Posted: April 24th, 2023

The relationship between congruent dimensions of the self and nostalgia

Capstones, Theses and
Dissertations
2016
The relationship between congruent dimensions of
the self and nostalgia

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………………… iv
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………….. 1
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ……………………………………………………… 4
An Integrative Model of Personality………………………………………………………….. 4
Life Narratives and the Self……………………………………………………………………… 6
Nostalgia….. ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 8
The Importance of Congruence ………………………………………………………………… 10
Agentic and Communal Features of Personality …………………………………………. 12
The Present Research………………………………………………………………………………. 14
CHAPTER 3 STUDY 1 ……………………………………………………………………………. 17
Overview………………………………………………………………………………………………. 17
Power Analysis ………………………………………………………………………………………. 17
Method…….. …………………………………………………………………………………………. 18
Results…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 22
Discussion……………………………………………………………… …..…. 32
CHAPTER 4 STUDY 2 ……………………………………………………………………………. 34
Overview………………………………………………………………………………………………. 34
Power Analysis ………………………………………………………………………………………. 34
Method…….. …………………………………………………………………………………………. 35
Results…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 39
iii
Discussion……………………………………………………………… …..…. 48
CHAPTER 5 GENERAL DISCUSSION ……………………………………………………. 50
Summary……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 50
Limitations…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 53
Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 55
REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 56
APPENDIX A IRB APPROVAL…………………………………………………………………. 64
APPENDIX B AGENCY AND COMMUNION ITEMS ………………………………… 65
APPENDIX C THE LIFE STORY INTERVIEW…………………………………………… 66
APPENDIX D NOSTALGIA QUESTIONNAIRE…………………………………………. 68
APPENDIX E SELF-ESTEEM QUESTIONS……………………………………………….. 69
APPENDIX F OPTIMISM QUESTIONNAIRE…………………………………………….. 70
APPENDIX G POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE AFFECT SCHEDULE ……………… 71
APPENDIX H DEMOGRAPHICS QUESTIONNAIRE …………………………………. 72
APPENDIX I ACHIEVEMENT LIFE NARRATIVE INTERVIEW………………… 73
APPENDIX J RELATIONSHIP LIFE NARRATIVE INTERVIEW………………… 75
iv
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this research was to investigate the effects of agentic and communal traitnarrative congruence on nostalgia and to replicate previous research showing that self-esteem
and positive affect are mediators of the relationship between nostalgia and optimism (Cheung et
al., 2013). In Study 1, participants completed ratings of agentic and communal traits and were
asked to write about a positive previous life event and complete measures assessing nostalgia,
self-esteem, optimism, and positive affect. It was predicted that the degree to which individuals
rated themselves on agentic traits would influence nostalgia after writing an achievementfocused narrative. It was also predicted that the degree to which individuals rated themselves on
communal traits would influence nostalgia after writing a relationship-focused narrative. The
hypothesis was not supported; writing a relationship-focused narrative was significantly related
to greater nostalgia regardless of trait ratings. In Study 2, all predictions and measures remained
the same, however, narrative focus was manipulated. Participants were randomly assigned to
write about a previous life event focused on an achievement or focused on a relationship. The
hypothesis was partially supported; communal trait-narrative congruence was a significant
predictor of nostalgia, however agentic trait-narrative congruence was not. Both Study 1 and
Study 2 found that self-esteem and positive affect mediated the relationship between nostalgia
and optimism.
1
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW
Life narratives provide the basis of one’s identity and have the power to reveal
relationships among an individual’s traits, goals, and behaviors. For example, warm and caring
behavior is related to the trait of agreeableness (Graziano & Eisenberg, 1997), and individuals
who are high on the trait of agreeableness have been found to construct life narratives that
contain communal themes of love, intimacy, and care (McAdams et al., 2004). Additionally,
dimensions of the self that are congruent (e.g., agreeableness trait and communal-themed selfnarratives) have important implications for one’s perceptions, expectations, and behaviors. For
instance, a recent study demonstrated that the congruence between one’s traits and the related
behaviors predicted positive psychological adjustment (Sherman, Nave, & Funder, 2012).
The present project examined the relationships between life narratives and the Big Two
personality dimensions: agency and communion. Agency and communion are argued to be the
two fundamental modalities of human existence and the two primary content dimensions driving
self and other perceptions (Abele & Wojciszke, 2014; Bakan, 1966). Abele and Wojciszke
(2007) indicate that agency is made up of traits that highlight the independent features of the self,
such as assertiveness, intelligence, self-reliance, and efficiency in goal attainment. Conversely,
communion incorporates traits that define the self in terms of social relationships, such as
loyalty, care for others, cooperativeness, and trustworthiness (Abele & Wojciszke, 2007). It has
been suggested that agentic and communal traits and are reinforced through telling stories about
experiences (McLean, Pasupathi, & Pals, 2007). Additionally, previous research has shown that
individuals who were high on agency and low on communion (e.g., narcissism) showed greater
2
agentic themes than communal themes in nostalgic narratives (Hart et al., 2011). This suggests
that the experience of nostalgia could be influenced by congruence between an individual’s traits
and life narratives. Building on this, the present studies investigated whether congruence
between agentic and communal traits and related themes in one’s life narratives (e.g., personal
achievement versus social relationship themes) influenced the experience of nostalgia.
Nostalgia is defined as a bittersweet, sentimental desire for the past (Sedikides et al.,
2015). It can be distinguished from other affective experiences in that it serves four specific
functions for the self: 1) increases positive affect, 2) increases self-esteem, 3) increases meaning
in one’s life, and 4) fosters social connectedness (Hepper, Ritchie, Sedikides, & Wildschut,
2012). Furthermore, the positive self-benefits triggered by the experience of nostalgia have been
shown to predict increases in optimism about the future (Cheung et al., 2013). In turn, optimism
also provides numerous advantages for the self, including greater mental and physical wellbeing, as well as more adaptive coping strategies during stressful times (Scheier & Carver,
1993). Optimism also has social benefits: Individuals who are optimistic tend to be viewed more
favorably by others than individuals who are pessimistic (Helweg-Larsen, Sadeghian, & Webb,
2002). Thus, the self-benefit and social connectedness functions of nostalgia are reflective of
agency and communion, respectively (Hart et al., 2011).
Given the personal and interpersonal benefits of nostalgia, the current project sought to
examine whether congruency between agentic and communal traits and life narratives predicted
feelings of nostalgia (Vess, Arndt, Routledge, Sedikides, & Wildschut, 2012). It was expected
that individuals with more agentic traits who wrote life narratives that emphasized the
independent self (e.g., a personal achievement life event) would experience greater feelings of
nostalgia than individuals who rated themselves low on agentic traits. Conversely, it was
3
expected that individuals with more communal traits who wrote life narratives that emphasized
the relational self (e.g., a relationship-focused life event) would experience greater feelings of
nostalgia than individuals who rated themselves low on communal traits. Replicating Cheung et
al. (2013), it was also predicted that the relationship between nostalgia and optimism would be
mediated by self-esteem and positive affect. Additionally, in a second study that manipulated the
type of life experience participants reflected on (e.g., personal achievement versus close
relationship), it was predicted that congruence between traits and narrative focus would lead to
greater nostalgia and in turn, greater self-esteem and optimism. Therefore, the following
sections of the present paper examine how different aspects of the self are related and how
congruence among them might predict feelings of nostalgia and in turn, self-esteem and
optimism.
4
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
An Integrative Model of Personality
One method for studying the self is to examine the distinct levels of self-knowledge that
make up the personality as a whole. Some scholars have argued that personality traits alone are
insufficient to explain differences in behavior and that motives and life experiences play a crucial
role in the makeup of the self (McAdams & Olson, 2010; Murray 1938). For instance, previous
research has demonstrated that traits and life narratives each contribute to the development and
maintenance of the other (McLean, Pasupathi, & Pals, 2007). McAdams and Olson (2010)
proposed an integrative model of personality that consists of three separate layers of self: 1)
dispositional traits, 2) characteristic adaptations, and 3) integrative life narratives.
In their model, dispositional traits occupy the first layer of personality. According to
McAdams and Olson (2010), these traits develop in infancy, are related to consistent patterns in
thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, and remain relatively stable across time and situation. This
foundational layer of personality represents each individual as a social actor, and certain
attributes that are specific to each individual are brought to the surface through everyday social
interactions. For example, some actors are perceived as having an overall positive disposition
that fosters smoother social interactions, whereas others may have a more anxious disposition
that could adversely influence their perceptions and interactions with others (McAdams & Olson,
2010).
The second layer of personality is comprised of characteristic adaptations or an
individual’s motives, values, and goals (McAdams & Olson, 2010). At this layer, people make
5
decisions and plans for their lives, acting as motivational agents. Pursuing and achieving goals
becomes a prominent feature in one’s life as the personality develops, with this particular layer
emerging in early childhood. Goals can vary in magnitude and can be immediate (e.g., going to
the post office today) or more long-term (e.g., maintaining good health). Interestingly, some
individual differences in goal formulation can be explained by dispositional traits. For instance,
when an individual perceives a personality trait of themselves to be deficient in some way (e.g.,
unreliable), they will be more likely to create a goal that will make up for the personality trait
deficit (e.g., aim to finish a project that they started). Similarly, individuals also create goals that
supplement positive personality traits (Reisz, Boudreaux, & Ozer, 2013). For example, college
students who are highly conscientious may create a goal to graduate with honors.
The third and top layer of personality includes integrative life narratives, which make up
an individual’s narrative identity and represent the self as an autobiographical author (McAdams
& Olson, 2010). Life narratives are the last of the three layers to develop, are shaped by societal
expectations and norms, and are also influenced by both traits and characteristic adaptations.
Narrative identities are created by reconstructing events from the past to help people make sense
of their previous life experiences. Narrative identities begin to develop during adolescence and
as we age, our life narratives increase in complexity as they integrate life experiences and
wisdom gained. Life narratives help us communicate who we are, where we have been, and
where we are going. McAdams and Olson (2010) conceive of this third layer of personality as
reflective of both one’s self as well as one’s culture because these life narratives develop over
time through social interactions.
The present project expanded on this work to examine whether congruity among layers of
personality would lead to positive psychological outcomes, namely the experience of nostalgia
6
and in turn, self-esteem and optimism. As previous research has identified patterns of agency
and communion across the second and third layers (McAdams, Hoffman, Mansfield, & Day,
1996), the present project investigated agency and communion at the first and third layers. The
following section provides an overview of research demonstrating how these three layers of
personality are integrated and evidence for positive psychological outcomes as a result of their
integration.
Life Narratives and the Self
Life narratives are rich sources of information that reveal patterns and themes reflecting
individual identities. Previous investigations into life narrative content have provided insight
into how life experiences develop and alter the self-concept. For instance, some personality
traits are reflected in life narratives. More specifically, relationships between personality traits
(layer 1) and life narratives (layer 3) have been investigated by analyzing the life narrative’s
emotional tone, complexity, and its themes of agency (e.g., self-mastery and achievement) and
communion (e.g., love and community; McAdams et al., 2004). According to McAdams et al.
(2004), individuals have greater anxiety tend to have consistently negative emotional tones
throughout their life narratives than those who have less anxiety. They also found that people
who are more open tend to construct more complex life narratives, and people who are generally
agreeable narrate more communion-themed life experiences. Additionally, personality traits can
partially explain the relationship between interpretations of the past in life narratives and wellbeing. For example, openness to experience has been shown to be related to a healthier
interpretation of past negative events, resulting in narratives of self-growth and greater overall
well-being (Pals & McAdams, 2011). The relationship between traits and life narratives are
7
important because they provide evidence for the ways in which traits influence how we narrate
our life experiences and the positive psychological outcomes of these narrative interpretations.
Consistency among traits, goals, and life narratives can lead to positive well-being.
McGregor, McAdams, and Little (2005) conducted three studies assessing whether congruence
among college students’ personality traits, goals, and life narrative identities was predictive of
the students’ overall happiness. As typical goals in college include making new friends and
doing well in classes, the researchers focused on social and academic features of personality
traits. More specifically, they created a Sociable Traits Index (STI) that aggregated scores across
Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness (reverse-scored) to identify individuals who
would be considered more or less social overall. Traits and goals were considered congruent if
students received high scores on the Sociable Traits Index (indicating more sociable individuals)
and if student goals contained high social themes. The researchers predicted that students who
considered themselves highly sociable would be happier when their goals included social
themes, such as attending social gatherings and making new friends than students who were less
sociable. Additionally, in studies 2 and 3, participants completed a Life Story Episode Interview
that was coded for social themes. Results indicated that both trait-goal congruence and trait-life
story congruence predicted happiness. Moreover, there was also a positive relationship between
social themes in goals and social themes in life stories. This research provides evidence that trait
and life narrative congruence can lead to positive psychological benefits.
