schema_version: '1.2'
paper:
  paper_id: pinillos2012knowledgeexperimentspracitcal
  citation: "Pinillos, N. Á. (2012). Knowledge, Experiments, and Practical Interests. In J. Brown & M. Gerken (Eds.), Knowledge\
    \ Ascriptions (Chapter 9, pp. 192–218). Oxford University Press. \r\nhttps://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199693702.003.0009"
  short_label: Pinillos 2012
  doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199693702.003.0009
  published: 'Yes'
  year: 2012
  language: English
  language_other: null
  research_objective: Report evidence-seeking experiments testing whether folk judgments about when an agent knows are sensitive
    to practical stakes; discuss implications for interest-relative invariantism (IRI) and contextualism; includes between-subject,
    within-subject (juxtaposed), and a stakes × prompt-type study connected to the Reason-Knowledge Principle (RKP).
  data_availability:
    data_available_online: null
    url: null
    notes: null
  notes: Ingested from PDF filename containing a typo ('Pracitcal'). Numeric tables were not extracted by Camelot/Tabula;
    statistics were taken from out/text.txt and out/fulltext.md.
studies:
- study_id: 1
  label: Study 1 (Typo; evidence-seeking; between-subjects)
  language: English
  language_other: null
  objective: Test whether participants require more evidence for knowledge (more proofreading) under high vs low stakes in
    a typo vignette; includes an additional high-stakes condition where the protagonist is unaware of the stakes (Ignorant-Typo-High).
  sample:
    n_final: 213
    recruitment: students
    recruitment_other: null
    compensation: null
    compensation_other: null
    characteristics: "The sample consisted of undergraduate students at Arizona State University taking introduction\r\nlevel\
      \ philosophy courses."
    mean_age: null
    provenance:
      page: 8
      quote: The sample consisted of undergraduate students at Arizona State University taking introduction level philosophy
        courses.
  design: Between-Subjects
  design_other: Between-subjects vignette assignment; at least three groups are reported (Typo-Low, Typo-High, Ignorant-Typo-High).
  manipulated_factors:
  - stakes
  - awareness
  paradigm: Rating how much evidence is needed for knowledge
  paradigm_other: null
  scale:
    label: numeric/text input
    points: null
    anchors: 'Numeric free response: number of proofreads (times).'
    direction: Higher numbers indicate more evidence required for knowledge.
    provenance:
      page: 8
      quote: How many times do you think Peter [John] has to proofread his paper before he knows that there are no typos?
        ____ times.
  measures:
    knowledge_question_text: How many times do you think Peter [John] has to proofread his paper before he knows that there
      are no typos?
    knowledge_question_first: null
    additional_question_text: null
  scenarios:
  - scenario_code: typos
    scenario_type: 'Proofreading a class paper for typos (evidence-seeking prompt: number of proofreads before knowledge).'
    high_stakes_text: '(Typo-High): John, a good college student has just finished writing a two-page paper for an English
      class. The paper is due tomorrow. Even though John is a pretty good speller, he has a dictionary with him that he can
      use to check and make sure there are no typos. There is a lot at stake. The teacher is a stickler and guarantees that
      no one will get an A for the paper if it has a typo. He demands perfection. John, however, finds himself in an unusual
      circumstance. He needs an A for this paper to get an A in the class. And he needs an A in the class to keep his scholarship.
      Without the scholarship, he can’t stay in school. Leaving college would be devastating for John and his family who have
      sacrificed a lot to help John through school. So it turns out that it is extremely important for John that there are
      no typos in this paper. And he is well aware of this.'
    low_stakes_text: '(Typo-Low): Peter, a good college student has just finished writing a two-page paper for an English
      class. The paper is due tomorrow. Even though Peter is a pretty good speller, he has a dictionary with him that he can
      use to check and make sure there are no typos. But very little is at stake. The teacher is just asking for a rough draft
      and it won’t matter if there are a few typos. Nonetheless Peter would like to have no typos at all.'
  effects:
  - effect_id: s1_e1
    subgroup: Typo — evidence-seeking knowledge (aware high vs low)
    subgroup_desc: Number of proofreads required for knowledge (Typo-High vs Typo-Low).
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    moderators:
      scenario: typos
      skeptical_pressure: 'No'
      awareness: 'Yes'
      evidence: First Person
      attribution_person: Other
      evidence_reliability: Medium
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: 8
          quote: How many times do you think Peter [John] has to proofread his paper before he knows that there are no typos?
