Extraction report — Dinges 2023

Source: papers/dinges2021knowledgeasymmetricloss/dinges2021knowledgeasymmetricloss.yaml · Generated: 2026-02-10 01:24 UTC
1 studies2 effects

Paper

paper_iddinges2021knowledgeasymmetricloss
short_labelDinges 2023
citationDinges, A. (2023). Knowledge and Asymmetric Loss. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 14, 1055–1076. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-021-00596-9
doi10.1007/s13164-021-00596-9
year2023
publishedYes
languageEnglish
language_other—
research_objectivePropose a loss-function account of stakes effects on knowledge ascriptions and report a new Prolific experiment testing whether stakes and probability threshold (70% vs 90%) affect how many rounds of proofreading are required for certainty that no typos remain.
data_available_onlineYes
data_urlhttps://osf.io/qknmh/
notes—

Study (Stakes × probability threshold; 2×2 between-subjects)

study_id: 1

Study

study_id1
labelStudy (Stakes × probability threshold; 2×2 between-subjects)
objectiveTest whether stakes (low vs high) affect how many rounds of proofreading participants think are needed to be 70% or 90% certain that no typos remain.
designBetween-Subjects
design_other2 (stakes: low vs high) × 2 (certainty threshold: 70% vs 90%) between-subjects.
manipulated_factorsCertainty threshold: 70% vs 90%
paradigmOther
paradigm_otherOpen numeric response: number of proofreading rounds required for a specified certainty threshold (70% vs 90%) that no typos remain.
notes—

Sample

n_final109
recruitmentProlific
recruitment_other—
compensation—
compensation_other—
characteristics73% female.
mean_age35
Provenance
page15
table_ref—
tei_id—
120 participants were recruited through Prolific Academic (73 % female, mean age 35)… 8 participants failed the attention check, and they were thus excluded from the subsequent analysis. I further excluded three extreme outliers…

Scale

labelother
points—
anchorsOpen numeric response (text box): number of times to proofread.
directionHigher numbers indicate more rounds of proofreading required to reach the specified certainty threshold.
Provenance
page15
table_ref—
tei_id—
"How many times does Peter have to proofread his paper before you would be [90/70] percent certain that no typos remain? Please fill in a number."

Measures

knowledge_question_text—
knowledge_question_first—
additional_question_textHow many times does Peter have to proofread his paper before you would be [90/70] percent certain that no typos remain? Please fill in a number.

Scenarios

Scenarios (1)
typos · Proofreading a class paper for typos (Pinillos-style typo vignette).
scenario_codetypos
scenario_typeProofreading a class paper for typos (Pinillos-style typo vignette).
High stakes text
High stakes: teacher guarantees no one will get an A if there is a typo; scholarship depends on it; leaving school would be devastating.
Low stakes text
Low stakes: rough draft; it won't matter if there are a few typos.
Provenance
page3
table_ref—
tei_id—
Typo low: "…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." Typo high short: "There is a lot at stake… guarantees that no one will get an A for the paper if there is a typo… keep his scholarship…"

Effects

s1_e1 · Typos (90% certainty): Low vs High stakes · Between-Subjects · d=-1.037954558457 · v=0.084534955574

Effect

effect_ids1_e1
subgroupTypos (90% certainty): Low vs High stakes
subgroup_descProofreading rounds required for 90% certainty (between-subjects)
designBetween-Subjects
design_other—
quality_flags—
notes—

Effect Size

metricSMD
d-1.037954558457
v0.084534955574
computed_fromgroups
needs_reviewfalse
notesComputed from OSF Qualtrics XML group stats in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd (method=between_groups).

Moderators

scenariotypos
skeptical_pressureNo
awarenessYes
evidenceFirst Person
attribution_person—
evidence_reliability—

Contrast

group_highHS90
group_lowLS90
sign_conventiond = mean(low) - mean(high)
other_notes90% certainty condition. (In the OSF Qualtrics export, this corresponds to variables low70/high70; see analysis/effect_sizes.qmd.)

