Writing about traumatic events using the third person pronoun: Psychological and health effects.

摘要

Based on the research of Pennebaker (e.g., 1990), the present study explored the health and psychological effects of writing about distressing life experiences. One of the main goals of the study was to explore the mechanisms underlying the potentially salutary effects that might be revealed. Participants in the two experimental groups wrote about their most upsetting experiences, for 20 minutes on each of 4 writing days, using either the first person pronoun or the third person pronoun and a pseudonym. Control group participants wrote about trivial topics. It was hypothesized that third person writing would function as a psychological defense or coping mechanism and would thereby serve a distancing function that would buffer potentially deleterious effects of writing. At the same time, third person writing was expected to serve a liberating function that would facilitate the expression of thoughts and feelings to a greater degree than first person writing. Third person writing was expected to facilitate both catharsis and insight, and to produce longer-term psychological and health benefits. First person writers were hypothesized to show some health benefits, but it was expected that these benefits would arise at a psychological cost. Hypotheses were partially supported. Compared to first person writers, third person writers reported lower levels of self-reproach, more satisfaction with their social lives, less event-related distress, and indicated that they had come to understand events to a greater degree. In addition, third person writers reported fewer days of restricted activity due to illness, and visited physicians less often during the follow-up period than first person participants. Third person writers also showed benefits over the control group as assessed by a measure of depression, and self-reported visits to physicians for illness. Results revealed no health benefits, nor any substantial psychological detriment associated with first person writing.;A content analysis of essays revealed that neither insight nor cathartic processes per se accounted for the benefits of writing. The degree to which participants distanced themselves from their experiences by placing events in the past rather than viewing them as currently self-relevant, influenced outcomes. Third person participants were less likely to appraise their experiences as currently negative, were less likely to express negative emotion that they currently experienced regarding events, and made fewer current insight statements in their writing. The validity of the health measures, the clinical implications of the findings, and directions for future research are discussed.