Corrigendum to “Implicit moral evaluations: A multinomial modeling approach” [Cognition 158 (2017) 224–241] (S0010027716302530) (10.1016/j.cognition.2016.10.013))

Christopher Daryl Cameron, B. Keith Payne, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Julian A. Scheffer, Michael Inzlicht

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

Abstract

The authors noticed an error in the computation of the w effect size in the modeling analyses. Corrected values of w are reported with initial values in parentheses: In Section 2.2.2, w's are 0.01 (0.03), 0.24 (0.48), 0.01 (0.02), and 0.02 (0.04). In Section 3.2.2, w's are 0.15 (0.45), 0.01 (0.02), and 0.02 (0.06). In Section 4.2.2, w's are 0.02 (0.08), 0.02 (0.06), 0.00 (0.01), 0.01 (0.04), 0.02 (0.05), and 0.03 (0.10). In Section 5.2.2, w's are 0.00 (0.00) and 0.03 (0.06). In Section 6.2.2, w's are 0.03 (0.05), 0.00 (0.01), 0.01 (0.01), 0.00 (0.00), 0.05 (0.08), 0.05 (0.08), 0.00 (0.00), 0.03 (0.06). In Table 2, w's are 0.24 (0.48), 0.01 (0.02), and 0.02 (0.04). In Tables 4 and 6, w's are 0.02 (0.06). In Table 8, w is 0.03 (0.06). In Table 10, w's for voter group comparisons are 0.04 (0.06) and 0.03 (0.06) and for prime comparisons are 0.00 (0.00) and 0.00 (0.00). This error does not change any results or interpretations about model fit based upon the G-squared statistic, or about significant differences across conditions in process parameters. Therefore, it does not change any of the hypothesis tests or conclusions. Additionally, the authors noticed minor input typos in Table 5. Corrected values for prime-target descriptive statistics are reported, with initial values in parentheses: Wrong-Idiographic M is 0.14 (0.15), Wrong-Neutral SD is 0.24 (0.23), Idiographic-Wrong SD is 0.16 (0.17), Idiographic-Neutral SD is 0.23 (0.22), Negative-Idiographic M is 0.16 (0.17), Negative-Negative SD is 0.25 (0.26), Negative-Neutral M is 0.46 (0.45), Neutral-Wrong M is 0.22 (0.23), and Neutral-Negative M is 0.60 (0.59). These were table input errors that do not impact the ANOVAs or Hedges’ g effect size computations, and thus do not change any conclusions about the behavioral results. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Number of pages1
JournalCognition
Volume173
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2018

Fingerprint

Cognition
cognition
evaluation
Values
Analysis of Variance
descriptive statistics
voter
statistics
interpretation
corrigendum
Modeling
Moral Evaluation
Group
Statistics
Effect Size

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
  • Language and Linguistics
  • Developmental and Educational Psychology
  • Linguistics and Language
  • Cognitive Neuroscience

Cite this

@article{12873d07dbc74a9a8dddb1dfb493e595,
title = "Corrigendum to “Implicit moral evaluations: A multinomial modeling approach” [Cognition 158 (2017) 224–241] (S0010027716302530) (10.1016/j.cognition.2016.10.013))",
abstract = "The authors noticed an error in the computation of the w effect size in the modeling analyses. Corrected values of w are reported with initial values in parentheses: In Section 2.2.2, w's are 0.01 (0.03), 0.24 (0.48), 0.01 (0.02), and 0.02 (0.04). In Section 3.2.2, w's are 0.15 (0.45), 0.01 (0.02), and 0.02 (0.06). In Section 4.2.2, w's are 0.02 (0.08), 0.02 (0.06), 0.00 (0.01), 0.01 (0.04), 0.02 (0.05), and 0.03 (0.10). In Section 5.2.2, w's are 0.00 (0.00) and 0.03 (0.06). In Section 6.2.2, w's are 0.03 (0.05), 0.00 (0.01), 0.01 (0.01), 0.00 (0.00), 0.05 (0.08), 0.05 (0.08), 0.00 (0.00), 0.03 (0.06). In Table 2, w's are 0.24 (0.48), 0.01 (0.02), and 0.02 (0.04). In Tables 4 and 6, w's are 0.02 (0.06). In Table 8, w is 0.03 (0.06). In Table 10, w's for voter group comparisons are 0.04 (0.06) and 0.03 (0.06) and for prime comparisons are 0.00 (0.00) and 0.00 (0.00). This error does not change any results or interpretations about model fit based upon the G-squared statistic, or about significant differences across conditions in process parameters. Therefore, it does not change any of the hypothesis tests or conclusions. Additionally, the authors noticed minor input typos in Table 5. Corrected values for prime-target descriptive statistics are reported, with initial values in parentheses: Wrong-Idiographic M is 0.14 (0.15), Wrong-Neutral SD is 0.24 (0.23), Idiographic-Wrong SD is 0.16 (0.17), Idiographic-Neutral SD is 0.23 (0.22), Negative-Idiographic M is 0.16 (0.17), Negative-Negative SD is 0.25 (0.26), Negative-Neutral M is 0.46 (0.45), Neutral-Wrong M is 0.22 (0.23), and Neutral-Negative M is 0.60 (0.59). These were table input errors that do not impact the ANOVAs or Hedges’ g effect size computations, and thus do not change any conclusions about the behavioral results. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.",
author = "Cameron, {Christopher Daryl} and Payne, {B. Keith} and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong and Scheffer, {Julian A.} and Michael Inzlicht",
year = "2018",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.cognition.2017.12.012",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "173",
journal = "Cognition",
issn = "0010-0277",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

Corrigendum to “Implicit moral evaluations : A multinomial modeling approach” [Cognition 158 (2017) 224–241] (S0010027716302530) (10.1016/j.cognition.2016.10.013)). / Cameron, Christopher Daryl; Payne, B. Keith; Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter; Scheffer, Julian A.; Inzlicht, Michael.

