Judging me and you: Task design modulates self-prioritization

Golubickis, Marius; Macrae, C. Neil

doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2021.103350

Cited by 11 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It was hypothesized that the SPE would be moderated by block type. Consistent with this prediction, and previous research (Golubickis & Macrae, 2021 ) block type moderated the SPE in RT. The SPE was reduced in intermixed trials (cf.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

“…These scores provide an index of the relative magnitude of the difference in performance between self- and stranger-related responses. The present study follows previous studies that have examined contextual factors (both stimulus- and task-design-related) that moderate the well-established self-advantage in the matching task using different task parameters (e.g., Golubickis et al, 2017 ; Golubickis & Macrae, 2021 ; Hu et al, 2020 ; Stolte et al, 2021 ; Verma et al, 2021 ; Woźniak & Knoblich, 2019 ). The hypotheses of the present study thus spoke to the modulation rather than the emergence of the SPE in the matching paradigm, so the focus was on analysing differences in the magnitude of the SPE rather than absolute RTs (e.g., see Constable et al, 2021 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 61%

“…Task design (i.e., whether trials are intermixed or blocked by the identity of the target shape) has previously been demonstrated to influence self-prioritization. In a recent study using visual stimuli in the matching task, the authors documented that the SPE was greater in intermixed trials (using self- and friend-associated shapes) than in blocked trials (i.e., using self- or friend-associated shapes; Golubickis & Macrae, 2021 ). Blocking or intermixing trials by stimulus modality may also modulate the SPE.…”

Section: Task Design Stimulus Parameters and The Spementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Increased demands on working memory in intermixed trials, as compared with blocked trials, may also favour those responses involving the stronger of the object-label associations (Golubickis & Macrae, 2021 ); in other words, those involving visual self-associations (should they be stronger than their auditory counterparts). Certain self-related categories appear to be prioritized more than others when placed into competition (Enock et al, 2020 ; Turner et al, 1987 ); for example, in intermixed trials (Enock et al, 2020 ).…”

Section: Task Design Stimulus Parameters and The Spementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Self-prioritization with unisensory and multisensory stimuli in a matching task

Desebrock

2022

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A shape-label matching task is commonly used to examine the self-advantage in motor reaction-time responses (the Self-Prioritization Effect; SPE). In the present study, auditory labels were introduced, and, for the first time, responses to unisensory auditory, unisensory visual, and multisensory object-label stimuli were compared across block-type (i.e., trials blocked by sensory modality type, and intermixed trials of unisensory and multisensory stimuli). Auditory stimulus intensity was presented at either 50 dB (Group 1) or 70 dB (Group 2). The participants in Group 2 also completed a multisensory detection task, making simple speeded motor responses to the shape and sound stimuli and their multisensory combinations. In the matching task, the SPE was diminished in intermixed trials, and in responses to the unisensory auditory stimuli as compared with the multisensory (visual shape+auditory label) stimuli. In contrast, the SPE did not differ in responses to the unisensory visual and multisensory (auditory object+visual label) stimuli. The matching task was associated with multisensory ‘costs’ rather than gains, but response times to self- versus stranger-associated stimuli were differentially affected by the type of multisensory stimulus (auditory object+visual label or visual shape+auditory label). The SPE was thus modulated both by block-type and the combination of object and label stimulus modalities. There was no SPE in the detection task. Taken together, these findings suggest that the SPE with unisensory and multisensory stimuli is modulated by both stimulus- and task-related parameters within the matching task. The SPE does not transfer to a significant motor speed gain when the self-associations are not task-relevant.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 61%

Section: Task Design Stimulus Parameters and The Spementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Task Design Stimulus Parameters and The Spementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Self-prioritization with unisensory and multisensory stimuli in a matching task

Desebrock

2022

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These tasks have been frequently used to evidence the presence of self-prioritization (e.g., Golubickis et al, 2018; Hu et al, 2020; Sui et al, 2012; Woźniak & Knoblich, 2019), with the stimulus-label matching task generally producing longer absolute response times and larger relative effects of self-association. Both tasks rely partly on different sets of cognitive processes (Golubickis & Macrae, 2021; Janczyk et al, 2019), such as lexical processing, higher memory load, and conceptual mapping in shape-label matching compared to categorization. Furthermore, as self-prioritization emerges across multiple levels of processing (Desebrock & Spence, 2021; Janczyk et al, 2019; Sui, 2016) it is not clear whether the SPE measured via both tasks is directly comparable and derives from the influence of the same central self-representational aspects.…”

Section: Present Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

The power of the self: Anchoring information processing across contexts.

Scheller¹

2022

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A stable self-representation has an intrinsically beneficial connotation for information processing: it allows the individual to flexibly adapt to different contexts, while prioritizing information that pertains to the own immediate survival. Indeed, many studies have shown how linking arbitrary information to physical or psychological aspects of the self leads to pervasive effects on our decision-making and even our perception. However, the evidence we have gained so far stems from isolated aspects of the self, and varying measures across studies and different levels of processing make results difficult to compare. The present study demonstrates that associating arbitrary information with the self rapidly leads to faster and more efficient processing of information, with stable performance benefits across different tasks (matching and categorization task) and stimulus domains. Focusing on specific processing levels, the findings first provide evidence regarding the involvement of self-relatedness in perception. Here, contrast processing interacted with self-relatedness, but only when complex stimuli were used. Second, they show that self-prioritization is flexible to decisional modulations, with processing benefits being adjusted to different social contexts. Third, the present data provides evidence that performance benefits toward newly self-associated, abstract information are equivalent to those resulting from long-term established self-associations with personally owned objects. The results highlight mechanistic differences between the prioritization of information linked to the self and information linked to close others. Overall, the present findings suggest that the self acts as a stable anchor in information processing, allowing us to filter information by its immediate relevance to facilitate optimal behavior.

show abstract

You do you: susceptibility of temporal binding to self-relevance

Muth,

Ebert,

Kunde

2024

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The self-prioritization effect suggests that self-relevant information has a processing advantage over information that is not directly associated with the self. In consequence, reaction times are faster and accuracy rates higher when reacting to self-associated stimuli rather than to other-related stimuli (Sui et al., Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 38:1105–1117, 2012). This spurs the assumption that self-associated action–effects should also be perceived earlier than other-related outcomes. One way to measure this is temporal binding. Previous research indeed showed that the perceived temporal interval between actions and self-associated outcomes was reduced compared to friend- and other-associated outcomes. However, the employed method (interval estimations) and several experimental design choices make it impossible to discern whether the perceived shortening of the interval between a keypress and a self-relevant outcome is due to a perceptual shift of the action or of the action–effect or both. Thus, we conducted four experiments to assess whether temporal binding can indeed be modulated by self-relevance and if so where this perceptual bias is located. The results did not support stronger temporal binding for self- vs other-related action–effects. We discuss these results against the backdrop of the attentional basis of self-prioritization and propose directions for future research.

show abstract

Judging me and you: Task design modulates self-prioritization

Cited by 11 publications

References 52 publications

Self-prioritization with unisensory and multisensory stimuli in a matching task

Self-prioritization with unisensory and multisensory stimuli in a matching task

The power of the self: Anchoring information processing across contexts.

You do you: susceptibility of temporal binding to self-relevance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About