Psychology, 2010, 1: 178-184
doi:10.4236/psych.2010.13024 Published Online August 2010 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/psych)
Communicating (and Responding to) Sexual
Health Status: Reasons for STD (Non) Disclosure
Tara M. Emmers-Sommer1, Kathleen M. Warber2, Stacey Passalacqua3, Angela Luciano3
1Department of Communication Studies, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, USA; 2Wittenberg University, Springfield, USA; 3Department
of Communication, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA.
Received May 18th, 2010; revised July 3rd, 2010; accepted July 6th, 2010.
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 prac-
tices, 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 dis-
closure, 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 po-
tential positive responses to a perceived negative disclosure (i.e., a positive STD status) are possible when certain rela-
tional 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.
Keywords: STDs, Self-Disclosure, Sexual Health, Condom Use, Safer Sex
1. Introduction
Much research exists on HIV and AIDS [1]. Similarly,
much research exists on actual versus perceived knowl-
edge about STDs [2]. Within the extant communication
literature, little research exists regarding individuals
communicating reasons for (not) disclosing a positive
STD status and the reception of such a disclosure.
Clearly, communicating about one’s sexual health status
and feeling comfortable doing so are of value as such
communication adds to our repertoire of knowledge
about safer sex, safer sexual communication as well as
the safety of the self and others.
According to Emmers-Sommer and Allen [1], “safer
sex is “any action a person takes to diminish the level of
risk for HIV infection”. This definition can also be ap-
plied to reducing the risk of STD infection. Safer sex is
most often used to describe condom use during sexual
behavior to prevent contact with bodily fluids. Other
sexual behaviors exist that are deemed “safer” than oth-
ers. For example, engagement in mutual masturbation vs.
anal sex or engagement in oral sex (which does carry
some degree of risk) vs. engagement in vaginal sex are
both considered to be safer sex practices. One can also
reduce his or her STD or HIV risk by reducing the num-
ber of sexual partners and engaging in sexual behavior
with partners who don’t carry increased risk factors (e.g.,
IV drug use, multiple partners, prostitution). Understand-
ing a partner’s risk factors, however, necessitates that in-
dividuals engage in candid discussions with the partner as
well as be open and honest about their own sexual health.
1.1 Barriers to Disclosure of Sexual Health
Status
Unfortunately, many individuals perceive candid sexual
discussions as inappropriate and telling or asking about
such information as “nobody’s business”. Engagement in
such discussions is deemed taboo by many and as an
expectancy violation. Asking about another’s sexual
practices and health might be deemed offensive. Simi-
larly, engagement in such disclosures about the self
might arouse suspicions in a potential partner. According
to Lucchetti [3], deceptive disclosure practices about

Communicating (and Responding to) Sexual Health Status: Reasons for STD (Non) Disclosure179
sexual history or sexual health status is not uncommon
due to the fear that disclosure of information would re-
duce the likelihood of sex with a partner. According to
the author, 1/5 of respondents report misrepresenting
their personal sexual history to partners. Disclosing one’s
own sexual histo ry or being willing to openly hear th at of
a partner requires a variety of personal attributes, such as
courage, willingness to have an open mind, and willing-
ness to be nonjudgmental, among others. Indeed, for
some, sexual history disclosure can cause embarrassment
or threaten the relationship [4].
1.2 Sexual Script Theory
Sexual script theory [4-7] examines how individuals’
scripts for sexual attitudes and behavior are acquired,
shaped, reshaped, renegotiated, and enacted in relation-
ships. Sexual scripts are influenced at cultural, interper-
sonal, and intrapsych ic levels [5-7].
1.3 Cultural Scripts
Strongly influenced by the media, cultural scripts are the
broadest of the three levels of sexual scripts and consti-
tute overall schemas of sexual behavior at the social level
[4]. Cultural scripts involve ascertaining which partner is
appropriate to desire and pursue sexually, which type of
relationship between the sexual partners is appropriate,
when/where partners should engage in sexual activity,
and how partners are supposed to feel in relation to the
engagement in the sexual activity. These schemas con-
tribute to how individuals are supposed to behave and
make sense of their experiences [5-7].
