PSYCH  Vol.1 No.3 , August 2010
Communicating (and Responding to) Sexual Health Status: Reasons for STD (Non) Disclosure
ABSTRACT
This investigation examines the sexual health status of individuals and their attitudes toward STDs and STD disclosure (and reasons for nondisclosure) and response. In doing so, this study provides insight into young adults’ sexual practices, attitudes, and behaviors. Two-hundred fifty-three adults of varying relational status participated in an online study about sexual health status, sexual health knowledge, sexual behaviors, relational factors, responses to STD disclosure, reasons for nondisclosure, and if circumstances under which a STD was acquired affected partners’ reaction to the disclosure. Results indicated that, although undergraduate students are knowledgeable about safer sex practices and are concerned about STDs and birth control, few “always” practice safer sex. When considering relational status, STD status and disclosure of that status becomes complicated. However, findings of this investigation suggest that potential positive responses to a perceived negative disclosure (i.e., a positive STD status) are possible when certain relational factors exist and the circumstances surrounding the acquisition of the STD involve more external (e.g., didn’t know prior partner had STD) versus internal locus (e.g., partner engaged in risk behavior) of control factors.

Cite this paper
nullEmmers-Sommer, T. , Warber, K. , Passalacqua, S. & Luciano, A. (2010). Communicating (and Responding to) Sexual Health Status: Reasons for STD (Non) Disclosure. Psychology, 1, 178-184. doi: 10.4236/psych.2010.13024.
References
[1]   T. M. Emmers-Sommer and M. Allen, “Safer Sex in Per- sonal Relationships: The Role of Sexual Scripts in HIV Infection and Prevention,” Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, 2005.

[2]   D. Rouner and R. Lindsey, “Female Adolescent Commu- nication about Sexually Transmitted Diseases,” Health Communication, Vol. 19, No. 1, 2006, pp. 29-38.

[3]   A. E. Lucchetti, “Deception in Disclosing One’s Sexual History: Safe Sex Avoidance or Ignorance?” Communi- cation Quarterly, Vol. 47, No. 3, 1999, pp. 300-314.

[4]   S. Metts and M. A. Fitzpatrick, “Thinking about Safer Sex: The Risky Business of ‘Knowing Your Partner’ Ad- vice,” In: T. Edgar, M. A. Fitzpatrick and V. Freimuth, Ed., AIDS: A Communication Perspective, Lawrence Erl- baum Associates, Hillsdale, 1992, pp. 1-19.

[5]   W. Simon and J. H. Gagnon, “Sexual Scripts,” Society, Vol. 22, 1984, pp. 52-60.

[6]   W. Simon and J. H. Gagnon, “Sexual Scripts: Perma- nence and Change,” Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1986, pp. 97-120.

[7]   W. Simon and J. H. Gagnon, “A Sexual Scripts Ap- proach,” In: J. H. Greer and W. T. O’Donohue, Ed., Theories of Human Sexuality, Plenum Publishing, New York, 1987, pp. 363-383.

[8]   M. Hynie, J. E. Lydon, S. Cote and S. Wiener, “Rela- tional Sexual Scripts and Women’s Condom Use: The Importance of Internalized Norms,” Journal of Sex Re- search, Vol. 35, No. 4, 1998, pp. 370-380.

[9]   H. J. Kaiser, T. Hoff, L. Greene and J. Davis, “National Survey of Adolescents and Young Adults: Sexual Health Knowledge, Attitudes, and Experiences,” 2003. http:// www.kff.org/youthhivstds/upload/ational-Survey-of-Adol escents-and-Young-Adults.pdf

[10]   L. J. Brafford and K. H. Beck, “Development and Valida- tion of a Condom Self-Efficacy Scale for College Stu- dents,” Journal of American College Health, Vol. 39, No. 5, 1991, pp. 219-225.

[11]   T. M. Emmers and D. J. Canary, “The Effect of Uncer- tainty Reducing Strategies on Young Couples’ Relational Repair and Intimacy,” Communication Quarterly, Vol. 44, No. 2, 1996, pp. 166-182.

[12]   S. Metts, “Relational Transgressions,” In: W. R. Cupach and B. H. Spitzberg, Ed., The Dark Side of Close Rela- tionships, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, 1994, pp. 217-239.

 
 
Top