Brief mindfulness practice influences the self-reference effect by caring for others

Abstract

The self-reference effect (SRE) describes enhanced memory and perception for self-related information. Using a perceptual matching paradigm across three experiments, this study examined the SRE and two associated phenomena in a Chinese sample: self-retention (difficulty updating self-associations) and self-obstruction (interference from self-cues). Study 1 established the basic SRE, revealing comparable advantages for self and friend-related information. Study 2 demonstrated self-retention through performance costs during rule-switching, while Study 3 identified self-obstruction via distraction from task-irrelevant self-cues. A 15-minute mindfulness intervention attenuated all three effects by enhancing processing efficiency for stranger-related stimuli rather than suppressing self-prioritization. These findings suggest mindfulness mitigates SRE through attentional reorientation from self to others, offering new insights into modifiable mechanisms of self-referential processing.

Introduction

Self-related processing advantages have long intrigued researchers. Rogers and colleagues¹ systematically demonstrated this mnemonic benefit through a comparison of encoding strategies, finding that self-referential processing led to superior recall relative to other encoding strategies—a phenomenon termed the self-reference effect (SRE). Importantly, the SRE extends beyond intrinsic self-attributes like names and body parts, even newly-assigned external information can rapidly engage self-reference memory. This is illustrated by Cunningham et al.² who showed that children exhibited better memory for objects they had previously “owned” compared to those assigned to others or entirely unfamiliar items, demonstrating how self-association enhances memory for newly acquired possessions.

A key methodological advance was achieved by Sui et al.³ who developed a perceptual matching paradigm in which participants associated personal referents (self, friend, stranger) with geometric shapes (triangles, squires, and circles). On each trial, participants judged whether a presented shape–label pairing matched a pre-learned rule. By measuring response times and accuracy, this approach allowed researchers to quantify the perceptual prioritization of self-related stimuli. Unlike earlier recall-based measures, this method captures the SRE through real-time perceptual judgments, offering enhanced precision and ecological validity in the study of self-referential processing³.

The self-prioritization embedded within the information-processing system offers distinct functional advantages for achieving for personal goals. First, SRE facilitates rapid and accurate memory encoding and retrieval⁴. Second, self-relevant cues can enhance perceptual sensitivity, allowing self-bound information to capture attention more efficiently and prompt heightened vigilance once attended^5,6. This mechanism enables individuals to strategically form self-associations with meaningful stimuli, thereby priming swift behavioral responses when such information is encountered.

Nevertheless, the SRE carries several adverse consequences. It amplifies egocentric biases, inflating one’s personal significance. Such tendencies are associated with increased self-centeredness, diminished empathy, and reduced prosocial behaviors^7–9. Excessive self-referential processing has also been correlated with psychological disorders, particularly depression¹⁰. At the cognitive level, SRE can lead to over-concentration of resources, reducing flexibility in information processing. For instance, Wang et al.¹¹ observed self-retention in a rule-switching task: when shape-label matching rules changed, responses in self-matched trials were significantly slowed, whereas friend- and stranger-related trials remained unaffected, illustrating the cognitive rigidity induced by self-association. Another drawback is self-obstruction—the automatic capture of attention by self-relevant stimuli can disrupt performance in ongoing tasks, even when such information is irrelevant to the goal^3,11. In summary, the SRE may detrimentally influence cognition, psychological well-being, and social functioning, underscoring the need for strategies to mitigate its influence.

Despite its robustness, the SRE is not immutable. Golubickis et al.¹² conceptualize SRE as a multi-level phenomenon synthesized during stimulus processing, which can be modulated in specific contexts. For instance, Sui et al.¹³ found that negative mood can decrease SRE. Specifically, after listening to music with negative emotional valence for 10 min, participants exhibited a significant slow reaction to self-relevant information. Neuroimaging evidence indicates that mindfulness meditations can affect key self-referential brain regions, including the medial prefrontal cortex¹⁴, posterior superior temporal sulcus¹⁵ and amygdala¹⁶. These findings suggest that mindfulness may serve as an effectifve intervention for mitigating the SRE.

