INTRODUCTION

1. No modulation of sexual risk taking and excitement seeking relationship by cognitive capacity Merritt, N. R. P. and Finn, P. Department of Psychology, 1101 E Tenth St., Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405-7007 METHODS 412 college students completed self-report personality measurements. They also completed three cognitive tests including measurements of working memory capacity (WMC, digit span forward and backward), conditioned associative learning (CAL, light response task), and a general intelligence measure (Shipley vocabulary and abstraction tests). Sexual risk taking was measured both as a composite of two risk questions to replicate a previous approach (Justus, Finn, & Steinmetz, 2000), but three individual risk questions were also examined because of the shortcomings associated with sexual risk indices. INTRODUCTION Level of sexual risk knowledge does not consistently modulate sexual risk taking behaviors (Seal & Agostinelli, 1994; Katz, Fromme, & D'Amico 2000; Raj & Pollack, 1995). Personality variables help explain some sexual decisions made despite contrary knowledge. Specifically, excitement seeking, a hedonistic, appetitive drive derived from the boredom susceptibility and disinhibition subscales of the sensation seeking scale, predicts sexual risk taking (Finn, et al., 2000). Furthermore, inhibition of behavior requires and consumes attentional resources (Engle et al., 1995). Together, these suggest that a person with a high level of excitement seeking will engage in many sexual risks, but this relationship may be modulated by a person's ability to hold in mind less salient, stop signals for sexual behaviors (see Figure 1). RESULTS Excitement seeking significantly predicted our composite sexual risk taking index (F (1,410) = 56.32, p<.001, R2 = .12), number of one night stands in the last year (F (1,410) = 42.43, p<.001, R2 = .09), and the number of just met sexual partners (F (1,410) = 34.76, p<.001, R2 = .08). However, none of these relationships were modified by the level of processing capacity (WMC, ALC, or IQ). Individual relationships are shown (see right). Figure 1. • Cognitive • Processing • Capacity • Working memory • Associative learning capacity • General intelligence Boredom Susceptibility CONCLUSIONS Sexual risk decisions appear to be driven, in part, by a search for hedonically pleasurable stimulation in general; however, this tendency is not modulated by cognitive processing abilities. Differences in sexual risk decisions may be driven partly by earlier, implicit processing of sexual stimuli negating the later effects of conscious processing capacity. Funded by NIAAA grant 1R01 AA10120 • Sexual Risk • Taking • No. partners in the last year • No. one night stands in • the last year • No. just met sexual • partners in the last year Excitement seeking Disinhibition