schema_version: '1.2'
paper:
  paper_id: feltzzarpentine2010knowmattersless
  citation: Feltz, A., & Zarpentine, C. (2010). Do you know more when it matters less? Philosophical Psychology, 23(5), 683–706.
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2010.514572
  short_label: Feltz & Zarpentine 2010
  doi: 10.1080/09515089.2010.514572
  published: 'Yes'
  year: 2010
  language: English
  language_other: null
  research_objective: Experimentally test anti-intellectualist predictions (interest-relative invariantism) that higher practical
    stakes reduce ordinary knowledge ascriptions/endorsement of knowledge-related utterances, using vignette studies manipulating
    stakes, skeptical pressure, awareness of stakes, and attribution type.
  data_availability:
    data_available_online: null
    url: null
    notes: null
  notes: null
studies:
- study_id: 1
  label: 'Experiment 1: Stanley bank cases (4 conditions)'
  language: English
  language_other: null
  objective: Test whether endorsement of knowledge-related utterances differs across four of Stanley’s bank-case scenarios
    (Low Stakes, High Stakes, Ignorant High Stakes, Low Attributer–High Subject Stakes) using a 7-point agreement scale.
  sample:
    n_final: 152
    recruitment: students
    recruitment_other: null
    compensation: null
    compensation_other: null
    characteristics: Florida State University introductory-level philosophy students; volunteered to participate.
    provenance:
      page: 7
      quote: We gave Stanley’s cases to 152 students in introductory-level philosophy classes at Florida State University
        who volunteered to participate in the experiment.
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  design: Between-Subjects
  design_other: Each participant received one of four scenarios.
  manipulated_factors:
  - Stakes (low vs high)
  - Subject awareness of stakes (Ignorant High Stakes)
  - Attribution type (self-ascription vs third-person attributer)
  - Skeptical pressure cue (banks changing hours) present in some scenarios
  paradigm: Agreement that a sentence is true
  paradigm_other: null
  scale:
    label: Likert 7-point
    points: 7
    anchors: 1 = Strongly Agree; 4 = Neutral; 7 = Strongly Disagree
    direction: Higher numbers indicate stronger disagreement that the utterance/claim is true.
    provenance:
      page: 22
      quote: Please indicate how strongly you agree with the following statement... 1 Strongly Agree ... 4 Neutral ... 7 Strongly
        Disagree.
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  measures:
    knowledge_question_text: 'Assume that the bank really will be open tomorrow. Please indicate how strongly you agree with
      the following statement: When Hannah says, “I know the bank will be open tomorrow,” what she says is true. (High Stakes
      variant asks: When Hannah says, “I don’t know that the bank will be open on tomorrow,” what she says is true. Low Attributer–High
      Subject Stakes variant asks: When Jill says, “she knows the bank will be open on Saturday,” what she says is true.)'
    knowledge_question_first: null
    additional_question_text: null
  scenarios:
  - scenario_code: bank
    scenario_type: Bank deposit / bank-hours vignette (Stanley 2005).
    high_stakes_text: 'High-stakes variants involve an impending bill and very little money; some variants include an explicit
      counterconsideration: “banks do change their hours”.'
    low_stakes_text: Low-stakes variants specify no impending bills; the bank will in fact be open (participants are instructed
      to assume this).
    provenance:
      page: 22
      quote: 'High Stakes: "Since they have an impending bill coming due... it is very important..." ... "banks do change
        their hours." Low Stakes: "It is not important... as they have no impending bills."'
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  effects:
  - effect_id: s1_e1
    subgroup: High Stakes vs Low Stakes (Stanley bank case)
    subgroup_desc: Endorsement that Hannah’s bank-hours utterance is true (stakes manipulation; original Stanley scenarios)
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    moderators:
      scenario: bank
      skeptical_pressure: 'Yes'
      awareness: 'Yes'
      evidence: First Person
      attribution_person: First Person
      evidence_reliability: Medium
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: 22
          quote: When Hannah says, “I know the bank will be open tomorrow,” what she says is true.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The vignette concerns whether the bank will be open (bank-hours scenario).
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: 22
          quote: But, as Sarah points out, banks do change their hours.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: High Stakes condition explicitly introduces a counterconsideration about bank hours.
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: 22
          quote: Since they have an impending bill coming due... it is very important that they deposit their paychecks by
            Saturday.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The protagonist is described as being in a high-stakes situation with the stakes made explicit in the vignette.