Mindfulness meditation is a wide-concerned psychological intervention that cultivates present-moment awareness. It has been shown to alleviate symptoms of stress, depression, and chronic body pain, while also enhancing empathic capacity and promoting prosocial behavior. For example, a systematic review revealed that mindfulness increase empathy and compassion, leading to greater willingness to help others¹⁷, with empathy serving as a mediator between mindfulness and prosocial behavior¹⁸. Notably, the benefits of mindfulness extend beyond immediate states. Repeated practice can gradually enhance trait mindfulness—a stable dispositional characteristic¹⁹. This heightened trait mindfulness, in turn, facilitates more effective engagement with subsequent mindfulness training²⁰.

According to Monitoring and Acceptance Theory (MAT)²¹, mindful consciousness contains two core components: attention monitoring—sustained awareness of the present-moment experiences, and acceptance—a nonjudgmental attitude toward those experiences. Within this framework, the attentional monitoring component broadens the scope of perceptual input, enabling the processing of stimuli that are typically accorded lower priority, such as those related to strangers. Complementarily, the accepting attitude, may also reduces the cognitive salience and processing priority of self-related information, and eventually weaken the SRE. The relation between mindfulness and SRE has garnered increasing empirical attention²². An fMRI study found that mindfulness training promotes a unique mode of self-reference wherein default mode network is silenced, facilitating sensory experience through self-detached observation rather than self-centric narrative²³. Consistent with this, a recent study using SRE paradigms demonstrated that long-term mindfulness practice attenuates self-related neural activity while enhanceing other-related processing, establishing a more balanced self-other representation in human brain²⁴.

Given the adverse effects of SRE on cognition and psychological well-being⁷, this study investigated whether mindfulness can mitigate such effects. We used Sui et al.’s³ perceptual matching task, which minimizes social desirability bias while offering high temporal resolution and cross-cultural validity^6,25. Across three experiments, a single-session mindfulness induction was implemented while controlling for trait mindfulness. Study 1 was designed to examine the basic SRE and the potential influence of mindfulness. Study 2 was implemented to examine the self-retention effect during rule-switching tasks. Study 3 aimed to explore the disturbance of the target-free self-related information (self-obstruction). All three studies included control groups to evaluate the effects of the mindfulness intervention.

Study 1: the perceptual matching task

This study employed the perceptual matching task³ to assess SRE within a Chinese cultural sample, and to examine whether a brief mindfulness practice can rectify SRE.

Method

Participants

Seventy college students were recruited for this 2 (Mindfulness: training/control)×3 (Reference: self/friend/stranger)×2 (Matching: matched/nonmatching) mixed-design experiment. A power analysis²⁶ indicated 61 participants would suffice to detect a medium effect size (η² = 0.06) with 95% power (α = 0.05). After excluding 7 participants who failed to follow instructions, the final sample comprised 63 participants (56 women, 7 men; mean age = 20.3 years, SD = 1.28), randomly assigned by phone number digit (odd/even) to mindfulness (n = 34) or control (n = 29) groups. All participants reported no psychiatric, reading, or mindfulness experience, had normal or corrected vision, and were adequately rested. The same inclusion criteria and randomization method were used across all three studies, with independent recruitment for each study to ensure no sample overlap.

Ethics approval and informed consent

This study and subsequent studies (Studies 2 and 3) were approved by the Institutional Review Board of Shandong Normal University and conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. All procedures adhered to relevant ethical guidelines and regulations. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants prior to their involvement, and no physical or psychological harm was caused. All data were maintained confidentially.

Measures

The Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS)²⁷ was used to assess trait mindfulness. The 15-item instrument focuses on the presence or absence of attention to and awareness of present-moment experiences in daily life. Items are scored on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = never, 6 = always), with higher scores indicating greater mindfulness. A sample item is: “I can articulate my feelings at every moment”. Cronbach’ α = 0.76.

State mindfulness were measured by the State Mindfulness Scale (SMS)²⁸, which measures the level of attention and awareness toward present-moment experiences over the preceding 15 minutes. The scale consists of 21 items rated on a 5- point Likert scale (1 = completely unqualified, 5 = completely qualified). A sample item is: “I feel like I am fully experiencing the present moment”. Higher total scores indicate greater state mindfulness. Cronbach’ α = 0.79.

