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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 |
| transfer | transfers | a method or concept carried in from another field |
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 | method 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 | consumer priming 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. | 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 | The paper deliberately excludes the content-versus-process priming distinctions covered by the prior review it builds on, so its coverage of priming distinctions is partial by design. 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 framework's central measurement-discrepancy proposal is asserted rather than empirically tested, and the authors state it still needs testing. 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 tri-component ABC model of attitudes is imported as the organizing scheme for a marketing/consumer-behaviour priming framework. 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 | 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 | prime Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: prime | concepts[1] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | knowledge activation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: knowledge activation | concepts[2] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | target Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: target | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | ABC model Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ABC model | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | spreading activation theory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: spreading activation theory | concepts[5] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | A DEFINITION QUOTED AND THEN CORRECTED IN THE SAME PAGE, which is exactly what this corpus is for. McNamara (2005) is quoted verbatim - priming is `an IMPROVEMENT in performance in a perceptual or cognitive task, relative to an appropriate baseline, produced by context or prior experience` - and then: `while McNamara (2005) describes priming as an improvement in performance, priming can also involve A change in performance that is neutral or results in poorer performance.` The correction is not a rival definition; it strikes one word out of the standard one, and it does so because reactant priming exists 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 | A NECESSARY CONDITION FOR BEING A PRIME, WHICH IS RARER THAN A DEFINITION: `Quotation withheld.` This says which manipulations are EXCLUDED, and it draws the boundary with a mechanism rather than with a procedure - so whether something is a prime is not settled by how it was presented or by what it looked like, but by what it did to activation 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 | THE TAXONOMY IS IMPORTED FROM ATTITUDE THEORY, NOT DERIVED FROM PRIMING RESEARCH: priming is sorted by OUTCOME into affective, behavioral and cognitive, `which follows suit with the tri-component ABC model of attitudes (Breckler, 1984)`. Sorting by outcome rather than by method is the substantive choice - two techniques that look nothing alike land in the same box if they move the same thing, and one technique can appear twice. The paper is explicit that this is a borrowing, which is what makes it checkable against the source literature 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 COMPLAINT THAT MOTIVATES THE WHOLE REVIEW IS MONOCULTURE, NOT ERROR: `Quotation withheld.` Nobody is said to be wrong. The charge is that one account is cited by default, so its alternatives are never tested against it - and the paper's answer is to review prospective and retrospective memory models alongside it rather than to replace it 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 |
| senses | `associative priming` and `semantic priming` - `RELATED ... enough that these two terms are often used interchangeably (Lucas, 2000)`, in a review that then separates them. The conflation is reported and the distinction is drawn in the same paragraph. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | extends → Janiszewski and Wyer (2014) review of priming in marketing 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 → Breckler (1984) tri-component (ABC) model of attitudes 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 | prime —causes→ knowledge activation 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: 0.95 · note: THIS EDGE IS DEFINITIONAL, NOT EMPIRICAL, AND THAT IS WHY IT IS WEIGHTED 0.95. The paper is not reporting that primes raise activation; it is saying that a thing which does not raise activation IS NOT A PRIME. The direction is inside the quote and cannot be read the other way. also in: prime · knowledge activation | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | prime —distinct-from→ target Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: WHICH SIDE OF THE MANIPULATION EACH IS ON. The prime is what raises activation; the target is what the prime is applied to and where the outcome is measured. The two definitions are mutually referring - neither can be stated without the other - so this is a distinction internal to one paradigm rather than between two things that exist independently · strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: Both halves of the definition are in the one span, which is the point: the paper defines them together in a single sentence. | concept_edges[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | The review sorts every priming technique into three outcome classes - affective, behavioral and cognitive - borrowed from the tri-component ABC model of attitudes. 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 | Priming theories are grouped into two prospective theories - spreading activation and expectancy - and two retrospective theories - semantic matching and compound-cue. 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 | Compound cue theory and spreading activation theory are in direct opposition, because they rest on different models of memory. 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 | Both prospective and retrospective theories end in increased knowledge activation. 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 | A stimulus or independent variable counts as a prime only when it raises knowledge activation that then shapes the response to a target. 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 | The commonest measurement discrepancy in survey-based priming work is priming behavior but measuring the effect with cognitive purchase-intention questions. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Consumers respond to a prime consistently or reactantly, and the authors argue that reactance (contrast) may stem from trait and state variables such as skepticism or concern about persuasion. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Procedural primes decay much more slowly than primes of declarative knowledge. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[7] | 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[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | prime and target Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: prime and target | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | behavioral priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: behavioral priming | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | procedural priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: procedural priming | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | goal priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: goal priming | content_tags.definitions[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | cognitive priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: cognitive priming | content_tags.definitions[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | category priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: category priming | content_tags.definitions[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | semantic priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: semantic priming | content_tags.definitions[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | associative priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: associative priming | content_tags.definitions[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | associative boost Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. WHOSE RESULT THIS IS: Moss et al. (1995) note - THE EVIDENCE FOR THIS ROW ATTRIBUTES THE WORK TO SOMEBODY ELSE. A cited name is the subject of a result verb and the sentence carries no first-person marker, so the finding, quantity or definition is the CITED author's rather than this record's. The claim is true and the quote is verbatim - what is wrong is whose result the corpus says it is. Nothing edited, nothing withdrawn: the row is marked so a page can name the source. Written by the same predicate and in the same shape as the 18 rows that already carried attributed to, found by sweeping for the pattern those 18 demonstrate. SEVERAL OF THESE RECORDS ARE REVIEWS - 'Camina2017' 6, 'Nees2016' 4 - where other people's results are the point of the paper, and the mark is what keeps the corpus from claiming them. also in: associative boost | content_tags.definitions[9] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | conceptual versus perceptual priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: conceptual versus perceptual priming | content_tags.definitions[10] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | repetition priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: repetition priming | content_tags.definitions[11] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | contextual priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: contextual priming | content_tags.definitions[12] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | masked priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: masked priming | content_tags.definitions[13] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | spreading activation theory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: spreading activation theory | content_tags.definitions[14] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | expectancy theory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: expectancy theory | content_tags.definitions[15] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | semantic matching theory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: semantic matching theory | content_tags.definitions[16] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | compound cue theory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: compound cue theory | content_tags.definitions[17] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | prospective theories of priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: prospective theories of priming | content_tags.definitions[18] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | priming method Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: priming method | content_tags.definitions[19] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 0.49 versus 0.25 — Average effect size of associative priming studies compared with semantic priming studies, as reported in the meta-review the paper cites Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. WHOSE RESULT THIS IS: Lucas (2000) found - THE EVIDENCE FOR THIS ROW ATTRIBUTES THE WORK TO SOMEBODY ELSE. A cited name is the subject of a result verb and the sentence carries no first-person marker, so the finding, quantity or definition is the CITED author's rather than this record's. The claim is true and the quote is verbatim - what is wrong is whose result the corpus says it is. Nothing edited, nothing withdrawn: the row is marked so a page can name the source. Written by the same predicate and in the same shape as the 18 rows that already carried attributed to, found by sweeping for the pattern those 18 demonstrate. SEVERAL OF THESE RECORDS ARE REVIEWS - 'Camina2017' 6, 'Nees2016' 4 - where other people's results are the point of the paper, and the mark is what keeps the corpus from claiming them. | content_tags.quantities[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 0.26 — Size of the increase in priming effects attributed to the associative boost (a prime that is both semantically and associatively related) 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 |
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.