In the original article, there was a mistake in Figure 3 as published. Two numbers in the figure, −0.44 and 0.04, are incorrect. The corrected Figure 3, with the corrected numbers −0.42 and 0.06, appears below.
Figure 3.
Standardized results of the structural equation model. Model fit (χ2 = 160.52; df = 147; CFI = 0.97; RMSEA = 0.02; SRMR = 0.05). *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
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.