The Health Benefits of Writing about Life Goals

Abstract

In a variation on Pennebaker's writing paradigm, a sample of 81 undergraduates wrote about one of four topics for 20 minutes each day for 4 consecutive days. Participants were randomly assigned to write about their most traumatic life event, their best possible future self, both of these topics, or a nonemotional con- trol topic. Mood was measured before and after writing and health center data for illness were obtained with participant con- sent. Three weeks later, measures of subjective well-being were obtained. Writing about life goals was significantly less upset- ting than writing about trauma and was associated with a sig- nificant increase in subjective well-being. Five months after writ- ing, a significant interaction emerged such that writing about trauma, one's best possible self, or both were associated with decreased illness compared with controls. Results indicate that writing about self-regulatory topics can be associated with the same health benefits as writing about trauma.

Full text

PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
King / WRITING ABOUT LIFE GOALS
The Health Benefits of Writing
About Life Goals
Laura A. King
Southern Methodist University
In a variation on Pennebaker’s writing paradigm, a sample of
81 undergraduates wrote about one of four topics for 20 minutes
each day for 4 consecutive days. Participants were randomly
assigned to write about their most traumatic life event, their best
possible future self, both of these topics, or a nonemotional con-
trol topic. Mood was measured before and after writing and
health center data for illness were obtained with participant con-
sent. Three weeks later, measures of subjective well-being were
obtained. Writing about life goals was significantly less upset-
ting than writing about trauma and was associated with a sig-
nificant increase in subjective well-being. Five months after writ-
ing, a significant interaction emerged such that writing about
trauma, one’s best possible self, or both were associated with
decreased illness compared with controls. Results indicate that
writing about self-regulatory topics can be associated with the
same health benefits as writing about trauma.
The health benefits associated with disclosive writing
have been demonstrated in a number of studies by a vari-
ety of investigators (Smyth, 1998). Typically, these stud-
ies have involved asking participants to write about emo-
tionally upsetting life events over the course of a few
days. Such writing has been shown to relate to superior
immune function (Esterling, Antoni, Fletcher,
Margulies, & Schneiderman, 1994; Pennebaker, Kiecolt-
Glaser, & Glaser, 1988; Petrie, Booth, Pennebaker, &
Davison, 1995), reduced health problems (e.g.,
Greenberg & Stone, 1992; Pennebaker & Beall, 1986),
lower skin conductance levels (Pennebaker, Hughes, &
O’Heeron, 1987), better adjustment to college
(Cameron & Nicholls, 1998; Pennebaker, Colder, &
Sharp, 1990), and more quickly finding employment
after being laid off (Spera, Buhrfeind, & Pennebaker,
1994). Recently, studies have begun to incorporate dif-
ferent writing instructions, obtaining similarly salubrious
effects. For instance, Greenberg, Wortman, and Stone
(1996) found that even writing about an imagined
trauma once for 20 minutes provided health benefits.
King and Miner (2000) demonstrated that participants
who wrote only about the positive aspects of their trau-
matic experience showed the same health benefits as
those who wrote about the trauma itself. Based on these
results, King and Miner suggested that any writing that
might be thought to enhance self-regulation ought to
lead to health benefits. Writing about topics that allow an
individual to gain insight into his or her priorities and to
understand better what his or her emotional reactions
mean may facilitate physical health. The purpose of the
present investigation was to examine whether writing
about a self-regulatory topic (but one that is not intensely
emotional) might lead to the physical health benefits of
writing.
SELF-REGULATION AND DISCLOSIVE WRITING
A variety of explanatory mechanisms have been sug-
gested for the health benefits of writing. Initially, cathar-
sis and insight were considered possibilities. The role of
emotional expression was thought to be demonstrated
in research showing that individuals who had confided
in others about a trauma were better off physically than
others. For instance, Pennebaker and O’Heeron (1984)
reported that among spouses of individuals who had
committed suicide or who had died of accidental causes,
differing health status 1 year later was accounted for by
degree of confiding. Pennebaker, Barger, and Tiebout
(1989) found that survivors of the Holocaust who openly
disclosed about their traumas in an interview were
Author’s Note: I thank Tom Scollon, Christie Napa, and Teresa Wil-
liams for their contributions to this project and article. This research
was supported by National Institute of Mental Health Grant No.
MH54142. Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to
Laura A. King, who is now at the Department of Psychological Sciences,
McAlester Hall, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211.
PSPB, Vol. 27 No. 7, July 2001 798-807
© 2001 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.
798

healthier 14 months later compared with more reticent
survivors.
The role that releasing pent-up emotion might play in
the benefits of writing is also demonstrated in the typical
instructions used in the writing studies—“to really let
go...andwrite as much as you can about the experience”
(e.g., Pennebaker & Beall, 1986). Having individuals
write about traumatic life events in this way has been
shown to lead to fewer physical illnesses over time (e.g.,
Pennebaker & Beall, 1986; Pennebaker & Susman,
1988). Furthermore, the importance of the emotional
release was demonstrated in research showing that hav-
ing participants avoid emotional content showed no pos-
itive effects (Pennebaker & Beall, 1986). These kinds of
results seemed to indicate that emotional release was a
crucial part of the benefits of writing.
Placing these results in a theoretical context,
Pennebaker (1988, 1989, 1992) proposed a theory of
active inhibition to account for the healing power of writ-
ing. This active inhibition model posited that individuals
who held back from talking about traumatic life events
tended to experience chronic autonomic arousal and
immune function deterioration. Writing about previ-
ously undisclosed traumatic life events allowed the indi-
vidual to halt this vicious cycle.
More recently, Pennebaker (1997) suggested that
emotional catharsis might not be the most important fac-
tor in these writing results. Analyzing the essays written
by participants in the trauma group of a typical writing
study, Pennebaker (1993) found that independent of
emotional expression in the essays, increasing use of
insight words, causal words, and words associated with
cognitive activity were associated with health improve-
ments. These results were also found in a sample of
bereaved men (Pennebaker, Mayne, & Francis, 1997).