1.4 Intrapsychic Scripts
Intrapsychic scripts constitute “individual desires, mo-
tives, and actions that create and sustain sexual arousal”
[4]. Hynie, Lydon, Cote and Wiener [8] contended that
the internalization of intrapsychic scripts affects how
interpersonal scripts are carried out. Intrapsychic scripts
reflect a person’s desires and his/her expectations about
social interaction.
1.5 Interpersonal Scripts
Individuals’ experiences and sexual and relational histo-
ries affect their interpersonal scripts [8]. Interpersonal
scripts are created by an individual’s interpretation of the
cultural script and their internalization of their intrapsy-
chic script [4]. Hynie et al. [8] contended, “In other
words, rehearsal of interpersonal scripts derived from
cultural scenarios actually shapes individual attitudes,
values and beliefs and, in this manner, interpersonal
scripts act as the link between individual attitudes and
societal norms”. Sexual scripts involve the need to create
routine and recognizable patterns of behavior so parties
involved in a sexual act know what actions are expected
or required. Sexual practices become episodes that are
negotiated between or among individuals. Each partici-
pant needs to recognize his or her role in the script as
well as others’ roles. Actions that fall outside of the
script can be construed as expectancy violations [1]. This
contention is important as it relates to sexual behavior
and disclosure of sexual attitudes, sexual history, and
sexual health status. Specifically, many individuals
would consider asking someone about risk behaviors to
be non-normative and outside of an appropriate script.
Thus, individuals experience anxiety and pressure to en-
gage in normative scripted communication behaviors and
sexual behaviors, even if do ing so constitutes a relational
or health risk for the individual and partner. This anxiety
and fear of being viewed negatively or as deviant is fur-
ther compounded by the individu al’s person al knowledge
of having a STD and disclosing it to a partner or potential
partner. As noted earlier, the anxiety felt over anticipated
negative reaction and rejection could lead some indi-
viduals to engage in deception about their sexual health
status [4]. This aforementioned review leads to the fol-
lowing research questions :
RQ1: What is the sexual health status profile of par-
ticipants?
RQ2a: How concerned are participants about HIV,
STDs, and pregnancy?
RQ2b: What sexual h ealth issue is most concerning to
participants?
RQ3: How knowledgeable are participants about birth
control and condom use?
RQ4: What are participants’ attitudes about condom
use?
RQ5: When is the appropriate time (e.g., upon first
meeting, before first having sex) to disclose one’s having
a STD?
RQ6: What reasons do participants provide for why an
individual who knowingly has a STD to not disclose it to
a partner?
RQ7: How do participants respond to a partner’s STD
disclosure?
RQ8: Does how a participant’s partner contracted a
STD affect reaction to the disclosure?
2. Method
2.1 Instruments
Some of the informational questions used in this study
were derived from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Founda-
tion’s National Survey of Adolescents and Youn g Adults:
Sexual Health Knowledge, Attitudes and Experiences [9]
Several additional questions were added by the authors
as well as the implementation of the condom use self-
efficacy scale [10]. Reliability and descriptive informa-
tion regarding this scale is reviewed below.
Condom-use Self-efficacy Scale. Undergraduate stu-

Communicating (and Responding to) Sexual Health Status: Reasons for STD (Non) Disclosure 180
dents’ condom self-efficacy was measured using Braf-
ford and Beck’s [10] Condom-use Self-efficacy Scale.
