schema_version: '1.2'
paper:
  paper_id: pinillos2024bankcasesstakes
  citation: "Pinillos, N. Á. (2024). Bank Cases, Stakes, and Normative Facts. In S. Nichols & J. Knobe (Eds.), Oxford Studies\
    \ in Experimental Philosophy, Volume 5 (Chapter 15). Oxford University Press. \r\nhttps://doi.org/10.1093/9780198918905.003.0015"
  short_label: Pinillos 2024
  doi: null
  published: 'Yes'
  year: 2024
  language: English
  language_other: null
  research_objective: Report an original study using modified bank cases to test whether ordinary knowledge attributions vary
    across stakes conditions, and argue that the psychological driver is attention to explicitly stated normative facts (appropriateness
    of assuming the proposition in reasoning).
  data_availability:
    data_available_online: null
    url: null
    notes: null
  notes: Bibliographic venue/DOI not recovered from pipeline outputs (paper appears to be an OUP book chapter; see TEI footnote).
studies:
- study_id: 1
  label: The Study (Modified bank cases)
  language: English
  language_other: null
  objective: Test whether ordinary attributions of knowledge vary across Modified High Stakes and Modified Low Stakes bank
    cases (where normative facts framed as consequences of the stakes are explicitly stated).
  sample:
    n_final: 89
    recruitment: mTurk
    recruitment_other: null
    compensation: money
    compensation_other: $1.50 (US) per participant
    characteristics: Amazon Mechanical Turk Master workers; adults residing in the US; ~8 minute survey; initial N=100; 11
      disqualified for failing ≥1 comprehension check.
    mean_age: null
    provenance:
      page: 13
      quote: A total of 100 subjects were recruited through Amazon Turk to fill out an 8 minute survey... They were compensated
        $1.50 each... I disqualified 11 participants... χ 2 (1, N = 89) = 30.9059
  design: Between-Subjects
  design_other: Each participant was assigned to either the Modified High Stakes or Modified Low Stakes vignette.
  manipulated_factors: []
  paradigm: Agreement with knowledge claim
  paradigm_other: null
  scale:
    label: binary
    points: 2
    anchors: (a) Bob knows that the bank will be open on Saturday. (b) Bob thinks he knows that the bank will be open on Saturday,
      but he doesn't actually know the bank will be open on Saturday.
    direction: null
    provenance:
      page: 13
      quote: (a) Bob knows that the bank will be open on Saturday. (b) Bob thinks he knows that the bank will be open on Saturday,
        but he doesn't actually know the bank will be open on Saturday.
      tei_id: fig_1
      table_ref: TEI fig_1
  measures:
    knowledge_question_text: In your personal opinion, which better describes Bob's situation? (a) Bob knows that the bank
      will be open on Saturday. (b) Bob thinks he knows that the bank will be open on Saturday, but he doesn't actually know
      the bank will be open on Saturday.
    knowledge_question_first: 'No'
    additional_question_text: "After reading the study, they were asked two reading comprehension questions: “It is very important\
      \ that Bob and \r\nhis wife deposit the check right away” and “It is appropriate for Bob and his wife to assume that\
      \ the bank will be open Saturday.” Each of these questions were followed by three possible answers ‘True,’ ‘False,’\
      \ and ‘Not Applicable.’ \r\nThe third question gets at knowledge attributions."
  scenarios:
  - scenario_code: bank
    scenario_type: Modified DeRose-style bank-hours vignette with explicit normative fact about whether it is appropriate
      to assume the bank will be open.
