Content uploaded by Tim Wildschut
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tim Wildschut
Content may be subject to copyright.
INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS AND GROUP PROCESSES
Nostalgia as a Repository of Social Connectedness:
The Role of Attachment-Related Avoidance
Tim Wildschut
University of Southampton
Constantine Sedikides
University of Southampton
Clay Routledge
North Dakota State University
Jamie Arndt
University of Misourri—Columbia
Filippo Cordaro
University of Southampton
Individuals who are low (compared with high) in attachment-related avoidance rely on social bonds to
regulate distress, and the authors hypothesized that nostalgia can be a repository of such social
connectedness. Studies 1–3 showed a positive association between loneliness and nostalgia when
attachment-related avoidance was low, but not when it was high. Study 4 revealed that low-avoidance
individuals derived more social connectedness from nostalgia than did high-avoidance individuals. Study
5 extended these findings and demonstrated that, in addition to being a source of social connectedness,
nostalgia increased participants’ perceived capacity to provide emotional support to others. As in the case
of social connectedness, this beneficial effect of nostalgia was significantly stronger when attachment-
related avoidance was low (compared with high).
Keywords: nostalgia, attachment, loneliness, social connectedness
Nostalgia is an emotion that is said to be experienced by almost
everyone (Boym, 2001). But what exactly is the content of nos-
talgia, when is it likely to be elicited, and what does it do for the
individual? Turning to contemporary psychological literature will
reveal few, if any, answers. Although nostalgia appears to be a
prevalent experience, and draws from uniquely human cognitive
abilities (i.e., to think temporally and self-reflectively; Sedikides,
Wildschut, Arndt, & Routledge, 2006; Sedikides, Wildschut,
Gaertner, Routledge, & Arndt, 2008), its deeper psychological
ramifications have remained shrouded.
The term nostalgia derives from the Greek words nostos (re-
turn) and algos ( pain). It was coined by the Swiss physician
Johannes Hofer (1688/1934) to describe the adverse symptoms
displayed by Swiss mercenaries fighting in the service of European
monarchs. Hofer conceptualized nostalgia as “a cerebral disease”
(p. 387), and his view of nostalgia as a neurological affliction
persisted throughout the 17th and 18th century. By the early 19th
century, nostalgia came to be regarded as a form of melancholia or
depression, and it remained relegated to the realm of psychological
disorders for much of the 20th century. To some extent, this
disconsolate perspective was due to the equation of nostalgia with
homesickness. Only in the latter part of the 20th century did
nostalgia acquire a separate conceptual status (Davis, 1979).
Present dictionary definitions of homesickness and nostalgia re-
flect this distinctness. The New Oxford Dictionary of English
(1998) defines homesick as “experiencing a longing for one’s
home during a period of absence from it” and nostalgia as “a
sentimental longing for the past.”
Whereas there is now a sizable literature on homesickness
(Van Tilburg & Vingerhoets, 1997; Van Tilburg, Vingerhoets,
& van Heck, 1996), empirical research on nostalgia remains
scarce and, until recently, confined mainly to the field of
marketing and consumer preferences (Holbrook, 1993; Schin-
dler & Holbrook, 2003). Focused on accounting for the market
success of certain consumer goods, this research has demon-
strated how product styles (e.g., of music) that were popular
during one’s youth influence one’s lifelong preferences. Al-
though these findings are important, we have attempted to lay
Tim Wildschut, Constantine Sedikides, and Filippo Cordaro, School of
Psychology, University of Southampton; Clay Routledge, Department
of Psychology, North Dakota State University; Jamie Arndt, Department of
Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri.
We thank Erica Hepper for her assistance in data coding.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Tim Wild-
schut, School of Psychology, University of Southampton, Shackleton Build-
ing, Southampton SO17 1BJ, England, UK. E-mail: timw@soton.ac.uk
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2010, Vol. 98, No. 4, 573–586
© 2010 American Psychological Association 0022-3514/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0017597
573
the foundation for a broader perspective in order to understand
more fully the psychological significance of nostalgia
(Sedikides, Wildschut, Arndt, & Routledge, 2008; Sedikides,
Wildschut, & Baden, 2004; Sedikides, Wildschut, Routledge,
Arndt, & Zhou, 2009). In the present research, we built on this
foundation and examined whether the psychological signifi-
cance of nostalgia resides partly in its capacity to strengthen
social connectedness, and how this role of nostalgia is shaped
by attachment-related individual differences.
Nostalgia as a Repository of Social Connectedness
Individuals have a fundamental need to belong (Baumeister &
Leary, 1995; Maslow, 1954). This is illustrated, for instance, by
findings that individuals form social bonds with relative ease (Fest-
inger, Schachter, & Back, 1950) and resist tenaciously their dissolu-
tion (Vaughan, 1986). Under stressful or threatening circumstances,
individuals often rely on social bonds for intimacy and protection, and
those with strong social bonds experience better psychological and
physical well-being (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Sarason, Sarason, &
Gurung, 1997). Social networks, however, are not static. The deteri-
oration or severance of valued social bonds that often accompany life
transitions can make individuals feel adrift and lonely (Colson, 1971;
Sedikides, Wildschut, Gaertner, et al., 2008; Van Tilburg & Vinger-
hoets, 1997). In addition, social connectedness can be threatened by
interpersonal rejections (Williams, 1997).
Deficiencies in social connectedness are highly distressing and
elicit a range of compensatory mechanisms geared toward replen-
ishing this vital psychological resource (Williams, Forgas, & von
Hippel, 2005). Gardner, Pickett, and Knowles (2005) made a
distinction between direct and indirect compensatory mechanisms
or strategies. Direct strategies are engaged when suitable interac-
tion partners are available, and are geared toward forming or
repairing relationships with these individuals. For example, ostra-
cized participants put forth more effort on a subsequent collective
task (Williams & Sommer, 1997). Indirect strategies are engaged
when suitable interaction partners are not readily available, and
rely on mental representations of social bonds as a source of social
connectedness. For example, participants who write about a rejec-
tion (compared with an acceptance) show increased accessibility
of their group memberships, as assessed by word completion and
lexical decision tasks (Knowles & Gardner, 2008). We propose
that nostalgia, too, can serve as an indirect strategy to bolster social
connectedness. In nostalgic reverie, “the mind is ‘peopled’”
(Hertz, 1990, p. 195). By rekindling meaningful relationships,
nostalgia bolsters social bonds and renders accessible positive
relational knowledge structures (Baldwin, Keelan, Fehr, Enns, &
Koh-Rangarajoo, 1996). Important figures from one’s past are
brought to life and become part of one’s present (Davis, 1979).
In an initial series of studies, Wildschut, Sedikides, Arndt, and
Routledge (2006) provided three pieces of evidence in support of the
idea that nostalgia can strengthen social connectedness. First, they
found that nostalgic narratives typically featured the self in social
context, were focused often on close others (e.g., family, friends), and
were richer in expressions of positive than negative affect. Second,
they found a causal link between loneliness and nostalgia. Participants
in a state of loneliness scored higher on a measure of nostalgia than
those in a control condition. Importantly, loneliness predominantly
increased feelings of nostalgia for close others (e.g., “my family,”
“having someone to depend on”), suggesting that participants were
recruiting nostalgia to redress feelings of loneliness. Third, they found
that nostalgia strengthened social bonds. In three studies, participants
brought to mind either a nostalgic or an ordinary event in their lives
and then completed measures of positive and negative affect, self-
esteem, and social connectedness. Participants in the nostalgia condi-
tion scored higher on multiple and convergent measures of positive
(but not negative) affect, self-esteem, and social connectedness. More
recently, Zhou, Sedikides, Wildschut, and Gao (2008) examined
the role of nostalgia in the regulation of loneliness in several Chinese
samples (i.e., secondary school children, university students, factory
workers). In four studies, they found that, whereas the direct effect of
loneliness was to reduce perceptions of social support, there was also
a directionally opposite indirect effect of loneliness on perceived
social support via nostalgia. Specifically, loneliness increased nostal-
gia, and nostalgia, in turn, increased perceptions of social support.
Prior research findings are thus consistent with the idea that
nostalgia can serve to regulate loneliness by strengthening social
connectedness. Indeed, lonely individuals may gravitate toward
nostalgia because alternative, more direct compensatory strategies
are not viable in the absence of suitable interaction partners (Gard-
ner et al., 2005). These findings, however, do not address well-
documented attachment-related differences in the way individuals
regulate psychological distress (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, &
Wall, 1978). The key objective of the present research was to
examine whether such attachment-related differences influence the
degree to which individuals regulate loneliness by using nostalgia
as a source of social connectedness.
Attachment and Distress Regulation
According to attachment theory (Bartholomew & Horowitz,
1991; Bowlby, 1982; Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998; Fraley &
Shaver, 2000; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003), individual differences
in reactions to distress are a manifestation of two underlying
dimensions: attachment-related anxiety (anxiety) and attachment-
related avoidance (avoidance). The former reflects the extent to
which the self is seen as worthy of love and support, whereas the
latter reflects the extent to which others are seen as responsive to
one’s distress. These internal working models of self and others
begin to develop early in life in response to experiences with
attachment figures (Ainsworth et al., 1978) and are thought to
remain relatively stable across time (Sharfe & Bartholomew,
1994). This implies that, just as individual differences in anxiety
and avoidance shape interactions between child and caregiver,
such differences affect how individuals regulate distress and felt
insecurity later in life.
