Reports an error in "How personality and policy predict pandemic behavior: Understanding sheltering-in-place in 54 countries at the onset of COVID-19" by Friedrich M. Götz, Andrés Gvirtz, Adam D. Galinsky and Jon M. Jachimowicz (American Psychologist, 2021[Jan], Vol 76[1], 39-49). In the article “How Personality and Policy Predict Pandemic Behavior: Understanding Sheltering-in-Place in 55 Countries at the Onset of COVID-19,” by Friedrich M. Götz, Andrés Gvirtz, Adam D. Galinsky, and Jon M. Jachimowicz (American Psychologist, 2021, Vol. 76, No. 1, pp. 39–49, https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000740), there were two errors. First, there were translation errors in the Japanese and Korean versions of the Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI; Gosling et al., 2003). Second, there was an error in the termination logic that applied to 195 individuals: The skip logic that was meant to automatically move participants to terminate the survey if they selected “no, I would not like to participate” was not working for all participants, and 195 of these participants completed the survey even after selecting this option. To rectify these errors, we (a) recoded the data from the Korean version (in which two items had been accidentally swapped in their presentation order), (b) dropped all participants who completed the Japanese version of the data (which contained an inaccurate translation), and (c) dropped all participants for whom the termination logic did not work properly. Together these exclusions amounted to 0.81% of our sample. When we reran all analyses with the corrected sample of 100,196 participants from 54 countries (i.e., 99.19% of the original sample size), all interpretations, significance levels, and standard errors remained exactly the same. There were only minor changes in a few coefficients in our focal model, and these were rare and very small (Model 3, see Table 1). Among the focal predictors, these are “stringency index” (coefficient changes from .094 to .092) and “extraversion” (coefficient changes from −.025 to −.024). Among the control variables, these are “female” (coefficient changes from .036 to .034), “health” (coefficient changes from −.015 to −.016), “logged confirmed cases (t − 1)” (coefficient changes from −.115 to −.122), “logged confirmed deaths (t − 1)” (coefficient changes from .026 to .027) and “estimated infections in one month” (coefficient changes from .012 to .013). The full set of updated analyses is available in the online supplemental materials: https://doi.org/10.1037/ amp0000740.supp. The online version of this article has been corrected. (The abstract of the original article appeared in record 2020-76208-001.)

中文翻译：

---

“个性和政策如何预测大流行行为：了解 55 个国家在 COVID-19 爆发时的就地避难”：更正。


报告了弗里德里希·M·戈茨 (Friedrich M. Götz)、安德烈斯·格维尔茨 (Andrés Gvirtz)、亚当·D·加林斯基 (Adam D. Galinsky) 和乔恩·M·贾奇莫维奇 (Jon M. Jachimowicz) 撰写的《个性和政策如何预测大流行行为：了解 54 个国家在 COVID-19 爆发时就地避难》中的错误（美国心理学家，2021年[一月]，第76卷[1]，39-49）。在 Friedrich M. Götz、Andrés Gvirtz、Adam D. Galinsky 和 ​​Jon M. Jachimowicz 撰写的文章“个性和政策如何预测大流行行为：了解 55 个国家在 COVID-19 爆发时的就地避难”中（美国心理学家，2021 年，第 76 卷，第 1 期，第 39-49 页，https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000740），有两个错误。首先，日文版和韩文版的十项人格量表（TIPI；Gosling et al., 2003）存在翻译错误。其次，适用于 195 名个人的终止逻辑存在错误：如果参与者选择“不，我不想参与”，则跳过逻辑旨在自动移动参与者终止调查，但并不适用于所有参与者，即使选择此选项，其中 195 名参与者仍完成了调查。为了纠正这些错误，我们（a）重新编码了韩语版本的数据（其中两个项目的演示顺序被意外交换），（b）删除了所有完成日语版本数据的参与者（其中包含不准确的数据）翻译），以及（c）丢弃终止逻辑无法正常工作的所有参与者。这些排除项总共占我们样本的 0.81%。当我们使用来自 54 个国家的 100,196 名参与者的校正样本（即原始样本量的 99.19%）重新进行所有分析时，所有解释、显着性水平和标准误仍然完全相同。 我们的焦点模型中的一些系数只有很小的变化，而且这些变化很少且非常小（模型 3，参见表 1）。在焦点预测变量中，这些是“严格指数”（系数从 0.094 变化到 0.092）和“外向性”（系数从 -.025 变化到 -.024）。在控制变量中，包括“女性”（系数从 0.036 变化到 0.034）、“健康”（系数从 -.015 变化到 -.016）、“已记录确诊病例 (t - 1)”（系数变化）从 -.115 到 -.122）、“记录的确诊死亡人数 (t - 1)”（系数从 0.026 变化到 0.027）和“一个月内估计感染人数”（系数从 0.012 变化到 0.013）。全套更新分析可在在线补充材料中找到：https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000740.supp。本文的网络版本已更正。 （原文章摘要出现在记录中2020-76208-001 。)