schema_version: '1.2'
paper:
  paper_id: shurakovndstakeseffectnew
  citation: 'Shurakov, N. (2025). The Stakes Effect: New Evidence from a Retraction-Based Experimental Design. Episteme, 1–22.
    https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2025.10060'
  short_label: Shurakov 2025
  doi: 10.1017/epi.2025.10060
  published: 'Yes'
  year: 2025
  language: English
  language_other: null
  research_objective: 'Test whether stakes affect knowledge attributions using a retraction-based design: (i) replicate Dinges
    & Zakkou’s bank-case findings, (ii) test third-person knowledge ascriptions, and (iii) assess a modified design intended
    to improve ecological validity by adding an initial knowledge-ascription question and excluding scenario sceptics.'
  data_availability:
    data_available_online: 'Yes'
    url: https://osf.io/tys3p
    notes: OSF project includes analyzed response CSVs for Experiments 1–2; downloaded to `papers/shurakovndstakeseffectnew/data/`
      and used to reproduce Table 2 descriptives in `analysis/effect_sizes.qmd`.
  notes: null
studies:
- study_id: 1
  label: Experiment 1 (first-person)
  language: English
  language_other: null
  objective: Directly replicate Dinges & Zakkou’s bank-case retraction-based design using first-person knowledge self-ascriptions
    (Neutral vs Stakes vs Evidence).
  sample:
    n_final: 300
    recruitment: Prolific
    recruitment_other: null
    compensation: money
    compensation_other: £0.25 for ~2 minutes (£7.5/h).
    characteristics: Native speakers of English from the US and UK recruited via Prolific. n_final=300 is derived as 3 story-type
      conditions × 100 first valid responses (first-person only); paper reports N=600 across all six Experiment 1 conditions.
      Demographics reported only for the full Experiment 1 sample  600 people (341 female, 2 preferred not to say, 1 person
      with expired data; mean age 40 years)
    mean_age: 40.0
    mean_age_prov:
      page: 6
      quote: For the final analysis, I used the first 100 valid responses per condition, resulting in a total sample of 600
        people (341 female, 2 preferred not to say, 1 person with expired data; mean age 40 years).
    provenance:
      page: 6
      quote: From the 922 collected responses, 225 failed the attention check and were excluded. The first 100 valid responses
        per condition from the remaining responses were included in the final analysis.
  design: Between-Subjects
  design_other: 3-level story type (NEUTRAL vs STAKES vs EVIDENCE) between-subjects; analysis here is restricted to the first-person
    subset of Experiment 1.
  manipulated_factors: []
  paradigm: Retraction of knowledge attribution
  paradigm_other: null
  scale:
    label: composite-score
    points: null
    anchors: 'Composite score: binary response (''I do''=1, ''I don''t''=-1) multiplied by confidence (1=very unconfident
      to 7=very confident), yielding a range from -7 to 7.'
    direction: Higher = more confident stand-by of the initial knowledge claim; lower/negative = more confident retraction.
    provenance:
      page: 9
      quote: 'Responses to the first question were coded as follows: "I do" as 1 and "I don''t" as -1. Each participant''s
        composite score was calculated by multiplying their response by their confidence level, which ranged from 1 (very
        unconfident) to 7 (very confident), resulting in composite scores ranging from -7 to 7.'
  measures:
    knowledge_question_text: 'As you hang up, [Peter asks/ your partner asks] whether you stand by your previous claim that
      [you know] the bank will be open tomorrow. You respond: (binary: ''I do'' vs ''I don''t'').'
    knowledge_question_first: 'Yes'
    additional_question_text: 'Confidence rating after the binary response (7-point Likert: very unconfident … very confident).'
  scenarios:
  - scenario_code: bank
    scenario_type: DeRose-style bank-hours vignette with a first-person knowledge self-ascription and subsequent retraction/stand-by
      judgment.
    high_stakes_text: "Picture yourself in the following scenario:\r\nYouare driving home from work onaFriday afternoon witha\
      \ colleague, Peter. You\r\nplan to stop at the bank to deposit your paychecks. As you drive past the bank, you\r\nnotice\
      \ that the lines inside are very long, as they often are on Friday. [Peter asks\r\nwhether you know / You ask Peter\
      \ whether he knows] whether the bank will be\r\nopen tomorrow, on Saturday. If it is open tomorrow, you can come back\
      \ tomorrow,\r\nwhen the lines are shorter. [You remember/ Peter says that he remembers] having\r\nbeen at the bank three\
      \ weeks before on a Saturday. Based on this, you\r\n[respond/say]:\r\n“[I know/ Oh, so you know] the bank will be open\
      \ tomorrow”. At this point STAKES\r\n::: you receive a phone call from your partner. [S/he/ You mention that you are\r\
      \ncurrently with Peter and tell your partner that Peter knows that the bank will be\r\nopen tomorrow. S/he] tells you\
      \ that it is extremely important that your paycheck is\r\ndeposited by Saturday at the latest. A very important bill\
      \ is coming due, and there is\r\ntoo little in the account. You realize that it would be a disaster if you drove home\r\
      \ntoday and found the bank closed tomorrow. As you hang up, [Peter asks/ your\r\npartner asks] whether you stand by\
      \ your previous claim that [you know/ Peter\r\nknows] the bank will be open tomorrow. You respond:"
    low_stakes_text: "Picture yourself in the following scenario:\r\nYouare driving home from work onaFriday afternoon witha\
      \ colleague, Peter. You\r\nplan to stop at the bank to deposit your paychecks. As you drive past the bank, you\r\nnotice\
      \ that the lines inside are very long, as they often are on Friday. [Peter asks\r\nwhether you know/ You ask Peter whether\
      \ he knows] whether the bank will be\r\nopen tomorrow, on Saturday. If it is open tomorrow, you can come back tomorrow,\r\
      \nwhen the lines are shorter. [You remember/ Peter says that he remembers] having\r\nbeen at the bank three weeks before\
      \ on a Saturday. Based on this, you\r\n[respond/say]:\r\n“[I know/ Oh, so you know] the bank will be open tomorrow”.\r\
      \nAt this point, :::\r\nNEUTRAL\r\n:::you receive a phone call from your partner. [S/he/ You mention that you are\r\n\
      currently with Peter and tell your partner that Peter knows that the bank will be\r\nopen tomorrow. S/he] tells you\
      \ that one of your children has gotten sick and that\r\nthey are still waiting at the doctor’s office to get an appointment.\
      \ S/he asks\r\nwhether you can water the plants if you come home and prepare dinner. There’s\r\nenough food at home\
      \ so you don’t have to buy anything extra. You agree. As you\r\nhang up, [Peter asks/ your partner asks] whether you\
      \ stand by your previous\r\nclaim that [you know/Peter knows] the bank will be open tomorrow. You\r\nrespond:"
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: 'STAKES: "it is extremely important that your paycheck is deposited by Saturday at the latest... A very important
        bill is coming due..." NEUTRAL: "one of your children has gotten sick... asks whether you can water the plants..."'
  effects:
  - effect_id: s1_e1
    subgroup: 'Bank (retraction-based): Stakes vs Neutral — First person'
    subgroup_desc: Composite retraction score (stand by vs retract × confidence) in high-stakes vs neutral condition (Experiment
      1, first-person)
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    moderators:
      scenario: bank
      skeptical_pressure: 'No'
      awareness: 'Yes'
      evidence: First Person
      attribution_person: First Person
      evidence_reliability: Medium
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: 'Picture yourself... You plan to stop at the bank... you [respond]: "I know... the bank will be open tomorrow".'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The vignette is explicitly the bank-hours case.