There is abundant empirical evidence that attachment-related
avoidance influences the degree to which individuals rely on social
bonds to regulate distress. Consistent with the idea that high-
avoidance (compared with low-avoidance) individuals view others
as unavailable or unresponsive, research shows that these individ-
uals rely less on social bonds to regulate distress (Feeney, 2006;
Mikulincer & Shaver, 2008). Of importance, research has also
revealed that avoidance interacts with distress to shape support
seeking (Collins & Feeney, 2000; Fraley & Shaver, 1998; Simp-
son, Rholes, & Nelligan, 1992). That is, the positive association
574 WILDSCHUT, SEDIKIDES, ROUTLEDGE, ARNDT, AND CORDARO
between psychological distress and support seeking is stronger for
low-avoidance individuals, who see others as responsive, than for
high-avoidance individuals, who see others as unresponsive. To
the extent that nostalgia serves to strengthen social bonds, one
would therefore expect the positive association between loneliness
(a potent form of psychological distress) and nostalgia to be
stronger when avoidance is low rather than high.
It is less clear whether attachment-related anxiety also influ-
ences the degree to which individuals rely on social bonds to
regulate distress. Whereas some studies have found a negative
association between anxiety and support seeking (Florian, Miku-
lincer, & Bucholtz, 1995), other studies have found a positive
association between anxiety and support seeking (Ognibene &
Collins, 1998), and still other studies have found no association
between the two (Collins & Feeney, 2000; Larose, Boivin, &
Doyle, 2001; Simpson et al., 1992). One factor that complicates
the relation between anxiety and support seeking is that support
seeking may not only reflect the high confidence in the availability
of others that is characteristic of secure attachment (low anxiety
and low avoidance) but may also reflect the hypervigilance regard-
ing the availability of others that is characteristic of high anxiety
(Feeney, 2006). Whether support seeking reflects confidence or
hypervigilance may depend on a host of contextual factors. The
task of identifying these contextual factors presents an interesting
challenge for future research but falls outside the scope of the
present article. Suffice it to say that the extant literature does not
provide a strong basis for predicting whether or how anxiety might
shape the relation between loneliness and nostalgia. We therefore
treated this as an open question.
Overview
We present five studies that addressed three interrelated ques-
tions. The first question is whether loneliness elicits nostalgia and,
specifically, whether the tendency to respond to loneliness by
seeking refuge in nostalgia is influenced by attachment-related
individual differences. In Study 1, we asked participants to write
about the circumstances under which they become nostalgic and
then coded the responses for instances in which participants iden-
tified loneliness as a trigger of nostalgia. We then examined
whether attachment-related individual differences predicted how
likely participants were to identify loneliness as a trigger of nos-
talgia. In Study 2, we measured how often participants felt lonely
(differentiating between different facets of loneliness) and how
frequently they experienced nostalgia. We then tested whether the
strength of the association between loneliness facets and nostalgia
varied as a function of attachment-related individual differences.
Study 3 was an experiment examining whether the effect of
manipulated relational connectedness (a specific facet of loneli-
ness) on nostalgia was moderated by attachment-related individual
differences. Studies 1–3 are thus positioned to address the foun-
dational question of whether nostalgia is more strongly triggered
by loneliness among low-avoidance (compared with high-
avoidance) persons.
The second question we sought to address concerned the func-
tional impact of nostalgia. We examined whether low-avoidance
(compared with high-avoidance) individuals are more apt to har-
ness nostalgia as a source of social connectedness. Study 4 thus
extended the analysis by assessing whether manipulated nostalgia
uniquely strengthened feelings of social connectedness among
low-avoidance (compared with high-avoidance) participants.
The third guiding question we examined was whether the potential
utility of nostalgia extends beyond increasing perceived social con-
nectedness. We turned our attention to a key ingredient in the forma-
tion and maintenance of interpersonal relationships: perceived com-
petence in providing emotional support to others (Buhrmester,
Furman, Wittenberg, & Reis, 1988). In Study 5, we assessed whether
manipulated nostalgia uniquely strengthened perceived competence in
providing emotional support to others among low-avoidance (com-
pared with high-avoidance) participants.
Study 1
In Study 1, we asked participants to describe the circumstances
under which they become nostalgic. We hypothesized that, if
nostalgia serves as a source of social connectedness and if low-
avoidance (compared with high-avoidance) individuals are more
likely to regulate feelings of loneliness by relying on social bonds,
then low-avoidance (compared with high-avoidance) individuals
should more frequently identify loneliness as a trigger of nostalgia.
Method
Participants. Participants were 102 female undergraduate stu-
dents enrolled at the University of Southampton, who received
course credit.
Procedure and materials. Materials were administered in ses-
sions ranging in size from 1 to 8 participants. Participants were seated
at desks separated by partitions and completed the materials anony-
mously and at their own pace. First, they completed the Revised
Experiences in Close Relationships Scale (ECR-R; Fraley, Waller, &
Brennan, 2000), a 36-item measure assessing the dimensions of
avoidance (e.g., “I am very uncomfortable with being close to roman-
tic partners”) and anxiety (e.g., “I worry that romantic partners won’t
care about me as much as I care about them”). Items were rated on a
7-point scale (1 ⫽strongly disagree;7⫽strongly agree). The
ECR-R yielded reliable measures of avoidance (␣⫽.90, M⫽2.86,
SD ⫽0.98) and anxiety (␣⫽.94, M⫽3.39, SD ⫽1.26).
Next, participants described the circumstances under which they
become nostalgic. Exact instructions read: “When do you bring to
mind nostalgic experiences? What seems to trigger your memory
of the nostalgic experiences? That is, under which circumstances
do you think of nostalgic experiences?” A research assistant coded
(0 ⫽absent;1⫽present) participants’ descriptions for instances
in which loneliness was identified as a trigger of nostalgia (e.g.,
“Thinking of my parents makes me feel secure, so if I’m feeling
lonely I may think of past experiences with them”; “If I ever feel
lonely or sad, I tend to think of my friends or family who I haven’t
seen for a long time”; “Nostalgia is triggered when perhaps you
may feel isolated from the world”; “When I am missing someone,
for example my family, I will often feel nostalgic for shared
experiences from the past”). A second research assistant coded a
subset of 10 descriptions. There was perfect agreement between
the two coders for this subset.
575
NOSTALGIA
Results and Discussion
We entered loneliness codes into an Avoidance ⫻Anxiety
logistic regression analysis.
1
Results revealed a significant nega-
tive association between avoidance and loneliness being coded
“present” (odds ratio ⫽0.39, B⫽⫺0.94, SE ⫽0.47),
2
(1, N⫽
102) ⫽3.97, p⬍.05. Relative to high-avoidance participants,
low-avoidance participants were more likely to identify loneliness
as a trigger of nostalgia. The predicted probability of loneliness
being coded “present” was 25% for low-avoidance participants
(⫺1SD) and 5% for high-avoidance participants (⫹1SD). The
association between anxiety and loneliness was not significant
(odds ratio ⫽1.42, B⫽0.35, SE ⫽0.34),
2
(1, N⫽102) ⫽1.08,
p⬍.30. Finally, the Avoidance ⫻Anxiety interaction was not
significant (odds ratio ⫽0.58, B⫽⫺0.54, SE ⫽0.38),
2
(1, N⫽
102) ⫽2.07, p⬍.16.
These findings provide encouraging preliminary evidence for
the idea that low-avoidance (compared with high-avoidance) indi-
viduals are more likely to respond to loneliness by seeking refuge
in nostalgic reverie. Nevertheless, a critical limitation of Study 1 is
that it treated loneliness as a unitary construct. There is evidence
to suggest that individuals conceive of their social relationships (or
lack thereof) as multifaceted. Hawkley, Browne, and Cacioppo
(2005) examined individuals’ representations of their social rela-
tionships (or lack thereof) by factor analyzing the UCLA Loneli-
ness Scale (Russell, 1996), a 20-item questionnaire measuring
feelings of social isolation and dissatisfaction with one’s level of
belongingness. Their results supported the conceptualization of
loneliness-connectedness as “a coherent mental representation
with three separable facets that are subordinate to a single over-
arching loneliness construct” (p. 800). The three facets were la-
beled Isolation, reflecting feelings of aloneness, anonymity, and
withdrawal; Relational Connectedness, corresponding to familiar-
ity, intimacy, and support; and Collective Connectedness, dealing
with feelings of group cohesion and similarity. Hawkley et al.
proposed that these three facets of loneliness-connectedness cor-
respond to self-definition at the individual, relational, and collec-
tive level, respectively (Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Sedikides &
Brewer, 2001). By distinguishing between the Isolation, Relational
Connectedness, and Collective Connectedness facets of loneliness-
connectedness, Study 2 sought to achieve a more detailed under-
standing of the association between loneliness and nostalgia, and
of how this association might vary as a function of attachment-
related individual differences.
Another limitation of Study 1 is that it involved female partic-
ipants only. The reason for restricting data collection to women in
this preliminary study was the high female-to-male ratio in our
participant pool (⬇8:1). In Study 2, we partially succeeded in
recruiting a greater proportion of male participants by conducting
the study on University visit days.
Study 2
The first objective of Study 2 was to offer a conceptual repli-
cation of the Study 1 finding that participants who were low
(compared with high) in avoidance more frequently identified
loneliness as a trigger of nostalgia. If low-avoidance (compared
with high-avoidance) individuals are more likely to respond to
loneliness by harnessing nostalgia as a source of social connect-
edness, then there should be a particularly strong positive associ-
ation between the experience of loneliness and the experience of
nostalgia when avoidance is low (compared with high). The sec-
ond objective of Study 2 was to differentiate between the three
facets of loneliness-connectedness identified by Hawkley et al.