Thus, the health benefits of writing appear to be tied to
constructing a sensible story rather than releasing pent-
up negative emotion. Indeed, Pennebaker and Francis
(1996) and Pennebaker, Mayne, and Francis (1997)
found that the use of positive emotion words (relative to
negative emotion words) was associated with health ben-
efits. Pennebaker (1997) asserted that although a reduc-
tion in inhibition might play a role in obtaining health
benefits from writing, the cognitive changes manifested
in these word use differences more strongly predict phys-
ical health.
The evolution that has occurred in the conceptualiza-
tion of the mechanisms underlying the benefits of the
writing paradigm demonstrates a movement away from
the mechanism of catharsis toward a more insight-driven
explanation. The body of evidence that supports the
effectiveness of the writing paradigm is unquestionably
remarkable. And the refinement of the theory away from
emotional catharsis toward insight is certainly an impor-
tant improvement. However, even the argument that it is
insight about a past trauma that drives this effect might
be questioned.
It is notable that all of these studies have started with a
particular bias—that benefiting from writing must
involve encountering and coping with a traumatic event
from the past. This assumption, along with the joint
notions of catharsis and insight, that some past trauma is
driving current health echoes a Freudian notion of past
experiences driving current behavior. Thus far, explana-
tions of the healing power of writing have been predi-
cated on the notion that individuals must revisit,
reexperience, or reevaluate past traumas.
These explanations cannot fully account for the
remarkable finding that writing about someone else’s
trauma can provide health benefits (Greenberg et al.,
1996). Greenberg et al.’s finding that writing about
someone else’s trauma led to health benefits challenges
the belief that somehow writing facilitates the reintegra-
tion of experience—because the experience written
about is not one’s own. In attempting to explain the ben-
efits of writing these traumatic fictions, Greenberg and
her colleagues postulated that the traumatic event itself
was relatively unimportant in producing health benefits;
rather, the simple act of confronting a negative emotion,
whether real or imaginary, and being able to control it
led to increased affective regulation, which in turn led to
health benefits. In other words, through emotional writ-
ing about any trauma, individuals come to see them-
selves as capable of handling intense and challenging
emotional experiences.
The idea that writing might improve self-regulation
has led to research examining whether writing topics
that promote self-regulation might enhance physical
health. For instance, Cameron and Nicholls (1998)
found health benefits from writing about one’s plans for
coping with coming to college—an instruction that was
intended as a self-regulation task. King and Miner
(2000) sought to spur effective self-regulation by
instructing participants to focus only on the positive
aspects of a life trauma—to explore the ways they had
grown as a person and become more able to cope in the
future. In this study, health benefits were obtained for
individuals who focused only on the positive and who
experienced relatively little of the emotional distress
that is typically associated with writing.
Studies demonstrating health benefits for self-
regulatory writing expand on previous assumptions
about the health benefits of writing, but they also dem-
onstrate a bias in this body of work: focus on negative life
events. Given psychologists’ original speculation that
catharsis and insight were the mechanisms behind the
healing power of writing, it is no surprise that examina-
tions of positive or neutral writings have been largely
King / WRITING ABOUT LIFE GOALS 799

ignored. If delving deeply into traumatic life events is
necessary for healing, positive or neutral topics would be
considered inherently uninteresting and unimportant.
Note that even in their study, Cameron and Nicholls
(1998) asked about plans for coping with a potentially
traumatic event: coming to college. King and Miner
(2000) asked participants to first think about a trauma
and then focus on the positive aspects. Thus, research
has tended to focus on negative life events as the source
of the health benefits of writing without considering
other possible starting points.
The purpose of this study was to test whether writing
that promoted self-regulatory processes that was not at
all related to past trauma might produce health benefits
even in the absence of experiencing (Greenberg et al.,
1996) or reexperiencing (Pennebaker, 1993) intense
negative emotions. In this study, I selected writing about
one’s life goals as an appropriate self-regulatory topic—
yet one that might not conjure intense negative
emotion.
The goals that individuals espouse for themselves
have been seen as a window into self-regulatory pro-
cesses (Austin & Vancouver, 1996). A variety of ways to
study goals have been presented in the past two decades
in personality psychology (cf. Pervin, 1989). These
approaches have typically investigated goals by asking
people to list the goals they are seeking in their everyday
behavior (e.g., Emmons, 1986; Klinger, Barta, &
Maxeiner, 1980). Such an activity might well have bene-
fits per se. However, in this study, the concept of best pos-
sible future selves was used as the goal measure.
Possible selves are personalized representations of
goals (Markus & Nurius, 1986). Possible selves have been
described as an essential link between the self-concept
and motivation (Markus & Nurius, 1986; Niedenthal,
Setterlund, & Wherry, 1992). Possible selves encompass
all of our imaginable futures for ourselves. Possible
selves and aspects of possible selves have been found to
relate to a variety of outcomes, such as memory, self-
esteem, and delinquency (e.g., Markus & Nurius, 1986;
Markus & Ruvolo, 1989; Oyserman & Markus, 1990). A
number of methodologies have been employed to assess
possible selves, including having people rate the likeli-
hood of certain outcomes in their lives (Markus &
Nurius, 1986) and the use of open-ended items
(Oyserman & Markus, 1990). Possible selves were
deemed more suitable to the current investigation
because they might lend themselves to a session of
focused writing comparable with the trauma writing
employed in other studies. That is, constructing a goal
list might not involve the kind of narrative construction
that traumatic writing does. Therefore, in the present
study, participants were asked to write narrative descrip-
tions of their best possible future selves. In addition, pos-
sible selves might be seen as occupying a high level in a
motivational hierarchy. These high levels might be less
likely to be chronically in people’s minds as they go
about their daily life pursuits. Therefore, asking people
to consider these high-level life goals might allow them
to examine a previously unexamined part of their moti-
vational lives.
