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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 |
| contribution | contribution | what the paper claims to add |
| 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 |
| object of study | object_of_study | what the paper is about — the thing it investigates |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| research question | research_question | the question the paper sets itself |
| 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; 1 of 1 relation here carries that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| object_of_study | why people share false claims they could have identified as false, and whether the gap can be closed by making accuracy salient Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | object_of_study | the paper's words | |
| research_question | whether the inattention account of political fake-news sharing extends to COVID-19 misinformation, where the content is largely apolitical and the stakes are life and death Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | research_question | the paper's words | |
| contribution | a measured dissociation between accuracy judgment and sharing intention on the same headlines, and a randomised test showing that one accuracy judgement about an unrelated headline raises sharing discernment 2.8-fold Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | contribution | the paper's 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 | truth discernment that is present when people are asked about accuracy and nearly absent when the same people are asked what they would share 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 | the account is not that people want to spread falsehood, nor that they cannot tell the difference. It is that the sharing context puts other things in front of accuracy - social approval, partisan alignment, the fact that news sits between baby photos - so the preference exists and is simply not applied at the moment of decision Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: a preference that is never consulted | mechanisms[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | the treatment is one accuracy judgement about a politically neutral headline unrelated to the topic, framed as a pretest. It supplies no information about COVID-19 and no instruction about sharing; what it does is raise the accessibility of the concept of accuracy, and the effect is a change in what the participant attends to rather than in what they know Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: a prime that carries no content | mechanisms[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | if the nudge works by directing attention to accuracy, then its effect on a headline should track how accurate that headline is perceived to be - pushing sharing up for the clearly true and down for the clearly false. Measured across the thirty items using Study 1's ratings as the accuracy scale, r(28) = .76 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 |
| limitations | the evidence is restricted to the United States, and the sample is quota matched rather than probability sampled so it is not nationally representative Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | one particular set of thirty headlines was used, and misinformation in other forms - e-mails, text posts, memes - is untested Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | sharing intentions were hypothetical and the induction was performed in a lab context, so extension to naturalistic social media is an inference Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | accuracy nudges are described by the authors as far from a complete solution Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | one false headline turned out on inspection to be misleading or unverified rather than untrue, and was retained after checking that removing it changed nothing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the preregistration specified clustering standard errors on participant only, and the published analysis clusters on participant and headline Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | priming - raising the accessibility of a concept with an unrelated task - carried from cognitive psychology into a platform-deployable intervention against misinformation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | the nudge frame from behavioural economics: change what is salient at the moment of choice rather than what the chooser knows or is allowed to do Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | the accuracy induction disguised as a pretest, using a single politically neutral headline unrelated to the topic of the sharing task Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: demand characteristics and social desirability as the explanation of the treatment effect - a participant who cannot see what the manipulation is for cannot comply with it · outcome: held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | apolitical COVID-19 content used in place of the political headlines the prior literature used, with partisanship measured and tested as a moderator Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: partisan motivation as the thing distracting people from accuracy - the effect survives when the content gives partisanship nothing to work with · outcome: held | controls[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | a post hoc item-level analysis correlating each headline's treatment effect against its perceived accuracy from the other study's participants Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: a general suppression of sharing as the explanation - an attention effect must push true headlines UP and false ones down, and the correlation is r(28) = .76 · outcome: held | controls[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | all participants retained in the main analyses regardless of failing the three attention screeners, per the preregistered plan, with the key result reported across levels of attentiveness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: the effect being an artefact of who was excluded - dropping inattentive respondents would trade representativeness for a cleaner sample and the authors show the result does not depend on the trade · outcome: held | controls[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | one false headline reclassified after data collection as misleading rather than untrue, and the analysis rerun without it Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: a defective stimulus carrying the result - the item is disclosed, the removal is tested, and it is retained on the strength of the test rather than quietly · outcome: held | controls[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | linear probability models used for interpretability, with logistic regression run alongside Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: the functional form as the source of the result - the readable model and the conventional one are reported to agree · outcome: held | controls[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | the self-reported sharing measure checked against a headline-level relationship between reported willingness and actual shares on Twitter Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: a hypothetical intention being read as behaviour with no evidence at all - the link is external and at the level of the item · outcome: partial | controls[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | results also reported excluding the few headlines that were political or that did not contain a clear claim of fact Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: a handful of atypical items driving the interaction · outcome: held | controls[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | a preregistration deviation declared in the paper - the plan specified clustering on participant only - with the preregistered version run Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: an undisclosed analytic choice; the deviation is named and the preregistered specification is reported not to change the conclusion · outcome: held | controls[8] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | three screener questions embedding a subtle instruction inside a block of text, placed before each of the main tasks Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: participants who click through without reading - on a task about whether people can tell true headlines from false ones · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[9] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | a leave-one-out check on the stimulus set: one false headline judged after the fact to be misleading rather than untrue was removed and the analysis re-run Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that the result rests on one badly-classified item - the paper re-ran without it, found no change, and retained it while saying so · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[10] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | truth discernment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: truth discernment | concepts[0] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | inattention Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: inattention | concepts[1] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | accuracy nudge Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: accuracy nudge | concepts[2] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | CRT Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: CRT | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | demand characteristics Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: demand characteristics | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | sharing intentions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: sharing intentions | concepts[5] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | partisanship Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: partisanship | concepts[6] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | quota sampling Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: quota sampling | concepts[7] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | truth discernment - WHEN THE QUESTION IS ACCURACY: veracity moves the answer at Cohen's d = 0.657 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 | truth discernment - WHEN THE QUESTION IS SHARING: d = 0.121 from the same people on the same headlines, and 32.4% more would share a false headline than call it accurate 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 | sharing discernment - IN THE CONTROL CONDITION OF STUDY 2: not significantly different from zero, d = 0.050, p = .24 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 | sharing discernment - AFTER ONE ACCURACY JUDGEMENT ABOUT AN UNRELATED HEADLINE: d = 0.142, p = .003, and 2.8 times the control level 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 sample - AS DESIGNED: quota matched to the US public on age, gender, ethnicity and region 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 |
| senses | the sample - AS THE AUTHORS QUALIFY IT: not obtained by probability sampling and therefore not to be treated as nationally representative Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | extends → the inattention-based account of political fake-news sharing, carried here to COVID-19 misinformation where the content is largely apolitical and the stakes are health Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | critiques → the view that partisan motivation is what distracts people from accuracy on social media - the effect appears on apolitical content and is not moderated by partisanship Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | qualifies → its own intervention - accuracy nudges are far from a complete solution, and the sharing measure is hypothetical Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | confirms → the analytic-cognitive-style literature on truth discernment - CRT scores relate to discernment here in the same pattern previously seen with political headlines Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | partisanship —distinct-from→ inattention Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: whether the thing pulling attention from accuracy is political identity or the sharing context itself · the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.95 · differs in (stated by the tagger, no quotation): whether the thing pulling attention from accuracy is political identity or the sharing context itself · the relation stated: the effect appears on apolitical COVID-19 content, so partisanship is not the key factor distracting people from accuracy
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span says partisanship is not the key factor; distinct-from is loose. also in: partisanship · inattention | concept_edges[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | veracity moves accuracy judgments at d = 0.657 and sharing intentions at d = 0.121, from the same people on the same headlines Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 32.4% more people were willing to share a false headline than rated that headline as accurate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Rating the accuracy of a single non-COVID headline raised sharing discernment 2.8-fold. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | in the control condition sharing discernment was not significantly different from zero, p = .24 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the treatment effect was not moderated by cognitive reflection, science knowledge, partisanship, distance to an epicentre or medical maximising Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the treatment's effect per headline correlates at r(28) = .76 with that headline's perceived accuracy, which is the signature an attention account predicts Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the intervention requires no decision by a platform about what content to censor Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the difference in accuracy judgments or sharing intentions between true and false headlines - a within-person contrast, so a higher score means greater sensitivity to truth relative to falsity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: truth discernment | content_tags.definitions[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | more people were willing to share a false headline than rated it accurate - the size of the gap between the two questions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Cohen's d for the effect of veracity on accuracy judgments, against 0.121 for sharing intentions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | times higher sharing discernment in the treatment condition than the control, from a single accuracy judgement about an unrelated headline Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the item-level correlation between a headline's perceived accuracy and the size of the treatment's effect on sharing it Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Cohen Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Cohen | content_tags.statistics[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | truth discernment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: truth discernment | content_tags.variables[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | sharing intentions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: sharing intentions | content_tags.variables[1] | 0.95 | 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.