This article was downloaded by: [Université du Québec à Montréal]
On: 31 August 2015, At: 12:34
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick
Place, London, SW1P 1WG

MemoryPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pmem20

The chicken or the egg? Systematic investigationof the effect of order of administration of Memory
Questionnaires and Well-being Scales
a

a

a

a

Frederick L. Philippe , Nabil Bouizegarene , Valérie Guilbault , Guillaume Rajotte& Iliane Houleaa

Department of Psychology, University of Quebec at Montreal, Montreal, QC,
CanadaPublished online: 11 Sep 2014.

Click for updates
To cite this article: Frederick L. Philippe, Nabil Bouizegarene, Valérie Guilbault, Guillaume Rajotte & Iliane
Houle (2015) The chicken or the egg? Systematic investigation of the effect of order of administration of Memory
Questionnaires and Well-being Scales, Memory, 23:7, 1056-1069, DOI: 10.1080/09658211.2014.953547
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2014.953547

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)
contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors
make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability
for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions
and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of
the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of
information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,
costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution
in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Memory, 2015
Vol. 23, No. 7, 1056–1069, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2014.953547

The chicken or the egg? Systematic investigation of theeffect of order of administration of Memory
Questionnaires and Well-being Scales

Downloaded by [Université du Québec à Montréal] at 12:34 31 August 2015

Frederick L. Philippe, Nabil Bouizegarene, Valérie Guilbault, Guillaume Rajotte, andIliane Houle
Department of Psychology, University of Quebec at Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada(Received 26 February 2014; accepted 6 August 2014)

Narrative research claims that episodic/autobiographical memory characteristics and themes represent
stable individual differences that relate to well-being. However, the effects of the order of administrationof memory descriptions and well-being scales have never been investigated. Of importance, social
cognitive research has shown that trivial contextual factors, such as completing a self-report measure, caninfluence the type of memories recollected afterwards and that memory recollection can transiently affectsubsequent self-report ratings—both of which underscore that transient contextual effects, rather thanstable individual differences in memory could be responsible for the correlation between memory
characteristics and well-being. The present study examined if the order in which (positive or negative)
memory and well-being scales are completed affects the characteristics and themes of the memory
described, the scores of well-being reported and the relationship between the two. The results revealed
some effects of order of administration when memories were described before completing well-being
scales, but only on a situational measure of well-being, not on a trait measure. In sum, we recommend
assessing memory-related material at the end of questionnaires to avoid potential mood-priming effects.

Keywords: Order of administration; Episodic memory; Well-being; Narrative; Contextual effect.

The study of individual differences in autobiographical and episodic memories has developed
at a fast pace in the last decades. Many researchers now collect autobiographical narratives or
personal episodic memories in addition to selfreported attitudinal or mental health scales.
These studies seek to examine the association
between stable individual differences in memories
or in memory narratives and well-being or mental
health. However, based on past research on
factors that can affect memory retrieval processes

and on how memory retrieval can affect immediate cognitions and mood, transient effects
induced by the order of administration of thememory questionnaires could explain the relationship between memory characteristics andwell-being. Although research in the field ofindividual differences in memory narratives isburgeoning, there has never been any systematic
exploration of this critical methodological issue.
The first purpose of the present research will be
to examine if the order of administration of a

Address correspondence to: Frederick L. Philippe, Department of Psychology, University of Quebec at Montreal, PO Box 8888,
Station Centre-Ville, Montreal, QC, Canada H3C 3P8. E-mail: philippe.frederick@uqam.ca
This work was supported by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada [grant number
435-2012-1358].

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

ORDER OF MEMORIES AND WELL-BEING SCALES

memory questionnaire can affect ratings on wellbeing scales and if well-being ratings can immediately affect the type of memory retrieved (itscharacteristics) and its narratives (e.g., included
themes, coherence and structure). A second
related purpose will be to examine what memory
characteristics and themes relate to well-being,
and if their relationship is dependent on the orderof administration of the questionnaires

Downloaded by [Université du Québec à Montréal] at 12:34 31 August 2015

Research on individual differences inmemories
The investigation of individual differences in theway people recall past events has gained broadinterest recently, especially in personality, socialand developmental psychology. This research haslargely examined how these individual differences
relate to adaptive functioning such as well-being(e.g., Adler, 2011; Bauer, McAdams, & Sakaeda,
2005), maturity (e.g., King, Scollon, Ramsey, &Williams, 2000) and identity integration (e.g.,Pals, 2006). The originality of this research isthat participants are invited not only to complete
self-report scales assessing their well-being but
also to write down or tell the story of a past eventthat is significant for them (e.g., marked by great
difficulties, a life transition period, a turning point
and a self-defining event). Trained judges blind toparticipants’ self-report data, code these narratives for particular themes or structural aspects ofthe described memory. Participants can also be
asked to report on different properties characterising their memory (e.g., vividness and significance) or its related experiential components (e.g.,
emotions, psychological need satisfying nature or
motives experienced when the event described in
the memory occurred).
The guiding principle of this research is thatthe content of significant memories, their characteristics and the way they are told, reflect animportant part of who people are, of their identityand of its level of integration. It has also beensuggested (McAdams & Pals, 2006) that how
people narrate and tell the story of important
past experiences reflect a specific level of theirpersonality, distinct from traits, goals, values andbeliefs. Consequently, it is theorised that the way
themes derived from the content of these memories or their characteristics correlate with selfreport measures of well-being can reflect (1) thatpeople who show high levels of well-being interpret or integrate their life events in particular1057

ways (e.g., Bauer et al., 2005), (2) that thesememories have a directive force which influ‐
ences their well-being over time (e.g., Philippe,
Koestner, Beaulieu-Pelletier, Lecours, & Lekes,
2012; Pillemer, 2003), or (3) that the way past
events are integrated and structured promote
an integrated identity or a maturity, which is inturn reflected in well-being (e.g., King & Noelle,
2005; McAdams, Reynolds, Lewis, Patten, &Bowman, 2001; McLean & Breen, 2009; McLean &Lilgendahl, 2008).

