Abstract
Michal, A. L., & Shah, P. (2024). A practical significance bias in laypeople’s evaluation of scientific findings. Psychological Science, 35(4), 315–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976241231506
We would like to inform our readers of several corrections in our published article. These corrections have been made to ensure accuracy:
In the Method/Procedure section, the improvement has been corrected from 3.0 to 3.50 in the following sentence.
“In the small-effect version (read by participants in the small-effect-with-prompt and small-effect-no-prompt conditions), participants who ate cara berry energy bars went from an average mental-alertness rating of 1.50 to 1.56 (increase of 0.06 points), whereas in the large-effect version (read by participants in the large-effect condition), the improvement was from 1.50 to 3.50 (increase of 2 points).”
In the Hypotheses section, the magnitude of the effect in the large-effect has been corrected from 1.5 points to 2 points in the following sentence: “In Study 2, we also predicted that the average guess of the improvement magnitude among participants in the no-effect-size-information condition would be more comparable to the magnitude of the effect in the large-effect version (2 points) than the small-effect version (.06 points) of the article.”
The y-axis values in Figure 1b have been adjusted to resolve distortion/compression.
In the Results/Decision Ratings section, the means for the conditions in Study 2 have been corrected as follows: “Overall, participants in the no-effect-size- information (Study 1 M = 80.56; Study 2 M = 50.47) and large-effect (Study 1 M = 73.93; Study 2 M = 58.90) conditions were more likely to recommend the new math curriculum than participants in the small-effect conditions (Study 1 no prompt M = 45.26; Study 2 no prompt M = 34.98; Study 2 with prompt M = 45.22; Study 2 with prompt M = 31.68).”
In the Results/Open-ended responses/Improvement Guess section, the large improvement value has been corrected from 1.5 points to 2 points and the last sentence has been corrected. The correct text is below.
“We tested whether participants’ guesses were statistically different from both the large (2 points) and small (0.06 points) improvements in mental alertness mentioned in the large- and small-effect versions of the article, respectively. Ten participants were excluded from this analysis either because they did not give numerical responses or because they gave an impossible guess (i.e., a value that exceeded the 5-point scale of the mental-alertness measure). Paired t tests revealed that participant guesses were significantly smaller than the large improvement value of 2, M = 1.61, t(86) = 3.75, p < .001, d = 0.40, BF = 65.72, whereas guesses were significantly higher than the small improvement value of 0.06, t(86) = 14.78, p < .001, d = 1.58, BF = 1.57 × 1022.”
Some values in the text in the Appendix have been corrected for both Study 1 and Study 2. The correct text for Study 1 now reads as follows: “By the end of the school year, the percentage of students performing at the proficient level increased from 25% to 27% for students who completed the Math in the Real World curriculum, whereas the percentage of students performing at the proficient level held steady at 25% for students who completed the Journey in Mathematics curriculum.”
The correct text for Study 2 now reads as follows:
“By the end of the week, participants who ate the conventional energy bars increased their mental-alertness ratings from an average of 1.50 to 1.52, whereas those who ate the cara berry energy bars increased their mental-alertness ratings from an average of 1.50 to 1.56.”
We apologize for any inconvenience these errors may have caused. The online version of the article has been updated with these corrections.