In the published article, there was an error in Tables 4, 6, 8 as published. The effect sizes in our tables were mislabeled as “η2” (eta-squared) but should have been labelled as “” (generalized eta-squared). All instances have been replaced by “”.
The corrected Tables 4, 6, 8 and their caption appear below.
Table 4
| Belonging | Self-efficacy | Environmental efficacy a | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study | ANOVA p , ( F ), [ ] | Significant interactions | ANOVA p , ( F ), [ ] | Significant interactions | ANOVA p , ( F ), [ ] | Significant interactions |
| 1 | < 0.001***, (44.32), [0.07], Df = 271 | Gender × Race × Mat {0.018*, (5.694), Df = 264, [0.009]} Race × Mat {0.049*, (3.911), Df = 264, [0.007]} | < 0.001***, (31.37), [0.043], Df = 271 | Gender × Race × Mat {0.048*, (3.940), Df = 264, [0.006]} Race × Mat {0.03*, (4.770), Df = 264, [0.007]} | < 0.001***, (39.16), [0.029], Df = 271 | Gender × Race × Mat {< 0.001***, (11.438), Df = 264, [0.009]} |
| 2 | 0.004**, (8.41), [0.009], Df = 286 | Edu × Mat {0.033*, (4.617), Df = 279, [0.005]} Gender × Race × Mat {0.044*, (4.083), Df = 279, [0.005]} Gender × Race × Edu × Mat {0.041*, (4.200), Df = 279, [0.005]} | 0.008**, (7.22), [0.006], Df = 286 | Gender × Mat {0.048*, (3.928), Df = 279, [0.003]} Race × Mat {0.005**, (7.842), Df = 279, [0.007]} Edu × Race × Mat {0.002**, (9.754), Df = 279, [0.008]} Gender × Race × Mat {0.004**, (8.417), Df = 279, [0.007]} Gender × Race × Edu × Mat {0.024*, (5.135), Df = 279, [0.004]} | < 0.001***, (16.05), [0.009], Df = 282 | Gender × Mat {0.043*, (4.147), Df = 275, [0.002]} Edu × Race × Mat {0.007**, (7.497), Df = 275, [0.004]} |
| 3 | < 0.001***, (31.481), [0.019], Df = 479 | Edu × Mat {0.023*, (5.202), Df = 466, [0.003]} | < 0.001***, (18.363), [0.01], Df = 479 | Edu × Mat {0.003**, (8.918), Df = 466, [0.005]} | < 0.001***, (14.538), [0.005], Df = 475 | Gender × Race × Mat {0.016*, (5.803), Df = 462, [0.002]} |
| 4a | 0.129, (2.308), [< 0.001], Df = 437 | Race × Mat {0.003**, (9.059), Df = 417, [0.002]} | 0.744, (0.107), [< 0.001], Df = 437 | Race × Mat {0.025*, (5.044), Df = 417, [< 0.001]} | 0.449, (0.575), [< 0.001], Df = 437 | No significant interactions found |
| 4b | 0.152, (2.058), [0.005], Df = 424 | No significant interactions found | 0.833, (0.044), [< 0.001], Df = 424 | No significant interactions found | 0.765, (0.090), [< 0.001], Df = 424 | Gender × Race × Mat {0.025*, (5.073), Df = 355, [0.014]} |
| 5 | 0.129, (2.317), [0.005], Df = 456 | No significant interactions found | 0.125, (2.358), [0.005], Df = 456 | No significant interactions found | 0.661, (0.193), [< 0.001], Df = 451 | No significant interactions found |
ANOVA and mixed ANOVA results for materials for all three dependent variables.
