Front. Psychol. Frontiers in Psychology Front. Psychol. 1664-1078 Frontiers Media S.A. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1515434 Psychology Correction Corrigendum: How general is the natural frequency effect? The case of joint probabilities Stegmüller Nathalie 1 * Binder Karin 2 Krauss Stefan 1 1Mathematics Education, Faculty of Mathematics, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany 2Mathematics Education, Institute of Mathematics, Ludwig Maximilian University Munich, Munich, Germany

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

 *Correspondence: Nathalie Stegmüller nathalie.stegmueller@ur.de 19 11 2024 2024 15 1515434 22 10 2024 23 10 2024 Copyright © 2024 Stegmüller, Binder and Krauss. 2024 Stegmüller, Binder and Krauss

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 How general is the natural frequency effect? The case of joint probabilities by Stegmüller, N., Binder, K., and Krauss, S. (2024). Front. Psychol. 15:1296359. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1296359 joint probabilities Bayesian reasoning natural frequencies visualization net diagram section-at-acceptance Cognition

In the published article, there was an error in Figure 2 as published. In the left net diagram, it said “B and T+” (right, bottom), although it should be “nB and T+”. The corrected Figure 2 and its caption appear below.

Visualizations of two binary events in the context of the mammography problem: Probability versions (left) and frequency versions (right).3

The authors apologize for this error 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.

3Note that because of the plural “women” in our probability trees (e.g., in Figures 1, 2) these trees are basically percentage trees. However, since research in Bayesian reasoning mostly distinguishes between probability and frequency format, we call them probability trees.