There is an error in the first sentence of the “Goodness of fit of the models” section in the Results. The correct sentence is: Inspection of the fit indices indicates that the hypothesized model fits the data better than the first alternative model in 17 out of the 18 analyzed countries (Table 3).

There is an error in the third sentence of the “Goodness of fit of the models” section in the Results. The correct sentence is: The comparison of the fit indices indicates that the two models fit the data to almost the same extent in the remaining country (i.e., Philippines).

There are errors in the second paragraph of the “Test of the relationships between variables” section in the Results. The correct paragraph is: In order to provide an overview of the proposed mediational model, we next present the analyses conducted on the total of the 17 countries retained. The hypothesized mediational model shows acceptable fit to the data, χ²(3, N = 40708) = 358.62, p < .001, CFI = .994, RMSEA = .05 [90% CI = .04, .05], SRMR = .01, AIC = 507004. Inspection of the fit indices of the first alternative model where endorsement of motherhood myths predicted sexism that, in turn, predicted opposition confirms that this alternative model shows poorer fit to the data than the proposed model, χ²(4, N = 40708) = 5043.38, p < .001, CFI = .917, RMSEA = .17 [90% CI = .17, .18], SRMR = .10, AIC = 511687, Δ χ² (1, 40708) = 4684.8 p < .001. The second alternative model, where opposition to women’s career predicted motherhood myths shows poor fit to the data, χ²(5, N = 40708) = 14000.04, p < .001, CFI = .769, RMSEA = .26 [90% CI = .25, .26], SRMR = .21, AIC = 520641, and accordingly fits the data less well than the proposed mediational model, Δ χ² (1, 40708) = 13641 p < .001. As can be seen in Fig 1, the standardized regression coefficient for the direct effect of sexism on opposition to women’s career is significant (β = .23, p < .001). In addition, the unstandardized estimate for the indirect effect excludes zero (.11, SE = 0.002, bias corrected 95% CI [.10, .11]) and, therefore, is significant. Taken together, analyses conducted on the whole sample, as well as on each country separately, support our main assumption that endorsement of motherhood myths is a significant mediator of the relationship between sexism and opposition to women’s career.

Fig 1 is incorrect and the caption for Fig 1 is incomplete. The authors have provided a corrected Fig 1 and a complete, correct Fig 1 caption here.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. Standardized maximum likelihood coefficients for the structural equation model testing the relationship between sexism and opposition to women’s career, mediated by the endorsement of motherhood myths.

The loading of the single indicator of the sexism variable and the loading of the first indicator of the motherhood myths and opposition variables are constrained to 1.00. The coefficient in parentheses represents parameter estimate for the total effect of prejudice on opposition to women’s career. *** p < .001.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201150.g001

Table 3 is incorrect. The authors have provided a corrected version here.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 3. Goodness-of-fit indices for the hypothesized mediational model and alternative models by country.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201150.t001

Table 4 is incorrect. The authors have provided an updated Table 4 here.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 4. Standardized maximum likelihood coefficients estimated for the hypothesized model by country.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201150.t002