Correction for Van Doesum et al., Mindfulness and prosociality vary across the world

PSYCHOLOGICAL AND COGNITIVE SCIENCES Correction for “Mindfulness and prosociality vary across the world”, by Niels J. Van Doesum, Ryan O. Murphy, Marcello Gallucci, Efrat Aharonov-Majar, Ursula Athenstaedt, Wing Tung Au, Liying Bai, Robert Böhm, Inna Bovina, Nancy R. Buchan, Xiao-Ping Chen, Kitty B. Dumont, Jan B. Engelmann, Kimmo Eriksson, Hyun Euh, Susann Fiedler, Justin Friesen, Simon Gächter, Camilo Garcia, Roberto González, Sylvie Graf, Katarzyna Growiec, Serge Guimond, Martina Hřebíčková, Elizabeth Immer-Bernold, Jeff Joireman, Gokhan Karagonlar, Kerry Kawakami, Toko Kiyonari, Yu Kou, D. Michael Kuhlman, Alexandros-Andreas Kyrtsis, Siugmin Lay, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Norman P. Li, Yang Li, Boris Maciejovsky, Zoi Manesi, Ali Mashuri, Aurelia Mok, Karin S. Moser, Ladislav Moták, Adrian Netedu, Chandrasekhar Pammi, Michael J. Platow, Karolina Raczka-Winkler, Christopher P. Reinders Folmer, Cecilia Reyna, Angelo Romano, Shaul Shalvi, Cláudia Simão, Adam W. Stivers, Pontus Strimling, Yannis Tsirbas, Sonja Utz, L eander van der Meij, Sven Waldzus, Yiwen Wang, Bernd Weber, Ori Weisel, Tim Wildschut, Fabian Winter, Junhui Wu, Jose C. Yong and Paul AM Van Lange, published August 23, 2021; 10.1073 / pnas.2023846118 (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. United States 118, e2023846118).

The authors wish to note the following: “We thank attentive readers who have noticed errors in the country labels in Figure 2: Romania has been labeled twice, the Republic of Korea has no label and the Mexico has been labeled in the wrong position. These errors did not involve the underlying data.

Figure 2.

SOMI and PPE point cloud by country / region.

We found that the main analyzes used environmental performance data (EPI) from 2008, reported in Table 2. However, the prediction models and Figure 2 used EPI data from 2016, which is also referenced in the text. A new analysis showed very similar results with each dataset and led to the same conclusion: the bivariate association of social mindfulness (SoMi) with EPI-2008 is β = 0.60, t(27.04) = 3.83, P = 0.001; for EPI-2016, it is β = 0.61, t(27.02) = 4.00, P

Table 2.

Bivariate relations at national level with SoMi in three areas.

Finally, a labeling error in one of the data files meant that Singapore was not included in the country level analyzes. A new analysis including Singapore produced almost identical results. All effect sizes were found to be virtually unchanged and all inferential tests led to the same conclusions as the first ones, including the association between SoMi and the income inequality index (Gini) which was confirmed to be insignificant. , P = 0.070 (see OSF link, Since no conclusion changes, all results are retained and no further changes have been made. The updated results are provided in the OSF repository ( “

Corrected Figure 2, its legend and corrected Table 2 appear below. The online version has been corrected. The SI Annex has been corrected online to show the correct reference of the dataset, as described above.

Previous China's struggling Huarong gets $ 6.6 billion lifeline
Next Mizuho Financial and Mizuho Bank to Shut Down Due to Problems