(2005). This allowed us to examine which, if any, of these facets
interacts most strongly with avoidance to predict the frequency of
nostalgia.
Method
Participants. One hundred thirty-two individuals (105
women, 27 men) served as participants. Eighty-nine (76 women,
13 men) were University of Southampton undergraduate students
who received course credit. Twenty-two (18 women, 4 men) were
prospective students, and 21 (11 women, 10 men) were these
students’ parents/guardians. Mean participant age was 24 years
(SD ⫽11.31). Prospective students and their parents/guardians
(during a visit to the University of Southampton) were recruited in
an effort to increase the number of male participants. Preliminary
analyses revealed that there was no significant gender difference in
frequency of nostalgia and that gender did not qualify the statis-
tically significant findings reported below. We therefore omitted
gender from the reported analyses.
Procedure and materials. Participants were seated at desks
and completed the materials anonymously and at their own pace.
Participants first completed the ECR-R, yielding reliable assessments
of avoidance (␣⫽.94, M⫽2.70, SD ⫽1.06) and anxiety (␣⫽.94,
M⫽3.22, SD ⫽1.27). Next, participants completed the UCLA
Loneliness Scale (Version 3; Russell, 1996). This scale comprises 20
items that were rated on a 4-point scale (1 ⫽never;4⫽always). In
addition to calculating an overall loneliness score (␣⫽.92, M⫽2.06,
SD ⫽0.45), scores for Isolation (e.g., “How often do you feel isolated
from others”; ␣⫽.88, M⫽2.31, SD ⫽0.51), Relational Connect-
edness (e.g., “How often do you feel there are people who really
understand you”; ␣⫽.85, M⫽1.68, SD ⫽0.53), and Collective
Connectedness (“How often do you feel you have a lot in common
with the people around you”; ␣⫽.74, M⫽1.84, SD ⫽0.45) were
also calculated. Finally, participants completed two items that as-
sessed the frequency with which they experience nostalgia. The first
item was “Generally speaking, how often do you bring to mind
nostalgic experiences?” This item was rated on a 7-point scale (1⫽
very rarely;7⫽very frequently). The second item was “Specifically,
how often do you bring to mind nostalgic experiences?” For this item,
participants checked one of the following seven response options:
once or twice a year,once every couple of months,once or twice a
month, approximately once a week,approximately twice a week,three
to four times a week, and at least once a day. These options were
scored 1 through 7. The two items were highly correlated, r(132) ⫽
.68, p⬍.001, and were averaged to create a composite score (M⫽
4.47, SD ⫽1.37).
1
In this, and all subsequent studies, statistical analyses involved mean-
centered measures of avoidance and anxiety. We estimated main effects
and interactions simultaneously in all studies, but we obtained essentially
identical findings when we performed hierarchical analyses in which we
entered main effects on the first step, two-way interactions on the second
step, and (where applicable) the three-way interaction on the third step.
576 WILDSCHUT, SEDIKIDES, ROUTLEDGE, ARNDT, AND CORDARO
Results
The UCLA Loneliness Scale. We entered frequency of nostal-
gia as the dependent variable in a Loneliness ⫻Avoidance ⫻Anxiety
multiple regression analysis. Results revealed a marginal positive
association between loneliness and nostalgia (⫽.19), F(1, 124) ⫽
3.09, p⬍.09. More important, there was a significant Loneliness ⫻
Avoidance interaction (⫽⫺.25), F(1, 124) ⫽4.52, p⬍.05. Tests
of simple effects revealed a positive association between loneliness
and nostalgia when avoidance was low (⫺1SD;⫽.46), F(1,
124) ⫽6.06, p⬍.05, but no significant association when avoidance
was high (⫹1SD;⫽⫺.07), F(1, 124) ⫽0.13, p⬍.72. Further-
more, there was a significant negative association between avoidance
and nostalgia when loneliness was high (⫽⫺.32), F(1, 124) ⫽
4.60, p⬍.05, but no significant association when loneliness was low
(⫽.21), F(1, 124) ⫽1.10, p⬍.30.
Loneliness-connectedness facets. To gain a more fine-
grained understanding of which loneliness-connectedness facet
identified by Hawkley et al. (2005) was associated with nostalgia
for low-avoidance persons, we repeated our analyses separately for
each facet. We depict relevant findings in Figure 1. Plotted values
are predicted means conditioned at one standard deviation above
and below the mean of avoidance and one standard deviation
above and below the mean of Isolation (top left panel), Relational
Connectedness (top right panel), and Collective Connectedness
(bottom panel).
Isolation. An Isolation ⫻Avoidance ⫻Anxiety multiple re-
gression analysis revealed a marginal positive association of iso-
lation with nostalgia (⫽.19), F(1, 124) ⫽2.86, p⬍.10, and a
significant Isolation ⫻Avoidance interaction, F(1, 124) ⫽3.93,
p⬍.05. There was a significant positive association between
isolation and nostalgia when avoidance was low (⫽.44), F(1,
124) ⫽5.66, p⬍.05, but no significant association when avoid-
ance was high (⫽⫺.06), F(1, 124) ⫽0.13, p⬍.72. Further-
more, there was a negative association between avoidance and
nostalgia when isolation was high (⫽⫺.28), F(1, 124) ⫽3.84,
Figure 1. Frequency of nostalgia as a function of attachment-related avoidance and three loneliness-
connectedness facets: Isolation (top left panel), Relational Connectedness (top right panel), and Collective
Connectedness (bottom panel).
577
NOSTALGIA
p⫽.052, but no significant association when isolation was low
(⫽.22), F(1, 124) ⫽1.06, p⬍.31.
Relational connectedness. A Relational Connectedness ⫻
Avoidance ⫻Anxiety multiple regression analysis revealed a
significant Relational Connectedness ⫻Avoidance interaction
only, F(1, 124) ⫽5.10, p⬍.05. There was a significant positive
association between deficiencies in relational connectedness and
nostalgia when avoidance was low (⫽.40), F(1, 124) ⫽5.45,
p⬍.05, but no significant association when avoidance was high
(⫽⫺.16), F(1, 124) ⫽1.08, p⬍.31. Furthermore, there was a
significant negative association between avoidance and nostalgia
when deficiencies in relational connectedness were high (⫽
⫺.42), F(1, 124) ⫽6.66, p⬍.05, but no significant association
when deficiencies in relational connectedness were low (⫽.13),
F(1, 124) ⫽0.58, p⬍.45.
Collective connectedness. Finally, a Collective Connected-
ness ⫻Avoidance ⫻Anxiety multiple regression analysis re-
vealed a significant positive association between anxiety and nos-
talgia only (⫽.24), F(1, 124) ⫽4.49, p⬍.05. The Collective
Connectedness ⫻Avoidance interaction was not significant, F(1,
124) ⫽0.03, p⬍.87.
Supplementary analyses. The Isolation and Relational Con-
nectedness facets produced parallel results and were highly corre-
lated, r(132) ⫽.70. We therefore wanted to assess the extent to
which their respective contributions in predicting nostalgia were
nonoverlapping. To do so, we first regressed each facet onto the
remaining two facets. We then treated the residuals from theses
analyses as independent variables in models that also included
avoidance and anxiety. Frequency of nostalgia was the dependent
variable. An Isolation Residuals ⫻Avoidance ⫻Anxiety multiple
regression analysis revealed no significant effects, Fs(1, 124) ⬍
2.37, ps⬎.10. Specifically, the Isolation Residuals ⫻Avoidance
interaction was not significant, F(1, 124) ⫽0.26, p⬍.61. A
Relational Connectedness Residuals ⫻Avoidance ⫻Anxiety mul-
tiple regression analysis, however, revealed that the Relational
Connectedness Residuals ⫻Avoidance interaction was significant,
F(1, 124) ⫽5.38, p⬍.05. These findings indicate that the
previously significant Isolation ⫻Avoidance interaction, but not
the Relational Connectedness ⫻Avoidance interaction, is attrib-
utable to overlap between the Isolation and Relational Connected-
ness facets.
Discussion
The key objective of Study 2 was to develop a fine-grained
picture of the association between loneliness and nostalgia as a
function of avoidance (and anxiety). To achieve this, we distin-
guished between three facets of loneliness-connectedness identi-
fied by Hawkley et al. (2005). We found that deficiencies in
relational connectedness were positively associated with nostalgia
when avoidance was low but not when avoidance was high. This
finding substantiates the idea that low-avoidance persons are more
likely to redress deficiencies in social connectedness—particularly
those relating to lack of familiarity, intimacy, and emotional sup-
port— by drawing upon nostalgia.
We also found that avoidance was negatively associated with
nostalgia when deficiencies in relational connectedness were high
but not when they were low. Assuming that the attachment-
behavioral system is more strongly activated when deficiencies in
relational connectedness are high (compared with low), this find-
ing supports the idea that attachment-related individual differences
in psychological functioning are manifested most clearly when the
attachment-behavioral system is strongly activated (Mikulincer &
Shaver, 2003).
Irrespective of attachment-related individual differences, defi-
ciencies in collective connectedness were not associated with
increased nostalgia. An explanation for this finding is that, unlike
relational connectedness, collective connectedness can be easily
replenished by means of direct compensatory strategies. Joining a
new sports club, for instance, is much easier than finding a suitable
person to fill the role of close friend, caregiver, or partner. Re-
dressing deficiencies in collective connectedness would therefore
be less likely to necessitate indirect compensatory strategies, such
as nostalgia, that rely on mental representations of social bonds.
