Extraction report — Buckwalter & Schaffer 2015

schema_version: '1.1'
paper:
  paper_id: buckwalterschaffer2015knowledgestakesmistakes
  citation: Buckwalter, W., & Schaffer, J. (2015). Knowledge, Stakes, and Mistakes. Noûs, 49(2), 201–234.
  short_label: Buckwalter & Schaffer 2015
  doi: 10.1111/nous.12017
  published: 'Yes'
  year: 2015
  language: English
  language_other: null
  research_objective: Evaluate whether stakes affect knowledge ascription, and argue for folk stakes insensitivity; report
    new experimental results adapting Pinillos (2012) and Sripada & Stanley (2012) designs.
  data_availability:
    data_available_online: null
    url: null
    notes: null
  notes: null
studies:
- study_id: 1
  label: Typo (know vs guess; evidence-seeking)
  objective: 'Test whether the stakes effect in Pinillos’s Typo paradigm persists when the knowledge probe is replaced with
    a guessing probe (2×2 between-subjects: stakes × verb type).'
  sample:
    n_final: 186
    recruitment: null
    recruitment_other: null
    compensation: null
    compensation_other: null
    characteristics: null
    provenance:
      page: 12
      quote: Accordingly we re-ran Pinillos’s study (N = 186), using his Typo low together with our Typo high short, but this
        time using a probe that replaced ‘know’ with ‘guess’.
    mean_age: null
  design: Between-Subjects
  design_other: '2 (stakes: Typo low vs Typo high short) × 2 (verb type: know vs guess) between-subjects.'
  manipulated_factors:
  - 'Verb type: know vs guess'
  paradigm: Rating how much evidence is needed for knowledge
  paradigm_other: null
  scale:
    label: other
    points: null
    anchors: 'Numeric free response: number of proofreads (times).'
    direction: Higher = more proofreads required (more evidence needed).
    provenance:
      page: 12
      quote: 'Typo probe guess: How many times do you think Peter has to proofread his paper before he guesses that there
        are no typos? ____ times.'
  measures:
    knowledge_question_text: 'Typo probe know: How many times do you think Peter has to proofread his paper before he knows
      that there are no typos? ____ times.'
    knowledge_question_first: null
    additional_question_text: 'Typo probe guess: How many times do you think Peter has to proofread his paper before he guesses
      that there are no typos? ____ times.'
  scenarios:
  - scenario_code: typos
    scenario_type: Proofreading a class paper for typos (Pinillos ‘Typo’ vignette).
    high_stakes_text: 'Typo high short: Peter, a good college student, has just finished writing a two-page paper for an English
      class. The paper is due tomorrow. Even though Peter is a pretty good speller, he has a dictionary with him that he can
      use to check and make sure there are no typos. There is a lot at stake. The teacher is a stickler and guarantees that
      no one will get an A for the paper if there is a typo. Peter needs an A on the paper to get an A for the class, and
      he needs an A for the class to keep his scholarship. If he loses the scholarship he will have to leave school, which
      would be devastating for him. So it is extremely important for Peter that there are no typos in the paper.'
    low_stakes_text: 'Typo low: Peter, a good college student, has just finished writing a two-page paper for an English class.
      The paper is due tomorrow. Even though Peter is a pretty good speller, he has a dictionary with him that he can use
      to check and make sure there are no typos. But very little is at stake. The teacher is just asking for a rough draft
      and it won’t matter if there are a few typos. Nonetheless Peter would like to have no typos at all.'
    provenance:
      page: 9
      quote: 'Typo low: ... very little is at stake... rough draft...; Typo high: There is a lot at stake... scholarship...
        it is extremely important for Peter that there are no typos... And he is well aware of this.'
  effects:
  - effect_id: s1_e1
    subgroup: Typo probe know
    subgroup_desc: Evidence needed (proofreads) for knowledge probe
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    moderators:
      scenario: typos
      skeptical_pressure: 'No'
      awareness: 'Yes'
      evidence: First Person
      attribution_person: Other
      evidence_reliability: Medium
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: 8
          quote: 'Typo probe know: How many times do you think Peter has to proofread his paper before he knows that there
            are no typos?'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The vignette is explicitly about proofreading for typos.
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: 8
          quote: Even though Peter is a pretty good speller, 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 doubt/counterconsideration is raised (no ‘might be wrong’ prompt); stakes manipulation concerns
          consequences.
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: 8
          quote: So it turns out that it is extremely important for Peter that there are no typos in this paper. And he is
            well aware of this.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The protagonist is explicitly aware of the high-stakes consequences.
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: 8
          quote: Peter... 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 based on the agent’s own checking/proofreading (first-person evidence).
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: 8
          quote: 'Typo probe know: ... before he knows that there are no typos?'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The probe concerns whether Peter knows (third-person attribution), not a self-ascription.
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: 8
          quote: null
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Has a dictionary - default medium reliability
    contrast:
      group_high: Typo_high_short
      group_low: Typo_low
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: Outcome is number of proofreads required; higher scores indicate more evidence needed.
    groups:
    - group_id: Typo_low
      label: null
      n: null
      mean: 2.11
      sd: 1.0
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 31
        quote: Typo low knowledge (M = 2.11, SD = 1.00)
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    - group_id: Typo_high_short
      label: null
      n: null
      mean: 4.61
      sd: 2.76
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 31
        quote: Typo high short knowledge (M = 4.61, SD = 2.76)
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    reported_test:
      notes: Paper reports omnibus 2×2 ANOVA across know vs guess (not a simple stakes contrast within the know probe).
      provenance:
        page: 31
        quote: A 2 (stakes) x 2 (verb type) between-subjects analysis of variance reveals a main effect for the factor of
          stakes, F (1, 182) = 60.55, p < 0.001.
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: -1.204375301275
      v: 0.050809246593
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: "Typo know probe. Equal-cell approximation in 2x2 design - N=186 implies 46.5 per cell. Computed from reported means/SDs via esc::esc_mean_sd(...)."
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
  - effect_id: s1_e2
    subgroup: Typo probe guess
    subgroup_desc: Evidence needed (proofreads) for guessing probe
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    moderators:
      scenario: typos
      skeptical_pressure: 'No'
      awareness: 'Yes'
      evidence: First Person
      attribution_person: Other
      evidence_reliability: Medium
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: 12
          quote: 'Typo probe guess: How many times do you think Peter has to proofread his paper before he guesses that there
            are no typos?'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The vignette is explicitly about proofreading for typos.
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: 8
          quote: Even though Peter is a pretty good speller, 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 doubt/counterconsideration is raised in the vignette; manipulation concerns consequences.
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: 8
          quote: So it turns out that it is extremely important for Peter that there are no typos in this paper. And he is
            well aware of this.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The protagonist is explicitly aware of the high-stakes consequences.
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: 8
          quote: Peter... 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 based on the agent’s own checking/proofreading (first-person evidence).
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: 12
          quote: 'Typo probe guess: ... before he guesses that there are no typos?'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: DV concerns guessing (not a knowledge attribution), so self- vs third-person knowledge-ascription coding is
          not applicable.
