Hypothesis 2.1
There are significant differences between the emotional disclosure writing and drawing groups, compared to the placebo writing, placebo drawing, and the control groups on the six-month follow-up measure of adaptive emotion-focused coping, as assessed by the COPE subscales: seeking social support for emotional reasons, positive reinterpretation and growth, acceptance, turning to religion, and humor.
4.2.1 Positive Reinterpretation and Growth
For the COPE scale of positive reinterpretation and growth, the repeated measures analysis of variance revealed a significant time x treatment interaction F(4, 81) = 3.13,
p < .05 (Figure 26), due to increases in emotional disclosure drawing and the relative stability in emotional disclosure writing, placebo disclosure drawing, and placebo disclosure writing. The control group did not demonstrate change. Significant main effects were also revealed for time F(1, 81) = 15.37, p < .001. No significant main effects were found for experimental group F(4, 81) = .96, n.s.
Figure 26. Time by treatment interaction for the COPE subscale of positive reinterpretation and growth. Note. Error bars represent standard error of the mean. Baseline refers to completion of the scale prior to disclosure exercise, and follow-up refers to six-months post disclosure exercise. Error bars represent standard error of the mean. Control = Control group (n = 30), EDD= Emotional disclosure drawing (n = 22), EDW = Emotional disclosure writing (n = 29), PDD = Placebo disclosure drawing (n = 16), PDW = Placebo disclosure writing (n = 18).
4.2.2 Religious Coping
For the COPE scale of religious coping, the repeated measures analysis of variance revealed a significant time by treatment interaction F(4, 80) = 3.11, p < .05 (Figure 26), and a significant main effect for time F(1, 80) = 59.9, p < .001. These results indicate that for this particular study, all participants in all disclosure groups increased in religious coping. Figure 27 illustrates that all groups increased except the
10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 Baseline Follow-Up Control EDD EDW PDD PDW
control group. There were no significant main effects for experimental group F(4, 80) = .18, n.s.
Figure 27. Time by treatment interaction for the COPE subscale of religious coping. Note. Error bars represent standard error of the mean. Baseline refers to completion of the scale prior to disclosure exercise, and follow-up refers to six-months post
disclosure exercise. Control = Control group (n = 30), EDD= Emotional disclosure drawing (n = 22), EDW = Emotional disclosure writing (n = 29), PDD = Placebo disclosure drawing (n = 16), PDW = Placebo disclosure writing (n = 18).
4.2.3 Seeking social support for emotional reasons
No significant main effects were revealed for the COPE scale of seeking social support for emotional reasons for time F(1, 81) = .45, n.s, experimental group F(4, 81) = .34, n.s. There were no significant interactions for time by group F(4, 81) = .06, n.s. In terms of manipulation checks, the non-significant main effect of time suggests that
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Baseline Follow-Up Control EDD EDW PDD PDW
the disclosure intervention could not change the COPE subscale of seeking social support for emotional reasons.
4.2.4 Acceptance
For the COPE scale of acceptance, the repeated measures analysis of variance revealed no significant main effects for time F(1, 80) = 1.35, n.s, or experimental group F(4, 80) = .62, n.s. There were no significant interaction effects for time by group F(4, 80) = .69, n.s, and. In terms of manipulation checks, the non-significant main effect of time suggests that the disclosure intervention could not change the COPE subscale of acceptance.
4.2.5 Humour
For the COPE scale of humor, no significant main effects were revealed for time
F(1, 81) = 2.38, n.s, or for experimental group F(4, 81) = 1.97, n.s. There were no significant interactions for time by group F(4, 81) = .06, n.s. In terms of manipulation checks, the non-significant main effect of time suggests that the disclosure
intervention could not change the COPE subscale of humour.
