schema_version: '1.2'
paper:
  paper_id: turrindepistemiccontextualismidle
  citation: "Turri, J. (2017). Epistemic contextualism: An idle hypothesis. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 95(1), 141-156."
  short_label: Turri 2017
  doi: 10.1080/00048402.2016.1153684
  published: 'Yes'
  year: 2017
  language: English
  language_other: null
  research_objective: Test whether classic low/high stakes contextualist cases produce shifting judgments about knowledge
    and related requirements (truth, belief, evidence), and whether the common deferral confound (agent says “I know” vs “I
    don’t know”) can explain the pattern; additionally test whether stakes affect the evidential standard required to know.
  data_availability:
    data_available_online: null
    url: null
    notes: null
  notes: Text indicates this PDF is the penultimate version; final publication metadata filled from local project metadata/citation docs.
studies:
- study_id: 1
  label: Experiment 1 (bank; Low vs High)
  language: English
  language_other: null
  objective: Test whether judgments about a knowledge attribution/denial and related factors (truth, belief, evidence, actionability)
    shift across a classic low vs high stakes bank case.
  sample:
    n_final: 201
    recruitment: mTurk
    recruitment_other: null
    compensation: money
    compensation_other: $0.40 (approx. 2–3 minutes)
    characteristics: U.S. residents; aged 19–71 (mean 31); 94% native English; 77 female.
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: Participants. Two hundred and one participants (aged 19-71 years, mean age = 31 years; 94% reporting English
        as a native language; 77 female) were tested. Participants were U.S. residents, recruited and tested online using
        Amazon Mechanical Turk and Qualtrics, and compensated $0.40 for approximately 2-3 minutes of their time.
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
    mean_age: 31
    mean_age_prov:
      page: null
      quote: Two hundred and one participants (aged 19-71 years, mean age = 31 years; 94% reporting English as a native language;
        77 female) were tested.
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  design: Between-Subjects
  design_other: null
  manipulated_factors:
  - Agent knowledge statement polarity varies with stakes (self-ascription in Low; self-denial in High).
  - Questioner affect varies with stakes (Jane calm in Low; anxious in High).
  paradigm: Agreement that a sentence is true
  paradigm_other: null
  scale:
    label: Likert 7-point
    points: 7
    anchors: 1 ("Strongly Disagree") to 7 ("Strongly Agree")
    direction: Higher = greater agreement.
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: Responses were collected on a standard seven-point Likert scale, 1 ("Strongly Disagree") -7 ("Strongly Agree"),
        left-to-right on the participant's screen.
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  measures:
    knowledge_question_text: When Keith said, "I [do/don't] know," what he said was true.
    knowledge_question_first: null
    additional_question_text: null
  scenarios:
  - scenario_code: bank
    scenario_type: Bank-hours / deposit vignette (bank open on Saturday).
    high_stakes_text: null
    low_stakes_text: null
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: The stories were based on the original pair of "bank cases" (DeRose 2009, pp. 1-2).
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  effects:
  - effect_id: s1_e1
    subgroup: Knowledge statement truth (self-regarding; bank)
    subgroup_desc: Agreement with “When Keith said, ‘I do/don’t know,’ what he said was true.”
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    moderators:
      scenario: bank
      skeptical_pressure: 'Yes'
      awareness: 'Yes'
      evidence: First Person
      attribution_person: First Person
      evidence_reliability: Medium
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: The stories were based on the original pair of "bank cases" (DeRose 2009, pp. 1-2).
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Bank-hours vignette (deposit check; bank open on Saturday).
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: Jane responds [calmly/anxiously], "This is really [not/very] important, [but/and] lots of banks are closed
            on Saturdays. Do you know that our bank is open tomorrow?"
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The vignette includes explicit doubt/counterconsideration about whether the bank is open.
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: It is [not/very] important for him to deposit the check before Monday
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Stakes (importance of depositing the check) are described as part of the protagonist’s situation at the time
          of the knowledge question.
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: It was two Saturdays ago that I went to our bank, and it was open.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Evidence is the protagonist’s own past experience/memory.
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: So, [yes, I do/no, I don't] know that our bank is open tomorrow.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Knowledge statement is first-person (self-ascription/denial).
