Raw YAML
schema_version: "1.1"
paper:
paper_id: dingeszakkou2019muchstakeknowledge
citation: "Dinges, A., & Zakkou, J. (2021). Much at stake in knowledge. Mind & Language, 36, 729–749. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12300"
short_label: "Dinges & Zakkou 2021"
doi: "10.1111/mila.12300"
published: "Yes"
year: 2021
language: "English"
language_other: null
research_objective: "Introduce a retraction-based paradigm to test whether stakes affect knowledge ascriptions, and report three Prolific studies (typos vignette; bank vignette; mediation follow-up) showing increased retraction under high stakes."
data_availability:
data_available_online: null
url: null
notes: null
notes: null
studies:
- study_id: 1
label: "Study 1"
objective: "Test whether participants retract a prior first-person knowledge claim when stakes rise, using a typos vignette with three conditions (Neutral vs Stakes vs Evidence)."
sample:
n_final: 151
recruitment: "Prolific"
recruitment_other: null
compensation: null
compensation_other: null
characteristics: "58% female."
mean_age: 35
mean_age_prov:
page: null
quote: "One hundred and fifty-three participants were recruited through Prolific Academic (58% female, mean age 35)."
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
provenance:
page: null
quote: "One hundred and fifty-three participants were recruited through Prolific Academic (58% female, mean age 35)… The responses of two participants were discarded because they failed the attention check."
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
design: "Between-Subjects"
design_other: "3-level condition (NEUTRAL vs STAKES vs EVIDENCE)."
manipulated_factors: []
paradigm: "Retraction of knowledge attribution"
paradigm_other: null
scale:
label: other
points: null
anchors: "Composite score: response 'I do'=1, 'I don't'=-1, multiplied by confidence (1=very unconfident to 7=very confident), yielding a range from -7 to 7."
direction: "Higher = more confident stand by of the initial knowledge claim; lower/negative = more confident retraction."
provenance:
page: null
quote: "The response \"I do\" was coded as 1, the response \"I don't\" was coded as -1, and the composite score resulted from a multiplication with the reported confidence level ranging from 1 (very unconfident) to 7 (very confident)."
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
measures:
knowledge_question_text: "As you're about to submit the paper, Hannah asks whether you stand by your previous claim that you know there are no typos in the paper. You respond: (binary: 'I do' vs 'I don't')."
knowledge_question_first: "Yes"
additional_question_text: "Confidence rating after the binary response (1=very unconfident to 7=very confident)."
scenarios:
- scenario_code: typos
scenario_type: "Proofreading a joint class paper for typos (Pinillos-style 'typo' vignette) with a first-person knowledge self-ascription and subsequent retraction/stand-by judgment."
high_stakes_text: "Hannah reveals it is extremely important for her to get an A; her scholarship depends on it; if there is a typo left she is very unlikely to get an A."
low_stakes_text: "Hannah reveals she is a big fan of the Backstreet Boys; nothing of relevance changes before the retraction question."
provenance:
page: null
quote: "Typos vignette: you say “I know there are no typos anymore.” In STAKES, Hannah reveals “it is extremely important for her to get an A… Her scholarship depends on it…” In NEUTRAL, Hannah reveals she is “a big fan of the Backstreet Boys.”"
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
effects:
- effect_id: s1_e1
subgroup: "Typos: Stakes vs Neutral"
subgroup_desc: "Composite retraction score (stand by vs retract × confidence) in high-stakes vs neutral condition"
design: "Between-Subjects"
design_other: null
moderators:
scenario: typos
skeptical_pressure: "No"
awareness: "Yes"
evidence: "First Person"
attribution_person: "First Person"
evidence_reliability: null
moderators_coding:
scenario:
provenance:
page: null
quote: "Picture yourself… You’ve carefully proofread the paper 3 times… You respond: “I know there are no typos anymore.”"
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
reason: "The vignette is explicitly the typos/proofreading scenario."
skeptical_pressure:
provenance:
page: null
quote: "Scenario provides the same evidence description across conditions; no explicit counterconsideration/error-possibility prompt is introduced."
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
reason: "No explicit skeptical-pressure manipulation (no salient alternative raised); only stakes/evidence shifts occur after the initial knowledge claim."
awareness:
provenance:
page: null
quote: "STAKES: “it is extremely important for her to get an A… Her scholarship depends on it…”"
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
reason: "High-stakes consequences are described as known facts in the scenario, so the subject is aware of what is at stake."
evidence:
provenance:
page: null
quote: "“You’ve carefully proofread the paper 3 times and used a dictionary if necessary.”"
