Silver Spoon and Green Lifestyle: A National Study of the Association between Childhood Subjective Socioeconomic Status and Adulthood Pro-Environmental Behavior in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting study on associations among childhood subjective socioeconomic status, adulthood pro-environmental behaviour, and commercial insurance purchase. The basic design of the study and the descriptive analysis are clear and appropriate. The present article is well-established and the subject is interesting, but some minor revision should be considered.

1. Abstract

1. The abstract contains too little information. Authors need to briefly describe the number of subjects in the study area, considering that at first, everybody is impressed at the idea of reading about an entire 2013 Chinese survey only to find out at the ending of the article (line 303) that the authors used just a sample of it. It is also important to present the respondent selection method ((how was the sample selected) and the type of analysis used.
2. The results are simply descriptive. Authors need to write key findings (focusing on objectives). What is the practical implication of finding these associations if there is one?

 

2. Introduction

1. The mechanisms behind the association of SES with PEB are complex and multifaceted, but not adequately presented here. Age is not mentioned nor described its implications although it is used later in the third hypothesis, as well as the resource scarcity which appears in later Discussion section.
2. The article innovation should be presented in the Introduction.

 

3. Is there an applicability of the research findings? A model/intervention should be proposed as the authors talk about the importance of the associations. Your results should encourage the creation of special interventions that could actively strengthen and internalize control beliefs, such as mentoring programs, therapies or educational strategies. Potential effects could include improving the efficacy of existing behavioural and environmental or structural prevention policies.

 

4. In the Discussion it would be better to have seen more use of terms like 'originality' and 'significance'. There is no clear conclusion on why the research findings are significant. I expect the discussion section be improved with the relation between the hypotheses and statistical analyses.

 

5. Discussion section is simply descriptive. It consists mainly of theoretical assumptions, guessing, associations, even speculations.

 

6. Grammatical errors or others:

Line 21 – Should 'industrialising' countries be 'industrialised'?

Line 82 – Consider rewriting 'and become' as 'and becomes'

Line 125 - Consider rewriting 'such that' as 'so that'

Line 259 - Consider rearranging the table1 variables so that number 2 should stay for Childhood SES

I hope my comments are useful and I wish the authors best of luck with further developing of their work.

Author Response

1. Abstract
2. The abstract contains too little information. Authors need to briefly describe the number of subjects in the study area, considering that at first, everybody is impressed at the idea of reading about an entire 2013 Chinese survey only to find out at the ending of the article (line 303) that the authors used just a sample of it. It is also important to present the respondent selection method ((how was the sample selected) and the type of analysis used.
3. The results are simply descriptive. Authors need to write key findings (focusing on objectives). What is the practical implication of finding these associations if there is one?

 Answer: Thank you for your comment! According to your suggestion, we made modifications to the Abstract.

2. Introduction
3. The mechanisms behind the association of SES with PEB are complex and multifaceted, but not adequately presented here. Age is not mentioned nor described its implications although it is used later in the third hypothesis, as well as the resource scarcity which appears in later Discussion section.

 Answer: Thank you for your comment! According to your suggestion, we have added recent finding of the association of SES with PEB. Please see the 3^th paragraph of Introduction section. Besides, we added implications about age in 5^th paragraph of “5. Discussion”. About the resource scarcity, we use this concept only as a theoretical explanation without empirical demonstration, so we did not emphasize on this point.

2. The article innovation should be presented in the Introduction.

 Answer: Thank you for your comment! Please see the last paragraph of “1. Introduction”.  

3. Is there an applicability of the research findings? A model/intervention should be proposed as the authors talk about the importance of the associations. Your results should encourage the creation of special interventions that could actively strengthen and internalize control beliefs, such as mentoring programs, therapies or educational strategies. Potential effects could include improving the efficacy of existing behavioural and environmental or structural prevention policies.

• Answer: Thank you for your comment! According to your suggestion, we added policy and program suggestions to the discussion. Please find the added texts in the 5^th and 8^th paragraphs of “ Discussion”.

 

4. In the Discussion it would be better to have seen more use of terms like 'originality' and 'significance'. There is no clear conclusion on why the research findings are significant. I expect the discussion section be improved with the relation between the hypotheses and statistical analyses.

