In the original article, there was an error. The regression mean square values were incorrectly labeled as the mean square error values.
A correction has been made to the “Effects of Condition on Post-browsing Reports” section.
To examine how post-browsing reports of affect and self-perceptions differed between conditions, a series of ANCOVAs were run (Figure 1). All analyses were run controlling for the corresponding pre-browsing assessment of each variable; marginal means are reported in-text and in Figure 1. Post-browsing self-esteem significantly differed by condition, F(2,399) = 22.60, p < 0.001, MSE = 0.85, = 0.10. Participants in the self condition reported higher self-esteem (M = 5.88, SE = 0.08) than those in the acquaintance (M = 5.30, SE = 0.08) and influencer (M = 5.17, SE = 0.08) conditions; the acquaintance and influencer conditions did not differ from each other (p = 0.277). Post-browsing positive affect significantly differed by condition, F(2,400) = 8.19, p < 0.001, MSE = 0.90, = 0.04. Participants in the self condition reported higher positive affect (M = 4.49, SE = 0.08) than those in the acquaintance (M = 4.17, SE = 0.08) and influencer (M = 4.04, SE = 0.08) conditions; the acquaintance and influencer conditions did not differ from each other (p = 0.263). Post-browsing negative affect did not significantly differ by condition, F(2,400) = 0.53, p = 0.588, MSE = 0.38, = 0.00. Post-browsing interpersonal negativity significantly differed by condition, F(2,320) = 28.65, p < 0.001, MSE = 1.33, = 0.15. Participants in the self condition (M = 1.32, SE = 0.11) reported lower interpersonal negativity than those in the acquaintance (M = 2.14, SE = 0.11) and influencer (M = 2.46, SE = 0.11) conditions; the acquaintance and influencer conditions also significantly differed from each other (p = 0.045). Post-browsing positive self-perceptions significantly differed by condition, F(2,400) = 23.42, p < 0.001, MSE = 0.56, = 0.11. Participants in the self condition reported greater positive self-perceptions (M = 4.72, SE = 0.06) than those in the acquaintance (M = 4.20, SE = 0.06) and influencer (M = 4.15, SE = 0.07) conditions; the acquaintance and influencer conditions did not significantly differ from each other (p = 0.616).
The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.
Summary
Keywords
Instagram, social media, feedback seeking, fear of missing out, well-being
Citation
Burnell K, George MJ and Underwood MK (2021) Corrigendum: Browsing Different Instagram Profiles and Associations With Psychological Well-Being. Front. Hum. Dyn. 3:675145. doi: 10.3389/fhumd.2021.675145
Received
02 March 2021
Accepted
10 March 2021
Published
08 April 2021
Volume
3 - 2021
Edited and reviewed by
Yalda Uhls, University of California, Los Angeles, United States
Updates
Copyright
© 2021 Burnell, George and Underwood.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Kaitlyn Burnell kaitlyn.burnell@duke.edu
This article was submitted to Digital Impacts, a section of the journal Frontiers in Human Dynamics
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.