Examining Delay Discounting of Condom-Protected Sex Among Men Who Have Sex with Men Using Crowdsourcing Technology

Weekly Energy Drink Use Is Positively Associated with Delay Discounting and Risk Behavior in a Nationwide Sample of Young Adults

“…[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]13,14 In addition, results from the delay discounting tasks replicated results from studies that found that larger monetary rewards are discounted less steeply than smaller rewards 47 and delay discounting of condom-protected sex is steeper when partners are perceived as more desirable and less likely to have an STI. [29][30][31][32][33] The results of this study should be interpreted within the context of several limitations. First, all outcomes were based on self-report.…”

“…[29][30][31][32][33] Weekly energy drink users were less likely than lessthan-weekly energy drink users to use a condom if one was immediately available (i.e., during the zero-delay trial) in the ''least STI'' partner condition (M = 0.57, SD = 0.41 vs. M = 0.71, SD = 0.38, p < 0.0001) and in the ''most sex'' partner condition (M = 0.57, SD = 0.42 vs. M = 0.71, SD = 0.38, p < 0.0001). Weekly energy drink users also had a lower mean standardized AUC than less-than-weekly energy drink users in the ''least sex'' partner condition (M = 0.65, SD = 0.35 vs. M = 0.71, SD = 0.37, p = 0.05); however, as shown in Table 3, this finding was no longer significant following the covariate adjusted analyses.…”

“…24,49,50 In addition, previous studies have shown associations between performance on the Sexual Delay Discounting Task and self-report of real-world sexual risk behavior. 29,31,33 Third, the sample was relatively racially and ethnically homogeneous. Over 90% of the sample was non-Hispanic and 80% was White.…”

“…29 This task shows good test-retest reliability, 30 and the outcomes are associated with selfreported sexual risk behavior. 29,[31][32][33] As with monetary delay discounting, individuals with a history of risk behavior (e.g., substance abuse) show steeper delay discounting of condom-protected sex. [31][32][33][34] Collectively, studies that examined monetary and sexual delay discounting outcomes suggest that delay discounting is a fundamental behavioral process related to risk behavior.…”

Discounting of Condom-Protected Sex as a Measure of High Risk for Sexually Transmitted Infection Among College Students

“…The SDDT has shown associations with self-reported risky sex behaviors and high test-retest reliability (Johnson & Bruner, 2012; 2013; Herrmann et al, 2015), and multiple studies have found that users of illicit substances discount condom-protected sex more steeply than healthy controls (Bruner & Johnson, 2012; Herrmann et al, 2014; Herrmann et al, 2015; Johnson, Johnson, Herrmann & Sweeney 2015). Recently, a SDDT study of youth (18–25 years old) recruited from an urban city and surrounding metro area characterized by high STI prevalence rates, crime, and drug use (Dariotis & Johnson, 2015) indicated greater sexual delay discounting for hypothetical partners that they judged as “most want to have sex with” (relative to “least”) and “least likely to have an STI” (relative to “most”), with males showing higher likelihood of engaging in unprotected sex than females when facing no delay but no sex differences in the rate of sexual delay discounting.…”