Correction Corrigendum: Exploration and exploitation during information search and consequential choice Cleotilde Gonzalez1 and Varun Dutt2 1Dynamic Decision Making Laboratory, Department of Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA and 2School of Computing and Electrical Engineering and School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Mandi, India An error occured in the paper of Gonzalez and Dutt(2016) that was recently published in JDDM. The de- scription of the Sampling-H calculation which appears in the Methods section of the paper (page 4, paragraph above the results section) is inaccurate and it appears in the orig- inal paragraph as: "Then, we checked whether the option sampled by a participant was the high expected value op- tion, and coded this as 1; otherwise, the choice was coded as 0. We then aggregated high choices across all partici- pants and problems for different samples and defined the Sampling-H rate per sample." The paragraph above should be replaced with the new paragraph as follows: "Then, for each sample, we calculated the natural mean (Hertwig & Pleskac, 2008) for each option by summing all the expe- rienced outcomes in the respective option and dividing by the number of samples up to the current one. If the option with the higher natural mean corresponded to the option with the higher expected value, the trial was coded as 1; otherwise it was coded as 0. We then aggregated the codes across all participants and problems for different samples and defined the Sampling-H rate per sample." Following this procedure produces the graph shown in Fig. 3. The figure supports learning effects over time (i.e., the effect of sample size on sampling error): the option with the higher natural mean corresponds to the higher expected value. However, Sampling-H does not reflect di- rect sampling behavior of the high expected value option as implied by the original paragraph. The interpretation of Sampling-H throughout the article should therefore be in agreement with the meaning stated in the new paragraph. The R and Matlab scripts that demonstrate the correct procedure for calculating Sampling-H and generate Figure 3 are available from the authors and online as supplemen- tary materials. We thank Jeffrey Chrabaszcz, DDMLab, for producing the R code. We also thank an anonymous commentator for pointing out this error. Declaration of conflicting interests: The authors de- clare they have no conflict of interests. Author contributions: All authors contributed equally to the manuscript. Supplementary material: Supplementary material available online. Handling editor: Andreas Fischer Copyright: This work is licensed under a Creative Com- mons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 In- ternational License. Citation: Gonzalez, C. & Dutt, V. (2016). Corrigen- dum: Exploration and exploitation during information search and consequential choice. Journal of Dynamic Decision Making, 2, 4 doi:10.11588/jddm.2016.1.33651. Received: 25th August 2016 Accepted: 24th October 2016 Published: 1st November 2016 References Gonzalez, C. & Dutt, V. (2016). Exploration and exploitation dur- ing information search and consequential choice. Journal of Dy- namic Decision Making, 2, 6. doi:10.11588/jddm.2016.1.29308 Hertwig, R. & Pleskac, T. J. (2008). The game of life: How small samples render choice simpler. In N. Chater & M. Oaksford (Eds.), The probabilistic mind: Prospects for Bayesian cognitive science (pp. 209-235). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 10.11588/jddm.2016.1.33651 JDDM | 2016 | Volume 2 | Article 4 | 1 http://doi.org/10.11588/jddm.2016.1.33651 http://doi.org/10.11588/jddm.2016.1.29308 http://dx.doi.org/10.11588/jddm.2016.1.33651