schema_version: '1.2'
paper:
  paper_id: wundfolkspuristspragmatic
  citation: Wu, S. (2025). Are Folks Purists or Pragmatic Encroachers? New Discoveries of Relation between Knowledge and Action
    from Experimental Philosophy. Episteme, 22, 304–332. https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2023.56
  short_label: Wu 2025
  doi: 10.1017/epi.2023.56
  published: 'Yes'
  year: 2025
  language: English
  language_other: null
  research_objective: Report three experiments with Chinese participants using modified DeRose bank, Cohen airport, and Pinillos
    spelling/typo cases to test whether practical stakes affect knowledge attributions and whether knowledge and action judgments
    co-vary as predicted by pragmatic encroachment.
  data_availability:
    data_available_online: 'Yes'
    url: https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2023.56
    notes: Paper states that supplementary materials are available on CJO. A local copy of official Supplementary Materials
      2 (translated stimuli materials in English) is stored under out/external/S1742360023000564sup002.pdf, with extracted
      text at out/external/S1742360023000564sup002.txt.
  notes: null
studies:
- study_id: 1
  label: Experiment 1
  language: other
  language_other: 'Chinese'
  objective: Test whether stakes affect knowledge attributions and action judgments by having participants choose one of four
    response options that jointly characterize the protagonist’s epistemic state (knows vs does not know) and action requirement
    (needs to recheck vs not) across three classic vignette families.
  sample:
    n_final: 272
    recruitment: other
    recruitment_other: Wenjuanxing (online Chinese survey platform).
    compensation: null
    compensation_other: null
    characteristics: Effective sample aged 18–58 (M=29.69, SD=7.16); 59.6% female; materials delivered in Chinese; average
      completion ~2.5 minutes.
    mean_age: 29.69
    mean_age_prov:
      page: null
      quote: The effective sample ranged from 18 to 58 years old (M = 29.69, SD = 7.16), with females comprising 59.6%.
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: Four hundred twenty-five questionnaires were collected in total, and 272 were deemed effective… The experiments
        were conducted via the online survey platform Wenjuanxing (http://www.wjx.cn), with all materials delivered in Chinese.
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  design: Between-Subjects
  design_other: '3 (scenario: Bank/Airport/Spelling) × 2 (stakes: low vs high) between-subjects; each participant read one
    scenario and selected one of four options (A–D) combining knowledge attribution and action requirement.'
  manipulated_factors:
  - Stakes (low vs high)
  - Scenario (Bank vs Airport vs Spelling)
  paradigm: Agreement with knowledge claim
  paradigm_other: null
  scale:
    label: binary
    points: 2
    anchors: 'Attributes knowledge (A or B) vs does not attribute knowledge (C or D).'
    direction: null
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: After reading the material, participants were asked to choose the best description of the protagonist's situation
        from the following four options…
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  measures:
    knowledge_question_text: Choose which of four options (A–D) best describes the protagonist’s situation (joint knowledge×action
      characterization). Knowledge attribution is operationalized as selecting A or B (vs C or D).
    knowledge_question_first: null
    additional_question_text: null
  scenarios:
  - scenario_code: bank
    scenario_type: DeRose-style bank deposit / bank-hours vignette (modified).
    high_stakes_text: 'High stakes: John must deposit cash by Monday to avoid eviction (rent transfer); many banks are closed
      on Saturdays; John remembers coming on a Saturday half a year ago.'
    low_stakes_text: 'Low stakes: depositing the cash is not important; can deposit early or later.'
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: 'High-stake: “If he fails to deposit this money in the bank by Monday… he will be evicted immediately.” Low-stake:
        “this money does not require to be deposited these days… it makes no difference to deposit it early or later.”'
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  - scenario_code: airport
    scenario_type: Cohen-style airport/flight vignette (modified; organ courier vs vacation).
    high_stakes_text: 'High stakes: organ courier transporting a liver to Chicago; a direct flight is necessary to prevent
      organ spoilage.'
    low_stakes_text: 'Low stakes: on vacation flying to Chicago for a basketball game; missing the game would not matter.'
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: “In the Airport cases, the protagonist is an organ courier… transport a liver to Chicago… Conversely, in the
        low-stake case, the protagonist is on vacation… basketball game.”
