Scientific paper

Abstract
The authors tested the affect of a multi-phase questionnaire along with a small
section of writing from among two hundred plus students at ACAP. The Australian
College Of Applied Psychology. The experiment produced prevalent results of
moderate changes within states amongst the students.
Groups of students were randomly assigned to one of three groups, negative,
neutral or positive then asked to complete a questionnaire, a section of which
asked the student to write about experiences or feelings according to the
selected group allocated to them. The testing questions looked at three
comparative conditions to discover the changes in affect for each of the
students,
Analysis of the results of the two variables positive affect and finding greater
meaning within the context of the experiment, showed a measurable result
when writing about positive study-related

Discussion
What to write down? For most of us, the modern equivalent of putting pen to
paper means numerous emails, things to do today lists, and perhaps the odd
work or personal mission. However For students of the sciences, especially
psychology, there is a lot writing, and it can seem a daunting task. Time to write
is constricted by schedules, due dates and rules such as APA standards that
increase the mental muddle we must wade through to write, to make sense and
find meaning in what we have written.

Social psychological theory has long established the importance of beliefs in human
learning and performance. However until we write things down our personal beliefs are
not always that easy to access. New research suggests that confidence in our own
ability to perform tasks and accomplish specific goals and find meaning within those
goals could benefit from putting pen to paper.

While it has been shown that writing does affect our mental health, for example in nonclinical samples of college
students and college-educated adults ( Smyth, 1998). the exact process of how this happens remains somewhat
of a mystery, Further Writing

things down or answering questionaries that approach our

feelings is being used in all manner of therapy fields today, it is a fundamental part of
mindfulness, also the process forms a fundamental part of CBT and ACT programs,
therapists are asking people to keep journals of thoughts and feelings, grief seems to be
lessened or more fully understood when a suffer writes down all the good things they
remember about someone who has passed on. Tugade,fredricjkson, 2004 speak in
terms of the writing process being used to help people bounce back from grief and
disaster.

Writing also appears to unblock the mind enabling higher levels of thinking. It
can help process the emotions, Students appear to gain a higher sense of
achievement, finding depth and greater meaning in their studies, It almost
definitely helps you with planning and goal setting and It appears to make you
more committed to those goals.

While writing or answering questions about our feelings does not in itself
improve A person's belief about his or her ability and capacity to accomplish a task or to deal with the challenges
of life.,

it has been shown that individuals with high self-efficacy acquire benefits from

the writing process. Taking on greater on challenges, they try harder, and persist
longer than those with low self-efficacy (Bandura, 1989).
Evidence is showing that those who write, can change their viewpoint and gain a greater
perception of things. They tend to be less apprehensive and confront anxiety dealing
with it differently because they see it differently, they work things in such a way as to cut
back any perceived threat, whereas those with low self-efficacy avoid
such things (Pajares, 1997).

That said there may be something to not writing things down as well. Correlating studies
Katz, Ilana M., U British Columbia, Dept of Psychology, Vancouver, Canada Campbell, Jennifer D. found that
people who suppress feelings or emotions can have maladapted even damaging
consequences for example ( Sheps, Schechter, & Prefontaine, 1987). Showed a distinct difference
amongst offenders in prison, who did or did not write or approach their emotions in this way, those who did not
write showed a noticeably higher range of visits to the medics and other associated problems.

As Graham, Schwartz, and MacArthur (1993) wrote, The information, attitudes, and
beliefs that students hold regarding writing, play a crucial part in the significant of
what is written however the composing method is dispensed and what the
ultimate form of the written product can be (p. 246). Mateos et al.
(2010) equally delineate these beliefs as filters leading students to represent the task
ofwriting to themselves in an exceedingly specific approach, with the
assorted models of writing created by these beliefs resulting in different engagement
patterns (p. 284).

