| P · prime | cooperation-associated words embedded in an initial word-search puzzle |
| T · target | how many tokens to contribute in a one-shot linear public goods game |
| B · baseline | neutrally-primed treatment (neutral words in the same puzzle) |
| E · priming effect | higher voluntary contributions to the public good |
| A · association | activating the concept of cooperation shifts behaviour toward cooperative, pro-social contribution |
phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | cooperative priming in a public goods game— “In our paper, we focus on cooperative priming in a standard linear public goods game in which randomly selected participants make decisions in situations where personal and group interests are misaligned.” | |
| claim-type | existence— “Our findings indicate that cooperative priming increases contributions in a one-shot public goods game from approximately 25–36 % compared with the non-primed group.” | |
| method — evidence | — “The priming manipulation was carried out through an initial word-search puzzle that each participant self-completed at the beginning of each experimental session (e.g. Bargh et al. 2001).” | |
| mechanism | THE PRIME IS ARGUED TO WORK THROUGH PREFERENCES BECAUSE IT DEMONSTRABLY DID NOT WORK THROUGH BELIEFS - a null result carrying the mechanism claim: priming does not affect subjects' beliefs about other group members' contributions, INDICATING THAT PRIMING PRIMARILY SEEMS TO WORK BY CHANGING SUBJECTS' PREFERENCES ABOUT HOW MUCH TO CONTRIBUTE. The absent effect is the evidence, not a caveat about it— “Our results also suggest that priming does not affect subjects’ beliefs about other group members’ contributions, ceteris paribus, indicating that priming primarily seems to work by changing subjects’ preferences about how much to contribute.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | A ONE-SHOT GAME IS CHOSEN TO BUY A CLEAN CAUSE RATHER THAN A REALISTIC SETTING: the reason for choosing a one-shot interaction over repeated interactions is that we wanted to investigate THE PURE EFFECTS OF OUR PRIMING PROCESS, without these being confounded with STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS THAT MAY ARISE FROM REPEATED INTERACTION. The design gives up the question of persistence to isolate the question of existence, and says so— “The reason for choosing a one-shot interaction over repeated interactions is that we wanted to investigate the pure effects of our priming process on subjects’ cooperative behaviour, without these being confounded with strategic considerations that may arise from repeated interaction.” | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | EXPOSURE TO THE PRIME IS GUARANTEED RATHER THAN ASSUMED, by handing out the puzzle's answers: at the end of the allotted time, the participants received the solutions to the word-search puzzle TO ENSURE THAT EVERYONE IN THE TREATMENT GROUP HAD BEEN PRIMED with words associated with cooperation. A subject who found none of the fifteen words still meets them— “At the end of the allotted time, the participants received the solutions to the word-search puzzle to ensure that everyone in the treatment group had been primed with words associated with cooperation.” | mechanisms[2] |
| mechanism | THE DEMAND-EFFECT OBJECTION IS ANSWERED BY ASKING THE SUBJECTS AND THEN CONTROLLING FOR THEIR ANSWER: NONE of the subjects in the non-priming treatment and 16 OUT OF 75 in the priming treatment said the first task had affected the second, and with a dummy for those subjects the priming coefficient stays significant for contributions and insignificant for beliefs. The control is reported with its own numbers rather than asserted— “None of the subjects in the non-priming treatment and 16 out of 75 subjects in the priming treatment answered this question positively. When we include a dummy variable controlling for those who reported that the priming task affected their subsequent behaviour, the estimated coefficient on the variable “Priming” remains statistically… | mechanisms[3] |
| extends | public goods experiments on explicit cooperation-fostering mechanisms (Fehr and Gächter 2000, 2002; Sefton et al. 2007; Isaac and Walker 1988; Bochet et al. 2006)— “By contrast, we explore the effect of a significantly more subtle intervention on the incentive to free ride in social dilemmas.” | claim_relations[0] |
| extends | economic priming studies of religious identity, social outlook and social identity (Benjamin et al. 2010a, b; McKay et al. 2010; Atlas and Putterman 2011; Cappelen and Drange Hole 2011)— “Thus far, a few notable studies have examined how priming on religious identities, optimistic social outlook, and social identity affects economic outcomes, including risk preferences, behaviour in trust and gift exchange games and dictator giving (Benjamin et al. 2010a, b; McKay et al. 2010; Atlas and Putterman 2011; Cappelen and Drange Hole… | claim_relations[1] |
| contradicts | other-regarding preference models (Fehr and Schmidt 1999; Bolton and Ockenfels 2000)— “Even behavioural theories (e.g. Fehr and Schmidt 1999; Bolton and Ockenfels 2000), which can explain contributions to the public good, cannot account for any subtle effect inherent in the environment in which individuals interact, such as priming.” | claim_relations[2] |
