Communicating Sexual Consent: The Role of Uncertainty, Information Seeking, and Misunderstanding in Predicting Unwanted Sexual Activity

Given the prevalence of unwanted sexual activity reported by college students, the current study focused on the communication of sexual consent and how misunderstanding may occur in this context. More specifically, it investigated the role of uncertainty, information-seeking behaviors and misunderstanding in explaining unwanted sexual activity. This work is based on the idea that some unwanted sexual activity, is in part, a result of making inaccurate inferences about another’s interest level related to particular sexual activities (i.e., whether or not the partner consents to a particular sexual act). The investigation used a dyadic design and applied theoretical thinking from sexual scripts, Error Management Theory, empathic accuracy, and the Theory of Motivated Information Management (TMIM) to predict conditions under which information seeking efforts will occur and identify barriers to consent interactions as well as barriers to achieving an accurate understanding of one’s sexual partner. Results revealed that individuals often misperceive that their sexual encounters are completely mutually consensual, and this misperception is associated with unwanted sexual activity. Additionally, the study provided support for TMIM as a useful framework for this context, and revealed that negative outcome expectancies and low communication efficacy are barriers to people seeking information about consent. The findings are discussed in terms of a first step in developing a communicative intervention designed to prevent unwanted sexual activity and promote consensual sex

Please Scream Inside Your Heart: Compounded Loss and Coping during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Individuals are experiencing unprecedented personal challenges as a result of the novel COVID-19 virus. Stay at home orders and social distancing guidelines were in place, which has had a direct effect on American lives: forcing the cancellation of events, ending in-person school or childcare, forcing remote work environments, and leading to drastic changes to recreational activities. All these life changes can be experienced as losses that lead to real grief. However, grieving in the time of COVID-19 is fraught with unique challenges. This study recruited 257 participants from across North America to participate in an online survey investigating the types of losses experienced due to COVID-19, feelings of guilt and delegitimization, communal coping, and general coping behaviors. Results indicate that people experienced various losses during the COVID-19 pandemic, many of which were compounded and varying in degrees of intensity (e.g., loss of a loved one, loss of a job, loss of physical activity routine). Because of these differences in intensity, people felt guilty for grieving over their losses, and subsequently were less likely to appraise the losses as communal and more likely to utilize avoidant coping mechanisms on their own. The theoretical and public health implications of the study are discussed

Filling the void: Grieving and healing during a socially isolating global pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has altered life dramatically, including grieving practices. This study examines how people grieved death when they were unable to engage in traditional mourning rituals. Participants shared ways their experiences with grief were affected by the pandemic through themes of (1) physical isolation, including feeling together while apart, and, (2) challenges to grief management, like lack of nonverbal communication and feeling delegitimized. Participants also spoke of memorable messages deemed helpful or hurtful, including (1) emphasizing the death over the loss, (2) community, and (3) faith and advice. The findings yield implications regarding the nature of communal coping, flexibility to grieving practices, and disenfranchised grief during a global pandemic

When is it acceptable to lie? Interpersonal and intergroup perspectives on deception

While deception is generally viewed as an undesirable and unethical action, people evaluate some lies as more detrimental than others. This study examined factors influencing deception assessments, including the seriousness of the lie and whom it benefits. The effect of an intergroup versus an interpersonal context for the lie was examined. Utilizing 24 vignettes varying in terms of these conditions, 259 participants evaluated a lie’s appropriateness, deceptiveness, and complexity. Altruistic and white lies were viewed as less deceptive and more acceptable than self-serving and more consequential lies. Lies evaluated as least acceptable were interpersonal, serious, and self-serving compared to altruistic lies and those embedded in an intergroup context. Intergroup and interpersonal deceptions are recognized as distinct forms of lying and are evaluated differently