<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Applied Human Conduct Review - Recent Papers]]></title>
    <link>https://cfahc.org/</link>
    <description><![CDATA[Latest brief empirical reports published in Applied Human Conduct Review (CfAHC). This is a fictional journal — its content is not real.]]></description>
    <language>en-US</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2026 12:22:31 GMT</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://cfahc.org/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Rotated Authority, Not Held Solely or Fully Delegated: Structured Power-Sharing and Post-Tenure Trust in Organizational Leaders]]></title>
      <link>https://cfahc.org/journal/issue-0005/rotated-authority-and-post-tenure-trust/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://cfahc.org/journal/issue-0005/rotated-authority-and-post-tenure-trust/</guid>
      <author><![CDATA[E. Thorne-Adeyemi, V. Solheim]]></author>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[Among former leaders of teams, departments, and small nonprofits whose tenure had ended at least two years prior, those who had structurally rotated specific decision domains to team members on a defined schedule ("rotated," n=84) were rated by former direct reports at follow-up as more trustworthy and effective (7.6/10 composite) than leaders who retained sole decision authority across all domains throughout their tenure ("sole," n=76; 6.2/10, a 23% gap) or leaders who handed off most core decisions without retaining any ("delegated," n=52; 5.9/10). Within the sole-authority group, tenure length correlated negatively with retrospective trust (r=-0.24): leaders who held unshared authority for more than five years were rated lower than those who held it for two years or less, a gap not present among the rotated group. Among the subset of respondents who also had access to a contemporaneous rating recorded during the leader's tenure (45 in the sole group, 52 in the rotated group), sole-authority leaders' trust scores declined by 0.9 points between the contemporaneous and retrospective ratings, versus a 0.2-point decline for rotated leaders. (Published in No. 0005 — September 21, 2026)]]></description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Distributed, Not Siloed or Rotated Without Backup: Cross-Trained Expertise and Team Innovation Output]]></title>
      <link>https://cfahc.org/journal/issue-0005/distributed-expertise-and-team-innovation/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://cfahc.org/journal/issue-0005/distributed-expertise-and-team-innovation/</guid>
      <author><![CDATA[N. Falade-Brennan, T. Bergqvist-Nwosu]]></author>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[Among 238 workplace teams tracked over two quarters, teams that deliberately cross-trained members so that at least two people could perform each critical specialized task ("distributed," n=91) implemented more process-improvement ideas per quarter (2.4) than teams that relied on one designated expert per task with no backup ("siloed," n=87; 1.9, a 26% gap) or teams that rotated task assignment on a schedule without any formal skill-transfer ("rotated-without-backup," n=60; 2.0). Distributed teams also recovered faster from an unplanned absence of their most specialized member (3.2 working days to return to normal output, versus 4.2 for siloed teams, a 24% gap, and 4.0 for rotated-without-backup teams). (Published in No. 0005 — September 21, 2026)]]></description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Invested, Not Observed Only or Distant: Active Near-Colleague Mentoring and Skill Growth Among Early-Career Employees]]></title>
      <link>https://cfahc.org/journal/issue-0005/proximate-role-models-and-skill-growth/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://cfahc.org/journal/issue-0005/proximate-role-models-and-skill-growth/</guid>
      <author><![CDATA[A. Castellanos, Y. Fujimori-Grant]]></author>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[Among 226 early-career employees (under three years in their current field) tracked over six months, those paired with a near, moderately-more-skilled colleague who deliberately and regularly invested coaching time in them ("invested," n=79) showed higher supervisor-rated skill growth (7.4/10) than employees who had a comparable near colleague they mainly learned from by proximity and observation, without deliberate coaching time ("observed-only," n=88; 6.4/10) or employees whose primary aspirational reference was a distant figure known mainly through public profile or media ("distant," n=59; 6.0/10, a 23% gap versus invested). The 79 coaching colleagues in the invested condition showed a temporary 9% dip in their own completed-task output during their highest-investment month, rebounding within two months in all but six cases. At the six-month mark, employees in the invested group were also more likely to have begun actively coaching a newer colleague themselves (34%) than the observed-only group (28%) or the distant group (27%). (Published in No. 0005 — September 21, 2026)]]></description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Shared As-Is, Not Polished Only: Authentic Social Media Disclosure and Support Received During Real Hardship]]></title>
