Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2019 Nov 21;14(11):e0225850. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225850

Correction: People making deontological judgments in the Trapdoor dilemma are perceived to be more prosocial in economic games than they actually are

Valerio Capraro, Jonathan Sippel, Bonan Zhao, Levin Hornischer, Morgan Savary, Zoi Terzopoulou, Pierre Faucher, Simone F Griffioen
PMCID: PMC6872144  PMID: 31751419

In Fig 1, the columns that depict the average amount transferred by Player A to Player B as a function of whether Player B is a Trapdoor-deontologist or a Trapdoor-consequentialist report incorrect values. The average amounts should be 57.7% and 69.2%. Please see the correct Fig 1 here.

Fig 1. Deontologists are perceived to be more trustworthy than consequentialists, but they are actually not.

Fig 1

The pair of columns on the left-hand side reports the average amount transferred back by Player B to Player A in the Trust Game as a function of whether Player B is a Trapdoor-deontologist or a Trapdoor-consequentialist. The pair of columns on the right-hand side reports the average amount transferred by Player A to Player B, as a function of whether Player B is a Trapdoor-deontologist or a Trapdoor-consequentialist. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean.

Reference

  • 1.Capraro V, Sippel J, Zhao B, Hornischer L, Savary M, Terzopoulou Z, et al. (2018) People making deontological judgments in the Trapdoor dilemma are perceived to be more prosocial in economic games than they actually are. PLoS ONE 13(10): e0205066 10.1371/journal.pone.0205066 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

RESOURCES