schema_version: '1.2'
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)
  language: English
  language_other: null
  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: money
    compensation_other: null
    characteristics: 73% female
    mean_age: 35.0
    mean_age_prov:
      page: 15
      quote: 120 participants were recruited through Prolific Academic (73 % female, mean age 35).
    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…
  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: Rating how much evidence is needed for knowledge
  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."'
  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: "Typo high short: Peter, a good college student, has just finished writing a two\r\npage paper for an\
      \ English class. The paper is due tomorrow. Even though Peter \r\nis a pretty good speller, he has a dictionary with\
      \ him that he can use to check \r\nand 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 \r\nleave 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: 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…"'
  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: Other
      evidence_reliability: High
    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: The DV is a certainty-threshold judgment rather than a self- or third-person knowledge attribution, so this
          moderator is not applicable and is coded null.
      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: checking/verification procedure with repeated proofreading and dictionary use to make sure no typos remain
          -> High
    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: null
      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: null
      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: 0.084151284041
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: Computed from OSF Qualtrics XML group stats in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd via esc::esc_mean_sd (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: Other
      evidence_reliability: High
    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: The DV is a certainty-threshold judgment rather than a self- or third-person knowledge attribution, so this
          moderator is not applicable and is coded null.
      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: checking/verification procedure with repeated proofreading and dictionary use to make sure no typos remain
          -> High
    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: null
      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: null
      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: -0.70831102282
      v: 0.077312272797
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: Computed from OSF Qualtrics XML group stats in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd via esc::esc_mean_sd (method=between_groups).
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
  notes: null