| sense | priming - taken by these authors from psychology in a FORMAL definition and then used in economics: previously activated information impacting the processing of subsequent information. The definition is procedural, which is why it can be transplanted across fields— “It is formally defined as “the procedural feature that some previously activated information impacts on the processing of subsequent information” | senses[0] |
| sense | priming, as distinguished from framing and anchoring - the distinction is drawn on WHAT IS LEFT UNTOUCHED: priming reinforces a pathway to a stimulus without re-describing the decision problem, whereas framing re-describes an equivalent problem and anchoring redirects attention— “Priming, on the other hand, involves exposing a subject’s mind to a stimulus, concept, or memory—without requiring the re-description of the decision problem—so that his or her pathways to that particular stimulus, concept, or memory are reinforced and would also later be reflected on the processing of subsequent information (Kolb and Wishaw… | senses[1] |
| sense | cooperative priming, as delivered here - fifteen of the twenty hidden words carry the concept and five are neutral in both conditions, so the two treatments differ only in the fifteen. The construct is a WORD LIST, chosen by pre-test rating— “Each list contained the same set of five neutral words to be found (carpet, lamp, plant, shampoo, window), and the remaining 15 words being either associated with the concept of cooperation or completely neutral, depending on the treatment.” | senses[2] |
| sense | beliefs about others’ contributions - measured, unincentivised, and elicited AFTER the contribution decision, which the authors say makes them endogenous to the thing they are meant to explain | senses[3] |
| control | a post-experimental questionnaire asked subjects outright whether they thought the priming task had affected their decisions — held — rules out that subjects saw through the priming manipulation and responded to what they believed the experimenter wanted 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. | controls[0] |
| control | belief elicitation was deliberately NOT incentivised — held — rules out that paying for beliefs introduces an income effect which would confound the emotions being elicited 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. | controls[1] |
| control | the puzzle solutions were handed out at the end of the allotted time — held — rules out that a subject who failed to solve the puzzle was never primed at all, leaving the treatment group only partly treated 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. | controls[2] |
| differs in | priming —distinct-from→ framing — WHETHER THE DECISION PROBLEM IS RE-DESCRIBED: framing restates a logically equivalent problem in a different light; priming leaves the problem alone and reinforces a pathway to a concept 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[0] |
| note | priming —distinct-from→ framing — A boundary drawn by the authors in their own voice, not inferred by us - the sentence exists only to separate the three terms. 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[0] |
| weight | priming —distinct-from→ framing — 0.95 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[0] |
| differs in | priming —distinct-from→ anchoring — WHAT IS REDIRECTED: anchoring fixes the decision-maker's attention on a single trait or piece of information, leaving the problem and the concepts alone; priming reinforces a pathway to a concept without directing attention to 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. 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[1] |
| note | priming —distinct-from→ anchoring — The second half of the same distinction, and the sentence defines both neighbours in one breath - framing by re-description, anchoring by attention. 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[1] |
| weight | priming —distinct-from→ anchoring — 0.95 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[1] |
| effect direction | cooperative priming —causes→ contributions — 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[2] |
| note | cooperative priming —causes→ contributions — The headline result, in the abstract's own words. Averages are 4.99 tokens neutral against 7.17 primed, one-sided Mann-Whitney p = 0.044. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[2] |
| weight | cooperative priming —causes→ contributions — 0.9 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[2] |
| effect direction | priming —causes→ free riding — reduces Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[3] |
| note | priming —causes→ free riding — The same result stated as a reduction rather than an increase. Kept as its own edge because free riding is the behaviour the incentives reward, and it is the endpoint an economist would search on. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[3] |
| weight | priming —causes→ free riding — 0.85 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[3] |
| effect direction | priming —causes→ beliefs — no-change 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→ beliefs — THE LOAD-BEARING NULL. This absence is what licenses the preferences claim in the same sentence, so it is not a caveat - remove it and the mechanism has no 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. | concept_edges[4] |
