The differential outcomes procedure can overcome self-bias in perceptual matching

Abstract

There are biases in perceptual matching between shapes and labels referring to familiar others, compared with when the labels refer to unfamiliar people. We assessed whether these biases could be affected by differential feedback (using the differential outcomes procedure [DOP]) compared with when feedback is provided using a nondifferential outcomes procedure (NOP). Participants formed associations between simple geometric shapes and labels referring to people the participant did or did not know (self, best friend, other). Subsequently, the task was to match a label to one of two shapes shown on a trial. When feedback for correct responses was given following the NOP condition, matches were faster to known people (self and friend) compared with those to an unknown person (stranger). However, this advantage for known personal relations was eliminated when participants were given feedback for correct responses following the DOP condition. The data are consistent with prior work showing that the DOP can facilitate the learning of taxing associations (for the stranger stimuli relative to the familiar self and friend stimuli). In addition, the results suggest that the facilitated perceptual matching for stimuli associated to individuals known personally may reflect better individuation of the association between the shape stimulus and the label, a process enhanced by using a DOP for associations with unfamiliar people.

Self-related shapes can hold the eyes

“…The self is a powerful social dimension that is able to shape many different human cognitive mechanisms (Sui & Gu, 2017). Recently, a strong and reliable "self-prioritization effect" has been observed when participants were asked to arbitrarily associate the self with a geometrical shape (Sui et al, 2012), a result then largely replicated and explored both at behavioural level (e.g., Frings, & Wentura, 2014;Fuentes, Sui, Estévez, & Humphreys, 2016;Janczyk, Humphreys, & Sui, in press;;Macrae, Visokomogilski, Golubickis, & Sahraie, 2018;Payne, Tsakiris, & Maister, 2017;Schäfer, Wentura, & Frings, 2015Schäfer, Wesslein, Spence, Wentura, & Frings, 2016;Sui, Yankouskaya, & Humphreys, 2015;Wade & Vickery, 2018;Yankouskaya, Bührle, Lugt, Stolte, & Sui, in press) and neural level (e.g., Sui, Rotshtein, & Humphreys, 2013; see also Cunningham & Turk, 2017, for a review).…”

Self-prioritization in vision, audition, and touch

“…Nevertheless, other findings suggest that the SPE may not only affect the sensory input but potentially later stages of information processing as well. For example, a memory advantage for self-related pairings was shown, indicating a better individuation of self-relevant associations rather than a perceptual benefit (Fuentes et al 2015) and a prioritization of abstract concepts rather than specific percepts emphasizes conceptual components of self-prioritization (Schäfer et al 2015).…”

A Developmental Study of the Self‐Prioritization Effect in Children Between 6 and 10 Years of Age

“…In this paradigm introduced by Sui, He, and Humphreys (), different geometric shapes are temporarily and arbitrarily associated with self‐related (e.g., “you”) and non‐self‐related (e.g., “friend,” “stranger,” “mother”) labels. In a subsequent matching task, this association leads to an SPE, that is, faster and more accurate verifications of self‐related matched shape‐label pairings than non‐self‐related ones (e.g., Fuentes, Sui, Estévez, & Humphreys, ; Schäfer, Wentura, & Frings, , ; Stein, Siebold, & van Zoest, ; Sui, Sun, Peng, & Humphreys, ; Sui, Yankouskaya, & Humphreys, ; Wang, Humphreys, & Sui, ). SPE has also been extended from visual perception to action (Frings & Wentura, ) as well as to other sensory modalities such as audition and touch (Schäfer, Wesslein, Spence, Wentura, & Frings, ) and has been shown to involve similar but distinct processes from reward (Sui & Humphreys, ; Sui, Ohrling, & Humphreys, ).…”