Like writing about a past trauma (Pennebaker, 1997),
writing about one’s life goals might be considered a ther-
apeutic activity. Writing about life goals might involve
bringing awareness and clarity to one’s life goals, re-
organizing priorities, deciding on values—the types of
processes that might be part of cognitive-behavioral
treatment. Having clear and valued goals has certainly
been shown to relate to positive psychological function-
ing (e.g., Emmons, 1986; Little, 1989; Omodei &
Wearing, 1990). In addition, writing about life goals
might also serve to reduce goal conflict. Pennebaker
(1998) noted that having individuals write about unre-
solved conflict is associated with long-term health bene-
fits. The concept of conflict here was used to refer to the
conflictful situation of wanting to talk about a trauma
but being prevented from doing so or about unresolved
personal traumas in which individuals had not gained a
sense of closure. Conflict, in the sense of goal conflict,
has also been shown to relate to physical illness
(Emmons & King, 1988). It may be that writing about
one’s life goals will allow individuals to recognize and
resolve such conflicts.
Finally, research on mental simulation would indicate
that imagining success at one’s life goals might have
implications for self-regulation. Pham and Taylor (1999)
found that individuals who mentally simulated the pro-
cess of doing well on a test actually did perform better.
Such simulation increased the relationship between
thought and action. In addition, Rivkin and Taylor
(1999) found that individuals who mentally simulated a
stressful life event were better off psychologically than
others. Thus, this type of simulation may be operating in
disclosive writing—whether about life goals or stressful
events.
OVERVIEW AND PREDICTIONS
Participants were instructed to write about one of four
topics: their best possible selves (BPS) in the future, their
most traumatic life experiences, both of these, or a con-
trol topic over 4 days. For individuals in the combination
cell, instructions were given to write about a trauma on
the first 2 days and then were switched to writing about
future BPS on the 3rd and 4th days. King and Miner
(2000) found that individuals who changed topics
midsession tended to show lowered benefits from writ-
ing. It was posited that individuals who switched topics
after 2 days might enjoy the benefits of both types of
800 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN

writing—the emotional disclosure of the trauma and the
self-regulatory benefits of writing about goals. Mood,
subjective well-being, and health center visits for illness
were also measured.
It was predicted that writing about traumatic life
events would relate to more negative mood, whereas
writing about BPS would have either no effect or the
opposite effect on mood. It was predicted that writing
about BPS would be judged as less upsetting by partici-
pants than writing about trauma, although writing about
BPS might still be rated as quite important. It was pre-
dicted that writing about goals would relate to height-
ened subjective well-being, whereas writing about
trauma would result in short-term distress. Finally, it was
predicted that participants in the BPS, trauma, and com-
bination groups would show lowered health center visits
for illness relative to controls.
METHOD
Participants
Participants were 81 psychology students ages 18 to 42
(M= 21.04, SD = 3.15) from Southern Methodist Univer-
sity (69 women, 14 men, 2 not reporting). All individuals
were given extra credit in their psychology courses
(introductory and upper level) in exchange for partici-
pation in the study. Participants were primarily drawn
from 3rd- and 4th-year students (83%) and were largely
European American (87%); 7% were Hispanic, 3% were
African American, and 3% were Asian.
Materials and Procedure
Participants were randomly assigned to one of four
conditions in a 2 (trauma vs. no trauma) ×2 (BPS vs. no
BPS) design. The ns for the cells are shown in Table 1.
Participants were taken individually to a room and were
told that over 4 days, they would be writing about differ-
ent experiences and topics. Participants signed a con-
sent form and completed their first mood ratings. Each
participant was then given an envelope containing a writ-
ing topic. Participants wrote for 20 minutes each day
over 4 consecutive days. At the end of each writing ses-
sion, participants again completed the measure of posi-
tive and negative affect and rated the essay-writing expe-
rience on a variety of dimensions.
Three types of writing instructions were used. For the
participants in the trauma-only condition, the following
instructions were used:
For the next few minutes we would like you to write
about some traumatic event or traumatic loss that you
have experienced in your life. Write about the experi-
ence in as much detail as you can. Really get into it and
freely express any and all emotions or thoughts that you
have about the experience. As you write do not worry
about punctuation or grammar just really let go and
write as much as you can about the experience.
For the BPS condition, participants read the follow-
ing:
Think about your life in the future. Imagine that every-
thing has gone as well as it possibly could. You have
worked hard and succeeded at accomplishing all of your
life goals. Think of this as the realization of all of your life
dreams. Now, write about what you imagined.
In the combination condition, participants were
given the trauma-only instructions on the first 2 days and
were given the BPS instructions on the 3rd and 4th days.
For the control condition, participants were asked each
day to write about their plans for the day in as much
detail as possible (after Pennebaker et al., 1996).
Participants were told that they were free to leave
once they had completed the questionnaire and that the
experimenter would pick up their materials after the
participant had left the room. Information about coun-
seling services on campus was made available to all
participants.
Mood ratings. Before and after each writing session,
participants completed ratings of their positive and neg-
ative mood (Diener & Emmons, 1984). This scale asked
respondents to rate from 1 (not at all)to6(extremely
much) the extent to which each of 17 adjectives described
their current mood. Ten of the adjectives measured posi-
tive affect (happy, pleased, self-confident, enjoyment/
fun, joyful, aroused/active, anticipating, excited, socia-
ble/friendly, satisfied), and 7 measured negative affect
(depressed/blue, bored, worried, tired, frustrated,
unhappy, angry/hostile).
Participant ratings of essay content. After each writing
session, participants made ratings on a scale from 1 (not
King / WRITING ABOUT LIFE GOALS 801
TABLE 1: Means and Standard Deviations of Net Positive Mood
After Writing
Best Possible Self
No Yes
Trauma
No 1.37b1.26b
(.95) (1.48)
n= 16 n= 19
Yes 0.16a1.86b
(1.61) (.95)
n= 22 n= 22
NOTE: Means with differing subscripts significantly differ (p< .05, us-
ing Tukey’s HSD test).

