| P · prime | background in-store music with a national association (French vs. German), incidental to shopping |
| T · target | a wine selection (consumer choice) |
| B · baseline | selections under the other music condition |
| E · priming effect | purchases shift toward the country congruent with the playing music |
| A · association | congruent (positive) |
phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | musical fit and in-store product choice— “This field study investigated the extent to which stereotypically French and German music could influence supermarket customers' selections of French and German wines.” | |
| claim-type | existence— “The results indicate that music influenced customers' product selections.” | |
| method — evidence | — “French and German music was played on alternate days alongside French and German wines in the alcoholic beverages section of a supermarket.” | |
| builds-on | Areni and Kim (1993)— “This theoretical framework has interesting parallels with Areni and Kim's (1993) arguments concerning musical fit and product selection discussed earlier.” | claim_relations[0] |
| builds-on | Martindale and Moore's (1988) preference-for-prototypes model— “Although the aim of Martindale and Moore's (1988) model is to explain preferences between aesthetic objects, it is relevant to consumer research because it suggests the role of knowledge activation in responses to music.” | claim_relations[1] |
| sense | THE AUTHORS TAKE APART THEIR OWN EVIDENCE FOR UNAWARENESS, IN THREE MOVES. First the hedge is built into the report: `Taken purely at face value, the questionnaire data suggest that respondents were largely unaware of the effect that music had on their wine selections.` Then: `it remains to be determined whether customers really were unaware ...: Maybe customers did realize that the music was an attempt to influence their purchasing, but did not like to admit this to researchers.` A self-report of unawareness is treated as evidence about what people will SAY, which is a different quantity from what they knew - and most awareness checks in this corpus are reported as measurements of the second— “Second, it remains to be determined whether customers really were unaware of the effects of music on their purchasing: Maybe customers did realize that the music was an attempt to influence their purchasing, but did not like to admit this to researchers” | senses[0] |
| sense | AND THE THIRD MOVE IS SUBTLER THAN IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT: `customers may not have explained their wine choice in terms of the music simply because this did not seem to them like a rational explanation for their behavior.` Not concealment and not ignorance - a FOLK THEORY OF WHAT COUNTS AS A REASON. A shopper who half-noticed the music may still not offer it, because `the music was playing` is not the kind of thing that explains a purchase. So a null on a `why did you choose this` question is evidence about the respondent's model of explanation, and only then about awareness— “Indeed, customers may not have explained their wine choice in terms of the music simply because this did not seem to them like a rational explanation for their behavior” | senses[1] |
| sense | THE SAME BOUNDARY CONDITION money2013 GIVES, SIXTEEN YEARS EARLIER AND IN A DIFFERENT FIELD. Here: the effect holds `only when there is an element of uncertainty in product choice or when customers are in a state of low involvement with the decision process`. Vohs's 2015 reply to a failed replication says priming needs an AMBIGUOUS OUTCOME - `a situation that does not leave much room for interpretation is unlikely to show a consistent or large priming effect`. Marketing in 1999 and social psychology in 2015, arriving independently at the condition that a prime needs somewhere to act, and each citing its own literature (judgmental biases here, Loersch & Payne there)— “suggests that the heuristic influence of music would mediate behavior only when there is an element of uncertainty in product choice or when customers are in a state of low involvement with the decision process” | senses[2] |
| sense | AN ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION THE DATA CANNOT RULE OUT, STATED WITHOUT DEFENCE - AND THEN A REPLY THAT COSTS NOTHING. `Because the music was played from the display containing the wines, it may well have attracted the attention of people who already intended to buy wine from one of the countries in question ... The present data does not allow us to test this alternative explanation.` The concession is total. The reply is that it does not matter: `even if this alternative explanation is correct ... the fact that music was able to attract them to a specific area of the store still shows that music activated knowledge and was associated with the selection of matching products.` The mechanism claim survives the confound because both routes require the same activation— “Second, even if this alternative explanation is correct in the case of some customers, then the fact that music was able to attract them to a specific area of the store still shows that music activated knowledge and was associated with the selection of matching products” | senses[3] |
| control | the French and German wines matched to each other on price and on degree of sweetness — held — rules out the music effect being a price or taste effect - if the French wine were cheaper or sweeter, the shopper's choice would follow the wine rather than the accordion— “The wines were of a reasonably affordable price to the typical shopper and were matched between the countries for their price and degree of sweetness.” | controls[0] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| replication | untested | |
| limitation | Whether shoppers were genuinely unaware of the influence is undetermined; they may have realised it but declined to admit it— “Second, it remains to be determined whether customers really were unaware of the effects of music on their purchasing: Maybe customers did realize that the music was an attempt to influence their purchasing, but did not like to admit this to researchers.” | limitations[0] |
| limitation | The alternative that the music merely attracted already-decided buyers to the display cannot be ruled out | limitations[1] |
| limitation | The preference-for-prototypes model invoked to explain the effect was not itself tested | limitations[2] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | national background music shifts wine purchases toward the congruent country | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | shoppers are largely unaware of the musics influence on their choice 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] |
| key-terms | music, wine, purchase, customers, priming, background, awareness, selection |
| concept | musical fit — not defined in this paper's own words; THE PAPER'S OWN NAME for what this corpus files as music priming - the match between the music's national associations and the product's origin. Note the direction of the construct: it is a property of the PAIR, not of the music 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 | knowledge — not defined in this paper's own words; what the music is said to ACTIVATE, and the mechanism is stated as activation-plus-fit rather than as persuasion: the music makes a body of knowledge available and the product is selected if it matches 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. | concepts[4] |
| concept | uncertainty — not defined in this paper's own words; the boundary condition - the effect is expected only where the choice is not already made. The same condition money2013 states as 'ambiguity of the outcome', sixteen years later in another field 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 | low involvement — not defined in this paper's own words; the second half of the same boundary condition, and the one that makes it a claim about the SHOPPER rather than the shelf: a customer attending closely to the decision is not expected to show the 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[6] |
| ANOVA F | 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] |
| chi-square χ² | 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] |
| p-value p | as written: p < .001 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] |
| 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[3] |
| t-test t | 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] |
| 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[5] |
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