phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | lay beliefs about procedural constraints on law— “In our present study, we pursue a related prediction: namely, that people around the world share an intuitive grasp of the formal properties of law—as well as its content.” | |
| claim-type | existence— “Confirming our preregistered prediction, people reported that such laws cannot exist, but also (paradoxically) that there are such laws.” | |
| method — evidence | — “In the present report, we evaluate this thesis through an experiment administered in 11 different countries.” | |
| transfer | from modal logic (philosophy/formal logic): an axiom of modal logic — that what is actual is thereby possible — is imported to turn the two response patterns into a demonstrable contradiction and so to derive the experimental prediction— “According to most systems of modal logic, if there exists even a single retrospective law, it follows that retrospective laws certainly could exist—in virtue of axiom M.” | transfers[0] |
| mechanism | Judgments about possible laws are generated from a prototype or essentialized concept of law, assembled from simpler concepts such as norm, fairness and punishment, that is only weakly tied to experience of actual laws— “Such a concept could be a prototype, or essentialized belief—arising from the simpler concepts of “norm,” “fairness,” and “punishment,” for example—and which depends weakly on one’s experience with actual laws.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | Asking about possible rather than actual laws shifts attention from surface features to the deeper criteria for category membership, such as the purpose or moral dimension of law— “Potentially, by comparison to empirical reasoning about actual laws, modal reasoning about possible laws draws attention toward deeper criteria for category membership (i.e., could true laws lack these procedural properties?), such as the purpose of laws” | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | Prescriptive reasoning bleeds into descriptive judgment: asked whether laws necessarily have a property, participants also weigh whether that property is desirable — a mechanism the paper proposes and then partly disconfirms— “Our present findings could be understood as a manifestation of the latter phenomenon: When prompted to reason about whether laws necessarily exhibit certain procedural constraints, most participants also considered whether such constraints would be desirable or undesirable.” | mechanisms[2] |
| extends | Donelson and Hannikainen (2020)— “In sum, generalizing the findings of Donelson and Hannikainen (2020), participants in the Possible condition tended to report that laws could not violate various procedural principles even while participants in the Actual condition recognized that they often do.” | claim_relations[0] |
| builds-on | Donelson and Hannikainen (2020) materials— “The stimuli were adapted from Donelson and Hannikainen (2020) and translated into eight additional languages by native speakers: Dutch, German, Hindi, Khmer, Lithuanian, Polish, Portuguese, and Spanish.” | claim_relations[1] |
| sense | modality - alethic: necessity and possibility, what could be the case— “Collectively, these are referred to as alethic modals, insofar as they purport to assess questions of necessity and possibility.” | senses[0] |
| sense | modality - deontic: permission and obligation, what is allowed or desirable — and the paper states that although the two are easily distinguished IN THOUGHT, natural language expresses them imperfectly— “Though these varieties of modality are easily distinguished in thought, natural languages tend to offer imperfect ways of doing so—raising the possibility that participants interpreted the statements in our experiment as deontic rather than alethic modals.” | senses[1] |
| sense | law - the concept: what participants report laws NECESSARILY are, which the paper reports as defying their own grasp of how legal systems actually work— “These results document cross-culturally and –linguistically robust beliefs about the concept of law which defy people’s grasp of how legal systems function in practice.” | senses[2] |
| sense | law - the practice: what participants report actual laws are like, where the same people acknowledge the principles are violated— “participants in the Possible condition tended to report that laws could not violate various procedural principles even while participants in the Actual condition recognized that they often do.” | senses[3] |
| sense | rule of law - operationalised as a survey index scoring nations on eight dimensions— “The Rule of Law Index draws on thousands of household and expert surveys worldwide to quantify the strength of the rule of law across nations along eight complementary dimensions: constraints on government, absence of corruption and “revolving doors,” open government (guaranteeing information and civic participation), fundamental rights… | senses[4] |
| control | the direction of the finding fixed in advance by a REGISTERED PREDICTION — held — rules out post-hoc reinterpretation of whichever way the result fell - the paper reports confirming its prediction AND a paradoxical second finding beside it, so the registration is doing work rather than decorating a clean story— “Confirming our preregistered prediction, people reported that such laws cannot… | controls[0] |
| edge | rule of law —operationalised-as→ Rule of Law Index | concept_edges[0] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| for which use | limitation — any mechanistic reading: OUR STUDY ... AFFORDED LIMITED INSIGHT INTO THE PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSES THAT ENGENDER CONFLICTING BELIEFS | limitations[0] |
| for which use | limitation — the prescriptive-thinking measure: WE ASSESSED PARTICIPANTS' ENGAGEMENT IN PRESCRIPTIVE THINKING THROUGH THEIR EXPLICIT REPORTS, [which] LEAVES OPEN UNCONSCIOUS PATHWAYS 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] |
| for which use | limitation — the cross-cultural generality claim: THE MAGNITUDE OF THE EFFECT VARIED SUBSTANTIALLY ACROSS COUNTRIES, WHICH MAY IMPLY SOME DEGREE OF CULTURAL VARIABILITY - or sampling differences, and the study cannot choose 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] |
| for which use | limitation — explaining WHY people hold both beliefs: the authors state the study evidences the phenomenon but gives limited insight into the psychological processes producing 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. | limitations[3] |
| for which use | limitation — the claim that the effect is not moral in origin: the authors rule this out only for prescriptive thinking that participants could report, and say so 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] |
| for which use | limitation — reading the country differences as cultural variability: the authors state sampling methods differed substantially across sites, so the variation might instead reflect sample composition or acquiescence 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. | limitations[5] |
| for which use | limitation — the common-law versus civil-law contrast as the axis of cross-cultural comparison: the paper notes the distinction is sometimes seen as overly coarse 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[6] |
| for which use | limitation — per-country estimates: the stated minimum of 100 per condition per site 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[7] |
| replication | replicated | |
| limitation | The study documents the effect but not the cognitive mechanism producing the contradictory beliefs. 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 | Prescriptive thinking was measured only by explicit self-report, leaving unconscious routes untested. 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 | Effect size varied substantially by country, which may indicate cultural variability or sampling differences. 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 | The effect is documented but its mechanism is not: the study is stated to give limited insight into the processes that produce the conflicting beliefs. 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 | Only explicit reports of prescriptive thinking were measured, so an unconscious route from moral considerations to judgements of possibility remains open by the authors' own statement. 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] |