Study 2 has at least two limitations. First, evidence for the link
between deficiencies in relational connectedness and nostalgia
among low-avoidance persons was correlational. This opens the
door to alternative explanations of our findings (e.g., nostalgia
increasing perceived deficiencies in relational connectedness,
rather than the reverse). We addressed this limitation in Study 3 by
experimentally manipulating social connectedness. Second, we did
not provide participants with a formal definition of nostalgia. This
limitation also applies to Study 1. Wildschut et al. (2006) obtained
parallel results in studies that did and did not include a definition
of nostalgia (Studies 5– 6). Nonetheless, it is crucial to rule out the
possibility that the present findings stem from a peculiar concep-
tualization of nostalgia specific to our samples. Therefore, the
nostalgia assessment in Study 3 was preceded by a dictionary
definition of nostalgia.
Study 3
Study 2 findings underscored the importance of feelings of
familiarity, intimacy, and emotional support encompassed by re-
lational connectedness. In Study 3, we therefore sought to imple-
ment a manipulation of social connectedness tailored specifically
to produce variation in relational connectedness, and to examine its
impact on in-the-moment feelings of nostalgia (i.e., state nostal-
gia). Burgeoning interest in the adverse psychological effects of
social exclusion has stimulated the development of inventive ex-
perimental manipulations (Leary, Tambor, Terdal, & Downs,
1995; Twenge, Baumeister, Tice, & Stucke, 2001; Williams,
Cheung, & Choi, 2000; Williams & Sommer, 1997). What many
of these manipulations have in common is that participants are
excluded (vs. included) by anonymous others or others with whom
they shared only a superficial level of acquaintanceship. This is not
meant to say that such manipulations are weak, because even
social exclusion at zero acquaintance can have profound psycho-
logical consequences (Williams et al., 2000). Still, such manipu-
lations may have a relatively stronger impact on collective con-
nectedness than on relational connectedness, to use Hawkley et
al.’s (2005) terms. Indeed, relational connectedness may be diffi-
cult to manipulate experimentally, because participants would
strongly resist any suggestion that those to whom they feel closest
(e.g., romantic partners, family members, friends) harbor negative
feelings toward them.
There is, however, a validated manipulation of social connect-
edness that targets relational connectedness. This manipulation,
578 WILDSCHUT, SEDIKIDES, ROUTLEDGE, ARNDT, AND CORDARO
which was introduced by Twenge et al. (2001) and has since been
implemented in numerous studies (Twenge, 2008), involves a
basic contrast between a future alone and a future belonging
condition. In the future alone condition, participants received a
bogus personality profile indicating that they would end up alone
later in life and would not have lasting friendships, relationships,
or marriages. In the future belonging condition, participants were
told that they were the type of person who would have rewarding
friendships and relationships throughout life and would have sta-
ble, enduring marriages. By projecting deficiencies in relational
connectedness into the future, this manipulation circumvents the
aforementioned credibility problem that would arise if participants
were told that close others harbored negative feelings toward them.
In light of Study 2 findings, we thought that this particular ma-
nipulation of social connectedness was best suited to our purposes.
Method
Participants and design. Participants were 97 University of
Southampton undergraduates (86 women, 11 men), who received
course credit. Participants were assigned randomly to one of two
experimental conditions (future alone vs. future belonging). In
addition, avoidance and anxiety were assessed at the beginning of
the experimental session. Preliminary analyses revealed that there
was a marginal gender difference in state nostalgia only and that
gender did not qualify the statistically significant findings reported
below.
2
We therefore omitted gender from the reported analyses.
Procedure and materials. Participants were seated in indi-
vidual cubicles. They first completed the ECR-R and the Eysenck
Personality Questionnaire (EPQ; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975). The
ECR-R yielded reliable assessments of avoidance (␣⫽.96, M⫽
2.62, SD ⫽0.93) and anxiety (␣⫽.90, M⫽2.95, SD ⫽0.78).
The EPQ was administered to set the stage for the experimental
manipulation of relational connectedness adopted from Twenge et
al. (2001, Studies 1–3). Participants received false feedback re-
garding their “personality type.” To bolster the credibility of this
feedback, the experimenter first provided participants with accu-
rate information regarding their level of extraversion, as assessed
by the EPQ. Participants then received randomly assigned false
information regarding the implications of this extraversion score
for their future belongingness. In the future alone condition, par-
ticipants were told the following:
You’re the type who will end up alone later in life. You may have
friends and relationships now, but by your mid 20s most of these will
have drifted away. You may even marry or have several marriages,
but these are likely to be short-lived and not continue into your 30s.
Relationships don’t last, and when you’re past the age where people
are constantly forming new relationships, the odds are you’ll end up
being alone more and more.
In the future belonging condition, participants were told the fol-
lowing:
You’re the type who has rewarding relationships throughout life.
You’re likely to have a long and stable marriage, and have friendships
that will last into your later years. The odds are that you’ll always
have friends and people who care about you.
After receiving this feedback, participants read the definition of
nostalgia as given in The New Oxford Dictionary (1998) (“The
Oxford Dictionary defines nostalgia as ‘a sentimental longing for
the past’”) and then completed a validated three-item measure
assessing state nostalgia (Wildschut et al., 2006). Items read as
follows: “Right now, I am feeling quite nostalgic”; “Right now, I
am having nostalgic feelings”; and “I feel nostalgic at the mo-
ment.” Ratings were made on a 6-point scale (1 ⫽strongly
disagree,6⫽strongly agree). The items were averaged to create
a state nostalgia score (␣⫽.98, M⫽4.38, SD ⫽1.43).
Results and Discussion
We entered the state nostalgia score as a dependent variable into
a Relational Connectedness (future alone vs. future belonging) ⫻
Avoidance ⫻Anxiety analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Results
revealed a significant Relational Connectedness ⫻Avoidance
interaction only, F(1, 89) ⫽4.18, p⬍.05. Relevant predicted
means are presented in Table 1. Tests of simple effects showed that
participants in the future alone condition scored higher on nostal-
gia than did participants in the future belonging condition when
avoidance was low (⫺1SD), F(1, 89) ⫽5.88, p⬍.05, but not
when it was high (⫹1SD), F(1, 89) ⫽0.26, p⬍.62.
3
These findings further corroborate the idea that low-avoidance
persons are more inclined to regulate deficiencies in relational
connectedness by drawing upon nostalgia. It is worth noting that,
unlike participants in Studies 1–2, Study 3 participants were given
a definition of nostalgia. Yet, Study 3 conceptually replicated the
findings of Studies 1–2. In accordance with previous research
(Wildschut et al., 2006), this indicates that whether or not partic-
ipants were given a definition of nostalgia did not influence our
findings.
Study 3 findings are consistent with the conceptualization of
nostalgia as a source of social connectedness, but we acknowledge
that this interpretation hinges on a hitherto untested assumption.
We have assumed that low-avoidance (compared with high-
avoidance) individuals are more likely to respond to loneliness
with nostalgia because they harness nostalgia as a source of social
connectedness. There are, of course, other possibilities. There is
evidence, for instance, that nostalgia not only strengthens social
connectedness but also generates positive affect and boosts self-
esteem (Wildschut et al., 2006). Perhaps low-avoidance (compared
with high-avoidance) individuals are more likely to turn to nostal-
gia in times of need, not because they derive from it a stronger
sense of social connectedness, but because they derive from it
more positive affect, more positive self-esteem, or both. We ex-
amined these possibilities in Study 4.
Study 4
In Study 4, we manipulated nostalgia by instructing participants
to bring to mind and reflect on either a nostalgic or an ordinary
2
There was a descriptive tendency for women (M⫽4.53, SD ⫽1.37)
to score higher than men (M⫽3.21, SD ⫽1.42) on the measure of state
nostalgia, F(1, 81) ⫽2.83, p⬍.10.
3
Tests of simple effects also produced directionally opposite associa-
tions between avoidance and nostalgia in the future alone and future
belonging conditions. The association between avoidance and nostalgia
was significantly more negative in the future alone condition (⫽⫺.22),
F(1, 89) ⫽2.02, p⬍.16, than in the future belonging condition (⫽.22),
F(1, 89) ⫽2.15, p⬍.15.
579
NOSTALGIA
event from their past. Previous research has found that recollection
of a nostalgic (compared with an ordinary) event bolstered social
connectedness (Wildschut et al., 2006) and perceived social sup-
port (Zhou et al., 2008), but also generated positive affect and
increased self-esteem (Stephan, Wildschut, Sedikides, Routledge,
& Arndt, 2008; Wildschut et al., 2006). The dual objectives of
Study 4 were to replicate these earlier findings and to examine
whether they are qualified by attachment-related individual differ-
ences. We expected that individuals who are low (compared with
high) in avoidance are more likely to recruit nostalgia as a source
of social connectedness. Whether attachment-related individual
differences also play a role in shaping the effects of nostalgia on
self-esteem and positive affect was an open question.
Method
Participants and design. One hundred six undergraduates
(74 women, 31 men, 1 who did not report gender) served as
participants for course credit. Of those, 59 were University of
Southampton undergraduates (44 women, 15 men), and 47 were
North Dakota State University undergraduates (30 women, 16
men, 1 who did not report gender). Participants were randomly
assigned to one of two experimental conditions (nostalgia vs.
control). In addition, avoidance and anxiety were assessed at the
beginning of the experimental session. Preliminary analyses re-
vealed that neither research location (University of Southampton
vs. North Dakota State University) nor participant gender qualified
any of the significant findings reported below, and these variables
were therefore omitted from the reported analyses.
