MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Self-positivity bias: A comprehensive examination of the ERP and behavioral substrates of self- and other-referential processing in early adolescence

2025· article· en· W4415816138 on OpenAlexaff
Pan Liu, Jaron Xe Yung Tan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Psychophysiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institute of General Medical Sciences
KeywordsSocioemotional selectivity theoryTask (project management)ElectroencephalographyRecognition memoryInformation processingAnalysis of variance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Self-referential information, especially when positive in valence, is uniquely salient and preferentially processed even in children. This "self-positivity" bias is critical for adaptive socioemotional development and protects against the emergence of psychopathology. Early adolescence is a critical period of rapid maturation in self-cognition and brain functions; however, it remains unclear how the early adolescence brain mediates the self-positivity bias in information processing. Ninety-two 10- to 14-year-old community-dwelling early adolescents completed an EEG version of the Self-Referent Encoding Task (SRET) consisting of a self-referential and an other-referential condition, following which they were unexpectedly asked to complete a recognition task of the presented words. A data-driven principal component analysis isolated five SRET-elicited ERPs: P1, P2, N400, and anterior and posterior late positive potential (aLPP, pLPP). Two-way ANOVAs (Referent × Valence) demonstrated a "self-positivity" bias in recognition, memory sensitivity, and the aLPP: youths showed better recognition, higher memory sensitivity, an enhanced aLPP for Self-Positive versus Self-Negative words, whereas no such differences were found between Other-Positive and Other-negative words. We provided novel, robust evidence on a self-positivity bias that uniquely favored Self-Positive words across different behavioral and ERP metrics of the SRET in youths. These findings contribute to our mechanistic knowledge of how early adolescents process self-referential information and inform future studies on the role of self-referential processing in socioemotional development.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.740
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of PsychophysiologySame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207