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  - scenario_code: typos
    scenario_type: Pinillos-style spelling/typo vignette (modified; coursework).
    high_stakes_text: 'High stakes: any typo in coursework could lead to expulsion from school.'
    low_stakes_text: 'Low stakes: typos in coursework bear no consequence or significance.'
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: “In the Spelling cases… In the high-stake case, any typo in his coursework could lead him to get expelled from
        school… in the low-stake case, typos… bear no consequence or significance.”
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  effects:
  - effect_id: s1_e1
    subgroup: Experiment 1 — Bank (knowledge attribution)
    subgroup_desc: 'Binary: A&B = attributes knowledge vs C&D = does not attribute knowledge (Bank case)'
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    moderators: &id001
      scenario: bank
      skeptical_pressure: 'Yes'
      awareness: 'Yes'
      evidence: First Person
      attribution_person: Other
      evidence_reliability: Medium
    moderators_coding: &id002
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: 7
          quote: Today is Friday, and it's the payday of the restaurant where John works. Because the salary at this restaurant
            is paid in cash, John intends to deposit this money in the bank after work.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Vignette is explicitly a bank deposit/bank-hours scenario in the official supplementary stimuli.
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: 7
          quote: Many banks are closed on Saturdays, but John remembers that he came to the bank on a Saturday morning half
            a year ago and found it open.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The vignette explicitly introduces an alternative possibility (bank may be closed on Saturday).
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: 7
          quote: If he fails to deposit this money in the bank by Monday, his rent will not be paid on time due to insufficient
            funds in his account. His landlord is very strict. If he does not pay the rent on time, he will be evicted immediately.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Stakes are described as part of the protagonist’s situation (so the agent is aware of what is at stake).
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: 7
          quote: John remembers that he came to the bank on a Saturday morning half a year ago and found it open.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The evidence is the agent’s own memory/experience (first-person evidence).
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: 7
          quote: John knows the bank is open on Saturday.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Participants choose among third-person descriptions of whether John knows.
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: 7
          quote: John remembers that he came to the bank on a Saturday morning half a year ago and found it open.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The belief rests on a single remembered visit half a year earlier; this is more than mere guesswork but weaker
          than a highly reliable official source, so coded Medium.
    contrast:
      group_high: high_stakes
      group_low: low_stakes
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: Outcome mean = proportion attributing knowledge (A&B).
    groups:
    - group_id: low_stakes
      label: null
      n: 50
      mean: 0.8
      sd: null
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 12
        quote: The Bank cases,Count,40,32,10,,12
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: camelot_stream_p12_t2.csv
    - group_id: high_stakes
      label: null
      n: 44
      mean: 0.7272727272727273
      sd: null
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 12
        quote: The Bank cases,Count,40,32,10,,12
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: camelot_stream_p12_t2.csv
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: 0.223544630185
      v: 0.072824600743
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: Computed from exact 2×2 table counts (A&B vs C&D) via esc::esc_2x2 (OR -> d) in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd.
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
  - effect_id: s1_e2
    subgroup: Experiment 1 — Airport (knowledge attribution)
    subgroup_desc: 'Binary: A&B = attributes knowledge vs C&D = does not attribute knowledge (Airport case)'
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    moderators: &id003
      scenario: airport
      skeptical_pressure: 'Yes'
      awareness: 'Yes'
      evidence: External
      attribution_person: Other
      evidence_reliability: High
    moderators_coding: &id004
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: 8
          quote: John is an organ courier.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Scenario is an airport/flight vignette about whether a Chicago flight is direct.
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: 8
          quote: Online booking information is sometimes inaccurate.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The vignette explicitly introduces a counterconsideration that the website information might be wrong.
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: 8
          quote: Today is Saturday, and his job today is transporting a liver. If he can catch a direct flight to Chicago
            today, he will be in time to deliver the organ to a patient in Chicago.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Stakes are described as part of the protagonist’s situation (so the agent is aware of what is at stake).
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: 8
          quote: When he checks the airline's website, he sees that there is a direct flight to Chicago today.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The most central evidence for whether today's flight is direct comes from the airline website; John's memory
          of a direct flight two weeks earlier is corroborating but secondary.
