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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 |
| 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 2 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
This record holds no mechanisms. 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 | null-result 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 | psychological misconception endorsement 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 | |
| limitations | The word set used for the priming task (drawn from the Affective Norms for English Words) may not have been the best choice for eliciting metacognition and critical thinking. 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 | Offering a "don’t know" response option on the misconceptions test may itself have distorted responding. 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 | Exclusion criteria for low-effort responding may have been incomplete, so low-effort participants likely remained in the analytic sample. 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 instruments did not show the internal consistency reliability reported in the original validation studies, suggesting response 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 | |
| limitations | COVID-19 depressed recruitment and the course-credit arrangement encouraged low-effort participation. 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 | Online, uncontrolled data collection allowed distractions that may have weakened the priming manipulation. 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 | A large number of participants had to be excluded from the analyses. 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 | Ethnicity analyses were exploratory, and aggregating all students of colour into three small groups leaves group-level differences unresolved. 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 | participants randomly assigned to the treatment or the control scrambled-sentence task, the two differing only in the words they contain Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that the effect comes from doing a scrambled-sentence task at all rather than from the concepts the task primes · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.95 | 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] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | metacognition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: metacognition | concepts[2] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | supraliminal priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: supraliminal priming | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | nonconscious activation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: nonconscious activation | concepts[5] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | psychological misconceptions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: psychological misconceptions | concepts[6] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | A PRIMING NULL RESULT, STATED IN THE AUTHORS' OWN VOICE AND NOT BURIED: `Hence, the first hypothesis was not supported: the priming of introductory psychology students' metacognition and critical thinking did not positively predict their ability to dispel psychological misconceptions. This finding likely indicates that the prime had no effect.` The study powered on two published effects - Swami et al. 2014 d = .46, Gervais & Norenzayan 2012 d = .44 - required N = 119 and recruited N = 184. Every other priming record I have tagged reports an effect; this one reports its absence. For a corpus about when priming works, a clean negative is worth more than another positive 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 | AND THE TWO ESCAPE HATCHES ARE NAMED BY THE AUTHORS THEMSELVES, WHICH IS THE PART WORTH RECORDING: `Quotation withheld This difference could be because different words were used in the treatment prime in this study versus Swami et al.'s study.` A null attributed to word choice cannot be distinguished from a null attributed to the effect not existing - and that is the move which makes a priming literature hard to falsify. It is stated here by people running an honest study and reporting their own failure, not by a critic, which is exactly why it is worth having in the corpus verbatim 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 | SUPRALIMINAL PRIMING DEFINED ON THE AXIS OF INTENT RATHER THAN VISIBILITY: `nonconscious activation can be achieved via SUPRALIMINAL PRIMING which involves participants' conscious awareness of the stimuli, but not of its intent.` The participant sees the words and does not know what they are for. dehaene1998 and holcomb2005 argue about whether the stimulus was SEEN at all; this names the other axis entirely, and a corpus that holds both can tell the two kinds of `unconscious` apart instead of pooling them 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 | AND THE LIMITATION SECTION PUTS THE SAME HATCH IN ONE SENTENCE: `Quotation withheld.` The words came from the Affective Norms for English Words, chosen to be emotionally neutral, and the authors name that choice as the first limitation of the study. This is the unfalsifiable residue of any priming null - the manipulation can always have been the wrong manipulation - and it belongs in the corpus as a tagged limitation rather than as a reason to discount the record 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 | contradicts → Swami et al. (2014), priming analytic thinking reduces conspiracy theory endorsement 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 → Swami et al. (2016), personality differences predict belief in science-related myths 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 | replicates → Gardner and Brown (2013), Test of Contemporary Misconceptions in Psychology 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 | contradicts → Kelly and Donaldson (2016), conscientiousness positively associated with metacognition 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 | priming —causes→ psychological misconceptions 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: 0.2 — the record marks this weak · note: WEIGHT 0.2 AND 'no-change', WHICH ARE SAYING DIFFERENT THINGS AND BOTH ARE NEEDED. 'no-change' is the measured direction: the primed and control groups did not differ. The low weight is the STRENGTH OF THE CLAIM, and it is low because the authors immediately name a reason the manipulation might have failed - 'different words were used'. A reader must not take this as evidence that priming does not affect misconceptions; it is evidence that THIS prime did not, in a study powered for d = .45. Recording it as an edge at all is the point: the alternative is that the corpus holds only the literature's successes. also in: priming · psychological misconceptions | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | nonconscious activation —operationalised-as→ supraliminal priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.85 · note: 'can be achieved via' IS THE OPERATIONALISATION AND THE REST OF THE QUOTE IS THE PRICE OF IT. The construct is nonconscious activation; the procedure is a stimulus the participant consciously sees but whose purpose they do not know. That is a genuinely different claim from the masked-priming records in this corpus, which buy unawareness by making the stimulus unreportable. Weight 0.85 rather than 0.95: the sentence is the paper citing Chartrand & Bargh and Dennis et al. for the method, not establishing it. also in: nonconscious activation · supraliminal priming | concept_edges[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 46.52% of variance in misconception endorsement explained by the full predictor set 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 | the metacognition/critical-thinking prime was NOT a significant predictor of misconception endorsement 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 | a majority of introductory psychology students still endorsed common misconceptions 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 | ethnic-minority students showed greater misconception endorsement than White students 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 | psychological misconception endorsement Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.variables[1] | 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[0] | 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.