phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | priming of perceived influencer authenticity— “This study explores how positive and negative priming of sponsored content shapes the authenticity perception of the vlogger among its audience members.” | |
| claim-type | existence— “The results verified the significance of priming: the same sponsored content can result in opposite reactions among the audience members depending on the positive/negative valence of the introductory text attached, highlighting the central importance of strategic communication related to the perception of sponsored content.” | |
| method — evidence | — “The subjects were randomly assigned to a condition to improve the internal validity of the experiment.” | |
| transfer | from psychology (with media studies, marketing and advertising research): the study imports theoretical apparatus from psychology and neighbouring consumer-research fields into strategic-communication research on influencer content— “To understand audience members’ perceptions of influencer-produced sponsored content from a variety of perspectives, this research combined theoretical insights from several fields, including corporate communication, psychology, media studies, marketing research, and advertising.” | transfers[0] |
| mechanism | the prime biases how the subsequent sponsored content is processed, so the same content yields different judgments— “The manipulation by priming is assumed to cause biased information processing.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | being invited to participate lets viewers process the content more carefully, so they either confirm or reject the prime instead of simply absorbing it— “Therefore, participation with the video channel or outlet allows more careful information processing, leading to either confirmation or rejection of the priming (i.e., the persuasion attempt).” | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | disclosing a persuasion attempt first activates cognitive persuasion knowledge, which then activates attitudinal knowledge (a stepwise persuasion process)— “It is suggested that the disclosure of a persuasion attempt first triggers cognitive persuasion knowledge that leads to activation of attitudinal knowledge.” | mechanisms[2] |
| builds-on | persuasion knowledge model (Friestad & Wright, 1994) and priming theory (Carroll & Einwiller, 2014; Celse & Chang, 2017)— “Building on the persuasion knowledge model (Friestad & Wright, 1994) and the theory of priming (Carroll & Einwiller, 2014; Celse & Chang, 2017), mere awareness of an intent to persuade may provoke in individuals various coping mechanisms and resistance to communication (Petty & Cacioppo, 1977; van Reijmersdal et al.… | claim_relations[0] |
| builds-on | Gilpin, Palazzolo & Brody (2010); Henderson & Bowley (2010) on the subjectivity of authenticity perceptions— “The results also support the subjectivity of authenticity perceptions (Gilpin, Palazzolo, & Brody, 2010; Henderson & Bowley, 2010) and verify that they are prone to priming.” | claim_relations[1] |
| sense | priming, in strategic communication - an ACT OF SELECTION on the audience's memory: certain patterns are activated and others are left out. The exclusion is written into the definition, which is what makes a positive and a negative primer symmetrical operations here— “Priming refers to providing contextual cues to a non-conscious information process that activates certain patterns in memory and leaves out others” | senses[0] |
| sense | priming as against framing, THIS FIELD'S VERSION - the two are granted the same function (activating awareness of an issue) and separated by what framing does in addition: attribute meanings. Compare the economics version, where the criterion is re-description of the decision problem, and the media-studies version, where it is awareness— “A tool of strategic communication, priming is like framing, in that it activates audience members’ awareness of an issue. However, framing directs audience members’ judgments by attributing certain meanings to an issue” | senses[1] |
| sense | perceived authenticity - a construct whose positive definition is a list and whose working definition is its complement. The paper says so outright: it is OFTEN ALSO DEFINED BY NEGATION, with inauthenticity as falsity, externally motivated behaviour, and reciting a script rather than expressing one's own words— “It is often also defined by negation. Inauthenticity has been understood as falsity (Enli, 2015; Gilmore & Pine, 2007; Kernis & Goldman, 2006), externally motivated behavior and inconsistency (Moulard et al., 2015), and the act of “reciting a script,” rather than expressing one’s own words” | senses[2] |
| sense | selling out - the folk term the negative prime is built from, glossed by the paper in parentheses because the construct it operationalises has no technical name: giving up integrity or compromising principles for personal gain— “as perceived opportunism can be a signal of “selling out” (i.e., giving up integrity or compromising principles for personal gain)” | senses[3] |
| control | random assignment of subjects to the four experimental conditions crossing priming and audience participation — held — rules out that a difference between conditions is a difference between the kinds of people who ended up in them - the paper names this as internal validity— “The subjects were randomly assigned to a condition to improve the internal validity of the experiment.” | controls[0] |
| differs in | priming —distinct-from→ framing — WHAT FRAMING DOES IN ADDITION: both activate awareness of an issue, and framing also directs judgment by attributing meanings to it— “A tool of strategic communication, priming is like framing, in that it activates audience members’ awareness of an issue. However, framing directs audience members’ judgments by attributing certain meanings to an issue”— “framing directs audience members’ judgments” | concept_edges[0] |
