Correction: The relationship between cumulative unfair treatment and intima media thickness and adventitial diameter: The moderating role of race in the study of women's health across the nation (Health Psychology (2016) 35:4 (313-321) DOI: 10.1037/hea0000288)

The article "The Relationship Between Cumulative Unfair Treatment and Intima Media Thickness and Adventitial Diameter: The Moderating Role of Race in the Study of Women's Health Across the Nation," by Laurel M. Peterson, Karen A. Matthews, Carol A. Derby, Joyce T. Bromberger, and Rebecca C. Thurston (Health Psychology, 2016, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 313-321, http://dx.doi.org/10 .1037/hea0000288) included the following errors: First, the Method section included intima media thickness in the list of log transformed variables (p. 316); however, untransformed intima media thickness was normally distributed and results throughout the manuscript are based on untransformed intima media thickness as the criterion variable. Second, in the fourth paragraph of the Results section (p. 317), there are minor corrections to the sensitivity analyses investigating the relationship of high chronicity unfair treatment and adventitial diameter. The corrected version follows (with the corrected values in bold): "No main effect of high chronicity emerged for IMT or adventitial diameter (ps > .30), but moderate/significant race by high chronicity interactions emerged for IMT (p = .08) and adventitial diameter (p = .02), with follow up analyses demonstrating that high chronicity was associated with higher IMT (B = .03, SE = .01, p = .01) and adventitial diameter (B = .025, SE = .01, p = .009) among Caucasians, but this relationship did not emerge for other races (ps > .14)." Please note that in all cases the statistical conclusions remain the same.