Skip to main content
Top
Gepubliceerd in:

07-09-2021 | Original Article

Self-prioritization depends on assumed task-relevance of self-association

Auteurs: Mateusz Woźniak, Guenther Knoblich

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 5/2022

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail

Abstract

We conducted three experiments to test the effect of assumed task-relevance of self-association on the self-prioritization effect (SPE). Participants were first performing the standard matching task, and then a pseudo-word matching task, in which familiar labels from the standard task were replaced with pseudo-words. In the pseudo-words task, the association between stimuli and the self was, in fact, task-irrelevant. Learning instructions were varied to make participants believe that the self-association was task-relevant (Experiments 1 and 3) or task-irrelevant (Experiment 2). In Experiment 1, we told participants that geometrical shapes represent specific identities (self, friend, none) and pseudo-words’ meanings reflect each of these identities to make participants believe that semantic associations of pseudo-words were task-relevant. In this experiment, a SPE was present in the pseudo-words task. Experiment 2 was identical to Experiment 1, but participants were told to form association pairs between pseudo-words and shapes, and not pseudo-words and identities. Thus, because the matching task presented only shapes and pseudo-words, participants were led to correctly believe that associations were task-irrelevant. Under these conditions, we did not observe a SPE in the pseudo-words task. Finally, in Experiment 3, participants were told that pseudo-words are “paired with” identities, making their relations with identities weaker than in Experiment 1, but still task-relevant. The SPE in the pseudo-word task reappeared. Together, the results suggest that a SPE can be observed in the absence of any stimuli with established self-associations, but only if self-associations are represented as task-relevant.
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
go back to reference Caughey, S., Falbén, J. K., Tsamadi, D., Persson, L. M., Golubickis, M., & Macrae, C. N. (2021). Self-prioritization during stimulus processing is not obligatory. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 85(2), 503–508.CrossRef Caughey, S., Falbén, J. K., Tsamadi, D., Persson, L. M., Golubickis, M., & Macrae, C. N. (2021). Self-prioritization during stimulus processing is not obligatory. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 85(2), 503–508.CrossRef
go back to reference Constable, M. D., Welsh, T., Pratt, J., & Huffman, G. (2019a). I before U: Temporal order judgements reveal bias for self-owned objects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(3), 589–598.CrossRef Constable, M. D., Welsh, T., Pratt, J., & Huffman, G. (2019a). I before U: Temporal order judgements reveal bias for self-owned objects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(3), 589–598.CrossRef
go back to reference Constable, M. D., Elekes, F., Sebanz, N., & Knoblich, G. (2019b). Relevant for us? We-prioritization in cognitive processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 45(12), 1549.PubMed Constable, M. D., Elekes, F., Sebanz, N., & Knoblich, G. (2019b). Relevant for us? We-prioritization in cognitive processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 45(12), 1549.PubMed
go back to reference Constable, M. D., Rajsic, J., Welsh, T. N., & Pratt, J. (2019c). It is not in the details: Self-related shapes are rapidly classified but their features are not better remembered. Memory & Cognition, 47(6), 1145–1157.CrossRef Constable, M. D., Rajsic, J., Welsh, T. N., & Pratt, J. (2019c). It is not in the details: Self-related shapes are rapidly classified but their features are not better remembered. Memory & Cognition, 47(6), 1145–1157.CrossRef
go back to reference Constable, M. D., Becker, M. L., Oh, Y.-I., & Knoblich, G. (2021). Affective compatibility with the self modulates the self-prioritisation effect. Cognition and Emotion, 35(2), 291–304.CrossRef Constable, M. D., Becker, M. L., Oh, Y.-I., & Knoblich, G. (2021). Affective compatibility with the self modulates the self-prioritisation effect. Cognition and Emotion, 35(2), 291–304.CrossRef
go back to reference Dalmaso, M., Castelli, L., & Galfano, G. (2019). Self-related shapes can hold the eyes. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(9), 2249–2260.CrossRef Dalmaso, M., Castelli, L., & Galfano, G. (2019). Self-related shapes can hold the eyes. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(9), 2249–2260.CrossRef
go back to reference Desebrock, C., Sui, J., & Spence, C. (2018). Self-reference in action: Arm-movement responses are enhanced in perceptual matching. Acta Psychologica, 190, 258–266.CrossRef Desebrock, C., Sui, J., & Spence, C. (2018). Self-reference in action: Arm-movement responses are enhanced in perceptual matching. Acta Psychologica, 190, 258–266.CrossRef
go back to reference Enock, F., Sui, J., Hewstone, M., & Humphreys, G. W. (2018). Self and team prioritisation effects in perceptual matching: Evidence for a shared representation. Acta Psychologica, 182, 107–118.CrossRef Enock, F., Sui, J., Hewstone, M., & Humphreys, G. W. (2018). Self and team prioritisation effects in perceptual matching: Evidence for a shared representation. Acta Psychologica, 182, 107–118.CrossRef
go back to reference Falbén, J. K., Golubickis, M., Balseryte, R., Persson, L. M., Tsamadi, D., Caughey, S., & Neil Macrae, C. (2019). How prioritized is self-prioritization during stimulus processing? Visual Cognition, 27(1), 46–51.CrossRef Falbén, J. K., Golubickis, M., Balseryte, R., Persson, L. M., Tsamadi, D., Caughey, S., & Neil Macrae, C. (2019). How prioritized is self-prioritization during stimulus processing? Visual Cognition, 27(1), 46–51.CrossRef
go back to reference Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191.
go back to reference Ivaz, L., Costa, A., & Duñabeitia, J. A. (2016). The emotional impact of being myself: Emotions and foreign-language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(3), 489.PubMed Ivaz, L., Costa, A., & Duñabeitia, J. A. (2016). The emotional impact of being myself: Emotions and foreign-language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(3), 489.PubMed
