Nostalgia Increases Psychological Richness in Life

Abstract

Nostalgia is a bittersweet emotion that increases happiness and meaning in life. Recently, psychological richness has been identified as a third component of a good life. The present research investigated whether nostalgia also enhances psychological richness in life. This was tested with two high-powered (Study 1 N = 640, Study 2 N = 1,007) preregistered experiments. We found evidence that nostalgia reliably enhances perceptions that life is psychologically rich, and this effect went above and beyond nostalgia’s effects on meaning in life and happiness. The effects were partially mediated by the unusualness of the nostalgic memories. In Study 2 (but not Study 1), we found evidence that nostalgia boosts the three facets of meaning in life: coherence, purpose, and mattering. Nostalgia appears to have broad benefits to people’s well-being.

Keywords

nostalgia psychological richness in life meaning in life happiness tripartite meaning in life

Nostalgia—a bittersweet longing for the past—is a psychological resource which contributes to living the good life, for instance, by increasing perceptions that life is meaningful and by boosting feelings of happiness (Sedikides et al., 2017). Leading a good life is important, as both feelings of happiness and meaning are associated with well-being (Fredrickson, 2001; He et al., 2023; Heine & Mask, 2026), which is of much contemporary relevance as struggles with mental health have been on the rise (Stephenson, 2023; World Health Organization, 2022). Recently, another facet of living the good life has been identified: psychological richness, which has been conceptualized as the perception that one’s life has been full of varied, emotionally complex, intense, interesting, and perspective-changing experiences (Oishi et al., 2021). In this article, we explore whether the benefits of nostalgic reflections might be broader than previously demonstrated and may enhance other dimensions of the good life.

Nostalgia

Reflecting its “bittersweet” nature, the root of the word nostalgia comes from the Greek nostos (to return home) and algos (pain)—thus nostalgia entails a painful longing for something positive from one’s past (Batcho, 2013). Although nostalgia is a complex emotion, with both positive and negative valence, the overall experience of a nostalgic reflection is predominantly positive (Sedikides et al., 2017). These recollections are often of momentous occasions, such as weddings and graduations (Wildschut et al., 2006); they tend to be social, often involving friends and family; and the self typically plays a key role (Wildschut et al., 2006). Nostalgia is frequently experienced, with approximately four out of five adults reporting having these feelings at least once per week (Wildschut et al., 2006). Moreover, the experience of nostalgia is reported across diverse cultures (Hepper et al., 2014) and age groups (Batcho, 1995). Negative emotional states—loneliness in particular—are the most common triggers of nostalgic reflections (Wildschut et al., 2006). Thus, nostalgia appears to provide existential grounding through a restorative function: when individuals feel alienated and lonely, nostalgic memories are triggered and remind them that their lives have been meaningfully connected to valued others (Abeyta & Juhl, 2023), thereby boosting positive affect and meaning in life (Sedikides et al., 2017). Thus, nostalgia is a source of existential well-being through contributing to aspects of the good life.

The Good Life

The inquiry into how to live a good life has often been the purview of religion and philosophy. However, in recent decades, there has been a surge of interest in topics related to the good life among academic psychologists (Diener et al., 2018; Mask et al., 2025; Oishi & Westgate, 2022). Psychologists’ approaches to exploring this topic, however, have largely remained constrained within a contemporary framework that was inspired by Aristotle’s philosophy from more than two millennia ago (Aristotle, ca. 350 BCE/2004)—a framework that tends to dichotomize the good life into happiness and meaning (Oishi & Westgate, 2022, 2025). Here, we explore three components of the good life: happiness, meaning, and psychological richness.

Happiness

Happiness is perhaps the most familiar aspect of the good life, and it is often operationalized through measures of subjective well-being—and can include life satisfaction as well as the presence of positive affect and the absence of negative affect (Diener, 1984). Happiness is an important component of the good life (Diener, 2000) and is related to material prosperity (Baumeister et al., 2013; Oishi & Diener, 2013), health, a comfortable and easy-going life, and a lack of stressors (Baumeister et al., 2013). A systematic review of preregistered studies suggests that happiness can be increased by expressions of gratitude, increasing sociability, spending money on other people, and acting happy (Folk & Dunn, 2024). Happiness has received the lion’s share of research attention (e.g., Ryan & Deci, 2001), but it does not tell the complete story about the good life. There are important ways in which happiness is distinct from the other components of the good life: meaningful lives (Baumeister et al., 2013) and psychological richness (Oishi & Westgate, 2022).

Meaning in Life

Another essential element of a good life is the sense that one’s existence is meaningful. Meaning in life has three facets (coherence, purpose, and mattering)—which is not to be confused with the three forms of the good life (happiness, meaning in life, and psychological richness). As the tripartite model of meaning (George & Park, 2016) reveals, a meaningful life is a life that makes sense, where the diverse components of an individual’s life relate to each other in a coherent manner (Kim et al., 2022). Meaningful lives are also guided by a sense of purpose, which provides the sense that one’s life is oriented in a particular direction (Kim et al., 2022). Finally, meaningful lives are ones that are perceived to matter, which characterize a person’s life as being of value and significance (Costin & Vignoles, 2020). Meaningful lives have been found to be associated with a variety of measures of both psychological (e.g., He et al., 2023; Kleiman & Beaver, 2013) and physical health (e.g., Czekierda et al., 2017; Roepke et al., 2014).

Psychological Richness in Life

Psychological richness in life is an emerging construct (Oishi et al., 2019) that offers an empirically distinct conceptualization of the good life (Oishi et al., 2024; Oishi & Westgate, 2022). The psychologically rich life consists of a life full of diverse, intense, emotionally complex, and perspective-changing experiences (Oishi et al., 2024; Oishi & Westgate, 2022) and reflects a life full of curiosity and wisdom (Oishi & Westgate, 2022). It is associated with higher levels of openness to experience and extraversion (Oishi et al., 2019), as well as lower levels of neuroticism (Oishi et al., 2019). Moreover, psychological richness is also associated with more political liberalism (Oishi et al., 2019), as well as attributional complexity and holistic thinking styles (Oishi et al., 2024). Common experiences that trigger feelings of psychological richness include: atypical days and novelty, trying new cuisines, meeting new people, exercise, artistic activities, club participation, taking short trips, and perspective-changing experiences such as studying abroad (Oishi et al., 2021). Although psychological richness is the least studied component of the good life, it is associated with a rather different set of outcomes than either happiness or meaningful lives (Oishi & Westgate, 2022).

