Correction to Exploring social-emotional learning, school climate, and social network analysis

Maria Xu, Marisa MacDonnell, Angela Wang, Maurice J. Elias. Journal of Community Psychology, 51, 84–102.

The authors of Xu et al. (2023) have supplied the following correction to their article.

The paper stated that Hypothesis 1 (Peer leaders will increase in Closeness and Indegree centrality) and that Hypothesis 2 (Students overall will increase in Closeness and Indegree centrality) were supported while Hypothesis 3 (Peer leaders will have greater centrality values than students overall at the end of the year) was not. This was an incorrect reporting of the conclusions. Hypothesis 1 was not supported while Hypothesis 2 and Hypothesis 3 were supported. The resulting change is reflected below in the corrected paragraph.

Hypothesis 2 and Hypothesis 3 were supported by the paired permutation t-tests and permutation t-tests. Hypothesis 1 was not. It makes sense that Ambassadors and students would have significantly different scores between them at the beginning of the intervention as well as the end of the intervention because Ambassadors were chosen by their peers to be student leaders. To be chosen as a student leader suggests that they were already influential students. Students over all did increase in influence as suggested by our theory of diffusion, but Ambassadors did not increase in influence overall. This may be due to a ceiling effect where student leaders could have not grown more in influence because they were already near the top of influence in the first place. The maintenance of higher influence suggests that even though they did not grow in influence, Ambassadors still maintained a critical role within the community even at the end of the year.

The authors sincerely apologize for this error.