A meta-analysis was conducted to examine the effects of the written emotional disclosure paradigm on health outcomes of people with physical or psychiatric disorders. After nine studies were meta-analyzed, it was determined that expressive writing significantly improved health (d = .19; p < .05). However, this positive relationship (r = .10) was not moderated by any systemic variables because of the nonsignificant test of homogeneity (Qw = 5.27; p = .73). Nonetheless, a planned contrast illustrated that expressive writing is more effective on physical (d = .21; p = .01) than on psychological (d = .07; p = .17) health outcomes (Qb > 10.83; p < .001). One explanation for the small effect size (ES) results and the nonsignificant test of homogeneity may be the small and heterogeneous samples used in some of the studies within this research synthesis. Future research with expressive writing should be tested with randomized controlled trials to increase the likelihood of detecting a larger treatment effect.

This study examined whether social support can reduce cardiovascular reactivity to an acute stressor. College students gave a speech in one of three social conditions: alone, in the presence of a supportive confederate, or in the presence of a nonsupportive confederate. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure were measured at rest, before the speech, and during the speech. While anticipating and delivering their speech, supported and alone subjects exhibited significantly smaller increases in systolic and diastolic blood pressures than did nonsupported subjects. Supported subjects also exhibited significantly smaller increases in systolic blood pressure than did alone subjects before and during the speech. Men had higher stress-related increases in blood pressures than did women; but gender did not moderate the effects of social support on cardiovascular reactivity. These results provide experimental evidence of potential health benefits of social support during acute stressors.

Men who were recently treated for prostate cancer (N=250) were randomly assigned to a control group, a group education intervention (GE), or a group education-plus-discussion intervention (GED). Both GE and GED increased prostate cancer knowledge. In the year postintervention, men in the GED condition were less bothered by sexual problems than men in the control condition, and they were more likely to remain steadily employed (93.0%) than men in the GE (75.6%) or control (72.5%) conditions. Among noncollege graduates, GED and GE resulted in better physical functioning than the control condition, and GED resulted in more positive health behaviors than the control or GE condition. Among college graduates, controls were comparable with the GE and GED groups in physical functioning and positive health behaviors.