Category Accessibility and Impression Formation

E. Tory Higgins, William S. Rholes, Carl R. Jones · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · 1977 · social-psychology · 10.1016/S0022-1031(77)80007-3 · record higgins1977-category-accessibility
tag layer · index · concepts · authors · עברית

Where this record's text came from. faceted 2026-08 by reading the locally held text (corpus-body); every evidence string verified as an exact substring of that text before merging. The paper mixes a positive result (applicable primes bias characterization and delayed evaluation) with two explicit nulls (no effect of nonapplicable primes; no effect on reproduction), so claim type could arguably be 'null-result'. I chose 'mechanism' because the paper uses the nulls as evidence FOR a specific causal route - a direct effect of categorization on judgment rather than an indirect effect via distorted memory or a bare affective effect - and that is the sentence quoted. One further self-stated limitation ('The selection of the Nonapplicable trait terms was made on an intuitive basis') is split across a running-header intrusion in the extraction ('The selection of the p. 6 146 HIGGINS, RHOLES, AND JONES Nonapplicable trait terms was made on an intuitive basis.'), so I left it out rather than quote a fragment or silently repair it. Replication status = 'replicated' is NOT taken from this paper, which reports no replication; it rests on one entry of this same queue, Srull & Wyer (1979), which states it supplements and extends Higgins, Rholes and Jones (1977) and reports a conceptual replication of the priming effect. Flagging the provenance because the judgement comes from a sibling document, not from this article's own words. 2026-08-19 and 2026-08-25 schema-0.3 passes: every quote verified as an exact substring of the staged text and anchored at merge time; concept terms verified present; every edge endpoint an existing node.

2 quotes on this page carry a character that renders as nothing. 4 such characters in all: a control character. The PDF this text came from used characters that survive extraction as code points no ordinary font draws, so the quote reads as though they were never there. That can change what a sentence says: a soft hyphen left by a line break puts a space inside a word, so document reads as docu ment; a flattened superscript turns 10⁹ into 109. The quotes are reproduced exactly as the extraction left them and have NOT been repaired — the meaning of such a code point belongs to the one PDF it came from, and guessing it would produce a clean, confident, unverifiable quote.

How to read this page. The article itself is not reproduced here — this paper is not cleared for redistribution, so what follows is the tag layer alone. The evidence sentences are withheld with the article. The table at the foot lists every tag the record carries; each row names the facet it belongs to, and the whose words column says whether the tag records the paper's own wording or the tagger's sentence about the paper. Every tag links to each other paper in the corpus carrying it. The machine-readable edition of the same thing is the TEI file beside this one, where the tags live in 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.

Other fields define these differently the same word, defined another way in another discipline
priming 2 fields · statistical-significance 2 fields · variance 2 fields

Tags on this paper

Every tag the record carries, each linking to every other paper in the corpus that carries it. A tag appears here whether or not its words occur in the article — the spans below are only the ones a sentence in this paper licenses. Of the 7 concept tags on this paper, 5 are grounded in a quoted sentence. 4 carry the tagger's gloss of what the term means in this paper, which is not something the article can license.

category accessibility social priming impression formation trait categories categorization judgment discounting cue priming trait ambiguous accessibility stimulus person ANOVA analysis of variance correlation hypothesis-testing median p-value statistical-significance t-test variance behavioural-experiment

Legend

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

The paper

The full text is not reproduced here. This article is not cleared for redistribution, so the page carries the tag layer only. Its evidence sentences are withheld; the grounding status remains with each tag, and the article itself is at https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(77)80007-3. The reading view exists for the papers whose licence permits it.

Every tag on this page

claim_relations 3 · claim_type 1 · concept_edges 1 · concepts 5 · content_tags 9 · controls 1 · limitations 2 · method 1 · phenomenon 1 · senses 5

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.

