phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | priming of cooperation in a public goods game— “Using priming techniques from social psychology, we activate the concept of cooperation and explore the extent to which this intervention brings about changes in people’s voluntary contributions to the public good and self-reported emotional responses.” | |
| claim-type | existence— “Our findings suggest that priming cooperation increases contribution levels, controlling for subjects’ gender.” | |
| method — evidence | — “In total, 51 subjects participated in the NP-treatment and 54 in the P-treatment.” | |
| transfer | from social psychology: the word-search priming procedure itself, lifted from psychology experiments and applied inside an incentivised economic game where money is at stake— “Using priming techniques from social psychology, we activate the concept of cooperation and explore the extent to which this intervention brings about changes in people’s voluntary contributions to the public good and self-reported emotional responses.” | transfers[0] |
| mechanism | Priming works in two steps: the cooperation words first raise women's beliefs about how much the other group members will give, and those raised beliefs then drive their own contribution decisions— “priming works in our subject pool is in two steps: first, positive primes shift females‟ beliefs about the contributions of the other counterparts and then, these beliefs shape their motivation and contribution decisions.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | The primes serve as anchors or focal points on which subjects can coordinate, which lowers the strategic risk of contributing and so releases more generous behaviour, particularly among women— “For instance, it could be that subjects regard primes as anchors or focal points, inducing them to coordinate on more” | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | The word-search puzzle acts as a subconscious reminder of cooperation, raising the accessibility of the concept at the moment of choice— “We assumed that by heightening the accessibility of the idea of cooperation in a social dilemma, individuals would raise their voluntary contributions towards the common resource, as priming would act a subconscious” | mechanisms[2] |
| builds-on | Bargh et al. (2001) word-search priming methodology— “Our procedure of priming subjects follows a methodology commonly used in other psychological experiments (see, for instance, Bargh, et al, 2001).” | claim_relations[0] |
| builds-on | Croson and Gneezy (2009) on gender differences in social preferences— “This is in agreement with the explanation suggested by Croson and Gneezy (2009) that women‟s behaviour is more context dependent than that of men (see also Gilligan (1982)).” | claim_relations[1] |
| sense | priming - the same formal definition this group uses in the 2015 publication, taken from Hertel & Fiedler: a PROCEDURAL feature, previously activated information acting on the processing of subsequent information. The definition is what makes the import from psychology into economics arguable at all— “Priming, which is formally defined as “the procedural feature that some previously activated information impacts on the processing of subsequent information” (see Hertel & Fiedler, 1998), is a prominent topic in social and cognitive psychology” | senses[0] |
| sense | priming as against framing - separated in a FOOTNOTE, and the distinction is the same one the 2015 paper puts in its main text: framing re-describes a logically equivalent decision problem; priming activates stored knowledge and leaves the problem alone— “At this point, it is worth emphasising that priming is a distinct notion from framing. The concept of framing refers to the re-description of a logically equivalent decision problem in a positive or negative light, whereas, priming refers to the implicit activation of some previously stored knowledge, without requiring the re-description of… | senses[1] |
| sense | revealed preferences, as used here - the actual tokens handed over in a one-shot public good game, offered as the behavioural counterpart to the self-reported emotions— “In terms of revealed preferences, we analyse the actual contributions made by subjects to a one-shot public good game.” | senses[2] |
| sense | how priming works, in THIS paper's own words - a two-step chain through beliefs, stated as a finding about the female subsample: primes move what females expect others to give, and that expectation moves what they give. The 2015 publication of the same experiment reports no belief effect and attributes the result to preferences instead— “priming works in our subject pool is in two steps: first, positive primes shift females‟ beliefs about the contributions of the other counterparts and then, these beliefs shape their motivation and contribution decisions.” | senses[3] |
| control | random allocation of participants to the two treatments before the experiment was run — held — rules out that a difference between treatments is a difference between the people who chose them— “Before we conduct the experiment, participants were randomly allocated to each of these two treatments.” | controls[0] |
| differs in | priming —distinct-from→ framing — WHETHER THE DECISION PROBLEM IS RE-DESCRIBED - framing restates a logically equivalent problem in a different light, priming activates stored knowledge and leaves the problem as it was— “At this point, it is worth emphasising that priming is a distinct notion from framing. The concept of framing refers to the re-description of a logically equivalent decision problem in a positive or negative light, whereas, priming refers to the implicit activation of some previously stored knowledge, without requiring the re-description of…— “without requiring the re-description of the decision problem” | concept_edges[0] |
| note | priming —distinct-from→ framing — Drawn in a footnote here and in the main text of the same authors' 2015 paper, in almost the same words. A distinction they carried across five years and two venues.— “At this point, it is worth emphasising that priming is a distinct notion from framing. The concept of framing refers to the re-description of a logically equivalent decision problem in a positive or negative light, whereas, priming refers to the implicit activation of some previously stored knowledge, without requiring the re-description of… | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | priming —distinct-from→ framing — 0.95— “At this point, it is worth emphasising that priming is a distinct notion from framing. The concept of framing refers to the re-description of a logically equivalent decision problem in a positive or negative light, whereas, priming refers to the implicit activation of some previously stored knowledge, without requiring the re-description of… | concept_edges[0] |
