| paper_id | sripadastanley2012empiricaltestsinterest |
|---|---|
| short_label | Sripada & Stanley 2012 |
| citation | Sripada, C. S., & Stanley, J. (2012). Empirical tests of interest-relative invariantism. Episteme. |
| doi | 10.1017/epi.2011.2 |
| year | 2012 |
| published | Yes |
| language | English |
| language_other | — |
| 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_available_online | — |
| data_url | — |
| notes | — |
| study_id | 1 |
|---|---|
| label | Basic vignette (pine nuts) |
| 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. |
| design | Between-Subjects |
| design_other | Two independent groups (Basic Low vs Basic High), n=50 per condition. |
| manipulated_factors | — |
| paradigm | Agreement with knowledge claim |
| paradigm_other | — |
| notes | — |
| n_final | 100 |
|---|---|
| recruitment | — |
| recruitment_other | — |
| compensation | — |
| compensation_other | — |
| characteristics | — |
| mean_age | — |
| page | — |
|---|---|
| table_ref | — |
| tei_id | — |
| 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). |
| page | 9 |
|---|---|
| table_ref | Table 1 |
| tei_id | tab_0 |
| 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 | — |
| additional_question_text | What is the strength of Hannah's evidence that her noodles are not topped with pine nuts? |
peanuts · Pine nuts allergy vignette (restaurant noodles); stakes manipulated via allergy severity.| scenario_code | peanuts |
|---|---|
| scenario_type | Pine nuts allergy vignette (restaurant noodles); stakes manipulated via allergy severity. |
| page | — |
|---|---|
| table_ref | — |
| tei_id | — |
s1_e1 · Basic — Evidence strength (Q1) · Between-Subjects · d=0.396 · v=0.040800081633| effect_id | s1_e1 |
|---|---|
| subgroup | Basic — Evidence strength (Q1) |
| subgroup_desc | Strength of evidence rating (7-point) |
| design | Between-Subjects |
| design_other | — |
| quality_flags | — |
| notes | — |
| 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). |
| scenario | peanuts |
|---|---|
| skeptical_pressure | No |
| awareness | Yes |
| evidence | External |
| attribution_person | — |
| evidence_reliability | — |
| group_high | Basic_high |
|---|---|
| group_low | Basic_low |
| sign_convention | d = mean(low) - mean(high) |
| other_notes | — |
| moderator | value | reason | evidence | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
scenario | peanuts | Restaurant allergy vignette about pine nuts (peanuts-style scenario). | Provenance
Hannah has a gene that makes her seriously allergic to pine nuts. | ||||||
skeptical_pressure | No | No explicit doubt/counterconsideration cue (e.g., no prompt that the menu might be wrong). | Provenance
Hannah notes that the menu says her dish does not contain pine nuts. | ||||||
awareness | Yes | The protagonist is explicitly aware of the stakes (allergy consequences). | Provenance
Hannah is very much aware of this, and has known this for a very long time. | ||||||
evidence | External | Evidence is from an external written source (the menu). | Provenance
Hannah notes that the menu says her dish does not contain pine nuts. | ||||||
attribution_person | — | Outcome is evidence-strength rating (not a knowledge attribution), so self/other knowledge-ascription coding is not applicable. | Provenance
Table 1 Q1: "What is the strength of Hannah's evidence that her noodles are not topped with pine nuts?" | ||||||
evidence_reliability | — | Reliability is not explicitly framed/manipulated (mixed sources: testimony + menu); coded null. | Provenance
Sarah says, 'The noodles may be topped with pine nuts.' Hannah notes that the menu says her dish does not contain pine nuts. |
| group_id | label | n | mean | sd | se | provenance | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Basic_low | Low stakes (Basic Low Stakes) | 50 | — | — | — | Provenance
Fifty subjects participated in each condition. | ||||||
Basic_high | High stakes (Basic High Stakes) | 50 | — | — | — | Provenance
Fifty subjects participated in each condition. |
| test | t |
|---|---|
| t | 1.98 |
| f | — |
| chi2 | — |
| z | — |
| df1 | 98 |
| df2 | — |
| p | 0.05 |
| reported_d | — |
| reported_r | — |
| notes | — |
| page | — |
|---|---|
| table_ref | — |
| tei_id | — |
s1_e2 · Basic — Knowledge attribution (Q2) · Between-Subjects · d=0.05 · v=0.040012755102| effect_id | s1_e2 |
|---|---|
| subgroup | Basic — Knowledge attribution (Q2) |
| subgroup_desc | Agreement with 'Hannah knows...' (7-point) |
