A Hedonic Story has a Transmission Advantage over a Eudaimonic Story

TRANSMISSION OF HEDONIC HAPPINESS

1

A Hedonic Story has a Transmission Advantage over a Eudaimonic Story

Shigehiro Oishi, University of Virginia

Selin Kesebir, London Business School

Casey Eggleston, University of Virginia

Felicity F. Miao, University of Virginia

Correspondence to

Shigehiro Oishi, Ph.D.

Department of Psychology

University of Virginia

P.O.Box 400400

Charlottesville, VA 22904-4400

Tel (434) 243-8989

Email: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


2

Abstract

We examined (a) whether a hedonic story (story full of hedonic activities) is better

remembered and transmitted compared to a eudaimonic story (story full of eudaimonic

activities), and (b) whether the hedonic story’s memory and transmission advantage

varies depending on contextual cues, as indexed by the day of the week. Study 1 showed

that college students are surrounded with more party announcements on Wednesdays

through Fridays than on Mondays and Tuesdays. Study 2 showed that the hedonic story

and the eudaimonic story we created were equally interesting, rich in plot, surprising, and

arousing, yet the hedonic story was rated as more disturbing, real, and newsworthy. In

Studies 3 and 4, we used a serial reproduction method, and found that the hedonic story

was better recalled and transmitted to others than was the eudaimonic story, and that this

effect was particularly strong when participants completed the study later in the week.

Our findings suggest that a hedonic story is more communicable than a eudaimonic story,

particularly when supported by environmental cues.

Key Words: Happiness, Hedonic, Eudaimonic, Cultural Transmission, Serial

Reproduction


3

A Hedonic Story has a Transmission Advantage over a Eudaimonic Story

As stories are passed from one person to another, they change in content and tone.

Bartlett (1932) identified this phenomenon empirically, using a serial reproduction

method. To retell a story one first needs to remember what the story was. Thus, the

transmission of a story involves memory processes, and in particular what Bartlett called

reconstructive memory (Roediger & DeSoto, in press). Recent studies on cultural

transmission centered on the retention of stereotype-consistent vs. inconsistent

information (e.g., Kashima, 2000b), and the performance of different types of content in

the marketplace of ideas (e.g., Bangerter & Heath, 2004; Heath, Bell, & Sternberg, 2001;

Sinaceur, & Heath, 2005). These studies explored research questions such as “Is

stereotype-consistent information transmitted better than stereotype-inconsistent

information?” and “Does a vivid story spread faster and wider?”

Building on the earlier studies on reconstructive memory in a naturalistic setting,

we examined whether a hedonic story is better remembered and transmitted to another

person compared to a eudaimonic story. Furthermore, we examined whether the memory

for and transmission of a hedonic vs. eudaimonic stories differ, depending on contextual

cues. To that purpose, we used day of the week as a proxy for the intensity of hedonic

background in everyday life. We chose to study the memory and transmission of a

hedonic versus a eudaimonic story because they represent two main approaches to

happiness (pleasure-seeking vs. being good; Peterson, Park, & Seligman, 2005).

Why are Some Stories Memorable and Communicable?

Since Bartlett’s (1932) seminal work, psychologists have used the serial

reproduction method to examine the processes through which ideas or stereotypes are


4

proliferated and spread. For instance, Kashima (2000b) showed that information

consistent with gender stereotypes would be more faithfully transmitted to other people in

the long run than information that is inconsistent with gender stereotypes. Using the serial

reproduction method, Kashima and his colleagues provided new insight into why

stereotype-consistent information is more likely to be transmitted than stereotype-

inconsistent information over generations in a given culture (see also Lyons & Kashima,

2001, 2003; Schaller, Conway, & Tanchuk, 2002). The part of a story that fits an existing

schema is easier to be integrated and further conventionalized (Bartlett, 1932). Thus, the

schema-consistent information is likely to be retained and transmitted to others (Kashima,

2000b).

Recently, researchers have also investigated the role of interpersonal

communication in the transmission of other types of information, such as urban legends

(Heath, Bell, & Sternberg, 2001), celebrity standing (Fast, Heath, & Wu, 2009), the

Mozart effect (Bangerter & Heath, 2004), and Mad Cow disease (Sinaceur, & Heath,

2005). It has been shown that various factors such as vividness and emotionality increase

the communicability of information (see Berger & Heath, 2005 for review; see also

Harton, & Bullock, 2007). Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), for instance, came

to be widely feared once the disease was relabeled as Mad Cow disease—fear of

contaminated beef was not as prevalent when the same disease was called BSE.

In addition to intrinsic characteristics of ideas or stories (e.g., vividness), some

ideas or stories are more likely to be transmitted for interpersonal reasons. Specifically,

gossipy stories are believed to spread more than non-gossipy stories because they provide

an easy way to establish a common ground with strangers, enhance the unity of the


5

group, and make the gossipers feel morally superior to the target of gossip (Dunbar,

2004; Gluckman, 1963; Sabini & Silver, 1982; Wert & Salovey, 2004). Likewise,

stereotype-consistent stories are more likely to be transmitted than stereotype-

inconsistent stories (Kashima, 2000b). This is because stereotype-consistent stories have

higher social bonding potential (Clark & Kashima, 2007).

Contextual Effects on Transmission of a Story

As summarized above, researchers have clarified important factors in the

transmission of stories and ideas. However, with the notable exception of Berger and

Heath (2005), not much attention has been paid to the context of transmission. For

instance, it is not yet clear whether stereotype-consistent stories are transmitted better

under certain circumstances than others. This is a major weakness in the otherwise rich

literature of cultural transmission. It is quite likely that the same story or idea would be

transmitted better under some circumstances than others. This is evident when one

considers Allport and Postman’s (1947) famous observation that certain rumors were

transmitted widely in wartime. Berger and Heath also provided initial evidence

supporting the role of context on the transmission of an idea. Specifically, they found that

a rumor that Microsoft would pay money to those who forwarded an e-mail to a certain

number of people was posted more often on web forums when relevant environmental

cues were more frequent (e.g., when the media reported more stories about Microsoft).

This finding suggests that the salience of related conceptual cues helped the propagation

of a cultural product. Berger and Heath, however, have not used the serial reproduction

method and therefore have not examined the contextual role in the person-to-person


6

transmission of an idea or story. In addition, to our knowledge, none of the previous

research has examined a day of the week effect on the transmission of an idea or story.

In short, recent research on the transmission of ideas and stereotypes indicates

that several factors are likely to increase the chances of a given story being transmitted:

vividness and emotionality (Heath et al., 2001; Peters, Kashima, & Clark, 2009; Sinaceur

& Heath, 2005), sharedness (Lyons & Kashima, 2003), social bonding potential (Clark &

Kashima, 2007), and essentialism (or what Kashima and colleagues called “how real it

feels”). Based on these findings, we predicted that a story with hedonic elements is more

likely to be spread to other students than a story with eudaimonic elements, because the

hedonic story is more vivid, emotional, widely shared, and essential (real), as well as

gossipy and newsworthy (Dunbar, 2004; Rosnow & Fine, 1976). Furthermore, based on

Berger and Heath’s (2005) findings, we predicted that the hedonic story would have a

particularly strong transmission advantage when college students’ habitats featured

relevant cues, such as party announcements (e.g., on Wednesdays, Thursdays, and

Fridays, rather than Mondays and Tuesdays).

The Present Research

We conducted Study 1 to document when environmental cues relevant to the

hedonic story are prevalent in college students’ daily habitats. In Study 2, participants

were randomly assigned to read either the hedonic or the eudaimonic story. After a

distraction task, they were asked to reproduce the original story. In this study, we also

examined whether the hedonic story would evoke more intense emotion, and be rated

more vivid, real, and newsworthy than the eudaimonic story. We also checked whether

the two stories we created would be equally interesting and rich in plot to ensure the


7

equivalence in general evaluative qualities of the story, while differing in vividness,

emotionality, and newsworthiness. Once the environmental cues relevant to a hedonic

story and the equivalence of two stories were established, we conducted two additional

studies (Studies 3 and 4) to test our main hypotheses, using the serial reproduction

method (Bartlett, 1932). In Study 3, participants were randomly assigned to read either a

hedonic or a eudaimonic story. Participants in the first chain read the original hedonic or

eudaimonic story. After a distraction task, they were asked to reproduce the story. The

participants second in the chain read the reproduction of the story written by the first

participants. After the distraction task, they were asked to reproduce the story. Finally,

the third participants in the chain read the reproduction of the story written by the second

participants. After the distraction task, they were also asked to reproduce the story they

read.

In Study 4, we used exactly the same materials. However, we changed the mode

of communication from written to oral. Research assistants read the story aloud to the

first participants. After the distraction task, the first participants were asked to tell the

story to the second participants. Then, after the distraction task, the second participants

were asked to tell the story they remembered to the third participants. The third

participants were asked to tell the story to the experimenter. Together, we examined (a)

the memory and the transmission of the hedonic versus eudaimonic story among

American college students, and (b) whether the hedonic story would be transmitted better

during the latter part of the week than in the early part of the week. The current research

has examined for the first time the day of the week effect on the transmission of a

eudaimonic versus hedonic story in person-to-person communication. Whereas the


8

existing research typically used only the written form of communication (see Kashima,

Lyons, & Clark, 2013 for oral communication of a stereotype consistent vs. inconsistent

story), we tested our hypotheses using two modes of communication: written and spoken.

