Erratum to: Not the Sum of Its Parts: Decomposing Implicit Academic Stereotypes to Understand Sense of Fit in Math and English

Erratum to: Not the Sum of Its Parts: Decomposing Implicit Academic Stereotypes to Understand... Sex Roles (2015) 72:484 DOI 10.1007/s11199-015-0481-1 ERRATUM Erratum to: Not the Sum of Its Parts: Decomposing Implicit Academic Stereotypes to Understand Sense of Fit in Math and English 1 1 2 3 Patricia N. Gilbert & Laurie T. O’Brien & Donna M. Garcia & David M. Marx Published online: 6 May 2015 Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015 Erratum to: Sex Roles DOI 10.1007/s11199-014-0428-y Correlations (Table 3) and beta values (Table 4)that ranged from −.09 to .09 had the zero dropped from the value. For example, in Table 3, the relationship between the women- math association and English sense of fit read “.4” when it should actually be “.04”. Table 3 Correlations among variables for female and male participants 1234 5 6 1. Women-math association – .39** .30** .56** .22** −.13 2. Men-math association .43** – .55** .37** .01 .02 3. Women-English association .32** .52** – .30** −.06 .11 4. Men-English association .51** .39** .34** – .10 −.06 5. Math sense of fit −.12 −.02 .04 −.18* – −.26** 6. English sense of fit .04 −.12 .04 .10 −.30** – † * ** Note. p<.09, p<.05, p<.001. Correlations above the diagonal are for female participants and correlations below the diagonal are for male participants Table 4 Beta weights for sense of fit in math and English Math sense of fit English sense of fit The online version of the original article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/ *** 10.1007/s11199-014-0428-y. Gender .07 −.19 Women-math association .11 −.07 * Patricia N. Gilbert † Men-math association .00 −.12 pngilbert@tulane.edu Women-English association −.01 .13 Men-English association −.10 .06 ** † Department of Psychology, Tulane University, 2007 Stern Hall, New Women-math X Gender −.25 .15 Orleans, LA 70118, USA Men-math X Gender .03 −.16 Department of Psychology, California State University, San Women-English X Gender .16 −.03 Bernardino, CA, USA Men-English X Gender −.11 .10 Department of Psychology, San Diego State University, San † * ** *** Diego, CA, USA Note. p<.09, p<.05, p<.01, p<.001 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Sex Roles Springer Journals

Erratum to: Not the Sum of Its Parts: Decomposing Implicit Academic Stereotypes to Understand Sense of Fit in Math and English

Free
1 page
Loading next page...
1 Page
 
/lp/springer_journal/erratum-to-not-the-sum-of-its-parts-decomposing-implicit-academic-dwv4wjfn01
Publisher
Springer US
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 by Springer Science+Business Media New York
Subject
Psychology; Gender Studies; Sociology, general; Medicine/Public Health, general
ISSN
0360-0025
eISSN
1573-2762
D.O.I.
10.1007/s11199-015-0481-1
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Sex Roles (2015) 72:484 DOI 10.1007/s11199-015-0481-1 ERRATUM Erratum to: Not the Sum of Its Parts: Decomposing Implicit Academic Stereotypes to Understand Sense of Fit in Math and English 1 1 2 3 Patricia N. Gilbert & Laurie T. O’Brien & Donna M. Garcia & David M. Marx Published online: 6 May 2015 Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015 Erratum to: Sex Roles DOI 10.1007/s11199-014-0428-y Correlations (Table 3) and beta values (Table 4)that ranged from −.09 to .09 had the zero dropped from the value. For example, in Table 3, the relationship between the women- math association and English sense of fit read “.4” when it should actually be “.04”. Table 3 Correlations among variables for female and male participants 1234 5 6 1. Women-math association – .39** .30** .56** .22** −.13 2. Men-math association .43** – .55** .37** .01 .02 3. Women-English association .32** .52** – .30** −.06 .11 4. Men-English association .51** .39** .34** – .10 −.06 5. Math sense of fit −.12 −.02 .04 −.18* – −.26** 6. English sense of fit .04 −.12 .04 .10 −.30** – † * ** Note. p<.09, p<.05, p<.001. Correlations above the diagonal are for female participants and correlations below the diagonal are for male participants Table 4 Beta weights for sense of fit in math and English Math sense of fit English sense of fit The online version of the original article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/ *** 10.1007/s11199-014-0428-y. Gender .07 −.19 Women-math association .11 −.07 * Patricia N. Gilbert † Men-math association .00 −.12 pngilbert@tulane.edu Women-English association −.01 .13 Men-English association −.10 .06 ** † Department of Psychology, Tulane University, 2007 Stern Hall, New Women-math X Gender −.25 .15 Orleans, LA 70118, USA Men-math X Gender .03 −.16 Department of Psychology, California State University, San Women-English X Gender .16 −.03 Bernardino, CA, USA Men-English X Gender −.11 .10 Department of Psychology, San Diego State University, San † * ** *** Diego, CA, USA Note. p<.09, p<.05, p<.01, p<.001

Journal

Sex RolesSpringer Journals

Published: May 6, 2015

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 12 million articles from more than
10,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Unlimited reading

Read as many articles as you need. Full articles with original layout, charts and figures. Read online, from anywhere.

Stay up to date

Keep up with your field with Personalized Recommendations and Follow Journals to get automatic updates.

Organize your research

It’s easy to organize your research with our built-in tools.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

Monthly Plan

  • Read unlimited articles
  • Personalized recommendations
  • No expiration
  • Print 20 pages per month
  • 20% off on PDF purchases
  • Organize your research
  • Get updates on your journals and topic searches

$49/month

Start Free Trial

14-day Free Trial

Best Deal — 39% off

Annual Plan

  • All the features of the Professional Plan, but for 39% off!
  • Billed annually
  • No expiration
  • For the normal price of 10 articles elsewhere, you get one full year of unlimited access to articles.

$588

$360/year

billed annually
Start Free Trial

14-day Free Trial