Erratum

Abstract

White, Katherine, Lily Lin, Darren W. Dahl, and Robin J. B. Ritchie (2016), “When Do Consumers Avoid Imperfections? Superficial Packaging Damage as a Contamination Cue,” Journal of Marketing Research, 53 (February), 110–23. (Original DOI: 10.1509/jmr.12.0388 ) The following reporting errors have been noted in this article. These errors were clerical only, and the changes do not affect the data patterns or significance of the results in any way. Study 1, page 113 The numerator degrees of freedom for the interaction should be 2. At the end of the last full paragraph, the text should read: “The interaction qualified a significant main effect for type of package damage (F(2, 139) = 4.90, p < .05) and a marginal main effect for cognitive load (F(1, 139) = 3.36, p < .07).” Study 2, page 115 The degrees of freedom should be 130. The text should read: “Results revealed a main effect for packaging damage (t(130) = 5.49, p < .001; b = −.561) and the anticipated three-way interaction (t(130) = 2.24, p < .03; b = −.286; see Figure 2).” Study 4, page 116 The numerator degrees of freedom was omitted in one sentence. The text should read: “As we predicted, packaging appearance predicted both contamination perceptions (F(2, 150) = 4.17, p < .05) and health and safety concerns (F(2, 150) = 3.41, p < .05; see Table 1).” Study 5, page 118 The initial sample size is 200 participants. The text should say: “Those who failed to properly complete the cognitive load task were removed from the analyses (9.5% of the sample, leaving 181 participants).”