Extraction report — May et al. 2010

schema_version: "1.1"

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"
    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: null
        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: "Low stakes, no alternative (LS-NA)"
            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: "High stakes, no alternative (HS-NA)"
            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"
          t: null
          f: 4.36
          chi2: null
          z: null
          df1: 1
          df2: 237
          p: 0.04
          reported_d: null
          reported_r: null
          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."
            tei_id: null
            table_ref: null
        effect_size:
          metric: SMD
          d: 0.153717086218
          v: 0.033159390561
          computed_from: groups
          needs_review: false
          notes: "Computed from XLS raw-data group stats in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd (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: null
        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: "Low stakes + alternative (LS-A)"
            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: "High stakes + alternative (HS-A)"
            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"
          t: null
          f: 4.36
          chi2: null
          z: null
          df1: 1
          df2: 237
          p: 0.04
          reported_d: null
          reported_r: null
          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)."
            tei_id: null
            table_ref: null
        effect_size:
          metric: SMD
          d: 0.377843131602
          v: 0.033938271605
          computed_from: groups
          needs_review: false
          notes: "Computed from XLS raw-data group stats in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd (method=between_groups)."
        quality_flags: []
        notes: null

  - study_id: 2
    label: "Within-Subjects Experiment: Stakes and Order"
    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: null
        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: "Low stakes, no alternative (LS-NA)"
            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: "High stakes + alternative (HS-A)"
            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"
          t: null
          f: 57.2
          chi2: null
          z: null
          df1: 1
          df2: 296
          p: null
          reported_d: null
          reported_r: null
          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."
            tei_id: null
            table_ref: null
        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 (method=within_smcrp_r; r_within computed from data)."
        quality_flags: []
        notes: null