Start Submission Become a Reviewer

Reading: Corrigendum: Distinguishing Between Need Support and Regulatory Focus with LIWC

Download

A- A+
Alt. Display

Correction

Corrigendum: Distinguishing Between Need Support and Regulatory Focus with LIWC

Author:

Leigh Ann Vaughn

Abstract

Following the publication of our recent article in Collabra: Psychology [https://www.collabra.org/articles/10.1525/collabra.185/] we wish to bring the following corrigendum to your attention.

 

Corrigendum

In the version of the paper initially published, several tables in the main text had typographical errors. These errors were not in the data files or the results reported in the supplementary materials, and they do not affect any of the conclusions in the paper. The author thanks her students, Trish Burkins, Janak Judd, and Jennifer Ochiagha, for finding these errors. These errors have been corrected in the preprint version of the paper on the OSF and PsyArXiv.

 

Competing interests

The author has declared no competing interests.

 

References

Vaughn, L. A. (2019). Distinguishing between need support and regulatory focus with LIWC. Collabra: Psychology, 5, 32. doi: 10.1525/collabra.185

How to Cite: Vaughn, L. A. (2020). Corrigendum: Distinguishing Between Need Support and Regulatory Focus with LIWC. Collabra: Psychology, 6(1), 14. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.341
21
Views
Altmetric
  Published on 12 Mar 2020
 Accepted on 04 Mar 2020            Submitted on 04 Mar 2020

Corrigendum

In the version of the paper initially published, several tables in the main text had typographical errors. These errors were not in the data files or the results reported in the supplementary materials, and they do not affect any of the conclusions in the paper. The author thanks her students, Trish Burkins, Janak Judd, and Jennifer Ochiagha, for finding these errors. These errors have been corrected in the preprint version of the paper on the OSF and PsyArXiv.

Table 3

Study 1a: Condition Statistics and Tests of Between-Condition Differences on LIWC Word Categories used at least 0.5% of the Time.

Word Type Examples High NS Low NS Tests of between-condition differences

M SD M SD df t Mean diff. 95% CI d

High NS higher
    Clout/influence a 26.53 25.25 17.46 19.74 477.41 4.50 9.07 [5.11, 13.05] 0.400
    Emotional tone b 69.53 31.15 23.69 29.17 499.96 17.04 45.84 [40.56, 51.13] 1.519
    Personal pronouns I, them, her 14.72 5.64 12.77 4.25 470.43 4.37 1.94 [1.07, 2.82] 0.388
    Interrogatives how, when, what 3.17 3.59 1.65 1.87 382.89 5.98 1.52 [1.02, 2.03] 0.531
    Positive emotion love, nice, sweet 3.94 3.66 1.59 2.18 413.96 8.80 2.36 [1.83, 2.88] 0.781
    Causation because, effect 2.81 3.84 1.53 2.05 387.75 4.70 1.28 [0.75, 1.82] 0.416
    Drives ally, win, danger 11.12 6.56 8.59 6.57 500.77 4.32 2.53 [1.38, 3.68] 0.385
    Reward take, prize, benefit 2.05 2.65 1.12 1.75 439.78 4.62 0.92 [0.53, 1.32] 0.410
Low NS higher
    Auxiliary verbs am, will, have 7.99 4.88 10.16 4.47 501.00 –5.21 –2.17 [–2.99, –1.35] –0.464
    Negations no, not, never 0.60 1.44 2.61 2.30 414.52 –11.71 –2.01 [–2.35, –1.67] –1.049
    Negative emotion hurt, ugly, nasty 0.20 0.74 3.29 3.28 272.45 –14.51 –3.09 [–3.50, –2.67] –1.306
    Anxiety worried, fearful 0.06 0.40 1.40 2.19 264.36 –9.50 –1.34 [–1.62, –1.07] –0.855
    Tentative maybe, perhaps 1.26 2.13 2.39 2.41 491.17 –5.54 –1.13 [–1.52, –0.73] –0.495
    Differentiation hasn’t, but, else 1.84 2.68 3.73 3.02 491.79 –7.45 –1.90 [–2.40, –1.40] –0.665

Note: NS = need support. To limit the potential for false-positive results in the linguistic analyses, I set a conservative limit for statistical significance at p < .001, two-tailed, and d ≥ ±.375. Degrees of freedom are adjusted for heterogeneity of variance. Mean values indicate the mean percentage of all of the words that participants used that fell into a particular category, except the mean values for words per sentence and the summary variables (clout and tone). a The clout/influence variable is by Kacewicz et al. (2014). b The emotional tone variable is by Cohn et al. (2004).