Procedure and materials. Participants were seated at desks
separated by partitions and completed the materials anonymously
and at their own pace. First, they completed the ECR-R to assess
avoidance (␣⫽.95, M⫽2.33, SD ⫽0.82) and anxiety (␣⫽.93,
M⫽2.80, SD ⫽0.89). Then, they received information relevant
to the experimental manipulation of nostalgia. In the nostalgia
condition, participants were instructed to “. . . bring to mind a
nostalgic event in your life. Specifically, try to think of a past event
that makes you feel most nostalgic.” In the control condition,
participants were instructed to “. . . bring to mind an ordinary
event in your daily life—an event that took place in the last week.”
Participants were instructed to write down four keywords relevant
to the event and to take a few moments to think about the event and
how it made them feel. Next, participants completed a manipula-
tion check consisting of three items assessing state nostalgia (see
Study 3; ␣⫽.96, M⫽3.98, SD ⫽1.19). As intended, participants
in the nostalgia condition (M⫽4.29, SD ⫽1.06) reported more
nostalgia than did those in the control condition (M⫽3.64, SD ⫽
1.25), F(1, 97) ⫽7.33, p⬍.01.
4
Next, participants completed state measures of social connect-
edness, self-esteem, positive affect, and negative affect, each con-
sisting of two items that were rated on a 6-point scale (1 ⫽
strongly disagree,6⫽strongly agree). The items were “Thinking
about this event makes me feel loved” and “. . . feel connected to
loved ones” (to assess state social connectedness; ␣⫽.90, M⫽
4.23, SD ⫽1.52); “. . . feel I have many positive qualities” and
“. . . value myself more” (to assess state self-esteem; ␣⫽.86, M⫽
3.66, SD ⫽1.32); “. . . feel happy” and “...inagood mood” (to
assess state positive affect; ␣⫽.95, M⫽4.41, SD ⫽1.38); and
“. . . feel unhappy” and “. . . feel sad” (to assess state negative
affect; ␣⫽.89, M⫽2.17, SD ⫽1.37). A standard assessment
format was used, rather than an assortment of existing scales,
because one objective of Study 4 was to compare results for
measures of social connectedness, self-esteem, and positive (and
negative) affect. We did not want to compromise these compari-
sons by confounding outcomes and assessment formats.
Results
We entered the measure of perceived social connectedness into
a Nostalgia Versus Control ⫻Avoidance ⫻Anxiety analysis of
covariance (ANCOVA). Results revealed a significant main effect
for nostalgia versus control, F(1, 96) ⫽6.62, p⬍.05. Social
connectedness was stronger in the nostalgia (M⫽4.69, SD ⫽
1.28) than the control (M⫽3.73, SD ⫽1.62) condition. Results
further revealed a significant negative association between avoid-
ance and social connectedness (⫽⫺.30), F(1, 96) ⫽7.42, p⬍
.05. More important, these findings were qualified by a significant
Nostalgia Versus Control ⫻Avoidance interaction, F(1, 96) ⫽
5.21, p⬍.05. Relevant predicted means are presented in Table 2
(top rows). Test of simple effects showed that participants in the
nostalgia condition reported stronger social connectedness than
those in the control condition when avoidance was low (⫺1SD),
F(1, 96) ⫽11.89, p⬍.01, but not when avoidance was high (⫹1
SD), F(1, 96) ⫽0.00, p⬍.99.
5
We performed parallel analyses for the state measures of self-
esteem, positive affect, and negative affect. These analyses did not
reveal significant interaction effects involving avoidance or anxi-
ety. We therefore proceeded by testing the simple contrast between
the nostalgia and control conditions. Self-esteem was higher in the
nostalgia (M⫽3.98, SD ⫽1.31) than in the control (M⫽3.22,
SD ⫽1.26) condition, F(1, 103) ⫽6.90, p⬍.01. Participants in
4
In Studies 4 and 5, we entered the nostalgia manipulation check into a
Nostalgia Versus Control ⫻Avoidance ⫻Anxiety ANCOVA. In both
studies, state nostalgia was significantly higher in the nostalgia than in the
control condition. In neither study was this effect qualified by significant
higher order interactions. In Study 4, there was also a significant negative
association between avoidance and state nostalgia (⫽⫺.27), F(1, 97) ⫽
5.42, p⬍.05.
5
Tests of simple effects further revealed that avoidance was negatively
associated with perceived social support in the nostalgia condition (⫽
⫺.57), F(1, 96) ⫽9.18, p⬍.01, but not in the control condition (⫽
⫺.05), F(1, 96) ⫽0.15, p⬍.70.
Table 1
Nostalgia as a Function of Attachment-Related Avoidance and
Manipulated Social Connectedness (Study 3)
Level of avoidance
Future belonging Future alone
MSEMSE
Low avoidance 3.86 0.29 4.90 0.31
High avoidance 4.50 0.30 4.28 0.32
Note. Ratings of nostalgia were made on a 6-point scale (1 ⫽strongly
disagree,6⫽strongly agree). Table entries are predicted means condi-
tioned at one standard deviation above and below the mean of avoidance.
Respective Ns for the future-belonging and future-alone conditions were 51
and 46.
580 WILDSCHUT, SEDIKIDES, ROUTLEDGE, ARNDT, AND CORDARO
the nostalgia condition (M⫽4.72, SD ⫽1.37) also reported more
positive affect than did those in the control condition (M⫽4.09,
SD ⫽1.33), F(1, 103) ⫽5.80, p⬍.05. There was, however, no
significant difference between the nostalgia (M⫽2.27, SD ⫽
1.41) and control (M⫽2.07, SD ⫽1.34) conditions on negative
affect, F(1, 103) ⫽0.55, p⬍.46. These findings replicate previ-
ous research (Wildschut et al., 2006).
Discussion
Consistent with the idea that low-avoidance (compared with
high-avoidance) individuals are more apt to harness nostalgia as a
source of social connectedness, Study 4 found that recalling a
nostalgic (compared with an ordinary) event increased perceived
social connectedness only among low-avoidance participants. This
does not mean, however, that only low-avoidance persons derive
psychological benefit from nostalgia. Study 4 showed that recall-
ing a nostalgic (compared with an ordinary) event increased self-
esteem and positive affect irrespective of attachment-related indi-
vidual differences. These findings thus also shed light on the role
of nostalgia in high-avoidance persons.
The finding that recall of a nostalgic (compared with an ordi-
nary) event increased positive affect but did not decrease negative
affect indicates that, although nostalgia is a predominantly positive
experience, it is not devoid of the sadness or unhappiness one
might occasionally experience when recalling ordinary life events.
Finally, note that, even in the control condition, positive affect
(M⫽4.09) exceeded negative affect (M⫽2.07) by a considerable
margin, F(1, 50) ⫽34.79, p⬍.01. It is clearly not the case that
recalling a nostalgic event had relatively beneficial effects merely
because participants disliked recalling an ordinary event. On the
contrary, it appears that participants mildly enjoyed recalling an
ordinary event. This is reassuring, because it indicates that the
control condition provides an adequate and meaningful baseline
for assessing the effects of nostalgia.
A critical remaining question is how far-reaching the benefits of
nostalgia are. Skeptics might argue that, although nostalgia pro-
duces a temporary increase in perceived social connectedness, it
does not provide a structural solution to the problem of loneliness.
Nostalgia, according to this perspective, provides only a weak
surrogate for real interpersonal closeness (Kaplan, 1987) or, worse
still, is a feeble escape from reality (Fodor, 1950). We take a
different perspective. Research has shown that, when people feel
efficacious and competent to navigate complex interpersonal sit-
uations (e.g., providing emotional support to a grieving friend),
they are more successful at forming and maintaining social rela-
tionships (Buhrmester, 1990; Buhrmester et al., 1988). Further-
more, interpersonal competence is shaped at least partially in the
context of experiences with close others (e.g., family, friends,
partners, peers); the feelings of social connectedness and intimacy
derived from social bonds provide the scaffolding for building
interpersonal competence and forming new relationships through-
out life (Buhrmester, 1996; Hartup, 1983; Hartup & Sancilio,
1986; Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Savin-Williams & Berndt, 1990;
Sroufe & Fleeson, 1986; Sullivan, 1953). The acquisition of social
connectedness and intimacy, then, is inextricably linked with the
provision of emotional support to others, and we propose that
nostalgic memories may encompass information about both. We
examined this proposal in Study 5.
Study 5
The findings of Studies 1– 4 were consistent with the idea that
nostalgia can be used as an indirect strategy to establish proximity
to close others and that low-avoidance (compared with high-
avoidance) individuals are more apt to harness nostalgia for this
purpose. Contrary to direct strategies for bolstering social connect-
edness, which are engaged when suitable interaction partners are
available, indirect strategies are engaged when suitable interaction
partners are unavailable and rely on mental representations of
social bonds as a source of social connectedness (Gardner et al.,
2005). Because, in the context of social relationships, the acqui-
sition of social connectedness and intimacy are inextricably linked
with the provision of emotional support to others, we assume that
mental representations of social bonds encompass information
about both (Kunce & Shaver, 1994). For instance, nostalgic mem-
ories of vacations spent with friends may both increase feelings of
social connectedness and serve as reminders of one’s own capacity
to be a friend to others. We tested the hypothesis that, if low-
avoidance (compared with high-avoidance) individuals are more
apt to harness nostalgia for the purpose of establishing proximity
to close others, then nostalgia should uniquely increase perceived
interpersonal competence among low-avoidance (compared with
high-avoidance) individuals. That is, we expected Study 5 to
reveal a results pattern for perceived interpersonal competence that
would complement the results pattern for perceived social con-
nectedness shown in Study 4.
