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: 185
    recruitment: mTurk
    recruitment_other: null
    compensation: null
    compensation_other: null
    characteristics: Online sample (U.S.-restricted) run via MTurk + Qualtrics. The study reports N=215 (32% male) before
      the DV question and separately reports that 30 participants were removed for failing comprehension checks; the analyzed
      N is therefore taken as 185, which is also consistent with the omnibus ANOVA denominator df (F(1,177) in an 8-cell between-subject
      design). Cell Ns per condition were 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(high) - mean(low)
      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.\r\n\r\nReverse coded\
        \ by BM"
    groups:
    - group_id: denial_le_ls
      label: null
      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: null
      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: 0.490812856859
      v: 0.089090781194
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: "Computed from reported means/SDs via esc::esc_mean_sd(...) using an equal-cell approximation. Study 1 analyzed\
        \ N was taken as 185 from 215 reported minus 30 removed and from the omnibus ANOVA denominator df=177; equal allocation\
        \ across the 8 cells implies n_low=n_high=23.125 for this stakes contrast. See analysis/effect_sizes.qmd.\r\n\r\n\
        d was reverse coded by BM"
    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(high) - mean(low)
      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.\r\n\r\nReverse coded\
        \ by BM"
    groups:
    - group_id: denial_he_ls
      label: null
      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: null
      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: -0.318129239182
      v: 0.087580607706
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: "Computed from reported means/SDs via esc::esc_mean_sd(...) using an equal-cell approximation. Study 1 analyzed\
        \ N was taken as 185 from 215 reported minus 30 removed and from the omnibus ANOVA denominator df=177; equal allocation\
        \ across the 8 cells implies n_low=n_high=23.125 for this stakes contrast. See analysis/effect_sizes.qmd.\r\n\r\n\
        d Reverse coded by BM"
    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: 4.7
      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: 0.382478573848
      v: 0.088067998481
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: Computed from reported means/SDs via esc::esc_mean_sd(...) using an equal-cell approximation. Study 1 analyzed
        N was taken as 185 from 215 reported minus 30 removed and from the omnibus ANOVA denominator df=177; equal allocation
        across the 8 cells implies n_low=n_high=23.125 for this stakes contrast. See analysis/effect_sizes.qmd.
    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: 1.3
      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: -0.265590823941
      v: 0.087249064711
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: Computed from reported means/SDs via esc::esc_mean_sd(...) using an equal-cell approximation. Study 1 analyzed
        N was taken as 185 from 215 reported minus 30 removed and from the omnibus ANOVA denominator df=177; equal allocation
        across the 8 cells implies n_low=n_high=23.125 for this stakes contrast. See analysis/effect_sizes.qmd.
    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: 90
    recruitment: null
    recruitment_other: null
    compensation: null
    compensation_other: null
    characteristics: 100 participants were reported and 10 were removed for failing a comprehension check; the analyzed N
      is therefore taken as 90, which is also consistent with the omnibus ANOVA denominator df (F(1,86) in a 4-cell between-subject
      design). Recruitment platform/compensation were 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: -1.004462158914
      v: 0.100099380319
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: Computed from reported means/SDs via esc::esc_mean_sd(...) using an equal-cell approximation. Study 2 analyzed
        N was taken as 90 from 100 reported minus 10 removed and from the omnibus ANOVA denominator df=86; equal allocation
        across the 4 cells implies n_low=n_high=22.5 for the knowledge stakes contrast. See analysis/effect_sizes.qmd.
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null