↓ Skip to main content

Self-prioritization and perceptual matching: The effects of temporal construal

Overview of attention for article published in Memory & Cognition, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
Title
Self-prioritization and perceptual matching: The effects of temporal construal
Published in
Memory & Cognition, June 2017
DOI 10.3758/s13421-017-0722-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marius Golubickis, Johanna K. Falben, Arash Sahraie, Aleksandar Visokomogilski, William A. Cunningham, Jie Sui, C. Neil Macrae

Abstract

Recent research has revealed that self-referential processing enhances perceptual judgments - the so-called self-prioritization effect. The extent and origin of this effect remains unknown, however. Noting the multifaceted nature of the self, here we hypothesized that temporal influences on self-construal (i.e., past/future-self continuity) may serve as an important determinant of stimulus prioritization. Specifically, as representations of the self increase in abstraction as a function of temporal distance (i.e., distance from now), self-prioritization may only emerge when stimuli are associated with the current self. The results of three experiments supported this prediction. Self-relevance only enhanced performance in a standard perceptual-matching task when stimuli (i.e., geometric shapes) were connected with the current self; representations of the self in the future (Expts. 1 & 2) and past (Expt. 3) failed to facilitate decision making. To identify the processes underlying task performance, data were interrogated using a hierarchical drift diffusion model (HDDM) approach. Results of these analyses revealed that self-prioritization was underpinned by a stimulus bias (i.e., rate of information uptake). Collectively, these findings elucidate when and how self-relevance influences decisional processing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 78 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 17%
Researcher 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 19 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 40 51%
Neuroscience 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 22 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 August 2017.
All research outputs
#13,230,777
of 23,316,003 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#725
of 1,573 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,525
of 318,200 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#5
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,316,003 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,573 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 318,200 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.