Abstract
Zygar, C., Hagemeyer, B., Pusch, S., & Schönbrodt, F. D. (2018). From motive dispositions to states to outcomes: An intensive experience sampling study on communal motivational dynamics in couples. European Journal of Personality, 32(3), 306–324. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2145
First, due to a coding error in the data preparation script, analyses with the Positive Relationship Quality (PRQ) and the Negative Relationship Quality (NRQ) scales (Rogge, Fincham, Crasta, & Maniaci, 2017) were performed with a single item instead of the mean of all items of the respective scale in the original article. Therefore, the means, standard deviations, and correlations of the PRQ and NRQ in Table 1 had to be corrected, as well as some results regarding hypothesis 1 (predicting PRQ and NRQ by the partner–related need for communion) including the estimates depicted in Figure 2, and some results regarding hypothesis 5 (predicting PRQ and NRQ by the average state relationship satisfaction).
After correction of this error, all affected results are stronger in the preregistered direction and overall more consistent with the results of the other scale of relationship satisfaction that was assessed (the Couples Satisfaction Index, Funk & Rogge, 2007). In particular, an individual's NRQ was previously significantly predicted neither by the partner–related need for communion (which was part of hypothesis 1, before correction: b = −0.12, p = .116) nor by average state relationship satisfaction (which was part of hypothesis 5, before correction: b = −0.27, p = .062). After correction of the coding error, both associations were significant (need for communion: b = −0.23, p = .003; average state relationship satisfaction: b = −0.56, p < .001). The results concerning the PRQ were already significant in the original article, but the effects are stronger after the correction (results of hypothesis 1 before correction: b = 0.15, p = .047, after correction: b = 0.19, p = .007; results of hypothesis 5 before correction: b = 0.39, p = .008, after correction: b = 0.45, p = .002).
Second, a software bug in the Experience Sampling App caused a total of 11 out of 9100 scheduled surveys to be erroneously scheduled during night–time. This produced errors in the time–lagging procedure of these and adjacent pings. We corrected the lags and treated any answers on these night–time pings as missings. The results that involved experience sampling data minimally changed (i.e. the ICCs in Table 2; model comparison results for hypothesis 4; dfs, t values in Tables 3 and 4; some estimates and p values in Tables 3 and 4). As these changes were extremely minor, conclusions were not affected in any way.
Details about all changes (including a version of the article with updated tables, figures and text) can be found in the associated OSF project (https://osf.io/b8pu6/).
The authors apologize for the errors and any inconvenience they might have caused.