feltzzarpentine2010knowmattersless
/data/papers/feltzzarpentine2010knowmattersless/feltzzarpentine2010knowmattersless.yamlschema_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