Correction: Stigmatisation of survivors of political persecution in the GDR: attitudes of healthcare professionals

Tobias Schott^*Marie BlumeAnne WeißChristian SanderGeorg Schomerus

• University Hospital Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany

During a further review of our published manuscript, we discovered that the calculations of the hierarchical regression are incorrect. Unfortunately, data from an older and smaller sample was inadvertently used.We would therefore like to issue an erratum. Only the data in Table 3 and a single entry in Table 1 are affected. Table 2 remains unchanged. The central results and interpretations of the manuscript remain unaffected; only the weighting of individual predictors changes slightly. Tobias Schott and the rest of authors Wrong content There was a mistake in table 1 as published. An incorrect distribution of values was entered in the section Work Setting. The corrected table 1 appears below. The original version of this article has been updated.The values in the published table 3 have changed due to other calculations with a larger data set (see above). The original version of this article has been updated. Adding/removing text In the abstract in the section results two values are incorrect: The explanatory power of the regression models is predominantly in the medium range (from 9.7 till 35.3%). This has been corrected to read:The explanatory power of the regression models is predominantly in the medium range (from 3.7 till 32.3%).The original version of this article has been updated. In the Results section, the values must be adjusted by the changes in Table 3. The changes in the relevant sections are marked in red. The hierarchical regression model shown in Table 3 explains a total of 26.6% of the variance for the emotional reaction fear. Younger (ß = -.100; p < .01) and male participants showed a higher emotional response of fear (ß = -.204; p < .001), as did participants from the professional group of psychologists and psychotherapists (ß = .130; p < .001), professional group of occupational-, speech-and physiotherapist (ß = .168; p < .001), and working in an inpatient setting (ß = -.155; p < .001).Furthermore, a higher level of subjective knowledge about the GDR (ß = .228; p < .001) and an own experience of SED injustice (ß = -.065; p < .05) had a significant influence on the regression model. The multiple hierarchical regression model (see Table 3) was able to account for a total of 35.0% of the variance regarding the emotional reaction anger. Male participants (ß = -.225; p < .001), the professional group of psychologists and psychotherapists (ß =.138; p<.001) as well as professional group of occupational-, speech-and physiotherapist (ß = .186; p < .001) working in an inpatient setting (ß = -.157; p < .001) and having personally experienced SED injustice (ß = -.071; p = .024) showed a stronger emotional reaction anger. In addition, the sex form of the case vignette (ß = .083; p = .006) and a higher subjective knowledge about the GDR (ß = .208; p < .001) also predicted significantly stronger emotional reactions. The multiple hierarchical regression model regarding the pro-social reactions of the ERMIS (see Table 3) explains 9.7% of the variance. The professional group of psychologists and psychotherapists (ß =.082; p<.05) as well as the professional group of occupational-, speech-and physiotherapist (ß = .099; p < .01)and those with a higher subjective knowledge about the GDR (ß = .225; p < .001) showed significantly greater pro-social reaction. Overall, the presented hierarchical regression model was able to explain 10.3% of the variance of the SDS. The strongest predictor of the desire for social distancing was the version of the case vignette (ß = -.140; p < .001). Medical doctors (ß = .131; p < .001) and the group of occupational-, speech-and physiotherapist (ß = -.123; p < .01) were the professional group that had an influence for desire for social distancing. The desire for social distancing was less pronounced if one had already had contact in a professional context with people who had experienced injustice in the GDR (ß = .104; p < .01) and if one had a high level of subjective knowledge about this topic (ß = -.150; p < .001). Overall, the presented regression model was able to explain 12.6% of the variance of the positive and 35% of the variance of the negative stereotype. Older participants (ß = .118; p < .001), participants with higher subjective knowledge (ß = .172; p < .001) and those who were presented the case vignette with GDR socialization without experience of injustice (ß = .225; p < .001) showed more positive stereotype attributions. In contrast, younger people (ß = .115; p < .001), with high subjective knowledge (ß = .115; p < .001) men (ß = .115; p < .001), working in an outpatient setting (ß = .087; p < .05), and those who were presented the case vignette with experience of injustice (ß = .115; p < .001) showed more negative stereotypes attributions.A correction has been made to the section results. The multiple regression model shown in Table 3 explains a total of 28.0% of the variance for the emotional reaction fear. Younger (ß = -.141; p < .001) and male participants showed a higher emotional response of fear (ß = -.218; p < .001), as did participants from the professional group of psychologists and psychotherapists (ß = .101; p < .001), professional group of occupational-, speech-and physiotherapist (ß = .095; p < .001), and working in an inpatient setting (ß = -.161; p < .001).Furthermore, a higher level of subjective knowledge about the GDR (ß = .182; p < .001) and who have an East German socialization (ß = .076; p < .01) had a significant influence on the regression model. The multiple regression model (see Table 3) was able to account for a total of 31.0% of the variance regarding the emotional reaction anger. Male participants (ß = -.246; p < .001), the professional group of psychologists and psychotherapists (ß =.102; p<.001) as well as professional group of occupational-, speech-and physiotherapist (ß = .093; p < .001) and working in an inpatient setting (ß = -.161; p < .001) and having personally experienced SED injustice (ß = -.071; p = .024) showed a stronger emotional reaction anger. In addition, male participants (ß = -.095; p = <.001) and a higher subjective knowledge about the GDR (ß = .267; p < .001) also predicted significantly stronger emotional reactions. The multiple regression model regarding the pro-social reactions of the ERMIS (see Table 2) explains 3.7% of the variance. Male participants (ß =.062; p<.05), participants who work in an outpatient setting (ß = -.060; p < .05) and those with a higher subjective knowledge about the GDR (ß = .181; p < .001) showed significantly greater pro-social reaction. Overall, the presented regression model was able to explain 7.5% of the variance of the SDS. A strong predictor of the desire for social distancing was the version of the case vignette (case vignette B: ß = .145; p < .001). Medical doctors (ß = .0745; p < .01) were the professional group that had an influence for desire for social distancing. The desire for social distancing was less pronounced if one had a high level of subjective knowledge about this topic (ß = -.150; p < .001). Overall, the presented regression model was able to explain 9.8% of the variance of the positive and 32.3% of the variance of the negative stereotype. Older participants (ß = .079; p < .01), participants with higher subjective knowledge (ß = .213; p < .001) and those who were presented the case vignette with GDR socialization without experience of injustice (ß = -.216; p < .001) showed more positive stereotype attributions. In contrast, younger people (ß = -.152; p < .001), with high subjective knowledge (ß = .304; p < .001) men (ß = -.189; p < .001), working in an outpatient setting (ß = -.111; p < .05), male case vignette (ß = -.061; p < .01), and those who were presented the case vignette with experience of injustice (ß = .151; p < .001) showed more negative stereotypes attributions.The original version of this article has been updated.