Parts of me: Identity-relevance moderates self-prioritization

Abstract

Recent research has revealed a pervasive bias for self-relevant information during decision-making, a phenomenon termed the self-prioritization effect. Focusing almost exclusively on between-target (e.g., self vs. friend) differences in task performance, however, this work has overlooked the influence stimulus factors potentially exert during decisional processing. Accordingly, based on pertinent socialpsychological theorizing (i.e., Identity-Based Motivation Theory), here we explored the possibility that self-prioritization is sensitive to the identity-based relevance of stimuli. The results of three experiments supported this hypothesis. In a perceptual-matching task, stimulus enhancement was greatest when geometric shapes were associated with identity-related information that was important (vs. unimportant) to participants. In addition, hierarchical drift-diffusion modeling revealed this effect was underpinned by differences in the efficiency of visual processing. Specifically, evidence was extracted more rapidly from stimuli paired with consequential compared to inconsequential identityrelated components. These findings demonstrate how identity-relevance moderates self-prioritization.

More or less of me and you: self-relevance augments the effects of item probability on stimulus prioritization

“…Unlike Falbén et al, (2020), absent the operation of self-other response-related expectancies-and reflecting the strength of self-shape associations in working memorya self-prioritization effect was expected to emerge on matching trials under these conditions (Reuther & Chakravarthi, 2017;Sui et al, 2012;Wade & Vickery, 2017). 2 To identify the processes underlying task performance (i.e., stimulus and/or response biases), a drift diffusion model (DDM) analysis was conducted on the data as this approach has been applied successfully in previous work exploring the origins of stimulus prioritization (Falbén et al, 2020;Golubickis et al, 2017Golubickis et al, , 2018Golubickis et al, , 2020. Replicating previous research that has used shape-label matching tasks to probe self-bias (Golubickis et al, 2017(Golubickis et al, , 2020, we expected self-prioritization to be underpinned by differences in the rate of information uptake during decisional processing.…”

It’s not always about me: The effects of prior beliefs and stimulus prevalence on self–other prioritisation

“…It is possible, however, that the rate at which priors are updated may vary as a function of target (i.e., self vs. other), reflecting the status of the self as a fundamental information-processing hub ( Humphreys & Sui, 2016 ; Sui & Humphreys, 2015 , 2017 ; Sui & Rotshtein, 2019 ). In addition, updating may be sensitive to specific properties of objects—including valence and value—that have implications for the self-concept (e.g., self-enhancement motivation; Golubickis, Ho et al, in press ; Sedikides & Gregg, 2008 ) or people’s evaluations of others. Using appropriate methodological/analytical techniques, a useful task for future research will be to explore these issues.…”

“…It remains to be seen whether the current effects would extend to paradigms in which the stimuli have greater meaning for people and self-object relations are created and assessed in different ways (e.g., perceptual-matching tasks, prior-entry effects, visual search). For example, it is possible that, in combination with a response bias, prioritisation effects may be underpinned by differences in the efficiency of visual processing (i.e., drift rates) when stimuli have particular significance for people or the difficulty of the task is increased ( Golubickis, Ho et al, in press ). In addition, although the current findings demonstrate that self-prioritisation can be eliminated by prior knowledge indicating the prevalence of to-be-judged stimuli, whether this is consistently the case remains an open question.…”

“…This nuanced conception has obvious implications for stimulus prioritisation. Just as processing is sensitive to between-target differences ( Sui et al, 2012 , 2014 ), so too it may be responsive to the significance or meaning that stimuli hold for individuals given the specific aspect of the self-concept (or friend-concept) that is active at any given moment (i.e., within-person differences, see Golubickis et al, 2017 , 2020 ; Macrae et al, 2018 ). Operating in this way, identity-based processing provides the flexibility that optimal social-cognitive functioning demands.…”

Seeing Minds, Matter, and Meaning: The CEEing Model of Pre-Reflective Subjective Construal

“…What is clear, at a psychological level, is that CEEing, distinct from visual preprocessing, is influenced by the activation of non-sensory representations including expectations, Bayesian priors, memories, associations, beliefs, stereotypes, schemas, and other bodily response representations when sensory inputs are ambiguous, absent, or incomplete (de Lange, Heilbron, & Kok, 2018;Yuille & Kersten, 2006;Stokes et al, 2012;Fazio, Ledbetter, & Towles-Schwen 2000;Freeman & Johnson, 2016;Kunda & Sherman-Williams, 1993, Frable & Bem, 1985Bargh, Lombardi, & Higgins, 1988;Hugenberg & Bodenhausen, 2003;Caruso, Mead, & Balcetis, 2009;Proffitt et al, 2003;Wood et al, 2016;Salomon et al, 2013). These representations can be activated by current goals, motivations, emotions, beliefs, and contextual cues (Voss, Rothermund, & Brandtstädter, 2008;Leong et al, 2019;Balcetis & Dunning, 2006;Caruso et al, 2009;Phelps, Ling, & Carrasco, 2006;Barrett & Bar, 2009;Anderson et al, 2011;Pitts, Wilson, & Hugenberg, 2014;Sacco et al, 2011;Van de Cruys, Schouten, & Wagemans, 2013;Levari et al, 2018;Fein, Goethels, & Kugler, 2007;Trope, 1986), but they can also be chronically activated by culture and identity-related processes (Markus, Smith, & Moreland, 1985;Nisbett & Miyamoto, 2005;Golubickis et al, 2020;Xiao, Coppin, & Van Bavel, 2016).…”