Extraction report — Turri & Buckwalter 2017

schema_version: "1.1"

paper:
  paper_id: turridescartessschismlockes2017
  citation: "Turri, J., & Buckwalter, W. (2017). Descartes's Schism, Locke's Reunion: Completing the Pragmatic Turn in Epistemology. American Philosophical Quarterly, 54(1), 25–45."
  short_label: "Turri & Buckwalter 2017"
  doi: null
  published: "Yes"
  year: 2017
  language: "English"
  language_other: null
  research_objective: "Test whether manipulating practical factors (stakes/importance and actionability) changes knowledge attributions, and whether any pragmatic effect is direct or mediated by traditional truth-related factors."
  data_availability:
    data_available_online: null
    url: null
    notes: null
  notes: "Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44982122"

studies:
  - study_id: 1
    label: "Experiment 1"
    objective: "Test whether manipulating practical factors (stakes and actionability) influences knowledge judgments, and whether any stakes effect is direct or mediated by truth-related judgments (truth, evidence, belief)."
    sample:
      n_final: 602
      recruitment: "mTurk"
      recruitment_other: null
      compensation: "money"
      compensation_other: "$0.30 (approx. two minutes; online Qualtrics survey)."
      characteristics: "All US residents; 211 female; aged 18–78; 97% reported English as a native language."
      mean_age: 29.7
      mean_age_prov:
        page: 16
        quote: "All US residents, 211 female, aged 18–78, mean age = 29.7; 97 percent reporting English as a native language."
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: "Note 4"
      provenance:
        page: null
        quote: "Participants (N = 602) were randomly assigned to one of forty conditions... / participants were recruited using Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT)... compensated $0.30..."
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    design: "Between-Subjects"
    design_other: "5 (belief source) × 2 (stakes) × 2 (person) × 2 (content) between-subjects design (40 conditions)."
    manipulated_factors:
      - "Belief source: hunch, inference, testimony, memory, perception"
      - "Person: third vs first"
      - "Content: positive vs negative"
    paradigm: "Agreement with knowledge claim"
    paradigm_other: null
    scale:
      label: "Likert 7-point"
      points: 7
      anchors: "\"Strongly Disagree\" to \"Strongly Agree\" (coded −3 to +3 for analysis)."
      direction: "Higher values indicate stronger agreement with the statement."
      provenance:
        page: 9
        quote: "Responses were collected on a standard 7-point Likert scale... We coded responses −3 to +3... creating a neutral midpoint of “0”."
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    measures:
      knowledge_question_text: "Knowledge statement varied by condition (e.g., “Jennifer knows that Ivan is left-handed.” / “You know that Ivan did not purchase a nuclear weapon.”)."
      knowledge_question_first: null
      additional_question_text: "Other statements measured belief (“thinks”), truth, evidence, action (“should write/should act”), and importance (“It’s important whether …”)."
    scenarios:
      - scenario_code: other
        scenario_type: "Intelligence analyst (Ivan): low stakes = dominant hand; high stakes = nuclear weapon."
        high_stakes_text: null
        low_stakes_text: null
        provenance:
          page: 8
          quote: "The stakes factor varies whether the information pertains to something seemingly trivial (Ivan’s dominant hand) or something obviously very important (a nuclear weapon)."
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
    effects:
      - effect_id: s1_e1
        subgroup: "Experiment 1 — Stakes → knowledge attribution"
        subgroup_desc: "Knowledge score (agreement with knowledge statement), high vs low stakes (collapsed across source/person/content)"
        design: "Between-Subjects"
        design_other: null
        moderators:
          scenario: other
          skeptical_pressure: "No"
          awareness: "Yes"
          evidence: null
          attribution_person: null
          evidence_reliability: null
        moderators_coding:
          scenario:
            provenance:
              page: 8
              quote: "The stakes factor varies whether the information pertains to something seemingly trivial (Ivan’s dominant hand) or something obviously very important (a nuclear weapon)."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "The vignette concerns an intelligence analyst (Ivan); it is not a bank/peanuts/bridge/typos scenario."
