Cited by 148Nostalgia and Consumer BehaviorIdentity, Memory, and TherapyPsychological and Educational Research Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 70 of the 72 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 13 of the 86 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Nostalgia-Evoked Inspiration: Mediating Mechanisms and Motivational Implications

Abstract

Six studies examined the nostalgia-inspiration link and its motivational implications. In Study 1, nostalgia proneness was positively associated with inspiration frequency and intensity. In Studies 2 and 3, the recollection of nostalgic (vs. ordinary) experiences increased both general inspiration and specific inspiration to engage in exploratory activities. In Study 4, serial mediational analyses supported a model in which nostalgia increases social connectedness, which subsequently fosters self-esteem, which then boosts inspiration. In Study 5, a rigorous evaluation of this serial mediational model (with a novel nostalgia induction controlling for positive affect) reinforced the idea that nostalgia-elicited social connectedness increases self-esteem, which then heightens inspiration. Study 6 extended the serial mediational model by demonstrating that nostalgia-evoked inspiration predicts goal pursuit (intentions to pursue an important goal). Nostalgia spawns inspiration via social connectedness and attendant self-esteem. In turn, nostalgia-evoked inspiration bolsters motivation.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Six studies show that nostalgia is linked to and can increase inspiration, with social connectedness and self-esteem operating as serial mediators. Nostalgia-evoked inspiration also predicts greater motivation to pursue personal goals.

Key findings

  • In Study 1, nostalgia proneness correlated with inspiration frequency, \(r(83)=.23, p=.034\), inspiration intensity, \(r(83)=.30, p=.007\), and a composite inspiration measure, \(r(83)=.28, p=.010\).
  • In Study 2, recalling a nostalgic versus ordinary event raised general inspiration (\(M=3.35\) vs. \(2.72\); \(F(1,147)=12.86, p<.001\)). In Study 3, it raised specific inspiration to explore novel activities (\(M=3.71\) vs. \(3.04\); \(F(1,48)=5.64, p=.022\)).
  • Studies 4–6 supported a serial mediation path: nostalgia increased social connectedness, which increased self-esteem, which increased inspiration. For example, the serial indirect effect was \(a \times d \times f=.34\), 95% CI [0.08, 0.61] in Study 4, \(.43\), 95% CI [0.24, 0.66] in Study 5, and \(.35\), 95% CI [0.23, 0.50] in the pooled synthesis.
  • In Study 6, nostalgia increased goal pursuit (\(M=6.74\) vs. \(6.01\); \(F=5.31, p=.024\)) and inspiration (\(M=4.22\) vs. \(3.64\); \(F=4.59, p=.035\)); the indirect path through social connectedness, self-esteem, and inspiration was \(a \times e \times h \times j=.07\), 95% CI [.02, .20] when controlling for positive affect.

Methods

  • Six studies: Study 1 was a survey of 84 University of Southampton students; Studies 2–6 were experiments using nostalgia manipulations such as event reflection, nostalgic song lyrics, and narrative recall, with control or positive-event comparison conditions.
  • Participants were mainly UK undergraduates and US MTurk respondents; measures included nostalgia proneness, state nostalgia, general and specific inspiration, positive affect, social connectedness, self-esteem, and goal pursuit.
  • Main analyses used correlations, ANOVA, and serial mediation with bootstrapping (10,000 resamples); a research synthesis pooled Studies 4–6 (\(N=287\); \(N=285\) for positive-affect analyses), and alternative mediation sequences were compared using AIC and ECVI.

Limitations

  • The paper states that Studies 3, 4, and 6 had few men, that self-report measures may capture what people say rather than what they do, and that the measurement-of-mediation design cannot establish causal chains as well as experimental-causal-chain or longitudinal designs.
  • The paper also notes that future work should compare nostalgia with other positive states beyond luck and examine possible boundary conditions such as habitual worrying or neuroticism.
  • Evident from the text: the samples were mostly students or MTurk participants, limiting generalizability, and Study 1 was correlational, so it cannot support causal claims.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0146167215596985

Cites

70 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 2 not checkable

Statistics

13 tests recomputed · 0 with the reported and recomputed p on opposite sides of .05

Verification

Claims the paper makes

13 of 86 cited sources checked · 10 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

Show all 119 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 33
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 43
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 3
66 of 66
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Social connectedness is a trademark of attachment security.

    “However, social connectedness is a trademark of attachment security.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The nostalgia manipulation check is a valid measure of state nostalgia.

    “The nostalgia manipulation check followed.”
    “Correlational analyses involving the nostalgia manipulation check revealed that the more nostalgic participants felt, the more inspired they were, r(150) = .45,p < .001.”
2 of 2

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?

Statistics that don’t add up

Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.

  • Inconsistent p-value: r(83) = .30,p = .007

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .007 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .005 (two-tailed). The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .007 · recomputed p = .005

1 of 1

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Doesn’t add upr(83) = 0.3reported p = .007 · recomputed p = .005

    “r(83) = .30,p = .007”

  • Consistentr(84) = 0.64reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “r(84) = .64,p < .001”

  • Consistentr(83) = 0.23reported p = .034 · recomputed p = .034

    “r(83) = .23,p = .034”

  • Consistentr(83) = 0.75reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “r(83) = .75,p < .001”

  • Consistentr(83) = 0.28reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .009

    “r(83) = .28,p = .010”

  • ConsistentF(1, 147) = 12.86reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 147) = 12.86, p < .001”

  • Consistentr(149) = 0.41reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “r(149) = .41,p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 48) = 5.64reported p = .022 · recomputed p = .022

    “F(1, 48) = 5.64, p = .022”

  • Consistentr(50) = 0.47reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “r(50) = .47,p < .001”

  • Consistentr(59) = 0.53reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “r(59) = .53,p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 145) = 10.02reported p = .002 · recomputed p = .002

    “F(1, 145) = 10.02,p = .002”

  • Consistentr(150) = 0.45reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “r(150) = .45,p < .001”

  • Consistentr(77) = 0.4reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “r(77) = .40,p < .001”

13 of 13

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • The discussion names the wrong study as having enough men

    Minor

    The methodological section identifies Studies 1, 2, and 5 as having adequate numbers of men, but the weaknesses section substitutes Study 6. Study 6 reports 15 men, consistent with the methodological section's statement that it had fewer than 20.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 72 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Sedikides C., The handbook of positive clinical psychology
  2. Sedikides C., 2006, Affect in social thinking and behavior: Frontiers in social psychology, 197

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–146 of 146

Metadata

Authors
Stephan, E., Sedikides, C., Wildschut, T., Cheung, W.-Y., Routledge, C., & Arndt, J.
Affiliations
  • Bar-Ilan University (IL)
  • University of Southampton (GB)
  • North Dakota State University (US)
  • University of Missouri (US)
Corresponding author
Stephan, Elena
Venue
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Published
2015-07-30
Volume
41
Issue
10
Pages
1395-1410
ISSN
  • 0146-1672 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7433
OpenAlex
W1684290529
Cited by
148
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2
FWCI
16.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Nostalgia and Consumer Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Identity, Memory, and Therapy
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychological and Educational Research Studies
Keywords
nostalgia, inspiration, motivation, social connectedness, self-esteem, exploratory behavior, goal pursuit, serial mediation
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Emotions, Female, Goals, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Motivation, Mental Recall, Self Concept, Social Perception, Young Adult

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

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