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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 3 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 | 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 | moral identity accessibility and moral behavior 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 | |
| limitations | Only a small number of situational factors were examined, out of an unknown and multifarious range. 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 | Neither moral prime used (Ten Commandments recall, handwriting task) has practical utility for actually promoting moral action outside the lab. 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 | The posited dissonant psychological tension that is supposed to drive the deactivation of moral identity was never directly measured. 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 studies do not address the psychological or emotional aftermath for high-centrality participants who were induced to behave selfishly. 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 | |
| limitations | Studies 1 and 2 measured behavioral intentions rather than actual behavior (Study 3 was run to address this). Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[4] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Study 3 did not measure the proposed mediator; deactivation of moral identity there is inferred from Study 2 rather than observed. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[5] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The cumulative-experience explanation offered for why some people show enduring and others variable moral commitment is not rigorously tested by the data. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[6] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The predicted three-way interaction with reward size ($50 vs $150) in Study 3 was not supported. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[7] | the tagger's words | |
| controls | a minimal-difference control condition: the ONLY thing that differed was the general knowledge items Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that anything else in the procedure - length, difficulty, instructions - produced the effect attributed to the moral prime · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | moral prime Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: moral prime | concepts[7] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | current accessibility Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: current accessibility | concepts[8] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | moral identity centrality Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: moral identity centrality | concepts[9] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | activation potential Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: activation potential | concepts[10] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | working self-concept Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: working self-concept | concepts[11] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | moral action Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: moral action | concepts[12] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | THE PRIME WORKS LEAST ON THE PEOPLE IT IS ABOUT, AND THIS IS PREDICTED IN ADVANCE RATHER THAN EXPLAINED AFTERWARDS: `Quotation withheld.` higgins1977 raises exactly this variable in ONE CONJECTURAL SENTENCE - `There may even be individual differences in the relative accessibility of different categories` - and does not test it. This paper builds four studies on it and finds it REVERSES the priming effect, so the same trait that makes someone morally consistent is the one that makes them unprimeable. A 1977 aside and its test 32 years later, both in this corpus. (The term `chronic accessibility` is Higgins, King & Mavin 1982 and appears nowhere in higgins1977.) A study sampling only committed people would find nothing and conclude the effect is not real 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 PLACED AS ONE ROUTE AMONG THREE TO THE SAME STATE: `Quotation withheld, to REPEATED ACTS OF self-definition (Higgins, 1989).` Three roads to accessibility, of which the experimental one is only the fastest. That sentence does more for a corpus about priming than most results do, because it says what priming is an INSTANCE OF - and it makes the individual-difference moderator in this paper a consequence of the theory rather than a nuisance variable. (The quote stops before `self-definition`, which the staged text renders as a hyphen-loss fusion.) 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 | AND STUDY 4 REVERSES THE MODERATION OVER TIME, WHICH A ONE-SHOT STUDY WOULD HAVE SCORED AS A NULL: initially the prime does little for high-centrality people, exactly as the ceiling account predicts. But under repeated feedback that others are behaving selfishly, `Quotation withheld.` The prime's value is not the initial push but the resistance to decay. A corpus that records only peak effect sizes cannot represent this finding at all 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 MODERATION IS STATED TWICE AND THE SECOND TIME IT IS A RESULT: `Quotation withheld.` The mechanism is a headroom argument, and it is testable: it predicts that any manipulation raising a construct's accessibility will show the same inverse relation to that construct's chronic strength. This record and higgins1977 are the two ends of that claim in this corpus, and the two ends are not equal - higgins1977 says only `THERE MAY EVEN BE individual differences in the relative accessibility of different categories`, a speculation with no test attached, while this paper makes that variable its moderator and predicts where a prime will fail 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 → social-cognitive theory (Bandura, 2001) 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 → Aquino and Reed's (2002) moral identity Internalization measure 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 | builds-on → Muller, Judd, and Yzerbyt's (2005) mediated moderation procedure 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 | extends → Walker and Frimer (2007), whose call for systematic exploration of person-situation interaction in the moral domain the framework answers 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 | |
| claim_relations | contradicts → research conceptualising moral identity as enduring and stable (Blasi; Colby & Damon; Damon & Hart; Walker & Frimer; Walker & Hennig) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[4] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | moral prime —causes→ current 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: 'INTERACTIVE INFLUENCE' IS IN THE QUOTE AND IS THE PART THIS EDGE CANNOT CARRY. The measured relation is not 'prime raises accessibility' but 'prime raises accessibility MORE for people low in moral identity centrality, and barely at all for people high in it'. 'increases' is true on average and is what the study found; a reader who stops there has the paper's headline and not its result. The moderation is quoted whole in the first and fourth senses. Weight 0.9 - four studies, and the mediation is formally tested by Muller et al.'s procedure rather than asserted. also in: moral prime · current accessibility | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | current accessibility —causes→ moral action 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 SECOND LEG OF THE MEDIATION, and together with the edge above it is the paper's model written as a path: situation -> current accessibility -> moral action. 'LINKS' is the paper's own verb and it is doing mediation work - this is the summary sentence for Studies 1 and 2 in the general discussion, not a hypothesis. Weight 0.9.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span gives current accessibility a mediating role - it connects situational factors and the centrality of moral identity with moral action - and states no increase. also in: current accessibility · moral action | concept_edges[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | moral identity centrality —causes→ current 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: 0.85 · note: THE TRAIT LEG, AND IT IS THE ONE THAT MAKES THE PAPER'S RESULT COUNTERINTUITIVE. Centrality raises chronic accessibility - which is why the PRIME does less for people high in it. So this edge and the 'moral prime -> current accessibility' edge point at the same target for opposite reasons, and the graph shows two arrows where the paper has a ceiling. 'moderates' is not in the enforced vocabulary, so nothing here records that the second edge shrinks as the first grows. Weight 0.85 rather than 0.9: this leg is theory plus the Study 1 mediation test, where the prime leg is directly manipulated.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but current accessibility LINKS centrality to moral action; centrality as a cause of accessibility is loose. also in: moral identity centrality · current accessibility | concept_edges[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 4 — number of experiments testing the framework 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 | Ten — moral-identity priming manipulation in Study 1 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 | 1973 — Darley & Batson seminary-students helping study Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. WHOSE RESULT THIS IS: Darley and Batson (1973) 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[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | the authors hypothesized that increasing the accessibility of moral identity strengthens the motivation to act morally 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 hypothesized that decreasing the accessibility of moral identity weakens the motivation to act morally 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 situational effect was expected to vary with the centrality of moral identity 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 | results strongly support the proposed framework 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 | situational factors Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: situational factors | content_tags.variables[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | accessibility of moral identity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: accessibility of moral identity | content_tags.variables[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | moral-identity centrality Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: moral-identity centrality | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | moral behavior Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: moral behavior | content_tags.variables[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | moral identity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: moral identity | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | social-cognitive framework Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: social-cognitive framework | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | working self-concept Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: working self-concept | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | ANOVA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ANOVA | content_tags.statistics[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | correlation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. also in: correlation | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | hypothesis-testing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: hypothesis-testing | content_tags.statistics[2] | 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[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | regression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: regression | content_tags.statistics[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | standard-deviation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. also in: standard-deviation | content_tags.statistics[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | statistical-significance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. also in: statistical-significance | content_tags.statistics[6] | 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.