aSome outliers were identified for environmental efficacy scores in the following studies: Study 2 (n = 4), Study 3 (n = 4), Study 4b (n = 4), Study 5 (n = 5). These were removed from the analysis for that specific dependent variable only. *p < 0.05, **p< 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Table 6
| Belonging | Self-efficacy | Environmental efficacy a | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study | ANOVA p , ( F ), [ ] | Significant interactions | ANOVA p , ( F ), [ ] | Significant interactions | ANOVA p , ( F ), [ ] | Significant interactions |
| 1 | < 0.001***, (18.70), [0.029], Df = 271 | Gender × Light {0.01*, (6.418), Df = 264, [0.01]} | < 0.001***, (13.72), [0.018], Df = 271 | Gender × Light {0.001**, (10.440), Df = 270, [0.013]} | < 0.001***, (23.33), [0.017], Df = 271 | No significant interactions found |
| 2 | 0.274, (1.20), [0.001], Df = 286 | Edu × Light {0.017*, (5.749), Df = 279, [0.006]} Gender × Race × Light {0.035*, (4.504), Df = 279, [0.004]} | 0.98, (0.00), [0.00], Df = 286 | Edu × Light {0.008**, (7.114), Df = 279, [0.007]} Gender × Light {0.038*, (4.357), Df = 279, [0.004]} Gender × Race × Edu × Light {0.049*, (3.920), Df = 279, [0.004]} | 0.13, (2.30), [0.001], Df = 282 | No significant interactions found |
| 3 | 0.001**, (10.199), [0.006], Df = 479 | Edu × Light {< 0.001***, (13.094), Df = 466, [0.007]} Edu × Gender × Light {0.023*, (5.240), Df = 466, [0.003]} | 0.041*, (4.217), [0.002], Df = 479 | Edu × Light {0.004**, (8.551), Df = 466, [0.005]} Gender × Light {0.037*, (4.377), Df = 466, [0.002]} | 0.344, (0.897), [< 0.001], Df = 475 | No significant interactions found |
| 4a | < 0.001***, (171.840), [0.033], Df = 437 | No significant interactions found | < 0.001***, (122.341), [0.023], Df = 437 | No significant interactions found | < 0.001***, (49.011), [0.006], Df = 437 | No significant interactions found |
| 4b | 0.087, (2.934), [0.007], Df = 424 | Edu × Race × Light {0.05; (3.877), Df = 355, [0.011]} | 0.425, (0.638), [0.002], Df = 424 | Edu × Race × Light {0.01**, (6.753), Df = 355, [0.019]} | 0.678, (0.172), [< 0.001], Df = 424 | No significant interactions found |
| 5 | < 0.001***, (16.577), [0.035], Df = 456 | No significant interactions found | 0.015*, (5.972), [0.013], Df = 456 | Gender × Race × Light {0.033*, (4.597), Df = 393, [0.012]} | 0.858, (0.032), [< 0.001], Df = 451 | |
ANOVA and mixed ANOVA results for light for all three dependent variables.
aSome outliers were identified for environmental efficacy scores in the following studies: Study 2 (n = 4), Study 3 (n = 4), Study 4b (n = 4), Study 5 (n = 5). These were removed from the analysis for that specific dependent variable only. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Table 8
| Variable | Belonging | Self-efficacy | Environmental efficacy a | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study | ANOVA p , ( F ), [ ] | Significant interactions | ANOVA p , ( F ), [ ] | Significant interactions | ANOVA p , ( F ), [ ] | Significant interactions |
| 1 | 0.497, (0.46), [0.0006], Df = 271 | Gender × Rep {< 0.001***, (17.605), Df = 264, [0.024]} | 0.711, (0.14), [0.0002], Df = 271 | Gender × Rep {0.011**, (6.586), Df = 264, [0.008]} | 0.006**, (7.61), [0.005], Df = 271 | Gender × Race × Edu × Rep {0.038*, (4.366), Df = 264, [0.003]} Race × Rep {0.04*, (4.263), Df = 264, [0.003]} |
