The DOI matches its Crossref record; 156 of the 157 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Experimental disclosure and its moderators: A meta-analysis.
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“It can be derived from literature, that therapeutic writing can be helpful for people and some researcher highlight the potential of the paradigm: Small benefits are consistently reported and the paradigm can be easily provided to a large number of individuals online at low-cost (Kállay, 2015; Frattaroli, 2006; Nyssen et al., 2016).”
In the citing paper
“Additionally, future studies should comprise more sessions, as more sessions have been found to have a larger effect on overall wellbeing (Frattaroli, 2006).”
In the citing paper
“A meta-analysis has found that expressive writing in various formats can improve physical and psychological health outcomes [41].”
From Efficacy of a web-based, crowdsourced peer-to-peer cognitive reappraisal platform for depression: Randomized controlled trial (2015) · cites this paper as [41]
Citations
Cites
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
Cohen, J. (1990) · Computers Environment and Urban Systems · doi:10.1016/0198-9715(90)90050-4 · Cited by 65,417
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.).
Lachenbruch, P. A., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2290095 · Cited by 37,421
A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
Morvan, C., & O’Connor, A. (2017) · Macat Library eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781912282432 · Cited by 18,284
Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research.
Metcalfe, A., & Rosenthal, R. (1994) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series D (The Statistician) · doi:10.2307/2348600 · Cited by 4,249
Meta-analysis in social research
(1982) · Evaluation and Program Planning · doi:10.1016/0149-7189(82)90011-8 · Cited by 3,896
The Handbook of Research Synthesis.
Howel, D., Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (1995) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2533295 · Cited by 3,657
(1992) · Cited by 3,325
Why People Use Health Services
Rosenstock, I. M. (2005) · Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00425.x · Cited by 2,329
Meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcome studies.
Smith, M. L., & Glass, G. V. (1977) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.32.9.752 · Cited by 2,154
Confronting a traumatic event: Toward an understanding of inhibition and disease.
Pennebaker, J. W., & Beall, S. K. (1986) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-843x.95.3.274 · Cited by 2,074
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Wisco, B. E., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2008) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00088.x · Cited by 5,172
Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers
Gignac, G. E., & Szodorai, E. T. (2016) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.069 · Cited by 2,860
Privacy and human behavior in the age of information
Acquisti, A., Brandimarte, L., & Loewenstein, G. (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aaa1465 · Cited by 1,879
Marital quality and health: A meta-analytic review.
Robles, T. F., Slatcher, R. B., Trombello, J. M., & McGinn, M. M. (2013) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0031859 · Cited by 1,764
“…(Laurenceau, Barrett, & Rovine, 2005), confers an array of physical health benefits, such as decreased work absenteeism and physician visits, which are attributed to changes in psychological well-being and biological mediators, particularly immune function (Frattaroli, 2006; Smyth, 1998).”
BackgroundEmotion Elicits the Social Sharing of Emotion: Theory and Empirical Review
Rimé, B. (2009) · Emotion Review · doi:10.1177/1754073908097189 · Cited by 1,546
Metadata
- 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