| weight | priming —causes→ beliefs — 0.1 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→ preferences — Weighted below the contribution effect because it is an INFERENCE FROM THE BELIEF NULL rather than a measurement - preferences were never observed directly, which is also why this edge carries no effect direction. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[5] |
| weight | priming —causes→ preferences — 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[5] |
| note | priming —operationalised-as→ word-search puzzle — The whole construct is fifteen words hidden in a 16x16 letter matrix, self-completed, with the same five neutral words present in both conditions. 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[6] |
| weight | priming —operationalised-as→ word-search puzzle — 0.95 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[6] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[1] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[2] |
| replication | untested | |
| limitation | Only a one-shot game was run, so nothing can be said about whether the priming effect persists over repeated decisions. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[0] |
| limitation | The result does not generalise beyond the public goods game to other economically relevant behaviours. 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 | A single priming method (word-and-association semantic priming) was used, so the effect of other priming modes, including negative priming, is unknown. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[2] |
| limitation | Beliefs were elicited after contribution decisions, making the belief measure endogenous to the behaviour it was meant to explain. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[3] |
| limitation | The priming manipulation is open to an experimenter demand interpretation, which the authors could only address post hoc with a questionnaire 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. | limitations[4] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | cooperative priming raises contributions in a one-shot public goods 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. | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | primed group contributed 7.17 tokens on average vs 4.99 for the neutrally-primed group Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | standard economic theory predicts priming should have no impact on choices 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] |
| quantity | an 11-percentage-point increase in giving (approx. 25% to 36% of 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.quantities[0] |
| quantity | 150 participants, 75 per 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[1] |
| variable | priming manipulation (manipulated independent variable) 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] |
| 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] |
| key-terms | priming, cooperation, public goods game, free riding, pro-social behaviour, voluntary contributions, word-search puzzle |
| concept | framing — not defined in this paper's own words; one of the two neighbours priming is defined against: a re-description of a LOGICALLY EQUIVALENT decision problem, which is exactly what priming does not do 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 | anchoring — not defined in this paper's own words; the other neighbour: fixing a decision-maker's attention on one trait or piece of information, again leaving the problem itself untouched but by a different route 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 | cooperative priming — not defined in this paper's own words; the treatment: a word-search puzzle whose hidden words are cooperation-related rather than neutral, and the paper's name for the manipulation as a 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[5] |
| concept | contributions — not defined in this paper's own words; the dependent variable, in tokens given to the public account out of an endowment of 20 - a measure with real money behind it, which is what the paper is claiming over psychology 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 | free riding — not defined in this paper's own words; the behaviour the incentives reward and the prime is meant to counteract; the paper reports the effect in both directions at once - less free riding, more giving Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[7] |
| concept | beliefs — not defined in this paper's own words; what subjects expected OTHERS to contribute, elicited after their own decision. The channel the paper tests and does not find Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[8] |
| concept | preferences — not defined in this paper's own words; the channel the paper is left with once beliefs are ruled out: the prime is argued to change what subjects WANT to give rather than what they expect others to give 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[9] |
| concept | word-search puzzle — not defined in this paper's own words; the delivery device for the prime, and the reason the manipulation is deniable to the subject: the words are found, not read as a message 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[10] |
| null-hypothesis H0 | as written: reject the null 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.statistics[0] |
| p-value p | as written: p = 0.044 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] |
| Mann-Whitney | as written: Mann-Whitney 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] |
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