When Do Older Adults Show a Positivity Effect in Emotional Memory?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Typically, positive and negative emotional items are easier to remember than neutral ones. Charles, Mather, and Carstensen (2003) reported that older adults preferentially remember positive items, but this age-related "positivity effect" has not been replicated consistently. METHODS: We conducted a close replication of Charles et al.'s study to verify that their method yields a clear positivity effect in older adults relative to the young. We also examined the role of attention, which has been argued to influence the presence of the positivity effect in older adults. We used a method similar to Charles et al. (2003). Young and older adults recalled pictures that had been encoded under full or divided attention. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Older adults showed a positivity effect, but only under full attention. Young adults did not show any hint of a positivity effect, under either of the encoding conditions. The finding of a positivity effect in older but not young adults replicates the original report from Charles et al. (2003). The attention manipulation results suggest that when the positivity effect occurs in older adults' memory, it is attributable at least in part to cognitive control during encoding. Key terms: Emotional Enhancement of Memory-Divided attention-Aging.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".