Abstract
Abstract. Recently, Sui, He, and Humphreys (2012) introduced a new paradigm to measure perceptual self-prioritization processes. It seems that arbitrarily tagging shapes to self-relevant words (I, my, me, and so on) leads to speeded verification times when matching self-relevant word shape pairings (e.g., me – triangle) as compared to non-self-relevant word shape pairings (e.g., stranger – circle). In order to analyze the level at which self-prioritization takes place we analyzed whether the self-prioritization effect is due to a tagging of the self-relevant label and the particular associated shape or due to a tagging of the self with an abstract concept. In two experiments participants showed standard self-prioritization effects with varying stimulus features or different exemplars of a particular stimulus-category suggesting that self-prioritization also works at a conceptual level.
References
(2012). I, me, mine: Automatic attentional capture by self‐related stimuli. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 770–779. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.1882
(1982). Attention and automaticity in the processing of self-relevant information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 425–436. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.43.3.425
(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
(1997). Competitive brain activity in visual attention. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 7, 255–261. doi: 10.1016/S0959-4388(97)80014-1
(2007). GPower 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral and biomedical sciences. Behavioral Research Methods, 39, 175–191.
(2006). Relevant distractors do not cause negative priming. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 322–327.
(2014). Self-priorization processes in action and perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40, 1737–1740. doi: 10.1037/a0037376
(1970). Integrality of stimulus dimensions in various types of information processing. Cognitive Psychology, 1, 225–241. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(70)90016-2
(2009). Personal names do not always survive the attentional blink: Behavioral evidence for a flexible locus of selection. Vision Research, 49, 1378–1388.
(1995). Corrections for extreme proportions and their biasing effects on estimated values of d’. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 27, 46–51. doi: 10.3758/BF03203619
(1990). Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model comparison perspective. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
(1997). Personal names and the attentional blink: A visual “cocktail party” effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 504–514. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.23.2.504
(1999). Calculation of signal detection theory measures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 31, 137–149. doi: 10.3758/BF03207704
(2012). Perceptual effects of social salience: Evidence from self-prioritization effects on perceptual matching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 1105–1117. doi: 10.1037/a0029792
(2014). The automatic and the expected self: separating self-and familiarity biases effects by manipulating stimulus probability. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76, 1176–1184. doi: 10.3758/s13414-014-0631-5
(1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
