Studies // Cited work
Experimental disclosure and its moderators: A meta-analysis
Frattaroli, J. (2006). Experimental disclosure and its moderators: A meta-analysis.
Level A Meta-analysis doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.6.823
What this study supports
Supports the claims that experimental disclosure had a positive and significant but small average effect (r = .075) in random-effects analysis and that a number of moderators were identified. The abstract does not list the moderators, so they are not itemised on the site.
- Who was studied
- 146 randomized studies of experimental disclosure.
- Design
- Meta-analysis
- Level of evidence
- Syntheses of controlled studies: meta-analyses and systematic reviews of experiments and trials.
Claims that rest on it
Each claim states what the site asserts, at what strength, and with what caveat.
EmpiricalLevel AConfidence HIGH
Across 146 randomised studies, experimental disclosure had a positive and significant but small average effect (r = .075), with several moderators; an earlier synthesis found benefits across reported physical health, well-being and functioning but not health behaviours.
- Scope
- Randomised studies of writing or talking about personal, meaningful topics, largely in non-clinical samples.
- Caveat
- The average conceals heterogeneity, moderators are not itemised in the abstract, and a small average does not predict benefit for an individual.
Last reviewed · Review due · expressive-writing-small-average-effect