phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | racial priming by implicit (dog-whistle) political appeals— “Do appeals that subtly invoke negative racial stereotypes shift whites’ political attitudes by harnessing their racial prejudice?” | |
| claim-type | mechanism— “Our findings suggest that implicit racial appeals can harness racial resentment to influence policy views, though specifically among racially resentful white liberals.” | |
| method — evidence | — “Here we report the results of two Internet-based survey experiments (total N = 1,797) designed to answer these questions.” | |
| mechanism | Subtly cued racial stereotypes lower perceived deservingness of welfare recipients, and that reduced deservingness in turn reduces support for welfare spending.— “This offers evidence that the implicit racial appeal reduced participants’ support for welfare programs in part by leading them to view welfare recipients as less deserving.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | Colorblind norms in liberal political culture suppress discussion of black Americans' outcomes, so liberals lack ready structural explanations and cannot rebut appeals that tie those outcomes to racial stereotypes.— “Another possible explanation is that norms of colorblindness in liberal political culture impair the development of structural explanations of negative outcomes among black Americans, leaving liberals ill equipped to rebuff messages linking outcomes such as welfare utilization or criminal justice involvement to negative racial… | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | Repeated exposure to racialized welfare rhetoric builds chronic race-policy associations among moderates and conservatives, leaving no room for a novel appeal to strengthen the link further.— “Therefore, continued exposure to racialized rhetoric around welfare policy may have led to strong chronic associations between whites’ racial attitudes and their views on welfare (Gilens 1996; Hurwitz and Peffley 2005), which might decrease the capacity for novel racial appeals to increase the (already strong) relationship between racial… | mechanisms[2] |
| mechanism | THE PAPER FLAGS ITS OWN CENTRAL FINDING AS UNPREDICTED, IN THE ABSTRACT, AND SUPPLIES THE GROUND FOR BELIEVING IT ANYWAY IN THE SAME SENTENCE: THAT DOG-WHISTLE EFFECTS WOULD BE CONCENTRATED AMONG LIBERALS WAS NOT PREDICTED IN ADVANCE, but this finding appears across two experiments testing effects of racial appeals in policy domains - welfare and gun control - THAT DIFFER IN THE EXTENT AND WAYS THEY HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY RACIALIZED. The replication is offered as the answer to the post-hoc objection, and the two domains are chosen for their difference rather than their similarity— “That dog-whistle effects would be concentrated among liberals was not predicted in advance, but this finding appears across two experiments testing effects of racial appeals in policy domains—welfare and gun control—that differ in the extent and ways they have been previously racialized. We also find evidence” | mechanisms[3] |
| mechanism | THE MODERATOR IS MEASURED TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE TREATMENT, which is what lets it be read as a disposition the message ACTS ON rather than an attitude the message produced: white Americans' racial attitudes were measured TWO WEEKS BEFORE they read political messages in which references to racial stereotypes were implicit, explicit, or not present at all— “Here we test the hypothesis in two experiments (total N = 1,797) in which white Americans’ racial attitudes were measured two weeks before they read political messages in which references to racial stereotypes were implicit, explicit, or not present at all” | mechanisms[4] |
| mechanism | AND THE CONTROL CONDITION IS REPORTED AS PARTLY FAILING ITS OWN THEORY: the same group OCCASIONALLY RESPONDED TO EXPLICIT RACIAL APPEALS EVEN THOUGH THESE APPEALS WERE RECOGNIZED AS RACIALLY INSENSITIVE. On the dog-whistle account an explicit appeal should be neutralised by the egalitarian norm the moment it is recognised, so a recognised appeal that still moves opinion is a result against the mechanism, reported by its own testers— “We also find evidence that the same group occasionally responded to explicit racial appeals even though these appeals were recognized as racially insensitive” | mechanisms[5] |
| contradicts | racial priming theory (the dog-whistle hypothesis as previously formulated)— “However, among participants as whole, we found no evidence that the implicit appeal increases the strength of participants’ racial prejudice on their evaluation of welfare programs, contrary to what racial priming theory would predict.” | claim_relations[0] |
| extends | the dog-whistle hypothesis— “These findings extend the dog-whistle hypothesis by demonstrating that ideology can condition whites’ responses to racial appeals.” | claim_relations[1] |
| builds-on | Hutchings et al. (2010)— “This explanation is consistent with previous research suggesting that implicit racial appeals are more effective than explicit appeals only among social groups that endorse norms of egalitarianism (Hutchings et al. 2010).” | claim_relations[2] |
| sense | the dog-whistle hypothesis / racial priming theory - ONE THEORY UNDER TWO NAMES, and this paper is where the corpus can see it, because the equivalence is stated rather than inferred: `the dog-whistle hypothesis, or racial priming theory`. The first name comes from political communication, the second from political psychology— “The dog-whistle hypothesis, or racial priming theory, rests on the assumption that white Americans in the post-Civil Rights era maintain conflicting and ambivalent attitudes toward racial issues, particularly those pertaining to African Americans” | senses[0] |
| sense | implicit versus explicit, as this literature means it - not about the SUBJECT'S awareness of being influenced, as in the media-priming records, but about whether the MESSAGE names its racial content. The condition is a property of the stimulus, and the theory's prediction is that only the unnamed version can work— “Here we test the hypothesis in two experiments (total N = 1,797) in which white Americans’ racial attitudes were measured two weeks before they read political messages in which references to racial stereotypes were implicit, explicit, or not present at all” | senses[1] |
