schema_version: "1.2"

paper:
  paper_id: buckwalter2014themysterofstakes
  citation: "Buckwalter, W. (2014). The Mystery of Stakes and Error in Ascriber Intuitions. In Advances in Experimental Epistemology (Chapter 6)."
  short_label: "Buckwalter 2014"
  doi: null
  published: "Yes"
  year: 2014
  language: "English"
  language_other: null
  research_objective: "Present two experiments to test proposed explanations (DeRose 2011; Pinillos 2012) for why prior experimental results about stakes and error in bank-style knowledge ascriptions diverge from philosophers’ predictions, focusing on truth-value judgments of knowledge assertions/denials and evidence-seeking judgments in a typo scenario."
  data_availability:
    data_available_online: null
    url: null
    notes: null
  notes: "GROBID header metadata (title/authors/year) was missing for this PDF; citation/year taken from filename context and cross-paper references within the repo. Confirm bibliographic details if needed."

studies:
  - study_id: 1
    label: "Experiment: Bank case (stakes × error × speech act)"
    language: English
    language_other: null
    objective: "Test whether stakes influence truth-value judgments of knowledge assertions vs knowledge denials in a bank vignette while also manipulating salient vs non-salient error possibilities, addressing DeRose’s concerns about prior bank-case experimental designs."
    sample:
      n_final: null
      recruitment: "mTurk"
      recruitment_other: null
      compensation: null
      compensation_other: null
      characteristics: "Online sample (U.S.-restricted) run via MTurk + Qualtrics; reported N=215 (32% male) and an additional note that 30 participants were removed for failing comprehension checks (PDF p.10 and p.25). Cell Ns per condition not reported."
      mean_age: null
      provenance:
        page: 10
        quote: "After seeing one of the possible bank case combinations, and receiving a pair of comprehension checks, participants (N  215, 32 percent male) were then asked the following question:"
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    design: "Between-Subjects"
    design_other: "2 (stakes: high vs low) × 2 (error possibilities: salient vs non-salient) × 2 (speech act: assertion vs denial) between-subjects; participants randomly assigned to one of 8 conditions."
    manipulated_factors:
      - "Error salience (salient vs non-salient error possibilities)"
      - "Speech act (knowledge assertion vs knowledge denial)"
    paradigm: "Agreement that a sentence is true"
    paradigm_other: null
    scale:
      label: "Likert 5-point"
      points: 5
      anchors: "1 = false; 3 = in between; 5 = true"
      direction: "Higher numbers indicate stronger judgment that the target knowledge sentence is true."
      provenance:
        page: 10
        quote: "Answers were assessed on a five-item scale anchored with truth-value terms (e.g., 1  false, 3  in between, 5  true)."
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    measures:
      knowledge_question_text: "Assume that as it turns out, the bank really was open for business on Saturday. When Hannah said, “I (know / don’t know) that the bank will be open on Saturday,” is what she said true or false?"
      knowledge_question_first: null
      additional_question_text: null
    scenarios:
      - scenario_code: bank
        scenario_type: "Bank deposit / bank-hours vignette (Hannah and Sarah)."
        high_stakes_text: "High stakes: an impending bill and very little money make it very important to deposit paychecks by Saturday."
        low_stakes_text: "Low stakes: no impending bill and plenty of money make it not important to deposit by Saturday."
        provenance:
          page: 10
          quote: "High. Since they have an impending bill coming due, and have very little money in their accounts, it is very important that they deposit their paychecks by Saturday."
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
    effects:
      - effect_id: s1_e1
        subgroup: "Bank case — knowledge denial, low error (stakes contrast)"
        subgroup_desc: "Truth judgment of knowledge denial sentence; error possibilities non-salient."
        design: "Between-Subjects"
        design_other: null
        moderators:
          scenario: bank
          skeptical_pressure: "No"
          awareness: "Yes"
          evidence: "First Person"
          attribution_person: "First Person"
          evidence_reliability: "Medium"
        moderators_coding:
          scenario:
            provenance:
              page: 10
              quote: "Hannah and her sister Sarah are driving home on a Friday afternoon. They plan to stop at the bank on the way home to deposit their paychecks."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "The vignette concerns whether the bank will be open (bank-hours scenario)."
