Corrigendum: Relative Effects of Forward and Backward Planning on Goal Pursuit

Abstract

Original article: Park, J., Lu, F.-C., & Hedgcock, W. M. (2017). Relative effects of forward and backward planning on goal pursuit. Psychological Science, 28, 1620–1630. doi:10.1177/0956797617715510

We thank Jeremy Biesanz for alerting us to errors in some of the effect sizes and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) reported in this article. His comments led us to recheck all of the analyses, and this revealed some additional errors in the statistics reported for Study 3. The statistical significance and the interpretation of the findings stand as originally presented.

We recalculated all of the effect sizes (Cohen’s ds) in the original article using the equation suggested by Rosnow, Rosenthal, and Rubin (2000 , p. 447). The majority of the effect sizes reported in the original article were within 0.01 of the correct values, except for three incorrect values in Study 2. When we recalculated all of the 95% CIs for the effect sizes using the equations in Hedges and Olkin (1985 , p. 86), we found that most were incorrect. Following is a list of all of the corrections that are being made to the article.

Corrections for Study 1

In the Results section for Study 1a (p. 1623), the 95% CI for the effect of planning order is being corrected to [0.28, 1.53] rather than [0.65, 1.18].

In the Results section for Study 1b (p. 1623), the value of d and the 95% CI in the sentence reporting the analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the motivation index are being corrected so that the sentence now says, “We performed an ANOVA on the motivation index, which revealed a marginally significant main effect of planning order, F(1, 49) = 3.76, p = .058, d = 0.55, 95% CI = [−0.01, 1.11].”

Corrections for Study 2

In the second paragraph of the Results section for Study 2 (p. 1624), the 95% CI for the effect of planning order on progress is being changed to [0.14, 1.57] rather than [−3.68, 5.38].

The d values and their 95% CIs in the immediately following paragraph are also being corrected, so that the second sentence of the paragraph reads as follows:

We found that the difference in rate of progress between the two planning conditions was directionally consistent with our hypotheses and was statistically significant for Day 4 (backward planning: M = 92.40, 95% CI = [86.67, 98.13]; forward planning: M = 80.48, 95% CI = [73.13, 87.84]), F(1, 43) = 6.64, p = .013, d = 0.81, 95% CI = [0.19, 1.44], but not for Day 1 (backward planning: M = 88.15, 95% CI = [77.81, 98.49]; forward planning: M = 78.25, 95% CI = [65.26, 91.24]), F(1, 47) = 1.44, p = .236, d = 0.36, 95% CI = [−0.22, 0.94], or for Day 7 (backward planning: M = 94.27, 95% CI = [88.37, 100.16]; forward planning: M = 87.77, 95% CI = [80.12, 95.43]), F(1, 41) = 1.84, p = .182, d = 0.44, 95% CI = [−0.19, 1.06].

Corrections for Study 3

In the first paragraph of the Results section for Study 3 (p. 1625), the 95% CI for the comparison of mean desired grades is being corrected to [0.14, 1.03] rather than [−0.36, 1.53]. The 95% CI for the comparison of mean actual exam grades is being corrected to [0.89, 1.85] rather than [−1.10, 3.83].

In the immediately following paragraph, the first sentence reports an unstandardized, rather than a standardized, regression coefficient; the symbol for the coefficient is being changed to b. The nonadjusted means and 95% CIs for the effect of planning condition in the last sentence of the same paragraph are also being corrected, so that the sentence reads as follows:

The results showed that, compared with participants in the forward-planning condition (M = 77.42, 95% CI = [74.12, 80.71]), those in the backward-planning condition (M = 83.38, 95% CI = [79.78, 86.97]) performed better on the exam, F(1, 79) = 5.83, p = .018, d = 0.23, 95% CI = [−0.20, 0.66].

Corrections for Study 4

In the paragraph on results for planning difficulty (p. 1626), the 95% CI for the effect of goal complexity is being corrected to [0.14, 1.04] rather than [0.24, 0.93].

In the paragraph presenting results for motivation, goal expectancy, and time pressure within the high-goal-complexity condition (pp. 1626–1627), the 95% CI for the effect of planning order on motivation is being changed to [−0.03, 1.29] rather than [0.34, 0.93]. The 95% CI for the effect of planning order on goal expectancy is being changed to [0.22, 1.57] rather than [0.59, 1.21]. Finally, the 95% CI for the effect of planning order on time pressure is being changed to [−1.27, 0.05] rather than [−1.14, −0.08].

In the immediately following paragraph (first complete paragraph on page 1627), the 95% CI for the effect of planning order on time pressure within the low-goal-complexity condition is being changed to [0.06, 1.29] rather than [−0.18, 1.18].

In the paragraph presenting results for perceived clarity of the plan (p. 1627), the 95% CI for the effect of planning order on perceived clarity within the high-goal-complexity condition is being changed to [0.06, 1.40] rather than [0.41, 1.06].

In the second paragraph of results for effects on the number of steps included in the study plan (p. 1628), the 95% CI for the effect of goal complexity (exam group) on the number of steps is being changed to [0.05, 0.94] rather than [−0.06, 1.04]. In addition, the 95% CI for the effect of goal complexity on number of steps within the forward-planning condition is being changed to [−0.07, 1.18] rather than [−0.30, 1.40]. Finally, in the last sentence of this paragraph, the value of d and its 95% CI for the effect of goal complexity on perceived clarity within the forward-planning condition are being changed to d = 0.83, 95% CI = [0.19, 1.47], rather than d = 0.84, 95% CI = [0.55, 1.13].

References

Hedges

Olkin

(1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Rosnow

R. L.

Rosenthal

Rubin

D. B.

(2000). Contrasts and correlations in effect-size estimation. Psychological Science, 11, 446–453. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00287