phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | exposure-frequency effect (mere exposure)— “The demonstration of the exposure-frequency effect in the present study is consistent with the findings of Zajonc (1968) and others (e.g., Becknell, Wilson, & Baird, 1963; Johnson, Thomson, & Frinke, 1960).” | |
| claim-type | existence— “The results here indicate both that the effect may be obtained with nonsense-word stimuli when E remains silent” | |
| method — evidence | — “Twenty-four female registered nurses at the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, served as Ss in the present experiment.” | |
| mechanism | Removing one input channel lowers the subject's familiarity with the stimulus, which depresses the rated goodness of its meaning— “This rating of "goodness," which approaches accepted levels of significance, may be occasioned by S's lower level of familiarity with the stimulus due to the omission of one of the aural sourees of input” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | Each of the three input sources (seeing, hearing E, hearing oneself) counts as an exposure, so deleting one cuts effective exposure frequency by a third and should weaken enhancement | mechanisms[1] |
| replicates | Zajonc (1968) 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. | claim_relations[0] |
| extends | Zajonc (1968) 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. | claim_relations[1] |
| control | the presentation order of the stimulus words randomised separately for each subject — held — rules out order effects and carry-over between ratings - a fixed order would make position and word inseparable 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] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| replication | replicated | |
| limitation | Far fewer participants were available than in the original studies, one sixth as many per 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. | limitations[0] |
| limitation | Two of the twelve stimulus words failed to show the effect, which the author attributes to too few subjects. 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 | The replication/experimental condition difference did not reach accepted significance levels, again attributed to 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. | limitations[2] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | Rated goodness-of-meaning rose reliably with the number of prior exposures in both the replication and the reduced-input condition, while the difference between the two conditions itself only approached significance. 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 | Collapsing across items, nonsense words seen at high frequencies were rated significantly better in meaning than those seen at low frequencies. 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 held at the item level for 10 of the 12 nonsense words, which were rated better at high than at low exposure frequencies. 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 | Deleting the experimenter's pronunciation did not abolish the mere-exposure effect, showing it can be obtained from nonsense words with one aural input source removed, though overall ratings sat lower on the scale. 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 | Item-by-item, nine of twelve words were rated higher in the full-input replication condition than in the reduced-input condition, a difference that only approached conventional significance. 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] |
| quantity | F = 2.72, df = 5/110, p< .025 — Analysis-of-variance test of the exposure-frequency effect on rated goodness 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 | t = 3.34, df= 286, p< .005 — t-test comparing ratings of high-frequency versus low-frequency words 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 | less than .002 — Probability by chance that 10 or more of the 12 words would be rated better at high frequency 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 | p< .073 — Significance level of the item-level advantage of the replication over the experimental 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[3] |
| quantity | Twenty-four — Number of participants (female registered nurses) in the 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[4] |
| quantity | 12 per eondition — Subjects per condition, which the author says is one-sixth of Zajonc's sample size and a likely cause of the weak 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.quantities[5] |
| variable | exposure frequency (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 | order of presentation (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[4] |
| 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] |
| t-test t | as written: An overall t 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[1] |
| mean | as written: Average rated "goodness"-of-meaning 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] |
| p-value p | as written: has a probability of less than .002 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] |
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