Erratum

After online publication of ‘Accounting for the influence of overall justice on job performance: Integrating self-determination and social exchange theories’ by Aryee et al., the journal has been informed about potential problems regarding the empirical analysis. In the process of clarification during which the authors provided the editors with the raw data in question, it has become clear that there was an error in the calculation of the Average Variance Extracted for the different concepts.

In the published manuscript, the authors reported AVEs of 0.79 for overall justice and 0.59 for trust. As the table below illustrates, the actual AVEs for overall justice is 0.41 and 0.37 for trust. In the manuscript, the authors also refer to the benchmark of 0.50 to establish the distinctiveness between the concepts justice and trust. The authors acknowledge that the correct AVEs are below this benchmark.

At the same time, the authors emphasized in their communication to the journal that ‘Fornell and Larcker (1981, pp. 45–46) indicate that for any two constructs (A and B), the AVE for A and the AVE for B both need to be larger than the shared variance (i.e., square of the correlation) between A and B. The variance extracted estimates are all greater than the squared correlation estimate for any construct. These results attest to the discriminant validity of the constructs in our article.’ Moreover, the authors stress that, in contrast with the initial claim in the manuscript ‘the benchmark of 0.50 assesses convergent validity and not discriminant validity of constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).’

The authors apologise for the errors in the manuscript.