| depends on | priming —causes→ contribution levels — a gender control - the sentence states the result only under it— “Our findings suggest that priming cooperation increases contribution levels, controlling for subjects’ gender.”— “controlling for subjects’ gender” | concept_edges[1] |
| effect direction | priming —causes→ contribution levels — increases— “Our findings suggest that priming cooperation increases contribution levels, controlling for subjects’ gender.”— “Our findings suggest that priming cooperation increases contribution levels” | concept_edges[1] |
| note | priming —causes→ contribution levels — WEIGHTED WELL BELOW THE 2015 EDGE FOR THE SAME CLAIM, and the qualifier is why: in this wave the RAW difference is not significant (Wilcoxon two-sided p = 0.249, Kolmogorov-Smirnov p = 0.552), and, elsewhere in the paper, the effect reaches only the 10% level once gender is added. The published version with a second wave finds it in the raw comparison.— “Our findings suggest that priming cooperation increases contribution levels, controlling for subjects’ gender.” | concept_edges[1] |
| weight | priming —causes→ contribution levels — 0.7— “Our findings suggest that priming cooperation increases contribution levels, controlling for subjects’ gender.” | concept_edges[1] |
| holds when | priming —causes→ beliefs — in the female subsample - the sentence names females as the ones whose beliefs shift— “priming works in our subject pool is in two steps: first, positive primes shift females‟ beliefs about the contributions of the other counterparts and then, these beliefs shape their motivation and contribution decisions.” | concept_edges[2] |
| note | priming —causes→ beliefs — THE FIRST STEP OF THIS PAPER'S MECHANISM, AND THE ONE THE 2015 PUBLICATION CONTRADICTS: there, priming does not affect beliefs at all, and that null is what licenses the preferences claim. See the unhoused-relations row on this record. | concept_edges[2] |
| weight | priming —causes→ beliefs — 0.6 | concept_edges[2] |
| note | beliefs —causes→ contribution decisions — The second step. Both steps come from one sentence, and the paper presents them as a sequence rather than a correlation. 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 | beliefs —causes→ contribution decisions — 0.6 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→ emotional responses — increases Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[4] |
| note | priming —causes→ emotional responses — The paper's cleanest positive result, and the one the 2015 publication drops entirely - there the emotions data are collected and then set aside unused. 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[4] |
| weight | priming —causes→ emotional responses — 0.8 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. | concept_edges[4] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| replication | untested | |
| no type for this | priming works through a shift in females’ beliefs (this paper, IZA DP 4963, May 2010) → priming does not affect beliefs and works by changing preferences (the same authors' published version, Theory and Decision 2015, in this corpus as drouvelis2015-cooperation-priming) — SAME AUTHORS, SAME EXPERIMENT, OPPOSITE MECHANISM - AND THE SCHEMA HAS NO TYPE FOR IT. The 2015 paper reports two waves, the first run in 2009 with 51 and 54 subjects, which is this paper's N. So this working paper is wave one and the publication is wave one plus wave two. In wave one the raw contribution difference is NOT significant (Wilcoxon two-sided p = 0.249) and the effect appears only with a gender control at the 10% level, carried by a four-cell split of 105 subjects (19, 25, 32, 29); the mechanism is stated as two steps through female beliefs. In the pooled publication the raw difference IS significant (p = 0.044 one-sided), there is `insufficient evidence to suggest that the effect of priming varies significantly across ... gender`, and `priming does not affect subjects' beliefs`, which is precisely what licenses its claim that priming works through PREFERENCES. So the whole two-step belief mechanism, and the gender effect that motivated it, are absent from the published version of the same experiment. Neither paper is being called wrong here: more data arrived and a subgroup result did not survive it. What the corpus can record is that both statements exist, that they are by the same authors about the same data plus more, and where each one is. `superseded-by` / `revised-in` is the type this needs and the vocabulary does not have it - on the schema's missing relation 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 | The paper says nothing about long-term or repeated-play effects of priming, or about applicability beyond public goods games. 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 | Because a one-shot design was used, whether the priming effect persists with repetition is left open. 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 | Beliefs were elicited without incentives, so belief reports are not incentive-compatible. 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] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | Solving a word-search puzzle seeded with cooperation words raised voluntary contributions to a one-shot public good once subjects' gender was controlled for. 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 | Mean contributions did not differ significantly between primed and unprimed treatments (p = 0.249). Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | The effect was concentrated in women: positively primed females contributed about 3.25 tokens more than neutrally primed females, whereas priming did not move male contributions. 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 | Primed women expected more from their partners than primed men did, believing the other two group members would contribute 9.52 tokens against 6.44 tokens. 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 | Within each treatment a subject's own contribution rose with what that subject believed others would contribute, the association being slightly tighter under 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.findings[4] |