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: 8
          quote: Peter is a pretty good speller... has a dictionary... to check and make sure there are no typos.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: has a dictionary
    contrast:
      group_high: Typo_high_short
      group_low: Typo_low
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: Outcome is number of proofreads required; higher scores indicate more evidence needed.
    groups:
    - group_id: Typo_low
      label: null
      n: null
      mean: 2.27
      sd: 1.09
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 31
        quote: Typo low guess (M = 2.27, SD = 1.09)
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    - group_id: Typo_high_short
      label: null
      n: null
      mean: 5.11
      sd: 3.5
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 31
        quote: Typo high short guess (M = 5.11, SD = 3.50)
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    reported_test:
      notes: Paper reports omnibus 2×2 ANOVA across know vs guess; no simple stakes test reported for guess probe alone.
      provenance:
        page: 31
        quote: A 2 (stakes) x 2 (verb type) between-subjects analysis of variance reveals a main effect for the factor of
          stakes, F (1, 182) = 60.55, p < 0.001.
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: -1.095631231640
      v: 0.049464558042
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: "Typo guess probe. Equal-cell approximation in 2x2 design - N=186 implies 46.5 per cell. Computed from reported means/SDs via esc::esc_mean_sd(...)."
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
  notes: null
- study_id: 2
  label: Typo (hope; evidence-seeking)
  objective: Test whether the stakes effect in the Typo paradigm persists with a ‘hope’ probe (low vs high stakes; between-subjects).
  sample:
    n_final: 80
    recruitment: null
    recruitment_other: null
    compensation: null
    compensation_other: null
    characteristics: null
    provenance:
      page: 13
      quote: So we ran a further study (N = 80) using Typo low and Typo high short again, but now using a probe with ‘hope’.
    mean_age: null
  design: Between-Subjects
  design_other: null
  manipulated_factors: []
  paradigm: Other
  paradigm_other: 'Evidence-seeking: number of proofreads required before the protagonist ‘hopes’ there are no typos.'
  scale:
    label: other
    points: null
    anchors: 'Numeric free response: number of proofreads (times).'
    direction: Higher = more proofreads required (more evidence needed).
    provenance:
      page: 13
      quote: 'Typo probe hope: How many times do you think Peter has to proofread his paper before he hopes that there are
        no typos? ____ times.'
  measures:
    knowledge_question_text: null
    knowledge_question_first: null
    additional_question_text: 'Typo probe hope: How many times do you think Peter has to proofread his paper before he hopes
      that there are no typos? ____ times.'
  scenarios:
  - scenario_code: typos
    scenario_type: Proofreading a class paper for typos (Typo low vs Typo high short).
    high_stakes_text: There is a lot at stake... scholarship... it is extremely important for Peter that there are no typos...
      And he is well aware of this.
    low_stakes_text: Very little is at stake... rough draft... it won’t matter if there are a few typos.
    provenance:
      page: 8
      quote: 'Typo low: ... very little is at stake... rough draft...; Typo high: There is a lot at stake... scholarship...
        it is extremely important for Peter that there are no typos... And he is well aware of this.'
  effects:
  - effect_id: s2_e1
    subgroup: Typo probe hope
    subgroup_desc: Evidence needed (proofreads) for hoping probe
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    moderators:
      scenario: typos
      skeptical_pressure: 'No'
      awareness: 'Yes'
      evidence: First Person
      attribution_person: Other
      evidence_reliability: Medium
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: 13
          quote: 'Typo probe hope: How many times do you think Peter has to proofread his paper before he hopes that there
            are no typos?'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The vignette is explicitly about proofreading for typos.
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: 8
          quote: Even though Peter is a pretty good speller, 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 doubt/counterconsideration is raised in the vignette; manipulation concerns consequences.
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: 8
          quote: So it turns out that it is extremely important for Peter that there are no typos in this paper. And he is
            well aware of this.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The protagonist is explicitly aware of the high-stakes consequences.
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: 8
          quote: Peter... 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 based on the agent’s own checking/proofreading (first-person evidence).
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: 13
          quote: 'Typo probe hope: ... before he hopes that there are no typos?'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: DV concerns hoping (not a knowledge attribution), so self- vs third-person knowledge-ascription coding is
          not applicable.
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: 8
          quote: Peter is a pretty good speller... has a dictionary... to check and make sure there are no typos.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The vignette specifies error-checking resources (dictionary; spelling competence), suggesting relatively high
          reliability of evidence.
    contrast:
      group_high: Typo_high_short
      group_low: Typo_low
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: Outcome is number of proofreads required; higher scores indicate more evidence needed.
    groups:
    - group_id: Typo_low
      label: null
      n: null
      mean: 2.5
      sd: 1.04
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 31
        quote: Typo low hope (M = 2.50, SD = 1.04)
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    - group_id: Typo_high_short
      label: null
      n: null
      mean: 5.37
      sd: 2.61
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 31
        quote: Typo high short hope (M = 5.37, SD = 2.61)
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    reported_test:
      notes: Paper reports only an omnibus 2×3 ANOVA combining Typo know/guess (Study 1) with Typo hope (Study 2), not a simple
        stakes contrast within hope alone.
      provenance:
        page: 31
        quote: Combined from above, a 2 (stakes) x 3 (verb type) between-subjects analysis of variance reveals a main effect
          for the factor of stakes, F (1, 260) = 99.46, p < 0.001.
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: -1.444629855757
      v: 0.063043471376
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: "Typo hope probe. Equal split assumed: n_low=n_high=40. Computed from reported means/SDs via esc::esc_mean_sd(...)."
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
  notes: null
- study_id: 3
  label: Two reads (knowledge probe only)
  objective: 'Test whether the stakes effect disappears when ‘know’ is retained but the deontic modal element is removed:
    participants rate agreement that Peter knows after exactly two careful proofreads (low vs high stakes).'
  sample:
    n_final: 100
    recruitment: null
    recruitment_other: null
    compensation: null
    compensation_other: null
    characteristics: null
    provenance:
      page: 16
      quote: In order to test for this, we ran another experiment (N = 100) based on Pinillos’s Typo cases.
    mean_age: null
  design: Between-Subjects
  design_other: null
  manipulated_factors: []
  paradigm: Agreement with knowledge claim
  paradigm_other: null
  scale:
    label: Likert 7-point
    points: 7
    anchors: Seven item scale from ‘1’ to ‘7’ anchored with negative to positive agreement terms.
    direction: Higher = more agreement with the knowledge claim.
    provenance:
      page: 16
      quote: on a seven item scale from ‘1’ to ‘7’ anchored with negative to positive agreement terms
  measures:
    knowledge_question_text: 'Two reads probe know: To what extent would you agree or disagree with the following claim: “Peter
      knows that there are no typos in his paper.”'
    knowledge_question_first: null
    additional_question_text: null
  scenarios:
  - scenario_code: typos
    scenario_type: 'Two reads vignette: Peter proofreads carefully twice; low vs high stakes for typos.'
    high_stakes_text: "Two reads high: Peter is a good college student who has just written a two-page paper\r\nfor an English\
      \ class. The paper is due tomorrow. Peter would like his paper to be free\r\nof typos, and there is a lot at stake.\
      \ The teacher is a stickler and guarantees that no one will get an A for the paper if there is a typo. Peter needs an\
      \ A on the paper to get an A for the class, and he needs an A for the class to keep his scholarship. Otherwise he will\
      \ have to leave school, which would be devastating for him. Peter is naturally a pretty good speller, plus he has a\
      \ dictionary with him which he has already used to check the paper carefully, twice over. In fact there are no typos\
      \ in his paper."
    low_stakes_text: 'Two reads low: Peter is a good college student who has just written a two-page paper for an English
      class. The paper is due tomorrow. Peter would like his paper to be free of typos, but very little is at stake. The teacher
      is just asking for a rough draft, and it won’t really matter if there are a few typos. Peter is naturally a pretty good
      speller, plus he has a dictionary with him which he has already used to check the paper carefully, twice over. In fact
      there are no typos in his paper.'
    provenance:
      page: 16
      quote: 'Two reads low: ... very little is at stake... rough draft...; Two reads high: ... there is a lot at stake...
        scholarship... devastating for him.'
  effects:
  - effect_id: s3_e1
    subgroup: Two reads probe know
    subgroup_desc: Agreement with ‘Peter knows...’ after two careful proofreads
    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: 16
          quote: Peter would like his paper to be free of typos...