Hypothesis 2.2
There are significant differences between the emotional disclosure writing and drawing groups, compared to the placebo writing and placebo drawing and the control groups on the six-month follow-up measure of maladaptive emotion-focused coping as assessed by the COPE subscales: denial, mental disengagement, behavioural
4.2.6 Mental Disengagement
The repeated measures analysis of variance revealed significant time by treatment interaction F(4, 81) = 3.23, p < .05 (Figure 28), indicating that the emotional
disclosure drawing group decreased in mental disengagement, whilst the emotional disclosure writing group increased in mental disengagement. These differences are significant. No significant main effects were reported for time F(1, 81) = 1.16, n.s, or experimental group F(4, 81) = 1.41, n.s.
Figure 28. Time by treatment interaction for the COPE subscale of mental
disengagement. Note. Error bars represent standard error of the mean. Baseline refers to completion of the scale prior to disclosure exercise, and follow-up refers to six months post disclosure exercise. Control = Control group (n = 30), EDD= Emotional disclosure drawing (n = 22), EDW = Emotional disclosure writing (n = 29), PDD = Placebo disclosure drawing (n = 16), PDW = Placebo disclosure writing (n = 18).
8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 Baseline Follow-Up Control EDD EDW PDD PDW
4.2.7 Substance Use
The repeated measures analysis of variance revealed a significant time by
treatment interaction F(4, 81) = 4.19, p < .01 (Figure 29) and a significant main effect for time F(1,81) = 4.7, p < .05 for the COPE scale of substance use. These results indicate that all participants experienced changes in substance use, except the control group, which remained stable. Emotional disclosure drawing decreased in substance use, whilst emotional disclosure writing increased. Control group, placebo writing and placebo drawing groups also decreased in substance use from pre to post test. There were no significant main effects for experimental group F(4,81) = .58, n.s.
Figure 29. Time by treatment interaction for the COPE subscale of substance use. Note. Error bars represent standard error of the mean. Baseline refers to completion of the scale prior to disclosure exercise, and follow-up refers to six-months post
disclosure exercise. Control = Control group (n = 30), EDD= Emotional disclosure drawing (n = 22), EDW = Emotional disclosure writing (n = 29), PDD = Placebo disclosure drawing (n = 16), PDW = Placebo disclosure writing (n = 18).
4.2.8 Focus on and venting of emotions
For the COPE scale of focusing on and venting emotions, no significant main effects were revealed for time F(1,81) = .01, n.s, or experimental group F(4, 81) = .64,
n.s. There were no significant interactions for time by group F(4, 81) = .89, n.s. In terms of manipulation checks, the non-significant main effect of time suggests that the disclosure intervention could not change the COPE subscale of focusing on and venting emotions. 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 Baseline
Follow-Up Control EDD EDW PDD PDW
4.2.9 Denial
No significant main effects were revealed for the COPE scale of denial for time
F(1, 81) = .14, n.s, or experimental group F(4,81) = .78, n.s. There were no significant interaction effects for time by group F(4, 81) = 2.3, n.s. In terms of manipulation checks, the non-significant main effect of time suggests that the disclosure intervention could not change the COPE subscale of denial.
4.2.10 Behavioural disengagement
Analysis did not reveal significant main effects for the COPE scale of behavioral disengagement for time F(1, 81) = .33, n.s, or experimental group F(4, 81) = 2.23, n.s.
There were no significant interaction effects for time by group F(4, 81) = 1.91, n.s. In terms of manipulation checks, the non-significant main effect of time suggests that the disclosure intervention could not change the COPE subscale of behavioural
disengagement.
Hypothesis 2.3
There are significant differences between the emotional disclosure writing and drawing groups, compared to the placebo writing and drawing and the control groups on the six-month follow-up measure of problem-focused coping as assessed by the COPE subscales: active coping, planning, restraint, suppression of competing activities, and seeking support for instrumental reasons.
