Preferences for condom placement in stores among young Dutch men and women: relationships with embarrassment and motives for having sex
Winifred A. Gebhardt A C , Margot P. van der Doef A , Nicole Billingy A , Malou Carstens B and Ingrid Steenhuis BA Clinical Health and Neuropsychology, Social and Behavioral Sciences, Leiden University, PO Box 9555, 2300 RB Leiden, Netherlands.
B Health Sciences, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, De Boelelaan 1085-1087, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
C Corresponding author. Email: gebhardt@fsw.leidenuniv.nl
Sexual Health 9(3) 233-239 https://doi.org/10.1071/SH11050
Submitted: 19 March 2011 Accepted: 19 July 2011 Published: 19 December 2011
Abstract
Background: Condom purchasing is an important preparation for condom use. The present study examined if products surrounding condoms in the store play a role in preferences for where to buy condoms among young people. Methods: Sixty-nine men and 111 women (<30 years) completed an online questionnaire on their preferences for condom placement, associated embarrassment with these placements, and motives for having sex. Results: Fifty percent of men and 70% of women indicated the counter as least preferred placement. Two-fifths of men and women preferred the sensual context, including among sex toys and lubricants; however, the remainder of participants, particularly women, preferred other less sexual contexts. Both the counter and sensual placement were strongly associated with embarrassment, and this, in turn, was predictive of placement preference. Finally, the motive for having sex to experience intimacy was negatively related to counter preference, and the motive for having sex to experience pleasure was negatively related to the neutral placement and the female personal care placement preferences. Conclusion: The findings suggest that using multiple and alternative placements for condoms in stores may encourage condom purchasing behaviour among young people.
Additional keywords: condoms, embarrassment, gender differences, motives for having sex, store placement, the Netherlands.
References
[1] Vriend HJ, Koedijk FDH, van der Broek IVF, van Veen MG, Op de Coul ELM, van Sighem AI, et al. Sexually transmitted infections, including HIV, in the Netherlands in 2009. Bilthoven, The Netherlands: RIVM (RIVM report 210261007/2010); 2010. Available online at: http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/210261007.pdf [verified July 2010].[2] Scott-Sheldon L, Glasford D, Marsh K, Lust S. Barriers to condom purchasing: effects of product positioning on reactions to condoms. Soc Sci Med 2006; 63 2755–69.
| Barriers to condom purchasing: effects of product positioning on reactions to condoms.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[3] Dahl DW, Gorn GJ, Weinberg CB. The impact of embarrassment on condom purchase behaviour. Can J Public Health 1998; 89 368–70.
| 1:STN:280:DyaK1M7isFeitw%3D%3D&md5=3ba16f80674e9a3507a05a71ee28ab77CAS |
[4] Moore SG, Dahl DW, Gorn GJ, Weinberg CB, Park J, Jiang Y. Condom embarrassment: coping and consequences for condom use in three countries. AIDS Care 2008; 20 553–9.
| Condom embarrassment: coping and consequences for condom use in three countries.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[5] Dahl DW, Manchanda RV, Argo JJ. Embarrassment in consumer purchase: the roles of social presence and purchase familiarity. J Consum Res 2001; 28 473–81.
| Embarrassment in consumer purchase: the roles of social presence and purchase familiarity.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[6] Helweg-Larsen M, Collins BE. The UCLA multidimensional condom attitudes scale: documenting the complex determinants of condom use in college students. Health Psychol 1994; 13 224–37.
| The UCLA multidimensional condom attitudes scale: documenting the complex determinants of condom use in college students.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaK2czjtlaktg%3D%3D&md5=8a1af1f8f97f2d769f832672a9882ed2CAS |
[7] Moore SG, Dahl DW, Gorn GJ, Weinberg CB. Coping with condom embarrassment. Psychol Health Med 2006; 11 70–9.
| Coping with condom embarrassment.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[8] Brackett KP. College students’ condom purchase strategies. Soc Sci J 2004; 41 459–64.
| College students’ condom purchase strategies.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[9] Fazio RH, Sanbonmatsu DM, Powell MC, Kardes FR. On the automatic activation of attitudes. J Pers Soc Psychol 1986; 50 229–38.
| On the automatic activation of attitudes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaL287pvFGntw%3D%3D&md5=9bd96eb002c668c999e0c601abcd8433CAS |
[10] Gebhardt WA, Kuyper L, Greunsven G. Need for intimacy in relationships and motives for sex as determinants of adolescent condom use. J Adolesc Health 2003; 33 154–64.
| Need for intimacy in relationships and motives for sex as determinants of adolescent condom use.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[11] Gebhardt WA, Kuyper L, Dusseldorp E. Condom use at first intercourse with a new partner in female adolescents and young adults: the role of cognitive planning and motives for having sex. Arch Sex Behav 2006; 35 213–19.
| Condom use at first intercourse with a new partner in female adolescents and young adults: the role of cognitive planning and motives for having sex.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[12] Cooper ML, Shapiro CM, Powers AM. Motivations for sex and sexual behavior among adolescents and young adults: a functional perspective. J Pers Soc Psychol 1998; 75 1528–58.
| Motivations for sex and sexual behavior among adolescents and young adults: a functional perspective.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaK1M7htlSqtg%3D%3D&md5=7083913c8a9386859fc3d0144d38aae1CAS |
[13] Klein J, Rossbach C, Nijher H, Geist M, Wilson K, Cohn S, et al Where do adolescents get their condoms? J Adolesc Health 2001; 29 186–93.
| Where do adolescents get their condoms?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3MvotFShuw%3D%3D&md5=4144f9716ec304b7645287ad606ac0ddCAS |
[14] Sixsmith J, Griffiths J, Hughes J, Wren J, Penfold S, Natusch H. Accessibility of condoms to young people in Manchester, UK. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2006; 32 219–25.
| Accessibility of condoms to young people in Manchester, UK.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[15] Dahl DW, Darke PR, Gron GJ, Weinberg CB. Promiscuous or confident? Attitudinal ambivalence toward condom purchase. J Appl Soc Psychol 2005; 35 869–87.
| Promiscuous or confident? Attitudinal ambivalence toward condom purchase.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[16] Sax LJ, Gillmartin SK, Bryant AN. Assessing response rates and nonresponse bias in web and paper surveys. Res Higher Educ 2003; 44 409–32.
| Assessing response rates and nonresponse bias in web and paper surveys.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[17] Statline CBS. ICT gebruik van personen naar persoonskenmerken. [ICT use of people according to personal characteristics]. Den Haag, the Netherlands: Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. Available online at http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=71098ned&LA=NL [verified June 2011].
