Written Disclosure Essay
Written Disclosure As a Relevant Factor of Resilience and Meaning Finding
Giovanni Serrato Parra
Australian College of Applied Psychology
Abstract
The current study explored the hypothesis related with the writing disclosure and its correlation with meaning finding and resiliency that for consequences ends in positive emotions. The study was conducted with 153 students over the same class and divided randomly into two groups; control group, which was compared with experimental group on three different sections along the research. The first section measured and compared the increase of positive affect in the groups. Afterwards, compared the high scores to determine higher meaning finding. The third …show more content…
section compare to the control group, those with high score on resiliency to determine changes in positive affect. The results supported the assumptions and corroborated previous theories with respect to resiliency and emotional appraisals.
Written Disclosure As a Relevant Factor of Resilience and Meaning Finding In terms of studying emotions and its behavioral disclosure, there are plenty of researches by multidisciplinary fields that have analysed psychological and physiological results within these aspects (e.g., Tugade & Fredrickson, 2004). Investigators have the intent to appraise the general conditions and stimuli of the different classification of emotions that in addition determines and varies from negative emotions and positives emotions, as well as the resiliency, which approaches to homeostasis on the individuals. Therefore, the definition of resilience, according to Herrman H. (2011) “Resilience refers to positive adaptation, or the ability to maintain or regain mental health, despite experiencing adversity”. Other studies have suggested some theories related with resilience appraisal, for instance, broaden-and-build theory represents the possibility that positive emotions were facilitators of adaptive recovery, eliminating the arousal generated by negative emotions (Fredrickson, 1998, 2001. In Wallace, Bisconti & Bergeman, 2006). In the other hand, those who were low resilient were likely to have difficulties regulating adversity and exhibit heightened reactivity to stressful situations (Wallace, et al., 2006). There are also individual differences; obviously, not every one has got the same ability of coping positive emotions and using strategies to engage an emotional recovery, known as emotional knowledge (Barrett, Gross, Christensen, & Benvenuto, 2001 in Tugade & Fredrickson, 2004). Previous works have used different methods to find out how high resilient and low resilient subjects react to positive emotions in terms of replicate and corroborate existing theories. Tugade and Fredrickson (2004) were focused on physiological aspects. However, this study showed little concern using mediating factor, such as writing task that can be relevant for the differences in positive meaning finding and resiliency. This research aims to examine the role of written disclosure related with positive affect, how this can be measure to determine level of meaning finding and finally, it will intent to corroborate previous theories about the positive affect of emotions driven by levels of resiliency. Therefore, the first hypothesis of this study was that self-reporting or intense positive experiences would increase the positive affect of emotions. In the second hypothesis we predicted that positive writing disclosure would express a higher level of meaning finding in experimental group. The last hypothesis was that resilient participants would obtain greater positive affect emotions when writing about positive experiences. Method
Participants
This research compared two groups of participants (experimental group) and (control group) in total 153 participants were randomly selected, mean age (M = 30.01, SD = 9,83) the number of 111 (72.5%) females, mean age (M = 30.53, SD = 10.28) and 42 (27.4%) males, mean age (M = 28.64, SD = 8.48) from the same first year Psychology class of The Australian College of Applied Psychology (ACAP). There were no costs associated with participating in this study.
Materials
The test instrument employed in this study to measure the positive affect was a modified version of the PANAS (Positive and Negative Affect Schedule) by Watson, Clark and Tellegan. See Tugage and Fredrickson (2004) p.322. It has used 20 questions, which consisted in 10 questions about positives affect and 10 about negative affect, each question measured on a 5-point scale; total scores for the positive affect measured range from 10-50 and a higher score represents a higher level of affect. The meaning finding was measured using a modified version of Moos’s (1988) coping response inventory. See Tugage and Fredrickson (2004) p.328. 3 questions measured on a 7-point scale, the total scores range from 3 – 21. A higher score represents a higher level of meaning finding (from the situation that the participants wrote about the writing disclosure task). The test to measure resiliency was previously used by Block and Kremen’s (1996) Ego-resiliency Scale. See Tugage and Fredrickson (2004) p.322. 14 questions measured on a 4-point scale, the total scores range from 14 – 56. A higher score represents a greater level of resiliency; high resiliency refers to scores of 40 or more, whereas low resiliency refers to scores of below 40.