Nostalgia and the Good Life

Prior research has found that upon reflecting on a nostalgic memory, participants report having heightened meaning in life and positive affect (e.g., Sedikides et al., 2017). However, research has not yet explored whether nostalgic reflections boost meaning in life primarily through any of the individual facets (coherence, purpose, or mattering). Nostalgia may plausibly increase all three facets of meaning in life. For instance, coherence may be boosted by a sense of self-continuity (Sedikides et al., 2008) through connecting the past, present, and future (Sarial-Abi et al., 2017; Sedikides et al., 2017). In addition, because nostalgia increases goal pursuit and leads to goal re-prioritization (Sedikides et al., 2017), we hypothesized that nostalgia may increase an individual’s sense of purpose. Furthermore, by enhancing an individual’s sense of social connectedness (Routledge et al., 2011), as well as their intentions to strengthen social ties (Abeyta et al., 2015), we hypothesized that nostalgia may enhance one’s sense of mattering.

More significantly, prior research has not yet explored whether a third conceptualization of the good life, psychological richness, is impacted by nostalgia. We suggest that there are reasons to expect that people will feel that their lives are psychologically richer after reflecting nostalgically. Nostalgic reflections are complex emotional experiences that tend to be both bitter and sweet, which typically involve momentous life events (Wildschut et al., 2006). Relatedly, psychologically rich memories are defined as intense, interesting, often complex emotional and perspective-changing experiences (Oishi & Westgate, 2022). We hypothesized that by reminding individuals of key life events of their past—which are often interesting and momentous occasions—as well as providing them with feelings of emotional complexity, nostalgia may boost psychological richness in life. We tested these hypotheses by conducting two high-powered, preregistered between-groups experiments, where we experimentally induced nostalgia by having participants reflect on either a nostalgic life event or an ordinary life event.

Transparency and Openness

While conducting and reporting the research detailed in this article, we followed the Open Science Framework’s Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines (Grant et al., 2025) and reported how we determined the sample sizes for our studies, all of the data exclusions, experimental manipulations, and measures administered. Please refer to the Supplemental Online Materials (SOM) for more details. We have also made all data, preregistrations, R code, and research materials publicly available on the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/jmpwd/. Both studies received ethical approval from the University of British Columbia’s Behavioral Research Ethics Board: H23-01754.

Study 1

The purpose of Study 1 was to replicate and extend prior findings in the literature that nostalgia enhances aspects of the good life. As such, we first experimentally manipulated participants’ nostalgia levels in a between-subjects experiment with two conditions in a preregistered study. We attempted to conceptually replicate prior studies showing that nostalgia increases happiness and meaning in life (e.g., Sedikides et al., 2017)—using alternative measures. Next, we sought to extend these findings by also investigating (a) which particular facets of meaning in life nostalgia enhances and, in an exploratory component of the study, we looked at (b) whether nostalgia may similarly enhance perceptions of an alternative form of the good life—psychological richness in life.

Method

Participants

We conducted a power analysis using an effect size estimate of d = 0.23 (Study 2; Abeyta & Juhl, 2023), which is a conservative estimate of nostalgia’s effect on meaning in life (e.g., Sedikides et al., 2017). This indicated 235 participants per condition would reach 80% power with α set to .05 for a one-tailed t-test. We therefore decided to collect at least 600 usable observations to ensure that our power exceeded 80%.

We recruited 1,076 students from the University of British Columbia’s human subject pool to complete a survey in the lab in exchange for partial course credit. To ensure high-quality data, we embedded three difficult attention checks within the survey, and following our preregistered data analysis plan, participants were excluded from the final sample if they failed any attention check items (n = 436; see SOM). This resulted in a final sample size of 640; average age = 20.48; 79.53% identified as women, and the majority were of Asian (54.06%) or European ancestry (28.28%).

Measures

Happiness

We measured happiness by assessing positive and negative affect as well as life satisfaction. To assess affect, we used the 12-item Scale of Positive and Negative Experiences (SPANE; Diener et al., 2010), with six items assessing positive affect (e.g., “Happy”, “Joyful”; α = .93) and six items assessing negative affect (e.g., “Sad”, “Unpleasant”; α = .85). Participants responded on a scale ranging from 1 = Strongly disagree to 7 = Strongly agree. To assess life satisfaction, we used the five-item Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener et al., 1985; α = .85). A sample item includes: “I am satisfied with my life.” Participants responded on a scale ranging from 1 = Strongly disagree to 7 = Strongly agree.

Meaning in Life (and Facets)

Meaning in life was assessed with Costin and Vignoles’s (2020) global meaning in life subscale (e.g., “My life as a whole has meaning.”; α = .89), along with its three facets of coherence (e.g., “I can make sense of the things that happen in my life.”; α = .68), purpose (e.g., “I have a good sense of what I am trying to accomplish in life.”; α = .82), and mattering (e.g., “Even considering how big the universe is, I can say that my life matters.”; α = .82). This scale contains a balance of positively and negatively worded items with each subscale consisting of four items. Participants responded on a scale ranging from 1 = Strongly disagree to 7 = Strongly agree.

Psychological Richness

We measured richness with the 12-item psychologically rich life questionnaire developed by Oishi and colleagues (2019) (e.g., “My life has been experientially rich”; α = .92). Participants responded on a scale ranging from 1 = Strongly disagree to 7 = Strongly agree.

