| paper_id | feltzzarpentine2010knowmattersless |
|---|---|
| short_label | Feltz & Zarpentine 2010 |
| 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 |
| doi | 10.1080/09515089.2010.514572 |
| year | 2010 |
| published | Yes |
| language | English |
| language_other | — |
| 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_available_online | — |
| data_url | — |
| notes | — |
| study_id | 1 |
|---|---|
| label | Experiment 1: Stanley bank cases (4 conditions) |
| 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. |
| 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 | — |
| notes | — |
| n_final | 152 |
|---|---|
| recruitment | students |
| recruitment_other | — |
| compensation | — |
| compensation_other | — |
| characteristics | Florida State University introductory-level philosophy students; volunteered to participate. |
| mean_age | — |
| page | 7 |
|---|---|
| table_ref | — |
| tei_id | — |
| 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. |
| page | 22 |
|---|---|
| table_ref | — |
| tei_id | — |
| 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.) |
|---|---|
| knowledge_question_first | — |
| additional_question_text | — |
bank · Bank deposit / bank-hours vignette (Stanley 2005).| scenario_code | bank |
|---|---|
| scenario_type | Bank deposit / bank-hours vignette (Stanley 2005). |
| page | 22 |
|---|---|
| table_ref | — |
| tei_id | — |
s1_e1 · High Stakes vs Low Stakes (Stanley bank case) · Between-Subjects · d=0.284825809531 · v=0.055624098388| 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 | — |
| quality_flags | — |
| notes | — |
| 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). |
| scenario | bank |
|---|---|
| skeptical_pressure | Yes |
| awareness | Yes |
| evidence | First Person |
| attribution_person | First Person |
| evidence_reliability | — |
| 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]). |
| moderator | value | reason | evidence | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
scenario | bank | The vignette concerns whether the bank will be open (bank-hours scenario). | Provenance
When Hannah says, “I know the bank will be open tomorrow,” what she says is true. | ||||||
skeptical_pressure | Yes | High Stakes condition explicitly introduces a counterconsideration about bank hours. | Provenance
But, as Sarah points out, banks do change their hours. | ||||||
awareness | Yes | The protagonist is described as being in a high-stakes situation with the stakes made explicit in the vignette. | Provenance
Since they have an impending bill coming due... it is very important that they deposit their paychecks by Saturday. | ||||||
evidence | First Person | The agent’s evidence is her own recent experience/memory (first-person evidence). | Provenance
Hannah notes that she was at the bank two weeks before on a Saturday morning, and it was open. | ||||||
attribution_person | First Person | Participants judge whether a first-person self-ascription (“I know...”) is true. | Provenance
When Hannah says, “I know the bank will be open tomorrow,” what she says is true. | ||||||
evidence_reliability | — | No manipulation/explicit description of source reliability; coded as null. | Provenance
Hannah notes that she was at the bank two weeks before on a Saturday morning, and it was open. |
| group_id | label | n | mean | sd | se | provenance | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LS | Low Stakes | 34 | 3.68 | 1.91 | — | Provenance
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. | ||||||
HS | High Stakes | 39 | 4.26 | 2.14 | — | Provenance
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. |
| test | t |
|---|---|
| t | 1.213 |
| f | — |
| chi2 | — |
| z | — |
| df1 | 71 |
| df2 | — |
| p | 0.23 |
| reported_d | — |
| reported_r | — |
| notes | — |
| page | 17 |
|---|---|
| table_ref | — |
| tei_id | — |
s1_e2 · Ignorant High Stakes vs Low Stakes (bank; subject unaware) · Between-Subjects · d=-0.047252666502 · v=0.055068514393| 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 | — |
| quality_flags | — |
| notes | — |
| 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). |
| scenario | bank |
|---|---|
| skeptical_pressure | No |
| awareness | No |
| evidence | First Person |
| attribution_person | First Person |
| evidence_reliability | — |
| 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). |
| moderator | value | reason | evidence | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
scenario | bank | The vignette concerns whether the bank will be open (bank-hours scenario). | Provenance
Assume that the bank really will be open tomorrow. | ||||||
skeptical_pressure | No | No explicit counterconsideration/error possibility is introduced in Ignorant High Stakes. | Provenance
Looking at the lines, Hannah says to Sarah, ‘I know the bank will be open tomorrow...’ | ||||||
