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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 |
| control | controls | an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation |
| 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 |
| unrecordable relation | unhoused_relations | a relation the paper asserts that this vocabulary cannot express, with the reason |
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 5 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| claim_type | existence 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 | priming of perceived influencer authenticity 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 | behavioural-experiment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: behavioural-experiment | 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. | 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 | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Only a single vlog and a single video were used, so results may not generalise beyond this vlogger and product category 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 findings may be tied to the particular vlog, vlogger and products shown 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 | Only a positive brand endorsement was tested; priming may behave differently for negative or neutral coverage 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 study was run in a single national setting 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 | |
| transfers | the study imports theoretical apparatus from psychology and neighbouring consumer-research fields into strategic-communication research on influencer content 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 | |
| controls | random assignment of subjects to the four experimental conditions crossing priming and audience participation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that a difference between conditions is a difference between the kinds of people who ended up in them - the paper names this as internal validity · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.85 | the tagger'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[0] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | framing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: framing | concepts[1] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | prime stimulus Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: prime stimulus | concepts[2] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | target stimulus Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: target stimulus | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | perceived authenticity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: perceived authenticity | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | brand authenticity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: brand authenticity | concepts[5] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | audience participation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: audience participation | concepts[6] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | sponsored content Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: sponsored content | concepts[7] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | participation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: participation | concepts[8] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| unhoused_relations | priming versus framing, as this paper draws it: both activate awareness of an issue and framing additionally attributes MEANINGS to it → the same pair as drawn in drouvelis2010 / drouvelis2015 (framing RE-DESCRIBES a logically equivalent decision problem) and as reported unresolved in Hoewe2020 (where Ottati holds that framing IS a form of priming) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. THREE PAPERS IN THIS CORPUS SEPARATE 'priming' FROM 'framing', IN THREE FIELDS, ON THREE DIFFERENT AXES - AND NONE OF THEM CITES THE OTHERS. Economics (drouvelis, both papers) makes the criterion THE DECISION PROBLEM: framing re-describes a logically equivalent one, priming does not. Media studies (Hoewe2020) makes it AWARENESS, and reports its own field unable to settle whether the two are even distinct, quoting Ottati that 'media framing constitutes a specific form of priming'. Strategic communication (this paper) makes it MEANING: the two share the activation of awareness and framing adds the attribution of meanings. Not a disagreement about a fact - three literatures independently fixing one boundary and not noticing each other. That is the negative space this project was built to make visible, and the schema has no relation type for 'these papers partition the same pair differently'., and for the missing types. | unhoused_relations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | priming, in strategic communication - an ACT OF SELECTION on the audience's memory: certain patterns are activated and others are left out. The exclusion is written into the definition, which is what makes a positive and a negative primer symmetrical operations here 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 | priming as against framing, THIS FIELD'S VERSION - the two are granted the same function (activating awareness of an issue) and separated by what framing does in addition: attribute meanings. Compare the economics version, where the criterion is re-description of the decision problem, and the media-studies version, where it is awareness 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 | perceived authenticity - a construct whose positive definition is a list and whose working definition is its complement. The paper says so outright: it is OFTEN ALSO DEFINED BY NEGATION, with inauthenticity as falsity, externally motivated behaviour, and reciting a script rather than expressing one's own words 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 | selling out - the folk term the negative prime is built from, glossed by the paper in parentheses because the construct it operationalises has no technical name: giving up integrity or compromising principles for personal gain 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 → persuasion knowledge model (Friestad & Wright, 1994) and priming theory (Carroll & Einwiller, 2014; Celse & Chang, 2017) 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 | |
| claim_relations | builds-on → Gilpin, Palazzolo & Brody (2010); Henderson & Bowley (2010) on the subjectivity of authenticity perceptions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | priming —distinct-from→ framing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: WHAT FRAMING DOES IN ADDITION: both activate awareness of an issue, and framing also directs judgment by attributing meanings to it · strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: THE THIRD INCOMPATIBLE CUT AT THIS PAIR IN THIS CORPUS. The economics papers separate them by re-description of the decision problem; the media-studies review reports the field unable to agree and cites Ottati holding framing to BE a form of priming. See the unhoused-relations row on this record. | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | prime stimulus —distinct-from→ target stimulus Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: Stated as a structural requirement - priming REQUIRES both - which is more than most of this corpus's priming papers make explicit. also in: prime stimulus · target stimulus | concept_edges[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | priming —causes→ perceived authenticity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. holds when: with a POSITIVE introductory text attached to the sponsored content · direction on the measure: increases · strength of the relation: 0.85 · note: Half of a symmetric pair. The result the paper reports is sharper than either hypothesis: the SAME sponsored content produces opposite reactions depending only on the valence of the introductory text.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span is hypothesis H1a; causes states it as a finding. also in: priming · perceived authenticity | concept_edges[2] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | priming —causes→ perceived authenticity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. holds when: with a NEGATIVE introductory text attached to the sponsored content · direction on the measure: reduces · strength of the relation: 0.85 · note: The other half. Two edges rather than one because the direction reverses with the prime's valence, and an edge that averaged them would describe neither condition.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span is hypothesis H1b; causes states it as a finding. also in: priming · perceived authenticity | concept_edges[3] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | sponsored content —causes→ perceived authenticity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. direction on the measure: reduces · strength of the relation: 0.7 · note: The premise the negative prime is built on, attributed to prior work rather than shown here - hence 0.7.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but sponsored content 'CAN PUT under threat' a vlogger's perceived authenticity; causes is hedged. also in: sponsored content · perceived authenticity | concept_edges[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | chi-squared test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: chi-squared test | content_tags.statistics[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | p-value Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: p-value | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | chi-squared expected-cell-frequency assumption Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Priming was strongly associated with viewers' authenticity perceptions in both the positive and the negative priming conditions, confirming H1a and H1b. 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 | Encouraging versus discouraging audience participation changed authenticity perception only when the introductory text was negative, not when it was positive. 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 | Negative priming did not spill over onto the endorsed products: negative attitudes towards the products did not differ across the manipulation groups. 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 | Positive priming shifted perceptions of the vlogger, the video and the product, whereas negative priming moved only perceptions of the vlogger. 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 | Because negativity concentrates on the influencer rather than on the sponsor, sponsored content carries less reputational risk for the organization than for the vlogger. 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 | sponsored content Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: sponsored content | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: priming | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | perceived authenticity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: perceived authenticity | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | audience participation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: audience participation | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | target stimulus Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: target stimulus | content_tags.definitions[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | prime stimulus Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: prime stimulus | content_tags.definitions[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | type of introductory text Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: type of introductory text | content_tags.variables[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | audience participation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: audience participation | content_tags.variables[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | perceived authenticity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: perceived authenticity | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | attitude towards the video Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: attitude towards the video | content_tags.variables[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 211 — open-ended viewer responses analysed 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 | 59% male and 41% female — gender split of the MTurk respondent sample 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 | |
| content_tags | p = .002 — chi-squared significance of the difference in endorser-authenticity perceptions across the four manipulation groups Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 45% ... 17% — share of responses coding the endorser as inauthentic in the most negatively primed group versus the most positively primed group Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 28% — highest share of authenticity perception, found in Group 3 (negative text, participation encouraged) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[4] | 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.