| paper_id | buckwalter2014themysterofstakes |
|---|---|
| short_label | Buckwalter 2014 |
| citation | Buckwalter, W. (2014). The Mystery of Stakes and Error in Ascriber Intuitions. In Advances in Experimental Epistemology (Chapter 6). |
| doi | — |
| year | 2014 |
| published | Yes |
| language | English |
| language_other | — |
| 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_available_online | — |
| data_url | — |
| 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. |
| study_id | 1 |
|---|---|
| label | Experiment: Bank case (stakes × error × speech act) |
| 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. |
| 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 | — |
| notes | — |
| n_final | — |
|---|---|
| recruitment | mTurk |
| recruitment_other | — |
| compensation | — |
| compensation_other | — |
| 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 | — |
| page | 10 |
|---|---|
| table_ref | — |
| tei_id | — |
| 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. |
| page | 10 |
|---|---|
| table_ref | — |
| tei_id | — |
| 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 | — |
| additional_question_text | — |
bank · Bank deposit / bank-hours vignette (Hannah and Sarah).| scenario_code | bank |
|---|---|
| scenario_type | Bank deposit / bank-hours vignette (Hannah and Sarah). |
| page | 10 |
|---|---|
| table_ref | — |
| tei_id | — |
s1_e1 · Bank case — knowledge denial, low error (stakes contrast) · Between-Subjects · needs_review| 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 | — |
| quality_flags | — |
| notes | — |
| metric | SMD |
|---|---|
| d | — |
| v | — |
| computed_from | unknown |
| needs_review | true |
| notes | Group Ns per condition were not reported in available outputs; cannot compute d/v without split Ns. |
| scenario | bank |
|---|---|
| skeptical_pressure | No |
| awareness | Yes |
| evidence | First Person |
| attribution_person | First Person |
| evidence_reliability | — |
| 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. |
| moderator | value | reason | evidence | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
scenario | bank | The vignette concerns whether the bank will be open (bank-hours scenario). | Provenance
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. | ||||||
skeptical_pressure | No | In the low-error condition, no explicit counterconsideration/error possibility is introduced. | Provenance
Low. Sarah replies, “So the bank will be open tomorrow?” | ||||||
awareness | Yes | The stakes (high vs low) are explicitly described in the vignette; no manipulation of subject unawareness is described. | Provenance
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. | ||||||
evidence | First Person | The agent’s evidence is her own recent experience/memory (first-person evidence). | Provenance
Hannah says, “I was just at this bank two weeks ago on a Saturday morning, and it was open till noon.” | ||||||
attribution_person | First Person | Participants evaluate a first-person utterance by the protagonist (“I know / I don’t know…”). | Provenance
When Hannah said, “I (know / don’t know) that the bank will be open on Saturday,” is what she said true or false? | ||||||
evidence_reliability | — | No explicit manipulation/description of evidence-source reliability; coded as null. | Provenance
Hannah says, “I was just at this bank two weeks ago on a Saturday morning, and it was open till noon.” |
| group_id | label | n | mean | sd | se | provenance | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
denial_le_ls | Low Error / Low Stakes (Denial) | — | 3.48 | 1.62 | — | Provenance
Low Error/Low Stakes (M 3.48, SD 1.62) | ||||||
denial_le_hs | Low Error / High Stakes (Denial) | — | 4.15 | 1.05 | — | Provenance
Low Error/High Stakes (M 4.15, SD 1.05) |
| test | — |
|---|---|
| t | — |
| f | — |
| chi2 | — |
| z | — |
| df1 | — |
| df2 | — |
| p | — |
| reported_d | — |
| reported_r | — |
| notes | — |
s1_e2 · Bank case — knowledge denial, high error (stakes contrast) · Between-Subjects · needs_review| 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 | — |
| quality_flags | — |
| notes | — |
| metric | SMD |
|---|---|
| d | — |
| v | — |
| computed_from | unknown |
| needs_review | true |
| notes | Group Ns per condition were not reported in available outputs; cannot compute d/v without split Ns. |
| scenario | bank |
|---|---|
| skeptical_pressure | Yes |
| awareness | Yes |
| evidence | First Person |
| attribution_person | First Person |
| evidence_reliability | — |
| 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. |
| moderator | value | reason | evidence | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
scenario | bank | The vignette concerns whether the bank will be open (bank-hours scenario). | Provenance
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. | ||||||
skeptical_pressure | Yes | In the high-error condition, an explicit error possibility/counterconsideration about bank hours is introduced. | Provenance
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.” | ||||||
awareness | Yes | The stakes (high vs low) are explicitly described in the vignette; no manipulation of subject unawareness is described. | Provenance
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. | ||||||
evidence | First Person | The agent’s evidence is her own recent experience/memory (first-person evidence). | Provenance
Hannah says, “I was just at this bank two weeks ago on a Saturday morning, and it was open till noon.” | ||||||
attribution_person | First Person | Participants evaluate a first-person utterance by the protagonist (“I know / I don’t know…”). | Provenance
When Hannah said, “I (know / don’t know) that the bank will be open on Saturday,” is what she said true or false? | ||||||