awareness | No | The vignette explicitly states the subject is unaware of the high stakes. | Provenance
But neither Hannah nor Sarah is aware of the impending bill, nor of the paucity of available funds. | ||||||
evidence | First Person | The agent’s evidence is her own recent experience/memory (first-person evidence). | Provenance
Hannah says to Sarah, ‘I know the bank will be open tomorrow, since I was there just two weeks ago on Saturday morning.’ | ||||||
attribution_person | First Person | Participants judge whether a first-person self-ascription (“I know...”) is true. | Provenance
When Hannah says, “I know the bank will be open tomorrow,” what she says is true. | ||||||
evidence_reliability | — | No manipulation/explicit description of source reliability; coded as null. | Provenance
Hannah says to Sarah, ‘I know the bank will be open tomorrow, since I was there just two weeks ago on Saturday morning.’ |
| group_id | label | n | mean | sd | se | provenance | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LS | Low Stakes | 34 | 3.68 | 1.91 | — | Provenance
High Stakes (M ¼ 4.26, SD ¼ 2.14) and Low Stakes (M ¼ 3.68, SD ¼ 1.91)... | ||||||
IHS | Ignorant High Stakes | 39 | 3.59 | 1.9 | — | Provenance
Ignorant High Stakes (M ¼ 3.59, SD ¼ 1.90), t(71) ¼ 0.19, p ¼ 0.85. |
| test | t |
|---|---|
| t | 0.19 |
| f | — |
| chi2 | — |
| z | — |
| df1 | 71 |
| df2 | — |
| p | 0.85 |
| reported_d | — |
| reported_r | — |
| notes | — |
| page | 17 |
|---|---|
| table_ref | — |
| tei_id | — |
| study_id | 2 |
|---|---|
| label | Experiment 2: Minimal bridge cases (3 conditions) |
| 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). |
| 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 | — |
| notes | — |
| n_final | 119 |
|---|---|
| recruitment | students |
| recruitment_other | — |
| compensation | — |
| compensation_other | — |
| characteristics | Florida State University introductory-level philosophy students; volunteered to participate. |
| mean_age | — |
| page | 9 |
|---|---|
| table_ref | — |
| tei_id | — |
| 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. |
| page | 23 |
|---|---|
| table_ref | — |
| tei_id | — |
| 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. |
|---|---|
| knowledge_question_first | — |
| additional_question_text | — |
bridge · Bridge stability vignette (ravine height as stakes).| scenario_code | bridge |
|---|---|
| scenario_type | Bridge stability vignette (ravine height as stakes). |
| page | 23 |
|---|---|
| table_ref | — |
| tei_id | — |
s2_e1 · Minimal High Stakes vs Minimal Low Stakes (bridge) · Between-Subjects · d=-0.035826752835 · v=0.050039497468| 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 | — |
| quality_flags | — |
| notes | — |
| 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). |
| scenario | bridge |
|---|---|
| skeptical_pressure | No |
| awareness | Yes |
| evidence | First Person |
| attribution_person | First Person |
| evidence_reliability | — |
| group_high | Min_HS |
|---|---|
| group_low | Min_LS |
| sign_convention | d = mean(low) - mean(high) |
| other_notes | — |
| moderator | value | reason | evidence | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
scenario | bridge | The vignette concerns whether a bridge will hold a person’s weight (bridge scenario). | Provenance
Minimal High Stakes: ... "There is a bridge one hundred feet over the ravine." | ||||||
skeptical_pressure | No | No explicit counterconsideration/error possibility is introduced in the minimal bridge vignettes. | Provenance
Assume that the bridge is stable enough hold Bill’s weight. | ||||||
awareness | Yes | The stakes are described as part of the vignette and available to the subject. | Provenance
There is a bridge one hundred feet over the ravine. | ||||||
evidence | First Person | The agent’s evidence is direct perception of others crossing (first-person evidence). | Provenance
Bill sees Sarah and Jim cross the bridge. | ||||||
attribution_person | First Person | Participants judge whether a first-person self-ascription (“I know...”) is true. | Provenance
When Bill says, “I know that the bridge is stable enough to hold my weight,” what he says is true. | ||||||
evidence_reliability | — | Reliability of the evidence source is not meaningfully specified/manipulated; coded as null. | Provenance
Bill sees Sarah and Jim cross the bridge. |
| group_id | label | n | mean | sd | se | provenance | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Min_LS | Minimal Low Stakes | 41 | 3.29 | 1.76 | — | Provenance
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. | ||||||
Min_HS | Minimal High Stakes | 39 | 3.23 | 1.58 | — | Provenance
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. |
| test | t |
|---|---|
| t | 0.17 |
| f | — |
| chi2 | — |
| z | — |
