Corrigendum

This article refers to:

Ties, Likes, and Tweets: Using Strong and Weak Ties to Explain Differences in Protest Participation Across Facebook and Twitter Use

Article Title: Ties, likes, and tweets: Using strong and weak ties to explain differences in protest participation across Facebook and Twitter use.

Authors: Sebastián Valenzuela, Teresa Correa, and Homero Gil de Zúñiga

Journal: Political Communication

Bibliometrics: Published online ahead of print 4 August 2017

DOI: 10.1080/10584609.2017.1334726

Publisher: Taylor & Francis

On Table 1, the study reports regression coefficients for variables in the study. Due to a clerical error, the coefficients for two variables, strong-tie Twitter use and weak-tie Facebook use, are flipped. In Figure 1, however, the same coefficients are correctly displayed. A corrected table appears below. The authors apologize for the confusion this error may have caused.

Table 1 Regressions predicting the number of protest acts in which respondents have participated using weighted and unweighted data

	Model 2 using weighted data	Model 2 using unweighted data	z test of difference in coefficients across models	Statistical significance of z test
	b (SE)	b (SE)
General Facebook use	0.032 (0.154)	0.130 (0.142)	−0.469	ns
General Twitter use	−0.163 (0.200)	−0.071 (0.194)	−0.330	ns
Strong-tie Facebook use	0.587*** (0.154)	0.623*** (0.143)	−0.172	ns
Strong-tie Twitter use	−0.326 (0.281)	−0.113 (0.287)	−0.528	ns
Weak-tie Facebook use	0.279 (0.159)	0.283* (0.136)	−0.018	ns
Weak-tie Twitter use	0.753** (0.283)	0.449 (0.285)	0.759	ns
Age	−0.294 (0.153)	−0.330* (0.139)	0.175	ns
Female	0.135 (0.093)	0.123 (0.086)	0.097	ns
Education	1.375*** (0.309)	1.534*** (0.300)	−0.369	ns
Political interest	0.831*** (0.140)	0.826*** (0.121)	0.028	ns
Political efficacy	−0.0721 (0.149)	−0.085 (0.136)	0.065	ns
Left-wing ideology	0.523*** (0.099)	0.537*** (0.089)	−0.110	ns
Exposure to news (logged)	1.134*** (0.259)	1.498*** (0.244)	−1.022	ns
Constant	−2.245*** (0.212)	−2.597*** (0.197)	1.218	ns
Pseudo R^2	0.109	0.119
AIC	2,346.0	2,200.6
Log likelihood	−1,158.0	−1,085.3

Notes. N = 995. Table reports unstandardized negative binomial regression coefficient (b) with robust standard errors (SE). All variables were first standardized to a 0-to-1 scale, with 0 = minimum sample score and 1 = maximum sample score.

* p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001 (two-tailed).