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: It was two Saturdays ago that I went to our bank, and it was open.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Memory + prediction from a prior bank visit, with no extra verification -> Medium.
    contrast:
      group_high: high_stakes
      group_low: low_stakes
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: Low vs High stakes is confounded with questioner affect (calm vs anxious) and with the agent’s knowledge
        statement (self-ascription vs self-denial).
    groups:
    - group_id: low_stakes
      label: null
      n: 102
      mean: 5.02
      sd: 1.48
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 9
        quote: “Know” 5.02 (1.48) 4.36 (1.81) 2.81 189 .006 0.66 0.41 0.20 1.12
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: tabula_stream_p9_t1.csv
    - group_id: high_stakes
      label: null
      n: 99
      mean: 4.36
      sd: 1.81
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 9
        quote: “Know” 5.02 (1.48) 4.36 (1.81) 2.81 189 .006 0.66 0.41 0.20 1.12
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: tabula_stream_p9_t1.csv
    reported_test:
      test: t
      t: 2.81
      df1: 189.0
      p: 0.006
      reported_d: 0.41
      notes: Table reports Cohen’s d as an absolute magnitude.
      provenance:
        page: 9
        quote: “Know” 5.02 (1.48) 4.36 (1.81) 2.81 189 .006 0.66 0.41 0.20 1.12
        table_ref: tabula_stream_p9_t1.csv
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: 0.399811605602
      v: 0.020302566794
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: Computed from group means/SDs and split Ns with esc::esc_mean_sd in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd.
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
  notes: null
- study_id: 2
  label: Conceptual replication of Experiment 1 (flight; Low vs High)
  language: English
  language_other: null
  objective: Conceptual replication of Experiment 1 using a direct-flight vignette (low vs high stakes) and the same metalinguistic
    truth-evaluation questions.
  sample:
    n_final: null
    recruitment: mTurk
    recruitment_other: null
    compensation: money
    compensation_other: $0.40 (same recruitment/compensation as other experiments per Experiment 1 description)
    characteristics: null
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: Participants were recruited and tested the same way as in all experiments reported here.
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
    mean_age: null
  design: Between-Subjects
  design_other: null
  manipulated_factors:
  - Agent knowledge statement polarity varies with stakes (self-ascription in Low; self-denial in High).
  - Questioner affect varies with stakes (Jill calm in Low; anxious in High).
  paradigm: Agreement that a sentence is true
  paradigm_other: null
  scale:
    label: Likert 7-point
    points: 7
    anchors: 1 ("Strongly Disagree") to 7 ("Strongly Agree")
    direction: Higher = greater agreement.
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: Responses were collected on a standard seven-point Likert scale, 1 ("Strongly Disagree") -7 ("Strongly Agree"),
        left-to-right on the participant's screen.
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  measures:
    knowledge_question_text: When Stewart said, "I [do/don't] know," what he said was true.
    knowledge_question_first: null
    additional_question_text: null
  scenarios:
  - scenario_code: airport
    scenario_type: Direct-flight vignette (vacation vs organ courier).
    high_stakes_text: null
    low_stakes_text: null
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: 'In the high stakes version, it is very important whether the flight is direct: Stewart is transporting a liver
        for transplantation, and a non-direct flight will cause it to spoil.'
      tei_id: fig_1
      table_ref: manifest.json:fig_1
  effects:
  - effect_id: s2_e1
    subgroup: Knowledge statement truth (self-regarding; flight)
    subgroup_desc: Agreement with “When Stewart said, ‘I do/don’t know,’ what he said was true.”
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    moderators:
      scenario: airport
      skeptical_pressure: 'Yes'
      awareness: 'Yes'
      evidence: First Person
      attribution_person: First Person
      evidence_reliability: Medium
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: Stewart and his wife Jill are organ couriers.
          tei_id: fig_1
          table_ref: manifest.json:fig_1
        reason: Scenario is about whether a flight is direct; coded airport.
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: Jill responds [calmly/anxiously], "This is really [not/very] important, [but/and] sometimes the online booking
            information is inaccurate. Do you know that the flight is direct to Chicago?"
          tei_id: fig_1
          table_ref: manifest.json:fig_1
        reason: Explicit counterconsideration (online booking information may be inaccurate).
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: It's Saturday morning and they are currently [beginning their vacation/transporting a liver].
          tei_id: fig_1
          table_ref: manifest.json:fig_1
        reason: Stakes are described as part of the protagonist’s situation at the time of the knowledge question.
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: It was two Saturdays ago that I flew this airline to Chicago, and the flight was direct.
          tei_id: fig_1
          table_ref: manifest.json:fig_1
        reason: Evidence is protagonist’s own past experience/memory.
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: So, [yes, I do/no, I don't] know that the flight is direct.
          tei_id: fig_1
          table_ref: manifest.json:fig_1
        reason: Knowledge statement is first-person (self-ascription/denial).
