Reader Comments

Post a new comment on this article

Correction

Posted by christinema on 13 Mar 2013 at 12:11 GMT

Please note the following corrections:

The N's reported in the main are correct and the N's reported in the abstract should be updated to reflect those in the main text.

In Study 2, the values reported after the means are the standard errors, and not the standard deviations.

In Study 4, the means/SDs should be corrected as follows: M = 3.04 (SD = 1.11) for the control and M = 2.24, SD = 1.43 for the experimental.

Also, the "we" used in my previous comment should be changed to "I."

No competing interests declared.

RE: Correction

christinema replied to christinema on 14 Mar 2013 at 00:39 GMT

Below are more detailed explanations for all the corrections to the paper, and how they occurred:

The N's reported in the main text are correct and the N's reported in the abstract should be updated to reflect those in the main text. In the revision process, we re-ran the original studies 1, 2 and 3 because the reviewer requested different, more straightforward dependent variables that directly assessed morality judgments rather than related judgments related to punitiveness or blame, or that were too closely tied to the domain of science, which were used in the original submission. The Ns reported in the abstract reflect the Ns in the original submission, and not the new studies we ran during the revision process. The Ns in the main text reflect the correct Ns.

In Study 2, the values reported after the means are the standard errors of the estimated marginal means, and not the standard deviations of the raw data. This was an inconsistency in reporting, and the SDs of the raw data are 28.02 and 7.69 for the control and experimental conditions, respectively. An examination of the raw data shows that in the control condition, two participants evaluated the date rape act as very low on the immorality scale (scores of 10 and 40 out of 100), which explains the larger SDs in the control condition relative to the experimental.

In Study 3, the denominator for the df's in the F statistic should be 30, and the means should be: M = 2.86, SD = 1.40 for the control vs. M = 4.07, SD = 1.47 for the experimental conditions. The previously reported means were the estimated marginal means when gender is included in the model; however, since gender did not significantly impact the dependent variable of interest, the estimated marginal means should have been replaced with the raw means, indicated above.

In Study 4, the means/SDs should be corrected as follows: M = 3.04 (SD = 1.11) for the control and M = 2.24, SD = 1.43 for the experimental. For the gender effects, the results should read: there was a main effect of gender, F(1, 39) = 4.27, p = .045. Women allocated more money to themselves (M = 2.96, SD = 1.20) than men did (M = 2.27, SD = 1.28); no gender by condition interaction emerged, F(1, 39) = 2.20, p = .14. The previous gender results were the results of an analysis used in the original submission when a 3rd condition was present; however, at the suggestion of a reviewer we dropped the 3rd condition because it muddles rather than clarifies the findings.

No competing interests declared.