Perceptual matching task

The SRE was assessed using the Perceptual Matching Task³ pairing geometric shapes (circle, square, and triangle) with personal labels (self, friend, and stranger). Stimuli were presented on a 17-inch CRT monitor using E-Prime 2.0, with a shape appearing above and a label below a central fixation cross. The task consisted of two stages. In the learning stage, participants memorized shape-label associations for 60 seconds (e.g., you are a circle; your best friend is a squire; a stranger is a triangle”). The assignment of shapes to labels and their presentation order were counterbalanced across participants. No visual stimuli were presented during this stage. In the subsequent matching stage, each trial began with a 500ms fixation, followed by a 100ms shape-label pairing. Participants judged whether the pairing matched the learned associations by pressing designated keys (F/J for matched/nonmatching, counterbalanced across participants) as quickly and accurately as possible. After a variable interstimulus interval (800–1200ms), feedback was displayed for 500ms. The task included three blocks of 120 trials, preceded by 12 practice trials that were repeated until participants achieved at least 75% accuracy. All trial types appeared equally often in randomized order.

Mindfulness manipulation

The mindfulness group completed a 15-minute guided breath awareness meditation, delivered via audio recording by an experienced mindfulness instructor with over three years of teaching brief mindfulness practice. The intervention guidelines for brief mindfulness practice followed previous researches^29,30. Participants were instructed to focus attention on breath-related sensations—such as airflow at the nostrils, diaphragmatic movement or abdominal expansion—without altering their natural breath pattern. When mind-wandering occurred, they were guided to acknowledge the distraction non-judgmentally and gently return focus to the breath. Additionally, participants were instructed to maintain a curious and accepting attitude toward any arising thoughts, feelings, or bodily sensations.

The control group listened to soothing music for an equivalent 15-minute duration.

Procedure

Each participant completed the experiment individually in a quiet laboratory. Following a brief introduction, the experimenter left the room to minimize distractions. Participants first completed demographic questionnaires and the MAAS, followed by 2-minute rest period. They then underwent the 15-minute intervention (mindfulness training or music listening), after which they completed the SMS. Finally, all participants performed the perceptual matching task and received monetary compensation.

Data analysis

Data were analyzed using SPSS 21.0. Independent-samples t-tests were conducted on SMS to verify the effectiveness of the brief mindfulness practice. Accuracy data were calculated into d-primes (d’)³¹. Analyses focused on two dependent measures: d’ and RTs. A 2 (Mindfulness: training/control) × 3 (Reference: self/friend/stranger) repeated-measures ANOVA was first performed on d’ to examine sensitivity differences across referent types. For RTs, a 2 (Mindfulness: training/control) × 3 (Reference: self/friend/stranger) × 2 (Matching: matched/nonmatching) repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted. For both analyses, post hoc tests employed Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons.

Results

SMS scores differed significantly between groups (t (61) = -2.01, p < 0.05, Cohen’s d = -0.51), with the mindfulness group (82.29 ± 9.81) reporting higher state mindfulness than controls (77.59 ± 8.42), supporting the efficacy of the mindfulness manipulation. In contrast, no pre-existing difference in trait mindfulness was found, as measured by the MAAS (t (61) = 0.62, p > 0.05), indicating equivalent baseline trait mindfulness across groups.

D-Primes

Analysis of d’ revealed a significant main effect of reference, F (2, 122) = 28.44, p < 0.001, η² = 0.32. Participants did not show perceptibility difference between self-related stimuli (2.63 ± 0.80) and friend-related stimuli (2.38 ± 0.72), while both of them were significantly stronger than stranger-related stimuli (1.83 ± 0.81). No significant main effect of mindfulness was found, F (1, 61) = 0.17, p > 0.05, nor was the Mindfulness◊Reference interaction significant, F (2, 122) = 2.84, p > 0.05.

RTs

RTs analysis showed significant main effects of matching (F (1, 61) = 169.38, p < 0.001, η² = 0.74) and reference (F (2, 122) = 34.16, p < 0.001, η² = 0.36). Responses were faster for matched (619.41 ± 79.45) than non-matched pairs (685.37 ± 83.44), and for self-related (632.88 ± 88.04) and friend-related stimuli (645.83 ± 78.36) versus stranger-related stimuli (678.46 ± 88.07), with no significant difference between self and friend conditions. The main effect of mindfulness was not significant, F (1, 61) = 1.45, p > 0.05.