The previous research on life narratives provides evidence of integration of the three
layers of personality and also demonstrates how this integration leads to positive consequences
for psychological well-being. However, the relationships among layers of personality, the
construction of life narratives, and feelings of nostalgia are unknown.
8
Nostalgia
Nostalgia is an emotion that elicits mostly positive, but also bittersweet feelings of
warmth and yearning about the past and can occur as an individual reflects on previous life
experiences (Davis, 1979; Sedikides et al., 2015). Although nostalgia is defined as an emotion, it
is considered a blended state of affective and cognitive processes (Hepper et al., 2012). Other
examples of blended states are gratitude (Lambert, Graham, & Fincham, 2009) and jealousy
(Fitness & Fletcher, 1993). Previous research has indicated that individuals across cultures
conceive of nostalgia as being made up of three primary factors: 1) longing for the past, 2)
negative affect, and 3) positive affect (Hepper et al., 2014). For instance, nostalgia can occur
when individuals reminisce about fond memories from the past that have personal meaning or
involve close relationships with others (Sedikides et al., 2015). Individuals tend to view these
memories through rose-colored glasses and then experience longing for this particular time
(Hepper et al., 2012). This longing includes primarily positive emotions (e.g., warmth, affection,
joy, elation), but also to a lesser extent, includes negative emotions (sadness, loss, fear; Holak &
Havlena, 1998). Although previous research has provided evidence that nostalgia is indeed a
mixed emotional state, whether these emotions occur simultaneously or sequentially has yet to be
determined (Barrett et al., 2010).
Life narratives have become a frequently used method for distinguishing nostalgic from
non-nostalgic memories, as well as for identifying the positive psychological outcomes that
result from a nostalgic feeling. Wildschut et al. (2006) demonstrated that life narratives that led
to nostalgia were more likely to include themes of redemption (e.g., stories that begin negatively
and end positively), more positive than negative affective content, and focused either on
relationships (e.g., close friends, relationships) or personally important life events (e.g.,
9
graduation). Additionally, the researchers found that nostalgia resulted in greater self-esteem
and positive affect. The researchers proposed that nostalgia is a way of affirming aspects of the
self that individuals hold in high regard. For example, in a study examining the experience of
nostalgia in narcissists, researchers found that individuals who rated themselves high on
narcissistic traits included more agentic themes in narratives describing a nostalgic memory
(Hart et al., 2011). Accordingly, this suggests that nostalgia might be most likely to occur when
themes in life narratives are congruent with an individual’s perception of the self.
Previous research has shown that nostalgia can occur when individuals who are more
socially oriented experience loneliness (Wildschut, Sedikides, Routledge, Arndt, & Cordaro,
2010). These individuals use the experience of nostalgia as a way to feel more socially
connected. As a result, nostalgia increases positive affect and self-esteem, as well as greater
perceptions of social support and meaning in life (Routledge et al., 2011). This increase in wellbeing as a result of nostalgia has also been shown buffer against threats to the self (Vess et al.,
2012). Interestingly, nostalgia not only has benefits for the present, but also encourages a
brighter outlook on the future. Cheung et al. (2014) conducted four studies showing that 1)
nostalgic narratives contain optimistic themes, 2) nostalgic events rather than typical events lead
to greater optimism, 3) self-esteem and positive affect mediate the relationship between nostalgia
and optimism, and 4) nostalgia promotes social connections, which leads to increases in selfesteem and optimism.
Both agency and communion have been identified as primary components of nostalgic
narratives. For instance, research conducted by Abeyta, Routledge, Sedikides, and Wildschut
(2014) identified social content (i.e., relationships), attachment-related content (i.e., feeling
loved), and agentic content (i.e., personal competence) as the primary themes in nostalgic, rather
10
than ordinary memory narratives. Although feelings of nostalgia can be triggered when
individuals reflect on previous life events that involve individual achievements (e.g., graduation),
and personal identity has been identified as an important aspect of nostalgia (Abeyta et al.,
2014), nostalgia appears to be a predominately social construct and many memories that prompt
nostalgia feature the self in a context surrounded by close others (Wildschut, Sedikides, Arndt, &
Routledge, 2006). However, drawing on research by Hart et al., 2011, the present research
sought to examine whether achievement-focused memories would also lead to nostalgia for those
individuals who rated themselves high on agentic traits, even if these memories did not involve
close relationships. Additionally, even though it was expected that relationship-focused
narratives would elicit nostalgia, it was predicted that nostalgia would be enhanced for
individuals who rated themselves high on communal traits rather than low on communal traits.
The Importance of Congruence
Previous research has revealed positive consequences as a result of having congruence
between dimensions of the self. Congruence refers to a match or compatibility between
personality characteristics, goals, life narratives, and/or behavior (Sherman, Nave, & Funder,
2012). An example of trait-behavior congruence would occur when an extraverted individual is
socializing with friends at a party. Conversely, an example of incongruence would occur when a
shy individual socializes with strangers at a large social event. In an early study exploring traitbehavior congruence, Diener, Larsen, and Emmons (1984) found that certain personality traits
predict the environmental situations individuals choose to enter (i.e., the choice of situations
model). For example, they found that extraverted individuals seek out social situations.
Importantly, congruency also leads to positive psychological outcomes. Research on traitmemory congruence found that chronically happy people had increases in self-esteem thinking
11
about positive memories, whereas chronically unhappy people had decreases in self-esteem
thinking about positive past events (Gebauer, Broemer, Haddock, & von Hecker, 2008).
Additionally, congruence among traits, goals, and life narratives was demonstrated to predict
happiness (McGregor, McAdams, & Little, 2005). Finally, individuals who rated themselves
high on narcissistic traits constructed nostalgic narratives that contained greater agentic (rather
than communal) themes (Hart et al., 2011).
Further explorations of congruence led to the development of the semantic congruence
model, which suggests that autobiographical events are perceived as more recent when trait selfperceptions are congruent with events that demonstrate this trait (Gebauer, Haddock, Broemer, &
von Hecker, 2013). Research investigating this model showed that individuals who rated
themselves as warm perceived an autobiographical event depicting warm behaviors as recent,
even if the event occurred in the distant past. Additionally, those who rated themselves as cold
also perceived an autobiographical event depicting cold behaviors as recent. The same pattern
was found with competency traits and memories (Gebauer et al., 2013). This feeling of recency
is an indication that participants incorporated these events into their generalized representation of
self and thus experience closeness between their current self and the remembered self. This
suggests that a manipulation of trait-narrative congruence (e.g., Study 2 in this proposal) might
temporarily influence participants’ perceptions of identity or self-consistency.
Physiological responses to personality-behavior congruence have also been
demonstrated. Davis and Matthews (1996) found that cardiovascular reactivity (heart rate, blood
pressure, cardiac output, total peripheral resistance, and pre-ejection period) is influenced by
congruence between traits that fall under the dimensions of agency and communion, and
behavior. Individuals who rated themselves as highly expressive (communion dimension)
12
exhibited greater systolic blood pressure reactivity when they were instructed to persuade
another person (agentic task), whereas individuals who rated themselves as highly instrumental
(agency dimension) showed greater diastolic blood pressure reactivity when instructed to
empathize with another person (communion task). Thus, cardiovascular reactivity increased in
those situations where there was incongruence between task demands and an individual’s
perception of self-competence.
Overall, previous research has indicated that congruence among personality
characteristics, goals, and life narratives, can have specific psychological and even physiological
benefits. The present studies sought to investigate how agentic and communal traits influence
the way we construct and discuss our life experiences, and whether the congruence among the
layers of self-knowledge leads to the experience of nostalgia that in turn increases self-esteem
and results in a more optimistic outlook on the future.
Agentic and Communal Features of Personality
Agentic traits (e.g., instrumental, ambitious, independent) and communal traits (e.g.,
expressive, cooperative, interdependent) are closely related to characteristics that are considered
more stereotypically masculine and feminine (Bem, 1974; Spence, 1984; Spence & Helmreich,
1978); however, an individual can rate himself/herself higher on one trait and lower on another
regardless of gender (Cross & Madson, 1997; Helgeson, 1994; Spence, 1984). Agentic traits are
considered functional and desirable because they distinguish the self from others and aid
individuals in attaining goals in an efficient manner. Communal traits are considered functional
and desirable because they foster social connectedness through focusing on the needs of others
(Abele & Wojciszke, 2007; Bakan, 1966). Both agentic and communal dimensions of the self
are central to the present research because humans are motivated both to successfully achieve
13
their goals to benefit the self and to engage in close relationships with others to benefit others
(Abele &Wojciszke, 2007; Bakan, 1966).
Previous research has identified relationships between agentic traits and behaviors and
communal traits and behaviors. For example, in a longitudinal study Abele (2003) demonstrated
that high ratings on agentic traits predicted a greater likelihood of career success (e.g., income,
professional status, perception of success) and high ratings on communal traits predicted more
involvement in family roles (e.g., living with a spouse, desire to one day have children).
Additionally, recent research that examined relationships between one’s personality traits and the
content of one’s life narratives found that individuals who rated themselves high on communal
traits focused their life narratives on relationships, whereas individuals who rated themselves
high on agentic traits focused their life narratives on personal achievements (Austin & Costabile,
2016). This was the case even when controlling for gender.
Congruence between agentic traits and behavior has beneficial effects. For example,
Nakash and Brody (2006) found that congruence between agentic personality motives and task
conditions requiring agency-oriented behaviors (e.g., completing a task independently) led to
more agentic content in autobiographical narratives and prompted autobiographical narratives to
be generally less negative. Additionally, congruence between high ratings of communal traits
(e.g., compassionate, gentle, loyal) and perceptions of greater social support from supervisors
and coworkers has been shown to act as a buffer against occupational stress (Beehr, Farmer,
Glazer, Gudanowski, & Nair, 2003). Furthermore, in a study where participants were asked to
write about a nostalgic event from their lives, the narratives of individuals who rated themselves
high on narcissistic traits (e.g., high agency, low communion) contained greater agentic themes
(Hart et al., 2011).
14
Together, congruence between agentic and communal traits and related behaviors and
cognitions appear to have a central influence on psychological well-being and autobiographical
event perceptions. Given that nostalgia has been shown to have individual and social benefits,
the goal of the present research was to examine if related congruent dimensions of the self (rather
than incongruent dimensions) encourage positive reflections of past experiences that lead to
greater well-being.
The Present Research
As nostalgia has substantial benefits to the self (e.g., increases in positive affect, selfesteem, optimism, social connectedness, and meaning in life), it is important to continue to
explore the specific factors that evoke it. The present studies aimed to address this by examining
whether congruence between agentic/communal traits and achievement/relationship-focused life
narratives led to feelings of nostalgia, which would in turn enhance self-esteem and optimism
about the future. Specifically, it was predicted that individuals who rated themselves higher on
agentic traits, would indicate greater nostalgia when writing achievement-focused life narratives
than individuals who rated themselves low on agentic traits. The same pattern was expected for
individuals who rated themselves high on communal traits, who wrote relationship-focused life
narratives. In line with previous research, the relationship between nostalgia and optimism was
expected to be mediated by self-esteem and positive affect (Cheung et al., 2013).
This project conducted two studies to explore these hypotheses. The first study
investigated whether individuals who naturally demonstrate trait-narrative congruence would be
more likely to experience feelings of nostalgia after writing an essay about a positive event in
their life than would individuals whose traits and narratives were incongruent. More
specifically, Study 1 consisted of a correlational study in which participants were free to write
15
about any positive, personally significant life event. They were asked to focus on one specific
event and indicate when the event occurred, what happened, who was involved, and why it was
an important event in their life. Because this study was conducted in two separate sessions, it
was assumed that individuals who demonstrated congruity between traits and focus of life
narratives in the study would be those individuals who chronically display congruity between
traits and life narratives.
The second study examined whether temporarily induced congruence would have similar
effects on participants’ feelings of nostalgia, self-esteem, and optimism. For Study 2,
participants were instructed to write their personal life event with the experimenter manipulating
whether the focus was on a personal achievement or an interpersonal relationship. It was
hypothesized that congruence between an individual’s traits and narrative content would predict
nostalgia. Specifically, individuals who rated themselves high on agentic traits and who were
assigned to write about an achievement, were expected to be more likely to experience nostalgia
than those who rated themselves lower on agentic traits. Additionally, it was expected that
individuals who rated themselves high on communal traits and who were instructed to write
about an interpersonal relationship would experience greater nostalgia than those who rated
themselves lower on communal traits.