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The vignette is about proofreading for typos.
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: 16
          quote: Peter is naturally a pretty good speller... has a dictionary... used to check the paper carefully, twice
            over.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: No explicit doubt/counterconsideration is raised; the manipulation concerns consequences of error.
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: 16
          quote: There is a lot at stake... Peter needs an A... to keep his scholarship.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The protagonist is aware of the high-stakes consequences in the high-stakes vignette.
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: 16
          quote: he has a dictionary... used to check the paper carefully, twice over.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Evidence is based on Peter’s own proofreading/checking.
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: 16
          quote: “Peter knows that there are no typos in his paper.”
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Participants evaluate a third-person knowledge attribution (not a self-ascription).
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: 16
          quote: pretty good speller... dictionary... check the paper carefully, twice over.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Evidence includes careful checking with a dictionary, suggesting relatively high reliability. Checked twice!
    contrast:
      group_high: Two_reads_high
      group_low: Two_reads_low
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: null
    groups:
    - group_id: Two_reads_low
      label: null
      n: null
      mean: 5.96
      sd: 1.2
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 32
        quote: Two reads low (M = 5.96, SD = 1.20)
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    - group_id: Two_reads_high
      label: null
      n: null
      mean: 5.78
      sd: 1.3
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 32
        quote: Two reads high (M = 5.78, SD = 1.30)
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    reported_test:
      test: t
      t: 0.721
      df1: 98.0
      p: 0.472
      provenance:
        page: 32
        quote: An independent samples t-test is unable to detect significant differences between these two groups t (98) =
          0.721, p = 0.472.
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: 0.143884938056
      v: 0.040103514377
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: "Two reads knowledge probe. Equal split assumed: n_low=n_high=50. Computed from reported means/SDs via esc::esc_mean_sd(...)."
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
  notes: null
- study_id: 4
  label: Two reads uncareful (evidence + knowledge)
  objective: 'Test whether a stakes effect appears when Peter’s proofreading is not described as careful: participants rate
    (a) strength of evidence and (b) agreement that Peter knows, in low vs high stakes.'
  sample:
    n_final: 60
    recruitment: null
    recruitment_other: null
    compensation: null
    compensation_other: null
    characteristics: null
    provenance:
      page: 17
      quote: Participants (N = 60) received one of these two vignettes, and were then asked to answer two questions...
    mean_age: null
  design: Between-Subjects
  design_other: null
  manipulated_factors: []
  paradigm: Other
  paradigm_other: Strength of evidence rating + agreement with knowledge claim (both asked of the same participants).
  scale:
    label: Likert 7-point
    points: 7
    anchors: Seven item scale from ‘1’ to ‘7’ anchored with negative to positive agreement terms.
    direction: null
    provenance:
      page: 17
      quote: on a seven item scale from ‘1’ to ‘7’ anchored with negative to positive agreement terms
  measures:
    knowledge_question_text: 'Two reads probe know: “Peter knows that there are no typos in his paper.”'
    knowledge_question_first: 'No'
    additional_question_text: 'Two reads probe evidence: What is the strength of Peter’s evidence that there are no typos
      in his paper?'
  scenarios:
  - scenario_code: typos
    scenario_type: 'Two reads uncareful vignette: Peter proofreads twice; low vs high stakes; evidence probe + knowledge probe.'
    high_stakes_text: "Two reads uncareful high: Peter, a good college student, has finished writing a two-page\r\npaper for\
      \ an English class. The paper is due tomorrow. Even though Peter is a pretty\r\ngood speller, he has a dictionary with\
      \ him that he can use to check and make sure there\r\nare no typos. There is a lot at stake. The teacher is a stickler\
      \ and guarantees that no one will get an A for the paper if there is a typo. Peter needs an A on the paper to get an\
      \ A for the class, and he needs an A for the class to keep his scholarship. If he loses the scholarship he will have\
      \ to leave school, which would be devastating for him. So it is extremely important for Peter that there are no typos\
      \ in the paper. Peter has proofread his paper twice. In fact there are no typos in his paper."
    low_stakes_text: "Two reads uncareful low: Peter, a good college student, has finished writing a two-page\r\npaper for\
      \ an English class. The paper is due tomorrow. Even though Peter is a pretty\r\ngood speller, he has a dictionary with\
      \ him that he can use to check and make sure there are no typos. There is very little at stake. The teacher is just\
      \ asking for a rough draft, and it won’t really matter if there are a few typos. Peter has proofread his paper twice.\r\
      \nIn fact there are no typos in his paper."
    provenance:
      page: 17
      quote: 'Two reads uncareful low: ... very little at stake...; Two reads uncareful high: There is a lot at stake... keep
        his scholarship...'
  effects:
  - effect_id: s4_e1
    subgroup: Two reads probe evidence
    subgroup_desc: Strength of evidence rating
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    paradigm: Other
    paradigm_other: Strength of evidence rating.
    moderators:
      scenario: typos
      skeptical_pressure: 'No'
      awareness: 'Yes'
      evidence: First Person
      attribution_person: Other
      evidence_reliability: High
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: 17
          quote: 'Two reads probe evidence: What is the strength of Peter’s evidence that there are no typos in his paper?'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The vignette is about proofreading for typos.
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: 17
          quote: Even though Peter is a pretty good speller, 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 doubt/counterconsideration is raised; manipulation concerns consequences.
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: 17
          quote: There is a lot at stake... keep his scholarship... extremely important for Peter that there are no typos.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The protagonist is aware of the high-stakes consequences in the high-stakes vignette.
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: 17
          quote: Peter has proofread his paper twice.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Evidence concerns Peter’s own proofreading/checking (first-person evidence).
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: 17
          quote: What is the strength of Peter’s evidence...
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: DV is evidence-strength (not a knowledge attribution), so self- vs third-person knowledge-ascription coding
          is not applicable.
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: 17
          quote: pretty good speller... dictionary... check and make sure there are no typos.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The vignette specifies proofreading with a dictionary, suggesting relatively high reliability of evidence.
          Checked two times
    contrast:
      group_high: Two_reads_uncareful_high
      group_low: Two_reads_uncareful_low
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: null
    groups:
    - group_id: Two_reads_uncareful_low
      label: null
      n: null
      mean: 5.73
      sd: 1.26
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 32
        quote: Two reads uncareful low evidence (M = 5.73, SD = 1.26)
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    - group_id: Two_reads_uncareful_high
      label: null
      n: null
      mean: 5.63
      sd: 1.25
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 32
        quote: Two reads uncareful high evidence (M = 5.63, SD = 1.25)
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    reported_test:
      test: t
      t: 0.309
      df1: 58.0
      p: 0.76
      provenance:
        page: 32
        quote: An independent samples t-test is unable to detect significant differences for stakes in evidence t (58) = 0.309,
          p = 0.76
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: 0.079680642527
      v: 0.066719575040
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: "Two reads uncareful evidence probe. Equal split assumed: n_low=n_high=30. Computed from reported means/SDs via esc::esc_mean_sd(...)."