Thus, our research allowed us to explore whether the memory and the transmission of a

hedonic versus a eudaimonic story would depend on the mode of communication.

Study 1: Objective and Subjective Reports of Party Announcements on Campus

Method

We used two methods to assess environmental cues relevant to hedonic events.

First, to obtain objective information regarding environmental cues, two research

assistants (RAs) took a picture of one bulletin board in the psychology building over a 9-

week period during the Fall semester at the University of Virginia (UVA). Research

assistants then counted the number of fliers with a hedonic theme (e.g., party

announcements, entertainment announcements). Because all the fliers are taken down on

Friday mornings, the RAs were only able to take a picture before fliers were taken down

on one Friday. RAs were able to record the number of fliers on 5 Mondays, 3 Tuesdays, 6

Wednesdays, and 6 Thursdays during the 9-week period.

Second, to obtain a subjective sense of the prevalence of party announcements,

159 students (39 males; 120 females) at UVA reported how often they saw party

announcements on campus on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays,

respectively on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all to 5 = a lot).

Third, because the first survey did not assess other types of hedonic

announcements, or any eudaimonic announcements, we collected additional data from 48

students (17 males, 30 females, 1 did not specify) at UVA. They were asked to indicate


9

how often they saw each of the following announcements on each day of the week: three

hedonic activities (party, concert, and film) and three eudaimonic activities (volunteer,

religious group, study) on the same 5-point scale (1 = not at all to 5 = a lot). We

computed the hedonic announcement score and the eudaimonic announcement score by

taking the mean of the three ratings for each day, respectively (Hedonic announcements:

α = .70 for Mondays, .63 for Tuesdays, .53 for Wednesdays, .56 for Thursdays, .52 for

Fridays; Eudaimonic announcements: .60 for Mondays, .66 for Tuesdays, .66 for

Wednesdays, .69 for Thursdays, .68 for Fridays).

Results and Discussion

As seen in Figure 1a, the number of party-related announcements on the bulletin

board was relatively low on Mondays and Tuesdays, jumped up on Wednesdays, and

stayed high on Thursdays until they were taken off on Fridays. Party-related

announcements were significantly more numerous on Wednesday through Friday (M =

102.08, SD = 29.97) than on Monday and Tuesday (M = 64.89, SD = 23.22), t(19) = 3.09,

p = .006, d = 1.42.

Consistent with the actual number of party-related announcements on the bulletin

board, students perceived that party announcements were relatively rare on Mondays and

Tuesdays (see Figure 1b). Whereas the objective number of party-related announcements

increased sharply on Wednesdays and stayed at a similar level on Thursdays and Fridays,

students perceived that party announcements became progressively more abundant as the

week progressed from Tuesday to Wednesday, paired t(158) = 9.09, p < .001, d = 1.45,

from Wednesday to Thursday, paired t(158) = 14.41, p < .001, d = 2.29, and from

Thursday to Friday, paired t(158) = 10.98, p < .001, d = 1.75.


10

Finally, we examined the response patterns for the hedonic and the eudaimonic

announcements. Whereas the perceived frequency of hedonic announcements (party,

concert, film) increased progressively toward the end of the week, the perceived

frequency of eudaimonic announcements (volunteer, religion, study) remained fairly

stable (see Figure 1c). Specifically, on Mondays, students reported seeing significantly

more eudaimonic announcements than hedonic announcements, t (47) = -4.045, p < .001,

d = -.584. There were no differences on Tuesdays (t [47] = -1.250, p = .218, d= -.180)

and Wednesdays (t [47] = -.482, p = .632, d = -.070). On Thursdays and Fridays, students

reported seeing significantly more hedonic announcements than eudaimonic

announcements, t (47) = 4.087, p < .001, d = .590 on Thursdays, t (47) = 6.064, p < .001,

d = .875 on Fridays.

Both self-reports and objective measures indicate that environmental cues

associated with the hedonic events were abundant on a typical American college campus,

particularly on Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays. Thus, in the following studies, we

will compare Mondays and Tuesdays (low hedonic cues) with Wednesdays, Thursdays,

and Fridays (high hedonic cues).

Study 2: Remembering a Hedonic vs. Eudaimonic Story

Now that we had documented that environmental cues associated with hedonic

events are abundant on a college campus, in particular during the latter part of the week,

we went on to test our hypothesis regarding the relative memory advantage of the

hedonic over the eudaimonic story. As a first step, the main goal of Study 2 was to

establish that the hedonic and eudaimonic stories we created are equivalent in terms of

general evaluative qualities (e.g., how interesting and rich in plot they are), but different


11

in terms of transmission-relevant qualities (e.g., how vivid and newsworthy they are). In

addition, we assessed participants’ mood right after reading the story to test whether

affective reactions to the hedonic story would be different from reactions to the

eudaimonic story, and if so, whether affective reactions would be associated with

memory for the hedonic vs. the eudaimonic story.

Method

Participants were 188 students (61 males, 127 females) at the University of

Virginia. They participated in this study in exchange for partial course credit. Participants

were randomly assigned to read either the hedonic or eudaimonic version of the story

about a freshman named Jessica. The instruction delivered to the students by the

experimenter was created based on Kashima (2000b): “I will show you a story that a

student wrote about her friend Jessica. Please take a few minutes to read the story

carefully TWICE. It is important that you understand the text. I will ask you some

questions about it later on. Are you ready? Here is the story.” The two versions of the

story had exactly the same number of sentences and words (32 sentences; 620 words).

The versions had essentially the same structure, same characters (actors), and the same

plot. In both versions, Jessica makes new friends, goes to a party, meets a good-looking

guy, and goes out on a date. However, the hedonic Jessica goes further in a hedonic

direction, whereas the eudaimonic Jessica is more concerned about school work and

responsibilities (see appendix for the full stories).

After reading the story, participants were asked to indicate their current moods

(positive moods: happy, pleasant, excited, α = .84; negative moods: sad, unpleasant,

disgusted, tired, α = .64), and to evaluate the story in terms of how interesting,


12

newsworthy, vivid, rich in plot, arousing, real, believable, surprising, and disturbing it

was (1 = not at all, 7 = very much). They also rated their likelihood of passing on a story

with comparable content, and whether they have heard a similar story lately, on a 7-point

scale (1 = not at all, 7 = very much). These items were based on previous research

summarized in the introduction (e.g., Berger & Heath, 2005; Heath et al., 2001; Kashima

et al., 2010). Finally, participants were asked to indicate their perception of the

transmission of similar stories in social media: “How often do you see pictures or posts

on Facebook about events similar to what happened in this story?” “How likely do you

think it is that someone would post a Facebook picture, wall post, or status update related

to a story like this?” and “How likely do you think it is that someone would post a tweet

related to a story like this?” (α = .78).

After completing this brief questionnaire about the story, participants were asked

to complete a series of categorization tasks (the distraction task) for about 10 minutes.

Finally, they were asked to reproduce the story they read as accurately as possible.

Two undergraduate research assistants who were blind to our hypotheses

independently read and coded the reproduced stories in terms of whether information

contained in each of the 32 sentences was present or absent. The coders were trained to

count the sentence as accurately recalled if the gist was accurately reproduced. For

instance, if a participant wrote “Jessica’s main goal is to have lots of fun” for the original

sentence of “Since starting college, Jessica’s main goals have been to live it up, make

tons of friends, and have as much fun as possible,” it was counted as accurately recalled.

We calculated the number of accurately recalled sentences out of the 32 original

sentences. Because the coding was very similar across coders (r = .95, p < .001), we took


13

the mean of these two raters’ total number of accurately recalled sentences, and used it as

the dependent variable.

