Corrigendum: The Wisdom in Virtue: Pursuit of Virtue Predicts Wise Reasoning About Personal Conflicts
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 17, 2026

Task Interruption and Resumption Paradigm for Testing the Activation and Pursuit of an Abstract Thinking Goal
Published on: April 18, 2017
Abstract:
Original Article: Huynh, A. C., Oakes, H., Shay, G. R., & McGregor, I. (2017). The wisdom in virtue: Pursuit of virtue predicts wise reasoning about personal conflicts. Psychological Science, 28, 1848-1856. doi:10.1177/0956797617722621 In this article, results for the Pursuit of Virtue × Conflict Type interaction in Study 2 were incorrectly reported. The final paragraph on page 1854 stated, "As in Study 1, we found a significant Pursuit of Virtue × Conflict Type interaction, F(1, 353) = 4.61, p = .032, η p2 = .01, 95% CI = [.0001, .05]." These results were taken from an analysis of standardized ( z-scored) dependent variables, but because Study 2 involved a repeated measures design, standardization did not allow the model to account for overall changes in reasoning between the two measures. Because our reported procedure did not involve standardizing the measures, this sentence is now being corrected to read as follows: The pattern of means was similar to that obtained in Study 1, although in this study, the Pursuit of Virtue × Conflict Type interaction was not statistically significant, F(1, 353) = 3.37, p = .067, η p2 = .01, 95% CI = [.00, .04]. Because this interaction is relevant to the primary findings, the authors acknowledge that Study 2 provides converging, but not statistically significant, support for the findings in Study 1. As a result of the same error, the reported p value for the moderation test of Hedonic motivation in the following paragraph (p. 1855) was also incorrect. The sentence reporting these results is being corrected to read: "Hedonic motivation did not moderate the effect of conflict type, F(1, 353) < 1, p = .323 (see the Supplemental Material for additional details)." The error in the presentation of these results did not affect the subsequent reported results for the simple effects in Study 2 or the analysis of the subcomponents of wise reasoning. The reported results for Study 1 were not affected by this error.
Related Concept Videos
Personal Choice and Fate Attributions
Self-Discrepancy Theory
Self-Evaluation: Self-Enhancement and Self-Verification
Ethics and Bioethics
Frustration and Conflict: Approach-Approach, Approach-Avoidance
One common type of conflict is the Approach–Approach Conflict. In this case, a person faces two desirable...
Decision Making: Traditional Method
First, a specific claim about the population parameter is decided based on the research question and is stated in a simple form. Further, an opposing statement to this claim is also stated. These statements can act as null and alternative hypotheses, out of which a null hypothesis would be a...

