schema_version: '1.2'
paper:
  paper_id: mayetal2010practicalinterestsrelevant
  citation: 'May, J., Sinnott-Armstrong, W., Hull, J. G., & Zimmerman, A. (2010). Practical Interests, Relevant Alternatives,
    and Knowledge Attributions: an Empirical Study. Review of Philosophy and Psychology.'
  short_label: May et al. 2010
  doi: 10.1007/s13164-009-0014-3
  published: 'Yes'
  year: 2010
  language: English
  language_other: null
  research_objective: Experimentally test empirical claims attributed to Stanley and Schaffer about bank-case knowledge attributions,
    by manipulating stakes and (separately) the mention of a relevant alternative, and measuring agreement with a knowledge
    attribution.
  data_availability:
    data_available_online: null
    url: null
    notes: Project-provided raw data spreadsheets (XLS) were available locally and used to compute group summaries and effect
      sizes; see REPORT.md.
  notes: null
studies:
- study_id: 1
  label: 'Between-Subjects Experiment: Stakes and Alternatives'
  language: English
  language_other: null
  objective: Test whether stakes (low vs high) and mentioning a relevant alternative (possibility of error mentioned or not)
    affect agreement with the statement that Hannah knows the bank will be open on Saturday (2×2 between-subjects).
  sample:
    n_final: 241
    recruitment: students
    recruitment_other: null
    compensation: null
    compensation_other: null
    characteristics: University students (primarily 18–24 years old) at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: In our first experiment, we randomly distributed all four of our scenarios to university students (primarily
        18-24 years old)... We collected 241 responses-about 60 responses per scenario.
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  design: Between-Subjects
  design_other: '2 (stakes: low vs high) × 2 (alternative mention: possibility of error mentioned vs not) between-subjects.'
  manipulated_factors:
  - 'Alternative mention: possibility of error mentioned or not'
  paradigm: Agreement with knowledge claim
  paradigm_other: null
  scale:
    label: Likert 7-point
    points: 7
    anchors: 1 = strongly disagree; 4 = neither agree nor disagree; 7 = strongly agree
    direction: Higher numbers indicate stronger agreement with the knowledge attribution.
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: 'Responses were given on a 7-point Likert scale: strongly agree (7)... neither agree nor disagree (4)... strongly
        disagree (1).'
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  measures:
    knowledge_question_text: 'Please check one box to indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with this statement: "Hannah
      knows that the bank will be open on Saturday".'
    knowledge_question_first: null
    additional_question_text: null
  scenarios:
  - scenario_code: bank
    scenario_type: Bank deposit / bank-hours vignette (Stanley/DeRose-style bank cases).
    high_stakes_text: 'High-stakes variants: impending bill; very important to deposit paychecks by Saturday; sometimes (Alternative
      condition) also includes: "banks do change their hours".'
    low_stakes_text: 'Low-stakes variants: no impending bills; not important to deposit right away; sometimes (Alternative
      condition) also includes: "banks do change their hours".'
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: 'High Stakes-No Alternative: "Since they have an impending bill coming due... it is very important that they
        deposit their paychecks by Saturday." Alternative versions add: "Sarah points out that banks do change their hours."'
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  effects:
  - effect_id: s1_e1
    subgroup: No Alternative (LS-NA vs HS-NA)
    subgroup_desc: Agreement with knowledge attribution; no alternative mentioned
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    moderators:
      scenario: bank
      skeptical_pressure: 'No'
      awareness: 'Yes'
      evidence: First Person
      attribution_person: Other
      evidence_reliability: Medium
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: '"Hannah knows that the bank will be open on Saturday".'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The probe and vignette are about the bank being open on Saturday (bank-hours case).
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: Low Stakes-No Alternative (LS-NA)... Hannah says, "I know the bank will be open tomorrow."
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: No explicit counterconsideration/error possibility is raised in the No-Alternative scenarios.
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: 'High Stakes-No Alternative (HS-NA): "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 facts about the situation (implying the protagonist is aware of them).
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: Hannah notes that she was at the bank 2 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: null
          quote: '"Hannah knows that the bank will be open on Saturday".'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Participants judge whether Hannah knows (third-person attribution), not whether a first-person 'I know' claim
          is true.
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: Hannah notes that she was at the bank 2 weeks before on a Saturday morning, and it was open.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Reliability of the evidence source is not meaningfully specified/manipulated; coded as null.
    contrast:
      group_high: HS_NA
      group_low: LS_NA
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: No-alternative comparison (LS-NA vs HS-NA).
    groups:
    - group_id: LS_NA
      label: null
      n: 60
      mean: 5.33333333333333
      sd: 1.79137923065514
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: null
        quote: Computed from raw responses in 'May et al. KPI Data - Between-Subjects (Exp 1).xls' (sheet 'v.6.0a2 (LS-NA)',
          column 'Agree?').
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: May et al. KPI Data - Between-Subjects (Exp 1).xls
    - group_id: HS_NA
      label: null
      n: 61
      mean: 5.0655737704918
      sd: 1.69183187166078
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: null
        quote: Computed from raw responses in 'May et al. KPI Data - Between-Subjects (Exp 1).xls' (sheet 'v.6.0b2 (HS-NA)',
          column 'Agree?').
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: May et al. KPI Data - Between-Subjects (Exp 1).xls
    reported_test:
      test: F
      f: 4.36
      df1: 1.0
      df2: 237.0
      p: 0.04
      notes: Omnibus 2×2 ANOVA main effect of Stakes (across Alternative levels).
      provenance:
        page: null
        quote: An analysis of variance... revealed a significant main effect of the Stakes variable F(1,237)=4.36, p=.04.
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: 0.153717086218
      v: 0.033157749548
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: Computed from XLS raw-data group stats in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd using esc::esc_mean_sd (method=between_groups).
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
  - effect_id: s1_e2
    subgroup: Alternative Mentioned (LS-A vs HS-A)
    subgroup_desc: Agreement with knowledge attribution; alternative mentioned
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    moderators:
      scenario: bank
      skeptical_pressure: 'Yes'
      awareness: 'Yes'
      evidence: First Person
      attribution_person: Other
      evidence_reliability: Medium
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: '"Hannah knows that the bank will be open on Saturday".'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The probe and vignette are about the bank being open on Saturday (bank-hours case).
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: 'Low Stakes-Alternative (LS-A): "Sarah points out that banks do change their hours."'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The alternative condition explicitly raises a relevant alternative possibility about bank hours.
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: 'High Stakes-Alternative (HS-A): "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 facts about the situation (implying the protagonist is aware of them).
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: Hannah notes that she was at the bank 2 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: null
          quote: '"Hannah knows that the bank will be open on Saturday".'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Participants judge whether Hannah knows (third-person attribution), not whether a first-person 'I know' claim
          is true.
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: Hannah notes that she was at the bank 2 weeks before on a Saturday morning, and it was open.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Reliability of the evidence source is not meaningfully specified/manipulated; coded as null.
    contrast:
      group_high: HS_A
      group_low: LS_A
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: Alternative-mentioned comparison (LS-A vs HS-A).
    groups:
    - group_id: LS_A
      label: null
      n: 60
      mean: 5.3
      sd: 1.82543238434912
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: null
        quote: Computed from raw responses in 'May et al. KPI Data - Between-Subjects (Exp 1).xls' (sheet 'v.6.0a1 (LS-A)',
          column 'Agree?').
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: May et al. KPI Data - Between-Subjects (Exp 1).xls
    - group_id: HS_A
      label: null
      n: 60
      mean: 4.6
      sd: 1.87941570436945
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: null
        quote: Computed from raw responses in 'May et al. KPI Data - Between-Subjects (Exp 1).xls' (sheet 'v.6.0b1 (HS-A)',
          column 'Agree?').
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: May et al. KPI Data - Between-Subjects (Exp 1).xls
    reported_test:
      test: F
      f: 4.36
      df1: 1.0
      df2: 237.0
      p: 0.04
      notes: 'Omnibus 2×2 ANOVA main effect of Stakes (across Alternative levels). Paper also reports: Alternative main effect
        F(1,237)=1.16, p>.25; interaction F(1,237)=0.87, p>.25.'
      provenance:
        page: null
        quote: An analysis of variance... revealed a significant main effect of the Stakes variable F(1,237)=4.36, p=.04...
          alternative... did not have a significant effect... (F(1,237)=1.16, p>.25), nor did the two variables interact (F(1,237)=.87,
          p>.25).
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: 0.377843131602
      v: 0.0339281893
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: Computed from XLS raw-data group stats in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd using esc::esc_mean_sd (method=between_groups).
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
- study_id: 2
  label: 'Within-Subjects Experiment: Stakes and Order'
  language: English
  language_other: null
  objective: Test whether presenting LS-NA and HS-A to the same participants changes knowledge attributions (and whether presentation
    order matters), using the same agreement measure as Study 1.
  sample:
    n_final: 298
    recruitment: students
    recruitment_other: null
    compensation: null
    compensation_other: null
    characteristics: University students (primarily 18–24 years old).