Procedure
The data in this study was collected by asking the participants to complete a 30-minute online questionnaire, which included 5 sections on resiliency, affect, writing disclosure, affect and meaning finding. The participants, divided into two groups (control group and experimental group) were assured that the responses remained confidential and no individual information was identifiable. The first part of the questionnaire contained the same questions for both groups, on which the participants were to answer a 4-point Likert scale that consisted in 14 items. The second scale was also the same for both groups, and consisted of a number of words that describes different feelings and emotions that the participants were experiencing at the present moment. To be able to continue to the next part, participants needed to start at the same time. This section differs between the groups, in control group, participants were asked to write about the activities of the day so far in the most structured and detailed format possible for 15 minutes, whereas the experiment group was to write about the most intensely and positive experience in the life with specific details and let it go the feelings and thoughts experienced in that moment, also for 15 minutes. In the next section, both groups were asked to complete the previous scale again that consisted in the feelings and emotions with respect to identify differences on emotional appraisals after the writing disclosure. The following part, the groups had to answer 2 specific questions about the written disclosure task; the first one was: what is the significance of this event?. And what are/were the long term consequences of this event?. The next 2 parts of the questionnaire were about referencing the event that the participants wrote and finally the demographic questions were asked before the end of the whole test.
Design
In this study, there are 3 independent variables, the first one has got two groups of participants, who were divided into control group (n = 79) and experimental group (n = 74), followed by the time, which its two levels were classified by before and after the written disclosure task. The third independent variable was also classified into 2 levels, which were high resiliency and low resiliency participants. The dependent variable or measurable aspects were classified by the change in the positive affect score on PANAS (Positive and Negative Affect Schedule) and the meaning finding score. In the first independent variable (groups) we use control and experimental participants; therefore, the variable is regarded as between subjects, whereas the second variable is designed within subjects due to being under repeated measures (time). The third variable was classified by high and low resiliency, thus it is regarded as between subjects design. The group classification was made according to the different time and date in the class. In terms of classification for the meaning finding score, the scores were range from 3 – 21, a higher score represents higher level of meaning finding. Moreover, the last classification refers to high and low resiliency where high scored 40 or more and low scored below 40, in a scale from 14 – 56. Results Section 1: In this section, data collected was measured on a 5-point scale, and analysed by positive affect score after completing the writing task minus the affect score before completing the writing task as there were 2 groups (control group) that wrote about the events of the day and (experimental group) asked to write about an intense positive experience. The results were divided into positive and negative affect. A positive affect score indicates greater positive emotions after the written disclosure task was done, whereas a negative score indicates fewer positive emotions also after completing the task. The mean relative perceived was higher in participants that belong to experimental group, which represents higher positive emotions after completing the written task (M = 2.65, SD = 7.15) compared to control group on which participants scored negative/fewer positive emotions after completing the task (M = -1.4, SD = 6.90). Section 2: Meaning finding was measured by range of scores from 3 – 21 where a higher score represents higher lever of meaning finding. These scores were taken when the participants were asked to write about the event in the written disclosure task (control group: events of the day) (experimental group: positive experience). The results represent a higher mean relative in the experimental group, demonstrating more meaning finding (M = 18.35, SD = 4.59), whereas in control group less meaning finding was perceived (M = 12.59, SD = 2.81). Section 3: In this section, resiliency was measured by using a 4-point scale. With respect to classification, high resilient participants refers to 40 o more, whereas low resilient refers to below 40, this measured was done to both groups (experimental and control). In the experimental group with higher number of resilient participants (n = 50) represent more chance to obtain positive affect (M = 3.45, SD = 6.93), whereas low resilient participants (n = 24) in the experimental group scored (M = 2.10, SD = 4.29) which showed a positive affect, but lower than high resilient participants; in contrast, in control group, participants with high resiliency (n = 52) which represents that participant have lower change of positive affect than experimental group (M = 0.50, SD = 7.62), in addition, low resilient participants in control group (n = 27) showed negative affect (M = -2.15, SD = 5.95). No missing data in current study Discussion This investigation examined the positive affect and the meaning finding of writing disclosure in high and low resilient participants divided into control and experimental group. The first hypothesis was that self-reporting of intense positive experience will increase the positive affect of emotions, it seems that the first section of the study is in accordance with this, as only experimental group which wrote about positive experiences indicated greater positive emotions than control group (reporting day events) after the writing task was done. Tugage and Fredrickson (2004) corroborates that positive emotions are important factors that contribute with psychological resilience, which increases positive affect of emotions. The second hypothesis examined was that positive writing disclosure would express a higher level of meaning finding, this was expressed by the results, which demonstrated a higher level of finding meaning on the experimental group. Previous findings suggested that as gaining positive emotions it cause positive meaning finding, which by consequence can improve experiences of positive emotions (Tugage & Fredrickson, 2004). The last hypothesis refers to resilient participants that will obtain greater positive affect emotions when they write about positive experiences; once again, the results in section 3 supported the prediction and showed that high resilient participants in experimental group had greater change in positive affect. According to Wallace and colleagues (2006) “positive emotional processes are a key component of what it means to be resilient”. Thus, as it has been demonstrated in this study, high resilient participant are likely to change in positive affect by using a positive emotional process, which in this case was determined by the writing disclosure. A limitation if this study is that a larger sample size would have given power to explore more in individual differences. Further studies should analyse different variables and interpretations, for example, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, gender and culture. In conclusion, psychological resiliency plays an important role for mental health and recovery from stressful and adversity situation.