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: 9
          quote: John knows that this flight is direct.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Participants choose among third-person descriptions of whether John knows.
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: 8
          quote: Online booking information is sometimes inaccurate.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The central external source is explicitly characterized as not always accurate; coded Low per the project
          guide.
    contrast:
      group_high: high_stakes
      group_low: low_stakes
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: Outcome mean = proportion attributing knowledge (A&B).
    groups:
    - group_id: low_stakes
      label: null
      n: 46
      mean: 0.8695652173913043
      sd: null
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 12
        quote: The Airport cases,Count,40,41,6,,4
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: camelot_stream_p12_t2.csv
    - group_id: high_stakes
      label: null
      n: 45
      mean: 0.9111111111111111
      sd: null
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 12
        quote: The Airport cases,Count,40,41,6,,4
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: camelot_stream_p12_t2.csv
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: -0.23715838101
      v: 0.141664313471
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: Computed from exact 2×2 table counts (A&B vs C&D) via esc::esc_2x2 (OR -> d) in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd.
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
  - effect_id: s1_e3
    subgroup: Experiment 1 — Spelling/Typos (knowledge attribution)
    subgroup_desc: 'Binary: A&B = attributes knowledge vs C&D = does not attribute knowledge (Spelling/typos case)'
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    moderators: &id005
      scenario: typos
      skeptical_pressure: 'No'
      awareness: 'Yes'
      evidence: First Person
      attribution_person: Other
      evidence_reliability: High
    moderators_coding: &id006
      scenario:
        provenance:
          page: 9
          quote: John is a smart and diligent student. He has just finished the coursework for the linguistics course. This
            coursework is due tomorrow.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Scenario concerns proofreading coursework for typos/spelling, matching the typos vignette family.
      skeptical_pressure:
        provenance:
          page: 9
          quote: Although John doesn't often make mistakes in spelling, he checked his coursework twice with a dictionary
            after finishing his coursework.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: No explicit doubt or counterconsideration is raised; the vignette changes stakes but does not add a skeptical
          cue.
      awareness:
        provenance:
          page: 10
          quote: Whether John gets an A in this course concerns whether he can continue to have the scholarship. Without this
            scholarship, he will be expelled because he cannot pay the tuition.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Stakes are described as part of the protagonist’s situation (so the agent is aware of what is at stake).
      evidence:
        provenance:
          page: 9
          quote: Although John doesn't often make mistakes in spelling, he checked his coursework twice with a dictionary
            after finishing his coursework.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The evidence is generated by the protagonist's own proofreading/checking, aided by a dictionary.
      attribution_person:
        provenance:
          page: 10
          quote: John knows there is no typo in the coursework.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: Participants choose among third-person descriptions of whether John knows.
      evidence_reliability:
        provenance:
          page: 9
          quote: John doesn't often make mistakes in spelling, and he checked his coursework twice with a dictionary after
            finishing his coursework.
          tei_id: null
          table_ref: null
        reason: The vignette describes a good speller who proofread twice with a dictionary, which supports coding the evidence
          as relatively high reliability.
    contrast:
      group_high: high_stakes
      group_low: low_stakes
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: Outcome mean = proportion attributing knowledge (A&B).
    groups:
    - group_id: low_stakes
      label: Low stakes
      n: 48
      mean: 0.6041666666666666
      sd: null
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 12
        quote: The Spelling cases,Count,29,27,19,,12
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: camelot_stream_p12_t2.csv
    - group_id: high_stakes
      label: High stakes
      n: 39
      mean: 0.6923076923076923
      sd: null
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 12
        quote: The Spelling cases,Count,29,27,19,,12
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: camelot_stream_p12_t2.csv
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: -0.213956059887
      v: 0.063067788588
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: Computed from exact 2×2 table counts (A&B vs C&D) via esc::esc_2x2 (OR -> d) in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd.
