Correction to “Unraveling the Power of Leisure Crafting for Unengaged Employees: Implications for Creativity and Meaning at Work”

Abstract

Petrou, P., Hamrick, A. B., & Abdel Hadi, S. (2024). Unraveling the Power of Leisure Crafting for Unengaged Employees: Implications for Creativity and Meaning at Work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 45(8), 1170–1188.

In the current paper, the results for the tests of Hypothesis 3 (Study 1) and Hypotheses 4 and 5 (Study 2) are mistakenly labelled as using 95% CIs and should be labelled as 90% CIs. To test Hypotheses 3–5, we followed previous empirical practice (Parker et al. 2020) and methodological recommendations (Preacher et al. 2010) suggesting that one-tailed 90% CIs are justified for the calculation of indirect effects.

In the data analyses section on page 1176, the following sentence was omitted in the originally published article and should be included:

To test Hypothesis 3 (and Hypotheses 4 and 5 in Study 2), we followed previous empirical practice (Parker et al. 2020) and methodological recommendations (Preacher et al. 2010), suggesting that one-tailed 90% CIs are justified for the calculation of indirect effects.

We have listed the page numbers and correct reporting for each hypothesis test below.

Page 1177, the text should report the following:

“Results revealed that the indirect effect was positive and significant for 1 SD, lower than the mean of baseline work engagement; 90% CI ranged between 0.012 and 0.082; while the indirect effect was non-significant for 1 SD, higher than the mean of baseline work engagement, 90% CI ranged between −0.076 and 0.005. The difference of the two indirect effects for low and high work engagement was significant (90% CI [0.014/0.140]).”

Page 1180, the text should report the following:

“The indirect effect of Week 1 leisure crafting on Week 3 creativity via Week 2 cognitive developmental resources did not include zero (90% CI [0.002/0.023]), while the indirect effect via Week 2 affective resources did (90% CI [0.000/0.017]), which supports Hypothesis 4a but not Hypothesis 4b.”

Pages 1180–1181, the text should report the following:

“The indirect effect of Week 1 leisure crafting on Week 3 creativity via cognitive developmental resources was significant for low levels of work engagement (90% CI [0.001/0.023]), for moderate levels of work engagement (90% CI [0.002/0.024]) and for high levels (90% CI [0.002/0.028]). However, the indirect effects for low and high levels of work engagement did not differ from each other (90% CI [−0.014/0.002]). In addition, the indirect effect of Week 1 leisure crafting on Week 3 creativity via affective resources was significant for low levels of work engagement (90% CI [0.002/0.030]) but not for high work engagement (90% CI [−0.010/0.004]). The two indirect effects for low and for high work engagement were significantly different from each other (90% CI [0.003/0.034]).”

At the end of the results section on page 1181, the following footnote was omitted:

“¹Using 95% CIs alters none of our previously reported levels of significance of the results throughout the paper, except the finding relating to Hypothesis 4a. Specifically, under 95% CIs, the indirect effect of leisure crafting on employee creativity via cognitive developmental resources becomes non-significant (Study 2).”

Please note that the summary of our results on the basis of 90% CIs is reported in Table 5 above. We have added a note to the table indicating that the results reported in the column labelled “coefficient” report 90% CIs for the tests of Hypotheses 3–5.

We apologize for this error.