Are Self-Related Items Unique? The Self-Prioritization Effect Revisited

Navon, M; Makovski, T

doi:10.31234/osf.io/9dzm4

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, the self-bias magnitude in the shape-label matching task was unrelated to the size of the self-bias in the traitadjectives task, and Bayesian analysis provided weak evidence in favor of its correlation with the selfbias in the visual search task, thus setting the former task apart from the latter two. In this regard, it is worth mentioning that recent ndings questioned the nature of the self-bias observed in the shape-label matching task, suggesting that the self-bias effects in this paradigm may not result from the impact of self-reference on perceptual processing, but rather re ect prioritization of self-related items held in working memory [49]. Nevertheless, our overall ndings do not support a unitary view of the self-bias effect across distinct tasks/domains of cognition.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

A comparison of self-bias measures across cognitive domains

Amodeo

Wiersema

Braß³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The ‘self-bias’ – i.e., the human proneness to preferentially process self-relevant stimuli – is thought to be important for both self-related and social processing. Previous research operationalized the self-bias using different paradigms, assessing the size of the self-bias within a single cognitive domain. Recent studies suggested a reduced self-bias in autism, yet findings are inconsistent. Therefore, the primary goal of the current study was to investigate whether self-biases found across cognitive domains (i.e., perception, memory, attention) are related or independent. The secondary goal was to explore the relationship between these self-biases and the extent of autistic traits in a neurotypical sample.Methods: In an online procedure, 99 Dutch-speaking adults performed three self-processing tasks in counterbalanced order – i.e., the shape-label matching task (perception), the trait adjectives task (memory) and the visual search task (attention) – and completed two self-report measures of ASD symptomatology, i.e., AQ-10 and SRS-A. To control for level of familiarity, self-, close other- and famous other-relevant stimuli were included in each task. Repeated measures ANOVAs were conducted for each task, and both frequentist as well as Bayesian analyses were applied to investigate the correlational patterns between self-bias measures.Results: We observed significant correlations of the self-bias magnitude between memory and attention, as well as attention and perception. However, Bayesian analysis provided only weak support for the latter association. Further, the size of the self-bias was not significantly related across memory and perception. For neither of the tasks, a significant correlation between autistic traits and the self-bias magnitude was found, with Bayesian analyses strongly favoring the null hypothesis.Conclusions: In contrast with the view of a ‘unidimensional’ self-bias, our findings provide evidence for a heterogeneous and multifaceted self consisting of a variety of related and unrelated aspects. None of the self-bias indices were found to relate to autistic traits in our neurotypical sample.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

A comparison of self-bias measures across cognitive domains

Amodeo

Wiersema

Braß³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…3) The trial-level data is either openly available or declared to be obtainable upon request, enabling us to estimate at least one reliability index. Among the 13 papers included, 7 papers made their trial-level data publicly available (Constable & Knoblich, 2020;Constable et al, 2021;Golubickis & Macrae, 2021;Navon & Makovski, 2021;Qian et al, 2020;Schäfer & Frings, 2019;Svensson et al, 2022). For the remaining 6 papers, we reached out to the authors and requested access to their trial-level data.…”

Section: Datasets Acquisitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition to the variability of indicators, SPE can be estimated by calculating the difference between self condition and different baselines. Indeed, the selection of baselines varies across studies, such as "Close other" (e.g., Friend) (Navon & Makovski, 2021;Svensson et al, 2022), "Stranger" (Constable et al, 2021;Orellana-Corrales et al, 2020), "Celebrity" (e.g., "LuXun") (Qian et al, 2020) and "Non-person" (e.g., None) (Schäfer & Frings, 2019). As a result, three pivotal questions regarding the reliability of the SPMT remain unresolved: First, given the variability of indicators (RT, ACC, d ′ , η, v, z ) and choice of baseline conditions ("Close other", "Stranger", "Celebrity", and "Non-person"), which way of quantifying SPE is the most reliable one(s)?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Multiverse Assessment of the Reliability of the Self Matching Task as a Measurement of the Self-Prioritization Effect

Liu,

Hu,

Zheng

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Self Perceptual Matching Task (SPMT) is a widely used task to investigate the cognitive processes underlying the Self-Prioritization Effect (SPE), wherein performance is enhanced for self-associated stimuli compared to other-associated ones. Despite the wide use of SPMT, there is a lack of attention on its reliability assessment. This ignorance is concerning, given the prevalence of the reliability paradox in cognitive tasks: cognitive tasks demonstrate relatively low reliability when evaluating individual differences, though they produce robust experimen- tal effects. To fill this gap, this preregistered study investigated the reliability of SPMT using a multiverse approach, combining all possible indicators and baselines used to quantify SPE in SPMT. We examined the robustness and the reliability of 24 SPE measures across 17 datasets (N = 805). More specifically, we used a meta-analytical approach to estimate the robustness of SPE across datasets. We calculated the Split-Half Reliability (r) and Intraclass Correla- tion Coefficient (ICC2) for each SPE measure. Our findings revealed a robust experimental effect of SPE across datasets. However, when it came to individ- ual differences, SPE measures derived from Reaction Time (RT) and Efficiency exhibited relatively higher, compared to other SPE measures, but still unsatis- fied split-half reliability (approximately 0.6). Similarly, for the reliability across multiple time points, as assessed by ICC2, RT and Efficiency demonstrated low levels of test-retest reliability (close to 0.5). These findings uncovered the pres- ence of a reliability paradox in the context of SPMT-based SPE assessment. We discussed the implications of our findings for future studies.

show abstract

Effects of perceptual redundancy, conceptual redundancy and self-relatedness on categorical responses

Patchitt,

Sherman,

Critchley

2024

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A redundancy gain occurs when perceptually identical stimuli are presented together, resulting in quicker categorization of these paired stimuli compared to lone stimuli. Similar effects have been reported for paired stimuli within the same conceptual category, particularly if the category is self-related. We recruited 528 individuals across three related studies to investigate whether, during perceptual and conceptual redundancy, such self-bias effects on foreground stimuli are modulated by natural versus urban backgrounds. Here, we highlight our observations pertaining to perceptual and conceptual redundancy effects of the foreground stimuli. In our first experiment, response options were randomized per trial. Results showed reaction time gains for perceptually identical stimuli, but this advantage was not modulated by self/other categorization. However, slower reaction times were observed for conceptually-related stimulus pairs, and were influenced by self/other categorization. The second experiment replicated the methods of earlier studies of redundancy and observed comparable results to Experiment 1: A perceptual redundancy gain unmodulated by self/other categorization, yet, for conceptual redundancy, no gain/cost but effects of self/other categorization. In the third experiment, self/other categories were substituted with arbitrary A/B categories: Once more, there was a perceptual redundancy gain and no conceptual redundancy gain. Notably, A/B categorisation produced effects equivalent to self/other categorisation. Overall, these findings challenge previous research on the facilitated early processing of conceptually-related stimuli and suggest that self-relatedness may not exert a unique effect on stimulus processing beyond attentional and response preferences during categorization. Our study motivates further research to understand conceptual categorization and redundancy gain effects.

show abstract

Are Self-Related Items Unique? The Self-Prioritization Effect Revisited

Cited by 4 publications

References 32 publications

A comparison of self-bias measures across cognitive domains

A comparison of self-bias measures across cognitive domains

A Multiverse Assessment of the Reliability of the Self Matching Task as a Measurement of the Self-Prioritization Effect

Effects of perceptual redundancy, conceptual redundancy and self-relatedness on categorical responses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About