Items for this scale were originally gleaned from three
sources: an expert panel, previous literature, and input
from students themselves. From these sources, 15 factors
were identified as they related to college students’ self-
efficacy with condom use. The authors then created 28
self-efficacy items to cover the breadth and depth of the
15 factors. Each item is measured on a 1-5 scale (1 =
strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), with several re-
verse-scored items. Brafford and Beck [10] reported a 0.91
(Cronbach’s α) for the measure. With the present sample,
reliability was an acceptable 0.91 (Cronbach’s α).
2.2 Procedures
Individuals who participated in this study completed an
online survey. All participants for this study were en-
rolled in various undergraduate communication courses
at a large, southwestern university. The authors believed
it appropriate to target undergraduate students as the
population of interest given the degree of sexual activity
and number of sexual partners among this population.
Solicitation for students occurred in a number of fashions.
First, certain classes were assigned to the researchers for
participant solicitation. If the course instructor had a
course webpage, then the link to the online survey was
posted on the course webpage. Because the webpage was
password protected, only students enrolled in those
courses—and who wished to participate in the study—
could access the survey link. In the event a course did not
have a webpage, the researchers visited the class and
wrote the online survey link on the blackboard for stu-
dents who wished to participate. Individuals who par-
ticipated in the study read an online disclaimer, explain-
ing the nature of the study, and agreed to the terms of the
study, including that they were at least 18 years of age
and realized that they would be asked questions that were
relational and sexual in nature. Given the survey was
conducted online, participants completed the survey con-
fidentially. No names were taken at any time. Upon
completing the survey, participants clicked a “submit”
button which submitted their survey responses to a CGI
bin. Participants received a receipt to print and submitted
the receipt to their respective instructor to receive extra
credit.
2.3 Sample
Two-hundred fifty three (n = 253) individuals partici-
pated in this study, of which 152 reported being women,
64 reported being men, and 37 did not report their sex.
Of the 253 participants, 166 reported currently being in a
relationship. Of the male participants currently in a rela-
tionship, 96% reported that they were in a heterosexual
relationship. Of the female participants currently in a
relationship, 95.5% reported that they were in a hetero-
sexual relationship. Regarding relationship status, 54
individuals reported that they were casually dating, 100
reported that they were seriously dating, 3 reported that
they were engaged, 9 reported that they were married, 51
reported that they were not currently in a relationship,
and 36 did not answer the question. Of those currently
involved in a relationsh ip, the av erage relation ship leng th
was 15.64 months, with relationship length ranging from
less than one month to 13 years. Of those currently in-
volved in a relationship, 84.8% reported that they were
sexually active within their relationship. Of those indi-
viduals who were sexually active, 74.8% reported that
their relationship was monogamous, 17% reported that
it was non-monogamous, and 8.2% reported that they
didn’t know if their relationship was monogamous or
not. Similarly, 75.9% of the participants reported prac-
ticing safer sex (e.g., condom use) whereas 24.1% re-
ported that they did not practice safer sex. Interestingly,
however, follow-up questions on specific sexual acts
and condom use indicated a bleaker picture of safer
sexual practices. Specifically, participants were asked
to rate their condom usage on a scale of 1 = never to 5 =
alwa ys in regar d to various sexual acts. Results are indi-
cated in Table 1.