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: 'STAKES: "it is extremely important that your paycheck is deposited... You realize that it would be a disaster
            if... the bank closed tomorrow."'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: No explicit doubt/counterconsideration is raised (no salient alternative like 'banks change hours'); stakes
          are manipulated via consequences of being wrong.
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: 'STAKES: "it is extremely important that your paycheck is deposited by Saturday... A very important bill
            is coming due..."'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: High-stakes consequences are described in the scenario at the time of the stand-by/retraction judgment, so
          the agent is aware of what is at stake.
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: '"You remember... having been at the bank three weeks before on a Saturday."'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Evidence is the agent’s own first-person memory/experience of visiting the bank.
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: '"I know the bank will be open tomorrow".'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The knowledge attribution is a first-person self-ascription.
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: '"You remember... having been at the bank three weeks before on a Saturday."'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: 'medium: memory'
    contrast:
      group_high: Stakes
      group_low: Neutral
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: Effect uses STAKES vs NEUTRAL; EVIDENCE is an additional condition not extracted as a stakes effect.
    groups:
    - group_id: Neutral
      label: null
      n: 100
      mean: 5.32
      sd: 2.93
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: null
        quote: 'First person STAKES vs. NEUTRAL: "STAKES: 0.28 (5.32), NEUTRAL: 5.32 (2.93) ... Cohen’s d 1.06"; final analysis
          uses first 100 valid responses per condition.'
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: tabula_stream_p12_t2.csv
    - group_id: Stakes
      label: null
      n: 100
      mean: 0.28
      sd: 5.32
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: null
        quote: 'First person STAKES vs. NEUTRAL: "STAKES: 0.28 (5.32), NEUTRAL: 5.32 (2.93) ... Cohen’s d 1.06"; final analysis
          uses first 100 valid responses per condition.'
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: tabula_stream_p12_t2.csv
    reported_test:
      test: Tukey HSD
      reported_d: 1.06
      notes: Table 2 reports p < .001 and Cohen’s d = 1.06 for Stakes vs Neutral (first-person). OSF data check reproduces
        the means/SDs but yields d≈1.17 when computed as mean difference divided by pooled SD of the two groups.
      provenance:
        page: 12
        quote: 'First person STAKES vs. NEUTRAL: STAKES: 0.28 (5.32), NEUTRAL: 5.32 (2.93), p < .001, Cohen’s d 1.06.'
        table_ref: tabula_stream_p12_t2.csv
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: 1.172910271877351
      v: 0.0234740366309985
      computed_from: reported_d
      needs_review: true
      notes: "MG: computed from OSF data\r\nOLD: d from Table 2; v computed from reported d + n_low/n_high=100 in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd\
        \ (method=between_reported_d_n). Data check suggests reported d may not match pooled-SD Cohen’s d for this comparison."
    quality_flags: []
    notes: false effect size reported in Table 2
    paradigm: Retraction of knowledge attribution
  notes: mean age for all 6 groups
- study_id: 2
  label: Experiment 1 (third-person)
  language: English
  language_other: null
  objective: Test whether the stakes effect extends to third-person knowledge ascriptions using a third-person version of
    the bank-case retraction-based design (Neutral vs Stakes vs Evidence).
  sample:
    n_final: 300
    recruitment: Prolific
    recruitment_other: null
    compensation: money
    compensation_other: £0.25 for ~2 minutes (£7.5/h).
    characteristics: 'Native speakers of English from the US and UK recruited via Prolific. n_final=300 is derived as 3 story-type
      conditions × 100 valid responses (third-person only); paper reports N=600 across all six Experiment 1 conditions. Demographics
      reported only for the full Experiment 1 sample (N=600): 341 female; mean age 40.'
    mean_age: 40.0
    mean_age_prov:
      page: 6
      quote: For the final analysis, I used the first 100 valid responses per condition, resulting in a total sample of 600
        people (341 female, 2 preferred not to say, 1 person with expired data; mean age 40 years).
    provenance:
      page: 6
      quote: From the 922 collected responses, 225 failed the attention check and were excluded. The first 100 valid responses
        per condition from the remaining responses were included in the final analysis.
  design: Between-Subjects
  design_other: 3-level story type (NEUTRAL vs STAKES vs EVIDENCE) between-subjects; analysis here is restricted to the third-person
    subset of Experiment 1.
  manipulated_factors: []
  paradigm: Retraction of knowledge attribution
  paradigm_other: null
  scale:
    label: composite-score
    points: null
    anchors: 'Composite score: binary response (''I do''=1, ''I don''t''=-1) multiplied by confidence (1=very unconfident
      to 7=very confident), yielding a range from -7 to 7.'
    direction: Higher = more confident stand-by of the initial knowledge claim; lower/negative = more confident retraction.
    provenance:
      page: 9
      quote: 'Responses to the first question were coded as follows: "I do" as 1 and "I don''t" as -1. Each participant''s
        composite score was calculated by multiplying their response by their confidence level, which ranged from 1 (very
        unconfident) to 7 (very confident), resulting in composite scores ranging from -7 to 7.'
  measures:
    knowledge_question_text: 'As you hang up, [Peter asks/ your partner asks] whether you stand by your previous claim that
      [Peter knows] the bank will be open tomorrow. You respond: (binary: ''I do'' vs ''I don''t'').'
    knowledge_question_first: 'Yes'
    additional_question_text: 'Confidence rating after the binary response (7-point Likert: very unconfident … very confident).'
  scenarios:
  - scenario_code: bank
    scenario_type: Bank-hours vignette with a third-person knowledge attribution (Peter knows p) and subsequent retraction/stand-by
      judgment.
