| P · prime | trait/stereotype words (scrambled sentences) |
| T · target | the subsequent behavioural situation |
| B · baseline | behaviour with neutral priming |
| E · priming effect | behaviour shifts (e.g. slower walking after 'elderly') |
| A · association | congruent (positive) |
phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | automatic social behavior priming— “We propose that social behavior is often triggered automatically on the mere presence of relevant situational features; this behavior is unmediated by conscious perceptual or judgmental processes.” | |
| claim-type | existence— “Our central message is that social behavior can be triggered automatically by features of the environment.” | |
| method — evidence | — “The three experiments we report in this article were designed to provide a definitive test of this hypothesis.” | |
| mechanism | automatic behavior priming (perception-behavior link): activating a trait or stereotype concept directly and unconsciously increases the tendency to act in line with it— “participants for whom an elderly stereotype was primed walked more slowly down the hallway when leaving the experiment than did control participants, consistent with the content of that stereotype” | mechanisms[0] |
| extends | priming research on social perception— “We argue here that such passive, automatic effects of priming need not be limited to social perception.” | claim_relations[0] |
| extends | Berkowitz and LePage (1967) and Carver et al. (1983)— “These studies showed that the intentional behavior could be affected in intensity or duration by the aggression priming manipulation (the presence of guns or prior exposure to synonyms of aggression), but they did not show the behavior to be produced automatically, in the absence of that explicitly given intention.” | claim_relations[1] |
| builds-on | Carver et al. (1983) behavioral schema model— “Thus, our results are in harmony with those of Carver et al. (1983), who advanced a "behavioral schema" model as an explanation for modeling effects.” | claim_relations[2] |
| replicates | Devine (1989, Experiment 2)— “This finding corresponds to that of Devine (1989, Experiment 2), who found that the automatic effect of the African American stereotype on social perception did not vary as a function of level of consciously expressed prejudice, as measured by the Modern Racism Scale.” | claim_relations[3] |
| sense | PRIMING DEFINED AS AN ORDINARY FEATURE OF BEING SOMEWHERE: `Priming refers to the incidental activation of knowledge structures, such as trait concepts and stereotypes, by the current situational context.` Not a laboratory operation - a description of what situations do to people continuously, of which the experiment is a controlled instance. That is the same move srull-wyer1979 makes when it says accessibility rises with the number of activations `in the past`, and it is what licenses generalising from a word-scramble task to walking down a corridor— “Priming refers to the incidental activation of knowledge structures, such as trait concepts and stereotypes, by the current situational context” | senses[0] |
| sense | THE DESIGN LOGIC IN ONE SENTENCE: `The same priming techniques that have been shown in prior research to influence impression formation produce similar effects when the dependent measure is switched to social behavior.` Only the dependent measure changed. The manipulation is held constant against the 1977-79 accessibility work and the outcome is swapped from a judgement to an action - which makes this a claim about the SCOPE of an established effect rather than a new effect. And it means the replication debate about this paper is unavoidably also about higgins1977 and srull-wyer1979, both of which are in this corpus— “The same priming techniques that have been shown in prior research to influence impression formation produce similar effects when the dependent measure is switched to social behavior” | senses[1] |
| sense | THE EFFECT TAKES THE CONTENT OF WHAT WAS PRIMED, WHICH IS WHAT RULES OUT AROUSAL OR MOOD: rudeness produced interrupting `more quickly and frequently`, the elderly stereotype produced walking `more slowly down the hallway ... consistent with the content of that stereotype`, and the third prime produced hostility. Three primes, three different behaviours, each matching its own prime - a general activation account predicts one direction for all three and gets none of them— “In Experiment 2, participants for whom an elderly stereotype was primed walked more slowly down the hallway when leaving the experiment than did control participants, consistent with the content of that stereotype” | senses[2] |
| sense | AND TWO THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ARE OFFERED WITH NEITHER CHOSEN. First, situationally linked behaviour: `a person has behavioral responses (e.g., assertiveness, anger, patience) that are associatively linked to particular situations.` Then: `another theoretical perspective CONSISTENT WITH the present findings is that of an AUTOMATIC PERCEPTION-BEHAVIOR LINK.` Both are said to fit and the paper stops there. dijksterhuis1998, tagged one record earlier, takes the second and builds on it - so the corpus holds the fork and the branch that was taken— “One explanation for the present results is in terms of situationally linked behavior; that is, that a person has behavioral responses (e.g., assertiveness, anger, patience) that are associatively linked to particular situations” | senses[3] |
