Citation

Pollak OH, Guzmán EM, Shin KE, Cha CB. Front. Psychol. 2021; 12.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2021, Frontiers Research Foundation)

DOI

10.3389/fpsyg.2021.741504

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

In the original article, there were mistakes in the legends for Figures 2 and 3 as published. The figure legends incorrectly stated that greater and lower levels of positive future thinking (Figure 2) were defined at −1 SD and +1 SD, respectively; and that more vs. less realistic positive future thinking levels were defined at+1 SDand−1 SD, respectively (Figure 3). In fact, it was the opposite. Additionally, the text of the original article also incorrectly stated that higher and lower levels of positive future thinking, and higher and lower levels of unrealistic positive future thinking, were probed at −1 SD below and +1 SD above the mean, respectively. In fact, it was the opposite: higher positive and higher unrealistic future thinking were probed at +1 SD above the mean, and lower positive and lower unrealistic future thinking were probed at −1 SD below the mean. The authors apologize for these errors in reporting and state that they do not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. © 2021 Pollak, Guzmán, Shin and Cha.

Language: en

Keywords

suicide; adolescence; defeat; entrapment; future thinking; integrated motivational-volitional model