    high_stakes_text: "Modified High Stakes: Bob and his wife are driving home on a Friday afternoon. They both received some\
      \ money earlier in the day, and so they plan to stop at the bank on the way home to deposit it. But as they drive past\
      \ the bank, they \r\nnotice that the lines inside are very long, as they often are on Friday after noons. They have\
      \ recently written a very large and very important check. If the money is not deposited into their bank account before\
      \ Monday morning, the important check they wrote will not be accepted by the bank, leaving them in a very bad situation.\
      \ Bob suggests that they drive \r\nstraight home and deposit their money on Saturday morning. His wife says, “Maybe\
      \ the bank won’t be open tomorrow. Lots of banks are closed on Saturdays.” Bob replies, “No, I know the bank will be\
      \ open. I was just there two weeks ago on Saturday. It was open until noon.” As a matter of fact, the bank will be open\
      \ on Saturday morning. The stakes are high for Bob and his wife. So based on Bob’s evidence, it’s not appropriate for\
      \ them to assume in their reasoning that the bank will be open on Saturday."
    low_stakes_text: 'Modified Low Stakes: Bob and his wife are driving home on a Friday afternoon. They both received some
      money earlier in the day, and so they plan to stop at the bank on the way home to deposit it. But as they drive past
      the bank, they notice that the lines inside are very long, as they often are on Friday afternoons. Although they generally
      like to deposit any money they receive at the bank as soon as possible, it is not especially important in this case
      that it be deposited right away. Bob suggests that they drive straight home and deposit their money on Saturday morning.
      His wife says, “Maybe the bank  won’t be open tomorrow. Lots of banks are closed on Saturdays.” Bob replies, “No, I
      know the bank will be open. I was just there two weeks ago  on Saturday. It was open until noon.” As a matter of fact,
      the bank will be open on Saturday morning. The stakes are low for Bob and his wife. So based on Bob’s evidence, it’s
      appropriate for them to assume in their reasoning that the bank will be open on Saturday.'
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: The stakes are low for Bob and his wife... it's appropriate for them to assume... the bank will be open on Saturday.
        ... The stakes are high... it's not appropriate for them to assume...
  effects:
  - effect_id: s1_e1
    subgroup: Modified bank cases — knowledge attribution
    subgroup_desc: 'Binary: proportion endorsing ''Bob knows'' (Modified Low vs Modified High Stakes)'
    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: Bob replies, "No, I know the bank will be open. I was just there two weeks ago on Saturday."
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Vignette is explicitly about whether the bank will be open on Saturday (bank-hours scenario).
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: His wife says, "Maybe the bank won't be open tomorrow. Lots of banks are closed on Saturdays."
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The vignette explicitly introduces doubt/counterconsiderations about whether the bank will be open.
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: They have recently written a very large and very important check. If the money is not deposited... leaving
            them in a very bad situation.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Stakes are described as facts about Bob and his wife’s situation (implying the protagonist is aware of the
          consequences).
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: Bob replies, "No, I know the bank will be open. I was just there two weeks ago on Saturday. It was open until
            noon."
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Agent’s evidence is his own recent experience/memory of visiting the bank (first-person evidence).
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: (a) Bob knows that the bank will be open on Saturday.
          tei_id: fig_1
          table_ref: TEI fig_1
        reason: Participants are asked to evaluate a third-person knowledge attribution about Bob.
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: I was just there two weeks ago on Saturday.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: simple induction
    contrast:
      group_high: modified_high
      group_low: modified_low
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: Outcome mean = proportion endorsing the knowledge attribution ('Bob knows').
    groups:
    - group_id: modified_low
      label: null
      n: 49
      mean: 0.714285714285714
      sd: null
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 13
        quote: In Modified Low Stakes, 35 (71%) people agreed Bob knows while 14 (29%) people said he doesn't know.
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    - group_id: modified_high
      label: null
      n: 40
      mean: 0.125
      sd: null
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 13
        quote: In Modified High Stakes, only 5 (14%) people agreed that Bob knows... while 35 (86%) agree that he doesn't
          know.
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    reported_test:
      test: chi2
      chi2: 30.9059
      df1: 1.0
      notes: Reported as p < .01; Cramer's V reported as .58.
      provenance:
        page: 13
        quote: χ 2 (1, N = 89) = 30.9059, p < .01. Cramer's V is 58
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: 1.578014050158
      v: 0.099873738162
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: Computed from exact 2x2 counts via esc::esc_2x2 (OR -> d) in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd (method=between_2x2_or).
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
  notes: null