standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.| relation to other work | claim_relations | how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies |
| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| concept edge | concept_edges | an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it |
| concept | concepts | an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 2 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
This record holds no controls. A layer is empty when the tagger recorded nothing in it — which is not the same as the paper having nothing to record.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| claim_type | prediction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | choice between cause-focused and consequence-focused responses to social problems Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | review Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: review | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. status: the paper's own words: We propose that | mechanisms[0] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The proposed model as a whole has not been empirically tested; only some of its paths have prior support. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The intergroup studies cited as support did not actually measure expanded scope as the mediating mechanism. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Regulatory scope is only one of several possible mechanisms driving social action. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The five features analysed are illustrative rather than an exhaustive set of scope-modulating features. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The feasibility-versus-desirability prediction is offered as plausible reasoning that still requires empirical test. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[4] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The framework sorts the same actions by a different principle from the frameworks it replaces. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any comparison between this framework's categories and earlier ones: existing frameworks categorise the actions themselves while this one categorises by the aims of the action, so the two sort the same behaviour differently | limitations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Two adjacent constructs are distinguished in one sentence, and the theory depends on keeping them apart. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any claim here about scope: the authors distinguish it from psychological distance, which is the distance between a person and a mental object, whereas scope is the span and breadth of possibilities considered | limitations[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The paper is a Perspective that draws two existing theories together rather than reporting a study. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the status of the account given here: it is a Perspective drawing on regulatory scope theory and construal level theory | limitations[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | regulatory scope Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: regulatory scope | concepts[0] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | construal level Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: construal level | concepts[1] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | psychological distance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: psychological distance | concepts[2] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | social action Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: social action | concepts[3] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | scope Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: scope | concepts[4] | the paper's words | |
| senses | scope versus psychological distance - TWO CONSTRUCTS ROUTINELY CONFLATED, SEPARATED HERE IN ONE SENTENCE: distance is how far a mental object is from the person, scope is how wide a range of possibilities they are considering, and the theory's predictions turn on the second not the first Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | the framework - CARVED BY AIMS RATHER THAN BY ACTIONS: prior schemes classify what people do, this one classifies what they are trying to achieve, so a given act of protest or donation can land in different categories under the two schemes Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | construal level - AS THE INSTRUMENT FOR MOVING SCOPE: described as the most studied tool for modulating scope, with the abstract expanding it and the concrete contracting it, so a study that manipulates construal is manipulating scope only through that link Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | builds-on → construal level theory and regulatory scope theory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | psychological distance —distinct-from→ scope Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: THE AXIS IS WHAT EACH CONSTRUCT IS A DISTANCE OR SPAN OF, AND BOTH DEFINITIONS ARE GIVEN. 'whereas psychological distance refers to the distance between a person and a mental object, Quotation withheld.' A paper distinguishing two of its own constructs by defining each - the cleanest form this field takes, and rare. · strength of the relation: 1 also in: psychological distance · scope | concept_edges[0] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | construal level —part-of→ regulatory scope Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but regulatory scope theory EXPANDS ON construal level theory; part-of is loose. also in: construal level · regulatory scope | concept_edges[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The paper's central proposal is that a proximal or lower-level focus pushes people towards solutions that relieve suffering, while a distal or higher-level focus pushes them towards solutions that attack the problem's causes. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The framework names five specific features of a social problem that are proposed to expand or contract scope and thereby steer which kind of solution is chosen. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The relation between construal features and chosen solutions is claimed to run in both directions: acting on consequences itself pulls attention to the present, while acting on causes pulls attention to the future. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The authors flag the emotion-target pathway as an untested, novel prediction generated by their framework rather than an established result. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The authors suggest that if people mostly pursue consequence-focused actions, for feasibility or short-term reward, the root cause remains and the problem may persist. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | social problem Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: social problem | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | social action Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: social action | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | collective action Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: collective action | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | psychological distance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: psychological distance | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | level of construal Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: level of construal | content_tags.definitions[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | regulatory scope theory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: regulatory scope theory | content_tags.definitions[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | feasibility and desirability Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: feasibility and desirability | content_tags.definitions[9] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | group efficacy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: group efficacy | content_tags.definitions[10] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | hope Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: hope | content_tags.definitions[11] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Affirmation actions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Affirmation actions | content_tags.definitions[12] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | informed actions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: informed actions | content_tags.definitions[13] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | benevolence actions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: benevolence actions | content_tags.definitions[14] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | activism actions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: activism actions | content_tags.definitions[15] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | consequence-focused solutions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: consequence-focused solutions | content_tags.definitions[16] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | cause-focused solutions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: cause-focused solutions | content_tags.definitions[17] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 90 per cent / 10 per cent — Share of surveyed anti-poverty NGO supporters reporting consequence-focused actions (donating, fair-trade purchases) versus cause-focused actions (signing petitions), cited in support of the framework Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[0] | the tagger's words |
Tags that could not be placed in the text:
What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.