schema_version: '1.2'
paper:
  paper_id: sripadastanley2012empiricaltestsinterest
  citation: Sripada, C. S., & Stanley, J. (2012). Empirical tests of interest-relative invariantism. Episteme.
  short_label: Sripada & Stanley 2012
  doi: 10.1017/epi.2011.2
  published: 'Yes'
  year: 2012
  language: English
  language_other: null
  research_objective: Present new experiments testing Interest-Relative Invariantism (IRI) about knowledge and related epistemic
    notions (quality of evidence), addressing methodological confounds in prior experimental philosophy studies.
  data_availability:
    data_available_online: 'No'
    url: null
    notes: null
  notes: null
studies:
- study_id: 1
  label: Basic vignette (pine nuts)
  language: English
  language_other: null
  objective: Test whether stakes affect ratings of (i) the strength of evidence and (ii) agreement with a knowledge attribution,
    in an evidence-fixed pine-nuts restaurant vignette where the protagonist is aware of stakes.
  sample:
    n_final: 100
    recruitment: null
    recruitment_other: null
    compensation: null
    compensation_other: null
    characteristics: null
    provenance:
      page: 10
      quote: We investigated a total of three pairs of vignettes... We used a between-subject design... Fifty subjects participated
        in each condition, for a total of 300 subjects for the whole experiment.
    mean_age: null
  design: Between-Subjects
  design_other: Two independent groups (Basic Low vs Basic High), n=50 per condition.
  manipulated_factors:
  - Stakes (allergy)
  paradigm: Agreement with knowledge claim
  paradigm_other: null
  scale:
    label: Likert 7-point
    points: 7
    anchors: 'Q1: Very weak evidence ↔ Very strong evidence. Q2: Strongly agree ↔ Strongly disagree.'
    direction: Higher = stronger evidence (Q1) / stronger agreement with knowledge attribution (Q2).
    provenance:
      page: 11
      quote: 'Table 1 anchors (7-point): Q1: "Very weak evidence" / "Very strong evidence"; Q2: "Strongly agree" / "Strongly
        disagree".'
      tei_id: tab_0
      table_ref: Table 1
  measures:
    knowledge_question_text: 'Suppose it turns out that her noodles are not topped with pine nuts. Please rate how strongly
      you agree or disagree with the following sentence: ''Hannah knows her noodles are not topped with pine nuts.'''
    knowledge_question_first: 'No'
    additional_question_text: What is the strength of Hannah's evidence that her noodles are not topped with pine nuts?
  scenarios:
  - scenario_code: peanuts
    scenario_type: Pine nuts allergy vignette (restaurant noodles); stakes manipulated via allergy severity.
    high_stakes_text: "Hannah has a gene that makes her seriously allergic to pine nuts. Eating only a\r\nsingle pine nut\
      \ will cause her to go into shock and die. Hannah is very much\r\naware of this, and has known this for a very long\
      \ time.\r\nOne evening, Hannah and her sister Sarah are at a new restaurant that has just\r\nopened. Hannah orders a\
      \ plate of noodles. When her food is brought to the table,\r\nHannah notices something that looks like pine nuts sprinkled\
      \ on her noodles and\r\nwonders what it is. Sarah says, ‘The noodles may be topped with pine nuts.’\r\nHannah notes\
      \ that the menu says her dish does not contain pine nuts. Based on this,\r\nHannah forms the belief that the noodles\
      \ are not topped with pine nuts.\r\nIf it turns out that the noodles are topped with pine nuts, then when Hannah eats\
      \ the\r\ndish, she will go into shock and die. Since eating even a single pine nuts will cause her to die, it matters\
      \ a lot whether or not the noodles are topped with pine nuts."
