Supports the claim that it remained unclear why written disclosure is effective and for whom it is best suited, although it may benefit some individuals. Narrative review.
Who was studied
Not applicable: a review of theories proposed to explain the written disclosure paradigm.
Design
Review
Level of evidence
Cross-sectional, observational, qualitative work and narrative reviews.
Claims that rest on it
Each claim states what the site asserts, at what strength, and with what caveat.
TheoreticalLevel DConfidence MODERATE
Why written disclosure helps, and for whom, remains unclear; the features associated with benefit, such as writing about facts and feelings, specific topics and changes in causal and insight language, are more consistent with sense-making than with discharge.
Scope
Theories of the written disclosure paradigm.
Caveat
An interpretation of converging findings; no single mechanism has been established.
Last reviewed · Review due · expressive-writing-mechanism-unclear
Sources
Sloan, D. M., & Marx, B. P. (2004). Taking pen to hand: Evaluating theories underlying the written disclosure paradigm. doi:10.1093/clipsy.bph062
Level DReview
Supports the claim that it remained unclear why written disclosure is effective and for whom it is best suited, although it may benefit some individuals. Narrative review.
Supports the claim that changes in cognitive and linguistic processes during writing predict better health more than reduced inhibition alone. A review by the paradigm's originator; later meta-analyses report variable effects.
Reinhold, M., Bürkner, P.-C., & Holling, H. (2018). Effects of expressive writing on depressive symptoms: A meta-analysis. doi:10.1111/cpsp.12224
Level AMeta-analysis
Supports the claims that expressive writing did not yield significant long-term effects on depressive symptoms, and that effects were larger with more sessions and more specific writing topics. Depressive symptoms only.