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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 |
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 6 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 | social priming of prosocial helping in infants 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 | |
| limitations | Baseline helping rates were lower than in an earlier helping study, leaving open the alternative reading that the affiliation condition is the true baseline and the other three conditions suppressed helping. 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 | Procedural choices (a single helping opportunity, and a different experimenter interacting with the infant beforehand) probably lowered helping in every condition, so rates are not comparable across studies. 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 | |
| controls | attentiveness and mood were measured and compared across conditions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that infants in the together condition simply paid more attention or were in a better mood, and helped more for that reason rather than because of the affiliation prime · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | an INDIVIDUALITY prime condition run alongside the affiliation prime and the baseline Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that any social prime raises helping - the individuality prime shares the format and the social content and should produce the effect if format is what matters · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | affiliation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: affiliation | concepts[0] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | individuality Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: individuality | concepts[1] | 0.85 | the paper's words |
| concepts | helping Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: helping | concepts[2] | 0.85 | the paper's words |
| concepts | helping behavior Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: helping behavior | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | prosocial behavior Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: prosocial behavior | concepts[4] | 0.85 | the paper's words |
| concepts | prosocial orientation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: prosocial orientation | concepts[5] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | affiliative stance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: affiliative stance | concepts[6] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | back-to-back Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: back-to-back | concepts[7] | 0.85 | the paper's words |
| concepts | baseline Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: baseline | concepts[8] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | mood Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mood | concepts[9] | 0.85 | the paper's words |
| senses | prime - a BACKGROUND element of a photograph whose foreground is an ordinary household object, and the assistant naming the photograph aloud never refers to it. The construct is delivered by what is deliberately not mentioned 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 | spontaneous helping - the main dependent measure, and it is defined by a CLOCK rather than by a judgement: within the first 10 s, before the experimenter has spoken to the infant or reached for the sticks herself 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 | affiliation - as delivered here, an arrangement of two dolls in the background of a photograph, not a word list or a scenario. The whole construct rests on which way two small wooden figures are turned 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 back-to-back condition - the question it exists to answer, in the authors' own words: whether the effect belongs to the DOLLS or to their RELATION 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 | baseline - a condition included not to test the hypothesis but to DISAMBIGUATE THE DIRECTION of the effect: did the affiliation primes raise helping, or the individuality primes lower it Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[4] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | builds-on → Warneken & Tomasello (2006) 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 | affiliation —causes→ helping behavior 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: THE DIRECTION IS READ OFF A NAMED COMPARISON, not from the two-group result: the non-social baseline is what distinguishes 'affiliation raised helping' from 'individuality lowered it', and the authors say which in the same sentence. also in: affiliation · helping behavior | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | individuality —causes→ helping behavior Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. direction on the measure: no-change · strength of the relation: 0.1 — the record marks this weak · note: The negative half of the same sentence, kept as its own edge because it is the half a reader would otherwise have to assume. Shares its span with the edge above, declared. also in: individuality · helping behavior | concept_edges[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | affiliative stance —causes→ helping 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 back-to-back control holds the number of dolls and the visible proportion of their faces constant, so this edge is about WHICH FEATURE of the prime carries the effect. also in: affiliative stance · helping | concept_edges[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | prosocial orientation —causes→ helping 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: SHARED SPAN, DECLARED: also stands under mechanisms[0]. The sentence is the paper's argument against imitation - the primes depict no helping at all - and it is the only place the intervening state is named. also in: prosocial orientation · helping | concept_edges[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | affiliation —causes→ prosocial orientation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.7 · note: The theoretical premise, and weighted as one: the sentence says 'we may expect', so this is the expectation the study was designed around rather than something it establishes.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span says direct connections 'may be expected'; causes states an expectation. also in: affiliation · prosocial orientation | concept_edges[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | mood —causes→ helping Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. direction on the measure: no-change · strength of the relation: 0.05 — the record marks this weak · note: A RULED-OUT CONFOUND IS EDGE-SHAPED. Mood was rated by parents and looking time was coded for a third of the infants; neither differed across conditions. Recorded so a later reader does not assume the check was never run. | 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 | ANOVA (F-test) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ANOVA (F-test) | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Cohen's kappa (interrater reliability) 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 | p-rep (probability of replication) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: p-rep (probability of replication) | content_tags.statistics[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | mean Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mean | content_tags.statistics[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Eighteen-month-old infants who saw photographs with an affiliation prime (two dolls facing each other) helped an adult in need more often and more spontaneously than infants primed with individuality (a single doll). 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 | Spontaneous helping was three times as frequent after the affiliation prime as in each of the alone, baseline and back-to-back control conditions. 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 | Comparison with the non-social baseline shows the direction of the effect: the affiliation prime raised helping rather than the individuality prime lowering it. 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 | What drove the increase was the affiliative stance of the two dolls toward each other, not the mere presence of two dolls, since the back-to-back condition contained the same two dolls but did not raise helping. 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 | Differences in attentiveness or mood cannot explain the infants' increased helping in the together condition. 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 | Helping itself was never depicted in the primes - the dolls only stood beside one another. 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 | general measure of helping Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: general measure of helping | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | prosocial behavior Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: prosocial behavior | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | together condition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: together condition | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | back-to-back condition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: back-to-back condition | content_tags.definitions[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | infants’ mood Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: infants’ mood | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | sixty — number of 18-month-old infants in the study 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 | Fifteen — infants per condition (four conditions) 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 | 7 — additional infants tested but excluded from analysis, for parental interference, crying, experimenter error and refusal to look 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 | Three times — ratio of infants helping spontaneously in the together condition to each control condition 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 | w2(1, N 5 60) 5 8.57, two-tailed p 5 .003 — chi-square test of spontaneous helping, together versus pooled controls 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 | |
| content_tags | w2(1, N 5 60) 5 6.43, two-tailed p 5 .011 — chi-square test of overall helping (including after prompting), together versus pooled controls Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Cohen’s k 5 1.00 — interrater agreement on both helping measures for the 20% of tapes double-coded Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 102.2 / 92.8 / 89.6 / 101.4 — mean seconds spent looking at the photographs in the together, alone, baseline and back-to-back conditions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[7] | 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.