at all)to5(extremely much) of how important (grand M=
2.89, SD = .66), emotional (grand M= 2.89, SD = .67), dif-
ficult (grand M= 2.87, SD = .66), and upsetting (grand M=
2.44, SD = 1.58) the writing experience was.
Psychological well-being measures. Three weeks after par-
ticipation, participants were given a questionnaire
packet containing psychological well-being measures.
Participants completed the Satisfaction With Life Scale
(SWLS) (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985; M=
3.43 on a 5-point scale, SD = .66). The SWLS is a five-item
measure that includes items such as “My life is close to my
ideal” and “If I could live my life over again, I would
change almost nothing.” In addition, participants com-
pleted the Life Orientation Test (LOT) (Scheier &
Carver, 1985), an eight-item instrument measuring
dispositional optimism—the extent to which individuals
expect favorable outcomes. Each item was rated on a 5-
point scale from disagree on the low end to agree on the
high end. The LOT includes items such as “Every cloud
has a silver lining” and “I’m always optimistic about my
future” (M= 3.68 and SD = .67). These two measures
were highly correlated (r= .56, p< .001). Therefore, a
subjective well-being composite was computed by aver-
aging the standard scores for the two scales.
Physical illness measure. On the last day of writing, par-
ticipants signed a release form giving the experimenter
access to their health center information. Physician visit
information was obtained from the Southern Methodist
University Health Center for the semester prior to the
study as well as for 5 months after writing. Records were
stripped of all identifying information and a rater, blind
to condition, simply counted the number of visits to the
health center that each participant had made for illness
(discounting regular checkups, accidents, etc.). These
counts were made with the help of a health center nurse
who verified intake codes. Health records were available
for 89% of the participants (n= 72). Data were unavail-
able for 3 participants in the trauma-only and combina-
tion groups and for 1 and 2 participants in the BPS and
control conditions, respectively (χ2n.s.).
Content analysis. To examine the characteristics of the
essays themselves, two independent judges read and
rated the essays from the three experimental groups on
dimensions, including how emotional, negative, posi-
tive, optimistic, and insightful the essay was. Ratings were
also made with regard to the extent that participants
attributed responsibility to themselves or to others. All
ratings were made on a scale from 1 (not at all)to5
(extremely much). Interrater correlations were all greater
than .67. These ratings were not completed for the con-
trol essays because the task was nonsensical to the raters.
RESULTS
Sample Essays
Before presenting the analyses of the results of this
study, it might be helpful to examine a few representative
examples of essays written in each of the writing condi-
tions. An informal inspection of the trauma essays indi-
cated that participants indeed wrote about a variety of
quite negative experiences, including death of a parent
or loved one, romantic breakups, parental divorce, acci-
dents, death of a pet, and victimization. Some represen-
tative examples from these essays follow.
This summer my grandmother past away. It was com-
pletely unexpected. ...Iwasveryclose to her as was
everyone in my family. She was so full of energy all the
time and was the type who could hardly sit still. We loved
to shop together, go to antique stores, have lunch, go on
vacations, etc. She was up for anything, in fact, she always
planned everything. The hardest part about losing her is
that we had no time to prepare and my grandfather was
left behind in shock. ...Iworry about him all the time
because I now if I feel so sad about her being gone, I can’t
imagine how devastating it must be from day to day to
lose the woman you’ve loved for 50 years. I try to remem-
ber all of the wonderful, positive qualities about her and
apply them to my own life. She would not want anyone
moping around missing her. I just wish she were still
here, I’d like to see her one last time, and tell her I love
her.
My grandfather died on my 17th birthday. That certainly
wasn’t fun. We only found out the day before that he was
in the hospital, even though he’d been there for 4 days.
My senile grandmother forgets where he was—and for-
got to tell anyone else.... Myfirst thoughts were of how
I’d never hear my grandfather’s voice again reciting his
favorite poem. I could hear it in my head. I thought of my
grandmother, who probably wouldn’t even understand
exactly (until she died, she continued to ask about my
grandfather’s whereabouts).
The BPS essays included a variety of topics, focusing
on desired states for the future. Common themes were
job success, self-improvement, marriage and family,
travel, home ownership, and so forth. The following are
examples from the BPS writing condition:
I have learned to love as fully and selflessly as possible. I
have learned to be humble without losing and confi-
dence, esteem, or being fake. I have touched the life of at
least one other soul in a significant way and helped them
learn to love more greatly. If I have achieved this then I
know that I have also achieved happiness, peace, and
worldly success. By this last I refer to career accomplish-
ment, and enough material wealth to keep me satis-
fied. . . . I have learned to relinquish all fear.
802 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN

I guess ...Iwant a pretty normal middle class life. I want
just a medium-size house—no mansions even if I could
afford it.... Mymain goal is to keep experiencing as
much as I can even when it seems there isn’t anything
else, there always is. Really, I just want a good marriage,
where we are both confident together and compliment
each other’s personalities. Once we are happy together
we could be happy in lots of different situations—even if
it means some sacrifice. My ideal would be for us both to
love, or at least be proud of, our jobs, but also always
strive for more.
I hope my life allows me to travel. I have this passion to
spend extended amounts of time in countries that are
drastically different from my own. I’d love to visit India,
China, Israel, Nepal, Africa again. So, somehow ...Iwant
to travel. I also envision being the associate pastor of a
moderately sized church in Arizona working with adult
education programming and cross-cultural awareness.
Hopefully somewhere along the line I will find someone
that I want to commit to sharing my life with. I would like
to have 3 children. I really wouldn’t mind living in
another country! I certainly don’t want to be in the mili-
tary, but I’d love to do medical missions in third world
countries or something like that. I also would like to
teach Religion courses at the college level someday, or
maybe even at graduate school! Maybe I could be a reli-
gious archeologist! Then I could travel and learn amaz-
ing things all at the same time! Life is just full of possibili-
ties. See, there is all this stuff I want to do with part of my
life, but I also really do desire a home and family.
