Background: An essential component of new relationship development is sexual communication between partners. The rise of technology has allowed couples to use text messaging to facilitate these conversations. The current study examines how emerging adults (18–25 years) in new relationships communicate about sex through text messages. Methods: We conducted inductive thematic analyses of text messages between different-gender couples in the first six months of their relationship (20 couples, N = 40) in which the women were between 18 and 25 years of age. We used the Dedoose qualitative analysis software and a coding team of 16 coders. Reliability was established through the “test” function of Dedoose, with codes of Kappas less than 0.70 discussed and refined in the codebook. Results: Primary themes of how couples communicate about sex emerged, which included the use of humor, discussing previous sexual experiences and partners, and sharing interests around future sexual encounters. During thematic analyses, secondary themes of motivations for sexual communication emerged, including learning, bonding, and enhancement. Conclusions: Addressing the varied motivations emerging adult couples may use in text messages can be leveraged for improving sexual health. Theories related to relationship development may not fully capture how couples discuss sex, particularly via text messages.

Infidelity, a betrayal within a romantic partnership, often violates a person’s core beliefs about themselves and their significant other and can influence the degree to which a person can feel safe in romantic relationships. Infidelity can also increase exposure to sexually transmitted diseases that can compromise physical and mental health. Therefore, infidelity can be judged as central to one’s identity and potentially traumatic, possibly triggering outcomes similar to other DSM-5 Criterion A traumas. The current research examines the contribution of centrality perceptions to the development of PTG and PTS post-infidelity. Bivariate regressions examined the relationships between the judged centrality of infidelity and PTG and PTS, respectively. Exploratory analyses considered the moderating role of relationship form (i.e., casually dating, exclusively dating, and engaged/married) on those relationships. In a sample of 177 adults, greater judgments of the centrality of infidelity were associated with both PTG and PTS. Results demonstrated a significant moderating effect of relationship form on the relationship between the centrality of infidelity and PTG but not between the centrality of infidelity and PTS. Moderation results demonstrated that if infidelity is considered central in a casually dating relationship, it is more strongly related to PTG than in other relationship forms. Considering infidelity as central may generate both beneficial and problematic post-traumatic outcomes. However, an early infidelity experience may provide increased opportunities for engagement in different behaviors in the future (e.g., selecting a different partner, setting different relational boundaries), which, in turn, may be more conducive to growth.

Background/Objectives: Healthcare institutional betrayal (HIB) is a betrayal trauma that occurs when a healthcare organization or system perpetrates wrongdoing against or fails to protect an individual who depends upon that system for care. Known consequences of experiencing HIB include increased healthcare system and provider distrust and anticipated healthcare avoidance, highlighting the public health implications of unaddressed HIB. Little is known about actions that healthcare stakeholders can take to repair HIB. Thus, this study experimentally tested the effects of receiving one of two reparative actions post HIB (empathic apology vs. organizational change) performed by one of two healthcare system stakeholders: healthcare provider or system administrator. Methods: Residual HIB perceptions, trust, expectations for future healthcare, and intentions to avoid future care were assessed post-repair conditions. Initially, undergraduate participants (N = 198) were asked to imagine themselves experiencing a common healthcare scenario which included HIB. After post-HIB baseline measurements, participants were then randomly assigned to one of four conditions (three with HIB repair actions vs. one control). Participants receiving any type of HIB repair reported significantly lower residual HIB, higher positive expectations for future healthcare, and greater trust in healthcare post-repair, with effect sizes ranging from small to large. Results: Generally, two HIB repair conditions (organizational change HIB repair and healthcare provider HIB repair) outperformed the healthcare administrator HIB apology repair condition; all repair conditions outperformed the control condition. Conclusions: Our finding that specific actions can facilitate post-HIB recovery is clinically meaningful. Medical professionals and healthcare administrators need to address patients’ past negative experiences with healthcare and take action to repair HIB to improve patients’ ongoing and future healthcare experiences.

Background/Objectives: Healthcare institutional betrayal (HIB) is a betrayal trauma that occurs when a healthcare organization or system perpetrates acts of wrongdoing against or fails to act to protect an individual who depends upon that system for care and services. Known consequences of experiencing acts of HIB include increased healthcare provider and system distrust and anticipated healthcare avoidance, highlighting the public health implications of unaddressed HIB. Little is known about actions that healthcare stakeholders can take to repair HIB. Thus, this study experimentally tested the effects of receiving one of two reparative actions following a healthcare encounter containing HIB (empathic apology vs. organizational change) performed by one of two healthcare system stakeholders: healthcare provider or system administrator. Methods: Residual HIB perceptions, trust, expectations for future healthcare, and intentions to avoid future care were assessed post-repair conditions. Initially, undergraduate participants (N = 198) were asked to imagine themselves experiencing a common healthcare scenario which included HIB. After post-HIB encounter baseline measurements, participants were then randomly assigned to one of four conditions (three with HIB repair actions vs. one control). Participants receiving any type of HIB repair reported significantly lower residual HIB, increased positive expectations for future healthcare, and greater trust in healthcare post-repair, with effect sizes ranging from small to large. Results: Generally, two HIB repair conditions (organizational change to repair HIB and healthcare provider apology repair) outperformed the healthcare administrator apology condition; all repair conditions outperformed the control condition. Conclusions: Our finding that specific actions can facilitate post-HIB recovery is clinically meaningful. Medical professionals and healthcare administrators need to address patients’ past negative experiences with healthcare and take action to repair pre-existing HIB to improve patients’ ongoing and future healthcare experiences.