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	category accessibility in impression formation 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 null reproduction result may be an artefact of instructing subjects to memorise the passage; different instructions might have produced reconstructive distortion. 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 desirability scale had no zero point and so was not an equal-interval scale. 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
controls	the order of the rating scales across the two sessions was counterbalanced so that an equal number of subjects in each condition used each scale type in each session Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that the effect is a scale or session-order artefact rather than category accessibility · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held	`controls[0]`	0.95	the tagger's words
concepts	category accessibility Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: category accessibility	`concepts[0]`		the paper's words
concepts	trait categories Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: trait categories	`concepts[3]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	categorization Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: categorization	`concepts[4]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	judgment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: judgment	`concepts[5]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	discounting cue Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: discounting cue	`concepts[6]`	0.95	the paper's words
senses	THE APPLICABILITY NULL IS THE CONTROL THAT RULES OUT A VALENCE ACCOUNT, AND IT IS THE HARDEST WORKING RESULT IN THE PAPER: `the absence of any effects for nonapplicable trait terms suggested that exposure to trait terms with positive or negative associations was not in itself sufficient to determine attributions and evaluations.` Positive and negative words that did not FIT the target did nothing. So the effect is not mood, not evaluative contagion and not `nice words make you nicer` - it needs a CATEGORY the target can be sorted into. Necessary-but-not-sufficient, stated in 1977, and the same logical shape unknown2009 states for object recognition thirty-two years later 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	THE DELAYED EFFECT IS BIGGER THAN THE IMMEDIATE ONE, AND THE EXPLANATION IS CORRECTION RATHER THAN ACTIVATION: `It may be that an AWARENESS that one's categorizations are BIASED accounts of the stimulus information can function as a `DISCOUNTING CUE` ... that ATTENUATES the direct impact of the categorizations.` The activation does not grow; the correction fades. So awareness here REDUCES the measured effect, and an immediate test UNDERSTATES it - the opposite sign to Holcomb2005, where prime visibility PREDICTED the size of semantic priming. Two literatures with awareness pushing the measurement in opposite directions, which is a reason to record the direction and not only the presence of an awareness check 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	A SECOND NULL SEPARATES TWO ROUTES: a category could bias judgement INDIRECTLY, by distorting what is remembered, or DIRECTLY, through its own implications. Reproduction of the description was unaffected, so `the characterization and evaluation effects found were due mainly to a DIRECT effect of categorization on judgment.` The prime changed what people concluded without changing what they recalled - which is what makes this a claim about judgement rather than about memory, and it is settled by an absence 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 THEY UNDERCUT THAT NULL THEMSELVES, IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH. Subjects `probably felt they should MEMORIZE the stimulus information because it was part of a `reading comprehension` test`, and Spiro (1975) found that reconstructive errors do NOT occur under memorise instructions - so `Reproductive errors consistent with the activated categories might have occurred in the present study if subjects had been given different instructions.` The absence that carries their direct-effect conclusion is attributed to their own design rather than to the world, in the same discussion that uses it 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
senses	THE AMBIGUITY CONDITION IS HERE TOO, IN 1977, AND THAT MAKES THREE PAPERS ACROSS 38 YEARS. `Quotation withheld.` North1999 says the effect holds `only when there is an element of UNCERTAINTY in product choice or when customers are in a state of LOW INVOLVEMENT`. money2013 says `a situation that does not leave much room for interpretation is unlikely to show a consistent or large priming effect`. Social psychology 1977, marketing 1999, social psychology 2015 - the founding paper, a field study and a reply to a failed replication - all naming the same condition: a prime needs somewhere to act. Higgins states it first and almost in passing, as a qualifier on a sentence about something else Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[4]`	0.95	the tagger's words
claim_relations	builds-on → Warren (1972) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. status: the paper's own words: Indirect evidence	`claim_relations[0]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	builds-on → Bartlett (1932) 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	builds-on → Spiro (1975) 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	categorization —causes→ judgment 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: A CAUSAL EDGE ESTABLISHED BY AN ABSENCE. The route is settled by what did NOT happen: reproduction of the description was unaffected, so the category acted on judgement directly rather than by distorting memory. 'suggests' and 'mainly' are the hedges and both are in the quote - and the paper undercuts this null itself two paragraphs later (fourth sense), which is why this is 0.9 rather than 0.95. Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the absence of a reproduction effect 'suggests' a direct effect of categorization; hedged. also in: categorization · judgment	`concept_edges[0]`	0.95	the tagger's words
content_tags	impressions shift toward the accessible/primed trait category 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	ANOVA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ANOVA	`content_tags.statistics[0]`		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[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	hypothesis-testing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: hypothesis-testing	`content_tags.statistics[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	median Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: median	`content_tags.statistics[3]`		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[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	statistical-significance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: statistical-significance	`content_tags.statistics[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	t-test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: t-test	`content_tags.statistics[6]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	variance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: variance	`content_tags.statistics[7]`		the tagger's words

Interpretive choices

Tags that could not be placed in the text:

none — every tag was located 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.