The rival doesn’t catch my eyes: In-group relevance modulates inhibitory control over anti-saccades

The Hierarchical Relationship Between the Relational-Self and the Collective-Self During Attention Processing

Background

Under the Chinese collectivist cultural system, people emphasize social connections with close others and members of in-groups. Collectivism can be divided into the following two forms: relational collectivism (privileges relational self [RS]) and group collectivism (emphasizes collective self [CS]). Previous researchers have found a hierarchy between the RS and CS, resulting in different degrees of recognition advantages. However, the hierarchy between the RS and CS is unclear and may depend on the specific processing stage. Therefore, this research compared the hierarchy between these two selves during different processing stages using an eye-movement method.

Methods

The sample consisted of thirty-eight young adults aged between 18 and 24 years old (M = 20.45, SD= 1.62). Each participant finished a dot-probe task featuring high-relevant (HR, ie one’s mother’s name and China) and low-relevant (LR, ie, name of a famous person and USA) information about the RS and CS and neutral information. Further, the eye-movement (EM) indices were collected simultaneously.

Results

A stronger reaction time bias and longer total gaze duration revealed that young people in China focus more on RS information, indicating that Chinese people prioritize the RS over the CS at late stages of attentional processing.

Conclusion

Information on interpersonal relationships and information on the in-group both catch people’s attention quickly and easily, but only RS information can maintain attention for longer. Understanding the hierarchy of the RS and the CS may provide more evidence for self-construal in the Chinese collectivist cultural context. The importance of the RS prompting that the interpersonal and close relationships are more important to the development of the self, suggesting that it is necessary to pay more attention to the impact of interpersonal support on people’s mental health in clinical applications.

Rivalry and performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Rivalry, a relational competition, is known to increase motivation and performance. However, a systematic review and meta-analysis that examines the effect sizes is lacking. Further, most research on this topic has not considered the type of rivalry (individual versus collective) and the research field as potential moderators. We conducted a wide-scale search, looking for rivalry and performance studies, which yielded 22 papers (k = 35) with 27,771 observations that were systematically reviewed. Eighteen papers (k = 28) were eligible for a further meta-analysis, including a total of 26,215 observations. The systematic review indicated that rivalry is usually positively related to performance. Results of the meta-analysis revealed that this effect is significant and that the relationship between rivalry and performance is more robust for individual rivalry compared to group rivalry. Further analyses indicated that for group rivalry, correlations are positive and significant only in the domains of sports and donation-raising. Plain Text Abstract Rivalry is a unique and common type of competition in which the competing parties have longstanding relationships. When rivalry is present, the competing actors have an increased desire to win and invest extra effort into the competition, leading to enhanced performance. However, an integration of studies that examine the effects of rivalry, as a relational competition, is lacking. Here, we scanned studies from diverse research fields that claimed to measure rivalry and actor's performance. We considered only research that specifically measured rivalry as a relational competition and its association with performance. We systematically reviewed eligible studies and found that, generally, rivalry is positively related to performance. We then performed a meta-analysis that confirmed that this relationship is statistically significant. We further found that this relationship is more robust for rivalries in the context of individuals compared to groups. The association between rivalry and performance is most prominent in certain domains, such as sports rivalry. These findings can guide scholars in designing research on rivalry. Specifically, considering the various effect sizes found here in different contexts of rivalry will allow researchers to plan for more appropriate sample sizes designed to reveal the relationship between rivalry and performance in a targeted domain. Further, these results can inform managers about the effects of rivalries in or between their organizations, distinguishing among the different contexts of rivalries and their specific outcomes.

Overlap in processing advantages for minimal ingroups and the self

Cognitive biases shape our perception of the world and our interactions with other people. Information related to the self and our social ingroups is prioritised for cognitive processing and can therefore form some of these key biases. However, ingroup biases may be elicited not only for established social groups, but also for minimal groups assigned by novel or random social categorisation. Moreover, whether these ‘ingroup biases’ are related to self-processing is unknown. Across three experiments, we utilised a social associative matching paradigm to examine whether the cognitive mechanisms underpinning the effects of minimal groups overlapped with those that prioritise the self, and whether minimal group allocation causes early processing advantages. We found significant advantages in response time and sensitivity (dprime) for stimuli associated with newly-assigned ingroups. Further, self-biases and ingroup-biases were positively correlated across individuals (Experiments 1 and 3). However, when the task was such that ingroup and self associations competed, only the self-advantage was detected (Experiment 2). These results demonstrate that even random group allocation quickly captures attention and enhances processing. Positive correlations between the self- and ingroup-biases suggest a common cognitive mechanism across individuals. These findings have implications for understanding how social biases filter our perception of the world.

Attentional saliency and ingroup biases: From society to the brain

There is ample evidence demonstrating intergroup biases on cognition and emotion. However, it remains unclear how exactly group identification influences these processes, with issues of context sensitivity and goal dependence remaining open to scrutiny. Providing a range of interdisciplinary material, the current review attempts to inform understanding of these issues. Specifically, we provide evidence revealing that individuals show enhanced attention for stimuli associated with an ingroup compared to an outgroup. At the attentional level, such biases can be explained by the assignment of different levels of saliency to ingroup versus outgroup targets. Critically, however, salience assignment is not fixed but varies as a function of context and goal-directed behavior. We suggest that the network in the brain previously associated with social and emotional saliency and attention - notably the anterior insula, posterior superior temporal sulcus, and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex - underpins these effects. Moreover, although attention typically favors ingroup targets, outgroup members can be prioritized on occasion. The implications of this viewpoint and future lines of investigation are considered.

In-group biases and oculomotor responses: beyond simple approach motivation

An in-group bias describes an individual’s bias towards a group that they belong to. Previous studies suggest that in-group bias facilitates approach motor responses, but disrupts avoidance ones. Such motor biases are shown to be more robust when the out-group is threatening. We investigated whether, under controlled visual familiarity and complexity, in-group biases still promote pro-saccade and hinder anti-saccades oculomotor responses. Participants first learned to associate an in-group or out-group label with an arbitrary shape. They were then instructed to listen to the group-relevant auditory cue (name of own and a rival university) followed by one of the shapes. Half of the participants were instructed to look towards the visual target if it matched the preceding group-relevant auditory cue and to look away from it if it did not match. The other half of the participants received reversed instructions. This design allowed us to orthogonally manipulate the effect of in-group bias and cognitive control demand on oculomotor responses. Both pro- and anti-saccades were faster and more accurate following the in-group auditory cue. Independently, pro-saccades were performed better than anti-saccades, and match judgements were faster and more accurate than non-match judgements. Our findings indicate that under higher cognitive control demands individuals’ oculomotor responses improved following the motivationally salient cue (in-group). Our findings have important implications for learning and cognitive control in a social context. As we included rival groups, our results might to some extent reflect the effects of out-group threat. Future studies could extend our findings using non-threatening out-groups instead.