Daniel T. Dickie
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Research Interests
Daniel T. Dickie has a total of 5 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Bridget N. Jules
Department of Psychological Science, UNC Charlotte, Charlotte, NC 28223, USA
2 shared publications - Chloe Gilmore
Department of Psychological Science, UNC Charlotte, Charlotte, NC 28223, USA
2 shared publications - Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling
University of North Carolina at Charlotte, NC, USA
2 shared publications - Fallon J. Richie
Psychology Service, Battle Creek VA Medical Center, Battle Creek, MI 49037, USA
1 shared publication - Fallon J. Richie
University of North Carolina at Charlotte,Charlotte,United States, USA
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 1 August 2026
- Published by MDPI AG in Healthcare
- Vol. 14 (15) , 2318
Who Should Address Healthcare Institutional Betrayal and How? An Experimental Study of Repair Strategies
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.
- 1 August 2026
- Published by MDPI AG in Healthcare
- Vol. 14 (15) , 2318
Open AccessWho Should Address Healthcare Institutional Betrayal and How? An Experimental Study of Repair Strategies
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.
- Open Access
- 5 June 2026
- Published by MDPI AG in Preprints.org
Addressing Healthcare Institutional Betrayal: An Experimental Study of Provider-Initiated Repair Strategies
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.
- 5 June 2026
- Published by MDPI AG in Preprints.org
Open AccessAddressing Healthcare Institutional Betrayal: An Experimental Study of Provider-Initiated Repair Strategies
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.