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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 |
| transfer | transfers | a method or concept carried in from another field |
| unrecordable relation | unhoused_relations | a relation the paper asserts that this vocabulary cannot express, with the reason |
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 5 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 | priming of cooperation in a public goods game 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 | |
| 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 says nothing about long-term or repeated-play effects of priming, or about applicability beyond public goods games. 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 | Because a one-shot design was used, whether the priming effect persists with repetition is left open. 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 | Beliefs were elicited without incentives, so belief reports are not incentive-compatible. 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 | |
| transfers | the word-search priming procedure itself, lifted from psychology experiments and applied inside an incentivised economic game where money is at stake 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 | |
| controls | random allocation of participants to the two treatments before the experiment was run Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that a difference between treatments is a difference between the people who chose them · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.85 | 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 | framing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: framing | concepts[1] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | contribution levels Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: contribution levels | concepts[2] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | beliefs Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: beliefs | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | gender Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: gender | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | emotional responses Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: emotional responses | concepts[5] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | revealed preferences Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: revealed preferences | concepts[6] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | contribution decisions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: contribution decisions | concepts[7] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| unhoused_relations | priming works through a shift in females’ beliefs (this paper, IZA DP 4963, May 2010) → priming does not affect beliefs and works by changing preferences (the same authors' published version, Theory and Decision 2015, in this corpus as drouvelis2015-cooperation-priming) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. SAME AUTHORS, SAME EXPERIMENT, OPPOSITE MECHANISM - AND THE SCHEMA HAS NO TYPE FOR IT. The 2015 paper reports two waves, the first run in 2009 with 51 and 54 subjects, which is this paper's N. So this working paper is wave one and the publication is wave one plus wave two. In wave one the raw contribution difference is NOT significant (Wilcoxon two-sided p = 0.249) and the effect appears only with a gender control at the 10% level, carried by a four-cell split of 105 subjects (19, 25, 32, 29); the mechanism is stated as two steps through female beliefs. In the pooled publication the raw difference IS significant (p = 0.044 one-sided), there is `insufficient evidence to suggest that the effect of priming varies significantly across ... gender`, and `priming does not affect subjects' beliefs`, which is precisely what licenses its claim that priming works through PREFERENCES. So the whole two-step belief mechanism, and the gender effect that motivated it, are absent from the published version of the same experiment. Neither paper is being called wrong here: more data arrived and a subgroup result did not survive it. What the corpus can record is that both statements exist, that they are by the same authors about the same data plus more, and where each one is. `superseded-by` / `revised-in` is the type this needs and the vocabulary does not have it - on the schema's missing relation types. | unhoused_relations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | priming - the same formal definition this group uses in the 2015 publication, taken from Hertel & Fiedler: a PROCEDURAL feature, previously activated information acting on the processing of subsequent information. The definition is what makes the import from psychology into economics arguable at all 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 against framing - separated in a FOOTNOTE, and the distinction is the same one the 2015 paper puts in its main text: framing re-describes a logically equivalent decision problem; priming activates stored knowledge and leaves the problem alone 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 | revealed preferences, as used here - the actual tokens handed over in a one-shot public good game, offered as the behavioural counterpart to the self-reported emotions 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 | how priming works, in THIS paper's own words - a two-step chain through beliefs, stated as a finding about the female subsample: primes move what females expect others to give, and that expectation moves what they give. The 2015 publication of the same experiment reports no belief effect and attributes the result to preferences instead 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 → Bargh et al. (2001) word-search priming methodology 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 → Croson and Gneezy (2009) on gender differences in social preferences 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 | priming —distinct-from→ framing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: WHETHER THE DECISION PROBLEM IS RE-DESCRIBED - framing restates a logically equivalent problem in a different light, priming activates stored knowledge and leaves the problem as it was · strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: Drawn in a footnote here and in the main text of the same authors' 2015 paper, in almost the same words. A distinction they carried across five years and two venues. | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | priming —causes→ contribution levels Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. depends on: a gender control - the sentence states the result only under it · direction on the measure: increases · strength of the relation: 0.7 · note: WEIGHTED WELL BELOW THE 2015 EDGE FOR THE SAME CLAIM, and the qualifier is why: in this wave the RAW difference is not significant (Wilcoxon two-sided p = 0.249, Kolmogorov-Smirnov p = 0.552), and, elsewhere in the paper, the effect reaches only the 10% level once gender is added. The published version with a second wave finds it in the raw comparison. also in: priming · contribution levels | concept_edges[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | priming —causes→ beliefs Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. holds when: in the female subsample - the sentence names females as the ones whose beliefs shift · strength of the relation: 0.6 — the record marks this weak · note: THE FIRST STEP OF THIS PAPER'S MECHANISM, AND THE ONE THE 2015 PUBLICATION CONTRADICTS: there, priming does not affect beliefs at all, and that null is what licenses the preferences claim. See the unhoused-relations row on this record. | concept_edges[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | beliefs —causes→ contribution decisions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.6 — the record marks this weak · note: The second step. Both steps come from one sentence, and the paper presents them as a sequence rather than a correlation. also in: beliefs · contribution decisions | concept_edges[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | priming —causes→ emotional responses 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: 0.8 · note: The paper's cleanest positive result, and the one the 2015 publication drops entirely - there the emotions data are collected and then set aside unused. also in: priming · emotional responses | concept_edges[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | ordinary least squares regression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ordinary least squares regression | content_tags.statistics[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | ordered probit regression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ordered probit regression | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Wilcoxon rank-sum test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Wilcoxon rank-sum test | content_tags.statistics[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Kolmogorov-Smirnov test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Kolmogorov-Smirnov test | content_tags.statistics[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Spearman rank correlation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Spearman rank correlation | content_tags.statistics[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | robust standard errors Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: robust standard errors | content_tags.statistics[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | locally weighted regression (lowess) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: locally weighted regression (lowess) | content_tags.statistics[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Solving a word-search puzzle seeded with cooperation words raised voluntary contributions to a one-shot public good once subjects' gender was controlled for. 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 | Mean contributions did not differ significantly between primed and unprimed treatments (p = 0.249). 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 effect was concentrated in women: positively primed females contributed about 3.25 tokens more than neutrally primed females, whereas priming did not move male contributions. 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 | Primed women expected more from their partners than primed men did, believing the other two group members would contribute 9.52 tokens against 6.44 tokens. 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 | Within each treatment a subject's own contribution rose with what that subject believed others would contribute, the association being slightly tighter under priming. 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 | Priming shifted self-reported positive emotions (significantly so when partners contributed at least as much as the subject) but left negative emotions unchanged. 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 | Full cooperators contributing the whole 20-token endowment appeared only in the primed treatment, at 13 per cent, and were absent from the neutral treatment. 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 | In both treatments the most common contribution choices were the extremes of giving nothing or giving half the endowment. 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 | framing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: framing | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | NP-treatment and P-treatment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: NP-treatment and P-treatment | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | priming manipulation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: priming manipulation | content_tags.variables[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Level of contributions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Level of contributions | content_tags.variables[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Beliefs about contributions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Beliefs about contributions | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | gender Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: gender | content_tags.variables[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | field of study and nationality Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: field of study and nationality | content_tags.variables[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 51 ... 54 — subjects in the neutrally primed treatment and in the positively primed treatment 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 | N = 19 ... N = 25 ... N = 32 ... N = 29 — cell sizes of the four gender-by-treatment groups used in the regression 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 | 5 tokens — mean contribution out of a 20-token endowment in the neutrally primed treatment 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 | 6.89 tokens — mean contribution in the positively primed treatment 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 | 1.889 — raw uncontrolled contribution difference between primed and neutral groups, not significant 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 | 2.104 — priming coefficient once gender is added as a control, significant at the 10 per cent level 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 | 4.165 — extra tokens contributed by positively primed females relative to neutrally primed males, significant at 5 per cent 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 | ρ = 0.572 and ρ = 0.6734 — correlation between own contribution and beliefs about others' contributions, neutral and primed treatments 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 | |
| content_tags | p-value = 0.000 — difference in mean positive emotions between treatments when partners' deviations were non-negative Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 0.5 money units — per-member return on each token contributed, against a private return of 1 for keeping it Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[9] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | £0.40 per guilder — exchange rate used to convert experimental earnings into cash payments Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[10] | 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.