| note | priming —distinct-from→ framing — THE THIRD INCOMPATIBLE CUT AT THIS PAIR IN THIS CORPUS. The economics papers separate them by re-description of the decision problem; the media-studies review reports the field unable to agree and cites Ottati holding framing to BE a form of priming. See the unhoused-relations row on this record.— “A tool of strategic communication, priming is like framing, in that it activates audience members’ awareness of an issue. However, framing directs audience members’ judgments by attributing certain meanings to an issue” | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | priming —distinct-from→ framing — 0.9— “A tool of strategic communication, priming is like framing, in that it activates audience members’ awareness of an issue. However, framing directs audience members’ judgments by attributing certain meanings to an issue” | concept_edges[0] |
| note | prime stimulus —distinct-from→ target stimulus — Stated as a structural requirement - priming REQUIRES both - which is more than most of this corpus's priming papers make explicit.— “Priming requires a target stimulus (i.e., the content) and a prime stimulus (i.e., the primer), which amends the judgment about the target” | concept_edges[1] |
| weight | prime stimulus —distinct-from→ target stimulus — 0.95— “Priming requires a target stimulus (i.e., the content) and a prime stimulus (i.e., the primer), which amends the judgment about the target” | concept_edges[1] |
| audit | priming —causes→ perceived authenticity — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span is hypothesis H1a; causes states it as a finding.— “H1a: Priming with a positive introductory text about the sponsored content will enhance the perceived authenticity of the social media influencer” | concept_edges[2] |
| effect direction | priming —causes→ perceived authenticity — increases— “H1a: Priming with a positive introductory text about the sponsored content will enhance the perceived… | concept_edges[2] |
| holds when | priming —causes→ perceived authenticity — with a POSITIVE introductory text attached to the sponsored content | concept_edges[2] |
| note | priming —causes→ perceived authenticity — Half of a symmetric pair. The result the paper reports is sharper than either hypothesis: the SAME sponsored content produces opposite reactions depending only on the valence of the introductory text. | concept_edges[2] |
| weight | priming —causes→ perceived authenticity — 0.85 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] |
| audit | priming —causes→ perceived authenticity — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span is hypothesis H1b; causes states it as a finding. 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[3] |
| effect direction | priming —causes→ perceived authenticity — reduces 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[3] |
| holds when | priming —causes→ perceived authenticity — with a NEGATIVE introductory text attached to the sponsored content 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[3] |
| note | priming —causes→ perceived authenticity — The other half. Two edges rather than one because the direction reverses with the prime's valence, and an edge that averaged them would describe neither condition. 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[3] |
| weight | priming —causes→ perceived authenticity — 0.85 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[3] |
| audit | sponsored content —causes→ perceived authenticity — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but sponsored content 'CAN PUT under threat' a vlogger's perceived authenticity; causes is hedged. 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[5] |
| effect direction | sponsored content —causes→ perceived authenticity — reduces 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[5] |
| note | sponsored content —causes→ perceived authenticity — The premise the negative prime is built on, attributed to prior work rather than shown here - hence 0.7. 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[5] |
| weight | sponsored content —causes→ perceived authenticity — 0.7 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[5] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| replication | untested | |
| no type for this | priming versus framing, as this paper draws it: both activate awareness of an issue and framing additionally attributes MEANINGS to it → the same pair as drawn in drouvelis2010 / drouvelis2015 (framing RE-DESCRIBES a logically equivalent decision problem) and as reported unresolved in Hoewe2020 (where Ottati holds that framing IS a form of priming) — THREE PAPERS IN THIS CORPUS SEPARATE 'priming' FROM 'framing', IN THREE FIELDS, ON THREE DIFFERENT AXES - AND NONE OF THEM CITES THE OTHERS. Economics (drouvelis, both papers) makes the criterion THE DECISION PROBLEM: framing re-describes a logically equivalent one, priming does not. Media studies (Hoewe2020) makes it AWARENESS, and reports its own field unable to settle whether the two are even distinct, quoting Ottati that 'media framing constitutes a specific form of priming'. Strategic communication (this paper) makes it MEANING: the two share the activation of awareness and framing adds the attribution of meanings. Not a disagreement about a fact - three literatures independently fixing one boundary and not noticing each other. That is the negative space this project was built to make visible, and the schema has no relation type for 'these papers partition the same pair differently'., and for the missing types. 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. | unhoused_relations[0] |
| limitation | Only a single vlog and a single video were used, so results may not generalise beyond this vlogger and product category 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 findings may be tied to the particular vlog, vlogger and products shown 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] |