So there may be something to say about writing down how we feel keeping a
journal or diary of the mayor and minor events in our lives. There is growing
evidence that emotional inhibition can result in poorer functioning skills. This is

not to say that an inability or desire to write means that someone in inhibited
emotionally, pennebaker beal 1986

Years of analysis with students starting from fourth graders to undergraduates

supports the linkages between self-efficacy, apprehension, and performance with finding
meaning within the writing process. (Bandura, 1997).
The question now becomes, will a style, adopted tone or type of writing make any
difference, if one is prone to write in a positive way as opposed to a negative way, does
anything change? Can we find positive meaning in merely writing and does writing in a
positive way improve our outlook on life or a particular task we may have ahead of us.
Does writing help us to find greater meaning in what we are doing?
More recent work has extended the social psychological feature value of writing by
exploring whether or not another style of belief,
beliefs regarding writing, conjointly relates to writing performance and its established
correlates, writing self-efficacy and apprehension. The search for positive affects in
writing goes on.
Lumley claims that a person background, education and other factors influence how one
writes and what one writes. Extrapolating this means that certain people, without
direction by an examiner, may be more likely to write in a negative or positive attitude.
Thus are more predisposed to find the negative in a situation and write accordingly,
meanwhile the same can be said of those who write in a positive sense, their upbringing
environment and lifes journey can and does influence the results they get and how they
write about those results.
Lavelle (1993) issued a number of papers dealing with students' approaches to
writing, a broad construct encompassing beliefs about writing, writing selfefficacy, writing goals, and writing strategies. A factor analysis of college
students' survey responses yielded five approaches that fell into two categories,
deep and surface. The deep approaches were characterized by personal and
emotional involvement, and the relative-revisionist approach, with its strong
audience awareness and in-depth revision. The surface approaches were the low
self-efficacy approach, with its relative lack of writing strategies; the
spontaneous-impulsive approach, characterized by a one-step process and lack
of personal meaning; and the procedural approach, with its reliance on
strategies. Writers using deep approaches had a stronger sense of audience and
revised more, both globally and locally. Those using surface approaches were
less invested in their writing, used fewer writing strategies, and were less aware
of their audience and writing process.
Conclusion
So what if anything does this mean. We approached our experiments with the
following hypothesis in mind. That attitudes presented in writing or

questionnaires. Might have some affect on the value found in the process. In
short that the ability to find meaning can change according to the attitude taken
while writing or answering questionaries. If one were to take a negative stance or
answer or write about the experience of learning, that negative things might be
found and that the student might get lower overall scores. Or that subsequent
writing about the same things would result in a more negative attitude.
Conversely. That positive writing would result in a more positive range of results.
And that students would find greater meaning by writing in a positive way.

0417509977..

References
1.
o
o
o

Bandura, 1989
A. Bandura
Human agency in social cognitive theory

American Psychologist, 44 (1989), pp. 11751184 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003066X.44.9.1175

[SD-008]

o
o
o

Bandura, 1997
A. Bandura
Self-efficacy: The exercise of control

W. H. Freeman, New York (1997)

[SD-008]

o
o
o

Beach and Friedrich, 2006

R. Beach, T. Friedrich
Response to writing

2.

3.

C.A. MacArthur, S. Graham, J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research,

Guilford, New York (2006), pp. 222234

[SD-008]

o
o
o

Bereiter and Scardamalia, 1987

C. Bereiter, M. Scardamalia
The psychology of written composition

Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ (1987)

[SD-008]

o
o

Bline et al., 2001

D. Bline, D.R. Lowe, W.F. Meixner, H. Nouri, K. Pearce

4.

5.

A research note on the dimensionality of Daly and Miller's Writing

Apprehension Scale

Written

Communication,

18

(1)

(2001),

pp.

61

79 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741088301018001003

[SD-008]

o
o
o

Cohen, 1988
J. Cohen
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences

(2nd ed.)Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ (1988)

[SD-008]

o
o
o

Coker and Lewis, 2008

D. Coker, W.E. Lewis
Beyond writing next:

6.

7.

discussion

of

writing research

and

instructional uncertainty
o

Harvard Educational Review, 78 (1) (2008), pp. 231251

[SD-008]

o
o
o

Daly and Miller, 1975

J.A. Daly, M.D. Miller
The empirical development of an instrument to measure writing

8.

apprehension
o

Research in the Teaching of English, 9 (1975), pp. 242249

[SD-008]

o
o
o

Gay, 1992
L.R. Gay
Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application

(4th ed.)Merrill, New York (1992)

[SD-008]

o
o
o

Graham et al., 1993

S. Graham, S.S. Schwartz, C.A. MacArthur
Knowledge of writing and the composing process, attitude toward

9.

10.

writing, and self-efficacy for students with and without learning

disabilities
o

Journal

of

Learning

Disabilities,

26

249 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002221949302600404

[SD-008]

Hair et al., 1998

11.

(1993),

pp.

