1. A Prototype Analysis of Nostalgia Erica Hepper 1, Tim Ritchie 2, Constantine Sedikides 1, & Tim Wildschut 1 Contact: E.Hepper@soton.ac.uk Nostalgia is receiving increased empirical attention (Batcho, 2007; Wildschut, Sedikides, Arndt, & Routledge, 2006; Zauberman & Ratner, 2009). Research suggests that nostalgia is prevalent in everyday life and serves important intrapsychic functions, such as positive affect, self-worth, social connectedness, meaning in life, and self-continuity. However: No consistent definition and understanding of nostalgia historically: disease, disorder, depression, homesickness late 20 th century: self-relevant bittersweet emotion Oxford English Dictionary: “sentimental longing for the past.” Existing definitions are not both grounded in broad everyday understanding and scientifically rigorous. Nostalgia may be a fuzzy category (instances are more vs. less representative). Studies have relied on participants’ idiosyncratic and unspecified interpretations of the word “nostalgia,” clouding interpretation of results. Research Aim: Develop definition of nostalgia using a prototype approach. Introduction Study 1: 232 USA and UK residents (M AGE = 24.8) listed open-ended features of nostalgia (1752 exemplars). These were inductively coded into 35 categories, and the resulting coding scheme was applied to all exemplars by 2 independent coders. Study 2: 102 UK residents (M AGE = 23.2) rated the 35 features on a scale from 1 (not at all related to my view of nostalgia) – 8 (extremely related). Central and peripheral features were defined using median split. Study 1 frequencies and Study 2 ratings were rank-order correlated at ρ =.68, p <.001. Study 1 and 2: Features Central FeaturesPeripheral Features Method 99 UK students and parents (M AGE = 30.39) participated in groups with individual computers. Computer screen showed a series of statements (4 seconds each), embedded with central or peripheral features (e.g., ‘Nostalgia involves fond memories’, ‘Nostalgia is about childhood’). Each participant viewed half of the 35 features (50% central, 50% peripheral). Neutral wordsearch distractor task (5 mins). Free recall task (write down all features seen earlier; 3 mins). Correct responses scored. Cued recognition task (presented with list of all 35 features: circle which were seen earlier). Both correct and false recognition (i.e., for features not previously seen) scored. Results Free recall: Participants recalled significantly more central than peripheral features, t(98) = 5.77, p <.001. Cued recognition: Correct recognition was uniformly high, t(98) = 1.14, p =.26. However, participants falsely recognised almost twice as many central than peripheral features that they had not actually seen, t(98) = 5.56, p <.001. Study 3: Recall 1 2 Nostalgia can be viewed as a prototype: a “fuzzy category” with more and less representative features. This structure is evident in ratings, recall, and classification speed. The prototype more closely fits recent psychological conceptualisations of nostalgia as a self-relevant emotion, than historically negative views. Prototypical instances of nostalgia are more positive than negative, and involve missing or longing for a personally meaningful past – most often fond memories of childhood or close relationships. A prototype approach sheds clarifying light on meaning of recent empirical findings, and may provide method to induce nostalgia more subtly and with fewer demand characteristics in future research. Further studies underway to examine processing of prototypical nostalgia features in context of autobiographical events. Conclusions Method 53 UK students (M AGE = 20.0) participated individually in computer lab. Participants were presented with words and phrases one by one in randomised order, and were asked to classify each one as quickly and accurately as possible: Stimuli comprised 2 exemplars for each central and peripheral feature category of nostalgia (n = 70; e.g., ‘happiness’, ‘memory’, ‘ageing’) and 70 non-nostalgia exemplars (e.g., ‘pencil’, ‘street’, ‘washing machine’). For each exemplar, response (yes/no) and time (ms) were recorded. Results Frequency classified: Participants classified central exemplars as features of nostalgia significantly more often than peripheral exemplars, Z = 6.28, p <.001. Response speed: Even when verifying exemplars (i.e., responding ‘Yes’), participants did so significantly more quickly for central than peripheral features, t(52) = 5.23, p <.001. Study 4: Classification Speed Is this a feature of NOSTALGIA? YES NO % Fig. 1 Recall for central vs. peripheral nostalgia features Frequency Mean RT (ms) Frequency classified as feature of nostalgia Response time to classify as feature of nostalgia Total main effect: χ 2 (2) = 105.51, p <.001 Total main effect: F(2, 66) = 14.85, p <.001 Fig. 2 Classification of exemplars as features of nostalgia