Corrigendum: Thinking preferences and conspiracy belief: intuitive thinking and the jumping to conclusions-bias as a basis for the belief in conspiracy theories
Nico Pytlik, Daniel Soll, Stephanie Mehl
Abstract
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsMisinformation and Its Impacts · Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
In the published article, there was an error. In Materials And Methods, Recruitment and procedures, paragraph 2, the following text was included: “The local ethics committee approved of the study. Participants provided informed consent and were debriefed after the completion of the study.” The corrected statement appears below:
“The requirement of formal ethical review/approval was waived by the Ethics Committee of the University of Marburg (Faculty of Psychology), as no experimental manipulation took place, participants received information on the study, provided written informed consent, and anonymity was assured.”
Consequently, there was also an error in the Ethics statement. The correct statement appears below:
“The requirement of formal ethical review/approval of the studies involving human participants was waived by the Ethics Committee of the University of Marburg (Faculty of Psychology), as no experimental manipulation took place, participants received information on the study, provided written informed consent, and anonymity was assured.”
The authors apologize for these errors and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.