In previous research using the serial reproduction method (e.g., Clark &

Kashima, 2007; Kashima, 2000b), the researchers included roughly the same number of

stereotype-consistent and stereotype-inconsistent sentences in one story, and examined

the accuracy of stereotype-consistent vs. stereotype-inconsistent sentences in the

reproduced story. Thus, the main focus in these studies was memory of specific elements

(stereotype-consistent or inconsistent information) within a given story. Our interest lied

in memory for a story as a whole, namely whether a hedonic story as a whole is

remembered better than a less hedonic, more eudaimonic story. Correspondingly, the

manipulation was not at the level of elements within a single story (within-story) but at

the level of story (between-story). Our hedonic story had 24 sentences out of 32 that were

hedonic in nature (75%), whereas our eudaimonic story had 12 sentences out of the 32

that are eudaimonic in nature (37.5%, see appendix for specific sentences). The

discrepancy is due to the fact that we created a baseline hedonic story, then created a

eudaimonic story based on the same character and the same plot of the original hedonic

story, while removing the most extreme hedonic activities and replacing them with

eudaimonic activities. The total number of accurately recalled sentences was highly

correlated with the total number of hedonic sentences recalled in the hedonic condition, r

(84) = .970 (95% C.I = .957; .980). In contrast, the total number of accurately recalled

sentences was high but less strongly correlated with the total number of accurately

recalled euduaimonic sentences, r (91) = .837 (95% C.I = .752; .898), as indicated by the

non-overlapping 95% confidence intervals. Comparing accurate recall from very different


14

sets of the target sentences (24 vs. 12 out of 32 sentences) is likely to be biased because

more salient information (here 12 eudaimonic sentences in the eudaimonic story) is likely

to be recalled better than less salient information (here 24 hedonic sentences in the

hedonic story; Hastie & Kumar, 1979). Thus, we used the total number of sentences

recalled as our central dependent variable, as opposed to the proportion of the target

sentences accurately recalled. That is, we were interested in whether a hedonic story was

better recalled than a eudaimonic story as a whole rather than whether hedonic elements

were better recalled than eudaimonic elements.

In addition, to assess the hedonic and eudaimonic tone of the reproduced stories,

two additional research assistants who were blind to our hypotheses read each of the

reproduced stories, and rated them on how hedonic the reproduced stories were, how

eudaimonic they were, and to what extent the reproduced stories were altered from the

original, on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely). The RAs were provided with

the brief definition of hedonic (pleasure- and fun-seeking) and eudaimonic (moral-

goodness seeking). During the training, we gave specific examples for each type of

activity (hedonic: drinking, partying, having fun; eudaimonic: studying hard, being a

good friend, being a good son/daughter, doing the right thing, doing what one is supposed

to be doing). Two coders showed a great deal of agreement in hedonic and eudaimonic

ratings (r = .909, .891, ps < .001). Thus, we took the mean of these two ratings. In

contrast, the two coders did not agree on the degree to which the reproduced stories were

altered (r = .260, p < .001). Thus, we did not use this rating further. We also did not use

this coding scheme in Studies 3 and 4 for the lack of adequate inter-rater reliability in the

current study.


15

Out of the 188 participants, nine (4.78%) participants reproduced unusually short

stories, ranging from 0 to 29 words (or less than 5% of 620 words in the original story).

The contents of these nine stories also indicated a general lack of motivation and

attention to the instructions (e.g., ID = 15 wrote “?????????????”, ID = 162 wrote

“Jessica is drunk”, ID = 167 wrote “Sarah was chilling”, ID = 22 wrote “Some dumb

Christian girl has a perfect fairytale day”). Thus, we removed these 9 cases from the

analyses below, leaving 179 participants. For the purpose of full disclosure, we report the

results of the analyses with all 188 participants in Footnote 1.


First, we checked whether reproduced stories had the intended hedonic or

eudaimonic tone. As predicted, the reproduced stories in the hedonic condition (M = 5.92,

SD = .46) were rated as more hedonic than the reproduced stories in the eudaimonic

condition (M = 2.05, SD = .61), t (177) = 47.44, p < .001, d = 7.13. Also as predicted, the

reproduced stories in the eudaimonic condition were rated as more eudaimonic (M =

5.44, SD = .89) than the reproduced stories in the hedonic condition (M = 1.58, SD = .38),

t (126.82) = 38.08, p < .001, d = 6.76. Thus, the stories we created retained the intended

hedonic/eudaimonic tone after reproduction.

Second, we examined how participants evaluated the hedonic and eudaimonic

stories. The complete results are shown in Table 1. As predicted, the hedonic and

eudaimonic stories that we created were equally interesting, rich in plot, and surprising.

As expected, participants in the hedonic condition rated the story to be more newsworthy,

real, believable, disturbing, and marginally more vivid than those in the eudaimonic

condition. Unexpectedly, participants rated both stories to be equally arousing and


16

equally likely to be passed along. Yet, participants in the hedonic condition reported that

they would be more likely to use social media such as Facebook and Twitter to pass

along similar stories than those in the eudaimonic condition. Thus, participants reported

that they would use social media to pass along the hedonic story more than the

eudaiminoc story, although they did not say they would pass along the hedonic story

more than the eudaimonic story in general (we assume verbally and face-to-face). Also

somewhat unexpectedly, participants in the eudaimonic condition reported that they had

recently heard a similar story more frequently than those in the hedonic condition.

Finally, in terms of emotional reaction, the eudaimonic story evoked stronger positive

emotions than the hedonic story, whereas the hedonic story evoked stronger negative

emotions than the hedonic story. Overall, then, we were able to confirm that the hedonic

story and the eudaimonic story were equally interesting, rich in plot, arousing, and

surprising, whereas the hedonic story was more disturbing, newsworthy, and real than the

eudaimonic story.


17

The aforementioned analyses established that the stories successfully evoked the

intended hedonic and eudaimonic tone, and were equivalent in key evaluative qualities

such as interestingness and richness in plot. Our next step was testing our main

hypothesis. Because there were no gender differences in the number of sentences

accurately reproduced, t(177) = 1.58, p = .12, d = .24, , we did not include gender in the

following analyses. We tested our hypotheses using a 2 (story type: hedonic vs.

eudaimonic)-by-2 (day of week: Mon/Tue vs. Wed/Th/Fri) ANOVA. As predicted,

participants in the hedonic condition recalled more sentences than those in the

eudaimonic condition, M = 18.05, SD = 6.28 vs. M = 15.72, SD = 5.39, F(1, 159) = 7.24,

p = .008, d = .43. There was no effect of the day of the week, F(1, 159) = 1.64, p = .202,

d = .20, and no story type-by-day of the week interaction, F(1, 159) = .02, p = .89, d

= .02.

In sum, Study 2 established that the hedonic and eudaimonic stories we created

tap the intended content and evoke expected reactions from the readers. Furthermore, we

found initial support for the first part of our hypothesis that participants were able to

remember the hedonic version of the Jessica story better than the eudaimonic version2.

Although we expected that the hedonic story should be particularly well-remembered on

the latter part of the week, we did not find this. Because Study 2 used an individual recall

task, or what Kashima (2000a) called methodological individualism, the lack of the day-

of-the week moderation could be due to the lack of a transmission process in Study 2.

The key might be the expectation to communicate with others. When people expect that

they will communicate with others, they might remember and transmit the hedonic


18

Jessica story better than the eudaimonic Jessica story during the latter part of the week,

when it will be more relevant to others. When they do not expect to communicate with

others, the day-of-the week might not have any power over their memory of the story.

That is, it is possible that the day-of-the week does not moderate the memory for the

hedonic vs. eudaimonic story, but does moderate the transmission of the hedonic versus

eudaimonic story. Studies 3 and 4 address this possibility.

Study 3: Written Communication via Serial Reproduction Method

Although Study 2 produced promising results, there were two weaknesses. First,

Study 2 did not assess the transmission process we were interested in. In order to address

this limitation, we used the serial reproduction method (Bartlett, 1932) in which the story

was transmitted through a chain of three individuals. Second, we did not find the

expected interaction between the type of story and the day of the week. However, this

could be in part due to the lack of interpersonal communication in Study 2. That is, the

lack of the day-of-the week moderation effect could be due to the methodological

individualism of Study 2. Thus, in Study 3, we examined the day of the week effect

again, using the serial reproduction method.

Method

Participants were 146 students (48 males; 87 females; 11 did not specify) enrolled

in an introductory level psychology course at the University of Virginia. They were

randomly assigned to read either the hedonic or eudaimonic version of the same story

used in Study 2 about a freshman named Jessica. Participants were also randomly

assigned to be either the first, second, or third person in the chain of serial reproduction.

They were told that they would be reading a story written by another participant. After


19

reading the assigned story, participants were asked to complete a series of categorization

tasks (the distraction task) for about 10 minutes. Finally, they were asked to reproduce

the story they read as accurately as possible for another participant.

Three undergraduate assistants who were blind to our hypotheses were asked to

compare the story that participants wrote with the original story, and code whether the

information in each sentence was retained (0 = no; 1 = yes). Once the three assistants

were able to code reliably (Study 2 showed that our trained RAs could code with high

inter-rater reliability), we divided up the 146 stories, and each assistant coded roughly

one third of the 146 stories. As in Study 2, we counted the number of sentences each

participant remembered accurately out of the 32 original sentences. None of the

participants in Study 3 wrote an unusually short reproduction of the original story. The

shortest reproduced story in Study 3 was 47 words (cf., in Study 2, we excluded those

who wrote 29 words or less). Thus, we did not exclude any participants from the

analyses.

Finally, as in Study 2, two additional coders who were blind to our hypotheses

read the reproduced stories, and rated how hedonic and how eudaimonic the reproduced

stories were respectively, on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely). Two coders

showed a great deal of agreement in hedonic and eudaimonic tone ratings (r = .920, .868,

ps < .001). Thus, we took the mean of these two ratings. Because the mean hedonic tone

rating and the mean eudaimonic tone rating were strongly inversely correlated (r = -.898,

p < .001), we created a single hedonic-eudaimonic score by taking the difference (the

hedonic score – the eudaimonic score).



