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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 7 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 | cooperative priming 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] | 0.95 | 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] | 0.95 | 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] | 0.95 | 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[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Only a one-shot game was run, so nothing can be said about whether the priming effect persists over repeated decisions. 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 | The result does not generalise beyond the public goods game to other economically relevant behaviours. 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 | A single priming method (word-and-association semantic priming) was used, so the effect of other priming modes, including negative priming, is unknown. 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 | Beliefs were elicited after contribution decisions, making the belief measure endogenous to the behaviour it was meant to explain. 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 | The priming manipulation is open to an experimenter demand interpretation, which the authors could only address post hoc with a questionnaire control. 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 | |
| controls | a post-experimental questionnaire asked subjects outright whether they thought the priming task had affected their decisions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that subjects saw through the priming manipulation and responded to what they believed the experimenter wanted · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | belief elicitation was deliberately NOT incentivised Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that paying for beliefs introduces an income effect which would confound the emotions being elicited · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | the puzzle solutions were handed out at the end of the allotted time Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that a subject who failed to solve the puzzle was never primed at all, leaving the treatment group only partly treated · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[2] | 0.95 | the tagger'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[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | anchoring Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: anchoring | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | cooperative priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: cooperative priming | concepts[5] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | contributions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: contributions | concepts[6] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | free riding Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: free riding | concepts[7] | 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[8] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | preferences Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: preferences | concepts[9] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | word-search puzzle Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: word-search puzzle | concepts[10] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | priming - taken by these authors from psychology in a FORMAL definition and then used in economics: previously activated information impacting the processing of subsequent information. The definition is procedural, which is why it can be transplanted across fields 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 distinguished from framing and anchoring - the distinction is drawn on WHAT IS LEFT UNTOUCHED: priming reinforces a pathway to a stimulus without re-describing the decision problem, whereas framing re-describes an equivalent problem and anchoring redirects attention 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 | cooperative priming, as delivered here - fifteen of the twenty hidden words carry the concept and five are neutral in both conditions, so the two treatments differ only in the fifteen. The construct is a WORD LIST, chosen by pre-test rating 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 | beliefs about others’ contributions - measured, unincentivised, and elicited AFTER the contribution decision, which the authors say makes them endogenous to the thing they are meant to explain 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 | extends → public goods experiments on explicit cooperation-fostering mechanisms (Fehr and Gächter 2000, 2002; Sefton et al. 2007; Isaac and Walker 1988; Bochet et al. 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 | |
| claim_relations | extends → economic priming studies of religious identity, social outlook and social identity (Benjamin et al. 2010a, b; McKay et al. 2010; Atlas and Putterman 2011; Cappelen and Drange Hole 2011) 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 | contradicts → other-regarding preference models (Fehr and Schmidt 1999; Bolton and Ockenfels 2000) 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 | |
| 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 leaves the problem alone and reinforces a pathway to a concept · strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: A boundary drawn by the authors in their own voice, not inferred by us - the sentence exists only to separate the three terms. | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | priming —distinct-from→ anchoring Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: WHAT IS REDIRECTED: anchoring fixes the decision-maker's attention on a single trait or piece of information, leaving the problem and the concepts alone; priming reinforces a pathway to a concept without directing attention to it · strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: The second half of the same distinction, and the sentence defines both neighbours in one breath - framing by re-description, anchoring by attention. | concept_edges[1] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | cooperative priming —causes→ contributions 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 headline result, in the abstract's own words. Averages are 4.99 tokens neutral against 7.17 primed, one-sided Mann-Whitney p = 0.044. also in: cooperative priming · contributions | concept_edges[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | priming —causes→ free riding Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. direction on the measure: reduces · strength of the relation: 0.85 · note: The same result stated as a reduction rather than an increase. Kept as its own edge because free riding is the behaviour the incentives reward, and it is the endpoint an economist would search on. also in: priming · free riding | concept_edges[3] | 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. direction on the measure: no-change · strength of the relation: 0.1 — the record marks this weak · note: THE LOAD-BEARING NULL. This absence is what licenses the preferences claim in the same sentence, so it is not a caveat - remove it and the mechanism has no support. | concept_edges[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | priming —causes→ preferences Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.8 · note: Weighted below the contribution effect because it is an INFERENCE FROM THE BELIEF NULL rather than a measurement - preferences were never observed directly, which is also why this edge carries no effect direction. also in: priming · preferences | concept_edges[5] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | priming —operationalised-as→ word-search puzzle 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 whole construct is fifteen words hidden in a 16x16 letter matrix, self-completed, with the same five neutral words present in both conditions. also in: priming · word-search puzzle | concept_edges[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | an 11-percentage-point increase in giving (approx. 25% to 36% of endowment) 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 | 150 participants, 75 per treatment 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 | cooperative priming raises contributions in a one-shot public goods game 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 | primed group contributed 7.17 tokens on average vs 4.99 for the neutrally-primed group 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 | standard economic theory predicts priming should have no impact on choices 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 | 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 | 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 | null-hypothesis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: null-hypothesis | content_tags.statistics[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | p-value Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: p-value | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Mann-Whitney Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Mann-Whitney | content_tags.statistics[2] | 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.