Manipulation Check

We used a three-item manipulation check reported in Sedikides et al. (2015). Participants were asked to indicate their agreement or disagreement with the items based on how they felt after writing about either an ordinary or a nostalgic life event. A sample item includes: “At that moment, I was feeling quite nostalgic”; α = .98. Participants responded to these items on a scale ranging from 1 = Strongly disagree to 6 = Strongly agree.

Demographics

Participants reported their age, ethnicity, education, family income, religiosity, gender identity, sexuality, political orientation, and nationality.

Procedure

We used a between-groups experimental design with two conditions—participants reflected on either an ordinary or a nostalgic life event—to investigate the short-term effects of nostalgic recollections on aspects of the good life—happiness, meaning in life (and its facets), as well as psychological richness in life. We also explored nostalgia’s effects on cognitive reappraisal (see SOM).

Participants completed the surveys in the lab. After providing informed consent, participants were randomly assigned to reflect on either an ordinary or a nostalgic life event. We used the Event Reflection Task (Sedikides et al., 2015) to experimentally manipulate nostalgia levels. We first provided participants in the nostalgic memory condition (n = 303) with a definition of nostalgia from the Oxford English Dictionary—a sentimental longing for the past—before asking participants to “Bring to mind a nostalgic event in your life. Specifically, try to think of a past event that makes you most nostalgic.” Participants in the ordinary memory condition (n = 337) were asked to “Bring to mind an ordinary event in your life.” Participants in each condition were then asked to reflect on the event and their feelings about it, to list four words to describe the event, and finally, they wrote about the event in depth for at least 5 minutes. Afterwards, participants were asked to keep their event in mind while responding to the dependent variable measures, which were preceded by the question stem “Thinking about my [nostalgic life event/ordinary life event] makes me feel that . . .” We counterbalanced the order with which measures were presented to participants, and all scale items were presented in a randomized order. Finally, participants responded to the manipulation check items prior to completing a demographics questionnaire.

Results

Correlations and descriptive statistics are displayed in Table 1.

Table 1

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations (Study 1).

Variable	M	SD	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.	8.
1. Positive Affect	5.49	1.21	–
2. Negative Affect	2.51	1.18	–.66***	–
3. Life Satisfaction	4.63	1.26	.40***	–.39***	–
4. Meaning in Life	5.48	1.12	.38***	–.35***	.51***	–
5. Coherence	4.86	0.98	.27***	–.31***	.51***	.50***	–
6. Purpose	5.11	1.13	.21***	–.23***	.37***	.58***	.50***	–
7. Mattering	4.63	1.31	.29***	–.23***	.37***	.71***	.38***	.44***	–
8. Psychological Richness	5.23	1.05	.31***	–.15***	.38***	.45***	.30***	.38***	.36***	–

Note. N = 640.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

A manipulation check confirmed that participants writing about a nostalgic life event (M = 5.18, SD = 0.96) reported experiencing greater nostalgic emotions than participants writing about an ordinary life event (M = 3.94, SD = 1.61), d = 0.93 with 95% CI = [0.77, 1.10], t(556.59) = 11.95, p < .001.

We next tested the overall multivariate effect, and then, following our preregistered data analysis plan, we conducted one-tailed (Welch) t-tests to analyze the effect of the nostalgia manipulation on the dependent variables, which are summarized in Table 2. Then, in Table 3, we depict the robustness of our main findings after accounting for shared variance with other good life dimensions by conducting multiple regressions and two-tailed tests. We include a variety of additional robustness tests in the SOM.

Table 2

The Effect of Nostalgia on the Dependent Variables (Study 1).

	Ordinary reflections		Nostalgic reflections
Variable	M	SD	M	SD	d	95% CI	df	t	p	Significance
Positive Affect	5.29	1.32	5.72	1.02	0.37	[0.21, 0.52]	625.31	4.70	< .001	***
Negative Affect^a	2.52	1.21	2.51	1.15	–0.01	[–0.16, 0.15]	636.16	–0.09	.53	ns
Life Satisfaction	4.62	1.32	4.63	1.19	0.01	[–0.15, 0.16]	638.00	0.09	.47	ns
Meaning in Life	5.43	1.15	5.53	1.09	0.09	[–0.07, 0.24]	636.42	1.12	.13	ns
Coherence^a	4.86	1.01	4.86	0.95	–0.00	[–0.16, 0.15]	636.73	–0.06	.52	ns
Purpose^a	5.13	1.17	5.09	1.09	–0.04	[–0.19, 0.12]	637.38	–0.49	.69	ns
Mattering	4.57	1.38	4.70	1.22	0.10	[–0.06, 0.25]	637.90	1.25	.11	ns
Psychological Richness	5.13	1.11	5.34	0.98	0.20	[0.05, 0.36]	637.88	2.55	.005	**

Note. N = 640. CI = confidence interval.

A directional test predicted in the wrong direction.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 3

Multiple Regression Results Testing Coefficient Robustness (Study 1).

Criterion	Predictor	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4
Positive Affect	Nostalgia (d_adj)	0.37***	0.32***	0.38***	0.35***
	Psychological Richness (β)	–	0.30***	–	0.17***
	Meaning Composite (β)	–	–	0.45***	0.35***
Negative Affect	Nostalgia (d_adj)	–0.01	0.02	0.01	0.01
	Psychological Richness (β)	–	–0.15***	–	0.02
	Meaning Composite (β)	–	–	–0.44***	–0.45***
Life Satisfaction	Nostalgia (d_adj)	0.01	–0.08	–0.02	–0.06
	Psychological Richness (β)	–	0.38***	–	0.16***
	Meaning Composite (β)	–	–	0.69***	0.60***
Meaning in Life	Nostalgia (d_adj)	0.09	–0.00	0.01	–0.04
	Psychological Richness (β)	–	0.45***	–	0.31***
	Happiness Composite (β)	–	–	0.63***	0.50***
Coherence	Nostalgia (d_adj)	–0.00	–0.07	–0.08	–0.11
	Psychological Richness (β)	–	0.31***	–	0.17***
	Happiness Composite (β)	–	–	0.56***	0.49***
Purpose	Nostalgia (d_adj)	–0.04	–0.12	–0.10	–0.15
	Psychological Richness (β)	–	0.38***	–	0.30***
	Happiness Composite (β)	–	–	0.42***	0.29***
Mattering	Nostalgia (d_adj)	0.10	0.03	0.04	0.00
	Psychological Richness (β)	–	0.36***	–	0.27***
	Happiness Composite (β)	–	–	0.45***	0.34***
Psychological Richness	Nostalgia (d_adj)	0.20*	0.16*	0.20*	0.18*
	Happiness Composite (β)	–	0.42***	–	0.17***
	Meaning Composite (β)	–	–	0.58***	0.49***