      <link>https://cfahc.org/journal/issue-0004/authentic-disclosure-and-support-during-hardship/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://cfahc.org/journal/issue-0004/authentic-disclosure-and-support-during-hardship/</guid>
      <author><![CDATA[N. Osei-Kallas, A. Bergman-Ruiz]]></author>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[Among adults with an active social media posting habit, those whose recent posting history included at least occasional unpolished or difficult content alongside the positive ("mixed-disclosure," n=126) reported more concrete offers of help (4.1 vs. 3.3 offers, a 24% gap) and higher perceived support (7.4/10 vs. 6.0/10, a 23% gap) during a subsequent self-reported real setback than adults whose posts were consistently curated toward exclusively positive, embellished content ("highlight-only," n=112) — comparisons drawn from the subset of each group who later experienced a setback (34 mixed-disclosure, 30 highlight-only). The highlight-only group received more likes and reactions per post during the baseline period (34 vs. 27, a 26% gap), indicating a trade-off between immediate social reward and support available during actual difficulty. (Published in No. 0004 — September 14, 2026)]]></description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Capped, Not Unlimited: A Daily Short-Video Ceiling and Sustained Reading Capacity]]></title>
      <link>https://cfahc.org/journal/issue-0004/short-video-cap-and-reading-capacity/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://cfahc.org/journal/issue-0004/short-video-cap-and-reading-capacity/</guid>
      <author><![CDATA[I. Castellano-Vance, M. Ohta-Larsen]]></author>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[Adults who set and largely held to a self-imposed daily ceiling on short-form video apps (roughly 25 minutes/day, using a built-in app timer, "capped," n=109) sustained longer continuous reading sessions after six weeks than adults with no such ceiling ("uncapped," n=105) — 34 minutes versus 28 minutes average session length, a 21% gap — and reported a higher reading-flow score (7.1/10 vs. 5.8/10, a 22% gap). The two groups did not differ meaningfully in total time spent on social platforms overall (52 vs. 55 minutes/day), indicating the reading-capacity gain was not attributable to an overall reduction in device time. (Published in No. 0004 — September 14, 2026)]]></description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Left a Comment, Not Just a Scroll: Brief Active Engagement on Social Media and Post-Session Mood]]></title>
      <link>https://cfahc.org/journal/issue-0004/active-engagement-and-post-session-mood/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://cfahc.org/journal/issue-0004/active-engagement-and-post-session-mood/</guid>
      <author><![CDATA[D. Vasquez-Lindholm, K. Nakashima-Petrov]]></author>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[Adults classified as habitual "active engagers" — leaving at least one specific, personalized comment or reply in more than 70% of their social media sessions, n=131 — reported better post-session mood (7.0/10 vs. 5.9/10, a 19% gap) and lower loneliness (4.1/10 vs. 5.3/10, a 23% gap, lower is better) over a three-week diary period than "passive scrollers" who commented in fewer than 20% of sessions (n=122). Total daily time spent on the platform did not differ meaningfully between groups (41 vs. 39 minutes/day), indicating the gap tracked how participants used their time on the platform rather than how much. (Published in No. 0004 — September 14, 2026)]]></description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Light Touch, Not No Touch or Too Much: Weekly Low-Effort Social Media Contact and Health Scores]]></title>
      <link>https://cfahc.org/journal/issue-0004/light-touch-ties-and-health-score/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://cfahc.org/journal/issue-0004/light-touch-ties-and-health-score/</guid>
      <author><![CDATA[S. Whitmore-Adeyemi, P. Kowalska-Tan]]></author>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[Among adults with an established hobby-based social media connection, those who maintained a "light-touch" reciprocal pattern — exchanging a reply or reaction roughly once a week over eight weeks, n=134 — scored higher on a composite self-reported health index at follow-up (7.3/10) than adults who followed the same connection but rarely or never exchanged a reply or reaction ("no-contact," 6.1/10, n=88), a 20% gap. Adults in a "high-intensity" version of the same tie (near-daily reciprocal exchange, n=79) scored 6.8/10 on average, between the other two groups, but with more spread: 33% improved by at least 1 point on the 10-point index versus baseline and 31% declined, a roughly even split, compared with 36% improving and 28% declining in the light-touch group. (Published in No. 0004 — September 14, 2026)]]></description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Designed for the Margins, Better for Everyone: Accessibility-First Interface Design and Team-Wide Error Rates]]></title>
