schema_version: "1.2"

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"
    language: English
    language_other: null
    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: composite-score
      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: "High"
        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: "Checking/verification procedure with repeated proofreading and dictionary use -> High."
        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. The reported d is retained here for provenance only; the meta-analytic effect_size below is recomputed from the pairwise group descriptives."
          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: 0.572183831390
          v: 0.041228607181
          computed_from: groups
          needs_review: false
          notes: "Computed from published Neutral/Stakes group stats via esc::esc_mean_sd in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd (method=between_groups). The paper's Tukey HSD d=.50 was not used for meta-analysis because it aligns with the omnibus three-group residual SD rather than the pairwise pooled SD."
        quality_flags: []
        notes: null

  - study_id: 2
    label: "Study 2"
    language: English
    language_other: null
    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: composite-score
      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: "Medium"
        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: "“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: "Memory + prediction from a prior Saturday bank visit, with no extra verification -> Medium."
        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. The reported d is retained here for provenance only; the meta-analytic effect_size below is recomputed from the pairwise group descriptives."
          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: 0.928919454942
          v: 0.043879582512
          computed_from: groups
          needs_review: false
          notes: "Computed from published Neutral/Stakes group stats via esc::esc_mean_sd in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd (method=between_groups). The paper's Tukey HSD d=1.06 was not used for meta-analysis because it aligns with the omnibus three-group residual SD rather than the pairwise pooled SD."
        quality_flags: []
        notes: null

  - study_id: 3
    label: "Study 3"
    language: English
    language_other: null
    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: composite-score
      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: "Medium"
        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: "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: "Memory + prediction from a prior Saturday bank visit, with no extra verification -> Medium."
        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."