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
  - effect_id: s4_e2
    subgroup: Two reads probe know
    subgroup_desc: Agreement with ‘Peter knows...’
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    paradigm: Agreement with knowledge claim
    moderators:
      scenario: typos
      skeptical_pressure: 'No'
      awareness: 'Yes'
      evidence: First Person
      attribution_person: Other
      evidence_reliability: High
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: 17
          quote: Two reads probe know
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: Figure 8
        reason: The vignette is about proofreading for typos.
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: 17
          quote: Even though Peter is a pretty good speller, 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 doubt/counterconsideration is raised; manipulation concerns consequences.
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: 17
          quote: There is a lot at stake... keep his scholarship... extremely important for Peter that there are no typos.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The protagonist is aware of the high-stakes consequences in the high-stakes vignette.
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: 17
          quote: Peter has proofread his paper twice.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Evidence concerns Peter’s own proofreading/checking (first-person evidence).
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: 16
          quote: “Peter knows that there are no typos in his paper.”
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Participants evaluate a third-person knowledge attribution (not a self-ascription).
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: 17
          quote: pretty good speller... dictionary... check and make sure there are no typos.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: "Peter has\r\nproofread his paper twice"
    contrast:
      group_high: Two_reads_uncareful_high
      group_low: Two_reads_uncareful_low
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: null
    groups:
    - group_id: Two_reads_uncareful_low
      label: null
      n: null
      mean: 5.43
      sd: 1.33
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 32
        quote: Two reads uncareful low ... knowledge (M = 5.43, SD = 1.33)
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    - group_id: Two_reads_uncareful_high
      label: null
      n: null
      mean: 5.5
      sd: 1.38
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 32
        quote: Two reads uncareful high ... knowledge (M = 5.50, SD = 1.38)
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    reported_test:
      test: t
      t: -0.19
      df1: 58.0
      p: 0.85
      provenance:
        page: 32
        quote: An independent samples t-test is unable to detect significant differences for stakes... knowledge t (58) =
          −0.19, p = 0.85 probes.
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: -0.051651725989
      v: 0.066688899173
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: "Two reads uncareful knowledge probe. Equal split assumed: n_low=n_high=30. Computed from reported means/SDs via esc::esc_mean_sd(...)."
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
  notes: null
- study_id: 5
  label: Two reads (evidence preface; evidence + knowledge)
  objective: Replicate Two reads while prefacing the knowledge question with an evidence-strength question (low vs high stakes).
  sample:
    n_final: 100
    recruitment: null
    recruitment_other: null
    compensation: null
    compensation_other: null
    characteristics: null
    provenance:
      page: 19
      quote: Accordingly, in our revised design (N = 100), before we asked Two reads probe know we first asked Two reads probe
        evidence.
    mean_age: null
  design: Between-Subjects
  design_other: null
  manipulated_factors: []
  paradigm: Other
  paradigm_other: Evidence strength rating (asked first) + agreement with knowledge claim.
  scale:
    label: Likert 7-point
    points: 7
    anchors: 'Knowledge: agreement terms; Evidence: ‘very weak evidence’ to ‘very strong evidence’ (both 1–7).'
    direction: null
    provenance:
      page: 32
      quote: Evidential strength was measured on a seven item scale with ‘1’ anchored to ‘very weak evidence’ and ‘7’ anchored
        to ‘very strong evidence’.
  measures:
    knowledge_question_text: 'Two reads probe know: To what extent would you agree or disagree with the following claim: “Peter
      knows that there are no typos in his paper.”'
    knowledge_question_first: 'No'
    additional_question_text: 'Two reads probe evidence: What is the strength of Peter’s evidence that there are no typos
      in his paper?'
  scenarios:
  - scenario_code: typos
    scenario_type: Two reads vignette with evidence question prefacing knowledge question.
    high_stakes_text: "Two reads high: Peter is a good college student who has just written a two-page paper\r\nfor an English\
      \ class. The paper is due tomorrow. Peter would like his paper to be free\r\nof typos, and there is a lot at stake.\
      \ The teacher is a stickler and guarantees that no one\r\nwill get an A for the paper if there is a typo. Peter needs\
      \ an A on the paper to get an A\r\nfor the class, and he needs an A for the class to keep his scholarship. Otherwise\
      \ he will\r\nhave to leave school, which would be devastating for him. Peter is naturally a pretty\r\ngood speller,\
      \ plus he has a dictionary with him which he has already used to check the\r\npaper carefully, twice over. In fact there\
      \ are no typos in his paper."
    low_stakes_text: "Two reads low: Peter is a good college student who has just written a two-page paper\r\nfor an English\
      \ class. The paper is due tomorrow. Peter would like his paper to be free\r\nof typos, but very little is at stake.\
      \ The teacher is just asking for a rough draft, and it\r\nwon’t really matter if there are a few typos. Peter is naturally\
      \ a pretty good speller, plus\r\nhe has a dictionary with him which he has already used to check the paper carefully,\r\
      \ntwice over. In fact there are no typos in his paper."
    provenance:
      page: 16
      quote: 'Two reads low: ... very little is at stake...; Two reads high: ... there is a lot at stake... scholarship...'
  effects:
  - effect_id: s5_e1
    subgroup: Two reads probe know (with evidence preface)
    subgroup_desc: Agreement with ‘Peter knows...’ (knowledge question preceded by evidence question)
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    paradigm: Agreement with knowledge claim
    moderators:
      scenario: typos
      skeptical_pressure: 'No'
      awareness: 'Yes'
      evidence: First Person
      attribution_person: Other
      evidence_reliability: High
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: 19
          quote: before we asked Two reads probe know we first asked Two reads probe evidence.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The vignette is about proofreading for typos (Two reads).
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: 16
          quote: he has a dictionary with him which he has already used to check the paper carefully, twice over.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: No explicit doubt/counterconsideration is raised; the manipulation concerns consequences.
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: 16
          quote: There is a lot at stake... Peter needs an A... to keep his scholarship.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The protagonist is aware of the high-stakes consequences in the high-stakes vignette.
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: 16
          quote: dictionary... check the paper carefully, twice over.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Evidence is based on Peter’s own proofreading/checking.
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: 16
          quote: “Peter knows that there are no typos in his paper.”
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Participants evaluate a third-person knowledge attribution (not a self-ascription).
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: 16
          quote: pretty good speller... dictionary... check the paper carefully, twice over.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Evidence includes careful checking with a dictionary, suggesting relatively high reliability. Checked twice
    contrast:
      group_high: Two_reads_high
      group_low: Two_reads_low
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: Knowledge probe preceded by evidence-strength question.
    groups:
    - group_id: Two_reads_low
      label: null
      n: null
      mean: 5.62
      sd: 1.11
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 32
        quote: Two reads low (with evidence preface) knowledge (M = 5.62, SD = 1.11)
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    - group_id: Two_reads_high
      label: null
      n: null
      mean: 5.7
      sd: 1.37
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 32
        quote: Two reads high (with evidence preface) knowledge (M = 5.70, SD = 1.37)
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    reported_test:
      notes: No simple t-test reported for the evidence-preface knowledge contrast; paper reports a pooled 2×2 ANOVA across
        both Two reads samples.
      provenance:
        page: 32
        quote: Pooling the results from all two read cases above... No effects were detected for stakes, F (1, 196) = 0.08,
          p = 0.78...
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: -0.064164471842
      v: 0.040020585397
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: "Two reads knowledge probe with evidence preface. Equal split assumed: n_low=n_high=50. Computed from reported means/SDs via esc::esc_mean_sd(...)."
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
  - effect_id: s5_e2
    subgroup: Two reads probe evidence (with evidence preface)
    subgroup_desc: Strength of evidence rating (asked before knowledge question)
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    paradigm: Other
    paradigm_other: Strength of evidence rating.
    moderators:
      scenario: typos
      skeptical_pressure: 'No'
      awareness: 'Yes'
      evidence: First Person
      attribution_person: Other
      evidence_reliability: High
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: 19
          quote: before we asked Two reads probe know we first asked Two reads probe evidence.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The vignette is about proofreading for typos (Two reads).
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: 16
          quote: he has a dictionary with him which he has already used to check the paper carefully, twice over.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: No explicit doubt/counterconsideration is raised; the manipulation concerns consequences.
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: 16
          quote: There is a lot at stake... Peter needs an A... to keep his scholarship.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The protagonist is aware of the high-stakes consequences in the high-stakes vignette.
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: 16
          quote: dictionary... check the paper carefully, twice over.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Evidence is based on Peter’s own proofreading/checking.
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: 17
          quote: 'Two reads probe evidence: What is the strength of Peter’s evidence...'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: DV is evidence-strength (not a knowledge attribution), so self- vs third-person knowledge-ascription coding
          is not applicable.
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: 16
          quote: pretty good speller... dictionary... check the paper carefully, twice over.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Evidence includes careful checking with a dictionary, suggesting relatively high reliability. checkd twice
    contrast:
      group_high: Two_reads_high
      group_low: Two_reads_low
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: Evidence-strength question asked before knowledge question.
    groups:
    - group_id: Two_reads_low
      label: null
      n: null
      mean: 5.86
      sd: 1.07
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 32
        quote: Two reads low (with evidence preface) evidence (M = 5.86, SD = 1.07)
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    - group_id: Two_reads_high
      label: null
      n: null
      mean: 5.88
      sd: 1.24
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 32
        quote: Two reads high (with evidence preface) evidence (M = 5.88, SD = 1.24)
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    reported_test:
      test: t
      t: -0.9
      df1: 98.0
      p: 0.93
      notes: Reported t and p appear inconsistent (|t|=0.90 with df=98 would not normally yield p=0.93); check paper for possible
        typo.
      provenance:
        page: 32
        quote: Two reads low (with evidence preface) evidence... t (98) = −0.90, p = 0.93.
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: -0.017269315671
      v: 0.040001491146
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: "Two reads evidence probe with evidence preface. Equal split assumed: n_low=n_high=50. Means/SD route avoids the paper's inconsistent t/p pair. Computed from reported means/SDs via esc::esc_mean_sd(...)."
    quality_flags:
    - possible_reporting_error
    notes: null
  notes: null
- study_id: 6
  label: Two allergies (salience held high; evidence + knowledge)
  objective: Test whether stakes effects on evidence and knowledge ascriptions disappear when salience is held fixedly high
    by describing both mild and severe allergies and manipulating which allergy Hannah has (low vs high stakes).
  sample:
    n_final: 120
    recruitment: null
    recruitment_other: null
    compensation: null
    compensation_other: null
    characteristics: null
    provenance:
      page: 24
      quote: Our first studies in this vein (N = 120) used vignettes... merely manipulating which of these allergies Hannah
        is said to have.
    mean_age: null
  design: Between-Subjects
  design_other: null
  manipulated_factors: []
  paradigm: Other
  paradigm_other: Strength of evidence rating + agreement with knowledge claim (both asked of the same participants).
  scale:
    label: Likert 7-point
    points: 7
    anchors: 'Evidence: ‘very weak evidence’ to ‘very strong evidence’; Knowledge: agreement terms (both 1–7).'
    direction: null
    provenance:
      page: 33
      quote: We used the same scales as Sripada & Stanley (but without their reverse-coding procedure).
  measures:
    knowledge_question_text: 'Ignorant probe know: Suppose it turns out that her noodles are not topped with Mon golian pine
      nuts. Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following sentence: “Hannah knows her noodles are not
      topped with Mongolian pine nuts.”'
    knowledge_question_first: 'No'
    additional_question_text: 'Ignorant probe evidence: What is the strength of Hannah’s evidence that her noodles are not
      topped with Mongolian pine nuts?'
  scenarios:
  - scenario_code: peanuts
    scenario_type: Mongolian pine nuts allergy vignette; stakes manipulated via allergy severity; subject ignorant of the
      allergy.
    high_stakes_text: "Two allergies high: Most people can eat Mongolian pine nuts without any problem at\r\nall. But a small\
      \ percentage of people have a gene that makes them just slightly allergic\r\nto Mongolian pine nuts. If someone with\
      \ this gene eats Mongolian pine nuts, they\r\nwill experience a slightly dry mouth. And a small percentage of other\
      \ people have a\r\ndifferent gene that makes them seriously allergic to Mongolian pine nuts. If someone\r\nwith this\
      \ other gene eats even a single Mongolian pine nut, they will go into shock and\r\nmay well die. Hannah does not have\
      \ the gene that makes people just slightly allergic to\r\nMongolian pine nuts, but she happens to have the gene which\
      \ makes people seriously\r\nallergic to Mongolian pine nuts. Hannah—who has never even heard of Mongolian\r\npine nuts\
      \ before—has absolutely no idea that she has this gene, nor is there any way\r\nshe could know that she has this gene.\
      \ One evening, Hannah and her sister Sarah are\r\nat a brand new Mongolian restaurant that has just opened up. Hannah\
      \ orders a plate\r\nof noodles. When her food is brought to the table, Hannah notices something that\r\nlooks like nuts\
      \ sprinkled on her noodles and wonders what it is. Sarah says, “I heard\r\nthat Mongolian dishes are often served with\
      \ Mongolian pine nuts.” Hannah notes that\r\nthe menu says her dish does not contain Mongolian pine nuts. If it turns\
      \ out that the\r\nnoodles are topped with Mongolian pine nuts, then when Hannah eats the dish, she\r\nwill go into shock\
      \ and die (she will not merely get a dry mouth like someone who has\r\nthe other kind of gene). So it turns out to make\
      \ a huge difference to her whether or\r\nnot the noodles are topped with Mongolian pine nuts."
    low_stakes_text: "Two allergies low: Most people can eat Mongolian pine nuts without any problem at\r\nall. But a small\
      \ percentage of people have a gene that makes them just slightly allergic\r\nto Mongolian pine nuts. If someone with\
      \ this gene eats Mongolian pine nuts, they will\r\nexperience a slightly dry mouth. And a small percentage of other\
      \ people have a different\r\ngene that makes them seriously allergic to Mongolian pine nuts. If someone with this\r\n\
      other gene eats even a single Mongolian pine nut, they will go into shock and may well\r\ndie. Hannah does not have\
      \ the gene that makes people seriously allergic to Mongolian\r\npine nuts, but she happens to have the gene which makes\
      \ people just slightly allergic\r\nto Mongolian pine nuts. Hannah—who has never even heard of Mongolian pine nuts\r\n\
      before—has absolutely no idea that she has this gene, nor is there any way she could\r\nknow that she has this gene.\
      \ One evening, Hannah and her sister Sarah are at a brand new Mongolian restaurant that has just opened up. Hannah orders\
      \ a plate of noodles.\r\nWhen her food is brought to the table, Hannah notices something that looks like nuts\r\nsprinkled\
      \ on her noodles and wonders what it is. Sarah says, “I heard that Mongolian\r\ndishes are often served with Mongolian\
      \ pine nuts.” Hannah notes that the menu says\r\nher dish does not contain Mongolian pine nuts. If it turns out that\
      \ the noodles are\r\ntopped with Mongolian pine nuts, then when Hannah eats the dish, her mouth will get\r\na little\
      \ dry (she will not go into shock and die like someone who has the other kind of\r\ngene). Since Hannah has plenty to\
      \ drink with her meal, it will not turn out to make\r\nmuch of a difference to her whether or not the noodles are topped\
      \ with Mongolian\r\npine nuts."
    provenance:
      page: 25
      quote: 'Two allergies low: ... slightly allergic... dry mouth...; Two allergies high: ... seriously allergic... go into
        shock and die.'
  effects:
  - effect_id: s6_e1
    subgroup: Ignorant probe know (Two allergies)
    subgroup_desc: Agreement with ‘Hannah knows...’ (Two allergies vignettes)
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    paradigm: Agreement with knowledge claim
    moderators:
      scenario: peanuts
      skeptical_pressure: 'No'
      awareness: 'No'
      evidence: External
      attribution_person: Other
      evidence_reliability: High
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: 24
          quote: 'Two allergies low: ... allergic to Mongolian pine nuts...'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The vignette concerns allergy to Mongolian pine nuts (peanuts-style scenario).
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: 24
          quote: Hannah notes that the menu says her dish does not contain Mongolian pine nuts.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: No explicit doubt/counterconsideration is raised (no prompt that the evidence source might be wrong).
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: 24
          quote: Hannah... has absolutely no idea that she has this gene, nor is there any way she could know that she has
            this gene.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Stakes exist but the protagonist is explicitly unaware (ignorant of allergy gene).
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: 20
          quote: Sarah says, “I heard that Mongolian dishes are often served topped with Mongolian pine nuts.” Hannah notes
            that the menu says her dish does not contain Mongolian pine nuts.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Evidence is from external sources (testimony + menu).
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: 21
          quote: “Hannah knows her noodles are not topped with Mongolian pine nuts.”
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Participants evaluate a third-person knowledge attribution.
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: 20
          quote: Sarah says, “I heard...” ... the menu says...
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: menu is a highly reliable source
    contrast:
      group_high: Two_allergies_high
      group_low: Two_allergies_low
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: null
    groups:
    - group_id: Two_allergies_low
      label: null
      n: null
      mean: 3.57
      sd: 2.04
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 33
        quote: Two allergy low knowledge (M = 3.57, SD = 2.04)
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    - group_id: Two_allergies_high
      label: null
      n: null
      mean: 3.43
      sd: 2.06
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 33
        quote: Two allergy high knowledge (M = 3.43, SD = 2.06)
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    reported_test:
      test: t
      t: 0.36
      df1: 118.0
      p: 0.72
      provenance:
        page: 33
        quote: t (118) = 0.36, p = 0.72
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: 0.068291870417
      v: 0.033352765748
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: "Two allergies knowledge probe. Equal split assumed: n_low=n_high=60. Computed from reported means/SDs via esc::esc_mean_sd(...)."
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
  - effect_id: s6_e2
    subgroup: Ignorant probe evidence (Two allergies)
    subgroup_desc: Strength of evidence rating (Two allergies vignettes)
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    paradigm: Other
    paradigm_other: Strength of evidence rating.
    moderators:
      scenario: peanuts
      skeptical_pressure: 'No'
      awareness: 'No'
      evidence: External
      attribution_person: Other
      evidence_reliability: High
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: 24
          quote: Two allergies ... allergic to Mongolian pine nuts...
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The vignette concerns allergy to Mongolian pine nuts (peanuts-style scenario).
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: 24
          quote: Hannah notes that the menu says her dish does not contain Mongolian pine nuts.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: No explicit doubt/counterconsideration is raised (no prompt that the evidence source might be wrong).
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: 24
          quote: Hannah... has absolutely no idea that she has this gene, nor is there any way she could know that she has
            this gene.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Stakes exist but the protagonist is explicitly unaware (ignorant of allergy gene).
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: 20
          quote: Sarah says, “I heard that Mongolian dishes are often served topped with Mongolian pine nuts.” Hannah notes
            that the menu says her dish does not contain Mongolian pine nuts.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Evidence is from external sources (testimony + menu).
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: 21
          quote: 'Ignorant probe evidence: What is the strength of Hannah’s evidence...'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: DV is evidence-strength (not a knowledge attribution), so self- vs third-person knowledge-ascription coding
          is not applicable.
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: 20
          quote: Sarah says, “I heard...” ... the menu says...
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: 'Mixed external sources are in tension here: hearsay (''I heard...'') points low while the menu record points
          higher, and no single basis is clearly primary -> Medium. BUT MENU -> high'
    contrast:
      group_high: Two_allergies_high
      group_low: Two_allergies_low
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: null
    groups:
    - group_id: Two_allergies_low
      label: null
      n: null
      mean: 3.77
      sd: 1.91
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 33
        quote: Two allergy low evidence (M = 3.77, SD = 1.91)
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    - group_id: Two_allergies_high
      label: null
      n: null
      mean: 3.67
      sd: 1.71
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 33
        quote: Two allergy high evidence (M = 3.67, SD = 1.71)
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    reported_test:
      test: t
      t: 0.3
      df1: 118.0
      p: 0.76
      provenance:
        page: 33
        quote: nor for evidence ratings, t (118) = 0.30, p = 0.76.
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: 0.055164490616
      v: 0.033346013004
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: "Two allergies evidence probe. Equal split assumed: n_low=n_high=60. Computed from reported means/SDs via esc::esc_mean_sd(...)."
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
  notes: "First question (comprehension check): Two allergies probe stakes: What sort of allergy does Hannah actually have\
    \ to Mongolian pine nuts?\r\npine nuts?"