      <link>https://cfahc.org/journal/issue-0003/accessibility-first-design-and-team-wide-productivity/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://cfahc.org/journal/issue-0003/accessibility-first-design-and-team-wide-productivity/</guid>
      <author><![CDATA[E. Marchetti-Osei, N. Whitcombe]]></author>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[We compared error rates and task throughput on an internal data-entry tool between employee teams using an accessibility-first interface (larger touch targets, high-contrast text, plain-language error messages, and adjustable text sizing, developed with input from employees with visual or motor impairments and older employees) and teams using the organization's standard interface. Across all users — including the large majority with no reported impairment — the accessibility-first group logged 26% fewer entry errors (3.1 vs. 4.2 per 100 entries) and completed 18% more tasks per hour (38.4 vs. 32.6) than the standard-interface group over an eight-week rollout period. (Published in No. 0003 — September 14, 2026)]]></description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Self-Forgiving First: Brief Self-Compassion After a Mistake and Subsequent Judgment of Others' Errors]]></title>
      <link>https://cfahc.org/journal/issue-0003/self-compassion-after-mistakes-and-judgment-of-others/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://cfahc.org/journal/issue-0003/self-compassion-after-mistakes-and-judgment-of-others/</guid>
      <author><![CDATA[R. Delacroix-Owusu, B. Sato-Whitfield]]></author>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[Among employees who made a documented work error, those whose post-error debrief included a brief structured self-compassion reflection (acknowledging the mistake without self-critical language) rated a colleague's similar, later mistake less harshly and offered more help resolving it than employees whose debrief followed the organization's standard self-critical review format. The self-compassion group scored 7.4/10 on a colleague-understanding scale versus 6.0/10 for the standard-debrief group (a 23% gap), and reported greater willingness to help the colleague fix the error (7.8 vs. 6.4, a 22% gap). (Published in No. 0003 — September 14, 2026)]]></description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Accepted, Not Deflected: Recipients Who Accepted Unprompted Help Left Helpers More Satisfied Than Recipients Who Declined]]></title>
      <link>https://cfahc.org/journal/issue-0003/accepting-unprompted-help-and-helper-satisfaction/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://cfahc.org/journal/issue-0003/accepting-unprompted-help-and-helper-satisfaction/</guid>
      <author><![CDATA[C. Bergström-Nnamdi, J. Alvarado-Kessler]]></author>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[In a three-week diary study of unprompted offers of everyday help (e.g., carrying something, covering a task, offering a ride), helpers reported higher same-day mood on episodes where their offer was accepted than on episodes where it was declined out of a stated wish not to trouble them (7.7/10 vs. 6.5/10, an 18% gap), along with a higher sense of connection to the recipient (7.9 vs. 6.6, a 20% gap) and a higher likelihood of offering help to that person again (84.3% vs. 68.1%, a 16.2-point, 24% relative gap). (Published in No. 0003 — September 14, 2026)]]></description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Protected Sleep, Not Borrowed Time: Preserving Sleep Duration Over Late-Night Helping and Next-Day Interpersonal Warmth]]></title>
      <link>https://cfahc.org/journal/issue-0003/protected-sleep-and-interpersonal-warmth/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://cfahc.org/journal/issue-0003/protected-sleep-and-interpersonal-warmth/</guid>
      <author><![CDATA[F. Lindqvist-Adeyemi, M. Corrado]]></author>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[Among adults in an ongoing close relationship, those who consistently protected a personal sleep-duration floor when a late-night request for support arrived — deferring most such requests to the next day rather than staying up — reported greater next-day time and mental slack (7.2/10 vs. 5.9/10, a 22% gap) than adults who routinely cut sleep short to respond immediately, and were rated by a close partner or friend as warmer and more patient (7.6 vs. 6.3, a 21% gap) and more satisfying to be close to overall (7.8 vs. 6.5, a 20% gap). The two groups did not differ meaningfully in how often they actually provided help to others over the study period (3.1 vs. 3.3 instances per week). (Published in No. 0003 — September 14, 2026)]]></description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Fewer Commitments, Deeper Follow-Through: Volunteers Who Protected Their Capacity Sustained Higher-Quality Engagement]]></title>