evidence_reliability | — | No explicit manipulation/description of evidence-source reliability; coded as null. | Provenance
Hannah says, “I was just at this bank two weeks ago on a Saturday morning, and it was open till noon.” |
| group_id | label | n | mean | sd | se | provenance | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
denial_he_ls | High Error / Low Stakes (Denial) | — | 4.27 | 1.08 | — | Provenance
High Error/Low Stakes (M 4.27, SD 1.08) | ||||||
denial_he_hs | High Error / High Stakes (Denial) | — | 3.92 | 1.12 | — | Provenance
High Error/High Stakes (M 3.92, SD 1.12) |
| test | — |
|---|---|
| t | — |
| f | — |
| chi2 | — |
| z | — |
| df1 | — |
| df2 | — |
| p | — |
| reported_d | — |
| reported_r | — |
| notes | — |
s1_e3 · Bank case — knowledge assertion, low error (stakes contrast) · Between-Subjects · needs_review| 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 | — |
| quality_flags | — |
| notes | — |
| metric | SMD |
|---|---|
| d | — |
| v | — |
| computed_from | unknown |
| needs_review | true |
| notes | Group Ns per condition were not reported in available outputs; cannot compute d/v without split Ns. |
| scenario | bank |
|---|---|
| skeptical_pressure | No |
| awareness | Yes |
| evidence | First Person |
| attribution_person | First Person |
| evidence_reliability | — |
| group_high | assert_le_hs |
|---|---|
| group_low | assert_le_ls |
| sign_convention | d = mean(low) - mean(high) |
| other_notes | — |
| moderator | value | reason | evidence | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
scenario | bank | The vignette concerns whether the bank will be open (bank-hours scenario). | Provenance
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. | ||||||
skeptical_pressure | No | In the low-error condition, no explicit counterconsideration/error possibility is introduced. | Provenance
Low. Sarah replies, “So the bank will be open tomorrow?” | ||||||
awareness | Yes | The stakes (high vs low) are explicitly described in the vignette; no manipulation of subject unawareness is described. | Provenance
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. | ||||||
evidence | First Person | The agent’s evidence is her own recent experience/memory (first-person evidence). | Provenance
Hannah says, “I was just at this bank two weeks ago on a Saturday morning, and it was open till noon.” | ||||||
attribution_person | First Person | Participants evaluate a first-person utterance by the protagonist (“I know / I don’t know…”). | Provenance
When Hannah said, “I (know / don’t know) that the bank will be open on Saturday,” is what she said true or false? | ||||||
evidence_reliability | — | No explicit manipulation/description of evidence-source reliability; coded as null. | Provenance
Hannah says, “I was just at this bank two weeks ago on a Saturday morning, and it was open till noon.” |
| group_id | label | n | mean | sd | se | provenance | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
assert_le_ls | Low Error / Low Stakes (Assertion) | — | 4.7 | 0.56 | — | Provenance
Low Error/Low Stakes (M 4.70, SD 0.56) | ||||||
assert_le_hs | Low Error / High Stakes (Assertion) | — | 4.48 | 0.59 | — | Provenance
Low Error/High Stakes (M 4.48, SD 0.59) |
| test | — |
|---|---|
| t | — |
| f | — |
| chi2 | — |
| z | — |
| df1 | — |
| df2 | — |
| p | — |
| reported_d | — |
| reported_r | — |
| notes | — |
s1_e4 · Bank case — knowledge assertion, high error (stakes contrast) · Between-Subjects · needs_review| 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 | — |
| quality_flags | — |
| notes | — |
| metric | SMD |
|---|---|
| d | — |
| v | — |
| computed_from | unknown |
| needs_review | true |
| notes | Group Ns per condition were not reported in available outputs; cannot compute d/v without split Ns. |
| scenario | bank |
|---|---|
| skeptical_pressure | Yes |
| awareness | Yes |
| evidence | First Person |
| attribution_person | First Person |
| evidence_reliability | — |
| group_high | assert_he_hs |
|---|---|
| group_low | assert_he_ls |
| sign_convention | d = mean(low) - mean(high) |
| other_notes | — |
| moderator | value | reason | evidence | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
scenario | bank | The vignette concerns whether the bank will be open (bank-hours scenario). | Provenance
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. | ||||||
skeptical_pressure | Yes | In the high-error condition, an explicit error possibility/counterconsideration about bank hours is introduced. | Provenance
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.” | ||||||
awareness | Yes | The stakes (high vs low) are explicitly described in the vignette; no manipulation of subject unawareness is described. | Provenance
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. | ||||||
evidence | First Person | The agent’s evidence is her own recent experience/memory (first-person evidence). | Provenance
Hannah says, “I was just at this bank two weeks ago on a Saturday morning, and it was open till noon.” | ||||||
attribution_person | First Person | Participants evaluate a first-person utterance by the protagonist (“I know / I don’t know…”). | Provenance
When Hannah said, “I (know / don’t know) that the bank will be open on Saturday,” is what she said true or false? | ||||||
evidence_reliability | — | No explicit manipulation/description of evidence-source reliability; coded as null. | Provenance
Hannah says, “I was just at this bank two weeks ago on a Saturday morning, and it was open till noon.” |
| group_id | label | n | mean | sd | se | provenance | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
assert_he_ls | High Error / Low Stakes (Assertion) | — | 4.05 | 1.3 | — | Provenance
High Error/Low Stakes (M 4.05, SD 1.30) | ||||||
assert_he_hs | High Error / High Stakes (Assertion) | — | 4.33 | 0.73 | — | Provenance
High Error/High Stakes (M 4.33, SD 0.73) |
