Hoult Lauren M, Wetherell Mark A, Edginton Trudi, Smith Michael A
Department of Psychology, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Department of Psychology, City, University of London, London, United Kingdom.
PLoS One. 2025 May 21;20(5):e0308928. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0308928. eCollection 2025.
Positive expressive writing has been increasingly researched over the past two decades due to its potential to serve as a low-intensity psychological self-help intervention. However, studies are heterogeneous in their methodologies and the health and wellbeing outcomes targeted, and it is unclear which outcomes are most reliably benefited by positive writing techniques. This systematic review aimed to determine the optimal conditions under which positive expressive writing interventions benefit subjective health and wellbeing in non-clinical populations. A systematic search was conducted across four databases (Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, and ProQuest: APA PsychArticles) identifying peer-reviewed articles written in the English language from 1930 to August 2023. A total of 51 studies were identified and included seven different positive writing techniques: best possible self, positive experiences, gratitude, benefit finding, satisfaction processes, three good things and resource diary. Most consistent benefits were found for wellbeing and positive affect outcomes (e.g., optimism, happiness) whereas less consistent effects were reported for negative affect, psychological health (e.g., stress, anxiety) and physical health outcomes. Best possible self and gratitude interventions revealed most consistent benefits. Several moderators were identified indicating that benefits may depend on individual differences relating to wellbeing, emotional and social factors. While reasonably consistent benefits of positive expressive writing were observed for wellbeing outcomes, the quality of all studies included in the review was assessed to be poor or fair. Thus, it is clear that more rigorous methods, including intention-to-treat analyses and robust reporting of methods and findings are needed. Future work should also aim to replicate the moderation effects reported in the present review, to enable a better understanding of the individual differences which influence the efficacy of positive expressive writing effects.
在过去二十年中,积极表达性写作因其有可能作为一种低强度的心理自助干预措施而受到越来越多的研究。然而,各项研究在方法以及所针对的健康和幸福结果方面存在异质性,目前尚不清楚哪些结果能最可靠地从积极写作技巧中受益。本系统评价旨在确定积极表达性写作干预措施能使非临床人群的主观健康和幸福受益的最佳条件。我们在四个数据库(科学网、Scopus、PubMed和ProQuest:美国心理学会心理学文摘数据库)中进行了系统检索,以识别1930年至2023年8月间发表的英文同行评审文章。共识别出51项研究,这些研究包括七种不同的积极写作技巧:最理想的自我、积极经历、感恩、发现益处、满意度过程、三件好事和资源日记。在幸福和积极情绪结果(如乐观、幸福)方面发现了最一致的益处,而在消极情绪、心理健康(如压力、焦虑)和身体健康结果方面报告的效果则不太一致。最理想的自我和感恩干预措施显示出最一致的益处。确定了几个调节因素,表明益处可能取决于与幸福、情感和社会因素相关的个体差异。虽然观察到积极表达性写作对幸福结果有相当一致的益处,但纳入本评价的所有研究的质量被评估为差或一般。因此,显然需要更严格的方法,包括意向性分析以及对方法和结果的有力报告。未来的工作还应旨在重复本评价中报告的调节效应,以便更好地理解影响积极表达性写作效果的个体差异。