    high_stakes_text: "Picture yourself in the following scenario:\r\nYouare driving home from work onaFriday afternoon witha\
      \ colleague, Peter. You\r\nplan to stop at the bank to deposit your paychecks. As you drive past the bank, you\r\nnotice\
      \ that the lines inside are very long, as they often are on Friday. [Peter asks\r\nwhether you know / You ask Peter\
      \ whether he knows] whether the bank will be\r\nopen tomorrow, on Saturday. If it is open tomorrow, you can come back\
      \ tomorrow,\r\nwhen the lines are shorter. [You remember/ Peter says that he remembers] having\r\nbeen at the bank three\
      \ weeks before on a Saturday. Based on this, you\r\n[respond/say]:\r\n“[I know/ Oh, so you know] the bank will be open\
      \ tomorrow”. At this point STAKES\r\n::: you receive a phone call from your partner. [S/he/ You mention that you are\r\
      \ncurrently with Peter and tell your partner that Peter knows that the bank will be\r\nopen tomorrow. S/he] tells you\
      \ that it is extremely important that your paycheck is\r\ndeposited by Saturday at the latest. A very important bill\
      \ is coming due, and there is\r\ntoo little in the account. You realize that it would be a disaster if you drove home\r\
      \ntoday and found the bank closed tomorrow. As you hang up, [Peter asks/ your\r\npartner asks] whether you stand by\
      \ your previous claim that [you know/ Peter\r\nknows] the bank will be open tomorrow. You respond:"
    low_stakes_text: "Picture yourself in the following scenario:\r\nYouare driving home from work onaFriday afternoon witha\
      \ colleague, Peter. You\r\nplan to stop at the bank to deposit your paychecks. As you drive past the bank, you\r\nnotice\
      \ that the lines inside are very long, as they often are on Friday. [Peter asks\r\nwhether you know/ You ask Peter whether\
      \ he knows] whether the bank will be\r\nopen tomorrow, on Saturday. If it is open tomorrow, you can come back tomorrow,\r\
      \nwhen the lines are shorter. [You remember/ Peter says that he remembers] having\r\nbeen at the bank three weeks before\
      \ on a Saturday. Based on this, you\r\n[respond/say]:\r\n“[I know/ Oh, so you know] the bank will be open tomorrow”.\r\
      \nAt this point, :::\r\nNEUTRAL\r\n:::you receive a phone call from your partner. [S/he/ You mention that you are\r\n\
      currently with Peter and tell your partner that Peter knows that the bank will be\r\nopen tomorrow. S/he] tells you\
      \ that one of your children has gotten sick and that\r\nthey are still waiting at the doctor’s office to get an appointment.\
      \ S/he asks\r\nwhether you can water the plants if you come home and prepare dinner. There’s\r\nenough food at home\
      \ so you don’t have to buy anything extra. You agree. As you\r\nhang up, [Peter asks/ your partner asks] whether you\
      \ stand by your previous\r\nclaim that [you know/Peter knows] the bank will be open tomorrow. You\r\nrespond:"
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: '[Third-person] "Peter says that he remembers having been at the bank three weeks before..."; STAKES: "it is
        extremely important that your paycheck is deposited..."'
  effects:
  - effect_id: s2_e1
    subgroup: 'Bank (retraction-based): Stakes vs Neutral — Third person'
    subgroup_desc: Composite retraction score (stand by vs retract × confidence) in high-stakes vs neutral condition (Experiment
      1, third-person)
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    moderators:
      scenario: bank
      skeptical_pressure: 'No'
      awareness: 'No'
      evidence: First Person
      attribution_person: Other
      evidence_reliability: Medium
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: 'Third-person version: "Peter says that he remembers having been at the bank three weeks before on a Saturday..."'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The vignette is the bank-hours case, adapted to a third-person knowledge attribution.
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: 'STAKES: "it is extremely important that your paycheck is deposited..."'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: No explicit doubt/counterconsideration is raised (no salient alternative); stakes are manipulated via consequences
          of being wrong.
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: 'Third-person condition: "Peter says that he remembers having been at the bank three weeks before on a Saturday."
            STAKES follow-up: "you receive a phone call from your partner... S/he tells you that it is extremely important
            that your paycheck is deposited by Saturday..."'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The target knowledge subject is Peter. The high-stakes information is given to the participant-attributor
          by the partner after Peter's memory-based claim; the vignette does not state that Peter is aware of those stakes.
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: '"Peter says that he remembers having been at the bank three weeks before on a Saturday."'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The knowledge attribution is supported by the knower’s memory of a prior Saturday bank visit.
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: '"Oh, so you know the bank will be open tomorrow".'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The knowledge attribution concerns another person (Peter), not a self-ascription.
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: '"Peter says that he remembers having been at the bank three weeks before on a Saturday."'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: one memory
    contrast:
      group_high: Stakes
      group_low: Neutral
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: Effect uses STAKES vs NEUTRAL; EVIDENCE is an additional condition not extracted as a stakes effect.
    groups:
    - group_id: Neutral
      label: null
      n: 100
      mean: 4.64
      sd: 3.53
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: null
        quote: 'Third-person STAKES vs. NEUTRAL: "STAKES: –0.94 (5.04), NEUTRAL: 4.64 (3.53) ... Cohen’s d 1.28"; final analysis
          uses first 100 valid responses per condition.'
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: tabula_stream_p12_t2.csv
    - group_id: Stakes
      label: null
      n: 100
      mean: -0.94
      sd: 5.04
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: null
        quote: 'Third-person STAKES vs. NEUTRAL: "STAKES: –0.94 (5.04), NEUTRAL: 4.64 (3.53) ... Cohen’s d 1.28"; final analysis
          uses first 100 valid responses per condition.'
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: tabula_stream_p12_t2.csv
    reported_test:
      test: Tukey HSD
      reported_d: 1.28
      notes: Table 2 reports p < .001 and Cohen’s d = 1.28 for Stakes vs Neutral (third-person).
      provenance:
        page: 12
        quote: 'Third-person STAKES vs. NEUTRAL: STAKES: –0.94 (5.04), NEUTRAL: 4.64 (3.53), p < .001, Cohen’s d 1.28.'
        table_ref: tabula_stream_p12_t2.csv
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: 1.28
      v: 0.024137373737
      computed_from: reported_d
      needs_review: false
      notes: d from Table 2; v computed from reported d + n_low/n_high=100 in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd (method=between_reported_d_n).
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
    paradigm: Retraction of knowledge attribution
  notes: mean age from all conditions
- study_id: 3
  label: Experiment 2 (modified design; first-person)
  language: English
  language_other: null
  objective: Assess whether the stakes effect persists under a modified retraction-based design that adds an initial knowledge-ascription
    question (to ensure endorsement) and excludes scenario sceptics from analysis (Neutral vs Stakes vs Evidence).
  sample:
    n_final: 300
    recruitment: Prolific
    recruitment_other: null
    compensation: money
    compensation_other: £0.25 for ~2 minutes (£7.50/h).
    characteristics: 'Native speakers of English recruited via Prolific. Exclusions: scenario sceptics (disagreed with the
      initial knowledge ascription) and failed attention checks; analysis used the first 100 valid responses per condition.
