Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34324041›Full record

ArticlePsychological research2022

More or less of me and you: self-relevance augments the effects of item probability on stimulus prioritization.

Saga L Svensson, Marius Golubickis, Hollie Maclean, Johanna K Falbén, Linn M Persson, Dimitra Tsamadi, Siobhan Caughey, Arash Sahraie, C Neil Macrae

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Electrophysiological correlates of self-related processing in adults with autism.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2024
    Article
  5. Self-Prioritization Reconsidered: Scrutinizing Three Claims.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2023
    Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Saga L SvenssonSchool of Psychology, King's College, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB24 3FX, Scotland, UK. s.svensson.19@abdn.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9063-1441
Marius GolubickisSchool of Psychology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, England, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6128-0331
Hollie MacleanSchool of Psychology, King's College, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB24 3FX, Scotland, UK.
Johanna K FalbénSchool of Psychology, King's College, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB24 3FX, Scotland, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4711-1771
Linn M PerssonSchool of Psychology, King's College, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB24 3FX, Scotland, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8445-8008
Dimitra TsamadiSchool of Psychology, King's College, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB24 3FX, Scotland, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0169-9218
Siobhan CaugheySchool of Psychology, King's College, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB24 3FX, Scotland, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6920-5149
Arash SahraieSchool of Psychology, King's College, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB24 3FX, Scotland, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3302-5119
C Neil MacraeSchool of Psychology, King's College, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB24 3FX, Scotland, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8659-6778

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Self-relevance exerts a powerful influence on information processing. Compared to material associated with other people, personally meaningful stimuli are prioritized during decision-making. Further exploring the character of this effect, here we considered the extent to which stimulus enhancement is impacted by the frequency of self-relevant versus friend-relevant material. In a matching task, participants reported whether shape-label stimulus pairs corresponded to previously learned associations (e.g., triangle = self, square = friend). Crucially however, before the task commenced, stimulus-based expectancies were provided indicating the probability with which both self- and friend-related shapes would be encountered. The results revealed that task performance was impacted by the frequency of stimulus presentation in combination with the personal relevance of the items. When self- and friend-related shapes appeared with equal frequencies, a self-prioritization effect emerged (Expt. 1). Additionally, in both confirmatory (Expt. 2) and dis-confirmatory (Expt. 3) task contexts, stimuli that were encountered frequently (vs. infrequently) were prioritized, an effect that was most pronounced for self-relevant (vs. friend-relevant) items. Further computational analyses indicated that, in each of the reported experiments, differences in performance were underpinned by variation in the rate of information uptake, with evidence extracted more rapidly from self-relevant compared to friend-relevant stimuli. These findings advance our understanding of the emergence and origin of stimulus-prioritization effects during decisional processing.

Indexed as

CognitionTask Performance and AnalysisHumansLearningProbability

Identifiers

PMID34324041
PMCPMC9090897

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.