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The vignette/probe concerns proofreading for typos.
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: 8
          quote: There is a lot at stake. The teacher is a stickler and guarantees that no one will get an A for the paper
            if it has a typo.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: No explicit skeptical alternative/doubt is raised; the manipulation concerns consequences of being wrong.
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: 8
          quote: So it turns out that it is extremely important for John that there are no typos in this paper. And he is
            well aware of this.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The high-stakes protagonist is explicitly described as aware of the stakes.
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: 8
          quote: he has a dictionary with him that he can use to check and make sure there are no typos.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Evidence is generated by the agent’s own checking/proofreading (first-person evidence).
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: 8
          quote: before he knows that there are no typos
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Participants judge whether Peter/John knows (third-person attribution), not a self-ascription.
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: 8
          quote: he has a dictionary with him that he can use to check and make sure there are no typos.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Evidence-source reliability is not meaningfully manipulated; coded as null.
    contrast:
      group_high: Typo_High
      group_low: Typo_Low
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: Higher responses indicate more evidence required for knowledge (more proofreads).
    groups:
    - group_id: Typo_Low
      label: null
      n: 77
      mean: null
      sd: null
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 8
        quote: Assigned by random selection, 77 of them (Low stakes condition) completed the 'Typo-Low' vignette
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    - group_id: Typo_High
      label: null
      n: 67
      mean: null
      sd: null
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 8
        quote: Assigned by random selection, 77 of them (Low stakes condition) completed the 'Typo-Low' vignette below and
          67 of them (High stakes condition) completed the 'Typo-High' vignettes
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    reported_test:
      test: Mann-Whitney
      z: -6.786
      reported_r: -0.56
      notes: 'Reported as p<.001; U=920.500. Medians: Typo-Low=2; Typo-High=5.'
      provenance:
        page: 9
        quote: Mann-Whitney (N=144) U = 920.500, z=-6.786, r=-.56, p<.001.
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: -1.355124252114317
      v: 0.034288642158384
      computed_from: other
      needs_review: false
      notes: Computed from reported Mann-Whitney r via esc::esc_rpb in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd (method=between_rpb; split
        group Ns used).
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
  - effect_id: s1_e2
    subgroup: Typo — evidence-seeking knowledge (ignorant high vs low)
    subgroup_desc: Number of proofreads required for knowledge when stakes are high but the protagonist is unaware (Ignorant-Typo-High
      vs Typo-Low).
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    moderators:
      scenario: typos
      skeptical_pressure: 'No'
      awareness: 'No'
      evidence: First Person
      attribution_person: Other
      evidence_reliability: Medium
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: This is a probe that is just like the Typo-High except that the agent is not aware of the high stakes at
            issue
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The probe uses the Typo vignette with a stakes-awareness manipulation.
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: There is a lot at stake. The teacher is a stickler and guarantees that no one will get an A for the paper
            if it has a typo.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: No explicit skeptical alternative/doubt is raised; the manipulation concerns consequences of being wrong.
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: the agent is not aware of the high stakes at issue
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The vignette is explicitly described as an unaware/ignorant high-stakes case.
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: he has a dictionary with him that he can use to check and make sure there are no typos.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Evidence is generated by the agent’s own checking/proofreading (first-person evidence).
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: before he knows that there are no typos
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Participants attribute knowledge to the protagonist (third-person attribution).
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: he has a dictionary with him that he can use to check and make sure there are no typos.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Evidence-source reliability is not meaningfully manipulated; coded as null.
    contrast:
      group_high: Ignorant_Typo_High
      group_low: Typo_Low
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: Higher responses indicate more evidence required for knowledge (more proofreads).
    groups:
    - group_id: Typo_Low
      label: null
      n: 77
      mean: null
      sd: null
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 8
        quote: Assigned by random selection, 77 of them (Low stakes condition) completed the 'Typo-Low' vignette
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    - group_id: Ignorant_Typo_High
      label: null
      n: 69
      mean: null
      sd: null
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 11
        quote: I ran an "ignorant" high stakes case (Ignorant-Typo-High) (N=69).