Note. N = 640. Variables included in composites were standardized and equally weighted (with negative affect reverse-scored). The happiness composite includes positive affect, negative affect, and life satisfaction. The meaning composite includes meaning in life, coherence, purpose, and mattering.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

A one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) confirmed a significant multivariate effect of the nostalgia condition on the combined dependent variables, Pillai’s trace = .06, F(8, 631) = 5.44, p < .001.

First, analyzing happiness, we replicated Sedikides et al. (2017), finding that people reported greater positive affect in the nostalgic life event condition than in the control condition, d = 0.37 with 95% CI = [0.21, 0.52], t(625.31) = 4.70, p < .001. This effect was robust to controlling for psychological richness and a composite of meaning-related variables. On the contrary, nostalgia curiously did not change levels of negative affect, d = −0.01 with 95% CI = [−0.16, 0.15], t(636.16) = 0.09, p = .53, nor life satisfaction, d = 0.01, with 95% CI = [−0.15, 0.16], t(638.00) = 0.09, p = .47. Some other research has also found null effects with life satisfaction and negative affect (e.g., Li et al., 2023).

Next, analyzing meaning in life, we did not find any significant differences in meaning in life between the two conditions, d = 0.09 with 95% CI = [−0.07, 0.24], t(636.42) = 1.12, p = .13, which fails to replicate past research (Sedikides et al., 2017).

Next, looking at the three facets of meaning in life, we also observed null patterns for each of the individual facets of a meaningful life: coherence, d =−0.00 with 95% CI = [−0.16, 0.15], t(636.73) = −0.06, p = .52; purpose, d = −0.04 with 95% CI = [−0.19, 0.12], t(637.38) = −0.49, p = .69; and mattering, d = 0.10 with 95% CI = [−0.06, 0.25], t(637.90) = 1.25, p = .11.

Last, we found that people in the nostalgic life event condition reported significantly greater psychological richness than those in the control condition, d = 0.20 with 95% CI = [0.05, 0.36], t(637.88) = 2.55, p = .005. This effect was robust to controlling for meaning-related and happiness-related composites.

Although we found that participants reflecting on a nostalgic memory reported higher levels of positive affect and psychological richness than those reflecting on an ordinary memory, it is possible that these results were due to other aspects of the experience aside from nostalgic feelings. To explore this, we tested whether the manipulation check (i.e., reported nostalgic emotions) mediated the significant effects of the nostalgia manipulation on the dependent variable measures. Nostalgic emotions mediated the effect of the nostalgia manipulation on the dependent measures of positive affect, ab = 0.36, SE = 0.06, 95% CI = [0.26, 0.48], p < .001, and psychological richness, ab = 0.20, SE = 0.05, 95% CI = [0.12, 0.30], p < .001. Taken together, these mediation results provide stronger evidence that nostalgic emotions are responsible for the observed effects on the dependent variable measures.

Discussion

Our results were somewhat mixed. We replicated the finding that nostalgic reflections augmented positive affect, which is something that has been identified in past studies (e.g., Sedikides et al., 2017); however, we did not find a similar pattern with other measures relevant to happiness, such as life satisfaction or negative affect, which is also in line with previous work (e.g., Li et al., 2023). Perhaps the happiness boost from nostalgia is limited to transient positive emotionality. Moreover, we found support for our novel exploratory hypothesis that nostalgic reflections led to higher levels of psychological richness. Furthermore, our analyses of participants’ reported nostalgic feelings revealed that people felt greater happiness and psychological richness precisely because of their feelings of nostalgia. On the contrary, we failed to replicate past research in that nostalgic reflections did not lead to greater meaning in life and our manipulation of nostalgia was also not associated with any differences in the three facets of the tripartite model of meaning in life, viz., coherence, purpose, and mattering.

Our finding that nostalgic reflections boosted people’s psychological richness suggests an alternative consequence of nostalgia beyond boosts in happiness and a meaningful life. This suggests that nostalgic reflections may be a source of all aspects of a good life. We conducted Study 2 to replicate our novel finding that nostalgic reflections boost psychological richness in a high-powered and preregistered confirmatory replication effort. However, in Study 1, we curiously did not replicate the finding that nostalgia increased meaning in life. While speculative, we wondered whether this failed replication was the result of us using a different measure of meaning in life in comparison with past research. As an exploratory component of Study 2, we investigated this possibility as well as the possibility that nostalgia may boost the facets of meaning in life using a different measure (and in a pilot study launched prior to Study 2; see SOM).

Study 2

Method

Participants

We recruited 1,244 participants from the University of British Columbia’s human subject pool to complete a survey in exchange for partial course credit. Following our preregistered data analysis plan, participants were excluded from the final sample if they failed an attention check item (n = 237; see SOM). This resulted in a final sample size of 1,007: average age = 20.42, 73.88% identified as women, and the majority reported being of Asian (60.18%) or European ancestry (22.14%). Based on the effect that nostalgia had on psychological richness in life from Study 1 (d = 0.20), a power analysis with α set to .05 reveals that 310 participants per condition would reach 80% power for a one-tailed t-test, indicating that our study is well-powered.

Measures

Happiness

We used the same SPANE from Study 1 to measure positive (α = .94) and negative (α = .87) affect. In addition, we also assessed positive affect with a two-item scale (Hepper et al., 2012; α = .94). Respondents indicated how they felt when thinking about the event they wrote about. The items were “happy” and “in a good mood”. Participants responded on a scale ranging from 1 = Strongly disagree to 6 = Strongly agree.

