Extraction report — Pinillos & Simpson (n.d.)

schema_version: "1.1"

paper:
  paper_id: pinillossimpsonndexperimentalevidencesupporting
  citation: "Pinillos, Á., & Simpson, S. (n.d.). Experimental Evidence Supporting Anti-intellectualism About Knowledge. In Advances in Experimental Epistemology."
  short_label: "Pinillos & Simpson (n.d.)"
  doi: null
  published: null
  year: null
  language: "English"
  language_other: null
  research_objective: "Provide experimental evidence for anti-intellectualism about knowledge by testing whether folk judgments about when an agent knows are sensitive to practical interests (stakes), using evidence-seeking and agreement paradigms, and by addressing objections to evidence-seeking probes."
  data_availability:
    data_available_online: null
    url: null
    notes: null
  notes: "Year/venue details were not recoverable from the provided PDF text/metadata; keep as n.d. pending manual bibliographic completion."

studies:
  - study_id: 1
    label: "Study 1, Experiment 1 (Water purifier; evidence-seeking)"
    objective: "Test whether participants require more evidence for knowledge under higher stakes (water purifier vignette; numeric evidence-seeking prompt)."
    sample:
      n_final: 94
      recruitment: "mTurk"
      recruitment_other: null
      compensation: "money"
      compensation_other: "15 cents (US)"
      characteristics: "Amazon Turk workers; initial N=141; exclusions reported; computed statistics for N=94."
      mean_age: null
      mean_age_prov:
        page: null
        quote: null
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
      provenance:
        page: 10
        quote: "A total of 141 subjects from Amazon Turk were paid 15 cents (US) each to take exactly one of two surveys."
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    design: "Between-Subjects"
    design_other: "Two independent conditions: Low Stakes vs High Stakes."
    manipulated_factors: []
    paradigm: "Rating how much evidence is needed for knowledge"
    paradigm_other: null
    scale:
      label: other
      points: null
      anchors: "Numeric free response (whole number). Instructions: write “0” if already knows; write “never” if never knows."
      direction: "Higher numbers indicate more checks/comparisons required (more evidence needed for knowledge)."
      provenance:
        page: 11
        quote: "After how many comparisons will Brian know he has written them down correctly? ... (Note: If you think Brian already knows, write “0.” If you think he’ll never know, no matter how many times he checks, write “never”)."
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    measures:
      knowledge_question_text: "(Opinion question) Suppose Brian goes back and compares his entire written copy to the instructions online, and he can do this as many times as he wants. After how many comparisons will Brian know he has written them down correctly?"
      knowledge_question_first: null
      additional_question_text: null
    scenarios:
      - scenario_code: water_purifier
        scenario_type: "Installing a water purifier; high-stakes manipulation involves unknown poisoning risk."
        high_stakes_text: "In High Stakes, it is also the case that the water supply has been poisoned... If Brian fails to assemble the water purifier properly, he and his family might die. However, Brian is ignorant of these high stakes."
        low_stakes_text: "Low Stakes: Brian installs the purifier because he does not like the taste of tap water."
        provenance:
          page: 10
          quote: "They both concern a protagonist, Brian, who is installing a water purifier... However, in High Stakes, it is also the case that the water supply has been poisoned... he and his family might die. However, Brian is ignorant of these high stakes."
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
    effects:
      - effect_id: s1_e1
        subgroup: "Water purifier — evidence-seeking knowledge"
        subgroup_desc: "Number of comparisons required for knowledge"
        design: "Between-Subjects"
        design_other: null
        moderators:
          scenario: other
          skeptical_pressure: "No"
          awareness: "No"
          evidence: "First Person"
          attribution_person: "Other"
          evidence_reliability: "High"
        moderators_coding:
          scenario:
            provenance:
              page: 10
              quote: "Brian... is installing a water purifier at home... in High Stakes... the water supply has been poisoned."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "The vignette is about a water purifier/poisoning scenario, not a bank/peanuts/bridge/typos vignette."
          skeptical_pressure:
            provenance:
              page: 11
              quote: "After how many comparisons will Brian know he has written them down correctly?"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "No explicit alternative/error possibility is raised as a live option; the manipulation concerns consequences."
          awareness:
            provenance:
              page: 10
              quote: "However, Brian is ignorant of these high stakes."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "High-stakes consequences are explicitly unknown to the protagonist."
          evidence:
            provenance:
              page: 11
              quote: "Suppose Brian goes back and compares his entire written copy to the instructions online..."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "The evidence is generated by the agent’s own checking/comparing (first-person evidence)."