Table 4

Study 1b: Condition Statistics and Tests of Between-Condition Differences on LIWC Word Categories used at least 0.5% of the Time.

Word Type Examples Hopes Duties Tests of between-condition differences

M SD M SD df t Mean diff. 95% CI d

High NS higher
    Analytical thinking a 59.29 29.55 45.86 33.16 431.18 4.48 13.43 [7.53, 19.32] 0.427
    Clout/influence b 35.06 29.37 23.22 27.49 436.00 4.36 11.84 [6.50, 17.18] 0.416
    Emotional tone c 81.30 28.35 44.33 36.83 410.91 11.78 36.97 [30.80, 43.14] 1.124
    Positive emotion love, nice, sweet 7.54 7.93 4.34 6.00 404.01 4.75 3.20 [1.87, 4.52] 0.455
    Social processes mate, talk, they 8.32 7.48 5.38 7.01 433.59 4.26 2.95 [1.59, 4.31] 0.407
    Friends buddy, neighbor 1.06 2.66 0.22 0.84 259.86 4.47 0.84 [0.47, 1.21] 0.428
    Affiliation ally, friend, social 5.37 6.58 2.43 6.80 453.78 4.60 2.94 [1.69, 4.20] 0.440
Low NS higher
    Auxiliary verbs am, will, have 5.69 4.47 9.04 6.46 390.08 –6.30 –3.34 [–4.39, –2.30] –0.601
    Common adverbs very, really 3.05 3.23 5.15 4.52 396.37 –5.61 –2.10 [–2.84, –1.37] –0.535
    Negations no, not, never 0.50 1.32 1.63 1.89 391.77 –7.27 –1.13 [–1.43, –0.82] –0.694
    Negative emotion hurt, ugly, nasty 0.22 0.74 2.46 2.81 249.89 –11.45 –2.24 [–2.63, –1.86] –1.090
    Anxiety worried, fearful 0.06 0.43 1.12 1.72 246.88 –8.84 –1.06 [–1.30, –0.82] –0.842
    Cognitive processes cause, know, ought 10.00 7.01 14.30 8.36 424.28 –5.83 –4.30 [–5.75, –2.85] –0.557
    Differentiation hasn’t, but, else 2.22 2.84 3.68 3.39 424.47 –4.90 –1.46 [–2.05, –0.88] –0.468
    Feel feels, touch 1.14 2.09 2.25 2.58 419.52 –4.93 –1.10 [–1.55, –0.66] –0.471

Note: NS = need support. To limit the potential for false-positive results in the linguistic analyses, I set a conservative limit for statistical significance at p < .001, two-tailed, and d ≥ ±.402. Degrees of freedom are adjusted for heterogeneity of variance. Mean values indicate the mean percentage of all of the words that participants used that fell into a particular category, except the mean values for words per sentence and the summary variables (analytical thinking, clout, and tone). a The analytical thinking variable is by Pennebaker et al. (2015). b The clout/influence variable is by Kacewicz et al. (2014). c The emotional tone variable is by Cohn et al. (2004).

Table 5

Study 2: Condition Statistics and Tests of Between-Condition Differences on LIWC Word Categories used at least 0.5% of the Time.