To replicate work conducted by Cheung et al. (2013), both Study 1 and Study 2 examined
self-esteem and positive affect as potential mediators of nostalgia and optimism. In their first
study, Cheung et al. (2013) demonstrated that nostalgia induced with narratives was related to
optimism via positive affect. In a second study, these researchers showed that nostalgia induced
with music was related to optimism via self-esteem. As the present study used narratives, it was
hypothesized that both positive affect and self-esteem would mediate the relationship between
16
nostalgia and optimism. It should be noted that IRB approval was obtained prior to the initiation
of this research (see Appendix A).
17
CHAPTER 3
STUDY 1
Overview
Study 1 examined whether natural congruence of traits and life narrative focus would
lead to feelings of nostalgia. For Study 1, participants were asked to write about a previous life
event that was positive. It was hypothesized that congruence between an individual’s traits and
narrative focus would lead to nostalgia. It was expected that for individuals who focused their
narratives on personal achievements, individuals who rated themselves high on agentic traits
would be more likely to experience nostalgia than those who rated themselves low on agentic
traits. Additionally, it was expected that for individuals who focused their narratives on close
relationships, those who rated themselves high on communal traits would experience greater
nostalgia than those who rated themselves low on communal traits. Finally, it was expected that
self-esteem and positive affect would mediate the relationship between nostalgia and optimism.
Power Analysis
To estimate the required sample size, a power analysis was performed using G*Power
(Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007). Previous work has demonstrated mostly small effect
sizes regarding the relationships between trait-goal congruence, trait-life narrative congruence,
and positive psychological outcomes (e.g., McGregor et al., 2006). A total sample size required
to detect an effect in a linear multiple regression analysis was calculated at an effect size of 0.06
and observed power of 0.80. Based on the results of the power analysis, a total sample of 133
participants was recommended to conduct this research. To be conservative, Study 1 recruited
162 participants.
18
Method
Participants
Participants included 162 undergraduate students from Iowa State University who
received course credit for participation (MAge = 19.12; SD = 1.89). To be eligible for this study,
participants were required to be at least 18 years of age and were not to have participated in any
previous life narrative studies at Iowa State University. The sample consisted of 63 males and
99 females, with the majority (82%) identifying as White/Caucasian (5.6% Asian/Pacific
Islander, 3.7 % African American, 3.7% Latino/Hispanic, 3.1% Other Race, 0.6% Indian, 0.6%
Native American).
Study Design
All participants completed the same measures in a correlational research design.
Participants were given measures assessing agentic and communal traits, feelings of nostalgia,
levels of self-esteem, positive and negative affect, and optimism about the future. Participants
also completed a positive, personally significant event prompt from the Life Story Interview
(McAdams, 1985). They were asked to write a story about any positive event from their past.
There were few constraints on narrative content, as one of the goals was to identify the natural
focus of their essays. However, the instructions indicated that their story must be positive and it
must be a single event.
Measures
Agency and communion. All participants indicated the degree to which a series of 16
words pertaining to agency and communion described them (Abele, Uchronski, Suitner, &
Wojciszke, 2008). Two scales were constructed, each with eight items, averaging scores on
agentic and communal items. Examples of agentic items ( = .78) included Able, Active, and
19
Assertive. Examples of communal items ( = .89) included Caring, Helpful, and Loyal.
Participants responded on a 7-point scale, 1 = never or almost never true to 7 = always or almost
always true. Agency and Communion Items can be found in Appendix B.
The Life Story Interview. Similar to the high point prompt from the life story interview
developed by McAdams (1985), each participant was asked to write about a positive, personally
significant event from their life that described who they are. They were asked to focus on one
specific event and indicate when the event occurred, what happened, who was involved, and why
it was important. Additionally, participants rated their own essays on a 5-point scale, 1 =
strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree, for five themes of agentic and communal focus (e.g.,
“Please rate the degree to which the story you wrote earlier reflects the following themes:
independent achievement, self-reliance, group achievement, care for others, close
relationships”). A “Narrative Agency” scale was constructed by summing participant ratings on
the “independent achievement” and “self-reliance” items, = .89. A “Narrative Communion”
scale was constructed by summing participant ratings on the “care for others” and “close
relationships” items, = .75. The “Group Achievement” focus item was analyzed
independently as it was not clear how group achievements would be relevant to agency or
communion. The Interview and follow-up questions can be found in Appendix C.
Nostalgia. Similar to Cheung et al. (2013), all participants were asked to indicate how
nostalgic they felt after reflecting on their previous life event on a 6-point scale, 1 = strongly
disagree to 6 = strongly agree. The measure of nostalgia consists of 13 items (e.g., “Right now, I
am feeling quite nostalgic,” “I feel both longing for the past and happiness after thinking about
this event,” “I am feeling sentimental for the past,” and “I would not want to re-live this event”)
and assesses the degree to which an individual is experiencing nostalgia. All 13 items were
20
averaged and a reliability analysis indicated that this was a reliable measure, = .89. The
Nostalgia Questionnaire can be found in Appendix D.
Self-Esteem. Similar to Cheung et al. (2013), a measure of state self-esteem was used to
examine self-esteem after reflecting on their memory. Participants rated their self-esteem on a 5-
point scale, 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree and the measure consists of four items
with the stem, “After thinking about this event” added before each (e.g., “I feel good about
myself,” “I like myself better,” “I like myself more,” and “I have many positive qualities”). All
four items were averaged and a reliability analysis indicated that this was a reliable measure =
.86. The Self-Esteem Questions can be found in Appendix E.
Optimism. Similar to Cheung et al. (2013), all participants were asked to indicate their
level of optimism for the future on a 6-point scale, 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree.
The measure consists of seven items total (e.g., “This event makes me feel ready to take on new
challenges,” and “This event makes me feel optimistic about my future) to assess optimism
experienced after writing about the event. Within the seven items, the measure also included two
items to assess optimism across agentic and communal domains. Specific items were: “This
event makes me feel optimistic about my future achievements,” and “This event makes me feel
optimistic about my future relationships.” All items were averaged and this measure had good
reliability, =.90. The Optimism Questionnaire can be found in Appendix F.
Positive and negative affect. All participants completed the 20-item Positive and
Negative Affective Schedule (PANAS), with 10 items assessing positive affect and 10 items
assessing negative affect (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Similar to Cheung et al. (2013),
the stem “Thinking about this event makes me feel” was added to each item and participants
rated the extent to which they felt each emotion about the event on a 5-point scale, 1 = very
21
slightly or not at all to 5 = extremely. Examples of positive affect items include attentive,
interested, and alert. Examples of negative affect items include distressed, upset, and hostile.
The positive affect items were summed to create a total positive affect score and a reliability
analysis indicated that this scale had good reliability, =.85. The negative affect items were
summed to create a total negative affect score and a reliability analysis indicated that this scale
also had good reliability, =.83. The PANAS can be found in Appendix G.
Demographics. Basic demographic information was collected from each participant,
such as age, gender, ethnicity, first language learned, and language spoken at home. The
Demographics Questionnaire can be found in Appendix H.
Procedure
Participants completed measures for the first part of the two-part study online using
Qualtrics software (Qualtrics, Provo, UT). After first completing an informed consent document,
participants completed demographic information (see Appendix H), as well as one measure
assessing agentic and communal traits (see Appendix B). Participants were then asked to come
to the laboratory at a separate time for the second part of the study. The day before the
laboratory session, participants were emailed and told that they would be writing about a positive
life event the next day. The purpose of letting participants know ahead of time what they were
going to write about was to give them enough time to reflect on their life experiences. This
allowed participants to spend most of their time at the lab writing their story. At the laboratory
session, participants completed all measures on Qualtrics. They first completed a positive,
personally significant life event prompt from The Life Story Interview that included follow-up
questions assessing narrative focus (see Appendix C), followed in order by measures assessing
nostalgia, self-esteem, optimism, and affect (see Appendices D, E, F, and G). For the life event
22
prompt, they were instructed to write at least two paragraphs detailing a positive, personally
significant event from their life. They were told that this event could be from any time in their
life, but that it had to be one specific event and not a general time period. They were given 30
minutes to write their story. After all measures were completed, the participants were thanked
for their participation and debriefed. The average number of days in between the completion of
part 1 and part 2 of the study was 40.1.
Results
Analyses Overview
The first goal of the present study was to investigate whether congruence between
personality characteristics and life narrative focus would be related to of the experience of
nostalgia. The second goal was to examine self-esteem and positive affect as potential mediators
of nostalgia and optimism.
Narrative focus coding. To determine narrative focus, two research Helpants coded
each narrative on a 5-point scale that indicated whether the focus was on a relationship, an
achievement, or neither. For example, a narrative that had a primary focus on relationships was
coded a 1, whereas a narrative that had a primary focus on achievements was coded a 5. If the
focus was on neither, the narrative would be coded a 3. If the focus was primarily on
relationships, but had elements of an achievement, the narrative was coded a 2. If the focus was
primarily on achievement, but had elements of relationships, the narrative was coded a 4.
Putting both achievements and relationships on one scale provided an opportunity to identify the
central focus of the essay. Both research Helpants coded each narrative independently and their
scores were averaged. An interrater reliability analysis indicated a moderate level of agreement,
kappa = .57. However, a Spearman’s rho revealed a statistically significant relationship between
23
coders, rs(128) = .86, p < .01. For the purpose of differentiating between narratives that were
coded objectively and participant ratings of narrative focus, objective ratings will be referred to
as “Narrative Focus.”
Participant narrative focus ratings. As stated earlier, participant ratings of
achievement narrative focus will be referred to as “Narrative Agency” and participant ratings of
relationship narrative focus will be referred to as “Narrative Communion.” The “Narrative
Agency” scale was constructed by summing participant ratings on the “independent
achievement” and “self-reliance” items. The “Narrative Communion” scale was constructed by
summing participant ratings on the “care for others” and “close relationships” items. Participant
ratings of narrative focus on the “Group Achievement” item was analyzed independently and
will also be included in these analyses.
Congruence analyses. A moderated regression analysis was performed to test traitnarrative congruence, specifically whether the interaction of traits and narrative focus predicted
nostalgia. Agentic and communal traits were tested in separate models because they are highly
correlated with each other and there were no three-way interaction predictions in this study. In
all analyses, gender was controlled for, as agentic and communal traits are related to gender
stereotypes (Bem, 1974). Affect was not included as a control variable in this analysis as the
PANAS was completed after the life narrative prompt and the measure of nostalgia during the
study session.
Path analysis. A mediational analysis (Preacher & Hayes, 2004) was also performed to
examine the relationship between nostalgia, self-esteem, positive affect, and optimism.
Replicating Cheung et al. (2013), it was predicted that the relationship between nostalgia and
optimism would be mediated by self-esteem and positive affect.
24
Descriptive Data
Descriptive statistics for all independent and dependent variables are provided in Table 1.
Participants overall rated themselves slightly higher on communal traits (M = 5.94, SD = .86)
than on agentic traits (M = 5.45, SD = .75). The average Narrative Focus score (M = 3.003, SD =
1.53) fell just over the middle of the scale indicating that in general, participants focused more
on achievements than relationships in their narratives. However, a paired-samples t-test showed
that Narrative Communion scores (M = 8.15, SD = 2.02) were significantly higher than Narrative
Agency scores (M = 7.23, SD = 2.44), t(159) = 3.40, p = .001, d = .27, indicating that
participants rated their own narratives as highly focused on close relationships. Additionally,
participants rated their narratives as highly nostalgic, and indicated high levels of self-esteem and
optimism. A correlational analysis was also conducted to examine relationships among variables
(see Table 2).
Table 1.
Descriptives for Study 1 Predictor and Outcome Variables
Range
Measure n M SD α Potential Actual
Agency 162 5.45 0.75 .78 1-7 2.38-7.00
Communion 162 5.94 0.86 .89 1-7 2.25-7.00
Narrative Focus 162 3.003 1.53 – 1-5 1.00-5.00
Narrative Agency 160 7.23 2.44 .89 2-10 2.00-10.00
Narrative Communion 160 8.15 2.02 .75 2-10 2.00-10.00
Group Achievement 160 3.46 1.30 – 1-5 1.00-5.00
Nostalgia 162 4.76 0.82 .89 1-6 2.08-6.00
Self-Esteem 162 3.79 0.61 .86 1-5 2.50-5.00
Optimism 162 4.72 0.80 .90 1-6 2.29-5.86
Positive Affect 159 42.57 8.04 .85 10-60 21.00-59.00
25
Table 2.