As these examples illustrate, although the BPS writing
was clearly more positive than the trauma writing, it was
an engaging task for participants.
Statistical Analyses
Analyses first examined the effects of writing topic on
mood, differences in the participants’ ratings of the writ-
ing experience, and rated differences in essay character-
istics. Then, the main predictions regarding psychologi-
cal well-being and physical illness effects were examined.
Effect of writing topic on mood. Recall that it had been
predicted that writing about trauma would relate to
more negative mood, whereas writing about BPS was pre-
dicted to have no effect or a positive effect on mood. Pos-
itive and negative mood ratings at the beginning and
end of each writing condition were averaged over the 4
days of writing. The net positive affect (PA) experienced
was calculated by subtracting negative affect (NA) from
PA. Prior to writing, the mean net PA was 1.21 (SD =
1.49). After writing, the net PA was 1.48 (SD = 1.18).
There were no differences among the groups on net PA
before writing (F< 0.2). To examine the effects of writ-
ing topic on mood, a 2 (trauma vs. no trauma) ×2 (BPS
vs. no BPS) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was per-
formed on net PA ratings after writing, controlling for
net PA before writing. Means are shown in Table 1.
Results demonstrated that controlling for mood before
writing, the main effect of writing about one’s BPS was
significant, F(1, 74) for the main effect for BPS = 22.95, p<
.001. Writing about one’s BPS was associated with a sig-
nificant increase in net positive mood. This main effect
and a marginally significant main effect for writing about
trauma, F(1, 74) = 3.45, p< .07, indicating lowered net PA
for writing about trauma, were qualified by a significant
interaction. The means in Table 1 show that the control
group, those who wrote about their BPS, and the combi-
nation group were all significantly happier than those
who wrote about trauma only.
Participant ratings of essay content. It had been pre-
dicted that writing about BPS would be rated as less
upsetting than writing about traumatic life events.
ANOVAs were performed on participants’ ratings of
writing as important, emotional, difficult, and upsetting.
With regard to importance ratings, a significant main
effect for trauma, F(1, 76) = 6.73, p< .02, was qualified by
a significant interaction of trauma and BPS writing,
F(1, 76) = 12.23, p< .001. Post hoc examination of the
means for this interaction indicated that all three of the
experimental groups differed significantly from the con-
trol group (Tukey’s HSD p< .05; Ms for the trauma only,
BPS only, and combination groups = 3.23, 2.96, and 2.89,
respectively, vs. Mfor control = 2.34). With regard to how
difficult the writing process was, a significant main effect
for trauma, F(1, 76) = 5.60, p< .02, was qualified by a sig-
nificant two-way interaction, F(1, 76) = 12.15, p= .001.
Post hoc comparison of the means (using Tukey’s HSD,
p< .05) indicated that the trauma-only (M= 3.20) and
BPS-only (M= 2.95) groups rated writing as more diffi-
cult than the control group (M= 2.34). The combination
group did not significantly differ from any groups (M=
2.85). For ratings of how emotional writing was, again
main effects for trauma, F(1, 76) = 2.35, p< .02, were
qualified by a two-way interaction, F(1, 76) = 12.84, p= .001.
Post hoc comparisons of the cell means demonstrated
that the trauma-only (M= 3.23) and BPS-only (M= 2.97)
groups differed significantly from the control group (M=
2.34), whereas the combination group did not differ
from the other groups (M= 2.87). Finally, for ratings of
how upsetting the writing experience was, significant
main effects for trauma, F(1, 76) = 26.05, and BPS, F(1,
76) = 19.87, both ps < .001, emerged. For trauma, this
main effect was in the direction of traumatic writing
being more upsetting (Ms = 1.86 vs. 2.95), whereas for
BPS, writing was less traumatic than the control topic
(Ms = 2.97 vs. 2.01). These main effects were qualified by
a significant two-way interaction, F(1, 76) = 118.99, p<
.0001. In this case, writing about trauma only (M= 4.39)
was significantly more upsetting than writing about the
King / WRITING ABOUT LIFE GOALS 803

control topic (M= 1.01), the BPS-only topic (M= 2.55),
and the combination topic (M= 1.51).
Essay content. Next, analyses examined differences in
the content of the essays as judged by raters. Table 2
shows the results. Essays that pertained to trauma
(whether alone or in the combination condition) were
generally rated as more emotional, negative, more
attributing responsibility to others, less positive, less opti-
mistic, and less attributing of responsibility to self. The
only rating in which no significant difference emerged
was for insightfulness.
To summarize, analyses thus far indicate that writing
about one’s future BPS and writing about a trauma are
similar in some ways. Both tasks are engaging—
participants rate them as important, emotional, and
challenging activities. However, as expected, writing
about one’s BPS was significantly less upsetting than writ-
ing about trauma. With regard to raters’ content ratings
of the essays, the trauma-only essays emerged as more
emotional and negative and less positive and optimistic
than writing about one’s BPS. In addition, individuals
writing about trauma were more likely to attribute
responsibility to others, whereas individuals writing
about their life goals were more likely to attribute
responsibility to themselves. Thus, the writing instruc-
tions seemed to have worked: The trauma writers tended
to really get into writing about negative emotional
events, whereas the BPS writers tended to be more posi-
tive, optimistic, and less emotional. It is also noteworthy
that with regard to mood, writing about BPS was actually
related to increased net positive mood—and that writing
about trauma was related to the lowest net PA of all
groups. Analyses next considered the main predictions
of this study—the potential benefits of writing about
one’s life goals for psychological and physical well-being.
