Abstract
Original article: Van Tilburg W. A. P., & Van Tilburg L. J. A. (2023). Impossible hypotheses and effect-size limits. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 6(4). https://doi.org/doi:10.1177/25152459231197605
On pages 3, 8, and 9 of this article, an observed correlation of r = .40 between nostalgia and positive affect, and between nostalgia and negative affect, was incorrectly attributed to Newman and colleagues (2020). A footnote on page 14 also referred to this incorrect correlation. The original text is shown below:
Page 3, paragraph 1
This hypothesis seems reasonable: Recent work suggested that trait nostalgia correlates positively with both negative and positive affect at approximately r = .40 (Newman et al., 2020).
Page 8, paragraph 3
For example, our hypothetical researcher might be aware that nostalgia and loneliness may correlate at around r = .14 (Abeyta et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2008), that negative affect and nostalgia may correlate at around r = .40 (Newman et al., 2020), and that loneliness and negative affect may correlate at around r = .47 (Neto, 2014).
Page 9, paragraph 2
In this case, research tells us that the association between nostalgia and positive affect has been estimated to be around r = .40 (Newman et al., 2020), indeed within our range.
Page 14, footnote 1
Note that we exaggerated the proposed correlations with nostalgia. After all, we cannot illustrate problematic hypotheses using ones that were empirically supported.
The first two of these passages have been corrected online as follows:
Page 3, paragraph 1
This hypothesis seems reasonable: Recent work emphasizes that nostalgia mixes positive and negative affect (Wildschut & Sedikides, 2020).
Page 8, paragraph 3
For example, our hypothetical researcher might be aware that nostalgia and loneliness may correlate at around r = .14 (Abeyta et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2008), may expect that negative affect and nostalgia may correlate at around r = .40, and that loneliness and negative affect may correlate at around r = .47 (Neto, 2014).
The affected passage on page 9 and the footnote on page 14 have been removed.
In addition, Equations 2 and 3 contained typographical errors, which have been corrected online and reflected below:
