Edited by: Rebecca Shankland, Lumière University Lyon 2, France
Reviewed by: Fabian Gander, University of Basel, Switzerland; Pulkit Khanna, O.P. Jindal Global University, India
This article was submitted to Positive Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
This study investigated the effects of the 6 Minutes Journal (6MT), a commercial diary combining several positive psychology interventions, including gratitude, goal-setting, and self-affirmation exercises, on several mental health outcome measures. In a randomized controlled trial, university students (
Stress continues to be a major health concern for university students (
These phenomena were the case before the outbreak of COVID-19 disease (
The use of evidence-based positive interventions has been shown in previous studies to have desirable associations with relevant outcome measures, such as functional coping with stress (
In this study, we aim to investigate the effect of the 6-Minute diary on several outcomes in a student population. The 6-Minute diary is a commercial product that includes an introductory part consisting of information on the positive effects of positive psychology, habits, and self-reflection, as well as the actual daily diary section. The diary section includes a collection of various evidence-based positive psychology interventions. There are three short exercises per day in the morning and three exercises in the evening.
Apart from the daily interventions, the diary has sections for a monthly check-in, in which the users can reflect on several personal outcomes (e.g., mood, exercise, health, or finances). In the following section, these interventions are introduced and previous evidence and possible modes of action are explained.
According to a recent systematic review by
One of the exercises in the 6-Minute Diary is a classic gratitude intervention in which one lists things or events for which one is grateful (
Another exercise of the 6-Minute Diary is setting positive, personal goals. These goals reflect consciously formulated and personally meaningful objectives that guide perceptions, feelings, thoughts, and actions (
There are negative correlations between goal-setting interventions and negative affect, and positive correlations with positive affect (
The principles of self-affirmation are also echoed through a 6-Minute diary exercise in which users write a positive phrase about themselves each morning. These phrases are designed to help identify and reinforce one’s core values (
Regular self-affirmations have been shown to reduce negative emotions (
Another exercise in the 6-Minute diary draws on the principles of
The Three Good Things intervention involves writing down three things that went well each day while consciously focusing attention on positive emotions of the day (
According to
How individuals perceive and cope with stress varies from person to person; however, short- to medium-term stress often results in physiological activation, impairment of well-being, and reduced performance (
Therefore, in order to avoid or reduce health-damaging consequences of stress, the development of preventive measures is of particular importance. Behavioral prevention strategies focus on enabling individuals to deal with stressful situations. This can be done by expanding existing resources or developing new coping mechanisms. According to findings in the literature, positive emotions (
Furthermore, increasing resilience and self-efficacy expectations can contribute to better coping with stress (
Positive affect refers to the extent to which a person experiences positive emotional states such as joy, interest, confidence, and alertness. In contrast, negative affect refers to the extent to which a person experiences negative emotional states, such as fear, sadness, anger, guilt, contempt, and disgust (
There are correlations of positive affect with resilience, social activity, satisfaction, and the number of pleasant events, and correlations of negative affect with stress, health problems, and the number of unpleasant events (
Experimental research showed that gratitude interventions (
General self-efficacy describes a person’s subjective belief that a person can cope with a difficult demand due to their own actions and abilities (
A positive attitude of expectation and the subjective conviction to overcome future demands due to one’s own abilities makes self-efficacy a resource in coping with stress (
Self-efficacy is closer to a state than a trait on the spectrum between state and trait and thus changeable within reasonable time and smaller interventions, i.e., can be learned and trained (
There are several exercises in the 6-Minute diary that are useful for building self-efficacy. Formulating positive goals (“
Empirical research has demonstrated that resilience is closely related to well-being (
Strategies to increase resilience can be divided into three groups with different emphases: risk-, resource-, and process-oriented (
The Gratitude Intervention, Random Acts of Kindness, and Three Good Things exercises from the 6-Minute Diary may lead to increases in positive affect (e.g.,
The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of the 6-Minute diary. Building on the above relations, we hypothesized the following:
Participants in the intervention diary group will report a greater decrease in perceived stress after (a) 2 (t2) and (b) 4 weeks (t3) than participants in the control group.
Participants in the intervention group report a greater decrease in negative affect after (a) 2 (t2) and (b) 4 weeks (t3) than participants in the control group.
Participants in the intervention group condition report a greater increase in positive affect after (a) 2 (t2) and (b) 4 weeks (t3) than participants in the control group.