BRIDGING TWO FACETS OF MEMORYRESEARCH
A basic, but fundamental, issue is the order inwhich the memory and the self-report scale ofwell-being are collected. It is basic in the sensethat it is a simple methodological problem. However, it is fundamental because there is evidence
from the socio-cognitive literature that the orderin which these measures are collected can lead todramatically different findings. In some studies on
individual differences in memories, participants
complete the self-report scales of well-being first(e.g., McLean & Breen, 2009; Philippe, Koestner,
Beaulieu-Pelletier, & Lecours, 2011) and are thenasked to describe in detail one or more memories.
In other studies, these self-report scales appear to
be completed last, after the description of thememory (e.g., Bauer et al., 2005; McLean &Lilgendahl, 2008). Sometimes the order of completion is left to the participants’ choice and istherefore unknown (e.g., Adler, 2011). Other
times, the specific order of completion is not
mentioned in the article.
Given the large corpus of research on how
retrieval of memories can affect subsequent
self-reports and on how attitudinal ratings can
immediately affect memory retrieval, this methodological issue appears to be of the utmost
importance in the study of stable individual
differences in memories and of their relationshipwith well-being. Unfortunately, there has neverbeen any systematic investigation of the order ofadministration of such questionnaires or interviews. Therefore, apart from the few studies
existing in the literature showing a longitudinal
relationship between memory characteristics andwell-being (e.g., Adler, 2011; Lodi-Smith, Geise,
Roberts, & Robins, 2009; Philippe et al., 2012;
Sutin & Robins, 2005), it is impossible to know if
this relationship reflects the actual effect of1058

PHILIPPE ET AL.

individual differences in memories corresponding
to a different level of the self and of personality,
or if it is only the result of a transient effect of theimmediate context in which these memories are
retrieved and described. It could also be argued
that even the longitudinal studies provide unclear
results since the initial self-report scores andmemory measures could be biased by their orderof administration, which renders it difficult tointerpret changes on these scores over time.

to write about their memories, showing a lower(higher) number of motivational themes in theirmemory narratives and reduced (increased) narrative coherence, for instance. These relationships
would not reflect actual and stable individual
differences representing personality aspects,
but would only be a transient effect induced byreporting on one’s current level of well-being
first.

Memory retrieval influences scale ratings
Downloaded by [Université du Québec à Montréal] at 12:34 31 August 2015

Factors influencing memory retrieval
This research question is important since not only
stable personality factors can influence memory
retrieval processes but also memory content. The
social cognitive literature is replete with studies
showing how external contextual factors as trivial
as a sunny or a cloudy day can influence the typeof memory that people will retrieve when
prompted (e.g., Parrott & Sabini, 1990, Study 2).
For instance, there is a vast literature on how
current mood can influence memory retrieval.
People induced with a specific mood are more
likely to recall memories tainted with that specificmood—a mood-congruent effect (e.g., Blaney,
1986; Bower, 1981; Singer & Salovey, 1988).
This effect is also complicated by various otherfactors such as the related self-aspect of thememory retrieved (Sakaki, 2007), personality
traits (McFarland & Buehler, 1998; Rusting &DeHart, 2000) or mood-regulation strategies. For
instance, it has been shown that when participants
are not aware that their mood is affected or isimportant for a subsequent task, they are more
likely to show incongruent memory recall (Parrott& Sabini, 1990) since they apparently try to
regulate their current mood by recalling memories of opposite valence (Josephson, Singer, &Salovey, 1996).
Therefore, initially responding to self-reportscales, such as those assessing well-being, may
affect people’s mood and, in turn, the type ofmemories that are retrieved, and may influence
the correlation between well-being and thecharacteristics of the memory retrieved. Consequently, a positive correlation between wellbeing and certain memory characteristics may
only imply that initially reporting low well-being
primes people to report consistent negative memories, whereas reporting high well-being may
subsequently prime people to report positive memories. People could also be less (more) motivated

The reverse effect is also well known—recalling
memories influences mood and attitude. It has
been frequently shown that recalling autobio‐
graphical memories has an effect on one’s immediate emotional experience, including physiologicalarousal (e.g., Schwartz, Weinberger, & Singer,1981) and triggers specific patterns of brain activation related to emotional processing (e.g., Labar &Cabeza, 2006; LeDoux, 1992). In fact, the effect of
personal memory recollection on mood is so strong
and lasting that it is often used as a general mood
induction procedure in research (e.g., Baker &Guttfreund, 1993). Furthermore, there is evidence
that memory sharing or writing, while evoking
emotions, may also help downplay their intensityand facilitate their regulation, especially in thecase of negative memories (e.g., Pasupathi, 2003;
Pennebaker & Chung, 2011). There is also evidence that recollecting memories can affect scoreson various subsequent questionnaires. For instance,
Salancik and Conway (1975) showed that recalling
proreligious vs. antireligious memories could subsequently affect the scores on a scale measuring
attitudes towards religion. When proreligious
memories were retrieved, a more positive attitude
towards religion was subsequently reported ascompared to when antireligious memories were
initially made salient. Another study found thatrecalling memories about introversion vs. extraversion subsequently influenced people to ratethemselves as more introverted than recalling
memories about extraversion (Fazio, Effrein, &Falender, 1981).
From a broader perspective, it has been shownthat when specific information is requested first
and then more general information is collected
second, the general information is more likely to
be influenced by the specific information provided first than if the questions were asked in thereverse order. For instance, Schwarz, Strack, andMai (1991) found that the answers to questions

Downloaded by [Université du Québec à Montréal] at 12:34 31 August 2015

ORDER OF MEMORIES AND WELL-BEING SCALES

about general life-satisfaction (general) and marital satisfaction (specific) were more strongly
correlated when the marital satisfaction question
preceded the life-satisfaction question. This isbecause the marital-satisfaction question broughtmarriage-related aspects to mind, which weremore heavily weighted as compared to otherlife domains when responding to the subsequent
life-satisfaction question. Given that episodic
memories constitute specific information, memory retrieval is likely to affect subsequent ratings
on more general self-knowledge scales. For exam‐
ple, retrieving a memory of a particular valence
may influence subsequent ratings on self-reportscales of well-being.
However, relative to the field of narrative
research, these studies in the field of social
cognition have not focused on personally significant memories as much. Memories collected fromthis latter field of research are sometimes genericor constitute simple thoughts or feelings about apast event. At the opposite, memories collectedfrom the field of narrative research correspond to
key, mostly self-defining life events, which areusually highly significant and vivid. As such,
simple scale ratings or contextual mood factors
may not be sufficient to alter the memory re‐trieval process of these types of memories. Conversely, recalling those memories may be sointense and emotional that any scales completed
subsequently could be biased by the type ofmemory retrieved. This calls for a systematicinvestigation of the effects of the order ofadministration of significant memory recollection tasks and well-being scales.