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    reported_test:
      test: Mann-Whitney
      z: -4.693
      reported_r: -0.39
      notes: 'Reported as p<.001; U=1497.000 (Bonferroni correction noted). Medians: Typo-Low=2; Ignorant-Typo-High=3.'
      provenance:
        page: 11
        quote: Mann-Whitney (N=146) U=1497.000, z=-4.693, r=-.39, p<.001
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: -0.848350338028262
      v: 0.029944486802094
      computed_from: other
      needs_review: false
      notes: Computed from reported Mann-Whitney r via esc::esc_rpb in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd (method=between_rpb; split
        group Ns used).
    quality_flags:
    - Typo-Low is already the basaline for effect1
    notes: awareness is explicitly stated only in High stakes
  notes: the same participants from Typo-Low provide the baseline for both comparisons (Typo-Low & Typo-High, Typo-Low & Ignorant-Typo-High)
- study_id: 2
  label: Study 1 follow-up (Belief fixed; Typo; evidence-seeking; between-subjects)
  language: English
  language_other: null
  objective: Test whether the stakes effect persists when the vignette stipulates that the protagonist formed the belief right
    after writing the paper (aimed at addressing a belief-sensitivity explanation).
  sample:
    n_final: 78
    recruitment: null
    recruitment_other: null
    compensation: null
    compensation_other: null
    characteristics: null
    mean_age: null
    provenance:
      page: 12
      quote: Mann-Whitney (N=78) Z=-2.98, r =.34, U=472.500, p=.003
  design: Between-Subjects
  design_other: Between-subjects Typo-Low vs Typo-High with added stipulation that the protagonist formed the belief right
    after writing; followed by the same evidence-seeking knowledge prompt.
  manipulated_factors: []
  paradigm: Rating how much evidence is needed for knowledge
  paradigm_other: null
  scale:
    label: numeric/text input
    points: null
    anchors: 'Numeric free response: number of proofreads (times).'
    direction: Higher numbers indicate more evidence required for knowledge.
    provenance:
      page: 12
      quote: How many times do you think that Peter/John has to proofread his paper before he knows there are no typos? ___
        times.
  measures:
    knowledge_question_text: It turns out that right after Peter/John finished writing his paper, he formed the belief that
      there are no typos in his paper—and in fact there are no typos. But does he know this? How many times do you think that
      Peter/John has to proofread his paper before he knows there are no typos?
    knowledge_question_first: null
    additional_question_text: null
  scenarios:
  - scenario_code: typos
    scenario_type: Typo vignette with belief fixed (protagonist forms the belief immediately).
    high_stakes_text: "(Typo-High): John, a good college student has just finished writing a two-page paper for an English\
      \ class. The paper is due tomorrow. Even though John is a pretty good speller, he has a dictionary with him that he\
      \ can use to check and make sure there are no typos. There is a lot at stake. The teacher is a stickler and guarantees\
      \ that no one will get an A for the paper if it has a typo. He demands perfection. John, however, finds himself in an\
      \ unusual circumstance. He needs an A for this paper to get an A in the class. And he\r\nneeds an A in the class to\
      \ keep his scholarship. Without the scholarship, he can’t stay in school. Leaving college would be devastating for John\
      \ and his family who have sacrificed a lot to help John through school. So it turns out that it is extremely important\
      \ for John that there are no typos in this paper. And he is well aware of this."
    low_stakes_text: "(Typo-Low): Peter, a good college student has just finished writing a two-page paper for an English\
      \ class. The paper is due tomorrow. Even though Peter is a pretty good speller, he has a dictionary with him that he\
      \ can use to check and make sure there are no\r\ntypos. But very little is at stake. The teacher is just asking for\
      \ a rough draft and it won’t matter if there are a few typos. Nonetheless Peter would like to have no typos at all."
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: It turns out that right after Peter/John finished writing his paper, he formed the belief that there are no typos
        in his paper-and in fact there are no typos.
  effects:
  - effect_id: s2_e1
    subgroup: Belief-fixed Typo — evidence-seeking knowledge
    subgroup_desc: Number of proofreads required for knowledge (Belief-Typo-High vs Belief-Typo-Low).
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    moderators:
      scenario: typos
      skeptical_pressure: 'No'
      awareness: 'Yes'
      evidence: First Person
      attribution_person: Other
      evidence_reliability: Medium
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: It turns out that right after Peter/John finished writing his paper, he formed the belief that there are
            no typos in his paper-and in fact there are no typos.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: This is a Typo proofreading vignette with an added belief stipulation.
