The effects of emotional valence and perceived life stress on recalling personal experiences and envisioning future events.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although it is understood that engaging in mental time travel to remember the past and imagine the future relies on similar cognitive processes, there are important differences. Notably, there is evidence that emotional valence differently affects how past and future events are accessed. Here, we explored the differential effect of emotional valence on past and future event generation in the context of personal stress. This is based on findings that an individual's current life stress -a metric of mental health-alters emotional mental time travel. In an online experiment conducted during the novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, 421 participants generated specific past and future events to a series of positive and negative cues and then rated the likelihood that the event would occur in the future, the emotion conveyed in the event, and the difficulty of generating the event. Participants also completed a questionnaire estimating current life stress. We found a general bias toward generating specific positive future events that was not present when generating past events. Additionally, we found a small but significant effect of stress levels on ratings of difficulty and likelihood for events generated in response to positive cues. These results provide new insight into how an individual's current stress selectively targets the way positive life events are perceived. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".