| sense | an unpredicted finding, marked as one BY THE AUTHORS IN THE ABSTRACT - and given, in the same sentence, the reason it should still be believed: it appears across two experiments in policy domains that differ in how far they have been racialized. A post-hoc result and its own robustness argument, stated together— “That dog-whistle effects would be concentrated among liberals was not predicted in advance, but this finding appears across two experiments testing effects of racial appeals in policy domains—welfare and gun control—that differ in the extent and ways they have been previously racialized. We also find evidence” | senses[2] |
| control | a control condition carrying a CONSERVATIVE ARGUMENT with no racial content — held — rules out that the response is to conservative political argument as such rather than to the racial appeal - the control matches the ideology and removes only the race— “The control condition featured a conservative argument with no racial content.” | controls[0] |
| note | dog-whistle hypothesis —same-as→ racial priming theory — THE EQUIVALENCE IS STATED, NOT INFERRED - 'the dog-whistle hypothesis, OR racial priming theory' - which is rarer in this corpus than the two names are. Elsewhere tonight the corpus had to infer that two literatures were discussing one thing; here the authors say so in passing because they need both audiences.— “The dog-whistle hypothesis, or racial priming theory, rests on the assumption that white Americans in the post-Civil Rights era maintain conflicting and ambivalent attitudes toward racial issues, particularly those pertaining to African Americans” | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | dog-whistle hypothesis —same-as→ racial priming theory — 0.95— “The dog-whistle hypothesis, or racial priming theory, rests on the assumption that white Americans in the post-Civil Rights era maintain conflicting and ambivalent attitudes toward racial issues, particularly those pertaining to African Americans” | concept_edges[0] |
| audit | implicit —distinct-from→ explicit — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but implicit and explicit racial appeals; distinct-from is implied.— “Here we test the hypothesis in two experiments (total N = 1,797) in which white Americans’ racial attitudes were measured two weeks before they read political messages in which references to racial stereotypes were implicit, explicit, or not present at all” | concept_edges[1] |
| differs in | implicit —distinct-from→ explicit — WHETHER THE MESSAGE NAMES ITS RACIAL CONTENT - a property of the stimulus, not of the subject's awareness of being influenced. The theory predicts only the unnamed version can work— “Here we test the hypothesis in two experiments (total N = 1,797) in which white Americans’ racial attitudes were measured two weeks before they read political messages in which references to racial stereotypes were implicit, explicit, or not present at all”— “references to racial stereotypes were implicit, explicit, or not present” | concept_edges[1] |
| note | implicit —distinct-from→ explicit — Worth setting beside Hoewe2020, where 'implicit' is a property of the CONSUMER'S processing. Same word, different bearer.— “Here we test the hypothesis in two experiments (total N = 1,797) in which white Americans’ racial attitudes were measured two weeks before they read political messages in which references to racial stereotypes were implicit, explicit, or not present at all” | concept_edges[1] |
| weight | implicit —distinct-from→ explicit — 0.9— “Here we test the hypothesis in two experiments (total N = 1,797) in which white Americans’ racial attitudes were measured two weeks before they read political messages in which references to racial stereotypes were implicit, explicit, or not present at all” | concept_edges[1] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| replication | contested | |
| limitation | Using real political rhetoric bought external validity at the cost of internal validity.— “Here we used actual political rhetoric employed by conservative politicians or groups to increase the real-world relevance of our findings, but we acknowledge that we sacrificed some internal validity for external validity.” | limitations[0] |
| limitation | Stylistic differences remain between the implicit and explicit excerpts despite matching for length, theme and argument content.— “Although we attempted to match the implicit and explicit appeals as closely as possible for length, racial themes employed, and content of the arguments, there are stylistic differences between the excerpts that are difficult to avoid in testing effects of naturally occurring racial appeals.” | limitations[1] |
| limitation | MTurk samples are unsuited to describing the characteristics of the racially resentful liberal subgroup the results hinge on.— “Although the MTurk samples we use in the current research are appropriate given our primary concern for causal inference (Coppock et al. 2018; Levay et al. 2016), they are not well suited for descriptive purposes like examining the characteristics of specific subpopulations.” | limitations[2] |
| limitation | No data on participants' non-racial policy attitudes, so the concern that these 'liberals' may be ideologically mislabelled cannot be fully addressed.— “We do not have sufficient data to fully address this concern because we lack data on participants’ nonracial policy attitudes.” | limitations[3] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | In Study 1, participants who read an implicit racial appeal opposing welfare reported significantly less support for welfare than those who read a message with no racial appeal.— “Participants assigned to the implicit racial appeal condition reported significantly less support for welfare than those assigned to the no racial appeal condition (p = .02).” | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | The welfare dog-whistle effect was concentrated among self-identified liberals high in racial resentment, who became less supportive of welfare after the implicit appeal.— “We find a negative three-way interaction between liberalism, racial resentment, and the implicit racial appeal condition (p = .04) such that liberals high in racial resentment were less supportive of welfare after reading the implicit racial appeal compared to a message with no racial appeal.” | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | In Study 2, implicit racial appeals increased the effect of prior racial attitudes on gun-control support among liberals.— “Looking first at the effect of the implicit appeal, results suggest that implicit racial appeals increased the effect of prior racial attitudes on support for gun control among liberals.” | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | In Study 2 the implicit appeal also harnessed explicit racial prejudice, making prejudiced liberals more supportive of gun control than in the control condition.— “In addition, we found a similar positive, three-way interaction between liberalism, explicit racial prejudice, and the implicit racial appeal condition (p = .006) such that liberals high in explicit racial prejudice were also more likely to voice support for gun control after reading the implicit racial appeal compared to a message with no… | content_tags.findings[3] |
