ArticlePloS one2026
Affective polarization of space under imminent physical threat: Self-reported affect, physiology, and social responding across two experiments.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
When humans navigate through their social and spatial surroundings, they construct affective representations of the spatial context that shape this navigation. The theory of affective judgment in spatial context specifies how people build these representations. We present two laboratory experiments (N = 121 and N = 254) that lend more ecological validity to this line of inquiry. In a modified threat-of-shock paradigm, participants experienced an actual physical threat at one location of an environment depicted on a computer screen. Like in previous online experiments, we observed that, compared to a control condition, participants reported that the threat at this location (termed hotspot, an affectively salient location in space) colored the surroundings negatively with high subjectively perceived arousal at close distance whereas it colored the surroundings positively with low subjectively perceived arousal farther away (i.e., an affective polarization of space). However, this polarization was not mirrored by physiological indices of affect, even though electrodermal and cardiac activity lent support to the idea that participants actually were more threatened closer to the hotspot. Furthermore, we could not find evidence for affective polarization elicited by the threat affecting the affective empathy in response to strangers shown at the different locations. Thus, whereas the subjective experience of affective polarization of space seems robust across different operationalizations, we did not find evidence that this subjective experience is reflected in underlying physiology or that affective empathy is moderated by distance to a threatening location.
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.