Corrigendum: Beyond Purity: Moral Disgust Toward Bad Character

Abstract

Original article: Giner-Sorolla, R., & Chapman, H. A. (2017). Beyond purity: Moral disgust toward bad character. Psychological Science, 28, 80–91. doi:10.1177/0956797616673193

In this article, some effect sizes in the Results section for Study 1 were reported incorrectly and are now being corrected.

In the section titled Manipulation Checks: Act and Character Ratings, we reported a d value of 0.32 for the one-sample t test comparing participants’ act ratings with the midpoint of the scale; the correct value is 0.30. The sentence should read as follows:

Follow-up one-sample t tests using the midpoint of the scale as a test value (because participants compared John with Robert) indicated that the cat beater’s actions were judged to be less wrong than the woman beater’s actions, t(86) = −2.82, p = .006, d = 0.30.

In the section titled Emotion Ratings, we reported a d value of 0.42 for the paired-samples t test comparing relative ratings of facial disgust and facial anger; the correct value is 0.34. In addition, the effect-size statistic is d_z rather than d. The sentence should read as follows:

As predicted, a paired-samples t test indicated that relative facial-disgust ratings (M = 4.36, SE = 0.21) were significantly different from relative facial-anger ratings (M = 3.63, SE = 0.20), t(86) = −3.12, p = .002, d_z = 0.34; this indicates that the cat-beater and woman-beater scenarios differentially evoked disgust and anger.

Later in that section, we reported a d value of 0.21 for the one-sample t test comparing ratings of facial disgust with the midpoint of the scale; the correct value is 0.20. In the same sentence, we reported a d value of 0.21 for the one-sample t test comparing ratings of facial anger with the midpoint of the scale; the correct value is 0.19. The sentence should read as follows:

Follow-up one-sample t tests against the midpoint of the scale showed trends in the predicted directions, with higher disgust for the cat beater compared with the woman beater, t(86) = 1.7, p = .088, d = 0.20, and higher anger for the woman beater compared with the cat beater, t(86) = −1.82, p = .072, d = 0.19 (see Fig. 1).

These errors do not affect the significance of the results or the overall conclusions for Study 1.