The Self-Prioritization Effect: Self-referential processing in movement highlights modulation at multiple stages

Abstract

A wealth of recent research supports the validity of the Self-Prioritization Effect (SPE)—the performance advantage for responses to self-associated as compared with other-person-associated stimuli in a shape–label matching task. However, inconsistent findings have been reported regarding the particular stage(s) of information processing that are influenced. In one account, self-prioritization modulates multiple stages of processing, whereas according to a competing account, self-prioritization is driven solely by a modulation in central-stage information-processing. To decide between these two possibilities, the present study tested whether the self-advantage in arm movements previously reported could reflect a response bias using visual feedback (Experiment 1), or approach motivation processes (Experiments 1 and 2). In Experiment 1, visual feedback was occluded in a ballistic movement-time variant of the matching task, whereas in Experiment 2, task responses were directed away from the stimuli and the participant’s body. The advantage for self in arm-movement responses emerged in both experiments. The findings indicate that the self-advantage in arm-movement responses does not depend on the use of visual feedback or on a self/stimuli-directed response. They further indicate that self-relevance can modulate movement responses (predominantly) using proprioceptive, kinaesthetic, and tactile information. These findings support the view that self-relevance modulates arm-movement responses, countering the suggestion that self-prioritization only influences central-stage processes, and consistent with a multiple-stage influence instead.

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

“…Additionally, increasing evidence from the neuroscience literature and lesion-patient studies suggests that self-prioritization advantages arise independently of the depth of semantic encoding and semantic classification ability (Grilli & Glisky, 2013;Grilli & McFarland, 2011;Rathbone et al, 2011;Sui & Humphreys, 2013b). Lastly, our results in the first analysis demonstrate that the SPE we observe in the present sample affects both perceptual and decisional levels of information processing, supporting the suggestion that SPEs arise at multiple levels of information processing (Cunningham & Turk, 2017;Desebrock & Spence, 2021;Golubickis et al, 2018;Hu et al, 2020;Sui & Humphreys, 2017b). However, given that self-prioritization influences various levels of information processing, the present results do not allow us to draw certain conclusions about whether the intraindividually stable SPE relates to individual-specific, trait-like differences in a single processing level (e.g., perception, memory), or whether it results from the integrated processing across different hierarchical levels.…”

“…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.…”

Social relevance modulates multisensory integration.

“…While the functional role of self-prioritization is well placed in the adaptive context, there is less consensus regarding its mechanistic generation. While accumulating neuropsychological and behavioral evidence suggests that self-related behavioral facilitation arises across multiple stages of information processing, the contribution of the different processing stages, particularly perceptual processing (Macrae et al, 2017; Reuther & Chakravarthi, 2017; Siebold et al, 2015; T. Stein et al, 2016; Sui et al, 2012), is still debated (Caughey et al, 2021; Constable, Welsh, et al, 2019; Constable et al, 2011; Conway & Pleydell-Pearce, 2000; Cunningham et al, 2008; Desebrock & Spence, 2021; Frings & Wentura, 2014; Golubickis et al, 2021; Sui & Humphreys, 2013).…”

Self-Hierarchy in Perceptual Matching: Variations in Different Processing Stages

“…This provides further evidence for the tripartite model of self-construal theory. Researchers found that people can also rapidly tag neutral actions with a personal association, thereby making their behavior toward the self more efficient ( Frings and Wentura, 2014 ; Moradi et al, 2018 ; Desebrock and Spence, 2021 ). Combined with our finding, all three selves have a self-prioritization effect, and can be tagged with neutral actions, which would fit the idea of an organism attuned to self-survival at multiple processing levels.…”

“…Previous studies ( Enock et al, 2018 ; Desebrock and Spence, 2021 ) propose a signal detection approach calculated using a sensitivity index (d prime, d’) was instead of the traditional accuracy. Hits were coded as correct responses for matching conditions and false alarms were coded as incorrect responses for mismatching conditions.…”