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
  notes: null
- study_id: 2
  label: Experiment 2
  language: other
  language_other: 'Chinese'
  objective: Replicate Experiment 1 with modified options intended to remove a potential ambiguity (need for extra information
    beyond whether p) and test whether stakes affect knowledge attributions and action judgments.
  sample:
    n_final: 272
    recruitment: other
    recruitment_other: Wenjuanxing (online Chinese survey platform).
    compensation: null
    compensation_other: null
    characteristics: Effective sample aged 18–62 (M=30.62, SD=7.50); 65.1% female; materials delivered in Chinese; average
      completion ~3 minutes.
    mean_age: 30.62
    mean_age_prov:
      page: null
      quote: The effective sample ranged from 18 to 62 years old (M = 30.62, SD = 7.50), with females comprising 65.1%.
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: Four hundred two questionnaires were collected in total, and 272 were deemed effective… The experiments were
        conducted via the online survey platform Wenjuanxing (http://www.wjx.cn), with all materials delivered in Chinese.
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  design: Between-Subjects
  design_other: Same 3×2 between-subjects design as Experiment 1; participants select one of four modified options (A–D) combining
    knowledge attribution and action requirement.
  manipulated_factors:
  - Stakes (low vs high)
  - Scenario (Bank vs Airport vs Spelling)
  paradigm: Agreement with knowledge claim
  paradigm_other: null
  scale:
    label: binary
    points: 2
    anchors: 'Attributes knowledge (A or B) vs does not attribute knowledge (C or D).'
    direction: null
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: '“Take the Bank cases… the four modified options were as follows: A. John knows the bank is open on Saturday.
        It is necessary… B.… C.… D.… ”'
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  measures:
    knowledge_question_text: Choose which of four modified options (A–D) best describes the protagonist’s situation (joint
      knowledge×action characterization). Knowledge attribution is operationalized as selecting A or B (vs C or D).
    knowledge_question_first: null
    additional_question_text: null
  scenarios:
  - scenario_code: bank
    scenario_type: DeRose-style bank deposit / bank-hours vignette (modified).
    high_stakes_text: 'High stakes: John must deposit cash by Monday to avoid eviction.'
    low_stakes_text: 'Low stakes: depositing the cash is not important.'
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: Experiment 2 took the same materials and between-subject design as Experiment 1.
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  - scenario_code: airport
    scenario_type: Cohen-style airport/flight vignette (modified; organ courier vs vacation).
    high_stakes_text: 'High stakes: organ courier transporting a liver to Chicago; direct flight needed.'
    low_stakes_text: 'Low stakes: on vacation flying to a basketball game.'
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: Experiment 2 took the same materials and between-subject design as Experiment 1.
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  - scenario_code: typos
    scenario_type: Pinillos-style spelling/typo vignette (modified; coursework).
    high_stakes_text: 'High stakes: any typo could lead to expulsion.'
    low_stakes_text: 'Low stakes: typos have no consequence.'
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: Experiment 2 took the same materials and between-subject design as Experiment 1.
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  effects:
  - effect_id: s2_e1
    subgroup: Experiment 2 — Bank (knowledge attribution)
    subgroup_desc: 'Binary: A&B = attributes knowledge vs C&D = does not attribute knowledge (Bank case; modified options)'
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    moderators: *id001
    moderators_coding: *id002
    contrast:
      group_high: high_stakes
      group_low: low_stakes
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: Outcome mean = proportion attributing knowledge (A&B).
    groups:
    - group_id: low_stakes
      label: Low stakes
      n: 42
      mean: 0.8571428571428571
      sd: null
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 18
        quote: The Bank cases,Count,36,36,6,,12
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: camelot_stream_p18_t5.csv
    - group_id: high_stakes
      label: High stakes
      n: 48
      mean: 0.75
      sd: null
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 18
        quote: The Bank cases,Count,36,36,6,,12
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: camelot_stream_p18_t5.csv
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: 0.382152069423
      v: 0.092877751672
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: Computed from exact 2×2 table counts (A&B vs C&D) via esc::esc_2x2 (OR -> d) in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd.
