The things I messed up

When you write hundreds of pages of stuff, invariably you mess some things up. Imperfections should be embraced, so here is a list of mine for you to embrace or get annoyed at me about. Hopefully the former. Thanks to those who have pointed these out.

P. xv: First word on page should be The (not They). [Lesley Wood]
P. xxiii: the last line in the penultimate paragraph of your Thank you should be …“listened to a lot of AC/DC” (not “… listed to a lot of AC/DC”). [Lesley Wood]
P. 8: “… a theory of reality TV contestants than revolves around the idea …” should be “… a theory of reality TV contestants that revolves around the idea …”. [Suraj Harylallsingh]
P. 31: Table 1.2, third column: missing parentheses in formula for total deviances. [Han Diesfeldt]
P. 299: The correlation coefficient for exam performance and revision time is given as negative (-0.397) though in the analysis it is a positive correlation (0.397). [Han Diesfeldt]
P. 301: Paragraph 7.5.2 Partial correlation, line 3-4: as a function of the total variance in Y (area A + B + C + D). My suggestion: total variance in Y is A + B + C + E, as in equation 7.16. [Han Diesfeldt]
P. 307: The data for Labcoat Leni’s Real Research 7.1 are in Leni, Chapter 7, leni_07.jasp. I could not find any file named: chamorro_premuzic.jasp
P. 325: The data file df_beta.csv does not seem to exist; there is a file df_beta.jasp but JASP 0.19.1.0 does not accept this file. [Han Diesfeldt]
P. 335: 8.8.2 Model para’meters instead of parameters [Han Diesfeldt]
P. 348: Jane Superbrain 8.2 “… so the F comes from Eq. 1.21”, should be Eq. 8.21. “The F-statistic for this change comes from Eq. 1.25”, should be Eq. 8.25. [Han Diesfeldt]
P. 354: Second line: “… all cases in Output 88”, is to be read as Output 8.8. [Han Diesfeldt]
P. 406: “The output shows us the results of three models: the model for time spent gaming as a predictor of aggression (1) when callous traits are low (to be precise, when the value of callous traits is at the 16th percentile, equal to 10.035)” should read \(-10.035\). [Han Diesfeldt]
P. 410: Nine lines from top: though should be through [Han Diesfeldt]
P. 413: (second sentence) “The indirect effect is illustrated in Figures 10.9 and 10.10”; should be read as Figures 10.11 and 10.12.
P. 415: paragraph below Output 10.4: “The R² value tells us …” should be value(s) [Han Diesfeldt]
P. 415, paragraph below Output 10.5: “Next, we are told the effect of pornography consumption on infidelity when relationship commitment is included as a predictor as well (the indirect effect). These values replicate those in Output 10.4.” Should be Output 10.5. “This indirect effect consists of the effect of pornography consumption on commitment (\(\hat{b} = 0.47\)) …”, should be \(\hat{b} = -0.47\). [Han Diesfeldt]
P. 417: “Output 10.6 also contains the effect size measure (the index of mediation from Section 0)”. To be read as Section 10.4.3. [Han Diesfeldt]
P. 416: The data file massar_2012.jasp is not in Data appendix the equivalent file leni_10.jasp is not accepted by JASP 0.19.1.0. [Han Diesfeldt]
P. 393: Smart Alex, Task 8, data file men_dogs.jasp is not accepted by JASP 0.19.1.0. [Han Diesfeldt]
P. 420: The description of Output 10.7 is not always in accordance with the path coefficients or other parameters. The bullet numbers 2, 3 and 5 refer to t-values instead of z-values. The estimates in bullet numbers 5 and 6 differ from those in Output 10.7 [Han Diesfeldt]
P. 421: Figure 10.18, the estimates for the indirect effect (analytic thinking; 0.04 [0.02, 0.06]) differ from the estimates in Output 10.8 (0.026 [0.011, 0.041]. [Han Diesfeldt]
P. 428: The file puppies.jasp is not accepted by JASP 0.19.1.0. [Han Diesfeldt]
P. 442, in the paragraph below Equation 11.19: “In experimental research this means that the effect of natural variation is greater than the differences bought about by the experiment” should be “In experimental research this means that the effect of natural variation is greater than the differences brought about by the experiment”. [Han Diesfeldt]