      Gender: 174 female, 2 preferred not to say.'
    mean_age: 38.0
    mean_age_prov:
      page: 14
      quote: For the final analysis, I used the first 100 valid responses per condition, resulting in a total sample of 300
        participants (174 female, 2 preferred not to say; mean age 38 years).
    provenance:
      page: 15
      quote: Of 450 participants, 53 (11.8%) were scenario sceptics and 38 failed the attention check. From the remaining
        359 valid responses, only the first 100 per condition were included in the final analysis.
  design: Between-Subjects
  design_other: 3-level story type (NEUTRAL vs STAKES vs EVIDENCE) between-subjects; modified design adds an initial knowledge-ascription
    question and excludes scenario sceptics.
  manipulated_factors: []
  paradigm: Retraction of knowledge attribution
  paradigm_other: null
  scale:
    label: composite-score
    points: null
    anchors: 'Composite score: binary response (''I do''=1, ''I don''t''=-1) multiplied by confidence (1=very unconfident
      to 7=very confident), yielding a range from -7 to 7.'
    direction: Higher = more confident stand-by of the knowledge claim; lower/negative = more confident retraction.
    provenance:
      page: 15
      quote: 'Responses to the first question were coded as follows: "I do" as 1 and "I don''t" as -1. Each participant''s
        composite score was calculated by multiplying their response by their confidence level... resulting in composite scores
        ranging from -7 to 7.'
  measures:
    knowledge_question_text: 'First: initial knowledge-ascription question (participants who did not ascribe knowledge ended
      the experiment). Then: binary retraction question (''I do'' vs ''I don''t''), confidence (7-point), and attention check.'
    knowledge_question_first: 'Yes'
    additional_question_text: 'Confidence rating after the binary response (7-point Likert: very unconfident … very confident).'
  scenarios:
  - scenario_code: bank
    scenario_type: Bank-hours vignette with an initial knowledge-ascription question followed by stand-by/retraction judgment
      (modified retraction-based design).
    high_stakes_text: "Picture yourself in the following scenario:\r\nYouare driving home from work onaFriday afternoon witha\
      \ colleague, Peter. You\r\nplan to stop at the bank to deposit your paychecks. As you drive past the bank, you\r\nnotice\
      \ that the lines inside are very long, as they often are on Friday. [Peter asks\r\nwhether you know / You ask Peter\
      \ whether he knows] whether the bank will be\r\nopen tomorrow, on Saturday. If it is open tomorrow, you can come back\
      \ tomorrow,\r\nwhen the lines are shorter. [You remember/ Peter says that he remembers] having\r\nbeen at the bank three\
      \ weeks before on a Saturday. Based on this, you\r\n[respond/say]:\r\n“[I know/ Oh, so you know] the bank will be open\
      \ tomorrow”. At this point STAKES\r\n::: you receive a phone call from your partner. [S/he/ You mention that you are\r\
      \ncurrently with Peter and tell your partner that Peter knows that the bank will be\r\nopen tomorrow. S/he] tells you\
      \ that it is extremely important that your paycheck is\r\ndeposited by Saturday at the latest. A very important bill\
      \ is coming due, and there is\r\ntoo little in the account. You realize that it would be a disaster if you drove home\r\
      \ntoday and found the bank closed tomorrow. As you hang up, [Peter asks/ your\r\npartner asks] whether you stand by\
      \ your previous claim that [you know/ Peter\r\nknows] the bank will be open tomorrow. You respond:"
    low_stakes_text: "Picture yourself in the following scenario:\r\nYouare driving home from work onaFriday afternoon witha\
      \ colleague, Peter. You\r\nplan to stop at the bank to deposit your paychecks. As you drive past the bank, you\r\nnotice\
      \ that the lines inside are very long, as they often are on Friday. [Peter asks\r\nwhether you know/ You ask Peter whether\
      \ he knows] whether the bank will be\r\nopen tomorrow, on Saturday. If it is open tomorrow, you can come back tomorrow,\r\
      \nwhen the lines are shorter. [You remember/ Peter says that he remembers] having\r\nbeen at the bank three weeks before\
      \ on a Saturday. Based on this, you\r\n[respond/say]:\r\n“[I know/ Oh, so you know] the bank will be open tomorrow”.\r\
      \nAt this point, :::\r\nNEUTRAL\r\n:::you receive a phone call from your partner. [S/he/ You mention that you are\r\n\
      currently with Peter and tell your partner that Peter knows that the bank will be\r\nopen tomorrow. S/he] tells you\
      \ that one of your children has gotten sick and that\r\nthey are still waiting at the doctor’s office to get an appointment.\
      \ S/he asks\r\nwhether you can water the plants if you come home and prepare dinner. There’s\r\nenough food at home\
      \ so you don’t have to buy anything extra. You agree. As you\r\nhang up, [Peter asks/ your partner asks] whether you\
      \ stand by your previous\r\nclaim that [you know/Peter knows] the bank will be open tomorrow. You\r\nrespond:"
    provenance:
      page: 15
      quote: Participants who did not ascribe knowledge concluded the experiment after this question... Those who ascribed
        knowledge were randomly assigned to one of the three follow-up conditions (NEUTRAL, STAKES, or EVIDENCE).
  effects:
  - effect_id: s3_e1
    subgroup: 'Bank (retraction-based): Stakes vs Neutral — Modified design'
    subgroup_desc: Composite retraction score (stand by vs retract × confidence) in high-stakes vs neutral condition (Experiment
      2, modified design)
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    moderators:
      scenario: bank
      skeptical_pressure: 'No'
      awareness: 'Yes'
      evidence: First Person
      attribution_person: First Person
      evidence_reliability: Medium
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: 15
          quote: 'Based on this, you respond: o “I know the bank will be open tomorrow”.'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The vignette is the bank-hours case.
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: 'STAKES: "it is extremely important that your paycheck is deposited by Saturday..."'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: No explicit doubt/counterconsideration is raised (no salient alternative); stakes are manipulated via consequences
          of being wrong.
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: 'STAKES: "it is extremely important that your paycheck is deposited by Saturday..."'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: High-stakes consequences are described in the scenario at the time of the stand-by/retraction judgment.
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: '"You remember having been at the bank three weeks before on a Saturday."'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Evidence is the agent’s own first-person memory/experience of visiting the bank.
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: 15
          quote: “I know the bank will be open tomorrow”.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The knowledge attribution is a first-person self-ascription.
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: '"You remember having been at the bank three weeks before on a Saturday."'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: memory
    contrast:
      group_high: Stakes
      group_low: Neutral
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: Effect uses STAKES vs NEUTRAL; EVIDENCE is an additional condition not extracted as a stakes effect.
    groups:
    - group_id: Neutral
      label: null
      n: 100
      mean: 5.36
      sd: 2.63
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: null
        quote: 'First person: Modified design STAKES vs. NEUTRAL: "STAKES: 1.59 (5.06), NEUTRAL: 5.36 (2.63) ... Cohen’s d
          0.94"; final analysis uses first 100 valid responses per condition.'
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: tabula_stream_p12_t2.csv
    - group_id: Stakes
      label: null
      n: 100
      mean: 1.59
      sd: 5.06
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: null
        quote: 'First person: Modified design STAKES vs. NEUTRAL: "STAKES: 1.59 (5.06), NEUTRAL: 5.36 (2.63) ... Cohen’s d
          0.94"; final analysis uses first 100 valid responses per condition.'
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: tabula_stream_p12_t2.csv
    reported_test:
      test: Tukey HSD
      reported_d: 0.94
      notes: Table 2 reports p < .001 and Cohen’s d = 0.94 for Stakes vs Neutral (modified design).
      provenance:
        page: 12
        quote: 'First person: Modified design STAKES vs. NEUTRAL: STAKES: 1.59 (5.06), NEUTRAL: 5.36 (2.63), p < .001, Cohen’s
          d 0.94.'
        table_ref: tabula_stream_p12_t2.csv
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: 0.94
      v: 0.022231313131
      computed_from: reported_d
      needs_review: false
      notes: d from Table 2; v computed from reported d + n_low/n_high=100 in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd (method=between_reported_d_n).
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
    paradigm: Retraction of knowledge attribution
  notes: mean age for all groups
- study_id: 4
  label: Experiment 1 (first-person, full valid sample)
  language: English
  language_other: null
  objective: Directly replicate Dinges & Zakkou’s bank-case retraction-based design using first-person knowledge self-ascriptions
    (Neutral vs Stakes vs Evidence).
  sample:
    n_final: 372
    recruitment: Prolific
    recruitment_other: null
    compensation: money
    compensation_other: £0.25 for ~2 minutes (£7.5/h).
    characteristics: 'Native speakers of English from the US and UK recruited via Prolific. Sensitivity analysis uses all
      valid responses in the OSF analyzed dataset for the first-person conditions after the paper''s attention-check exclusion,
      rather than only the first 100 valid responses per condition. Group counts: Neutral=137, Stakes=125, Evidence=110. Demographics
      reported only for the full Experiment 1 sample (N=600): 341 female; mean age 40.'
    mean_age: 40.0
    mean_age_prov:
      page: 6
      quote: For the final analysis, I used the first 100 valid responses per condition, resulting in a total sample of 600
        people (341 female, 2 preferred not to say, 1 person with expired data; mean age 40 years).
    provenance:
      page: 6
      quote: From the 922 collected responses, 225 failed the attention check and were excluded. The first 100 valid responses
        per condition from the remaining responses were included in the final analysis.
  design: Between-Subjects
  design_other: 3-level story type (NEUTRAL vs STAKES vs EVIDENCE) between-subjects; sensitivity reanalysis uses the full
    valid first-person subset available in the OSF analyzed-response file rather than only the first 100 valid responses per
    condition.
  manipulated_factors: []
  paradigm: Retraction of knowledge attribution
  paradigm_other: null
  scale:
    label: composite-score
    points: null
    anchors: 'Composite score: binary response (''I do''=1, ''I don''t''=-1) multiplied by confidence (1=very unconfident
      to 7=very confident), yielding a range from -7 to 7.'
    direction: Higher = more confident stand-by of the initial knowledge claim; lower/negative = more confident retraction.
    provenance:
      page: 9
      quote: 'Responses to the first question were coded as follows: "I do" as 1 and "I don''t" as -1. Each participant''s
        composite score was calculated by multiplying their response by their confidence level, which ranged from 1 (very
        unconfident) to 7 (very confident), resulting in composite scores ranging from -7 to 7.'
  measures:
    knowledge_question_text: 'As you hang up, [Peter asks/ your partner asks] whether you stand by your previous claim that
      [you know] the bank will be open tomorrow. You respond: (binary: ''I do'' vs ''I don''t'').'
    knowledge_question_first: 'Yes'
    additional_question_text: 'Confidence rating after the binary response (7-point Likert: very unconfident … very confident).'
  scenarios:
  - scenario_code: bank
    scenario_type: DeRose-style bank-hours vignette with a first-person knowledge self-ascription and subsequent retraction/stand-by
      judgment.
    high_stakes_text: "Picture yourself in the following scenario:\r\nYouare driving home from work onaFriday afternoon witha\
      \ colleague, Peter. You\r\nplan to stop at the bank to deposit your paychecks. As you drive past the bank, you\r\nnotice\
      \ that the lines inside are very long, as they often are on Friday. [Peter asks\r\nwhether you know / You ask Peter\
      \ whether he knows] whether the bank will be\r\nopen tomorrow, on Saturday. If it is open tomorrow, you can come back\
      \ tomorrow,\r\nwhen the lines are shorter. [You remember/ Peter says that he remembers] having\r\nbeen at the bank three\
      \ weeks before on a Saturday. Based on this, you\r\n[respond/say]:\r\n“[I know/ Oh, so you know] the bank will be open\
      \ tomorrow”. At this point STAKES\r\n::: you receive a phone call from your partner. [S/he/ You mention that you are\r\
      \ncurrently with Peter and tell your partner that Peter knows that the bank will be\r\nopen tomorrow. S/he] tells you\
      \ that it is extremely important that your paycheck is\r\ndeposited by Saturday at the latest. A very important bill\
      \ is coming due, and there is\r\ntoo little in the account. You realize that it would be a disaster if you drove home\r\
      \ntoday and found the bank closed tomorrow. As you hang up, [Peter asks/ your\r\npartner asks] whether you stand by\
      \ your previous claim that [you know/ Peter\r\nknows] the bank will be open tomorrow. You respond:"
    low_stakes_text: "Picture yourself in the following scenario:\r\nYouare driving home from work onaFriday afternoon witha\
      \ colleague, Peter. You\r\nplan to stop at the bank to deposit your paychecks. As you drive past the bank, you\r\nnotice\
      \ that the lines inside are very long, as they often are on Friday. [Peter asks\r\nwhether you know/ You ask Peter whether\
      \ he knows] whether the bank will be\r\nopen tomorrow, on Saturday. If it is open tomorrow, you can come back tomorrow,\r\
      \nwhen the lines are shorter. [You remember/ Peter says that he remembers] having\r\nbeen at the bank three weeks before\
      \ on a Saturday. Based on this, you\r\n[respond/say]:\r\n“[I know/ Oh, so you know] the bank will be open tomorrow”.\r\
      \nAt this point, :::\r\nNEUTRAL\r\n:::you receive a phone call from your partner. [S/he/ You mention that you are\r\n\
      currently with Peter and tell your partner that Peter knows that the bank will be\r\nopen tomorrow. S/he] tells you\
      \ that one of your children has gotten sick and that\r\nthey are still waiting at the doctor’s office to get an appointment.\
      \ S/he asks\r\nwhether you can water the plants if you come home and prepare dinner. There’s\r\nenough food at home\
      \ so you don’t have to buy anything extra. You agree. As you\r\nhang up, [Peter asks/ your partner asks] whether you\
      \ stand by your previous\r\nclaim that [you know/Peter knows] the bank will be open tomorrow. You\r\nrespond:"
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: 'STAKES: "it is extremely important that your paycheck is deposited by Saturday at the latest... A very important
        bill is coming due..." NEUTRAL: "one of your children has gotten sick... asks whether you can water the plants..."'
  effects:
  - effect_id: s4_e1
    subgroup: 'Bank (retraction-based): Stakes vs Neutral — First person'
    subgroup_desc: Composite retraction score (stand by vs retract × confidence) in high-stakes vs neutral condition (Experiment
      1, first-person), recomputed using all valid OSF responses rather than only the first 100 valid responses per condition.
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    moderators:
      scenario: bank
      skeptical_pressure: 'No'
      awareness: 'Yes'
      evidence: First Person
      attribution_person: First Person
      evidence_reliability: Medium
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: 'Picture yourself... You plan to stop at the bank... you [respond]: "I know... the bank will be open tomorrow".'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The vignette is explicitly the bank-hours case.
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: 'STAKES: "it is extremely important that your paycheck is deposited... You realize that it would be a disaster
            if... the bank closed tomorrow."'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: No explicit doubt/counterconsideration is raised (no salient alternative like 'banks change hours'); stakes
          are manipulated via consequences of being wrong.
