Correction to: ERRATA CORRIGE OF THE PAPER “Maladaptive daydreaming as emotion regulation strategy: exploring the association with emotion regulation, psychological symptoms, and negative problem-solving orientation”

Special Acknowledgment: The authors wish to express their gratitude to Emeritus Professor Eli Somer for helping identify the error made which is addressed down below. The error made: The error made - a syntactic mistake resulting in a systematic error - was identified in the initial scoring of the Maladaptive Daydreaming Scale-16 (MDS-16; Italian validation Schimmenti et al., 2020), whereby items had been operationalized in a Likert scale from 1 to 10. The correct operationalization and scoring of the scale, instead sees the scale going from 0 to 100, with intervals of 10, and scored as means (Somer et al., 2017). The subsequent Total Maladaptive Daydreaming (MD) score should range between 0 to 100. The MDS-16 items were re-operationalized considering the tool response scale going from 0 to 100 with intervals of 10 and then re-scored as reported just above, with the MD total score ultimately ranging between 0 and 100. After making this amendment, the number of participants meeting or exceeding the cut-off of 51 needed to classify people as probable MDers (Schimmenti et al., 2020) was then reduced from 252 to 190 participants. In this regard, changes in the distribution of the demographic data (e.g., gender, relationship status, educational level, etc.) were minimal, with variations being all below 2% (the sole exception was the distribution of the people residing in North Italy, which showed a variation of 5.1% that is not relevant in terms of study aim or hypothesis). Moreover, Hedges’ g calculations were performed to assess the difference in effect size on all continuous variables considered (including the sample’s age); results showed that said differences can be regarded as null as all were below a Hedges’ g value of 0.20 and instead ranged between 0.03 and 0.15. Taken this, we can confirm that the sole relevant variation from the previously to the currently considered sample is their size. Following the above amendment and the evaluation of the samples’ differences, all the analyses presented in the paper were re-run, confirming the overall conclusions reported in the paper. Nonetheless, given the decrease in sample size, few changes in the values and in the significant associations observed were identified; the main differences that emerged are in the correlation between MD and depressive symptoms and in the indirect effect in the association between Difficulty pursuing Goals and No trust in Strategy selection on Negative Problem-Solving orientation, which were no longer significant. The specific discrepancies between the published results and the recalculated values are listed in detail hereafter. Authors’ comment: The Authors of the paper care to express their apologies to the scientific community for the error made in the preceding communication. “N = 252 MDers, aged 18-70 years (Mage = 30.63, SD = 11.40, 84.1% females),” Should be “N = 190 MDers, aged 18-70 (Mage = 29.86; SD = 10.66; 85.3þmales)” “MD negatively correlated with depression, anxiety, and negative problem-solving orientation. Three mediation models showed the mediating role of MD in reducing the negative effect of difficulty pursuing goals when experiencing negative emotions on both anxiety and negative problem-solving orientation and of trust in one’s capacity to self-regulate on negative problem-solving orientation” Should be “MD negatively correlated with anxiety and negative problem-solving orientation. Three mediation models were performed. The negative mediating role of MD emerged only in the association between the ER dimension of difficulty pursuing goals when experiencing negative emotions and anxiety” “Overall, findings seem to point to functional peculiarities among MDers and support the view of MD as an emotion regulation strategy allowing the management and reduction of negative emotions and negative perceptions of problem situations” Should be “Overall, findings seem to point to functional peculiarities among MDers and support the view of MD as an emotion regulation strategy allowing the management and reduction of negative emotions. However, its role in the association with the negative perceptions of problem situations should be further investigated”. Highlight 3: “MD negatively correlates with depression, anxiety, and negative problem-solving orientation.” Should be “MD negatively correlates with anxiety and negative problem-solving orientation” Highlight 4: “MD reduces the impact of Difficulty pursuing Goals when feeling negative emotions on anxiety symptoms and negative problem-solving orientation.” Should be “MD reduces the impact of Difficulty pursuing Goals when feeling negative emotions on anxiety symptoms” Highlight 5 should be fully deleted. “60 participants were then excluded” Should be “122 participants were then excluded”. “The final sample size thus included N = 252 participants aged between 18 