↓ Skip to main content

How Target and Perceiver Gender Affect Impressions of HIV Risk

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
How Target and Perceiver Gender Affect Impressions of HIV Risk
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, October 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2015.00223
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexander Barth, Ralf Schmälzle, Freda-Marie Hartung, Britta Renner, Harald T. Schupp

Abstract

People do not use condoms consistently but instead rely on intuition to identify sexual partners high at risk for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. The present study examined gender differences of intuitive impressions about HIV risk. Male and female perceivers evaluated portraits of unacquainted male and female targets regarding their risk for HIV, trait characteristics (trust, responsibility, attractiveness, valence, arousal, and health), and willingness for interaction. Male targets were perceived as more risky than female targets for both perceiver genders. Furthermore, male perceivers reported higher HIV risk perception for both male and female targets than female perceivers. Multiple regression indicated gender differences in the association between person characteristics and HIV risk. In male targets, only trustworthiness predicts HIV risk. In female targets, however, HIV risk is related to trustworthiness, attractiveness, health, valence (for male perceivers), and arousal (for female perceivers). The present findings characterize intuitive impressions of HIV risk and reveal differences according to both target and perceiver gender. Considering gender differences in intuitive judgments of HIV risk may help devise effective strategies by shifting the balance from feelings of risk toward a more rational mode of risk perception and the adoption of effective precautionary behaviors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 9%
Unknown 10 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 27%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 18%
Other 1 9%
Unspecified 1 9%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 9%
Other 1 9%
Unknown 2 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 3 27%
Unspecified 1 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 9%
Mathematics 1 9%
Other 2 18%
Unknown 2 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 October 2015.
All research outputs
#18,428,159
of 22,829,683 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#5,686
of 9,870 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,992
of 277,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#42
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,683 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,870 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 277,991 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.