Correction in the paper by Kotzur et al. (2020), ‘Society thinks they are cold and/or incompetent, but I do not’, stereotype content ratings depend on instructions and the social group's location in the stereotype content space.

While doing reanalysis, the authors noticed two errors in the preliminary analyses. The authors mistakenly freed one equality constraint too many during the partial measurement testing in study 2, group Turks (Table 5), and study 3, group Bulgarians (Table 8). The error did not substantially influence the subsequent mean value comparisons (Tables 6 and 9). The main message of the studies also remained the same. That is, the direction and significance of the affected coefficients remained the same, only the size changed a little. The corrected tables (Tables 5, 6, 8, and 9) are as below, with changed parameters highlighted in bold:

Table 5. Study 2: Results of measurement invariance testing across experimental conditions for social groups that previously produced measurement models with satisfactory model fit in both experimental conditions separately

	n		df	p	/df	RMSEA	CFI	SRMR	Δ	Δdf	p
Elderly
Configural	126	53.66	42	.107	1.28	.05	.96	.07
Metric	126	54.34	46	.187	1.18	.04	.97	.08	1.47	4	.832
Scalar	126	57.32	50	.222	1.15	.03	.97	.08	3.11	4	.539
Jobless
Configural	126	84.20	64	.046	1.32	.05	.96	.08
Metric	126	98.02	69	.012	1.42	.06	.94	.09	13.26	5	.021
Partial metric	126	84.80	68	.082	1.25	.04	.97	.08	0.94	4	.919
Scalar	126	91.64	71	.050	1.29	.05	.96	.08	7.26	3	.064
Physicians
Configural	126	145.79	90	.000	1.62	.07	.91	.08
Rich
Configural	126	54.81	42	.089	1.30	.05	.97	.06
Metric	126	59.08	46	.093	1.64	.05	.97	.06	4.40	4	.355
Scalar	126	66.51	50	.059	1.33	.05	.96	.06	7.64	4	.106
Turks
Configurala a Includes Haywood case. We refrained from testing for metric and scalar invariance for physicians, since the previous model did not reach configural invariance. Δ, Δdf, and p refer to chi-square difference test results with the Satorra–Bentler scaling correction (more freely estimated model vs. more constrained model).	126	48.22	42	.236	1.15	.03	.98	.06
Metrica a Includes Haywood case. We refrained from testing for metric and scalar invariance for physicians, since the previous model did not reach configural invariance. Δ, Δdf, and p refer to chi-square difference test results with the Satorra–Bentler scaling correction (more freely estimated model vs. more constrained model).	126	60.56	46	.074	1.32	.05	.96	.09	12.68	4	.013
Partial metrica a Includes Haywood case. We refrained from testing for metric and scalar invariance for physicians, since the previous model did not reach configural invariance. Δ, Δdf, and p refer to chi-square difference test results with the Satorra–Bentler scaling correction (more freely estimated model vs. more constrained model).	126	53.14	45	.189	1.18	.04	.98	.07	4.95	3	.176
Scalara a Includes Haywood case. We refrained from testing for metric and scalar invariance for physicians, since the previous model did not reach configural invariance. Δ, Δdf, and p refer to chi-square difference test results with the Satorra–Bentler scaling correction (more freely estimated model vs. more constrained model).	126	60.13	49	.132	1.23	.04	.97	.09	7.04	4	.134

Note

• For elderly, rich, and Turks, we considered a model in which the items warm, confident, competitive, and tolerant were excluded (see Table 4). For jobless, we considered a model in which the items warm, confident, and competitive were excluded (see Table S5). For physicians, we considered a model in which the items warm and confident were excluded (see Table S3).
• ^a Includes Haywood case. We refrained from testing for metric and scalar invariance for physicians, since the previous model did not reach configural invariance. Δ, Δdf, and p refer to chi-square difference test results with the Satorra–Bentler scaling correction (more freely estimated model vs. more constrained model).