and 70 years (M = 30.63; SD = 11.40) with females forming a majority of the sample at 84.1%.” Should be “The final sample size thus included N = 190 participants aged between 18 and 70 years (M = 29.86; SD = 10.66) with females forming a majority of the sample at 85.3%” Revised Table 1: (Table presented.) Demographic Information (N = 190) N % Male 21 11.1 Female 162 85.3 Other/I’d rather not specify 7 3.7 North Italy 86 45.1 Center Italy 49 25.9 South Italy and Island 51 26.8 Italians living abroad 4 2 < Highschool diploma 28 14.7 Highschool diploma 70 36.8 Bachelor degree 46 24.2 Master degree 37 19.5 Higher specialization (e.g., Ph.D.) 9 4.7 Student 81 42.6 Working student 23 12 Unemployed 17 8.9 Housewife 9 4.7 Employed 45 23.4 Freelance worker 14 7.3 Retired 1 0.5 Single 128 67.4 Co-habitant 34 17.9 Married 27 14.2 Divorced 1 0.5 Revised Table 2: (Table presented.) Descriptive Statistics M SD Skew Kurt Age 29.86 10.66 1.22 0.79 MD 74.12 11.80 − 0.07 − 0.95 Non-acceptance of emotions 2.82 1.10 0.24 − 0.91 Difficulty pursuing Goals 3.26 1.18 − 0.05 -1.12 No trust in Strategy selection 2.73 1.01 0.40 − 0.43 Difficulty in Impulse control 2.54 1.14 0.31 -1.08 Lack of Clarity 2.43 1.02 0.44 − 0.44 Lack of Awareness 3.12 0.96 − 0.36 − 0.40 Depression symptoms 2.25 0.64 0.37 − 0.47 Anxiety symptoms 2.86 0.71 − 0.24 − 0.82 Stress symptoms 2.06 0.59 0.46 − 0.03 Negative Problem-Solving 34.84 8.55 − 0.82 0.43 Revised Table 3: (Table presented.) Bivariate Pearson’s r correlations 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 1. Age _ 2. MD -.27** 3. Non-acceptance of emotions -.04.18* 4. Difficulty pursuing Goals -.08.26**.14 5. No trust in Strategy selection -.09.28**.25**.32** 6. Difficulty in Impulse control.09 -.08.06.08.31** 7. Lack of Clarity.01.18*.22**.14.22**.25** 8. Lack of Awareness -.10 -.03 -.004 -.12 -.02 -.04 -.11 9. Depression symptoms -.04 -.03 -.001 -.11 -.05 -.004.02 -.20** 10. Anxiety symptoms -.03 -.20** -.01 -.27** -.08.22**.02 -.28**.38** 11. Stress symptoms -.07 -.04.18* -.04.02.27**.12 -.23**.47**.40** 12. Negative Problem-Solving.15* -.22** -.22** -.23** -.33** -.16* -.06 -.03 -.02.07 -.18* Note. * p<.05; ** p<.01 Changes to the commented correlations’ results: The effect size between MD and Difficulty pursuing Goals went from medium (r =.32) to small (r =.26). The effect size of the correlation between MD and No trust in Strategy selection dimension went from slightly smaller to slightly larger than the effect size of the correlation between MD and Difficulty pursuing Goals. MD does not significantly correlate with Depression symptoms Negative Problem-Solving orientation went from a small (r = −.29) to a medium effect size (r = −.33) correlation with No trust in Strategy selection The minimal correlations between the dimensions of difficulties in ER were confirmed, as was the significant positive medium effect size correlation between Difficulty pursuing Goals and No trust in Strategy. The only relevant difference was that in the revised analysis, No trust in Strategy and Difficulty in Impulse control also showed a significant positive medium effect size correlation. Revised Figure 1: (Figure presented.) Mediation Models (PROCESS Model 4): The mediating role of MD in the association between Difficulties pursuing Goals on Anxiety symptoms (a) and Negative Problem-Solving orientation (b) and in the association between No trust in Strategy selection and Negative Problem-Solving orientation (c). Note. Slopes are not standardized; *p <.05; ** p <.01; *** p <.001 Changes to the commented mediational analysis results (reported in Italics and bold): The main difference, after re-running the analysis, is that the indirect effect of Difficulty pursuing Goals and No trust in Strategy selection on Negative Problem-Solving orientation was no longer significant. Overall, the following changes to the original paper should be made: “In both models a and b the significant and positive association between the Difficulty pursuing Goals dimension and MD has emerged (For both models: β = 2.39; SE = 0.68; t = 3.51; 95% CI = 1.05, 3.74; R2 = 12.99%) as well as the significant direct negative effect of the former on Anxiety symptoms (β = -0.14; SE = 0.04; t = -3.31; 95% CI = -0.23, -0.06) and Negative Problem-Solving orientation (β = -1.34; SE = 0.52; t = -2.56; 95% CI = -2.37, -0.31). No trust in Strategy selection also positively and significantly associated with MD (β = 2.96; SE = 0.80; t = 3.72; 95% CI = 1.39, 4.53; R2 = 13.65%), and showed a direct significant negative effect on Negative Problem-Solving orientation (β = -2.42; SE = 0.60; t = -4.02; 95% CI = -3.60, -1.23). MD negatively and significantly associated with Anxiety symptoms (β = -0.01; SE = 0.01; t = -2.22; 95% CI = −.02, −.001), while not with Negative Problem-Solving orientation in either Model b or Model c. Accordingly, MD resulted as a significant mediator only in the association between Difficulty pursuing Goals and Anxiety symptoms (i.e., indirect effect β = -0.02; SE = 0.01; 95% CI = -0.05, -0.002); the model’s R2 for Anxiety sympto