- study_id: 7
  label: Ignorant cases + salience manipulation (evidence + knowledge)
  objective: Test whether differences between low- and high-stakes Ignorant cases vanish when salience is fixed high by explicitly
    mentioning the possibility of error; 2×2 between-subjects design (stakes × salience condition).
  sample:
    n_final: 240
    recruitment: null
    recruitment_other: null
    compensation: null
    compensation_other: null
    characteristics: null
    provenance:
      page: 26
      quote: we ran a second sort of study (N = 240)... This resulted in four independent conditions.
    mean_age: null
  design: Between-Subjects
  design_other: 'Four independent conditions: Ignorant low/high and Ignorant low/high + salient sentences.'
  manipulated_factors:
  - 'Salience manipulation: original Ignorant vignette vs ‘and salient’ variant'
  paradigm: Other
  paradigm_other: Strength of evidence rating + agreement with knowledge claim (both asked of the same participants).
  scale:
    label: Likert 7-point
    points: 7
    anchors: 'Evidence: ‘very weak evidence’ to ‘very strong evidence’; Knowledge: agreement terms (both 1–7).'
    direction: null
    provenance:
      page: 33
      quote: We used the same scales as Sripada & Stanley (but without their reverse-coding procedure).
  measures:
    knowledge_question_text: 'Ignorant probe know: ... “Hannah knows her noodles are not topped with Mongolian pine nuts.”'
    knowledge_question_first: 'No'
    additional_question_text: 'Ignorant probe evidence: What is the strength of Hannah’s evidence that her noodles are not
      topped with Mongolian pine nuts?'
  scenarios:
  - scenario_code: peanuts
    scenario_type: Ignorant low/high pine nuts vignettes (Sripada & Stanley) plus ‘and salient’ variants that add an explicit
      error-salience sentence.
    high_stakes_text: "Ignorant high: Hannah has a gene that makes her seriously allergic to Mongolian pine\r\nnuts. Eating\
      \ only a single Mongolian pine nut will cause her to go into shock and die.\r\nHannah has absolutely no idea that she\
      \ has this gene, nor is there any way she could\r\nknow that she has this gene. One evening, Hannah and her sister Sarah\
      \ are at a brand\r\nnew Mongolian restaurant that has just opened up. Hannah orders a plate of noodles.\r\nWhen her\
      \ food is brought to the table, Hannah notices something that looks like nuts\r\nsprinkled on her noodles and wonders\
      \ what it is. Sarah says, “I heard that Mongolian dishes are often served topped with Mongolian pine nuts.” Hannah notes\
      \ that the menu\r\nsays her dish does not contain Mongolian pine nuts. Based on this, Hannah forms the\r\nbelief that\
      \ the noodles are not topped with Mongolian pine nuts. If it turns out that\r\nthe noodles are topped with Mongolian\
      \ pine nuts, then when Hannah eats the dish,\r\nshe will go into shock and die. Since eating even a single Mongolian\
      \ pine nut will cause\r\nher to die, it matters a lot whether or not the noodles are topped with Mongolian pine\r\n\
      nuts. Hannah is unlucky that her allergy is\r\nso serious: some other people with a slightly different gene will merely\
      \ experience a slightly dry mouth if they eat Mongolian pine nuts. Just imagine how horrible it would\r\nbe if you or\
      \ someone you loved had such a severe allergy without knowing it, and the\r\nrestaurant menu was wrong!"
    low_stakes_text: "Ignorant low: Hannah has a gene that causes her to experience a slightly dry mouth\r\nwhen she eats\
      \ Mongolian pine nuts. Hannah has absolutely no idea that she has this\r\ngene, nor is there any way she could know\
      \ that she has this gene. One evening, Hannah\r\nand her sister Sarah are at a brand new Mongolian restaurant that has\
      \ just opened\r\nup. Hannah orders a plate of noodles. When her food is brought to the table, Hannah\r\nnotices something\
      \ that looks like nuts sprinkled on her noodles and wonders what it is.\r\nSarah says, “I heard that Mongolian dishes\
      \ are often served topped with Mongolian\r\npine nuts.” Hannah notes that the menu says her dish does not contain Mongolian\r\
      \npine nuts. Based on this, Hannah forms the belief that the noodles are not topped with\r\nMongolian pine nuts. If\
      \ it turns out that the noodles are topped with Mongolian pine\r\nnuts, then when Hannah eats the dish, her mouth will\
      \ get a little dry. Since Hannah\r\nhas plenty to drink with her meal, it does not matter very much whether or not the\r\
      \nnoodles are topped with Mongolian pine nuts. Hannah is lucky that her allergy is so\r\nminor: some other people with\
      \ a slightly different gene can go into severe allergic shock\r\nand die if they eat Mongolian pine nuts. Just imagine\
      \ how horrible it would be if you\r\nor someone you loved had such a severe allergy without knowing it, and the restaurant\r\
      \nmenu was wrong!"
    provenance:
      page: 20
      quote: 'Ignorant low: ... slightly dry mouth...; Ignorant high: ... go into shock and die.'
  effects:
  - effect_id: s7_e1
    subgroup: Ignorant probe know (original)
    subgroup_desc: Agreement with ‘Hannah knows...’ in original Ignorant low vs Ignorant high
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    paradigm: Agreement with knowledge claim
    moderators:
      scenario: peanuts
      skeptical_pressure: 'No'
      awareness: 'No'
      evidence: External
      attribution_person: Other
      evidence_reliability: High
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: 20
          quote: 'Ignorant low: Hannah has a gene that causes her to experience a slightly dry mouth when she eats Mongolian
            pine nuts.'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The vignette concerns allergy to Mongolian pine nuts (peanuts-style scenario).
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: 20
          quote: Hannah notes that the menu says her dish does not contain Mongolian pine nuts.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Original Ignorant vignettes do not include an explicit doubt/counterconsideration cue (unlike the ‘and salient’
          variants).
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: 20
          quote: Hannah has absolutely no idea that she has this gene, nor is there any way she could know that she has this
            gene.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Stakes exist but the protagonist is explicitly unaware (ignorant of allergy gene).
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: 20
          quote: Sarah says, “I heard that Mongolian dishes are often served topped with Mongolian pine nuts.” ... the menu
            says her dish does not contain Mongolian pine nuts.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Evidence is from external sources (testimony + menu).
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: 21
          quote: “Hannah knows her noodles are not topped with Mongolian pine nuts.”
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Participants evaluate a third-person knowledge attribution.
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: 20
          quote: Sarah says, “I heard...” ... the menu says...
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: 'Mixed external sources are in tension here: hearsay (''I heard...'') points low while the menu record points
          higher, and no single basis is clearly primary -> Medium. BUT menu'
    contrast:
      group_high: Ignorant_high
      group_low: Ignorant_low
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: null
    groups:
    - group_id: Ignorant_low
      label: null
      n: null
      mean: 4.27
      sd: 2.05
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 33
        quote: Ignorant low knowledge (M = 4.27, SD = 2.05)
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    - group_id: Ignorant_high
      label: null
      n: null
      mean: 3.48
      sd: 1.86
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 33
        quote: Ignorant high knowledge (M = 3.48, SD = 1.86)
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    reported_test:
      test: t
      t: 2.19
      df1: 118.0
      notes: Reported as p < 0.05.
      provenance:
        page: 33
        quote: t (118) = 2.19, p < 0.05
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: 0.403615820806
      v: 0.034012107212
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: "Ignorant original knowledge probe. Equal split assumed within the original low/high pair: n_low=n_high=60. Computed from reported means/SDs via esc::esc_mean_sd(...)."
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
  - effect_id: s7_e2
    subgroup: Ignorant probe evidence (original)
    subgroup_desc: Strength of evidence rating in original Ignorant low vs Ignorant high
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    paradigm: Other
    paradigm_other: Strength of evidence rating.
    moderators:
      scenario: peanuts
      skeptical_pressure: 'No'
      awareness: 'No'
      evidence: External
      attribution_person: Other
      evidence_reliability: High
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: 20
          quote: 'Ignorant low: ... slightly dry mouth... Mongolian pine nuts.'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The vignette concerns allergy to Mongolian pine nuts (peanuts-style scenario).
