10⁹ into 109. The quotes are reproduced exactly as the extraction left them and have NOT been repaired — the meaning of such a code point belongs to the one PDF it came from, and guessing it would produce a clean, confident, unverifiable quote.| P · prime | trait words presented in an ostensibly unrelated prior task |
| T · target | an ambiguous description of a person to evaluate |
| B · baseline | impression under a neutral or opposite-trait prime |
| E · priming effect | impression shifts toward the primed trait category |
| A · association | congruent (positive) |
phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | category accessibility in impression formation— “The present study examined the immediate and delayed effects of unobtrusive exposure to personality trait terms (e.g., "reckless," "persistent") on subjects' subsequent judgments and recollection of information about another person.” | |
| claim-type | mechanism— “The absence of a significant reproduction effect in the present study suggests that the characterization and evaluation effects found were due mainly to a direct effect of categorization on judgment.” | |
| method — evidence | — “As part of a "reading comprehension" study, 60 Princeton University undergraduates read a paragraph ambiguously describing a stimulus person.” | |
| builds-on | Warren (1972)— “Indirect evidence for this was obtained by Warren (1972).” | claim_relations[0] |
| builds-on | Bartlett (1932)— “Bartlett (1932) also suggests that the delayed influence of the categorization on reproduction and judgment may be greater than the immediate influence, as the stored details of the input information are more rapidly forgotten than the categorization.” | claim_relations[1] |
| builds-on | Spiro (1975)— “Spiro (1975) has found that reconstructive errors in reproduction do not occur when subjects are instructed to memorize the input information, but will occur otherwise.” | claim_relations[2] |
| sense | THE APPLICABILITY NULL IS THE CONTROL THAT RULES OUT A VALENCE ACCOUNT, AND IT IS THE HARDEST WORKING RESULT IN THE PAPER: `the absence of any effects for nonapplicable trait terms suggested that exposure to trait terms with positive or negative associations was not in itself sufficient to determine attributions and evaluations.` Positive and negative words that did not FIT the target did nothing. So the effect is not mood, not evaluative contagion and not `nice words make you nicer` - it needs a CATEGORY the target can be sorted into. Necessary-but-not-sufficient, stated in 1977, and the same logical shape unknown2009 states for object recognition thirty-two years later— “However, the absence of any effects for nonapplicable trait terms suggested that exposure to trait terms with positive or negative associations was not in itself sufficient to determine attributions and evaluations” | senses[0] |
| sense | THE DELAYED EFFECT IS BIGGER THAN THE IMMEDIATE ONE, AND THE EXPLANATION IS CORRECTION RATHER THAN ACTIVATION: `It may be that an AWARENESS that one's categorizations are BIASED accounts of the stimulus information can function as a `DISCOUNTING CUE` ... that ATTENUATES the direct impact of the categorizations.` The activation does not grow; the correction fades. So awareness here REDUCES the measured effect, and an immediate test UNDERSTATES it - the opposite sign to Holcomb2005, where prime visibility PREDICTED the size of semantic priming. Two literatures with awareness pushing the measurement in opposite directions, which is a reason to record the direction and not only the presence of an awareness check— “It may be that an awareness that one's categorizations are biased accounts of the stimulus information can function as a "discounting cue" (Hovland, Lumsdaine, & Sheffield, 1949) that attenuates the direct impact of the categorizations” | senses[1] |
| sense | A SECOND NULL SEPARATES TWO ROUTES: a category could bias judgement INDIRECTLY, by distorting what is remembered, or DIRECTLY, through its own implications. Reproduction of the description was unaffected, so `the characterization and evaluation effects found were due mainly to a DIRECT effect of categorization on judgment.` The prime changed what people concluded without changing what they recalled - which is what makes this a claim about judgement rather than about memory, and it is settled by an absence— “The absence of a significant reproduction effect in the present study suggests that the characterization and evaluation effects found were due mainly to a direct effect of categorization on judgment” | senses[2] |
| sense | AND THEY UNDERCUT THAT NULL THEMSELVES, IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH. Subjects `probably felt they should MEMORIZE the stimulus information because it was part of a `reading comprehension` test`, and Spiro (1975) found that reconstructive errors do NOT occur under memorise instructions - so `Reproductive errors consistent with the activated categories might have occurred in the present study if subjects had been given different instructions.` The absence that carries their direct-effect conclusion is attributed to their own design rather than to the world, in the same discussion that uses it— “Reproductive errors consistent with the activated categories might have occurred in the present study if subjects had been given different instructions for the stimulus information” | senses[3] |
| sense | THE AMBIGUITY CONDITION IS HERE TOO, IN 1977, AND THAT MAKES THREE PAPERS ACROSS 38 YEARS. `At least in ambiguous situations, category accessibility can also determine how a stimulus person is characterized.` North1999 says the effect holds `only when there is an element of UNCERTAINTY in product choice or when customers are in a state of LOW INVOLVEMENT`. money2013 says `a situation that does not leave much room for interpretation is unlikely to show a consistent or large priming effect`. Social psychology 1977, marketing 1999, social psychology 2015 - the founding paper, a field study and a reply to a failed replication - all naming the same condition: a prime needs somewhere to act. Higgins states it first and almost in passing, as a qualifier on a sentence about something else— “At least in ambiguous situations, category accessibility can also determine how a stimulus person is characterized” | senses[4] |