Meaning in Life

We used the four-item scale from Hepper et al. (2012) to measure meaning in life (e.g., “life is meaningful”; α = .92). This is the scale that was used by Sedikides et al.’s (2017) research on nostalgia and meaning in life, and it was therefore part of our direct replication attempt. Participants responded on a scale ranging from 1 = Strongly disagree to 6 = Strongly agree. Moreover, as an alternative measure of meaning in life, we used the well-validated and frequently used five-item Presence of Meaning in Life subscale from the Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ; Steger et al., 2006; e.g., “I understand my life’s meaning”; α = .88). Participants responded on a scale ranging from 1 = Absolutely Untrue to 7 = Absolutely True.

Meaning in Life Facets

We used the 15-item Multidimensional Existential Meaning Scale (MEMS; George & Park, 2016) to measure the three facets of meaning in life—coherence (e.g., “my life makes sense”; α = .89), purpose (e.g., “I have overarching goals that guide me in my life”; α = .93), and mattering (e.g., “Even considering how big the universe is, I can say that my life matters”; α = .81). Each subscale consists of five items, and participants responded on a scale ranging from 1 = very strongly disagree to 7 = very strongly agree.

Psychological Richness

We used the same measure as in Study 1 to assess psychological richness (α = .96).

Manipulation Check

We used the same manipulation check as in Study 1 (α = .97).

Demographics

Participants reported their age, ethnicity, education, family income, religiosity, gender identity, sexuality, and political orientation.

Procedure

We used a nearly identical procedure as in Study 1—randomly assigning participants to either write about an ordinary memory (n = 500) or a nostalgic memory (n = 507). Some slight modifications to the Study 2 procedure are reported in the SOM.

Results

Correlations and descriptive statistics are displayed in Table 4.

Table 4

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations (Study 2).

Variable	M	SD	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.	8.	9.
1. Positive Affect (Hepper)	4.71	1.27	–
2. Positive Affect (SPANE)	5.44	1.27	.81***	–
3. Negative Affect (SPANE)	2.51	1.23	–.64***	–.68***	–
4. Meaning in Life (Hepper)	4.62	1.14	.64***	.59***	–.37***	–
5. Meaning in Life (MLQ)	4.62	1.18	.35***	.46***	–.30***	.55***	–
6. Coherence	4.43	1.09	.30***	.38***	–.26***	.42***	.75***	–
7. Purpose	5.01	1.15	.24***	.34***	–.18***	.48***	.72***	.63***	–
8. Mattering	4.34	1.11	.27***	.37***	–.23***	.50***	.67***	.60***	.64***	–
9. Psychological Richness	4.99	1.30	.38***	.46***	–.21***	.56***	.58***	.50***	.59***	.53***	–

Note. N = 1,007.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

A manipulation check confirmed the effectiveness of the Event Reflection Task for eliciting nostalgic emotions. Participants writing about a nostalgic life event (M = 5.21, SD = 0.83) reported experiencing greater nostalgic emotions than participants writing about an ordinary life event (M = 3.65, SD = 1.59), d = 1.23 with 95% CI = [1.09, 1.37], t(752.20) = 19.49, p < .001.

Table 5

The Effect of Nostalgia on the Dependent Variables Including (Study 2).

	Ordinary reflections		Nostalgic reflections
Variable	M	SD	M	SD	d	95% CI	df	t	p	Significance
Positive Affect (Hepper)	4.34	1.35	5.08	1.06	0.61	[0.48, 0.74]	947.42	9.69	< .001	***
Positive Affect (SPANE)	5.07	1.38	5.80	1.03	0.61	[0.48, 0.73]	923.74	9.60	< .001	***
Negative Affect (SPANE)^a	2.61	1.28	2.41	1.17	–0.16	[–0.29, –0.04]	994.18	–2.59	.0097	**
Meaning in Life (Hepper)	4.27	1.17	4.96	0.99	0.63	[0.50, 0.76]	974.08	10.00	< .001	***
Meaning in Life (MLQ)	4.38	1.22	4.86	1.10	0.42	[0.29, 0.54]	991.95	6.63	< .001	***
Coherence	4.31	1.06	4.54	1.10	0.22	[0.10, 0.35]	1004.30	3.51	< .001	***
Purpose	4.82	1.20	5.20	1.07	0.33	[0.21, 0.46]	988.36	5.31	< .001	***
Mattering	4.16	1.13	4.52	1.06	0.33	[0.21, 0.46]	997.72	5.25	< .001	***
Psychological Richness	4.53	1.36	5.45	1.05	0.75	[0.62, 0.88]	938.90	11.91	< .001	***

Note. N = 1,007.

Due to having no a priori directional predictions, significance tests for negative affect were two-tailed.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

A one-way MANOVA confirmed a significant multivariate effect of the nostalgia condition on the combined dependent variables, Pillai’s trace = .19, F(9, 997) = 25.56, p < .001.

First, analyzing happiness, we replicated our Study 1 results, finding that people reported greater positive affect in the nostalgic life event condition than in the control condition: positive affect (Hepper), d = 0.61 with 95% CI = [0.48, 0.74], t(947.42) = 9.69, p < .001, positive affect (SPANE), d = 0.61 with 95% CI = [0.48, 0.73], t(923.74) = 9.60, p < .001. In contrast to Study 1, nostalgia significantly decreased negative affect, d = −0.16 with 95% CI = [−0.29, −0.04], t(994.18) = −2.59, p = .01. Nostalgia’s effects on both measures of positive affect (but not negative affect) were robust to controlling for psychological richness and a composite of meaning-related variables (see Table 6).

Table 6

Multiple Regression Results Testing Coefficient Robustness (Study 2).

