Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Correction: People making deontological judgments in the Trapdoor dilemma are perceived to be more prosocial in economic games than they actually are

  • Valerio Capraro,
  • Jonathan Sippel,
  • Bonan Zhao,
  • Levin Hornischer,
  • Morgan Savary,
  • Zoi Terzopoulou,
  • Pierre Faucher,
  • Simone F. Griffioen
  • Article
  • Metrics
  • Comments
  • Media Coverage

In Fig 1, the columns that depict the average amount transferred by Player A to Player B as a function of whether Player B is a Trapdoor-deontologist or a Trapdoor-consequentialist report incorrect values. The average amounts should be 57.7% and 69.2%. Please see the correct Fig 1 here.

thumbnail
Fig 1. Deontologists are perceived to be more trustworthy than consequentialists, but they are actually not.

The pair of columns on the left-hand side reports the average amount transferred back by Player B to Player A in the Trust Game as a function of whether Player B is a Trapdoor-deontologist or a Trapdoor-consequentialist. The pair of columns on the right-hand side reports the average amount transferred by Player A to Player B, as a function of whether Player B is a Trapdoor-deontologist or a Trapdoor-consequentialist. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225850.g001

Reference

  1. 1. Capraro V, Sippel J, Zhao B, Hornischer L, Savary M, Terzopoulou Z, et al. (2018) People making deontological judgments in the Trapdoor dilemma are perceived to be more prosocial in economic games than they actually are. PLoS ONE 13(10): e0205066. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205066 pmid:30307977