title: Super-size me: self biases increase to larger stimuli.
abstract: Prior work has shown that simple perceptual match responses to pairings of shapes and labels are more efficient if the pairing is associated with the participant (e.g., circle-you) than if it is associated with another familiar person (e.g., square-friend). There is a similar advantage for matching associations with high-value rewards (circle-£9) versus low-value rewards (square-£1) (Sui, He, & Humphreys Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 1105-1117, 2012). Here we evaluated the relations between the self- and reward-bias effects by introducing occasional trials in which the size of a shape was varied unexpectedly (large or small vs. a standard medium). Participants favored stimuli that were larger than the standard when stimuli were associated with the self, and this enhancement of self bias was predicted by the degree of self bias that participants showed to standard (medium) sized stimuli. Although we observed a correlation between the magnitudes of the self and reward biases over participants, reward-bias effects were not increased to large stimuli. The data suggest both overlapping and independent components of the self and reward biases, and that self biases are uniquely enhanced when stimuli increase in size, consistent with previously reported motivational biases favoring large stimuli.
authors.affiliation: Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, jie.sui@psy.ox.ac.uk.
authors.forename: Jie
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Sui
authors.forename: Glyn W
authors.initials: GW
authors.lastname: Humphreys
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D001244:Association; D002755:Choice Behavior; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D009042:Motivation; D010364:Pattern Recognition, Visual; D011336:Probability; D012201:Reward; D020377:Self Efficacy; D012858:Size Perception; D055815:Young Adult
references.citation: Behav Res Methods. 2009 Nov;41(4):1149-60
references.pmid: 19897823
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 1977 Sep;35(9):677-88
references.pmid: 909043
references.citation: Neuropsychologia. 1999 Nov;37(12):1421-5
references.pmid: 10606015
references.citation: Trends Neurosci. 2007 May;30(5):203-10
references.pmid: 17400301
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2012 Oct;38(5):1105-17
references.pmid: 22963229
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2010 Jun;36(3):619-33
references.pmid: 20515192
references.citation: Cereb Cortex. 2004 Jun;14(6):647-54
references.pmid: 15084488
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1995 Jan;102(1):4-27
references.pmid: 7878162
references.citation: Psychophysiology. 2007 Sep;44(5):680-6
references.pmid: 17584187
references.citation: PLoS One. 2009 Dec 24;4(12):e8429
references.pmid: 20041155
references.citation: Psychophysiology. 2006 Mar;43(2):207-15
references.pmid: 16712591
references.citation: Biol Psychiatry. 2011 Jun 1;69(11):1019-25
references.pmid: 21276963
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1999 Aug;25(4):1016-35
references.pmid: 10464943
references.citation: Cereb Cortex. 2015 Apr;25(4):1060-8
references.pmid: 24165832
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2007 Oct;18(10):861-6
references.pmid: 17894602
references.citation: Front Psychol. 2013 Nov 26;4:863
references.pmid: 24324449
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 May 7;110(19):7607-12
references.pmid: 23610386