| limitation | The cross-country variation in effect size cannot be attributed: culture and sampling method are confounded, because recruitment differed substantially across sites. 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[5] |
| limitation | The two-way classification of legal systems used to select sites is reported by the authors as sometimes seen as too coarse. 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[6] |
| limitation | The per-site sample target was not met everywhere. 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[7] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | As preregistered, people both denied that such laws can exist and affirmed, paradoxically, that they 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. | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | Participants asked about actual laws said those laws violate the procedural principles about half the time, whereas participants asked about possible laws overwhelmingly denied that the same principles could be violated. 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 condition effect held in each country analysed on its own. 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 | The effect also held separately for each of the eight procedural principles tested. 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 | The size of the effect nevertheless differed by country, being weakest in India and the United Kingdom and strongest in Brazil and Poland. 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 | The size of the effect also differed by principle, being smallest for the generality principle and largest for the consistency principle. 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 | A post-test showed the manipulation worked as intended on the existential side: the 'There are laws' wording was read as a question about what laws are usually like in the respondent's experience. 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 | The modal wording, however, was read in two ways at once — as asking what laws must be like to count as law, and as asking what laws ideally should be like. 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] |
| finding | The predicted effect held even among the minority who reported a selective interpretation of the modal wording. 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[8] |
| finding | The preregistered prediction held robustly across age groups, genders, and lawyers and non-lawyers. 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[9] |
| finding | People believe laws necessarily cannot punish past conduct retroactively, be kept secret, or be incomprehensible, while also acknowledging that real laws break exactly these constraints. 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[10] |
| quantity | N = 3,054 — total participants in the between-subjects experiment 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 | 11 — countries in which the experiment was administered 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 | pˆ = .54 vs pˆ = .81, OR = 3.74 — predicted probability of saying a principle is violated (Actual condition) versus could be violated (Possible condition), and the odds ratio between 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. | content_tags.quantities[2] |
| quantity | OR = 1.79 to OR = 13.97 — range of the condition effect across the eight principles, from the generality principle to the consistency principle 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 | ORs < 1.60 and ORs > 7.50 — smallest country-level effects (India, United Kingdom) versus largest (Brazil, Poland) 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 | n = 352 — participants in the Actual condition forming the minority latent profile who reported reflecting only on empirical facts about law 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 | OR = 3.46, z = 11.65, p < .001 — size of the condition effect within the minority profiles who interpreted the task selectively 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 | β = .20, odds ratio ≥ 1.40, α = .05 — power, minimum detectable effect and alpha level targeted by the planned sample size 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 | target n = 200/site — minimum sample size planned per field site (100 per condition), reached everywhere except Cambodia 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 | N = 3,054 — total participants across 11 countries 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 | OR = 3.74 — odds of endorsing a procedural principle in the Possible condition versus the Actual condition 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] |
| quantity | OR = 1.79 to OR = 13.97 — range of the condition effect across the eight principles: smallest for generality, largest for consistency 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[11] |
| variable | endorsement (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 | country (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[3] |
| variable | procedural principle (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 | interpretation of the task (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[5] |
| variable | existential statements (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[7] |
| variable | modal statements (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[8] |
| variable | age (covariate) 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[9] |
| variable | gender (covariate) 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[10] |
| variable | legal background (covariate) 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[11] |
| definition | alethic modals 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 | deontic properties 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 | Rule of Law Index 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] |
| definition | intuitive jurisprudence 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[4] |
| concept | alethic modality 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 | deontic properties 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 | procedural principles 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 | rule of law 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 | Rule of Law Index 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] |
| logistic regression pˆ | as written: logistic regression models predicting the probability 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] |
| mixed-effects logistic regression | as written: mixed-effects logistic regression model ... crossed random effects 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] |
| mixed-effects linear regression | as written: mixed-effects linear regression models with country as a random 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. | content_tags.statistics[2] |
| odds ratio OR | as written: OR 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] |
| chi-squared χ 2 | as written: χ 2 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] |
| confidence interval CI | as written: 95% CIasymptotic 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] |
| latent profile analysis | as written: latent profile analyses 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] |
| statistical power analysis β | as written: adequate statistical power (β = .20) 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] |
| correlation | as written: moderately correlated 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[8] |
| standard deviation SD | as written: SD 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[9] |
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