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: 'STAKES: "it is extremely important that your paycheck is deposited by Saturday... A very important bill
            is coming due..."'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: High-stakes consequences are described in the scenario at the time of the stand-by/retraction judgment, so
          the agent is aware of what is at stake.
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: '"You remember... having been at the bank three weeks before on a Saturday."'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Evidence is the agent’s own first-person memory/experience of visiting the bank.
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: '"I know the bank will be open tomorrow".'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The knowledge attribution is a first-person self-ascription.
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: '"You remember... having been at the bank three weeks before on a Saturday."'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: 'medium: memory'
    contrast:
      group_high: Stakes
      group_low: Neutral
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: Effect uses STAKES vs NEUTRAL; EVIDENCE is an additional condition not extracted as a stakes effect.
    groups:
    - group_id: Neutral
      label: null
      n: 137
      mean: 5.321167883211679
      sd: 2.8463968621061935
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: null
        quote: Sensitivity analysis not reported in Table 2. Effect recomputed from the full valid OSF analyzed-response sample
          for Experiment 1 first-person (all valid cases after attention-check exclusion).
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    - group_id: Stakes
      label: null
      n: 125
      mean: 0.248
      sd: 5.3500919497675685
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: null
        quote: Sensitivity analysis not reported in Table 2. Effect recomputed from the full valid OSF analyzed-response sample
          for Experiment 1 first-person (all valid cases after attention-check exclusion).
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    reported_test:
      test: OSF full valid sensitivity analysis
      notes: Sensitivity analysis not reported in Table 2. Effect recomputed from the full valid OSF analyzed-response sample
        for Experiment 1 first-person (all valid cases after attention-check exclusion).
      provenance:
        page: null
        quote: Sensitivity analysis not reported in Table 2. Effect recomputed from the full valid OSF analyzed-response sample
          for Experiment 1 first-person (all valid cases after attention-check exclusion).
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: 1.199455958644
      v: 0.018065990451
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: Computed from full valid OSF group descriptives in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd; sign follows project convention
        d = mean(low) - mean(high).
    quality_flags: []
    notes: Sensitivity analysis using the full valid sample; original first-100 extraction retained separately.
    paradigm: Retraction of knowledge attribution
  notes: 'Sensitivity analysis: full valid first-person sample from OSF analyzed responses.'
- study_id: 5
  label: Experiment 1 (third-person, full valid sample)
  language: English
  language_other: null
  objective: Test whether the stakes effect extends to third-person knowledge ascriptions using a third-person version of
    the bank-case retraction-based design (Neutral vs Stakes vs Evidence).
  sample:
    n_final: 325
    recruitment: Prolific
    recruitment_other: null
    compensation: money
    compensation_other: £0.25 for ~2 minutes (£7.5/h).
    characteristics: 'Native speakers of English from the US and UK recruited via Prolific. Sensitivity analysis uses all
      valid responses in the OSF analyzed dataset for the third-person conditions after the paper''s attention-check exclusion,
      rather than only the first 100 valid responses per condition. Group counts: Neutral=113, Stakes=112, Evidence=100. Demographics
      reported only for the full Experiment 1 sample (N=600): 341 female; mean age 40.'
    mean_age: 40.0
    mean_age_prov:
      page: 6
      quote: For the final analysis, I used the first 100 valid responses per condition, resulting in a total sample of 600
        people (341 female, 2 preferred not to say, 1 person with expired data; mean age 40 years).
    provenance:
      page: 6
      quote: From the 922 collected responses, 225 failed the attention check and were excluded. The first 100 valid responses
        per condition from the remaining responses were included in the final analysis.
  design: Between-Subjects
  design_other: 3-level story type (NEUTRAL vs STAKES vs EVIDENCE) between-subjects; sensitivity reanalysis uses the full
    valid third-person subset available in the OSF analyzed-response file rather than only the first 100 valid responses per
    condition.
  manipulated_factors: []
  paradigm: Retraction of knowledge attribution
  paradigm_other: null
  scale:
    label: composite-score
    points: null
    anchors: 'Composite score: binary response (''I do''=1, ''I don''t''=-1) multiplied by confidence (1=very unconfident
      to 7=very confident), yielding a range from -7 to 7.'
    direction: Higher = more confident stand-by of the initial knowledge claim; lower/negative = more confident retraction.
    provenance:
      page: 9
      quote: 'Responses to the first question were coded as follows: "I do" as 1 and "I don''t" as -1. Each participant''s
        composite score was calculated by multiplying their response by their confidence level, which ranged from 1 (very
        unconfident) to 7 (very confident), resulting in composite scores ranging from -7 to 7.'
  measures:
    knowledge_question_text: 'As you hang up, [Peter asks/ your partner asks] whether you stand by your previous claim that
      [Peter knows] the bank will be open tomorrow. You respond: (binary: ''I do'' vs ''I don''t'').'
    knowledge_question_first: 'Yes'
    additional_question_text: 'Confidence rating after the binary response (7-point Likert: very unconfident … very confident).'
  scenarios:
  - scenario_code: bank
    scenario_type: Bank-hours vignette with a third-person knowledge attribution (Peter knows p) and subsequent retraction/stand-by
      judgment.
    high_stakes_text: "Picture yourself in the following scenario:\r\nYouare driving home from work onaFriday afternoon witha\
      \ colleague, Peter. You\r\nplan to stop at the bank to deposit your paychecks. As you drive past the bank, you\r\nnotice\
      \ that the lines inside are very long, as they often are on Friday. [Peter asks\r\nwhether you know / You ask Peter\
      \ whether he knows] whether the bank will be\r\nopen tomorrow, on Saturday. If it is open tomorrow, you can come back\
      \ tomorrow,\r\nwhen the lines are shorter. [You remember/ Peter says that he remembers] having\r\nbeen at the bank three\
      \ weeks before on a Saturday. Based on this, you\r\n[respond/say]:\r\n“[I know/ Oh, so you know] the bank will be open\
      \ tomorrow”. At this point STAKES\r\n::: you receive a phone call from your partner. [S/he/ You mention that you are\r\
      \ncurrently with Peter and tell your partner that Peter knows that the bank will be\r\nopen tomorrow. S/he] tells you\
      \ that it is extremely important that your paycheck is\r\ndeposited by Saturday at the latest. A very important bill\
      \ is coming due, and there is\r\ntoo little in the account. You realize that it would be a disaster if you drove home\r\
      \ntoday and found the bank closed tomorrow. As you hang up, [Peter asks/ your\r\npartner asks] whether you stand by\
      \ your previous claim that [you know/ Peter\r\nknows] the bank will be open tomorrow. You respond:"
    low_stakes_text: "Picture yourself in the following scenario:\r\nYouare driving home from work onaFriday afternoon witha\
      \ colleague, Peter. You\r\nplan to stop at the bank to deposit your paychecks. As you drive past the bank, you\r\nnotice\
      \ that the lines inside are very long, as they often are on Friday. [Peter asks\r\nwhether you know/ You ask Peter whether\
      \ he knows] whether the bank will be\r\nopen tomorrow, on Saturday. If it is open tomorrow, you can come back tomorrow,\r\
      \nwhen the lines are shorter. [You remember/ Peter says that he remembers] having\r\nbeen at the bank three weeks before\
      \ on a Saturday. Based on this, you\r\n[respond/say]:\r\n“[I know/ Oh, so you know] the bank will be open tomorrow”.\r\
      \nAt this point, :::\r\nNEUTRAL\r\n:::you receive a phone call from your partner. [S/he/ You mention that you are\r\n\
      currently with Peter and tell your partner that Peter knows that the bank will be\r\nopen tomorrow. S/he] tells you\
      \ that one of your children has gotten sick and that\r\nthey are still waiting at the doctor’s office to get an appointment.\
      \ S/he asks\r\nwhether you can water the plants if you come home and prepare dinner. There’s\r\nenough food at home\
      \ so you don’t have to buy anything extra. You agree. As you\r\nhang up, [Peter asks/ your partner asks] whether you\
      \ stand by your previous\r\nclaim that [you know/Peter knows] the bank will be open tomorrow. You\r\nrespond:"
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: '[Third-person] "Peter says that he remembers having been at the bank three weeks before..."; STAKES: "it is
        extremely important that your paycheck is deposited..."'