Table 8. Study 3: Results of measurement invariance testing across experimental conditions for groups that previously produced measurement models with satisfactory model fit in both experimental conditions separately

	N		df	p	/df	RMSEA	CFI	SRMR	Δ	Δdf	p
Albanian
Configural	131	4.66	16	.997	0.29	.00	1.00	.02
Metric	131	11.51	20	.932	0.58	.00	1.00	.08	9.41	4	.052
Scalar	131	14.19	24	.942	0.59	.00	1.00	.07	2.82	4	.589
Bulgarian
Configural	119	28.44	26	.337	1.09	.04	.99	.04
Metric	119	40.52	31	.118	1.31	.07	.97	.11	13.56	5	.019
Partial metric	119	34.67	30	.255	1.16	.05	.99	.08	6.91	4	.141
Scalar	119	41.85	35	.198	1.20	.06	.98	.10	7.33	5	.197
German
Configural	117	32.07	26	.191	1.23	.06	.97	.05
Metric	117	45.99	31	.041	1.48	.09	.92	.14	12.37	5	.030
Partial metric	117	40.48	30	.096	1.35	.08	.94	.12	7.74	4	.101
Italian
Configural	108	18.88	16	.275	1.18	.06	.99	.05
Metric	108	24.36	20	.227	1.22	.06	.98	.10	5.49	4	.241
Scalar	108	27.37	24	.288	1.14	.05	.99	.11	2.78	4	.595
Moroccan
Configural	94	23.90	26	.582	0.92	.00	1.00	.02
Metric	94	26.23	31	.710	0.85	.00	1.00	.04	2.19	5	.823
Scalar	94	33.57	36	.585	0.93	.00	1.00	.05	7.66	5	.176
Pakistani
Configural	120	35.71	26	.097	1.37	.08	.98	.03
Metric	120	41.08	31	.106	1.33	.07	.98	.06	5.18	5	.823
Scalar	120	50.07	36	.060	1.39	.08	.97	.07	9.58	5	.088
Polish
Configural	112	14.38	16	.571	0.90	.00	1.00	.03
Metric	112	18.81	20	.534	0.94	.00	1.00	.07	4.83	4	.305
Scalar	112	23.82	24	.472	0.99	.00	1.00	.09	5.09	4	.278
Turkish
Configural	123	17.17	16	.375	1.07	.03	1.00	.03
Metric	123	21.86	20	.348	1.09	.04	1.00	.06	4.68	4	.321
Scalar	123	22.27	24	.563	0.93	.00	1.00	.07	0.55	4	.968

Note

• For Germans and Bulgarian, Moroccan, and Pakistani migrants, we considered a model in which the item cold–warm was excluded (see Table S7). For Albanian, Italian, Polish, and Turkish migrants, we considered a model in which the items cold–warm and uneducated–highly educated were excluded (see Table 7). We refrained from testing for scalar invariance for Germans, since the partial metric model did not meet model fit requirements. We refrained from submitting Italian migrants to further analyses, since the model fit of the scalar model was below cut-off criteria. Δ, Δdf, and p refer to chi-square difference test results with the Satorra–Bentler scaling correction (more freely estimated model vs. more constrained model).

The same two errors required adjustments to the sentences in which the authors referred to the coefficients on pages 1027 and 1033.

On page 1027 (last paragraph), the value for Kappa (K) changes from ‘0.44’ to ‘0.42’, so the text reads as ‘as well as Turks, K = 0.42, p < .001, and K = 0.36, p < .001, respectively’.

On page 1033 (last paragraph), the value for Kappa (K) changes from ‘0.75’ to ‘0.67’ and from ‘0.59’ to ‘0.42’; the p-value changed from ‘.004’ to ‘.015’ and from ‘.001’ to ‘.018’, so the text reads as ‘Bulgarian migrants, K = 0.67, p = .015, and K = 0.42, p = .018’.

We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.

