phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | consumer priming— “Priming techniques are frequently used in marketing, advertising, and consumer behavior research but a holistic understanding of these techniques, measurement challenges, and theoretical foundations is not found in the literature.” | |
| claim-type | method— “We add to this work by providing researchers a means for thinking about and constructing research on priming.” | |
| method — evidence | — “In the discussion to follow, the most common methods of priming in both psychology and marketing are reviewed, thereby fulfilling a call by Janiszewski and Wyer (2014) to identify ways to influence what is being primed.” | |
| transfer | from attitude psychology: The tri-component ABC model of attitudes is imported as the organizing scheme for a marketing/consumer-behaviour priming framework.— “In developing the priming framework, each type of prime is categorized by priming outcome: affective, behavioral, and cognitive, which follows suit with the tri-component ABC model of attitudes (Breckler, 1984).” | transfers[0] |
| mechanism | Following a primed procedure consumes cognitive resources, which keeps the primed representation active and slows its decay relative to a declarative prime.— “Because greater cognitive resources are devoted to following the procedure, decay of procedural primes is much slower than primes involving declarative knowledge, and this is borne out in many empirical findings.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | Uncertainty about a stimulus makes the consumer recruit the prime together with existing memory to resolve that uncertainty, which produces assimilation.— “In other words, assimilation effects are greatest when there is uncertainty surrounding a stimulus, and therefore, the prime is used with existing knowledge in memory to solve the uncertainty.” | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | High motivation raises processing depth, which triggers correction of the judgment for the perceived persuasion attempt and so flips assimilation into contrast.— “When motivation is high, processing is higher, leading to correction in judgments to account for persuasion.” | mechanisms[2] |
| extends | Janiszewski and Wyer (2014) review of priming in marketing— “This holistic priming framework extends Janiszewski and Wyer’s (2014) priming review to show the importance of priming limitations, especially in relation to survey research (i.e., measurement discrepancy).” | claim_relations[0] |
| builds-on | Breckler (1984) tri-component (ABC) model of attitudes— “The offered framework has benefited from the review of priming by Janiszewski and Wyer (2014) and the theorizing of the tri-component model (Breckler, 1984).” | claim_relations[1] |
| sense | A DEFINITION QUOTED AND THEN CORRECTED IN THE SAME PAGE, which is exactly what this corpus is for. McNamara (2005) is quoted verbatim - priming is `an IMPROVEMENT in performance in a perceptual or cognitive task, relative to an appropriate baseline, produced by context or prior experience` - and then: `while McNamara (2005) describes priming as an improvement in performance, priming can also involve A change in performance that is neutral or results in poorer performance.` The correction is not a rival definition; it strikes one word out of the standard one, and it does so because reactant priming exists— “It describes priming as an improvement in performance, priming can also involve a change in performance that is neutral or results in poorer performance, as will be evidenced in a later discussion on reactant priming responses” | senses[0] |
| sense | A NECESSARY CONDITION FOR BEING A PRIME, WHICH IS RARER THAN A DEFINITION: `Some researchers also refer to the prime as the stimulus or independent variable; however, a stimulus or an independent variable is only a prime if it increases knowledge activation that influences response to a target.` This says which manipulations are EXCLUDED, and it draws the boundary with a mechanism rather than with a procedure - so whether something is a prime is not settled by how it was presented or by what it looked like, but by what it did to activation— “Some researchers also refer to the prime as the stimulus or independent variable; however, a stimulus or an independent variable is only a prime if it increases knowledge activation that influences response to a target” | senses[1] |
| sense | THE TAXONOMY IS IMPORTED FROM ATTITUDE THEORY, NOT DERIVED FROM PRIMING RESEARCH: priming is sorted by OUTCOME into affective, behavioral and cognitive, `which follows suit with the tri-component ABC model of attitudes (Breckler, 1984)`. Sorting by outcome rather than by method is the substantive choice - two techniques that look nothing alike land in the same box if they move the same thing, and one technique can appear twice. The paper is explicit that this is a borrowing, which is what makes it checkable against the source literature— “In developing the priming framework, each type of prime is categorized by priming outcome: affective, behavioral, and cognitive, which follows suit with the tri-component ABC model of attitudes” | senses[2] |
| sense | THE COMPLAINT THAT MOTIVATES THE WHOLE REVIEW IS MONOCULTURE, NOT ERROR: `Most marketing research cites spreading activation theory as the underlying process model of priming, without adequate attention to other theories of priming.` Nobody is said to be wrong. The charge is that one account is cited by default, so its alternatives are never tested against it - and the paper's answer is to review prospective and retrospective memory models alongside it rather than to replace it— “Most marketing research cites spreading activation theory as the underlying process model of priming, without adequate attention to other theories of priming” | senses[3] |
