There were several typographical errors in our article "Contemporary Conversion Reactions: A Clinical Study," published in the April, 1960 issue of the Journal. The more serious error concerns the footnote on p. 906, the formula used to test the birth order and developmental role hypotheses. The formula with which we computed X2, with one degree of freedom was [FOR EQUATION REFER SOURCE PDF.]The first term in the numerator was erroneously published as [FOR EQUATION REFER SOURCE PDF.]This formula was derived from the one to the left of it, and there should have been an = sign between the two. Also, on the same page, column 2, line 18, .05<p<.01 should obviously have been .05> p>.01.