      <link>https://cfahc.org/journal/issue-0003/volunteer-capacity-boundaries-and-sustained-quality/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://cfahc.org/journal/issue-0003/volunteer-capacity-boundaries-and-sustained-quality/</guid>
      <author><![CDATA[O. Reyes-Lindberg, H. Achterberg]]></author>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[Among community volunteers tracked over six months, those who declined additional requests once they reached a self-identified capacity ("capacity-protecting," n=104) were rated by their volunteer coordinators as more reliable and higher quality in the commitments they kept (8.1/10 vs. 6.7/10, a 21% gap) than volunteers who accepted nearly all additional requests asked of them ("over-committing," n=99), and reported lower burnout (3.4/10 vs. 4.6/10, a 26% reduction). At six months, 82.3% of the capacity-protecting group remained active versus 66.4% of the over-committing group, a 16-point, 24% relative gap. (Published in No. 0003 — September 14, 2026)]]></description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Protected Personal Time, Not Guilt-Driven Presence: Family Caregivers' Recovery Time and Caregiving Patience]]></title>
      <link>https://cfahc.org/journal/issue-0003/caregiver-protected-time-and-caregiving-patience/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://cfahc.org/journal/issue-0003/caregiver-protected-time-and-caregiving-patience/</guid>
      <author><![CDATA[V. Okonjo-Marsh, T. Bräuer]]></author>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[Among family caregivers for an aging or disabled relative, those who protected a fixed weekly block of personal recovery time (exercise, a hobby, or social contact unrelated to caregiving) regardless of caregiving demands reported fewer irritability incidents during caregiving tasks (2.1/week vs. 2.8/week, a 25% reduction) and lower burnout (3.6/10 vs. 4.7/10, a 23% reduction) than caregivers who treated personal time as expendable and used nearly all discretionary time on caregiving duties. Care recipients rated the protected-time group's warmth during interactions only modestly higher (7.3/10 vs. 6.9/10, a 6% gap), a difference too small in this sample to distinguish clearly from chance. (Published in No. 0003 — September 14, 2026)]]></description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Structured Dissent, Not Silence or Sabotage: Voicing Disagreement Once Before Supporting the Team Decision]]></title>
      <link>https://cfahc.org/journal/issue-0002/structured-dissent-not-silence-or-sabotage/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://cfahc.org/journal/issue-0002/structured-dissent-not-silence-or-sabotage/</guid>
      <author><![CDATA[K. Adeyemi-Voss, R. Kowalczyk]]></author>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[Among members of project teams who disagreed with a team decision, those who used a structured-dissent approach — raising their objection once through an agreed channel, then fully supporting execution regardless of outcome — reported higher team trust (7.4/10) and lower reported burnout (24%) at a six-month follow-up than members who stayed silent about disagreement (6.1/10 trust, 32% burnout) or who continued voicing opposition after the decision was made (5.8/10 trust, 34% burnout), despite comparable project outcomes across all three groups. (Published in No. 0002 — September 14, 2026)]]></description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Committed Quiet Hours, Not Constant Availability or Full Disconnection: Fixed After-Hours Boundaries and Relationship Quality]]></title>
      <link>https://cfahc.org/journal/issue-0002/committed-quiet-hours-not-availability-or-disconnection/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://cfahc.org/journal/issue-0002/committed-quiet-hours-not-availability-or-disconnection/</guid>