| design | Between-Subjects |
| design_other | — |
| quality_flags | — |
| notes | — |
| 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). |
| scenario | peanuts |
|---|---|
| skeptical_pressure | No |
| awareness | Yes |
| evidence | External |
| attribution_person | Other |
| evidence_reliability | — |
| group_high | Basic_high |
|---|---|
| group_low | Basic_low |
| sign_convention | d = mean(low) - mean(high) |
| other_notes | — |
| moderator | value | reason | evidence | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
scenario | peanuts | Restaurant allergy vignette about pine nuts (peanuts-style scenario). | Provenance
Hannah has a gene that makes her seriously allergic to pine nuts. | ||||||
skeptical_pressure | No | No explicit doubt/counterconsideration cue (e.g., no prompt that the menu might be wrong). | Provenance
Hannah notes that the menu says her dish does not contain pine nuts. | ||||||
awareness | Yes | The protagonist is explicitly aware of the stakes (allergy consequences). | Provenance
Hannah is very much aware of this, and has known this for a very long time. | ||||||
evidence | External | Evidence is from an external written source (the menu). | Provenance
Hannah notes that the menu says her dish does not contain pine nuts. | ||||||
attribution_person | Other | Participants evaluate a third-person knowledge attribution ('Hannah knows...'). | Provenance
Table 1 Q2 prompt: "Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree... 'Hannah knows her noodles are not topped with pine nuts.'" | ||||||
evidence_reliability | — | Reliability is not explicitly framed/manipulated (mixed sources: testimony + menu); coded null. | Provenance
Sarah says, 'The noodles may be topped with pine nuts.' Hannah notes that the menu says her dish does not contain pine nuts. |
| group_id | label | n | mean | sd | se | provenance | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Basic_low | Low stakes (Basic Low Stakes) | 50 | — | — | — | Provenance
Fifty subjects participated in each condition. | ||||||
Basic_high | High stakes (Basic High Stakes) | 50 | — | — | — | Provenance
Fifty subjects participated in each condition. |
| test | t |
|---|---|
| t | 0.25 |
| f | — |
| chi2 | — |
| z | — |
| df1 | 98 |
| df2 | — |
| p | — |
| reported_d | — |
| reported_r | — |
| notes | p = n.s. |
| page | — |
|---|---|
| table_ref | — |
| tei_id | — |
| study_id | 2 |
|---|---|
| label | Implicit/Explicit vignette (pine nuts) |
| 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). |
| design | Between-Subjects |
| design_other | Two independent groups (Implicit Low vs Explicit High), n=50 per condition. |
| manipulated_factors | — |
| paradigm | Agreement with knowledge claim |
| paradigm_other | — |
| notes | — |
| n_final | 100 |
|---|---|
| recruitment | — |
| recruitment_other | — |
| compensation | — |
| compensation_other | — |
| characteristics | — |
| mean_age | — |
| page | — |
|---|---|
| table_ref | — |
| tei_id | — |
| 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). |
| page | 9 |
|---|---|
| table_ref | Table 1 |
| tei_id | tab_0 |
| 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 | — |
| additional_question_text | What is the strength of Hannah's evidence that her noodles are not topped with pine nuts? |
peanuts · Pine nuts restaurant vignette; low stakes conveyed implicitly (no explicit low-stakes consequence description) vs explicit high stakes.| scenario_code | peanuts |
|---|---|
| scenario_type | Pine nuts restaurant vignette; low stakes conveyed implicitly (no explicit low-stakes consequence description) vs explicit high stakes. |
| page | — |
|---|---|
| table_ref | — |
| tei_id | — |
s2_e1 · Implicit/Explicit — Evidence strength (Q1) · Between-Subjects · d=0.458 · v=0.04107022449| effect_id | s2_e1 |
|---|---|
| subgroup | Implicit/Explicit — Evidence strength (Q1) |
| subgroup_desc | Strength of evidence rating (7-point) |
| design | Between-Subjects |
| design_other | — |
| quality_flags | — |
| notes | — |
| 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). |
| scenario | peanuts |
|---|---|
| skeptical_pressure | No |
| awareness | Yes |
| evidence | External |
| attribution_person | — |
| evidence_reliability | — |
| group_high | Explicit_high |
|---|---|
| group_low | Implicit_low |
| sign_convention | d = mean(low) - mean(high) |
| other_notes | — |
| moderator | value | reason | evidence | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