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: 22
          quote: Hannah notes that she was at the bank two weeks before on a Saturday morning, and it was open.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The agent’s evidence is her own recent experience/memory (first-person evidence).
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: 22
          quote: When Hannah says, “I know the bank will be open tomorrow,” what she says is true.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Participants judge whether a first-person self-ascription (“I know...”) is true.
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: 22
          quote: Hannah notes that she was at the bank two weeks before on a Saturday morning, and it was open.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: No manipulation/explicit description of source reliability; coded as null.
    contrast:
      group_high: HS
      group_low: LS
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: High Stakes case includes a skeptical-pressure cue (“banks do change their hours”) and uses a negative-knowledge
        utterance (“I don’t know...”), which was reverse-scored by the authors (Notes [4]).
    groups:
    - group_id: LS
      label: null
      n: 34
      mean: 3.68
      sd: 1.91
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 17
        quote: High Stakes (M ¼ 4.26, SD ¼ 2.14) and Low Stakes (M ¼ 3.68, SD ¼ 1.91), t(71) ¼ 1.213, p ¼ 0.23.
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    - group_id: HS
      label: null
      n: 39
      mean: 4.26
      sd: 2.14
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 17
        quote: High Stakes (M ¼ 4.26, SD ¼ 2.14) and Low Stakes (M ¼ 3.68, SD ¼ 1.91), t(71) ¼ 1.213, p ¼ 0.23.
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    reported_test:
      test: t
      t: 1.213
      df1: 71.0
      p: 0.23
      provenance:
        page: 17
        quote: High Stakes (M ¼ 4.26, SD ¼ 2.14) and Low Stakes (M ¼ 3.68, SD ¼ 1.91), t(71) ¼ 1.213, p ¼ 0.23.
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: 0.284825809531
      v: 0.055624098388
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: Computed from Notes [6] group stats in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd (method=between_groups; mean reverse-scored
        as 8-M to align direction with other extractions; group Ns inferred from dfs + total N).
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
  - effect_id: s1_e2
    subgroup: Ignorant High Stakes vs Low Stakes (bank; subject unaware)
    subgroup_desc: Endorsement that Hannah’s bank-hours utterance is true when high stakes are present but the subject is
      unaware
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    moderators:
      scenario: bank
      skeptical_pressure: 'No'
      awareness: 'No'
      evidence: First Person
      attribution_person: First Person
      evidence_reliability: null
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: 22
          quote: Assume that the bank really will be open tomorrow.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The vignette concerns whether the bank will be open (bank-hours scenario).
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: 22
          quote: Looking at the lines, Hannah says to Sarah, ‘I know the bank will be open tomorrow...’
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: No explicit counterconsideration/error possibility is introduced in Ignorant High Stakes.
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: 22
          quote: But neither Hannah nor Sarah is aware of the impending bill, nor of the paucity of available funds.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The vignette explicitly states the subject is unaware of the high stakes.
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: 22
          quote: Hannah says to Sarah, ‘I know the bank will be open tomorrow, since I was there just two weeks ago on Saturday
            morning.’
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The agent’s evidence is her own recent experience/memory (first-person evidence).
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: 22
          quote: When Hannah says, “I know the bank will be open tomorrow,” what she says is true.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Participants judge whether a first-person self-ascription (“I know...”) is true.
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: 22
          quote: Hannah says to Sarah, ‘I know the bank will be open tomorrow, since I was there just two weeks ago on Saturday
            morning.’
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: No manipulation/explicit description of source reliability; coded as null.
    contrast:
      group_high: IHS
      group_low: LS
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: Low Stakes group is shared with s1_e1 (not independent).
    groups:
    - group_id: LS
      label: Low Stakes
      n: 34
      mean: 3.68
      sd: 1.91
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 17
        quote: High Stakes (M ¼ 4.26, SD ¼ 2.14) and Low Stakes (M ¼ 3.68, SD ¼ 1.91)...
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    - group_id: IHS
      label: Ignorant High Stakes
      n: 39
      mean: 3.59
      sd: 1.9
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 17
        quote: Ignorant High Stakes (M ¼ 3.59, SD ¼ 1.90), t(71) ¼ 0.19, p ¼ 0.85.