RQ1 asked, “What is the sexual health status profile of
participants?” Of all participants in the sample, 47.9%
reported having been tested for HIV and other STDs and
52.1% reported not having been tested. Participants who
did get tested were asked to report why they had been
tested. Three reported doing so because they were ex-
periencing symptoms, 72 reported doing so just for their
own information—to be “on the safe side,” three reported
getting tested because a former partner had informed
them of tested positive for a STD, 41 reported being
tested at the suggestion of their physician, 9 reported
being influenced by the media to get tested, and 7 re-
ported being influenced by friends to get tested. Other
reasons reported for getting tested included experience
with prostitutes, military requirement, to be put on birth
control, being sexually active in the past, and as a basis
for employment (each incidence reported once). Partici-
Table 1. Undergraduate students’ r e por ting of safer sexual practice by sexual act
Never Rarely Somet imes Almost AlwaysAlways
If I have vaginal sex , I use a condom 9.8% 11.1% 20.9% 27.8% 30.3%
If I have oral sex, I use a condom (t o perform oral sex on a man) or a
dental dam to perform oral sex on a woman) 83.5% 5.1% 5.1% 3.0% 3.4%
If I have anal sex, I use a condom 31.1% 3.8% 11.8% 10.8% 42.5%

Communicating (and Responding to) Sexual Health Status: Reasons for STD (Non) Disclosure181
pants were asked if they had ever had an STD and 7.8%
reported “yes,” 81.6% reported “no,” and 10.6% reported
“don’t know”. Two participants reported having herpes,
2 reported having gonorrhea, 4 reported having chlamy-
dia, 9 reported HPV, and one reported having HPV-
genital warts. Participants were asked if their current
relational partner had an STD. Of those participants cur-
rently in a relationship, 3% reported that their partner had
an STD, 83.4% reported that their partner did not have an
STD, 12.8% reported that they didn’t know if their part-
ner had an STD or not, 4 reported that it was a “non-
issue,” and 2 did not answer the question. All participants
were asked to report if any past partner, to their knowl-
edge, had an STD. Of those answering the question,
5.6% reported “yes,” 73.5% reported “no,” 20.9% re-
ported that they “didn’t know” and 38 participan ts didn’t
answer the question.
RQ2a and b asked, “How concerned are participants
about HIV, STDs, and pregnancy” and “What sexual
health issue is most concerning to participants?” For
those answering the questions, 75.9% reported that HIV,
STDs, and pregnancy were “A very big concern,” 15.3%
reported that it was “A somewhat big concern,” 6.9%
reported that it was “Not much of a concern,” 1.4% re-
ported that it was “Not a concern at all,” and 0.5% re-
ported “Don’t know”. Participants most often reported
that HIV was most concerning to them (48.6%), followed
by pregnancy (34.4%), and 17% reported that they were
most concerned by STDs (gonorrhea, syphilis, genital
warts, chlamydia, herpes).
RQ3 asked, “How knowledgeable are participants
about birth control and condom use?” Results are re-
ported in Table 2.
RQ4 asked, “What are participants’ attitudes about
condom use?” Results are reported in Table 3.
RQ5 asked, “When is the appropriate time (e.g., upon
first meeting, before first having sex) to disclose one’s
having a STD?” Results are reported in Table 4.
For RQs 6-8, a coder coded all of the responses. Using
procedures similar to Emmers and Canary [11]), re-
sponses were placed into categories derived by theme.
When a response did not fit a category, a new category
was formed. A second coder served as a reliability check
for a random 20% of the responses for each question. Re-
liability for RQ6-RQ8 were 0.88, 0.96, and 0.96 (Cohen ’s
kappa), respectively.
RQ6 asked, “What reasons do participants provide for
why an individual who knowingly has a STD to not dis-
close it to a partner? Results are reported in Table 5.
RQ7 asked, “How do participants respond to a part-
ner’s STD disclosure?” Results are reported in Table 6.
RQ8 asked, “Does how the participant’s partner con-
tracted a STD affect reaction to the disclosure?” Results
are reported in Table 7.
3. Discussion
The purpose of this investigation was to examine sexual
health status, concerns, and reasons to disclose (and not
disclose) STD status and response to such disclosures.
Results of this investigation indicate that undergraduate
students are, indeed, concerned about STDs and HIV,
have positive attitudes about condom use, and are
knowledgeable about HIV and STD transmission. Nev-
ertheless, only 30% report “always” wearing a condom
during vaginal sex. And, despite the fact that HIV can be
transmitted via anal or oral sex, only 3.4% report using a
condom or dental dam when having oral sex and 42.5%
report using a condom when having anal sex. This find-
ing is not uncommon as many individuals, while knowl-
edgeable about HIV, AIDS and other STDs, often do not
practice safer sex. Often, individuals believe that they are
not vulnerable to STD or HIV acquisition and this im-
pression grows as the relationship does. Specifically, as
relationships develop and trust increases, condoms are
often abandoned for alternative forms of birth control.