Psychological well-being. A 2 (trauma vs. no trauma) ×2
(BPS vs. no BPS) ANOVA was performed on the compos-
ite psychological well-being measure. A main effect for
writing about BPS emerged, F(1,77) = 3.93 p= .05. Means
for this effect indicated that individuals who wrote about
their BPS were higher in psychological well-being than
others (Ms = .22 vs. –.26).1
Physical illness.2No significant differences were pres-
ent among the four groups 3 months prior to writing,
F(3, 68) = 0.95, p> .90. A 2 (trauma vs. no trauma) ×2
(BPS vs. no BPS) ANCOVA was performed on health
center visits at 5 months controlling for illness visits for
the 3 months prior to writing. A significant interaction
emerged, F(1, 67) = 4.62, p< .04. The means for illness
visits for all groups for the pretest and 5-month measures
are shown in Table 3 and Figure 1. Protected ttests indi-
cated that the BPS-only and trauma-only groups were sig-
nificantly lower than controls in illness visits at posttest,
t(30) = 2.60, p< .01, for BPS and t(30) = 2.18, p< .04, for
trauma.
It might be noted from examining Figure 1 that the
control group tended to increase in illness diagnoses
over the course of the study. This difference between
pretest and posttest means was not significant, t(14) <
1.0. The difference from pretest to posttest was signifi-
cant for the BPS-only group, t(18) = 2.19, p< .05, and was
marginally significant for the trauma-only group, t(17)=
1.84, p< .09. In any case, the pattern shown in Figure 1 is
typical of past writing studies.
Finally, analyses were conducted to examine whether
the emotional experience of writing about trauma or
goals interacted with the conditions to produce health
effects. A hierarchical regression equation was com-
puted predicting illnesses at the 5-month follow-up from
the main effects of trauma, BPS, and net PA after writing
(converted to a mean deviation score), entered on the
first step, and all of the two-way interactions of these vari-
ables, entered on the second step (Aiken & West, 1993).
Only the main effect of writing about BPS contributed
significantly to the equation (β= –.47, p< .02). The main
effect for writing about trauma was marginally signifi-
cant (β= –.32, p< .10). The interaction of trauma and
BPS was also marginally significant (β= .42, p< .09). No
significant main effects or interactions were found for
mood after writing. Similar analyses were performed for
participant ratings of the essay writing as important and
upsetting. Results were essentially the same as for mood.
Neither the importance nor the upsetting nature of the
task related to illness.
DISCUSSION
Results indicate that writing about life goals is another
way to enjoy the health benefits of writing without the
emotional costs. Indeed, writing about one’s life goals
804 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
TABLE 2: Content Ratings for Essays
Writing Condition
Trauma BPS
Content Dimension Only Only Combination F(2, 53)
Emotional 2.56a1.47b1.83b23.33**
Negative 2.96a1.22b1.94c80.71**
Positive 1.31a2.80b2.25c62.57**
Optimistic 1.23a2.50b1.86c24.24**
Insightful 1.80 2.02 1.60 2.42
Responsibility
to self 1.98a2.42b1.75a6.09*
Responsibility
to others 2.10a1.46b1.61b7.54*
NOTE: BPS = best possible self. Means with different subscripts within
rows are significantly different using Scheffe’s test (p< .05).
*p< .01. **p< .001.

was associated with feeling less upset, more happy, and
getting sick less often. It is important to note that the
physical benefits of writing about one’s BPS were equal
to or better than writing about trauma, whereas writing
about a traumatic life event also entailed feeling upset
and experiencing lowered mood. Obviously, these
results require replication, but they do suggest a provoc-
ative extension on the traditional writing paradigm. It
may be possible to enjoy the benefits of writing without
necessarily writing about trauma at all.
The distress caused by writing about trauma was short
term. No prolonged effects were found in terms of the
subjective well-being measures given 2 to 3 weeks after
the writing intervention. It is notable, however, that writ-
ing about life goals was, in fact, associated with a small
increase in subjective well-being over the 3-week follow-
up. Thus, writing about life goals is not only physically
beneficial but may have psychological benefits as well.
The mechanisms that underlie this result are not clear;
however, it might be that individuals who actively focus
on and write about their best possible futures actually are
able to more effectively pursue these goals. Research on
visualization has shown that individuals who can imagine
themselves accomplishing tasks are often better able to
do them (e.g., Pham & Taylor, 1999; Ruvolo & Markus,
1992; Sherman, Skov, Hervitz, & Stock, 1981). Perhaps
the 4 days of writing served as an imaginative exercise in
which participants were able to visualize themselves suc-
cessful at their valued goal. Interestingly, Taylor and her
colleagues (e.g., Pham & Taylor, 1999; Rivkin & Taylor,
1999) have shown that process, not outcome, simula-
tions are associated with superior coping and goal prog-
ress. Yet, the present manipulation would seem to be an
outcome-focused manipulation. Further research might
include variations on the BPS instructions to examine
the health effects of these different orientations.
One problem of this study is that no goal-related
dependent measures were given to participants to exam-
ine the mechanisms of the change promoted by writing.
It would be interesting to track whether this kind of writ-
ing actually leads to a clearer sense of one’s goals, less
conflict, and so forth. Certainly, future research might
examine the motivational consequences of writing
about goals.
The results of this study beg the question of what
other topics might be posed to individuals to examine
through writing. Obviously, one possibility would be to
look at intensely positive experiences. Another might be
to ask questions about individuals’ most meaningful life
experiences and their philosophies of life. It is impor-
tant to remember that writing about one’s life goals was
shown here to be a somewhat dispassionate experience.
Thus, writing that is not emotional but that promotes
awareness of one’s goals, priorities, and so forth might
be used to foster self-regulation.
It is worth mentioning, of course, that the control
group did not show any health benefits from their quite
unemotional writing. Yet, the control assignment, to
write about one’s plans for the day, might be seen as
remarkably close to the life goal topic used. It may be
that writing about very low level goals does not provide
the same opportunity for integration that is provided by
considering higher level concerns. In addition, it may be
that asking participants to write about their future BPS
accessed fantasies that would not be mentioned in the
mundane to-do lists produced by control participants.