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
  - effect_id: s2_e2
    subgroup: Experiment 2 — Airport (knowledge attribution)
    subgroup_desc: 'Binary: A&B = attributes knowledge vs C&D = does not attribute knowledge (Airport case; modified options)'
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    moderators: *id003
    moderators_coding: *id004
    contrast:
      group_high: high_stakes
      group_low: low_stakes
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: Outcome mean = proportion attributing knowledge (A&B).
    groups:
    - group_id: low_stakes
      label: Low stakes
      n: 44
      mean: 0.7954545454545454
      sd: null
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 18
        quote: The Airport cases,Count,35,48,9,,6
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: camelot_stream_p18_t5.csv
    - group_id: high_stakes
      label: High stakes
      n: 54
      mean: 0.8888888888888888
      sd: null
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 18
        quote: The Airport cases,Count,35,48,9,,6
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: camelot_stream_p18_t5.csv
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: -0.397683487904
      v: 0.099451566563
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: Computed from exact 2×2 table counts (A&B vs C&D) via esc::esc_2x2 (OR -> d) in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd.
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
  - effect_id: s2_e3
    subgroup: Experiment 2 — Spelling/Typos (knowledge attribution)
    subgroup_desc: 'Binary: A&B = attributes knowledge vs C&D = does not attribute knowledge (Spelling/typos case; modified
      options)'
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    moderators: *id005
    moderators_coding: *id006
    contrast:
      group_high: high_stakes
      group_low: low_stakes
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: Outcome mean = proportion attributing knowledge (A&B).
    groups:
    - group_id: low_stakes
      label: Low stakes
      n: 42
      mean: 0.5238095238095238
      sd: null
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 18
        quote: The Spelling cases,Count,22,29,20,,13
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: camelot_stream_p18_t5.csv
    - group_id: high_stakes
      label: High stakes
      n: 42
      mean: 0.6904761904761905
      sd: null
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 18
        quote: The Spelling cases,Count,22,29,20,,13
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: camelot_stream_p18_t5.csv
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: -0.389809538289
      v: 0.062878015954
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: Computed from exact 2×2 table counts (A&B vs C&D) via esc::esc_2x2 (OR -> d) in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd.
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
  notes: null
- study_id: 3
  label: Experiment 3
  language: other
  language_other: 'Chinese'
  objective: Test whether knowledge attributions in high-stakes conditions might be driven by a presumption that protagonists
    had (or would) recheck, by asking participants to choose between two knowledge-attribution options explicitly conditioned
    on ‘without checking’.
  sample:
    n_final: 346
    recruitment: other
    recruitment_other: Wenjuanxing (online Chinese survey platform).
    compensation: null
    compensation_other: null
    characteristics: Effective sample aged 17–60 (M=30.91, SD=7.54); 58.7% female; materials delivered in Chinese; average
      completion ~2 minutes.
    mean_age: 30.91
    mean_age_prov:
      page: null
      quote: The effective sample ranged from 17 to 60 years old (M = 30.91, SD = 7.54), with females comprising 58.7%.
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: Four hundred fifty questionnaires were collected in total, and 346 were deemed effective… The experiments were
        conducted via the online survey platform Wenjuanxing (http://www.wjx.cn), with all materials delivered in Chinese.
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  design: Between-Subjects
  design_other: Same 3×2 between-subjects design as Experiments 1–2; participants choose between two options (knows without
    checking vs does not know without checking).
  manipulated_factors:
  - Stakes (low vs high)
  - Scenario (Bank vs Airport vs Spelling)
  paradigm: Agreement with knowledge claim
  paradigm_other: null
  scale:
    label: binary
    points: 2
    anchors: 'A: Knows without checking; B: Does not know without checking.'
    direction: null
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: “…participants needed to decide whether ‘John knows… without checking…’ or ‘John does not know… without checking…’.”
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  measures:
    knowledge_question_text: 'Choose between two statements describing the protagonist’s epistemic state ‘without checking’
      (A: knows vs B: does not know).'
    knowledge_question_first: null
    additional_question_text: null
  scenarios:
  - scenario_code: bank
    scenario_type: DeRose-style bank deposit / bank-hours vignette (modified).
    high_stakes_text: 'High stakes: John must deposit cash by Monday to avoid eviction.'
    low_stakes_text: 'Low stakes: depositing the cash is not important.'
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: The materials in Experiment 3 were primarily the same as those in experiments 1 and 2…
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  - scenario_code: airport
    scenario_type: Cohen-style airport/flight vignette (modified; organ courier vs vacation).
    high_stakes_text: 'High stakes: organ courier transporting a liver to Chicago; direct flight needed.'
    low_stakes_text: 'Low stakes: on vacation flying to a basketball game.'
