ArticleExperimental brain research2018
In-group biases and oculomotor responses: beyond simple approach motivation.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Self-prioritization with unisensory and multisensory stimuli in a matching task.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2022Article
- The Hierarchical Relationship Between the Relational-Self and the Collective-Self During Attention Processing.Psychology research and behavior management · 2022Article
- Self-Hierarchy in Perceptual Matching: Variations in Different Processing Stages.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Overlap in processing advantages for minimal ingroups and the self.Scientific reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
An in-group bias describes an individual's bias towards a group that they belong to. Previous studies suggest that in-group bias facilitates approach motor responses, but disrupts avoidance ones. Such motor biases are shown to be more robust when the out-group is threatening. We investigated whether, under controlled visual familiarity and complexity, in-group biases still promote pro-saccade and hinder anti-saccades oculomotor responses. Participants first learned to associate an in-group or out-group label with an arbitrary shape. They were then instructed to listen to the group-relevant auditory cue (name of own and a rival university) followed by one of the shapes. Half of the participants were instructed to look towards the visual target if it matched the preceding group-relevant auditory cue and to look away from it if it did not match. The other half of the participants received reversed instructions. This design allowed us to orthogonally manipulate the effect of in-group bias and cognitive control demand on oculomotor responses. Both pro- and anti-saccades were faster and more accurate following the in-group auditory cue. Independently, pro-saccades were performed better than anti-saccades, and match judgements were faster and more accurate than non-match judgements. Our findings indicate that under higher cognitive control demands individuals' oculomotor responses improved following the motivationally salient cue (in-group). Our findings have important implications for learning and cognitive control in a social context. As we included rival groups, our results might to some extent reflect the effects of out-group threat. Future studies could extend our findings using non-threatening out-groups instead.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.