Criterion	Predictor	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4
Positive Affect (Hepper)	Nostalgia (d_adj)	0.61***	0.40***	0.46***	0.42***
	Psychological Richness (β)	–	0.32***	–	0.10*
	Meaning Composite (β)	–	–	0.47***	0.40***
Positive Affect (SPANE)	Nostalgia (d_adj)	0.61***	0.34***	0.43***	0.36***
	Psychological Richness (β)	–	0.40***	–	0.14***
	Meaning Composite (β)	–	–	0.58***	0.48***
Negative Affect (SPANE)	Nostalgia (d_adj)	–0.16**	–0.01	–0.01	–0.02
	Psychological Richness (β)	–	–0.21***	–	0.02
	Meaning Composite (β)	–	–	–0.40***	–0.41***
Meaning in Life (Hepper)	Nostalgia (d_adj)	0.63***	0.29***	0.42***	0.18**
	Psychological Richness (β)	–	0.52***	–	0.37***
	Happiness Composite (β)	–	–	0.62***	0.48***
Meaning in Life (MLQ)	Nostalgia (d_adj)	0.42***	0.00	0.24	–0.07
	Psychological Richness (β)	–	0.58***	–	0.50***
	Happiness Composite (β)	–	–	0.43***	0.25***
Coherence	Nostalgia (d_adj)	0.22***	–0.17	0.05	–0.23***
	Psychological Richness (β)	–	0.52***	–	0.45***
	Happiness Composite (β)	–	–	0.38***	0.22***
Purpose	Nostalgia (d_adj)	0.33***	–0.13	0.21***	–0.15*
	Psychological Richness (β)	–	0.61***	–	0.59***
	Happiness Composite (β)	–	–	0.29***	0.07*
Mattering	Nostalgia (d_adj)	0.33***	–0.06	0.19**	–0.10
	Psychological Richness (β)	–	0.54***	–	0.49***
	Happiness Composite (β)	–	–	0.33***	0.16***
Psychological Richness	Nostalgia (d_adj)	0.75***	0.62***	0.59***	0.56***
	Happiness Composite (β)	–	0.36***	–	0.06*
	Meaning Composite (β)	–	–	0.76***	0.73***

Note. N = 1,007. Variables included in composites were standardized and equally weighted (with negative affect reverse-scored). The happiness composite includes positive affect (Hepper), positive affect (SPANE), and negative affect (SPANE). The meaning composite includes meaning in life (Hepper), meaning in life (MLQ), coherence, purpose, and mattering.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

In contrast to Study 1, we found that meaning in life was significantly higher in the nostalgic condition than in the control condition for both the Hepper et al. (2012) measure, d = 0.63 with 95% CI = [0.50, 0.76], t(974.08) = 10.00, p < .001, as well as the MLQ, d = 0.42 with 95% CI = [0.29, 0.54], t(991.95) = 6.63, p < .001. The effect of nostalgia on meaning in life (Hepper) was robust to controlling for psychological richness and a composite of happiness-related variables, but meaning in life (MLQ) was not.

With respect to the three facets of meaning in life, nostalgia significantly increased each of coherence, d = 0.22 with 95% CI = [0.10, 0.35], t(1,004.30) = 3.51, p < .001; purpose, d = 0.33 with 95% CI = [0.21, 0.46], t(988.36) = 5.31, p < .001; and mattering, d = 0.33 with 95% CI = [0.21, 0.46], t(997.72) = 5.25, p < .001. The effects of nostalgia on the three facets of meaning in life were not robust to controlling for psychological richness and a happiness-related composite.

Last, replicating Study 1, we again found that people in the nostalgic life event condition reported significantly greater psychological richness than those in the control condition, d = 0.75 with 95% CI = [0.62, 0.88], t(938.90) = 11.91, p < .001. The effect of nostalgia on psychological richness was robust to controlling for meaning-related and happiness-related composites.

We again tested whether the effects of the manipulation were specifically due to people’s reported nostalgic emotions. Nostalgic emotions significantly mediated the effect of the nostalgia manipulation on all dependent measures (see Table 7). Taken together, these mediation results provide evidence that people report more of all the aspects of a good life because of the nostalgic feelings that our manipulation elicited.

Table 7

Indirect Effects of Nostalgic Condition on Dependent Variables via Nostalgic Emotions.

Variable	Indirect effect	SE	95% CI	p
Positive Affect (Hepper)	0.58	0.06	[0.47, 0.70]	< .001
Positive Affect (SPANE)	0.66	0.06	[0.55, 0.79]	< .001
Negative Affect (SPANE)	–0.31	0.05	[-0.42, -0.21]	< .001
Meaning in Life (Hepper)	0.54	0.05	[0.45, 0.64]	< .001
Meaning in Life (MLQ)	0.43	0.05	[0.32, 0.54]	< .001
Coherence	0.28	0.05	[0.19, 0.37]	< .001
Purpose	0.35	0.05	[0.25, 0.46]	< .001
Mattering	0.35	0.05	[0.27, 0.45]	< .001
Psychological Richness	0.51	0.06	[0.41, 0.63]	< .001

Note. N = 1,007. SE = standard error; CI = confidence interval.

In response to a reviewer’s comment, we conducted an exploratory content analysis of the 1,007 essays in Study 2 to clarify the causal mechanisms and test the robustness of our findings. We used a method in which human coders trained ChatGPT to perform the content analysis; once trained, ChatGPT's coding was comparable to that of the human coders (see SOM for details). We coded the essays for the presence of three themes that relate to both psychological richness and nostalgia: importance, unusualness, and emotional complexity. We found that the nostalgic essays were rated as significantly more important, unusual, and emotionally complex than the control essays (see SOM). Overall, unusualness emerged as a fairly consistent unique predictor of psychological richness and other aspects of a good life. Our key findings remain robust to controlling for these three themes, and parallel mediation analyses suggest that felt-nostalgia continues to mediate the effect of our nostalgia manipulation on the dependent variables.