20

As in Study 2, there were no gender differences in the number of sentences

remembered accurately, t(132) = -.86, p = .32, d = .15. Thus, we did not include gender in

the following analyses. We next tested the hypotheses that (a) the hedonic story would be

transmitted better than the eudaimonic story, and (b) that the eudaimonic story is more

likely to be reproduced accurately on Mondays and Tuesdays, when the main focus is on

academics, whereas the hedonic story is more likely to be reproduced accurately on

Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays, when college students are bombarded with party-

related announcements (as shown in Study 1). To test our hypothesis, we conducted a

multilevel analysis using the Mplus 4.21 (Muthén & Muthén, 2007) program. We used

the multilevel analysis because, unlike in Study 2, observations in this study were nested

within each group, and they were not independent of one another (i.e., participants were

affected by what the earlier participants in the chain wrote). At Level 1, the number of

sentences correctly remembered was predicted from position in the chain (order within

the group: 1st, 2nd, or 3rd), and the day of the experiment (Monday/Tuesday = -1; Wed to

Friday = +1). More formally, the Level 1 (within-group) model was as follows:

Yij = β0j + β1j *(order) + β2j *(day) + rij,

where Yij was the total number of sentences accurately recalled for group j on person i, β0j

was a random coefficient representing the intercept for group j, β1j was a random

coefficient for the order effect, β2j was a random coefficient for the day of the experiment

effect, and rij represents an error term.

At Level 2, the intercept from Level 1 (i.e., adjusted group mean in the number of

sentences accurately reproduced), the slope for order, and the slope for the day of the


21

experiment were predicted by the experimental condition. More formally, the Level 2

(between-group level) model was specified as follows:

β0j = γ00 + γ01*(story) + u0j

β1j = γ10 + γ11*(story) + u1j

β2j = γ20 + γ21*(story)

where β0j (the mean number of total number sentences accurately recalled

adjusted for order and day for group j), β1j (the order effect), and β2j (the day of the

experiment effect) were predicted by the story (0 = eudaimonic; 1 = hedonic). When the

number of accurately recalled sentences was treated as a standard continuous variable,

the analysis did not converge. Thus, we treated the number of accurately recalled

sentences as a count variable.

Consistent with previous serial reproduction studies (e.g., Imada & Yussen, 2012;

Kashima, 2000b), participants later in the chain remembered the original story less

accurately than those first in the chain, γ10 = -.318 (S.E. = .029), 95% C.I = -.375; -.260, z

= -10.820, p < .001. The main effect of order was not moderated by the experimental

condition, γ11 = .011 (S.E. = .052), 95% C.I = -.090; .113, z = .217, p = .828.

As predicted, the hedonic version of the story was marginally better remembered

than the eudaimonic version, γ01 = .164 (S.E. = .099), 95% C.I = -.029; .357, z = -1.661, p

= .097. There was also a marginal day of the experiment effect, such that overall the

stories were marginally better recalled on Mondays or Tuesdays than Wednesdays,

Thursdays, or Fridays, γ20 = -.073 (S.E. = .045), 95% C.I = -.160; .014, z = -1.640, p

= .101. Finally, as predicted, we found the marginally significant cross-level interaction

between story type and the day of the week, γ21 =.110 (S.E. = .063), 95% C.I =


22

-.014; .234, z = 1.733, p = .083. As seen in Figure 2, the eudaimonic story was

transmitted better when the experiment was conducted on Mondays or Tuesdays than

later in the week, whereas the hedonic story tended to be transmitted better when the

experiment was conducted on Wednesdays, Thursdays, or Fridays, when students are

likely to be exposed to higher levels of hedonic environmental cues.

In short, Study 3 replicated Study 2 by showing that the hedonic story was

marginally better remembered and transmitted than the eudaimonic story. Furthermore,

Study 3 provided the first evidence for the marginal moderating effect of the day of the

week: The eudaimonic story was transmitted better on Mondays and Tuesdays than the

rest of the week, whereas the hedonic story tended to be better transmitted toward the end

of the week.

Next, we tested whether the hedonic tone of the reproduced stories would get

stronger as the story was transmitted from one person to another by analyzing the two

coders’ ratings on the hedonic-eudaimonic score. We repeated the above Mplus analysis,

replacing the total number of accurately recalled sentences with the hedonic-eudaimonic

score (treated as a continuous variable). This analysis showed that, as expected, the

hedonic story had a stronger hedonic tone than the eudaimonic story, γ01 = 7.652 (S.E.

= .198), 95% C.I = 7.263; 8.041, z = 38.568, p < .001. Interestingly, there was a main

effect of order, but in the opposite direction, γ10 = .409 (S.E. = .110), 95% C.I

= .194; .624, z = 3.732, p < .001. Namely, whereas the number of accurately recalled

sentences decreased significantly from the first person to the second person, and from the

second person to the third person in chain, the hedonic tone slightly increased as the story

was transmitted from the first person to the second, and from the second to the third.


23

Furthermore, this order effect was significantly stronger in the eudaimonic condition than

in the hedonic condition, γ11 = -.583 (S.E. = .132), 95% C.I = -.841, -.325, z = -4.425, p

< .001. Whereas the hedonic tone of the hedonic story decreased over time (perhaps due

to the fact that the story got shorter and the absolute amount of hedonic information

decreased), the hedonic tone of the eudaimonic story increased over time (see Figure 3).

Finally, this analysis revealed that the reproduced stories had more hedonic tone overall

when reproduced on Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays than on Mondays and

Tuesdays, γ20 = .334 (S.E. = .148), 95% C.I = .045, .624, z = 2.262, p = .024. This day of

the experiment effect was not moderated by the experimental condition, γ21 = -.235 (S.E.

= .158), 95% C.I = -.544, .073, z = -1.494, p = .135.

In sum, the first serial reproduction study showed that the hedonic story was

marginally better recalled than the eudaimonic story, and that the memory advantage of

the hedonic story was also marginally stronger on Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays

than on Mondays and Tuesdays. In addition to the recall, we examined how the tone of

the story changed as it was transmitted from one person to another. We found that the

hedonic tone increased as the eudaimonic story was transmitted from person to person.

Study 4: The Serial Reproduction of a Spoken Story

Although writing is an important mode of communication, by far the most

frequent and natural mode of communication is speaking. Thus, in Study 4, we tested our

hypotheses using the spoken form of communication.

Method

Participants were 172 students (64 males; 104 females, 4 did not specify) enrolled

in an introductory level psychology course at the University of Virginia. The procedure


24

was essentially the same as in Study 3, except that (a) the experimenter read the original

story to the first participants, (b) the second and third participants in the chain listened to

the story spoken to them as retold by the previous participant in the chain instead of

reading the written story, and (c) after the distraction task, they were asked to tell the

story they heard to another participant verbally. The participants’ speech was videotaped,

transcribed, and later coded by two research assistants, using exactly the same method as

in Studies 2 and 3. As in Study 3, we did not exclude any participants because

participants reproduced the story using at least 125 words (or 20% of the original story).

As in Studies 2 and 3, two additional research assistants read the reproduced stories and

rated them on hedonic and eudaimonic tone on the same 7-point scale as in Studies 2 and

3. Both the hedonic and eudaimonic tone ratings exhibited a high level of agreement (r

= .943, .941, respectively, ps < .001). Thus, we took the mean of the two coders to create

the hedonic and eudaimonic scores. Because they were strongly inversely correlated (r =

-.915, p < .001), we again created a single hedonic-eudaimonic score for the analyses

below.


As in Studies 2 and 3, there were no gender differences in the total number of

sentences accurately remembered, t(166) = -1.00, p = .32, d = .16. Thus, we did not

include gender in the following analyses.

We next tested the main hypotheses using Mplus 4.21(Muthén & Muthén, 2007).

The model was exactly the same as in Study 3. Consistent with Study 3, as well as

previous serial reproduction studies (Imada & Yussen, 2012; Kashima, 2000b),

participants later in the chain remembered fewer sentences accurately than those first in


25

the chain, γ10 = -.408 (S.E. = .039), 95% C.I = -.484; -.332, z = -10.554, p < .001.

Replicating Study 3 findings, participants who heard the hedonic story were able to

remember more sentences accurately than those who heard the eudaimonic story, γ01

=.366 (S.E. = .103), 95% C.I = .164; .568, z = 3.550, p < .001. Unlike Study 3, there was

no day of the experiment effect, such that overall the stories were equally well-recalled

on Mondays or Tuesdays and Wednesdays, Thursdays, or Fridays, γ20 = -.080 (S.E.

= .053), 95% C.I = -.184; .025, z = -1.498, p = .134. Finally, as predicted, we found the

significant cross-level interaction between story type and the day of the week, γ21 = .140

(S.E. = .066), 95% C.I =.011; .269, z = 2.125, p = .034, such that the hedonic story was

better transmitted on Wednesdays through Fridays than on Mondays and Tuesdays,

whereas the eudaimonic story tended to be better transmitted on Mondays and Tuesdays

than on Wednesdays to Fridays (see Figure 4).

