Am J Community Psychol (2015) 55:490 DOI 10.1007/s10464-015-9706-2
ERRATUM
Erratum to: Understanding Change in Recycling and Littering Behavior Across a School Social Network Jennifer Long • Niki Harre´ • Quentin D. Atkinson
Published online: 11 March 2015 Ó Society for Community Research and Action 2015
Erratum to: Am J Community Psychol (2014) 53:462–474 DOI 10.1007/s10464-013-9613-3 Two results were incorrectly reported in the original article. The corrections are shown in bold below (note that the
values are correctly reported elsewhere in the original article): ‘‘In other words, a one unit increment in friends’ average T1 littering score was related to a 0.21 unit change in ego’s T2 littering score beyond what would be expected based on ego Time 1 scores, gender and school year (Model 1, Table 4).
Table 3 Friends’ independent reports of recycling behavior, perceived friend norms and friend encouragement at T1 as predictors of T2 ego recycling behavior (n = 587) Model 1
Model 2
b
SE
Intercept
8.60
T1 recycling
2.73
Gender (female) School year 10
Model 3
p
b
SE
p
b
SE
4.32
0.05
7.78
0.37
\0.0001
2.41
4.46
0.08
6.74
4.32
0.12
0.49
\0.0001
2.49
0.38
\0.0001
2.93 1.36
1.06 1.82
0.006 0.46
2.86 1.40
1.07 1.83
0.008 0.44
2.37 1.59
1.06 1.8
0.03 0.38
School year 11
2.32
1.89
School year 12
5.49
1.61
0.22
2.35
1.89
0.22
2.70
1.88
0.15
0.001
5.61
1.63
0.001
5.69
1.6
School year 13
6.97
1.75
0.0004
\0.0001
7.09
1.77
\0.0001
7.11
1.75
\0.0001
p
T1 friend recycling (independently reported)
1.76
0.63
0.005
1.72
0.61
0.005
1.73
0.62
0.006
T1 perceived friend norms recycling
–
–
–
0.56
0.5
0.26
–
–
–
T1 friend encouragement for recycling
–
–
–
–
–
–
0.84
0.32
0.009
AIC
4626.8
4627.5
4622.3
LL
-2304
-2303.8
-2301.2a
Likelihood ratio tests found no evidence that Models 2 fit better than Model 1 a
This log likelihood was significantly different from the log likelihood of Model 1, v2(1) = 6.47, p = 0.011’’
The online version of the original article can be found under doi:10. 1007/s10464-013-9613-3. J. Long N. Harre´ Q. D. Atkinson (&) School of Psychology, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand e-mail: [email protected]
123
Copyright of American Journal of Community Psychology is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
ERRATUM
Erratum to: Understanding Change in Recycling and Littering Behavior Across a School Social Network Jennifer Long • Niki Harre´ • Quentin D. Atkinson
Published online: 11 March 2015 Ó Society for Community Research and Action 2015
Erratum to: Am J Community Psychol (2014) 53:462–474 DOI 10.1007/s10464-013-9613-3 Two results were incorrectly reported in the original article. The corrections are shown in bold below (note that the
values are correctly reported elsewhere in the original article): ‘‘In other words, a one unit increment in friends’ average T1 littering score was related to a 0.21 unit change in ego’s T2 littering score beyond what would be expected based on ego Time 1 scores, gender and school year (Model 1, Table 4).
Table 3 Friends’ independent reports of recycling behavior, perceived friend norms and friend encouragement at T1 as predictors of T2 ego recycling behavior (n = 587) Model 1
Model 2
b
SE
Intercept
8.60
T1 recycling
2.73
Gender (female) School year 10
Model 3
p
b
SE
p
b
SE
4.32
0.05
7.78
0.37
\0.0001
2.41
4.46
0.08
6.74
4.32
0.12
0.49
\0.0001
2.49
0.38
\0.0001
2.93 1.36
1.06 1.82
0.006 0.46
2.86 1.40
1.07 1.83
0.008 0.44
2.37 1.59
1.06 1.8
0.03 0.38
School year 11
2.32
1.89
School year 12
5.49
1.61
0.22
2.35
1.89
0.22
2.70
1.88
0.15
0.001
5.61
1.63
0.001
5.69
1.6
School year 13
6.97
1.75
0.0004
\0.0001
7.09
1.77
\0.0001
7.11
1.75
\0.0001
p
T1 friend recycling (independently reported)
1.76
0.63
0.005
1.72
0.61
0.005
1.73
0.62
0.006
T1 perceived friend norms recycling
–
–
–
0.56
0.5
0.26
–
–
–
T1 friend encouragement for recycling
–
–
–
–
–
–
0.84
0.32
0.009
AIC
4626.8
4627.5
4622.3
LL
-2304
-2303.8
-2301.2a
Likelihood ratio tests found no evidence that Models 2 fit better than Model 1 a
This log likelihood was significantly different from the log likelihood of Model 1, v2(1) = 6.47, p = 0.011’’
The online version of the original article can be found under doi:10. 1007/s10464-013-9613-3. J. Long N. Harre´ Q. D. Atkinson (&) School of Psychology, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand e-mail: [email protected]
123
Copyright of American Journal of Community Psychology is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