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: It was two Saturdays ago that I flew this airline to Chicago, and the flight was direct.
          tei_id: fig_1
          table_ref: manifest.json:fig_1
        reason: Memory + prediction from a prior direct flight on the same airline, with no extra verification -> Medium.
    contrast:
      group_high: high_stakes
      group_low: low_stakes
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: Low vs High stakes is confounded with questioner affect (calm vs anxious) and with the agent’s knowledge
        statement (self-ascription vs self-denial).
    groups:
    - group_id: low_stakes
      label: null
      n: 52
      mean: 4.44
      sd: 1.55
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 11
        quote: “Know” 4.44 (1.55) 5.41 (1.61) -3.07 99 .003 -0.97 0.61 -1.56 -0.34
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: tabula_stream_p11_t2.csv
    - group_id: high_stakes
      label: null
      n: 49
      mean: 5.41
      sd: 1.61
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 11
        quote: “Know” 4.44 (1.55) 5.41 (1.61) -3.07 99 .003 -0.97 0.61 -1.56 -0.34
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: tabula_stream_p11_t2.csv
    reported_test:
      test: t
      t: -3.07
      df1: 99.0
      p: 0.003
      reported_d: 0.61
      notes: Table reports Cohen’s d as an absolute magnitude.
      provenance:
        page: 11
        quote: “Know” 4.44 (1.55) 5.41 (1.61) -3.07 99 .003 -0.97 0.61 -1.56 -0.34
        table_ref: tabula_stream_p11_t2.csv
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: -0.614166764737
      v: 0.041506263263
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: Computed from group means/SDs and split Ns with esc::esc_mean_sd in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd.
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
  notes: null
- study_id: 3
  label: Experiment 2 (bank; Yes vs No; stakes held constant)
  language: English
  language_other: null
  objective: Test the deferral confound by holding stakes constant and varying only whether the agent self-attributes knowledge
    (“I do know”) or self-denies knowledge (“I don’t know”).
  sample:
    n_final: 199
    recruitment: mTurk
    recruitment_other: null
    compensation: money
    compensation_other: $0.40 (same recruitment/compensation as other experiments per Experiment 1 description)
    characteristics: Aged 18–65 (mean 31); 97% native English; 80 female.
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: Participants. One hundred ninety-nine new participants (aged 18-65 years, mean age = 31 years; 97% reporting
        English as a native language; 80 female) were tested.
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
    mean_age: 31
    mean_age_prov:
      page: null
      quote: One hundred ninety-nine new participants (aged 18-65 years, mean age = 31 years; 97% reporting English as a native
        language; 80 female) were tested.
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  design: Between-Subjects
  design_other: null
  manipulated_factors:
  - Agent knowledge statement polarity (Yes=“I do know” vs No=“I don’t know”).
  paradigm: Agreement that a sentence is true
  paradigm_other: null
  scale:
    label: Likert 7-point
    points: 7
    anchors: 1 ("Strongly Disagree") to 7 ("Strongly Agree")
    direction: Higher = greater agreement.
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: Responses were collected on a standard seven-point Likert scale, 1 ("Strongly Disagree") -7 ("Strongly Agree"),
        left-to-right on the participant's screen.
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  measures:
    knowledge_question_text: When Keith said, "I [do/don't] know," what he said was true.
    knowledge_question_first: null
    additional_question_text: null
  scenarios:
  - scenario_code: bank
    scenario_type: Bank-hours / deposit vignette (stakes held constant; agent statement varied).
    high_stakes_text: null
    low_stakes_text: null
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: The present experiment tests this deferral hypothesis by comparing results from two cases differing only in whether
        the agent says "I know" or "I don't know."
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  effects:
  - effect_id: s3_e1
    subgroup: Knowledge statement truth (deferral; bank; Yes vs No)
    subgroup_desc: Agreement with “When Keith said, ‘I do/don’t know,’ what he said was true,” comparing Yes vs No conditions
      (stakes held constant).
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    moderators:
      scenario: bank
      skeptical_pressure: 'No'
      awareness: 'Yes'
      evidence: First Person
      attribution_person: First Person
      evidence_reliability: Medium
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: (Yes/No) Keith and his wife Jane are driving home from work on Friday afternoon.
          tei_id: fig_2
          table_ref: manifest.json:fig_2
        reason: Bank-hours vignette (deposit; bank open on Saturday).
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: Jane asks, "Do you know that our bank is open tomorrow?"
          tei_id: fig_3
          table_ref: manifest.json:fig_3
        reason: The vignette asks whether Keith knows, but does not introduce an explicit counterconsideration such as changed bank hours.
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: Participants in both conditions were equally likely to judge the situation unserious.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Stakes are treated as part of the scenario context; in this experiment stakes do not vary (held constant).
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: It was two Saturdays ago that I went to our bank, and it was open.
          tei_id: fig_3
          table_ref: manifest.json:fig_3
        reason: Evidence is the protagonist’s own past experience/memory.
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: So, [yes, I do/no, I don't] know that our bank is open tomorrow.
          tei_id: fig_3
          table_ref: manifest.json:fig_3
        reason: Knowledge statement is first-person (self-ascription vs self-denial).
