Predictive cues elicit a liminal confirmation bias in the moral evaluation of real-world images.

Abstract

Previous research suggested that predictive cues enhance the preference and reduce the response time for congruent targets during bivalent food evaluation, indicating a confirmation bias. Less is known about how prior processing affects subjective moral evaluation. Here, we used three different types of predictive cues to elicit directional vs. non-predictive prior processing and then asked the participants to perform moral evaluations on a continuous scale from -10 ("very immoral") to +10 ("very moral") with a diverse set of real-world images. Our experimental image database balanced the morality of image content and the volatility of the ratings based on the means and standard deviations in a preliminary study. Ratings, response times, and gaze positions were measured to examine the effects of predictive cues on the moral evaluation of real-world images. We found that the moral ratings were in line with the expectations induced by the cues. Compared to the non-predictive condition, the moral evaluation in the directional conditions was more polarized. For neutral images, the predictive cues tilted the evaluations to positive vs. negative, indicating a decisive liminal influence. High-volatility images were impacted more than low-volatility images in ratings as well as response times. Furthermore, the gaze positions during the interval between the predictive cue and the image showed a spatial displacement in line with the cue instruction, indicating a response bias. Together, the results show that predictive cues elicit a liminal confirmation bias in moral image evaluation, much in the same way as in bivalent food evaluation.