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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 | 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 | incidental consumer brand encounters 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 | Only a single brand (Dasani) was used, so effects of competing-brand clutter are untested. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the transfer to a real shelf: OUR RESEARCH UTILIZED ONLY ONE BRAND, WHEREAS IN THE REAL WORLD PEOPLE DO NOT JUST ENCOUNTER ONE BRAND | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The stimuli were static photographs, not the dynamic encounters people actually have. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the ecological reading of the exposure: OUR PHOTOGRAPHS PRESENT A STATIC PICTURE OF AN ICBE, not the dynamic encounters people actually have | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Participants who were aware of the brand exposure were too few to analyse, so the aware case is untested. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the scope of the whole finding: WE FOCUS ONLY ON THE RESULTS FOR THE UNAWARE PARTICIPANTS ... AS THERE ARE TOO FEW PARTICIPANTS IN THE AWARE GROUP FOR MEANINGFUL ANALYSES - the aware/unaware contrast is untested | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The authors concede an alternative explanation for study 4 in terms of analytic vs. holistic processing styles tied to self-construal. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the study 4 interpretation: SOME READERS MAY WONDER IF PROCESSING STYLE DIFFERENCES ASSOCIATED WITH DIFFERENT SELF-CONSTRUALS PROVIDE AN ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION - conceded, not excluded | limitations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| controls | a 10-minute FILLER TASK placed between the individual-difference measures and the photo task Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that participants notice the connection between the questionnaire and the exposure task, and respond to the perceived hypothesis · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | a ZERO-EXPOSURE control condition against four and twelve exposures Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that brand choice at any exposure level is simply the brand's base rate rather than an effect of exposure · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | fluency Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: fluency | concepts[7] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | type of user Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: type of user | concepts[8] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | mere exposure Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mere exposure | concepts[9] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | brand choice Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: brand choice | concepts[10] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | THE MECHANISM IS PROVED BY MISATTRIBUTION, WHICH IS THE STRONGEST FORM AVAILABLE FOR A FEELING: `Quotation withheld.` Give the ease somewhere else to have come from and the preference goes with it. That rules out the alternative that repetition simply builds a memory or a habit - a memory would not care where you thought the ease came from 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 DOSE-RESPONSE IS NON-MONOTONIC: `Study 3 suggests that too much fluency can backfire, which is consistent with the saturation model.` More exposure is not more effect. This is the one finding here that a replication is most likely to invert by accident: increasing the number of exposures to be safe would move the design past the peak and find less. A corpus that records `repeated exposure increases choice` without the saturation clause would license exactly that mistake 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 | UNAWARENESS USED AS A CONTROL RATHER THAN REPORTED AS A FINDING: `the participants in study 4 were not aware of the brand and hence could not be aware of its association with the in-group or out-group, so conscious correction was not possible.` This is higgins1977's discounting cue turned into a design feature. Higgins found that noticing your own bias ATTENUATES it; here, showing that participants could not notice is what licenses reading the result as uncorrected. Same mechanism, opposite use - one paper measures it, the other rules it out by construction 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 | AN ANOMALY REPORTED AGAINST THEIR OWN ACCOUNT, IN THEIR OWN DISCUSSION: `Quotation withheld. On the surface, this result seems inconsistent with a fluency account.` The exposure moved what people CHOSE without moving what they SAID they liked. A measure and its supposed cause coming apart - and the authors raise it themselves, under a heading of its own, rather than leaving it in a table 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 → Winkielman et al. (2003) 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 → Fazendeiro et al. (2007) and Huber and O’Reilly (2003) saturation model 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 → Fang et al. (2007) 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 → Simonson, Kramer, and Young (2004) 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 | fluency —causes→ brand choice 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 PAPER'S CENTRAL CLAIM, and the axis quote carries the awareness qualifier that the abstract attaches to it - 'for people not aware of the brand exposure'. Weight 0.9 rather than 0.95 because the relation is non-monotonic (study 3) and moderated (study 4), and an unqualified 'fluency increases choice' is true only in the middle of the range. also in: fluency · brand choice | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | type of user —causes→ fluency 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: THE MODERATOR, AND NO effect direction - DELIBERATELY. The paper says the type of user can 'BOLSTER it ... DAMPEN it ... or OVERPOWER it' depending on the group and the perceiver's construal, so there is no single sign. A 'causes(increases)' here would be false a third of the time. The vocabulary offers no 'moderates', and this is the nearest honest use of what it has.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span says the type of user may MODERATE the fluency effect; causes overstates a moderation. also in: type of user · fluency | concept_edges[1] | 0.95 | 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. 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: mean | content_tags.statistics[2] | 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[3] | 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[4] | the tagger's words |
Tags that could not be placed in the text:
content_tags.statistics[0] — quotation withheld — the page has already reproduced as much of this paper as the rights budget allowscontent_tags.statistics[1] — quotation withheld — the page has already reproduced as much of this paper as the rights budget allowsWhat 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.