| df1 | 78 |
| df2 | — |
| p | 0.87 |
| reported_d | — |
| reported_r | — |
| notes | — |
| page | 17 |
|---|---|
| table_ref | — |
| tei_id | — |
| study_id | 3 |
|---|---|
| label | Experiment 3: Simplified bank cases (2 conditions) |
| 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). |
| 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 | — |
| notes | — |
| n_final | 83 |
|---|---|
| recruitment | students |
| recruitment_other | — |
| compensation | — |
| compensation_other | — |
| characteristics | Florida State University introductory-level philosophy students; volunteered to participate. |
| mean_age | — |
| page | 11 |
|---|---|
| table_ref | — |
| tei_id | — |
| 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. |
| page | 24 |
|---|---|
| table_ref | — |
| tei_id | — |
| 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 | — |
| additional_question_text | — |
bank · Bank deposit / bank-hours vignette (simplified cases without ‘banks change hours’ cue).| scenario_code | bank |
|---|---|
| scenario_type | Bank deposit / bank-hours vignette (simplified cases without ‘banks change hours’ cue). |
| page | 24 |
|---|---|
| table_ref | — |
| tei_id | — |
s3_e1 · Simplified High Stakes vs Simplified Low Stakes (bank) · Between-Subjects · d=-0.010929910312 · v=0.048810270453 · needs_review| 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 | — |
| quality_flags | — |
| notes | — |
| metric | SMD |
|---|---|
| d | -0.010929910312 |
| v | 0.048810270453 |
| computed_from | groups |
| needs_review | true |
| notes | Computed 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]. |
| scenario | bank |
|---|---|
| skeptical_pressure | No |
| awareness | Yes |
| evidence | First Person |
| attribution_person | First Person |
| evidence_reliability | — |
| 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]. |
| moderator | value | reason | evidence | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
scenario | bank | The vignette concerns whether the bank will be open (bank-hours scenario). | Provenance
Assume that the bank really will be open tomorrow. | ||||||
skeptical_pressure | No | No explicit counterconsideration/error possibility is introduced in the simplified scenarios. | Provenance
Hannah says to Sarah, ‘I know that the bank will be open tomorrow’. | ||||||
awareness | Yes | The stakes are described as part of the vignette and available to the subject. | Provenance
Since they have an impending bill coming due, it is very important that they deposit their paychecks by Saturday. | ||||||
evidence | First Person | The agent’s evidence is her own recent experience/memory (first-person evidence). | Provenance
Hannah notes that she was at the bank two weeks before on a Saturday morning, and it was open. | ||||||
attribution_person | First Person | Participants judge whether a first-person self-ascription (“I know...”) is true. | Provenance
When Hannah says, “I know that the bank will be open on tomorrow,” what she says is true. | ||||||
evidence_reliability | — | No manipulation/explicit description of source reliability; coded as null. | Provenance
Hannah notes that she was at the bank two weeks before on a Saturday morning, and it was open. |
| group_id | label | n | mean | sd | se | provenance | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Simp_LS | Simplified Low Stakes | 40 | 3.85 | 1.73 | — | Provenance
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. | ||||||
Simp_HS | Simplified High Stakes | 42 | 3.83 | 1.92 | — | Provenance
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. |
| test | t |
|---|---|
| t | 0.04 |
| f | — |
| chi2 | — |
| z | — |
| df1 | 80 |
| df2 | — |
| p | 0.97 |
| reported_d | — |
| reported_r | — |
| notes | — |
| page | 18 |
|---|---|
| table_ref | — |
| tei_id | — |
| study_id | 4 |
|---|---|
| label | Experiment 4: Bridge (trucks) cases (2 conditions) |
| 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). |
| 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 | — |
| notes | — |
| n_final | 140 |
|---|---|
| recruitment | students |
| recruitment_other | — |
| compensation | — |
| compensation_other | — |
| characteristics | Florida State University students in lower-level geography, criminal justice, and political science classes; volunteered to participate. |
| mean_age | — |
| page | 12 |
|---|---|
| table_ref | — |
| tei_id | — |
| 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. |
| page | 25 |
|---|---|
| table_ref | — |
| tei_id | — |
| 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 | — |
| additional_question_text | — |
bridge · Bridge stability vignette (truck caravan; testimony evidence).| scenario_code | bridge |
|---|---|
| scenario_type | Bridge stability vignette (truck caravan; testimony evidence). |
| page | 25 |
|---|---|
