| P · prime | incidentally presented prime words (aggregated across studies) |
| T · target | a subsequent measured behavior |
| B · baseline | behavior under a neutral or no prime |
| E · priming effect | a small but reliable shift in behavior toward the primed concept |
| A · association | congruent (positive) |
phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | behavioral (conceptual) priming— “A meta-analysis assessed the behavioral impact of and psychological processes associated with presenting words connected to an action or a goal representation.” | |
| claim-type | existence— “The results of this meta-analysis showed small but robust significant effects of word primes on behavior and indicated that these effects obey the principles of value and goal satiation.” | |
| method — evidence | — “Our meta-analysis synthesized 352 published and unpublished effect sizes, obtained from research conducted in the US and internationally.” | |
| extends | prior priming meta-analyses (Cameron, Brown-Iannuzzi, & Payne, 2012; DeCoster & Claypool, 2004; Van den Bussche, Van den Noortgate, & Reynvoet, 2009)— “Our meta-analysis is distinct from several other meta-analyses of priming in the field of psychology ( Cameron, Brown-Iannuzzi, & Payne, 2012 ; DeCoster & Clapyool, 2004 ; Van den Bussche, Van den Noortgate, & Reynvoet, 2009 ).” | claim_relations[0] |
| contradicts | Forster et al. (2007) and Locke and Latham (1990)— “Contrary to theorizing from both Forster et al. (2007) and Locke and Latham (1990) , there were no differences in the strength of priming across high- ( d FE = 0.252; d RE = 0.232) and low-expectancy ( d FE = 0.164; d RE = 0.166) levels (see B in Table 3 ).” | claim_relations[1] |
| extends | DeCoster & Claypool (2004)— “This effect is important and was not obtained in a prior meta-analysis of evaluative priming effects ( DeCoster & Claypool, 2004 ).” | claim_relations[2] |
| contradicts | Doyen et al. (2012)— “Thus, both of these replication attempts had a higher probability of failure than success, and the failures are not indicative of an earlier Type I error.” | claim_relations[3] |
| sense | behavioral priming, OPERATIONALLY - and the inclusion criteria are the definition: word primes, INCIDENTALLY presented, a NON-OPPOSITE control group, and a BEHAVIOURAL dependent variable. Each clause excludes something. `Incidentally` rules out instruction; `behavioral dependent variable` rules out the judgement studies that most of this corpus's priming records use; and `non-opposite control` quietly excludes designs whose control condition primes the contrary concept, which would double the apparent effect— “in which word primes were incidentally presented to participants, with a non-opposite control group, prior to measuring a behavioral dependent variable. Findings revealed a small behavioral priming effect ( d FE = 0.332, d RE = 0.352), which was robust across methodological procedures” | senses[0] |
| sense | the effect, as a NUMBER rather than as an existence claim: d(FE) = 0.332, d(RE) = 0.352 across 352 effect sizes from 133 studies. `Small` is the paper's own word for it. The corpus holds dozens of records asserting that priming happens; this is the one that says HOW MUCH, and the size is what most of the surrounding controversy is actually about— “Findings revealed a small behavioral priming effect ( d FE = 0.332, d RE = 0.352), which was robust across methodological procedures and only minimally biased by the publication of positive (vs. negative) results” | senses[1] |
| sense | goal activation versus perception-behavior, ADJUDICATED WITHOUT A WINNER BEING DECLARED. The finding is an INCREMENT - goal activation `contributes over and above` perception-behavior - not a replacement. Two mechanisms this corpus has been collecting from separate papers, measured against each other for the first time, and the answer is both— “there was some evidence of persistence of goal effects over time. These results support the notion that goal activation contributes over and above perception-behavior in explaining priming effects. In sum, theorizing about the role of value and satisfaction in goal activation pointed to stronger effects” | senses[2] |
| sense | A MODERATOR NULL REPORTED IN THE ABSTRACT - expectancy, the perceived probability of achieving the goal, did not moderate priming. It was predicted to matter by two literatures that disagree about the DIRECTION (Forster: high expectancy strengthens pursuit; Locke & Latham: difficult goals intensify effort), so a null defeats both. A meta-analysis that puts its non-finding in the abstract alongside its finding— “There was no evidence that expectancy (ease of achieving the goal) moderated priming effects. The worst is yet to come for priming” | senses[3] |
| sense | the ideomotor inheritance, with the awkward part named: the perception-behavior account follows James's ideomotor model `albeit without the conscious (ideo) component from James`. A mechanism borrowed from a nineteenth-century theory of voluntary action, with the consciousness that gave it its name removed - stated in the review's own parenthesis rather than dug out by a critic— “Evidence supporting the perception-behavior link followed the ideomotor model defined by James (1890; also see Carpenter, 1852 ), albeit without the conscious (ideo) component from James” | senses[4] |
| control | the meta-analysis re-run selecting a SINGLE effect per study instead of all of them - the paper reports that it reached the same conclusions and does not show the results — held — rules out dependence between effect sizes drawn from the same study, which inflates precision and can shift a pooled estimate— “We also conducted analyses selecting a single effect, which led to the same conclusions but are not presented due to space constraints.” | controls[0] |