| control | the priming condition was assigned by a SECOND EXPERIMENTER who had no contact with the participant — held — rules out that the experimenter who ran the session knew the condition and shaped the behaviour being measured - the classic experimenter-expectancy route to a priming effect— “Which of the three versions (rude, polite, or neutral priming) the participant received had been randomly determined by another experimenter who did not have any contact with the participant, with the constraint that approximately equal numbers of participants received each of the forms.” | controls[0] |
| control | participants were partially debriefed and questioned about whether they thought the scrambled-sentence task had influenced them — held — rules out that participants worked out the manipulation and complied with what they took to be the hypothesis— “After the participant had completed this task, he or she was partially debriefed and questioned concerning how they thought the first, scrambled-sentence test might have influenced them in the rest of the experiment.” | controls[1] |
| effect direction | trait construct —causes→ behavior — increases— “Across three experiments, the activation of a trait construct or a stereotype in one context resulted in behavior consistent with it in a subsequent unrelated context”— “resulted in behavior consistent with it in a subsequent unrelated context” | concept_edges[0] |
| note | trait construct —causes→ behavior — 'consistent with it' AND 'subsequent unrelated context' ARE BOTH IN THE QUOTE AND BOTH ARE LOAD-BEARING. The behaviour matches the CONTENT of what was primed, which excludes a general arousal account; and the second context is UNRELATED, which is what makes it a carry-over rather than a demand effect. Weight 0.9: the discussion's opening summary of three experiments, and this is the paper's central claim.— “Across three experiments, the activation of a trait construct or a stereotype in one context resulted in behavior consistent with it in a subsequent unrelated context” | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | trait construct —causes→ behavior — 0.9— “Across three experiments, the activation of a trait construct or a stereotype in one context resulted in behavior consistent with it in a subsequent unrelated context” | concept_edges[0] |
| effect direction | stereotype —causes→ behavior — increases— “Across three experiments, the activation of a trait construct or a stereotype in one context resulted in behavior consistent with it in a subsequent unrelated context”— “resulted in behavior consistent with it” | concept_edges[1] |
| note | stereotype —causes→ behavior — 'increases' MEANS MORE STEREOTYPE-CONSISTENT BEHAVIOUR, NOT MORE OF ANY MEASURED QUANTITY, AND THE DISTINCTION MATTERS HERE. In Experiment 2 the measurement WENT DOWN - participants primed with 'elderly' WALKED MORE SLOWLY. A reader taking 'increases' as 'the number went up' would have that experiment backwards. The axis is recording consistency with the primed content, which is what the quote says, and the three experiments move three different dependent variables in three directions.— “Across three experiments, the activation of a trait construct or a stereotype in one context resulted in behavior consistent with it in a subsequent unrelated context” | concept_edges[1] |
| weight | stereotype —causes→ behavior — 0.9— “Across three experiments, the activation of a trait construct or a stereotype in one context resulted in behavior consistent with it in a subsequent unrelated context” | concept_edges[1] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[1] |
| replication | untested | |
| limitation | The paper describes itself as a first demonstration whose boundary conditions are not yet known.— “As a first demonstration of automatic social behavior, the limits and parameters of these effects remain to be established.” | limitations[0] |
| limitation | The Experiment 1 timing measure suffered from a severe ceiling effect because most participants never interrupted.— “Fully 21 of the 34 participants did not interrupt at all in the 10 min available to them, so that the time variable suffered from a severe ceiling effect.” | limitations[1] |
| limitation | The authors concede the strength of behavioural versus judgemental priming effects cannot really be compared across their situations.— “Although ultimately one cannot really compare the strength of priming effects on behavioral versus judgmental measures, because there are too many differences between the experimental situations to allow for a meaningful comparison, we can point to some differences that are likely to produce greater or lesser priming effects.” | limitations[2] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | rudeness-primed participants interrupted more quickly and frequently— “whose concept of rudeness was primed interrupted the experimenter more quickly and frequently” | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | elderly-stereotype-primed participants walked more slowly— “elderly stereotype was primed walked more slowly down the hallway when leaving the experiment than did control participants” | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | subliminal race-stereotype priming increased hostility— “the African American stereotype was primed subliminally reacted with more hostility to a vexatious request of the experimenter” | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | attitudes activate automatically on mere presence of the object— “become activated automatically on the mere presence of the attitude” | content_tags.findings[3] |
| evidence status note | finding — QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. | content_tags.findings[3] |