P. 454: JASP 0.19.1.0 does not accept the file puppies_contrast.jasp. [Han Diesfeldt]
P. 455, first line: “Second, the \(\hat{b}\) for contrast 1 is one-third of the difference between the average of the experimental conditions and the control condition. Finally, the \(\hat{b}\) for contrast 2 is half of the difference between the experimental groups.” Output 11.3 displays the unstandardized coefficients 1.9 (for puppies_vs_none) instead of 0.633, and 1.8 (for long_vs_short) instead of 0.9. [Han Diesfeldt]
P. 469: Description of Output 11.7, line 8, following note 8:
- “The last two columns …” should be “the next two columns …”
- Third paragraph: “Each contrast estimate has a standard error.”In the lower part of the table the standard error is corrected for unequal variances.” should be “In the table the standard error is corrected for unequal variances”. [Han Diesfeldt]
P. 470, first line: “… it could be zero, show a slight advantage to having 15-minutes (the minus value) or show a massive advantage to having 30-minutes (the value of 2.4)”. 2.4 should be 2.78. [Han Diesfeldt]
P. 471: jacob_2019.jasp is named jakob_2019.jasp in the data appendix. [Han Diesfeldt]
P. 528, 13.10.2 The main effect of alcohol: “This effect has partial omega-squared = 0.22, suggesting that the type of face explains 17% of the variance in attractiveness ratings that is not explained by other predictors” should be “This effect has partial omega-squared = 0.174, suggesting that the level of alcohol explains 17% of the variance in attractiveness ratings that is not explained by other predictors.” [Han Diesfeldt]
P. 533: In the paragraph reporting the details: “There was a significant effect of the amount of alcohol consumed on ratings of the attractiveness of faces, F(2, 42) = 6.04, p = 0.005, \(\omega^2_p\) = 0.12”, should be “… \(\omega^2_p\) = 0.23”. [Han Diesfeldt]
P. 536: The data files metal.jasp, notebook.jasp and teaching.jasp do not run in JASP 0.19.1.0. [Han Diesfeldt]
P. 559, line 7 from bottom: “From Output 14.4 we can conclude that the numbers of vocalizations that dogs made were not significantly different when sniffing (1) a human compared to a mannequin, F(1, 7) = 0.01, p = 0.920; (2) a shapeshifter compared to a human, F(1, 7) = 1.26, p = 0.299; or (3) an alien compared to a shapeshifter, F(1, 7) = 1.76, p = 0.227”. Output 14.4 has t-values not F-values. [Han Diesfeldt]
P. 562, Last paragraph above 14.11: “The smaller number of vocalizations when sniffing a human compared to a shapeshifter, \(\hat{d}\) = -1.62 [-2.66, 1.48]” should be “\(\hat{d}\) = -0.61 [-2.66, 1.45]”. [Han Diesfeldt]
P. 570, Line 6 from top: \(d = 0.36\) should be \(d = -0.36\). [Han Diesfeldt]
P. 578: The data files tutor_marks.jasp and field_2006.jasp do not run in JASP 0.19.1.0. [Han Diesfeldt]
P. 586, first sentence below Equation 15.11: “If we want to use the sum of ranks for the ecstasy group” should be “the alcohol group”. [Han Diesfeldt]
P. 603, 15.5.4, second sentence: “Move soya to the Dependent Variable box and move testosterone to the Fixed Factors box”: should be “Move testosterone to the Dependent Variable box and move soya to the Fixed Factors box. [Han Diesfeldt]
P. 609, 15.6.2 Inputting data and provisional analysis, Line 5: The data can be found in the file diet.sav, should be diet.jasp. [Han Diesfeldt]
P. 625: In Equation 16.13: a redundant \(\hat{b}_0\). [Han Diesfeldt]
P. 670: Second paragraph: Output 17.3 (on P. 669) shows a 95% Confidence interval, not a confidence interval on the odds ratio scale. [Han Diesfeldt]
P. 673: The first paragraph refers to McFadden R² in Output 17.1. [Han Diesfeldt]
P. 678: \(\hat{b}_\text{ability} = 0.84\) should be 0.084. [Han Diesfeldt]
P. 679, line 4: “In fact, the effect is not significant, z = 0.19, p = 0.661.” p = 0.661 should be p = 0.651. [Han Diesfeldt]
P. 680, third bullet point: “For those who took the third penalty, we sum \(\hat{b}_\text{ability}\) and \(\hat{b}_\text{ability*position3}\) = 0.22 + 0.5 = 0.42”. 0.42 should be 0.72. [Han Diesfeldt]