Kotzur 等人在论文中的更正。（2020 年），“社会认为他们冷漠和/或无能，但我不认为”，刻板印象内容评级取决于指令和社会群体在刻板印象内容空间中的位置。

在进行再分析时，作者注意到初步分析中有两个错误。在研究 2 土耳其人组（表 5）和研究 3 保加利亚人组（表 8）的部分测量测试中，作者错误地释放了一个等式约束太多。该误差对随后的平均值比较没有实质性影响（表 6 和 9）。研究的主要信息也保持不变。即受影响系数的方向和显着性保持不变，只是大小略有变化。更正后的表（表 5、6、8 和 9）如下，更改的参数以粗体突出显示：

表 5.研究 2：对于先前分别在两种实验条件下分别生成具有令人满意的模型拟合的测量模型的社会群体，在不同实验条件下的测量不变性测试结果

	n		df	磷	/df	RMSEA	CFI	SRMR	Δ	Δ DF	磷
老年
配置的	126	53.66	42	.107	1.28	.05	.96	.07
公制	126	54.34	46	.187	1.18	.04	.97	.08	1.47	4	.832
标量	126	57.32	50	.222	1.15	.03	.97	.08	3.11	4	.539
失业
配置的	126	84.20	64	.046	1.32	.05	.96	.08
公制	126	98.02	69	.012	1.42	.06	.94	.09	13.26	5	.021
部分指标	126	84.80	68	.082	1.25	.04	.97	.08	0.94	4	.919
标量	126	91.64	71	.050	1.29	.05	.96	.08	7.26	3	.064
医师
配置的	126	145.79	90	.000	1.62	.07	.91	.08
富有的
配置的	126	54.81	42	.089	1.30	.05	.97	.06
公制	126	59.08	46	.093	1.64	.05	.97	.06	4.40	4	.355
标量	126	66.51	50	.059	1.33	.05	.96	.06	7.64	4	.106
土耳其人
配置一个 a 包括海伍德案。我们避免测试医生的度量和标量不变性，因为之前的模型没有达到配置不变性。Δ、Δ df和p是指使用 Satorra-Bentler 标度校正（更自由估计的模型与更受约束的模型）的卡方差异检验结果。	126	48.22	42	.236	1.15	.03	.98	.06
公制a a 包括海伍德案。我们避免测试医生的度量和标量不变性，因为之前的模型没有达到配置不变性。Δ、Δ df和p是指使用 Satorra-Bentler 标度校正（更自由估计的模型与更受约束的模型）的卡方差异检验结果。	126	60.56	46	.074	1.32	.05	.96	.09	12.68	4	.013
部分度量a a 包括海伍德案。我们避免测试医生的度量和标量不变性，因为之前的模型没有达到配置不变性。Δ、Δ df和p是指使用 Satorra-Bentler 标度校正（更自由估计的模型与更受约束的模型）的卡方差异检验结果。	126	53.14	45	.189	1.18	.04	.98	.07	4.95	3	.176
标量a a 包括海伍德案。我们避免测试医生的度量和标量不变性，因为之前的模型没有达到配置不变性。Δ、Δ df和p是指使用 Satorra-Bentler 标度校正（更自由估计的模型与更受约束的模型）的卡方差异检验结果。	126	60.13	49	.132	1.23	.04	.97	.09	7.04	4	.134

笔记

• 对于老年人、富人和土耳其人，我们考虑了一个模型，其中排除了热情、自信、有竞争力和宽容的项目（见表 4）。对于失业者，我们考虑了一个模型，其中排除了热情、自信和有竞争力的项目（见表 S5）。对于医生，我们考虑了一个模型，其中排除了热情和自信的项目（见表 S3）。
• ^a 包括海伍德案。我们避免测试医生的度量和标量不变性，因为之前的模型没有达到配置不变性。Δ、Δ df和p是指使用 Satorra-Bentler 标度校正（更自由估计的模型与更受约束的模型）的卡方差异检验结果。