A significant Matching × Reference interaction emerged, F (2, 122) = 43.93, p < 0.001, η² = 0.42. In the matched condition, responses to self-related (576.84 ± 92.51) and friend-related stimuli (609.58 ± 77.96) were significantly faster than to stranger-related stimuli (671.81 ± 105.53), with self-related responses being significantly faster than friend-related. No significant differences were observed in the nonmatching condition. The Reference × Mindfulness interaction was also significant, F (2, 122) = 11.85, p < 0.001, η² = 0.16. In the stranger condition, the mindfulness group responded significantly faster (655.69 ± 83.44) than the control group (705.16 ± 82.64). The three-way Matching × Reference × Mindfulness interaction was significant, F (2, 122) = 6.41, p < 0.01, η² = 0.10. Follow-up analysis revealed a significant simple main effect of mindfulness specifically for matched stranger-related trials (see Fig. 1), with the mindfulness group (641.45 ± 95.26) showing faster responses than the control group (707.40 ± 107.39).

Fig. 1.

Simple effects of three-way interactions on Study 1 (^*p < 0.05).

Discussion

Results from both d’ and RTs measures revealed the characteristic SRE pattern, with self- and friend-referential processing showing comparable advantages—consistent with Zhu and Zhang’s³² findings involving close others. Although no main effect of mindfulness was observed, the significant Reference × Mindfulness and the three-way interactions suggest that brief mindfulness practice inhibit the SRE. Specifically, while self-related processing remained unchanged, responses to stranger-related stimuli were facilitated in the mindfulness group. Similarly, Golubickis and his colleagues did find the enhanced performance toward other-referenced objects after 5-minute mindfulness intervention³³. The results of Study 1 confirmed SRE presence in the Chinese population, and indicated that mindfulness may reduce this effect by enhancing processing speed toward stranger-related informations.

Study 2: the rule-switching task

Study 2 investigated self-retention—the persistence of self-referential biases even after rule changed¹¹—and whether mindfulness practice could mitigate its effects on task performance. We hypothesize that: (1) SRE would persist across conditions; (2) responses to previously self-binding stimuli would be slowed due to self-retention; and (3) mindfulness training would reduce self-retention by enhancing stranger-rather than self-processing.

Method

Participants

As Study 1, a 2 (Mindfulness: training/control)×3 (Reference: self/friend/stranger)×2 (Matching: matched/nonmatching) mixed-design experiment was employed. The final sample consisted of 70 participants (49 women, 21 men; mean age = 20.0 years, SD = 1.40), with 34 assigned to the control group and 36 to the mindfulness training group.

Measures

The MAAS (Cronbach’s α = 0.78) and SMS (Cronbach’s α = 0.89) were administered, as in Study 1.

The rule-switching task

The rule-switching task¹¹ was used to examine self-retention—the difficulty in decoupling self-relevant associations after a contextual change, which typically impairs task performance. As in Study 1, the learning stage required participants to memorize shape-label associations for 60 s (e.g., “You are a circle; your best friend is a square; a stranger is a triangle”). No shapes were visually presented during the phase. The subsequent matching stage was identical to that of Study 1, except that after participants correctly completed 12 consecutive trials, the task was interrupted. They then returned to the learning stage to acquire a new set of shape-label mappings (“Now the rule has changed. You need to match yourself with the former stranger-related shape, match friend with the former self-related shape, and match stranger with the former friend shape.”) for 60 s. The matching stage then resumed under the new rule.

Procedure

With the exception of the rule-switching task, the procedure for Study 2 was the same as Study 1.

Data analysis

Data analysis procedures in Study 2 was the same as Study 1.

Results

Participants in mindfulness group (80.39 ± 9.51) showed significantly higher state mindfulness on the SMS than the control group (72.41 ± 12.45)(t (68) = -3.02, p = 0.004, Cohen’s d = -0.73), confirming the effectiveness of the mindfulness induction. No group differences in trait mindfulness (MAAS) were found (t (68) = -0.48, p > 0.05), as in Study 1.