  effects:
  - effect_id: s5_e1
    subgroup: 'Bank (retraction-based): Stakes vs Neutral — Third person'
    subgroup_desc: Composite retraction score (stand by vs retract × confidence) in high-stakes vs neutral condition (Experiment
      1, third-person), recomputed using all valid OSF responses rather than only the first 100 valid responses per condition.
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    moderators:
      scenario: bank
      skeptical_pressure: 'No'
      awareness: 'No'
      evidence: First Person
      attribution_person: Other
      evidence_reliability: Medium
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: 'Third-person version: "Peter says that he remembers having been at the bank three weeks before on a Saturday..."'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The vignette is the bank-hours case, adapted to a third-person knowledge attribution.
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: 'STAKES: "it is extremely important that your paycheck is deposited..."'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: No explicit doubt/counterconsideration is raised (no salient alternative); stakes are manipulated via consequences
          of being wrong.
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: 'Third-person condition: "Peter says that he remembers having been at the bank three weeks before on a Saturday."
            STAKES follow-up: "you receive a phone call from your partner... S/he tells you that it is extremely important
            that your paycheck is deposited by Saturday..."'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The target knowledge subject is Peter. The high-stakes information is given to the participant-attributor
          by the partner after Peter's memory-based claim; the vignette does not state that Peter is aware of those stakes.
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: '"Peter says that he remembers having been at the bank three weeks before on a Saturday."'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The knowledge attribution is supported by the knower’s memory of a prior Saturday bank visit.
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: '"Oh, so you know the bank will be open tomorrow".'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The knowledge attribution concerns another person (Peter), not a self-ascription.
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: '"Peter says that he remembers having been at the bank three weeks before on a Saturday."'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: one memory
    contrast:
      group_high: Stakes
      group_low: Neutral
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: Effect uses STAKES vs NEUTRAL; EVIDENCE is an additional condition not extracted as a stakes effect.
    groups:
    - group_id: Neutral
      label: null
      n: 113
      mean: 4.79646017699115
      sd: 3.3678079242910846
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: null
        quote: Sensitivity analysis not reported in Table 2. Effect recomputed from the full valid OSF analyzed-response sample
          for Experiment 1 third-person (all valid cases after attention-check exclusion).
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    - group_id: Stakes
      label: null
      n: 112
      mean: -0.875
      sd: 5.04952945805327
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: null
        quote: Sensitivity analysis not reported in Table 2. Effect recomputed from the full valid OSF analyzed-response sample
          for Experiment 1 third-person (all valid cases after attention-check exclusion).
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    reported_test:
      test: OSF full valid sensitivity analysis
      notes: Sensitivity analysis not reported in Table 2. Effect recomputed from the full valid OSF analyzed-response sample
        for Experiment 1 third-person (all valid cases after attention-check exclusion).
      provenance:
        page: null
        quote: Sensitivity analysis not reported in Table 2. Effect recomputed from the full valid OSF analyzed-response sample
          for Experiment 1 third-person (all valid cases after attention-check exclusion).
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: 1.322590133181
      v: 0.02170020218
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: Computed from full valid OSF group descriptives in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd; sign follows project convention
        d = mean(low) - mean(high).
    quality_flags: []
    notes: Sensitivity analysis using the full valid sample; original first-100 extraction retained separately.
    paradigm: Retraction of knowledge attribution
  notes: 'Sensitivity analysis: full valid third-person sample from OSF analyzed responses.'
- study_id: 6
  label: Experiment 2 (modified design; first-person, full valid sample)
  language: English
  language_other: null
  objective: Assess whether the stakes effect persists under a modified retraction-based design that adds an initial knowledge-ascription
    question (to ensure endorsement) and excludes scenario sceptics from analysis (Neutral vs Stakes vs Evidence).
  sample:
    n_final: 359
    recruitment: Prolific
    recruitment_other: null
    compensation: money
    compensation_other: £0.25 for ~2 minutes (£7.50/h).
    characteristics: 'Native speakers of English recruited via Prolific. Sensitivity analysis uses all valid Experiment 2
      responses surviving the paper''s stated exclusions: scenario sceptics (did not endorse the initial knowledge ascription)
      and failed attention checks. Group counts: Neutral=126, Stakes=133, Evidence=100. Gender: 174 female, 2 preferred not
      to say.'
    mean_age: 38.0
    mean_age_prov:
      page: 14
      quote: For the final analysis, I used the first 100 valid responses per condition, resulting in a total sample of 300
        participants (174 female, 2 preferred not to say; mean age 38 years).
    provenance:
      page: 15
      quote: Of 450 participants, 53 (11.8%) were scenario sceptics and 38 failed the attention check. From the remaining
        359 valid responses, only the first 100 per condition were included in the final analysis.
  design: Between-Subjects
  design_other: 3-level story type (NEUTRAL vs STAKES vs EVIDENCE) between-subjects; modified design adds an initial knowledge-ascription
    question and excludes scenario sceptics; sensitivity reanalysis uses all 359 valid responses rather than only the first
    100 valid responses per condition.
  manipulated_factors: []
  paradigm: Retraction of knowledge attribution
  paradigm_other: null
  scale:
    label: composite-score
    points: null
    anchors: 'Composite score: binary response (''I do''=1, ''I don''t''=-1) multiplied by confidence (1=very unconfident
      to 7=very confident), yielding a range from -7 to 7.'
    direction: Higher = more confident stand-by of the knowledge claim; lower/negative = more confident retraction.
    provenance:
      page: 15
      quote: 'Responses to the first question were coded as follows: "I do" as 1 and "I don''t" as -1. Each participant''s
        composite score was calculated by multiplying their response by their confidence level... resulting in composite scores
        ranging from -7 to 7.'
  measures:
    knowledge_question_text: 'First: initial knowledge-ascription question (participants who did not ascribe knowledge ended
      the experiment). Then: binary retraction question (''I do'' vs ''I don''t''), confidence (7-point), and attention check.'