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: It was two Saturdays ago that I went to our bank, and it was open.
          tei_id: fig_3
          table_ref: manifest.json:fig_3
        reason: Memory + prediction from a prior bank visit, with no extra verification -> Medium.
    contrast:
      group_high: 'no'
      group_low: 'yes'
      sign_convention: other
      other_notes: This contrast is Yes vs No knowledge statement (stakes held constant). Sign convention used here is d =
        mean(yes) - mean(no).
    groups:
    - group_id: 'yes'
      label: Yes condition (agent says “I do know”)
      n: 98
      mean: 4.58
      sd: 1.67
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 14
        quote: “Know” 4.58 (1.67) 4.49 (1.78) 0.39 197 .694 0.09 0.06 -0.39 0.58
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: tabula_stream_p14_t3.csv
    - group_id: 'no'
      label: No condition (agent says “I don’t know”)
      n: 101
      mean: 4.49
      sd: 1.78
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 14
        quote: “Know” 4.58 (1.67) 4.49 (1.78) 0.39 197 .694 0.09 0.06 -0.39 0.58
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: tabula_stream_p14_t3.csv
    reported_test:
      test: t
      t: 0.39
      f: null
      chi2: null
      z: null
      df1: 197
      df2: null
      p: 0.694
      reported_d: 0.06
      reported_r: null
      notes: Table reports Cohen’s d as an absolute magnitude.
      provenance:
        page: 14
        quote: “Know” 4.58 (1.67) 4.49 (1.78) 0.39 197 .694 0.09 0.06 -0.39 0.58
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: tabula_stream_p14_t3.csv
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: 0.052122137662
      v: 0.020111897654
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: Computed from group means/SDs and split Ns (Yes vs No) with esc::esc_mean_sd in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd.
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
  notes: null
- study_id: 4
  label: Conceptual replication of Experiment 2 (flight; Yes vs No)
  language: English
  language_other: null
  objective: Conceptual replication of Experiment 2 using the direct-flight vignette, varying only whether the agent says
    “I do know” vs “I don’t know” (stakes held constant).
  sample:
    n_final: null
    recruitment: mTurk
    recruitment_other: null
    compensation: money
    compensation_other: $0.40 (same recruitment/compensation as other experiments per Experiment 1 description)
    characteristics: null
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: Participants were recruited and tested the same way as in all experiments reported here.
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
    mean_age: null
  design: Between-Subjects
  design_other: null
  manipulated_factors:
  - Agent knowledge statement polarity (Yes=“I do know” vs No=“I don’t know”).
  paradigm: Agreement that a sentence is true
  paradigm_other: null
  scale:
    label: Likert 7-point
    points: 7
    anchors: 1 ("Strongly Disagree") to 7 ("Strongly Agree")
    direction: Higher = greater agreement.
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: Responses were collected on a standard seven-point Likert scale, 1 ("Strongly Disagree") -7 ("Strongly Agree"),
        left-to-right on the participant's screen.
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  measures:
    knowledge_question_text: When Stewart said, "I [do/don't] know," what he said was true.
    knowledge_question_first: null
    additional_question_text: null
  scenarios:
  - scenario_code: airport
    scenario_type: Direct-flight vignette (Yes vs No; stakes held constant).
    high_stakes_text: null
    low_stakes_text: null
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: (Yes/No) It's Saturday, and Stewart and his wife Jill are considering whether to fly to Chicago.
      tei_id: fig_4
      table_ref: manifest.json:fig_4
  effects:
  - effect_id: s4_e1
    subgroup: Knowledge statement truth (deferral; flight; Yes vs No)
    subgroup_desc: Agreement with “When Stewart said, ‘I do/don’t know,’ what he said was true,” comparing Yes vs No conditions
      (stakes held constant).
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    moderators:
      scenario: airport
      skeptical_pressure: 'No'
      awareness: 'Yes'
      evidence: First Person
      attribution_person: First Person
      evidence_reliability: Medium
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: It's Saturday, and Stewart and his wife Jill are considering whether to fly to Chicago.
          tei_id: fig_4
          table_ref: manifest.json:fig_4
        reason: Scenario is about whether a flight is direct; coded airport.
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: Jill asks, "Do you know that the flight is direct to Chicago?"
          tei_id: fig_4
          table_ref: manifest.json:fig_4
        reason: The vignette asks whether the flight is direct, but does not include the online-booking unreliability counterconsideration.
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: Participants in both conditions were equally likely to judge the situation unserious.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Stakes are treated as part of the scenario context; in this experiment stakes do not vary (held constant).
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: It was two Saturdays ago that I flew this airline to Chicago, and the flight was direct.
          tei_id: fig_4
          table_ref: manifest.json:fig_4
        reason: Evidence is protagonist’s own past experience/memory.
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: So, [yes, I do/no, I don't] know that the flight is direct.
          tei_id: fig_4
          table_ref: manifest.json:fig_4
        reason: Knowledge statement is first-person (self-ascription vs self-denial).