          skeptical_pressure:
            provenance:
              page: 10
              quote: "Low. Sarah replies, “So the bank will be open tomorrow?”"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "In the low-error condition, no explicit counterconsideration/error possibility is introduced."
          awareness:
            provenance:
              page: 10
              quote: "High. Since they have an impending bill coming due, and have very little money in their accounts, it is very important that they deposit their paychecks by Saturday."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "The stakes (high vs low) are explicitly described in the vignette; no manipulation of subject unawareness is described."
          evidence:
            provenance:
              page: 10
              quote: "Hannah says, “I was just at this bank two weeks ago on a Saturday morning, and it was open till noon.”"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "The basis is first-person memory + prediction from a prior bank visit."
          attribution_person:
            provenance:
              page: 10
              quote: "When Hannah said, “I (know / don’t know) that the bank will be open on Saturday,” is what she said true or false?"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "Participants evaluate a first-person utterance by the protagonist (“I know / I don’t know…”)."
          evidence_reliability:
            provenance:
              page: 10
              quote: "Hannah says, “I was just at this bank two weeks ago on a Saturday morning, and it was open till noon.”"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "Memory + prediction from a prior bank visit, with no extra verification, is an ordinary but fallible epistemic basis -> Medium."
        contrast:
          group_high: denial_le_hs
          group_low: denial_le_ls
          sign_convention: "d = mean(low) - mean(high)"
          other_notes: "DV is truth judgment of a knowledge denial (“I don’t know…”); depending on the meta-analytic construct, denial conditions may require reverse-scoring to align with knowledge-ascription direction."
        groups:
          - group_id: denial_le_ls
            label: "Low Error / Low Stakes (Denial)"
            n: null
            mean: 3.48
            sd: 1.62
            se: null
            provenance:
              page: 25
              quote: "Low Error/Low Stakes (M  3.48, SD  1.62)"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
          - group_id: denial_le_hs
            label: "Low Error / High Stakes (Denial)"
            n: null
            mean: 4.15
            sd: 1.05
            se: null
            provenance:
              page: 25
              quote: "Low Error/High Stakes (M  4.15, SD  1.05)"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
        effect_size:
          metric: SMD
          d: null
          v: null
          computed_from: unknown
          needs_review: true
          notes: "Group Ns per condition were not reported in available outputs; cannot compute d/v without split Ns."
        quality_flags: []
        notes: null

      - effect_id: s1_e2
        subgroup: "Bank case — knowledge denial, high error (stakes contrast)"
        subgroup_desc: "Truth judgment of knowledge denial sentence; error possibilities salient."
        design: "Between-Subjects"
        design_other: null
        moderators:
          scenario: bank
          skeptical_pressure: "Yes"
          awareness: "Yes"
          evidence: "First Person"
          attribution_person: "First Person"
          evidence_reliability: "Medium"
        moderators_coding:
          scenario:
            provenance:
              page: 10
              quote: "Hannah and her sister Sarah are driving home on a Friday afternoon. They plan to stop at the bank on the way home to deposit their paychecks."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "The vignette concerns whether the bank will be open (bank-hours scenario)."
          skeptical_pressure:
            provenance:
              page: 10
              quote: "High. Sarah replies, “Well, businesses do change their hours sometimes. Just imagine how frustrating it would be driving here tomorrow and finding the door locked.”"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "In the high-error condition, an explicit error possibility/counterconsideration about bank hours is introduced."
          awareness:
            provenance:
              page: 10
              quote: "High. Since they have an impending bill coming due, and have very little money in their accounts, it is very important that they deposit their paychecks by Saturday."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "The stakes (high vs low) are explicitly described in the vignette; no manipulation of subject unawareness is described."
          evidence:
            provenance:
              page: 10
              quote: "Hannah says, “I was just at this bank two weeks ago on a Saturday morning, and it was open till noon.”"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "The basis is first-person memory + prediction from a prior bank visit."
          attribution_person:
            provenance:
              page: 10
              quote: "When Hannah said, “I (know / don’t know) that the bank will be open on Saturday,” is what she said true or false?"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "Participants evaluate a first-person utterance by the protagonist (“I know / I don’t know…”)."