Participants in the intervention group condition report a greater increase in resilience after (a) 2 (t2) and (b) 4 weeks (t3) than participants in the control group.
Participants in the intervention group report a stronger increase in self-efficacy after (a) 2 (t2) and (b) 4 weeks (t3) than participants in the control group.
We report every outcome variable we assessed in this section. No other dependent variables have been included or excluded in the process of this study.
Participants were recruited
Participants were on average 23.95 (SD = 6.25) years old, and 75.15% were women. Two participants who identified as non-binary were excluded from the analyses due to low numbers, as an
Flow chart – timeline and procedure of current study.
Participants in the intervention group were asked to write two diary entries daily. The diary divided the day into two sections. In the first section, participants were asked to (a) name three things for which they are grateful, (b) describe what would make the current day a good day, and (c) formulate a self-affirmation. In the second section, participants are asked to note (d) what good things they did for others that day, (e) what they will do better the next day, and (f) what Three Good Things they experienced that day.
All participants were informed that they did not have to share their diary entries and that they would not be read by anyone. Furthermore, participants were asked to follow the instructions in the 6-Minute diary and not to write more than one diary entry per day. The control group was designed as a waiting group, so participants did not have to do anything in this condition.
Participants were informed in advance that the study was an investigation of the effectiveness of positive psychology interventions. After enrolling in the study, participants were randomly assigned to either the intervention group or control group. Participants in the 6-Minute diary group were then mailed an intervention packet that included the diary and detailed instructions on how to complete it.
All participants were sent a link to an online survey at the first measurement time point (t1) to collect demographic data, as well as baseline values of all outcome measures. After completion of the first survey, participants in the intervention group were asked to begin completing the diary; participants in the control group were told that additional baseline data would be collected before they could begin the intervention. Two (t2) and 4 weeks (t3) after the first survey, participants in both groups received an email with a link to another online survey. All participants received an e-mail 1 week later with a reminder to complete the questionnaire.
The German version of the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10,
Positive and negative affect was assessed using the German version of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS;
Resilience was assessed using the German version of the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS;
Following
Prior to the main analysis, a MANOVA was conducted to examine whether participants in the intervention group and the control group differed in their baseline scores on perceived stress, resilience, positive and negative affect, self-efficacy, gender, and age. Results showed no difference between groups, Pillai’s trace = 0.018,
Means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s alpha, and McDonalds omega in the 6-minute diary group and the control group at all three measurement points.
6-Minute Diary | Control group | |||||||
Instrument | SD | α | ω | SD | α | ω | ||
PSS-10 | 2.94 | 0.68 | 0.91 | 0.93 | 2.94 | 0.75 | 0.90 | 0.93 |
NA | 2.26 | 0.64 | 0.84 | 0.89 | 2.35 | 0.73 | 0.87 | 0.91 |
PA | 3.07 | 0.75 | 0.91 | 0.93 | 3.01 | 0.81 | 0.92 | 0.95 |
BRS-6 | 3.72 | 0.81 | 0.89 | 0.94 | 3.78 | 0.92 | 0.87 | 0.93 |
SWE | 4.12 | 0.63 | 0.91 | 0.93 | 4.10 | 0.75 | 0.92 | 0.94 |
PSS-10 | 2.62 | 0.69 | 0.90 | 0.92 | 2.90 | 0.77 | 0.91 | 0.93 |
NA | 2.05 | 0.68 | 0.86 | 0.91 | 2.29 | 0.76 | 0.88 | 0.91 |
PA | 3.28 | 0.75 | 0.91 | 0.93 | 3.12 | 0.81 | 0.93 | 0.95 |
BRS-6 | 3.85 | 0.93 | 0.80 | 0.87 | 3.77 | 0.89 | 0.85 | 0.92 |
SWE | 4.30 | 0.69 | 0.91 | 0.94 | 4.19 | 0.77 | 0.92 | 0.94 |
PSS-10 | 2.49 | 0.66 | 0.89 | 0.92 | 2.80 | 0.74 | 0.90 | 0.93 |
NA | 1.93 | 0.60 | 0.82 | 0.88 | 2.23 | 0.74 | 0.86 | 0.90 |
PA | 3.40 | 0.71 | 0.91 | 0.93 | 3.76 | 0.80 | 0.92 | 0.94 |
BRS-6 | 4.05 | 0.79 | 0.83 | 0.90 | 3.76 | 0.95 | 0.88 | 0.92 |
SWE | 4.39 | 0.67 | 0.91 | 0.92 | 4.17 | 0.77 | 0.91 | 0.93 |
We tested the hypotheses using path analyses. For this, we specified a structural model with autoregressive and cross-lagged effects to control for correlations within measurement time points and autoregressive influences (
Conceptual – cross-lagged effects model over all measurement points.