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: It was two Saturdays ago that I flew this airline to Chicago, and the flight was direct.
          tei_id: fig_4
          table_ref: manifest.json:fig_4
        reason: Memory + prediction from a prior direct flight on the same airline, with no extra verification -> Medium.
    contrast:
      group_high: 'no'
      group_low: 'yes'
      sign_convention: other
      other_notes: This contrast is Yes vs No knowledge statement (stakes held constant). Sign convention used here is d =
        mean(yes) - mean(no).
    groups:
    - group_id: 'yes'
      label: Yes condition (agent says “I do know”)
      n: 50
      mean: 4.54
      sd: 1.73
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 15
        quote: “Know” 4.54 (1.73) 4.61 (1.98) -0.18 99 .855 -0.68 0.04 -0.80 0.67
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: tabula_stream_p15_t4.csv
    - group_id: 'no'
      label: No condition (agent says “I don’t know”)
      n: 51
      mean: 4.61
      sd: 1.98
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 15
        quote: “Know” 4.54 (1.73) 4.61 (1.98) -0.18 99 .855 -0.68 0.04 -0.80 0.67
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: tabula_stream_p15_t4.csv
    reported_test:
      test: t
      t: -0.18
      f: null
      chi2: null
      z: null
      df1: 99
      df2: null
      p: 0.855
      reported_d: 0.04
      reported_r: null
      notes: Table reports Cohen’s d as an absolute magnitude. (Table-extracted MD for this row appears inconsistent with
        the means/CI; effect size computed from means/SDs.)
      provenance:
        page: 15
        quote: “Know” 4.54 (1.73) 4.61 (1.98) -0.18 99 .855 -0.68 0.04 -0.80 0.67
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: tabula_stream_p15_t4.csv
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: -0.037624978833
      v: 0.039614851251
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: Computed from group means/SDs and split Ns (Yes vs No) with esc::esc_mean_sd in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd.
    quality_flags:
    - table_extraction_uncertain
    notes: null
  notes: null
- study_id: 5
  label: Experiment 3 (bank; Low vs High; recommendation)
  language: English
  language_other: null
  objective: Test for evidence supporting contextualism while avoiding deferral by asking whether the agent should self-attribute
    knowledge to speak truthfully (agent makes no knowledge statement in the vignette).
  sample:
    n_final: 202
    recruitment: mTurk
    recruitment_other: null
    compensation: money
    compensation_other: $0.40 (same recruitment/compensation as other experiments per Experiment 1 description)
    characteristics: Aged 18–63 (mean 30); 95% native English; 78 female.
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: Participants. Two hundred and two participants (aged 18-63 years, mean age = 30 years; 95% reporting English
        as a native language; 78 female) were tested.
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
    mean_age: 30
    mean_age_prov:
      page: null
      quote: Two hundred and two participants (aged 18-63 years, mean age = 30 years; 95% reporting English as a native language;
        78 female) were tested.
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  design: Between-Subjects
  design_other: null
  manipulated_factors:
  - Questioner affect varies with stakes (Jane calm in Low; anxious in High).
  paradigm: Agreement that a sentence is true
  paradigm_other: null
  scale:
    label: Likert 7-point
    points: 7
    anchors: 1 ("Strongly Disagree") to 7 ("Strongly Agree")
    direction: Higher = greater agreement.
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: Participants then went to a new screen and rated their agreement with the same statements about truth, belief,
        evidence, seriousness, and actionability from Experiment 1, in the same way as in Experiment 1.
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  measures:
    knowledge_question_text: In order for Keith's answer to be true, he should say, "Yes, I do know."
    knowledge_question_first: null
    additional_question_text: null
  scenarios:
  - scenario_code: bank
    scenario_type: Bank-hours / deposit vignette (no knowledge statement; recommendation DV).
    high_stakes_text: null
    low_stakes_text: null
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions, Low and High, in a between-subjects design.
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  effects:
  - effect_id: s5_e1
    subgroup: Knowledge self-ascription recommendation (bank)
    subgroup_desc: Agreement with “In order for Keith’s answer to be true, he should say, ‘Yes, I do know.’”
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    moderators:
      scenario: bank
      skeptical_pressure: 'Yes'
      awareness: 'Yes'
      evidence: First Person
      attribution_person: First Person
      evidence_reliability: Medium
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: Each participant read a single story very similar to the ones used in Experiment 1.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Bank-hours vignette (deposit; bank open on Saturday).
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: The stories were the same as in Experiment 1 through the point where Jane asks, "Do you know that our bank
            is open tomorrow?"
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The vignette includes the standard skeptical prompt about whether the bank is open.
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions, Low and High, in a between-subjects design.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Stakes (Low vs High) are described as part of the protagonist’s situation at the time of the knowledge question.
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: It was two Saturdays ago that I went to our bank, and it was open.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Evidence is the protagonist’s own past experience/memory.
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: In order for Keith's answer to be true, he should say, "Yes, I do know."
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The outcome is framed as a first-person self-ascription (“I do know”).