go back to reference James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: H. Holt and company. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: H. Holt and company.
go back to reference Janczyk, M., Humphreys, G. W., & Sui, J. (2019). The central locus of self-prioritisation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(5), 1068–1083.CrossRef Janczyk, M., Humphreys, G. W., & Sui, J. (2019). The central locus of self-prioritisation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(5), 1068–1083.CrossRef
go back to reference Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). Recognition of self-generated actions from kinematic displays of drawing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(2), 456–465. Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). Recognition of self-generated actions from kinematic displays of drawing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(2), 456–465.
go back to reference Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. University of Chicago Press. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. University of Chicago Press.
go back to reference Noel, J.-P., Blanke, O., Serino, A., & Salomon, R. (2017). Interplay between narrative and bodily self in access to consciousness: No difference between self-and non-self attributes. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 72.CrossRef Noel, J.-P., Blanke, O., Serino, A., & Salomon, R. (2017). Interplay between narrative and bodily self in access to consciousness: No difference between self-and non-self attributes. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 72.CrossRef
go back to reference Reuther, J., & Chakravarthi, R. (2017). Does self-prioritization affect perceptual processes? Visual Cognition, 25(1–3), 381–398.CrossRef Reuther, J., & Chakravarthi, R. (2017). Does self-prioritization affect perceptual processes? Visual Cognition, 25(1–3), 381–398.CrossRef
go back to reference Roepstorff, A., & Frith, C. (2004). What’s at the top in the top-down control of action? Script-sharing and ‘top-top’control of action in cognitive experiments. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 68(2), 189–198.CrossRef Roepstorff, A., & Frith, C. (2004). What’s at the top in the top-down control of action? Script-sharing and ‘top-top’control of action in cognitive experiments. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 68(2), 189–198.CrossRef
go back to reference Rogers, T. B., Kuiper, N. A., & Kirker, W. S. (1977). Self-reference and the encoding of personal information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(9), 677–688. Rogers, T. B., Kuiper, N. A., & Kirker, W. S. (1977). Self-reference and the encoding of personal information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(9), 677–688.
go back to reference Siebold, A., Weaver, M. D., Donk, M., & van Zoest, W. (2015). Social salience does not transfer to oculomotor visual search. Visual Cognition, 23(8), 989–1019.CrossRef Siebold, A., Weaver, M. D., Donk, M., & van Zoest, W. (2015). Social salience does not transfer to oculomotor visual search. Visual Cognition, 23(8), 989–1019.CrossRef
go back to reference Stolte, M., Humphreys, G., Yankouskaya, A., & Sui, J. (2017). Dissociating biases towards the self and positive emotion. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(6), 1011–1022.CrossRef Stolte, M., Humphreys, G., Yankouskaya, A., & Sui, J. (2017). Dissociating biases towards the self and positive emotion. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(6), 1011–1022.CrossRef
go back to reference Sui, J., Sun, Y., Peng, K., & Humphreys, G. W. (2014). The automatic and the expected self: Separating self-and familiarity biases effects by manipulating stimulus probability. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76(4), 1176–1184.CrossRef Sui, J., Sun, Y., Peng, K., & Humphreys, G. W. (2014). The automatic and the expected self: Separating self-and familiarity biases effects by manipulating stimulus probability. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76(4), 1176–1184.CrossRef
go back to reference Symons, C. S., & Johnson, B. T. (1997). The self-reference effect in memory: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 121(3), 371–394. Symons, C. S., & Johnson, B. T. (1997). The self-reference effect in memory: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 121(3), 371–394.
go back to reference Wade, G. L., & Vickery, T. J. (2017). Self-relevance effects and label choice: Strong variations in label-matching performance due to non-self-relevant factors. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 79(5), 1524–1534.CrossRef Wade, G. L., & Vickery, T. J. (2017). Self-relevance effects and label choice: Strong variations in label-matching performance due to non-self-relevant factors. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 79(5), 1524–1534.CrossRef
go back to reference Wade, G. L., & Vickery, T. J. (2018). Target self-relevance speeds visual search responses but does not improve search efficiency. Visual Cognition, 26(8), 563–582.CrossRef Wade, G. L., & Vickery, T. J. (2018). Target self-relevance speeds visual search responses but does not improve search efficiency. Visual Cognition, 26(8), 563–582.CrossRef
go back to reference Wood, N. L., & Cowan, N. (1995). The cocktail party phenomenon revisited: attention and memory in the classic selective listening procedure of Cherry (1953). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(3), 243–262. Wood, N. L., & Cowan, N. (1995). The cocktail party phenomenon revisited: attention and memory in the classic selective listening procedure of Cherry (1953). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(3), 243–262.
go back to reference Zhao, S., Uono, S., Yoshimura, S., & Toichi, M. (2015). Self make-up: The influence of self-referential processing on attention orienting. Scientific Reports, 5, 14169.CrossRef Zhao, S., Uono, S., Yoshimura, S., & Toichi, M. (2015). Self make-up: The influence of self-referential processing on attention orienting. Scientific Reports, 5, 14169.CrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Self-prioritization depends on assumed task-relevance of self-association
Auteurs
Mateusz Woźniak
Guenther Knoblich
Publicatiedatum
07-09-2021
Uitgeverij
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in
Psychological Research / Uitgave 5/2022
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01584-5

Andere artikelen Uitgave 5/2022

Psychological Research 5/2022 Naar de uitgave