Does the Age-Related Positivity Effect in Autobiographical Recall Reflect Differences in Appraisal or Memory?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Two studies examined the extent to which the age-related positivity effect in autobiographical recall is the result of age differences in appraisal and memory. METHODS: In Study 1, older and younger participants reported 1 pleasant and 1 unpleasant event for 5 days. Participants attempted to recall those events a week later. In Study 2, older and younger participants imagined that positive, negative, and neutral hypothetical events had occurred either to themselves or to an acquaintance and were later asked to recall those events. RESULTS: In Study 1, younger adults reported a complete set of positive and negative events. Older adults reported a pleasant event each day, but 38% did not report an unpleasant event on at least 1 day. A week later, older and younger adults were equally likely to recall the events they had reported. In Study 2, older adults who imagined events happened to themselves rated events as more positive in valence than younger adults did. Older and younger adults were equally likely to remember pleasant and unpleasant events at the end of the study. DISCUSSION: The data suggest that the age-related positivity effect resides in the appraisal rather than the recall of autobiographical events.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".