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    reported_test:
      test: t
      t: 0.19
      f: null
      chi2: null
      z: null
      df1: 71
      df2: null
      p: 0.85
      reported_d: null
      reported_r: null
      notes: null
      provenance:
        page: 17
        quote: Ignorant High Stakes (M ¼ 3.59, SD ¼ 1.90), t(71) ¼ 0.19, p ¼ 0.85.
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: -0.047252666502
      v: 0.055068514393
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: Computed from Notes [6]-[7] group stats in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd (method=between_groups; mean reverse-scored
        as 8-M to align direction with other extractions; group Ns inferred from dfs + total N).
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
  - effect_id: s1_e3
    subgroup: Low Attributer–High Subject Stakes vs Low Stakes (bank; third-person)
    subgroup_desc: Endorsement that Jill’s third-person bank-hours knowledge attribution is true (subject in high stakes;
      attributer in low stakes)
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    moderators:
      scenario: bank
      skeptical_pressure: 'Yes'
      awareness: 'Yes'
      evidence: First Person
      attribution_person: Other
      evidence_reliability: null
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: 23
          quote: When Jill says, ‘‘she knows the bank will be open on Saturday,’’ what she says is true.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The probe concerns whether the bank will be open (bank-hours scenario).
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: 23
          quote: Sarah points out to Hannah that banks do change their hours.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The vignette explicitly introduces a counterconsideration about bank hours.
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: 23
          quote: Since they have an impending bill coming due, and very little in their account, it is very important that
            they deposit their paychecks by Saturday.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The high stakes are described as part of the subject’s situation (implying the subject is aware of them).
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: 23
          quote: Two weeks earlier, on a Saturday, Hannah went to the bank, where Jill saw her.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The relevant evidence is based on direct experience/observation (first-person evidence).
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: 23
          quote: When Jill says, ‘‘she knows the bank will be open on Saturday,’’ what she says is true.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Participants judge whether a third-person knowledge attribution is true (Jill attributing knowledge to Hannah).
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: 23
          quote: Two weeks earlier, on a Saturday, Hannah went to the bank, where Jill saw her.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Reliability of the evidence source is not meaningfully specified/manipulated; coded as null.
    contrast:
      group_high: LAHS
      group_low: LS
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: Low Stakes group is shared with s1_e1 and s1_e2 (not independent).
    groups:
    - group_id: LS
      label: Low Stakes
      n: 34
      mean: 3.68
      sd: 1.91
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 17
        quote: High Stakes (M ¼ 4.26, SD ¼ 2.14) and Low Stakes (M ¼ 3.68, SD ¼ 1.91), t(71) ¼ 1.213, p ¼ 0.23.
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    - group_id: LAHS
      label: Low Attributer–High Subject Stakes
      n: 40
      mean: 4.75
      sd: 1.89
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 17
        quote: Low Attributer-High Subject Stakes (M ¼ 4.75, SD ¼ 1.89), t(72) ¼ 2.42, p ¼ 0.02.
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    reported_test:
      test: t
      t: 2.42
      f: null
      chi2: null
      z: null
      df1: 72
      df2: null
      p: 0.02
      reported_d: null
      reported_r: null
      notes: null
      provenance:
        page: 17
        quote: Low Attributer-High Subject Stakes (M ¼ 4.75, SD ¼ 1.89), t(72) ¼ 2.42, p ¼ 0.02.
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: 0.563397246349
      v: 0.056616045659
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: Computed from Notes [6] and [8] group stats in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd (method=between_groups; mean reverse-scored
        as 8-M to align direction with other extractions; group Ns inferred from dfs + total N).
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
- study_id: 2
  label: 'Experiment 2: Minimal bridge cases (3 conditions)'
  language: English
  language_other: null
  objective: 'Test whether stakes (bridge height: five-foot vs one-hundred-foot ravine) affect endorsement of a knowledge
    utterance, and test an attributer-effect hypothesis (third-person attribution condition).'
  sample:
    n_final: 119
    recruitment: students
    recruitment_other: null
    compensation: null
    compensation_other: null
    characteristics: Florida State University introductory-level philosophy students; volunteered to participate.
    provenance:
      page: 9
      quote: In our follow-up study, 119 students in introductory-level philosophy courses at Florida State University volunteered
        to participate in the experiment.