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: It was two Saturdays ago that I went to our bank, and it was open.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Memory + prediction from a prior bank visit, with no extra verification -> Medium.
    contrast:
      group_high: high_stakes
      group_low: low_stakes
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: null
    groups:
    - group_id: low_stakes
      label: null
      n: 102
      mean: 4.79
      sd: 1.72
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 18
        quote: “Know” 4.79 (1.72) 4.64 (1.68) 0.64 200 .520 0.15 0.09 -0.32 0.63
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: tabula_stream_p18_t5.csv
    - group_id: high_stakes
      label: null
      n: 100
      mean: 4.64
      sd: 1.68
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 18
        quote: “Know” 4.79 (1.72) 4.64 (1.68) 0.64 200 .520 0.15 0.09 -0.32 0.63
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: tabula_stream_p18_t5.csv
    reported_test:
      test: t
      t: 0.64
      df1: 200.0
      p: 0.52
      reported_d: 0.09
      notes: Table reports Cohen’s d as an absolute magnitude.
      provenance:
        page: 18
        quote: “Know” 4.79 (1.72) 4.64 (1.68) 0.64 200 .520 0.15 0.09 -0.32 0.63
        table_ref: tabula_stream_p18_t5.csv
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: 0.088218811866
      v: 0.019823185328
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: Computed from group means/SDs and split Ns with esc::esc_mean_sd in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd.
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
  notes: null
- study_id: 6
  label: Conceptual replication of Experiment 3 (flight; Low vs High; recommendation)
  language: English
  language_other: null
  objective: Conceptual replication of Experiment 3 using the direct-flight vignette and the same recommendation outcome (should
    say “Yes, I do know” to speak truthfully).
  sample:
    n_final: null
    recruitment: mTurk
    recruitment_other: null
    compensation: money
    compensation_other: $0.40 (same recruitment/compensation as other experiments per Experiment 1 description)
    characteristics: null
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: Participants were recruited and tested the same way as in all experiments reported here.
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
    mean_age: null
  design: Between-Subjects
  design_other: null
  manipulated_factors:
  - Questioner affect varies with stakes (Jill calm in Low; anxious in High).
  paradigm: Agreement that a sentence is true
  paradigm_other: null
  scale:
    label: Likert 7-point
    points: 7
    anchors: 1 ("Strongly Disagree") to 7 ("Strongly Agree")
    direction: Higher = greater agreement.
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: Participants then went to a new screen and rated their agreement with the same statements about truth, belief,
        evidence, seriousness, and actionability from the conceptual replication of Experiment 1.
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  measures:
    knowledge_question_text: In order for Stewart's answer to be true, he should say, "Yes, I do know."
    knowledge_question_first: null
    additional_question_text: null
  scenarios:
  - scenario_code: airport
    scenario_type: Direct-flight vignette (vacation vs organ courier; recommendation DV).
    high_stakes_text: null
    low_stakes_text: null
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: Stewart wants to correctly answer Jill's question. Please rate your agreement with the following statement.
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  effects:
  - effect_id: s6_e1
    subgroup: Knowledge self-ascription recommendation (flight)
    subgroup_desc: Agreement with “In order for Stewart’s answer to be true, he should say, ‘Yes, I do know.’”
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    moderators:
      scenario: airport
      skeptical_pressure: 'Yes'
      awareness: 'Yes'
      evidence: First Person
      attribution_person: First Person
      evidence_reliability: Medium
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: Stewart wants to correctly answer Jill's question. Please rate your agreement with the following statement.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Scenario is about whether a flight is direct; coded airport.
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: Jill asks, "Do you know that the flight is direct to Chicago?"
          tei_id: fig_1
          table_ref: manifest.json:fig_1
        reason: The vignette includes explicit doubt/counterconsideration about whether the flight is direct.
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: It's Saturday morning and they are currently [beginning their vacation/transporting a liver].
          tei_id: fig_1
          table_ref: manifest.json:fig_1
        reason: Stakes are described as part of the protagonist’s situation (Low vs High).
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: It was two Saturdays ago that I flew this airline to Chicago, and the flight was direct.
          tei_id: fig_1
          table_ref: manifest.json:fig_1
        reason: Evidence is protagonist’s own past experience/memory.
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: In order for Stewart's answer to be true, he should say, "Yes, I do know."
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The outcome is framed as a first-person self-ascription (“I do know”).
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: It was two Saturdays ago that I flew this airline to Chicago, and the flight was direct.
          tei_id: fig_1
          table_ref: manifest.json:fig_1
        reason: Memory + prediction from a prior direct flight on the same airline, with no extra verification -> Medium.
    contrast:
      group_high: high_stakes
      group_low: low_stakes
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: null
    groups:
    - group_id: low_stakes
      label: null
      n: 50
      mean: 4.9
      sd: 1.61
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 19
        quote: “Know” 4.90 (1.61) 4.76 (1.72) 0.41 99 .684 0.14 0.08 -0.52 0.79
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: tabula_stream_p19_t6.csv
    - group_id: high_stakes
      label: null
      n: 51
      mean: 4.76
      sd: 1.72
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 19
        quote: “Know” 4.90 (1.61) 4.76 (1.72) 0.41 99 .684 0.14 0.08 -0.52 0.79
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: tabula_stream_p19_t6.csv
    reported_test:
      test: t
      t: 0.41
      df1: 99.0
      p: 0.684
      reported_d: 0.08
      notes: Table reports Cohen’s d as an absolute magnitude.
      provenance:
        page: 19
        quote: “Know” 4.90 (1.61) 4.76 (1.72) 0.41 99 .684 0.14 0.08 -0.52 0.79
        table_ref: tabula_stream_p19_t6.csv
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: 0.084010249876
      v: 0.039642782355
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: Computed from group means/SDs and split Ns with esc::esc_mean_sd in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd.
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
  notes: null
- study_id: 7
  label: Experiment 4 (bank; evidence strength required)
  language: English
  language_other: null
  objective: Test contextualism by asking what strength of evidence is required to know, comparing Low vs High stakes contexts.
  sample:
    n_final: 99
    recruitment: mTurk
    recruitment_other: null
    compensation: money
    compensation_other: $0.40 (same recruitment/compensation as other experiments per Experiment 1 description)
    characteristics: Aged 18–74 (mean 31); 97% native English; 41 female.
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: Participants. Ninety-nine new participants (aged 18-74 years, mean age = 31 years; 97% reporting English as a
        native language; 41 female) were tested.
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
    mean_age: 31
    mean_age_prov:
      page: null
      quote: Ninety-nine new participants (aged 18-74 years, mean age = 31 years; 97% reporting English as a native language;
        41 female) were tested.
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  design: Between-Subjects
  design_other: null
  manipulated_factors: []
  paradigm: Rating how much evidence is needed for knowledge
  paradigm_other: null
  scale:
    label: other
    points: 10
    anchors: 1 to 10 (10 = highest)
    direction: Higher = stronger evidence required for knowledge.
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: Responses were collected on a ten-point scale, 1-10, left-to-right on the participant's screen.
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  measures:
    knowledge_question_text: Knowing requires evidence that rates _____ on the scale.
    knowledge_question_first: null
    additional_question_text: null
  scenarios:
  - scenario_code: bank
    scenario_type: Bank-hours vignette (evidence threshold DV).
    high_stakes_text: null
    low_stakes_text: null
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: The procedures and stories for the conditions were very similar to Experiment 1, except this time the story ends
        with Jane posing a question to Keith about evidence and knowledge.
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  effects:
  - effect_id: s7_e1
    subgroup: Evidence strength required for knowledge (bank)
    subgroup_desc: Response to 1–10 question about how strong evidence must be to know (Low vs High stakes).
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    moderators:
      scenario: bank
      skeptical_pressure: 'Yes'
      awareness: 'Yes'
      evidence: First Person
      attribution_person: First Person
      evidence_reliability: Medium
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: The procedures and stories for the conditions were very similar to Experiment 1, except this time the story
            ends with Jane posing a question to Keith about evidence and knowledge.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Bank-hours vignette (deposit; bank open on Saturday).
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: The stories were the same as in Experiment 1 through the point where Jane asks, "Do you know that our bank
            is open tomorrow?"
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The vignette includes the standard skeptical prompt about whether the bank is open.
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions, Low and High, in a between-subjects design.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Stakes (Low vs High) are described as part of the protagonist’s situation.
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: It was two Saturdays ago that I went to our bank, and it was open.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Evidence is the protagonist’s own past experience/memory.
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: Knowing requires evidence that rates _____ on the scale.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The DV is framed as what the protagonist should say about “knowing” in the first-person context of the vignette.
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: It was two Saturdays ago that I went to our bank, and it was open.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Memory + prediction from a prior bank visit, with no extra verification -> Medium.
    contrast:
      group_high: high_stakes
      group_low: low_stakes
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: Condition split Ns are not reported in extracted outputs; d/v computed using analyst-authorized equal-N
        assumption n_low=n_high=99/2.
    groups:
    - group_id: low_stakes
      label: null
      n: null
      mean: 8.31
      sd: 1.86
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: null
        quote: High/Low, M = 8.62/8.31, SD = 1.98/1.86 t(97) = -0.81, p = .418, n.s.
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    - group_id: high_stakes
      label: null
      n: null
      mean: 8.62
      sd: 1.98
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: null
        quote: High/Low, M = 8.62/8.31, SD = 1.98/1.86 t(97) = -0.81, p = .418, n.s.