          attribution_person:
            provenance:
              page: 11
              quote: "After how many comparisons will Brian know..."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "Participants attribute knowledge to Brian (third-person attribution)."
          evidence_reliability:
            provenance:
              page: 11
              quote: "he can do this as many times as he wants."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "Repeated direct comparison to the online instructions suggests relatively high reliability of the checking process."
        contrast:
          group_high: WaterPurifier_high
          group_low: WaterPurifier_low
          sign_convention: "d = mean(low) - mean(high)"
          other_notes: "Outcome is number of comparisons/checks; higher scores indicate more evidence needed."
        groups:
          - group_id: WaterPurifier_low
            label: "Low stakes"
            n: 46
            mean: 0.72
            sd: 0.72
            se: null
            provenance:
              page: 11
              quote: "Low Stakes (N  46, m  0.72, sd  0.72)"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
          - group_id: WaterPurifier_high
            label: "High stakes (protagonist unaware)"
            n: 48
            mean: 1.29
            sd: 1.254
            se: null
            provenance:
              page: 11
              quote: "High Stakes (N  48, m  1.29, sd  1.254)"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
        reported_test:
          test: t
          t: -2.70
          f: null
          chi2: null
          z: null
          df1: 75.54
          df2: null
          p: null
          reported_d: 0.54
          reported_r: null
          notes: "Reported as p < 0.01. Paper’s reported Cohen’s d is unsigned/positive; extraction uses sign convention d = mean(low) - mean(high)."
          provenance:
            page: 11
            quote: "t(75.54)  2.70, p  0.01. Cohen’s d  0.54 (this is a medium-size effect)."
            tei_id: null
            table_ref: null
        effect_size:
          metric: SMD
          d: -0.554440139474935
          v: 0.0442431369651865
          computed_from: groups
          needs_review: false
          notes: "Computed from group means/SDs/Ns in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd (method=between_groups)."
        quality_flags: []
        notes: null

  - study_id: 2
    label: "Study 1, Experiment 2 (Airplane; evidence-seeking; stakes × probability)"
    objective: "Test whether participants require more evidence for knowledge under higher stakes and/or higher probability of negative outcomes (airline roster vignette; 2×2 between-subjects)."
    sample:
      n_final: 230
      recruitment: "students"
      recruitment_other: "Volunteer students taking introductory courses at Arizona State University (randomly distributed surveys)."
      compensation: null
      compensation_other: null
      characteristics: "Four conditions (LSLP/LSHP/HSLP/HSHP); initial surveys distributed total=305; exclusions reported; computed statistics for N=230."
      mean_age: null
      mean_age_prov:
        page: null
        quote: null
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
      provenance:
        page: 13
        quote: "We discarded 75 surveys... We computed statistics for N  230 subjects. LSLP (N  50, m  1.6, sd  0.969), LSHP (N  58, m  1.76, sd  0.823), HSLP (N  61, m  1.93, sd  0.944), and HSHP (N  61, m  2.15, sd  1.152) (Figure 1.1)."
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: "Figure 1.1"
    design: "Between-Subjects"
    design_other: "2 (stakes: low vs high) × 2 (probability: low vs high) between-subjects."
    manipulated_factors:
      - "Probability of outcome: low vs high"
    paradigm: "Rating how much evidence is needed for knowledge"
    paradigm_other: null
    scale:
      label: other
      points: null
      anchors: "Numeric free response: number of additional roster surveys (whole number) or “never”."
      direction: "Higher numbers indicate more evidence needed for knowledge."
      provenance:
        page: 13
        quote: "How many more times do you think Jessie needs to survey the entire roster before he knows the name is not on the list (enter a whole number... or write “never” if you think Jessie will never know)."
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    measures:
      knowledge_question_text: "How many more times do you think Jessie needs to survey the entire roster before he knows the name is not on the list?"
      knowledge_question_first: null
      additional_question_text: null
    scenarios:
      - scenario_code: airplane_roster
        scenario_type: "Airline steward checks passenger roster; stakes and probability of hijacking (high) vs first-class upgrade acceptance (low)."
        high_stakes_text: "High stakes: if wrong, (low/high probability) a criminal would hijack the plane; Jessie is unaware of hijacker/probability."
        low_stakes_text: "Low stakes: if wrong, (low/high probability) a nice guy would accept first class; Jessie is unaware of nice guy/probability."
        provenance:
          page: 13
          quote: "In high stakes–high probability (HSHP)... a criminal, would hijack the plane... In low stakes–high probability (LSHP)... a nice guy, would accept the invitation to go to first class... Again, Jessie is unaware..."