Next, we tested whether the hedonic tone of the reproduced stories would get

stronger as the story was transmitted from one person to another by analyzing the two

coders’ ratings on the hedonic-eudaimonic score. We repeated the above Mplus analysis,

replacing the total number of accurately recalled sentences with the hedonic-eudaimonic

score (treated as a continuous variable). This analysis showed that, as expected, the

hedonic story had a stronger hedonic tone than the eudaimonic story, γ01 = 7.78 (S.E.

= .131), 95% C.I = 7.524; 8.036, z = 59.551, p < .001. Like in Study 3, the hedonic tone

got stronger, as the story was transmitted from one person to another, γ10 = 1.292 (S.E.

= .217), 95% C.I = .866; 1.717, z = 5.949, p < .001. That is, overall the hedonic tone

increased as the story was transmitted from the first person to the second, and from the

second to the third. However, this order effect was significantly stronger in the


26

eudaimonic condition than in the hedonic condition, -.870 (S.E. = .133), 95% C.I = -

1.132; -.609, z = -6.530, p < .001. Like in Study 3, the hedonic tone of the hedonic story

decreased over time (perhaps due to the fact that the story got shorter and the absolute

amount of hedonic information decreased), whereas the hedonic tone of the eudaimonic

story increased over time (see Figure 5). Finally, the hedonic tone was not different

across the days of the experiment, γ20 = .141 (S.E. = .195), 95% C.I = -.045, .624, z

=.722, p = .470. This day of the experiment effect was also not moderated by the

experimental condition, γ21 =.019 (S.E. = .117), 95% C.I = -.210, .249, z = .166, p = .868.

In sum, Study 4 replicated the main findings from Study 3, using face-to-face

communication as the mode of transmission. Like in Studies 2 and 3, participants who

read the hedonic story were able to recall more sentences accurately than those who read

the eudaimonic story. Furthermore, the memory advantage of the hedonic story was

particularly robust on Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays. Finally, again replicating

Study 3, the hedonic tone of the eudaimonic story intensified as the story was transmitted

from person to person.

General Discussion

We conducted our research to examine whether a hedonic story is better recalled

and transmitted than a eudaimonic story. In addition, we examined the day of the week

effect on the transmission of the hedonic versus the eudaimonic story. Study 1 revealed

that hedonic messages are often found in college students’ daily habitats, particularly on

Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays. Study 2 showed that a hedonic story was better

remembered than a eudaimonic story, and that the hedonic version of the story was more

disturbing, yet more real, believable, and newsworthy than the eudaimonic version of the


27

story. In Study 2, we also established that the two versions of the story were equally

interesting, surprising, arousing, and rich in plot. Thus, Study 2 provided initial evidence

that the recall advantage of the hedonic story over the eudaimonic story could not be due

to the general evaluative qualities of the story such as how interesting and rich in plot it

is. Extending Study 2 to a serial reproduction method, Studies 3 and 4 revealed that, as

predicted, the hedonic story was more likely to be remembered and communicated to

other people in both the written and spoken modes of communication. Interestingly, the

communicability of the hedonic story was particularly robust in spoken communication

(Study 4). Specifically, on average the hedonic story had 4.12 more sentences accurately

recalled than the eudaimonic story in Study 4 (effect size d = .739), whereas the hedonic

story had 2.68 more sentences accurately recalled than the eudaimonic story in Study 3

(effect size d = .380). Because speaking is a more natural way to communicate with

another person than writing, the findings from Study 4 provide further evidence in

support of our hypothesis.

In addition to the transmission advantage of the hedonic story over the

eudaimonic story, we also tested the moderating effect of environmental cues (Berger &

Heath, 2005). In Study 1, we documented that on a college campus, environmental cues

relevant to the hedonic approach to happiness are more prevalent on Wednesdays through

Fridays than on Mondays and Tuesdays (Figure 1). In Studies 3 and 4, we found a

moderating effect of the day of the week on the transmission of the hedonic vs.

eudaimonic story. Specifically, the hedonic story was transmitted better in the latter part

of the week, when hedonic messages are more abundant, whereas the eudaimonic story

tended to be transmitted better in the early part of the week, when hedonic messages are


28

less abundant and eudaimonic messages more salient. The moderating effect of the day of

the week was marginally significant in Study 3 (p = .083), whereas it was significant in

Study 4 (p = .034). Thus, the moderation effect of the day of the week appears to be more

robust in the spoken mode of communication than the written mode of communication.

In addition to the recall, we also examined the hedonic vs. eudaimonic tone of the

reproduced stories as rated by two independent coders. Whereas the total number of

accurately recalled sentences decreased progressively as the story was transmitted from

one person to another in both the hedonic and eudaimonic versions, the hedonic tone of

the eudaimonic version increased. Our findings could simply reflect the dilution of

information effect: As the information is lost, the dominant tone fades away (the hedonic

tone fades in the hedonic story, and the eudaimonic tone fades in the eudaimonic story).

However, these findings could also suggest that when the story has both eudaimonic and

hedonic content (like in our eudaimonic version), the hedonic elements are retained better

than the eudaimonic elements, thereby making the story more hedonic in tone over time.

Our findings have important implications for the influential line of research on

cultural transmission (e.g., Bartlett, 1932; Kashima, 2000a, 2000b; Schaller et al., 2002).

First, previous research in this area has not systematically tested how the mode of

communication might affect the nature of transmission. Indeed, most research used the

written form of transmission only (see Kashima et al., 2013 for an oral form of

transmission). We used both the written and the spoken modes of communication, and

showed that the hedonic story was better remembered than the eudaimonic story in both

modes of communication. Importantly, however, the results were more robust when the

spoken mode of communication was used. It is possible, then, that the previous findings


29

on gender stereotypes, for instance, might have emerged even stronger if a more natural,

spoken mode of communication were used. Second, it was interesting that the hedonic

and eudaimonic versions of the story were perceived to be equally interesting, rich in

plot, surprising, and arousing, yet participants in Study 2 rated the hedonic version of the

story as more newsworthy, and that they would be more likely to tweet and post it on

Facebook than the eudaimonic story. As more and more people use social media to

communicate and transmit information, it will be important to examine whether the

hedonic version of the story is more likely to go “viral” online than the eudaimonic

version.

It is also important to note that previous research on the transmission of

stereotypes (Kashima, 2000b; Kashima, Fiedler, & Freytag, 2008; Schaller et al., 2002)

did not extensively examine situational variation in the transmissibility of stereotypes

(see, however, Schaller & Neuberg, 2012; Schaller, Park, & Mueller, 2003). Allport and

Postman (1947) recognized the role of contexts (e.g., war) in their seminal book entitled

The Psychology of Rumor. However, empirical studies on contextual effects in the

transmission of stereotypes have been rare. Our studies suggest that some stereotypes are

particularly communicable under certain conditions. It is thus important to examine

contextual effects on the transmission of stereotypes in the future.

The current findings also have important implications for subjective well-being

research. Subjective well-being researchers recognize different ways to achieve happiness

(Diener, 2000; Lyubomirsky, 2008; Myers, 1993). Most prominently, Peterson and

colleagues (2005) distinguish between two approaches to happiness: pleasure and

meaning. The hedonic (pleasure) approach to happiness consists in trying to attain


30

happiness by enjoying life (e.g., “for me, the good life is the pleasurable life”), whereas

the eudaimonic (meaning) approach consists in trying to attain happiness via making a

contribution to society and finding a lofty purpose in life (e.g., “In choosing what to do, I

always take into account whether it will benefit other people”). Peterson and colleagues

collected an impressive amount of data from many nations and repeatedly showed that

Americans on average endorse the eudaimonic approach to happiness far more than the

hedonic approach (Park, Peterson, & Ruch, 2009; effect size r = .46, d = 1.043 for the

difference between eudaimonic and hedonic approaches calculated based on 18,030

American respondents). Compared to other adults, American college students endorse the

hedonic approach to happiness more strongly, although they still endorse the eudaimonic

approach more than the hedonic approach. Thus it is somewhat puzzling that, despite the

strong endorsement of the eudaimonic approach to happiness among Americans in

general, American college campuses are rampant with the hedonic approach to happiness,

as seen in the high levels of alcohol consumption (Wechsler, Lee, Kuo, & Lee, 2000) and

various forms of drug abuse (Pope, Inoescu-Pioggia, & Pope, 2001). Why is this the

case?

One simple answer is that attitudes and behavior are relatively independent

(Wicker, 1969). Ample research has consistently shown that the link between attitude and

behavior is not strong, especially when social desirability is at play (Greenwald,

Poehlman, Uhlmann, & Banaji, 2009). Eudaimonic behaviors such as helping others and

pursuing a meaningful life are far more socially desirable—at least in the context of a

survey—than hedonic behaviors such as drinking and partying. Of course, many

American college students do engage in eudaimonic behaviors such as volunteering


31

(Pryor, Hurtado, DeAngelo, Blake, & Tran, 2009). However, over the weekend, they

might also engage in hedonic behaviors. For many, this may not pose much dissonance

because they feel morally “licensed” to engage in some pleasurable activities once in a

while (Effron & Monin, 2010).