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
reason: "Evidence is the subject’s own first-person experience/memory of proofreading."
attribution_person:
provenance:
page: null
quote: "You respond: “I know there are no typos anymore.”"
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
reason: "The knowledge attribution is a first-person self-ascription."
evidence_reliability:
provenance:
page: null
quote: "“You’ve carefully proofread the paper 3 times and used a dictionary if necessary.”"
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
reason: "Reliability of the evidence source is not meaningfully specified/manipulated; coded null."
contrast:
group_high: Stakes
group_low: Neutral
sign_convention: "d = mean(low) - mean(high)"
other_notes: "Effect uses STAKES vs NEUTRAL; EVIDENCE is a baseline condition not extracted as a stakes effect."
groups:
- group_id: Neutral
label: "Neutral (low stakes)"
n: 51
mean: 5.43
sd: 2.82
se: null
provenance:
page: null
quote: "Tukey HSD: STAKES (M = 3.32, SD = 4.40, p = .036, d = .50) vs NEUTRAL (M = 5.43, SD = 2.82). Pairwise χ² comparisons report N(Neutral+Stakes)=101."
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
- group_id: Stakes
label: "Stakes (high stakes)"
n: 50
mean: 3.32
sd: 4.40
se: null
provenance:
page: null
quote: "Tukey HSD: STAKES (M = 3.32, SD = 4.40, p = .036, d = .50) vs NEUTRAL (M = 5.43, SD = 2.82). Pairwise χ² comparisons report N(Neutral+Stakes)=101."
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
reported_test:
test: "Tukey HSD"
t: null
f: null
chi2: null
z: null
df1: null
df2: null
p: 0.036
reported_d: 0.50
reported_r: null
notes: "Post hoc Tukey HSD comparison after one-way ANOVA across NEUTRAL/STAKES/EVIDENCE."
provenance:
page: null
quote: "Tukey HSD: participants were more inclined to retract in STAKES (M = 3.32, SD = 4.40, p = .036, Cohen's d = .50) than in NEUTRAL (M = 5.43, SD = 2.82)."
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
effect_size:
metric: SMD
d: 0.500000000000
v: 0.040870469400
computed_from: reported_d
needs_review: false
notes: "d from paper; v computed from reported d + inferred n_low/n_high in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd (method=between_reported_d_n)."
quality_flags: []
notes: null
- study_id: 2
label: "Study 2"
objective: "Replicate Study 1 stakes-retraction effect with a DeRose-style bank vignette (Neutral vs Stakes vs Evidence)."
sample:
n_final: 152
recruitment: "Prolific"
recruitment_other: null
compensation: null
compensation_other: null
characteristics: "57% female."
mean_age: 33
mean_age_prov:
page: null
quote: "One hundred and fifty-two participants were recruited through Prolific Academic (57% female, mean age 33)."
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
provenance:
page: null
quote: "One hundred and fifty-two participants were recruited through Prolific Academic (57% female, mean age 33). All participants passed the attention check."
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
design: "Between-Subjects"
design_other: "3-level condition (NEUTRAL vs STAKES vs EVIDENCE)."
manipulated_factors: []
paradigm: "Retraction of knowledge attribution"
paradigm_other: null
scale:
label: other
points: null
anchors: "Composite score: response 'I do'=1, 'I don't'=-1, multiplied by confidence (1=very unconfident to 7=very confident), yielding a range from -7 to 7."
direction: "Higher = more confident stand by of the initial knowledge claim; lower/negative = more confident retraction."
provenance:
page: null
quote: "Composite score: “I do” coded as 1, “I don't” coded as -1, multiplied by confidence (1–7)."
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
measures:
knowledge_question_text: "As you hang up, Peter asks whether you stand by your previous claim that you know the bank will be open tomorrow. You respond: (binary: 'I do' vs 'I don't')."
knowledge_question_first: "Yes"
additional_question_text: "Confidence rating after the binary response (1=very unconfident to 7=very confident)."
scenarios:
- scenario_code: bank
scenario_type: "Bank deposit / bank-hours vignette (DeRose-style bank case) with a first-person knowledge self-ascription and subsequent retraction/stand-by judgment."
high_stakes_text: "Partner calls: it is extremely important the paycheck is deposited by Saturday; a very important bill is due; it would be a disaster if the bank is closed."
low_stakes_text: "Partner calls: a child is sick and waiting at a doctor's office; asks whether you can water the plants and prepare dinner; enough food at home."
provenance:
page: null
quote: "Bank vignette: you say “I know the bank will be open tomorrow.” NEUTRAL: child is sick; water plants/prepare dinner. STAKES: “it is extremely important that your paycheck is deposited by Saturday… a very important bill is coming due… it would be a disaster…”."
