Inclusion-exclusion of positive and negative past selves: Mood congruence as information.
Abstract
The current research challenges the widespread truism that recalling a positive self necessarily increases self-esteem, whereas recalling a negative self necessarily decreases self-esteem. Four experiments demonstrate that chronically happy people show a relative increase in self-esteem by recalling either a positive or a negative self. Chronically sad people, however, show a relative decrease in self-esteem by recalling either a positive or a negative self. These effects are due to divergent perceptions of mood congruence between the recalled self and the current self. Specifically, happy people perceive high mood congruence between a recalled positive self and the current self but low mood congruence between a recalled negative self and the current self. In contrast, sad people perceive high mood congruence between a recalled negative self and the current self but low mood congruence between a recalled positive self and the current self. Independent of chronic mood, mood congruence leads to perceptions of temporal recency, whereas mood incongruence leads to perceptions of temporal distance. In line with the inclusion-exclusion model of social judgment, perceived temporal recency elicits assimilation effects on self-esteem, whereas perceived temporal distance elicits contrast effects on self-esteem.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The psychometric properties of single-item measures typically fall behind those of multi-item measures, but a large body of evidence suggests the SISES may be an exception.
“The On the Function of Self-Esteem 27 psychometric properties of single-item measures typically fall behind those of multi-item measures; however a large body of evidence suggests that the SISES may be an exception (Gebauer, Broemer, Haddock, & von Hecker, 2008;Robins, Trzesniewski, Tracy, Gosling, & Potter, 2002;Ross & Wilson, 2002).”
From Cultural norm fulfillment, interpersonal belonging, or getting ahead? A large-scale cross-cultural test of three perspectives on the function of self-esteem. (2015) · cites this paper as Gebauer, Broemer, Haddock, & von Hecker, 2008
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 75 · Cited by 35
- Authors
- Gebauer, J. E., Broemer, P., Haddock, G., & von Hecker, U.
- Affiliations
- Cardiff University (GB)
- University of Vienna (AT)
- Venue
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
- Published
- 2008
- Volume
- 95
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 470-487
- ISSN
- 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2050109757
- Cited by
- 35
- References
- 75
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 2.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
- Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Identity, Memory, and Therapy
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Keywords
- self-esteem, mood congruence, self-referential memory, temporal distance, self-concept
- MeSH terms
- Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Affect, Emotions, Female, Humans, Male, Personality Development, Mental Recall, Self Concept, Case-Control Studies
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review