scenario | peanuts | Restaurant pine-nuts vignette (peanuts-style scenario). | Provenance
Sarah says, 'The noodles may be topped with pine nuts.' Hannah notes that the menu says her dish does not contain pine nuts. | ||||||
skeptical_pressure | No | No explicit doubt/counterconsideration cue (e.g., no prompt that the menu might be wrong). | Provenance
Hannah notes that the menu says her dish does not contain pine nuts. | ||||||
awareness | Yes | No ignorance manipulation is present (unlike the Ignorant vignette); stakes are within the protagonist's purview. | Provenance
Implicit Low Stakes: "Hannah likes the taste of most foods and is not a very picky eater." | ||||||
evidence | External | Evidence is from an external written source (the menu). | Provenance
Hannah notes that the menu says her dish does not contain pine nuts. | ||||||
attribution_person | — | Outcome is evidence-strength rating (not a knowledge attribution), so self/other knowledge-ascription coding is not applicable. | Provenance
Table 1 Q1: "What is the strength of Hannah's evidence that her noodles are not topped with pine nuts?" | ||||||
evidence_reliability | — | Reliability is not explicitly framed/manipulated (mixed sources: testimony + menu); coded null. | Provenance
Sarah says, 'The noodles may be topped with pine nuts.' Hannah notes that the menu says her dish does not contain pine nuts. |
| group_id | label | n | mean | sd | se | provenance | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Implicit_low | Low stakes (Implicit Low Stakes) | 50 | — | — | — | Provenance
Fifty subjects participated in each condition. | ||||||
Explicit_high | High stakes (Explicit High Stakes) | 50 | — | — | — | Provenance
Fifty subjects participated in each condition. |
| test | t |
|---|---|
| t | 2.29 |
| f | — |
| chi2 | — |
| z | — |
| df1 | 98 |
| df2 | — |
| p | 0.02 |
| reported_d | — |
| reported_r | — |
| notes | — |
| page | — |
|---|---|
| table_ref | — |
| tei_id | — |
s2_e2 · Implicit/Explicit — Knowledge attribution (Q2) · Between-Subjects · d=0.686 · v=0.042401| effect_id | s2_e2 |
|---|---|
| subgroup | Implicit/Explicit — Knowledge attribution (Q2) |
| subgroup_desc | Agreement with 'Hannah knows...' (7-point) |
| design | Between-Subjects |
| design_other | — |
| quality_flags | — |
| notes | — |
| 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). |
| scenario | peanuts |
|---|---|
| skeptical_pressure | No |
| awareness | Yes |
| evidence | External |
| attribution_person | Other |
| evidence_reliability | — |
| group_high | Explicit_high |
|---|---|
| group_low | Implicit_low |
| sign_convention | d = mean(low) - mean(high) |
| other_notes | — |
| moderator | value | reason | evidence | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
scenario | peanuts | Restaurant pine-nuts vignette (peanuts-style scenario). | Provenance
Sarah says, 'The noodles may be topped with pine nuts.' Hannah notes that the menu says her dish does not contain pine nuts. | ||||||
skeptical_pressure | No | No explicit doubt/counterconsideration cue (e.g., no prompt that the menu might be wrong). | Provenance
Hannah notes that the menu says her dish does not contain pine nuts. | ||||||
awareness | Yes | No ignorance manipulation is present (unlike the Ignorant vignette); stakes are within the protagonist's purview. | Provenance
Implicit Low Stakes: "Hannah likes the taste of most foods and is not a very picky eater." | ||||||
evidence | External | Evidence is from an external written source (the menu). | Provenance
Hannah notes that the menu says her dish does not contain pine nuts. | ||||||
attribution_person | Other | Participants evaluate a third-person knowledge attribution ('Hannah knows...'). | Provenance
Table 1 Q2 prompt: "Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree... 'Hannah knows her noodles are not topped with pine nuts.'" | ||||||
evidence_reliability | — | Reliability is not explicitly framed/manipulated (mixed sources: testimony + menu); coded null. | Provenance
Sarah says, 'The noodles may be topped with pine nuts.' Hannah notes that the menu says her dish does not contain pine nuts. |
| group_id | label | n | mean | sd | se | provenance | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Implicit_low | Low stakes (Implicit Low Stakes) | 50 | — | — | — | Provenance
Fifty subjects participated in each condition. | ||||||
Explicit_high | High stakes (Explicit High Stakes) | 50 | — | — | — | Provenance