| table_ref | — |
| tei_id | — |
s4_e1 · High Stakes Bridge vs Low Stakes Bridge (bridge; trucks) · Between-Subjects · d=0.232022644708 · v=0.028766481135| 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 | — |
| quality_flags | — |
| notes | — |
| 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). |
| scenario | bridge |
|---|---|
| skeptical_pressure | No |
| awareness | Yes |
| evidence | External |
| attribution_person | First Person |
| evidence_reliability | — |
| group_high | HSB |
|---|---|
| group_low | LSB |
| sign_convention | d = mean(low) - mean(high) |
| other_notes | — |
| moderator | value | reason | evidence | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
scenario | bridge | The vignette concerns whether a bridge will hold a truck (bridge scenario). | Provenance
Assume that the bridge is safe enough for him to cross. | ||||||
skeptical_pressure | No | No explicit counterconsideration/error possibility is introduced. | Provenance
He radios ahead to find out whether other trucks have made it safely over. | ||||||
awareness | Yes | The stakes are explicit in the vignette and available to the subject. | Provenance
High Stakes Bridge: ... over a yawning thousand foot drop. | ||||||
evidence | External | The agent’s evidence is testimony via radio from others (external evidence). | Provenance
He radios ahead... He is told that all 15 trucks in the caravan made it over without a problem. | ||||||
attribution_person | First Person | Participants judge whether a first-person self-ascription (“I know...”) is true. | Provenance
When John thinks to himself, “I know that my truck will make it across the bridge,” what he thinks is true. | ||||||
evidence_reliability | — | Reliability of the testimony source is not meaningfully specified/manipulated; coded as null. | Provenance
He is told that all 15 trucks in the caravan made it over without a problem. |
| group_id | label | n | mean | sd | se | provenance | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LSB | Low Stakes Bridge | 70 | 3.4 | 1.74 | — | Provenance
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. | ||||||
HSB | High Stakes Bridge | 70 | 3.83 | 1.96 | — | Provenance
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. |
| test | t |
|---|---|
| t | 1.37 |
| f | — |
| chi2 | — |
| z | — |
| df1 | 138 |
| df2 | — |
| p | 0.17 |
| reported_d | — |
| reported_r | — |
| notes | — |
| page | 18 |
|---|---|
| table_ref | — |
| tei_id | — |
schema_version: "1.1"
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)"
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.)"
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: null
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: "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: HS
label: "High Stakes"
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
f: null
chi2: null
z: null
df1: 71
df2: null
p: 0.23
reported_d: null
reported_r: null
notes: 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
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: 1.90
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
- study_id: 2
label: "Experiment 2: Minimal bridge cases (3 conditions)"
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."
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: null
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: "Minimal Low Stakes"
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: "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: 0.17
f: null
chi2: null
z: null
df1: 78
df2: null
p: 0.87
reported_d: null
reported_r: null
notes: 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
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
- study_id: 3
label: "Experiment 3: Simplified bank cases (2 conditions)"
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: null
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: "Simplified Low Stakes"
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: "Simplified High Stakes"
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
f: null
chi2: null
z: null
df1: 80
df2: null
p: 0.97
reported_d: null
reported_r: null
notes: 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
effect_size:
metric: SMD
d: -0.010929910312
v: 0.048810270453
computed_from: groups
needs_review: true
notes: "Computed 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)"
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: null
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: "Low Stakes Bridge"
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: "High Stakes Bridge"
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
f: null
chi2: null
z: null
df1: 138
df2: null
p: 0.17
reported_d: null
reported_r: null
notes: 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
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