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: There were no such phrasing issues in the Airport cases and the Spelling cases, therefore the materials of these
        two cases were identical to those in experiments 1 and 2.
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  - scenario_code: typos
    scenario_type: Pinillos-style spelling/typo vignette (modified; coursework).
    high_stakes_text: 'High stakes: any typo could lead to expulsion.'
    low_stakes_text: 'Low stakes: typos have no consequence.'
    provenance:
      page: null
      quote: There were no such phrasing issues in the Airport cases and the Spelling cases, therefore the materials of these
        two cases were identical to those in experiments 1 and 2.
      tei_id: null
      table_ref: null
  effects:
  - effect_id: s3_e1
    subgroup: Experiment 3 — Bank (knows without checking)
    subgroup_desc: 'Binary: Option A (knows without checking) vs option B (does not know without checking); Bank case'
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    moderators: *id001
    moderators_coding: *id002
    contrast:
      group_high: high_stakes
      group_low: low_stakes
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: Outcome mean = proportion choosing option A (knows without checking).
    groups:
    - group_id: low_stakes
      label: Low stakes
      n: 48
      mean: 0.75
      sd: null
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 23
        quote: The Bank cases,Count,36,47,12,21
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: camelot_stream_p23_t7.csv
    - group_id: high_stakes
      label: High stakes
      n: 68
      mean: 0.6911764705882353
      sd: null
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 23
        quote: The Bank cases,Count,36,47,12,21
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: camelot_stream_p23_t7.csv
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: 0.161532267823
      v: 0.054715492281
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: Computed from exact 2×2 table counts (option A vs B) via esc::esc_2x2 (OR -> d) in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd.
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
  - effect_id: s3_e2
    subgroup: Experiment 3 — Airport (knows without checking)
    subgroup_desc: 'Binary: Option A (knows without checking) vs option B (does not know without checking); Airport case'
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    moderators: *id003
    moderators_coding: *id004
    contrast:
      group_high: high_stakes
      group_low: low_stakes
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: Outcome mean = proportion choosing option A (knows without checking).
    groups:
    - group_id: low_stakes
      label: Low stakes
      n: 42
      mean: 0.8095238095238095
      sd: null
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 23
        quote: The Airport cases,Count,34,57,8,16
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: camelot_stream_p23_t7.csv
    - group_id: high_stakes
      label: High stakes
      n: 73
      mean: 0.7808219178082192
      sd: null
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 23
        quote: The Airport cases,Count,34,57,8,16
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: camelot_stream_p23_t7.csv
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: 0.09728553269
      v: 0.071265964114
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: Computed from exact 2×2 table counts (option A vs B) via esc::esc_2x2 (OR -> d) in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd.
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
  - effect_id: s3_e3
    subgroup: Experiment 3 — Spelling/Typos (knows without checking)
    subgroup_desc: 'Binary: Option A (knows without checking) vs option B (does not know without checking); Spelling/typos
      case'
    design: Between-Subjects
    design_other: null
    moderators: *id005
    moderators_coding: *id006
    contrast:
      group_high: high_stakes
      group_low: low_stakes
      sign_convention: d = mean(low) - mean(high)
      other_notes: Outcome mean = proportion choosing option A (knows without checking).
    groups:
    - group_id: low_stakes
      label: Low stakes
      n: 64
      mean: 0.515625
      sd: null
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 23
        quote: The Spelling cases,Count,33,25,31,26
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: camelot_stream_p23_t7.csv
    - group_id: high_stakes
      label: High stakes
      n: 51
      mean: 0.49019607843137253
      sd: null
      se: null
      provenance:
        page: 23
        quote: The Spelling cases,Count,33,25,31,26
        tei_id: null
        table_ref: camelot_stream_p23_t7.csv
    effect_size:
      metric: SMD
      d: 0.056092791816
      v: 0.042865740373
      computed_from: groups
      needs_review: false
      notes: Computed from exact 2×2 table counts (option A vs B) via esc::esc_2x2 (OR -> d) in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd.
    quality_flags: []
    notes: null
  notes: null
