ArticlePsychological research2026
Kinematic encoding of the speed-accuracy trade-off in approach/avoidance decisions when facing social threats.
Article in Psychological research, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Perceiving social threats, especially expressions of anger, increases the speed of both action selection and execution. However, it remains unclear how individuals balance speed with achieving desirable outcomes, such as threat avoidance, under these conditions. To investigate this trade-off between decision speed and accuracy, we examined the kinematics of finger-reaching movements using a "go-before-you-know" paradigm. Participants chose between two empty outer chairs in a waiting room. Two central chairs were occupied by either two individuals with neutral expressions or one neutral individual and one threatening individual. The threatening individual expressed anger or fear at one of four intensity levels. The results showed that social threats generally invigorated action decision, as high-threat trials elicited faster movements, which correlated with more direct trajectories compared to neutral trials. However, when participants chose to avoid angry individuals, the most frequent response, movements followed more central trajectories, compared to when they approached angry individuals. These findings suggest that while social threats generally invigorate action selection and execution, it is possible that the accumulation of evidence for the decision can be temporarily prolonged to enhance the likelihood of a favorable outcome, such as threat avoidance. We discuss alternative interpretations and propose the integration of these results with recent models of action decisions under perceived urgency to advance the understanding of threat-related decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42803838What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.