Correction: The role of trust in the social heuristics hypothesis

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216329.].

After publication of this article [1], the authors contacted the journal office to correct two errors in the published article.
The reported number of participants in each session of Study 1 (8 or 12 participants) is incorrect. Most sessions were conducted in groups of either 8 or 12 participants. However, some sessions had more than 8 but fewer than 12 participants and some sessions had fewer than 8 participants. The correct number of participants in Study 1 sessions is accounted for in the corrected sentences below. The estimated frequency of participants per session in Study 1 is provided in S2 Table, which may be viewed below.
One pilot survey response from a previous version of the Study 2 survey is incorrectly included in the Study 2 dataset. The previous version of the survey had a different range for the dependent variable. As such, the incorrectly included response contains a value (16) for the dependent variable, which is outside of the possible range (0-10). The correct Study 2 methods and results which exclude the incorrectly included response are reported in the corrected sentences from Study 2 below. The authors confirm that excluding this response does not alter any of their conclusions (that is, all statistical tests that were significant remain significant and all statistical tests that were non-significant remain non-significant). Both a corrected dataset and R script are available from the Open Science Framework page listed in the Data Availability Statement, which remains unchanged.
The authors have provided updates to sentences in the Abstract, Study 1, and Study 2 sections to correct these errors. Please see the location of the error, the original text, and the author-corrected text here.
Excluding the incorrectly included response changes the value of the High Deliberation row of Table 2. After removing the response, the mean contribution and standard deviation in the high trust-deliberation condition (n = 199) changes to 7.48 and 3.37, respectively. Please see the correct Table 2 here.
Updated versions of Figs 3 and 4 are not included since the changes are barely perceptually noticeable.
Excluding the incorrectly included response changes the value of the Study 2 rows of Table 3. After accounting for this error, the statistics of the interaction between high trust and intuition in Study 2 changes to p = .47, b = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.32], and the statistics of effect of intuition in Study 2 changes to p = .39, b = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.70]. Please see the correct Table 3 here.
Excluding the incorrectly included response changes the value of the

Location Original text Corrected text
Abstract, eighth sentence To evaluate these predictions, we conducted a lab study in Colombia and an online study in the United Kingdom (N = 1,066; one study was pre-registered).
To evaluate these predictions, we conducted a lab study in Colombia and an online study in the United Kingdom (N = 1,065; one study was pre-registered).
Study 1 section, Methods subsection, third paragraph, sixth sentence The sessions were conducted in groups of 8 or 12 participants to guarantee that they could not identify others in their group.
Most sessions were conducted in groups of 8 or 12 participants. However, we ran some sessions with more than 8 but fewer than 12 participants and some sessions with fewer than 8 participants.
The estimated frequency of participants per session is shown in S2 Table. Study 2 section, Methods subsection, first sentence 779 participants (229 men, 545 women, and 5 other, M age = 37.21, SD = 11.65) participated in exchange for 30 pence and gained an additional 25 pence in the game. Study 2 section, Pre-registered analyses subsection, Hypothesis 1 subheading, third sentence Contrary to our hypothesis, we found no significant interaction between high trust and intuition (full sample: p = .53), even after exclusions (excluding experienced: p = .24; excluding non-comprehending: p = .67).
Contrary to our hypothesis, we found no significant interaction between high trust and intuition (full sample: p = .47), even after exclusions (excluding experienced: p = .24; excluding noncomprehending: p = .67).
Study 2 section, Pre-registered analyses subsection, Hypothesis 1 subheading, fourth sentence We found a significant main effect of high trust (full sample: p = .004; excluding experienced: p = .033; excluding noncomprehending: p = .004), suggesting that the induction could have had the intended purpose, in the absence of awareness of changes in trust.
We found a significant main effect of high trust (full sample: p = .005; excluding experienced: p = .033; excluding noncomprehending: p = .004), suggesting that the induction could have had the intended purpose, in the absence of awareness of changes in trust.