Correction to: Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology (2021) 7:183–208

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40750-021-00167-3

The original published version of this article contained mistakes. There were errors in Table 2, Supplementary Tables 5 and 6, and the Results.

In Table 2, values in the “SEβ” and “CIβ” columns were incorrect. Values in the “β” column for all T x C and T x C x Gender interaction terms were also incorrect. The correct values are below in a corrected version of Table 2.

All confidence intervals and beta values for T x C interactions were incorrect in Supplementary Table 5. Beta values for T x C and T x C x Gender interactions were incorrect in Supplementary Table 6. The corrected supplementary tables can be found at https://osf.io/kzne2/.

Paragraphs five through twelve of the “Results” section, “Dual-Hormone Hypothesis,” reflect these errors. The Results section should read as follows:

Observer-Rated Dominance

For salivary hormones, there was a small main effect of T on observer-rated dominance, such that adolescents with lower levels of T were rated as more dominant, on average (ß = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.24, -0.02], p = 0.02). Main effects of C (ß = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.18], p = 0.24) and gender (ß < 0.01, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.11], p > 0.99) on observer-rated dominance were nonsignificant. The T × C interaction was nonsignificant (ß = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.08], p = 0.55, ΔR2 < 0.01; Figure 1a). The T × C × gender interaction was also nonsignificant (ß = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.22], p = 0.07, ΔR2 = 0.02). However, in models run separately by participant gender, the direction of the T × C interaction was negative in males (ß = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.30, +0.06], p = 0.17) and positive in females (ß = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.22], p = 0.27).

For hair hormones, main effects of T (ß = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.19], p = 0.27), C (ß = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.10], p = 0.65), and gender (ß = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.14], p = 0.74) on observer-rated dominance were nonsignificant. The T × C interaction was nonsignificant (ß = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.03], p = 0.14, ΔR2 < 0.01; Figure 2a). The T × C × gender interaction was also nonsignificant (ß = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.20, +0.04], p = 0.20, ΔR2 = 0.01), though the T × C interaction was positive in males (ß = 0.04 95% CI [-0.17, 0.25], p = 0.69) and negative in females (ß = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.03], p = 0.10).

Parent-Reported AMS Dominance

For salivary hormones, main effects of T (ß = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.10], p = 0.54), C (ß = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.17], p = 0.79), and gender (ß = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.20], p = 0.38) on parent-reported dominance were nonsignificant. The T × C interaction was nonsignificant (ß = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.15], p = 0.89, ΔR2 < 0.01; Figure 1b) and the direction of this effect was equivalent in males and females. The T × C × gender interaction was also nonsignificant (ß = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.15], p = 0.90, ΔR2 < 0.01).

For hair hormones, main effects of T (ß = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.19], p = 0.66), C (ß = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.27], p = 0.15), and gender (ß = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.22], p = 0.37) on parent-reported dominance were also nonsignificant. The T × C interaction was nonsignificant (ß < 0.01, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.15], p > 0.99, ΔR2 < 0.01; Figure 2b). The T × C × gender interaction was also nonsignificant (ß = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.06], p = 0.23, ΔR2 = 0.02), though the T × C interaction was positive in males (ß = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.40], p = 0.36) and negative in females (ß = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.16], p = 0.69).

Youth-Reported AMS Dominance

For salivary hormones, main effects of T (ß = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.14], p = 0.88), C (ß = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.08], p = 0.45), and gender (ß = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.12], p = 0.93) on youth-reported dominance were nonsignificant. The T × C interaction was nonsignificant (ß = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.22], p = 0.20, ΔR2 = 0.01; Figure 1c) and the direction of this effect was equivalent in males and females. The T × C × gender interaction was also nonsignificant (ß = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.14], p = 0.93, ΔR2 = 0.02).

For hair hormones, main effects of T (ß = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.22], p = 0.29), C (ß = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.04], p = 0.16), and gender (ß = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.23], p = 0.22) on youth-reported dominance were also nonsignificant. The T × C interaction was nonsignificant (ß = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.25], p = 0.15, ΔR2 = 0.01; Figure 2c) and the direction of this effect was equivalent in males and females. The T × C × gender interaction was also nonsignificant (ß = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.04], p = 0.17, ΔR2 = 0.03).

Youth-Reported MPQ Social Potency

For salivary hormones, there was a small main effect of T on youth-reported social potency, such that adolescents with higher levels of salivary T were higher in social potency, on average (ß = 0.17, 95% CI [0.01, 0.33], p = 0.04). There was also a small main effect of C, such that adolescents with lower levels of salivary C were higher in social potency, on average (ß = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.37, -0.05], p = 0.01). The main effect of gender on social potency was nonsignificant (ß = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.12], p = 0.73). The T × C interaction was nonsignificant (ß = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.28], p = 0.10, ΔR2 = 0.01; Figure 1d) and the direction of this effect was equivalent in males and females. The T × C × gender interaction was also nonsignificant (ß = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.13], p = 0.75, ΔR2 = 0.04).

For hair hormones, main effects of T (ß = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.27], p = 0.23), C (ß = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.19], p = 0.82) and gender (ß = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.25], p = 0.24) on youth-reported social potency were nonsignificant. The T × C interaction was nonsignificant (ß = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.33], p = 0.11, ΔR2 = 0.02; Figure 2d) and the direction of this effect was equivalent in males and females. The T × C × gender interaction was also nonsignificant (< -0.01 < ß < 0, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.17], p = 0.97, ΔR2 = 0.05).

Table 2 Hierarchical Regression Results Predicting Dominance
Full size table