| sense | `associative priming` and `semantic priming` - `RELATED ... enough that these two terms are often used interchangeably (Lucas, 2000)`, in a review that then separates them. The conflation is reported and the distinction is drawn in the same paragraph.— “Associative priming, yet another form of cognitive priming, is related to semantic priming, enough that these two terms are often used interchangeably (Lucas, 2000)” | senses[4] |
| effect direction | prime —causes→ knowledge activation — increases— “Some researchers also refer to the prime as the stimulus or independent variable; however, a stimulus or an independent variable is only a prime if it increases knowledge activation that influences response to a target”— “only a prime if it increases knowledge activation” | concept_edges[0] |
| note | prime —causes→ knowledge activation — THIS EDGE IS DEFINITIONAL, NOT EMPIRICAL, AND THAT IS WHY IT IS WEIGHTED 0.95. The paper is not reporting that primes raise activation; it is saying that a thing which does not raise activation IS NOT A PRIME. The direction is inside the quote and cannot be read the other way.— “Some researchers also refer to the prime as the stimulus or independent variable; however, a stimulus or an independent variable is only a prime if it increases knowledge activation that influences response to a target” | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | prime —causes→ knowledge activation — 0.95— “Some researchers also refer to the prime as the stimulus or independent variable; however, a stimulus or an independent variable is only a prime if it increases knowledge activation that influences response to a target” | concept_edges[0] |
| differs in | prime —distinct-from→ target — WHICH SIDE OF THE MANIPULATION EACH IS ON. The prime is what raises activation; the target is what the prime is applied to and where the outcome is measured. The two definitions are mutually referring - neither can be stated without the other - so this is a distinction internal to one paradigm rather than between two things that exist independently— “Within the priming paradigm, the prime is the item used to manipulate or increase knowledge activation, and the target is what the prime is applied to in an effort to produce specific outcomes”— “the target is what the prime is applied to in an effort to produce specific outcomes” | concept_edges[1] |
| note | prime —distinct-from→ target — Both halves of the definition are in the one span, which is the point: the paper defines them together in a single sentence.— “Within the priming paradigm, the prime is the item used to manipulate or increase knowledge activation, and the target is what the prime is applied to in an effort to produce specific outcomes” | concept_edges[1] |
| weight | prime —distinct-from→ target — 0.9— “Within the priming paradigm, the prime is the item used to manipulate or increase knowledge activation, and the target is what the prime is applied to in an effort to produce specific outcomes” | concept_edges[1] |
| replication | untested | |
| limitation | The paper deliberately excludes the content-versus-process priming distinctions covered by the prior review it builds on, so its coverage of priming distinctions is partial by design.— “Specific distinctions made by Janiszewski and Wyer (2014), such as the nuances distinguishing content versus process priming, are not further discussed here in order to focus on new contributions.” | limitations[0] |
| limitation | The framework's central measurement-discrepancy proposal is asserted rather than empirically tested, and the authors state it still needs testing.— “There is a great need for further testing of measurement discrepancy issues to identify if measurement similarity provides new and more accurate insight into consumer behavior.” | limitations[1] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | The review sorts every priming technique into three outcome classes - affective, behavioral and cognitive - borrowed from the tri-component ABC model of attitudes.— “In developing the priming framework, each type of prime is categorized by priming outcome: affective, behavioral, and cognitive, which follows suit with the tri-component ABC model of attitudes (Breckler, 1984).” | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | Priming theories are grouped into two prospective theories - spreading activation and expectancy - and two retrospective theories - semantic matching and compound-cue.— “There are two main prospective priming theories: (i) spreading activation theory and (ii) expectancy theory, as well as two main retrospective priming theories: (i) semantic matching theory and (ii) compound-cue theory.” | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | Compound cue theory and spreading activation theory are in direct opposition, because they rest on different models of memory.— “Thus, while some theories may be able to work together as Neely and Keefe (1989) describe, compound cue theory and spreading activation, in particular, are in direct opposition to one another because of their foundation in different models of memory.” | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | Both prospective and retrospective theories end in increased knowledge activation.— “Both prospective and retrospective theories lead to the same end result of increased knowledge activation.” | content_tags.findings[3] |
| finding | A stimulus or independent variable counts as a prime only when it raises knowledge activation that then shapes the response to a target.— “Some researchers also refer to the prime as the stimulus or independent variable; however, a stimulus or an independent variable is only a prime if it increases knowledge activation that influences response to a target.” | content_tags.findings[4] |