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
effects:
- effect_id: s2_e1
subgroup: "Bank: Stakes vs Neutral"
subgroup_desc: "Composite retraction score (stand by vs retract × confidence) in high-stakes vs neutral condition"
design: "Between-Subjects"
design_other: null
moderators:
scenario: bank
skeptical_pressure: "No"
awareness: "Yes"
evidence: "First Person"
attribution_person: "First Person"
evidence_reliability: null
moderators_coding:
scenario:
provenance:
page: null
quote: "Bank vignette: “I know the bank will be open tomorrow”… later asked whether you stand by your previous claim."
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
reason: "The vignette is explicitly the bank-hours case."
skeptical_pressure:
provenance:
page: null
quote: "No explicit error-possibility is raised in NEUTRAL or STAKES; stakes are manipulated via consequences of being wrong."
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
reason: "No explicit skeptical-pressure manipulation (no salient alternative prompt)."
awareness:
provenance:
page: null
quote: "STAKES: “it is extremely important that your paycheck is deposited by Saturday… A very important bill is coming due…”"
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
reason: "High-stakes consequences are described in the scenario, so the subject is aware of what is at stake."
evidence:
provenance:
page: null
quote: "“You remember having been at the bank three weeks before on a Saturday… ‘I know the bank will be open tomorrow’.”"
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
reason: "Evidence is the subject’s own first-person memory/experience."
attribution_person:
provenance:
page: null
quote: "You respond: “I know the bank will be open tomorrow”."
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
reason: "The knowledge attribution is a first-person self-ascription."
evidence_reliability:
provenance:
page: null
quote: "Evidence is based on personal memory of visiting the bank three weeks before."
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
reason: "Reliability of the evidence source is not meaningfully specified/manipulated; coded null."
contrast:
group_high: Stakes
group_low: Neutral
sign_convention: "d = mean(low) - mean(high)"
other_notes: "Effect uses STAKES vs NEUTRAL; EVIDENCE is a baseline condition not extracted as a stakes effect."
groups:
- group_id: Neutral
label: "Neutral (low stakes)"
n: 51
mean: 5.06
sd: 3.27
se: null
provenance:
page: null
quote: "Tukey HSD: STAKES (M = 1.10, SD = 5.08, p < .001, d = 1.06) vs NEUTRAL (M = 5.06, SD = 3.27). Pairwise χ² comparisons report N(Neutral+Stakes)=101."
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
- group_id: Stakes
label: "Stakes (high stakes)"
n: 50
mean: 1.10
sd: 5.08
se: null
provenance:
page: null
quote: "Tukey HSD: STAKES (M = 1.10, SD = 5.08, p < .001, d = 1.06) vs NEUTRAL (M = 5.06, SD = 3.27). Pairwise χ² comparisons report N(Neutral+Stakes)=101."
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
reported_test:
test: "Tukey HSD"
t: null
f: null
chi2: null
z: null
df1: null
df2: null
p: null
reported_d: 1.06
reported_r: null
notes: "Post hoc Tukey HSD comparison after one-way ANOVA across NEUTRAL/STAKES/EVIDENCE; paper reports p < .001 for Stakes vs Neutral."
provenance:
page: null
quote: "Tukey HSD: participants were more inclined to retract in STAKES (M = 1.10, SD = 5.08, p < .001, Cohen's d = 1.06) than in NEUTRAL (M = 5.06, SD = 3.27)."
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
effect_size:
metric: SMD
d: 1.060000000000
v: 0.045282590612
computed_from: reported_d
needs_review: false
notes: "d from paper; v computed from reported d + inferred n_low/n_high in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd (method=between_reported_d_n)."
quality_flags: []
notes: null
- study_id: 3
label: "Study 3"
objective: "Test whether stakes effects on retraction are mediated by consciously generated error-possibilities (bank vignette; NEUTRAL vs STAKES only)."
sample:
n_final: 170
recruitment: "Prolific"
recruitment_other: null
compensation: null
compensation_other: null
characteristics: "61% female."
mean_age: 32
mean_age_prov:
page: null
quote: "One hundred and seventy-three participants were recruited through Prolific Academic (61% female, mean age 32)."
