Cited by 470Philosophy and Theoretical ScienceIdentity, Memory, and TherapySocial Representations and Identity

Is Self Special? A Critical Review of Evidence From Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience.

Gillihan, Seth J., Farah, Martha J.·2005·Psychological Bulletin

Abstract

Varied research findings have been taken to support the claim that humans' representation of the self is "special," that is, that it emerges from systems that are physically and functionally distinct from those used for more general purpose cognitive processing. The authors evaluate this claim by reviewing the relevant literatures and addressing the criteria for considering a system special, the various operationalizations of self, and how the studies' findings relate to the conclusions drawn. The authors conclude that many of the claims for the special status of self-related processing are premature given the evidence and that the various self-related research programs do not seem to be illuminating a unitary, common system, despite individuals' subjective experience of a unified self.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.76

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Many of the brain regions identified in self-processing are not physically and functionally distinct from those used for more general-purpose cognitive processing.

    “While new research seems to promise new insights to come, it must be conceded that many of the brain regions identified in self-processing are not physically and functionally distinct from those used for more general-purpose cognitive processing (e.g., perceiving others), which raises the question of whether there are any brain networks distinct to self and identity (e.g., Gillihan & Farah, 2005).”

    From Self and identity in personality psychology (2021) · cites this paper as Gillihan & Farah, 2005

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gillihan, S. J., & Farah, M. J.
Affiliations
University of Pennsylvania (US)
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Published
2005-01
Volume
131
Issue
1
Pages
76-97
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
OpenAlex
W2006744517
Cited by
470
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 33
FWCI
27.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0226060)
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01ag014082-05, 5k02ag000756-05)
  • National Institute on Aging (R01 AG-14082-04, K02 AG-00756-04)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01 DA 14129, R01DA014129)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Identity, Memory, and Therapy
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Representations and Identity
Keywords
self-representation, self-referential processing, self-concept, self-awareness
MeSH terms
Brain, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Neurosciences, Psychology, Experimental, Self Concept, Cognitive Science, Recognition, Psychology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review