    low_stakes_text: "Hannah has a gene that causes her to experience a slightly dry mouth when she eats pine nuts. Hannah\
      \ is very much aware of this, and has known this for a very long time.\r\nOne evening, Hannah and her sister Sarah are\
      \ at a new restaurant that has just\r\nopened. Hannah orders a plate of noodles. When her food is brought to the table,\
      \ Hannah notices something that looks like nuts sprinkled on her noodles and won\r\nders what it is. Sarah says, ‘The\
      \ noodles may be topped with pine nuts.’ Hannah notes that the menu says her dish does not contain pine nuts. Based\
      \ on this, Hannah forms the belief that the noodles are not topped with pine nuts.\r\nIf it turns out that the noodles\
      \ are topped with pine nuts, then when Hannah eats the dish, her mouth will get a little dry. Since Hannah has plenty\
      \ to drink with her meal, it\r\ndoes not matter very much whether or not the noodles are topped with pine nuts."
    provenance:
      page: 10
      quote: 'Basic Low Stakes: "slightly dry mouth" ... "it does not matter very much"; Basic High Stakes: "go into shock
        and die" ... "it matters a lot".'
  effects:
  - effect_id: s1_e1
    subgroup: Basic — Evidence strength (Q1)
    subgroup_desc: Strength of evidence rating (7-point)
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    moderators:
      scenario: peanuts
      skeptical_pressure: 'No'
      awareness: 'Yes'
      evidence: External
      attribution_person: null
      evidence_reliability: High
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: 10
          quote: Hannah has a gene that makes her seriously allergic to pine nuts.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Restaurant allergy vignette about pine nuts (peanuts-style scenario).
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: 10
          quote: Hannah notes that the menu says her dish does not contain pine nuts.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: No explicit doubt/counterconsideration cue (e.g., no prompt that the menu might be wrong).
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: 10
          quote: Hannah is very much aware of this, and has known this for a very long time.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The protagonist is explicitly aware of the stakes (allergy consequences).
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: 10
          quote: Hannah notes that the menu says her dish does not contain pine nuts.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Evidence is from an external written source (the menu).
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: 10
          quote: 'Table 1 Q1: "What is the strength of Hannah''s evidence that her noodles are not topped with pine nuts?"'
          tei_id: tab_0
          table_ref: Table 1
        reason: Outcome is evidence-strength rating (not a knowledge attribution), so self/other knowledge-ascription coding
          is not applicable.
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: 11
          quote: Sarah says, 'The noodles may be topped with pine nuts.' Hannah notes that the menu says her dish does not
            contain pine nuts.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Menu
    contrast:
      group_high: Basic_high
      group_low: Basic_low
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: null
    groups:
    - group_id: Basic_low
      label: null
      n: 50
      mean: null
      sd: null
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 10
        quote: Fifty subjects participated in each condition.
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    - group_id: Basic_high
      label: null
      n: 50
      mean: null
      sd: null
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 10
        quote: Fifty subjects participated in each condition.
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    reported_test:
      test: t
      t: 1.98
      df1: 98.0
      p: 0.05
      provenance:
        page: 13
        quote: 'For question 1... (Basic Vignette: t(98) = 1.98, p = 0.05; ...).'
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: 0.396
      v: 0.040800081633
      computed_from: t_df
      needs_review: false
      notes: Computed from independent-samples t and split Ns (n_low=n_high=50) in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd (method=between_t;
        sign set from text).
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
  - effect_id: s1_e2
    subgroup: Basic — Knowledge attribution (Q2)
    subgroup_desc: Agreement with 'Hannah knows...' (7-point)
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    moderators:
      scenario: peanuts
      skeptical_pressure: 'No'
      awareness: 'Yes'
      evidence: External
      attribution_person: Other
      evidence_reliability: High
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: 10
          quote: Hannah has a gene that makes her seriously allergic to pine nuts.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Restaurant allergy vignette about pine nuts (peanuts-style scenario).
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: 10
          quote: Hannah notes that the menu says her dish does not contain pine nuts.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: No explicit doubt/counterconsideration cue (e.g., no prompt that the menu might be wrong).
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: 10
          quote: Hannah is very much aware of this, and has known this for a very long time.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The protagonist is explicitly aware of the stakes (allergy consequences).