| limitation | Only a positive brand endorsement was tested; priming may behave differently for negative or neutral coverage 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[2] |
| limitation | The study was run in a single national setting 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[3] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | Priming was strongly associated with viewers' authenticity perceptions in both the positive and the negative priming conditions, confirming H1a and H1b. 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 | Encouraging versus discouraging audience participation changed authenticity perception only when the introductory text was negative, not when it was positive. 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 | Negative priming did not spill over onto the endorsed products: negative attitudes towards the products did not differ across the manipulation groups. 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 | Positive priming shifted perceptions of the vlogger, the video and the product, whereas negative priming moved only perceptions of the vlogger. 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] |
| finding | Because negativity concentrates on the influencer rather than on the sponsor, sponsored content carries less reputational risk for the organization than for the vlogger. 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[4] |
| quantity | 211 — open-ended viewer responses analysed 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 | 59% male and 41% female — gender split of the MTurk respondent sample 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] |
| quantity | p = .002 — chi-squared significance of the difference in endorser-authenticity perceptions across the four manipulation groups 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[2] |
| quantity | 45% ... 17% — share of responses coding the endorser as inauthentic in the most negatively primed group versus the most positively primed group 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[3] |
| quantity | 28% — highest share of authenticity perception, found in Group 3 (negative text, participation encouraged) 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[4] |
| variable | type of introductory text (independent) 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.variables[0] |
| variable | audience participation (independent) 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.variables[1] |
| variable | perceived authenticity (dependent) 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.variables[2] |
| variable | attitude towards the video (dependent) 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.variables[3] |
| definition | sponsored content 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 | priming 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[1] |
| definition | perceived authenticity 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 | audience participation 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[3] |
| definition | target stimulus 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] |
| definition | prime stimulus 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[6] |
| concept | priming — not defined in this paper's own words; defined here by what it EXCLUDES as much as what it activates: contextual cues to a non-conscious process that switch on certain patterns in memory and leave out others 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 | framing — not defined in this paper's own words; the neighbour, separated on a THIRD axis - not re-description as in the economics papers and not awareness as in the media-studies one, but the attribution of meaning to an issue 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 | prime stimulus — not defined in this paper's own words; the primer, held apart from the thing it acts on - a two-object structure this literature states explicitly where most papers leave it implicit 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 | target stimulus — not defined in this paper's own words; the content whose judgment is amended; in this study the vlog itself 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 | perceived authenticity — not defined in this paper's own words; the outcome construct, given a positive definition as a LIST - uniqueness, originality, genuineness - of a thing that may be an object, a person, an organisation or an idea 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 | brand authenticity — not defined in this paper's own words; the marketing sibling, defined by CONSISTENCY WITH ITSELF rather than by uniqueness - and the paper notes that people can also be brands, which is what lets it borrow the definition 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] |
| concept | audience participation — not defined in this paper's own words; the second manipulation, defined by an enumeration of actions rather than by a construct: likes, dislikes, comments, shares and subscriptions 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[6] |
| concept | sponsored content — not defined in this paper's own words; the object of study, defined by where it appears rather than by what it says - commercial content placed OUTSIDE the organisation's own platforms 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[7] |
| concept | participation — not defined in this paper's own words; the manipulated variable as the results name it, and the finding attached to it is conditional: it moves authenticity only under the negative prime 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[8] |
| chi-squared test X2 | as written: Pearson Chi-squared test 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.statistics[0] |
| p-value p | as written: p = .002 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.statistics[1] |
| chi-squared expected-cell-frequency assumption | as written: expected count of less than 5 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.statistics[2] |
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