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
provenance:
page: null
quote: "Responses from three respondents were discarded because they failed the attention check… χ² (1, N = 170) = 22.760."
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
design: "Between-Subjects"
design_other: "2-level condition (NEUTRAL vs STAKES)."
manipulated_factors: []
paradigm: "Retraction of knowledge attribution"
paradigm_other: null
scale:
label: other
points: null
anchors: "Composite score: response 'I do'=1, 'I don't'=-1, multiplied by confidence (1=very unconfident to 7=very confident), yielding a range from -7 to 7."
direction: "Higher = more confident stand by of the initial knowledge claim; lower/negative = more confident retraction."
provenance:
page: null
quote: "Composite score: “I do” coded as 1, “I don't” coded as -1, multiplied by confidence (1–7)."
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
measures:
knowledge_question_text: "Bank vignette (as in Study 2): asked whether you stand by your previous claim that you know the bank will be open tomorrow (binary: 'I do' vs 'I don't')."
knowledge_question_first: "Yes"
additional_question_text: "Confidence rating after the binary response (1=very unconfident to 7=very confident); then error-possibilities checklist (Yes/No for each)."
scenarios:
- scenario_code: bank
scenario_type: "Bank deposit / bank-hours vignette (DeRose-style bank case) with a first-person knowledge self-ascription and subsequent retraction/stand-by judgment."
high_stakes_text: "Partner calls: it is extremely important the paycheck is deposited by Saturday; a very important bill is due; it would be a disaster if the bank is closed."
low_stakes_text: "Partner calls: a child is sick and waiting at a doctor's office; asks whether you can water the plants and prepare dinner; enough food at home."
provenance:
page: null
quote: "Participants were assigned to the NEUTRAL or the STAKES story from the bank case study above (we dropped the EVIDENCE condition this time)."
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
effects:
- effect_id: s3_e1
subgroup: "Bank: Stakes vs Neutral (mediation follow-up)"
subgroup_desc: "Composite retraction score (stand by vs retract × confidence) in high-stakes vs neutral condition"
design: "Between-Subjects"
design_other: null
moderators:
scenario: bank
skeptical_pressure: "No"
awareness: "Yes"
evidence: "First Person"
attribution_person: "First Person"
evidence_reliability: null
moderators_coding:
scenario:
provenance:
page: null
quote: "Participants were assigned to the NEUTRAL or the STAKES story from the bank case study above."
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
reason: "The vignette is the bank-hours case reused from Study 2."
skeptical_pressure:
provenance:
page: null
quote: "No explicit error-possibility is raised in the vignette; stakes are manipulated via consequences of being wrong."
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
reason: "No explicit skeptical-pressure manipulation (no salient alternative prompt)."
awareness:
provenance:
page: null
quote: "STAKES condition: “it is extremely important that your paycheck is deposited by Saturday… A very important bill is coming due…”"
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
reason: "High-stakes consequences are described in the scenario, so the subject is aware of what is at stake."
evidence:
provenance:
page: null
quote: "Bank case evidence is based on first-person memory of having been at the bank three weeks before on a Saturday."
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
reason: "Evidence is the subject’s own first-person memory/experience."
attribution_person:
provenance:
page: null
quote: "You respond: “I know the bank will be open tomorrow”."
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
reason: "The knowledge attribution is a first-person self-ascription."
evidence_reliability:
provenance:
page: null
quote: "Evidence is based on personal memory of a prior bank visit."
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
reason: "Reliability of the evidence source is not meaningfully specified/manipulated; coded null."
contrast:
group_high: Stakes
group_low: Neutral
sign_convention: "d = mean(low) - mean(high)"
other_notes: null
groups: []
reported_test:
test: "t"
t: 5.74
f: null
chi2: null
z: null
df1: 168
df2: null
p: null
reported_d: 0.88
reported_r: null
notes: "Paper reports p < .001 for the composite-score comparison."
provenance:
page: null
quote: "Composite scores: t(168) = 5.74, p < .001, d = .88."
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
effect_size:
metric: SMD
d: 0.880000000000
v: 0.025808750056
computed_from: reported_d
needs_review: false
notes: "d from paper; v computed from reported d + t(df) in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd (method=between_reported_d_t_df)."
quality_flags:
- "group_means_extraction_inconsistent"
notes: "GROBID-extracted text reports STAKES [M=4.75] vs NEUTRAL [M=0.76] while also stating higher retraction in STAKES; means/SDs omitted pending manual verification."