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
    effects:
      - effect_id: s2_e1
        subgroup: "Airplane — Low probability (LSLP vs HSLP)"
        subgroup_desc: "Evidence-seeking: roster checks required for knowledge (low probability)"
        design: "Between-Subjects"
        design_other: null
        moderators:
          scenario: other
          skeptical_pressure: "No"
          awareness: "No"
          evidence: "First Person"
          attribution_person: "Other"
          evidence_reliability: "High"
        moderators_coding:
          scenario:
            provenance:
              page: 13
              quote: "They are about an airline steward, Jessie, who is assigned to find a name on a roster of 200 passengers before a flight."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "The scenario is an airplane/roster vignette (not bank/peanuts/bridge/typos)."
          skeptical_pressure:
            provenance:
              page: 13
              quote: "How many more times do you think Jessie needs to survey the entire roster before he knows the name is not on the list..."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "No explicit alternative/error possibility is raised as a conversational challenge; stakes/probability are manipulated as consequences."
          awareness:
            provenance:
              page: 13
              quote: "Again, Jessie is unaware that the name belongs to a nice guy/hijacker and unaware of the probability..."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "The protagonist is explicitly unaware of the stake-relevant facts and probabilities."
          evidence:
            provenance:
              page: 13
              quote: "How many more times do you think Jessie needs to survey the entire roster..."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "Evidence is generated by the agent’s own repeated surveying of the roster (first-person)."
          attribution_person:
            provenance:
              page: 13
              quote: "before he knows the name is not on the list"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "Participants attribute knowledge to Jessie (third-person attribution)."
          evidence_reliability:
            provenance:
              page: 13
              quote: "a roster of 200 passengers"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "Checking a fixed roster (repeatedly) suggests relatively high reliability of the evidence source/process."
        contrast:
          group_high: HSLP
          group_low: LSLP
          sign_convention: "d = mean(low) - mean(high)"
          other_notes: "Probability held constant at low probability; outcome is number of additional roster surveys required."
        groups:
          - group_id: LSLP
            label: "Low stakes — low probability"
            n: 50
            mean: 1.6
            sd: 0.969
            se: null
            provenance:
              page: 13
              quote: "LSLP (N  50, m  1.6, sd  0.969)"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: "Figure 1.1"
          - group_id: HSLP
            label: "High stakes — low probability"
            n: 61
            mean: 1.93
            sd: 0.944
            se: null
            provenance:
              page: 13
              quote: "HSLP (N  61, m  1.93, sd  0.944)"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: "Figure 1.1"
        reported_test:
          test: null
          t: null
          f: null
          chi2: null
          z: null
          df1: null
          df2: null
          p: null
          reported_d: null
          reported_r: null
          notes: "No simple-effect test for LSLP vs HSLP reported; paper reports an overall main effect for stakes across probability conditions."
          provenance:
            page: 14
            quote: "Comparing all the low-stakes cases against the high-stakes cases reveals a statistically significant main effect for stakes F(1,224)  7.639, p  0.01. Cohen’s d  0.38 (moderate effect size)."
            tei_id: null
            table_ref: null
        effect_size:
          metric: SMD
          d: -0.345434178152552
          v: 0.0369408039598129
          computed_from: groups
          needs_review: false
          notes: "Computed from group means/SDs/Ns in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd (method=between_groups)."
        quality_flags: []
        notes: null

      - effect_id: s2_e2
        subgroup: "Airplane — High probability (LSHP vs HSHP)"
        subgroup_desc: "Evidence-seeking: roster checks required for knowledge (high probability)"
        design: "Between-Subjects"
        design_other: null
        moderators:
          scenario: other
          skeptical_pressure: "No"
          awareness: "No"
          evidence: "First Person"
          attribution_person: "Other"
          evidence_reliability: "High"
        moderators_coding:
          scenario:
            provenance:
              page: 13
              quote: "They are about an airline steward, Jessie, who is assigned to find a name on a roster of 200 passengers before a flight."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "The scenario is an airplane/roster vignette (not bank/peanuts/bridge/typos)."
          skeptical_pressure:
            provenance:
              page: 13
              quote: "How many more times do you think Jessie needs to survey the entire roster before he knows the name is not on the list..."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "No explicit alternative/error possibility is raised as a conversational challenge; stakes/probability are manipulated as consequences."
          awareness:
            provenance:
              page: 13
              quote: "Again, Jessie is unaware that the name belongs to a nice guy/hijacker and unaware of the probability..."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "The protagonist is explicitly unaware of the stake-relevant facts and probabilities."
          evidence:
            provenance:
              page: 13
              quote: "How many more times do you think Jessie needs to survey the entire roster..."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "Evidence is generated by the agent’s own repeated surveying of the roster (first-person)."
          attribution_person:
            provenance:
              page: 13
              quote: "before he knows the name is not on the list"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "Participants attribute knowledge to Jessie (third-person attribution)."
          evidence_reliability:
            provenance:
              page: 13
              quote: "a roster of 200 passengers"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "Checking a fixed roster (repeatedly) suggests relatively high reliability of the evidence source/process."
        contrast:
          group_high: HSHP
          group_low: LSHP
          sign_convention: "d = mean(low) - mean(high)"
          other_notes: "Probability held constant at high probability; outcome is number of additional roster surveys required."
        groups:
          - group_id: LSHP
            label: "Low stakes — high probability"
            n: 58
            mean: 1.76
            sd: 0.823
            se: null
            provenance:
              page: 13
              quote: "LSHP (N  58, m  1.76, sd  0.823)"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: "Figure 1.1"
          - group_id: HSHP
            label: "High stakes — high probability"
            n: 61
            mean: 2.15
            sd: 1.152
            se: null
            provenance:
              page: 13
              quote: "HSHP (N  61, m  2.15, sd  1.152)"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: "Figure 1.1"
        reported_test:
          test: null
          t: null
          f: null
          chi2: null
          z: null
          df1: null
          df2: null
          p: null
          reported_d: null
          reported_r: null
          notes: "No simple-effect test for LSHP vs HSHP reported; paper reports an overall main effect for stakes across probability conditions."
          provenance:
            page: 14
            quote: "Comparing all the low-stakes cases against the high-stakes cases reveals a statistically significant main effect for stakes F(1,224)  7.639, p  0.01. Cohen’s d  0.38 (moderate effect size)."
            tei_id: null
            table_ref: null
        effect_size:
          metric: SMD
          d: -0.387959471896737
          v: 0.034278037966776
          computed_from: groups
          needs_review: false
          notes: "Computed from group means/SDs/Ns in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd (method=between_groups)."
        quality_flags: []
        notes: null

  - study_id: 3
    label: "Study 2 (Coin; agreement with knowledge ascription)"
    objective: "Test whether stakes affect agreement with a knowledge ascription in a coin-counting vignette."
    sample:
      n_final: null
      recruitment: "mTurk"
      recruitment_other: null
      compensation: null
      compensation_other: null
      characteristics: "Amazon Turk workers in the United States; coin-counting vignette; Table 1.1 reports group Ns."
      mean_age: null
      mean_age_prov:
        page: null
        quote: null
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
      provenance:
        page: 15
        quote: "The surveys were taken by Amazon Turk workers in the United States."
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    design: "Between-Subjects"
    design_other: "Two independent conditions: Low stakes vs High stakes."
    manipulated_factors: []
    paradigm: "Agreement with knowledge claim"
    paradigm_other: null
    scale:
      label: "Likert 7-point"
      points: 7
      anchors: "0–6; 6 = strongly agree; 3 = neutral"
      direction: "Higher numbers indicate stronger agreement with the knowledge ascription."
      provenance:
        page: 15
        quote: "a 7-point Likert scale (0-6) where 6 is \"strongly agree\" and 3 is \"neutral\""
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    measures:
      knowledge_question_text: "To what extent do you agree with the statement: \"PETER KNOWS THERE ARE 134 COINS IN THE JAR\""
      knowledge_question_first: null
      additional_question_text: null
    scenarios:
      - scenario_code: coin
        scenario_type: "Counting coins in a jar for a contest; stakes manipulation via prize importance and mother’s operation."
        high_stakes_text: "High stakes: Peter actually needs $10,000 to help pay for a life-saving operation for his mother."
        low_stakes_text: "Low stakes: the prize is movie passes Peter wouldn’t want; nothing bad would happen if he doesn’t win."
        provenance:
          page: 15
          quote: "Coin Low Stakes... the prize is just a pair of movie passes... So nothing bad would happen... Coin High Stakes... the prize is $10,000... life-saving operation for his mother... his mother could die."
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
    effects:
      - effect_id: s3_e1
        subgroup: "Coin — knowledge ascription agreement"
        subgroup_desc: "Agreement with knowledge statement (Likert 0–6)"
        design: "Between-Subjects"
        design_other: null
        moderators:
          scenario: other
          skeptical_pressure: "Yes"
          awareness: "No"
          evidence: "First Person"
          attribution_person: "Other"
          evidence_reliability: null
        moderators_coding:
          scenario:
            provenance:
              page: 15
              quote: "Coin... count the coins in a jar. The jar contains 134 coins."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "The vignette concerns coin-counting (not bank/peanuts/bridge/typos)."
          skeptical_pressure:
            provenance:
              page: 15
              quote: "His friend... says to Peter “you only counted once... you don’t know there are 134 coins in the jar... You should count them again.”"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "A friend explicitly denies knowledge and challenges the adequacy of the evidence."
          awareness:
            provenance:
              page: 15
              quote: "the protagonist is ignorant of what is at stake... the protagonist is always mistaken about what is at stake"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "The paper states protagonists are ignorant/mistaken about the stakes in both low/high conditions."
          evidence:
            provenance:
              page: 15
              quote: "After counting the coins just once, Peter concludes there are 134 coins in the jar."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "Evidence is generated by the agent’s own counting (first-person evidence)."
          attribution_person:
            provenance:
              page: 15
              quote: "\"PETER KNOWS THERE ARE 134 COINS IN THE JAR\""
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "Participants judge a third-person knowledge ascription."
          evidence_reliability:
            provenance:
              page: 15
              quote: "After counting the coins just once..."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "Reliability of the evidence source is not explicitly characterized beyond a single count; coded as null."
        contrast:
          group_high: Coin_high
          group_low: Coin_low
          sign_convention: "d = mean(low) - mean(high)"
          other_notes: "Outcome is agreement with the knowledge statement; higher scores indicate more agreement."
        groups:
          - group_id: Coin_low
            label: "Low stakes"
            n: 87
            mean: 3.68
            sd: 1.80
            se: null
            provenance:
              page: 17
              quote: "Coin (Likert: 0–6) N  87, m  3.68, sd  1.80"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: "Table 1.1"
          - group_id: Coin_high
            label: "High stakes"
            n: 78
            mean: 3.06
            sd: 1.76
            se: null
            provenance:
              page: 17
              quote: "Coin (Likert: 0–6) N  78, m  3.06, sd  1.76"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: "Table 1.1"
        reported_test:
          test: t
          t: 2.23
          f: null
          chi2: null
          z: null
          df1: 161.78
          df2: null
          p: 0.023
          reported_d: 0.35
          reported_r: null
          notes: null
          provenance:
            page: 17
            quote: "Coin vignettes t(161.78)  2.23, p  0.023, d  0.35 (small effect size)"
            tei_id: null
            table_ref: null
        effect_size:
          metric: SMD
          d: 0.348076772822079
          v: 0.0246864142823528
          computed_from: groups
          needs_review: false
          notes: "Computed from Table 1.1 group means/SDs/Ns in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd (method=between_groups)."
        quality_flags: []
        notes: null

  - study_id: 4
    label: "Study 2 (Air; agreement with knowledge ascription)"
    objective: "Test whether stakes affect agreement with a knowledge ascription in the Air probe."
    sample:
      n_final: null
      recruitment: "mTurk"
      recruitment_other: null
      compensation: null
      compensation_other: null
      characteristics: "Amazon Turk workers in the United States; Air probe vignette text referenced as Web Appendix; Table 1.1 reports group Ns."
      mean_age: null
      mean_age_prov:
        page: null
        quote: null
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
      provenance:
        page: 15
        quote: "The surveys were taken by Amazon Turk workers in the United States."
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    design: "Between-Subjects"
    design_other: "Two independent conditions: Low stakes vs High stakes."
    manipulated_factors: []
    paradigm: "Agreement with knowledge claim"
    paradigm_other: null
    scale:
      label: "Likert 5-point"
      points: 5
      anchors: "0–4; 4 = strongly agree; 2 = neutral"
      direction: "Higher numbers indicate stronger agreement with the knowledge ascription."
      provenance:
        page: 15
        quote: "Air and Bridge, with 5-point Likert scales (0-4) where 4 is \"strongly agree\" and 2 is \"neutral\" (See Web Appendix)."
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    measures:
      knowledge_question_text: null
      knowledge_question_first: null
      additional_question_text: null
    scenarios:
      - scenario_code: air
        scenario_type: "Air probe (vignette text not included; referenced as Web Appendix)."
        high_stakes_text: null
        low_stakes_text: null
        provenance:
          page: 15
          quote: "We also ran two other probes, Air and Bridge... (See Web Appendix)."
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
    effects:
      - effect_id: s4_e1
        subgroup: "Air — knowledge ascription agreement"
        subgroup_desc: "Agreement with knowledge statement (Likert 0–4)"
        design: "Between-Subjects"
        design_other: null
        moderators:
          scenario: other
          skeptical_pressure: null
          awareness: "No"
          evidence: "First Person"
          attribution_person: "Other"
          evidence_reliability: null
        moderators_coding:
          scenario:
            provenance:
              page: 15
              quote: "We developed three pairs of vignettes (Coin, Air, and Bridge)"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "Probe is labeled 'Air'; the vignette is not bank/peanuts/bridge/typos."
          skeptical_pressure:
            provenance:
              page: 15
              quote: "see the Web appendix for the others"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "Air vignette text is not provided in the PDF (Web appendix referenced), so skeptical-pressure wording cannot be verified."
          awareness:
            provenance:
              page: 15
              quote: "in both the low-stakes and high-stakes conditions, the protagonist is ignorant of what is at stake."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "Paper explicitly states protagonists are ignorant of the stakes in Study 2 vignettes."
          evidence:
            provenance:
              page: 32
              quote: "The normative prompt for AIR was “Do you think Jason should look through the entire roster at least one more time?”"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "The Air probe involves the agent looking through a roster, indicating first-person evidence from the agent’s own checking."
          attribution_person:
            provenance:
              page: 15
              quote: "Subjects are asked about the extent to which they agree or disagree with a statement that says that the protagonist knows P."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "The DV is agreement with a third-person knowledge ascription."
          evidence_reliability:
            provenance:
              page: 15
              quote: "see the Web appendix for the others"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "Air vignette text is not provided in the PDF (Web appendix referenced), so evidence reliability cannot be coded."
        contrast:
          group_high: Air_high
          group_low: Air_low
          sign_convention: "d = mean(low) - mean(high)"
          other_notes: "Outcome is agreement with the knowledge statement; higher scores indicate more agreement."
        groups:
          - group_id: Air_low
            label: "Low stakes"
            n: 25
            mean: 2.16
            sd: 1.03
            se: null
            provenance:
              page: 17
              quote: "Air (Likert 0–4) N  25, m  2.16, sd  1.03"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: "Table 1.1"
          - group_id: Air_high
            label: "High stakes"
            n: 30
            mean: 2.03
            sd: 1.0
            se: null
            provenance:
              page: 17
              quote: "Air (Likert 0–4) N  30, m  2.03, sd  1.0"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: "Table 1.1"
        reported_test:
          test: t
          t: 0.462
          f: null
          chi2: null
          z: null
          df1: 53.0
          df2: null
          p: 0.646
          reported_d: null
          reported_r: null
          notes: null
          provenance:
            page: 32
            quote: "21 Air: t(53)  0.462, p  0.646."
            tei_id: null
            table_ref: null
        effect_size:
          metric: SMD
          d: 0.128243714633482
          v: 0.0734884885252484
          computed_from: groups
          needs_review: true
          notes: "Computed from Table 1.1 group means/SDs/Ns in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd (method=between_groups). Vignette text is in Web Appendix (not included), limiting moderator coding."
        quality_flags: []
        notes: null

  - study_id: 5
    label: "Study 2 (Bridge; agreement with knowledge ascription)"
    objective: "Test whether stakes affect agreement with a knowledge ascription in the Bridge probe."
    sample:
      n_final: null
      recruitment: "mTurk"
      recruitment_other: null
      compensation: null
      compensation_other: null
      characteristics: "Amazon Turk workers in the United States; Bridge vignette text referenced as Web Appendix; Table 1.1 reports group Ns."
      mean_age: null
      mean_age_prov:
        page: null
        quote: null
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
      provenance:
        page: 15
        quote: "The surveys were taken by Amazon Turk workers in the United States."
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    design: "Between-Subjects"
    design_other: "Two independent conditions: Low stakes vs High stakes."
    manipulated_factors: []
    paradigm: "Agreement with knowledge claim"
    paradigm_other: null
    scale:
      label: "Likert 5-point"
      points: 5
      anchors: "0–4; 4 = strongly agree; 2 = neutral"
      direction: "Higher numbers indicate stronger agreement with the knowledge ascription."
      provenance:
        page: 15
        quote: "Air and Bridge, with 5-point Likert scales (0-4) where 4 is \"strongly agree\" and 2 is \"neutral\" (See Web Appendix)."