Word Type Examples Hopes Duties Tests of between-condition differences

M SD M SD df t Mean diff. 95% CI d

Hopes higher
    Emotional tone a 62.94 35.25 42.91 33.80 444.04 6.13 20.02 [13.60, 26.44] 0.580
    Words with more than six letters 18.88 12.64 13.66 8.15 379.11 5.16 5.19 [3.21, 7.17] 0.488
    Positive emotion love, nice, sweet 3.69 4.32 2.08 3.08 426.22 4.91 1.61 [0.96, 2.25] 0.465
    Reward take, prize, benefit 3.17 3.78 1.75 2.84 411.85 4.49 1.42 [0.80, 2.04] 0.425
    Work job, majors, read 10.26 8.92 6.25 8.94 445.00 4.74 4.00 [2.34, 5.56] 0.448
Duties higher
    LIWC dictionary words 91.28 8.58 94.31 6.03 398.04 –4.32 –3.03 [–4.41, –1.65] –0.409
    Total function words it, to, no, very 52.82 10.97 58.29 10.26 445.00 –5.45 –5.47 [–7.45, –3.50] –0.515
    Total pronouns I, them, itself 15.51 7.73 19.68 7.86 445.00 –5.67 –4.18 [–5.63, –2.73] –0.536
    Personal pronouns I, them, her 12.15 6.29 15.46 6.52 445.00 –5.46 –3.31 [–4.50, – 2.12] –0.517
    Third person singular she, her, him 0.24 1.32 2.01 3.60 281.58 –6.89 –1.77 [–2.27, –1.26] –0.651
    Negations no, not, never 0.27 0.97 1.27 2.02 321.08 –6.68 –1.00 [–1.30, –0.71] –0.631
    Negative emotion hurt, ugly, nasty 0.30 1.10 1.02 2.06 340.08 –4.77 –0.74 [–1.05, –0.44] –0.450
    Social processes mate, talk, they 4.36 6.20 9.25 7.85 423.26 –7.31 –4.89 [–5.44, –3.58] –0.691
    Family daughter, dad, aunt 0.60 2.77 2.05 3.24 548.25 –5.10 –1.45 [–2.01, –0.89] –0.482
    Female references girl, her, mom 0.44 2.80 2.27 4.51 372.88 –5.15 –1.83 [–2.53, –1.13] –0.487
    Differentiation hasn’t, but, else 0.99 2.12 2.74 3.50 367.94 –6.37 –1.74 [–2.28, –1.20] –0.602

Note: To limit the potential for false-positive results, I set a conservative limit for inclusion in this table at p < .001, two-tailed, and d ≥ ±.399. Degrees of freedom are adjusted for heterogeneity of variance. Mean values indicate the mean percentage of all of the words that participants used that fell into a particular category, except the mean values for words with more than six letter, LIWC dictionary words, and the summary variable (tone). a The emotional tone variable is by Cohn et al. (2004).

Table 6

Vaughn (2018): Condition Statistics and Tests of Between-Condition Differences on LIWC Word Categories used at least 0.5% of the Time.

