Number_task

Below are all the raw data of the perceptual number-matching task results. For testing the self-prioritization effect in the perceptual tasks, we analyzed each task separately. Correct responses shorter than 200ms were excluded from the analyses, eliminating less than 1% of the trials overall. For the reaction times (RTs), we used a one-way ANOVA for each of the tasks, testing within-subject differences for shape/number. This was first performed for all conditions together, and then separately for matched pairs. For testing the interaction between MA and self-prioritization in each perceptual task, we used Pearson correlation, creating a single measure of self-prioritization. To this end (following Sui et al., 2013), we first created a single measure named “behavioral response efficiency,” which is the Self-minus-Stranger difference in RT/ Accuracy (note that the stronger the self-prioritization, the higher the behavioral response efficiency). We than created a single measure created only from RT difference between self-stranger, since previous findings yeilded a reduced self-prioritization effect only in RT (David et al., 2022; Sui et al., 2016). To answer the fifth research question, we first conducted a Pearson correlation test between MA (math anxiety) and performance in the two self-prioritization tasks. Examining the relationship between behavioral response efficiency and MA yielded no significant correlations for the perceptual shape-matching task, nor for the number-matching task ([r = -0.12, n = 127, p = 0.19] , [r = 0.05, n = 126, p = 0.54] , respectively). Moreover, no significant correlations between MA and the single RT measure were found, not for the shape-matching task [r = 0.09, n = 127, p = 0.92] nor the number-matching task [r = -0.02, n = 126, p = 0.80]. In sum, we did not find any significant correlations between both the behavioral tasks and MA.