Moderator Coding

moderatorvaluereasonevidence
scenariotyposThe vignette is explicitly the typos/proofreading scenario.
Provenance
page3
table_ref—
tei_id—
Typo low: "Peter… has just finished writing a two-page paper…" Typo high short: "…make sure there are no typos."
skeptical_pressureNoNo explicit skeptical-pressure manipulation is present; only stakes vary.
Provenance
page3
table_ref—
tei_id—
Typo vignettes describe proofreading for typos under different stakes; no explicit counterconsideration (e.g., 'you might be wrong') is introduced.
awarenessYesHigh-stakes consequences are described as known features of the situation.
Provenance
page3
table_ref—
tei_id—
Typo high short: "There is a lot at stake… guarantees that no one will get an A… scholarship…"
evidenceFirst PersonThe evidence is based on the agent’s own proofreading/experience (first-person evidence).
Provenance
page3
table_ref—
tei_id—
Typo low: "…he has a dictionary with him that he can use to check and make sure there are no typos."
attribution_person—DV is a certainty judgment rather than a knowledge attribution; self/third-person knowledge-ascription coding is not applicable.
Provenance
page15
table_ref—
tei_id—
"How many times does Peter have to proofread his paper before you would be [90/70] percent certain that no typos remain?"
evidence_reliability—Reliability of the evidence source is not meaningfully specified/manipulated; coded null.
Provenance
page3
table_ref—
tei_id—
Typo low: "…he has a dictionary with him that he can use to check and make sure there are no typos."

Groups

group_idlabelnmeansdseprovenance
LS90Low stakes (90% certainty condition)262.346153846153850.745241313525099—
Provenance
page—
table_refdata_study_1.xml
tei_id—
Computed from OSF Qualtrics XML (data_study_1.xml) after excluding attention-check failures and the three outliers described in the paper.
HS90High stakes (90% certainty condition)284.964285714285713.42628340763253—
Provenance
page—
table_refdata_study_1.xml
tei_id—
Computed from OSF Qualtrics XML (data_study_1.xml) after excluding attention-check failures and the three outliers described in the paper.

Reported Test

test—
t—
f—
chi2—
z—
df1—
df2—
p—
reported_d—
reported_r—
notes—

Quality Flags

—
s1_e2 · Typos (70% certainty): Low vs High stakes · Between-Subjects · d=-0.70831102282 · v=0.07748438412

Effect

effect_ids1_e2
subgroupTypos (70% certainty): Low vs High stakes
subgroup_descProofreading rounds required for 70% certainty (between-subjects)
designBetween-Subjects
design_other—
quality_flags—
notes—

Effect Size

metricSMD
d-0.70831102282
v0.07748438412
computed_fromgroups
needs_reviewfalse
notesComputed from OSF Qualtrics XML group stats in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd (method=between_groups).

Moderators

scenariotypos
skeptical_pressureNo
awarenessYes
evidenceFirst Person
attribution_person—
evidence_reliability—

Contrast

group_highHS70
group_lowLS70
sign_conventiond = mean(low) - mean(high)
other_notes70% certainty condition. (In the OSF Qualtrics export, this corresponds to variables low90/high90; see analysis/effect_sizes.qmd.)

Moderator Coding

moderatorvaluereasonevidence
scenariotyposThe vignette is explicitly the typos/proofreading scenario.
Provenance
page3
table_ref—
tei_id—
Typo low: "Peter… has just finished writing a two-page paper…" Typo high short: "…make sure there are no typos."
skeptical_pressureNoNo explicit skeptical-pressure manipulation is present; only stakes vary.
Provenance
page3
table_ref—
tei_id—
Typo vignettes describe proofreading for typos under different stakes; no explicit counterconsideration (e.g., 'you might be wrong') is introduced.
awarenessYesHigh-stakes consequences are described as known features of the situation.
Provenance
page3
table_ref—
tei_id—
Typo high short: "There is a lot at stake… guarantees that no one will get an A… scholarship…"
evidenceFirst PersonThe evidence is based on the agent’s own proofreading/experience (first-person evidence).
Provenance
page3
table_ref—
tei_id—
Typo low: "…he has a dictionary with him that he can use to check and make sure there are no typos."
attribution_person—DV is a certainty judgment rather than a knowledge attribution; self/third-person knowledge-ascription coding is not applicable.
Provenance
page15
table_ref—
tei_id—
"How many times does Peter have to proofread his paper before you would be [90/70] percent certain that no typos remain?"
evidence_reliability—Reliability of the evidence source is not meaningfully specified/manipulated; coded null.
Provenance
page3
table_ref—
tei_id—
Typo low: "…he has a dictionary with him that he can use to check and make sure there are no typos."

Groups

group_idlabelnmeansdseprovenance
LS70Low stakes (70% certainty condition)282.035714285714291.23174500899974—
Provenance
page—
table_refdata_study_1.xml
tei_id—
Computed from OSF Qualtrics XML (data_study_1.xml) after excluding attention-check failures and the three outliers described in the paper.
HS70High stakes (70% certainty condition)273.259259259259262.12299847082435—
Provenance
page—
table_refdata_study_1.xml
tei_id—
Computed from OSF Qualtrics XML (data_study_1.xml) after excluding attention-check failures and the three outliers described in the paper.

