A Prototype Analysis of Nostalgia Erica Hepper 1 , Tim Ritchie 2 , Constantine Sedikides 1 , & Tim Wildschut 1

1. A Prototype Analysis of Nostalgia Erica Hepper1, Tim Ritchie2, Constantine Sedikides1, & Tim Wildschut1 Introduction Study 3: Recall Study 4: Classification Speed • Method • 99 UK students and parents (MAGE = 30.39) participated in groups with individual computers. • Computer screen showed a series of statements (4 seconds each), embedded with central or peripheral features (e.g., ‘Nostalgia involves fond memories’, ‘Nostalgia is about childhood’). Each participant viewed half of the 35 features (50% central, 50% peripheral). • Neutral wordsearch distractor task (5 mins). • Free recall task (write down all features seen earlier; 3 mins). Correct responses scored. • Cued recognition task (presented with list of all 35 features: circle which were seen earlier). Both correct and false recognition (i.e., for features not previously seen) scored. • Results • Free recall: Participants recalled significantly more central than peripheral features, t(98) = 5.77, p < .001. • Cued recognition: Correct recognition was uniformly high, t(98) = 1.14, p = .26. However, participants falsely recognised almost twice as many central than peripheral features that they had not actually seen, t(98) = 5.56, p < .001. • Nostalgia is receiving increased empirical attention (Batcho, 2007; Wildschut, Sedikides, Arndt, & Routledge, 2006; Zauberman & Ratner, 2009). • Research suggests that nostalgia is prevalent in everyday life and serves important intrapsychic functions, such as positive affect, self-worth, social connectedness, meaning in life, and self-continuity. • However: • No consistent definition and understanding of nostalgia • historically: disease, disorder, depression, homesickness • late 20th century: self-relevant bittersweet emotion • Oxford English Dictionary: “sentimental longing for the past.” • Existing definitions are not both grounded in broad everyday understandingandscientifically rigorous. • Nostalgia may be a fuzzy category (instances are more vs. less representative). • Studies have relied on participants’ idiosyncratic and unspecified interpretations of the word “nostalgia,” clouding interpretation of results. • Research Aim: • Develop definition of nostalgia using a prototype approach. • Method • 53 UK students (MAGE = 20.0) participated individually in computer lab. • Participants were presented with words and phrases one by one in randomised order, and were asked to classify each one as quickly and accurately as possible: • Stimuli comprised 2 exemplars for each central and peripheral feature category of nostalgia (n = 70; e.g., ‘happiness’, ‘memory’, ‘ageing’) and 70 non-nostalgia exemplars (e.g., ‘pencil’, ‘street’, ‘washing machine’). • For each exemplar, response (yes/no) and time (ms) were recorded. • Results • Frequency classified: Participants classified central exemplars as features of nostalgia significantly more often than peripheral exemplars, Z = 6.28, p < .001. • Response speed: Even when verifying exemplars (i.e., responding ‘Yes’), participants did so significantly more quickly for central than peripheral features, t(52) = 5.23, p < .001. Is this a feature of NOSTALGIA? YES NO Fig. 1 Recall for central vs. peripheral nostalgia features Fig. 2 Classification of exemplars as features of nostalgia Response time to classify as feature of nostalgia Frequency classified as feature of nostalgia Study 1 and 2: Features % • Study 1:232 USA and UK residents (MAGE = 24.8) listed open-ended features of nostalgia (1752 exemplars). These were inductively coded into 35 categories, and the resulting coding scheme was applied to all exemplars by 2 independent coders. • Study 2:102 UK residents (MAGE = 23.2) rated the 35 features on a scale from 1 (not at all related to my view of nostalgia) – 8 (extremely related). Central and peripheral features were defined using median split. Study 1 frequencies and Study 2 ratings were rank-order correlated at ρ = .68, p < .001. Frequency Mean RT (ms) Total main effect: χ2(2) = 105.51, p < .001 Total main effect: F(2, 66) = 14.85, p < .001 Central Features Peripheral Features Conclusions • Nostalgia can be viewed as a prototype: a “fuzzy category” with more and less representative features. • This structure is evident in ratings, recall, and classification speed. • The prototype more closely fits recent psychological conceptualisations of nostalgia as a self-relevant emotion, than historically negative views. • Prototypical instances of nostalgia are more positive than negative, and involve missing or longing for a personally meaningful past – most often fond memories of childhood or close relationships. • A prototype approach sheds clarifying light on meaning of recent empirical findings, and may provide method to induce nostalgia more subtly and with fewer demand characteristics in future research. • Further studies underway to examine processing of prototypical nostalgia features in context of autobiographical events. 1 2 Contact: E.Hepper@soton.ac.uk