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: 20
          quote: Hannah notes that the menu says her dish does not contain Mongolian pine nuts.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Original Ignorant vignettes do not include an explicit doubt/counterconsideration cue (unlike the ‘and salient’
          variants).
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: 20
          quote: Hannah has absolutely no idea that she has this gene...
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Stakes exist but the protagonist is explicitly unaware (ignorant of allergy gene).
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: 20
          quote: Sarah says, “I heard...” ... the menu says...
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Evidence is from external sources (testimony + menu).
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: 21
          quote: 'Ignorant probe evidence: What is the strength of Hannah’s evidence...'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: DV is evidence-strength (not a knowledge attribution), so self- vs third-person knowledge-ascription coding
          is not applicable.
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: 20
          quote: Sarah says, “I heard...” ... the menu says...
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: 'Mixed external sources are in tension here: hearsay (''I heard...'') points low while the menu record points
          higher, and no single basis is clearly primary -> Medium.'
    contrast:
      group_high: Ignorant_high
      group_low: Ignorant_low
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: null
    groups:
    - group_id: Ignorant_low
      label: null
      n: null
      mean: 4.57
      sd: 1.8
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 33
        quote: Ignorant low evidence (M = 4.57, SD = 1.80)
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    - group_id: Ignorant_high
      label: null
      n: null
      mean: 3.55
      sd: 1.7
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 33
        quote: Ignorant high evidence (M = 3.55, SD = 1.70)
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    reported_test:
      test: t
      t: 3.19
      df1: 118.0
      notes: Reported as p < 0.01.
      provenance:
        page: 33
        quote: for evidence ratings, t (118) = 3.19, p < 0.01.
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: 0.582619387537
      v: 0.034747688961
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: "Ignorant original evidence probe. Equal split assumed within the original low/high pair: n_low=n_high=60. Computed from reported means/SDs via esc::esc_mean_sd(...)."
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
  - effect_id: s7_e3
    subgroup: Ignorant probe know (salient)
    subgroup_desc: Agreement with ‘Hannah knows...’ in Ignorant low and salient vs Ignorant high and salient
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    paradigm: Agreement with knowledge claim
    moderators:
      scenario: peanuts
      skeptical_pressure: 'Yes'
      awareness: 'No'
      evidence: External
      attribution_person: Other
      evidence_reliability: High
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: 26
          quote: 'Ignorant low and salient: [Ignorant low plus:] ... Just imagine how horrible it would be... and the restaurant
            menu was wrong!'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: This is the peanuts/pine nuts allergy scenario with added salience manipulation.
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: 26
          quote: Just imagine how horrible it would be... and the restaurant menu was wrong!
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The ‘and salient’ variant explicitly introduces a counterconsideration (menu could be wrong).
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: 20
          quote: Hannah has absolutely no idea that she has this gene...
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Stakes exist but the protagonist is explicitly unaware (ignorant of allergy gene).
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: 20
          quote: Sarah says, “I heard...” ... the menu says...
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Evidence is from external sources (testimony + menu).
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: 21
          quote: “Hannah knows her noodles are not topped with Mongolian pine nuts.”
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Participants evaluate a third-person knowledge attribution.
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: 20
          quote: Sarah says, “I heard...” ... the menu says...
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: 'Mixed external sources are in tension here: hearsay (''I heard...'') points low while the menu record points
          higher, and no single basis is clearly primary -> Medium. The added skeptical-pressure cue about the menu being
          wrong does not by itself change reliability. MENU'
    contrast:
      group_high: Ignorant_high_salient
      group_low: Ignorant_low_salient
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: Salience fixed high via explicit error-possibility sentence.
    groups:
    - group_id: Ignorant_low_salient
      label: null
      n: null
      mean: 3.55
      sd: 1.99
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 33
        quote: Ignorant low and salient knowledge (M = 3.55, SD = 1.99)
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    - group_id: Ignorant_high_salient
      label: null
      n: null
      mean: 3.6
      sd: 2.03
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 33
        quote: Ignorant high and salient knowledge (M = 3.60, SD = 2.03)
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    reported_test:
      test: t
      t: -0.136
      df1: 118.0
      p: 0.892
      provenance:
        page: 33
        quote: t (118) = −0.136, p = 0.892
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: -0.024874390546
      v: 0.033335911397
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: "Ignorant salient knowledge probe. Equal split assumed within the salient low/high pair: n_low=n_high=60. Computed from reported means/SDs via esc::esc_mean_sd(...)."
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
  - effect_id: s7_e4
    subgroup: Ignorant probe evidence (salient)
    subgroup_desc: Strength of evidence rating in Ignorant low and salient vs Ignorant high and salient
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    paradigm: Other
    paradigm_other: Strength of evidence rating.
    moderators:
      scenario: peanuts
      skeptical_pressure: 'Yes'
      awareness: 'No'
      evidence: External
      attribution_person: Other
      evidence_reliability: High
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: 26
          quote: 'Ignorant low and salient: [Ignorant low plus:] ... Just imagine ... the restaurant menu was wrong!'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: This is the peanuts/pine nuts allergy scenario with added salience manipulation.
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: 26
          quote: Just imagine how horrible it would be... and the restaurant menu was wrong!
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The ‘and salient’ variant explicitly introduces a counterconsideration (menu could be wrong).
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: 20
          quote: Hannah has absolutely no idea that she has this gene...
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Stakes exist but the protagonist is explicitly unaware (ignorant of allergy gene).
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: 20
          quote: Sarah says, “I heard...” ... the menu says...
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Evidence is from external sources (testimony + menu).
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: 21
          quote: 'Ignorant probe evidence: What is the strength of Hannah’s evidence...'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: DV is evidence-strength (not a knowledge attribution), so self- vs third-person knowledge-ascription coding
          is not applicable.
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: 20
          quote: Sarah says, “I heard...” ... the menu says...
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: 'Mixed external sources are in tension here: hearsay (''I heard...'') points low while the menu record points
          higher, and no single basis is clearly primary -> Medium. The added skeptical-pressure cue about the menu being
          wrong does not by itself change reliability. MENU-> HIGH'
    contrast:
      group_high: Ignorant_high_salient
      group_low: Ignorant_low_salient
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: Salience fixed high via explicit error-possibility sentence.
    groups:
    - group_id: Ignorant_low_salient
      label: null
      n: null
      mean: 3.7
      sd: 1.87
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 33
        quote: Ignorant low and salient evidence (M = 3.70, SD = 1.87)
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    - group_id: Ignorant_high_salient
      label: null
      n: null
      mean: 3.82
      sd: 1.9
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 33
        quote: Ignorant high and salient evidence (M = 3.82, SD = 1.90)
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    reported_test:
      test: t
      t: -0.19
      df1: 118.0
      p: 0.85
      notes: Paper sentence likely contains a typo (‘Ignorant high knowledge’); interpreted as the evidence-rating comparison
        given the listed evidence means.
      provenance:
        page: 33
        quote: Ignorant low and salient evidence... Ignorant high and salient evidence... nor between Ignorant low and salient
          and Ignorant high knowledge, t (118) = -0.190, p = 0.85.
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: -0.063658461971
      v: 0.033350218332
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: "Ignorant salient evidence probe. Equal split assumed within the salient low/high pair: n_low=n_high=60. Computed from reported means/SDs via esc::esc_mean_sd(...)."
    quality_flags:
    - possible_reporting_error
    notes: null
  notes: null