Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

, Volume 76, Issue 4, pp 1176–1184 | Cite as

The automatic and the expected self: separating self- and familiarity biases effects by manipulating stimulus probability

  • Jie Sui
  • Yang Sun
  • Kaiping Peng
  • Glyn W. HumphreysEmail author


Attentional control over prepotent responses has previously been shown by manipulating the probability with which stimuli appear. Here, we examined whether prepotent responses to self-associated stimuli can be modulated by their frequency of occurrence. Participants were instructed to associate geometric shapes with the self, their mother, or a stranger before having to judge whether the sequential shape–label pairs matched or mismatched the instruction. The probability of the different shape–label pairs was varied. There was a robust advantage to self-related stimuli in all cases. Reducing the proportion of matched self pairs did not weaken performance with self-related stimuli, whereas reducing the frequency of either matched mother or stranger pairs hurt performance, relative to when the different match trials were equiprobable. In addition, while mother and stranger pairs jointly benefitted when they both occurred frequently, there were benefits only to self pairs when the frequency of self trials increased along with either mother or stranger trials. The results suggest that biases favoring self-related stimuli occur automatically, even when self-related stimuli have a low probability of occurrence, and that expectations to frequent, self-related stimuli operate in a relatively exclusive manner, minimizing biases to high-probability stimuli related to other people. In contrast, biases to high-familiarity stimuli (mother pairs) can be reduced when the items occur infrequently and they do not dominate expectations over other high-frequency stimuli.


Self-tagging Matching task Prepotent responses Probability Expectation 



This work was supported by the National Nature Science Foundation of China (Project 31371017) and by grants from the Economic and Social Research Council (ES/J001597/1, UK) and the European Research Council (Pepe Grant 323883).


  1. Blais, C., Harris, M. B., Guerrero, J. V., & Bunge, S. A. (2012). Rethinking the role of automaticity in cognitive control. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 268–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brédart, S., Delchambre, M., & Laureys, S. (2006). One’s own face is hard to ignore. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 46–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gratton, G., Coles, M. G. H., & Donchin, E. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: Strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 480–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 65–70.Google Scholar
  5. Kumar, S., Yoon, E. Y., & Humphreys, G. W. (2012). Perceptual and motor-based responses to hand actions on objects: Evidence from ERPs. Experimental Brain Research, 220, 153–164.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Logan, G. D., Zbrodoff, N. J., & Willliamson, J. (1984). Strategies in the color-word Stroop task. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 22, 135–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ma, Y., & Han, S. (2010). Why respond faster to the self than others? An implicit positive association theory of self advantage during implicit face recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 619–633.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163–203.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Milliken, B., & Lupiáñez, J. (2005). Repetition costs in word identification: Evaluating a stimulus-response integration account. Psychology Research, 71, 64–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Northoff, G., & Hayes, D. J. (2011). Is our self nothing but reward? Biological Psychiatry, 69, 1019–1025.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Olivers, C. N. L. (2009). What drives memory-driven attentional capture? The effects of memory type, display type, and search type. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 1275–1291.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Schmidt, J. R. (2013). Questioning conflicting adaptation: Proportion congruent and Gratton effects reconsidered. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 20, 615–630.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Schmidt, J. R., & Besner, D. (2008). The Stroop effect: Why proportion congruent has nothing to do with congruency and everything to do with contingency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 514–523.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Schmidt, J. R., & De Houwer, J. (2011). Now you see it, now you don’t: Controlling for contingencies and stimulus repetitions eliminates the Gratton effect. Acta Psychologica, 138, 176–186.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Schmidt, J. R., De Houwer, J., & Besner, D. (2010). Contingency learning in the blink of an eye: A resource dependent process. Consciousness and Cognition, 19, 235–250.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schouppe, N., De Houwer, J., Ridderinkhof, K. R., & Notebaert, W. (2012). Conflict: Run! Reduced Stroop interference with avoidance responses. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 1052–1058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Simon, J. R. (1969). Reactions towards the source of stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 174–176.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Soto, D., Hodsoll, J. P., Rotshtein, P., & Humphreys, G. W. (2008). Automatic guidance of attention from working memory. Trends in Cognitive Science, 12, 342–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Stürmer, B., Leuthold, H., Soetens, E., Schröter, H., & Sommer, W. (2002). Control over location-based response activation in the Simon task: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 1345–1363.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Sui, J., Chechlacz, M., & Humphreys, G. W. (2012). Dividing the self: Distinct neural substrates of task-based and automatic self-prioritization after brain damage. Cognition, 122, 150–162.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sui, J., He, X., & Humphreys, G. W. (2012). Perceptual effects of social salience: Evidence from self-prioritization effects on perceptual matching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 1105–1117.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Sui, J., Rotshtein, P., & Humphreys, G. W. (2013). Coupling social attention to the self forms a network for personal significance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110, 7607–7612.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wang, G., Mao, L., Ma, Y., Yang, X., Cao, J., Liu, X., ... Han, S. (2012). Neural representations of close others in collectivistic brains. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7, 222–229.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Yoon, E. Y., & Humphreys, G. W. (2005). Direct and indirect effects of action on object classification. Memory & Cognition, 33, 1131–1146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zhu, Y., & Zhang, L. (2002). An experimental study on the self-reference effect. Science in China Series C, 45, 120–128.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zhu, Y., Zhang, L., Fan, J., & Han, S. (2007). Neural basis of cultural influence on self-representation. NeuroImage, 34, 1310–1316.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jie Sui
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yang Sun
    • 2
  • Kaiping Peng
    • 2
  • Glyn W. Humphreys
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyTsinghua UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations