schema_version: '1.2'
paper:
  paper_id: francisbeaman2023roleconfidenceknowledge
  citation: 'Francis, K. B., & Beaman, C. P. (2023). The role of confidence in knowledge ascriptions: an evidence-seeking
    approach. Synthese.'
  short_label: Francis & Beaman 2023
  doi: 10.1007/s11229-023-04236-w
  published: 'Yes'
  year: 2023
  language: English
  language_other: null
  research_objective: Test whether stakes (low vs high) affect knowledge judgments in an evidence-seeking paradigm, and whether
    participant confidence mediates any stakes effect; includes measures of participant confidence and protagonist confidence.
  data_availability:
    data_available_online: 'Yes'
    url: https://osf.io/n8x7q/
    notes: Paper states all measures and collected data are available on the project's OSF page.
  notes: null
studies:
- study_id: 1
  label: Positive polarity condition ("Know")
  language: English
  language_other: null
  objective: Test whether practical stakes (low vs high) affect evidence-seeking judgments (minimum evidence required for
    knowledge) and confidence ratings in the positive polarity prompt condition.
  sample:
    n_final: 97
    recruitment: mTurk
    recruitment_other: null
    compensation: money
    compensation_other: $1.75
    characteristics: MTurk participants (data collected in 2019). Final analyzed sample across both polarity conditions N=187
      (69 females, 118 males), ages 19–66 (M=34.70, SD=9.92). Positive polarity group N=97.
    mean_age: null
    provenance:
      page: 5
      quote: Participants (N = 249) were recruited from MTurk and paid $1.75 each... leaving a final sample of 187 participants
        (69 females, 118 males) between 19 and 66 years old (M = 34.70 years, SD = 9.92 years). Participants were randomly
        assigned to the positive polarity condition (N = 97) or the negative polarity condition (N = 90).
  design: Within-Subjects
  design_other: 'Within-subject stakes manipulation: each participant saw low- and high-stakes versions of six scenarios;
    analysis uses per-participant averages for low vs high stakes.'
  manipulated_factors:
  - 'Stakes: low vs high (within-subjects)'
  paradigm: Rating how much evidence is needed for knowledge
  paradigm_other: null
  scale:
    label: numeric/text input
    points: null
    anchors: 'Numeric free response (# checks); positive prompt: whole number (0,1,2,...) or ''never''.'
    direction: Higher numbers indicate more evidence required for knowledge (more checks).
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: 'Positive polarity enter a whole number: 1, 2, 3 . . . etc. if you think Megan knows without having to check,
        write "0". If you think Megan will never know no matter how many times she checks, write "never"'
  measures:
    knowledge_question_text: What is the minimum number of times Megan needs to check her GPS before she knows that she will
      make it to the accident without taking a wrong turn?
    knowledge_question_first: null
    additional_question_text: "Participant confidence prompt: How confident are you that Megan needs to check a minimum of\
      \ that many times in order to know that she will make it to the accident without taking a wrong turn?\r\nProtagonist\
      \ confidence prompt: How confident is Megan that she will make it to the accident without taking a wrong turn?"
  effects:
  - effect_id: s1_e1
    subgroup: Knowledge (evidence-seeking) — Positive polarity
    subgroup_desc: Average evidence-seeking score (knowledge) for low vs high stakes (collapsed across six scenarios).
    design: Within-Subjects
    design_other: Same participants provided low- and high-stakes evidence-seeking judgments across six scenarios; Table 1
      reports per-participant averages.
    moderators:
      scenario: other
      skeptical_pressure: 'No'
      awareness: 'Yes'
      evidence: First Person
      attribution_person: Other
      evidence_reliability: Medium
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: The highest-and lowest-stakes versions of six scenarios... were presented to each participant. These scenarios
            involved the manipulation of different types of stakes (lives; physical injury; embarrassment; money; damage to
            objects of personal value).
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Effect is aggregated across six different scenarios, so no single scenario code applies.
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: Megan is familiar with the surrounding area... and she is traveling on the right route to get to the accident.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The vignette examples do not introduce an explicit doubt/counterconsideration; stakes are manipulated via
          consequences.