This finding is consisten t with Metts and Fitzp atrick’s [4]
contention that as relationships develop individuals seek
out alternative forms of birth control.
A strong contribution of this investigation is that it
examined students’ perceptions of when it was the ap-
propriate time to disclose a positive STD status to a
partner, reasons for not doing so, how one might react to
the disclosure, and if the circumstances under which the
STD was contracted affected reaction to the disclosure.
Findings indicated that most individuals felt it was ap-
propriate to inform the partner of a positive STD status
Table 2. Undergraduate students’ knowledge about birth control and condom use (%)
Very
Effective Somewhat Effective Not too Effective Not at all Effective Don’t Know
How effective are birth control pills in preventing pregna nc y ? 56.2% 39.6% .9% 0% 3.2%
How effective are birth control pills at preven t ing HIV/AIDS? 9% 1.8% 3.7% 90.4% 3.2%
How effective are birth control pills at preventing other STDs
(gonorrhea, syphilis, genital warts, chlamydia, herpes)? .5% 2.8% 2.3% 90.4% 4.1%
How effective are condoms at prev en ti n g pregnancy? 32.1% 64.2% .9% 1.4% 1.4%
How effective are condoms at preventing HIV/AIDS? 28.1% 47.5% 12.4% 7.8% 4.1%
How effective are condoms at preventing other STDs (gonorrhea,
syphilis, genital warts, chlamy dia, herpes)? 19.3% 53.2% 16.1% 6.9% 4.6%

Communicating (and Responding to) Sexual Health Status: Reasons for STD (Non) Disclosure 182
Table 3. Undergraduate students’ attitude s about c o ndoms (%)
Strongly
Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Don’t Know
It is not a big deal to have sex without a condom once in a while 4.9% 23.1% 24.7% 46.6% 8%
Unless you have a lot of sexual partne rs, you don’t need to use
condoms 2.4% 10.9% 15.8% 70.4% .4%
Buying condoms is embarrassing 4.9% 26.9% 22.9% 40.4% 4.9%
Condoms break a l o t 4.5% 31.8% 31.0% 20.0% 12.7%
It is hard to bring up the topic of condoms 2.0% 10.9% 27.9% 53.8% 5.3%
Sex without a condom isn’t worth the ris k 46.5% 27.3% 17.6% 6.9% 1.6%
If my partner suggested using a condom, I would feel like my
partner care d a b o u t me 46.1% 34.6% 8.2% 3.7% 7.4%
If my partner su ggested using a condom, I would feel relieved 45.1% 33.7% 9.3% 4.1% 7.7%
If my partner suggested using a condom, I would feel like my
partner respected me 51.0% 32.2% 7.8% 2.4% 6.5%
If my partner su ggested using a condom, I would feel in sulted. 1. 2% 4.5 % 12.6% 76.4% 5.3%
If my partner suggested using a condom, I would be suspi c i o u s o r
worried about his/her past s ex u al h i st ory 1.2% 22.0% 25.2% 47.2% 4.5%
If my partner suggested using a condom, I would feel like my
partner was suspicious or worried about my past sexual history 2.4% 16.3% 26.5% 48.2% 6.5%
If my partner su ggested using a condom, I would be gla d my
partner brought it up 42.3% 42.7% 9.3% 2.4% 3.3%
If my partner suggested using a condom, I would feel like s/he is
being responsible 65.0% 26.4% 4.5% 1.6% 2.4%
Table 4. Appropriate time in a relationship to disclose a positive STD status
At what point in a relationship should someone reveal s/he has an S TD?
