of the agreeableness dimension, antagonism, which in the alternative five-factor model is termed aggression-hostility. Antagonism is
characterized by a lack of interest in and concern for others. The overall
effect of antagonism on sexual risk taking is equivalent in strength to the
effect for sensation seeking. Corroboration for this finding can be found
in recent research by Zuckerman and Kuhlman (2000) on the risk-taking
personality. Personality profiles on the domains of the alternative fivefactor model indicate elevation on impulsive sensation seeking and
aggression- hostility for groups of people who routinely engage in
high-risk behavior (e.g., prostitutes). It is not clear from the relatively
small number of studies on antagonism and sexual risk taking to what
mechanisms the effect might be attributed. One finding relevant to this
question emerged from a recent study of the NEO-PI facets and sexual
risk taking (Miller et al., 2000). A primary predictor of promiscuity was
the straightforwardness facet from the agreeableness domain. The
authors argue that one explanation for this effect could be the manipulative and deceptive interpersonal style characteristic of individuals low in
straightforwardness. Future research on sexual risk taking would profit
from a focus on the agreeableness-antagonism domain and causal mechanisms that are interpersonal in nature.
1224
Hoyle et al.
The State of the Literature
A set of concerns highlighted by our review reflect on the general state
of the literature on personality and sexual risk taking. Most prominent
among the concerns is the relative paucity of research examining sexual
risk taking from the perspective of major models of normal personality.
Despite promising early work on personality and sexual risk taking
inspired by the PEN model (e.g., Hart, 1973) and the sensation seeking
construct (e.g., Zuckerman, Tushup, & Finner, 1976), there has been
relatively little work on sexual risk taking from the perspective of major
models of personality. Although increased funding for research on HIV
risk and prevention along with increased interest in models of personality
is likely to spur new work on personality and sexual risk taking, our
search did not indicate a significant stream of research in the pipeline.
As we noted at the outset, the toll of irresponsible sexual behavior is
profound and behavioral scientists should have much to say about the
causes of such behavior. At present, personality processes are conspicuously absent from models of sexual risk taking, which are dominated by
attitude and peer influence variables. Our findings suggest that personality influences a broad range of sexual risk-taking behaviors and, as
such, the inclusion of personality in models of sexual risk taking is
warranted on empirical, if not conceptual, grounds.
Of further concern is that, among the relatively small number of studies
that have investigated normal personality and sexual risk taking, the
preponderance of investigations are inspired by psychobiological models; and all but a few of these focus on sensation seeking, which captures
only a portion of one of five domains in the alternative five-factor model.
Our findings for agreeableness-antagonism highlight the potential importance of a domain of personality that is not represented in most
psychobiological models. Conscientiousness, though somewhat similar
to low impulsive sensation seeking, is another relevant domain that is
central to taxonomic models (e.g., constraint in Tellegen’s model) but
underrepresented in psychobiological models. A focus on such factors
broadens the search for causal mechanisms from biological explanations
to cognitive and interpersonal processes. Such a shift in focus raises the
likelihood that models of personality process could be integrated with
models of sexual risk taking that feature attitudes (i.e., cognitive) and
peer influence (i.e., interpersonal) variables.
Personality and Sexual Risk Taking
1225
Given the relatively small number of studies identified by our review,
it is perhaps not surprising that causal mechanisms have received very
little attention in the empirical literature on personality and sexual risk
taking. A strength of psychobiological models over taxonomic models is
the explicit specification of mechanisms; however, the role of such
mechanisms is virtually never tested in studies investigating the role of
personality as prescribed by these models in sexual risk taking. Although
there is room for more research to establish the basic link between
personality and sexual risk taking, particularly for relatively new models
of personality, there is a clear void in the literature that needs to be filled
with research that empirically investigates intervening mechanisms and
processes.
