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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 |
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 1 relation 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 | lay beliefs about procedural constraints on law 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 study documents the effect but not the cognitive mechanism producing the contradictory beliefs. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any mechanistic reading: OUR STUDY ... AFFORDED LIMITED INSIGHT INTO THE PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSES THAT ENGENDER CONFLICTING BELIEFS | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Prescriptive thinking was measured only by explicit self-report, leaving unconscious routes untested. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the prescriptive-thinking measure: WE ASSESSED PARTICIPANTS' ENGAGEMENT IN PRESCRIPTIVE THINKING THROUGH THEIR EXPLICIT REPORTS, [which] LEAVES OPEN UNCONSCIOUS PATHWAYS | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Effect size varied substantially by country, which may indicate cultural variability or sampling differences. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the cross-cultural generality claim: THE MAGNITUDE OF THE EFFECT VARIED SUBSTANTIALLY ACROSS COUNTRIES, WHICH MAY IMPLY SOME DEGREE OF CULTURAL VARIABILITY - or sampling differences, and the study cannot choose | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The effect is documented but its mechanism is not: the study is stated to give limited insight into the processes that produce the conflicting beliefs. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: explaining WHY people hold both beliefs: the authors state the study evidences the phenomenon but gives limited insight into the psychological processes producing it | limitations[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Only explicit reports of prescriptive thinking were measured, so an unconscious route from moral considerations to judgements of possibility remains open by the authors' own statement. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the claim that the effect is not moral in origin: the authors rule this out only for prescriptive thinking that participants could report, and say so | limitations[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The cross-country variation in effect size cannot be attributed: culture and sampling method are confounded, because recruitment differed substantially across sites. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: reading the country differences as cultural variability: the authors state sampling methods differed substantially across sites, so the variation might instead reflect sample composition or acquiescence | limitations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The two-way classification of legal systems used to select sites is reported by the authors as sometimes seen as too coarse. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the common-law versus civil-law contrast as the axis of cross-cultural comparison: the paper notes the distinction is sometimes seen as overly coarse | limitations[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The per-site sample target was not met everywhere. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: per-country estimates: the stated minimum of 100 per condition per site | limitations[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | an axiom of modal logic — that what is actual is thereby possible — is imported to turn the two response patterns into a demonstrable contradiction and so to derive the experimental prediction 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 | the direction of the finding fixed in advance by a REGISTERED PREDICTION Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: post-hoc reinterpretation of whichever way the result fell - the paper reports confirming its prediction AND a paradoxical second finding beside it, so the registration is doing work rather than decorating a clean story · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | alethic modality Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: alethic modality | concepts[0] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | deontic properties Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: deontic properties | concepts[1] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | procedural principles Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: procedural principles | concepts[2] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | rule of law Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: rule of law | concepts[3] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | Rule of Law Index Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Rule of Law Index | concepts[4] | the paper's words | |
| senses | modality - alethic: necessity and possibility, what could be the case Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | modality - deontic: permission and obligation, what is allowed or desirable — and the paper states that although the two are easily distinguished IN THOUGHT, natural language expresses them imperfectly Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | law - the concept: what participants report laws NECESSARILY are, which the paper reports as defying their own grasp of how legal systems actually work Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | law - the practice: what participants report actual laws are like, where the same people acknowledge the principles are violated Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | rule of law - operationalised as a survey index scoring nations on eight dimensions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | extends → Donelson and Hannikainen (2020) 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 → Donelson and Hannikainen (2020) materials 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 | rule of law —operationalised-as→ Rule of Law Index Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 also in: rule of law · Rule of Law Index | concept_edges[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | logistic regression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: logistic regression | content_tags.statistics[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | mixed-effects logistic regression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mixed-effects logistic regression | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | mixed-effects linear regression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mixed-effects linear regression | content_tags.statistics[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | odds ratio Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: odds ratio | content_tags.statistics[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | chi-squared Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: chi-squared | content_tags.statistics[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | confidence interval Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: confidence interval | content_tags.statistics[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | latent profile analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: latent profile analysis | content_tags.statistics[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | statistical power analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: statistical power analysis | content_tags.statistics[7] | 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. also in: correlation | content_tags.statistics[8] | 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. also in: standard deviation | content_tags.statistics[9] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | As preregistered, people both denied that such laws can exist and affirmed, paradoxically, that they do. 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 | Participants asked about actual laws said those laws violate the procedural principles about half the time, whereas participants asked about possible laws overwhelmingly denied that the same principles could be violated. 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 condition effect held in each country analysed on its own. 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 | The effect also held separately for each of the eight procedural principles tested. 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 | The size of the effect nevertheless differed by country, being weakest in India and the United Kingdom and strongest in Brazil and Poland. 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 | The size of the effect also differed by principle, being smallest for the generality principle and largest for the consistency principle. 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 | A post-test showed the manipulation worked as intended on the existential side: the 'There are laws' wording was read as a question about what laws are usually like in the respondent's experience. 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 | The modal wording, however, was read in two ways at once — as asking what laws must be like to count as law, and as asking what laws ideally should be like. 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 | The predicted effect held even among the minority who reported a selective interpretation of the modal wording. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The preregistered prediction held robustly across age groups, genders, and lawyers and non-lawyers. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[9] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | People believe laws necessarily cannot punish past conduct retroactively, be kept secret, or be incomprehensible, while also acknowledging that real laws break exactly these constraints. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[10] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | alethic modals Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: alethic modals | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | deontic properties Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: deontic properties | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Rule of Law Index Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Rule of Law Index | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | intuitive jurisprudence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: intuitive jurisprudence | content_tags.definitions[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | endorsement Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: endorsement | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | country Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: country | content_tags.variables[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | procedural principle Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: procedural principle | content_tags.variables[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | interpretation of the task Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: interpretation of the task | content_tags.variables[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | existential statements Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: existential statements | content_tags.variables[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | modal statements Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: modal statements | content_tags.variables[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | age Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: age | content_tags.variables[9] | 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[10] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | legal background Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: legal background | content_tags.variables[11] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | N = 3,054 — total participants in the between-subjects experiment 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 | 11 — countries in which the experiment was administered 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 | pˆ = .54 vs pˆ = .81, OR = 3.74 — predicted probability of saying a principle is violated (Actual condition) versus could be violated (Possible condition), and the odds ratio between conditions 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 | OR = 1.79 to OR = 13.97 — range of the condition effect across the eight principles, from the generality principle to the consistency principle 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 | ORs < 1.60 and ORs > 7.50 — smallest country-level effects (India, United Kingdom) versus largest (Brazil, Poland) 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 | n = 352 — participants in the Actual condition forming the minority latent profile who reported reflecting only on empirical facts about law 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 | OR = 3.46, z = 11.65, p < .001 — size of the condition effect within the minority profiles who interpreted the task selectively 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 | β = .20, odds ratio ≥ 1.40, α = .05 — power, minimum detectable effect and alpha level targeted by the planned sample size 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 | target n = 200/site — minimum sample size planned per field site (100 per condition), reached everywhere except Cambodia 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 | N = 3,054 — total participants across 11 countries 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 | OR = 3.74 — odds of endorsing a procedural principle in the Possible condition versus the Actual condition 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 | |
| content_tags | OR = 1.79 to OR = 13.97 — range of the condition effect across the eight principles: smallest for generality, largest for consistency Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[11] | 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.