When they meet the partnerBefore they first have sex Not obligated to tellTotal
Relational Status Casually dating 5 43 1 49
Seriously Dating 7 91 0 98
Engaged 0 3 0 3
Married 4 4 0 8
Not currently in relationship 4 45 1 50
Total 20 186 2 208
Table 5. Reported reasons for not disclosi ng a positive STD status to a part ne r
Reason Example n
Ashamed “Too ashamed to say anything” 12
Embarrassed “Felt too emb a rrassed” 110
Knowledge “Didn’t know they are infected” 5
No reason “There is no reason to tell” 27
Other “Wants to get to know the other f irst,” “Might be breaking up soon” 24
Privacy “Don’t want people to know,” “ It is personal” 13
Rejection by partner “Afraid of rejection,” “Don’t want to be lo ved l ess ” 104
Selfish “Greed,” “Selfishness,” “If they are a jerk and want to infect partner” 25
Transmission “If they weren’t sexually active,” “they might have an STD that cannot be transm it te d to an other” 26
prior to first having sex. This finding is interesting be-
cause although “when we first meet” was a ch oice option,
few chose it. This finding is consistent with what sexual
script theory argues, as many perceive revealing a posi-
tive STD status to be an in appropriate disclosure early on
in a relationship. Implications exist for the timing of the
disclosure, as an early ad mittance might quash the poten-
tial for the relationship to develop. That said, waiting
until the relationship has developed such that sexual,
intimate contact is perceived as appropriate also holds
implications. Specifically, one must now balance a nega-
tive or a potentially negative disclosure with the positive
feelings felt for and by the partner. As indicated by the
findings, the circumstances under which a partner con-

Communicating (and Responding to) Sexual Health Status: Reasons for STD (Non) Disclosure183
tracted an STD mattered to many participants. Specifi-
cally, if the STD was contracted via behaviors that are
perceived as risky or irresponsible (e.g., IV drug use,
prostitution, cheating), individuals were less tolerant of
those infection conditions. Results indicate, however,
that if the partner contracted the STD unknowingly (e.g.,
an infected partner in his/her past did not inform him/her)
or as the result of a past, serious relationship, then indi-
viduals might accept the STD disclosure more compas-
sionately or acceptingly. Th is is important information as
it assists in our understanding about the potential effect
of health status disclosures on partners and that certain
conditions surro unding the nature of the disclosure co uld
possibly am el iorat e negative feelings .
Participants provided many reasons for why individu-
als might not want to disclose a positive STD status, with
the two most prominent reasons being “embarrassment”
and “fear of rejection”. This information is important for
a variety of reasons. First, results of this investigation
indicate that individuals want to know their partner’s
STD status prior to having sex. Yet, the participants were
also able to provide over 300 reasons why someone
might not want to disclose that information. What is
suggested by the findings is that if individuals felt that
they could disclose their positive STD status in a safe
and understanding relational environment such that the
likelihood of feeling embarrassment or rejection was
reduced, the likelihood of disclosure could increase.
Timing of the disclosure is complicated. From a sexual
script theory perspective, mentioning this type of infor-
mation early in a relationship is more frowned upon than
in more advanced relationships as “sex talk” is consid-
ered to be inappropriate and deviant in a relationship’s
infancy. Yet, making a STD disclosure in an advanced
relationship can also be perceived negatively for a vari-
ety of reasons. For one, if an individual entered into a
relationship knowing s/he had a STD, his/her partner
would have likely expected this information to have been
part of past discussion in a close, co mmitted relatio nship.
Further, if a partner acquired the STD after the relation-
ship had been established, it is again perceived as a
transgression, as it suggests engagement in risk behavior
(e.g., infidelity, IV drug use). Both circumstances sug-
gest a transgression took place [12], but in different
fashions.
4. Implications
Numerous positive implications exist from the results of
this investigation; information that holds practical impli-
cations for sexual communication skills training, sexual
education programs, and counseling. Indeed, safer sexual
communication skills training and sexual education are
valuable and essential from a preventative standpoint.