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: 10
          quote: Hannah notes that the menu says her dish does not contain pine nuts.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Evidence is from an external written source (the menu).
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: 11
          quote: 'Table 1 Q2 prompt: "Suppose it turns out that her noodles are not topped with pine nuts. Please rate how
            strongly you agree or disagree with the following statement: ''Hannah knows her noodles are not topped with pine
            nuts.''"'
          tei_id: tab_0
          table_ref: Table 1
        reason: Participants evaluate a third-person knowledge attribution ('Hannah knows...').
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: 10
          quote: Sarah says, 'The noodles may be topped with pine nuts.' Hannah notes that the menu says her dish does not
            contain pine nuts.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Menu
    contrast:
      group_high: Basic_high
      group_low: Basic_low
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: null
    groups:
    - group_id: Basic_low
      label: null
      n: 50
      mean: null
      sd: null
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 10
        quote: Fifty subjects participated in each condition.
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    - group_id: Basic_high
      label: null
      n: 50
      mean: null
      sd: null
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 10
        quote: Fifty subjects participated in each condition.
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    reported_test:
      test: t
      t: 0.25
      df1: 98.0
      notes: p = n.s.
      provenance:
        page: 13
        quote: In vignette 1 (i.e. the Basic vignette), a statistically significant stakes effect was not observed (t(98)
          = 0.25, p = n.s.).
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: 0.05
      v: 0.040012755102
      computed_from: t_df
      needs_review: false
      notes: Computed from independent-samples t and split Ns (n_low=n_high=50) in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd (method=between_t;
        sign set from text).
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
  notes: null
- study_id: 2
  label: Implicit/Explicit vignette (pine nuts)
  language: English
  language_other: null
  objective: Test stakes effects on evidence-strength and knowledge-attribution ratings using a modified low-stakes vignette
    intended to reduce narrator-cue confounds (Implicit Low Stakes vs Explicit High Stakes).
  sample:
    n_final: 100
    recruitment: null
    recruitment_other: null
    compensation: null
    compensation_other: null
    characteristics: null
    provenance:
      page: 10
      quote: We investigated a total of three pairs of vignettes... Fifty subjects participated in each condition, for a total
        of 300 subjects for the whole experiment.
    mean_age: null
  design: Between-Subjects
  design_other: Two independent groups (Implicit Low vs Explicit High), n=50 per condition.
  manipulated_factors:
  - Stakes (implicit low / explicit high)
  paradigm: Agreement with knowledge claim
  paradigm_other: null
  scale:
    label: Likert 7-point
    points: 7
    anchors: 'Q1: Very weak evidence ↔ Very strong evidence. Q2: Strongly agree ↔ Strongly disagree.'
    direction: Higher = stronger evidence (Q1) / stronger agreement with knowledge attribution (Q2).
    provenance:
      page: 11
      quote: 'Table 1 anchors (7-point): Q1: "Very weak evidence" / "Very strong evidence"; Q2: "Strongly agree" / "Strongly
        disagree".'
      tei_id: tab_0
      table_ref: Table 1
  measures:
    knowledge_question_text: 'Suppose it turns out that her noodles are not topped with pine nuts. Please rate how strongly
      you agree or disagree with the following sentence: ''Hannah knows her noodles are not topped with pine nuts.'''
    knowledge_question_first: 'No'
    additional_question_text: What is the strength of Hannah's evidence that her noodles are not topped with pine nuts?
  scenarios:
  - scenario_code: peanuts
    scenario_type: Pine nuts restaurant vignette; low stakes conveyed implicitly (no explicit low-stakes consequence description)
      vs explicit high stakes.
    high_stakes_text: 'Explicit High Stakes: Hannah is seriously allergic to pine nuts. Eating only a single pine nut will
      cause her to go into shock and die. Hannah is very much aware of this and has known this for a very long time. One evening,
      Hannah and her sister Sarah are at a brand new restaurant that has just opened up. Hannah orders a plate of noodles.