Obviously, future work might explore the parameters of
this effect by examining different kinds of motivationally
relevant writing topics. It is important to note also that
participants in the BPS condition judged the task as diffi-
cult, emotional, and important—it was simply not upset-
ting. Thus, it may be that to benefit from writing, the
assigned topic must be meaningful, engaging, and even
challenging. The topic must be one that can capture and
King / WRITING ABOUT LIFE GOALS 805
TABLE 3: Means and Standard Deviations for Health Center Illness
Visits After Writing by Writing Topic, Controlling for Pre-
vious Illness Visits
5 Months
Best Possible Self
No Yes
Trauma
No .29 .00
(.72) (.01)
Yes .05 .10
(.23) (.22)
Figure 1 Residualized health center visits for illness as a function of
writing topic.
NOTE: BPS = best possible self.

maintain the individual’s attention for a considerable
amount of time.
What is it about engaging writing that promotes physi-
cal health? A possible candidate seems to be the influ-
ence of such writing on self-awareness and self-
regulation. The activities of writing about extremely
negative emotional events as well as somewhat unemo-
tional life goals share, for the writer, the opportunity to
learn about the self. These activities may serve to inte-
grate life experience into a larger, more sensible frame-
work. They may allow the person to gain a feeling of con-
trol over his or her emotional life or valued outcomes.
Words may limit experience and transform the world
into a more comprehensible whole. Importantly, this
translation of chaotic experience into comprehensible
text does not require that one be writing about a person-
ally devastating experience. Apparently, thinking seri-
ously about an important topic is essential to the health
benefits of writing, but emotional anguish is not.
A peculiar result that warrants some discussion is the
lack of strong results for the combination writing group.
King and Miner (2000) found that individuals in their
combination group—participants who wrote about a
trauma and then about the positive benefits of that
trauma—did not benefit from writing. In the present
study, the combination group showed lowered illness vis-
its, but these benefits were not significantly different
from controls. Although this finding replicates the null
results of King and Miner, it is no less puzzling. It seems
logical that if two types of writing are beneficial, then
combining them should be at least as beneficial. One
possible explanation is that the switching of topics inter-
rupted the flow of participants’ disclosure. When indi-
viduals in the trauma-only group begin to come to a
sense of closure about the topic, they do so naturally and
in their own time. In our combination group, partici-
pants have been forced to change horses in midstream
and may therefore find the situation uncomfortably
forced. In addition, it may be that participants gauge
themselves in the course of any writing study to peak at a
particular time. Participants in this study knew the study
would last 4 days because they signed up for 4 days at the
initial meeting. It may be that individuals expected to
write about trauma over the course of those days and had
paced themselves accordingly. It would be interesting to
examine this possibility in participants led to expect var-
ied numbers of days of writing.
A limitation of this study is that it relied completely on
an undergraduate sample. Students are a particularly
convenient group in that they are available for the writ-
ing portion of the study and they use the student health
center—allowing relatively easy access to health data.
However, it is important to note that the college sample
presents some problems as well. First, students tend to be
in relatively good health. It might be interesting to exam-
ine these interventions in a group of individuals who are
more at risk for serious illness. In addition, the life goal
instructions we used might have very different meaning
in the context of an individual in middle or old age.
Finally, young, healthy individuals enrolled in a private
university may be more optimistic about their futures
than individuals in less advantaged situations. Thus, writ-
ing about the future may be more upsetting or less uplift-
ing for individuals in less hope-filled life situations.
Future research should examine the benefits of writing
about goals in a more diverse population.
To conclude, it is not difficult to see why the earliest
studies of the benefits of writing focused on very negative
events. In terms of compelling topics that warrant exami-
nation, these are probably the most obvious. The prac-
tice of examining negative events from the past seems to
resonate with a view of psychology that might even
appeal to participants—as if dwelling on the negatives of
the past is what psychologists ought to do. Forcing indi-
viduals to delve deeply into extremely negative life expe-
riences is certainly one way to harness attention and fos-
ter self-regulation. An interesting implication of the
present results is that past disclosive writing studies have
been beneficial in spite of, not because of, the topics
assigned. The act of writing down our deepest thoughts
and feelings is key to the benefits of writing. However,
and importantly, the contents of our deepest thoughts
and feelings need not be traumatic or negative. Quite
the contrary, examining the most hopeful aspects of our
lives through writing—our best imagined futures, our
“most cherished self-wishes” (Allport, 1961)—might also
bestow on us the benefits of writing that have been long
assumed to be tied only to our traumatic histories.
NOTES
1. Results for SWLS and LOT analyzed separately produced similar
patterns. For the Satisfaction With Life Scale, the means were 3.3 vs.
3.5, t= 1.40, p< .09; for the Life Orientation Test, the means were 3.5
versus 3.8, t= 2.0, p< .03. Given the high correlation between the mea-
sures, the difference for the composite would seem the most reliable
measure available.
2. A 2 (trauma vs. no trauma) ×2 (BPS vs. no BPS) ×2 time (before
and after writing) repeated measures ANOVA was significant F(1, 68) =
4.06, p< .05.
REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1993). Multiple regression: Testing and inter-
preting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Allport, G. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.
Austin, J. T., & Vancouver, J. B. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology:
Structure, process and content. Psychological Bulletin,120, 338-375.
Cameron, L. D., & Nicholls, G. (1998). Expression of stressful experi-
ences through writing: Effects of a self regulation manipulation
for pessimists and optimists. Health Psychology,17, 84-92.
806 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN

Diener, E., & Emmons, R. A. (1984). The independence of positive
and negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,47,
1105-1117.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, G. (1985). The Sat-
isfaction With Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment,49, 71-75.
Emmons, R. A. (1986). Personal strivings: An approach to personality
and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy,51, 1058-1068.