THE PRESENT STUDY
The purpose of this study was twofold. A firstobjective was to examine if the order in which a(positive or negative) significant memory andwell-being scales are completed affects the characteristics and themes of the memory described
and the scores of well-being reported. A second
objective was to examine the relationships between
memory characteristics and themes and well-being
as a function of the valence of the memory and theorder of their administration.
Participants were randomly assigned to describe
a positive or a negative memory. In addition, they
were also randomly assigned to describe theirmemory first and complete well-being scales rightafter—or the opposite—complete well-being scales

1059

first and describe their memory immediately af‐
terwards. Each memory narrative was also rated
and coded according to several characteristics andthemes. A recent literature review has shown thatthematic content of memory narratives can bedivided into four broad areas: motivational, emotional, integrative themes and structural aspects(Adler, Lodi-Smith, Philippe, & Houle, 2014). We
selected key themes within each area that havebeen shown to correlate with well-being in pastcross-sectional studies. Motivational themes wereneed satisfaction (autonomy, competence and relatedness), emotional themes were composed ofcontamination and redemption, integrative themes
corresponded to intrinsic and integrative memories
and structural aspects were coherence and word
count. Each of these themes is defined in themethod section. Furthermore, we collected selfreport data about several memory characteristics
that are frequently assessed in memory research:
the age of the memory, its vividness, significance,
its level of rehearsal and sharing with others, aswell as how frequently it spontaneously comes tomind (e.g., Alea & Bluck, 2007).
The following rationale guided us. Asking fora memory first represents the scores on memory
characteristics unaltered by any previous responses.
Conversely, the scores on memory characteristics
that are described after having responded to a wellbeing scale represent scores that are potentiallyaltered by the initial completion of a well-being
self-report. Similarly, responding to a scale of wellbeing first represents the “true” score that should
be obtained on this scale, unaltered by any previous memory description. However, the score on awell-being scale obtained after a memory description represents a score that is potentially altered bya previous memory description. As such, it will bepossible to compare the scores on well-being scales
obtained before and after a memory description.
Similarly, scores on each memory characteristic will
be compared as a function of whether the memory
was described before (true score) or after responding to well-being scales (biased score). Furthermore, it will be possible to examine whether the
relationship between each memory characteristic
and well-being differs as a function of the order ofadministration of the tasks and according to thevalence of the memory.
Finally, to examine potential biases on wellbeing assessments, we used two types of scales.
The first scale is a situational measure of wellbeing (vitality), which may be more sensitive tosubtle changes created by describing a memory

1060

PHILIPPE ET AL.

prior to responding to the scale. The second scale
is a measure of trait well-being, which shouldreflect a more stable assessment of well-being(life satisfaction). In addition, this type of scale istypically used in research on individual differences in memories (e.g., Bauer et al., 2005;
Philippe et al., 2011), thus providing an adequate
basis for comparative purposes.

METHOD
Downloaded by [Université du Québec à Montréal] at 12:34 31 August 2015

Participants, procedure and design
Final sample was composed of 262 undergraduate/graduate students (192 females and 70 males)from a Canadian university with a mean age of
27.58 years (SD = 7.58 years). A total of threeparticipants were not included because they did
not report a memory. Sample size was determined as the minimal required number of participants to perform all analyses reported in thismanuscript with a power of .80 at an alpha of .05
for small effect sizes of f 2 = .04. Participants were
contacted through their university email andinformed that we were conducting an online study
on well-being. We opted for an online study,
given that telling a memory to an interviewer
within laboratory settings can affect memory
retrieval as a function of the characteristics of
the interviewer (Pasupathi, 2001) and context.
Since the purpose of this research was to examine
the influence of the order of administration ofquestionnaires on memory reconstruction, it wasdeemed important to avoid other systematic
contextual factors of influence. As an incentive,
participants were entered into a draw of threeprizes of $125. Participants were randomly as‐
signed by an online script to complete the wellbeing scales before describing their memory(n = 124) or after (n = 138). Participants were also
randomly assigned to describe either a positive(n = 124) or a negative memory (n = 138). Given
that participants were randomly assigned to eachexperimental group by a script, the number ofparticipants in each condition slightly differs.
To summarise, the design of this experiment is
a 2 (Valence: positive or negative) × 2 (Order ofadministration: before or after). Participants
completed the trait followed by the situational
well-being scale. Following the description of
their memory, they were asked to rate a numberof characteristics of their memory (described
below).

Measures
Trait and situational well-being. Two types ofwell-being were assessed. Trait well-being wasmeasured with the 5-item Satisfaction with Life
Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985),
α = .83 (e.g., “I am satisfied with my life”) andsituational well-being was assessed with a 6-item
scale of vitality (Ryan & Frederick, 1997), α = .91.
The vitality scale asked participants to rate each
item as a function of how they were feeling rightnow (e.g., “I feel alive and vital”). Participants
were asked to rate all items on a 7-point Likert
scale (1 = do not agree at all; 7 = totally agree).
Episodic memory.
Instructions were derived
from past research on self-defining memories,that is, a type of memory that is frequently
activated and recalled and that is highly significant to the participant (Philippe et al., 2011; Singer& Salovey, 1993; Sutin & Robins, 2005). The
questionnaire asked the participants to describe“a [positive/negative] personal memory of anevent that is at least one year old which wassignificant (important) for you. This memory
should reflect your identity or who you are andshould reveal something about how you perceive
yourself generally. Choose a memory that often
comes to your mind”.
Ratings of memory characteristics.
Afterdescribing their memory, participants were asked
to rate a number of items. A first set of six items
used in past research (Philippe et al., 2011) asked
the participants to rate the degree of needsatisfaction they experienced at the moment theevent of their memory occurred. Participants
made their ratings on a 7-point Likert scaleranging from −3 (Strongly disagree) to + 3(Strongly agree), with 0 representing “Do notagree nor disagree or not applicable”— this latter
option indicating that there was both need satisfaction and need thwarting in the event or thatneed satisfaction was not present in the event.
They were provided with two items assessing
each of the three psychological needs postulated
by self-determination theory (i.e., autonomy,competence and relatedness). A sample item forautonomy is “I felt free to do things and to think
how I wanted”; for competence: “I felt skillful orcapable”; and for relatedness: “I felt connected toDownloaded by [Université du Québec à Montréal] at 12:34 31 August 2015

ORDER OF MEMORIES AND WELL-BEING SCALES

1061

one or more people”. All items were averaged in
an index measuring need satisfaction, α = .86.
Participants were also asked to rate on a Likert
scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree) various characteristics related totheir memory, such as vividness (“the memory I
have of this event is clear in my mind anddetailed”), significance (“this memory is important/significant for me”), rehearsal (“I frequently
think about this memory”), sharing (“I frequently
talk about or share this memory with others”) andinvoluntary recall (“Since it happened, the memory has popped up in my mind by itself, without
me trying to recall it”). The first four items weredrawn from the Memory Quality Questionnaire(Alea & Bluck, 2007), whereas the fifth was takenfrom Rasmussen and Berntsen (2009). Finally,
participants were asked to report in years andmonths when the event described in their memory occurred. However, this measure will not be
used in the present article.

presented in a causally and temporally logicalway), affect (use of an appropriate emotional
language which underscores why the event isworth telling) and integration (the participant
shows how the event relates to his/her broader
sense of self). As in previous research (Adler,2011), each dimension was assigned a score of
0 (low coherence) to 3 (high coherence) and all
four dimensions were averaged in a coherence
index. Finally, a word count was performed oneach memory narrative using a specific formula inMicrosoft Excel. A second judge coded 25% of
the material to obtain inter-judge reliability,
which was revealed to be adequate for eachcoding (redemption, kappa = .59; contamination,k = .58; intrinsic themes k = .90; integrated
themes, k = .70; coherence, intra-class correlation= .77).