Another answer to this puzzle is pluralistic ignorance, or the misperception of a

social norm. Despite their self-reported preference for a eudaimonic approach to

happiness, perhaps college students engage in hedonic activities because they believe that

is what everyone else around them is doing and expects them to do. In an influential

series of studies, Prentice and Miller (1993) showed that college students tend to believe

that other students are more lenient on alcohol issues than themselves, and more

importantly, those who hold such beliefs became more lenient themselves over time. In

other words, college students’ drinking behavior and attitudes toward drinking are more

strongly affected by their perception of the norm than their original attitude itself.

But, why do most American college students believe that other students drink a

lot? How do they develop an erroneous perception of drinking norms to begin with? Our

findings suggest that American college students develop inflated estimates of the

prevalence of hedonic activities such as drinking and partying in part through gossip and

exchange of stories (Baumeister, Zhang, & Vohs, 2004). Moreover, many photos,

updates, and comments shared on social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter are

concerned with hedonic activities rather than eudaimonic activities (Thelwall &

Wilkinson, 2009). To the extent that hedonic stories are more newsworthy and

memorable than eudaimonic stories, we further speculate that college students tend to

misperceive these stories as more truly representing the student body than eudaimonic


32

stories, leading to pluralistic ignorance. That is, as theorized by Baumeister and

colleagues (2004), it is possible that stories like the hedonic Jessica story are told and

retold on American college campuses, serving as cultural models of social life on

campus. This possibility should be explicitly examined in the future.

Well-being researchers have assumed that people’s self-reported approach to

happiness is reflected in how they live their lives (Diener, 2000; Oishi, Diener, Suh, &

Lucas, 1999; Peterson et al., 2005). Indeed, there is some evidence that people who report

having meaning in life volunteer more and party less (Steger, Kashdan, & Oishi, 2008).

However, well-being researchers have not, to our knowledge, examined the potential role

of local culture in the perception of hedonic vs. eudaimonic activities as pathways to

happiness. Our findings suggest that the hedonic approach to happiness tends to be more

accessible to American college students, particularly toward the end of the week, when

there are plenty of environmental cues associated with the hedonic approach. Although

positive psychologists have so far focused their interventions on individuals’ beliefs,

mindsets, and habits (e.g., Seligman, Steen, Park, & Peterson, 2005), it might also be

productive to explore an intervention at the level of institutions or local culture.

In addition, our findings point to the context-sensitivity of approaches to

happiness. Although most of us have a stable, preferred approach to happiness, subtle

environmental cues can change how one seeks happiness in a specific situation. As this

important issue (approach to happiness) continues to gain research attention, it would be

productive to examine various contextual factors, including local culture and the day of

the week.


33

Before concluding, it is important to recognize some limitations of the current

research. First, we tested our hypotheses only at the University of Virginia. Although the

University of Virginia is a fairly typical American university in many respects (drinking,

the Greek system), our findings need to be replicated in other campuses. It is also

important to test our findings across cultures, as previous research found several

important cultural variations in the memory for emotional experiences (e.g., Oishi, 2002)

and sources of subjective well-being (Oishi, Diener, Lucas, & Suh, 1999). Likewise, it is

important to explore individual differences in the transmission of hedonic versus

eudaimonic stories in the future. Second, although we tested two modes of

communication, there are other modes of communication such as visual communication

(just as in one of the original serial reproduction studies by Bartlett, 1932) that are

commonly used. It is important to test our hypotheses in other modes of communication

in the future. Third, we tested our hypotheses using one story. It is important to expand

the stimuli to other hedonic and eudaimonic stimuli in the future. In particular, our

eudaimonic story included several religious activities. We need to explore whether non-

religious eudaimonic stimuli would show a similar transmission/attrition effect as

religious eudaimonic stimuli. More generally, our hedonic and eudaimonic stories

represent limited aspects of hedonic and eudaimonic approaches to happiness. Various

different aspects of hedonic and eudaimonic stories should be used in future research.

Fourth, in Studies 3 and 4, the stories were coded only by one rater each. Although Study

2 established high inter-rater reliability for the total number of sentences accurately

recalled, one rater cannot be as reliable as multiple raters. Finally, data on the amount of

environmental cues (e.g., party announcements) were not collected concurrently with the


34

serial reproduction data. Thus, we were unable to test within one study the direct link

from environmental cues to the recall advantage of a hedonic story in the latter parts of

the week. Related to this point, our design did not allow us to identify potential mediators

(see Fiedler, Schott, & Meister, 2011 for the necessary and sufficient conditions for

mediation). There are many potential mediators. For instance, it might be that

environmental cues are irrelevant and that what is important are some elements of a story

(e.g., newsworthiness, vividness) for a hedonic story to be transmitted, in particular

toward the end of the week. It is necessary to conduct a series of studies, including an

experiment with a manipulation of the predicted mediators and a longitudinal analysis of

temporal sequences, to help identify mediators.

Despite some limitations, our research consistently showed the transmission

advantage of the hedonic over the eudaimonic story. Equally important, two serial

reproduction method studies demonstrated the moderating role of the day of the week in

the transmission advantage of the hedonic story. In conclusion, our research showed that

the hedonic approach stands out more to American college students than the eudaimonic

one, especially toward the end of the week. This might be in part because hedonic stories

are more newsworthy for social media use such as Facebook and Twitter. Although our

research emphasized the dominance of the hedonic over the eudaimonic story, this

dominance is not inevitable. Just as Dr. Luther King and Rosa Parks’ stories proliferated

throughout the U.S., the eudaimonic approach to happiness could be transmitted widely,

if it contains newsworthy content, and is supported by environmental cues. It is critical to

investigate the transmission of hedonic and eudaimonic stories to understand how norms

concerning happiness are created and transmitted within and across generations.


35


36

References

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and

review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888-918.

Allport, G. W., & Postman, L. (1947). The psychology of rumor. New York: Holt,

Rinehart & Winston.

Bangerter, A. & Heath, C. (2004). The Mozart Effect: Tracking the evolution of a

scientific legend. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 605-623.

Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology.

Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Baumeister, R. F., Zhang, L., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). Gossip as cultural learning. Review

of General Psychology, 8, 111-121.

Berger, J. & Heath, C. (2005). Idea habitats: How the prevalence of environmental cues

influences the success of ideas. Cognitive Science, 29, 195-221.

Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness, and a proposal for a

national index. American Psychologist, 55, 34-43.

Dunbar, R. I. M. (2004). Gossip in evolutionary perspective. Review of General

Psychology, 8, 100–110.

Effron, D., & Monin, B. (2010). Letting people off the hook: When do good deeds excuse

transgressions? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1618-1634.

Fast, N. J., Heath, C., & Wu, G. (2009). Common ground and cultural prominence: How

conversation reinforces culture. Psychological Science, 20, 904-911.

Fiedler, K., Schott, M., & Meiser, T. (2011). What mediation analysis can (not) do.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 1231-1236.

http://faculty-gsb.stanford.edu/heath/documents/BJSP,%20Mozart%20Effect.pdf

http://faculty-gsb.stanford.edu/heath/documents/BJSP,%20Mozart%20Effect.pdf

http://faculty-gsb.stanford.edu/heath/documents/Cog%20Sci%20-%20Idea%20Habitats.pdf

http://faculty-gsb.stanford.edu/heath/documents/Cog%20Sci%20-%20Idea%20Habitats.pdf


37

Gluckman, M. (1963). Gossip and scandal. Current Anthropology, 4, 307-316.

Greenwald, A. G., Poehlman, T. A., Uhlmann, E. L., & Banaji, M. R. (2009).

Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of

predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 17-41.

Harton, H. C., & Bullock, M. (2007), Dynamic Social Impact: A Theory of the Origins

and Evolution of Culture. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1, 521–

540.

Heath, C., Bell, C., & Sternberg, E. (2001). Emotional selection in memes: The case of

urban legends. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1028-1041.

Heine, S. J. (2008). Cultural psychology. New York: Norton.

Imada, T., & Yussen, S. R. (2012). Reproduction of cultural values: A cross-cultural

examination of stories people create and transmit. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 38, 114-128.

Kashima, Y. (2000a). Recovering Bartlett’s social psychology of cultural dynamics.

European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 383-403.

Kashima, Y. (2000b). Maintaining cultural stereotypes in the serial reproduction of

narratives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 594-604.

