{"title":"更正“婴儿对帮助者和阻碍者的社会评价：一项大规模、多实验室、协调复制研究”","authors":"","doi":"10.1111/desc.70029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Lucca, K., F. Yuen, Y. Wang, et al. 2025, “Infants’ Social Evaluation of Helpers and Hinderers: A Large-Scale, Multi-Lab, Coordinated Replication Study.” <i>Developmental Science</i> 28: e13581. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.13581</p><p>Results were reported using an uncentered predictor for condition (social = 1, nonsocial = 0). This reflected a simple effect of habituation status within the nonsocial condition rather than a main effect across conditions. The sentence in section 3.3 (Exploratory Analyses on Infants’ Choices) published as:</p><p>There was a main effect of habituation status, such that infants who habituated were more likely to choose the Helper/Push-Up character (53.29% chose the Helper/Push-Up character) than infants who did not habituate (49.21%; <i>b</i> = 0.70, SE = 0.32, 95% CI [0.09, 1.33]).</p><p>Should instead read:</p><p>When condition was centered (social = 0.5, nonsocial = −0.5), there was no main effect of habituation status, <i>b</i> = 0.20, SE = 0.23, 95% CI [−0.25, 0.63], BF<sub>01</sub> = 1.73.</p><p>This correction clarifies the statistical approach and all reported analyses remain accurate. No study conclusions are altered.</p><p>We apologize for the error.</p>","PeriodicalId":48392,"journal":{"name":"Developmental Science","volume":"28 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/desc.70029","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Correction to “Infants’ Social Evaluation of Helpers and Hinderers: A Large-Scale, Multi-Lab, Coordinated Replication Study”\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/desc.70029\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Lucca, K., F. Yuen, Y. Wang, et al. 2025, “Infants’ Social Evaluation of Helpers and Hinderers: A Large-Scale, Multi-Lab, Coordinated Replication Study.” <i>Developmental Science</i> 28: e13581. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.13581</p><p>Results were reported using an uncentered predictor for condition (social = 1, nonsocial = 0). This reflected a simple effect of habituation status within the nonsocial condition rather than a main effect across conditions. The sentence in section 3.3 (Exploratory Analyses on Infants’ Choices) published as:</p><p>There was a main effect of habituation status, such that infants who habituated were more likely to choose the Helper/Push-Up character (53.29% chose the Helper/Push-Up character) than infants who did not habituate (49.21%; <i>b</i> = 0.70, SE = 0.32, 95% CI [0.09, 1.33]).</p><p>Should instead read:</p><p>When condition was centered (social = 0.5, nonsocial = −0.5), there was no main effect of habituation status, <i>b</i> = 0.20, SE = 0.23, 95% CI [−0.25, 0.63], BF<sub>01</sub> = 1.73.</p><p>This correction clarifies the statistical approach and all reported analyses remain accurate. No study conclusions are altered.</p><p>We apologize for the error.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48392,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Developmental Science\",\"volume\":\"28 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/desc.70029\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Developmental Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/desc.70029\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Developmental Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/desc.70029","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
袁芳，王艳等。2025，“幼儿对帮助者与阻碍者的社会评价：一项大规模、多实验室、协调复制的研究”。发展科学28:e13581。https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.13581Results使用无中心预测因子（社会性= 1，非社会性= 0）进行报告。这反映了非社会条件下习惯状态的简单影响，而不是跨条件的主要影响。第3.3节（婴儿选择的探索性分析）的句子发表为：习惯状态的主要影响是，习惯的婴儿比未习惯的婴儿更倾向于选择帮手/俯卧撑角色（53.29%选择帮手/俯卧撑角色）；b = 0.70, SE = 0.32, 95% CI[0.09, 1.33])。当条件为中心（社会= 0.5，非社会= - 0.5）时，习惯状态无主要影响，b = 0.20, SE = 0.23, 95% CI [- 0.25, 0.63], BF01 = 1.73。这一更正澄清了统计方法，所有报告的分析仍然准确。没有研究结论被改变。我们为这个错误道歉。
Correction to “Infants’ Social Evaluation of Helpers and Hinderers: A Large-Scale, Multi-Lab, Coordinated Replication Study”
Lucca, K., F. Yuen, Y. Wang, et al. 2025, “Infants’ Social Evaluation of Helpers and Hinderers: A Large-Scale, Multi-Lab, Coordinated Replication Study.” Developmental Science 28: e13581. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.13581
Results were reported using an uncentered predictor for condition (social = 1, nonsocial = 0). This reflected a simple effect of habituation status within the nonsocial condition rather than a main effect across conditions. The sentence in section 3.3 (Exploratory Analyses on Infants’ Choices) published as:
There was a main effect of habituation status, such that infants who habituated were more likely to choose the Helper/Push-Up character (53.29% chose the Helper/Push-Up character) than infants who did not habituate (49.21%; b = 0.70, SE = 0.32, 95% CI [0.09, 1.33]).
Should instead read:
When condition was centered (social = 0.5, nonsocial = −0.5), there was no main effect of habituation status, b = 0.20, SE = 0.23, 95% CI [−0.25, 0.63], BF01 = 1.73.
This correction clarifies the statistical approach and all reported analyses remain accurate. No study conclusions are altered.
期刊介绍：
Developmental Science publishes cutting-edge theory and up-to-the-minute research on scientific developmental psychology from leading thinkers in the field. It is currently the only journal that specifically focuses on human developmental cognitive neuroscience. Coverage includes: - Clinical, computational and comparative approaches to development - Key advances in cognitive and social development - Developmental cognitive neuroscience - Functional neuroimaging of the developing brain
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