Reported Test

test—
t—
f—
chi2—
z—
df1—
df2—
p—
reported_d—
reported_r—
notes—

Quality Flags

—
Raw YAML 
schema_version: "1.1"

paper:
  paper_id: dinges2021knowledgeasymmetricloss
  citation: "Dinges, A. (2023). Knowledge and Asymmetric Loss. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 14, 1055–1076. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-021-00596-9"
  short_label: "Dinges 2023"
  doi: "10.1007/s13164-021-00596-9"
  published: "Yes"
  year: 2023
  language: "English"
  language_other: null
  research_objective: "Propose a loss-function account of stakes effects on knowledge ascriptions and report a new Prolific experiment testing whether stakes and probability threshold (70% vs 90%) affect how many rounds of proofreading are required for certainty that no typos remain."
  data_availability:
    data_available_online: "Yes"
    url: "https://osf.io/qknmh/"
    notes: "Paper footnote provides view-only OSF link: https://osf.io/qknmh/?view_only=6001afa3de4e44baa438ed936d9b38d0"
  notes: null

studies:
  - study_id: 1
    label: "Study (Stakes × probability threshold; 2×2 between-subjects)"
    objective: "Test whether stakes (low vs high) affect how many rounds of proofreading participants think are needed to be 70% or 90% certain that no typos remain."
    sample:
      n_final: 109
      recruitment: "Prolific"
      recruitment_other: null
      compensation: null
      compensation_other: null
      characteristics: "73% female."
      mean_age: 35
      mean_age_prov:
        page: 15
        quote: "120 participants were recruited through Prolific Academic (73 % female, mean age 35)."
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
      provenance:
        page: 15
        quote: "120 participants were recruited through Prolific Academic (73 % female, mean age 35)… 8 participants failed the attention check, and they were thus excluded from the subsequent analysis. I further excluded three extreme outliers…"
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    design: "Between-Subjects"
    design_other: "2 (stakes: low vs high) × 2 (certainty threshold: 70% vs 90%) between-subjects."
    manipulated_factors:
      - "Certainty threshold: 70% vs 90%"
    paradigm: "Other"
    paradigm_other: "Open numeric response: number of proofreading rounds required for a specified certainty threshold (70% vs 90%) that no typos remain."
    scale:
      label: other
      points: null
      anchors: "Open numeric response (text box): number of times to proofread."
      direction: "Higher numbers indicate more rounds of proofreading required to reach the specified certainty threshold."
      provenance:
        page: 15
        quote: "\"How many times does Peter have to proofread his paper before you would be [90/70] percent certain that no typos remain? Please fill in a number.\""
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    measures:
      knowledge_question_text: null
      knowledge_question_first: null
      additional_question_text: "How many times does Peter have to proofread his paper before you would be [90/70] percent certain that no typos remain? Please fill in a number."
    scenarios:
      - scenario_code: typos
        scenario_type: "Proofreading a class paper for typos (Pinillos-style typo vignette)."
        high_stakes_text: "High stakes: teacher guarantees no one will get an A if there is a typo; scholarship depends on it; leaving school would be devastating."
        low_stakes_text: "Low stakes: rough draft; it won't matter if there are a few typos."
        provenance:
          page: 3
          quote: "Typo low: \"…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.\" Typo high short: \"There is a lot at stake… guarantees that no one will get an A for the paper if there is a typo… keep his scholarship…\""
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
    effects:
      - effect_id: s1_e1
        subgroup: "Typos (90% certainty): Low vs High stakes"
        subgroup_desc: "Proofreading rounds required for 90% certainty (between-subjects)"
        design: "Between-Subjects"
        design_other: null
        moderators:
          scenario: typos
          skeptical_pressure: "No"
          awareness: "Yes"
          evidence: "First Person"
          attribution_person: null
          evidence_reliability: null
        moderators_coding:
          scenario:
            provenance:
              page: 3
              quote: "Typo low: \"Peter… has just finished writing a two-page paper…\" Typo high short: \"…make sure there are no typos.\""
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "The vignette is explicitly the typos/proofreading scenario."
          skeptical_pressure:
            provenance:
              page: 3
              quote: "Typo vignettes describe proofreading for typos under different stakes; no explicit counterconsideration (e.g., 'you might be wrong') is introduced."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "No explicit skeptical-pressure manipulation is present; only stakes vary."
          awareness:
            provenance:
              page: 3
              quote: "Typo high short: \"There is a lot at stake… guarantees that no one will get an A… scholarship…\""
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "High-stakes consequences are described as known features of the situation."
          evidence:
            provenance:
              page: 3
              quote: "Typo low: \"…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 evidence is based on the agent’s own proofreading/experience (first-person evidence)."
          attribution_person:
            provenance:
              page: 15
              quote: "\"How many times does Peter have to proofread his paper before you would be [90/70] percent certain that no typos remain?\""
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "DV is a certainty judgment rather than a knowledge attribution; self/third-person knowledge-ascription coding is not applicable."
          evidence_reliability:
            provenance:
              page: 3
              quote: "Typo low: \"…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: "Reliability of the evidence source is not meaningfully specified/manipulated; coded null."
        contrast:
          group_high: HS90
          group_low: LS90
          sign_convention: "d = mean(low) - mean(high)"
          other_notes: "90% certainty condition. (In the OSF Qualtrics export, this corresponds to variables low70/high70; see analysis/effect_sizes.qmd.)"
        groups:
          - group_id: LS90
            label: "Low stakes (90% certainty condition)"
            n: 26
            mean: 2.34615384615385
            sd: 0.745241313525099
            se: null
            provenance:
              page: null
              quote: "Computed from OSF Qualtrics XML (data_study_1.xml) after excluding attention-check failures and the three outliers described in the paper."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: "data_study_1.xml"
          - group_id: HS90
            label: "High stakes (90% certainty condition)"
            n: 28
            mean: 4.96428571428571
            sd: 3.42628340763253
            se: null
            provenance:
              page: null
              quote: "Computed from OSF Qualtrics XML (data_study_1.xml) after excluding attention-check failures and the three outliers described in the paper."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: "data_study_1.xml"
        effect_size:
          metric: SMD
          d: -1.037954558457
          v: 0.084534955574
          computed_from: groups
          needs_review: false
          notes: "Computed from OSF Qualtrics XML group stats in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd (method=between_groups)."
        quality_flags: []
        notes: null