This study focused on how writing positive experiences can be relevant and useful to increase resiliency on people under situations of adversity and corroborated previous findings, which provides more evidence for current theories.
References
Block, J. H., Kremen, A. M. (1996). IQ and ego-resiliency: Conceptual and empirical connections and separateness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 70, 349-361
Feldman Barrett, l., Gross. J., Christensen. T. C., & Benvenuto, M. (2001) Kowing what you’re feeling and knowing what to do about it: Mapping the relation between emotion differentiation and emotion regulation. Cognition and Emotion, 15, 713-724
Herrman. H., Steward. E. D. (2011) What is Resilience, La Revue Canadenne de Psychiatrie, Vol. 56, No. 5.
Tugage. M. M., Fredrickson. B. L., (2004) Resilien Individuals Use Positive Emotions to Bounce Back From Native Emotional Experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 86, No. 2, 320-333
Wallace. K. A., Bergeman. C. S., Bisconti. T, L. (2006) Psychological Resilience, Positive Emotions, and Successful Stress in Later Life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 91, No4,
730-739
Giovanni Serrato Parra
Australian College of Applied Psychology
Abstract
The current study explored the hypothesis related with the writing disclosure and its correlation with meaning finding and resiliency that for consequences ends in positive emotions. The study was conducted with 153 students over the same class and divided randomly into two groups; control group, which was compared with experimental group on three different sections along the research. The first section measured and compared the increase of positive affect in the groups. Afterwards, compared the high scores to determine higher meaning finding. The third …show more content…
section compare to the control group, those with high score on resiliency to determine changes in positive affect. The results supported the assumptions and corroborated previous theories with respect to resiliency and emotional appraisals.
Written Disclosure As a Relevant Factor of Resilience and Meaning Finding In terms of studying emotions and its behavioral disclosure, there are plenty of researches by multidisciplinary fields that have analysed psychological and physiological results within these aspects (e.g., Tugade & Fredrickson, 2004). Investigators have the intent to appraise the general conditions and stimuli of the different classification of emotions that in addition determines and varies from negative emotions and positives emotions, as well as the resiliency, which approaches to homeostasis on the individuals. Therefore, the definition of resilience, according to Herrman H. (2011) “Resilience refers to positive adaptation, or the ability to maintain or regain mental health, despite experiencing adversity”. Other studies have suggested some theories related with resilience appraisal, for instance, broaden-and-build theory represents the possibility that positive emotions were facilitators of adaptive recovery, eliminating the arousal generated by negative emotions (Fredrickson, 1998, 2001. In Wallace, Bisconti & Bergeman, 2006). In the other hand, those who were low resilient were likely to have difficulties regulating adversity and exhibit heightened reactivity to stressful situations (Wallace, et al., 2006). There are also individual differences; obviously, not every one has got the same ability of coping positive emotions and using strategies to engage an emotional recovery, known as emotional knowledge (Barrett, Gross, Christensen, & Benvenuto, 2001 in Tugade & Fredrickson, 2004). Previous works have used different methods to find out how high resilient and low resilient subjects react to positive emotions in terms of replicate and corroborate existing theories. Tugade and Fredrickson (2004) were focused on physiological aspects. However, this study showed little concern using mediating factor, such as writing task that can be relevant for the differences in positive meaning finding and resiliency. This research aims to examine the role of written disclosure related with positive affect, how this can be measure to determine level of meaning finding and finally, it will intent to corroborate previous theories about the positive affect of emotions driven by levels of resiliency. Therefore, the first hypothesis of this study was that self-reporting or intense positive experiences would increase the positive affect of emotions. In the second hypothesis we predicted that positive writing disclosure would express a higher level of meaning finding in experimental group. The last hypothesis was that resilient participants would obtain greater positive affect emotions when writing about positive experiences. Method
Participants
This research compared two groups of participants (experimental group) and (control group) in total 153 participants were randomly selected, mean age (M = 30.01, SD = 9,83) the number of 111 (72.5%) females, mean age (M = 30.53, SD = 10.28) and 42 (27.4%) males, mean age (M = 28.64, SD = 8.48) from the same first year Psychology class of The Australian College of Applied Psychology (ACAP). There were no costs associated with participating in this study.
