Please log in to access this page.
turridescartessschismlockes2017
/data/papers/turridescartessschismlockes2017/turridescartessschismlockes2017.yamlschema_version: "1.2"
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"
language: English
language_other: null
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"
language: English
language_other: null
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