Negative moods and the motivated remembering of past selves: The role of implicit theories of personal stability.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research program explored how the positivity of people's memories of their past personal attributes is influenced by their desire to cope with negative mood states. The studies tested the hypothesis that beliefs and motives regarding the stability of personality will determine whether people idealize or derogate their earlier attributes in an attempt to repair distressing feelings. When knowledge structures or motives implying personal change are activated, people should derogate their past selves in response to negative moods; in contrast, when these factors imply personal stability, people should idealize their past selves in response to negative moods. Studies 1-3, which assessed the impact of mood negativity (neutral vs. negative) and theories (or motives) regarding personal change (change vs. stability) on the positivity of people's memories of their past attributes, supported this reasoning. Study 4 extended these findings by examining how an underlying mediating variable--mood-repair motivation--guides the effect of negative moods on recall of past selves. Implications of the results for research on temporal comparison, mood-congruent recall, and posttraumatic growth are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".