Our first hypothesis stated that participants in the intervention group would report a greater decrease in perceived stress after 2 (hypothesis 1a) and 4 weeks (hypothesis 1b) than participants in the control group. The results of the regression analysis (
Unstandardized and standardized coefficients, standard errors, and
Regression | SE |
β | ||
Stress t2 on condition | –1.234 | 0.396 | –0.170 | |
Stress t3 on condition | –0.649 | 0.380 | 0.088 | –0.092 |
Negative affect t2 on condition | –0.945 | 0.415 | –0.132 | |
Negative affect t3 on condition | –0.782 | 0.362 | –0.120 | |
Positive affect t2 on condition | 0.483 | 0.403 | 0.231 | 0.065 |
Positive affect t3 on condition | 0.702 | 0.370 | 0.057 | 0.095 |
Resilience t2 on condition | 0.007 | 0.268 | 0.978 | 0.001 |
Resilience t3 on condition | 0.763 | 0.275 | 0.136 | |
Self-efficacy t2 on condition | 0.421 | 0.318 | 0.186 | 0.068 |
Self-efficacy t3 on condition | 0.574 | 0.283 | 0.092 |
Unstandardized and standardized coefficients, standard errors, and
Regression | SE |
β | ||
Stress t3 on negative affect t2 | 0.139 | 0.064 | 0.140 | |
Stress t2 on negative affect t1 | 0.338 | 0.061 | 0.306 | |
Stress t3 on resilience t2 | 0.091 | 0.097 | 0.348 | 0.063 |
Stress t2 on resilience t1 | 0.087 | 0.094 | 0.355 | 0.061 |
Stress t3 on self-efficacy expectation t2 | –0.117 | 0.057 | –0.102 | |
Stress t2 on self-efficacy expectation t1 | –0.133 | 0.069 | 0.053 | –0.114 |
Negative affect t3 on positive affect t2 | 0.006 | 0.051 | 0.899 | 0.007 |
Negative affect t2 on positive affect t1 | 0.121 | 0.062 | 0.128 | |
Negative affect t3 on resilience t2 | 0.029 | 0.097 | 0.766 | 0.022 |
Negative affect t2 on resilience t1 | –0.123 | 0.085 | 0.149 | –0.088 |
Negative affect t3 on stress t2 | 0.015 | 0.093 | 0.871 | 0.017 |
Negative affect t2 on stress t1 | 0.153 | 0.106 | 0.148 | 0.150 |
Positive affect t3 on negative affect t2 | –0.079 | 0.072 | 0.273 | –0.077 |
Positive affect t2 on negative affect t1 | –0.133 | 0.062 | –0.188 | |
Positive affect t3 on resilience t2 | –0.013 | 0.100 | 0.896 | –0.009 |
Positive affect t2 on resilience t1 | 0.015 | 0.092 | 0.875 | 0.010 |
Resilience t3 on negative affect t2 | –0.007 | 0.064 | 0.918 | –0.008 |
Resilience t2 on negative affect t1 | –0.024 | 0.083 | 0.773 | –0.032 |
Resilience t3 on positive affect t2 | 0.078 | 0.061 | 0.199 | 0.104 |
Resilience t2 on positive affect t1 | –0.018 | 0.040 | 0.656 | –0.009 |
Resilience t3 on stress t2 | 0.092 | 0.115 | 0.421 | 0.117 |
Resilience t2 on stress t1 | –0.229 | 0.137 | -0.229 | –0.336 |
Resilience t3 on self-efficacy expectation t2 | 0.113 | 0.076 | 0.136 | 0.124 |
Resilience t2 on self-efficacy expectation t1 | 0.049 | 0.067 | 0.459 | 0.061 |
Self-efficacy expectation t3 on resilience t2 | 0.045 | 0.078 | 0.561 | 0.036 |
Self-efficacy expectation t2 on resilience t1 | 0.123 | 0.076 | 0.105 | 0.102 |
Self-efficacy expectation t3 on stress t2 | –0.079 | 0.056 | 0.159 | –0.92 |
Self-efficacy expectation t2 on stress t1 | –0.159 | 0.054 | –0.181 |
Regarding the intervention checks, participants in the intervention group reported that they enjoyed the exercise (Mt2 = 5.48, SD = 1.21; Mt3 = 5.17, SD = 1.40) and benefited from doing it (Mt2 = 3.61, SD = 0.95; Mt3 = 3.53, SD = 0.93). Subjects also reported high scores on compliance (Mt2 = 84.48, SD = 12.67; Mt3 = 79.94, SD = 16.69). The means of all three measures decrease across the measurement time points, so we used
The present study evaluated the effectiveness of a combination of positive-psychology interventions included in the commercial 6-Minute diary in a student population compared with a wait-list control group. Results provide evidence that the intervention positively influenced four of the five outcome measures (i.e., perceived stress, resilience, negative affect, and self-efficacy). Only the positive affect was not statistically significantly influenced by the intervention compared to the control group in the current study.
