Erratum: Do automatic mental associations detect a Flashbulb Memory?

This article refers to:

Do automatic mental associations detect a flashbulb memory?

In the article, Lanciano, T., Curci, A., Mastandrea, S., & Sartori, G. (2013). Do automatic mental associations detect a Flashbulb Memory? Memory, 21 (4). doi:10.1080/09658211.2012.740050.

When the above mentioned article was first published online, the results section reported, by mistake, a few erroneous numbers.

The corrected data are reported below. Corrections do not alter the conclusions nor the interpretation of the data.

Study 1, Results, pp. 486–487

M_Congruent = 832.77, SD = 114.02; M_Incongruent = 1846.82, SD = 638.86

D index = .98

rho = .71.

Study 2, Results, pp. 489–490

rho ranged from .53 to .72

Z = −5.22

M_Congruent = 1243.60, SD = 421.64; M_Incongruent = 2075.73, SD = 659.87

D index = .91.

The correlations between D index and FBM consistency controlled for FBM specificity and for FBM confidence reached significant levels, and another significant association was found with FBM specificity and after controlling for FBM confidence (see Table 2). It therefore seems that the consistency index was a slightly more efficient measure of FBM accuracy, since it shared a unique variance with the implicit association indicator after controlling for FBM specificity and confidence indices.

Table

Indices	D index	FBM specificity	FBM confidence	FBM consistency
D index	.91	.17b .15c	.37a* .18c	.43a** .31b*
FBM specificity	.39**	9.74 (2.24)
FBM confidence	.50***	.54***	28.38 (6.48)
FBM consistency	.55***	.53***	.72***	8.29 (4.05)

Coefficients with subscript _a are obtained controlling for FBM specificity; Coefficients with subscript _b are obtained controlling for FBM confidence; Coefficients with subscript _c are obtained controlling for FBM consistency.

* p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.