    knowledge_question_first: 'Yes'
    additional_question_text: 'Confidence rating after the binary response (7-point Likert: very unconfident … very confident).'
  scenarios:
  - scenario_code: bank
    scenario_type: Bank-hours vignette with an initial knowledge-ascription question followed by stand-by/retraction judgment
      (modified retraction-based design).
    high_stakes_text: "Picture yourself in the following scenario:\r\nYouare driving home from work onaFriday afternoon witha\
      \ colleague, Peter. You\r\nplan to stop at the bank to deposit your paychecks. As you drive past the bank, you\r\nnotice\
      \ that the lines inside are very long, as they often are on Friday. [Peter asks\r\nwhether you know / You ask Peter\
      \ whether he knows] whether the bank will be\r\nopen tomorrow, on Saturday. If it is open tomorrow, you can come back\
      \ tomorrow,\r\nwhen the lines are shorter. [You remember/ Peter says that he remembers] having\r\nbeen at the bank three\
      \ weeks before on a Saturday. Based on this, you\r\n[respond/say]:\r\n“[I know/ Oh, so you know] the bank will be open\
      \ tomorrow”. At this point STAKES\r\n::: you receive a phone call from your partner. [S/he/ You mention that you are\r\
      \ncurrently with Peter and tell your partner that Peter knows that the bank will be\r\nopen tomorrow. S/he] tells you\
      \ that it is extremely important that your paycheck is\r\ndeposited by Saturday at the latest. A very important bill\
      \ is coming due, and there is\r\ntoo little in the account. You realize that it would be a disaster if you drove home\r\
      \ntoday and found the bank closed tomorrow. As you hang up, [Peter asks/ your\r\npartner asks] whether you stand by\
      \ your previous claim that [you know/ Peter\r\nknows] the bank will be open tomorrow. You respond:"
    low_stakes_text: "Picture yourself in the following scenario:\r\nYouare driving home from work onaFriday afternoon witha\
      \ colleague, Peter. You\r\nplan to stop at the bank to deposit your paychecks. As you drive past the bank, you\r\nnotice\
      \ that the lines inside are very long, as they often are on Friday. [Peter asks\r\nwhether you know/ You ask Peter whether\
      \ he knows] whether the bank will be\r\nopen tomorrow, on Saturday. If it is open tomorrow, you can come back tomorrow,\r\
      \nwhen the lines are shorter. [You remember/ Peter says that he remembers] having\r\nbeen at the bank three weeks before\
      \ on a Saturday. Based on this, you\r\n[respond/say]:\r\n“[I know/ Oh, so you know] the bank will be open tomorrow”.\r\
      \nAt this point, :::\r\nNEUTRAL\r\n:::you receive a phone call from your partner. [S/he/ You mention that you are\r\n\
      currently with Peter and tell your partner that Peter knows that the bank will be\r\nopen tomorrow. S/he] tells you\
      \ that one of your children has gotten sick and that\r\nthey are still waiting at the doctor’s office to get an appointment.\
      \ S/he asks\r\nwhether you can water the plants if you come home and prepare dinner. There’s\r\nenough food at home\
      \ so you don’t have to buy anything extra. You agree. As you\r\nhang up, [Peter asks/ your partner asks] whether you\
      \ stand by your previous\r\nclaim that [you know/Peter knows] the bank will be open tomorrow. You\r\nrespond:"
    provenance:
      page: 15
      quote: Participants who did not ascribe knowledge concluded the experiment after this question... Those who ascribed
        knowledge were randomly assigned to one of the three follow-up conditions (NEUTRAL, STAKES, or EVIDENCE).
  effects:
  - effect_id: s6_e1
    subgroup: 'Bank (retraction-based): Stakes vs Neutral — Modified design'
    subgroup_desc: Composite retraction score (stand by vs retract × confidence) in high-stakes vs neutral condition (Experiment
      2, modified design), recomputed using all valid OSF responses rather than only the first 100 valid responses per condition.
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    moderators:
      scenario: bank
      skeptical_pressure: 'No'
      awareness: 'Yes'
      evidence: First Person
      attribution_person: First Person
      evidence_reliability: Medium
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: 15
          quote: 'Based on this, you respond: o “I know the bank will be open tomorrow”.'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The vignette is the bank-hours case.
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: 'STAKES: "it is extremely important that your paycheck is deposited by Saturday..."'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: No explicit doubt/counterconsideration is raised (no salient alternative); stakes are manipulated via consequences
          of being wrong.
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: 'STAKES: "it is extremely important that your paycheck is deposited by Saturday..."'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: High-stakes consequences are described in the scenario at the time of the stand-by/retraction judgment.
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: '"You remember having been at the bank three weeks before on a Saturday."'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Evidence is the agent’s own first-person memory/experience of visiting the bank.
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: 15
          quote: “I know the bank will be open tomorrow”.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The knowledge attribution is a first-person self-ascription.
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: '"You remember having been at the bank three weeks before on a Saturday."'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: memory
    contrast:
      group_high: Stakes
      group_low: Neutral
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: Effect uses STAKES vs NEUTRAL; EVIDENCE is an additional condition not extracted as a stakes effect.
    groups:
    - group_id: Neutral
      label: null
      n: 126
      mean: 5.420634920634921
      sd: 2.5592285543989215
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: null
        quote: 'Sensitivity analysis not reported in Table 2. Effect recomputed from the full valid OSF raw-response sample
          for Experiment 2 using the paper''s stated exclusion rules: keep knowledge endorsers (Set-up=1) who passed the condition-specific
          attention check (AT=2).'
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    - group_id: Stakes
      label: null
      n: 133
      mean: 1.443609022556391
      sd: 5.192380101524334
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: null
        quote: 'Sensitivity analysis not reported in Table 2. Effect recomputed from the full valid OSF raw-response sample
          for Experiment 2 using the paper''s stated exclusion rules: keep knowledge endorsers (Set-up=1) who passed the condition-specific
          attention check (AT=2).'
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    reported_test:
      test: OSF full valid sensitivity analysis
      notes: 'Sensitivity analysis not reported in Table 2. Effect recomputed from the full valid OSF raw-response sample
        for Experiment 2 using the paper''s stated exclusion rules: keep knowledge endorsers (Set-up=1) who passed the condition-specific
        attention check (AT=2).'
      provenance:
        page: null
        quote: 'Sensitivity analysis not reported in Table 2. Effect recomputed from the full valid OSF raw-response sample
          for Experiment 2 using the paper''s stated exclusion rules: keep knowledge endorsers (Set-up=1) who passed the condition-specific
          attention check (AT=2).'
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: 0.963629852695
      v: 0.017261885655
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: Computed from full valid OSF group descriptives in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd; sign follows project convention
        d = mean(low) - mean(high).
    quality_flags: []
    notes: Sensitivity analysis using the full valid sample; original first-100 extraction retained separately.
    paradigm: Retraction of knowledge attribution
  notes: 'Sensitivity analysis: full valid modified-design sample reconstructed from OSF raw responses using the paper''s
    stated exclusion rules.'