      <author><![CDATA[M. Ibarra-Lindgren, S. Novak-Tran]]></author>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[Among employed adults who had set some form of after-hours work-communication boundary, those who practiced committed quiet hours — an automatic off-duty period combined with one pre-agreed, narrow emergency-only contact channel recognized by their manager or team in advance — reported higher partner or family relationship satisfaction (7.6/10) and lower work-related stress (4.0/10) at follow-up than adults who remained constantly available to work messages after hours (6.2/10 relationship satisfaction, 5.0/10 stress) or adults who fully disconnected from work communication after hours with no exception channel (6.6/10 relationship satisfaction, 4.6/10 stress), while manager-rated work reliability did not differ meaningfully across the three groups. (Published in No. 0002 — September 14, 2026)]]></description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Distributed Care, Not Solo Sacrifice or Full Delegation: Shared Caregiving Arrangements and Caregiver Wellbeing]]></title>
      <link>https://cfahc.org/journal/issue-0002/distributed-care-not-solo-sacrifice-or-full-delegation/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://cfahc.org/journal/issue-0002/distributed-care-not-solo-sacrifice-or-full-delegation/</guid>
      <author><![CDATA[T. Okafor-Reyes, D. Halvorsen]]></author>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[Among adults coordinating care for an aging parent, those in a distributed-care arrangement — an explicit, agreed division of caregiving tasks among two or more family members, supplemented by some paid support — reported lower caregiving strain (28%) and higher relationship satisfaction with the care recipient (7.3/10) at a one-year follow-up than adults who provided solo, largely unshared care (36% strain, 6.0/10 satisfaction) or adults who fully delegated care to paid providers with minimal personal involvement (33% strain, 5.7/10 satisfaction). (Published in No. 0002 — September 14, 2026)]]></description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Bounded Engagement, Not Avoidance or Escalation: Time-Limited Cross-View Conversations and Relationship Continuity]]></title>
      <link>https://cfahc.org/journal/issue-0002/bounded-engagement-not-avoidance-or-escalation/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://cfahc.org/journal/issue-0002/bounded-engagement-not-avoidance-or-escalation/</guid>
      <author><![CDATA[P. Suzuki-Meyer, L. Anand-Ferreira]]></author>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[Among adults with an active personal relationship to someone holding significantly different political views, those who practiced bounded engagement — agreeing in advance to a time-limited, topic-focused conversation with an explicit stopping point — reported higher relationship continuity at a one-year follow-up (81% still in regular contact) and lower discourse-related distress (3.6/10) than adults who avoided the topic and the person entirely (69% continuity, 4.1/10 distress) or adults who engaged without boundaries whenever the topic arose (65% continuity, 4.6/10 distress). (Published in No. 0002 — September 14, 2026)]]></description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Logged Restart, Not Silent Continuation or Abandonment: A Brief Note-and-Reschedule Habit After a Skill-Practice Lapse]]></title>
      <link>https://cfahc.org/journal/issue-0002/logged-restart-not-silent-continuation-or-abandonment/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://cfahc.org/journal/issue-0002/logged-restart-not-silent-continuation-or-abandonment/</guid>
      <author><![CDATA[J. Whitfield-Osei, C. Mercado-Lindqvist]]></author>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[Among adults pursuing a self-directed skill goal (e.g., a language, an instrument, a fitness target) who experienced a practice lapse of two weeks or longer, those who used a logged-restart habit — writing one brief, factual note describing what happened and scheduling a specific next practice session — were more likely to still be actively pursuing the goal at a six-month follow-up (68%) than adults who resumed without logging or scheduling anything (55%) or adults who had decided to stop pursuing the specific goal at the time of the lapse (53%). Among the differently-sized subset of each group still active at follow-up, the logged-restart group also reported a somewhat higher practice frequency (3.4 sessions/week) than the silent-continuation (2.9) or abandonment (2.7) groups, though this secondary comparison is confounded by which respondents remained in each subset (see Limitations). This describes an association observed in one self-selected sample, not a recommended technique. (Published in No. 0002 — September 14, 2026)]]></description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Ritualized Contact, Not Frequency: Smartphone Use Patterns and Perceived Closeness Among Long-Distance Friends]]></title>
      <link>https://cfahc.org/journal/issue-0001/smartphone-rituals-and-friendship-depth/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://cfahc.org/journal/issue-0001/smartphone-rituals-and-friendship-depth/</guid>
