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.
Comparison of Participants Regarding Cognitive Measures (CB, Thinking Styles) and JTC Measures.
| 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 |
JTC, jumping to conclusions.
As Levene's Test indicated inequal variances, degrees of freedom were adjusted accordingly.
Table 2.
Associations between Conspiracy Beliefs, Thinking Styles and the JTC-bias.
| 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 |
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.