Kashima, Y., Fiedler, K., & Freytag, P. (2008). Stereotype dynamics: Language-based

approaches to the formation, maintenance, and transformation of stereotypes.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kashima, Y., Kashima, E., Bain, P., Lyons, A., Tindale, R. S., Robins, G., Vears, C., &

Whelan, J. (2010). Communication and essentialism: Grounding the shared reality

of a social category. Social Cognition, 28, 306-328.

http://faculty-gsb.stanford.edu/heath/documents/JPSP-Emotional%20Selection.pdf

http://faculty-gsb.stanford.edu/heath/documents/JPSP-Emotional%20Selection.pdf


38

Kashima, Y., Lyons, A., & Clark, A. (2013). The maintenance of cultural stereotypes in

the conversational retelling of narratives. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 16,

60-70.

Kitayama, S., & Cohen, D. (2007). Handbook of cultural psychology. New York:

Guilford.

Lyons, A., & Kashima, Y. (2001). The reproduction of culture: Communication

processes tend to maintain cultural stereotypes. Social Cognition, 19, 372-394.

Lyons, A. & Kashima, Y. (2003). How are stereotypes maintained through

communication?: The influence of stereotype sharedness. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 85, 989-1005.

Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). The how of happiness: A scientific approach to getting the life

you want. New York: Penguin Press.

Markus, H.R. & Kitayama, S. (2010). Cultures and selves: A cycle of mutual

constitution. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 420-430.

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Mplus : Statistical analysis with latent variables

User’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

Myers, D. (1993). The pursuit of happiness: Who is happy, and why? Harper Paperbacks:

New York

Oishi, S. (2002). Experiencing and remembering of well-being: A cross-cultural analysis.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1398-1406

Oishi, S., Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Suh, E. M. (1999). Cross-cultural variations in

predictors of life satisfaction: Perspectives from needs and values. Personality

and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 980-990.

http://www.stanford.edu/~hazelm/cgi-bin/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/2010-Markus-Kitayama_Culture-and-Self-A-cycle-of-mutual-constitution.pdf

http://www.stanford.edu/~hazelm/cgi-bin/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/2010-Markus-Kitayama_Culture-and-Self-A-cycle-of-mutual-constitution.pdf


39

Oishi, S., Diener, E., Suh, E., & Lucas, R. E. (1999). Value as a moderator in subjective

well-being. Journal of Personality, 67, 157-184.

Park, N., Peterson, C., & Ruch, W. (2009). Orientations to happiness and life satisfaction

in twenty-seven nations. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 273–279.

Peters, K., Kashima, Y., & Clark, A. (2009). Talking about others: Emotionality and the

dissemination of social information. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39,

207-222.

Peterson, C., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Orientations to happiness and life

satisfaction: The full life versus the empty life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 6,

25–41.

Pope, H. G., Jr., Ionescu-Pioggia, M., & Pope, K. W. (2001). Drug use and life style

among college undergraduates: A 30-year longitudinal study. American Journal

of Psychiatry, 158, 1519-1521.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for

assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior

Research Methods, 40, 879-891.

Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1993). Pluralistic ignorance and alcohol use on campus:

Some consequences of misperceiving the social norm. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 64, 243-256.

Pryor, J. H., Hurtado, S., DeAngelo, L., Blake, L. P., & Tran, S. (2009). The American

Freshman: National norms Fall 2009. University of California Press: Los

Angeles.

http://people.ku.edu/~preacher/pubs/preacher_hayes_2008b.pdf

http://people.ku.edu/~preacher/pubs/preacher_hayes_2008b.pdf


40

Roediger, H. L., & DeSoto, K. A. (in press). The psychology of reconstructive memory.

In J. Wright (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral

Sciences, 2e. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

Rosnow, R. L., & Fine, G. A. (1976). Rumor and gossip: The social psychology of

hearsay. New York: Elsevier.

Sabini, J., & Silver, M. (1982). Moralities of everyday life. Oxford, England: Oxford

University Press.

Schaller, M., Conway, L. G., III, & Tanchuk, T. L. (2002). Selective pressures on the

once and future contents of ethnic stereotypes: Effects of the communicability of

traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 861-877.

Schaller, M., & Neuberg, S. L. (2012). Danger, disease, and the nature of prejudice(s).

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 1-54.

Schaller, M., Park, J. H., & Mueller, A. (2003). Fear of the dark: Interactive effects of

beliefs about danger and ambient darkness on ethnic stereotypes. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 637–649.

Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology

progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60, 410–

421.

Sinaceur, M., & Heath, C. (2005). Emotional and deliberative reactions to a public crisis:

Mad Cow Disease in France. Psychological Science, 16, 247-254.

Steger, M. F., Kashdan, T. B., & Oishi, S. (2008). Being good by doing good: Daily

eudaimonic activity and well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 22-

42.

http://faculty-gsb.stanford.edu/heath/documents/PsychSci-Mad%20Cow.pdf

http://faculty-gsb.stanford.edu/heath/documents/PsychSci-Mad%20Cow.pdf


41

Thelwall, M., & Wilkinson, D. (2009). Public dialogs in social network sites: What is

their purpose? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and

Technology, 61, 392-404.

Wechsler, H., Lee, J. E., Kuo, M, & Lee, H. (2000). College binge drinking in the 1990s:

A continuing problem results of the Harvard School of Public Health 1999

College Alcohol Study. Journal of American College Health, 48, 199-210.

Wert, S. R., & Salovey, P. (2004). A social comparison account of gossip. Review of

General Psychology, 8, 122-137.

Wicker, A. W. (1969). Attitudes versus actions: The relationship of verbal and overt

behavioral responses to attitude objects. Journal of Social Issues, 25, 41–78.


42

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Mika Nomura and Sherry Wu for taking pictures of the bulletin

boards used in Study 1, Roseae Pak and Madeleine Kyger for coding stories reproduced

by participants in Study 2, Selin Ictemel, Nellie Jafari, Linh Trung for coding stories

reproduced by participants in Stud 3, and Emily Palmen and Xi Wang for coding stories

reproduced by participants in Study 4. We also thank Mengran Xu and Jing Shi for the

hedonic and eudaimonic coding for Studies 2 to 4. Finally, we would like to thank Chris

Peterson for providing the data on the orientations to happiness scale, and Jordan Axt,

Minha Lee, Matt Motyl, Masao Saeki, and Thomas Talhelm for their invaluable

comments on earlier versions of the paper.


43

Footnotes

1. The results with all 188 participants are as follows, presented in the same order as

in the main text. Gender differences in the number of sentences reproduced,

t(186) = 2.56, p = .012. The main effect of story type on the number of sentences

reproduced, F(1, 164) = 15.44, p < .001. The main effect of story type on positive

moods, t(186) = 5.38, p < .001. The main effect of story type on negative moods,

t(186) = 5.39, p < .001. The main effect of story type on newsworthiness, t(186) =

2.14, p = .03. The main effect of story type on “real,” t(186) = 3.51, p = .001. The

main effect of story type on “believable,” t(186) = 5.47, p < .001. The main effect

of story type on “disturbing,” t(186) = 8.86, p < .001. The main effect of story

type on the social media transmission, t(186) = 4.24, p < .001. The correlation

between the social media transmission and the number of sentences accurately

remembered, r(186) = .135, p = .06. The correlation between “real” and the

number of sentences accurately recalled, r(186) = .146, p = .045. The mediation

effect of the social media use on the number of sentences accurately recalled,

Indirect effect = .290 (S.E. = .323), z = .90, p = .36. The mediating effect of the

“realness” of the story on the number of sentences accurately recalled, Indirect

effect = .315 (S.E. = .273), z = 1.15, p = .25.

2. We explored whether some of the story characteristics could explain the relation

between the type of story and recall. Among the 8 variables that significantly

differed across story versions, only social media transmission and how “real”

Jessica was showed significant correlations with the dependent variables: Social

media transmission was positively associated with the number of sentences


44

accurately recalled, r(177) = .20, p = .008; participants’ perception of how “real”

the main character Jessica seemed was also positively associated with the number

of sentences accurately recalled, r(177) = .19, p = .011. Next we tested whether

these two variables would mediate the effect of story type on recall, using Mplus

4.21 (Muthén & Muthén, 2007) bias-corrected bootstrapping method with the

number of resampling set to 10,000, as recommended by Preacher and Hayes

(2008). We found that social media transmission partially mediated the effect of

the story type on the number of sentences accurately recalled, Indirect effect = .58

(S.E. = .318), 95% C.I = .062; 1.350, z = 1.83, p = .066. “Realness” of the story

also partially mediated the effect of the story type on the number of sentences

accurately recalled, Indirect effect = .471 (S.E. = .277), 95% C.I = .045; 1.166, z =

1.70, p = .088. As shown by Fiedler, Schott, & Meiser (2011), however, these

mediation analyses are only suggestive (it is possible that other related constructs

are real mediators).

3. We computed these effect sizes based on the descriptive statistics provided in

Park et al. (2010) and Vella-Brodrick, Park, & Peterson (2009).

