Stokes, Gulotta, Blansfield, Flanders, and Drais-Parrillo | Differences in Condom Use Patterns an oral contraceptive or from an oral contraceptive to using LARC), condom use behaviors decreased slightly (β = -.34, t = -4.42, p < .001). However, birth control methods were only able to explain 11% of the variance in condom use patterns among those in a couple. Pregnancy concern was added in the second step. This model was significant, F(2, 151) = 19.57, p < .001, R2 = .32, as were both predictors. Birth control use remained negatively related to condom use (β = -.36, t = -5.30, p < .001) and pregnancy concern positively predicted condom use for coupled individuals (β = .46, t = 6.77, p < .001). When perceived invulnerability was added in the third step, the model, although significant, was not statistically different from the previous model. In addition, invulnerability was not a significant predictor (t = -1.52, p = .13) and, thus, was dropped from subsequent steps. Similarly, sexual encounters, added in the next step, was not a strong predictor (t = 0.84, p = .40) and the model did not greatly improve, so the variable was removed. Condom use attitudes were added in the final step. The model was significant, F(3, 150) = 10.12, p = .002, R2 = .36, and accounted for more variance than the previous models. Birth control and pregnancy concern remained strong predictors, and as condom use attitudes increase, condom use behaviors increase (β = .21, t = 3.17, p = .002). Singles A hierarchical regression approach was used to predict condom use patterns for single individuals. The first model in Table 4 included participants’ STI concern and pregnancy concern and was significant, F(2, 83) = 18.02, p < .001, R2 = .30. According to this model, as the concern for contracting an STI (β = .48, t = 4.19, p < .001) or becoming pregnant (β = .68, t = 5.95, p < .001) increases, so does the likelihood that they have a pattern of consistent condom use. Concern for sexual pleasure was not a significant predictor (t = -.94, p = .35) to model history of condom use. Similarly, condom use self-efficacy did not significantly predict a history of condom use (t = -0.43, p = .67). Adding perceived invulnerability in the fourth step also did not significantly predict condom usage (t = -0.64, p = .52). Similarly, when sexual narcissism was added, it was not a strong predictor (t = -1.62, p = .11) so the variable was removed. Condom use attitudes were added in the final step. The model was significant, F(3, 82) = 18.02, p < .001, R2 = .38, and accounted for more variance than the previ ous models. STI and pregnancy concern remained strong predictors, and as condom use attitudes increased, the likelihood that a participant had a more consistent history of condom use also increased (β = .30, t = 3.17, p = .002). Discussion This study was conducted to investigate predictive factors for the use of condoms in coupled and single college-aged individuals. We hypothesized that increased concern for STI contraction and pregnancy, positive attitudes towards condoms, and condom use self-efficacy would be TABLE 4 Hierarchical Regression Results for Condom Use Patterns for Singles Variable 95% CI for B LL UL SE B B β R2 ∆R2 .30 .30*** Step 1 Constant 1.41*** 0.85 1.97 0.28 STI Concern 1.72 0.90 2.54 0.41 .48 Pregnancy Concern 1.92 1.28 2.56 0.32 .68 *** *** Step 2 Constant 1.56** 0.92 2.2 0.32 STI Concern 1.71*** 0.89 2.53 0.41 .47 Pregnancy Concern 1.86 1.2 0.33 .66 Concern for Sexual Pleasure -0.10 -0.32 0.12 0.11 -.09 *** 2.51 Step 3 Constant * 1.70 0.27 3.12 0.72 STI Concern 1.75 0.92 2.59 0.42 .49 Pregnancy Concern 1.92 1.28 2.57 0.32 .68 Condom Use Self-Efficacy -0.07 -0.38 0.25 0.16 -.04 *** *** Step 4 .31 .01 .30 -.01 .31 .01 Constant 1.65 0.72 2.58 0.47 STI Concern 1.70 0.87 2.52 0.42 .47 Pregnancy Concern 1.90 1.24 2.54 0.33 .67 Perceived Invulnerability -0.12 -0.50 0.25 0.19 -.06 *** *** *** Step 5 .32 .01 Constant 2.23 1.08 3.37 0.58 STI Concern 1.59 0.76 2.42 0.42 .44 Pregnancy Concern 1.78 1.12 2.44 0.33 .63 Sexual Narcissism -0.34 -0.77 0.08 0.21 -.15 *** *** *** .38 .06** Step 6 Constant -1.11 -2.79 0.56 0.84 STI Concern 1.44 0.64 2.23 0.40 .40 Pregnancy Concern 1.48 0.81 2.12 0.34 .53 Condom Use Attitudes 0.57 0.21 0.92 0.18 .30 *** *** ** Note. CI = Confidence Interval; LL = Lower Limit; UL = Upper Limit * p <.05 **p <.01 ***p <.001 COPYRIGHT 2024 BY PSI CHI, THE INTERNATIONAL HONOR SOCIETY IN PSYCHOLOGY (VOL. 29, NO. 4/ISSN 2325-7342) WINTER 2024 PSI CHI JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH 297