MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414208225 · doi:10.1192/j.eurpsy.2025.539

The Positive Writing on Mood States: Empirical Study

2025· article· en· W4414208225 on OpenAlexaff
I. S. Lancia, Giovanni Festa, A. Attouchi, Fonzetti Pasquale, M. Manganozzi

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Psychiatry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrit, Self-Efficacy, and Motivation
Canadian institutionsPontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoodConnotationAnalysis of varianceConfusionRepeated measures designTest (biology)Empirical researchProfile of mood states

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Positive writing (PW) consists in a written treatment of real or imagined events, processed with a positive connotation. The technique has been proven useful and effective for increasing psychological well-being. It derives from the expressive writing (EW) methodology developed by James Pennebaker. Objectives The objective of this study is to analyze the effects of positive writing (PW) in a group of healthy subjects. The psychological variables measured following the application of PW are six mood states: tension, depression, anger, vigor, fatigue and confusion. These are preliminary data from work that is still in progress. Methods Two groups were randomly formed (one experimental and one control) and wrote for 3 consecutive days on different topics. The experimental group wrote for 20 minutes a day about the most rewarding experience of their life, while the control group described, again for 20 minutes a day, a topic with a low emotional connotation (description of their home). Three administrations (baseline, 3-day follow-up and 10-day follow-up) of the POMS (Profile of Mood States) psychological test were carried out on study participants. A statistical analysis such as analysis of variance (2-way ANOVA for repeated measures) was used to analyze the effects of positive writing in relation to the different parameters considered, between the groups (Experimental Group vs Control Group) in three different times (baseline, 3 days, 10 days). Results Statistically significant decreases were recorded in the experimental group in confusion (Factor C) in the 10-day measurement (7.44 VS 5.00 p < 0.01) and in fatigue (factor S) (5, 94 VS 3.88; p < 0.05). Conclusions These data demonstrate how positive writing can lead to beneficial psychological effects. In particular, this study examined the effects of writing about one’s real life experiences and highlighted beneficial psychological/cognitive effects (decreased confusion) and psychophysical (decreased feelings of fatigue). Focusing attention on one’s positive experiences therefore produces improvements on a cognitive level for the sensations that concern clarity and linearity of thought and reduction of feelings of psycho-physical fatigue. Disclosure of Interest None Declared

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.471
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.330 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean PsychiatrySame topicGrit, Self-Efficacy, and MotivationFrench-language works237,207