TY - JOUR
T1 - Sticking together? Re-binding previous other-associated stimuli interferes with self-verification but not partner-verification
AU - Constable, Merryn D.
AU - Knoblich, Günther
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020
PY - 2020/10
Y1 - 2020/10
N2 - The self-prioritisation and we-prioritisation effects can be observed through faster responses to self-stimuli (self and group) than non-self-stimuli. It remains uncertain if we-prioritisation extends to individual members of one's own group. In light of recent work that implicates memory-based processes in identity-prioritisation effects, the present experiment was developed to determine whether a task-partner's identity relevant information also benefits from an enhanced representation, despite conflicting evidence of partner-prioritisation. To this end, pairs of participants were recruited to perform a joint task. Each partner was assigned a shape and a stranger was also assigned a shape. Participants then completed a shape-to-label matching task where one participant responded if a shape and a label pair matched and the other responded if the shape and a label pair did not match. Halfway through the task the associated identities were switched such that the same shapes and labels were reassigned. Overall, a standard self-prioritisation effect was observed with match-responders making faster responses to self- over partner- and stranger-stimuli. After identities were remapped a decrement in performance was observed for self-trials relative to baseline self-responses. Conversely, responses were faster to partner- and stranger-stimuli relative to baseline performance for each stimulus type. Thus, no evidence was observed for an enhanced representation for task-partner-associated identities. However, an interaction between old and new memory traces for self- and other-associated identities does seem to interfere with self-retrieval and self-verification processes.
AB - The self-prioritisation and we-prioritisation effects can be observed through faster responses to self-stimuli (self and group) than non-self-stimuli. It remains uncertain if we-prioritisation extends to individual members of one's own group. In light of recent work that implicates memory-based processes in identity-prioritisation effects, the present experiment was developed to determine whether a task-partner's identity relevant information also benefits from an enhanced representation, despite conflicting evidence of partner-prioritisation. To this end, pairs of participants were recruited to perform a joint task. Each partner was assigned a shape and a stranger was also assigned a shape. Participants then completed a shape-to-label matching task where one participant responded if a shape and a label pair matched and the other responded if the shape and a label pair did not match. Halfway through the task the associated identities were switched such that the same shapes and labels were reassigned. Overall, a standard self-prioritisation effect was observed with match-responders making faster responses to self- over partner- and stranger-stimuli. After identities were remapped a decrement in performance was observed for self-trials relative to baseline self-responses. Conversely, responses were faster to partner- and stranger-stimuli relative to baseline performance for each stimulus type. Thus, no evidence was observed for an enhanced representation for task-partner-associated identities. However, an interaction between old and new memory traces for self- and other-associated identities does seem to interfere with self-retrieval and self-verification processes.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85089750170&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103167
DO - 10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103167
M3 - Article
C2 - 32853906
AN - SCOPUS:85089750170
SN - 0001-6918
VL - 210
JO - Acta Psychologica
JF - Acta Psychologica
M1 - 103167
ER -