ArticlePsychological research2026
A multi-faceted approach to the study of the relationship between self-esteem and the self-prioritization effect.
Article in Psychological research, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A key aspect of self-referential processing is that self-related stimuli tend to receive preferential processing in several cognitive domains. The so-called matching task has been introduced to quantify this bias by means of arbitrary self-other associations, aimed to minimize potential confounds related to stimulus familiarity. In this paradigm, participants learn associations between neutral shapes and social labels (e.g., self vs. stranger) and then perform a perceptual matching task. The self-prioritization effect (SPE) refers to the observation that participants are faster and more accurate in self-matching trials compared to matching trials concerning the "other". Whether individual differences in implicit and explicit self-esteem can modulate the magnitude of the SPE is still a matter of debate. The present study aimed to address this question. Using a longitudinal design to assess the temporal stability of the effects, participants completed the Self-Esteem Implicit Association Test and the Name Letter Test as measures of implicit self-esteem, and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) as a measure of explicit self-esteem, alongside the matching task. The results confirmed the reliability of the SPE over time. Furthermore, unlike measures of implicit self-esteem, explicit self-esteem showed significant positive correlations with the SPE, with RSES scores being able to predict the magnitude of the SPE. Importantly, these associations were observed both within the same testing session and between sessions. These findings suggest that explicit self-evaluation is associated with the magnitude of self-prioritization. The possible implications of this pattern for theoretical accounts of self-referential processing are discussed.
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.