Erratum

Abstract

Hoffman, Yaakov, Bein, Oded, & Maril, Anat. (2011). Explicit Memory for Unattended Words: The Importance of Being in the “No.” Psychological Science, 22(12), 1490–1493. (Original DOI: 10.1177/0956797611419674)

In Table 1 of this article, the proportion of low-confidence “yes” responses for attended words in the main experiment was incorrect. The correct proportion is .31. A corrected version of Table 1 appears below.

Table 1.

Mean Proportion of Trials on Which Each Response Option Was Selected on the Recognition Test in the Two Experiments

Experimental paradigm and response	Unattended words	New words	Attended words
Main experiment: confidence-level response options
Low-confidence “yes”	.28 (.14)	.29 (.15)	.31 (.19)
High-confidence “yes”	.08 (.09)	.07 (.09)	.17 (.13)
Low-confidence “no”	.50 (.16)	.43 (.16)	.40 (.14)
High-confidence “no”	.14 (.18)	.21 (.19)	.12 (.15)
Follow-up experiment: confidence-level condition
Low-confidence “yes”	.24 (.12)	.25 (.12)	.29 (.12)
High-confidence “yes”	.07 (.08)	.07 (.04)	.14 (.12)
Low-confidence “no”	.55 (.14)	.49 (.24)	.47 (.20)
High-confidence “no”	.14 (.16)	.19 (.20)	.10 (.12)
Follow-up experiment: binary condition
“Yes”	.33 (.18)	.32 (.14)	.46 (.17)

Note: Standard deviations are given in parentheses. The boldface type highlights a crossover pattern within the “no” responses: New words received significantly more high-confidence “no” responses than did unattended words, whereas unattended words received significantly more low-confidence “no” responses than did new words.