      When her food is brought to the table, Hannah notices something that looks like nuts sprinkled on her noodles and wonders
      what it is. Sarah says, ‘The noodles may be topped with pine nuts.’ Hannah notes that the menu says her dish does not
      contain pine nuts. Based on this, Hannah forms the belief that her noodles are not topped with pine nuts.'
    low_stakes_text: "Implicit Low Stakes: Hannah likes the taste of most foods and is not a very picky eater. One evening,\
      \ Hannah and her sister Sarah are at a brand new restaurant that has just opened up. Hannah orders a plate of noodles.\
      \ When her food is brought to the table, Hannah notices something that looks like nuts sprinkled on her noodles and\
      \ wonders what it is. Sarah says, ‘The noodles may be topped with pine nuts.’ Hannah notes that the menu says her dish\
      \ does not contain pine nuts. Based on this, Hannah\r\nforms the belief that her noodles are not topped with pine nuts."
    provenance:
      page: 11
      quote: 'Implicit Low Stakes: "Hannah likes the taste of most foods and is not a very picky eater." Explicit High Stakes:
        "Hannah is seriously allergic to pine nuts. Eating only a single pine nut will cause her to go into shock and die.
        "'
  effects:
  - effect_id: s2_e1
    subgroup: Implicit/Explicit — Evidence strength (Q1)
    subgroup_desc: Strength of evidence rating (7-point)
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    moderators:
      scenario: peanuts
      skeptical_pressure: 'No'
      awareness: 'Yes'
      evidence: External
      attribution_person: null
      evidence_reliability: High
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: 11
          quote: Sarah says, 'The noodles may be topped with pine nuts.' Hannah notes that the menu says her dish does not
            contain pine nuts.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Restaurant pine-nuts vignette (peanuts-style scenario).
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: 11
          quote: Hannah notes that the menu says her dish does not contain pine nuts.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: No explicit doubt/counterconsideration cue (e.g., no prompt that the menu might be wrong).
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: 11
          quote: 'Implicit Low Stakes: "Hannah likes the taste of most foods and is not a very picky eater."'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: No ignorance manipulation is present (unlike the Ignorant vignette); stakes are within the protagonist's purview.
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: 11
          quote: Hannah notes that the menu says her dish does not contain pine nuts.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Evidence is from an external written source (the menu).
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: 11
          quote: 'Table 1 Q1: "What is the strength of Hannah''s evidence that her noodles are not topped with pine nuts?"'
          tei_id: tab_0
          table_ref: Table 1
        reason: Outcome is evidence-strength rating (not a knowledge attribution), so self/other knowledge-ascription coding
          is not applicable.
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: 11
          quote: Sarah says, 'The noodles may be topped with pine nuts.' Hannah notes that the menu says her dish does not
            contain pine nuts.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Menu
    contrast:
      group_high: Explicit_high
      group_low: Implicit_low
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: null
    groups:
    - group_id: Implicit_low
      label: null
      n: 50
      mean: null
      sd: null
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: null
        quote: Fifty subjects participated in each condition.
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    - group_id: Explicit_high
      label: null
      n: 50
      mean: null
      sd: null
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: null
        quote: Fifty subjects participated in each condition.
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    reported_test:
      test: t
      t: 2.29
      df1: 98.0
      p: 0.02
      provenance:
        page: 13
        quote: 'For question 1... (Implicit/Explicit: t(98) = 2.29, p = 0.02; ...).'
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: 0.458
      v: 0.04107022449
      computed_from: t_df
      needs_review: false
      notes: Computed from independent-samples t and split Ns (n_low=n_high=50) in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd (method=between_t;
        sign set from text).
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
  - effect_id: s2_e2
    subgroup: Implicit/Explicit — Knowledge attribution (Q2)
    subgroup_desc: Agreement with 'Hannah knows...' (7-point)
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    moderators:
      scenario: peanuts
      skeptical_pressure: 'No'
      awareness: 'Yes'
      evidence: External
      attribution_person: Other
      evidence_reliability: High
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: 11
          quote: Sarah says, 'The noodles may be topped with pine nuts.' Hannah notes that the menu says her dish does not
            contain pine nuts.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Restaurant pine-nuts vignette (peanuts-style scenario).
