Cited by 14Identity, Memory, and TherapyMemory Processes and InfluencesPersonality Traits and Psychology

The role of semantic self-perceptions in temporal distance perceptions toward autobiographical events: The semantic congruence model.

Gebauer, Jochen E., Haddock, Geoffrey, Broemer, Philip, von Hecker, Ulrich·2013·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Abstract

Why do some autobiographical events feel as if they happened yesterday, whereas others feel like ancient history? Such temporal distance perceptions have surprisingly little to do with actual calendar time distance. Instead, psychologists have found that people typically perceive positive autobiographical events as overly recent, while perceiving negative events as overly distant. The origins of this temporal distance bias have been sought in self-enhancement strivings and mood congruence between autobiographical events and chronic mood. As such, past research exclusively focused on the evaluative features of autobiographical events, while neglecting semantic features. To close this gap, we introduce a semantic congruence model. Capitalizing on the Big Two self-perception dimensions, Study 1 showed that high semantic congruence between recalled autobiographical events and trait self-perceptions render the recalled events subjectively recent. Specifically, interpersonally warm (competent) individuals perceived autobiographical events reflecting warmth (competence) as relatively recent, but warm (competent) individuals did not perceive events reflecting competence (warmth) as relatively recent. Study 2 found that conscious perceptions of congruence mediate these effects. Studies 3 and 4 showed that neither mood congruence nor self-enhancement account for these results. Study 5 extended the results from the Big Two to the Big Five self-perception dimensions, while affirming the independence of the semantic congruence model from evaluative influences.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0033482

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gebauer, J. E., Haddock, G., Broemer, P., & von Hecker, U.
Affiliations
  • Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (DE)
  • Cardiff University (GB)
  • University of Freiburg (DE)
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Published
2013
Volume
105
Issue
5
Pages
852-872
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
OpenAlex
W2032732862
Cited by
14
References
7
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3
FWCI
4.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Identity, Memory, and Therapy
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
Keywords
autobiographical memory, semantic congruence, Big Five personality traits, self-enhancement, mood congruence, subjective time, warmth and competence
MeSH terms
Adult, Affect, Female, Humans, Male, Models, Psychological, Personality, Self Concept, Semantics, Time Perception, Mental Competency, Young Adult, Memory, Episodic

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