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    measures:
      knowledge_question_text: null
      knowledge_question_first: null
      additional_question_text: null
    scenarios:
      - scenario_code: bridge
        scenario_type: "Bridge probe (vignette text not included; referenced as Web Appendix)."
        high_stakes_text: null
        low_stakes_text: null
        provenance:
          page: 15
          quote: "We also ran two other probes, Air and Bridge... (See Web Appendix)."
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
    effects:
      - effect_id: s5_e1
        subgroup: "Bridge — knowledge ascription agreement"
        subgroup_desc: "Agreement with knowledge statement (Likert 0–4)"
        design: "Between-Subjects"
        design_other: null
        moderators:
          scenario: bridge
          skeptical_pressure: null
          awareness: "No"
          evidence: null
          attribution_person: "Other"
          evidence_reliability: null
        moderators_coding:
          scenario:
            provenance:
              page: 15
              quote: "We developed three pairs of vignettes (Coin, Air, and Bridge)"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "Probe is explicitly labeled Bridge; coded as the bridge scenario."
          skeptical_pressure:
            provenance:
              page: 15
              quote: "see the Web appendix for the others"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "Bridge vignette text is not provided in the PDF (Web appendix referenced), so skeptical-pressure wording cannot be verified."
          awareness:
            provenance:
              page: 15
              quote: "in both the low-stakes and high-stakes conditions, the protagonist is ignorant of what is at stake."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "Paper explicitly states protagonists are ignorant of the stakes in Study 2 vignettes."
          evidence:
            provenance:
              page: 15
              quote: "see the Web appendix for the others"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "Bridge vignette text is not provided in the PDF (Web appendix referenced), so evidence source cannot be coded."
          attribution_person:
            provenance:
              page: 15
              quote: "Subjects are asked about the extent to which they agree or disagree with a statement that says that the protagonist knows P."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "The DV is agreement with a third-person knowledge ascription."
          evidence_reliability:
            provenance:
              page: 15
              quote: "see the Web appendix for the others"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "Bridge vignette text is not provided in the PDF (Web appendix referenced), so evidence reliability cannot be coded."
        contrast:
          group_high: Bridge_high
          group_low: Bridge_low
          sign_convention: "d = mean(low) - mean(high)"
          other_notes: "Outcome is agreement with the knowledge statement; higher scores indicate more agreement."
        groups:
          - group_id: Bridge_low
            label: "Low stakes"
            n: 28
            mean: 2.32
            sd: 1.16
            se: null
            provenance:
              page: 17
              quote: "Bridge (Likert 0–4) N  28, m  2.32, sd  1.16"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: "Table 1.1"
          - group_id: Bridge_high
            label: "High stakes"
            n: 31
            mean: 1.71
            sd: 1.13
            se: null
            provenance:
              page: 17
              quote: "Bridge (Likert 0–4) N  31, m  1.71, sd  1.13"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: "Table 1.1"
        reported_test:
          test: t
          t: 2.053
          f: null
          chi2: null
          z: null
          df1: 57.0
          df2: null
          p: null
          reported_d: 0.53
          reported_r: null
          notes: "p-value not reported in the extracted text for this t-test."
          provenance:
            page: 17
            quote: "Bridge vignettes t(57)  2.053, d  0.53 (medium effect size)"
            tei_id: null
            table_ref: null
        effect_size:
          metric: SMD
          d: 0.53307299757469
          v: 0.0704650416404434
          computed_from: groups
          needs_review: true
          notes: "Computed from Table 1.1 group means/SDs/Ns in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd (method=between_groups). Vignette text is in Web Appendix (not included), limiting moderator coding."
        quality_flags: []
        notes: null

  - study_id: 6
    label: "Modal-reading test (Typo; evidence-seeking; Knows vs Hopes)"
    objective: "Test whether stakes effects on evidence-seeking prompts can be explained by a ‘modal reading’ by presenting Knows and Hopes prompts side-by-side; includes a stakes contrast for the Knows question."
    sample:
      n_final: null
      recruitment: null
      recruitment_other: null
      compensation: null
      compensation_other: null
      characteristics: "Participant source/compensation not reported in the extracted text; stakes manipulated via low vs high typo vignette; Knows/Hopes prompts asked."
      mean_age: null
      mean_age_prov:
        page: null
        quote: null
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
      provenance:
        page: 26
        quote: "The mean for the Knows low-stakes response was 3.31 (N  39, SD  0.86). The mean for the Knows high-stakes response was 4.42 (N  31, SD  1.36)."
