The relevance of familiarity in the context of self-related information processing

Abstract

Humans are inclined to preferentially process self-related content, referred to as the ‘self-bias’. Different paradigms have been used to study this effect. However, not all paradigms included a familiar other condition (but rather an unfamiliar other condition), needed to differentiate self-specific effects from the impact of familiarity. The primary goal of our study was to test the suitability for studying the self-bias of two paradigms that provide robust measures of saliency effects – i.e. the Repetition Blindness (RB) effect and the Emotional Stroop (ES) interference – while addressing the familiarity confound. We further explored whether self-bias effects were related to autism symptomatology, as a reduced self-bias in autism has been reported in previous research. In an online procedure, 82 adults performed a RB task and an ES task in a counterbalanced order, while being presented with both self- and familiar other-related stimuli. Results of both frequentist and Bayesian analyses did not provide evidence in favor of a specific self-bias on either task: we found no significant modulation of the RB effect, nor of the ES interference, for the own vs. a close other’s name. Moreover, no link with autism symptomatology was found. Tackling a crucial shortcoming from earlier studies, our investigation raises awareness on the importance of accounting for familiarity when investigating self-related processing.

How far can the self be extended? Automatic attention capture is triggered not only by the self-face

“…However, to ensure control over gender-related effects, the gender of close-other faces has to be matched with that of the participant. This selection approach has been consistent with earlier studies (e.g., Tacikowski et al, 2011Tacikowski et al, , 2013Cygan et al, 2014;Nowicka, 2015, 2016;Kotlewska et al, 2017;Nijhof et al, 2018;Cygan et al, 2022;Żochowska et al, 2022Amodeo et al, 2023). Among the participants, 23 individuals opted for a friend, 9 for their sibling, and 3 for their partner as their chosen close-other.…”

Effects of Self-similarity and Self-Generation on the Perceptual Prioritisation of Voices

“…Previous research has demonstrated that familiar voices receive special treatment at a cognitive and neurological level (Kanber et al, 2022;Plante-Hébert et al, 2021). Thus, some consider that high familiarity mediates self-biases (Amodeo et al, 2023). Conversely, others argue that cognitive processes involving self-related information are distinct from those related to familiarity (Bortolon & Raffard, 2018).…”

Subjectively salient faces differ from emotional faces: ERP evidence

“…Participants freely selected the close-other based on their subjective high level of closeness and subjective significance to avoid the situation in which a pre-defined close-other might not truly be considered close by the participant. This approach has been employed in numerous previous studies 9 , 10 , 53 , 55 , 56 , 80 , 82 . The only restriction put on the selection of a close-other was that they be of the same sex and have no distinctive facial marks.…”

“…Instead of a predefined individual (e.g., a mother, a friend), each participant freely selected their close-other, representing the most significant person in their life at the time of the experiment. This operationalization of a close-other has been utilized in numerous prior studies on the theme of self-prioritization 9 , 10 , 50 , 55 , 56 , 80 – 82 . Similarly to one’s own face, a close-other’s face is a highly important and salient visual stimulus encountered frequently in everyday life 82 .…”