Cited by 1,502Mental Health via WritingPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsAttachment and Relationship Dynamics

Experimental disclosure and its moderators: A meta-analysis.

Frattaroli, Joanne·2006·Psychological Bulletin

Abstract

Disclosing information, thoughts, and feelings about personal and meaningful topics (experimental disclosure) is purported to have various health and psychological consequences (e.g., J. W. Pennebaker, 1993). Although the results of 2 small meta-analyses (P. G. Frisina, J. C. Borod, & S. J. Lepore, 2004; J. M. Smyth, 1998) suggest that experimental disclosure has a positive and significant effect, both used a fixed effects approach, limiting generalizability. Also, a plethora of studies on experimental disclosure have been completed that were not included in the previous analyses. One hundred forty-six randomized studies of experimental disclosure were collected and included in the present meta-analysis. Results of random effects analyses indicate that experimental disclosure is effective, with a positive and significant average r-effect size of .075. In addition, a number of moderators were identified.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0033-2909.132.6.823

Cites

158 of 158 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Frattaroli, J.
Affiliations
University of California, Riverside (US)
Corresponding author
Frattaroli, Joanne
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Published
2006
Volume
132
Issue
6
Pages
823-865
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
OpenAlex
W2031791082
Cited by
1,502
References
157
Citations by year
2026: 61 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 70 · 2022: 90 · 2021: 74 · 2020: 142 · 2019: 82 · 2018: 123 · 2017: 52 · 2016: 124 · 2015: 88 · 2014: 85 · 2013: 73 · 2012: 91
FWCI
52.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of California
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health via Writing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
Keywords
expressive writing, random effects models, effect size
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Attitude to Health, Female, Health Status, Humans, Life Change Events, Male, Mental Health, Self Disclosure, Time Factors, Writing, Expressed Emotion, Disclosure

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review