Correlations between Study 1 Predictor, Moderator, Mediator, and Outcome Variables
Variables 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
1. Agency 1.00
2. Communion .55** 1.00
3. Gender -.19* -.33** 1.00
4. Narrative Focus .12 .02 .16* 1.00
5. Narrative Agency .25** .21** -.15 .45** 1.00
6. Narrative
Communion .04 .02 -.17* -.52** -.16*
1.00
7. Group
Achievement .06 .04 .08 .09 -.03 .33** 1.00
8. Nostalgia .14 .24** -.24** -.05 .11 .18* .19* 1.00
9. Self-Esteem .31** .23** -.20* .18* .28** .12 .18* .45** 1.00
10. Optimism .40** .37** -.20* .11 .39** .18* .18* .35** .58** 1.00
11. Positive Affect .56** .39** -.15 .23** .34** .09 .10 .33** .48** .62**
Note. For Gender, females coded 0, males coded 1; *p < .05; **p < .01
26
Trait-Narrative Congruence
Narrative focus. A moderated regression analysis was performed to test the prediction
that for individuals who rated themselves high on agentic traits, those who wrote achievementfocused narratives would rate their previous life event as more nostalgic than those who rated
themselves low on agentic traits. Agentic traits, Narrative Focus, and gender were centered and
entered on Step 1, with the interaction term of agency and Narrative Focus entered on Step 2.
Contrary to hypothesis, agentic trait-narrative congruence did not predict nostalgia, b = -.04,
t(157) = -.46, p = .65. At this step, the only significant predictor of nostalgia was gender, with
women reporting greater nostalgia than men b = -.22, t(157) = -2.77, p = .01. These results can
be found in Table 3.
Table 3.
Study 1 Interaction: Agency X Narrative Focus Predicting Nostalgia (N = 162)
Predictor b se df t p
Step 1
Agency 0.10 0.06 158 1.25 0.21
Narrative Focus -0.03 0.07 158 -0.39 0.70
Gender -0.22 0.13 158 -2.75 0.01
Step 2
Agency 0.11 0.07 157 1.33 0.19
Narrative Focus -0.02 0.07 157 -0.31 0.76
Gender -0.22 0.13 157 -2.77 0.01
Agency*Narrative Focus -0.04 0.07 157 -0.46 0.65
A second moderated regression analysis was performed to test the prediction that for
those individuals who rated themselves high on communal traits, those who wrote relationshipfocused narratives would rate their previous life event as more nostalgic than those who rated
themselves low on communal traits. Communal traits, Narrative Focus, and gender were
27
centered and entered on Step 1, with the communal trait-narrative focus interaction term entered
on Step 2. Contrary to hypothesis, communal trait-narrative congruence did not predict higher
levels of nostalgia, b = .06, t(157) = .80, p = .42. However, communal traits b = .18, t(157) =
2.21, p = .03 and gender b = -.17, t(157) = -2.02, p = .04 predicted nostalgia. Individuals who
rated themselves high on communion and women reported greater nostalgia. Narrative Focus
was not a significant predictor of nostalgia, (b = -.04, p = .63). These results can be found in
Table 4.
Table 4.
Study 1 Interaction: Communion X Narrative Focus Predicting Nostalgia (N = 162)
Predictor b se df t p
Step 1
Communion 0.18 0.06 158 2.29 0.02
Narrative Focus -0.03 0.07 158 -0.39 0.69
Gender -0.18 0.13 158 -2.17 0.03
Step 2
Communion 0.18 0.06 157 2.21 0.03
Narrative Focus -0.04 0.07 157 -0.48 0.63
Gender -0.17 0.14 157 -2.02 0.04
Communion*Narrative Focus 0.06 0.07 157 0.80 0.42
Narrative agency. To explore whether congruence between agentic traits and Narrative
Agency (i.e., participant ratings of achievement focus of their own narratives) would predict
nostalgia, an additional moderated regression analysis was performed. Agentic traits, Narrative
Agency, and gender were centered and entered on Step 1, with the interaction term of agency and
Narrative Agency entered on Step 2. Similar to the results above, congruence between agentic
traits and participant ratings of achievement focus did not predict nostalgia, b = -.04, t(155) = –
.46, p = .64. Gender was a significant predictor of nostalgia at this second step, b = -.24, t(155) =
-2.97, p < .01. See Table 5 for these results.
28
Table 5.
Study 1 Interaction: Agency X Narrative Agency Predicting Nostalgia (N = 160)
Predictor b se df t p
Step 1
Agency 0.07 0.07 156 0.89 0.37
Narrative Agency 0.06 0.06 156 0.78 0.44
Gender -0.23 0.13 156 -2.94 0.004
Step 2
Agency 0.08 0.07 155 0.96 0.34
Narrative Agency 0.05 0.06 155 0.68 0.50
Gender -0.24 0.13 155 -2.97 0.003
Agency*Narrative Agency -0.04 0.07 155 -0.46 0.64
Narrative communion. To explore whether congruence between communal traits and
Narrative Communion (i.e., participant ratings of relationship focus of their own narratives)
predicted nostalgia, an additional moderated regression analysis was performed. Communal
traits, Narrative Communion, and gender were centered and entered on Step 1, with the
interaction term of communion and Narrative Communion entered on Step 2. In this model, the
interaction of communal traits and Narrative Communion significantly predicted nostalgia, b = –
.21, t(155) = -2.67, p = .01. At this step, communal traits b = .24, t(155) = 2.96, p < .01 and
Narrative Communion b = .19, SE = , t(157) = 2.53, p = .01 also predicted nostalgia, however,
gender did not (b = -.13, p = .11). To illustrate this interaction, it was plotted at one standard
deviation above and below the mean of both variables (See Figure 1).
A simple slope analysis revealed that communion was positively related to nostalgia for
low levels of Narrative Communion, b = .43, t(155) = 3.64, p < .001. However, there was not a
significant relationship between communion and nostalgia for high levels of Narrative
Communion, b = .01, t(155) = .06, p = .95. Overall, there were no differences in feelings of
nostalgia between individuals with high and low communal traits for narratives with a high
29
relationship focus. However, individuals who rated themselves high on communal traits rated
greater feelings of nostalgia for narratives lower in relationship focus than individuals who rated
themselves lower on communal traits. See Figure 1 and Table 6 for these results.
Mediation Analysis
Following the procedures recommended by Preacher and Hayes (2004), a mediational
analysis was conducted to replicate Cheung et al. (2013) to explore self-esteem and positive
affect as potential mediators of the relationship between nostalgia and optimism. As expected,
nostalgia led to self-esteem (b = .34, SE = .05), t(157) = 6.30, p < .001. Nostalgia also led to
positive affect (b = 3.25, SE = .74), t(157) = 4.40, p < .001. A bootstrapping analysis (Hayes,
2012; Model 4; 10,000 resamples) was performed with self-esteem and positive affect included
as parallel mediators. With both self-esteem and positive affect in the model, the direct effect of
nostalgia on optimism was not significant, Mdirect effect= .04, SE = .06, t(157) = 4.402, p = .56.
The indirect effect of nostalgia on optimism via self-esteem was significant, Mindirect effect = .29,
SE = .03, 95% CI = [.09, .23]. The indirect effect of nostalgia on optimism via positive affect
was also significant, Mindirect effect =.14, SE = .04, 95% CI = [.08, .22]. Thus, both self-esteem and
positive affect mediated the relationship between nostalgia and optimism. See Figure 2 and
Table 7 for these results.
30
Figure 1. Interaction of communal traits and narrative communion on nostalgia. Values plotted at +/- 1 SD of the mean of each
variable.
Table 6.
Study 1 Interaction: Communion X Narrative Communion Predicting Nostalgia (N = 160)
Predictor b se df t ∆R
2
p
Step 1 0.12 0.00
Communion 0.20 0.06 156 2.46 0.01
Narrative Communion 0.15 0.06 156 1.92 0.06
Gender -0.16 0.13 156 -2.03 0.04
Step 2 0.04 0.01
Communion 0.24 0.06 155 2.96 0.00
Narrative Focus 0.19 0.06 155 2.53 0.01
Gender -0.13 0.13 155 -1.63 0.11
Communion*Narrative Communion -0.21 0.07 155 -2.67 0.01
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
High Communion Low Communion
Nostalgia
Low Narrative
Communion
High Narrative
Communion
31
Figure 2. Relationships between nostalgia, self-esteem, positive affect, and optimism.
Table 7.
Tests of Direct and Indirect Effects in the Mediational Model of Study 1 (N = 162)
Effect Figure 1 path Coeff. SE 95% CI
Direct effects
Nostalgia  Self-esteem a .337** .054 [.232, .443]
Nostalgia  Positive affect b 3.247** .737 [1.790, 4.703]
Nostalgia  Optimism c .037 .063 [-.089, .162]
Self-esteem  Optimism d .447** .091 [.267, .627]
Positive affect  Optimism e .044** .007 [.030, .057]
Indirect effect: Nostalgia  Optimism
Total .292** .048 [.205, .394]
via Self-esteem a x d .151** .034 [.090, .227]
via Positive affect a x e .142** .037 [.079, .222]
Note. Coeff. = unstandardized path coefficient; 95% CI = 95% bootstrap confidence interval; **p < .001
Nostalgia
Self-esteem
Positive
affect
Optimism
a
d
b
e
c
32
Discussion
The first goal of Study 1 was to establish a link between trait-narrative congruence and
feelings of nostalgia. It was predicted that among individuals who rated themselves high on
agentic traits, those who naturally wrote achievement-oriented life narratives would experience
greater nostalgia than those who were low on agentic traits. These predictions were not
supported. Additionally, it was predicted that among individuals who rated themselves high on
communal traits, those who naturally wrote relationship-oriented life narratives would
experience greater nostalgia than individuals who rated themselves low on communal traits.
Although individuals who rated themselves high on communal traits did rate relationshipfocused (Narrative Communion) narratives as highly nostalgic, they also rated narratives with a
low relationship focus as highly nostalgic. Additionally, individuals who rated themselves low
on communal traits rated relationship-focused narratives (Narrative Communion) as highly
nostalgic, which was contrary to predictions. Overall, there were no significant relationships
between trait-narrative congruence and feelings of nostalgia.
It is possible that the methodology used in this study led to the predictions not being
supported. Participants were only asked to write about a positive event and objective ratings of
participant narratives suggested that many were writing about achievements. This suggests that
the prompt itself may have inadvertently encouraged achievement-related events. This issue was
addressed in Study 2 by asking participants to write specifically about an achievement- or a
relationship-focused event.
Although there were no significant findings with regard to trait-narrative congruence,
other interesting patterns with nostalgia emerged. For example, individuals who rated
themselves high on communal traits were more likely to indicate nostalgia than individuals low
33
on communal traits. Additionally, consistent with previous literature (Sedikides et al., 2015),
participants who wrote about an event that they deemed as focused on close relationships rated
those life events as highly nostalgic. Finally, the degree to which participants rated their
narratives as being focused on a group achievement predicted nostalgia. Nostalgia was not
correlated, however, with degree to which participants wrote about an individual achievement.
These results provide support for previous research suggesting that nostalgia is primarily a social
emotion, but also provide additional evidence for the agentic component of nostalgia (Sedikides
et al., 2015). More specifically, these results suggest that an achievement-oriented memory can
result in feelings of nostalgia if the memory includes a social component.
Replicating Cheung et al. (2013), self-esteem and positive affect were both found to
mediate the relationship between nostalgia and optimism. Nostalgia led to increased self-esteem
and positive affect, which led to greater feelings of optimism about the future. Correlational
analyses revealed significant relationships among participant ratings of achievement-focused
narratives and self-esteem, optimism, and positive affect. There were no significant
relationships, however, among participant ratings of relationship-focused narratives and selfesteem, optimism, and positive affect. Taken together, these results suggest that writing about an
achievement provides a boost to the self-concept outside of nostalgia. Conversely, writing about
a relationship, is more likely to result in feelings of nostalgia, and results from the mediational
analyses indicate that nostalgia leads to greater self-esteem, positive affect, and optimism.

34
CHAPTER 4
STUDY 2
Overview
To address the methodological issues of narrative focus in Study 1, Study 2 manipulated
narrative focus and asked participants to write about a previous life event that focused on an
achievement or a relationship. Study 2 examined whether temporarily induced congruence of
traits and life narrative focus would lead to feelings of nostalgia. It was hypothesized that
congruence between an individual’s traits and narrative focus would lead to feelings of nostalgia.