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: 11
          quote: Hannah notes that the menu says her dish does not contain pine nuts.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: No explicit doubt/counterconsideration cue (e.g., no prompt that the menu might be wrong).
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: 11
          quote: 'Implicit Low Stakes: "Hannah likes the taste of most foods and is not a very picky eater."'
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: No ignorance manipulation is present (unlike the Ignorant vignette); stakes are within the protagonist's purview.
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: 11
          quote: Hannah notes that the menu says her dish does not contain pine nuts.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Evidence is from an external written source (the menu).
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: 11
          quote: 'Table 1 Q2 prompt: "Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree... ''Hannah knows her noodles are not
            topped with pine nuts.''"'
          tei_id: tab_0
          table_ref: Table 1
        reason: Participants evaluate a third-person knowledge attribution ('Hannah knows...').
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: 11
          quote: Sarah says, 'The noodles may be topped with pine nuts.' Hannah notes that the menu says her dish does not
            contain pine nuts.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Menu
    contrast:
      group_high: Explicit_high
      group_low: Implicit_low
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: null
    groups:
    - group_id: Implicit_low
      label: null
      n: 50
      mean: null
      sd: null
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: null
        quote: Fifty subjects participated in each condition.
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    - group_id: Explicit_high
      label: null
      n: 50
      mean: null
      sd: null
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: null
        quote: Fifty subjects participated in each condition.
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    reported_test:
      test: t
      t: 3.43
      df1: 98.0
      p: 0.001
      provenance:
        page: 13
        quote: 'For question 2... (Implicit/Explicit: t(98) = 3.43, p = 0.001; ...).'
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: 0.686
      v: 0.042401
      computed_from: t_df
      needs_review: false
      notes: Computed from independent-samples t and split Ns (n_low=n_high=50) in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd (method=between_t;
        sign set from text).
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
  notes: null
- study_id: 3
  label: Ignorant vignette (Mongolian pine nuts)
  language: English
  language_other: null
  objective: Test whether stakes affect evidence-strength and knowledge-attribution ratings even when the protagonist is explicitly
    unaware of the stakes (Ignorant Low vs Ignorant High).
  sample:
    n_final: 100
    recruitment: null
    recruitment_other: null
    compensation: null
    compensation_other: null
    characteristics: null
    provenance:
      page: 10
      quote: We investigated a total of three pairs of vignettes... Fifty subjects participated in each condition, for a total
        of 300 subjects for the whole experiment.
    mean_age: null
  design: Between-Subjects
  design_other: Two independent groups (Ignorant Low vs Ignorant High), n=50 per condition.
  manipulated_factors:
  - Stakes (ignorant)
  paradigm: Agreement with knowledge claim
  paradigm_other: null
  scale:
    label: Likert 7-point
    points: 7
    anchors: 'Q1: Very weak evidence ↔ Very strong evidence. Q2: Strongly agree ↔ Strongly disagree.'
    direction: Higher = stronger evidence (Q1) / stronger agreement with knowledge attribution (Q2).
    provenance:
      page: 13
      quote: 'Table 2 anchors (7-point): Q1: "Very weak evidence" / "Very strong evidence"; Q2: "Strongly agree" / "Strongly
        disagree".'
      tei_id: tab_1
      table_ref: Table 2
  measures:
    knowledge_question_text: 'Suppose it turns out that her noodles are not topped with Mongolian pine nuts. Please rate how
      strongly you agree or disagree with the following sentence: ''Hannah knows her noodles are not topped with Mongolian
      pine nuts.'''
    knowledge_question_first: 'No'
    additional_question_text: What is the strength of Hannah's evidence that her noodles are not topped with Mongolian pine
      nuts?
  scenarios:
  - scenario_code: peanuts
    scenario_type: Mongolian pine nuts restaurant vignette; protagonist ignorant of allergy gene; stakes manipulated via allergy
      severity.