A second objective of Study 5 was to address a potential
limitation of Studies 1– 4 relating to the attachment assessment. In
these previous studies, the attachment assessment immediately
preceded the experimental manipulation and/or assessment of de-
pendent variables. This might raise questions about the extent to
which participants may have inferred the general purpose of these
studies and, specifically, the relevance of the attachment assessment
to the subsequent experimental manipulation and/or assessment of
dependent variables. In Study 5, the attachment assessment was
Table 2
Perceived Social Connectedness (Study 4) and Perceived
Interpersonal Competence (Study 5) as a Function of
Attachment-Related Avoidance and Manipulated Nostalgia
Ordinary event Nostalgic event
MSEMSE
Study 4
Low avoidance 3.84 0.29 5.38 0.35
High avoidance 3.69 0.28 3.70 0.36
Study 5
Low avoidance 3.21 0.35 4.15 0.28
High avoidance 4.01 0.35 3.40 0.25
Note. Ratings of perceived social connectedness were made on a 6-point
scale (1 ⫽strongly disagree,6⫽strongly agree), and ratings of perceived
interpersonal competence were made on a 5-point scale (1 ⫽disagree,5⫽
agree). Table entries are predicted means conditioned at one standard
deviation above and below the mean of avoidance. Respective Ns for the
ordinary-event and nostalgic-event conditions were 51 and 55 in Study 4,
and 26 and 26 in Study 5.
581
NOSTALGIA
therefore part of a mass pretest that preceded the experimental
session by several weeks.
Method
Participants and procedure. Participants were 52 University
of Missouri—Columbia undergraduate students (23 women, 29
men) who received course credit. At the beginning of the semester,
participants completed a mass pretest that included an abbreviated
assessment of avoidance and anxiety. Participants then signed up
for an experimental session at a later time during the semester.
Preliminary analyses revealed that gender did not qualify the
statistically significant findings reported below. Gender was there-
fore omitted from the reported analyses.
Pretest assessment of avoidance and anxiety. Because of
strict space limitations in the mass pretest, a total of six items
assessing avoidance and anxiety were drawn from the Relation-
ships Scales Questionnaire (RSQ; Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994).
Although the RSQ was designed to assess the four-category at-
tachment model proposed by Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991),
Kurdek (2002) showed that subsets of RSQ items could be com-
bined to create valid measures of the underlying avoidance and
anxiety dimensions. On the basis of Kurdek’s analysis, three items
were selected to assess avoidance and three items to assess anxiety.
To assess avoidance, the following were used: “Others often want
me to be closer than I feel comfortable being”; “I worry about
others getting too close to me”; and “I find it relatively easy to get
close to others.” The latter item was reverse scored. To assess
anxiety, the following were used: “I find that others are reluctant
to get as close as I would like”; “My desire to merge completely
sometimes scares people away”; and “I often worry that others
won’t want to stay with me.” A principal factor analysis using
oblique rotation revealed two factors with eigenvalues greater than
1. The three items assessing avoidance all had factor loadings
greater than .53 on the first factor and no factor loadings greater
than .27 on the second factor. The three items assessing anxiety all
had factor loadings greater than .67 on the second factor and no
factor loadings greater than .37 on the first factor. The interfactor
correlation was .06. Composite measures of anxiety (␣⫽.69, M⫽
2.13, SD ⫽0.76) and avoidance (␣⫽.67, M⫽2.29, SD ⫽0.81)
were created by averaging the appropriate items.
Experimental session. Participants were seated at desks sep-
arated by partitions and completed the materials anonymously and
at their own pace. They received instructions relevant to the
experimental manipulation of nostalgia (see Study 4) and com-
pleted three items assessing state nostalgia (see Studies 3– 4; ␣⫽
.90). As intended, participants in the nostalgia condition (M⫽
3.99, SD ⫽1.33) reported feeling more nostalgic than did partic-
ipants in the control condition (M⫽3.21, SD ⫽1.20), F(1, 43) ⫽
4.56, p⬍.05. Next, participants completed the Emotional Support
scale from the Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire (Buhrm-
ester et al., 1988). This scale consists of eight items that assess
perceived competence to provide emotional support to close others
(e.g., “Helping a close companion get to the heart of a problem he
or she is experiencing”; “Being a good and sensitive listener for a
companion who is upset”). Participants rated on a 5-point scale
(1 ⫽disagree;5⫽agree) how competent they felt to enact the
behaviors described in each item. The items were averaged to
create a measure of perceived emotional support competence (␣⫽
.95, M⫽3.63, SD ⫽1.01).
Results and Discussion
A Nostalgia Versus Control ⫻Avoidance ⫻Anxiety ANCOVA
for perceived emotional support competence revealed a significant
Nostalgia Versus Control ⫻Avoidance interaction only, F(1,
44) ⫽5.62, p⬍.05. Relevant predicted means are presented in
Table 2 (bottom rows). Tests of simple effects revealed that,
relative to participants in the control condition, those in the nos-
talgia condition perceived themselves to be more competent to
provide emotional support to close others when avoidance was low
(⫺1SD), F(1, 44) ⫽4.35, p⬍.05, but not when avoidance was
high (⫹1SD), F(1, 44) ⫽2.03, p⬍.17.
6
These findings indicate that nostalgia not only increases the
perceived social connectedness of low-avoidance (compared with
high-avoidance) individuals but also increases their perceived
competence to provide emotional support to others, thereby pro-
viding these individuals with an important resource for the effec-
tive formation and maintenance of interpersonal relations.
General Discussion
Nostalgia is a common emotion (Wildschut et al., 2006) that is
experienced in both Western and Eastern cultures (Zhou et al.,
2008), but, by and large, it has been neglected in psychological
scholarship. We have laid the foundation for an empirical approach
to nostalgia that aims to explore and understand its psychological
significance (Sedikides, Wildschut, et al., 2008; Sedikides et al.,
2004). The present research built on this foundation to address
three interrelated questions. In Studies 1–3, we examined whether
the tendency to respond to loneliness by seeking refuge in nostal-
gia is influenced by attachment-related individual differences. We
extended the analysis in Study 4 by assessing whether manipulated
nostalgia uniquely strengthened feelings of social connectedness
among low-avoidance (compared with high-avoidance) partici-
pants. Finally, we assessed in Study 5 whether manipulated nos-
talgia also uniquely strengthened perceived competence in provid-
ing emotional support to others among low-avoidance (compared
with high-avoidance) participants.
Summary of Findings
Is the link between loneliness and nostalgia shaped by
attachment-related individual differences? High-avoidance
(compared with low-avoidance) persons view others as unavail-
able or unresponsive and are therefore less likely to rely on social
bonds to regulate psychological distress (Collins & Feeney, 2000;
Simpson et al., 1992). This basic tenet of attachment theory served
as our point of departure for investigating the idea that nostalgia
can serve as a repository of social connectedness. We hypothesized
that if nostalgia can be a source of social connectedness, then
loneliness (a potent form of psychological distress) should more
6
Tests of simple effects further showed that avoidance was negatively
associated with emotional support competence in the nostalgia condition
(⫽⫺.37), F(1, 44) ⫽4.67, p⬍.05, but not in the control condition (⫽
.39), F(1, 44) ⫽2.07, p⬍.16.
582 WILDSCHUT, SEDIKIDES, ROUTLEDGE, ARNDT, AND CORDARO
strongly trigger nostalgia among low-avoidance (compared with
high-avoidance) persons. We found in Study 1 that low-avoidance
(compared with high-avoidance) participants more frequently
stated that they become nostalgic in response to loneliness. In
Study 2, we distinguished among three facets of loneliness-
connectedness and highlighted the particular significance of defi-
ciencies in relational connectedness as a predictor of increased
nostalgia among low-avoidance (compared with high-avoidance)
participants. Building on these findings, we manipulated relational
connectedness (Twenge et al., 2001) and assessed its impact on
in-the-moment feelings of nostalgia in Study 3. Results revealed
that deficiencies in relational connectedness increased nostalgia
among low-avoidance participants, but not among high-avoidance
participants.
The findings of Studies 1–3 were consistent with the idea that
low-avoidance (compared with high-avoidance) individuals regu-
late deficiencies in relational connectedness by seeking proximity
to close others and that nostalgia can be a source of such proxim-
ity. Of course, the proximity afforded by nostalgia is psychological
rather than physical; nostalgia is as an indirect compensatory
strategy, which relies on mental representations of social bonds as
a source of social connectedness (Gardner et al., 2005). Our
findings also shed light on the traditional conflation of nostalgia
with homesickness, which we regard as being partially responsible
for having perpetuated the classification of nostalgia as a psycho-
logical impairment. If nostalgia is a response to deficiencies in
relational connectedness, then it stands to reason that homesick-
ness and nostalgia would be contiguous in time. Although one can
understand how such temporal contiguity could give rise to the
perception that homesickness and nostalgia are two sides of the
same coin, our findings indicate that it is more appropriate to
conceptualize nostalgia as a reaction to, rather than as a symptom
of, homesickness.
Is the link between nostalgia and social connectedness
shaped by attachment-related individual differences? An im-
portant issue remained. We assumed that low-avoidance (com-
pared with high-avoidance) individuals are more likely to respond
to loneliness by drawing on nostalgia because they are more apt to
harness nostalgia as a source of social connectedness. There are, of
course, other possibilities. Perhaps low-avoidance (compared with
high-avoidance) individuals are more apt to harness nostalgia as a
source of positive affect, positive self-esteem, or both. In Study 4,
we found that manipulated nostalgia indeed increased social con-
nectedness only among low-avoidance participants. However, we
also found that nostalgia increased positive affect and self-esteem
irrespective of attachment-related individual differences. Whereas
the former finding underscores the ability of low-avoidance indi-
viduals to harness nostalgia as a source of social connectedness,
the latter finding sheds light on the potential utility of nostalgia for
high-avoidance individuals. Although such individuals do not use
nostalgia as a source of social connectedness, they may use nos-
talgia for other purposes; for instance, they may seek to buffer
self-threat by using nostalgia to affirm valued aspects of the self.