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  design: Between-Subjects
  design_other: Each participant was given one of Minimal High Stakes, Minimal Low Stakes, or Attributer.
  manipulated_factors:
  - 'Stakes (bridge height: five feet vs one hundred feet)'
  - Attribution type (self-ascription vs third-person attributer)
  paradigm: Agreement that a sentence is true
  paradigm_other: null
  scale:
    label: Likert 7-point
    points: 7
    anchors: 1 = Strongly Agree; 4 = Neutral; 7 = Strongly Disagree
    direction: Higher numbers indicate stronger disagreement that the utterance/claim is true.
    provenance:
      page: 23
      quote: Assume that the bridge is stable enough hold Bill’s weight. Please indicate how strongly you agree... 1 Strongly
        Agree ... 4 Neutral ... 7 Strongly Disagree.
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  measures:
    knowledge_question_text: 'Assume that the bridge is stable enough hold Bill’s weight. Please indicate how strongly you
      agree with the following statement: When Bill says, “I know that the bridge is stable enough to hold my weight,” what
      he says is true. (Attributer variant asks: When Jim says, “Bill knows that the bridge is stable enough to hold his weight,”
      what he says is true.)'
    knowledge_question_first: null
    additional_question_text: null
  scenarios:
  - scenario_code: bridge
    scenario_type: Bridge stability vignette (ravine height as stakes).
    high_stakes_text: 'Minimal High Stakes: bridge one hundred feet over the ravine.'
    low_stakes_text: 'Minimal Low Stakes: bridge five feet over the ravine.'
    provenance:
      page: 23
      quote: 'Minimal Low Stakes: "There is a bridge five feet over the ravine..." Minimal High Stakes: "There is a bridge
        one hundred feet over the ravine..."'
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  effects:
  - effect_id: s2_e1
    subgroup: Minimal High Stakes vs Minimal Low Stakes (bridge)
    subgroup_desc: Endorsement that Bill’s bridge-stability utterance is true (stakes manipulation)
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    moderators:
      scenario: bridge
      skeptical_pressure: 'No'
      awareness: 'Yes'
      evidence: First Person
      attribution_person: First Person
      evidence_reliability: Medium
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: 23
          quote: 'Minimal High Stakes: ... "There is a bridge one hundred feet over the ravine."'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The vignette concerns whether a bridge will hold a person’s weight (bridge scenario).
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: 23
          quote: Assume that the bridge is stable enough hold Bill’s weight.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: No explicit counterconsideration/error possibility is introduced in the minimal bridge vignettes.
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: 23
          quote: There is a bridge one hundred feet over the ravine.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The stakes are described as part of the vignette and available to the subject.
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: 23
          quote: Bill sees Sarah and Jim cross the bridge.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The agent’s evidence is direct perception of others crossing (first-person evidence).
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: 23
          quote: When Bill says, “I know that the bridge is stable enough to hold my weight,” what he says is true.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Participants judge whether a first-person self-ascription (“I know...”) is true.
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: 23
          quote: Bill sees Sarah and Jim cross the bridge.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Reliability of the evidence source is not meaningfully specified/manipulated; coded as null.
    contrast:
      group_high: Min_HS
      group_low: Min_LS
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: null
    groups:
    - group_id: Min_LS
      label: null
      n: 41
      mean: 3.29
      sd: 1.76
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 17
        quote: Minimal High Stakes (M ¼ 3.23, SD ¼ 1.58) and Minimal Low Stakes (M ¼ 3.29, SD ¼ 1.76), t(78) ¼ 0.17, p ¼ 0.87.
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    - group_id: Min_HS
      label: null
      n: 39
      mean: 3.23
      sd: 1.58
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 17
        quote: Minimal High Stakes (M ¼ 3.23, SD ¼ 1.58) and Minimal Low Stakes (M ¼ 3.29, SD ¼ 1.76), t(78) ¼ 0.17, p ¼ 0.87.
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    reported_test:
      test: t
      t: 0.17
      df1: 78.0
      p: 0.87
      provenance:
        page: 17
        quote: Minimal High Stakes (M ¼ 3.23, SD ¼ 1.58) and Minimal Low Stakes (M ¼ 3.29, SD ¼ 1.76), t(78) ¼ 0.17, p ¼ 0.87.
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: -0.035826752835
      v: 0.050039497468
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: Computed from Notes [10] group stats in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd (method=between_groups; mean reverse-scored
        as 8-M to align direction with other extractions; group Ns inferred from dfs + total N).