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    design: null
    design_other: "Mixed: stakes manipulated between-subjects (low vs high Typo vignette); Knows vs Hopes prompts asked to the same participants (order manipulated)."
    manipulated_factors:
      - "Question type: Knows vs Hopes (within-subjects)"
      - "Question order (between-subjects)"
    paradigm: "Rating how much evidence is needed for knowledge"
    paradigm_other: null
    scale:
      label: other
      points: null
      anchors: "Numeric free response: number of proofreads required before the agent knows; whole number."
      direction: "Higher numbers indicate more evidence needed for knowledge."
      provenance:
        page: 22
        quote: "“How many times do you think Peter has to proofread his paper before he knows that there are no typos? times.”"
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    measures:
      knowledge_question_text: "How many times do you think Peter has to proofread his paper before he knows that there are no typos?"
      knowledge_question_first: null
      additional_question_text: "How many times do you think Peter has to proofread his paper before he hopes that there are no typos?"
    scenarios:
      - scenario_code: typos
        scenario_type: "Proofreading for typos; stakes vary with consequences of a typo."
        high_stakes_text: "High stakes: the cost of a single typo is high (he could fail the class)."
        low_stakes_text: "Low stakes: the teacher won’t care much."
        provenance:
          page: 22
          quote: "In one condition, the cost of having a single typo is high (he could fail the class) and in another case, the cost is low (the teacher won’t care much)."
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
    effects:
      - effect_id: s6_e1
        subgroup: "Typo — evidence-seeking knowledge (Knows question)"
        subgroup_desc: "Number of proofreads required for knowledge"
        design: "Between-Subjects"
        design_other: null
        moderators:
          scenario: typos
          skeptical_pressure: "No"
          awareness: null
          evidence: "First Person"
          attribution_person: "Other"
          evidence_reliability: null
        moderators_coding:
          scenario:
            provenance:
              page: 22
              quote: "a student Peter... turn in a paper for an English class... proofread his paper... no typos"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "The vignette is explicitly about proofreading for typos."
          skeptical_pressure:
            provenance:
              page: 22
              quote: "How many times do you think Peter has to proofread his paper before he knows that there are no typos?"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "No explicit skeptical challenge/alternative is presented; the manipulation concerns consequences of error."
          awareness:
            provenance:
              page: 22
              quote: "the cost of having a single typo is high... and... low"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "The description does not explicitly state whether Peter is aware of the high-stakes consequences; coded as null."
          evidence:
            provenance:
              page: 22
              quote: "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: 22
              quote: "before he knows that there are no typos"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "Participants attribute knowledge to Peter (third-person attribution)."
          evidence_reliability:
            provenance:
              page: 22
              quote: "proofread his paper"
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "Evidence reliability details (e.g., spelling ability/tools) are not specified in the extracted text; coded as null."
        contrast:
          group_high: Typo_high
          group_low: Typo_low
          sign_convention: "d = mean(low) - mean(high)"
          other_notes: "Outcome is number of proofreads required; higher scores indicate more evidence needed for knowledge."
        groups:
          - group_id: Typo_low
            label: "Low stakes"
            n: 39
            mean: 3.31
            sd: 0.86
            se: null
            provenance:
              page: 26
              quote: "The mean for the Knows low-stakes response was 3.31 (N  39, SD  0.86)."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
          - group_id: Typo_high
            label: "High stakes"
            n: 31
            mean: 4.42
            sd: 1.36
            se: null
            provenance:
              page: 26
              quote: "The mean for the Knows high-stakes response was 4.42 (N  31, SD  1.36)."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
        reported_test:
          test: t
          t: 3.95
          f: null
          chi2: null
          z: null
          df1: 48.35
          df2: null
          p: null
          reported_d: null
          reported_r: null
          notes: "Reported as p < 0.01."
          provenance:
            page: 26
            quote: "The difference was statistically significant: t(48.35)  3.95, p  0.01."
            tei_id: null
            table_ref: null
        effect_size:
          metric: SMD
          d: -1.0011358164739
          v: 0.0652687440029404
          computed_from: groups
          needs_review: true
          notes: "Computed from group means/SDs/Ns in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd (method=between_groups). Participant recruitment/compensation not reported in extracted text."
        quality_flags: []
        notes: null