| quantity | 3 experiments — studies of behavior priming reported— “The three experiments we report in this article were designed to provide a definitive test of this hypothesis.” | content_tags.quantities[0] |
| evidence status note | quantity — marked quote-not-in-current-staged-text - today's merge gate would REFUSE this quote: Paper.locate() does not find it in the current staged text, and no disclosure on the row explains why. Update, 15 September 2026: CLEARED evidence status='quote-not-in-current-staged-text' - the quote was replaced (RE-CUT) and the new quote locates exactly once in the current staged text. | content_tags.quantities[0] |
| quantity | 2 decades — span of automaticity research reviewed— “over the past two decades, researchers in the area of attitudes and social cognition have documented that many of the phenomena they study are unintentional or automatic in nature” | content_tags.quantities[2] |
| variable | behavioral response (dependent measure (interrupting, walking, hostility))— “walked more slowly down the hallway when leaving the experiment” | content_tags.variables[1] |
| definition | priming— “Priming refers to the incidental activation of knowledge structures, such as trait concepts and stereotypes” | content_tags.definitions[0] |
| definition | automaticity— “many of the phenomena they study are unintentional or automatic” | content_tags.definitions[1] |
| evidence status note | definition — QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. | content_tags.definitions[1] |
| definition | stereotype activation— “Stereotypes become active automatically on the mere presence of physical features associated with the stereotyped group” | content_tags.definitions[2] |
| definition | self-fulfilling prophecies— “effect for self-fulfilling prophecies” | content_tags.definitions[3] |
| key-terms | priming, automaticity, stereotype, trait construct, social behavior, activation, unconscious, impression formation, self-fulfilling prophecies, social perception |
| concept | priming— “Priming refers to the incidental activation of knowledge structures, such as trait concepts and stereotypes, by the current situational context” | concepts[0] |
| concept | trait construct — not defined in this paper's own words; one of the two things activated - a trait concept such as rudeness or politeness - and the paper's claim is that activating it changes what a person DOES, not only how they judge someone else— “Across three experiments, the activation of a trait construct or a stereotype in one context resulted in behavior consistent with it in a subsequent unrelated context” | concepts[7] |
| concept | stereotype — not defined in this paper's own words; the other thing activated - 'elderly', or a racial category - and the effect takes its CONTENT: the elderly prime produced slower walking, 'consistent with the content of that stereotype'— “Across three experiments, the activation of a trait construct or a stereotype in one context resulted in behavior consistent with it in a subsequent unrelated context” | concepts[8] |
| concept | behavior — not defined in this paper's own words; THE SWITCH THIS PAPER MAKES. The same priming techniques had been used for twenty years on impression formation; here the dependent measure becomes what the participant does - interrupting, walking speed, hostility— “Across three experiments, the activation of a trait construct or a stereotype in one context resulted in behavior consistent with it in a subsequent unrelated context” | concepts[9] |
| ANOVA F | — “A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) of these data, with priming condition as the single factor, revealed a significant main effect, F(2, 33) = 5.76, p = .008.” | content_tags.statistics[0] |
| hypothesis-testing | as written: hypothesis tested— “The specific hypothesis tested was that the proportion of participants who interrupted the experimenter would increase as a function of the trait concept primed, from politeness through no priming to rudeness” | content_tags.statistics[1] |
| evidence status note | hypothesis-testing — QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. | content_tags.statistics[1] |
| mean μ | as written: average of— “We conducted a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) using priming condition as the independent variable and the average of the four emotion scales and the average of the four arousal scales as the dependent measures” | content_tags.statistics[2] |
| evidence status note | mean — QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. | content_tags.statistics[2] |
| p-value p | as written: p = .008— “A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) of these data, with priming condition as the single factor, revealed a significant main effect, F(2, 33) = 5.76, p = .008.” | content_tags.statistics[3] |
| statistical-significance | as written: significant— “A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) of these data, with priming condition as the single factor, revealed a significant main effect, F(2, 33) = 5.76, p = .008.” | content_tags.statistics[4] |
| t-test t | as written: t(28) =— “In the replication, analyses revealed that participants in the elderly priming condition (M = 8.20 s) again had a slower walking speed compared to participants in the neutral priming condition (M = 7.23 s), t(28) = 2.16, p < .05” | content_tags.statistics[5] |
| evidence status note | t-test — QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. | content_tags.statistics[5] |
| variance σ² | content_tags.statistics[6] |
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