          evidence_reliability:
            provenance:
              page: 10
              quote: "Hannah says, “I was just at this bank two weeks ago on a Saturday morning, and it was open till noon.”"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "Memory + prediction from a prior bank visit, with no extra verification, is an ordinary but fallible epistemic basis -> Medium. The added skeptical-pressure cue does not by itself change reliability."
        contrast:
          group_high: denial_he_hs
          group_low: denial_he_ls
          sign_convention: "d = mean(low) - mean(high)"
          other_notes: "DV is truth judgment of a knowledge denial (“I don’t know…”); depending on the meta-analytic construct, denial conditions may require reverse-scoring to align with knowledge-ascription direction."
        groups:
          - group_id: denial_he_ls
            label: "High Error / Low Stakes (Denial)"
            n: null
            mean: 4.27
            sd: 1.08
            se: null
            provenance:
              page: 25
              quote: "High Error/Low Stakes (M  4.27, SD  1.08)"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
          - group_id: denial_he_hs
            label: "High Error / High Stakes (Denial)"
            n: null
            mean: 3.92
            sd: 1.12
            se: null
            provenance:
              page: 25
              quote: "High Error/High Stakes (M  3.92, SD  1.12)"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
        effect_size:
          metric: SMD
          d: null
          v: null
          computed_from: unknown
          needs_review: true
          notes: "Group Ns per condition were not reported in available outputs; cannot compute d/v without split Ns."
        quality_flags: []
        notes: null

      - effect_id: s1_e3
        subgroup: "Bank case — knowledge assertion, low error (stakes contrast)"
        subgroup_desc: "Truth judgment of knowledge assertion sentence; error possibilities non-salient."
        design: "Between-Subjects"
        design_other: null
        moderators:
          scenario: bank
          skeptical_pressure: "No"
          awareness: "Yes"
          evidence: "First Person"
          attribution_person: "First Person"
          evidence_reliability: "Medium"
        moderators_coding:
          scenario:
            provenance:
              page: 10
              quote: "Hannah and her sister Sarah are driving home on a Friday afternoon. They plan to stop at the bank on the way home to deposit their paychecks."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "The vignette concerns whether the bank will be open (bank-hours scenario)."
          skeptical_pressure:
            provenance:
              page: 10
              quote: "Low. Sarah replies, “So the bank will be open tomorrow?”"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "In the low-error condition, no explicit counterconsideration/error possibility is introduced."
          awareness:
            provenance:
              page: 10
              quote: "High. Since they have an impending bill coming due, and have very little money in their accounts, it is very important that they deposit their paychecks by Saturday."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "The stakes (high vs low) are explicitly described in the vignette; no manipulation of subject unawareness is described."
          evidence:
            provenance:
              page: 10
              quote: "Hannah says, “I was just at this bank two weeks ago on a Saturday morning, and it was open till noon.”"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "The basis is first-person memory + prediction from a prior bank visit."
          attribution_person:
            provenance:
              page: 10
              quote: "When Hannah said, “I (know / don’t know) that the bank will be open on Saturday,” is what she said true or false?"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "Participants evaluate a first-person utterance by the protagonist (“I know / I don’t know…”)."
          evidence_reliability:
            provenance:
              page: 10
              quote: "Hannah says, “I was just at this bank two weeks ago on a Saturday morning, and it was open till noon.”"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "Memory + prediction from a prior bank visit, with no extra verification, is an ordinary but fallible epistemic basis -> Medium."
        contrast:
          group_high: assert_le_hs
          group_low: assert_le_ls
          sign_convention: "d = mean(low) - mean(high)"
          other_notes: null
        groups:
          - group_id: assert_le_ls
            label: "Low Error / Low Stakes (Assertion)"
            n: null
            mean: 4.70
            sd: 0.56
            se: null
            provenance:
              page: 25
              quote: "Low Error/Low Stakes (M  4.70, SD  0.56)"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
          - group_id: assert_le_hs
            label: "Low Error / High Stakes (Assertion)"
            n: null
            mean: 4.48
            sd: 0.59
            se: null
            provenance:
              page: 25
              quote: "Low Error/High Stakes (M  4.48, SD  0.59)"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
        effect_size:
          metric: SMD
          d: null
          v: null
          computed_from: unknown
          needs_review: true
          notes: "Group Ns per condition were not reported in available outputs; cannot compute d/v without split Ns."