Similarly, there has been little or no consideration of personality in
moderator, or interactionist, models of sexual risk taking. Such research
could be inspired by two perspectives on the role of personality in
behavior. From the perspective of personality researchers, moderator
models would include situational variables, other personality factors, or
individual differences that limit or magnify the effects of personality on
sexual risk taking. A compelling example of such a model is captured by
the accentuation hypothesis, which holds that the effect of personality on
behavior is strongest when situational cues are ambiguous or uncertain
(Caspi & Moffitt, 1993). Another example is a rare test of the synergistic
effect of personality on behavior by Wills et al. (1994), which showed
that drug use is best predicted by a model in which domains from
Cloninger’s neuropsychopharmacological model exert an interactive influence. An alternative perspective involves a primary focus on situational forces on behavior and asks whether personality modifies the
effect of such forces (Goldberg, 1992b). In either case, the research
moves beyond the simple question of whether personality is related to
sexual risk taking to the more informative question of how personality
works in conjunction with other variables to influence such behavior
In summary, our findings indicate the need for more research on
normal personality and sexual risk taking. There is a clear need for such
research to move beyond psychobiological models to account for aspects
of personality not featured in such models. Although more research
documenting the simple direct effect of personality on sexual risk taking
would be useful, there is a need for research that explores mechanisms
and processes by which personality exerts an influence as well as
1226
Hoyle et al.
conditions that modify the strength of the effect. Models of personality
as well as models of sexual risk taking would benefit from such work.
REFERENCES
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the
meta-analysis.
*Arnett, J. J. (1990). Contraceptive use, sensation seeking, and adolescent egocentrism.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 19, 171–180.
*Arnett, J. J. (1991). Still crazy after all these years: Reckless behavior among young
adults aged 23-to-27. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 1305–1313.
Arnett, J. J. (1994). Sensation seeking: A new conceptualization and a new scale.
Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 289–296.
*Arnett, J. J. (1996). Sensation seeking, aggressiveness, and adolescent reckless behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 693–702.
*Arnett, J. J. (1998). Risk behavior and family role transitions during the twenties.
Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 27, 301–320.
*Ball, S. A., & Schottenfeld, R. S. (1997). A five-factor model of personality and
addiction, psychiatric and AIDS risk severity in pregnant and postpartum cocaine
misusers. Substance Use & Misuse, 32, 25–41.
Bardo, M. T., Donohew, R. L., & Harrington, N. G. (1996). Psychobiology of novelty
seeking and drug seeking behavior. Behavioural Brain Research, 77, 23–43.
*Barnes, G. E., Malamuth, N. M., & Check, J. V. (1984). Personality and sexuality.
Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 159–172.
*Beard, R. W., Belsey, E. M., Lal, S., Lewis, S. C., & Greer H. S. (1974). King’s
termination study. II. Contraceptive practice before and after outpatient termination
of pregnancy. British Medical Journal, 1, 418–421.
*Benotsch, E. G., Kauth, M. R., Corrigan, S. A., & Johnson, J. E. (1998). Personality
and health-related behavior in HIV seropositive men. Paper presented at the 106th
Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco.
*Black, M. M., Ricardo, I. B., & Stanton, B. (1997). Social and psychological factors
associated with AIDS risk behaviors among low-income, urban, African-American
adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 7, 173–195.
*Bogaert, A. F., & Fisher, W. A. (1995). Predictors of university men’s number of sexual
partners. Journal of Sex Research, 32, 119–130.
*Breakwell, G. M. (1996). Risk estimation and sexual behaviour: A longitudinal study
of 16–21-year-olds. Journal of Health Psychology, 1, 79–91.
*Caspi, A., Begg, D., Dickson, N., Langley, J., Moffitt, T. E., McGee, R., & Silva, P.
(1995). Identification of personality types at risk for poor health and injury in late
adolescence. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 5, 330–350.
Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (1993). When do individual differences matter? A paradoxical
theory of personality coherence. Psychological Inquiry, 4, 247–271.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1996, February). Condoms and their use
in preventing HIV infection and other STDs. Atlanta, GA: Author.
Personality and Sexual Risk Taking
1227
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1997a). HIV/AIDS [On-line.] Available:
http://www.cdc.gov/od/owh/whiv.htm.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1997b). Sexually transmitted diseases
[On-line.] Available: http://www.cdc.gov/od/owh/whstd.htm.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1998a). HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report,
10(1).
