Terri Conley
Education: Ph.D., Social Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles
My research addresses three main topics 1) gender differences in sexuality 2) consequences of departures from monogamy and 3) relationships between members of different groups, focusing on marginalized group members’ perceptions of dominant groups.
My research addresses three main topics 1) gender differences in sexuality 2) consequences of departures from monogamy and 3) relationships between members of different groups, focusing on marginalized group members’ perceptions of dominant groups.
less
InterestsView All (9)
Uploads
Papers by Terri Conley
Methods: In Study 1, participants estimated the risk death as a result of contracting HIV from one instance of unprotected sex (with a non-injection drug user) relative to the risk of death as a result of an automobile accident (a 300 mile drive). In Study 2a, participants read one of two vignettes, in which a target either unknowingly transmitted an STI (chlamydia) or a non-sexual disease (H1N1) to another person through a sexual encounter. In Study 2b, participants read one of twelve vignettes, type of disease (chlamydia or H1N1), severity of the disease outcome (mild, moderate, or severe), and sex of transmitter (female or male) were manipulated. In Study 3, state-level public health and driving websites were coded for risk-reduction recommendations.
Results: In Studies 1 and 2, participants rated the target who transmitted chlamydia more negatively than the target who transmitted H1N1; participants also perceived the target who transmitted chlamydia with a mild severity outcome (the sexual partner took antibiotics for one week) more negatively than the target who transmitted H1N1 with a severe outcome (the sexual partner died from contracting H1N1; Study 2). In Study 3, most state-level public health websites promoted safety through recommending the public to abstain from sex; no similar recommendations were provided on driving websites (an objectively riskier behaviour).
Conclusions: The stigmatisation of STIs is beyond their degree of severity (relative to other diseases) and viewed as unjustifiably risky (relative to other risky activities).
investigated. By reviewing recent literature surrounding monogamous relationships and sexual behaviors, the
authors determined that monogamy might not prevent against STIs as expected. First, the authors elucidate
the ways in which public health officials and the general public define and interpret monogamy and discuss
how this contributes to monogamy as an ineffectual STI prevention strategy. Second, the authors provide evidence
that individuals' compliance with monogamy is likely to be low, similar to rates of compliance with
other medical advice. Lastly, the authors draw upon recent research findings suggesting that people who label
themselves as monogamous are less likely to engage in safer sex behaviors than people who have an explicit
agreement with their partner to be non-monogamous. Future research and clinical directions to promote sexual
health and destigmatize sexual behaviors are considered.
to accept a casual sexual offer from a confederate research assistant, women never did so. The current
research provides a more in-depth explanation of gender differences in acceptance of casual sex offers
via 4 (quasi-) experiments. First, using a person-perception paradigm, I assessed people’s impressions of
women and men who proposed a casual sexual encounter in the same manner that confederates in Clark
and Hatfield did. Women and men agreed that female proposers were more intelligent, successful, and
sexually skilled than men who made the same proposals. Second, I demonstrated that the large gender
differences from the original Clark and Hatfield study could be eliminated by asking participants to
imagine proposals from (attractive and unattractive) famous individuals, friends, and same-gender
individuals. Next, I assessed factors associated with likelihood of agreeing to the casual sex proposal. The
extent to which women and men believed that the proposer would be sexually skilled predicted how
likely they would be to engage in casual sex with this individual. Finally, I examined these factors in the
context of actual encounters from the participants’ previous experiences, and the results were replicated
in this context. Overall findings suggest that the large gender differences Clark and Hatfield observed in
acceptance of the casual sex offer may have more to do with perceived personality characteristics of the
female versus male proposers than with gender differences among Clark and Hatfield’s participants and
that sexual pleasure figures largely in women’s and men’s decision making about casual sex.
Methods: In Study 1, participants estimated the risk death as a result of contracting HIV from one instance of unprotected sex (with a non-injection drug user) relative to the risk of death as a result of an automobile accident (a 300 mile drive). In Study 2a, participants read one of two vignettes, in which a target either unknowingly transmitted an STI (chlamydia) or a non-sexual disease (H1N1) to another person through a sexual encounter. In Study 2b, participants read one of twelve vignettes, type of disease (chlamydia or H1N1), severity of the disease outcome (mild, moderate, or severe), and sex of transmitter (female or male) were manipulated. In Study 3, state-level public health and driving websites were coded for risk-reduction recommendations.
Results: In Studies 1 and 2, participants rated the target who transmitted chlamydia more negatively than the target who transmitted H1N1; participants also perceived the target who transmitted chlamydia with a mild severity outcome (the sexual partner took antibiotics for one week) more negatively than the target who transmitted H1N1 with a severe outcome (the sexual partner died from contracting H1N1; Study 2). In Study 3, most state-level public health websites promoted safety through recommending the public to abstain from sex; no similar recommendations were provided on driving websites (an objectively riskier behaviour).
Conclusions: The stigmatisation of STIs is beyond their degree of severity (relative to other diseases) and viewed as unjustifiably risky (relative to other risky activities).
investigated. By reviewing recent literature surrounding monogamous relationships and sexual behaviors, the
authors determined that monogamy might not prevent against STIs as expected. First, the authors elucidate
the ways in which public health officials and the general public define and interpret monogamy and discuss
how this contributes to monogamy as an ineffectual STI prevention strategy. Second, the authors provide evidence
that individuals' compliance with monogamy is likely to be low, similar to rates of compliance with
other medical advice. Lastly, the authors draw upon recent research findings suggesting that people who label
themselves as monogamous are less likely to engage in safer sex behaviors than people who have an explicit
agreement with their partner to be non-monogamous. Future research and clinical directions to promote sexual
health and destigmatize sexual behaviors are considered.
to accept a casual sexual offer from a confederate research assistant, women never did so. The current
research provides a more in-depth explanation of gender differences in acceptance of casual sex offers
via 4 (quasi-) experiments. First, using a person-perception paradigm, I assessed people’s impressions of
women and men who proposed a casual sexual encounter in the same manner that confederates in Clark
and Hatfield did. Women and men agreed that female proposers were more intelligent, successful, and
sexually skilled than men who made the same proposals. Second, I demonstrated that the large gender
differences from the original Clark and Hatfield study could be eliminated by asking participants to
imagine proposals from (attractive and unattractive) famous individuals, friends, and same-gender
individuals. Next, I assessed factors associated with likelihood of agreeing to the casual sex proposal. The
extent to which women and men believed that the proposer would be sexually skilled predicted how
likely they would be to engage in casual sex with this individual. Finally, I examined these factors in the
context of actual encounters from the participants’ previous experiences, and the results were replicated
in this context. Overall findings suggest that the large gender differences Clark and Hatfield observed in
acceptance of the casual sex offer may have more to do with perceived personality characteristics of the
female versus male proposers than with gender differences among Clark and Hatfield’s participants and
that sexual pleasure figures largely in women’s and men’s decision making about casual sex.