    high_stakes_text: "Ignorant High Stakes\r\nHannah has a gene that makes her seriously allergic to Mongolian pine nuts.\
      \ Eating\r\nonly a single Mongolian pine nut will cause her to go into shock and die. Hannah has absolutely no idea\
      \ that she has this gene, nor is there any way she could know that she has this gene.\r\nOne evening, Hannah and her\
      \ sister Sarah are at a brand new Mongolian restaurant that has just opened up. Hannah orders a plate of noodles. When\
      \ her food is brought to the table, Hannah notices something that looks like nuts sprinkled on her noodles and wonders\
      \ what it is. Sarah says, ‘I heard that Mongolian dishes are often served topped with Mongolian pine nuts.’ Hannah notes\
      \ that the menu says her dish does not contain Mongolian pine nuts. Based on this, Hannah forms the belief that the\
      \ noodles are not topped with Mongolian pine nuts. If it turns out that the noodles are topped with Mongolian pine nuts,\
      \ then when\r\nHannah eats the dish, she will go into shock and die. Since eating even a single Mongolian pine nut will\
      \ cause her to die, it matters a lot whether or not the noodles are topped with Mongolian pine nuts."
    low_stakes_text: "Ignorant Low Stakes\r\nHannah has a gene that causes her to experience a slightly dry mouth when she\
      \ eats\r\nMongolian pine nuts. Hannah has absolutely no idea that she has this gene, nor is there any way she could\
      \ know that she has this gene. One evening, Hannah and her sister Sarah are at a brand new Mongolian restau\r\nrant\
      \ that has just opened up. Hannah orders a plate of noodles. When her food is\r\nbrought to the table, Hannah notices\
      \ something that looks like nuts sprinkled on her noodles and wonders what it is. Sarah says, ‘I heard that Mongolian\
      \ dishes are often served topped with Mongolian pine nuts.’ Hannah notes that the menu\r\nsays her dish does not contain\
      \ Mongolian pine nuts. Based on this, Hannah forms the belief that the noodles are not topped with Mongolian pine nuts.\r\
      \nIf it turns out that the noodles are topped with Mongolian pine nuts, then when Hannah eats the dish, her mouth will\
      \ get a little dry. Since Hannah has plenty to\r\ndrink with her meal, it does not matter very much whether or not the\
      \ noodles are topped with Mongolian pine nuts."
    provenance:
      page: 13
      quote: 'Ignorant Low Stakes: "Hannah has absolutely no idea that she has this gene" ... "her mouth will get a little
        dry"; Ignorant High Stakes: "go into shock and die".'
  effects:
  - effect_id: s3_e1
    subgroup: Ignorant — Evidence strength (Q1)
    subgroup_desc: Strength of evidence rating (7-point)
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    moderators:
      scenario: peanuts
      skeptical_pressure: 'No'
      awareness: 'No'
      evidence: External
      attribution_person: null
      evidence_reliability: High
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: 13
          quote: 'Table 2 Q1: "What is the strength of Hannah''s evidence that her noodles are not topped with Mongolian pine
            nuts?"'
          tei_id: tab_1
          table_ref: Table 2
        reason: The vignette concerns Mongolian pine nuts (peanuts-style scenario).
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: 13
          quote: Hannah notes that the menu says her dish does not contain Mongolian pine nuts.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: No explicit doubt/counterconsideration cue (e.g., no prompt that the menu might be wrong).
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: 13
          quote: Hannah has absolutely no idea that she has this gene, nor is there any way she could know that she has this
            gene.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Stakes exist but the protagonist is explicitly unaware (ignorant of allergy gene).
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: 13
          quote: Sarah says, 'I heard that Mongolian dishes are often served topped with Mongolian pine nuts.' Hannah notes
            that the menu says her dish does not contain Mongolian pine nuts.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Evidence is from external sources (testimony + menu).
