Proctor and Cho (2006) proposed that, when making binary decisions, people code the stimulus and response alternatives asymmetrically (positive and negative polarities), with performance being best when the codes of the corresponding polarities are paired. They presented evidence that polarity correspondence could explain many results associated with orthogonal compatibility, the Implicit Association Test, and numerical judgments. We review and evaluate literature on these topics and on polarity coding in the context of metaphorical relations published during the ensuing 10 years. Our conclusion is that the results have supported polarity correspondence as a contributor to binary decisions. We consider issues concerning the principle and topics in need of research.
GeversW.VergutsT.ReynvoetB.CaessensB.FiasW. (2006). (See References). An article that presents a dual-route model of the SNARC effect.
2.
MeissnerF.RothermundK. (2015). (See References). An article providing evidence that the insect-nonword reversed IAT effect is due to recoding based on salience asymmetry.
3.
ProctorR. W.ChoY. S. (2006). (See References). A comprehensive argument for polarity correspondence as a general principle for binary classification tasks.
4.
SantiagoJ.LakensD. (2015). (See References). A study that varied response eccentricity in several tasks to evaluate the polarity principle.
5.
WoodG.WillmesK.NuerkH.-C.FischerM. H. (2008). (See References). A meta-analysis favoring polarity correspondence as an explanation for the SNARC effect.
6.
BaeG. Y.ChoY. S.ProctorR. W. (2009). Transfer of orthogonal stimulus—Response mappings to an orthogonal Simon task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 746–765.
7.
BaeG. Y.ChoiJ. M.ChoY. S.ProctorR. W. (2009). Transfer of magnitude and spatial mappings to the SNARC effect for parity judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1506–1521.
8.
BrendlM.MarkmanA.MessnerC. (2001). How do indirect measures of evaluation work? Evaluating the inference of prejudice in the Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 760–773.
9.
ChoY. S.ProctorR. W. (2003). Stimulus and response representations underlying orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 45–73.
10.
ChoY. S.ProctorR. W. (2007). When is an odd number not odd? Influence of task rule on the MARC effect for numeric classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 832–842.
11.
ChoY. S.ProctorR. W.YamaguchiM. (2008). Influences of response position and hand posture on the orthogonal Simon effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 1020–1035.
12.
GeversW.VergutsT.ReynvoetB.CaessensB.FiasW. (2006). Numbers and space: A computational model of the SNARC effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 32–44.
13.
GreenwaldA. G.McGheeD. E.SchwartzJ. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480.
14.
HuberS.KleinE.GrafM.NuerkH.MoellerK.WillmesK. (2015). Embodied markedness of parity? Examining handedness effects on parity judgments. Psychological Research, 79, 963–977.
KinoshitaS.Peek-O’LearyM. (2005). Does the compatibility effect in the race Implicit Association Test reflect familiarity or affect?Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 442–452.
17.
KinoshitaS.Peek-O’LearyM. (2006). Two bases of the compatibility effect in the Implicit Association Test (IAT). Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 2102–2120.
18.
KornblumS.HasbroucqT.OsmanA. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility—A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270.
19.
KornblumS.LeeJ.-W. (1995). Stimulus-response compatibility with relevant and irrelevant stimulus dimensions that do and do not overlap with the response. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 855–875.
LakensD. (2012). Polarity correspondence in metaphor congruency effects: Structural overlap predicts categorization times for bipolar concepts presented in vertical space. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 726–736.
22.
MeissnerF.RothermundK. (2013). Estimating the contributions of associations and recoding in the Implicit Association Test: The ReAL model for the IAT. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 45–69.
23.
MeissnerF.RothermundK. (2015). The Insect-Nonword IAT revisited: Dissociating between evaluative associations and recoding. Social Psychology, 46, 46–54.
24.
NishimuraA.YokosawaK. (2006). Orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility effects emerge even when the stimulus position is task irrelevant. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 1021–1032.
25.
NishimuraA.YokosawaK. (2009). Effects of laterality and pitch height of an auditory accessory stimulus on horizontal response selection: The Simon effect and the SMARC effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 666–670.
26.
NuerkH.IversenW.WillmesK. (2004). Notational modulation of the SNARC and the MARC (linguistic markedness of response codes) effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 57A, 835–863.
ProctorR. W.ChoY. S. (2006). Polarity correspondence: A general principle for performance of speeded binary classification tasks. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 416–442.
29.
ProctorR. W.LuC. (1999). Processing irrelevant location information: Practice and transfer effects in choice-reaction tasks. Memory & Cognition, 27, 63–77.
30.
ProctorR. W.VuK. P. L. (2006). Stimulus-response compatibility principles: Data, theory, and application. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
31.
ProctorR. W.XiongA. (2015). Conceptual congruency effects between time and lateral space are consistent with the polarity correspondence principle. Manuscript in preparation.
32.
RothermundK.WenturaD. (2004). Underlying processes in the implicit association test: Dissociating salience from associations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 139–165.
33.
SantensS.GeversW. (2008). The SNARC effect does not imply a mental number line. Cognition, 108, 263–270.
34.
SantiagoJ.LakensD. (2015). Can conceptual congruency effects between number, time, and space be accounted for by polarity correspondence?Acta Psychologica, 156, 179–191.
35.
SeymourP. H. K. (1974). Asymmetries in judgments of verticality. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 102, 447–455.
36.
SimonJ. R. (1990). The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing. In ProctorR. W.ReeveT. G. (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 31–86). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland.
37.
UmiltàC.PriftisK.ZorziM. (2009). The spatial representation of numbers: Evidence from neglect and pseudoneglect. Experimental Brain Research, 192, 561–569.
WeeksD. J.ProctorR. W. (1990). Salient-features coding in the translation between orthogonal stimulus–response dimensions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 335–366.
40.
WoodG.WillmesK.NuerkH.-C.FischerM. H. (2008). On the cognitive link between space and number: A meta-analysis of the SNARC effect. Psychology Science Quarterly, 50, 489–525.
41.
YamaguchiM.ProctorR. W. (2012). Multidimensional vector model of stimulus-response compatibility. Psychological Review, 119, 272–303.
