Extraction report — Francis & Beaman 2023

schema_version: "1.1"

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\")"
    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: null
        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)."
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    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: other
      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\""
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    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: null
    scenarios: []
    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: null
          skeptical_pressure: "No"
          awareness: "Yes"
          evidence: null
          attribution_person: "Other"
          evidence_reliability: null
        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: "Low stakes"
            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: "High stakes"
            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: -5.90
          f: null
          chi2: null
          z: null
          df1: 96
          df2: null
          p: null
          reported_d: null
          reported_r: null
          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]"
            tei_id: null
            table_ref: null
        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

  - study_id: 2
    label: "Negative polarity condition (\"Don't know\")"
    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: null
      provenance:
        page: null
        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."
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    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: other
      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: null
        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\""
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    measures:
      knowledge_question_text: null
      knowledge_question_first: null
      additional_question_text: "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?"
    scenarios: []
    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: null
          skeptical_pressure: "No"
          awareness: "Yes"
          evidence: null
          attribution_person: "Other"
          evidence_reliability: null
        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: "Low stakes"
            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: "High stakes"
            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
          f: null
          chi2: null
          z: null
          df1: 88
          df2: null
          p: null
          reported_d: null
          reported_r: null
          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]"
            tei_id: null
            table_ref: null
        effect_size:
          metric: SMD
          d: 0.250292573585
          v: 0.012222668402
          computed_from: groups
          needs_review: true
          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."
        quality_flags: []
        notes: null