| differs in | goal activation —contrasted-with→ perception-behavior — WHAT THE PRIME INSTALLS - a goal that pursues an outcome, against a direct perception-to-action potentiation. The meta-analysis finds the goal account adds explanatory work OVER AND ABOVE the perceptual one rather than replacing it, which is why this is contrasted-with and not distinct-from— “there was some evidence of persistence of goal effects over time. These results support the notion that goal activation contributes over and above perception-behavior in explaining priming effects. In sum, theorizing about the role of value and satisfaction in goal activation pointed to stronger effects”— “notion that goal activation contributes over and above perception-behavior in explaining priming effects. In sum, theorizing about the role of value and satisfaction in goal activation pointed to stronger effects of a behavior or goal concept on overt action.” | concept_edges[0] |
| note | goal activation —contrasted-with→ perception-behavior — THE ADJUDICATION. Two mechanisms the corpus has been collecting from separate papers - Bargh2001 for goals, the ideomotor tradition for perception-behavior - weighed against each other over 352 effect sizes. The answer is an increment, not a winner, and the weight says so.— “there was some evidence of persistence of goal effects over time. These results support the notion that goal activation contributes over and above perception-behavior in explaining priming effects. In sum, theorizing about the role of value and satisfaction in goal activation pointed to stronger effects” | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | goal activation —contrasted-with→ perception-behavior — 0.9— “there was some evidence of persistence of goal effects over time. These results support the notion that goal activation contributes over and above perception-behavior in explaining priming effects. In sum, theorizing about the role of value and satisfaction in goal activation pointed to stronger effects” | concept_edges[0] |
| effect direction | expectancy —causes→ priming effects — no-change— “There was no evidence that expectancy (ease of achieving the goal) moderated priming effects. The worst is yet to come for priming”— “no evidence that expectancy (ease of achieving the goal) moderated” | concept_edges[1] |
| note | expectancy —causes→ priming effects — A NULL RECORDED AS A DIRECTION, which is what 'no-change' exists for. Two opposed literatures each predicted expectancy would matter - Forster (high expectancy strengthens pursuit) and Locke & Latham (difficult goals intensify effort) - and neither is supported. It is in the abstract, where a null is easiest to leave out.— “There was no evidence that expectancy (ease of achieving the goal) moderated priming effects. The worst is yet to come for priming” | concept_edges[1] |
| weight | expectancy —causes→ priming effects — 0.9— “There was no evidence that expectancy (ease of achieving the goal) moderated priming effects. The worst is yet to come for priming” | concept_edges[1] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| replication | untested | |
| limitation | Meta-analysis is correlational, so the moderator relations reported cannot support causal inference.— “First, meta-analysis is a correlational research method.” | limitations[0] |
| limitation | Only word primes directly related to the measured behaviour were included.— “First, the current study only examined word primes that were directly related to the behavioral outcome assessed in the study.” | limitations[1] |
| limitation | Results may not generalise to other prime types (pictures, body poses) or to primes whose link to the outcome is less direct.— “This decision may limit the generalizability of our results because other types of primes (e.g., pictures, physical body poses) and primes that have a less clear relation with the dependent measure may produce different effects.” | limitations[2] |
| limitation | The null moderation findings hold only within the range of parameter values actually observed in the sampled studies.— “First, the present results are necessarily bound by the range of values observed in the meta-analysis.” | limitations[3] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| key-terms | behavioral priming, meta-analysis, effect size, incidentally, moderator, prime, behavior, goal |
| concept | behavioral priming— “Findings revealed a small behavioral priming effect ( d FE = 0.332, d RE = 0.352), which was robust across methodological procedures and only minimally biased by the publication of positive (vs. negative) results” | concepts[0] |
| concept | meta-analysis— “A meta-analysis assessed the behavioral impact of and psychological processes associated with presenting words connected to an action or a goal representation. The average and distribution of 352 effect sizes (analyzed using fixed-effects and random-effects models) was obtained from 133 studies (84 reports) in which word primes were… | concepts[1] |
| concept | perception-behavior — not defined in this paper's own words; the older mechanism: perceiving a concept directly potentiates the matching action, an ideomotor account taken from James 'albeit without the conscious (ideo) component' - the borrowed idea with its central term removed— “the ideomotor principle into the postulation of priming effects based on the perception-behavior link. Bargh and his colleagues ( Bargh 1990 ; Bargh & Gollwitzer, 1994 ; Bargh et al., 1996 ) argued that stimuli available in the environment could be relevant to and therefore activate chronic behavior concepts and ultimately behavioral… | concepts[3] |
| concept | goal activation — not defined in this paper's own words; the rival, and the one the meta-analysis finds contributes OVER AND ABOVE the other - a prime installs something that pursues an outcome, not merely a way of seeing— “there was some evidence of persistence of goal effects over time. These results support the notion that goal activation contributes over and above perception-behavior in explaining priming effects. In sum, theorizing about the role of value and satisfaction in goal activation pointed to stronger effects” | concepts[4] |
