ArticleCognitive neurodynamics2024
Speed is associated with polarization during subjective evaluation: no tradeoff, but an effect of the ease of processing.
Article in Cognitive neurodynamics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The role of event understanding in guiding attentional selection in real-world scenes: The Scene Perception & Event Comprehension Theory (SPECT).Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026Review
- Crosstalk between delayed and immediate subjective evaluation tasks.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In human perceptual decision-making, the speed-accuracy tradeoff establishes a causal link between urgency and reduced accuracy. Less is known about how speed relates to the subjective evaluation of visual images. Here, we conducted a set of four experiments to tease apart two alternative hypotheses for the relation between speed and subjective evaluation. The hypothesis of "Speed-Polarization Tradeoff" implies that urgency causes more polarized evaluations. In contrast, the "Ease-of-Processing" hypothesis suggests that any association between speed and polarization is due to the salience of evaluation-relevant image content. The more salient the content, the easier to process, and therefore the faster and more extreme the evaluation. In each experiment, we asked participants to evaluate images on a continuous scale from - 10 to + 10 and measured their response times; in Experiments 1-3, the participants rated real-world images in terms of morality (from "very immoral," -10, to "very moral," +10); in Experiment 4, the participants rated food images in terms of appetitiveness (from "very disgusting," -10, to "very attractive," +10). In Experiments 1, 3, and 4, we used a cueing procedure to inform the participants on a trial-by-trial basis whether they could make a self-paced (SP) evaluation or whether they had to perform a time-limited (TL) evaluation within 2 s. In Experiment 2, we asked participants to rate the easiness of their SP moral evaluations. Compared to the SP conditions, the responses in the TL condition were consistently much faster, indicating that our urgency manipulation was successful. However, comparing the SP versus TL conditions, we found no significant differences in any of the evaluations. Yet, the reported ease of processing of moral evaluation covaried strongly with both the response speed and the polarization of evaluation. The overall pattern of data indicated that, while speed is associated with polarization, urgency does not cause participants to make more extreme evaluations. Instead, the association between speed and polarization reflects the ease of processing. Images that are easy to evaluate evoke faster and more extreme scores than images for which the interpretation is uncertain.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.