Positive expressive writing consistently improves wellbeing, but not all techniques are created equal
To fully understand the efficacy of this psychological intervention, studies need more rigor and consistency
PLOS
image:
Journaling over coffee.
view moreCredit: Hannah Olinger, Unsplash, CC0 (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)
The benefits of positive expressive writing for psychological health and wellbeing depend on the particular approach and on individual differences, according to a systematic review published on May 21, 2025 in the open-access journal PLOS One by Lauren Hoult from Northumbria University, U.K., and colleagues.
Writing interventions first explored in research direct people to write about stressful or negative topics repeatedly over the course of several consecutive days, which often improves mental health in the long run, but risks heightening negative emotions in the moment. Positive expressive writing, on the other hand, emphasizes self-reflection, gratitude, and imagining a hopeful future, benefiting wellbeing over time without risk. While previous studies suggest that positive expressive writing can boost health and wellbeing in non-clinical populations, no existing reviews have assessed the best ways to administer positive expressive writing interventions.
To evaluate which techniques have the most health and wellbeing benefits, the researchers systematically reviewed 51 articles about positive expressive writing interventions published between 1930 and 2023. All studies focused on non-clinical adult populations and self-administered interventions, including techniques like “best possible self,” or writing about an optimistic future, and writing gratitude letters.
The researchers found that across positive expressive writing techniques, psychological and subjective wellbeing outcomes improved most consistently, including measures of happiness, life satisfaction, and gratitude. Effects on measures of physical and mental health, like trait anxiety and depression, varied across people and intervention types.
The authors emphasize that inconsistencies across studies, such as differences in the control group or the duration of writing protocol, made it challenging to compare positive expressive writing interventions. Moving forward, they suggest that future researchers measure both health and wellbeing outcomes, assess individual differences across participants, and use more rigorous methods.
The authors add: "Our review shows that positive expressive writing techniques consistently benefit wellbeing and positive affect outcomes, with the strongest benefits observed for gratitude and best possible self-writing exercises. Additionally, individual differences may play a role in the effectiveness of these interventions."
In your coverage, please use this URL to provide access to the freely available article in PLOS One: https://plos.io/4k6DIJh
Citation: Hoult LM, Wetherell MA, Edginton T, Smith MA (2025) Positive expressive writing interventions, subjective health and wellbeing in non-clinical populations: A systematic review. PLoS One 20(5): e0308928. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308928
Author countries: U.K.
Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Journal
PLOS One
Method of Research
Systematic review
Subject of Research
People
Article Title
Positive expressive writing interventions, subjective health and wellbeing in non-clinical populations: A systematic review
Article Publication Date
21-May-2025