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: Over the radio, Megan is told that there is one person at the scene of the accident... If Megan makes a wrong
            turn... nothing terrible will happen. ... If Ottoline makes a wrong turn... the children will die.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The stakes are conveyed to the protagonist within the vignette (she is told the consequences).
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: What is the minimum number of times Megan needs to check her GPS... / How many times does Elaine need to
            consult her check list before she knows that she is making the vaccine correctly?
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Because the outcome is averaged across multiple scenarios with different evidence sources (e.g., GPS checks
          vs checklist consultation), evidence cannot be coded uniquely.
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: What is the minimum number of times Megan needs to check her GPS before she knows that she will make it to
            the accident without taking a wrong turn?
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Participants evaluate a third-person knowledge claim about the protagonist (e.g., 'Megan knows...').
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: Megan... has GPS on her phone that she can check if necessary...
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Evidence-source reliability is not explicitly manipulated or characterized in a way that supports High/Medium/Low
          coding.
    contrast:
      group_high: high_stakes
      group_low: low_stakes
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: Table 1 reports per-participant averages across six scenarios for low vs high stakes.
    groups:
    - group_id: low_stakes
      label: null
      n: 97
      mean: 2.34
      sd: 2.01
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 8
        quote: 'Table 1 (Positive; Knowledge evidence-seeking): Low 2.34 (2.01).'
        tei_id: tab_0
        table_ref: camelot_stream_p8_t1.csv
    - group_id: high_stakes
      label: null
      n: 97
      mean: 4.19
      sd: 3.72
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 8
        quote: 'Table 1 (Positive; Knowledge evidence-seeking): High 4.19 (3.72).'
        tei_id: tab_0
        table_ref: camelot_stream_p8_t1.csv
    reported_test:
      test: t (mediation path c; stakes → knowledge)
      t: -5.9
      df1: 96.0
      notes: Reported as p < 0.001; 95% CI [-2.47, -1.23].
      provenance:
        page: 10
        quote: For the positive polarity condition... effect of stakes on knowledge via the evidence-seeking path (path c),
          t(96) = -5.90, p < 0.001, 95% CI [-2.47, -1.23]
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: -0.618758512614
      v: 0.010411370788
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: Computed in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd using within_smcrp_t (paired t used to recover within-person r).
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
  notes: Block one (evidence-seeking prompt followed by the participant confidence prompt) and block two (the protagonist
    confidence prompt) were then presently randomly after each scenario to avoid order effects.
- study_id: 2
  label: Negative polarity condition ("Don't know")
  language: English
  language_other: null
  objective: Test whether practical stakes (low vs high) affect evidence-seeking judgments (maximum evidence that can be gathered
    while still not knowing) and confidence ratings in the negative polarity prompt condition.
  sample:
    n_final: 89
    recruitment: mTurk
    recruitment_other: null
    compensation: money
    compensation_other: $1.75
    characteristics: MTurk participants (data collected in 2019). Participants were assigned to negative polarity N=90, but
      1 participant with extreme values in the negative polarity condition was removed prior to analysis (df=88 suggests n=89).
    mean_age: 34.7
    provenance:
      page: 5
      quote: Participants were randomly assigned to the positive polarity condition (N = 97) or the negative polarity condition
        (N = 90)... One participant reported extreme values in the negative polarity condition... this was removed prior to
        further analysis.
    mean_age_prov:
      page: 5
      quote: "final sample of 187 participants (69 females, 118 males) between 19 and\r\n66 years old (M = 34.70 years, SD\
        \ = 9.92 years)"
  design: Within-Subjects
  design_other: 'Within-subject stakes manipulation: each participant saw low- and high-stakes versions of six scenarios;
    analysis uses per-participant averages for low vs high stakes.'
  manipulated_factors:
  - 'Stakes: low vs high (within-subjects)'
  paradigm: Rating how much evidence is needed for knowledge
  paradigm_other: null
  scale:
    label: numeric/text input
    points: null
    anchors: 'Numeric free response (# checks); negative prompt: whole number (1,2,3,...) or ''never''.'
    direction: Higher numbers indicate more evidence required for knowledge (more checks).
    provenance:
      page: 6
      quote: 'Negative polarity enter a whole number: 1, 2, 3 . . . etc. if you think Megan will never know no matter how
        many times she checks, write "never"'
  measures:
    knowledge_question_text: "What is the maximum number of times Megan can check her GPS and not\r\nknow that she will make\
      \ it to the accident without taking a wrong turn?"