In the achievement focus condition, it was expected that individuals who rated themselves high
on agentic traits would be more likely to experience nostalgia than those who rated themselves
low on agentic traits. Additionally, it was expected that for individuals in the relationship focus
condition, those who rated themselves high on communal traits would experience greater
nostalgia than those who rated themselves low on communal traits. Finally, it was expected that
self-esteem and positive affect would mediate the relationship between nostalgia and optimism.
Power Analysis
To estimate the required sample size, a power analysis was performed using G*Power
(Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007). Previous work has demonstrated mostly small effect
sizes regarding the relationships between trait-goal congruence, trait-life narrative congruence,
and positive psychological outcomes (McGregor et al., 2006). A total sample size required to
detect an effect in a linear multiple regression analysis was calculated at an effect size of 0.06
and observed power of 0.80. Based on the results of the power analysis, a total sample of 133
participants was recommended to conduct this research. Because Study 2 included a mixed
35
design with two experimental conditions, an additional power analysis was calculated using
G*Power to determine a total sample size required to detect an effect in an ANCOVA analysis at
an effect size of 0.25 and observed power of 0.80 (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007).
Based on the results of the power analysis, a total sample of 128 participants was recommended
to conduct this research. Study 2 recruited 128 participants.
Method
Participants
Participants included 128 undergraduate students from Iowa State University who
received course credit for participation (MAge = 19.3; SD = 2.05). To be eligible for this study,
participants were required to be at least 18 years of age and were not to have participated in any
previous life narrative studies at Iowa State University. The sample consisted of 41 males and
87 females, with the majority (77.3%) identifying as White/Caucasian (7.8% Asian/Pacific
Islander, 6.3 % African American, 5.5% Latino/Hispanic, 1.6% Other Race, 0.8% Native
American).
Study Design
A mixed model design was conducted with participants randomized to one of two
conditions: 1) achievement narrative focus condition or 2) relationship narrative focus condition.
All participants completed the same trait, nostalgia, self-esteem, optimism, and positive affect
measures from Study 1 in Study 2.
Measures
Agency and communion. Identical to Study 1, all participants indicated the degree to
which a series of 16 words pertaining to agency and communion described them (Abele,
Uchronski, Suitner, & Wojciszke, 2008). Two scales were constructed, each with eight items,
36
averaging scores on agentic and communal items. Examples of agentic items ( = .75) included
Able, Active, and Assertive. Examples of communal items ( = .83) included Caring, Helpful,
and Loyal. Participants responded on a 7-point scale, 1 = never or almost never true to 7 =
always or almost always true. See Appendix B.
Manipulation of narrative focus. Adapting procedures from McAdams (1985),
participants were randomized to write about a positive, personally significant achievement event
or a positive, personally significant relationship event from their lives. They were asked to focus
on one specific event and indicate when the event occurred, what happened, who was involved,
and why it was important. Participants randomly assigned to the achievement life narrative
focus condition (see Appendix I) were instructed to write about a positive, personally significant
event in their lives where they achieved or accomplished something of value. Instructions were
similar to the prompt from Study 1, but in addition to asking participants for a positive,
personally significant event, they were encouraged to focus the narrative on an achievement from
their past. Conversely, participants randomly assigned to the relationship life narrative focus
condition (see Appendix J), were instructed to write about a positive, personally significant event
in their lives that involved a close relationship. To avoid having participants write about
achievement-related event that happened to involve close relationships, they were prompted to
think about an event that focused around quality time with close others and to discuss why this
relationship event was a peak experience in their life. These close relationships could include
friends, family, or romantic partners. The complete instructions for the Achievement Life Story
prompt can be found in Appendix H and the complete instructions for the Relationship Life
Story prompt can be found in Appendix I. Additionally, participants in both conditions rated
their own essays on a 5-point scale, 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree, for five themes
37
of agentic and communal focus (e.g., “Please rate the degree to which the story you wrote
earlier reflects the following themes: independent achievement, self-reliance, group
achievement, care for others, close relationships”). A “Narrative Agency” scale was
constructed by summing participant ratings on the “independent achievement” and “selfreliance” items, = .85. A “Narrative Communion” scale was constructed by summing
participant ratings on the “care for others” and “close relationships” items, = .86. The “Group
Achievement” focus item was analyzed independently. The life narrative prompts and follow-up
questions can be found in Appendices I and J, respectively.
Nostalgia. Identical to Study 1 and similar to Cheung et al. (2013), all participants were
asked to indicate how nostalgic they felt after reflecting on their previous life event on a 6-point
scale, 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree. The measure of nostalgia consists of 13 items
that assesses the degree to which an individual is experiencing nostalgia. A reliability analysis
indicated that this was a reliable measure, = .91. The Nostalgia Questionnaire can be found in
Appendix D.
Self-Esteem. Identical to Study 1 and similar to Cheung et al. (2013), a measure of state
self-esteem was used to examine participant levels of self-esteem after reflecting on their
memory. Participants rated their self-esteem on a 5-point scale, 1 = strongly disagree to 5 =
strongly agree and the measure consists of four items, = .86. The Self-Esteem Questions can
be found in Appendix E.
Optimism. Identical to Study 1 and similar to Cheung et al. (2013), all participants were
asked to indicate their level of optimism on a 6-point scale, 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly
agree. The measure consists of seven items, =.90. The Optimism Questionnaire can be found
in Appendix F.
38
Positive and negative affect. Identical to Study 1, all participants completed the 20-item
Positive and Negative Affective Schedule (PANAS) on a 5-point scale, with 10 items assessing
positive affect and 10 items assessing negative affect (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). The
positive affect scale had good reliability, =.90, as did the negative affect scale, =.87. The
PANAS measure can be found in Appendix G.
Demographics. Basic demographic information was collected from each participant,
such as age, gender, ethnicity, first language learned, and language spoken at home. See
Appendix H.
Procedure
Participants completed measures for the first part of the two-part study online using
Qualtrics software (Qualtrics, Provo, UT). After first completing an informed consent document,
participants completed demographic information (see Appendix H), as well as one measure
assessing agentic and communal traits (see Appendix B). Participants were then asked to come
to the laboratory at a separate time for the second part of the study. The day before the
laboratory session, participants were randomized to either the achievement or relationship
condition and were notified by email that they would be writing a story about a previous event
that focused on an achievement or a previous event that focused on a relationship. Providing this
information prior to the laboratory session gave participants the opportunity to reflect on their
previous life experiences before the session began such that they could select a relevant and
meaningful event. At the laboratory session, participants completed all measures on Qualtrics.
Participants randomly assigned to the achievement life narrative focus condition were instructed
to write one to two paragraphs detailing a positive, personally significant event from their life
involving an achievement. Participants randomly assigned to the relationship life narrative focus
39
condition were instructed to write at least two paragraphs detailing a positive, personally
significant event from their life that revolved around a close relationship. Participants were
given 30 minutes to write their story. Finally, following the narrative prompt and follow-up
questions assessing narrative focus (see Appendices I and J), participants completed in order
measures assessing nostalgia, self-esteem, optimism, and affect (see Appendices D, E, F, and G).
After the final measures were complete, the participants were thanked for their time and
debriefed. The average number of days in between the completion of part 1 and part 2 of the
study was 27.2.
Results
Primary Analyses
The goal of the present study was to investigate whether assigning participants to write
about either an achievement- or relationship-focused previous life event would lead them to
experience nostalgia if the focus of that event (e.g., achievement or relationship focus) was
congruent (as opposed to incongruent) with their traits (e.g., agentic or communal). It was
expected that agentic traits would predict nostalgia in the achievement-focus narrative condition,
whereas communal traits would predict nostalgia for participants who were randomized to the
relationship condition.
Similar to Study 1, narrative focus was coded on a 5-point scale, where relationshipfocused narratives were coded a 1, achievement-focused narratives were coded a 5, and a focus
on neither was coded a 3. An interrater reliability analysis indicated a higher level of agreement
than in Study 1, kappa = .77. Additionally, a Spearman’s rho revealed a statistically significant
relationship between coders, rs(128) = .95, p < .01. Therefore, after a manipulation check, a
moderated regression analysis was performed to test trait-narrative congruence, specifically
40
whether the interaction of traits and narrative focus condition predicted nostalgia, controlling for
gender. Affect was not included as a control variable in this analysis as the PANAS was
included after the life narrative prompt and the measure of nostalgia during the study session.
Additionally, a mediational analysis (Preacher & Hayes, 2004) was performed to replicate Study
1, examining self-esteem and positive affect as mediators of nostalgia and optimism. Data were
analyzed using the statistical software SPSS.
Manipulation Check
Participant ratings and experimenter-coded ratings of narrative focus (i.e., Narrative
Agency, Narrative Communion, and Narrative Focus) were used as a manipulation check. A
one-way ANOVA showed that there was a main effect of condition on participant narrative focus
ratings of achievements (Narrative Agency) F(1, 121) = 47.39, p < .001 and relationships
(Narrative Communion) F(1, 121) = 42.28, p < .001 (see Table 5). Participants rated their
narratives higher on achievements in the achievement condition (M = 8.12, SD = 1.80) than in
the relationship condition (M = 5.69, SD = 2.12). Conversely, participants rated their narratives
higher on relationships in the relationship condition (M = 9.07, SD = 1.31) than in the
achievement condition (M = 6.81, SD = 2.33). Additionally, there was a significant main effect
of condition on the coded focus of narratives (Narrative Focus) F(1, 126) = 270.93, p < .001 with
narratives in the achievement condition coded as primarily focused on achievements (M = 4.41,
SD = 1.04) and narratives in the relationship condition coded as primarily focused on
relationships (M = 1.53, SD = .93). See Table 8.
41
Table 8.
Manipulation checks as a function of Essay Focus in Study 2 (N = 123)
Achievement Focus (n = 65) Relationship Focus (n = 58)
2 Results of ANOVA
M SD M SD F (1,122) p > F
Narrative Agency 8.12 1.80 5.69 2.12 0.281 47.39 < .0001
Narrative Communion 6.81 2.33 9.07 1.31 0.349 42.28 < .0001
Group Achievement 2.91 1.33 3.57 1.22 0.063 8.2 < .01
Narrative Focus 4.41 1.04 1.53 0.93 0.682 270.93 <.0001
42
Descriptive Data
Descriptive statistics for all independent and dependent variables are provided in Table 9.
A one-way ANOVA was performed to examine differences in nostalgia, self-esteem, optimism,
and positive affect between the two narrative focus conditions. There were no significant
differences in ratings of nostalgia between the two conditions. However, participant ratings of
self-esteem (M = 3.83, SD = .61), F(1, 126) = 3.82, p = .05, optimism (M = 4.88, SD = .66), F(1,
126) = 12.58, p = .001, and positive affect (M = 42.22, SD = 8.61), F(1, 125) = 5.66, p = .02
were significantly higher in the achievement condition than ratings of self-esteem (M = 3.60, SD
= .74), optimism (M = 4.39, SD = .88), and positive affect (M = 38.05, SD = 11.02) in the
relationship condition. Correlations for all variables can be found in Table 10.
Table 9.
Descriptives for Study 2 Predictor and Outcome Variables
Range
Measure n M SD α Potential Actual
Agency 128 5.31 0.80 .75 1-7 2.88-7.00
Communion 128 6.02 0.70 .83 1-7 3.00-7.00
Narrative Focus 128 2.996 1.75 – 1-5 1.00-5.00
Narrative Agency 123 6.97 2.30 .85 2-10 2.00-10.00
Narrative Communion 123 7.88 2.22 .86 2-10 2.00-10.00
Group Achievement 123 3.22 1.31 – 1-5 1.00-5.00
Nostalgia 128 4.61 0.94 .91 1-6 1.38-6.00
Self-Esteem 128 3.72 0.69 .86 1-5 1.00-5.00
Optimism 128 4.64 0.81 .90 1-6 2.00-5.86
Positive Affect 127 40.15 10.06 .90 10-60 13.00-60.00
43
Table 10.