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    reported_test:
      test: t
      t: -0.81
      df1: 97.0
      p: 0.418
      notes: Split condition Ns not reported; effect size computed using analyst-authorized equal-N assumption n_low=n_high=99/2.
      provenance:
        page: null
        quote: High/Low, M = 8.62/8.31, SD = 1.98/1.86 t(97) = -0.81, p = .418, n.s.
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: -0.161379553952
      v: 0.040535572527
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: Computed from group means/SDs with esc::esc_mean_sd in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd using analyst-authorized equal-N
        assumption n_low=n_high=99/2; integer-split sensitivity changes v by about 0.000004.
    quality_flags:
    - imputed_equal_split_n
    notes: null
  notes: null
- study_id: 8
  label: Conceptual replication of Experiment 4 (flight; evidence strength required)
  language: English
  language_other: null
  objective: Conceptual replication of Experiment 4 using the direct-flight vignette, asking what strength of evidence is
    required to know (Low vs High stakes).
  sample:
    n_final: null
    recruitment: mTurk
    recruitment_other: null
    compensation: money
    compensation_other: $0.40 (same recruitment/compensation as other experiments per Experiment 1 description)
    characteristics: null
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: Participants were recruited and tested the same way as in all experiments reported here.
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
    mean_age: null
  design: Between-Subjects
  design_other: null
  manipulated_factors: []
  paradigm: Rating how much evidence is needed for knowledge
  paradigm_other: null
  scale:
    label: other
    points: 10
    anchors: 1 to 10 (10 = highest)
    direction: Higher = stronger evidence required for knowledge.
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest, how strong must your evidence be in order to know that the
        flight is direct?
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  measures:
    knowledge_question_text: Knowing requires evidence that rates _____ on the scale.
    knowledge_question_first: null
    additional_question_text: null
  scenarios:
  - scenario_code: airport
    scenario_type: Direct-flight vignette (evidence threshold DV).
    high_stakes_text: null
    low_stakes_text: null
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: Again I conducted a conceptual replication with the story about the direct flight.
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  effects:
  - effect_id: s8_e1
    subgroup: Evidence strength required for knowledge (flight)
    subgroup_desc: Response to 1–10 question about how strong evidence must be to know (Low vs High stakes).
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    moderators:
      scenario: airport
      skeptical_pressure: 'Yes'
      awareness: 'Yes'
      evidence: First Person
      attribution_person: First Person
      evidence_reliability: Medium
    moderators_coding:
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: Again I conducted a conceptual replication with the story about the direct flight.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Scenario is about whether a flight is direct; coded airport.
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: Jill asks, "Do you know that the flight is direct to Chicago?"
          tei_id: fig_1
          table_ref: manifest.json:fig_1
        reason: The vignette includes explicit doubt/counterconsideration about whether the flight is direct.
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: It's Saturday morning and they are currently [beginning their vacation/transporting a liver].
          tei_id: fig_1
          table_ref: manifest.json:fig_1
        reason: Stakes are described as part of the protagonist’s situation (Low vs High).
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: It was two Saturdays ago that I flew this airline to Chicago, and the flight was direct.
          tei_id: fig_1
          table_ref: manifest.json:fig_1
        reason: Evidence is protagonist’s own past experience/memory.
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: Knowing requires evidence that rates _____ on the scale.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: DV is framed as what the protagonist should say about “knowing” in the first-person context of the vignette.
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: null
          quote: It was two Saturdays ago that I flew this airline to Chicago, and the flight was direct.
          tei_id: fig_1
          table_ref: manifest.json:fig_1
        reason: Memory + prediction from a prior direct flight on the same airline, with no extra verification -> Medium.
    contrast:
      group_high: high_stakes
      group_low: low_stakes
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: v computed from reported d + t(df) without split Ns (see analysis/effect_sizes.qmd).
    groups:
    - group_id: low_stakes
      label: null
      n: null
      mean: 8.59
      sd: 1.56
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: null
        quote: High/Low, M = 9.08/8.59, SD = 1.29/1.56, t(98) = 1.69, p = .093, d = 0.34.
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    - group_id: high_stakes
      label: null
      n: null
      mean: 9.08
      sd: 1.29
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: null
        quote: High/Low, M = 9.08/8.59, SD = 1.29/1.56, t(98) = 1.69, p = .093, d = 0.34.
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: null
    reported_test:
      test: t
      t: 1.69
      df1: 98.0
      p: 0.093
      reported_d: 0.34
      notes: Reported Cohen’s d appears to be an absolute magnitude; sign set in effect_size using d = mean(low) - mean(high).
      provenance:
        page: null
        quote: High/Low, M = 9.08/8.59, SD = 1.29/1.56, t(98) = 1.69, p = .093, d = 0.34.
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: -0.34
      v: 0.041064569211
      computed_from: reported_d
      needs_review: false
      notes: Computed v from reported d + t(df) in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd; sign set from means using d = mean(low) - mean(high).
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
  notes: null