Memory coding.
Three external trained
judges independently coded all memory narratives for the presence/absence of several themes:
Redemption and contamination, intrinsic andintegrative themes and coherence. Contamination
is found in memory description that moves froman affectively positive situation to an affectively
negative situation, in which good things turn intobad outcomes. Redemption is the opposite: The
description of the memory starts in a negative
light, but by the end of the description, thenarrator has underscored the positive things andfeelings brought by the initially negative situa‐tion. Contamination and redemption were coded
for the presence (1) or absence (0) of such asequence in the memory narrative (for further
coding detail, see McAdams et al., 2001). Memories coded as intrinsic are those that include
themes of personal growth, meaningful relationships and contribution to society. Integrated
memories are those mentioning how the person
has grown out of the experience, learned something about himself/herself or came to a new or
deeper understanding of self or others. Intrinsic
and integrated themes were coded for the presence (1) or absence (0) of such themes in thememory narrative (for further coding detail, see
Bauer et al., 2005). Coherence was coded following Adler’s coherence coding system (2011),
which divides into four categories: Orientation(sufficient background information to understandthe story), structure (story flow and scenes are

Valence and order of administration on
trait and situational well-being

RESULTS

Two 2 (Order: 0 = well-being first; 1 = memory
first) × 2 (Valence: 0 = Negative; 1 = Positive)
analysis of variances (ANOVAs) were conductedto compare the effect of the order of the description of the memory (before or after completingwell-being measures) and its valence on scores ofsituational and trait well-being (dependent variables). Results of these ANOVAs are shown in
Table 1. All effects pertaining to trait well-being
were not significant, and there was no interaction
between order and valence. This stable form ofwell-being was not influenced by the order ofadministration of the measures or by the valenceof the memory described before. In the case of
situational well-being, order of administration
showed a significant main effect. Situational
well-being was rated higher after a memory
description (M = 4.73, SD = 1.24) (positive or
negative memory) than before (M = 4.28, SD =1.17)—a difference of a medium effect size,
d = .37. There was no significant main effect ofvalence or significant interaction between orderand valence. In sum, the description of a memory
before responding to well-being scales appears
to affect the mean reported level of situational
well-being, but does not seem to impact trait wellbeing. Given that situational well-being was rated
higher after describing both a positive or a nega‐tive memory, it appears that a mood-congruent

1062

PHILIPPE ET AL.
TABLE 1F-values of 2 × 2 ANOVAs between Order and Valence on trait and situational well-being and memory characteristics
Well-being

Terms
Order
Valence
Order ×Valence

Memory characteristics

Need
Involuntary
Trait Situational satisfaction Significance Rehearsal Vividness Sharing
recallAge

No. ofwords

Coherence

1.18
0.11
0.08

0.00
3.90*
0.33

1.08
5.42*
0.44

3.42
0.12
0.55

9.21**
2.76
1.46

0.05
257.28**0.08

0.41
16.69**
0.03

0.83
0.83
0.24

0.06
4.81*
0.01

0.16
12.63**
1.15

0.71
0.71
0.21

Downloaded by [Université du Québec à Montréal] at 12:34 31 August 2015

*p < .05, **p < .01.
Degrees of freedom for each effect are F(1, 258).

effect occurred after describing a positive memory
and a mood-incongruent effect occurred after
describing a negative memory.

Valence and order of administration on
memory characteristics
The same two-way ANOVA was conducted again
with each memory characteristic as the dependent
variable (see Table 1). These analyses sought toexamine if reporting on one’s well-being before
describing a memory would influence the characteristics of the memory described. Results
revealed a significant main effect of valence onneed satisfaction, significance, vividness, sharing,age of the memory and word count. Compared toparticipants who wrote about a negative memory,
those who wrote about a positive memory
reported a memory characterised by a higher
level of need satisfaction (M = 2.02, SD = 0.81
vs. M = −0.41, SD = 1.49, d = 1.72), greater
significance (M = 6.41, SD = 0.94 vs. M = 5.81, SD= 1.35, d = .52), greater vividness (M = 6.06, SD =1.11 vs. M = 5.72, SD = 1.31, d = .28) and as being
more often shared with others (M = 4.92, SD =1.84 vs. M = 4.14, SD = 1.75, d = .43). Positive
memories also contained a fewer number ofwords (M = 122.98 words SD = 89.10 vs. M =152.52 words, SD = 103.55, d = .31) and weremore recent in age (M = 39.02 months, SD =45.94 vs. M = 49.14 months, SD = 53.04, d = .24)1
than negative memories. There were no main
effects of valence regarding the amount of
rehearsal of the memory and its frequency of
involuntary recall. There were also no main
effects of order and no significant interactions
between order and valence on all memory
1

Untransformed means are reported.

characteristics. Logistic regressions were conducted on intrinsic and integrative memories,
contamination and redemption because of theirdichotomous scores. Result revealed no significant effect of order on all variables and only one
significant effect of valence on intrinsic memories.
Positive memories were more likely to containintrinsic themes than negative memories (seeTable 2). There was one significant order ×valence interaction on redemption. Significantly
more redemptive themes were found in negative
memories when people had reported their wellbeing before describing their memory than after.
No such order effect was found for positive
memories.
Taken together, although several memory
characteristics differed as a function of the valence of the memory (need satisfaction, significance, vividness, sharing, number of words, age
and intrinsic memories), there was only one effectof order of administration on all memory characteristics. It should be noted that at least one
such order effect could be expected by chance(13 ANOVAs and regressions × 2 terms includingorder (order and order × valence) = 26 tests,
1/26 = p < .05). These largely null results suggestthat whether a memory is described after completing some well-being scales or before, the typeof memory selected by the participants and its
description is unlikely to be affected by the orderof administration.