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
  - effect_id: s2_e2
    subgroup: Minimal High Stakes vs Attributer (bridge; third-person)
    subgroup_desc: Endorsement that Jim’s third-person bridge-stability knowledge attribution is true (confounded with stakes
      and attribution type)
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    moderators:
      scenario: bridge
      skeptical_pressure: 'No'
      awareness: 'Yes'
      evidence: First Person
      attribution_person: Other
      evidence_reliability: null
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: 24
          quote: 'Attributer: Bill, Jim, and Sarah are hiking and they come to a ravine. There is a bridge five feet over
            the ravine.'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The vignette concerns whether a bridge will hold a person’s weight (bridge scenario).
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: 24
          quote: Assume that the bridge is stable enough hold Bill’s weight.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: No explicit counterconsideration/error possibility is introduced in the minimal bridge vignettes.
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: 23
          quote: There is a bridge one hundred feet over the ravine.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The stakes are described as part of the vignette and available to the subject.
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: 24
          quote: Bill sees Jim and Sarah cross the bridge.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The relevant evidence is direct perception of others crossing (first-person evidence).
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: 24
          quote: When Jim says, ‘‘Bill knows that the bridge is stable enough to hold his weight,’’ what he says is true.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Participants judge whether a third-person knowledge attribution is true (Jim attributing knowledge to Bill).
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: 24
          quote: Bill sees Jim and Sarah cross the bridge.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Reliability of the evidence source is not meaningfully specified/manipulated; coded as null.
    contrast:
      group_high: Min_HS
      group_low: Attr
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: Minimal High Stakes group is shared with s2_e1 (not independent).
    groups:
    - group_id: Attr
      label: Attributer (third-person)
      n: 39
      mean: 3.87
      sd: 1.13
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 17
        quote: There was a statistically significant difference between Minimal High Stakes and Attributer (M ¼ 3.87, SD ¼
          1.13), t(76) ¼ 2.06, p ¼ 0.04.
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    - group_id: Min_HS
      label: Minimal High Stakes
      n: 39
      mean: 3.23
      sd: 1.58
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 17
        quote: Minimal High Stakes (M ¼ 3.23, SD ¼ 1.58) and Minimal Low Stakes (M ¼ 3.29, SD ¼ 1.76), t(78) ¼ 0.17, p ¼ 0.87.
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    reported_test:
      test: t
      t: 2.06
      f: null
      chi2: null
      z: null
      df1: 76
      df2: null
      p: 0.04
      reported_d: null
      reported_r: null
      notes: null
      provenance:
        page: 17
        quote: There was a statistically significant difference between Minimal High Stakes and Attributer (M ¼ 3.87, SD ¼
          1.13), t(76) ¼ 2.06, p ¼ 0.04.
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: -0.465944622655
      v: 0.052710369646
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: Computed from Notes [10]-[11] group stats in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd (method=between_groups; mean reverse-scored
        as 8-M to align direction with other extractions; group Ns inferred from dfs + total N).
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
- study_id: 3
  label: 'Experiment 3: Simplified bank cases (2 conditions)'
  language: English
  language_other: null
  objective: Test whether stakes alone (without the original bank-case confounds) affect endorsement of a bank-hours knowledge
    utterance (Simplified High Stakes vs Simplified Low Stakes).
  sample:
    n_final: 83
    recruitment: students
    recruitment_other: null
    compensation: null
    compensation_other: null
    characteristics: Florida State University introductory-level philosophy students; volunteered to participate.
    provenance:
      page: 11
      quote: Eighty-three undergraduates in introductory-level philosophy classes at Florida State University volunteered
        to participate in the experiment.
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  design: Between-Subjects
  design_other: Each participant was given one of either Simplified High Stakes or Simplified Low Stakes.
  manipulated_factors:
  - Stakes (impending bill vs no impending bill)
  paradigm: Agreement that a sentence is true
  paradigm_other: null
  scale:
    label: Likert 7-point
    points: 7
    anchors: 1 = Strongly Agree; 4 = Neutral; 7 = Strongly Disagree
    direction: Higher numbers indicate stronger disagreement that the utterance/claim is true.
    provenance:
      page: 24
      quote: Assume that the bank really will be open tomorrow. Please indicate how strongly you agree... 1 Strongly Agree
        ... 4 Neutral ... 7 Strongly Disagree.