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: no doubt raised
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: No explicit skeptical alternative/doubt is raised; the manipulation concerns stakes.
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: So it turns out that it is extremely important for John that there are no typos in this paper. And he is
            well aware of this.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The Belief-Typo-High vignette is described as using Typo-High, which explicitly states awareness.
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: has to proofread his paper
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Evidence is generated by the agent’s own proofreading/checking (first-person evidence).
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: before he knows there are no typos
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Participants attribute knowledge to the protagonist (third-person attribution).
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: has to proofread his paper
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Evidence-source reliability is not meaningfully manipulated; coded as null.
    contrast:
      group_high: Belief_Typo_High
      group_low: Belief_Typo_Low
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: Higher responses indicate more evidence required for knowledge (more proofreads).
    groups:
    - group_id: Belief_Typo_Low
      label: null
      n: null
      mean: null
      sd: null
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: null
        quote: Median for Belief-Typo-Low here was 2 and for Belief-Typo-High is 3.
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    - group_id: Belief_Typo_High
      label: null
      n: null
      mean: null
      sd: null
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: null
        quote: Median for Belief-Typo-Low here was 2 and for Belief-Typo-High is 3.
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    reported_test:
      test: Mann-Whitney
      z: -2.98
      p: 0.003
      reported_r: 0.34
      notes: 'U=472.500. Medians: Belief-Typo-Low=2; Belief-Typo-High=3. Reported r appears unsigned (given as r=.34) while
        Z is negative; sign for low-high difference is inferred from medians.'
      provenance:
        page: 12
        quote: Median for Belief-Typo-Low here was 2 and for Belief-Typo-High is 3. Mann-Whitney (N=78) Z=-2.98, r =.34, U=472.500,
          p=.003
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: -0.723076997100493
      v: 0.054633591947025
      computed_from: other
      needs_review: false
      notes: Computed from reported Mann-Whitney r via esc::esc_rpb in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd (method=between_rpb; split
        group Ns not reported, equal split n_low=n_high=totaln/2 assumed).
    quality_flags:
    - 'r reported as positive: abolute value?'
    notes: null
  notes: null
- study_id: 3
  label: Study 2 (Typo; juxtaposed; evidence-seeking; within-subjects)
  language: English
  language_other: null
  objective: Test whether the stakes effect on evidence-seeking knowledge judgments persists under further reflection by presenting
    high- and low-stakes vignettes together (juxtaposed) and asking participants to answer both blanks.
  sample:
    n_final: 95
    recruitment: students
    recruitment_other: null
    compensation: null
    compensation_other: null
    characteristics: students taking introductory courses at Arizona State University
    mean_age: null
    provenance:
      page: 14
      quote: The sample consisted of 95 students taking introductory courses at Arizona State University.
  design: Within-Subjects
  design_other: 'Juxtaposed within-subjects: participants read Typo-High and Typo-Low before answering both blanks; ordering
    counter-balanced.'
  manipulated_factors:
  - Order of vignettes/prompt blanks (counter-balanced)
  paradigm: Rating how much evidence is needed for knowledge
  paradigm_other: null
  scale:
    label: numeric/text input
    points: null
    anchors: 'Numeric free response: number of proofreads (times).'
    direction: Higher numbers indicate more evidence required for knowledge.
    provenance:
      page: 14
      quote: Peter needs to proofread his paper ___ times before he knows there are no typos, and John needs to proofread
        his paper ___ times before he knows there are no typos.
  measures:
    knowledge_question_text: Peter needs to proofread his paper ___ times before he knows there are no typos, and John needs
      to proofread his paper ___ times before he knows there are no typos.
    knowledge_question_first: null
    additional_question_text: null
  scenarios:
  - scenario_code: typos
    scenario_type: Proofreading for typos; juxtaposed low- and high-stakes vignettes.
    high_stakes_text: '(Typo-High): John, a good college student has just finished writing a two-page paper for an English
      class. The paper is due tomorrow. Even though John is a pretty good speller, he has a dictionary with him that he can
      use to check and make sure there are no typos. There is a lot at stake. The teacher is a stickler and guarantees that
      no one will get an A for the paper if it has a typo. He demands perfection. John, however, finds himself in an unusual
      circumstance. He needs an A for this paper to get an A in the class. And he needs an A in the class to keep his scholarship.