          skeptical_pressure:
            provenance:
              page: 9
              quote: "You are an intelligence analyst... you have a hunch which strongly suggests that Ivan did not purchase a nuclear weapon."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "No explicit counterconsideration/doubt prompt is introduced (evidence source is manipulated, but no skepticism cue like 'might be wrong' is stated)."
          awareness:
            provenance:
              page: 8
              quote: "something obviously very important (a nuclear weapon)."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "Stakes are manipulated via topic importance (trivial vs very important); the agent is presented as working on that topic."
          evidence:
            provenance:
              page: 8
              quote: "Source: hunch, inference, testimony, memory, and perception."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "Evidence type is manipulated across multiple levels (some first-person, some external), and the reported stakes effect is collapsed across these levels."
          attribution_person:
            provenance:
              page: 8
              quote: "Person: third, first."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "Attribution person is manipulated (Jennifer vs You) and the reported stakes effect is collapsed across person."
          evidence_reliability:
            provenance:
              page: null
              quote: "Even holding constant the reliability of source, people can view perception, testimony, and inference very differently in relation to knowledge."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "Reliability is not explicitly quantified/manipulated for the stakes contrast; coded null."
        contrast:
          group_high: high_stakes
          group_low: low_stakes
          sign_convention: "d = mean(low) - mean(high)"
          other_notes: "Knowledge attribution measured by agreement with a knowledge statement (7-point Likert; coded −3 to +3 for analysis)."
        groups: []
        reported_test:
          test: "regression"
          t: -2.85
          f: null
          chi2: null
          z: null
          df1: 600
          df2: null
          p: null
          reported_d: null
          reported_r: null
          notes: "Paper reports: t(600) = −2.85, Beta = −0.116, p < .005, adjusted R2 = .012 (Note 11). Sign of the corresponding low-vs-high knowledge mean difference is not stated."
          provenance:
            page: 16
            quote: "11. t(600) = −2.85, Beta = −0.116, p < .005, adjusted R2 = .012"
            tei_id: null
            table_ref: "Note 11"
        effect_size:
          metric: SMD
          d: null
          v: null
          computed_from: unknown
          needs_review: true
          notes: "Cannot compute signed SMD (d,v): the paper does not report the low vs high stakes knowledge means/SDs (or otherwise clarify direction for the stakes contrast) and does not report split Ns for the stakes levels."
        quality_flags: []
        notes: null

  - study_id: 2
    label: "Experiment 2"
    objective: "Replicate Experiment 1 findings using a different cover story (coffee shop) and a reduced factorial design (without the person factor)."
    sample:
      n_final: 302
      recruitment: "mTurk"
      recruitment_other: null
      compensation: "money"
      compensation_other: "$0.30 (approx. two minutes; online Qualtrics survey)."
      characteristics: "All US residents (per Note 4); 113 female; aged 18–75; 96% reported English as a native language."
      mean_age: null
      mean_age_prov:
        page: null
        quote: null
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
      provenance:
        page: null
        quote: "Participants (N = 302) were randomly assigned... / participants were recruited using Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT)... compensated $0.30..."
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    design: "Between-Subjects"
    design_other: "5 (source) × 2 (stakes) × 2 (content) between-subjects design (20 conditions)."
    manipulated_factors:
      - "Belief source: hunch, inference, testimony, memory, perception"
      - "Content: positive vs negative"
    paradigm: "Agreement with knowledge claim"
    paradigm_other: null
    scale:
      label: "Likert 7-point"
      points: 7
      anchors: "\"Strongly Disagree\" to \"Strongly Agree\" (coded −3 to +3 for analysis)."
      direction: "Higher values indicate stronger agreement with the statement."
      provenance:
        page: 9
        quote: "Responses were collected on a standard 7-point Likert scale... We coded responses −3 to +3... creating a neutral midpoint of “0”."
