|
Abstract
|
[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0213891.].
After publication of the article [1], the authors notified the journal of errors in the text of the paper, and provided corrected figures, tables, and supporting information files. This paper reports a study that involved data collected at three time points. Due to a clerical error when merging data files, data collected during the final longitudinal time point (Wave 3) were assigned to the incorrect participants. The corrections do not impact the overall pattern of results. Please view the correct text, figures and tables below. Copies of the original and corrected data files are publicly available at https://osf.io/ym8hw/.
In the Questionnaires subsection of the Materials and methods, the following should be included as the second sentence: One participant did not complete the Wave 1 questionnaires and one participant did not complete the Wave 3 questionnaires.
In the Questionnaires subsection of the Materials and methods, there is an error in the second sentence of the fourth paragraph. The correct sentence is: Participants also completed a number of additional questionnaires unrelated to the current investigation, including measures of self-reported physical symptoms, depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and neuroticism.
There is an error in the last sentence of the second paragraph of the Data processing subsection of the Materials and methods. This sentence should be removed from the paragraph:: For an analysis that examined differences in modulation of startle by picture type within this overarching affectively evocative context, see [29].
In the Data processing subsection of the Materials and methods, there is an error in the eighth sentence of the third paragraph. The correct sentence is: Shooter bias data for three participants at Wave 1 were omitted because their data was not saved due to computer error (n = 2) or because they did not follow task instructions (n = 1).
In the Affective tone of recent marathon-related media coverage subsection of the Results, there is an error in the first and third sentence of the first paragraph. The correct sentences are:
As reported in Table 2, at times when the marathon-related media coverage during the two weeks prior to a participant's in-lab session was more affectively positive (v. negative), participants self-reported less distress related to the bombings (B = -26.02, SE = 8.65; t(90) = 3.01, p =.003; d = 0.63) and demonstrated decreased startle threat reactivity (B = -83.37, SE = 27.51; t(90) = 3.03, p =.003; d = 0.64).
As hypothesized, more positive recent marathon-related media content also predicted increased perceptual sensitivity for discriminating threats from non-threats (B = 1.44, SE = 0.62; t(90) = 2.31, p =.023; d = 0.49) and was unrelated to response bias in the Shooter Bias Task (B = -0.67, SE = 0.59; t(90) = 1.15, p =.255; d = 0.24).
In the Extent of recent marathon-related media coverage of the Results, there are errors in the first and second sentences of the first paragraph. The correct sentences are: As shown in Table 3, periods with a greater extent of recent marathon-related media coverage were associated with reduced self-reported distress related to the bombings (B = -8.14, SE = 2.50; t(90) = 3.25, p =.002; d = 0.69), reduced startle threat reactivity (B = -30.53, SE = 10.15; t(90) = 3.01, p =.003; d = 0.63), enhanced perceptual sensitivity for threat (B = 0.43, SE = 0.20; t(90) = 2.13, p =.036; d = 0.45), and a less conservative threat response bias (i.e., a lessened tendency to favor the "don't shoot" response) (B = -0.44, SE = 0.17; t(90) = 2.59, p =.011; d = 0.55). However, it should be noted that whereas the relationship with perceptual sensitivity reached a traditional significance level of α =.05, it failed to reach a Bonferroni-corrected alpha to control for multiple comparisons.
In the Discussion, there is an error in the fifth sentence of the third paragraph. The correct sentence is: In particular, the relationships between perceptual sensitivity and the amount and tone of recent media coverage failed to reach a Bonferroni-corrected alpha level when controlling for multiple comparisons, and so should be subjected to rigorous scrutiny in future empirical work.
In the Discussion, there is an error in the eighth sentence of the fifth paragraph. The correct sentence is: While participants did tend to exhibit a less conservative response bias in our shooter bias task (i.e., a lessened tendency to favor the "don't shoot" response) at times when there was a greater extent of media coverage of an incident of mass violence, we found no relationship between threat response bias and the affective tone of media coverage of mass violence.
Wormwood et al. was incorrectly included as reference 29. As a result, all subsequent references are misnumbered. References 30-64 should be references 29-63.
Language: en |