phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | mental accessibility— “A relevance-based framework for mental accessibility can accommodate results as diverse as ‘saying is believing’ and relevance based- ‘blindness’.” | |
| claim-type | mechanism— “The proposed solution was rather simple: knowledge becomes accessible, which we defined as being ‘functionally available’ to cognitive processes, to the degree that it is motivationally relevant.” | |
| method — evidence | — “With this goal in mind the current paper charts the development of conceptions of mental accessibility from initial ideas of passive ‘spread of activation’ or of bottom-up increase in accessibility to a notion of accessibly that is sensitive to the organism’s current goals, as well as other concerns.” | |
| transfer | from classic cognitive psychology and psycholinguistics: the priming method and the surrounding cluster of concepts (availability, accessibility, activation, applicability) were imported into social psychology, where their nature was altered to fit social-cognitive phenomena— “Although the idea of priming per se originated within classic cognitive psychology and psycholinguistics, its nature and the set of related ideas changed when they were applied to phenomena that interested social psychologists.” | transfers[0] |
| mechanism | Motivational relevance gates the activation of semantic knowledge, so a stimulus that is not relevant to truth, control or value fails to make its corresponding knowledge functionally available— “Given that ROAR stipulates that the effect of relevance is on the activation of knowledge, we hypothesized that people were not ‘phenomenally blind’ to the irrelevant percept but rather, could not report what it was” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | Feedback that a shared reality failed retroactively lowers the truth relevance of the tuned message, which lowers its accessibility and hence its influence on recall— “This effect is consistent with the ROAR framework because the later feedback about a failure to create shared reality can still reduce the truth relevance of the message, thereby reducing its accessibility and thus its impact on recall” | mechanisms[1] |
| builds-on | Higgins' parsing of motivation (reference [24])— “Building on Higgins’ [24] parsing of motivation we also offered three possible sources of motivational relevance; namely, the mind’s concern with ‘truth’ (what is real), ‘control’ (what I can make happen), and ‘value’ or ‘outcome’ (what is desired/ undesired).” | claim_relations[0] |
| sense | accessibility, FIRST GENERATION - a tendency to be activated, fixed by the frequency and recency of exposure and nothing else. Every stage from stimulus to activation is passive and depends only on exposure history, which is exactly why a selective stage had to be added next | senses[0] |
| sense | applicability - introduced to solve an OVER-PREDICTION: if accessibility were the whole story every accessible construct would be used, and they are not. Defined as the match between selected features of the stimulus and of the activated concept, and named by these authors as the precursor to their own principle of relevance Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | senses[1] |
| sense | accessibility, IN ROAR - redefined from a property fixed by exposure history into one proportional to MOTIVATIONAL RELEVANCE: knowledge is `functionally available` to cognitive processes to the degree that it matters to the organism's current concerns. The same word, with the causal direction reversed Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | senses[2] |
| sense | the paper's own methodological stance, stated once and worth the layer: the CHANGING UNDERSTANDING of a concept is treated as a SEPARATE ISSUE from whether the hypotheses that carried it were empirically verified. That separation is what lets a history of a term be written at all while its results are under dispute Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | senses[3] |
| audit | relevance —causes→ accessibility — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span says a relevance framework can accommodate diverse results; the sign is not stated. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[1] |
| effect direction | relevance —causes→ accessibility — increases Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[1] |
| note | relevance —causes→ accessibility — THE REVERSAL THE WHOLE PAPER IS ABOUT. Accessibility stops being a property fixed by how often and how recently something was met, and becomes one proportional to how much it matters to the organism now. Same word, opposite causal direction, thirty years apart. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[1] |
| weight | relevance —causes→ accessibility — 0.9 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[1] |
| note | goals —is-a→ mental representations — The third generation's move: goals are folded INTO the representational machinery rather than added beside it, so everything already true of concept activation becomes true of goal activation without further argument. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[2] |
| weight | goals —is-a→ mental representations — 0.9 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[2] |
| replication | untested | |
| limitation | The paper deliberately restricts itself to how accessibility has been conceptualised and does not assess whether the hypotheses it reviews are empirically supported. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[0] |
| limitation | The authors characterise their own mechanistic model of accessibility as crude. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[1] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | Merely designating one of two locations as task-relevant produces a blindness to information at the other location, as ROAR predicts. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | Participants 'blind' to irrelevant Kanizsa inducers still showed the illusion, judging the illusory shape's orientation. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | The biased memory effect disappears when participants learn just before recall that their reality was not shared by the audience. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | The memory bias does not occur when participants tune merely to be polite or to ingratiate, though tuning is at least as great. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[3] |
| quantity | up to 25% — share of participants who could not report the colour of the task-irrelevant inner circle Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[0] |
| quantity | 500 ms — unmasked presentation duration of the irrelevant concentric circle that participants still failed to report Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[1] |
| definition | ROAR Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[0] |
| definition | applicability Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[2] |
| definition | irrelevance induced blindness Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[4] |
| definition | sources of motivational relevance Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[5] |
| concept | accessibility — not defined in this paper's own words; the concept whose history this paper is - and in its first generation it is entirely PASSIVE: a representation's tendency to be activated, set by how often and how recently it was met Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[0] |
| concept | applicability — not defined in this paper's own words; the first crack in the passive account, added because accessibility alone over-predicted: something had to explain why not every accessible construct gets used Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[1] |
| concept | relevance — not defined in this paper's own words; the later principle applicability is named as the precursor to - and in ROAR it is what accessibility is made proportional to Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[2] |
| concept | goals — not defined in this paper's own words; the third generation's addition, and the move is a categorical one: a goal is treated as a mental representation like any other, so the machinery already built for concepts applies to it unchanged Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[3] |
| concept | priming — not defined in this paper's own words; IN SCARE QUOTES IN THE PAPER'S OWN TITLE, and the sentence that mentions its central empirical failure is the same one that insists the conceptual question is separate from it Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[4] |
| concept | mental representations — not defined in this paper's own words; the category the third generation folds goals INTO - which is the move that lets everything already built for concept activation apply to goals without further argument Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[5] |
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.
Tag layer © the Meta-Tagging Project, CC BY 4.0. The paper text is © its authors/publisher
and is linked, not reproduced. Excerpts shown are short quotations for identification and verification.
· back to index
· concepts · authors
· עברית
© 2026 Shir Sivroni · ORCID 0009-0000-2597-2824