D-Prime

Analysis of d’ revealed a significant main effect of reference, F (2, 136) = 54.62, p < 0.001, η² = 0.45. Pairwise comparisons showed that sensitivity was highest for self-related stimuli (1.92 ± 0.85), followed by friend-related stimuli (1.59 ± 0.86), and lowest for stranger-related stimuli (1.39 ± 0.82). Neither the main effect of mindfulness, F (1, 68) = 3.20, p > 0.05, nor the Mindfulness × Reference interaction, F (2, 136) = 0.42, p > 0.05, reached significance.

RTs

Analysis of RTs revealed significant main effects of matching, F (1, 68) = 128.16, p < 0.001, η² = 0.65, and reference, F (2, 136) = 57.40, p < 0.001, η² = 0.46. Responses were significantly faster in matched trials (558.46 ± 81.88) than in nonmatched trials (614.24 ± 85.72). Responses to self-related (555.06 ± 74.68) and friend-related stimuli (598.48 ± 90.35) were significantly faster than those to stranger-related stimuli (605.50 ± 89.39), with the difference between self and friend also reaching significance. The main effect of mindfulness was not significant, F (1, 68) = 0.03, p > 0.05.

A significant Matching × Reference interaction was observed, F (2, 136) = 58.62, p < 0.001, η² = 0.46. Simple main effect analysis indicated that in the matched condition, responses to self-related stimuli (495.47 ± 73.43) were significantly faster than those to friend-related stimuli (572.25 ± 99.90) and stranger-related stimuli (607.64 ± 94.49). No such significant differences were found in the nonmatched condition. The Reference × Mindfulness interaction was also significant, F (2, 136) = 13.13, p < 0.001, η² = 0.16. Furthermore, the three-way interaction marginally approached significance, F (2, 136) = 2.96, p < 0.01, η² = 0.04. Follow-up analysis revealed a marginally significant simple main effect of mindfulness for nonmatched stranger-related trials, with the mindfulness group (571.26 ± 109.38) responding faster than the control group (637.34 ± 87.96; see Fig. 2).

Fig. 2.

Simple effects of three-way interactions on Study 2 (^** p < 0.01).

Discussion

Study 2 replicated the basic SRE observed in Study 1, but revealed that self-retention¹¹ disrupted the self-friend equivalence observed in Study 1, as friend-reference performance significantly declined due to prior self-association. The significant three-way interaction suggested that mindfulness training helped reduce self-retention during rule switching, particularly in nonmatching trials, by alleviating participants’ maladjustment between the two shape-label associations. These results prompted Study 3, which examined whether task-irrelevant self-cues alone could cause interference (self-obstruction) without explicit labeling.

Study 3: the dual-shape task

Study 3 was designed to examine the phenomenon of self-obstruction. We hypothesize that the presence of self-related stimuli would interfere with responses to non-self tasks, and that mindfulness practice would reduce this interference.

Methods

Participants

Study 3 employed a 2 (Mindfulness: training/control) × 3 (Shape Combination: self-friend/self-stranger/friend-stranger)×2 (Target: first/second shape in the combination) design with 72 participants (59 women, 13 men, mean age = 19.4 years, SD = 0.33) randomly assigned to mindfulness (n = 36) or control (n = 36) groups.

Materials

The MAAS (Cronbach’s α = 0.75) and SMS (Cronbach’s α = 0.85) were administered, as in Study 1 and 2.

The dual-shape task

Study 3 investigated self-obstruction using a modified perceptual matching task. Participants first completed a 60-second learning phase to memorize shape-label associations. During the test phase, each trial began with a 500ms central fixation cross, followed by the simultaneous presentation of two different shapes (left and right) for 100ms. After a 500ms blank screen with fixation, a label appeared centrally for 100ms, corresponding to one of two previously shown shapes. Following a variable delay (1100–1300ms), participants indicated the side (left: F key; right: J key) on which the matching shape had appeared, with emphasis on speed and accuracy. Feedback was provided for 500ms after each response. The session included 12 practice trials followed by 4 blocks of 60 experimental trials each.

Data analysis

Due to the modified experimental design in Study 3, accuracy rates rather than d-prime values were submitted to analysis. Repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted, with Bonferroni-corrected post hoc tests applied where appropriate.