      Without the scholarship, he can’t stay in school. Leaving college would be devastating for John and his family who have
      sacrificed a lot to help John through school. So it turns out that it is extremely important for John that there are
      no typos in this paper. And he is well aware of this.'
    low_stakes_text: '(Typo-Low): Peter, a good college student has just finished writing a two-page paper for an English
      class. The paper is due tomorrow. Even though Peter is a pretty good speller, he has a dictionary with him that he can
      use to check and make sure there are no typos. But very little is at stake. The teacher is just asking for a rough draft
      and it won’t matter if there are a few typos. Nonetheless Peter would like to have no typos at all.'
    provenance:
      page: 14
      quote: subjects were given the pair of 'Typo' vignettes
  effects:
  - effect_id: s3_e1
    subgroup: Typo — juxtaposed (within-subject) knowledge
    subgroup_desc: Number of proofreads required for knowledge (within-subject Typo-High vs Typo-Low).
    design: Within-Subjects
    design_other: null
    moderators:
      scenario: typos
      skeptical_pressure: 'No'
      awareness: 'Yes'
      evidence: First Person
      attribution_person: Other
      evidence_reliability: Medium
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: Subjects read both high and low scenarios before they are asked to give their answers to each.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: This is the Typo vignette presented in juxtaposed form.
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: Subjects read both high and low scenarios before they are asked to give their answers to each.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: No explicit skeptical alternative/doubt is raised; manipulation is via stakes.
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: And he is well aware of this.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The high-stakes Typo vignette explicitly states that the protagonist is aware of the stakes.
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: needs to proofread his paper
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Evidence is generated by the agent’s own proofreading/checking (first-person evidence).
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: before he knows there are no typos
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Participants attribute knowledge to the protagonist (third-person attribution).
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: needs to proofread his paper
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Evidence-source reliability is not meaningfully manipulated; coded as null.
    contrast:
      group_high: Typo_High
      group_low: Typo_Low
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: Within-subject effect computed from paired t-test on transformed differences (see reported_test).
    reported_test:
      test: t
      t: -7.6
      df1: 94.0
      reported_d: 0.78
      notes: 'Reported as p<.001. Mean difference on transformed data: M=.54, SD=.69, N=95 (direction implied by Typo-Low
        median=2 vs Typo-High median=3).'
      provenance:
        page: 14
        quote: The mean of the differences (M=.54, SD=.69, N=95) was significantly greater than zero, t(94)=-7.6, p<.001.
          The effect size is medium but close to large (d=.78).
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: -0.773502819918266
      v: 0.013675297960113
      computed_from: t_df
      needs_review: false
      notes: >-
        Computed from paired t and n_total using metafor::escalc(measure='SMCC') in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd. Note for
        mixed-design meta-analysis: this within-subject effect uses SMCC (change-score standardization), not the primary
        SMCRP convention used for most within-subject studies in this repo; retain with a metric-mismatch flag and check
        sensitivity to its inclusion.
    quality_flags:
    - test performed on transformed data
    - 'within-subject metric mismatch: uses SMCC, not SMCRP'
    notes: null
    groups: []
  notes: null
- study_id: 4
  label: Study 3 (Counting contest; evidence-seeking; stakes × prompt type)
  language: English
  language_other: null
  objective: 'Test for stake sensitivity and probe the Reason-Knowledge Principle (RKP) by comparing responses to a knowledge
    prompt vs a normative prompt in low vs high stakes counting-contest vignettes (2×2 between-subjects: stakes × prompt type).'
  sample:
    n_final: 253
    recruitment: students
    recruitment_other: null
    compensation: null
    compensation_other: null
    characteristics: undergraduate students taking introduction to philosophy courses at Arizona State University
    mean_age: null
    provenance:
      page: 18
      quote: (N=) 263 undergraduate students taking introduction to philosophy courses at Arizona State University were randomly
        assigned either the Count-Low or Count-High vignettes followed by the 'Knowledge' prompt above or followed by a 'Normative'
        prompt to be explained below (yielding four groups in total).
  design: Between-Subjects
  design_other: '2 (stakes: Count-Low vs Count-High) × 2 (prompt type: knowledge vs normative) between-subjects.'