Fifty subjects participated in each condition. |
| test | t |
|---|---|
| t | 3.43 |
| f | — |
| chi2 | — |
| z | — |
| df1 | 98 |
| df2 | — |
| p | 0.001 |
| reported_d | — |
| reported_r | — |
| notes | — |
| page | — |
|---|---|
| table_ref | — |
| tei_id | — |
| study_id | 3 |
|---|---|
| label | Ignorant vignette (Mongolian pine nuts) |
| 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). |
| design | Between-Subjects |
| design_other | Two independent groups (Ignorant Low vs Ignorant High), n=50 per condition. |
| manipulated_factors | — |
| paradigm | Agreement with knowledge claim |
| paradigm_other | — |
| notes | — |
| n_final | 100 |
|---|---|
| recruitment | — |
| recruitment_other | — |
| compensation | — |
| compensation_other | — |
| characteristics | — |
| mean_age | — |
| page | — |
|---|---|
| table_ref | — |
| tei_id | — |
| 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). |
| page | 13 |
|---|---|
| table_ref | Table 2 |
| tei_id | tab_1 |
| 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 | — |
| additional_question_text | What is the strength of Hannah's evidence that her noodles are not topped with Mongolian pine nuts? |
peanuts · Mongolian pine nuts restaurant vignette; protagonist ignorant of allergy gene; stakes manipulated via allergy severity.| scenario_code | peanuts |
|---|---|
| scenario_type | Mongolian pine nuts restaurant vignette; protagonist ignorant of allergy gene; stakes manipulated via allergy severity. |
| page | — |
|---|---|
| table_ref | — |
| tei_id | — |
s3_e1 · Ignorant — Evidence strength (Q1) · Between-Subjects · d=0.83 · v=0.043514795918| effect_id | s3_e1 |
|---|---|
| subgroup | Ignorant — Evidence strength (Q1) |
| subgroup_desc | Strength of evidence rating (7-point) |
| design | Between-Subjects |
| design_other | — |
| quality_flags | — |
| notes | — |
| 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). |
| scenario | peanuts |
|---|---|
| skeptical_pressure | No |
| awareness | No |
| evidence | External |
| attribution_person | — |
| evidence_reliability | — |
| group_high | Ignorant_high |
|---|---|
| group_low | Ignorant_low |
| sign_convention | d = mean(low) - mean(high) |
| other_notes | — |
| moderator | value | reason | evidence | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
scenario | peanuts | The vignette concerns Mongolian pine nuts (peanuts-style scenario). | Provenance
Table 2 Q1: "What is the strength of Hannah's evidence that her noodles are not topped with Mongolian pine nuts?" | ||||||
skeptical_pressure | No | No explicit doubt/counterconsideration cue (e.g., no prompt that the menu might be wrong). | Provenance
Hannah notes that the menu says her dish does not contain Mongolian pine nuts. | ||||||
awareness | No | Stakes exist but the protagonist is explicitly unaware (ignorant of allergy gene). | Provenance
Hannah has absolutely no idea that she has this gene, nor is there any way she could know that she has this gene. | ||||||
evidence | External | Evidence is from external sources (testimony + menu). | Provenance
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. | ||||||
attribution_person | — | Outcome is evidence-strength rating (not a knowledge attribution), so self/other knowledge-ascription coding is not applicable. | Provenance
Table 2 Q1: "What is the strength of Hannah's evidence that her noodles are not topped with Mongolian pine nuts?" | ||||||
evidence_reliability | — | Reliability is not explicitly framed/manipulated (mixed sources: menu + hearsay); coded null. | Provenance
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. |
| group_id | label | n | mean | sd | se | provenance | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ignorant_low | Low stakes (Ignorant Low Stakes) | 50 | — | — | — | Provenance
Fifty subjects participated in each condition. | ||||||
Ignorant_high | High stakes (Ignorant High Stakes) | 50 | — | — | — | Provenance
Fifty subjects participated in each condition. |
| test | t |
|---|---|
| t | 4.15 |
| f | — |
| chi2 | — |
| z | — |
| df1 | 98 |
| df2 | — |
| p | — |
| reported_d | — |
| reported_r | — |
| notes | p < 0.001 |
| page | — |
|---|---|
| table_ref | — |
| tei_id | — |
s3_e2 · Ignorant — Knowledge attribution (Q2) · Between-Subjects · d=0.722 · v=0.042659612245| effect_id | s3_e2 |
|---|---|
| subgroup | Ignorant — Knowledge attribution (Q2) |
| subgroup_desc | Agreement with 'Hannah knows...' (7-point) |
| design | Between-Subjects |
| design_other | — |