Emmons, R. A., & King, L. A. (1988). Conflict among personal
strivings: Immediate and long-term implications for psychological
and physical well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
48, 1040-1048.
Esterling, B. A., Antoni, M. H., Fletcher, M. A., Margulies, S., &
Schneiderman (1994). Emotional disclosure through writing or
speaking modulates latent Epstein-Barr virus antibody titers. Jour-
nal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,62, 130-140.
Greenberg, M. A., & Stone, A. A. (1992). Emotional disclosure about
traumas and its relation to health: Effects of previous disclosure
and trauma severity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,63,
75-84.
Greenberg, M. A., Wortman, C. B., & Stone, A. A. (1996). Emotional
expression and physical health: Revising traumatic memories or
fostering self-regulation? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
71, 588-602.
King, L. A., & Miner, K. N. (2000). Writing about the perceived bene-
fits of traumatic events: Implications for physical health. Personal-
ity and Social Psychology Bulletin.
Klinger, E., Barta, S. G., & Maxeiner, M. (1980). Motivational corre-
lates of thought content, frequency, and commitment. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,39, 1222-1237.
Little, B. R. (1989). Personal projects analysis: trivial pursuits, magnif-
icent obsessions, and the search for coherence. In D. M. Buss &
N. Cantor (Eds.), Personality psychology: Recent trends, emerging direc-
tions (pp. 15-31). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist,
41, 954-969.
Markus, H., & Ruvolo, A. (1989). Possible selves: Personalized repre-
sentations of goals. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Goal concepts in personality
and social psychology (pp. 211-242). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Niedenthal, P. M., Setterlund, M. B., & Wherry, M. B. (1992). Possible
self-complexity and affective reactions to goal-relevant evalua-
tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,63, 5-16.
Omodei, M. M., & Wearing, A. J. (1990). Need satisfaction and
involvement in personal projects: Toward an integrative model of
subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,59,
762-769.
Oyserman, D., & Markus, H. (1990). Possible selves in balance: Impli-
cations for delinquency. Journal of Social Issues,46(2), 141-157.
Pennebaker, J. W. (1988). Traumatic experience and psychosomatic
disease: Exploring the roles of behavioural inhibition, obsession,
and confiding. Canadian Psychology,26, 82-95.
Pennebaker, J. W. (1989). Confession, inhibition, and disease. In
L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol.
22, pp. 211-244). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Pennebaker, J. W. (1992). Inhibition as the linchpin of health. In
H. S. Friedman (Ed.), Hostility, coping, and health (pp. 127-139).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Pennebaker,J. W. (1993). Putting stress into words: Health, linguistic,
and therapeutic implications. Behavior Research and Therapy,31,
539-548.
Pennebaker, J. W. (1997). Writing about emotional experiences as a
therapeutic process. Psychological Science,8, 162-166.
Pennebaker, J. W. (1998). Conflict and canned meat. Psychological
Inquiry,9, 219-220.
Pennebaker, J. W., Barger, S. D., & Tiebout, J. (1989). Disclosure of
traumas and health among Holocaust survivors. Psychosomatic
Medicine,51, 577-587.
Pennebaker, J. W., & Beall, S. (1986). Confronting a traumatic event:
Toward an understanding of inhibition and disease. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology,95, 274-281.
Pennebaker,J. W., Colder, M., & Sharp, L. K. (1990). Accelerating the
coping process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,58, 528-
537.
Pennebaker, J. W., & Francis, M. E. (1996). Cognitive, emotional, and
language processes in disclosure: Adjustment to college. Cognition
and Emotion,10, 601-626.
Pennebaker, J. W., Hughes, C. F., & O’Heeron, R. (1987). The
psychophysiology of confession: Linking inhibitory and psycho-
somatic processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,52, 781-
793.
Pennebaker,J. W., Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., & Glaser, R. (1988). Disclosure
of traumas and immune function: Health implications for psycho-
therapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,56, 239-245.
Pennebaker, J. W., Mayne, T. J., & Francis, M. (1997). Linguistic pre-
dictors of adaptive bereavement. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,72, 863-871.
Pennebaker,J. W., & O’Heeron, R. C. (1984). Confiding in others and
illness rate among spouses of suicide and accidental-death vic-
tims. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,93, 473-476.
Pennebaker, J. W., & Susman, J. R. (1988). Disclosure of traumas and
psychosomatic processes. Social Science and Medicine,26, 327-332.
Pervin, L. A. (Ed.). (1989). Goal concepts in personality and social psychol-
ogy. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Petrie, K. J., Booth, R. J., Pennebaker, J. W., & Davidson, K. P. (1995).
Disclosure of trauma and immune response to a hepatitis B vacci-
nation program. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,63,
787-792.
Pham, L. B., & Taylor, S. E. (1999). From thought to action: Effects of
process- versus outcome-based mental simulations on perfor-
mance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,25, 250-260.
Rivkin, I. D., & Taylor, S. E. (1999). The effects of mental simulation
on coping with controllable stressful events. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin,25, 1451-1462.
Ruvolo, A. P., & Markus, H. R. (1992). Possible selves and performance:
The power of self-relevant imagery. Social Cognition,10, 95-124.
Scheier, M., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping and health:
Assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectan-
cies. Health Psychology,4, 219-247.
Sherman, S. J., Skov, R. B., Hervitz, E. F., & Stock, C. B. (1981). The
effects of explaining hypothetical future events: From possibility
to actuality and beyond. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,17,
142-158.
Smyth, J. M. (1998). Written emotional expression: Effect sizes, out-
come types, and moderating variables. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology,66, 174-184.
Spera, S. P., Buhrfeind, E. D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (1994). Expressive
writing and coping with job loss. Academy of Management Journal,
37, 722-733.
Received June 2, 1999
Revision accepted July 17, 2000
King / WRITING ABOUT LIFE GOALS 807