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1998b, June). Need for sustained HIV
prevention among men who have sex with men: Young and minority men at risk.
Atlanta, GA: Author.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1998c, June). Prevention and treatment of
sexually transmitted diseases as an HIV prevention strategy. Atlanta, GA: Author.
Chu, S. Y., Hammett, T. A., & Buehler, J. W. (1992). Update: Epidemiology of reported
cases of AIDS in women who report only sex with other women, United States,
1980–1991. AIDS, 6, 518–519.
Church, A. T. (1994). Relating the Tellegen and five-factor models of personality
structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 898–909.
Church, A. T., & Burke, P. J. (1994). Exploratory and confirmatory tests of the big five
and Tellegen’s three- and four-dimensional models of personality structure. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 93–114.
Cleary, P. D., Van Devanter, N., Rogers, T. F., Singer, E., Shipton-Levy, R., Steilen, M.,
Stuart, A., Avorn, J., & Pindyck, J. (1991). Behavior changes after notification of HIV
infection. American Journal of Public Health, 81, 1586–1590.
*Clift, S. M., Wilkins, J. C., & Davidson, E. A. (1993). Impulsiveness, venturesomeness
and sexual risk-taking among heterosexual GUM clinic attenders. Personality and
Individual Differences, 15, 403–410.
Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. (1993). A psychobiological model
of temperament and character. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 975–990.
*Cohen, E. S., & Fromme, K. (1999). Differential determinants of young adult substance
use and high-risk sexual behavior. Unpublished manuscript, University of Texas,
Austin.
*Cooper, M. L., Agocha, V. B., & Sheldon, M. S. (2000). A motivational perspective on
risky behaviors: The role of personality and affect regulatory processes. Journal of
Personality, 68 (6), 1059–1088.
Costa, P. T., Jr., Fagan, P. J., Piedmont, R. L., Ponticas, Y., & Wise, T. N. (1992). The
five-factor model of personality and sexual functioning in outpatient men and women.
Psychiatric Medicine, 10, 199–215.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO-PI-R: Revised NEO Personality Inventory.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Solid ground in the wetlands of personality: A
reply to Block. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 216–220.
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual
Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440.
Eysenck, H. J. (1976). Sex and personality. London: Open Books.
Eysenck, H. J. (1990). Biological dimensions of personality. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.),
Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 244–276). New York: Guilford.
1228
Hoyle et al.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and individual differences: A
natural science approach. New York: Plenum.
*Fergusson, D. M., & Lynskey, M. T. (1996). Alcohol misuse and adolescent sexual
behaviors and risk taking. Pediatrics, 98, 91–96.
Fisher, J. D., & Misovich, S. J. (1990). Social influence and AIDS-preventive behavior.
In J. Edwards, R. S. Tindale, L. Heath, & E. J. Posavac (Eds.), Social influence
processes and prevention (pp. 39–70). New York: Plenum Press.
*Fontaine, K. R. (1994). Personality correlates of sexual risk-taking among men.
Personality and Individual Differences, 17, 693–694.
Fromme, K., Katz, E. C., & D’Amico, E. (1997). Effects of alcohol intoxication on the
perceived consequences of risk-taking. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 5, 14–23.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992a). The development of markers of the big-five factor structure.
Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992b). The social psychology of personality. Psychological Inquiry,
3, 82–98.
Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26–34.
*Hart, G. (1973). Psychological aspects of venereal disease in a war environment. Social
Science & Medicine, 7, 455–467.
*Hartzler, B. J. (1998). Inhibition conflict: A potential mechanism whereby alcohol
contributes to collegiate risk-taking. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Texas,
Austin.
Hays, R. B., Kegeles, S. M., & Coates, T. J. (1990). High HIV risk-taking among gay
men. AIDS, 4, 901–907.
Henshaw S. K. (1998). Unintended pregnancy in the United States. Family Planning
Perspectives, 30(1), 24–29, 46.
Hingson, R. W., Strunin, L., Berlin, B. M., & Heeren, T. (1990). Beliefs about AIDS, use
of alcohol and drugs, and unprotected sex among Massachusetts adolescents. American Journal of Public Health, 80, 295–299.
