CCPJ - Volume 2, Issue 1

Counseling and ^TM

Clinical Psychology

Journal

ISSN:1545-4452

Home - Aims and Scope - Editorial Board - Submitting - Subscribing - Contents

Volume 2, Issue 1

January 2005

Expressive Disclosure Following an Interpersonal Conflict: Can Merely Writing About an Interpersonal Offense Motivate Forgiveness?

Daniene F. Landry, K. Chris Rachal, Windy S. Rachal, & Gary T. Rosenthal

(pp. 2-14)

ABSTRACT - The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of writing as an essential component for expediting the forgiveness process. Forty undergraduate students were randomly assigned to either write about an interpersonal conflict or about trivial topics. Both groups underwent pretests and posttests measuring positive and negative affect (Positive and Negative Affect Scale), forgiveness (Transgression Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory), and rumination (Impact of Events Scale). Both groups experienced significant increases in positive affect and decreases in negative affect and rumination. Only the group writing about an interpersonal conflict, however, reported significant improvements in the way they thought and felt about the topic. The results show that the effect of writing on forgiveness lends itself to further study.

Who Benefits from Expressive Writing? Moderator Variables Affecting Outcomes of Emotional Disclosure Interventions

David Manier & Adelaida Olivares

(pp. 15-28)

ABSTRACT - The authors studied the role of several moderator variables in influencing the benefits (related to self-reported mood and health) achieved through the “expressive writing” intervention pioneered by Pennebaker (1997b). Following Pennebaker’s paradigm, in the experimental condition participants wrote about stresses related to attending college, whereas in the control condition participants wrote about quotidian matters, such as what they ate on the previous day. Results support the hypothesis that gender and initial distress levels may be important moderator variables, but do not support a similar role for native language and social behavior. These results are discussed in terms of hypothesized connections between moderator variables, emotional disclosure interventions, and outcomes related to health and psychological well-being.

The General Distress Index (GDI)

Harvey Richman & Tabitha McDonald

(pp. 29-39)

ABSTRACT - The General Distress Index (GDI) was designed to be a brief, easy to administer and score, multi-domain questionnaire capable of assessing general psychological “distress.” The 48-item questionnaire is made up of four subscales assessing depression, anxiety, physiological symptoms, and social/occupational functioning. In two studies, the questionnaire demonstrated good internal consistency and test-retest reliability, and support for the proposed four factor structure. Additionally, correlational analysis utilizing the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 provided support for the validity of the GDI. We believe the GDI may have value for researchers and clinicians who require a brief, practical, and easy to use, yet broad based and reliable, assessment of general psychological distress.

Ask Once, May Tell: Comparative Validity of Single and Multiple Item Measurement of the Big-Five Personality Factors

Larry C. Bernard, R. Patricia Walsh, & Michael Mills

(pp. 40-57)

ABSTRACT - Compared validities of single item self-ratings and multiple item questionnaire scores measuring the Big-Five personality domains. Scores on the five domain scales of the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992) – Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness – were obtained from149 participants who also provided self-ratings on descriptions of the same domains. Acquaintances provided criterion ratings of the participants on the NEO PI-R Form R. Multiple regression analyses indicated that participants’ domain self-ratings and NEO PI-R scores accounted for equivalent amounts of variance in criterion ratings of Neuroticism and Conscientiousness. However, participants’ NEO PI-R scores accounted for significantly more variance in criterion ratings of Extraversion, Openness, and Agreeableness scores than single-item self ratings. Implications are discussed.