| concept | expectancy — not defined in this paper's own words; the moderator that DID NOTHING - perceived probability of achieving the goal, predicted to matter by two opposed literatures (higher expectancy strengthens pursuit; difficult goals strengthen pursuit) and supported by neither— “There was no evidence that expectancy (ease of achieving the goal) moderated priming effects. The worst is yet to come for priming” | concepts[5] |
| concept | priming effects — not defined in this paper's own words; the general term, and the one every RESULT in this paper is stated in - the abstract reports moderators as acting on 'priming effects' while the theory sections argue about 'behavioral priming'. Same referent, different sentence types— “There was no evidence that expectancy (ease of achieving the goal) moderated priming effects. The worst is yet to come for priming” | concepts[6] |
| concept | publication bias — not defined in this paper's own words; the threat the whole exercise is built against, addressed FOUR ways - fail-safe N, funnel plots, trim-and-fill, and the inclusion of unpublished work. The answer is a degree, not a denial: 'only minimally biased'— “We addressed publication bias in four ways. First, we computed the fail-safe number on individual effect sizes ( N FS ), which corresponds to the number of unpublished negative findings (i.e., disconfirming findings that are either opposite to predictions or null) required to reduce a statistically significant result to nonsignificance (… | concepts[7] |
| chi-square χ² | — “We used the homogeneity statistic ( Q ), which has a chi-square distribution with degrees of freedom equal to the total number of effect sizes minus one ( e – 1), to test for the presence of significant variability” | content_tags.statistics[1] |
| evidence status note | chi-square — QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. | content_tags.statistics[1] |
| confidence-interval CI | as written: confidence intervals— “Effect sizes were calculated from a variety of reported statistics including means, mean confidence intervals, log-odds and log-odds ratios, standard deviations, t -tests, and F -ratios ( DeCoster, 2009 ; Hedges & Olkin, 1985 ; Johnson & Eagly, 2000 ).” | content_tags.statistics[2] |
| evidence status note | confidence-interval — QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. | content_tags.statistics[2] |
| correlation r | as written: r = .20— “Specifically, we standardized manipulated value and coded value, then averaged the two indexes (indexes correlated r = .20).” | content_tags.statistics[3] |
| degrees-of-freedom df | — “We used the homogeneity statistic ( Q ), which has a chi-square distribution with degrees of freedom equal to the total number of effect sizes minus one ( e – 1), to test for the presence of significant variability” | content_tags.statistics[4] |
| evidence status note | degrees-of-freedom — QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. | content_tags.statistics[4] |
| effect-size d | as written: effect sizes— “The average and distribution of 352 effect sizes (analyzed using fixed-effects and random-effects models) was obtained from 133 studies (84 reports) in which word primes were incidentally presented to participants” | content_tags.statistics[5] |
| hypothesis-testing | as written: hypotheses— “The p -curve examines the spread of p -values of researchers’ focal hypotheses to test whether p -values are clustered around p = .05 (suggestive of p -hacking), vs” | content_tags.statistics[6] |
| evidence status note | hypothesis-testing — QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. | content_tags.statistics[6] |
| mean μ | as written: mean of— “We calculated Cohen’s g by subtracting the mean of the control group from the mean of the priming group and dividing that by the pooled SD , or used analogous methods for categorical dependent measures” | content_tags.statistics[7] |
| evidence status note | mean — QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. | content_tags.statistics[7] |
| median | content_tags.statistics[8] | |
| evidence status note | median — QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. | content_tags.statistics[8] |
| null-hypothesis H0 | content_tags.statistics[9] | |
| evidence status note | null-hypothesis — QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. | content_tags.statistics[9] |
| odds-ratio OR | as written: odds ratios | content_tags.statistics[10] |
| evidence status note | odds-ratio — QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. | content_tags.statistics[10] |
| p-value p | as written: p-values | content_tags.statistics[11] |
| evidence status note | p-value — QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. | content_tags.statistics[11] |
| regression β | as written: regression model 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[12] |
| sample-size n/N | 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[13] |
| evidence status note | sample-size — QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. | content_tags.statistics[13] |
| standard-deviation SD/σ | as written: standard deviations 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[14] |
| evidence status note | standard-deviation — QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. | content_tags.statistics[14] |
| standard-error SE | as written: standard errors 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[15] |
| evidence status note | standard-error — QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. | content_tags.statistics[15] |
| statistical-power | 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[16] |
| statistical-significance | as written: statistically 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[17] |
| evidence status note | statistical-significance — QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. | content_tags.statistics[17] |
| t-test t | as written: t-tests 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[18] |
| evidence status note | t-test — QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. | content_tags.statistics[18] |
| variance τ² | 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[19] |
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