Abstract The present study compared the contraceptive risk‐taking behavior (CRT) of 35 white and 28 black, unwed, sexually active, young (ages 14 to 18) female outpatients in mental health clinics with a record of chronic contraceptive rejection, with that of a matched group of clinically unlabelled (normal) subjects. The subjects' offered CRT explanations were categorized by independent judges and subjected to multifactor contingency analyses and post‐hoc contrast procedures. The results indicated no differences between the clinical and normal subjects, but within groups, clinically‐oriented explanations tended to be more frequent than political‐economic explanations among white subjects, while the reverse held true for black subjects. In addition, 90 college students were asked to state what they considered a rational CRT response, as well as what CRT response they would expect from a hypothetical unwed, sexually active, 16‐year‐old female contraceptive rejector described as either white, or black, or not mentioned by race. The results indicated that clinically‐oriented CRT explanations were expected for the white contraceptive rejector, political‐economic CRT explanations were expected and seen as rational for the black contraceptive rejector, and situa‐tional CRT explanations were attributed most often when the race of the contraceptive rejector was not mentioned. The results are discussed in terms of clinical, rational, and social‐psychological models in current CRT research.