表 8.研究 3：对于先前分别在两种实验条件下分别生成具有令人满意的模型拟合的测量模型的组，跨实验条件的测量不变性测试结果

	N		df	磷	/df	RMSEA	CFI	SRMR	Δ	Δ DF	磷
阿尔巴尼亚语
配置的	131	4.66	16	.997	0.29	.00	1.00	.02
公制	131	11.51	20	.932	0.58	.00	1.00	.08	9.41	4	.052
标量	131	14.19	24	.942	0.59	.00	1.00	.07	2.82	4	.589
保加利亚语
配置的	119	28.44	26	.337	1.09	.04	.99	.04
公制	119	40.52	31	.118	1.31	.07	.97	.11	13.56	5	.019
部分指标	119	34.67	30	.255	1.16	.05	.99	.08	6.91	4	.141
标量	119	41.85	35	.198	1.20	.06	.98	.10	7.33	5	.197
德语
配置的	117	32.07	26	.191	1.23	.06	.97	.05
公制	117	45.99	31	.041	1.48	.09	.92	.14	12.37	5	.030
部分指标	117	40.48	30	.096	1.35	.08	.94	.12	7.74	4	.101
意大利语
配置的	108	18.88	16	.275	1.18	.06	.99	.05
公制	108	24.36	20	.227	1.22	.06	.98	.10	5.49	4	.241
标量	108	27.37	24	.288	1.14	.05	.99	.11	2.78	4	.595
摩洛哥
配置的	94	23.90	26	.582	0.92	.00	1.00	.02
公制	94	26.23	31	.710	0.85	.00	1.00	.04	2.19	5	.823
标量	94	33.57	36	.585	0.93	.00	1.00	.05	7.66	5	.176
巴基斯坦
配置的	120	35.71	26	.097	1.37	.08	.98	.03
公制	120	41.08	31	.106	1.33	.07	.98	.06	5.18	5	.823
标量	120	50.07	36	.060	1.39	.08	.97	.07	9.58	5	.088
抛光
配置的	112	14.38	16	.571	0.90	.00	1.00	.03
公制	112	18.81	20	.534	0.94	.00	1.00	.07	4.83	4	.305
标量	112	23.82	24	.472	0.99	.00	1.00	.09	5.09	4	.278
土耳其
配置的	123	17.17	16	.375	1.07	.03	1.00	.03
公制	123	21.86	20	.348	1.09	.04	1.00	.06	4.68	4	.321
标量	123	22.27	24	.563	0.93	.00	1.00	.07	0.55	4	.968

笔记

• 对于德国人和保加利亚人、摩洛哥人和巴基斯坦人的移民，我们考虑了一个模型，其中排除了冷-暖项目（见表 S7）。对于阿尔巴尼亚、意大利、波兰和土耳其移民，我们考虑了一个模型，其中排除了冷 - 温暖和未受过教育 - 受过高等教育的项目（见表 7）。我们避免测试德国人的标量不变性，因为部分度量模型不符合模型拟合要求。我们避免将意大利移民提交进一步分析，因为标量模型的模型拟合低于截止标准。Δ 、Δ df和p是指使用 Satorra-Bentler 标度校正（更自由估计的模型与更受约束的模型）的卡方差异检验结果。

同样的两个错误需要对作者提到第 1027 页和第 1033 页上的系数的句子进行调整。

在第 1027 页（最后一段）上，Kappa (K) 的值从“0.44”变为“0.42”，因此文本读作“以及土耳其人，K = 0.42，p  < .001，并且 K = 0.36，p  < .001，分别'。

在第 1033 页（最后一段）上，Kappa (K) 的值从“0.75”更改为“0.67”，从“0.59”更改为“0.42”；的p -值从变化“0.004'向” 0.015' ，并从“0.001'向” 0.018' ，因此文本读为保加利亚移民，K = 0.67 ，P  = 0.015和K = 0.42，p  = .018'。

对于由此可能造成的任何不便，我们深表歉意。