Relationships between memory
characteristics and well-being
as a function of valence andorder of administration
Several hierarchical regression analyses wereconducted according to the following sequence.

ORDER OF MEMORIES AND WELL-BEING SCALES

1063

TABLE 2
Logistic regressions of order and valence on dichotomously scored memory characteristics
Intrinsic

Integrative

Contamination

Redemption

Terms

B

Wald

B

Wald

B

Wald

B

Wald

Order
Valence
Order × Valence

−.66
2.21
−.07

1.66
26.93**
.01

.25
.76
−1.01

.22
2.10
1.82

−19.04
.25
16.74

.22
.00
.00

.40
−.61
−1.68

1.07
1.65
4.41*

Downloaded by [Université du Québec à Montréal] at 12:34 31 August 2015

*p < .05, **p < .01.

At Step 1, valence of memories, order of administration and their interaction term (order ×valence) were entered. At Step 2, one memory
characteristic was entered. At Step 3, the twointeraction terms between the memory characteristic and order and valence (order × memory
characteristic, valence × memory characteristic)
were entered. Finally, at Step 4, the three-term
interaction between the memory characteristic,order and valence was added to the equation(order × valence × characteristic). This hierarchical regression was repeated for each type of wellbeing as the dependent variable and for eachmemory characteristic separately as the independent variable.

Situational well-being
Main effects. There were several main effectsof various self-reported memory characteristics
on situational well-being. Significance, vividness,
involuntary recall and need satisfaction were all
positively associated with situational well-being(see Table 3). Several coded characteristics werealso associated with situational well-being (seeTable 4). Integrative and intrinsic memories andword count were positively associated with situational well-being, whereas it was negatively
associated with contamination.
Interaction effects with both order andvalence.
Overall, four memory characteristics
revealed different relationships with situational
well-being, depending on both the order ofadministration and valence of the memory.
There was a significant three-way interaction
between amount of rehearsal, valence and orderof administration of the memories in predicting
situational well-being (t = 2.04, p < .05). Simple
effect analysis of this interaction revealed asignificant Valence × Rehearsal when the memory was described before completing well-being
measures (B = .42, t = 2.10, p < .05), but not
after (B = .20, t = 0.89, ns). Further analysisof this two-way interaction showed that whendescribing memories before completing wellbeing measures, rehearsal was positively associated with situational well-being when thememory was positive (B = .30, t = 2.03, p <.05), but not when negative (B = −.12, t =−0.88, ns).
There was a significant three-way interaction
between sharing of memories, valence and orderof administration of the memories in predicting
situational well-being (t = 2.19, p < .05). Simple
effect analysis of this three-way interaction
revealed that the Order × Sharing interaction
was significant when the memory was positive(B = .47, t = 2.20, p < .05), but non-significant
when the memory was negative (B = −.20, t =−0.92, ns). Further probing of this two-way
interaction showed that frequency of sharing a
positive memory was positively associated withsituational well-being when the memory wasdescribed before completing well-being measures(B = .38, t = 2.51, p < .05), but not after com‐pleting them (B = −.09, t = −0.59, ns).
There was a three-way interaction between
integrative themes, valence and order of administration of the measures in predicting situational
well-being (t = 2.19, p < .05). Simple effects
analysis of this interaction showed that there
was significant Valence × Integrative memories
in predicting situational well-being when thememory was described before completing wellbeing scales (B = 1.32, t = 2.02, p < .05), but notwhen the memory was described after (B = −.64,
t = −1.05, ns). Further probing of the significant
two-way interaction revealed that when de‐scribing memories before completing well-being
measures, integrative themes were positively

1064

PHILIPPE ET AL.

TABLE 3
Hierarchical regressions analyses of order, valence and self-rated memory characteristics on situational and trait well-being
Situational well-being
Steps

B

β

t

B

β

t

1

Valence (Val)
Order (Ord)Order × Valence

−.07
.64
−.36

−.03
.26
−.13

−0.31
3.09**
−1.21

.09
.20
−.08

.04
.09
−.03

0.44
1.01
−0.30

2
3

Rehearsal
Val × Rehearsal
Ord × Rehearsal
Ord × Valence × Rehearsal

.09
.16
−.05
.62

.08
.09
−.03
.26

1.23
1.07
−0.34
2.04*

.08
.08
.10
.41

.07
.05
.07
.18

1.12
0.55
0.68
1.37

SignificanceVal × SignificanceOrd × SignificanceOrd × Valence × Significance

.18
.40
.03
.35

.18
.18
.02
.11

2.87**
2.40**
0.18
1.07

.16
.20
.17
.47

.13
.09
.10
.15

2.10*
1.22
1.13
1.43

Vividness
Val × Vividness
Ord × Vividness
Ord × Valence × Vividness

.22
.19
−.04
.03

.18
.10
−.02
.01

2.93**
1.24
−0.27
0.11

.17
.08
.03
.52

.15
.04
.02
.21

2.35*
0.53
0.23
1.70

Sharing
Val × Sharing
Ord × Sharing
Ord × Valence × Sharing

.12
.04
.14
.67

.10
.02
.08
.27

1.59
0.24
0.91
2.19*

.18
.16
.34
.21

.15
.10
.19
.09

2.42*
1.11
2.29*
0.73

Involuntary recall
Val × Involuntary recall
Ord × Involuntary recall
Ord × Valence × Involuntary

.22
.06
.04
.23

.18
.03
.02
.10

3.03**
0.39
0.23
0.77

.21
.06
.23
.15

.18
.04
.14
.07

2.87**
0.39
1.56
0.52

Age of memory
Val × Age of memory
Ord × Age of memory
Ord × Valence × Age

.09
−.03
.06
−.35

.07
−.06
.03
−.16

1.15
−0.72
0.37
−1.15

.05
.06
.04
.02

.04
.04
.03
.01

0.63
0.40
0.25
0.07

Need satisfaction
Val × Need satisfaction
Ord × Need satisfaction
Ord × Valence × Need

.58
.02
.10
−.20

.47
.01
.06
−.07

5.86**
0.09
.47
−.41

.47
.07
.14
.40

.40
.03
.08
.14

4.76**
0.29
0.68
0.80

4

Downloaded by [Université du Québec à Montréal] at 12:34 31 August 2015

Characteristics

Trait well-being

2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4

*p < .05, **p < .01.