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  measures:
    knowledge_question_text: 'Assume that the bank really will be open tomorrow. Please indicate how strongly you agree with
      the following statement: When Hannah says, “I know that the bank will be open tomorrow,” what she says is true.'
    knowledge_question_first: null
    additional_question_text: null
  scenarios:
  - scenario_code: bank
    scenario_type: Bank deposit / bank-hours vignette (simplified cases without ‘banks change hours’ cue).
    high_stakes_text: 'Simplified High Stakes: impending bill; very important to deposit paychecks by Saturday; Hannah says
      “I know that the bank will be open tomorrow”.'
    low_stakes_text: 'Simplified Low Stakes: no impending bill; not very important to deposit by Saturday; Hannah says “I
      know that the bank will be open tomorrow”.'
    provenance:
      page: 24
      quote: 'Simplified High Stakes: "Since they have an impending bill coming due..." Simplified Low Stakes: "Since they
        do not have an impending bill coming due..."'
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  effects:
  - effect_id: s3_e1
    subgroup: Simplified High Stakes vs Simplified Low Stakes (bank)
    subgroup_desc: Endorsement that Hannah’s bank-hours utterance is true (stakes-only manipulation)
    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: 24
          quote: Assume that the bank really will be open tomorrow.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The vignette concerns whether the bank will be open (bank-hours scenario).
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: 24
          quote: Hannah says to Sarah, ‘I know that the bank will be open tomorrow’.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: No explicit counterconsideration/error possibility is introduced in the simplified scenarios.
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: 24
          quote: Since they have an impending bill coming due, it is very important that they deposit their paychecks by Saturday.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The stakes are described as part of the vignette and available to the subject.
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: 24
          quote: Hannah notes that she was at the bank two weeks before on a Saturday morning, and it was open.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The agent’s evidence is her own recent experience/memory (first-person evidence).
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: 24
          quote: When Hannah says, “I know that the bank will be open on tomorrow,” what she says is true.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Participants judge whether a first-person self-ascription (“I know...”) is true.
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: 24
          quote: Hannah notes that she was at the bank two weeks before on a Saturday morning, and it was open.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: No manipulation/explicit description of source reliability; coded as null.
    contrast:
      group_high: Simp_HS
      group_low: Simp_LS
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: Notes [14] report t(80) for this comparison while the Experiment 3 text reports 83 participants; the split
        group Ns used here are inferred from Notes [14] and [16].
    groups:
    - group_id: Simp_LS
      label: null
      n: 40
      mean: 3.85
      sd: 1.73
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 18
        quote: Simplified High Stakes (M ¼ 3.83, SD ¼ 1.92) and Simplified Low Stakes (M ¼ 3.85, SD ¼ 1.73), t(80) ¼ 0.04,
          p ¼ 0.97.
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    - group_id: Simp_HS
      label: null
      n: 42
      mean: 3.83
      sd: 1.92
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 18
        quote: Simplified High Stakes (M ¼ 3.83, SD ¼ 1.92) and Simplified Low Stakes (M ¼ 3.85, SD ¼ 1.73), t(80) ¼ 0.04,
          p ¼ 0.97.
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    reported_test:
      test: t
      t: 0.04
      df1: 80.0
      p: 0.97
      provenance:
        page: 18
        quote: Simplified High Stakes (M ¼ 3.83, SD ¼ 1.92) and Simplified Low Stakes (M ¼ 3.85, SD ¼ 1.73), t(80) ¼ 0.04,
          p ¼ 0.97.
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: -0.010929910312
      v: 0.048810270453
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: "Chyba OK\r\nComputed from Notes [14] group stats in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd (method=between_groups; mean reverse-scored\
        \ as 8-M to align direction with other extractions); group Ns inferred from dfs across Notes [14] and [16]."
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
- study_id: 4
  label: 'Experiment 4: Bridge (trucks) cases (2 conditions)'
  language: English
  language_other: null
  objective: Test whether very high stakes (thousand-foot drop) vs low stakes (three-foot ditch) affect endorsement of a bridge-crossing
    knowledge utterance (High Stakes Bridge vs Low Stakes Bridge).
  sample:
    n_final: 140
    recruitment: students
    recruitment_other: null
    compensation: null
    compensation_other: null
    characteristics: Florida State University students in lower-level geography, criminal justice, and political science classes;
      volunteered to participate.
    provenance:
      page: 12
      quote: One hundred and forty students in lower level geography, criminal justice, and political science classes at Florida
        State University volunteered to participate in the experiment.