Results

Groups did not differ in pre-training MAAS scores between groups, t (70) = -1.02, p = 0.31. However, following the intervention, the mindfulness group scored (81.14 ± 9.70) higher on the SMS than the control group (73.89 ± 10.54), t (70) = -3.04, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = -0.73, confirming the effectiveness of the mindfulness induction.

Accuracy

Accuracy analysis revealed significant main effects of shape combination, F (2, 140) = 12.42, p < 0.001, η² = 0.15, and target, F (1, 70) = 19.76, p < 0.01, η² = 0.22. Self-friend combination (0.94 ± 0.04) were most accurate, followed by self-stranger (0.93 ± 0.06) and friend-stranger combinations (0.91 ± 0.07). First target (0.94 ± 0.04) outperformed second target (0.91 ± 0.05) across combinations. The main effect of mindfulness was not significant, F (1, 70) = 0.02, p > 0.05. The Shape Combination × Target interaction was significant, F (2, 140) = 5.65, p < 0.01, η² = 0.08. In both self-stranger and friend-stranger combinations, trials with high-priority referents (self: 0.94 ± 0.06; friend: 0.93 ± 0.06) ) were significantly more accurate than those with stranger referents (self-stranger: 0.91 ± 0.07; friend-stranger: 0.88 ± 0.08). The three-way interaction was not significant, F (2, 140) = 0.23, p > 0.05.

RTs

Analysis of RTs revealed significant main effects of shape combination, F (2, 140) = 13.34, p < 0.001, η² = 0.16, and target, F (1, 140) = 42.83, p < 0.001, η² = 0.38. Post hoc comparisons indicated that responses of self-stranger combinations (596.25 ± 138.65) were slower than self-friend (557.01 ± 112.24) and friend-stranger combinations (584.98 ± 126.40). Additionally, RTs on the first shape (567.57 ± 119.21) were faster than the second (591.28 ± 123.36). The main effect of mindfulness was not significant, F (1, 70) = 1.12, p > 0.05.

A significant Shape Combination × Target interaction was found, F (2, 140) = 3.19, p < 0.001, η² = 0.04. In self-stranger trials, responses were faster when the target was the self-referent (576.51 ± 136.15) compared to the stranger referent (616.22 ± 150.54). Similarly, in friend-stranger trials, responses were faster for the friend-referent (572.90 ± 136.95) than for the stranger referent (597.07 ± 124.62). No significant target effect was observed in self-friend trials. The Shape Combination × Mindfulness interaction was also significant, F (2, 140) = 3.76, p < 0.05, η² = 0.05. In the control group, responses to self-friend pairings (566.73 ± 103.40) were significantly faster than to self-stranger pairings (623.52 ± 119.81), whereas this difference was not significant in the mindfulness group.The three-way interaction was not significant, F (2, 140) = 0.39, p > 0.05.

Discussion

The main effect of target confirmed the persistent performance gap among the three reference types. When stimuli were paired, higher-priority references (i.e., self and friend) consistently received perceptual priority, yielding superior accuracy and faster reaction times compared to stranger-related information. Notably, mindfulness practice effectively reduced the self-stranger performance disparity. This modulation appears to operate through enhanced attentional allocation to stranger-related stimuli, thereby mitigating the SRE.

General discussion

The present study investigated a series of self-referential processing biases using different experimental tasks. Using a newly-developed perceptual matching task³, we first replicated the SRE in a Chinese sample. Second, we confirmed the rule-switching cost with self-referential stimuli—a phenomenon inherent to the SRE. Furthermore, we explored the self-obstruction phenomenon, wherein task-irrelevant self-related stimuli impair performance. Based on previous literature, we proposed that brief mindfulness practice could relieve such self-referential biases. To test this, each experiment included a control condition to assess the effects of brief mindfulness training with trait mindfulness was controlled—an improvement over some earlier studies^34,35.

Consistent with prior research, results from both RTs and d’ measures confirmed the privileged status of self-relevant information in the present study. Meanwhile, echoing the findings of Zhu and Zhang³², we observed that close others (e.g., friends) shared similar reference effects as self. One potential moderator was the cultural orientation of individualism/collectivism. Individuals from individualistic countries usually show minimal close-other reference effects, while those in collective contexts tend to maintain stronger social bonds, extending self-referential processing to close relationships³⁶.