The decrease in perceived stress at the second time point suggests that the interventions had a rapid effect on perceived stress. However, at the third measurement time point, perceived stress did not decrease further to a statistically significant level, which could indicate that the interventions buffer stress but cannot completely negate it. This is also supported by the fact that the best predictor of perceived stress is the autoregressive effect of stress from the previous time point.
The data showed a statistically significant increase in self-efficacy and resilience scores only after 4 weeks, suggesting that change in these constructs takes time. These results are consistent with the assumption that states and personality traits exist on a continuum and that certain state variables (e.g., self-efficacy) also exhibit some characteristics of personality dispositions and vice versa (
Regarding affect, the study found that the use of the 6-minute diary resulted in lower levels of negative affect at the second and third measurement time points, while positive affect remained unchanged. One possible explanation for this would be that the interventions tended to provide a buffer against negative affect – similar to the perceived stress mentioned above – but did not increase positive affect
The intervention checks showed that participants in the intervention group reported high scores on preference, compliance, and utility at both, the second and third, measurement time points. Preference and compliance decrease somewhat over time, but still remain at high levels. Perceived usefulness remains consistently in a high range of values, indicating that participants subjectively benefit from performing the exercises in the 6-Minute diary. In order to prevent a further decline in the participants’ compliance, the use of external reminders could be worthwhile. This could possibly stabilize participants’ high level of compliance long enough for a habitualization effect to develop.
Through the use of the 6 Minutes Diary, the interventions are made available for a wider audience that otherwise might not have gotten in touch with these interventions, allowing for more people to benefit from the exercises. The 6-Minute Diary retails in Germany at approximately 25€ and provides pages for 6 months. It is thus relatively low in both costs and time commitment. Nevertheless, it might not be financially accessible for everyone. On the other hand, individuals could do the interventions
Discussing specific results of the study, there are possible limitations to keep in mind. First, our sample consisted of German students, most of them women. Previous evidence suggests that the effects of positive-psychology interventions vary between different populations (
Our results provide first evidence for the positive influence of the 6-minute diary. However, some points should be considered in future research. Since stress has been found to be a time-sensitive construct, more frequent shorter time intervals between data collection periods should be considered. This would allow for a closer look at the impact of the diary intervention on stress. The delayed significant increase in resilience and self-efficacy after 4 weeks, on the other hand, calls for future studies over a longer period of time. This could allow conclusions to be drawn as to whether and to what extent dispositions can also be influenced by the intervention.
The results of our study indicate a positive influence of the 6-minute diary. In particular, this self-intervention seems to have a positive effect on self-efficacy and resilience. Analogous to resilience, our results suggest a protective function of the intervention to reduce negative affect. In summary, the 6-minute diary seems to be a helpful tool for building positive resources that requires relatively little financial investment and is easily integrated into one’s life.
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/
Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
TL and MA contributed to conception and design of the study. MA and BB organized the database and performed the statistical analysis. TL, MA, and BB wrote sections of the manuscript. All authors contributed to manuscript revision, read, and approved the submitted version.
The authors received the intervention material, as well as a student assistant for the organization of distribution of the material from the organization UrBestself. UrBestself had no influence on the experimental design, statistical analysis, or the manuscript.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: