From reaction (‘priming’) to motivated selection: changing conceptualizations of accessibility

Eitam, Tory Higgins · Current Opinion in Psychology · 2016 · social-psychology · 10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.017 · record Eitam2016-from-reaction-priming-to-motivated-selection
tag layer · index · concepts · authors · עברית

Where this record's text came from. faceted 2026-08 by reading the locally held text (pdftext); every evidence string verified as an exact substring of that text before merging. Theoretical review, no new data, hence replication status untested. Most prior work is cited by bracketed number only, so only the one relation naming an author (Higgins) is recorded; the paper's remark that 'The study by Bargh et al. [13] ... has repeatedly failed to replicate directly' is reported about third-party work, not a relation between this paper's own claim and Bargh, so it is not encoded as a claim_relation. The pdftext extraction contains scrambled line fragments (e.g. 'the repetition', 'the statistical noise inherent'); quotes were chosen from contiguous, unscrambled passages. Spellings 'accessibly' and 'Kantiza' are the source's own and were copied unaltered. 2026-08-17 schema-0.3 pass: every quote verified as an exact substring of the staged text and anchored at merge time; concept terms verified present; every edge endpoint an existing node.

This record’s own method is review, and the tags below follow from that. A review’s findings, quantities and statistics are things stated IN this paper, and some of them report results obtained elsewhere. No tag on this page names a different author. Measured across every review in this corpus, 81% of a review’s tags carry no citation at all — most of them are the review speaking. The corpus does not adjudicate the rest: read an unmarked tag as a claim this paper makes, not necessarily one it made first.

How to read this page. The article itself is not reproduced here — this paper is not cleared for redistribution, so what follows is the tag layer alone. The evidence sentences are withheld with the article. The table at the foot lists every tag the record carries; each row names the facet it belongs to, and the whose words column says whether the tag records the paper's own wording or the tagger's sentence about the paper. Every tag links to each other paper in the corpus carrying it. The machine-readable edition of the same thing is the TEI file beside this one, where the tags live in 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.

Other fields define these differently the same word, defined another way in another discipline
priming 2 fields

Tags on this paper

Every tag the record carries, each linking to every other paper in the corpus that carries it. A tag appears here whether or not its words occur in the article — the spans below are only the ones a sentence in this paper licenses. Of the 6 concept tags on this paper, all 6 are grounded in a quoted sentence. All carry the tagger's gloss of what the term means in this paper, which is not something the article can license.

accessibility applicability relevance goals priming mental representations Motivational relevance gates the activation of semantic knowledge, so a stimulus that is not relevant to truth, control or value fails to make its corresponding knowledge functionally available Feedback that a shared reality failed retroactively lowers the truth relevance of the tuned message, which lowers its accessibility and hence its influence on recall ROAR irrelevance induced blindness sources of motivational relevance review

Legend

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
transfer	`transfers`	a method or concept carried in from another field

The paper

The full text is not reproduced here. This article is not cleared for redistribution, so the page carries the tag layer only. Its evidence sentences are withheld; the grounding status remains with each tag, and the article itself is at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.017. The reading view exists for the papers whose licence permits it.

Every tag on this page

claim_relations 1 · claim_type 1 · concept_edges 2 · concepts 6 · content_tags 10 · limitations 2 · mechanisms 2 · method 1 · phenomenon 1 · senses 4 · transfers 1

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	mechanism 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	mental accessibility 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. also in: Motivational relevance gates the activation of semantic knowledge, so a stimulus that is not relevant to truth, control or value fails to make its corresponding knowledge functionally available	`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. also in: Feedback that a shared reality failed retroactively lowers the truth relevance of the tuned message, which lowers its accessibility and hence its influence on recall	`mechanisms[1]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The paper deliberately restricts itself to how accessibility has been conceptualised and does not assess whether the hypotheses it reviews are empirically supported. 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 authors characterise their own mechanistic model of accessibility as crude. 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
transfers	the priming method and the surrounding cluster of concepts (availability, accessibility, activation, applicability) were imported into social psychology, where their nature was altered to fit social-cognitive phenomena Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`transfers[0]`		the tagger's words
concepts	accessibility Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: accessibility	`concepts[0]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	applicability Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: applicability	`concepts[1]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	relevance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: relevance	`concepts[2]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	goals Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: goals	`concepts[3]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: priming	`concepts[4]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	mental representations Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mental representations	`concepts[5]`	0.95	the paper's words
senses	accessibility, FIRST GENERATION - a tendency to be activated, fixed by the frequency and recency of exposure and nothing else. Every stage from stimulus to activation is passive and depends only on exposure history, which is exactly why a selective stage had to be added next Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[0]`	0.95	the tagger's words
senses	applicability - introduced to solve an OVER-PREDICTION: if accessibility were the whole story every accessible construct would be used, and they are not. Defined as the match between selected features of the stimulus and of the activated concept, and named by these authors as the precursor to their own principle of relevance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[1]`	0.95	the tagger's words
senses	accessibility, IN ROAR - redefined from a property fixed by exposure history into one proportional to MOTIVATIONAL RELEVANCE: knowledge is `functionally available` to cognitive processes to the degree that it matters to the organism's current concerns. The same word, with the causal direction reversed Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[2]`	0.95	the tagger's words
senses	the paper's own methodological stance, stated once and worth the layer: the CHANGING UNDERSTANDING of a concept is treated as a SEPARATE ISSUE from whether the hypotheses that carried it were empirically verified. That separation is what lets a history of a term be written at all while its results are under dispute Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[3]`	0.95	the tagger's words
claim_relations	builds-on → Higgins' parsing of motivation (reference [24]) 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	relevance —causes→ accessibility Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. direction on the measure: increases · strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: THE REVERSAL THE WHOLE PAPER IS ABOUT. Accessibility stops being a property fixed by how often and how recently something was met, and becomes one proportional to how much it matters to the organism now. Same word, opposite causal direction, thirty years apart. Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span says a relevance framework can accommodate diverse results; the sign is not stated. also in: relevance · accessibility	`concept_edges[1]`	0.95	the tagger's words
concept_edges	goals —is-a→ mental representations Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: The third generation's move: goals are folded INTO the representational machinery rather than added beside it, so everything already true of concept activation becomes true of goal activation without further argument. also in: goals · mental representations	`concept_edges[2]`	0.95	the tagger's words
content_tags	Merely designating one of two locations as task-relevant produces a blindness to information at the other location, as ROAR predicts. 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	Participants 'blind' to irrelevant Kanizsa inducers still showed the illusion, judging the illusory shape's orientation. 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 biased memory effect disappears when participants learn just before recall that their reality was not shared by the audience. 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 memory bias does not occur when participants tune merely to be polite or to ingratiate, though tuning is at least as great. 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	ROAR Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ROAR	`content_tags.definitions[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	applicability Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: applicability	`content_tags.definitions[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	irrelevance induced blindness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: irrelevance induced blindness	`content_tags.definitions[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	sources of motivational relevance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: sources of motivational relevance	`content_tags.definitions[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	up to 25% — share of participants who could not report the colour of the task-irrelevant inner circle 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
content_tags	500 ms — unmasked presentation duration of the irrelevant concentric circle that participants still failed to report Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[1]`		the tagger's words

Interpretive choices

Tags that could not be placed in the text:

none — every tag was located 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.