Correlations between Study 2 Predictor, Moderator, Mediator, and Outcome Variables
Variables 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
1. Agency 1.00
2. Communion .39** 1.00
3. Gender .07 -.03 1.00
4. Narrative Focus .10 .02 -.05 1.00
5. Narrative Agency .09 .06 -.11 .63** 1.00
6. Narrative Communion -.25** .01 .10 -.59** -.56** 1.00
7. Group Achievement -.04 .01 .10 -.26** -.34** .54** 1.00
8. Nostalgia .06 .20* -.07 -.01 -.03 .22* .29** 1.00
9. Self-Esteem .17 .17 .06 .18* .13 .00 .03 .50** 1.00
10. Optimism .27** .28** -.15 .30** .25** -.09 .07 .40** .59** 1.00
11. Positive Affect .27** .28** -.03 .22** .17 .04 .24 .37** .55** .67**
Note. For Gender, females coded 0, males coded 1; *p < .05; **p < .01
44
Trait-Narrative Congruence
A moderated regression analysis was performed to test the prediction that individuals
who rated themselves high on agentic traits would rate their previous life event as more nostalgic
when they were randomly assigned to the achievement focus condition than when they were
assigned to the relationship focus condition. Values for agency, condition, and gender were
centered and entered on Step 1, with the interaction term of agency and condition entered on
Step 2. The prediction was not supported; agentic trait-narrative congruence did not predict
nostalgia, b = -.10, t(123) = -.77, p = .44. There were no significant main effects, all p’s > .05.
These results can be found in Table 11.
Table 11.
Study 2 Interaction: Agency X Narrative Condition Predicting Nostalgia (N = 127)
Predictor b se df t p
Step 1
Agency 0.07 0.08 124 0.76 0.45
Narrative Condition -0.02 0.17 124 -0.21 0.83
Gender -0.08 0.18 124 -0.90 0.37
Step 2
Agency 0.15 0.12 123 1.08 0.28
Narrative Condition -0.03 0.17 123 -0.32 0.75
Gender -0.09 0.18 123 -0.99 0.33
Agency*Narrative Condition -0.10 0.16 123 -0.77 0.44
Note. For Narrative Condition, relationship focus coded 0, achievement focus coded 1
A moderated regression analysis was performed to test the prediction that individuals
who rated themselves high on communal traits would rate their previous life event as more
nostalgic when they were randomly assigned to the relationship focus condition than when they
were assigned to the achievement focus condition. Values for communion, condition, and
gender were centered and entered on Step 1, with the interaction term of communion and
condition entered on Step 2. The interaction was marginally significant, b = -.20, t(123) = -1.81,
45
p = .07; high communal traits (as opposed to low communal traits) predicted greater nostalgia in
the relationship focus condition. Communal traits were also a significant predictor of nostalgia,
b = .32, t(123) = 2.90, p < .01. To illustrate the interaction, it was plotted at one standard
deviation above and below the mean of both variables (See Figure 3).
A simple slopes analysis indicated that there was a significant effect of communal traits
on nostalgia in the relationship condition, b = .43, t(123) = 2.90, p < .01, but no significant effect
in the achievement condition, b = .002, t(123) = -.01, p = .99. Individuals who rated themselves
higher on communal traits rated greater feelings of nostalgia in the relationship condition than
individuals who rated themselves lower on communal traits (see Table 12).
Mediation Analysis
Following the procedures recommended by Preacher and Hayes (2004), a mediational
analysis was conducted to replicate Cheung et al. (2013) to explore self-esteem and positive
affect as potential mediators of the relationship between nostalgia and optimism. As expected,
nostalgia led to self-esteem (b = .36, SE = .06), t(125) = 6.44, p < .001. Nostalgia also led to
positive affect (b = 3.96, SE = .88), t(125) = 4.48, p < .001. A bootstrapping analysis (Hayes,
2012; Model 4; 10,000 resamples) was performed with self-esteem and positive affect included
as parallel mediators. With both self-esteem and positive affect in the model, the direct effect of
nostalgia on optimism was not significant, Mdirecteffect = .06, SE = .06, t(125) = 1.019, p = .31.
The indirect effect of nostalgia on optimism via self-esteem was significant, Mindirecteffect= .12, SE
= .04, 95% CI = [.06, .23]. The indirect effect of nostalgia on optimism via positive affect was
also significant, Mindirecteffect = .15, SE = .04, 95% CI = [.07, .25]. Thus, both self-esteem and
positive affect mediated the relationship between nostalgia and optimism. See Figure 4 and
Table 13 for these results.
46
Figure 3. Interaction of communal traits and narrative focus condition on nostalgia. Values plotted at +/- 1 SD of the mean of each
variable.
Table 12.
Study 2 Interaction: Communion X Narrative Condition Predicting Nostalgia (N = 127)
Predictor b se df t ∆R
2
p
Step 1 0.04
Communion 0.20 0.10 124 2.25 0.03
Narrative Condition -0.02 0.16 124 -0.27 0.78
Gender -0.07 0.18 124 -0.81 0.42
Step 2 0.02
Communion 0.32 0.12 123 2.90 0.00
Narrative Condition -0.004 0.16 123 -0.05 0.96
Gender -0.08 0.17 123 -0.95 0.35
Communion*Narrative Condition -0.20 0.20 123 -1.81 0.07
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
High Communal
Traits
Low Communal
Traits
Nostalgia
Achievement
Condition
Relationship
Condition
47
Figure 4. Relationships between nostalgia, self-esteem, positive affect, and optimism.
Table 13.
Tests of Direct and Indirect Effects in the Mediational Model of Study 2 (N = 127)
Effect Figure 1 path Coeff. SE 95% CI
Direct effects
Nostalgia  Self-esteem a .365** .057 [.253, .478]
Nostalgia  Positive affect b 3.962** .885 [2.211, 5.714]
Nostalgia  Optimism c .064 .062 [-.060, .187]
Self-esteem  Optimism d .340** .095 [.152, .527]
Positive affect  Optimism e .039** .006 [.027, .051]
Indirect effect: Nostalgia  Optimism
Total .341** .070 [.201, .480]
via Self-esteem a x d .124** .043 [.056, .229]
via Positive affect a x e .153** .043 [.077, .249]
Note. Coeff. = unstandardized path coefficient; 95% CI = 95% bootstrap confidence interval; **p < .001
Nostalgia
Self-esteem
Positive
affect
Optimism
a
d
b
e
c
48
Discussion
The first goal of Study 2 was to establish a link between trait-narrative congruence and
feelings of nostalgia. Specifically, it was predicted that individuals who rated themselves high
on agentic traits would rate their previous life event as more nostalgic when they were randomly
assigned to the achievement focus condition than when they were assigned to the relationship
focus condition. Additionally, it was predicted that individuals who rated themselves high on
communal traits would rate their previous life event as more nostalgic when they were randomly
assigned to the relationship focus condition than when they were assigned to the achievement
focus condition. Participant ratings of narrative focus (e.g., independent achievement, selfreliance, group achievement, care for others, and close relationships) suggested that narrative
focus was successfully manipulated in this study. Results indicated that agency trait-focus
congruence did not predict nostalgia; however, the communal trait-narrative focus congruence
hypothesis predicted nostalgia. Specifically, individuals who were asked to write a relationshipfocused narrative and who rated themselves high on communal traits experienced higher levels
of nostalgia than individuals who rated themselves low on communal traits.
Replicating the results from Study 1, degree of communal traits predicted nostalgia.
Additionally, even though there was no relationship between objectively coded narratives and
nostalgia, the degree to which participants rated their own narratives as being focused on
relationships predicted nostalgia. Additionally, the degree to which narratives focused on a
group achievement predicted nostalgia. Nostalgia was not predicted by the degree to which
participants wrote about an individual achievement. These results provide support for previous
research suggesting that socially oriented memories are more likely to elicit nostalgia than
memories that focus on the independent self (Sedikides et al., 2015). Additionally, consistent
49
with Study 1, this study provides strong evidence for a relationship between communal traits and
nostalgia. Future research could examine a potential relationship between communal traits and
dispositional nostalgia.
Replicating Study 1 and Cheung et al. (2013), self-esteem and positive affect were both
found to mediate the relationship between nostalgia and optimism. Greater feelings of nostalgia
predicted self-esteem and positive affect, which led to greater feelings of optimism about the
future. Similar to Study 1, correlational analyses revealed significant relationships between
participant ratings of achievement-focused narratives (i.e., self-reliance focus) and self-esteem,
optimism, and positive affect. There were no significant relationships, however, between
participant ratings of relationship-focused narratives and self-esteem, optimism, and positive
affect. These results add to the findings of Study 1 suggesting that writing about a previous
independent achievement provides a boost to the self outside of nostalgia. Conversely, writing
about a relationship, is more likely to result in feelings of nostalgia, which in turn leads to greater
self-esteem, positive affect, and optimism.
50
CHAPTER 5
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The primary goal of this research was to investigate the influence of trait-narrative focus
congruence on nostalgia. Both studies were designed to test whether reflecting on and writing
about a memory that is in line with an individual’s traits can lead to greater feelings of nostalgia
for that particular event. Previous research on the self in relation to the stories of one’s life
suggests that traits contribute to the development of life narratives and life narratives shape and
help maintain personality (McLean, Pasupathi, & Pals, 2007). Additionally, positive
psychological emotions, such as happiness, have been reported when life stories are congruent
with personality attributes (McGregor, McAdams, & Little, 2005). Although previous research
has examined the effects of trait-narrative congruence on well-being, these studies were the first
to investigate whether or not congruence of traits and life narratives led to greater feelings of
nostalgia.
The results of Studies 1 and 2 suggest that congruence between agentic and communal
traits and life narratives is not a reliable predictor of nostalgia. This was especially true with
independent achievement-oriented life narratives in both studies. In general, participants were
more likely to report nostalgic feelings if they deemed their previous life event as relationshipfocused regardless of their self-reported trait ratings. This was the case whether participants
naturally wrote about a previous life event that focused on a relationship (Study 1) or were asked
to write about a relationship-focused life event (Study 2). However, there were inconsistent
patterns across the two studies. In Study 1, narratives rated as relationship-focused were deemed
highly nostalgic for individuals who were both high and low on communal traits. Conversely, in
51
Study 2, individuals who were communally-oriented and who were asked to write about a close
relationship experienced greater feelings of nostalgia than individuals who indicated that they
have fewer communal traits. One of the main differences between the two studies was the
methodology. In Study 1, participants were able to write about any positive event, whereas in
Study 2 they were asked to write specifically about a relationship or an achievement from their
lives. It is possible that in Study 1 participants had a greater mix of achievement and relationship
themes within their essays than in Study 2. A more fine-grained analysis (e.g., LIWC) would
perhaps clarify the focus of these narratives. Overall, the results of both studies provide further
evidence for the social nature of nostalgia. For example, results of both studies demonstrated
that achievement-focused life events can elicit feelings of nostalgia as long as they are placed in
a social context (e.g., crediting teamwork as the reason for winning a championship game). This
supports previous research suggesting that in a nostalgic memory, the self is the central
character, but is typically surrounded by close others (Wildschut et al., 2006).
Although the present studies examined congruence of traits and positive memories, recent
research has suggested that most internal triggers of nostalgia are negative. For example, selfdiscontinuity was found to elicit nostalgia (Sedikides, Wildschut, Routledge, & Arndt, 2015).
Specifically, when individuals reflected on negative, significant changes that had recently
occurred in their lives, they reported feeling nostalgic for the past. Additionally, negative affect
(Barrett et al., 2010), social exclusion (Seehusen et al., 2013), and loneliness (Wildschut et al.,
2010) have all been shown to trigger nostalgia (Sedikides et al., 2015). Thus, even though
nostalgia has been shown to promote self-continuity (i.e., feeling connected with one’s past self;
Sedikides et al., 2015), nostalgia does not appear to always be reliably elicited by it. However,
in line with previous research suggesting that simply reminiscing about close relationships can
52
also lead to nostalgia (Sedikides et al., 2015), Study 1 found that relationship-focused narratives
overall predicted greater nostalgia. Study 2 found that this effect was higher for individuals who
rated themselves high (as opposed to low) on communal traits. This suggests that for individuals
who do not particularly value or place high importance on close relationships, nostalgia could be
an emotion they are less likely to frequently experience or use to buffer a threat to the selfconcept. For example, previous research has shown that individuals who are high on trait
nostalgia (i.e., more prone to nostalgic feelings), are more likely to use nostalgia to buffer against
an existential threat (e.g., being reminded of death; Juhl, Routledge, Arndt, Sedikides, &
Wildschut, 2010). Related to the present results, this suggests that individuals who think of the
self in terms of close relationships might get an added boost when reminiscing about an event
that focused on close others which protects the self from the negative effects of self-threats.
Future research should further investigate how individual differences influence nostalgia,
particularly whether highly communal individuals experience nostalgia more regularly than those
who are less communal. Moreover, future research could examine what strategies less
communally-oriented individuals use to buffer against threats to the self.
