Please log in to access this page.
Please log in to access this page.
shurakovndstakeseffectnew
/data/papers/shurakovndstakeseffectnew/shurakovndstakeseffectnew.yamlschema_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.'