Discussion

Study 2 replicated our novel exploratory finding from Study 1 that nostalgia increases levels of psychological richness in life. In addition, we again found evidence that nostalgia boosts happiness (both measures of positive and negative affect), and, unlike Study 1, we also replicated past research (Sedikides et al., 2017) in finding that nostalgia boosted meaning in life (and each of the three facets of the tripartite model of meaning) and did so with the largest known experimental sample in the nostalgia literature. We assume that the different findings for meaning in life between Studies 1 and 2 are likely due to differences in the particular meaning in life measures that we used. Notably, the Costin and Vignoles (2020) measure from Study 1 yielded different findings from the measures by Hepper et al. (2012) and Steger et al. (2006). The finding that nostalgia boosts all aspects of a good life (happiness, meaning, and richness) highlights the important role that nostalgia plays in people’s well-being. Moreover, the novel effect—that nostalgia boosts psychological richness—was nominally the largest effect size observed in this study, and it remained significant after controlling for other dimensions of the good life, indicating that nostalgia boosts richness above and beyond the other aspects of a good life.

General Discussion

In this research, we explored whether nostalgic recollections would increase the three dimensions of the good life—happiness, meaning in life (and its facets), and psychological richness. Across two highly powered and preregistered studies, we found much evidence for this. Replicating past research on nostalgia and happiness (Sedikides et al., 2017), we found that people reported more positive affect after engaging in nostalgic reflections. The evidence for meaning in life was mixed, emerging for three of the four different measures of meaning in life that were used across the two studies, in keeping with past research (Sedikides et al., 2017), and there was some evidence in Study 2 that nostalgia boosts feelings of coherence, purpose, and mattering. Most notably, we found evidence for a novel effect: nostalgia boosts feelings of psychological richness. In both studies, the effect was robust to simultaneously controlling for the other aspects of a good life, suggesting that the benefits that nostalgia has for enhancing psychological richness are not merely a byproduct of nostalgia’s already-known effects on happiness and meaning in life.

Thus, it appears that nostalgia is a reliable source of psychological richness in life.

Limitations and Future Directions

There are several limitations to the generalizability of our findings. First, our results do not clarify whether nostalgic reflections lead to durable changes in the good life constructs or merely reflect a transient priming effect—the durability of effects could be tested via longitudinal methods. In addition, both of our studies used the same experimental manipulation, similar measures, and similar samples of young Canadian university students (although similar patterns emerged from our pilot using American participants with more diverse ages). It is unclear whether similar effects would emerge with samples that are of different cultural backgrounds. The Event Reflection Task is also artificial, and its generalizability would be strengthened by using more naturalistic manipulations, such as by using nostalgic music or films to elicit nostalgia in a more covert manner. Relatedly, there is a potential risk of demand characteristics inherent in the Event Reflection Task—asking participants to think and write about a nostalgic memory for several minutes before asking them to evaluate their lives is not a strong disguise of the research question.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-spp-10.1177_19485506261454720 – Supplemental material for Nostalgia Increases Psychological Richness in Life

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-spp-10.1177_19485506261454720 for Nostalgia Increases Psychological Richness in Life by Michael B. Mask, Sebastian Gomez, Yukta Bhandari and Steven Heine in Social Psychological and Personality Science

Footnotes

Handling Editor: Jayawickreme, Eranda

ORCID iDs

Yukta Bhandari

Steven Heine

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research in this article was funded by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) grant (grant number: 435-2019-0480).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental Material

The supplemental material is available in the online version of the article.

Author Biographies

Michael B. Mask is a Ph.D student at the University of British Columbia. Under the supervision of Dr. Steven J. Heine, Michael investigates topics at the intersection of existential psychology and cultural psychology.

Sebastian Gomez is a recent B.A. psychology graduate from the University of British Columbia. He has a specific interest in how religion shapes and influences existential psychology, particularly questions surrounding meaning, purpose, identity, and well-being. His academic interests also include moral psychology and the ways belief systems influence human behavior and decision-making.

Yukta Bhandari is an M.A. student in psychology at New York University. Her research investigates how collective memory, moral cognition, and discourse intersect to shape human decision-making and social behavior. She is particularly interested in understanding how groups mobilize narratives about the past to influence identity, intergroup relations, and perceptions of justice in the present.

Steven Heine is Distinguished University Scholar and Professor of Social and Cultural Psychology at the University of British Columbia. His research focuses on a few topics that converge on how people come to understand themselves and the world around them. In particular, he studies how people's cultures shape how they make sense of themselves and their worlds, how people strive to find meaning in their lives, and how people understand genetic causes.

References

Abeyta

A. A.

Juhl

(2023). Nostalgia restores meaning in life for lonely people. Emotion, 23(6), 1791–1795. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001190

Abeyta

A. A.

Routledge

Juhl

(2015). Looking back to move forward: Nostalgia as a psychological resource for promoting relationship goals and overcoming relationship challenges. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(6), 1029–1044. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000036

Aristotle. (2004).The Nicomachean ethics (H. Tredennick & J. A. K. Thomson, Trans.; J. Barnes, Intro.). Penguin Classics. (Original work published ca. 350 BCE)

Batcho

K. I.

(1995). Nostalgia: A psychological perspective. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 80(1), 131–143. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1995.80.1.131

Batcho

K. I.

(2013). Nostalgia: The bittersweet history of a psychological concept. History of Psychology, 16(3), 165.

Baumeister

R. F.

Vohs

K. D.

Aaker

J. L.

Garbinsky

E. N.

(2013). Some key differences between a happy life and a meaningful life. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8(6), 505–516. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2013.830764

Costin

Vignoles

V. L.

(2020). Meaning is about mattering: Evaluating coherence, purpose, and existential mattering as precursors of meaning in life judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(4), 864–884. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000225

Czekierda

Banik

Park

C. L.

Luszczynska

(2017). Meaning in life and physical health: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Psychology Review, 11, 387–418.

Diener

(1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.95.3.542

10.

Diener

(2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55(1), Article 34.

11.

Diener

Emmons

R. A.

Larsen

R. J.

Griffin

(1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13

12.

Diener

Lucas

R. E.

Oishi

(2018). Advances and open questions in the science of subjective well-being. Collabra: Psychology, 4(1), Article 115. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.115

13.