| 2 | 0.525, (0.41), [< 0.001], Df = 286 | Edu × Rep {0.008**, (7.104), Df = 279, [0.005]} Gender × Rep {< 0.001***, (31.218), Df = 279, [0.023]} Gender × Edu × Rep {< 0.001***, (16.102), Df = 279, [0.012]} | 0.983, (0.00), [0.00], Df = 286 | Gender × Rep {< 0.001***, (26.429), Df = 279, [0.021]} Gender × Edu × Rep {< 0.001***, (13.007), Df = 279, [0.011]} | 0.546, (0.37), [0.00], Df = 282 | Edu × Rep {0.004**, (8.652), Df = 275, [0.004]} |
| 3 | 0.965, (0.002), [< 0.001], Df = 479 | Gender × Rep {< 0.001***, (16.523), Df = 466, [0.009]} Race × Rep {0.019*, (5.526), Df = 466, [0.003]} | 0.907, (0.014), [0.0000079], Df = 479 | Gender × Rep {< 0.001***, (12.748), Df = 466, [0.007]} | 0.576, (0.313), [0.0000785], Df = 475 | Gender × Rep {0.002**, (9.420), Df = 462, [0.002]} |
| 4a | < 0.001***, (39.917), [0.010], Df = 437 | Gender × Rep {0.003**, (8.932), Df = 417, [0.002]} Race × Rep {0.028*, (4.886), Df = 417, [0.001]} | < 0.001***, (27.770), [0.005], Df = 437 | Race × Rep {0.012*, (6.397), Df = 417, [0.001]} | 0.025*, (5.082), [< 0.001], Df = 437 | No significant interactions found |
| 4b | 0.006**, (7.756), [0.018], Df = 424 | Gender × Rep {0.037*; (4.399), Df = 355, [0.012]} | 0.004**, (8.333), [0.019], Df = 424 | No significant interactions found | 0.103, (2.672), [0.006], Df = 424 | No significant interactions found |
| 5 | 0.417, (0.659), [0.001], Df = 456 | No significant interactions found | 0.517, (0.420), [< 0.001], Df = 456 | No significant interactions found | 0.231, (1.442), [0.003], Df = 451 | Gender × Race × Rep {0.028*, (4.886), Df = 393, [0.012]} |
ANOVA and mixed ANOVA results for representation for all three dependent variables.
aSome outliers were identified for environmental efficacy scores in the following studies: Study 2 (n = 4), Study 3 (n = 4), Study 4b (n = 4), Study 5 (n = 5). These were removed from the analysis for that specific dependent variable only. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
A correction has been made to Results Per Independent Variable, Paragraph 1, Page 7. This sentence previously stated: “Our results are organized for each independent variable with subsections for each dependent variable. The ANOVA results are reported using p-value (p), F ratio (F), degrees of freedom (df) and effect size (η2).”
The corrected sentence appears below:
“Our results are organized for each independent variable with subsections for each dependent variable. The ANOVA results are reported using p-value (p), F ratio (F), degrees of freedom (df), and effect size ().”
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.
Statements
Publisher’s note
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.
Summary
Keywords
meta-analysis, natural materials, natural light, sense of belonging, self-efficacy, diversity, environmental efficacy, design interventions
Citation
Altaf B, Bianchi E, Douglas IP, Douglas K, Byers B, Paredes PE, Ardoin NM, Markus HR, Murnane EL, Bencharit LZ, Landay JA and Billington SL (2024) Corrigendum: Use of crowdsourced online surveys to study the impact of architectural and design choices on wellbeing. Front. Sustain. Cities 6:1458100. doi: 10.3389/frsc.2024.1458100
Received
01 July 2024
Accepted
08 July 2024
Published
23 July 2024
Volume
6 - 2024
Edited and reviewed by
Thomas Krafft, Maastricht University, Netherlands
Updates
Copyright
© 2024 Altaf, Bianchi, Douglas, Douglas, Byers, Paredes, Ardoin, Markus, Murnane, Bencharit, Landay and Billington.
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: Basma Altaf baltaf@stanford.eduEva Bianchi ebianchi@stanford.edu
†These authors have contributed equally to this work and share first authorship
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.