associated with situational well-being when thememory was positive (B = 1.13, t = 2.32, p < .05),
but not when negative (B = −.19, t = −0.44, ns).
There was a three-way interaction between
intrinsic themes, valence and order of administration of the memories in predicting situational wellbeing (t = 3.05, p < .05). Simple effects analysis of
this interaction showed that there was a significant
Order × Intrinsic themes interaction when memories were negative (B = −1.63, t = 2.77,
p < .01), but not when memories were positive(B = .61, t = 1.39, p = .17). Further analysis of thistwo-way interaction revealed that intrinsic negative memories were positively associated withsituational well-being when the memories were
described after completing well-being measures(B = 1.30, t = 3.53, p < .01), but not whendescribed before (B = −.34, t = −0.73, ns).
Interaction effects with valence. Two memory
characteristics were differently associated withsituational well-being, depending on the valenceof the memory.
There was a significant two-way interaction
between significance and valence. Simple effects
analyses revealed that significance of a positive
memory was positively associated with situational
well-being (B = .48, t = 3.13, p < .01), but notsignificance of a negative memory (B = .09, t =0.19, ns).
There was a significant two-way interaction
between coherence and valence in predictingORDER OF MEMORIES AND WELL-BEING SCALES

1065

TABLE 4
Hierarchical regressions analyses of order, valence, and coded memory characteristics on situational and trait well-being
Situational well-being
Steps

B

β

t

B

β

t

1

Valence (Val)
Order (Ord)Order × Valence

−.07
.64
−.36

−.03
.26
−.13

−0.31
3.09**
−1.21

.09
.20
−.08

.04
.09
−.03

.44
1.01
−0.30

2
3

Redemption
Val × Redemption
Ord × Redemption
Ord × Val × Redemption

.26
−.56
−.27
.39

.08
−.09
−.06
.03

1.33
−1.21
−0.65
0.41

.48
−.10
−.51
−.56

.16
−.01
−.13
.05

2.48*
−0.23
−1.29
−0.59

Contamination
Val × Contamination
Ord × Contamination
Ord × Val × Contamination

−1.06
.58
−.42
–a

−.21
.02
−.07
–

−3.48**
0.46
−0.67
–

−86
.60
.61
–

−.18
.10
.03
–

−2.88**.49.95–

Integrative
Val × Integrative
Ord × Integrative
Ord × Val × Integrative

.44
.31
−.04
1.96

.12
.06
−.01
.26

1.96*
0.69
−0.09
2.19*

.28
.23
−.43
.93

.08
.05
−.09
.13

1.27
0.51
−0.97
1.05

Intrinsic
Val × Intrinsic
Ord × Intrinsic
Ord × Val × Intrinsic

.68
.06
−.17
2.24

.26
.02
−.05
.60

3.89**
0.16−0.49
3.05**

.63
−.27
−.24
.72

.26
−.10
−.07
.20

3.71**
−0.75
−0.69
0.99

Coherence
Val × Coherence
Ord × Coherence
Ord × Val × Coherence

.15
.35
.08
.38

.09
.20
.04
.15

1.45
2.36*
0.52
1.28

.09
−.13
−.08
.31

.08
−.08
−.05
.13

1.25
−0.92
−0.57
1.04

Word countValence × Word countOrder × Word countOrder × Valence × Word

.58
.06
−.17
.16

.14
.12
−.25
.37

2.30*
0.80
−1.58
1.11

.15
.08
−.37
.57

.13
.04
−.26
.27

2.01*
0.62
−2.39*
1.75

4

Downloaded by [Université du Québec à Montréal] at 12:34 31 August 2015

Characteristics

Trait well-being

2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4

a
There were not enough contamination codings in the positive memory condition to compute the three-way interaction.
*p < .05, **p < .01.

situational well-being (t = 2.36, p < .05). Simple
effects analysis of this interaction showed that
coherence was marginally and positively associatedwith situational well-being when the memory was
positive (B = .25, t = 1.91, p < .01), but not when it
was negative (B = −.10, t = −0.82, ns).

Trait well-being
Main effects. Again, there were several main
effects of memory characteristics on trait wellbeing. Significance, vividness, sharing, involuntary
recall, need satisfaction, redemption, intrinsic
themes and word count were all positively associated with trait well-being, whereas it was negatively associated with contamination. Null main
effects were found for rehearsal, age of memory,
integrative themes and coherence.

Interaction effects with order.
There were
only two interaction effects with order and nointeraction effects with valence or with both val‐ence and order. There was a significant two-way
interaction between the amount of sharing of
memories and order in predicting trait well-being(t = 2.29, p < .05). Simple effects analysis of thisinteraction showed that sharing was positively
associated with trait well-being when the memory
was described before completing the well-being
measures (B = .28, t = 2.09, p < .05), but not whendescribed after (B = −.06, t = −0.48, p > 05).
There was also a significant two-way interaction between the number of words in memories
and order in predicting trait well-being (t = −2.39,
p < .05). Simple effects analysis of this interaction
showed that number of words in memories was
positively associated with trait well-being when

1066

PHILIPPE ET AL.
TABLE 5
Summary of all order effects with a memory characteristic on situational and trait well-being
Situational well-being (SWB)

Memorycharacteristics

Order effect memory
before well-being

Rehearsal

Rehearsal of a positive
memory is positively
associated with SWB
Sharing a positive
memory is positively
associated with SWB
Integrative positive
memories are positively
associated with SWB

Sharing

Downloaded by [Université du Québec à Montréal] at 12:34 31 August 2015

Integrative
memories
Intrinsic
memories

Order effect memory
after well-being

Trait well-being (TWB)
Order effect memory before
well-being

Order effect memory afterwell-being

Sharing positive or negative
memories is positively
associated with TWB

Intrinsic negative
memories are positively
associated with SWB

Word countthe memory was described after completing thewell-being measures (B = .36, t = 2.74, p < .01),
but not when described before (B = −.01,
t = −0.08, ns).

Summary of results
Table 5 summarises all order interactions with amemory characteristic on situational and trait
well-being. As can be seen, three order effects
in interaction with a memory characteristic
occurred on situational well-being when thememory was described before responding to thewell-being measures. In addition, these ordereffects occurred only when a positive memory
was described first. No such order effects weredetectable when a negative memory wasdescribed first. There was only one order effecton trait well-being when the memory wasdescribed first. Similarly, there was only one
order effect on situational well-being and anotherorder effect on trait well-being when the memory
was described after completing well-being scales.
At least one significant order effect was expectedby chance within each of these conditions. Overall, order of administration had little effect on
the relationships between memory characteristics and well-being measures. However, memory
descriptions completed before responding towell-being scales significantly increased theWord count in positive or
negative memories ispositively associatedwith TWB

mean level on the situational well-being scale.
In addition, this order of administration ininteraction with the valence of the memory
increased the relationship of three memory
characteristics with situational well-being. This
number of order effects is greater than what is
expected by chance on situational well-being(13 tests × 2 terms = 26, 3/26, p = .12).