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: We collected responses from 298 university students, about half in each ordering.
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  design: null
  design_other: 'Mixed: within-subject stakes comparison (LS-NA vs HS-A) and between-subjects order manipulation (LS-HS vs
    HS-LS).'
  manipulated_factors:
  - 'Order of presentation: LS-NA first vs HS-A first'
  paradigm: Agreement with knowledge claim
  paradigm_other: null
  scale:
    label: Likert 7-point
    points: 7
    anchors: 1 = strongly disagree; 4 = neither agree nor disagree; 7 = strongly agree
    direction: Higher numbers indicate stronger agreement with the knowledge attribution.
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: We also used the same 7-point Likert scale for tracking subjects' responses.
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  measures:
    knowledge_question_text: 'Please check one box to indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with this statement: "Hannah
      knows that the bank will be open on Saturday".'
    knowledge_question_first: null
    additional_question_text: null
  scenarios:
  - scenario_code: bank
    scenario_type: Bank deposit / bank-hours vignette; juxtaposed LS-NA and HS-A (Stanley's original pair).
    high_stakes_text: HS-A includes high stakes plus mention of a relevant alternative ("banks do change their hours").
    low_stakes_text: LS-NA includes low stakes and no mention of a relevant alternative.
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: We used only the two scenarios that most closely match Stanley's (LS-NA and HS-A), and both scenarios were presented
        to each subject.
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  effects:
  - effect_id: s2_e1
    subgroup: Juxtaposed (LS-NA vs HS-A; both orders)
    subgroup_desc: Agreement with knowledge attribution; within-subject
    design: Within-Subjects
    design_other: null
    moderators:
      scenario: bank
      skeptical_pressure: 'Yes'
      awareness: 'Yes'
      evidence: First Person
      attribution_person: Other
      evidence_reliability: Medium
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: '"Hannah knows that the bank will be open on Saturday".'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The probe and vignettes are about the bank being open on Saturday (bank-hours case).
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: 'High Stakes-Alternative (HS-A): "Sarah points out that banks do change their hours."'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The high-stakes vignette (HS-A) explicitly raises a relevant alternative possibility about bank hours.
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: 'High Stakes-Alternative (HS-A): "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 facts about the situation (implying the protagonist is aware of them).
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: Hannah notes that she was at the bank 2 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: null
          quote: '"Hannah knows that the bank will be open on Saturday".'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Participants judge whether Hannah knows (third-person attribution), not whether a first-person 'I know' claim
          is true.
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: Hannah notes that she was at the bank 2 weeks before on a Saturday morning, and it was open.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Reliability of the evidence source is not meaningfully specified/manipulated; coded as null.
    contrast:
      group_high: HS_A
      group_low: LS_NA
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: Within-subject comparison uses Stanley-style pair (LS-NA vs HS-A), which also changes whether an alternative
        is mentioned (only HS-A mentions an alternative).
    groups:
    - group_id: LS_NA
      label: null
      n: 298
      mean: 5.13422818791946
      sd: 1.74910354382301
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: null
        quote: Computed from raw responses in 'May et al. KPI Data - Within-Subjects (Exp 2).xls' (pooled across orders by
          aligning low-stakes responses).
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: May et al. KPI Data - Within-Subjects (Exp 2).xls
    - group_id: HS_A
      label: null
      n: 298
      mean: 4.41610738255034
      sd: 1.9422666169519
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: null
        quote: Computed from raw responses in 'May et al. KPI Data - Within-Subjects (Exp 2).xls' (pooled across orders by
          aligning high-stakes responses).
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: May et al. KPI Data - Within-Subjects (Exp 2).xls
    reported_test:
      test: F
      f: 57.2
      df1: 1.0
      df2: 296.0
      notes: Mixed ANOVA main effect of Stakes reported as p<.001 (order and interaction effects also reported in text).
      provenance:
        page: null
        quote: 'Stakes main effect: F(1,296)=57.20, p<.001. Order effect: F(1,296)=13.51, p<.001. Interaction: F(1,296)=11.50,
          p<.001.'
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: 0.388549287526
      v: 0.002733530591
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: Computed from pooled within-subject raw-data summaries in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd using metafor::escalc(measure='SMCRP')
        (method=within_smcrp_r; r_within computed from data).
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