| finding | Implicit and explicit racial appeals did not differ significantly in how much they increased the impact of racial attitudes on policy views.— “we found no statistically significant differences between implicit and explicit appeals’ effects in their ability to increase the impact of racial dispositions on whites’ policy views.” | content_tags.findings[4] |
| finding | Among political moderates the implicit pro-gun-control appeal backfired, lowering gun-control support among the most racially prejudiced rather than raising it.— “Among moderates, pro– gun control messages implicitly invoking racial stereotypes decreased support for gun control among those high in racial prejudice, the opposite effect of what the dog-whistle hypothesis would predict.” | content_tags.findings[5] |
| finding | EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED - THE POINTER WAS WRONG, NOT THE CLAIM) · Racially resentful white liberals were particularly likely to have switched from Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016. | content_tags.findings[6] |
| retracted | finding — RE-GROUNDED - THE POINTER WAS WRONG, NOT THE CLAIM. The old evidence was verbatim, anchored and correctly cut, and it contained NONE of this claim's numbers (2012, 2016). The paper states the claim in one sentence elsewhere and the tagger did not use it. the project, 2026-08-23: 'WE HAVE SPENT THE DAY VERIFYING THAT QUOTES ARE REAL AND NONE OF IT ASKS WHETHER THEY ARE RELEVANT.' Confirmed by reading the claim, the old span and the candidate together; the candidate carries every number AND the claim's own content words. | content_tags.findings[6] |
| quantity | N = 1,797 — total white participants across the two survey experiments | content_tags.quantities[0] |
| quantity | 865 — Study 1 participants retained for analysis after excluding 34 for implausible reading times | content_tags.quantities[1] |
| quantity | p = .04 — significance of the three-way liberalism x racial resentment x implicit appeal interaction on welfare support 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 | Cronbach’s α = .92 — internal consistency of the eight-item racial resentment scale 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 | 3.1 percent — share of the US population that racially resentful white liberals constitute, roughly 10 million people 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] |
| quantity | About 20 percent — share of white liberals in each sample and in 2016 ANES who count as high in racial resentment 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[5] |
| variable | racial appeal (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 | welfare support (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[1] |
| variable | support for gun control (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 | welfare recipient deservingness (mediator) 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[5] |
| variable | political knowledge (moderator) 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[6] |
| variable | racial resentment (moderator) 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[7] |
| variable | explicit racial prejudice (moderator) 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[8] |
| definition | dog-whistle hypothesis 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 | implicit racial appeal 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] |
| concept | dog-whistle hypothesis — not defined in this paper's own words; the political-communication name for the claim, and the paper equates it with the psychology literature's name in the same breath 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 | racial priming theory — not defined in this paper's own words; the SAME theory under the name its other literature uses - and the equivalence is stated in passing, by authors who need both audiences to recognise what they are testing 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 | racial resentment — not defined in this paper's own words; the disposition the appeal is said to HARNESS rather than create - the paper's verb - and the finding attached to it is restricted to one ideological subgroup 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 | implicit — not defined in this paper's own words; the dog-whistle condition: the racial content is present but not stated, which on the theory is the only form that can work 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 | explicit — not defined in this paper's own words; the control the theory predicts should FAIL, because naming the racial content is supposed to trigger the egalitarian norm that suppresses the appeal 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 | liberals — not defined in this paper's own words; the subgroup the effect turned out to be concentrated in, and the paper says plainly that this was not predicted 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] |
| regression | as written: ordinary least squares (OLS) regression 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] |
| Cronbach's alpha α | as written: Cronbach’s α = .92 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] |
| bootstrap | as written: bootstrap analysis of mediation 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] |
| confidence interval | as written: 95 percent confidence interval 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[3] |
| logistic regression | 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[4] |
| p-value p | as written: p = .02 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[5] |
| mean M | as written: M = 39.8 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[6] |
| standard deviation SD | as written: SD = 12.8 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[7] |
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