GENERAL DISCUSSION
Overall, we found that the order of administration of memory and well-being questionnaires
matters, but in particular conditions. First, theretrieval of memories seems to affect subsequent
ratings of well-being to a greater extent than
how well-being ratings affect memory retrieval.
However, significant memory retrieval appears tomostly affect situational ratings of well-being(“how do you feel right now”), but much less sotrait well-being, such as life-satisfaction scales.
Indeed, we found a difference of a medium size inthe reported mean level of situational well-being
when memories were described before well-being
ratings, as compared to after. However, we foundno such order effect on trait well-being. We also
found that the relationship between certain memory characteristics (rehearsal, sharing and integrative themes) and well-being were increased
when the memory had been collected first, butDownloaded by [Université du Québec à Montréal] at 12:34 31 August 2015

ORDER OF MEMORIES AND WELL-BEING SCALES

only for situational well-being, rather than trait
well-being. We found more of such order effects
than in any other order condition and at a levelthat was over what was expected by chance—
contrary to the other conditions. As such, theimmediate effect of memory retrieval appears toaffect people’s mood or vitality rather than their
cognitions (i.e., evaluation of their life). Therefore, our recommendation is to assess memories
at the end of questionnaires in order to avoid
potential mood-priming effects on subsequentscale ratings, especially if the construct measured
by these scales can be affected by subtle moodchanges.
The present research additionally contributed
to the literature by highlighting that several
memory characteristics and themes were foundin different proportion within positive and negative memories. Need satisfaction, significance,
vividness, sharing, intrinsic themes, age of thememory and the number of words were either
rated higher or more present in positive than innegative memories. These valence effects were
found regardless of the order of administration.
These results extend past research (e.g., Rasmussen& Berntsen, 2009) by providing further information
on what memory characteristics differs as a function of valence. This can have important implications for research that seeks to tackle what aspectof a negative memory could be improved to reduce
its deleterious effect on well-being. For example,
writing about a negative memory, and potentially
increasing the number of words from its initial
narrative, appears to enhance well-being overtime (Pennebaker & Chung, 2011). Greater sharing of negative memories also seems to provide
this positive effect (Pasupathi, 2003).
The present research also replicated past
research by showing that several of the memory
characteristics and themes investigated in thisstudy were related to situational and trait wellbeing. Of importance, the present investigation
also confirmed that most, if not all, of theseassociations are not transient effects of order ofadministration, but rather represent the influenceof individual differences in memories on wellbeing. Obviously, the present results to this effectare only correlational. As such, it is impossible todetermine if people with high well-being interpret
their memories with certain characteristics orthemes or if these characteristics and themes inmemories foster changes in people that influence
their well-being over time. Recent research using
longitudinal designs suggests that both influences1067

exist (Adler, 2011; Lodi-Smith et al., 2009). For
example, Philippe, Koestner, and Lekes (2013)
found that need satisfaction in couple-related
memories collected when both partners were still
together at Time 1 predicted union dissolution
more than a year later at Time 2 (over and above
several other key relational constructs). In addition, at Time 2, when shown again, the memory
they had described more than one year ago atTime 1 and asked to rate it again for perceived
level of need satisfaction, participants who werestill with their partner rated this memory higher
on need satisfaction, whereas participants who
had broken up during the year rated this same
memory lower in terms of need satisfaction. Thus,
it seems that memory characteristics can predict
future actions and behaviours, but that theseactions in turn are likely to affect how peopleinterpret their memories.

Limitations
The present investigation had some limitations.
The first limitation is that only self-defining
memories were assessed. However, the literature
on narrative personality is replete with different
types of narrative material, including high-point(McAdams et al., 2001), therapy narratives(Adler, 2011), possible selves (King & Raspin,
2004; King & Smith, 2004) or perceptions of
personality change (Lodi-Smith et al., 2009), toname a few. Different results could be expectedwith a specific type of narrative. In the present
investigation, we used self-defining memories,
given that they constitute a common form of
memories shared by everyone. A second limi‐
tation is that our experimental design forced
participants to describe a memory of a particularvalence. Although such a design provides greater
control over potentially contaminating variables,
when exploring individual differences in memories, it is most of the time better to let theparticipant choose what memory best represents
himself or herself, which includes freely choosing
the valence of that memory. Obviously, the valence of the memory chosen represents an important part of what self-defines the person. Forcing
people to describe a positive memory while theywould have spontaneously described a negative
one (or vice versa) could have potentially lowered
the effect sizes of some of the results reported inthis paper.

1068

PHILIPPE ET AL.

Downloaded by [Université du Québec à Montréal] at 12:34 31 August 2015

Overall, the present research confirms thatseveral memory characteristics are associatedwith well-being and that these relationships are
not due to simple momentary effects of the orderof administration of the questionnaires. However,the description of a memory was shown to affectsubsequent ratings of mood-related scales, such as
scales of situational well-being. Therefore, our rec‐ommendation is to always collect memory-relatedmaterial at the end of a questionnaire to avoid
potential mood-priming effect.

