In the original article, there was a mistake in Table 1 and Table 2 as published. In the first row of Table 1 (Conspiracy belief), results were switched for the JTC yes column and JTC no column. The correct data for Conspiracy belief under the JTC yes column is “M = 2.99 (SD =.81)” and under the JTC no column the correct data is “M = 2.58 (SD =.74)”. The corrected Table 1 appears below.
Table 1
| Total sample (N = 488) | JTC yes (n = 69) | JTC no (n = 419) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M (SD) | M (SD) | M (SD) | Statistics | |
| Conspiracy Belief | 2.66 (.73) | 2.99 (.81) | 2.58 (.74) | t(482) = 4.20, p < .001 |
| Cognitive measures | ||||
| Faith in Intuition Scale | 62.00 (11.75) | 66.41 (12.48) | 60.67 (11.97) | t(486) = 3.67, p < .001 |
| Need for Cognition Scale | 69.83 (12.70) | 64.78 (16.27) | 71.59 (12.43) | t(81.58)*= 3.32, p < .001 |
| JTC measures | ||||
| Draws to decision | 4.65 (2.32) | 1.45 (.50) | 5.24 (2.03) | t(379.63)*= 29.32, p < .001 |
Comparison of Participants Regarding Cognitive Measures (CB, Thinking Styles) and JTC Measures.
JTC, jumping to conclusions.
As Levene's Test indicated inequal variances, degrees of freedom were adjusted accordingly.
Table 2
| M | SD | 2 | 3 | 4 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Conspiracy Belief | 2.64 | 0.77 | 0.363*** | -0.190*** | -0.160** |
| 2 | Faith in Intuition Score | 61.44 | 12.17 | -0.359*** | -0.200*** | |
| 3 | Need for Cognition Score | 70.70 | 13.13 | 0.146* | ||
| 4 | JTC Draws to Decision | 4.56 | 2.35 |
Associations between Conspiracy Beliefs, Thinking Styles and the JTC-bias.
JTC, Jumping to conclusions.
Significant correlations are written in bold.
p = 0.004.
p = 0.002.
p <0.001.
Additionally, in the third row of Table 2 (Need for Cognition Score), the algebraic sign of the data of column 4, JTC draws to decision, is wrong. The correct data for the Need for Cognition Score under the JTC draws to decision column is “r = 0.146”. The corrected Table 2 appears below.
The authors apologize for these errors and state that they do not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.
Summary
Keywords
conspiracy theories, paranoia, jumping to conclusions, delusions, intuitive thinking, analytical thinking
Citation
Pytlik N, Soll D and Mehl S (2021) Corrigendum: Thinking Preferences and Conspiracy Belief: Intuitive Thinking and the Jumping to Conclusions-Bias as a Basis for the Belief in Conspiracy Theories. Front. Psychiatry 12:664972. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.664972
Received
06 February 2021
Accepted
08 February 2021
Published
08 March 2021
Approved by
Frontiers Editorial Office, Frontiers Media SA, Switzerland
Volume
12 - 2021
Updates
Copyright
© 2021 Pytlik, Soll and Mehl.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Stephanie Mehl stephanie.mehl@staff.uni-marburg.de
This article was submitted to Schizophrenia, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychiatry
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.