Corrigendum to “The interactive effects of bitter flavor and mood on the decision to spend or save money” [Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (2017) 70, 48–58](S0022103116304899)(10.1016/j.jesp.2016.12.010)

In the article “The interactive effects of bitter flavor and mood on the decision to spend or save money” in the January 2017 issue of The Journal, the authors mistakenly reported standard errors (instead of standard deviations) and adjusted marginal means (instead of descriptive means) for the manipulation checks of Experiments 1, 2, and 3. We take this opportunity to correct the erroneous statistics. Additionally, responses to the question might be better understood if the exact phrasing of the question, namely “How did you feel after recalling your experience?” is reported. Note that none of the reporting errors have changed the statistical significance of the main results in studies 1–3 and as a result, the conclusions of the paper remain the same. Section 3.2.1 (manipulation check): “Mood was successfully manipulated. Participants reported feeling more positively when they had recalled a happy life experience (M = 8.58, SD =.71) than when they had recalled either a neutral experience (M = 6.07, SD = 2.13) or a sad one (M = 3.17, SD = 2.43; F (2, 148) = 98.86, p <.001; η² =.57), Given three positive emotions (happy, pleasant, and delighted; α =.98) and three negative emotions (sad, unpleasant, and distressed; α =.90) we conducted additional analyses on these specific emotions. The results exhibited a similar pattern. Participants' reports of positive emotions were 8.52 (SD =.73), 5.41 (SD = 2.59), and 2.37 (SD = 2.13) in happy mood, control, and sad mood conditions, respectively (F (2, 148) = 118.94, p <.001; η² =.62), whereas their reports of negative emotions were 1.49 (SD = 1.04), 2.68 (SD = 1.87), and 6.12 (SD = 1.96), respectively (F (2, 148) = 105.26, p <.001; η² =.59). These effects did not depend on the nature of the primed concepts (p's >.15).” Section 4.2.1 (manipulation check for Experiment 2): “Participants' mood was successfully manipulated. Participants felt more positively in happy mood conditions (M = 1.53, SD = 1.46) than in sad mood conditions (M = −.35, SD = 1.46; F (1, 146) = 58.67, p <.001; η² =.31; one missing data point). All participants correctly identified the taste of the beverage. Furthermore, participants liked pure water (M = 4.14, SD = 1.32) more than either salty water (M = 2.24, SD = 1.15) or bitter melon water (M = 2.04, SD = 1.11; F (2, 147) = 48.21, p <.001; η² =.40), and this effect was not contingent on mood.” Section 5.2.1 (manipulation check for Experiment 3): “Our manipulations were successful. Participants felt more positive in happy mood conditions (M = 5.91, SD = 1.07) than in sad mood conditions (M = 3.45, SD = 1.48; F (1, 210) = 195.67, p <.001, η² =.49; one missing data point). Furthermore, they reported having more positive emotions (happy, pleasant, and delighted) in the former condition (M = 5.68, SD = 1.11) than in the latter (M = 2.06, SD = 1.38; F (1, 209) = 447.27, p <.001; η² =.68). However, they reported less negative emotions (sad, unpleasant, and distressed) in the happy mood condition (M = 1.70, SD = 1.02) than in the negative mood condition (M = 4.28, SD = 1.52; F (1, 210) = 216.76, p <.001; η² =.51). However, the beverage that participants tasted did not influence their mood (all p's >.20).” We also would like to correct the following other errors in the article: 1). Experiment 1, test of taste effect within control conditions: F (1148) = 2.70 (not 2.87)2). Experiment 1, kappa = 0.60 (not 0.63)3). Experiment 2, likelihood of saving, bitter drink/happy mean should have SD = 1.60 (not 0.160)4). Experiment 2, likelihood of saving, “relative to pure water conditions” should be “relative to sad participants”5). Experiment 2, likelihood of saving, the happy + bitter mean should be M = 0.75 (not 0.80)6). Experiment 2, likelihood of saving, the happy/sad comparison within bitter should be F (1147) = 4.29, p = 0.04, not F (1147) = 4.80, p = 0.037). Experiment 2, likelihood of saving, the happy/sad comparison F within salty should be 0.001, p = 0.98 (not F = 0.03, p = 0.86)8). Experiment 2, likelihood of saving, the sad + bitter condition SD = 1.48 (not 1.81)9). Experiment 3, amount of money saved: simple effect of beverage within sad, F (1, 211) = 3.82 (not 6.68)10). Experiment 3, manipulation check, negative emotions: effect should be F (1210) = 216.76, p < 0.001, η² = 0.51, not F (1, 209) = 214.30, p = 0.000, η² = 0.5111). Experiment 3, willingness to save: for F (1211) = 10.48 the p-value should be 0.0014 (not 0.003)The authors deeply regret the errors reported in the article. We offer to the readers our sincere apologies for these inaccuracies.