| control | the order of the rating scales across the two sessions was counterbalanced so that an equal number of subjects in each condition used each scale type in each session — held — rules out that the effect is a scale or session-order artefact rather than category accessibility— “2 The order of these scales across the two sessions was counterbalanced, so that an equal number of subjects in each condition used each type of scale in each session.” | controls[0] |
| evidential status | Warren (1972) — the paper's own words: Indirect evidence— “Indirect evidence for this was obtained by Warren (1972).” | claim_relations[0] |
| audit | categorization —causes→ judgment — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the absence of a reproduction effect 'suggests' a direct effect of categorization; hedged.— “The absence of a significant reproduction effect in the present study suggests that the characterization and evaluation effects found were due mainly to a direct effect of categorization on judgment” | concept_edges[0] |
| effect direction | categorization —causes→ judgment — increases— “The absence of a significant reproduction effect in the present study suggests that the characterization and evaluation effects found were due mainly to a direct effect of categorization on judgment” | concept_edges[0] |
| note | categorization —causes→ judgment — A CAUSAL EDGE ESTABLISHED BY AN ABSENCE. The route is settled by what did NOT happen: reproduction of the description was unaffected, so the category acted on judgement directly rather than by distorting memory. 'suggests' and 'mainly' are the hedges and both are in the quote - and the paper undercuts this null itself two paragraphs later (fourth sense), which is why this is 0.9 rather than 0.95.— “The absence of a significant reproduction effect in the present study suggests that the characterization and evaluation effects found were due mainly to a direct effect of categorization on judgment” | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | categorization —causes→ judgment — 0.9— “The absence of a significant reproduction effect in the present study suggests that the characterization and evaluation effects found were due mainly to a direct effect of categorization on judgment” | concept_edges[0] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| replication | untested | |
| limitation | The null reproduction result may be an artefact of instructing subjects to memorise the passage; different instructions might have produced reconstructive distortion.— “Reproductive errors consistent with the activated categories might have occurred in the present study if subjects had been given different instructions for the stimulus information (e.g., to summarize the information for another person).” | limitations[0] |
| limitation | The desirability scale had no zero point and so was not an equal-interval scale.— “As there was no zero point, this scale did not consist of equal intervals throughout.” | limitations[1] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | impressions shift toward the accessible/primed trait category— “Before reading a description of a stimulus person, subjects were unobtrusively exposed to either positive or… | content_tags.findings[1] |
| key-terms | category accessibility, impression formation, priming, trait, ambiguous, accessibility, stimulus person |
| concept | category accessibility | concepts[0] |
| concept | trait categories — not defined in this paper's own words; the unit that has to be activated: not a word and not a valence but a CATEGORY the target can be sorted into, which is what the applicability null establishes | concepts[3] |
| concept | categorization — not defined in this paper's own words; the act the prime steers - sorting the target person into a category - and the paper's conclusion is that it acts on judgement DIRECTLY rather than by distorting what is recalled 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 | judgment — not defined in this paper's own words; the outcome the effect is measured on, and the one the reproduction null separates from memory: what subjects concluded about the person changed while what they recalled did not 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 | discounting cue — not defined in this paper's own words; the correction mechanism, borrowed from Hovland: noticing that your own categorisation is biased ATTENUATES its effect on your judgement - so the effect is masked at the immediate test and emerges once the noticing fades 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] |
| ANOVA F | as written: analysis of variance 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] |
| correlation r | as written: r = .46 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] |
| hypothesis-testing | as written: 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[2] |
| median | as written: medians 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] |
| p-value p | as written: p < .02 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[4] |
| statistical-significance | as written: 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.statistics[5] |
| t-test t | as written: t(38)= 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] |
| variance σ² | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[7] |
When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.
Tag layer © the Meta-Tagging Project, CC BY 4.0. The paper text is © its authors/publisher
and is linked, not reproduced. Excerpts shown are short quotations for identification and verification.
· back to index
· concepts · authors
· עברית
© 2026 Shir Sivroni · ORCID 0009-0000-2597-2824