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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 4 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 | population-wide behaviour change 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 flags three unresolved conceptual and empirical issues with its own framework. 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 | RAM explains how people behave far better than it explains how to get them to change; the process-of-change side is undeveloped. 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 | Whether SNAP-based interventions produce lasting rather than short-lived change is unsettled. 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 behavioural-economics evidence base transfers imperfectly to population behaviour change: few long-term studies, randomised trials or process studies. 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 | prospect theory and the incentive-response account of choice, taken from behavioural economics into the design of population-wide health behaviour-change interventions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[0] | 0.9 | 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 | salience Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: salience | concepts[1] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | SNAP Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: SNAP | concepts[2] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | reflective system Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: reflective system | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | automatic system Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: automatic system | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | behaviour change Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: behaviour change | concepts[5] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | context Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: context | concepts[6] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | priming, in behavioural public policy - a TWO-SIDED operation on attention, and the second side is written into the definition: it enhances processing of some aspects of the choice environment AND SUPPRESSES processing of others. Luoma-aho2019 has the same shape (`leaves out others`); this one narrows the suppression to the conceptually unrelated 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 ONE OF FOUR - the P of SNAP, placed beside salience, norms and affect rather than defined against framing or anchoring. In this corpus the same word has been a cognitive phenomenon, a media effect, an economic treatment, a property of a mollusc's ganglion, and here a quarter of a policy instrument 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 automatic route, as a POLICY claim rather than a psychological one - interventions can rely EXCLUSIVELY on contextual change, which is what detaches behaviour change from belief change and makes the model an instrument rather than a description 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 | habit, as this paper borrows it - a definition taken whole from Wood, Tam and Witt rather than built: behavioural dispositions to repeat well-practiced actions given recurring circumstances. The recurrence is in the CIRCUMSTANCES, which is what lets a context-changing intervention reach 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 |
| claim_relations | builds-on → Bem's (1967) self-perception 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 | |
| claim_relations | extends → Thaler and Sunstein's (2008) six principles of choice architecture ('nudges') 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 | |
| claim_relations | extends → the reflective-impulsive model (Strack & Deutsch, 2004) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | builds-on → Webb and Sheeran's (2006) meta-analytic review of intention-change experiments Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | reflective system —distinct-from→ automatic system Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: WHICH KIND OF CHANGE EACH RESPONDS TO - the reflective system to changed cognitions, the automatic system to a changed context · strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: The model's whole architecture in one sentence, and the split is defined by the INTERVENTION each route answers to rather than by properties of the processing. also in: reflective system · automatic system | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | priming —part-of→ SNAP 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: Placement rather than definition, and it is the paper's actual contribution: priming is put beside salience, norms and affect as a policy lever, not defined against framing or anchoring as in every other record tagged tonight. | concept_edges[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | salience —part-of→ SNAP 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: The other three principles are nodes on this record for the same reason - the acronym is the unit of the claim, so an edge to it is what makes the membership queryable. | concept_edges[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | priming —part-of→ automatic system 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: Hedged - 'mostly' - and weighted for it. The hedge matters: the paper does not claim the SNAP processes are inaccessible to reflection, only that they do not require it.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but SNAP responses work 'mostly on the automatic system'; part-of is loose. also in: priming · automatic system | concept_edges[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | The paper's model claims behaviour change runs through two routes on two different processing systems: the reflective system changes cognitions, while the automatic system responds to changes in the context. 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 authors name four context-cued processes that work through the automatic system: salience, norms, affect and priming. 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 | Across the traditional behaviour-change literature the authors find that every model targets one or more of just three psychological variables: beliefs, goals and habits. 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 | Reviewing cost-effectiveness evidence, the authors conclude that environmental interventions can be substantially more cost-effective than traditional individual behavioural interventions. 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 | Habits are argued to act more as constraints on behaviour change than as mechanisms for it. 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 | Salience and norm interventions can change behaviour without any accompanying change in beliefs or attitudes. 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 | The situational (SNAP) methods assume that changing a person's environment will produce sustained behaviour change without any change in cognitions. 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 | The authors claim RAM is the first consistent application of the dual-process paradigm specifically to behaviour-change interventions. 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 | RAM contains a feedback loop from behaviour back to the underlying cognitions, which traditional methods do not explicitly discuss. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | reflective-automatic model (RAM) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: reflective-automatic model (RAM) | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | SNAP Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: SNAP | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | salience Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: salience | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | social and cultural norms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: social and cultural norms | content_tags.definitions[3] | 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[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | commitment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: commitment | content_tags.definitions[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | defaults Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: defaults | content_tags.definitions[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 3% ... 30% — share of shoppers who bought jam when 24 flavours were displayed versus when only 6 were displayed, cited as evidence of choice overload Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. WHOSE RESULT THIS IS: Iyengar and Lepper (2000) showed - THE EVIDENCE FOR THIS ROW ATTRIBUTES THE WORK TO SOMEBODY ELSE. The 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. Where the record is a commentary or review, its claim relations layer usually already names the paper being discussed - the record knows at one layer and forgets at another. | content_tags.quantities[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 26% — increase in hotel guests' towel reuse produced by a descriptive-norm sign relative to a standard environmental-protection sign 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 | 28% — drop in teen pregnancy in Kenya after HIV risk information was made salient by partner age group 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 | 13% ... 41% — increase in soap use after the toilet and in reported soap use before eating produced by a disgust-based (affect) campaign in Ghana 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 | 22% — reduction in calories per serving expected from replacing a 12-inch plate with a 10-inch plate 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 | .18 — intention-behaviour correlation once only experimental studies are meta-analysed, about 3% of variance in behaviour 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 |
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.