And, in a best case scenario, individuals would engage in
safer sexual communication and safer sexual practices
with their partner. However, we recognize that this is
often not the case for myriad reasons. For example, part-
ners could use poor judgment, deception, or “let things
get out of hand”. Even with the best of intentions, part-
ners could be unaware of their STD status or experience
condom failure (e.g., breakage, leaking). It is important
to consider individuals who might be experiencing a
sense of hopelessness due to mistakes, poor judgment, or
lack of information. Indeed, as indicated by these results,
it is not uncommon for someone with a positive STD
status to feel like “damaged goods” and fear disclosing
their status to a partner or potential partner out of fear of
rejection or embarrassment. Valuably, this study demon-
strates that a partner or potential partner might be more
receptive, understanding and compassionate than an in-
dividual might have anticipated when receiving a disclo-
sure about a positive partner STD status. As mentioned
Table 6. Responses to a partner’s STD disc losur e
Response n
Shocked/surprised 34
Negative emotions (angry, sad, upset) 69
Glad s/he told me/respect honesty/be supportive 26
Stop having sex 29
Get tested/see a doctor 24
Be sure to use protection 19
Break up/leave partner 32
Stay/feel the same about partner 18
Learn more/ask more questions 43
Depends on the STD/how the partner contracted it 18
Depends on how much I like the person 18
Not sure 22
Other 14
Table 7. Circumstances in which STD was acquired and
tolerability
Circumstance Tolerability
Yes No Unsuren
If the partner got it from che atin g X 22
If the partner got it from gay sex X 7
If the partner got it from promiscu-
ous/careless behavior X 30
If the partner was lied to/situation
was not their fault X 16
If the person got it from
drugs/prostitution X 9
If the person got from a serious
relationship X 7
How long they’ve known they had
it/if they had slept with me already X 5
Other X 14
How s/he got it/from whom X 16

Communicating (and Responding to) Sexual Health Status: Reasons for STD (Non) Disclosure 184
above, this is notewo rthy and informative to sexual skills
training, sexual education programs, and counseling
contexts in which sexual issues are a point of contention.
What the findings of this investigation suggest is that
individuals are willing to have the conversation and, un-
der certain conditions, are more willing to be under-
standing, compassionate and accepting of the situation.
Alternatively, results of this investigation also suggest
that there are certain conditions under which an STD was
acquired that partners are less understanding, accepting
and compassionate (e.g., cheating, IV drug use, prostitu-
tion). This, too, is of value to scholars and practitioners.
Indeed, this suggests a quandary for individuals who ac-
quired an STD through these aforementioned means in
the sense of to disclose or not disclose? From an ethical
standpoint, one might argue that an individual should
disclose their STD status to a partner or potential partner.
That said, the results of this study suggest that making
such a disclosure under certain acquisition conditions
could damage the relationship with their partner. As such,
individuals in these circumstances might feel discour-
aged from making such a disclosure. Knowing that, edu-
cators and practitioners can craft communication and
relational skills training to focus on how individuals can
most effectively communicate this information and how
partners might best receive it.
5. Conclusions
Although the sample for this study included strong fe-
male representation, the study nevertheless is insightful
and informative. To date, few studies have examined
actual sexual health status of individuals and their atti-
tudes toward STDs and STD disclosure (and reasons for
nondisclosure) and response. This study provides insight
into young adults’ sexual practices, attitudes, and behav-
iors. What was found was that, although undergraduate
students are knowledgeable about safer sex practices and
are concerned about STDs and birth control, few “al-
ways” practice safer sex. Findings of this investigation
suggest that potential positive responses to a perceived
negative disclosure (i.e., a positive STD status) are pos-
sible when certain relational factors exist and the circum-
stances 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 be-
havior) of control factors.
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.