Correction: Controversy matters: Impacts of topic and solution controversy on the perceived credibility of a scientist who advocates(PLoS ONE 12:11 (e0187511) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0187511)

Lindsey Beall, Teresa A. Myers, John E. Kotcher, Emily K. Vraga, Edward W. Maibach

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

Abstract

After publication, the authors became aware of errors to the cleaned data set used in the analysis presented in the study. The authors re-downloaded the data from Qualtrics, re-cleaned the data, and were able to run the analyses correctly. Multiple members of the team were able to replicate the updated findings separately. The interpretation of the results and overall understanding of the study has not changed. All the relationships that were significant in the published version are significant with the updated data set; however, several coefficients in Tables 2–5 and S1 Table are incorrect. Please view the corrected Tables 2–5 and S1 Table here. [1] Table 2. Total effects of non-controversial and controversial solutions on credibility, in comparison to the information only condition. Credibility Controversial vs. Information Only Flu -0.38 Marijuana -0.17 Severe Weather 0.26 Climate Change -0.01 Non-Controversial vs. Information Only Flu 0.22+ Marijuana -0.05 Severe Weather 0.28 Climate Change 0.30 Note: Entries are unstandardized regression coefficients and can be interpreted as the difference in the means between the two conditions. + p < .10, p < .05, p < .01 p < .001 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211289.t001

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numbere0211289
JournalPloS one
Volume14
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Climate Change
Weather
Cannabis
Climate change
human influenza
Cannabis sativa
weather
climate change
Publications
Datasets

PubMed: MeSH publication types

  • Published Erratum

Cite this

Correction : Controversy matters: Impacts of topic and solution controversy on the perceived credibility of a scientist who advocates(PLoS ONE 12:11 (e0187511) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0187511). / Beall, Lindsey; Myers, Teresa A.; Kotcher, John E.; Vraga, Emily K.; Maibach, Edward W.

In: PloS one, Vol. 14, No. 1, e0211289, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

@article{d27b08d2ff84469dafe9886319303c34,
title = "Correction: Controversy matters: Impacts of topic and solution controversy on the perceived credibility of a scientist who advocates(PLoS ONE 12:11 (e0187511) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0187511)",
abstract = "After publication, the authors became aware of errors to the cleaned data set used in the analysis presented in the study. The authors re-downloaded the data from Qualtrics, re-cleaned the data, and were able to run the analyses correctly. Multiple members of the team were able to replicate the updated findings separately. The interpretation of the results and overall understanding of the study has not changed. All the relationships that were significant in the published version are significant with the updated data set; however, several coefficients in Tables 2–5 and S1 Table are incorrect. Please view the corrected Tables 2–5 and S1 Table here. [1] Table 2. Total effects of non-controversial and controversial solutions on credibility, in comparison to the information only condition. Credibility Controversial vs. Information Only Flu -0.38 Marijuana -0.17 Severe Weather 0.26 Climate Change -0.01 Non-Controversial vs. Information Only Flu 0.22+ Marijuana -0.05 Severe Weather 0.28 Climate Change 0.30 Note: Entries are unstandardized regression coefficients and can be interpreted as the difference in the means between the two conditions. + p < .10, p < .05, p < .01 p < .001 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211289.t001",
author = "Lindsey Beall and Myers, {Teresa A.} and Kotcher, {John E.} and Vraga, {Emily K.} and Maibach, {Edward W.}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0211289",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "14",
journal = "PLoS One",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Correction

T2 - Controversy matters: Impacts of topic and solution controversy on the perceived credibility of a scientist who advocates(PLoS ONE 12:11 (e0187511) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0187511)

AU - Beall, Lindsey

AU - Myers, Teresa A.

AU - Kotcher, John E.

AU - Vraga, Emily K.

AU - Maibach, Edward W.

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - After publication, the authors became aware of errors to the cleaned data set used in the analysis presented in the study. The authors re-downloaded the data from Qualtrics, re-cleaned the data, and were able to run the analyses correctly. Multiple members of the team were able to replicate the updated findings separately. The interpretation of the results and overall understanding of the study has not changed. All the relationships that were significant in the published version are significant with the updated data set; however, several coefficients in Tables 2–5 and S1 Table are incorrect. Please view the corrected Tables 2–5 and S1 Table here. [1] Table 2. Total effects of non-controversial and controversial solutions on credibility, in comparison to the information only condition. Credibility Controversial vs. Information Only Flu -0.38 Marijuana -0.17 Severe Weather 0.26 Climate Change -0.01 Non-Controversial vs. Information Only Flu 0.22+ Marijuana -0.05 Severe Weather 0.28 Climate Change 0.30 Note: Entries are unstandardized regression coefficients and can be interpreted as the difference in the means between the two conditions. + p < .10, p < .05, p < .01 p < .001 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211289.t001

AB - After publication, the authors became aware of errors to the cleaned data set used in the analysis presented in the study. The authors re-downloaded the data from Qualtrics, re-cleaned the data, and were able to run the analyses correctly. Multiple members of the team were able to replicate the updated findings separately. The interpretation of the results and overall understanding of the study has not changed. All the relationships that were significant in the published version are significant with the updated data set; however, several coefficients in Tables 2–5 and S1 Table are incorrect. Please view the corrected Tables 2–5 and S1 Table here. [1] Table 2. Total effects of non-controversial and controversial solutions on credibility, in comparison to the information only condition. Credibility Controversial vs. Information Only Flu -0.38 Marijuana -0.17 Severe Weather 0.26 Climate Change -0.01 Non-Controversial vs. Information Only Flu 0.22+ Marijuana -0.05 Severe Weather 0.28 Climate Change 0.30 Note: Entries are unstandardized regression coefficients and can be interpreted as the difference in the means between the two conditions. + p < .10, p < .05, p < .01 p < .001 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211289.t001

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85060148667&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85060148667&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0211289

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0211289

M3 - Comment/debate

C2 - 30657787

AN - SCOPUS:85060148667

VL - 14

JO - PLoS One

JF - PLoS One

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 1

M1 - e0211289

ER -