237

o
o

J.F. Hair Jr., R.E. Anderson, R.L. Tatham, W.C. Black

Multivariate data analysis

(5th ed.)Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ (1998)

[SD-008]

o
o
o

Hayes and Flower, 1980

J.R. Hayes, L.S. Flower
Identifying the organization of writing processes

L.W. Gregg, E.R. Steinbert (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing, Lawrence Erlbaum

12.

Associates, Hillsdale, NJ (1980), pp. 330

[SD-008]

o
o
o

Hayes et al., 2000

J.R. Hayes, J. Hatch, C.M. Silk
Does holistic assessment predict writing performance? Estimating

13.

the consistency of student performance on holistically scored

writing assessments
o

Written

Communication,

17

(1)

(2000),

pp.

26 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741088300017001001

[SD-008]

o
o
o

Hillocks, 2008
G. Hillocks Jr.
Writing in secondary schools

C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing, Erlbaum, New York (2008), pp.

14.

311329

[SD-008]

o
o
o

Hu and Bentler, 1999

L. Hu, P.M. Bentler
Cutoff criteria for fit indexes to covariance structure analysis:

15.

conventional criteria versus new alternatives

o

Structural Equation Modeling, 6 (1999), pp. 155

[SD-008]

o
o
o

Kellogg, 2008
R.T. Kellogg
Training writing skills: a cognitive developmental perspective

Journal of Writing Research, 1 (1) (2008), pp. 126

[SD-008]

16.

17.

o
o
o

Kline, 1998
R.B. Kline
Principles and practice of structural equation modeling

Guilford Press, New York (1998)

o
o

[SD-008]
Katz, Ilana M., U British Columbia, Dept of Psychology, Vancouver, Canada Campbell, Jennifer
D.

18.
o
o
o

Lavelle, 1993
E. Lavelle
Development and validation of an inventory to assess processes in
college composition

British

Journal

of

Educational

Psychology,

63

(1993),

pp.

489

499 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1993.tb01073.x

[SD-008]

o
o
o

Mateos et al., 2010

M. Mateos, I. Cuevas, E. Martin, A. Martin, G. Echeita, M. Luna
Reading to write and argumentation: the role of epistemological,

19.

reading and writing beliefs

o

Journal

of

Research

in

Reading,

34

(2010),

pp.

281

297 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01437.x

[SD-008]

o
o
o

McCarthy et al., 1985

P. McCarthy, S. Meier, R. Rinderer
Self-efficacy and writing: a different view of self-evaluation

College Composition and Communication, 36 (1985), pp. 465471

[SD-008]

o
o
o

Meier et al., 1984

S. Meier, P.R. McCarthy, R.R. Schmeck
Validity of self-efficacy as a predictor of writing performance

Cognitive

20.

21.

Therapy

and

Research,

(2)

(1984),

pp.

107

120 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01173038

[SD-008]

o
o
o

Miller and Charney, 2008

C.R. Miller, D. Charney
Persuasion, audience, and argument

C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing, Erlbaum, New York (2008), pp.

22.

583598

[SD-008]

o
o
o

Murphy and Yancy, 2008

S. Murphy, K.B. Yancy
Construct and consequence: validity in writing assessment

C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing, Erlbaum, New York (2008), pp.

23.

365385

[SD-008]

o
o
o

Murray, 1991
D.M. Murray
The craft of revision

Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Fort Worth, TX (1991)

[SD-008]

o
o

National Council of Teachers of English, 2008

National Council of Teachers of English, James R. Squire Office of Policy

24.

25.

Research
Writing now: A policy research brief produced by the National
Council of Teachers of English

(2008)

Retrieved

January

15,

2009,

from http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/PolicyResearch/WrtgResearchB
rief.pdf

[SD-008]

o
o
o

Nietfeld and Schraw, 2002

J.L. Nietfeld, G. Schraw
The effect of knowledge and strategy training on monitoring

26.

accuracy
o

The

Journal

of

Educational

Research,

95

(3)

(2002),

pp.

131

142 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220670209596583

[SD-008]

o
o
o

Nimon et al., 2011

K. Nimon, D. Zigarmi, D. Houson, D. Witt, J. Diehl
The work cognition inventory: initial evidence of construct validity

Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22 (2011), pp. 733

[SD-008]

o
o
o

Nunnally, 1967
J.C. Nunnally
Psychometric theory

27.

28.

McGraw Hill, New York (1967)

[SD-008]

o
o
o

Ong, 1975
W.J. Ong
The writer's audience is always a fiction

PMLA, 91 (1975), pp. 921

[SD-008]

o
o
o

Pajares, 1997
F. Pajares
Current directions in self-efficacy research

M. Maehr, P.R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement, JAI Press,

29.

