R. Soc. open sci. 4, 161076. (Published 13 December 2017). (doi:10.1098/rsos.161076)
The penultimate sentence in the abstract is incorrect. It currently reads as follows:
‘Prototypical faces of smokers are judged more attractive and correctly identified as smokers more often than prototypical faces of matched non-smokers.’
The correct sentence is:
‘Prototypical faces of non-smokers are judged more attractive, and prototypical faces of smokers are correctly identified as smokers more often than prototypical faces of matched smokers/non-smokers.’
In Section 3.2, the last sentence should read: ‘Bayesian analyses found extreme evidence to support the hypothesis that participants found the non-smoking twins more attractive (BF10 males = 1.05e + 22, BF10 females = 1.86e + 24).’
In Section 3.4, the second paragraph should read: ‘Task 2: Exact binomial tests indicated male participants judged the male non-smoking prototype (mean response = 0.28, corresponding to 72%) and the female non-smoking prototype (0.34, 66%) as more attractive, and female participants judged the male non-smoking prototype (0.32, 68%) and the female non-smoking prototype (0.30, 70%) to be more attractive, all ps < 0.001.’