        quality_flags: []
        notes: null

      - effect_id: s1_e4
        subgroup: "Bank case — knowledge assertion, high error (stakes contrast)"
        subgroup_desc: "Truth judgment of knowledge assertion sentence; error possibilities salient."
        design: "Between-Subjects"
        design_other: null
        moderators:
          scenario: bank
          skeptical_pressure: "Yes"
          awareness: "Yes"
          evidence: "First Person"
          attribution_person: "First Person"
          evidence_reliability: "Medium"
        moderators_coding:
          scenario:
            provenance:
              page: 10
              quote: "Hannah and her sister Sarah are driving home on a Friday afternoon. They plan to stop at the bank on the way home to deposit their paychecks."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "The vignette concerns whether the bank will be open (bank-hours scenario)."
          skeptical_pressure:
            provenance:
              page: 10
              quote: "High. Sarah replies, “Well, businesses do change their hours sometimes. Just imagine how frustrating it would be driving here tomorrow and finding the door locked.”"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "In the high-error condition, an explicit error possibility/counterconsideration about bank hours is introduced."
          awareness:
            provenance:
              page: 10
              quote: "High. Since they have an impending bill coming due, and have very little money in their accounts, it is very important that they deposit their paychecks by Saturday."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "The stakes (high vs low) are explicitly described in the vignette; no manipulation of subject unawareness is described."
          evidence:
            provenance:
              page: 10
              quote: "Hannah says, “I was just at this bank two weeks ago on a Saturday morning, and it was open till noon.”"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "The basis is first-person memory + prediction from a prior bank visit."
          attribution_person:
            provenance:
              page: 10
              quote: "When Hannah said, “I (know / don’t know) that the bank will be open on Saturday,” is what she said true or false?"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "Participants evaluate a first-person utterance by the protagonist (“I know / I don’t know…”)."
          evidence_reliability:
            provenance:
              page: 10
              quote: "Hannah says, “I was just at this bank two weeks ago on a Saturday morning, and it was open till noon.”"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "Memory + prediction from a prior bank visit, with no extra verification, is an ordinary but fallible epistemic basis -> Medium. The added skeptical-pressure cue does not by itself change reliability."
        contrast:
          group_high: assert_he_hs
          group_low: assert_he_ls
          sign_convention: "d = mean(low) - mean(high)"
          other_notes: null
        groups:
          - group_id: assert_he_ls
            label: "High Error / Low Stakes (Assertion)"
            n: null
            mean: 4.05
            sd: 1.30
            se: null
            provenance:
              page: 25
              quote: "High Error/Low Stakes (M  4.05, SD  1.30)"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
          - group_id: assert_he_hs
            label: "High Error / High Stakes (Assertion)"
            n: null
            mean: 4.33
            sd: 0.73
            se: null
            provenance:
              page: 25
              quote: "High Error/High Stakes (M  4.33, SD  0.73)"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
        effect_size:
          metric: SMD
          d: null
          v: null
          computed_from: unknown
          needs_review: true
          notes: "Group Ns per condition were not reported in available outputs; cannot compute d/v without split Ns."
        quality_flags: []
        notes: null

  - study_id: 2
    label: "Experiment: Typo case (stakes × mental state predicate)"
    language: English
    language_other: null
    objective: "Test whether stakes effects in evidence-seeking judgments are specific to knowledge ascriptions by varying stakes (high vs low) and the mental-state predicate in the prompt (belief vs knowledge) and measuring the number of proofreading iterations required."
    sample:
      n_final: null
      recruitment: null
      recruitment_other: null
      compensation: null
      compensation_other: null
      characteristics: "100 participants reported; 10 removed for failing a comprehension check (PDF p.16 and p.26). Recruitment platform/compensation not specified in available outputs."
      mean_age: null
      provenance:
        page: 16
        quote: "In this study, 100 participants were given a manipulation as close as possible to what is used in Pinillos’ study involving subject stakes, but also varied the kind of mental state ascription that was attributed to that subject."
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    design: "Between-Subjects"
    design_other: "2 (stakes: high vs low) × 2 (mental state predicate: belief vs knowledge) between-subjects."
    manipulated_factors:
      - "Mental state predicate in prompt (belief vs knowledge)"
    paradigm: "Rating how much evidence is needed for knowledge"
    paradigm_other: null
    scale:
      label: other
      points: null
      anchors: "Numeric free response: number of times the protagonist must proofread."
      direction: "Higher numbers indicate more evidence required."
      provenance:
        page: 16
        quote: "participants were then asked, “How many times do you think Peter has to proofread his paper before he [believes/ knows] that there are no typos?”"