Diener

Wirtz

Tov

Kim-Prieto

Choi

Oishi

Biswas-Diener

(2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y

14.

Folk

Dunn

(2024). How can people become happier? A systematic review of preregistered experiments. Annual Review of Psychology, 75(1), 467–493. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-022423-030818

15.

Fredrickson

B. L.

(2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218.

16.

George

L. S.

Park

C. L.

(2016). The multidimensional existential meaning scale: A tripartite approach to measuring meaning in life. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(6), 613–627. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1209546

17.

Grant

Corker

K. S.

Mellor

D. T.

Stewart

S. L. K.

Cashin

A. G.

Lagisz

Nosek

B. A.

(2025, February 3). TOP 2025: An update to the transparency and openness promotion guidelines. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/nmfs6_v2

18.

X.-X.

Wang

Steger

M. F.

L.-J.

Jing

Liu

(2023). Meaning in life and psychological distress: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 104, Article 104381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2023.104381

19.

Heine

S. J.

Mask

M. B.

(2026). The cultural pursuit of meaning. In Vail

K. E.

Van Tongeren

D. R.

Schlegel

R. J.

Greenberg

King

L. A.

Ryan

R. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of the science of existential psychology (pp. 527–542). Guilford Press.

20.

Hepper

E. G.

Ritchie

T. D.

Sedikides

Wildschut

(2012). Odyssey’s end: Lay conceptions of nostalgia reflect its original Homeric meaning. Emotion, 12, 102–119. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025167

21.

Hepper

E. G.

Wildschut

Sedikides

Ritchie

T. D.

Yung

Y.-F.

Hansen

Abakoumkin

Arikan

Cisek

S. Z.

Demassosso

D. B.

Gebauer

J. E.

Gerber

J. P.

González

Kusumi

Misra

Rusu

Ryan

Stephan

Vingerhoets

A. J.

Zhou

(2014). Pancultural nostalgia: Prototypical conceptions across cultures. Emotion, 14(4), 733–747. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036790

22.

Kim

Holte

Martela

Shanahan

Zhang

Eisenbeck

Carreno

D. F.

Schlegel

R. J.

Hicks

J. A.

(2022). Experiential appreciation as a pathway to meaning in life. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(5), 677–690. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01283-6

23.

Kleiman

E. M.

Beaver

J. K.

(2013). A meaningful life is worth living: Meaning in life as a suicide resiliency factor. Psychiatry Research, 210, 934–939.

24.

Zhu

Cui

(2023). Can good memories of the past instill happiness? nostalgia improves subjective well-being by increasing gratitude. Journal of Happiness Studies, 24(2), 699–715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-022-00616-0

25.

Mask

M. B.

Folk

D. P.

Heine

S. J.

(2025). How sources of purpose predict meaning in life, happiness, and psychological richness, across cultures. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 20, 843–853. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2025.2500562

26.

Oishi

Choi

Buttrick

Heintzelman

S. J.

Kushlev

Westgate

E. C.

Tucker

Ebersole

C. R.

Axt

Gilbert

B. W.

Besser

L. L.

(2019). The psychologically Rich Life Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality, 81, 257–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.06.010

27.

Oishi

Choi

Liu

Kurtz

(2021). Experiences associated with psychological richness. European Journal of Personality, 35(5), 754–770. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890207020962334

28.

Oishi

Diener

(2013). Residents of poor nations have a greater sense of meaning in life than residents of wealthy nations. Psychological Science, 25(2), 422–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613507286

29.

Oishi

Westgate

Cha

(2024). The cognitive complexity of a happy life, a meaningful life, and a psychologically rich life. Journal of Research in Personality, 110, Article 104475.

30.

Oishi

Westgate

E. C.

(2022). A psychologically rich life: Beyond happiness and meaning. Psychological Review, 129(4), 790–811. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000317

31.

Oishi

Westgate

E. C.

(2025). Psychological richness offers a third path to a good life. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 29, 1023–1033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2025.04.002

32.

Roepke

A. M.

Jayawickreme

Riffle

O. M.

(2014). Meaning and health: A systematic review. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 9, 1055–1079.

33.

Routledge

Arndt

Wildschut

Sedikides

Hart

Juhl

Vingerhoets

A. J.

Scholtz

(2011). The past makes the present meaningful: Nostalgia as an existential resource. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 638–652.

34.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141–166. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141

35.

Sarial-Abi

Vohs

K. D.

Hamilton

Ulqinaku

(2017). Stitching time: Vintage consumption connects the past, present, and future. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(2), 182–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2016.06.004

36.

Sedikides

Cheung

W.-Y.

Wildschut

Hepper

E. G.

Baldursson

Pedersen

(2017). Nostalgia motivates pursuit of important goals by increasing meaning in life. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48(2), 209–216. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2318

37.

Sedikides

Wildschut

Gaertner

Routledge

Arndt

(2008). Nostalgia as enabler of self-continuity. In Sani

(Ed.), Self-continuity: Individual and collective perspectives (pp. 227–239). Psychology Press.

38.

Sedikides

Wildschut

Routledge

Arndt

Hepper

E. G.

Zhou

(2015). To nostalgize: Mixing memory with affect and desire. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 189–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2014.10.001

39.

Steger

M. F.

Frazier

Oishi

Kaler

(2006). The meaning in life questionnaire: Assessing the presence of and search for meaning in life. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(1), 80–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.53.1.80

40.

Stephenson

(2023, September 22). Mental disorders and access to mental health care (Health reports 34(10)). Statistics Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/75-006-x/2023001/article/00011-eng.pdf?st=hNclaorZ

41.

Wildschut

Sedikides

Arndt

Routledge

(2006). Nostalgia: Content, triggers, functions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(5), 975–993. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.5.975

42.

World Health Organization. (2022, March 2). Covid-19 pandemic triggers 25% increase in prevalence of anxiety and depression worldwide. https://www.who.int/news/item/02-03-2022-covid-19-pandemic-triggers-25-increase-in-prevalence-of-anxiety-and-depression-worldwide

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.08 MB

0.00 MB