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: 13
          quote: 'Table 2 Q1: "What is the strength of Hannah''s evidence that her noodles are not topped with Mongolian pine
            nuts?"'
          tei_id: tab_1
          table_ref: Table 2
        reason: Outcome is evidence-strength rating (not a knowledge attribution), so self/other knowledge-ascription coding
          is not applicable.
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: 13
          quote: Sarah says, 'I heard that Mongolian dishes are often served topped with Mongolian pine nuts.' Hannah notes
            that the menu says her dish does not contain Mongolian pine nuts.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Menu
    contrast:
      group_high: Ignorant_high
      group_low: Ignorant_low
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: null
    groups:
    - group_id: Ignorant_low
      label: null
      n: 50
      mean: null
      sd: null
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: null
        quote: Fifty subjects participated in each condition.
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    - group_id: Ignorant_high
      label: null
      n: 50
      mean: null
      sd: null
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: null
        quote: Fifty subjects participated in each condition.
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    reported_test:
      test: t
      t: 4.15
      df1: 98.0
      notes: p < 0.001
      provenance:
        page: 13
        quote: 'For question 1... (Ignorant: t(98) = 4.15, p < 0.001).'
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: 0.83
      v: 0.043514795918
      computed_from: t_df
      needs_review: false
      notes: Computed from independent-samples t and split Ns (n_low=n_high=50) in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd (method=between_t;
        sign set from text).
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
  - effect_id: s3_e2
    subgroup: Ignorant — Knowledge attribution (Q2)
    subgroup_desc: Agreement with 'Hannah knows...' (7-point)
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    moderators:
      scenario: peanuts
      skeptical_pressure: 'No'
      awareness: 'No'
      evidence: External
      attribution_person: Other
      evidence_reliability: High
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: 13
          quote: 'Table 2 Q1: "What is the strength of Hannah''s evidence that her noodles are not topped with Mongolian pine
            nuts?"'
          tei_id: tab_1
          table_ref: Table 2
        reason: The vignette concerns Mongolian pine nuts (peanuts-style scenario).
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: 13
          quote: Hannah notes that the menu says her dish does not contain Mongolian pine nuts.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: No explicit doubt/counterconsideration cue (e.g., no prompt that the menu might be wrong).
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: 13
          quote: Hannah has absolutely no idea that she has this gene, nor is there any way she could know that she has this
            gene.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Stakes exist but the protagonist is explicitly unaware (ignorant of allergy gene).
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: 13
          quote: Sarah says, 'I heard that Mongolian dishes are often served topped with Mongolian pine nuts.' Hannah notes
            that the menu says her dish does not contain Mongolian pine nuts.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Evidence is from external sources (testimony + menu).
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: 13
          quote: 'Table 2 Q2 prompt: "Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree... ''Hannah knows her noodles are not
            topped with Mongolian pine nuts.''"'
          tei_id: tab_1
          table_ref: Table 2
        reason: Participants evaluate a third-person knowledge attribution ('Hannah knows...').
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: 13
          quote: Sarah says, 'I heard that Mongolian dishes are often served topped with Mongolian pine nuts.' Hannah notes
            that the menu says her dish does not contain Mongolian pine nuts.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Menu
    contrast:
      group_high: Ignorant_high
      group_low: Ignorant_low
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: null
    groups:
    - group_id: Ignorant_low
      label: null
      n: 50
      mean: null
      sd: null
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: null
        quote: Fifty subjects participated in each condition.
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    - group_id: Ignorant_high
      label: null
      n: 50
      mean: null
      sd: null
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: null
        quote: Fifty subjects participated in each condition.
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    reported_test:
      test: t
      t: 3.61
      df1: 98.0
      notes: p < 0.001
      provenance:
        page: 13
        quote: 'For question 2... (Ignorant: t(98) = 3.61, p < 0.001).'
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: 0.722
      v: 0.042659612245
      computed_from: t_df
      needs_review: false
      notes: Computed from independent-samples t and split Ns (n_low=n_high=50) in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd (method=between_t;
        sign set from text).
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
  notes: null
