Comparing Self-Other Distinction Across Motor, Cognitive, and Affective Domains

Abstract

Self-other distinction (SOD) is a process, with which we disentangle self- from other-related mental representations. This online study investigated two unresolved questions: (1) whether SOD is underpinned by a unitary process across three types of mentalrepresentations: motor, cognitive, and affective representations, and (2) whether SOD largelycoincides with either domain-general processes related to cognitive control or social cognition-specific processes. Participants performed three well-established SOD tasks (motor representations: automatic imitation inhibition; cognitive representations: visual perspective-taking; affective representations: emotional egocentricity bias) and two cognitive control tasks (Stroop and stop-signal reaction time tasks).Regarding question 1, multiple exploratory factor analyses on the SOD indexes across three types of mental representations resulted in a three-factor solution (30% of explained variance) instead of a single factor on which all SOD indexes could have converged. Regarding question 2, adding cognitive control indexes to the factor analyses did not alter the previous three-factorsolution and the control indexes had relatively low loadings (below .30) on the three identifiedfactors. These findings suggest that (1) SOD for motor, cognitive, and affective mental representations is supported by distinct and not a unitary process and (2) that SODs recruit domain-general processes related to a cognitive control only to a limited extent.

Studying trait-characteristics and neural correlates of the emotional ego- and altercentric bias using an audiovisual paradigm

“…Spearman rank correlations did not show significant relationships (all p > .32) between the resulting positive score and EEB or EAB or between the negative score and the EEB or EAB (see supplementary figures 1 & 2). A further possibility to approach the question of the underlying electrophysiological correlates could be to target the main effects separately (Pronizius et al, 2022). In this line of reasoning, the main effect of congruency reflects the self-other conflict, while the main effect of target reflects the selfother salience (Pronizius et al, 2022).…”

“…A further possibility to approach the question of the underlying electrophysiological correlates could be to target the main effects separately (Pronizius et al, 2022). In this line of reasoning, the main effect of congruency reflects the self-other conflict, while the main effect of target reflects the selfother salience (Pronizius et al, 2022). Here, to test for a neural bias effect following the behavioural results, first, a single main effect comparison of congruency (incongruent minus congruent) was calculated.…”

“…However, mixed results have been described in previous studies, too (Bukowski et al, 2020;Hartmann et al, 2022;Silani et al, 2013), which used different sensory modalities and tasks. Two factors might be contributing to these differences: on the one hand, interindividual differences and hence differences in sample composition could influence results, on the other hand, the task could influence the role of self and other perception and salience (Pronizius et al, 2022). Here, only the lab study showed a significant three-way interaction of congruency, target, and valence, where follow up results showed an EEB effect for the pleasant condition only, whereas the EAB effect was significant for both valences.…”

Narcissists are not more egocentric: evidence from a performance-based perspective-taking measure

“…Each trial was a sequence of a fixation cross, a 500 ms blank screen, a perspective prompt ('She'/'He' or 'You'), a 500 ms blank screen, a number prompt (0/1/2/3), and the picture of the room. In Study 2, the perspective and number are grouped into a single prompt (either formats of cue presentation yield the same perspective effects in participants; Pronizius et al, 2022). The number prompt could match or mismatch the number of red discs visible from the prompted perspective.…”

“…Contrary to Study 1, the entire experiment of Study 2 was conducted on internet (either formats yield the same perspective-taking effects in participants; Bukowski, Kamal, et al, 2021;Pronizius et al, 2022). Participants were directed on a website via a hyperlink on the study advertisement.…”