| quality_flags | — |
| notes | — |
| 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). |
| scenario | peanuts |
|---|---|
| skeptical_pressure | No |
| awareness | No |
| evidence | External |
| attribution_person | Other |
| evidence_reliability | — |
| group_high | Ignorant_high |
|---|---|
| group_low | Ignorant_low |
| sign_convention | d = mean(low) - mean(high) |
| other_notes | — |
| moderator | value | reason | evidence | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
scenario | peanuts | The vignette concerns Mongolian pine nuts (peanuts-style scenario). | Provenance
Table 2 Q1: "What is the strength of Hannah's evidence that her noodles are not topped with Mongolian pine nuts?" | ||||||
skeptical_pressure | No | No explicit doubt/counterconsideration cue (e.g., no prompt that the menu might be wrong). | Provenance
Hannah notes that the menu says her dish does not contain Mongolian pine nuts. | ||||||
awareness | No | Stakes exist but the protagonist is explicitly unaware (ignorant of allergy gene). | Provenance
Hannah has absolutely no idea that she has this gene, nor is there any way she could know that she has this gene. | ||||||
evidence | External | Evidence is from external sources (testimony + menu). | Provenance
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. | ||||||
attribution_person | Other | Participants evaluate a third-person knowledge attribution ('Hannah knows...'). | Provenance
Table 2 Q2 prompt: "Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree... 'Hannah knows her noodles are not topped with Mongolian pine nuts.'" | ||||||
evidence_reliability | — | Reliability is not explicitly framed/manipulated (mixed sources: menu + hearsay); coded null. | Provenance
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. |
| group_id | label | n | mean | sd | se | provenance | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ignorant_low | Low stakes (Ignorant Low Stakes) | 50 | — | — | — | Provenance
Fifty subjects participated in each condition. | ||||||
Ignorant_high | High stakes (Ignorant High Stakes) | 50 | — | — | — | Provenance
Fifty subjects participated in each condition. |
| test | t |
|---|---|
| t | 3.61 |
| f | — |
| chi2 | — |
| z | — |
| df1 | 98 |
| df2 | — |
| p | — |
| reported_d | — |
| reported_r | — |
| notes | p < 0.001 |
| page | — |
|---|---|
| table_ref | — |
| tei_id | — |
schema_version: "1.1"
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: null
url: null
notes: null
notes: null
studies:
- study_id: 1
label: "Basic vignette (pine nuts)"
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: null
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."
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
design: "Between-Subjects"
design_other: "Two independent groups (Basic Low vs Basic High), n=50 per condition."
manipulated_factors: []
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: 9
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: null
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 is seriously allergic to pine nuts; if she eats even a single pine nut, she will go into shock and die."
low_stakes_text: "Hannah experiences a slightly dry mouth when she eats pine nuts; since she has plenty to drink, it does not matter very much if her noodles are topped with pine nuts."
provenance:
page: null
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\"."
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
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: null
moderators_coding:
scenario:
provenance:
page: null
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: null
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: null
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: null
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: 9
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: null
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: "Reliability is not explicitly framed/manipulated (mixed sources: testimony + menu); coded null."
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: "Low stakes (Basic Low Stakes)"
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: Basic_high
label: "High stakes (Basic High Stakes)"
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: 1.98
f: null
chi2: null
z: null
df1: 98
df2: null
p: 0.05
reported_d: null
reported_r: null
notes: null
provenance:
page: null
quote: "For question 1... (Basic Vignette: t(98) = 1.98, p = 0.05; ...)."
