Limits...
Correction: the effect of perceived regional accents on individual economic behavior: a lab experiment on linguistic performance, cognitive ratings and economic decisions.

Heblich S, Lameli A, Riener G - PLoS ONE (2015)

Bottom Line: [This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0113475.].

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT
[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0113475.].

No MeSH data available.


Experimental strategy and subsequent empirical analysis.The standard accent sample (Stand) is shown in white, the Bavarian accent (Bav) in gray, and the Thuringian accent (Thur) in black. The first stage of the experiment shows the two language informants (LI) who provide two language samples each. In the second stage, we relate economically relevant choices to the assigned treatments and match one of four language samples randomly with experimental participants (EP). In the analysis, we first estimate within-speaker differences to eliminate the effect of individual confounding characteristics (First Differences) and then calculate the difference in those first differences (Second Difference) to account for stochastic discrimination against regional accent. Contrasting the expected choices leaves us with an unbiased discrimination effect δ (cf. following explanations).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4430290&req=5

pone.0124732.g003: Experimental strategy and subsequent empirical analysis.The standard accent sample (Stand) is shown in white, the Bavarian accent (Bav) in gray, and the Thuringian accent (Thur) in black. The first stage of the experiment shows the two language informants (LI) who provide two language samples each. In the second stage, we relate economically relevant choices to the assigned treatments and match one of four language samples randomly with experimental participants (EP). In the analysis, we first estimate within-speaker differences to eliminate the effect of individual confounding characteristics (First Differences) and then calculate the difference in those first differences (Second Difference) to account for stochastic discrimination against regional accent. Contrasting the expected choices leaves us with an unbiased discrimination effect δ (cf. following explanations).

Mentions: The order of Figs 1, 2, 3 and 4 is incorrect. Fig 1 should be Fig 3, Fig 2 should be Fig 1, Fig 3 should be Fig 4, and Fig 4 should be Fig 5.


Correction: the effect of perceived regional accents on individual economic behavior: a lab experiment on linguistic performance, cognitive ratings and economic decisions.

Heblich S, Lameli A, Riener G - PLoS ONE (2015)

Experimental strategy and subsequent empirical analysis.The standard accent sample (Stand) is shown in white, the Bavarian accent (Bav) in gray, and the Thuringian accent (Thur) in black. The first stage of the experiment shows the two language informants (LI) who provide two language samples each. In the second stage, we relate economically relevant choices to the assigned treatments and match one of four language samples randomly with experimental participants (EP). In the analysis, we first estimate within-speaker differences to eliminate the effect of individual confounding characteristics (First Differences) and then calculate the difference in those first differences (Second Difference) to account for stochastic discrimination against regional accent. Contrasting the expected choices leaves us with an unbiased discrimination effect δ (cf. following explanations).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4430290&req=5

pone.0124732.g003: Experimental strategy and subsequent empirical analysis.The standard accent sample (Stand) is shown in white, the Bavarian accent (Bav) in gray, and the Thuringian accent (Thur) in black. The first stage of the experiment shows the two language informants (LI) who provide two language samples each. In the second stage, we relate economically relevant choices to the assigned treatments and match one of four language samples randomly with experimental participants (EP). In the analysis, we first estimate within-speaker differences to eliminate the effect of individual confounding characteristics (First Differences) and then calculate the difference in those first differences (Second Difference) to account for stochastic discrimination against regional accent. Contrasting the expected choices leaves us with an unbiased discrimination effect δ (cf. following explanations).
Mentions: The order of Figs 1, 2, 3 and 4 is incorrect. Fig 1 should be Fig 3, Fig 2 should be Fig 1, Fig 3 should be Fig 4, and Fig 4 should be Fig 5.

Bottom Line: [This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0113475.].

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT
[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0113475.].

No MeSH data available.