  manipulated_factors:
  - 'Prompt type: knowledge vs normative'
  paradigm: Rating how much evidence is needed for knowledge
  paradigm_other: null
  scale:
    label: numeric/text input
    points: null
    anchors: 'Numeric free response: number of counts (times) before knowledge/normative threshold.'
    direction: Higher numbers indicate more evidence required.
    provenance:
      page: 26
      quote: Peter must count the pennies in the jar at least ___ times before he comes to know the correct answer
  measures:
    knowledge_question_text: Peter must count the pennies in the jar at least ___ times before he comes to know the correct
      answer.
    knowledge_question_first: null
    additional_question_text: Peter should count the pennies in the jar at least ___ times before turning in his final answer.
  scenarios:
  - scenario_code: other
    scenario_type: Counting pennies in a jar (bank contest) to win a prize; stakes vary with consequences.
    high_stakes_text: "Count-High\r\nPeter, a bright college student, has just won a contest sponsored by his bank. The prize\
      \ is a chance to win a very large sum of money. In order to win the money and as a publicity stunt, Peter is given a\
      \ whole day to correctly count all the pennies in a jar located at his local branch. The jar contains around a hundred\
      \ pennies. It turns out there is a lot at stake for Peter. Peter is fully aware that if he answers correctly, he will\
      \ win the prize and thereby be able to pay for his mother’s life-saving operation (which they couldn’t afford otherwise).\
      \ So it’s really important that Peter count the pennies correctly since his mother’s life is at stake."
    low_stakes_text: "Count-Low\r\nPeter, a bright college student, has just won a contest sponsored by his bank. The prize\
      \ is a chance to win some movie tickets. In order to win the tickets and as a publicity stunt, Peter is given a whole\
      \ day to correctly count all the pennies in a jar located at his local branch. The jar contains around a hundred pennies.\
      \ Peter wants the passes but it’s not a big deal at all if he doesn’t get the correct answer."
    provenance:
      page: 26
      quote: In the high stakes condition, Count-High, if he gets the count right he wins a lot of money that he can use to
        save his mother's life. In the low stakes conditions, Count-Low, he wins a pair of movie passes.
  effects:
  - effect_id: s4_e1
    subgroup: Counting contest — evidence-seeking knowledge
    subgroup_desc: Number of counts required for knowledge (Count-High-Knowledge vs Count-Low-Knowledge).
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    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 vignettes concern a protagonist, Peter, who must correctly count the pennies in a medium-sized jar to
            win a prize.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The scenario is a penny-counting contest (not bank-hours/peanuts/bridge/typos).
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: Subjects were asked to fill in the blank in the following 'knowledge' statement
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: No explicit skeptical challenge/alternative is presented; the manipulation concerns consequences.
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: Peter is fully aware that if he answers correctly, he will win the prize and thereby be able to pay for his
            mother's life-saving operation
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The high-stakes protagonist is explicitly described as aware of the stakes.
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: must correctly count the pennies
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Evidence is generated by the agent’s own counting (first-person evidence).
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: before he comes to know the correct answer
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Participants attribute knowledge to Peter (third-person attribution).
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: must correctly count the pennies
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Evidence-source reliability is not meaningfully manipulated; coded as null.
    contrast:
      group_high: Count_High_Knowledge
      group_low: Count_Low_Knowledge
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: Higher responses indicate more evidence required for knowledge.
    reported_test:
      test: Mann-Whitney
      reported_r: -0.4
      notes: 'Reported as p<.001; U=1124.500; N_total=128 for the knowledge-prompt comparison. Medians: Count-Low-Knowledge=2;
        Count-High-Knowledge=3.5. Split group Ns (n_low, n_high) are not reported in extracted text.'
      provenance:
        page: 18
        quote: Mann-Whitney (N=128) U =1124.500, p<.001, r=-.4. The median answer for Count-Low-Knowledge was 2 and the median
          for Count-High-Knowledge was 3.5.
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: -0.87287156094397
      v: 0.03422619047619
      computed_from: other
      needs_review: false
      notes: Computed from reported Mann-Whitney r via esc::esc_rpb in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd (method=between_rpb; split
        group Ns not reported, equal split n_low=n_high=totaln/2 assumed).
    quality_flags:
    - 'how many participants: 263 or 253?'
    notes: null
    groups: []
  notes: normative OR knowledge question
