Can a Journaling Exercise Help Depressed Young Adults? 48%

By The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research62%

7/16/2026, 5:26:04 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Optimism Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 25.6% saturation with 141 hits. Analysis detected 957 faulty-reasoning hits from 550 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 49.2% and a BS Rank of 48% (11,419 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 52.20% of the article peer group.

Research clearly documents an increase in depression and anxiety among young people in the U.S. 
Many families are searching for tools that can help, and a new Cornell University study finds reflective journaling  in which young people think about their motivations and goals throughout their lives  may offer a solution. 
Psychologists from Cornell’s Purpose and Identity Processes Lab recruited more than 100 people aged 18 to 29 who were experiencing moderate to severe depression. 
They were randomly split into two groups  either journaling about ordinary daily activities or reflecting on different chapters of their lives including early childhood, middle school, high school, college, and their futures. 
Participants in the second group were asked to describe their motivations and goals, then summarize each stage in a single word. 
The intervention lasted two weeks for both groups. 
## The Effects of Reflective Journaling on Depression and Identity 
Two months after completing the journaling exercises, the group that had reflected on their life chapters reported significantly less depression and less "derailment,” a perceived mismatch between their current and past identities. 
“Something about journaling based on your identities and connecting them through time  throughout your life story  appears to be psychologically beneficial,” said doctoral candidate Christopher Davis, the study’s lead author. 
“Connecting yourself back to yourself in such an explicit manner, and thinking about how you can take that forward, seems to be therapeutic.” 
The researchers describe this as building "self-continuity"  a sense that your past, present, and future self is part of one coherent story. 
Prior research has linked strong self-continuity to psychological resilience; this study is among the first to test whether it can be deliberately strengthened through a short writing exercise. 
## Why Reflective Journaling May Help Some More Than Others 
Not everyone responded the same way; many participants experienced fewer depressive symptoms, but about a quarter saw no change. 
Digging into the journal entries, researchers found that participants who improved most wrote reflectively, recalling growth or positive turning points. 
Those who benefited least wrote briefly and dwelled on painful memories without connecting them to anything beyond themselves. 
The exercise seemed to help most when it sparked genuine reflection rather than rumination. 
That distinction matters: Prompting a young person to write about their feelings isn't automatically therapeutic. 
For someone prone to spiraling into negative thinking, unstructured journaling can reinforce negative patterns. 
To try this at home, ask a teen or young adult to describe themselves, in a word or two, at a few different ages. 
Invite them to share what mattered at each stage and what they carried forward. 
The goal isn't to relive hard moments, but to help a young person see their life as one continuous, evolving story. 
“This work demonstrates an accessible, actionable way to address this growing issue that we see in emerging adults of simultaneous increases in depression and loss of identity,” Davis said. 
“If someone is willing to do this, these journaling prompts could offer a promising avenue for symptom relief for a vast number of people.” 
The take-home message: a prescribed journaling exercise that prompts young people to reflect on stages on their lives can help alleviate symptoms of depression. 
**To find a therapist,** visit the Psychology Today Therapy Directory. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.1%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 4.1%Psychology Today: 3.8%Confirmation Bias5.1%This article: 1.8%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 0.6%Psychology Today: 0.5%Anchoring Bias1.8%This article: 6.7%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 2.2%Psychology Today: 2.7%Availability Heuristic6.7%This article: 0.0%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 0.0%Psychology Today: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 5.6%Psychology Today: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias4.4%This article: 12.4%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 5.9%Psychology Today: 2.7%Framing Effect12.4%This article: 0.0%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 13.8%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 11.5%Psychology Today: 4.4%Optimism Bias13.8%This article: 2.5%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 0.8%Psychology Today: 1.0%Pessimism Bias2.5%This article: 9.1%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 4.1%Psychology Today: 4.1%Negativity Bias9.1%This article: 0.0%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.8%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 1.9%Psychology Today: 1.1%Halo Effect5.8%This article: 0.0%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.8%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 1.9%Psychology Today: 0.9%Recency Bias5.8%This article: 0.0%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 25.6%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 8.5%Psychology Today: 5.5%Appeal to Authority25.6%This article: 0.0%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 0.0%Psychology Today: 2.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.4%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 25.1%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 15.9%Psychology Today: 9.4%Hasty Generalization25.1%This article: 0.0%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 1.5%Psychology Today: 2.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 4.2%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 1.4%Psychology Today: 0.9%Begging the Question4.2%This article: 15.3%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 5.1%Psychology Today: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)15.3%This article: 0.0%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 4.4%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 1.5%Psychology Today: 0.4%Burden of Proof4.4%This article: 0.0%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.5%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.7%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 0.0%Psychology Today: 3.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.5%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 0.8%Psychology Today: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.5%This article: 0.0%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.8%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 1.9%Psychology Today: 1.0%Unattributed Quote5.8%This article: 0.0%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 10.5%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 3.5%Psychology Today: 3.7%Biased Writer Voice10.5%This article: 11.3%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 7.5%Psychology Today: 6.0%Indoctrination11.3%This article: 0.0%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.8%The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research: 1.8%Psychology Today: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.8%

550 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers35%attributed speech356writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageCornell’s Purpose and Identity Processes Lab • 24 words • 0.0% coverageCornell’s Purpose and Identity Processes Lab • 33 words • 0.0% coverageCornell’s Purpose and Identity Processes Lab • 21 words • 0.0% coverageCornell’s Purpose and Identity Processes Lab • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageChristopher Davis • 32 words • 100.0% coverageChristopher Davis • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageChristopher Davis • 29 words • 0.0% coverageChristopher Davis • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Christopher Davis

100%flagged-word coverage
108 attributed words56% of attributed speech92% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Unattributed Quote+29.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%Christopher Davis: 29.6%29.6%Indoctrination-17.4 ptsWriter: 17.4%Christopher Davis: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-16.3 ptsWriter: 16.3%Christopher Davis: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -2.8 ptsWriter: 2.8%Christopher Davis: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.