*Horvath, P., & Zuckerman, M. (1993). Sensation seeking, risk appraisal, and risky
behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 41–52.
*Husted, J. R., & Edwards, A. E. (1976). Personality correlates of male sexual arousal
and behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 5, 149–156.
John, O. P. (1990). The “Big-Five” factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the
natural language and in questionnaires. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality
theory and research (pp. 6–100). New York: Guilford.
*Kalichman, S. C., Greenberg, J., & Abel, G. G. (1997). HIV-seropositive men who
engage in high-risk sexual behaviour: Psychological characteristics and implications
for prevention. AIDS Care, 9, 441–450.
*Kalichman, S. C., Heckman, T., & Kelly, J. A. (1996). Sensation seeking as an
explanation for the association between substance use and HIV-related risky sexual
behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 25, 141–154.
*Kalichman, S. C., Johnson, J. R., Adair, V., Rompa, D., Multhauf, K., & Kelly, J. A.
(1994). Sexual sensation-seeking: Scale development and predicting AIDS-risk
Personality and Sexual Risk Taking
1229
behavior among homosexually active men. Journal of Personality Assessment, 62,
385–397.
*Kalichman, S. C., & Rompa, D. (1995). Sexual sensation seeking and sexual compulsivity scales: Reliability, validity, and predicting HIV risk behavior. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 65, 586–601.
*Kalichman, S. C., Rompa, D., & Muhammad, A. (1997). Psychological predictors of
risk for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection among low-income inner-city
men: A community-based survey. Psychology and Health, 12, 493–503.
*Kraft, P., & Rise, J. (1994). The relationship between sensation seeking and smoking,
alcohol consumption and sexual behavior among Norwegian adolescents. Health
Education Research, 9, 193–200.
McAdams, D. P. (1992). The five factor model in personality: A critical appraisal. Journal
of Personality, 60, 329–361.
*McCown, W. (1991). Contributions of the EPN paradigm to HIV prevention: A
preliminary study. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 1301–1303.
*McCown, W. (1993). Personality factors predicting failure to practice safer sex by HIV
positive males. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 613–615.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1996). Toward a new generation of personality theories:
Theoretical contexts for the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor
model of personality: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 51–87). New York: Guilford.
Miller, J. D., Lynam, D., Zimmerman, R., Logan, T. K., Leukefeld, C., & Clayton, R.
(2000). The utility of the five-factor model in understanding risky sexual behavior.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
National Center for Health Statistics. (1996). Health, United States, 1995. Hyattsville,
MD: Public Health Service.
*Newcomb, M. D., & McGee, L. (1991). Influence of sensation seeking on general
deviance and specific problem behaviors from adolescence to young adulthood.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 614–628.
Norris, J., Nurius, P. S., & Dimeff, L. A. (1996). Through her eyes: Factors affecting
women’s perception of and resistance to acquaintance sexual aggression threat.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 123–145.
Pinkerton, S. D., & Abramson, P. R. (1992). Is risky sex rational? Journal of Sex Research,
29, 561–568.
Pinkerton, S. D., & Abramson, P. R. (1995). Decision making and personality factors in
sexual risk-taking for HIV/AIDS: A theoretical integration. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 713–723.
*Schenk, J., & Pfrang, H. (1986). Extraversion, neuroticism, and sexual behavior:
Interrelationships in a sample of young men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15,
449–455.
*Schroth, M. L. (1996). Scores on sensation seeking as a predictor of sexual activities
among homosexuals. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82, 657–658.
*Seal, D. W., & Agostinelli, G. (1994). Individual differences associated with high-risk
sexual behaviour: Implications for intervention programmes. AIDS Care, 6, 393–397.
*Seto, M. C., Lalumière, M. L., & Quinsey, V. L. (1995). Sensation seeking and males’
sexual strategy. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 669–675.
1230
Hoyle et al.
