Article title: How Narrative Engagement with Young Adult Literature Influences Perceptions of Anorexia Nervosa
Authors: Collins, M. K. R., & Lazard, A. J.
Journal: Health Communication
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1785375
Following the online publication of this article, the following errors have been identified:
In the Method section, the mean and standard deviation of identification should correctly read M = 4.80, SD = 1.06 (originally reported as M = 4.77, SD = 1.07)
In the Method section, the mean and standard deviation of relevance should correctly read M = 3.82, SD = 1.69 (originally reported as M = 3.79, SD = 1.69)
In the Results section and in Table 1, the total number of participants should correctly read N = 366 participants (originally reported as N = 367 participants)
In the Results section, the percentage of female participants should correctly read 79.1% (originally reported as 78.5%) and the percentage of White participants should correctly read 84.2% (originally reported as 83.8%).
In the Results section, the percentage of sophomore participants should correctly read 38.8% (originally reported as 36.2%) and the percentage of junior participants should correctly read 41.0% (originally reported as 47.7%).
In the Results section, the percentage of participants reporting that “they or someone they know” had experienced (a) an eating disorder should correctly read 77.9% (originally reported as 78.5%), (b) a mental illness should correctly read 93.4% (originally reported as 90.0%), and (c) a physical illness should correctly read 84.7% (originally reported as 80.8%).
In Table 1, the percentage of Asian participants in the firsthand narrative condition should correctly read 9.2% (originally reported as 9.3%).
In the informational brochure column of Table 1, the number and percentage of:
Freshman participants should correctly read 0 (0.0) [originally reported as 1 (0.8)].
Female participants should correctly read 103 (79.8) [originally reported as 104 (80.0)].
White participants should correctly read 83.1% (originally reported as 83.2%).
Other participants should correctly read 6 (4.6) [originally reported as 7 (5.4)].
Participants affected by eating disorders should correctly read 101 (77.7) [originally reported as 102 (78.5)].
Participants who preferred not to answer about their experience with eating disorders should correctly read 5 (3.8) [originally reported as 4 (3.1)].
Participants affected by mental illness should correctly read 122 (93.8) [originally reported as 123 (94.6)].
Participants who preferred not to answer about their experience with mental illnesses should correctly read 1 (0.8) [originally reported as 0 (0.0)].
Participants who preferred not to answer about their experience with physical illnesses should correctly read 2 (1.5) [originally reported as 1 (0.8)].
In Table 1, the number of participants in the informational brochure condition should correctly read n = 130 (originally reported as n = 131).
In the Results section and the transportation, self referencing, and illness beliefs subsection,
The ANOVA comparing participants’ levels of transportation among the reading conditions should correctly read F(2, 358) = 11.69, η2 = .003 (originally reported as F(2, 365) = 17.24, η2 = .06).
The ANOVA comparing participants’ levels of transportation between experience groups should correctly read F(1, 358) = 14.39, η2 = .002 (originally reported as F(1, 365) = 10.61, η2 = .04).
The ANOVA comparing participants’ levels of self-referencing among the reading conditions should correctly read F(2, 358) = 5.06, η2 = .003 (originally reported as F(2, 365) = 19.37, η2 = .03).
The ANOVA comparing participants’ levels of self-referencing between experience groups should correctly read F(1, 358) = 28.90, η2 = .01 (originally reported as F(1, 365) = 55.31, η2 = .07).
The ANOVA comparing participants’ levels of illness beliefs among the reading conditions should correctly read F(2, 358) = 1.88, η2 < .001 (originally reported as F(2, 365) = 1.23, η2 = .01).
The ANOVA comparing participants’ levels of illness beliefs between the two experience groups should correctly read F(1, 358) = 1.39 (originally reported as F(1, 365) = 1.23).
In the identification subsection of the Results section, the ANOVA comparing participants’ levels of identification between the two experience groups should correctly read η2 = .002 (originally reported as η2 = .05).
In Table 2, for the believability measure,
The mean and standard deviation of the peer narrative should correctly read 5.71 (0.98) for the peer narrative [originally reported as 5.75 (1.12)].
The standard deviation of the informational brochure should correctly read 1.03 for the informational brochure (originally reported as 0.90).
In Table 3,
The p-value of the illness beliefs measure should correctly read .239 (originally reported as .004).
The F-value of the believability measure should correctly read 2.74 (originally reported as 4.63).
In the Results section and the believability and relevance subsection
The ANOVA comparing participants’ perceptions of believability among the reading formats should correctly read η2 < .001 (originally reported as η2 = .03).
The ANOVA comparing participants’ perceptions of believability between experience groups should correctly read η2 < .001 (originally reported η2 = .008).
The ANOVA comparing the interaction effect of participants’ perceptions of believability between reading format and experience group should correctly read F(2, 358) = 0.66, η2 < .001 (originally reported as F(3, 358) = 0.66, η2 = .004).
The ANOVA comparing participants’ perceptions of personal relevance among the reading formats should correctly read η2 = .003 (originally reported as η2 = .02).
The ANOVA comparing participants’ perceptions of personal relevance between experience groups should correctly read η2 = .02 (originally reported as η2 = .11).
Notably, these errors did not affect the interpretation of the results; thus, the analysis is correct as originally reported.