The self-retention from switching rules between shapes was examined in Study 2. After the rule change, participants demonstrated difficulty in adopting the new self-referential assignments. Given that friend-binding shapes were assigned to self in Rule 1, this performance decline can be reasonably attributed to self-retention. Reaction time data further indicated that self-retention was more pronounced in nonmatching than in matching trials. This pattern suggests that in nonmatching trials—where a stranger label was presented alongside two shapes previously linked to high-priority referents (self and friend)—participants struggled to disengage from the initial associations, making correct judgments more difficult than in matching trials.

We also examined how self-related stimuli disrupt performance even when irrelevant to the task (self-obstruction). Results from Study 3 strongly suggest that self-obstruction is a result of order confusion on reference, instead of serving bias caused only by self. As Fei theorized in the context of Chinese social structure, interpersonal relationships resemble a set of concentric circles³⁷, and the closer the references are, the stronger what disturbed the participants from judging. Compared to normal status of control group, mindful awareness somehow melted the barrier between self-friend and self-stranger in Study 3, making the 2 reference equal during information processing.

The identification of self-retention and self-obstruction extends the scope broadens our understanding of SRE, revealing its pervasive influence on social perception. These findings highlight the importance of extending attention beyond self-relevant information to include both close and distant others. Such expanded focus aligns with the Including Others in the Self Theory³⁸, which posits that individuals integrate significant others’ attributes into their self-concept, underscoring the social nature of human cognition.

The present study examined mindfulness practice as a potential means of mitigating the SRE and related phenomena. Once more, we propose that SRE reflects a relative preference for self-related stimuli over other information. Consequently, any reduction in self-preference or enhancement in the processing of non-self information can be regarded as alteration of SRE³⁹. In line with this view, our findings demonstrate that mindfulness practice reduced the SRE through the faster reaction toward stranger- or friend-related tasks.

While the study did not fully eliminate self-prioritization, it provides important insights into mindfulness and SRE. The brief, single-session mindfulness used across studies may account for this—given that the self-other distinctions develop early in life and strengthen over time⁴⁰, reducing deeply ingrained self-preference likely requires sustained intervention. The MAT²¹ offers a plausible mechanism: mindfulness fosters enhancing attention to all stimuli, including both self- and other-related information. Since no reaction time improvement was found for self-matched trials, one accountable explanation might be the extended awareness toward others instead of self. This pattern is consistent with a ceiling effect in self-prioritization, whereby the already dominant self-system shows limited room for enhancement, while lower-priority stranger processing exhibits greater potential for optimization through mindful awareness.

It should be noted that this study examined the effects of mindfulness on the SRE from a cognitive-behavioral perspective. However, as previous research has indicated, mindfulness may also modulate activity in self-referential brain regions such as the medial prefrontal cortex and posterior superior temporal sulcus^14,15. Therefore, future studies could consider incorporating neuroimaging techniques such as fMRI to investigate the neural mechanisms through which mindfulness attenuates the SRE in perceptual matching tasks.

Conclusions

The present study investigated the SRE and two associated phenomena—self-retention and self-obstruction—in a Chinese sample. We found that SRE manifests as comparable attentional and mnemonic advantages for self- and friend-related information. Self-retention was observed as performance costs during reassociation of self-relevant stimuli, while self-obstruction reflected perceptual interference from task-irrelevant self-related cues. Importantly, a brief mindfulness practice attenuated these three effects, primarily by enhancing the processing efficiency of stranger-related information.

Author contributions

Jie Leng contributed to conceptualization, investigation, methodology development, experiment implementation, investigation, validation, draft reviewing and manuscript revising. Bingqing Ma contributed to conceptualization, experiment implementation, data gathering, statistical analysis, validation, and original draft composition. Qingke Guo contributed to methodology design, resource allocation, supervision, and draft editing.

Funding

This study was supported by the Shandong Women’s University High-level Talent Introduction University-level Special Project (Grant No. 2025RCYJ33).

Data availability

All data used in the study are accessible through the following link: https://osf.io/9ps3z/.

Declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.