1. METHODS
PARTICIPANTS AND PROCEDURE
PSYC 103 students at College of Charleston were randomly assigned to
receive the expressive prompt (n = 25) or the control prompt (n = 25). Before
writing each day and at a 1-month follow-up, participants completed the BDI
and the BAI. We analyzed the narratives with LIWC and searched for
correlations between cognitive word use and BAI and BDI scores.
MEASURES
Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI)
Beck Depression Inventory (BDI)
Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) computer program
EXPRESSIVE PROMPT: “For all three writing days of this experiment, your task
is to write about your very deepest thoughts and feelings about coming to
college. In your writing, try to let yourself go and write continuously about your
emotions and thoughts related to leaving home, coming to college, and
preparing for the future. You can write about leaving your friends, family, or
high school, or about adjusting to a new social and academic world here. You
could also focus on your classes, your future, your parents’ or your own
expectations. The primary task, however, is for you to reflect on your most
basic thoughts and emotions about coming to college. You have 20 minutes
to complete the task.”
CONTROL PROMPT: “For all three writing days of this experiment, your task is
to describe in writing any particular object or event as objectively and as
dispassionately as you can, without mentioning your emotions, opinions, or
beliefs. you have 20 minutes to complete this task.”
DISCUSSION
As expected, the expressive group used significantly more
cognitive mechanisms than the control group, indicating the active
reflection of the expressive participants (Table 1). Contrary to our
hypothesis, there were no significant correlations between
cognitive mechanisms and BAI and BDI scores at the 1-month
follow-up. The only significant correlation we found was a negative
correlation between BAI scores and cognitive words on day 3 of
writing (r = -.331, p = .01). Individuals coping with stress by avoiding
the object of stress may experience less anxiety when exposed to
said object (Lee et al. 2014). The observed correlation may be due
to the narrative writing as a sort of exposure therapy. Thoughtfully
considering previously-avoided emotions associated with the
college transition may alleviate anxiety in college students.
Cognitive Mechanisms in Narrative Writing and Depression and Anxiety in Undergraduate Students
Abigail Asper and Sarah Robertson
College of Charleston
INTRODUCTION
The often-stressful transition to college is associated with higher levels of
depression and anxiety in young adults, and avoidant coping strategies can
further exacerbate mental health problems (Ruberman 2014, Lee et al.
2014). However, making meaning of traumatic experiences through
narrative writing promotes active confrontation of stressors and may ease
the college transition (Boals et al. 2011, Terry et al. 2013, Lee et al. 2014). In
narrative writing, meaning-making is thought to be positively associated
with the use of cognitive mechanisms, such as causal words (e.g., why, how,
because) and insight words (e.g., consider, know, think) (Tausczik et al.
2010). Based on the assumption that meaning-making relieves trauma-
related stress, we expect that higher use of cognitive words in narrative
writing will be associated with lower anxiety and depression in first-year
college students.
HYPOTHESIS: The number of cognitive mechanism words in participants’
narratives will be negatively correlated with anxiety and depression scores
at the 1-month follow-up assessment.
RESULTS
Each day, there was a significant difference between groups in
number of cognitive words used: F(1, 48) = 18.383, p = .000 on day
1; F(1, 48) = 15.381, p = .000 on day 2; F(1, 48) = 19.723, p = .000 on
day 3 (Table 1). There was also a significant correlation on day 3
between BAI scores and cognitive words: r = -.331, p = .01 (Table 2).
Otherwise, cognitive mechanisms did not significantly correlate
with mental health scores.
Cog Mech-1 Cog Mech-2 Cog Mech-3
BDI-1 -.052 .045 -.134
BDI-2 -.048 .01 -.151
BDI-3 -.027 .099 -.134
BDI-4 .033 .106 .001
BAI-1 -.085 -.017 -.179
BAI-2 -.005 .08 -.167
BAI-3 -.165 .011 -.331*
BAI-4 -.101 .065 -.222
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3
F-value 18.383** 15.381** 19.723**
TABLE 1. Results of between-group ANOVA between expressive
and control groups with cognitive mechanism as variable of
interest. ** denotes p = .000.
TABLE 2. Pearson correlations between cognitive words and
BAI/BDI scores on days 1, 2, and 3 and at the 1-month follow-up
(denoted by -4). * denotes p = .01.