In: Cognition, Vol. 173, 01.04.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

TY - JOUR

T1 - Corrigendum to “Implicit moral evaluations

T2 - A multinomial modeling approach” [Cognition 158 (2017) 224–241] (S0010027716302530) (10.1016/j.cognition.2016.10.013))

AU - Cameron, Christopher Daryl

AU - Payne, B. Keith

AU - Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter

AU - Scheffer, Julian A.

AU - Inzlicht, Michael

PY - 2018/4/1

Y1 - 2018/4/1

N2 - The authors noticed an error in the computation of the w effect size in the modeling analyses. Corrected values of w are reported with initial values in parentheses: In Section 2.2.2, w's are 0.01 (0.03), 0.24 (0.48), 0.01 (0.02), and 0.02 (0.04). In Section 3.2.2, w's are 0.15 (0.45), 0.01 (0.02), and 0.02 (0.06). In Section 4.2.2, w's are 0.02 (0.08), 0.02 (0.06), 0.00 (0.01), 0.01 (0.04), 0.02 (0.05), and 0.03 (0.10). In Section 5.2.2, w's are 0.00 (0.00) and 0.03 (0.06). In Section 6.2.2, w's are 0.03 (0.05), 0.00 (0.01), 0.01 (0.01), 0.00 (0.00), 0.05 (0.08), 0.05 (0.08), 0.00 (0.00), 0.03 (0.06). In Table 2, w's are 0.24 (0.48), 0.01 (0.02), and 0.02 (0.04). In Tables 4 and 6, w's are 0.02 (0.06). In Table 8, w is 0.03 (0.06). In Table 10, w's for voter group comparisons are 0.04 (0.06) and 0.03 (0.06) and for prime comparisons are 0.00 (0.00) and 0.00 (0.00). This error does not change any results or interpretations about model fit based upon the G-squared statistic, or about significant differences across conditions in process parameters. Therefore, it does not change any of the hypothesis tests or conclusions. Additionally, the authors noticed minor input typos in Table 5. Corrected values for prime-target descriptive statistics are reported, with initial values in parentheses: Wrong-Idiographic M is 0.14 (0.15), Wrong-Neutral SD is 0.24 (0.23), Idiographic-Wrong SD is 0.16 (0.17), Idiographic-Neutral SD is 0.23 (0.22), Negative-Idiographic M is 0.16 (0.17), Negative-Negative SD is 0.25 (0.26), Negative-Neutral M is 0.46 (0.45), Neutral-Wrong M is 0.22 (0.23), and Neutral-Negative M is 0.60 (0.59). These were table input errors that do not impact the ANOVAs or Hedges’ g effect size computations, and thus do not change any conclusions about the behavioral results. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.

AB - The authors noticed an error in the computation of the w effect size in the modeling analyses. Corrected values of w are reported with initial values in parentheses: In Section 2.2.2, w's are 0.01 (0.03), 0.24 (0.48), 0.01 (0.02), and 0.02 (0.04). In Section 3.2.2, w's are 0.15 (0.45), 0.01 (0.02), and 0.02 (0.06). In Section 4.2.2, w's are 0.02 (0.08), 0.02 (0.06), 0.00 (0.01), 0.01 (0.04), 0.02 (0.05), and 0.03 (0.10). In Section 5.2.2, w's are 0.00 (0.00) and 0.03 (0.06). In Section 6.2.2, w's are 0.03 (0.05), 0.00 (0.01), 0.01 (0.01), 0.00 (0.00), 0.05 (0.08), 0.05 (0.08), 0.00 (0.00), 0.03 (0.06). In Table 2, w's are 0.24 (0.48), 0.01 (0.02), and 0.02 (0.04). In Tables 4 and 6, w's are 0.02 (0.06). In Table 8, w is 0.03 (0.06). In Table 10, w's for voter group comparisons are 0.04 (0.06) and 0.03 (0.06) and for prime comparisons are 0.00 (0.00) and 0.00 (0.00). This error does not change any results or interpretations about model fit based upon the G-squared statistic, or about significant differences across conditions in process parameters. Therefore, it does not change any of the hypothesis tests or conclusions. Additionally, the authors noticed minor input typos in Table 5. Corrected values for prime-target descriptive statistics are reported, with initial values in parentheses: Wrong-Idiographic M is 0.14 (0.15), Wrong-Neutral SD is 0.24 (0.23), Idiographic-Wrong SD is 0.16 (0.17), Idiographic-Neutral SD is 0.23 (0.22), Negative-Idiographic M is 0.16 (0.17), Negative-Negative SD is 0.25 (0.26), Negative-Neutral M is 0.46 (0.45), Neutral-Wrong M is 0.22 (0.23), and Neutral-Negative M is 0.60 (0.59). These were table input errors that do not impact the ANOVAs or Hedges’ g effect size computations, and thus do not change any conclusions about the behavioral results. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85039899207&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85039899207&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.12.012

DO - 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.12.012

M3 - Comment/debate

C2 - 29307438

AN - SCOPUS:85039899207

VL - 173

JO - Cognition

JF - Cognition

SN - 0010-0277

ER -