      - effect_id: s1_e2
        subgroup: "Typos (70% certainty): Low vs High stakes"
        subgroup_desc: "Proofreading rounds required for 70% certainty (between-subjects)"
        design: "Between-Subjects"
        design_other: null
        moderators:
          scenario: typos
          skeptical_pressure: "No"
          awareness: "Yes"
          evidence: "First Person"
          attribution_person: null
          evidence_reliability: null
        moderators_coding:
          scenario:
            provenance:
              page: 3
              quote: "Typo low: \"Peter… has just finished writing a two-page paper…\" Typo high short: \"…make sure there are no typos.\""
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "The vignette is explicitly the typos/proofreading scenario."
          skeptical_pressure:
            provenance:
              page: 3
              quote: "Typo vignettes describe proofreading for typos under different stakes; no explicit counterconsideration (e.g., 'you might be wrong') is introduced."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "No explicit skeptical-pressure manipulation is present; only stakes vary."
          awareness:
            provenance:
              page: 3
              quote: "Typo high short: \"There is a lot at stake… guarantees that no one will get an A… scholarship…\""
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "High-stakes consequences are described as known features of the situation."
          evidence:
            provenance:
              page: 3
              quote: "Typo low: \"…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 evidence is based on the agent’s own proofreading/experience (first-person evidence)."
          attribution_person:
            provenance:
              page: 15
              quote: "\"How many times does Peter have to proofread his paper before you would be [90/70] percent certain that no typos remain?\""
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "DV is a certainty judgment rather than a knowledge attribution; self/third-person knowledge-ascription coding is not applicable."
          evidence_reliability:
            provenance:
              page: 3
              quote: "Typo low: \"…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: "Reliability of the evidence source is not meaningfully specified/manipulated; coded null."
        contrast:
          group_high: HS70
          group_low: LS70
          sign_convention: "d = mean(low) - mean(high)"
          other_notes: "70% certainty condition. (In the OSF Qualtrics export, this corresponds to variables low90/high90; see analysis/effect_sizes.qmd.)"
        groups:
          - group_id: LS70
            label: "Low stakes (70% certainty condition)"
            n: 28
            mean: 2.03571428571429
            sd: 1.23174500899974
            se: null
            provenance:
              page: null
              quote: "Computed from OSF Qualtrics XML (data_study_1.xml) after excluding attention-check failures and the three outliers described in the paper."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: "data_study_1.xml"
          - group_id: HS70
            label: "High stakes (70% certainty condition)"
            n: 27
            mean: 3.25925925925926
            sd: 2.12299847082435
            se: null
            provenance:
              page: null
              quote: "Computed from OSF Qualtrics XML (data_study_1.xml) after excluding attention-check failures and the three outliers described in the paper."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: "data_study_1.xml"
        effect_size:
          metric: SMD
          d: -0.708311022820
          v: 0.077484384120
          computed_from: groups
          needs_review: false
          notes: "Computed from OSF Qualtrics XML group stats in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd (method=between_groups)."
        quality_flags: []
        notes: null