Anna R. George, E. Wesselmann, J. Hilgard, A. Young, I. Beest
{"title":"Correction","authors":"Anna R. George, E. Wesselmann, J. Hilgard, A. Young, I. Beest","doi":"10.1080/10508619.2021.1906589","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"(1) The second to last line: “Moreover, a mini-meta analysis of the original study and the current two studies added the novel insight that thinking about being included by God increased wellbeing relative to contemplating that God created the earth.” has been removed from the abstract. (2) The final line of the section “Mini meta-analysis on main effects” on page 8 has been corrected from “Moreover, the mini-meta analysis revealed a significant difference between the inclusion (M = 67.75, SD = 11.67) and control conditions (M = 59.87, SD = 11.69) on well-being score, t(520) = 5.45, p < .001, d = 0.58.” to “The mini meta-analysis revealed there was not a significant difference between the inclusion condition (M = 67.75, SD = 11.67) and the control condition (M = 67.47, SD = 11.69) on well-being score, t(348) = 0.23, p = 0.819, d = 0.02.” (3) The third paragraph on page 9 has been rewritten. It has changed from: ● While the individual studies, as well as the original study, showed no significant effect on the relation between the inclusion and control conditions on well-being, the mini-meta analysis showed there was a benefit to well-being when Christians read that God would always be with them compared to reading about God creating the Earth. Future research could examine this relation more closely to determine if it is a true effect. Both our studies, as well as the original study, may simply have been underpowered to detect this effect. The control conditions in all three studies were Bible verses, and thus future research could have a more neutral control condition that does not include religious scripture.","PeriodicalId":47234,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for the Psychology of Religion","volume":"31 1","pages":"151 - 152"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10508619.2021.1906589","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal for the Psychology of Religion","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2021.1906589","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
(1) The second to last line: “Moreover, a mini-meta analysis of the original study and the current two studies added the novel insight that thinking about being included by God increased wellbeing relative to contemplating that God created the earth.” has been removed from the abstract. (2) The final line of the section “Mini meta-analysis on main effects” on page 8 has been corrected from “Moreover, the mini-meta analysis revealed a significant difference between the inclusion (M = 67.75, SD = 11.67) and control conditions (M = 59.87, SD = 11.69) on well-being score, t(520) = 5.45, p < .001, d = 0.58.” to “The mini meta-analysis revealed there was not a significant difference between the inclusion condition (M = 67.75, SD = 11.67) and the control condition (M = 67.47, SD = 11.69) on well-being score, t(348) = 0.23, p = 0.819, d = 0.02.” (3) The third paragraph on page 9 has been rewritten. It has changed from: ● While the individual studies, as well as the original study, showed no significant effect on the relation between the inclusion and control conditions on well-being, the mini-meta analysis showed there was a benefit to well-being when Christians read that God would always be with them compared to reading about God creating the Earth. Future research could examine this relation more closely to determine if it is a true effect. Both our studies, as well as the original study, may simply have been underpowered to detect this effect. The control conditions in all three studies were Bible verses, and thus future research could have a more neutral control condition that does not include religious scripture.
期刊介绍:
The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion (IJPR) is devoted to psychological studies of religious processes and phenomena in all religious traditions. This journal provides a means for sustained discussion of psychologically relevant issues that can be examined empirically and concern religion in the most general sense. It presents articles covering a variety of important topics, such as the social psychology of religion, religious development, conversion, religious experience, religion and social attitudes and behavior, religion and mental health, and psychoanalytic and other theoretical interpretations of religion. The journal publishes research reports, brief research reports, commentaries on relevant topical issues, book reviews, and statements addressing articles published in previous issues. The journal may also include a major essay and commentaries, perspective papers of the theory, and articles on the psychology of religion in a specific country.