ArticleMemory & cognition2025
Valence-based biases in collective temporal thought: The role of question framing, culture, and age.
Article in Memory & cognition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Chinese anticipate their country's future to be as bright as their personal future.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Cognition in Climate Change: Is It Just a Matter of Time?Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive scienceReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Collective temporal thought includes individuals' memories of group experiences and expectations about the group's collective future. Prior studies have found inconsistent valence biases (e.g., positivity) in North American collective memory and consistently negative biases in collective future thought. Discrepancies in collective memory valence biases may be due to different question framing across studies. Moreover, a limited number of studies extend collective temporal thought research beyond Western nations and few studies examine potential age-related differences in this area. Therefore, the present study investigates valence-based biases in collective temporal thought from the perspective of question framing, culture, and participant age. Participants (N = 1,548) included younger (20-39 years) and older (60+ years) adults from the USA and mainland China. Whereas Americans' collective memory biases varied across question framings, Chinese participants consistently displayed positivity biases. The American bias patterns were specific to collective memory and did not carry over to collective future thought ratings. Chinese participants showed higher dialectical thinking than American participants and dialectical thinking positively correlated with the proportion of positive events reported. Older adults generated significantly more positive events than younger adults, more so in collective memory than in collective future thought. Overall, collective temporal thinking is influenced by question framing, cultural context, and participant age.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.