ArticlePsychological research2023
Time is of the essence: past selves are not prioritized even when selective discrimination costs are controlled for.
Article in Psychological research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The perceptual Self-Prioritization effect (SPE) refers to an advantage in attending to stimuli associated with the self relative to those associated with another individual. In the perceptual matching task, arbitrary pairings between oneself and other persons, and a geometric shape need to be learned. Apart from the SPE, this task also produces high matching performance for a close other. While cognitive representations of past selves are sometimes viewed as resembling that of an intimate other, and while there is some evidence that other types of psychological closeness modulate the SPE, it remains unclear whether such prioritization effects extend to past selves. Previous experiments on this topic required participants to distinguish between different points in time within the same task, raising the possibility that potential past self-prioritization was masked by task difficulty. In our experiment, we addressed this potential confound by presenting N = 118 participants with a simpler version of the matching task. We re-investigated self-prioritization in perceptual matching under conditions of mental time travel to the past. In line with previous evidence, we found clear prioritization of present selves, which was evident in response times, accuracies and the efficiency of practice. Performance was consistently poorest for the past self, indicating not only a lack of privileged processing, but rather a relative de-prioritization. Performance was not improved by either increased proximity of the time period in question, nor by experimenter-induced re-imagining of the self. Our results do not support a perceptual prioritization of past selves.
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.