The Tapping Evidence Base
Anxiety · Test Anxiety & Students

College student trial of EFT vs waitlist and diaphragmatic breathing (as tabulated in Clond 2016)

Jain, S., Rubino, A. · 2012

Randomized trial👥 40 participants⚖️ vs. waitlist and diaphragmatic breathing📈 Cohen's 0.45 (small)Preliminary📍 United States
In plain English. Forty college students tried one tapping session versus waiting or doing breathing exercises. None of the differences were large enough, in this small sample, to be confident they weren't due to chance.

What they found

Cohen's = 0.45
a small effect · 95% CI −0.36–1.26 · on anxiety symptoms
smallmoderatelarge
00.50.82.5

One EFT session (n=11) vs waitlist (n=23, d=0.45, p=0.275) and diaphragmatic breathing (n=6, d=−0.73, 95% CI −2.42–0.96, p=0.396); neither comparison statistically significant.

How the study worked

Who took partcollege students (n=40)
What they didIn a randomized controlled trial, participants were randomly assigned to receive tapping or a comparison condition, then measured and compared.
Compared withwaitlist and diaphragmatic breathing
Measured withanxiety scale (not specified in table)

💡 Where this could help

This small study is a useful reminder to stay humble about what a single tapping session can reliably do for a general population of college students under everyday stress — it didn't clearly beat waiting or breathing exercises here. Even accounting for the appeal of a tool students could use entirely on their own with no counselor involved, if larger, better-powered trials in student populations find a real effect, campus counseling centers could someday offer tapping alongside other quick stress-relief tools, but this study alone can't yet support that.

🔬 What to study next

Neither comparison here reached significance, so the honest next step is a properly powered trial with a larger sample before drawing conclusions either way. If a larger trial is run, pairing anxiety scores with objective stress markers — cortisol, heart-rate variability — and testing more than a single session would help clarify whether a real effect exists that this small study was simply too underpowered to detect.

The full record

DesignRandomized trial
Participants40 people
Populationcollege students
Comparison groupwaitlist and diaphragmatic breathing
Effect sizeCohen's d (EFT vs waitlist) = 0.45 (95% CI −0.36–1.26) — on anxiety symptoms
Outcome measuresanxiety scale (not specified in table)
JournalOriginal publication venue not confirmed (indexed via Clond 2016 Table 1/2)
Year2012
CountryUnited States
LanguageEnglish
MethodEFT / tapping
Publication typeStudy / trial
VerificationTranscribed from a peer-reviewed source; pending independent confirmation
Verification note. A real standalone Jain & Rubino publication exists ('The Effectiveness of Emotional Freedom Techniques for Optimal Test Performance,' Energy Psychology: Theory, Research & Treatment 4(2):13-24, 2012) but reports N=168 across 3 arms, not this record's N=40 (11/23/6) breakdown or d=0.45. This record's numbers are attributed to a Clond 2016 meta-analysis table and may reflect a specific extracted subsample/comparison rather than the full study N; could not confirm this subsample match directly, so treat the N=40/d=0.45 figures as unconfirmed pending direct access to the Clond table.

Read the original study →

Cite this study

APA

Jain, S., & Rubino, A. (2012). College student trial of EFT vs waitlist and diaphragmatic breathing (as tabulated in Clond 2016).

This record is part of the Tapping Evidence Base — an openly-sourced, fully-referenced directory of the research on EFT/tapping. Explore more studies on Anxiety · Test Anxiety & Students

Share this study

A ready-made graphic — right-click or long-press to save the image.

Show shareable card
THE TAPPING EVIDENCE BASE Anxiety Cohen's 0.45 small effect WHAT THEY FOUND One EFT session (n=11) vs waitlist (n=23,d=0.45, p=0.275) and diaphragmatic breathing(n=6, d=−0.73, 95% CI… Randomized trial · 40 participants Jain · 2012 · evidence.thetappingsolution.com