Prior work on compensatory self-inflation (Baumeister & Jones,
1974; Greenberg & Pyszczynski, 1985) and self-affirmation (Sher-
man & Cohen, 2006; Steele, 1988) has revealed that when people
face self-threats, rather than countering directly the specific threat,
they often counter its effects by affirming essential and positive
aspects of the self. We propose that nostalgia constitutes a benign
mechanism through which people can affirm valued aspects of the
self. Consistent with this possibility, recent evidence indicated that
nostalgia attenuates the effect of mortality salience (a potent self-
threat) on death-thought accessibility (Routledge, Arndt,
Sedikides, & Wildschut, 2008) and also attenuates self-esteem
defense (Vess, Arndt, Routledge, Sedikides, & Wildschut, 2008;
Zauberman, Ratner, & Kim, 2009).
Does the utility of nostalgia extend beyond strengthening
social connectedness? The acquisition of social connectedness
and intimacy is inextricably linked with the provision of emotional
support to others, and we hypothesized that nostalgic memories
encompass information about both. Consistent with this idea, we
found in Study 5 that manipulated nostalgia uniquely increased
perceived competence in providing emotional support to others
among low-avoidance (compared with high-avoidance) partici-
pants. A noteworthy implication of this finding is that, by provid-
ing this important resource for the effective formation and main-
tenance of interpersonal relations, nostalgia can facilitate
relationship strivings. This suggests the interesting possibility that
nostalgia is a two-pronged strategy that can indirectly facilitate
social connectedness when suitable interaction partners are un-
available and can directly facilitate social connectedness when
suitable interaction partners are available.
Limitations and Future Directions
Before generalizing from the findings, one must keep in mind
that participants in our studies were predominantly young adult
females. Across the four studies that included both female and
male participants, we did not find any consistent effects involving
gender. However, due to the relatively small number of male
participants, tests of gender effects may have had insufficient
statistical power. To address this limitation, we meta-analyzed the
results of Studies 2– 4.
7
We first meta-analyzed Studies 2–3 and
found that the pattern of measured (Study 2) and manipulated
(Study 3) deficiencies in relational connectedness being more
strongly related to nostalgia among low-avoidance (compared with
high-avoidance) individuals was not significantly moderated by
gender (r⫽.12; 95% CI: ⫺.01, .25). We then meta-analyzed
Studies 3– 4 and found that the pattern of manipulated nostalgia
having a stronger effect on relationship-relevant outcomes among
low-avoidance (compared with high-avoidance) individuals was
not moderated by gender (r⫽.04; 95% CI: ⫺.12, .20). Finally, we
meta-analyzed all four studies and found that the theoretically
meaningful results patterns (see above) were not moderated by
gender (r⫽.09; 95% CI: ⫺.01, .19).
Clarifying the relation between age and nostalgia is a high
priority for future research. Socioemotional selectivity theory
(Carstensen, Isaacowitz, & Charles, 1999) proposes that with
7
We selected ras a measure of effect size and coded the data so that
positive effect sizes indicated that the theoretically meaningful results
patterns were stronger for female participants. Study weights were in-
versely proportional to the conditional variance of individual effect sizes.
The conditional variance of the combined effect size estimate was in-
versely proportional to the sum of the study weights. The standard error for
the combined effect size estimate was calculated by taking the square root
of its conditional variance. Confidence intervals were calculated by mul-
tiplying the standard error by 1.96 (Shadish & Haddock, 1994).
583
NOSTALGIA
advancing age, people come to view their life span as limited and
shift attention from future-oriented and knowledge-related goals
toward a desire to find purpose and meaning in life, to enjoy
intimate friendships, and to be embedded in a social network. This
may mean that nostalgia acquires a more prominent role in old age.
Bereavement and physical frailty can render older adults particu-
larly vulnerable to loneliness (Victor, Scambler, Bowling, & Bond,
2005), and nostalgia may therefore play a vital role in reestablish-
ing a symbolic connection with significant others (Batcho, 1998;
Cavanaugh, 1989). Indeed, research indicates that older adults may
be more concerned about shielding positive memories than are
younger adults (Mather, 2004).
Although social connectedness may acquire special significance
in old age, it is important at any age. There is a wealth of evidence
that strong social bonds are associated with increased psycholog-
ical and physical health (Berkman, 1995; Sarason et al., 1997).
This raises the question of how, if not through nostalgia, high-
avoidance individuals redress deficiencies in social connectedness.
Simpson et al. (1992) proposed that, for high-avoidance persons,
“increases in perceived threat or distress sharply accelerate the
onset of fear of proximity” (p. 443). This suggests that high-
avoidance individuals favor strategies that afford rigorous control
over the degree of proximity experienced. They might, for in-
stance, prefer to join large and impersonal groups in which imme-
diate and intimate social interaction is optional rather than im-
merse themselves in dyadic relationships. In this regard, nostalgia
may be unappealing to high-avoidance individuals because it can
be fortuitously triggered (e.g., through smells, songs, photographs,
conversations) at times when fear of proximity is high.
Our findings did not shed light on the role of anxiety. Anxiety
qualified neither the link between loneliness and nostalgia nor the
effect of nostalgia on perceived social connectedness and interper-
sonal competence. This pattern of results suggests that nostalgia
can reflect not only high confidence in the availability of others
(characteristic of low anxiety) but also hypervigilance regarding
the availability of others and reliance on hyperactivation strategies
(e.g., clinging) to maintain proximity to others (characteristic of
high anxiety). Future research may be able to differentiate these
two types of nostalgia (confidence based vs. hypervigilance based)
by comparing individuals’ nostalgic recollections of specific
events with partner reports of the same events. We expect that if
high-anxiety (compared with low-anxiety) individuals use nostal-
gia as a source of reassurance regarding their worthiness of love,
then their nostalgic recollections will be more idealized and con-
tain fewer negative elements than their partner’s recollection of the
same event.
Concluding Remarks
Our findings carry three key implications. Most immediately,
they indicate that perceived social connectedness—a vital ingre-
dient to optimal psychological functioning and physical health—is
deposited in the form of nostalgic memories and is accessed in
times of need by retrieving these nostalgic memories. More gen-
erally, the findings locate the psychological significance of nos-
talgia in its capacity to strengthen social bonds. Finally, the find-
ings highlight the pervasive influence of attachment-related
individual differences in the vast domain of relationship-relevant
phenomena—a domain that now has been expanded to include
nostalgia. These implications illustrate how research on nostalgia
promises to offer integrative insights across diverse areas of psy-
chological inquiry.
References
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns
of attachment: A psychological study of the Strange Situation. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Baldwin, M. W., Keelan, J. P. R., Fehr, B., Enns, V., & Koh-Rangarajoo,
E. (1996). Social-cognitive conceptualization of attachment working
models: Availability and accessibility effects. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 71, 94 –109.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among
young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 61, 226 –244.
Batcho, K. I. (1998). Personal nostalgia, worldview, memory, and emo-
tionality. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 87, 411– 432.
Baumeister, R. F., & Jones, E. E. (1974). When self-presentation is
constrained by the target’s knowledge: Consistency and compensation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 608 – 618.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for
interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 117, 497–529.
Berkman, L. F. (1995). The role of social relations in health promotion.
Psychosomatic Medicine, 57, 245–254.
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York,
NY: Basic Books.
Boym, S. (2001). The future of nostalgia. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measure-
ment of adult attachment. An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson &
W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp.
46 –76). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. L. (1996). Who is this “we”? Levels of
collective identity and self-representations. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 71, 83–93.
Buhrmester, D. (1990). Intimacy of friendship, interpersonal competence,
and adjustment during preadolescence and adolescence. Child Develop-
ment, 61, 1101–1111.
Buhrmester, D. (1996). Need fulfillment, interpersonal competence, and
the developmental contexts of early adolescent friendship. In W. M.
Bukowski & A. F. Newcomb (Eds.), The company they keep: Friendship
in childhood and adolescence (pp. 158 –185). New York, NY: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Buhrmester, D., Furman, W., Wittenberg, M. T., & Reis, H. T. (1988). Five
domains of interpersonal competence in peer relationships. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 991–1108.
Carstensen, L. L., Isaacowitz, D. M., & Charles, S. T. (1999). Taking time
seriously: A theory of socioemotional selectivity. American Psycholo-
gist, 54, 165–181.
Cavanaugh, J. C. (1989). I have this feeling about everyday memory
aging....Educational Gerontology, 15, 597– 605.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering
hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310 –357.
Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2000). A safe haven: An attachment theory
perspective on support seeking and caregiving in intimate relationships.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1053–1073.
Colson, E. (1971). The social consequences of resettlement. Manchester,
England: Manchester University Press.
Davis, F. (1979). Yearning for yesterday: A sociology of nostalgia. New
York, NY: Free Press.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck
Personality Questionnaire. San Diego, CA: Educational Industrial Test-
ing Service.
584 WILDSCHUT, SEDIKIDES, ROUTLEDGE, ARNDT, AND CORDARO
Feeney, B. C. (2006). An attachment theory perspective on the interplay
between intrapersonal and interpersonal processes. In K. D. Vohs & E. J.
