After publication of this article [1], the authors contacted the journal office to correct two errors in the published article.

The reported number of participants in each session of Study 1 (8 or 12 participants) is incorrect. Most sessions were conducted in groups of either 8 or 12 participants. However, some sessions had more than 8 but fewer than 12 participants and some sessions had fewer than 8 participants. The correct number of participants in Study 1 sessions is accounted for in the corrected sentences below. The estimated frequency of participants per session in Study 1 is provided in S2 Table, which may be viewed below.

One pilot survey response from a previous version of the Study 2 survey is incorrectly included in the Study 2 dataset. The previous version of the survey had a different range for the dependent variable. As such, the incorrectly included response contains a value (16) for the dependent variable, which is outside of the possible range (0–10). The correct Study 2 methods and results which exclude the incorrectly included response are reported in the corrected sentences from Study 2 below. The authors confirm that excluding this response does not alter any of their conclusions (that is, all statistical tests that were significant remain significant and all statistical tests that were non-significant remain non-significant). Both a corrected dataset and R script are available from the Open Science Framework page listed in the Data Availability Statement, which remains unchanged.

The authors have provided updates to sentences in the Abstract, Study 1, and Study 2 sections to correct these errors. Please see the location of the error, the original text, and the author-corrected text here.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241069.t001

Excluding the incorrectly included response changes the value of the High Deliberation row of Table 2. After removing the response, the mean contribution and standard deviation in the high trust—deliberation condition (n = 199) changes to 7.48 and 3.37, respectively. Please see the correct Table 2 here.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 2. Public goods game contributions, compliance, and comprehension depending on the condition.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241069.t002

Updated versions of Figs 3 and 4 are not included since the changes are barely perceptually noticeable.

Excluding the incorrectly included response changes the value of the Study 2 rows of Table 3. After accounting for this error, the statistics of the interaction between high trust and intuition in Study 2 changes to p = .47, b = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.32], and the statistics of effect of intuition in Study 2 changes to p = .39, b = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.70]. Please see the correct Table 3 here.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 3. Unstandardized coefficients and p values for each hypothesis in each study.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241069.t003

Excluding the incorrectly included response changes the value of the Table E and Table F sections of S1 Table. Please view the correct S1 Table below.

S2 Table is omitted from the list of Supporting Information. It can be viewed below.

Excluding the incorrectly included response changes the value of the means and standard deviations in S1 Fig. Please view the correct S1 Fig below.

Excluding the incorrectly included response changes the value of the Fig E and Fig F section of S2 Fig. Please view the correct S2 Fig below.