*Sheer, V. C., & Cline, R. J. W. (1994). The development and validation of a model
explaining sexual behavior among college students: Implications for AIDS communication campaigns. Human Communication Research, 21, 280–304.
*Sheer, V. C., & Cline, R. J. W. (1995). Individual differences in sensation seeking and
sexual behavior: Implications for communication intervention for HIV/AIDS prevention among college students. Health Communication, 7, 205–223.
*Stein, J. A., Newcomb, M. D., & Bentler, P. M. (1994). Psychosocial correlates and
predictors of AIDS risk behaviors, abortion, and drug use among a community sample
of young adult women. Health Psychology, 13, 308–318.
Tellegen, A. (1985). Structures of mood and personality and their relevance to assessing
anxiety with an emphasis on self-report. In A. H. Tuma & J. D. Maser (Eds.), Anxiety
and the anxiety disorders (pp. 681–706). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
*Temple, M. T., Leigh, B. C., & Schafer, J. (1993). Unsafe sexual behavior and alcohol
use at the event level: Results of a national survey. Journal of AIDS, 6, 393–401.
*Testa, M., & Livingston, J. (1998, November). The role of alcohol in women’s perceptions of potential sexual assault risk: A qualitative analysis. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Association for Advancement of Behavior Therapy, Washington.
*Testa, M., Livingston, J. A., & Collins, R. L. (1999). The role of women’s alcohol
consumption in evaluating vulnerability to sexual assault. Manuscript submitted for
publication.
Thurman, Q. C. & Franklin, K. M. (1990). AIDS and college health: Knowledge, threat,
and prevention at a northeastern university. College Health, 38, 179–184.
*Trobst, K. K., Herbst, J. H., Masters, H. L., III, & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1999). Personality
characteristics associated with condom use and HIV risk behaviors among participants in an HIV risk reduction program. Manuscript submitted for publication.
*Vollrath, M., Knoch, D., & Cassano, L. (1999). Personality, risky health behaviour, and
perceived susceptibility to health risks. European Journal of Personality, 13, 39–50.
*White, H. R., & Johnson, V. (1988). Risk taking as a predictor of adolescent sexual
activity and use of contraception. Journal of Adolescent Research, 3, 317–331.
Wills, T. A., Vaccaro, D., & McNamara, G. (1994). Novelty seeking, risk taking, and
related constructs as predictors of adolescent substance use: A test of Cloninger’s
theory. Journal of Substance Abuse, 6, 1–20.
Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 395–412.
*Witte, K., & Morrison, K. (1995). Using scare tactics to promote safer sex among
juvenile detention and high school youth. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 23, 128–142.
*Wright, T. M., & Reise, S. P. (1997). Personality and unrestricted sexual behavior:
Correlations of sociosexuality in Caucasian and Asian college students. Journal of
Research in Personality, 31, 166–192.
*Wulfert, E., Safren, S. A., Brown, I., & Wan, C. K. (1999). Cognitive, behavioral, and
personality correlates of HIV-positive persons’ unsafe sexual behavior. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 29, 223–244.
Zuckerman, M. (1979). Sensation seeking and risk taking. In C. E. Izard (Ed.), Emotions
in personality and psychopathology (pp. 163–197). New York: Plenum.
Personality and Sexual Risk Taking
1231
*Zuckerman, M., Bone, R. N., Neary, R., Mangelsdorff, D., & Brustman, B. (1972). What
is the sensation seeker? Personality and experience correlates of the SensationSeeking Scales. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 39, 308–321.
Zuckerman, M., & Kuhlman, D. M. (2000). Personality and risk-taking: Common
biosocial factors. Journal of Personality, 68 (6), 999–1029.
Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M., & Camac, C. (1988). What lies beyond E and N? Factor
analyses of scales believe to measure basic dimensions of personality. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 96–107.
Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M., Joireman, J., Teta, P., & Kraft, M. (1993). A comparison
of three structural models for personality: The big three, the big five, and the alternative
five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 757–768.
*Zuckerman, M., Tushup, R., & Finner, S. (1976). Sexual attitudes and experience:
Attitude and personality correlates and changes produced by a course in sexuality.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 44, 7–19.