Studies 1 and 2 replicated Cheung et al. (2013) and showed through a mediational
analysis that both self-esteem and positive affect mediated the relationship between nostalgia and
optimism. Participants who rated high feelings of nostalgia showed increased self-esteem and
positive affect, which prompted greater feelings of optimism about the future. These findings
provide further support for previous research indicating that nostalgia provides a boost to selfesteem, positive affect, and optimism through reflecting back on an ideal past and an ideal self
(Kaplan, 1987; Sedikides et al., 2015).
53
Additional correlational analyses in Studies 1 and 2 revealed patterns worthy of mention.
There were significant relationships among participant ratings of achievement-focused narratives
(i.e., self-reliance focus) and self-esteem, optimism, and positive affect. There were no
significant relationships, however, among participant ratings of relationship-focused narratives
and self-esteem, optimism, and positive affect. These results suggest that writing about a
previous independent achievement provides a boost to the self outside of nostalgia. Conversely,
writing about a relationship, is more likely to result in feelings of nostalgia, which in turn leads
to greater self-esteem, positive affect, and optimism. Future research could investigate the
possibility that there are two different pathways that lead from memory reminiscence to
increases in self-positivity, such as optimism.
Limitations
There were several limitations in both studies that should be addressed. First, although
most predictions in this study were not supported, there was a marginally significant finding in
Study 2 of communal trait-narrative congruence influencing feelings of nostalgia. This was not
found in Study 1 and would therefore need to be replicated to be able to interpret whether or not
this was a meaningful finding. One possible reason similar results were not found in Study 1
could be due to the fact that the positive life narrative prompt was unable to generate clear
patterns of narrative focus. It is possible that participants were constructing narratives with more
achievement themes which is why there were not similar results. Additionally, participant affect
was not measured prior to the completion of the life narrative prompt and the nostalgia measure
in both Study 1 and Study 2. Including this measure before the narrative prompt would have
provided an opportunity to use it as a control variable in addition to gender in the final analyses.
Positive affect would not be expected to elicit nostalgia, however, based on previous research
54
suggesting that negative internal factors influence nostalgia (Sedikides et al., 2015), negative
affect would be an expected predictor of nostalgia.
Although participants were emailed one day ahead of their scheduled laboratory session
with their assigned narrative focus (e.g., positive, achievement, relationship) in both Study 1 and
Study 2, it is still possible that some participants felt rushed trying to come up with a specific life
event from their past. This could have led to lower feelings of nostalgia if the event was rushed
and not personally meaningful for the individual. Perceived centrality of the event may have
been reduced if ease of retrieval was difficult. Furthermore, the findings from both Study 1 and
Study 2 are limited to specific life events. Participants were told they could not report on a
general time period from their lives, which limits the scope of these findings. Given that
nostalgia can be elicited when thinking about childhood years and critical periods in one’s life
(Sedikides et al., 2015), it is possible that individuals could rate large time periods from their
lives and specific life events differently in terms of nostalgia. Specifically, it is possible that
nostalgia would be rated even higher for larger periods of time as opposed to specific events
from one’s life. Future research could investigate whether the experience of nostalgia differs
across various types of memories.
Finally, although the findings demonstrated clear relationships between communion and
nostalgia, and congruency seemed relevant to communal traits (rather than agentic traits), the
group achievement focus variable is a potential confound as these narratives were achievementfocused and were still shown to be related to nostalgia. Agency and communion were selected
for these studies because they are broad and fundamental elements of self-perception. However,
it is possible that more specific traits (e.g., the Big Five) would reveal stronger effects of
55
congruency. Future research could examine more specific traits in relation to life narratives and
nostalgia.
Conclusion
Congruence between the two fundamental traits of agency and communion and life
narratives was investigated as a potential predictor of nostalgia in two studies. In general,
participants in both studies tended to rate previous life events that were focused on relationships
(rather than personal achievements) as highly nostalgic regardless of trait ratings. Additionally,
participants tended to rate previous life events that were focused on group achievements as
highly nostalgic. These results suggest that reminiscing about fond memories that involve close
others can lead to feelings of nostalgia. Conversely, memories that involve personal
achievements do not appear to lead to great feelings of nostalgia unless these memories also
include close relationships. Interestingly, Study 2 found that individuals who rated themselves
high on communal traits (e.g., caring, helpful, loyal) experienced significantly greater nostalgia
than individuals who rated themselves low on these traits. These results highlight the largely
social aspect of nostalgia. Although most participants experienced nostalgia for events that
involved close others, this appeared to be magnified for individuals who defined the self in terms
of close relationships and reduced for individuals who did not. As nostalgia was shown in both
studies to lead to greater self-esteem, positive affect, and optimism, a continued examination of
the influence of individual differences on this particular emotion would be beneficial.
56
REFERENCES
Abele, A.E. (2003). The dynamics of masculine-agentic and feminine-communal traits: Findings
from a prospective study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(4), 768-776.
Abele, A.E., Uchronski, M., Suitner, C., & Wojciszke, B. (2008). Towards an operationalization
of the fundamental dimensions of agency and communion: Trait content ratings in five
countries considering valence and frequency of word occurrence. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 38, 1202-1217.
Abele, A.E., & Wojciszke, B. (2007). Agency and communion from the perspective of self
versus others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 751-763.
Abele, A.E., & Wojciszke, B. (2014). Communal and agentic content in social cognition: A dual
perspective model. In M. P. Zanna, & J. M. Olson (Eds.), Advances in experimental
social psychology, 50, (pp. 195–255). Burlington: Academic Press.
Abeyta, A., Routledge, C., Sedikides, C., & Wildschut, R. T. (2015). Attachment-related
avoidance and the social content of nostalgic memories. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 32(3), 406-413.
Austin, A. B., & Costabile, K. A. (2016). Stories of me, stories of we: The integration of agency
and communion across three layers of personality. Manuscript in preparation.
Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence. Reading, PA: Addison-Wesley.
Barrett, F. S., Grimm, K. J., Robins, R. W., Wildschut, T., Sedikides, C., & Janata, P.
(2010). Music-evoked nostalgia: Affect, memory, and personality. Emotion, 10,
390–403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019006.
57
Beehr, T.A., Farmer, S.J., Glazer, S., Gudanowski, D.M., & Nair, V.N. (2003). The enigma of
social support and occupational stress: Source congruence and gender role effects.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8(3), 220-231.
Bem, S.L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.
Bozionelos, N., & Bozionelos, G. (1999). Playfulness: its relationship with instrumental and
expressive traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 749-760.
Bower, G. H. (1981). Mood and memory. American Psychologist, 36, 129-148.
Brody, L. (1999). Gender, emotion, and the family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cheung, W., Wildschut, T., Sedikides, C., Hepper, E.G., Arndt, J., & Vingerhoets, A.J.J.M.
(2013). Back to the future: Nostalgia increases optimism. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 39(11), 1484-1496.Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of
the self: Self construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5–37.
Davis, F. (1979). Yearning for yesterday: A sociology of nostalgia. New York: Free Press.
Davis, M.C., & Matthews, K.A. (1996). Do gender-relevant characteristics determine
cardiovascular reactivity? Match versus mismatch of traits and situation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 71(3), 527-535.
Diener, E., Larsen, R.J., & Emmons, R.A. (1984). Person x situation interactions: Choice of
situations and congruence response models. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 47(3), 580-592.
Digman, J. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of
Psychology, 41, 417– 440. Doi:10.1146/ annurev.ps.41.020190.002221.
58
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical
power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior
Research Methods, 39, 175-191.
Fitness, J., & Fletcher G. (1993). Love, hate, anger, and jealousy in close relationships: A
prototype and cognitive appraisal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
65, 942-958. Doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.5.942
Gebauer, J. E., Broemer, P., Haddock, G., & von Hecker, U. (2008). Inclusion-exclusion of
positive and negative past selves: Mood congruence as information. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 470–487. Doi:10.1037/a0012543.
Gebauer, J.E., Haddock, G., Broemer, P., von Hecker, U. (2013). The role of semantic selfperceptions in temporal distance perceptions toward autobiographical events: The
semantic congruence model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(5), 852-
872.
Graziano, W. G., & Eisenberg, N. (1997). Agreeableness: A dimension of personality. In R.
Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 795–
824). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Hart, C. M., Sedikides, C., Wildschut, T., Arndt, J., Routledge, C., & Vingerhoets, Ad
J. J. M. (2011). Nostalgic recollections of high and low narcissists. Journal of Research
in Personality, 45, 238–242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.01.002.
Habermas, T., & Bluck, S. (2000). Getting a life: The emergence of the life story in adolescence.
Psychological Bulletin, 126, 748–769.
Helgeson, V.S. (1994). Relation of agency and communion to well-being: Evidence and potential
explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 412-428.
59
Helweg-Larsen, M., Sadeghian, P., & Webb, M.A. (2002). The stigma of being pessimistically
biased. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 21, 92–107.
Hepper, E.G., Ritchie, T.D., Sedikides, C., & Wildschut, T. (2012). Odyssey’s end: Lay
conceptions of nostalgia reflect its original Homeric meaning. Emotion, 12(1), 102-119.
Hepper, E. G., Wildschut, T., Sedikides, C., Ritchie, T. D., Yung, Y.-F., Hansen, N.,…Zhou, X.
(2014). Pancultural nostalgia: Prototypical conceptions across cultures. Emotion, 14,
733–747. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036790.
Holak, S. L., & Havlena, W. J. (1998). Feelings, fantasies, and memories: An examination of
the emotional components of nostalgia. Journal of Business Research, 42, 217–226.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(97)00119-7.
Kaplan, H. A. (1987). The psychopathology of nostalgia. Psychoanalytic Review, 74, 465–486.
Lambert, N. M., Graham, S. M., & Fincham, F. D. (2009). A prototype analysis of gratitude:
Varieties of gratitude experiences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35,
1193-1207. doi:10.1177/0146167209338071
Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-Assessment of one’s
social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(3), 302-318.
Manczak, E.M., Zapata-Gietl, C., & McAdams, D.P. (2014). Regulatory focus in the life story:
Prevention and promotion as expressed in three layers of personality. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 106(1), 169-181.
McAdams, D.P. (1985). Power, intimacy, and the life story: Personological inquiries into
identity. New York: Guilford.
60
McAdams, D.P., Anyidoho, N.A., Brown, C., Huang, Y.T., Kaplan, B., & Machado, M.A.
(2004). Traits and stories: Links between dispositional and narrative features of
personality. Journal of Personality, 72(4), 761-783.
McAdams, D. P., Hoffman, B. J., Mansfield, E. D., & Day, R. (1996). Themes of
agency and communion in significant autobiographical scenes. Journal of Personality,
64, 339–377.
McAdams, D.P., & Olson, B.D. (2010). Personality development: Continuity and change over
the life course. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 517-542.
McAdams, D.P., Reynolds, J., Lewis, M., Patten, A.H., & Bowman, P.J. (2001). When bad
things turn good and good things turn bad: Sequences of redemption and contamination
in life narrative and their relation to psychosocial adaptation in midlife and in students.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(4), 474-485.
McGregor, I., McAdams, D.P., & Little, B.R. (2006). Personal projects, life stories, and
happiness: On being true to traits. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(5), 551-572.
McLean, K.C., Pasupathi, M., & Pals, J.L. (2007). Selves creating stories creating selves: A
process model of self-development. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(3),
262-278.
Murray H. A. 1938. Explorations in Personality. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Pals, J.L., & McAdams, D.P. (2011). Constructing stories of self-growth: How
individual differences in patterns of autobiographical reasoning relate to well-being in
midlife. Journal of Personality, 79(2), 391-428. Doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
6494.2010.00688.x.
61
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects
in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,
36(4), 717-731.
Qualtrics software, Version 37,892 of the Qualtrics Research Suite. Copyright © 2015 Qualtrics.
Qualtrics and all other Qualtrics product or service names are registered trademarks or
trademarks of Qualtrics, Provo, UT, USA. http://www.qualtrics.com
Reisz, Z., Boudreaux, M.J., & Ozer, D.J. (2013). Personality traits and the prediction of persona
goals. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 699-704.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Routledge, C., Arndt, J., Wildschut, T., Sedikides, C., Hart, C.M., Juhl, J., Vingerhoets, A.J.J.M.,
& Scholtz, W. The past makes the present meaningful: Nostalgia as an existential
resource. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(3), 638-652.