4.2.11 Active Coping
For the COPE scale of active coping, the repeated measures analysis of variance revealed a significant time by treatment interaction F(4, 81) = 6.16, p <. 001 (Figure 30), and a significant main effect for time F(1, 81) =13.0, p < .001. Figure 30
illustrates that emotional disclosure drawing increased the most, whilst placebo
disclosure writing group decreased slightly. There were no significant main effects for experimental group F(4, 81) = 1.39, n.s.
Figure 30. Time by treatment interaction for the COPE subscale of active coping. Note. Error bars represent standard error of the mean. Baseline refers to completion of the scale prior to disclosure exercise, and follow-up refers to six-months post
disclosure exercise. Control = Control group (n = 30), EDD= Emotional disclosure drawing (n = 22), EDW = Emotional disclosure writing (n = 29), PDD = Placebo disclosure drawing (n = 16), PDW = Placebo disclosure writing (n = 18).
4.2.12 Restraint
For the COPE subscale of restraint, the repeated measures analysis of variance revealed a significant main effect for time F(1, 81) = 73.86, p < .001, a significant interaction for time by treatment F(4, 81) = 4.60, p < .05 (Figure 31), and a significant
10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 Baseline Follow-Up Control EDD EDW PDD PDW
main effect for experimental group F(4, 81) = 5.25, p < .001. All groups decreased in restraint, aside from the control group, which remained relatively stable.
Figure 31. Time by treatment interaction for the COPE subscale of restraint. Note. Error bars represent standard error of the mean. Baseline refers to completion of the scale prior to disclosure exercise, and follow-up refers to six-months post disclosure exercise. Control = Control group (n = 30), EDD= Emotional disclosure drawing (n = 22), EDW = Emotional disclosure writing (n = 29), PDD = Placebo disclosure
drawing (n = 16), PDW = Placebo disclosure writing (n = 18).
4.2.13 Planning
For the COPE scale of planning, a significant time by treatment interaction F(4, 81) = 7.72, p < .01 (Figure 32) was revealed, alongside a significant main effect for time F(1, 81) = 12.44, p < .001. These results indicate that participants for the emotional disclosure drawing group increased in planning more than other groups. There were no significant main effects for experimental group F(4, 81) = 1.42, n.s.
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Baseline Follow-Up Control EDD EDW PDD PDW
Figure 32. Time by treatment interaction for the COPE subscale of planning. Note. Error bars represent standard error of the mean. Baseline refers to completion of the scale prior to disclosure exercise, and follow-up refers to six-months post disclosure exercise. Control = Control group (n = 30), EDD= Emotional disclosure drawing (n = 22), EDW = Emotional disclosure writing (n = 29), PDD = Placebo disclosure
drawing (n = 16), PDW = Placebo disclosure writing (n = 18).
4.2.14 Seeking social support for instrumental reasons
There were no significant main effects for time F(1, 81) = .01, n.s, or significant interaction effects for time by group F(4, 81) = .89, n.s. There was a significant main effect for experimental group, with the highest levels of seeking social support in the emotional disclosure drawing group F(4, 81) = .64, p < .05.
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Baseline Follow-Up Control EDD EDW PDD PDW
4.2.15 Suppression of competing activities
No significance main effects were revealed for time F(1, 81) = .68, n.s, or experimental group F(4, 81) = 1.11, n.s. No significant interaction effects were revealed for time by group F(4, 81) = 3.6, n.s.
Hypothesis 2.4
There are significant differences between the emotional disclosure writing and the emotional disclosure drawing group compared to the placebo writing, placebo
drawing, and control groups on the six-month follow-up measure of emotional approach coping, as assessed by the EAC Scale.
For baseline and follow-up measures of emotional approach coping, the ANOVA revealed no significant main effects for time F(1, 81) = 1.22, n.s, or significant
interaction effects for time by group F(4, 81)= .56, n.s. There was an overall
significant main effect of group, F(1, 81)=3.27, p < .05 with the emotional disclosure drawing group demonstrating highest levels of emotional approach coping.
4.30 Disclosure Analysis