Front. Psychiatry Frontiers in Psychiatry Front. Psychiatry 1664-0640 Frontiers Media S.A. 10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1366548 Psychiatry Correction Corrigendum: Thinking preferences and conspiracy belief: intuitive thinking and the jumping to conclusions-bias as a basis for the belief in conspiracy theories Pytlik Nico 1 Soll Daniel 1 Mehl Stephanie 1 2 * 1 Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy & Center for Mind, Brain and Behavior (MCMBB), Philipps-University, Marburg, Germany 2 Department of Health and Social Work, Frankfurt University of Applied Sciences, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

Approved by: Frontiers Editorial Office, Frontiers Media SA, Switzerland

*Correspondence: Stephanie Mehl, stephanie.mehl@staff.uni-marburg.de

29 02 2024 2024 15 1366548 06 01 2024 24 01 2024 Copyright © 2024 Pytlik, Soll and Mehl 2024 Pytlik, Soll and Mehl

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

 A Corrigendum on Thinking preferences and conspiracy belief: intuitive thinking and the jumping to conclusions-bias as a basis for the belief in conspiracy theories By Pytlik, N, Soll, D and Mehl, S (2020) Front. Psychiatry 11:568942. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.568942 conspiracy theories paranoia jumping to conclusions delusions intuitive thinking analytical thinking section-in-acceptance Schizophrenia

In the published article, there was an error. In Materials And Methods, Recruitment and procedures, paragraph 2, the following text was included: “The local ethics committee approved of the study. Participants provided informed consent and were debriefed after the completion of the study.” The corrected statement appears below:

“The requirement of formal ethical review/approval was waived by the Ethics Committee of the University of Marburg (Faculty of Psychology), as no experimental manipulation took place, participants received information on the study, provided written informed consent, and anonymity was assured.”

Consequently, there was also an error in the Ethics statement. The correct statement appears below:

“The requirement of formal ethical review/approval of the studies involving human participants was waived by the Ethics Committee of the University of Marburg (Faculty of Psychology), as no experimental manipulation took place, participants received information on the study, provided written informed consent, and anonymity was assured.”

The authors apologize for these errors and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.