REFERENCES
Adler, J. M. (2011). Living into the story: Agency andcoherence in a longitudinal study of narrative
identity development and mental health over thecourse of psychotherapy. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 102(2), 1–24. doi:10.1037/
a0025289
Adler, J. M., Lodi-Smith, J., Philippe, F. L., & Houle, I.
(2014). The incremental validity of narrative identity
in predicting well-being: A review of the field andrecommendations for the future. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Alea, N., & Bluck, S. (2007). I’ll keep you in mind: The
intimacy function of autobiographical memory.
Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 1091–1111.
doi:10.1002/acp.1316
Baker, R., & Guttfreund, D. (1993). The effects ofwritten autobiographical recollection induction procedures on mood. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
49, 563–568. doi:10.1002/1097-4679(199307)49:4<
563::AID-JCLP2270490414>3.0.CO;2-W
Bauer, J. J., McAdams, D. P., & Sakaeda, A. R. (2005).
Interpreting the good life: Growth memories in the
lives of mature, happy people. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 88, 203–217. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.88.1.203
Blaney, P. H. (1986). Affect and memory: A review.
Psychological Bulletin, 99, 229–246. doi:10.1037/
0033-2909.99.2.229
Bower, G. H. (1981). Mood and memory. American
Psychologist. 36, 129–148. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.
36.2.129
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S.
(1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 49, 71–76. doi:10.1207/
s15327752jpa4901_13
Fazio, R. H., Effrein, E. A., & Falender, V. J. (1981).
Self-perception following social interaction. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 232–242.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.41.2.232
Josephson, B. R., Singer, J. A., & Salovey, P. (1996).
Mood regulation and memory: Repairing sad moods
with happy memories. Cognition & Emotion, 10,
437–444. doi:10.1080/026999396380222
King, L., & Noelle, S. S. (2005). Happy, mature, andgay: Intimacy, power, and difficult times in comingout stories. Journal of Research in Personality, 39,
278–298. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2004.06.002
King, L. A., & Raspin, C. (2004). Lost and foundpossible selves, well-being and ego development indivorced women. Journal of Personality, 72, 603–
631. doi:10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00274.x
King, L. A., Scollon, C., Ramsey, C., & Williams, T.
(2000). Stories of life transition: Subjective wellbeing and ego development in parents of children
with Down syndrome. Journal of Research in
Personality, 34, 509–536. doi:10.1006/jrpe.2000.2285
King, L. A., & Smith, N. G. (2004). Gay and straightpossible selves: Goals, identity, subjective well-being,
and personality development. Journal of Personality,
72, 967–994. doi:10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00287.x
Labar, K. S., & Cabeza, R. (2006). Cognitive neuroscience of emotional memory. Nature Reviews
Neuroscience, 7(1), 54–64. doi:10.1038/nrn1825
LeDoux, J. E. (1992). Emotion as memory: Anatomicalsystems underlying indelible neural traces. In S. A.
Christianson (Ed.), The handbook of emotion andmemory: Research and theory (pp. 269–288). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lodi-Smith, J., Geise, A. C., Roberts, B. W., & Robins,
R. W. (2009). Narrating personality change. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 679–689.
doi:10.1037/a0014611
McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. (2006). A new Big Five:
Fundamental principles for an integrative science of
personality. The American Psychologist, 61, 204–217. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.61.3.204
McAdams, D. P., Reynolds, J., Lewis, M., Patten, A.
H., & Bowman, P. J. (2001). When bad things turn
good and good things turn bad: Sequences ofredemption and contamination in life narrative andtheir relation to psychosocial adaptation in midlife
adults and in students. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 474–485. doi:10.1177/01461672
01274008
McFarland, C., & Buehler, R. (1998). The impact ofnegative affect on autobiographical memory: The
role of self-focused attention to moods. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1424–1440.
McLean, K. C., & Breen, A. V. (2009). Processes andcontent of narrative identity development in adolescence: Gender and well-being. Developmental Psychology, 45, 702–710. doi:10.1037/a0015207
McLean, K. C., & Lilgendahl, J. P. (2008). Why recall
our highs and lows: Relations between memory
functions, age, and well-being. Memory, 16, 751–
762. doi:10.1080/09658210802215385
Pals, J. (2006). Narrative identity processing of difficult
life experiences: Pathways of personality development and positive self-transformation in adulthood.
Journal of Personality, 74, 1079–1109. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-6494.2006.00403.x
Parrott, W., & Sabini, J. (1990). Mood and memory
under natural conditions – Evidence for moodincongruent recall. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 59, 321–336. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.
2.321
Pasupathi, M. (2001). The social construction of thepersonal past and its implications for adultDownloaded by [Université du Québec à Montréal] at 12:34 31 August 2015

ORDER OF MEMORIES AND WELL-BEING SCALES

development. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 651–672.
doi:10.1037//0033-2909.127.5.651
Pasupathi, M. (2003). Emotion regulation during social
remembering: Differences between emotions elicited during an event and emotions elicited whentalking about it. Memory, 11, 151–163. doi:10.1080/
09658210244000333
Pennebaker, J. W., & Chung, C. K. (2011). Expressive
writing and its links to mental and physical health.
In H. S. Friedman (Ed.), Oxford handbook of healthpsychology (pp. 417–437). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Philippe, F. L., Koestner, R., Beaulieu-Pelletier, G., &Lecours, S. (2011). The role of need satisfaction as a
distinct and basic psychological component of autobiographical memories: A look at well-being. Journal of Personality, 79, 905–938. doi:10.1111/j.14676494.2010.00710.x
Philippe, F. L., Koestner, R., Beaulieu-Pelletier, G.,
Lecours, S., & Lekes, N. (2012). The role of episodic
memories in current and future well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 505–519.
doi:10.1177/0146167211429805
Philippe, F. L., Koestner, R., & Lekes, N. (2013). On
the directive function of episodic memories inpeople’s lives: A look at romantic relationships.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104,
164–179. doi:10.1037/a0030384
Pillemer, D. B. (2003). Directive functions of autobiographical memory: The guiding power of the specificepisode. Memory, 11, 193–202. doi:10.1080/
741938208
Rasmussen, A. S., & Berntsen, D. (2009). Emotional
valence and the functions of autobiographical memories: Positive and negative memories serve different functions. Memory & Cognition, 37, 477–492.
doi:10.3758/MC.37.4.477

1069

Rusting, C., & DeHart, T. (2000). Retrieving positive
memories to regulate negative mood: Consequences
for mood-congruent memory. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 78, 737–752. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.78.4.737
Ryan, R., & Frederick, C. (1997). On energy, personality, and health: Subjective vitality as a dynamic
reflection of well-being. Journal of Personality, 65,
529–565. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1997.tb00326.x
Sakaki, M. (2007). Mood and recall of autobiographicalmemory: The effect of focus of self-knowledge.
Journal of Personality, 75, 421–450. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-6494.2007.00444.x
Salancik, G., & Conway, M. (1975). Attitude inferencesfrom salient and relevant cognitive content about
behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 829–840. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.32.5.829
Schwarz, N., Strack, F., & Mai, H. P. (1991). Assimilation and contrast effects in part-whole question
sequences: A conversational logic analysis. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 55, 3–23. doi:10.1086/269239
Schwartz, G. E., Weinberger, D. A., & Singer, J. A.
(1981). Cardiovascular differentiation of happiness,sadness, anger, and fear following imagery andexercise. Psychosomatic Medicine, 43, 343–364.
doi:10.1097/00006842-198108000-00007
Singer, J. A, & Salovey, P. (1988). Mood and memory:
Evaluating the network theory of affect. ClinicalPsychology Review, 8, 211–251. doi:10.1016/02727358(88)90060-8
Singer, J. A., & Salovey, P. (1993). The remembered
self: Emotion and memory in personality. New York,
NY: Free Press.
Sutin, A. R., & Robins, R. W. (2005). Continuity andcorrelates of emotions and motives in self-defining
memories. Journal of Personality, 73, 793–824.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00329.x