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
MCongruent = 832.77, SD = 114.02; MIncongruent = 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
MCongruent = 1243.60, SD = 421.64; MIncongruent = 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.