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  design: Between-Subjects
  design_other: Each participant was given one of either High Stakes Bridge or Low Stakes Bridge.
  manipulated_factors:
  - Stakes (bridge spans thousand-foot drop vs three-foot ditch)
  paradigm: Agreement that a sentence is true
  paradigm_other: null
  scale:
    label: Likert 7-point
    points: 7
    anchors: 1 = Strongly Agree; 4 = Neutral; 7 = Strongly Disagree
    direction: Higher numbers indicate stronger disagreement that the utterance/claim is true.
    provenance:
      page: 25
      quote: Assume that the bridge is safe enough for him to cross. Please indicate how much you agree... 1 Strongly Agree
        ... 4 Neutral ... 7 Strongly Disagree.
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  measures:
    knowledge_question_text: 'Assume that the bridge is safe enough for him to cross. Please indicate how much you agree with
      the following statement: When John thinks to himself, “I know that my truck will make it across the bridge,” what he
      thinks is true.'
    knowledge_question_first: null
    additional_question_text: null
  scenarios:
  - scenario_code: bridge
    scenario_type: Bridge stability vignette (truck caravan; testimony evidence).
    high_stakes_text: 'High Stakes Bridge: yawning thousand-foot drop.'
    low_stakes_text: 'Low Stakes Bridge: three-foot ditch.'
    provenance:
      page: 25
      quote: 'Low Stakes Bridge: "...a three foot ditch." High Stakes Bridge: "...a yawning thousand foot drop."'
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  effects:
  - effect_id: s4_e1
    subgroup: High Stakes Bridge vs Low Stakes Bridge (bridge; trucks)
    subgroup_desc: Endorsement that John’s bridge-crossing utterance is true (stakes manipulation; external evidence)
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    moderators:
      scenario: bridge
      skeptical_pressure: 'No'
      awareness: 'Yes'
      evidence: External
      attribution_person: First Person
      evidence_reliability: Medium
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: 25
          quote: Assume that the bridge is safe enough for him to cross.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The vignette concerns whether a bridge will hold a truck (bridge scenario).
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: 25
          quote: He radios ahead to find out whether other trucks have made it safely over.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: No explicit counterconsideration/error possibility is introduced.
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: 25
          quote: 'High Stakes Bridge: ... over a yawning thousand foot drop.'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The stakes are explicit in the vignette and available to the subject.
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: 25
          quote: He radios ahead... He is told that all 15 trucks in the caravan made it over without a problem.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The agent’s evidence is testimony via radio from others (external evidence).
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: 25
          quote: When John thinks to himself, “I know that my truck will make it across the bridge,” what he thinks is true.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Participants judge whether a first-person self-ascription (“I know...”) is true.
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: 25
          quote: He is told that all 15 trucks in the caravan made it over without a problem.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Reliability of the testimony source is not meaningfully specified/manipulated; coded as null.
    contrast:
      group_high: HSB
      group_low: LSB
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: null
    groups:
    - group_id: LSB
      label: null
      n: 70
      mean: 3.4
      sd: 1.74
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 18
        quote: High Stakes Bridge (M ¼ 3.83, SD ¼ 1.96) and Low Stakes Bridge (M ¼ 3.4, SD ¼ 1.74), t(138) ¼ 1.37, p ¼ 0.17.
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    - group_id: HSB
      label: null
      n: 70
      mean: 3.83
      sd: 1.96
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 18
        quote: High Stakes Bridge (M ¼ 3.83, SD ¼ 1.96) and Low Stakes Bridge (M ¼ 3.4, SD ¼ 1.74), t(138) ¼ 1.37, p ¼ 0.17.
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    reported_test:
      test: t
      t: 1.37
      df1: 138.0
      p: 0.17
      provenance:
        page: 18
        quote: High Stakes Bridge (M ¼ 3.83, SD ¼ 1.96) and Low Stakes Bridge (M ¼ 3.4, SD ¼ 1.74), t(138) ¼ 1.37, p ¼ 0.17.
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: 0.232022644708
      v: 0.028766481135
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: Computed from Notes [16] group stats in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd (method=between_groups; mean reverse-scored
        as 8-M to align direction with other extractions; group Ns inferred from dfs + total N).
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