Word Type Examples Hopes Duties Tests of between-condition differences

M SD M SD df t Mean diff. 95% CI d

Hopes higher
    Analytical thinking a 69.01 28.30 53.94 32.77 588.19 6.04 15.07 [10.17, 19.98] 0.492
    Emotional tone b 61.77 34.27 43.13 34.48 599.00 6.64 18.63 [13.13, 24.14] 0.542
    Positive emotion love, nice, sweet 3.82 4.32 2.27 3.06 536.24 5.09 1.56 [0.96, 2.16] 0.416
    Achievement win, success, better 4.38 5.38 2.38 3.85 539.66 5.24 2.00 [1.25, 2.75] 0.428
    Reward take, prize, benefit 3.56 5.06 1.80 2.83 466.50 5.24 1.75 [1.10, 2.41] 0.429
    Work job, majors, read 9.72 9.27 5.88 6.55 535.95 5.87 3.84 [2.56, 5.13] 0.479
    Leisure cook, chat, movie 2.89 5.64 0.90 2.09 377.53 5.73 1.99 [1.31, 2.68] 0.469
Duties higher
    Clout/influence c 24.73 23.57 34.59 30.00 569.65 –4.48 –9.86 [–14.19, –5.54] –0.365
    Words per sentence 15.52 6.68 18.26 8.05 599.00 –4.53 –2.73 [–3.92, –1.55] –0.369
    Total function words it, to, no, very 53.33 10.33 58.40 8.46 599.00 –6.58 –5.07 [–6.58, –3.55] –0.537
    Total pronouns I, them, itself 15.54 7.13 19.24 6.93 599.00 –6.45 –3.70 [–4.83, –2.57] –0.526
    Personal pronouns I, them, her 12.31 6.02 14.80 6.02 599.00 –5.07 –2.49 [–3.46, – 1.53] –0.414
    Third person singular she, her, him 0.20 1.07 1.86 3.48 358.05 –7.93 –1.66 [–2.08, –1.25] –0.645
    Conjunctions and, but, whereas 4.69 4.05 6.62 4.47 599.00 –5.55 –1.93 [–2.62, –1.25] –0.453
    Negations no, not, never 0.42 1.10 1.27 2.13 452.50 –6.16 –0.85 [–1.12, –0.58] –0.501
    Negative emotion hurt, ugly, nasty 0.41 1.37 1.53 2.95 426.97 –5.98 –1.12 [–1.49, –0.75] –0.487
    Social processes mate, talk, they 4.39 6.23 9.82 8.70 545.33 –8.82 –5.44 [–6.65, –4.23] –0.718
    Family daughter, dad, aunt 0.70 2.64 2.01 3.65 548.25 –5.04 –1.31 [–1.82, –0.80] –0.411
    Female references girl, her, mom 0.31 1.60 2.03 4.30 383.37 –6.49 –1.72 [–2.24, –1.20] –0.376
    Male references boy, his, dad 0.41 1.70 1.38 3.54 433.92 –4.29 –0.97 [–1.41, –0.52] –0.528
    Differentiation hasn’t, but, else 1.31 2.35 2.67 3.48 528.34 –5.66 –1.37 [–1.84, –0.89] –0.348
    Affiliation ally, friend, social 1.45 3.06 3.39 5.24 486.33 –5.54 –1.94 [–2.63, –1.25] –0.451

Note: To limit the potential for false-positive results, I set a conservative limit for inclusion in this table at p < .001, two-tailed, and d ≥ ±.344. Degrees of freedom are adjusted for heterogeneity of variance. Mean values indicate the mean percentage of all of the words that participants used that fell into a particular category, except the mean values for words per sentence and the summary variables (analytical thinking, tone, and clout). a The analytical thinking variable is by Pennebaker et al. (2015). b The emotional tone variable is by Cohn et al. (2004). c The clout/influence variable is by Kacewicz et al. (2014).

Table 8

Hopes and High Need-Support Conditions of the Combined Dataset: Condition Statistics and Tests of Between-Condition Differences on LIWC Word Categories used at least 0.5% of the Time.

Word Type Examples Hopes High NS Tests of between-condition differences

M SD M SD df t Mean diff. 95% CI d

Hopes higher
    Work job, majors, read 9.95 9.12 6.34 8.83 987.32 6.33 3.61 [2.49, 4.73] 0.402
High NS higher
    Total pronouns I, them, itself 15.52 7.39 18.58 7.30 992.00 –6.56 –3.06 [–3.97, –2.14] –0.417
    Conjunctions and, but, whereas 4.88 4.12 7.32 4.47 992.00 –8.99 –2.45 [–2.98, –1.91] –0.571
    Interrogatives how, when, what 1.13 2.47 2.58 3.27 872.54 –7.80 –1.45 [–1.81, –1.08] –0.502
    Social processes mate, talk, they 4.38 6.21 7.40 6.62 992.00 –7.44 –3.03 [–3.83, –2.23] –0.473
    Feel feels, touch 0.55 1.55 1.58 2.20 836.15 –8.48 –1.03 [–1.27, –0.79] –0.548
    Affiliation ally, friend, social 1.51 3.21 4.30 5.42 749.49 –9.74 –2.79 [–3.35, –2.23] –0.634

Note: NS = need support. To facilitate comparisons with the bold-font effect sizes in Table 7, which were d ≥ ±.402, I set a conservative limit for inclusion in Table 8 at p < .001, two-tailed, and d ≥ ±.402. Degrees of freedom are adjusted for heterogeneity of variance. Mean values indicate the mean percentage of all of the words that participants used that fell into a particular category.

Competing Interests

The author has no competing interests to declare.

References

  1. Vaughn, L. A. (2019). Distinguishing between need support and regulatory focus with LIWC. Collabra: Psychology, 5, 32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.185 

comments powered by Disqus