Corrigendum: Browsing Different Instagram Profiles and Associations With Psychological Well-Being

A Corrigendum on
Browsing Different Instagram Profiles and Associations With Psychological Well-Being

by Burnell, K., George, M. J., and Underwood, M. K. (2020). Front. Hum. Dyn. 2:585518. doi: 10.3389/fhumd.2020.585518

In the original article, there was an error. The regression mean square values were incorrectly labeled as the mean square error values.

A correction has been made to the “Effects of Condition on Post-browsing Reports” section.

To examine how post-browsing reports of affect and self-perceptions differed between conditions, a series of ANCOVAs were run (Figure 1). All analyses were run controlling for the corresponding pre-browsing assessment of each variable; marginal means are reported in-text and in Figure 1. Post-browsing self-esteem significantly differed by condition, F_(2,399) = 22.60, p < 0.001, MSE = 0.85, ${\eta }_{\text{p}}^2$ = 0.10. Participants in the self condition reported higher self-esteem (M = 5.88, SE = 0.08) than those in the acquaintance (M = 5.30, SE = 0.08) and influencer (M = 5.17, SE = 0.08) conditions; the acquaintance and influencer conditions did not differ from each other (p = 0.277). Post-browsing positive affect significantly differed by condition, F_(2,400) = 8.19, p < 0.001, MSE = 0.90, ${\eta }_{\text{p}}^2$ = 0.04. Participants in the self condition reported higher positive affect (M = 4.49, SE = 0.08) than those in the acquaintance (M = 4.17, SE = 0.08) and influencer (M = 4.04, SE = 0.08) conditions; the acquaintance and influencer conditions did not differ from each other (p = 0.263). Post-browsing negative affect did not significantly differ by condition, F_(2,400) = 0.53, p = 0.588, MSE = 0.38, ${\eta }_{\text{p}}^2$ = 0.00. Post-browsing interpersonal negativity significantly differed by condition, F_(2,320) = 28.65, p < 0.001, MSE = 1.33, ${\eta }_{\text{p}}^2$ = 0.15. Participants in the self condition (M = 1.32, SE = 0.11) reported lower interpersonal negativity than those in the acquaintance (M = 2.14, SE = 0.11) and influencer (M = 2.46, SE = 0.11) conditions; the acquaintance and influencer conditions also significantly differed from each other (p = 0.045). Post-browsing positive self-perceptions significantly differed by condition, F_(2,400) = 23.42, p < 0.001, MSE = 0.56, ${\eta }_{\text{p}}^2$ = 0.11. Participants in the self condition reported greater positive self-perceptions (M = 4.72, SE = 0.06) than those in the acquaintance (M = 4.20, SE = 0.06) and influencer (M = 4.15, SE = 0.07) conditions; the acquaintance and influencer conditions did not significantly differ from each other (p = 0.616).

The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.