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
effect_size:
metric: SMD
d: 0.396000000000
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: null
moderators_coding:
scenario:
provenance:
page: null
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: null
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: null
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: null
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: 9
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: null
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: "Reliability is not explicitly framed/manipulated (mixed sources: testimony + menu); coded null."
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: "Low stakes (Basic Low Stakes)"
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: Basic_high
label: "High stakes (Basic High Stakes)"
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: 0.25
f: null
chi2: null
z: null
df1: 98
df2: null
p: null
reported_d: null
reported_r: null
notes: "p = n.s."
provenance:
page: null
quote: "In vignette 1 (i.e. the Basic vignette), a statistically significant stakes effect was not observed (t(98) = 0.25, p = n.s.)."
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
effect_size:
metric: SMD
d: 0.050000000000
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
- study_id: 2
label: "Implicit/Explicit vignette (pine nuts)"
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: null
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."
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
design: "Between-Subjects"
design_other: "Two independent groups (Implicit Low vs Explicit High), n=50 per condition."
manipulated_factors: []
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: 9
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: null
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 a single pine nut will cause shock and death."
low_stakes_text: "Implicit Low Stakes: Hannah likes the taste of most foods and is not a picky eater."
provenance:
page: null
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... go into shock and die.\""
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
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: null
moderators_coding:
scenario:
provenance:
page: null
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: null
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: null
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: null
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: 9
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: null
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: "Reliability is not explicitly framed/manipulated (mixed sources: testimony + menu); coded null."
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: "Low stakes (Implicit Low Stakes)"
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: "High stakes (Explicit High Stakes)"
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
f: null
chi2: null
z: null
df1: 98
df2: null
p: 0.02
reported_d: null
reported_r: null
notes: null
provenance:
page: null
quote: "For question 1... (Implicit/Explicit: t(98) = 2.29, p = 0.02; ...)."
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
effect_size:
metric: SMD
d: 0.458000000000
v: 0.041070224490
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: null
moderators_coding:
scenario:
provenance:
page: null
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: null
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: null
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: null
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: 9
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: null
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: "Reliability is not explicitly framed/manipulated (mixed sources: testimony + menu); coded null."
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: "Low stakes (Implicit Low Stakes)"
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: "High stakes (Explicit High Stakes)"
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
f: null
chi2: null
z: null
df1: 98
df2: null
p: 0.001
reported_d: null
reported_r: null
notes: null
provenance:
page: null
quote: "For question 2... (Implicit/Explicit: t(98) = 3.43, p = 0.001; ...)."
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
effect_size:
metric: SMD
d: 0.686000000000
v: 0.042401000000
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
- study_id: 3
label: "Ignorant vignette (Mongolian pine nuts)"
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: null
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."
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
design: "Between-Subjects"
design_other: "Two independent groups (Ignorant Low vs Ignorant High), n=50 per condition."
manipulated_factors: []
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: null
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: "If the noodles are topped with Mongolian pine nuts and Hannah eats the dish, she will go into shock and die (but she is unaware of this)."
low_stakes_text: "If the noodles are topped with Mongolian pine nuts and Hannah eats the dish, her mouth will get a little dry (but she is unaware of this)."
provenance:
page: null
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\"."
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
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: null
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: null
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: null
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: null
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: null
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: "Reliability is not explicitly framed/manipulated (mixed sources: menu + hearsay); coded null."
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: "Low stakes (Ignorant Low Stakes)"
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: "High stakes (Ignorant High Stakes)"
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
f: null
chi2: null
z: null
df1: 98
df2: null
p: null
reported_d: null
reported_r: null
notes: "p < 0.001"
provenance:
page: null
quote: "For question 1... (Ignorant: t(98) = 4.15, p < 0.001)."
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
effect_size:
metric: SMD
d: 0.830000000000
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: null
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: null
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: null
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: null
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: null
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: "Reliability is not explicitly framed/manipulated (mixed sources: menu + hearsay); coded null."
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: "Low stakes (Ignorant Low Stakes)"
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: "High stakes (Ignorant High Stakes)"
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
f: null
chi2: null
z: null
df1: 98
df2: null
p: null
reported_d: null
reported_r: null
notes: "p < 0.001"
provenance:
page: null
quote: "For question 2... (Ignorant: t(98) = 3.61, p < 0.001)."
tei_id: null
table_ref: null
effect_size:
metric: SMD
d: 0.722000000000
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