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


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

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


PubMed: MeSH publication types

  • Published Erratum

Cite this