| finding | Priming shifted self-reported positive emotions (significantly so when partners contributed at least as much as the subject) but left negative emotions unchanged. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[5] |
| finding | Full cooperators contributing the whole 20-token endowment appeared only in the primed treatment, at 13 per cent, and were absent from the neutral treatment. 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[6] |
| finding | In both treatments the most common contribution choices were the extremes of giving nothing or giving half the endowment. 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[7] |
| quantity | 51 ... 54 — subjects in the neutrally primed treatment and in the positively primed treatment 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 | N = 19 ... N = 25 ... N = 32 ... N = 29 — cell sizes of the four gender-by-treatment groups used in the 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.quantities[1] |
| quantity | 5 tokens — mean contribution out of a 20-token endowment in the neutrally primed treatment 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 | 6.89 tokens — mean contribution in the positively primed treatment 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 | 1.889 — raw uncontrolled contribution difference between primed and neutral groups, not significant 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 | 2.104 — priming coefficient once gender is added as a control, significant at the 10 per cent level 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] |
| quantity | 4.165 — extra tokens contributed by positively primed females relative to neutrally primed males, significant at 5 per cent 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[6] |
| quantity | ρ = 0.572 and ρ = 0.6734 — correlation between own contribution and beliefs about others' contributions, neutral and primed treatments 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[7] |
| quantity | p-value = 0.000 — difference in mean positive emotions between treatments when partners' deviations were non-negative 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[8] |
| quantity | 0.5 money units — per-member return on each token contributed, against a private return of 1 for keeping it Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[9] |
| quantity | £0.40 per guilder — exchange rate used to convert experimental earnings into cash payments 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[10] |
| variable | priming manipulation (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 | Level of contributions (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 | Beliefs about contributions (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 | gender (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[4] |
| variable | field of study and nationality (control) 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] |
| 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[0] |
| definition | framing 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 | NP-treatment and P-treatment 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] |
| concept | priming — not defined in this paper's own words; the intervention, taken from psychology with a formal definition attached and imported whole into an incentivised economic game 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 priming is separated from, in a footnote that defines both: framing re-describes an equivalent problem, priming activates stored knowledge without re-describing anything 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 | contribution levels — not defined in this paper's own words; the dependent variable, and the paper is careful about what carries it: the increase is reported only once gender is controlled for 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 | beliefs — not defined in this paper's own words; what a subject expects the other two group members to give. In THIS version of the study it is the mediator of the whole effect - the first of two steps 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 | gender — not defined in this paper's own words; not a control here but the axis the result runs along: the effect is reported as present in females and absent in males 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 | emotional responses — not defined in this paper's own words; the second outcome, self-reported after seeing what the other players gave - a complementary measure to the money, and the one where the paper reports its cleanest positive effect 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 | revealed preferences — not defined in this paper's own words; the paper's name for the behavioural half of its evidence: what subjects actually paid, as against what they said 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 | contribution decisions — not defined in this paper's own words; the same money, named as a DECISION at the point where the mechanism is described - which is the paper's own framing of the second step: beliefs shape the decision, not the level 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] |
| ordinary least squares regression | as written: OLS estimates 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] |
| ordered probit regression | as written: ordered probit model 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] |
| Wilcoxon rank-sum test p-value | as written: non-parametric ranksum Wilcoxon 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[2] |
| Kolmogorov-Smirnov test p-value | 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] |
| Spearman rank correlation ρ | as written: Spearman correlation 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] |
| robust standard errors | as written: Robust standard errors are presented in parentheses 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] |
| locally weighted regression (lowess) | as written: the locally weighted 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[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