Materials
The test instrument employed in this study to measure the positive affect was a modified version of the PANAS (Positive and Negative Affect Schedule) by Watson, Clark and Tellegan. See Tugage and Fredrickson (2004) p.322. It has used 20 questions, which consisted in 10 questions about positives affect and 10 about negative affect, each question measured on a 5-point scale; total scores for the positive affect measured range from 10-50 and a higher score represents a higher level of affect. The meaning finding was measured using a modified version of Moos’s (1988) coping response inventory. See Tugage and Fredrickson (2004) p.328. 3 questions measured on a 7-point scale, the total scores range from 3 – 21. A higher score represents a higher level of meaning finding (from the situation that the participants wrote about the writing disclosure task). The test to measure resiliency was previously used by Block and Kremen’s (1996) Ego-resiliency Scale. See Tugage and Fredrickson (2004) p.322. 14 questions measured on a 4-point scale, the total scores range from 14 – 56. A higher score represents a greater level of resiliency; high resiliency refers to scores of 40 or more, whereas low resiliency refers to scores of below 40.
Procedure
The data in this study was collected by asking the participants to complete a 30-minute online questionnaire, which included 5 sections on resiliency, affect, writing disclosure, affect and meaning finding. The participants, divided into two groups (control group and experimental group) were assured that the responses remained confidential and no individual information was identifiable. The first part of the questionnaire contained the same questions for both groups, on which the participants were to answer a 4-point Likert scale that consisted in 14 items. The second scale was also the same for both groups, and consisted of a number of words that describes different feelings and emotions that the participants were experiencing at the present moment. To be able to continue to the next part, participants needed to start at the same time. This section differs between the groups, in control group, participants were asked to write about the activities of the day so far in the most structured and detailed format possible for 15 minutes, whereas the experiment group was to write about the most intensely and positive experience in the life with specific details and let it go the feelings and thoughts experienced in that moment, also for 15 minutes. In the next section, both groups were asked to complete the previous scale again that consisted in the feelings and emotions with respect to identify differences on emotional appraisals after the writing disclosure. The following part, the groups had to answer 2 specific questions about the written disclosure task; the first one was: what is the significance of this event?. And what are/were the long term consequences of this event?. The next 2 parts of the questionnaire were about referencing the event that the participants wrote and finally the demographic questions were asked before the end of the whole test.
