Figures
After publication, the authors became aware of errors to the cleaned data set used in the analysis presented in the study. The authors re-downloaded the data from Qualtrics, re-cleaned the data, and were able to run the analyses correctly. Multiple members of the team were able to replicate the updated findings separately. The interpretation of the results and overall understanding of the study has not changed. All the relationships that were significant in the published version are significant with the updated data set; however, several coefficients in Tables 2–5 and S1 Table are incorrect. Please view the corrected Tables 2–5 and S1 Table here.
[1]
Supporting information
S1 Table. Analysis moderated by political ideology.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211289.s001
(DOCX)
Reference
- 1. Beall L, Myers TA, Kotcher JE, Vraga EK, Maibach EW (2017) Controversy matters: Impacts of topic and solution controversy on the perceived credibility of a scientist who advocates. PLoS ONE 12(11): e0187511. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187511 pmid:29136643
Citation: Beall L, Myers TA, Kotcher JE, Vraga EK, Maibach EW (2019) Correction: Controversy matters: Impacts of topic and solution controversy on the perceived credibility of a scientist who advocates. PLoS ONE 14(1): e0211289. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211289
Published: January 18, 2019
Copyright: © 2019 Beall et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.