30.

Greenwich, CT (1997), pp. 149

[SD-008]

o
o
o

Pajares and Johnson, 1994

F. Pajares, M.J. Johnson
Confidence and competence in writing: the role of self-efficacy,

31.

outcome expectancy, and apprehension

o

Research in the Teaching of English, 28 (3) (1994), pp. 313331

[SD-008]

o
o
o

Pajares and Valiante, 1997

F. Pajares, G. Valiante
Influence of self-efficacy on elementary students' writing

32.

The

Journal

of

Educational

Research,

90

(6)

(1997),

pp.

353

360http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1997.10544593

[SD-008]

o
o
o

Pajares and Valiante, 1999

F. Pajares, G. Valiante
Grade level and gender differences in the writing self-beliefs of

33.

middle school students

o

Contemporary

Educational

Psychology,

24

(1999),

pp.

390

405 http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1998.0995

[SD-008]

o
o
o

Palmquist and Young, 1992

M. Palmquist, R. Young
The notion of giftedness and student expectations about writing

34.

Written

Communication,

(1992),

pp.

137

168 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741088392009001004

[SD-008]

o
o
o

Sanders-Reio, 2010
J. Sanders-Reio
Investigation of the relations between domain-specific beliefs

35.

about writing, writing self-efficacy, writing apprehension, and

writing performance in undergraduates
o

Unpublished doctoral dissertation University of Maryland, College Park (2010)

[SD-008]

o
o
o

Scheuer et al., 2006

N. Scheuer, M. de la Cruz, J.I. Pozo, M.F. Huarte, G. Sola
The mind is not a black box: children's ideas about the writing

36.

process
o

Learning

and

Instruction,

16

(2006),

pp.

72

85 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.12.007

[SD-008]

o
o
o

Schommer-Aikins, 2004
M. Schommer-Aikins
Explaining the epistemological belief system: introducing the

37.

embedded systemic model and coordinated research approach

o

Educational

Psychologist,

39

(2004),

pp.

19

29 http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3901_3

[SD-008]

o
o
o

Schraw and Bruning, 1996

G. Schraw, R. Bruning
Readers' implicit models of reading

Reading

38.

Research

Quarterly,

31

(1996),

pp.

290

305 http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.31.3.4

[SD-008]

o
o
o

Schraw and Bruning, 1999

G. Schraw, R. Bruning
How implicit models of reading affect motivation to read and

39.

reading engagement
o

Scientific Studies of Reading, 3 (3) (1999), pp. 281302

[SD-008]

Schunk and Swartz, 1993

40.

o
o

D.H. Schunk, C.W. Swartz

Goals and progress feedback: effects on self-efficacy and writing
achievement

Contemporary

Educational

Psychology,

18

(1993),

pp.

337

354 http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1993.1024

[SD-008]

o
o
o

Silva and Nicholls, 1993

T. Silva, J.G. Nicholls
College students as writing theorists: goals and beliefs about the

41.

causes of success
o

Contemporary

Educational

Psychology,

18

(1993),

pp.

281

293 http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1993.1021

[SD-008]

o
o
o

Smith et al., 2006

M.W. Smith, J. Cheville, G. Hillocks Jr.
I guess I'd better watch my English: grammars and the teaching

42.

of the English language arts

o

C.A. MacArthur, S. Graham, J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research,

Guilford, New York (2006), pp. 263274

[SD-008]

o
o
o

White and Bruning, 2005

M.J. White, R. Bruning
Implicit writing beliefs and their relation to writing quality

43.

Contemporary

Educational

Psychology,

30

(2005),

pp.

166

189http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.07.002

[SD-008]

o
o
o

Worthington and Whittaker, 2006

R.I. Worthington, T.A. Whittaker
Scale
development
research:

44.

content

analysis

and

recommendations for best practices

o

The Counseling Psychologist, 34 (2006), pp. 806838

[SD-008]

o
o
o

Zimmerman and Bandura, 1994

B.J. Zimmerman, A. Bandura
Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course attainment

American

45.

Educational

Research

Journal,

862http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312031004845

31

(1994),

pp.

845

[SD-008]

o
o
o

Zinsser, 1976
W. Zinsser
On writing well

HarperCollins, New York (1976)

[SD-008]

46.

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 305 348 0124; fax: +1 305 348 1515.
Copyright 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.