Finkel (Eds.), Self and relationships: Connecting intrapersonal and
interpersonal processes (pp. 133–159). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social pressures in
informal groups: A study of a housing community. Palo Alto, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Florian, V., Mikulincer, M., & Bucholtz, I. (1995). Effects of adult attach-
ment style on the perception and search for social support. The Journal
of Psychology, 129, 665– 676.
Fodor, N. (1950). Varieties of nostalgia. Psychoanalytic Review, 37,
25–38.
Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Airport separations: A naturalistic
study of adult attachment dynamics in separating couples. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1198 –1212.
Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theo-
retical developments, emerging controversies, and unanswered ques-
tions. Review of General Psychology, 4, 132–154.
Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response
theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 350 –365.
Gardner, W. L., Pickett, C. L., & Knowles, M. L. (2005). Social snacking
and shielding: Using social symbols, selves, and surrogates in the service
of belongingness needs. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von
Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection,
and bullying (pp. 227–241). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Greenberg, J., & Pyszczynsky, T. (1985). Compensatory self-inflation: A
response to the threat to self-regard of public failure. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 49, 273–280.
Griffin, D. W., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Models of the self and other:
Fundamental dimensions underlying measures of adult attachment.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 430 – 445.
Hartup, W. W. (1983). Peer groups. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of
child psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 103–196). New York, NY: Wiley.
Hartup, W. W., & Sancilio, M. F. (1986). Children’s friendships. In E.
Schopler & G. B. Mesibov (Eds.), Social behavior in autism (pp. 61–79).
New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Hawkley, L. C., Browne, M. W., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2005). How can I
connect with thee? Let me count the ways. Psychological Science, 16,
798 – 804.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an
attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52,
511–524.
Hertz, D. G. (1990). Trauma and nostalgia: New aspects of the coping of
aging holocaust survivors. Israeli Journal of Psychiatry and Related
Sciences, 27, 189 –198.
Hofer, J. (1934). Medical dissertation on nostalgia (C. K. Anspach, Trans.),
Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 2, 376 –391. (Original work pub-
lished 1688)
Holbrook, M. B. (1993). Nostalgia and consumption preferences. Journal
of Consumer Research, 20, 245–256.
Kaplan, H. A. (1987). The psychopathology of nostalgia. Psychoanalytic
Review, 74, 465– 486.
Knowles, M. L., & Gardner, W. L. (2008). Benefits of membership: The
activation and amplification of group identities in response to social
rejection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1200 –1213.
Kunce, L. J., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). An attachment-theoretical approach
to caregiving in romantic relationships. In K. Bartholomew & D.
Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships Vol. 5: Attach-
ment processes in adulthood (pp. 205–237). London, England: Jes-
sica Kingsley.
Kurdek, L. A. (2002). On being insecure about the assessment of attach-
ment styles. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 811– 834.
Larose, S., Boivin, M., & Doyle, A. (2001). Parental representations and
attachment style as predictors of support-seeking behaviors and percep-
tions of support in an academic counseling relationship. Personal Rela-
tionships, 8, 93–113.
Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. J., & Downs, D. L. (1995).
Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 518 –530.
Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper &
Row.
Mather, M. (2004). Aging and emotional memory. In D. Reisberg & P.
Hertel (Eds.), Memory and emotion (pp. 272–301). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2003). The attachment behavioral system
in adulthood: Activation, psychodynamics, and interpersonal processes.
In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol.
35, pp. 53–152). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2008). Adult attachment and affect
regulation. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attach-
ment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 503–531). New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
The New Oxford Dictionary of English. (1998). Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Ognibene, T. C., & Collins, N. L. (1998). Adult attachment styles, per-
ceived social support and coping strategies. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 15, 323–345.
Routledge, C., Arndt, J., Sedikides, C., & Wildschut, T. (2008). A blast
from the past: The terror management function of nostalgia. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 132–140.
Russell, D. (1996). The UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): Reliability,
validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66,
20 – 40.
Sarason, B. R., Sarason, I. G., & Gurung, R. A. R. (1997). Close personal
relationships and health outcomes: A key to the role of social support. In
S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 547–573). New
York, NY: Wiley.
Savin-Williams, R. C., & Berndt, T. J. (1990). Friendship and peer rela-
tions. In S. S. Feldman & G. R. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The
developing adolescent (pp. 277–307). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-
sity Press.
Schindler, R. M., & Holbrook, M. B. (2003). Nostalgia for early experience
as a determinant of consumer preferences. Psychology & Marketing, 20,
275–302.
Sedikides, C., & Brewer, M. B. (2001). Individual self, relational self,
collective self. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Sedikides, C., Wildschut, T., Arndt, J., & Routledge, C. D. (2006). Affect
and the self. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Affect in social thinking and behavior:
Frontiers in social psychology (pp. 197–215). New York, NY: Psychol-
ogy Press.
Sedikides, C., Wildschut, T., Arndt, J., & Routledge, C. (2008). Nostalgia:
Past, present, and future. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
17, 304 –307.
Sedikides, C., Wildschut, T., & Baden, D. (2004). Nostalgia: Conceptual
issues and existential functions. In J. Greenberg, S. Koole, & T. Pyszc-
zynski (Eds.), Handbook of experimental existential psychology (pp.
200 –214). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Sedikides, C., Wildschut, T., Gaertner, L., Routledge, C., & Arndt, J.
(2008). Nostalgia as enabler of self-continuity. Self-continuity: Individ-
ual and collective perspectives (pp. 227–239). New York, NY: Psychol-
ogy Press.
Sedikides, C., Wildschut, T., Routledge, C., Arndt, J., & Zhou, X. (2009).
Buffering acculturative stress and facilitating cultural adaptation: Nos-
talgias as a psychological resource. In R. S. Wyer Jr., C.-Y. Chiu, &
Y.-Y. Hong (Eds.), Understanding culture: Theory, research and appli-
cation (pp. 351–368). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Shadish, W. R., & Haddock, C. K. (1994). Combining estimates of effect
585
NOSTALGIA
size. In H. Cooper & L. W. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research
synthesis (pp. 261–284). New York, NY: Sage.
Sharfe, E., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Reliability and stability of adult
attachment patterns. Personal Relationships, 1, 23– 44.
Sherman, D. K., & Cohen, G. L. (2006). The psychology of self-defense:
Self-affirmation theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental
social psychology (Vol. 38, pp. 183–242). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Nelligan, J. S. (1992). Support seeking
and support giving within couples in an anxiety-provoking situation: The
role of attachment styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
62, 434 – 446.
Sroufe, L. A., & Fleeson, J. (1986). Attachment and the construction of
relationships. In W. Hartup & Z. Rubin (Eds.), Relationships and de-
velopment (pp. 51–71). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the
integrity of the self. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental
social psychology (pp. 261–302). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Stephan, E., Wildschut, T., Sedikides, C., Routledge, C. R., & Arndt, J.
(2008). The magic of the past: Nostalgia inspires. Unpublished manu-
script, University of Southampton.
Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York,
NY: Norton.
Twenge, J. M. (2008). The socially excluded self. In C. Sedikides & S. J.
Spencer (Eds.), The self: Frontiers of social psychology (pp. xxx–xxx).
New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Stucke, T. S. (2001). If
you can’t join them, beat them: Effects of social exclusion on aggressive
behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1058 –1069.
Van Tilburg, M. A. L., & Vingerhoets, A. J. J. M. (1997). Psychological
aspects of geographical moves. Tilburg, the Netherlands: Tilburg Uni-
versity Press.
Van Tilburg, M. A. L., Vingerhoets, A. J. J. M., & van Heck, G. L. (1996).
Homesickness: A review of the literature. Psychological Medicine, 26,
899 –912.
Vaughan, D. (1986). Uncoupling. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Vess, M., Arndt, J., Routledge, C., Sedikides, C., & Wildschut, T. (2008).
Nostalgia as self-esteem resource. Unpublished data, University of
Missouri.
Victor, C. A., Scambler, S. J., Bowling, A., & Bond, J. (2005). The
prevalence of, and risk factors for, loneliness in later life: A survey of
older people in Great Britain. Ageing & Society, 25, 357–375.
Wildschut, T., Sedikides, C., Arndt, J., & Routledge, C. (2006). Nostalgia:
Content, triggers, functions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 91, 975–993.
Williams, K. D. (1997). Social ostracism. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.),
Aversive interpersonal behaviors (pp. 133–170). New York, NY: Ple-
num Press.
Williams, K. D., Cheung, C. K. T., & Choi, W. (2000). CyberOstracism:
Effects of being ignored over the Internet. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 79, 748 –762.
Williams, K. D., Forgas, J. P., & von Hippel, W. (Eds.). (2005). The social
outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying. New York,
NY: Psychology Press.
Williams, K. D., & Sommer, K. L. (1997). Social ostracism by one’s
coworkers: Does rejection lead to loafing or compensation? Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 693–706.
Zauberman, G., Ratner, R. K., & Kim, B. K. (2009). Memories as assets:
Strategic memory protection over time. Journal of Consumer Research,
35, 715–728.
Zhou, X., Sedikides, C., Wildschut, C., & Gao, D.-G. (2008). Counteract-
ing loneliness: On the restorative function of nostalgia. Psychological
Science, 19, 1023–1029.
Received November 28, 2008
Revision received July 27, 2009
Accepted July 31, 2009 䡲
586 WILDSCHUT, SEDIKIDES, ROUTLEDGE, ARNDT, AND CORDARO