Tamagawa · British journal of health psychology 2013 · Cross-sectional study and randomized controlled trial · n=748 screened (Study 2 sample size not reported)

Dispositional emotion coping styles and physiological responses to expressive writing.

Cited 12 times in the scientific literature.

Level 2 - randomized trial

Individual randomized controlled trial (Study 2) alongside a cross-sectional study (Study 1)

PubMed 23126551 · doi:10.1111/bjhp.12004 · record verified 2026-08-29

What was done

Across two studies, investigators evaluated self-reported health and objective physiological responses among undergraduates categorized by coping styles (repressors, defensive high-anxious, and low-anxious). In Study 1, participants identified from a screening pool of 748 undergraduates completed questionnaires assessing psychological characteristics, distress, symptoms, and sickness behaviors. In Study 2, participants from the three coping groups were randomized to complete either three emotional or three non-emotional writing essays in a single day. Outcomes included salivary cortisol concentrations and linguistic ratings of cognitive and affective expression in the essays.

What was found

The abstract reports no numerical values, exact sample sizes for Study 2, effect sizes, or p-values. In Study 1, defensive high-anxious individuals reported significantly more distress, physical symptoms, sickness behaviors, and difficulty expressing anger compared to repressors. In Study 2, salivary cortisol concentrations differed significantly between the emotional and non-emotional writing conditions, independent of coping style. Text analyses revealed no significant differences in cognitive or affective expression across the coping groups during writing.

Why it matters

The findings highlight a divergence between subjective symptom reporting and objective physiological or behavioral measures in emotional coping styles, while demonstrating that expressive writing can modulate physiological stress markers regardless of baseline coping strategy.

Limits

The abstract omits exact sample sizes for the randomized trial, quantitative baseline or post-intervention values, effect sizes, and precision estimates. The sample was drawn entirely from undergraduate students, limiting generalizability. In addition, the writing intervention took place over a single day, preventing evaluation of long-term physiological or health impacts.

Cited by