      <author><![CDATA[M. Okonkwo-Reyes, T. Lindqvist]]></author>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[We compared perceived friendship closeness between pairs of long-distance friends who maintained a small set of recurring, low-effort digital contact rituals (e.g., a weekly voice memo, a standing Sunday check-in) against pairs whose total weekly messaging volume was matched within a small tolerance band but who reported no such ritual. Ritual-maintaining pairs scored 1.4 points higher on average on a 10-point closeness scale (7.9 vs. 6.5, a 22% gap) than volume-matched non-ritual pairs, despite sending 8% fewer total messages per week on average — a residual volume difference that was statistically adjusted for in the comparison. (Published in No. 0001 — September 14, 2026)]]></description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Selective Forgiveness: Conditional Reconciliation After Betrayal and Long-Term Relational Satisfaction]]></title>
      <link>https://cfahc.org/journal/issue-0001/conditional-forgiveness-and-relational-satisfaction/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://cfahc.org/journal/issue-0001/conditional-forgiveness-and-relational-satisfaction/</guid>
      <author><![CDATA[H. Fitzgerald, S. Nakamura-Ellis]]></author>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[Adults who had experienced a significant relational betrayal (infidelity, serious breach of trust, or major deception) were grouped by their reconciliation strategy: unconditional forgiveness and full resumption of the relationship, permanent cutoff, or conditional reconciliation contingent on observed behavior change over a defined period. The conditional-reconciliation group reported higher relational satisfaction than the unconditional-forgiveness group (7.6 vs. 5.8 on a 10-point scale), and higher general life satisfaction and lower relationship-specific regret than the permanent-cutoff group, whose members were not evaluated on relational satisfaction since the relationship itself had ended. (Published in No. 0001 — September 14, 2026)]]></description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Small Hands, Big Worry: Micro-Scale Environmental Action as a Buffer Against Climate Anxiety]]></title>
      <link>https://cfahc.org/journal/issue-0001/micro-environmental-action-and-climate-anxiety/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://cfahc.org/journal/issue-0001/micro-environmental-action-and-climate-anxiety/</guid>
      <author><![CDATA[P. Osei-Bonsu, R. Villanueva]]></author>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[In a one-year panel study, participants who sustained small-scale, personally controllable environmental actions (e.g., household waste reduction, local habitat projects) reported lower climate-related distress over time than participants with comparable climate-information exposure but no sustained action, and lower distress than participants who had disengaged from climate information entirely. (Published in No. 0001 — September 14, 2026)]]></description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Neither Assimilation Nor Isolation: Cultural Hybridization Strategies Among First-Generation Immigrants]]></title>
      <link>https://cfahc.org/journal/issue-0001/cultural-hybridization-immigrant-adaptation/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://cfahc.org/journal/issue-0001/cultural-hybridization-immigrant-adaptation/</guid>
      <author><![CDATA[D. Abramczyk, L. Mbeki-Solano]]></author>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[Comparing three acculturation strategies among first-generation immigrants — assimilation-leaning, separation-leaning, and active cultural hybridization — respondents pursuing hybridization reported the highest life satisfaction (7.6/10) and the lowest identity-conflict distress (2.4/10) at five-year post-arrival follow-up. (Published in No. 0001 — September 14, 2026)]]></description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Mentorship Over Rivalry: Early-Career Researchers Who Coach Peers Report Higher Career Satisfaction]]></title>
      <link>https://cfahc.org/journal/issue-0001/mentorship-over-rivalry-early-career-researchers/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://cfahc.org/journal/issue-0001/mentorship-over-rivalry-early-career-researchers/</guid>
      <author><![CDATA[A. Castellanos, Y. Fujimori-Grant]]></author>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[Among early-career researchers tracked over three years, those who regularly invested unpaid time mentoring peers or junior colleagues — even when this came at some cost to individual publication output — reported higher career satisfaction at the three-year mark (62% vs. 41% reporting high satisfaction) than peers who prioritized competitive positioning against colleagues, despite the latter group showing marginally higher individual output metrics (about 6% more publications/grants) and higher self-reported burnout (48% vs. 27%). (Published in No. 0001 — September 14, 2026)]]></description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>