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    measures:
      knowledge_question_text: "(6) Christina knows that the coffee is from northern Colombia/does not contain trace amounts of pine nuts."
      knowledge_question_first: null
      additional_question_text: "Other statements measured belief (“thinks”), truth, evidence, action (“should write”), and importance (“It’s important whether …”)."
    scenarios:
      - scenario_code: peanuts
        scenario_type: "Coffee shop / nut allergy (pine nuts)."
        high_stakes_text: null
        low_stakes_text: null
        provenance:
          page: 11
          quote: "To some customers with severe nut allergies, it matters whether the coffee contains pine nuts."
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
    effects:
      - effect_id: s2_e1
        subgroup: "Experiment 2 — Stakes → knowledge attribution"
        subgroup_desc: "Knowledge score (agreement with knowledge statement), high vs low stakes (collapsed across source/content)"
        design: "Between-Subjects"
        design_other: null
        moderators:
          scenario: peanuts
          skeptical_pressure: "No"
          awareness: "Yes"
          evidence: null
          attribution_person: "Other"
          evidence_reliability: null
        moderators_coding:
          scenario:
            provenance:
              page: 11
              quote: "To some customers with severe nut allergies, it matters whether the coffee contains pine nuts."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "The high-stakes case explicitly involves nut allergies (pine nuts), matching the 'peanuts' scenario category."
          skeptical_pressure:
            provenance:
              page: 11
              quote: "Christina notices a persistent pattern in the supplier’s shipments, which strongly suggests that the latest shipment of coffee does not contain trace amounts of pine nuts."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "No explicit counterconsideration/doubt prompt is introduced; the evidence source varies but skepticism cues are not stated."
          awareness:
            provenance:
              page: 11
              quote: "To some customers with severe nut allergies, it matters whether the coffee contains pine nuts."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "The vignette frames the situation as important to customers and the protagonist is updating the menu with that in mind."
          evidence:
            provenance:
              page: 10
              quote: "Participants... were randomly assigned to... a 5 (source) × 2 (stakes) × 2 (content) between-subjects design."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "Evidence source is manipulated across multiple levels (some first-person, some external), and the reported stakes effect is collapsed across these levels."
          attribution_person:
            provenance:
              page: 11
              quote: "(6) Christina knows that the coffee is from northern Colombia/does not contain trace amounts of pine nuts."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "The knowledge attribution is about Christina (third-person), not a self-ascription."
          evidence_reliability:
            provenance:
              page: 10
              quote: "The source and content manipulations were the same as in Experiment 1."
              tei_id: null
              table_ref: null
            reason: "Source reliability is not explicitly quantified/manipulated for the stakes contrast; coded null."
        contrast:
          group_high: high_stakes
          group_low: low_stakes
          sign_convention: "d = mean(low) - mean(high)"
          other_notes: "Knowledge attribution measured by agreement with a knowledge statement (7-point Likert; coded −3 to +3 for analysis)."
        groups: []
        reported_test:
          test: "regression"
          t: 0.27
          f: null
          chi2: null
          z: null
          df1: 300
          df2: null
          p: 0.787
          reported_d: null
          reported_r: null
          notes: "Paper reports: t(300) = 0.27, Beta = 0.016, p = .787, n.s. (Note 31). Sign of the corresponding low-vs-high knowledge mean difference is not stated."
          provenance:
            page: 17
            quote: "31. t(300) = 0.27, Beta = 0.016, p = .787, n.s."
            tei_id: null
            table_ref: "Note 31"
        effect_size:
          metric: SMD
          d: null
          v: null
          computed_from: unknown
          needs_review: true
          notes: "Cannot compute signed SMD (d,v): the paper does not report the low vs high stakes knowledge means/SDs (or otherwise clarify direction for the stakes contrast) and does not report split Ns for the stakes levels."
        quality_flags: []
        notes: null