    knowledge_question_first: null
    additional_question_text: "How confident are you that Megan can check a maximum of that many times\r\nand not know that\
      \ she will make it to the accident without taking a wrong turn?\r\n\r\nHow confident is Megan that she will make it\
      \ to the accident without taking a wrong turn?"
  effects:
  - effect_id: s2_e1
    subgroup: Knowledge (evidence-seeking) — Negative polarity
    subgroup_desc: Average evidence-seeking score (knowledge) for low vs high stakes (collapsed across six scenarios).
    design: Within-Subjects
    design_other: Same participants provided low- and high-stakes evidence-seeking judgments across six scenarios; Table 1
      reports per-participant averages.
    moderators:
      scenario: other
      skeptical_pressure: 'No'
      awareness: 'Yes'
      evidence: First Person
      attribution_person: Other
      evidence_reliability: Medium
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: The highest-and lowest-stakes versions of six scenarios... were presented to each participant. These scenarios
            involved the manipulation of different types of stakes (lives; physical injury; embarrassment; money; damage to
            objects of personal value).
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Effect is aggregated across six different scenarios, so no single scenario code applies.
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: Megan is familiar with the surrounding area... and she is traveling on the right route to get to the accident.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The vignette examples do not introduce an explicit doubt/counterconsideration; stakes are manipulated via
          consequences.
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: Over the radio, Megan is told that there is one person at the scene of the accident... If Megan makes a wrong
            turn... nothing terrible will happen. ... If Ottoline makes a wrong turn... the children will die.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The stakes are conveyed to the protagonist within the vignette (she is told the consequences).
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: What is the maximum number of times Megan can check her GPS and not know that she will make it to the accident
            without taking a wrong turn? / How many times can Elaine consult her check list and still not know that she is
            making the vaccine correctly
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Because the outcome is averaged across multiple scenarios with different evidence sources (e.g., GPS checks
          vs checklist consultation), evidence cannot be coded uniquely.
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: What is the maximum number of times Megan can check her GPS and not know that she will make it to the accident
            without taking a wrong turn?
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Participants evaluate a third-person knowledge claim about the protagonist (e.g., 'Megan knows...').
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: Megan... has GPS on her phone that she can check if necessary...
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Evidence-source reliability is not explicitly manipulated or characterized in a way that supports High/Medium/Low
          coding.
    contrast:
      group_high: high_stakes
      group_low: low_stakes
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: Table 1 reports per-participant averages across six scenarios for low vs high stakes.
    groups:
    - group_id: low_stakes
      label: null
      n: 89
      mean: 3.31
      sd: 3.95
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 8
        quote: 'Table 1 (Negative; Knowledge evidence-seeking): Low 3.31 (3.95).'
        tei_id: tab_0
        table_ref: camelot_stream_p8_t1.csv
    - group_id: high_stakes
      label: null
      n: 89
      mean: 2.43
      sd: 3.02
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 8
        quote: 'Table 1 (Negative; Knowledge evidence-seeking): High 2.43 (3.02).'
        tei_id: tab_0
        table_ref: camelot_stream_p8_t1.csv
    reported_test:
      test: t (mediation path c; stakes → knowledge)
      t: 2.25
      df1: 88.0
      notes: Reported as p = 0.027; 95% CI [0.10, 1.65].
      provenance:
        page: 11
        quote: Mediation analyses found a statistically significant effect of stakes on knowledge (evidence-seeking) (path
          c), t(88) = 2.25, p = 0.027, 95% CI [0.10, 1.65]
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: -0.250292573585
      v: 0.012222668402
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: 'Computed in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd using within_smcrp_t (paired t used to recover within-person r). Needs
        review: Table 1 suggests mean(high) < mean(low) for negative polarity, which may appear to conflict with narrative
        text stating higher evidence-seeking scores for high stakes across both polarities. Effect reversed because of negative
        polarity prompt.'
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
  notes: Block one (evidence-seeking prompt followed by the participant confidence prompt) and block two (the protagonist
    confidence prompt) were then presently randomly after each scenario to avoid order effects.