TRANSMISSION OF HEDONIC HAPPINESS 45

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Evaluative Ratings in Study 2

Hedonic Eudaimonic t p Cohen’s d

Interesting 3.72 (1.23) 3.54 (1.26) .984 .326 .148

Rich in Plot 2.86 (1.34) 2.66 (1.32) 1.03 .304 .155

Surprising 2.33 (1.43) 2.40 (1.51) -.329 .742 -.049

Arousing 3.16 (1.50) 3.11 (1.49) .247 .805 .037

Vivid 3.54 (1.42) 3.14 (1.40) 1.896 .060 .285

Newsworthy 2.36 (1.35) 1.95 (1.02) 2.302 .023 .367

Real 4.67 (1.55) 3.81 (1.67) 3.601 <.001 .541

Believable 5.29 (1.40) 4.00 (1.74) 5.417 <.001 .829

Disturbing 3.25 (1.68) 1.40 (.87) 9.075 <.001 1.632

Pass along 3.56 (1.56) 3.55 (1.61) .041 .967 .006

Heard 3.33 (.83) 3.70 (.60) -3.451 .001 .519

Social Media 4.25 (1.35) 3.30 (1.54) 4.402 <.001 .662

PA 3.42 (1.26) 4.37 (1.20) -5.224 <.001 .785

NA 3.30 (1.07) 2.40 (1.00) 5.792 < .001 .871


Figure 1a. Number of party-related announcements on a bulletin board in the psychology

building at the University of Virginia. Friday has no error bar because there was only one

observation.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri

Day of the Week

Nu

mb

er o

f P

art

y A

nn

ou

nce

men

ts

on

Bu

llet

in B

oa

rd

Running head: TRANSMISSION OF HEDONIC

HAPPINESS

47

47

Figure 1b. Party-related announcements students at the University of Virginia report seeing on

campus

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

4.5 5.0

Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri

Day of the Week

Part

y A

nn

ou

nce

men

ts:

Sel

f-R

epo

rts


Figure 1c. Hedonic announcements and eudaimonic announcements that students at the

University of Virginia report seeing on campus.

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri

An

no

un

cem

ent

Day of the Week

Hedonic

Eudaimonic


Figure 2. The number of sentences accurately reproduced in Study 3: Written Communication.

The error bars indicate standard errors.

0

5

10

15

20

25

Eudaimonic Hedonic

Story Type

# o

f S

ente

nce

s A

ccu

rate

ly

Rep

rod

uce

d

Mon-Tue

Wed-Fri


Figure 3. The hedonic vs. eudaimonic tone of the story by the order within the group in Study 3.

The error bars represent standard error. Higher numbers indicate more hedonic tone.

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

1st 2nd 3rd

Hed

on

ic v

s. E

ud

aim

on

ic T

on

e

Order within the Group (Chain)

Hedonic

Eudaimonic


Figure 4. The number of sentences accurately reproduced in Study 4: Spoken Communication.

The error bars indicate standard error.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Eudamonic Hedonic

Story Type

Nu

mb

er

of

Sen

ten

ces

Acc

ura

tely

Rep

rod

uce

d

MonTue

W-Fri


52

Figure 5. The hedonic vs. eudaimonic tone of the story by the order within the group in

Study 4. The error bars represent standard error. Higher numbers indicate stronger

hedonic tone.

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

1st 2nd 3rd

Hed

on

ic v

s. E

ud

aim

on

ic T

on

e

Order within the Group (Chain)

Hedonic

Eudaimonic


53

Appendix

Eudaimonic Story

Jessica is a first-year at UVA. She is smart, athletic, and outgoing. Since starting

college, Jessica’s main goals have been to work hard, make meaningful friendships, and

be a good person. Even by her second week living on grounds, Jessica is making

progress towards her personal goals.

On Monday, Jessica attends a Christian fellowship meeting. There are at least a

hundred other students there, many of them first years, all trying to figure out how to live

a spiritual life in college. Jessica is psyched to recognize some of the girls from her dorm

at the meeting and makes a special effort to talk to them. She doesn’t stay too late,

though, because she has gotten her first homework assignments and wants to have plenty

of time to work on them before bed.

Tuesday through Thursday, Jessica starts to spend more time with the ladies she

met on Monday. They eat meals together at the dining hall, sometimes with young men

from the Christian fellowship group; walk to classes together; study together at

Alderman; and even try out for an intramural volleyball team together. Jessica is pleased

that she has been able to make friends so fast and still keep up with all her school

assignments.

On Friday, Jessica decides to go to a party with her new friends. She has worked

hard all week and knows that her remaining homework can wait until the next day.

Jessica finds out about a party in a house near campus from one of her classmates.

Jessica and her friends have agreed not to drink, since they believe that you don’t have to

drink to enjoy yourself and are all under 21 anyway. So, instead they have a great time

dancing together and occasionally talking to some of the people they recognize. One of

the people they talk to is a guy they all had dinner with earlier in the week named Sam.

Sam says that he has really enjoyed getting to know Jessica and asks her on a date for the

next evening. Since Sam seems like a nice, good-looking guy, Jessica agrees to the date.

Jessica spends the day Saturday getting caught up on her work so she doesn’t

have to worry about it during her date. In the afternoon, her friends help her get dressed

and put on her make-up. Everyone is excited and giggling. That night, the date goes

really well. Sam takes her to a sweet animated movie and even pays for dinner. They

have no trouble keeping up the conversation and Jessica feels bold enough to make the

first move by holding his hand on the walk home. When Sam drops her at her dorm, he

kisses Jessica on the cheek and says goodnight. Of course, her girlfriends are in her room

waiting to hear all about the date. They stay up late having girl talk and discussing

Jessica’s future with Sam.

Sunday is the end of a great week. Jessica and a couple of her new friends decide

that they would like to go to church together and get up on Sunday morning to attend a

service. The church they decide to try is very friendly and young—everyone in the

congregation is welcoming to the new students. At the end of the service, one of

Jessica’s friends notices that Sam is sitting in the balcony. Jessica can’t believe the

church they chose is the same one Sam attends. Later that afternoon, while Jessica is on


54

the phone with her parents telling them about her exciting week, she gets a call from Sam

asking her on a second date. She enthusiastically agrees, then calls her parents right back

to finish telling them everything that has happened.


55

Hedonic Story

Jessica is a first-year at UVA. She is smart, athletic, and outgoing. Since starting

college, Jessica’s main goals have been to live it up, make tons of friends, and have as

much fun as possible. Even by her second week living on grounds, Jessica is making

progress towards her personal goals.

On Monday, Jessica attends a party in a nearby dorm. She knows a Monday night

party will probably be lame, but guesses it might be a good way to make some friends.

Her prediction about the party turns out to be right—it is lame—but she meets some fun

people. They mutually agree that getting to know each other is more important than

doing homework, so they spend the night playing an epic game of capture the flag on

grounds.

Tuesday through Thursday, Jessica starts to spend more time with the girls and

guys she met Monday. They eat meals together at the dining hall, have horror movie

marathons, play practical jokes on each other, and even have spontaneous sporting events

at the AFC. Jessica is pleased that she has been able to make so many friends so quickly,

though sometimes the late nights leave her too tired and unmotivated to get up for

morning classes.

On Friday, Jessica decides she and her friends have to go to a real party. Jessica

finds out about a party in a house near campus from one of her classmates. They all

show up to the house together at 11pm. Jessica wastes no time chugging a few beers to

catch up with the other partiers and starts dancing with a couple of the guys in her group.

When people start doing keg stands, Jessica volunteers, letting some of the guys hold her

up while she does her first keg stand with her friends cheering her on. When Jessica and

her friends return to their dorms, one of the guys named Sam pulls her aside and asks her

out. He is fun and good-looking, so Jessica agrees. She is so happy with all the fun she’s

had that she doesn’t even mind spending part of the night being sick in the hall bathroom.

Jessica spends most of Saturday getting over a bad hangover, but by evening feels

much better and is psyched for her date. She dresses up in her sexiest outfit and flirts

with Sam throughout dinner, after which they decide to go to another party. At first,

Jessica doesn’t drink but has a great time dancing with Sam. She even lets him make out

with her a little bit. When an acquaintance challenges them to a game of beer pong,

however, Jessica can’t resist. She and Sam win in a very close match. While they are

basking in the glow of their victory, Sam asks Jessica if she wants to go back to his room.

Jessica agrees, on the condition that she will only have safe sex. They go back to Sam’s

room and both of them have an enjoyable time.

Sunday morning, Jessica wakes up in Sam’s bed, still wearing her clothes from

the night before. She sneaks out of Sam’s room and hurries back to her dorm. Later, she

tries to do a little homework but doesn’t feel focused, so instead she relaxes and watches

TV all day in her pajamas. Jessica’s parents call, but she ignores them. When Sam calls,

Jessica tells him she had a good time but doesn’t want to mess up their friendship by

continuing to date. She is relieved when Sam agrees. After she and Sam talk, Jessica

calls up some of her other new friends and asks them to come over so she can tell them

all about her awesome, crazy weekend.

A Hedonic Story has a Transmission Advantage over a Eudaimonic Story

Documents

Transcript of A Hedonic Story has a Transmission Advantage over a Eudaimonic Story