The good old days and the bad old days: evidence for a valence-based dissociation between personal and public memory

Collective overclaiming is related to collective narcissism and numeracy

When asked to estimate how much their state or nation has contributed to history, people typically provide unreasonably large estimates, claiming that their group has contributed much more to history than nongroup members would estimate, demonstrating collective overclaiming. Why does such overclaiming occur? In the current study we examined factors that might predict collective overclaiming. Participants from 12 U.S. states estimated how much their home state contributed to U.S. history, completed measures of collective narcissism and numeracy, and rated the importance of 60 specific historical events. There was a positive relationship between collective overclaiming and collective narcissism, a negative relationship between collective overclaiming and numeracy, and a positive relationship between collective overclaiming and the importance ratings of the specific events. Together, these results indicate that overclaiming is partially and positively related to collective narcissism and negatively related to people's ability to work with numbers. We conclude that collective overclaiming is likely determined by several factors, including the availability heuristic and ego protection mechanisms, in addition to collective narcissism and relative innumeracy.

A preliminary experimental test of the crossed influences between the valence of collective memory and collective future thinking

This research experimentally examined the crossed influences between the emotional valence of collective memory and collective future thinking. As remembering the past and imagining the future are shaped by the present, we additionally test whether perceived anomie (i.e., perceiving present society as disintegrated and disregulated) would moderate these influences. Study 1 (N = 228 French participants) manipulated the valence of collective memory (positive vs. negative French past) to test its effect on the valence of collective future thinking. Results showed that the salience of a negative (vs. positive) French past lead to the projection of a more negative French future only among participants who perceived present society as highly disregulated. Study 2 (N = 215) focused on the influence of the valence of collective future thinking (positive vs. negative French future) on the valence associated with the French past. Results showed that the salience of a negative (vs. positive) French future lead left-wing participants to rate more positively events/figures of the French past that are usually valued by conservatives. Taken together, these studies provided evidence of conditional effects in the crossed influences between the emotional valence of collective memory and collective future thinking, thus contributing to the recent literature on collective mental time travel.

Valence and perceived control in personal and collective future thinking: the relation to psychological well-being

Prior studies have shown that people imagine their personal future to be more positive than their country's collective future. The present research extends the nascent literature by examining the valence and perceived control of personal and national future events in a new experimental paradigm, the cultural generalizability of the findings, and the relation of future thinking to psychological well-being. US college students (Study 1) and US and Turkish community participants (Study 2) imagined what might happen to them and their country in three time points (i.e., next week, next year, and in 10-15 years). They then rated the emotional valence and perceived control of the events and completed a psychological well-being measure. Both US and Turkish participants imagined their personal future to be more positive than their country's future, whereas they attributed higher perceived control to their countries for national future events than to themselves for personal future events. The positivity of national (Study 1) and personal future events (Study 2) predicted better psychological well-being, whereas perceived control did not. These original findings enrich our theoretical understanding of future thinking.

What lies ahead of us? Collective future thinking in Turkish, Chinese, and American adults

Collective future thinking, namely the anticipation of events for a group, is a relatively new research area in memory studies. Research to date with predominantly Western populations suggests that people tend to expect negative events for their country's future. In two studies, we investigated the emotional valence and perceived control of anticipated future events of one's country and examined the roles of country identification and national well-being in collective future thinking. US and Chinese college students (Study 1) and US, Chinese, and Turkish adults of a community sample (Study 2) imagined events that could happen to their respective countries in 1 week, 1 year, and 10-15 years. Participants rated each event on emotional valence and perceived control. They also completed measures for their country identification and perceived national well-being. Chinese participants imagined future events for their country to be more positive than did the US and Turkish participants, whereas US participants reported higher perceived control by their country for the future events than did Chinese and Turks. Country identification and national well-being predicted more positive future thinking and also mediated cultural differences in future-event valence and perceived country control. These original findings shed critical light on the characteristics of collective future thinking that are shaped by societal-cultural factors.

People from the U.S. and China think about their personal and collective future differently

We investigated how people think about their personal life and their country by testing how participants in the U.S. and China think about personal and collective events in the past and future. Using a fluency task, we replicated prior research in showing that participants in the U.S. had a positivity bias toward their personal future and a negativity bias toward their country's future. In contrast, participants in China did not display a positivity or negativity bias toward either their personal or collective future. This result suggests that the valence dissociation between personal and collective future thinking is not universal. Additionally, when people considered the past in addition to the future, they displayed similar valence patterns for both temporal periods, providing evidence that people think about the past and the future similarly. We suggest political and cultural differences (such as dialectical thought) as potential explanations for the differences between countries in future thinking and memory.

Implicit intertemporal trajectories in cognitive representations of the self and nation

Individual selves and the collectives to which people belong can be mentally represented as following intertemporal trajectories-progress, decline, or stasis. These studies examined the relation between intertemporal trajectories for the self and nation in American and British samples collected at the beginning and end of major COVID-19 restrictions. Implicit temporal trajectories can be inferred from asymmetries in the cognitive availability of positive and negative events across different mentally represented temporal periods (e.g., memory for the past and the imagined future). At the beginning of COVID-19 restrictions, both personal and collective temporal thought demonstrated implicit temporal trajectories of decline, in which future thought was less positive than memory. The usually reliable positivity biases in personal temporal thought may be reversable by major public events. This implicit trajectory of decline attenuated in personal temporal thought after the lifting of COVID-19 restrictions. However, collective temporal thought demonstrated a pervasive negativity bias across temporal domains at both data collection points, with the collective future more strongly negative than collective memory. Explicit beliefs concerning collective progress, decline, and hope for the national future corresponded to asymmetries in the cognitive availability of positive and negative events within collective temporal thought.

How do we remember public events? Pioneering a new area of everyday memory research

Although most of us consume news reports about public events day by day, little is known about how memories of public events are remembered in everyday life. Across three studies, we examined voluntary (deliberately retrieved) and involuntary (spontaneously arising) public event memories by directly comparing them with voluntary and involuntary personal event memories. In particular, we examined the relative frequency of public event memories, correlations with individual differences measures, the emotional tone of remembered public events, phenomenological characteristics associated with remembering, and functions of public event memories. Against a background of replications of well-established findings from the autobiographical memory literature, several novel findings on public event memories emerged: Public event memories arose both deliberately and spontaneously in daily life, but they were less frequent and less positive than memories of personal events. Similar to personal memories, frequency estimates for involuntary public event memories correlated significantly with individual differences measures of daydreaming as well as depressive and PTSD symptoms. The phenomenological characteristics of public event memories showed large differences to personal event memories. For example, they were judged to be more emotionally negative, less specific, less vivid and to come with a lower sense of reliving. Moreover, public event memories seemed to predominantly serve a social function. The results suggest that deliberate and involuntary memory retrieval of public events in daily life may support the formation and maintenance of collective memories.