Attentional control and the self: The Self-Attention Network (SAN)

Abstract

Although there is strong evidence that human decision-making is frequently self-biased, it remains unclear whether self-biases mediate attention. Here we review evidence on the relations between self-bias effects in decision-making and attention. We ask: Does self-related information capture attention? Do self-biases modulate pre-attentive processes or do they depend on attentional resources being available? We review work on (1) own-name effects, (2) own-face effects, and (3) self-biases in associative matching. We argue that self-related information does have a differential impact on the allocation of attention and that it can alter the saliency of a stimulus in a manner that mimics the effects of perceptual-saliency. However, there is also evidence that self-biases depend on the availability of attentional resources and attentional expectancies for upcoming stimuli. We propose a new processing framework, the Self-Attention Network (SAN), in which neural circuits responding to self-related stimuli interact with circuits supporting attentional control, to determine our emergent behavior. We also discuss how these-bias effects may extend beyond the self to be modulated by the broader social context—for example, by cultural experience, by an in-group as opposed to an out-group stimulus, and by whether we are engaged in joint actions. Self-biases on attention are modulated by social context.

Keywords:

• Self-bias
• Attention
• Own-name effect
• Own-face effect

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

¹ The “attentional blink” is the term used to describe the relatively poor report of a second target if it appears after a first reported target. It is thought to reflect a limitation in attentional rather than perceptual processing because the second target can be identified if the earlier target has to be ignored (Raymond, Shapiro, & Arnell, 1992).

² Inattentional blindness occurs when participants fail to notice stimuli that are unexpected in the context of the experiment, although perfectly visible (Mack & Rock, 1998).

³ Repetition blindness arises when participants fail to notice a second, repeated presentation of a stimulus (Kanwisher, 1987).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by grants from the Leverhulme Trust, an ERC Advanced Investigator award [323833 (PePe)] and from the UK Economic and Social Research Council [ES/J001597/1, UK]