Design
In this study, there are 3 independent variables, the first one has got two groups of participants, who were divided into control group (n = 79) and experimental group (n = 74), followed by the time, which its two levels were classified by before and after the written disclosure task. The third independent variable was also classified into 2 levels, which were high resiliency and low resiliency participants. The dependent variable or measurable aspects were classified by the change in the positive affect score on PANAS (Positive and Negative Affect Schedule) and the meaning finding score. In the first independent variable (groups) we use control and experimental participants; therefore, the variable is regarded as between subjects, whereas the second variable is designed within subjects due to being under repeated measures (time). The third variable was classified by high and low resiliency, thus it is regarded as between subjects design. The group classification was made according to the different time and date in the class. In terms of classification for the meaning finding score, the scores were range from 3 – 21, a higher score represents higher level of meaning finding. Moreover, the last classification refers to high and low resiliency where high scored 40 or more and low scored below 40, in a scale from 14 – 56. Results Section 1: In this section, data collected was measured on a 5-point scale, and analysed by positive affect score after completing the writing task minus the affect score before completing the writing task as there were 2 groups (control group) that wrote about the events of the day and (experimental group) asked to write about an intense positive experience. The results were divided into positive and negative affect. A positive affect score indicates greater positive emotions after the written disclosure task was done, whereas a negative score indicates fewer positive emotions also after completing the task. The mean relative perceived was higher in participants that belong to experimental group, which represents higher positive emotions after completing the written task (M = 2.65, SD = 7.15) compared to control group on which participants scored negative/fewer positive emotions after completing the task (M = -1.4, SD = 6.90). Section 2: Meaning finding was measured by range of scores from 3 – 21 where a higher score represents higher lever of meaning finding. These scores were taken when the participants were asked to write about the event in the written disclosure task (control group: events of the day) (experimental group: positive experience). The results represent a higher mean relative in the experimental group, demonstrating more meaning finding (M = 18.35, SD = 4.59), whereas in control group less meaning finding was perceived (M = 12.59, SD = 2.81). Section 3: In this section, resiliency was measured by using a 4-point scale. With respect to classification, high resilient participants refers to 40 o more, whereas low resilient refers to below 40, this measured was done to both groups (experimental and control). In the experimental group with higher number of resilient participants (n = 50) represent more chance to obtain positive affect (M = 3.45, SD = 6.93), whereas low resilient participants (n = 24) in the experimental group scored (M = 2.10, SD = 4.29) which showed a positive affect, but lower than high resilient participants; in contrast, in control group, participants with high resiliency (n = 52) which represents that participant have lower change of positive affect than experimental group (M = 0.50, SD = 7.62), in addition, low resilient participants in control group (n = 27) showed negative affect (M = -2.15, SD = 5.95). No missing data in current study Discussion This investigation examined the positive affect and the meaning finding of writing disclosure in high and low resilient participants divided into control and experimental group. The first hypothesis was that self-reporting of intense positive experience will increase the positive affect of emotions, it seems that the first section of the study is in accordance with this, as only experimental group which wrote about positive experiences indicated greater positive emotions than control group (reporting day events) after the writing task was done. Tugage and Fredrickson (2004) corroborates that positive emotions are important factors that contribute with psychological resilience, which increases positive affect of emotions. The second hypothesis examined was that positive writing disclosure would express a higher level of meaning finding, this was expressed by the results, which demonstrated a higher level of finding meaning on the experimental group. Previous findings suggested that as gaining positive emotions it cause positive meaning finding, which by consequence can improve experiences of positive emotions (Tugage & Fredrickson, 2004). The last hypothesis refers to resilient participants that will obtain greater positive affect emotions when they write about positive experiences; once again, the results in section 3 supported the prediction and showed that high resilient participants in experimental group had greater change in positive affect. According to Wallace and colleagues (2006) “positive emotional processes are a key component of what it means to be resilient”. Thus, as it has been demonstrated in this study, high resilient participant are likely to change in positive affect by using a positive emotional process, which in this case was determined by the writing disclosure. A limitation if this study is that a larger sample size would have given power to explore more in individual differences. Further studies should analyse different variables and interpretations, for example, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, gender and culture. In conclusion, psychological resiliency plays an important role for mental health and recovery from stressful and adversity situation.
This study focused on how writing positive experiences can be relevant and useful to increase resiliency on people under situations of adversity and corroborated previous findings, which provides more evidence for current theories.
References
Block, J. H., Kremen, A. M. (1996). IQ and ego-resiliency: Conceptual and empirical connections and separateness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 70, 349-361
Feldman Barrett, l., Gross. J., Christensen. T. C., & Benvenuto, M. (2001) Kowing what you’re feeling and knowing what to do about it: Mapping the relation between emotion differentiation and emotion regulation. Cognition and Emotion, 15, 713-724
Herrman. H., Steward. E. D. (2011) What is Resilience, La Revue Canadenne de Psychiatrie, Vol. 56, No. 5.
Tugage. M. M., Fredrickson. B. L., (2004) Resilien Individuals Use Positive Emotions to Bounce Back From Native Emotional Experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 86, No. 2, 320-333
Wallace. K. A., Bergeman. C. S., Bisconti. T, L. (2006) Psychological Resilience, Positive Emotions, and Successful Stress in Later Life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 91, No4,
730-739