| test | — |
|---|---|
| t | — |
| f | — |
| chi2 | — |
| z | — |
| df1 | — |
| df2 | — |
| p | — |
| reported_d | — |
| reported_r | — |
| notes | — |
| study_id | 2 |
|---|---|
| label | Experiment: Typo case (stakes × mental state predicate) |
| 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. |
| 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 | — |
| notes | — |
| n_final | — |
|---|---|
| recruitment | — |
| recruitment_other | — |
| compensation | — |
| compensation_other | — |
| 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 | — |
| page | 16 |
|---|---|
| table_ref | — |
| tei_id | — |
| label | other |
|---|---|
| points | — |
| anchors | Numeric free response: number of times the protagonist must proofread. |
| direction | Higher numbers indicate more evidence required. |
| page | 16 |
|---|---|
| table_ref | — |
| tei_id | — |
| 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 | — |
| additional_question_text | How many times do you think Peter has to proofread his paper before he believes that there are no typos? |
typos · Proofreading a paper for typos; stakes vary with consequences for grade/scholarship.| scenario_code | typos |
|---|---|
| scenario_type | Proofreading a paper for typos; stakes vary with consequences for grade/scholarship. |
| page | 15 |
|---|---|
| table_ref | — |
| tei_id | — |
s2_e1 · Typo case — evidence-seeking knowledge prompt (stakes contrast) · Between-Subjects · needs_review| 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 | — |
| quality_flags | — |
| notes | — |
| metric | SMD |
|---|---|
| d | — |
| v | — |
| 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). |
| scenario | typos |
|---|---|
| skeptical_pressure | No |
| awareness | Yes |
| evidence | First Person |
| attribution_person | Other |
| evidence_reliability | — |
| group_high | typo_hs_know |
|---|---|
| group_low | typo_ls_know |
| sign_convention | d = mean(low) - mean(high) |
| other_notes | — |
| moderator | value | reason | evidence | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
scenario | typos | The vignette concerns proofreading for typos (typos scenario). | Provenance
he has a dictionary with him that he can use to check and make sure there are no typos. | ||||||
skeptical_pressure | No | No explicit skeptical-pressure cue/counterconsideration is introduced; the manipulation is practical stakes. | Provenance
he has a dictionary with him that he can use to check and make sure there are no typos. | ||||||
awareness | Yes | The high-stakes vignette explicitly states the protagonist is aware of the stakes. | Provenance
And he is well aware of this. | ||||||
evidence | First Person | Evidence is generated by the agent’s own proofreading/checking (first-person evidence). | Provenance
he has a dictionary with him that he can use to check and make sure there are no typos. | ||||||
attribution_person | Other | Participants attribute knowledge to the protagonist (third-person attribution). | Provenance
How many times do you think Peter has to proofread his paper before he [believes/ knows] that there are no typos? | ||||||
evidence_reliability | — | Evidence-source reliability is not meaningfully manipulated; coded as null. | Provenance
he has a dictionary with him that he can use to check and make sure there are no typos. |
| group_id | label | n | mean | sd | se | provenance | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
typo_ls_know | Typo Low-Stakes Knowledge | — | 2.61 | 0.89 | — | Provenance
Typo Low-Stakes Knowledge (M 2.61, SD 0.89) | ||||||
typo_hs_know | Typo High-Stakes Knowledge | — | 5.12 | 3.42 | — | Provenance
Typo High-Stakes Knowledge (M 5.12, SD 3.42) |
| test | F |
|---|---|
| t | — |
| f | 23.1 |
| chi2 | — |
| z | — |
| df1 | 1 |
| df2 | 86 |
| p | — |
| reported_d | — |
| reported_r | — |
| notes | Reported as p<0.01 for main effect of stakes (Mental State × Stakes ANOVA). |
| page | 26 |
|---|---|
| table_ref | — |
| tei_id | — |
schema_version: "1.1"
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)"
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: null
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 agent’s evidence is her own recent experience/memory (first-person evidence)."
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: "No explicit manipulation/description of evidence-source reliability; coded as null."
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: null
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 agent’s evidence is her own recent experience/memory (first-person evidence)."
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: "No explicit manipulation/description of evidence-source reliability; coded as null."
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: null
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 agent’s evidence is her own recent experience/memory (first-person evidence)."
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: "No explicit manipulation/description of evidence-source reliability; coded as null."
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: null
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 agent’s evidence is her own recent experience/memory (first-person evidence)."
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: "No explicit manipulation/description of evidence-source reliability; coded as null."
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)"
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: null
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: "Evidence is generated by the agent’s own proofreading/checking (first-person evidence)."
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: "Evidence-source reliability is not meaningfully manipulated; coded as null."
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