Correction to “Sustainability factors affecting caregivers' toy preferences: An evaluation of e-commerce best sellers in Turkey”

Abstract

Halli, S., Kaya, C., & Arslanli, K. Y. (2024). Sustainability factors affecting caregivers' toy preferences: An evaluation of e-commerce best sellers in Turkey. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 23(3), 1114-1129. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.2265

Correction to “Table 13”

In table 13 of the “ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS” section, the “ratios in the table.” were incorrect. They should have read: “like below table with yellow”

Correction to “Table 14”

In table 14 of the “ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS” section, the numbers of “the weights of the criteria” in the table were incorrect. They should have read: “like below”

Durability(0.079)was 0.070

Looks/Eye pleasing(0.033)was 0.032

Updating/Growth(0.284)was 0.144

Educational/Challenging(0.291)was 0.295

Fun Factor(0.136)was 0.288

Recommendation(0.079)was 0.076

Prices(0.079)was 0.076

In table 14 of the “ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS” section, the numbers of “the Composite Priority” in the table were incorrect. They should have read: “like below”

Animal Drill Set(0.1596)was 0.1587

Magnetic Animals(0.1620)was 0.1641

Bamboo Sticks(0.1920)was 0.1912

Waldorf Rainbow(0.1506)was 0.1495

Magical Magnet(0.1794)was 0.1797

Line Up(0.1572)was 0.1579

Correction to “Figure 3”

Correction to “DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS”

In paragraph 2 of the “DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION” section, the text “The consistency rate of the decision matrix was found to be 9.1%, showing a consistent pattern.” was incorrect. This should have read: “The consistency rate of the decision matrix was found to be 7.2%, showing a consistent pattern.”

Correction to “DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION”

In paragraph 2 of the “DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION” section, the text “The first step of the AHP, the result of 28 pairwise comparisons of 8 criteria and the ranking of them (Table 14), showed the following rank and weight: educational (0.295), updating (0.288), fun factor (0.144), recommendation (0.076), prices (0.076), durability (0.070), looks (0.032), and second-hand potential (0.020).” was incorrect.

This should have read: “The first step of the AHP, the result of 28 pairwise comparisons of 8 criteria and the ranking of them (Table 14), showed the following rank and weight: educational (0.291), updating (0.284), fun factor (0.136), recommendation (0.079), prices (0.079), durability (0.079), looks (0.033), and second-hand potential (0.020).”

Correction to “DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION”

In paragraph 3 of the “DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION” section, the text “Moreover, we observed that the price criterion ranked fifth among the priorities (within the eight criteria), with a share of approximately 7.6% in the whole.” was incorrect.

This should have read: “Moreover, we observed that the price criterion ranked fifth among the priorities (within the eight criteria), with a share of approximately 7.9% in the whole.”

We apologize for these errors.