| finding | The commonest measurement discrepancy in survey-based priming work is priming behavior but measuring the effect with cognitive purchase-intention questions.— “One of the most common discrepancies occurs when researchers create surveys that use behavioral priming methods to encourage a consumer to purchase a product, yet measure the effects of priming through cognitive-based purchase intention questions.” | content_tags.findings[5] |
| finding | Consumers respond to a prime consistently or reactantly, and the authors argue that reactance (contrast) may stem from trait and state variables such as skepticism or concern about persuasion.— “We argue that reactance (i.e., apparent contrast effects) may stem from trait and state variables such as a consumer’s tendency toward skepticism or manipulation of their concern for persuasion.” | content_tags.findings[6] |
| finding | Procedural primes decay much more slowly than primes of declarative knowledge.— “Because greater cognitive resources are devoted to following the procedure, decay of procedural primes is much slower than primes involving declarative knowledge, and this is borne out in many empirical findings.” | content_tags.findings[7] |
| quantity | 0.49 versus 0.25 — Average effect size of associative priming studies compared with semantic priming studies, as reported in the meta-review the paper cites— “In a meta-review of semantic priming studies, Lucas (2000) found that associative priming studies resulted in greater effect sizes (average of 0.49) in comparison with semantic priming studies (average of 0.25).” [ATTRIBUTED TO A CITED AUTHOR, NOT THIS PAPER] the paper’s own words: “Lucas (2000) found” | content_tags.quantities[0] |
| quantity | 0.26 — Size of the increase in priming effects attributed to the associative boost (a prime that is both semantically and associatively related)— “Lucas (2000) also shows that the associative boost (i.e., both semantic and associative relationships) increases priming effects by 0.26.” | content_tags.quantities[1] |
| definition | priming | content_tags.definitions[0] |
| definition | prime and target | content_tags.definitions[1] |
| definition | behavioral priming | content_tags.definitions[2] |
| definition | procedural priming | content_tags.definitions[3] |
| definition | goal priming | content_tags.definitions[4] |
| definition | cognitive 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[5] |
| definition | category 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[6] |
| definition | semantic 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[7] |
| definition | associative 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[8] |
| definition | associative boost 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[9] |
| definition | conceptual versus perceptual 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[10] |
| definition | repetition 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[11] |
| definition | contextual 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[12] |
| definition | masked 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[13] |
| definition | spreading activation theory 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[14] |
| definition | expectancy theory 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[15] |
| definition | semantic matching theory 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[16] |
| definition | compound cue theory 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[17] |
| definition | prospective theories of 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[18] |
| definition | priming method 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[19] |
| concept | priming — not defined in this paper's own words; defined here by quoting the field's standard definition AND THEN CORRECTING IT: McNamara's 'improvement in performance' is too narrow, because priming can leave performance unchanged or make it worse. The paper keeps the definition and refuses the word 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 | prime — not defined in this paper's own words; THE ITEM, and this paper states a NECESSARY CONDITION for being one rather than describing it: a stimulus is a prime only if it increases knowledge activation. Being an independent variable is not enough, which excludes most manipulations 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 | knowledge activation — not defined in this paper's own words; the quantity that does the defining work - what a prime must increase in order to be one. So the boundary of the category is drawn by a MECHANISM rather than by a procedure or a kind of 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. | concepts[2] |
| concept | target — not defined in this paper's own words; the other half of the pair, defined by what the prime is DONE TO - and the definition is relational: neither term means anything without the other 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 | ABC model — not defined in this paper's own words; the taxonomy the paper imports - Breckler's tri-component model of ATTITUDES - and uses to sort priming by its OUTCOME rather than by its method. The categories are attitude theory's, taken whole 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 | spreading activation theory — not defined in this paper's own words; the account the field defaults to, and the paper's opening complaint is that it is used ALONE - cited as the process model of priming without the alternatives being considered 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