Rusting, C.L. (1999). Interactive effects of personality and mood on emotion-congruent memory
and judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 1073-1086.
Scheier, M., & Carver, C. (1993). On the power of positive thinking: The benefits of being
optimistic. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2, 26–30.
Sedikides, C., Wildschut, T., Routledge, C., Arndt, J. (2015). Nostalgia counteracts selfdiscontinuity and restores self-continuity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45,
52-61.
62
Sedikides, C., Wildschut, T., Routledge, C., Arndt, J., Hepper, E.G., & Zhou, X. (2015). To
nostalgize: Mixing memory with affect and desire. In J. M. Olson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.),
Advances in experimental social psychology, 51, (pp. 189–273). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Seehusen, J., Cordaro, F., Wildschut, T., Sedikides, C., Routledge, C., Blackhart, G. C.,
et al. (2013). Individual differences in nostalgia proneness: The integrating role of the
need to belong. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 904–908. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.paid.2013.07.020.
Sherman, R.A., Nave, C.S., & Funder, D.C. (2012). Properties of persons and situations related
to overall and distinctive personality-behavior congruence. Journal of Research in
Personality, 46, 87-101.
Smith, S. M., & Petty, R. E. (1995). Personality moderators of mood congruency effects on
cognition: The role of self-esteem and negative mood regulation. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 68, 1092-1107.
Spence, J. T. (1984). Masculinity, femininity, and gender-related traits: A conceptual analysis
and critique of current research. In B. A. Maher & W. B. Maher (Eds.), Progress in
experimental personality research (Vol. 13, pp. 1-97). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological
dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Vess, M., Arndt, J., Routledge, C., Sedikides, C., Wildschut, T. (2012). Nostalgia as a resource
for the self. Self and Identity, 11, 273-284.
63
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures
of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.
Wildschut, T., Sedikides, C., Arndt, J., & Routledge, C. (2006). Nostalgia: Content, triggers,
functions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(5), 975-993.
Wildschut, T., Sedikides, C., Routledge, C., Arndt, J., & Cordaro, F. (2010). Nostalgia as a
repository of social connectedness: The role of attachment-related avoidance. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 98(4), 573-586.
64
APPENDIX A
IRB APPROVAL
65
APPENDIX B
AGENCY AND COMMUNION ITEMS
For each item answer the question, “How does the term best fit you?” according to the following
scale:
1 = Never or Almost Never True 2 = Usually Not True 3 = Sometimes but Infrequently True 4 =
Occasionally True 5 = Often True 6 = Usually True 7 = Always or Almost Always True
Able
Active
Assertive
Creative
Independent
Intelligent
Rational
Self-reliant
Caring
Helpful
Loyal
Polite
Sensitive
Sympathetic
Trustworthy
Understanding
66
APPENDIX C
THE LIFE STORY INTERVIEW
Life Story Study
Instructions. The purpose of this exercise is to sample a key event in your life. We will be
asking you to construct your own autobiography – the story of your life as you understand it,
past, present, and anticipated future. We will be asking you to focus on one particular “episode”
or “scene” in your life story and to describe it in some detail.
People’s lives vary tremendously, and people make sense of their lives in a tremendous variety
of ways. We want to “read” your life story event as if it were a book, seeing what kinds of
characters, scenes, and themes you identify.
This life-story exercise is organized around the idea of critical events or episodes. An event or
episode is a specific happening that occurs in a particular time and place. It is most helpful to
think of such an event as constituting a specific moment in your life that stands out for some
reason. Examples might be a surprise birthday party that your friends threw for you on your 18th
birthday, or a particular conversation with your friend in November of last year.
Your last summer vacation, by contrast, is not an event because it occurred over an extended
period of time, even though it may be very important to you. Thus, your vacation would be more
like a series of events than an event per se. We want you to concentrate on a single event, rather
than on a series of events or an extended period of time.
On the following page, for the event we ask you to describe, we would like you to write a description
that is at least a few paragraphs in length.
67
APPENDIX C CONTINUED
THE LIFE STORY INTERVIEW
POSITIVE, PERSONALLY SIGNIFICANT EXPERIENCE
Many people report occasional positive and personally significant experiences. These are
generally moments or episodes in a person’s life that are positive, personally meaningful, and
represent who they are. Indeed, these experiences vary widely. Some people report them to be
associated with religious or mystical experience. Others find great joy or excitement in vigorous
athletics, reading a good novel, artistic expression, or in love or friendship. This experience may
be seen as a as a high point in your life story – a particular experience that stands out in your
memory as positive and representative of you. Please describe below in some detail a positive,
personally significant event that you have experienced sometime in your life. Make sure that this
is a particular and specific incident (e.g., happened at a particular time and in a particular place)
rather than a general “time” or “period” in your life. Think about the event carefully and then
include all of the following in your written description of the event:
1. When did the event occur? How old were you?
2. What exactly happened in the event?
3. Who was involved in the event?
4. What were you thinking, feeling, and wanting in the event?
5. Why do you think that this is an important event in your life story?
What does this event say about who you are, who you were, who you
might be, and how you have developed over time?
Life Narrative Follow-Up Questions
Please rate the degree to which the story you wrote earlier reflects the following themes:
1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = neutral 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree.
Independent Achievement
Self-reliance
Group Achievement
Care for others
Relationships
68
APPENDIX D
NOSTALGIA QUESTIONNAIRE
Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements:
1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = somewhat disagree 4 = somewhat agree 5 = agree 6 =
strongly agree.
1) Right now, I am feeling quite nostalgic
2) Right now, I am having nostalgic feelings
3) I feel nostalgic at the moment
4) I feel both longing for the past and happiness after thinking about this event
5) Right now, I do not feel nostalgic R
6) I am feeling sentimental for the past
7) I cherish this memory from my past
8) I have or wish I had a keepsake (e.g., a photo) from this event
9) I do not want or need a keepsake (e.g., a photo) from this event R?
10) I take out or would take out (if I had one) any keepsakes (e.g., a photo) from this event often
11) I look back on this event with great fondness
12) I wish I could re-experience this particular event
13) I would not want to re-live this event R
69
APPENDIX E
SELF-ESTEEM QUESTIONS
1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = neutral 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree.
1. After thinking about this event, I feel good about myself
2. After thinking about this event, I like myself better
3. After thinking about this event, I like myself more
4. After thinking about this event, I have many positive qualities
70
APPENDIX F
OPTIMISM QUESTIONNAIRE
Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements:
1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = somewhat disagree 4 = somewhat agree 5 = agree 6 =
strongly agree.
1) This event makes me feel ready to take on new challenges
2) This event makes me feel optimistic about my future
3) This event makes me feel like the sky is the limit
4) This event gives me a feeling of hope about my future
5) This event makes me feel optimistic about my future achievements
6) This event makes me feel optimistic about my future relationships
71
APPENDIX G
POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE AFFECT SCHEDULE (PANAS)
This scale consists of a number of words that describe different feelings and emotions. Read each
item and then mark the appropriate answer in the space next to that word. Indicate to what extent you
have felt like this in the past few hours. Use the following scale to record your answers.
Very slightly or not at all a little moderately quite a bit extremely
1 2 3 4 5
Interested _____ Irritable _____
Distressed _____ Alert _____
Excited _____ Ashamed _____
Upset _____ Inspired _____
Strong _____ Nervous _____
Guilty _____ Determined _____
Scared _____ Attentive _____
Hostile _____ Jittery _____
Enthusiastic _____ Active _____
Proud _____ Afraid _____
72
APPENDIX H
DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE
Please answer the following questions about yourself.
How old are you? ________
Gender __________
Which of the following best describes you? Check all that apply.
Native American __
African-American __
Latino Hispanic __
Non-Hispanic White (i.e. Caucasian) __
Asian/Pacific Islander __
Indian __
Other (please specify) __
What is the first language you learned to speak? ______
What language do you speak at home? _______
Did you have any difficulties as you completed this study? ______
73
APPENDIX I
ACHIEVEMENT LIFE NARRATIVE INTERVIEW
Life Story Study
Instructions. The purpose of this exercise is to sample a key event in your life. We will be
asking you to construct your own autobiography — the story of your life as you understand it,
past, present, and anticipated future. We will be asking you to focus on one particular “episode”
or “scene” in your life story and to describe it in some detail.
People’s lives vary tremendously, and people make sense of their lives in a tremendous variety of
ways. We want to “read” your life story event as if it were a book, seeing what kinds of
characters, scenes, and themes you identify.
This life-story exercise is organized around the idea of critical events or episodes. An event or
episode is a specific happening that occurs in a particular time and place. It is most helpful to
think of such an event as constituting a specific moment in your life which stands out for some
reason.
Your last summer vacation, for example, is not an event because it occurred over an extended
period of time, even though it may be very important to you. Thus, your vacation would be more
like a series of events than an event per se. We want you to concentrate on a single event, rather
than on a series of events or an extended period of time.
On the following page, for the event we ask you to describe, we would like you to write a
description that is at least a few paragraphs in length.
POSITIVE, PERSONALLY SIGNIFICANT EXPERIENCE
Many people report occasional positive and personally significant experiences. These are
generally moments or episodes in a person’s life that are positive, personally meaningful, and
represent who they are. This experience may be seen as a as a high point in your life story — a
particular experience that stands out in your memory as positive and representative of you.
ACHIEVEMENT LIFE STORY
Please describe below in some detail a positive experience from your life where you
achieved something. This refers to any achievement that was obtained by you. The achievement
can be tangible (e.g., winning an award) or more abstract (e.g., growing as a person, overcoming
an obstacle). Make sure that you describe a particular and specific incident (e.g., happened at a
particular time and in a particular place) rather than a general “time” or “period” in your life.
Please report when the event occurred and what happened. Also report why this is an important
event in your life story and what this event says about who you are, who you were, who you
might be, and how you have developed over time.
Please type your story below.
74
APPENDIX I CONTINUED
LIFE NARRATIVE FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS
Please rate the degree to which the story you wrote earlier reflects the following themes:
1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = neutral 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree.
Independent Achievement
Self-reliance
Group Achievement
Care for others
Relationships
75
APPENDIX J
RELATIONSHIP LIFE NARRATIVE INTERVIEW
Life Story Study
Instructions. The purpose of this exercise is to sample a key event in your life. We will be
asking you to construct your own autobiography — the story of your life as you understand it,
past, present, and anticipated future. We will be asking you to focus on one particular “episode”
or “scene” in your life story and to describe it in some detail.
People’s lives vary tremendously, and people make sense of their lives in a tremendous variety of
ways. We want to “read” your life story event as if it were a book, seeing what kinds of
characters, scenes, and themes you identify.
This life-story exercise is organized around the idea of critical events or episodes. An event or
episode is a specific happening that occurs in a particular time and place. It is most helpful to
think of such an event as constituting a specific moment in your life which stands out for some
reason.
Your last summer vacation, for example, is not an event because it occurred over an extended
period of time, even though it may be very important to you. Thus, your vacation would be more
like a series of events than an event per se. We want you to concentrate on a single event, rather
than on a series of events or an extended period of time.
On the following page, for the event we ask you to describe, we would like you to write a
description that is at least a few paragraphs in length.
POSITIVE, PERSONALLY SIGNIFICANT EXPERIENCE
Many people report occasional positive and personally significant experiences. These are
generally moments or episodes in a person’s life that are positive, personally meaningful, and
represent who they are. This experience may be seen as a as a high point in your life story — a
particular experience that stands out in your memory as positive and representative of you.
RELATIONSHIP LIFE STORY
Please describe below in some detail a peak experience from your life that revolved around
a relationship. This refers to any positive event that involved spending time with close others.
The event itself must be focused on a specific relationship (e.g., a conversation with a family
member that stands out, time spent having a movie marathon with friends, etc.). The relationship
story can focus on friends, family, or a romantic partner. Make sure that you describe a
particular and specific incident (e.g., happened at a particular time and in a particular place)
rather than a general “time” or “period” in your life. Please report when the event occurred and
what happened. Also report why this is an important event in your life story and what this event
says about who you are, who you were, who you might be, and how you have developed over
time.
Please type your story below.
76
APPENDIX J CONTINUED
LIFE NARRATIVE FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS
Please rate the degree to which the story you wrote earlier reflects the following themes:
1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = neutral 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree.
Independent Achievement
Self-reliance
Group Achievement
Care for others
Relationships

Order | Check Discount

Tags: #1 Assignment Help Online Service for Students in the USA, AI Plagiarism free essay writing tool, Australian best tutors, best trans tutors, buy essay uk, cheap dissertation writer