data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ebbe5/ebbe5843c3d592c8b2a99a20f6f779a7409091b4" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bb24e/bb24e861984efc99265969295803fddd342d5bda" alt=""
Publisher: John Wiley & Sons Inc
E-ISSN: 1099-0992|42|6|770-779
ISSN: 0046-2772
Source: EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, Vol.42, Iss.6, 2012-10, pp. : 770-779
Disclaimer: Any content in publications that violate the sovereignty, the constitution or regulations of the PRC is not accepted or approved by CNPIEC.
Abstract
AbstractDrawing on decades of research suggesting an attentional advantage for self‐related information, researchers generally assume that self‐related stimuli automatically capture attention. However, a literature review reveals that this claim has not been systematically examined. We aimed to fill in this dearth of evidence. Following a feature‐based account of automaticity, we set up four experiments in which participants were asked to respond to a target preceded by a cue, which was self‐related or not. In Experiment 1, larger cuing effects (faster reaction times to valid versus invalid trials) were found with a participant's own name compared with someone else's name. In Experiment 2, we replicated these results with unconscious cues. Experiment 3 suggested that these effects are not likely driven by familiarity. In Experiment 4, participants experienced greater difficulties from having their attention being captured by their own compared with someone else's name. We conclude that attentional capture by self‐related stimuli is automatic in the sense that it is unintentional, unconscious, and uncontrolled. Implications for self‐regulation and intergroup relations are discussed. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Related content
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ebbe5/ebbe5843c3d592c8b2a99a20f6f779a7409091b4" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bb24e/bb24e861984efc99265969295803fddd342d5bda" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ebbe5/ebbe5843c3d592c8b2a99a20f6f779a7409091b4" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bb24e/bb24e861984efc99265969295803fddd342d5bda" alt=""
“Me. And Me Now:” Ulysses and the Myth of the Modernist Self
By Duddy Thomas
The European Legacy, Vol. 10, Iss. 7, 2005-12 ,pp. :
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ebbe5/ebbe5843c3d592c8b2a99a20f6f779a7409091b4" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bb24e/bb24e861984efc99265969295803fddd342d5bda" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ebbe5/ebbe5843c3d592c8b2a99a20f6f779a7409091b4" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bb24e/bb24e861984efc99265969295803fddd342d5bda" alt=""
‘I take them with me’ – reflexivity in sensitive research
By Band-Winterstein Tova Doron Israel Naim Sigal
Reflective Practice, Vol. 15, Iss. 4, 2014-07 ,pp. :