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    measures:
      knowledge_question_text: "How many times do you think Peter has to proofread his paper before he knows that there are no typos?"
      knowledge_question_first: null
      additional_question_text: "How many times do you think Peter has to proofread his paper before he believes that there are no typos?"
    scenarios:
      - scenario_code: typos
        scenario_type: "Proofreading a paper for typos; stakes vary with consequences for grade/scholarship."
        high_stakes_text: "High stakes: no A if a typo; scholarship depends on A; protagonist is well aware."
        low_stakes_text: "Low stakes: rough draft; a few typos do not matter."
        provenance:
          page: 15
          quote: "There is a lot at stake... he needs an A... to keep his scholarship... it is extremely important for John that there are no typos in this paper. And he is well aware of this."
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
    effects:
      - effect_id: s2_e1
        subgroup: "Typo case — evidence-seeking knowledge prompt (stakes contrast)"
        subgroup_desc: "Number of proofreading iterations required for knowledge (high vs low stakes)."
        design: "Between-Subjects"
        design_other: null
        moderators:
          scenario: typos
          skeptical_pressure: "No"
          awareness: "Yes"
          evidence: "First Person"
          attribution_person: "Other"
          evidence_reliability: "High"
        moderators_coding:
          scenario:
            provenance:
              page: 15
              quote: "he has a dictionary with him that he can use to check and make sure there are no typos."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "The vignette concerns proofreading for typos (typos scenario)."
          skeptical_pressure:
            provenance:
              page: 15
              quote: "he has a dictionary with him that he can use to check and make sure there are no typos."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "No explicit skeptical-pressure cue/counterconsideration is introduced; the manipulation is practical stakes."
          awareness:
            provenance:
              page: 15
              quote: "And he is well aware of this."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "The high-stakes vignette explicitly states the protagonist is aware of the stakes."
          evidence:
            provenance:
              page: 15
              quote: "he has a dictionary with him that he can use to check and make sure there are no typos."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "The basis is a first-person checking/verification procedure: proofreading with a dictionary."
          attribution_person:
            provenance:
              page: 16
              quote: "How many times do you think Peter has to proofread his paper before he [believes/ knows] that there are no typos?"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "Participants attribute knowledge to the protagonist (third-person attribution)."
          evidence_reliability:
            provenance:
              page: 15
              quote: "he has a dictionary with him that he can use to check and make sure there are no typos."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "A checking/verification procedure with dictionary support is presented as a comparatively strong epistemic basis -> High."
        contrast:
          group_high: typo_hs_know
          group_low: typo_ls_know
          sign_convention: "d = mean(low) - mean(high)"
          other_notes: null
        groups:
          - group_id: typo_ls_know
            label: "Typo Low-Stakes Knowledge"
            n: null
            mean: 2.61
            sd: 0.89
            se: null
            provenance:
              page: 26
              quote: "Typo Low-Stakes Knowledge (M  2.61, SD  0.89)"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
          - group_id: typo_hs_know
            label: "Typo High-Stakes Knowledge"
            n: null
            mean: 5.12
            sd: 3.42
            se: null
            provenance:
              page: 26
              quote: "Typo High-Stakes Knowledge (M  5.12, SD  3.42)"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
        reported_test:
          test: "F"
          t: null
          f: 23.1
          chi2: null
          z: null
          df1: 1
          df2: 86
          p: null
          reported_d: null
          reported_r: null
          notes: "Reported as p<0.01 for main effect of stakes (Mental State × Stakes ANOVA)."
          provenance:
            page: 26
            quote: "A significant main effect was obtained for stakes, F (1, 86)  23.1, p  0.01."
            tei_id: null
            table_ref: null
        effect_size:
          metric: SMD
          d: null
          v: null
          computed_from: unknown
          needs_review: true
          notes: "Group Ns per condition were not reported in available outputs; cannot compute d/v without split Ns (and stakes-group Ns after excluding 10 participants)."
        quality_flags: []
        notes: null