 Answer: Thank you for your comment! According to your suggestion, we added texts in the 1^st paragraph of  “5. Discussion” and a single section “7. Conclusion”.

5. Discussion section is simply descriptive. It consists mainly of theoretical assumptions, guessing, associations, even speculations.

 Answer: Thank you for your comment! We made several improvements to the discussion. Besides, we admitted that we had made many the guessing and speculations due to the limitation of a correlational research. Although we couldn’t prove many of them in the current study, we consider that these pay provide certain directions for our or others’ future research.

6. Grammatical errors or others:

Line 21 – Should 'industrialising' countries be 'industrialised'? 

Line 82 – Consider rewriting 'and become' as 'and becomes'

Line 125 - Consider rewriting 'such that' as 'so that'

Answer: Thank you for mind us the mistakes. We corrected these gramatical errors.

Line 259 - Consider rearranging the table1 variables so that number 2 should stay for Childhood SES

Answer: Thank you. We rearranged table 1 following your suggestion.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to read this paper, which focuses on a potential topical issue. It is a good manuscript; however, some revisions would be necessary to enhance the scientific quality of the final article:

• Describe what is the research gap of the paper and what new is in it.
• Please describe the links between the research gap and the goal of the.
• Add some social implications to the paper.
• The abstract of your article is rather generalized; the purpose of the research is not indicated. I recommend the authors introduce major improvements/revise substantially this abstract. You can make it structured for clarity
• Novelty/Originality: Identity what is new in this study that may benefit readers or how it may advance existing knowledge or create new knowledge on this subject.

• The Conclusion section should consist of:
  a) a brief presentation of the research problem and author’s results obtained in the course of the research;
  b) the generalization of the research findings (each point should be devoted to the answer to the tasks set in the Introduction or be an argument for proving the hypothesis statements (if any) that were indicated in the Introduction).

Author Response

• Describe what is the research gap of the paper and what new is in it.
• Answer: Thank you for your comment! According to your suggestion, we added content concerning the research gap and the innovation of our paper. Please see the 2^ndand last paragraph of “ Introduction” .
• Please describe the links between the research gap and the goal of the.
• Answer: Thank you for your comment! According to your suggestion, we added content concerning the research gap and the innovation of our paper. Please see the second paragraph of “1. Introduction”.
• Add some social implications to the paper.
• Answer: Thank you for your comment! According to your suggestion, we added social implications. Please find the added texts in the 5^thand 8^th paragraphs of “ Discussion”.
• The abstract of your article is rather generalized; the purpose of the research is not indicated. I recommend the authors introduce major improvements/revise substantially this abstract. You can make it structured for clarity
• Answer: Thank you for your comment! We modified and polished the Abstract.
• Novelty/Originality: Identity what is new in this study that may benefit readers or how it may advance existing knowledge or create new knowledge on this subject.
• Answer: Thank you for your comment! According to your suggestion, we underlined our presentation of novelty. Please see the the 2^ndand last paragraph of “ Introduction” and section “5. Discussion”.
• The Conclusion section should consist of:
  a) a brief presentation of the research problem and author’s results obtained in the course of the research;
  b) the generalization of the research findings (each point should be devoted to the answer to the tasks set in the Introduction or be an argument for proving the hypothesis statements (if any) that were indicated in the Introduction).
• Answer: Thank you for your comment! According to your suggestion, we added a section “7. Conclusion” that consists of a brief presentation of results and general findings.

Reviewer 3 Report

please see attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

1. Introduction

(i) This section is well written and well explained. Thus, I will not offer comments in this section.

2. Theoretical background and hypothesis

(i) Figure 1 needs to add the number on the hypothesis for readability and easier understanding.

Answer: Thank you for your comments! We added number of hypotheses according to your suggestion.

(ii) Please add a section to introduce life history theory in this section. You mentioned it at the beginning of the abstract, but there limited mentions in this section. Thus, I would like to see a detailed explanation of life history theory in the revision.

Answer: Thank you for your comments! The life history theory was explained in the 2^nd 3^th and 4^th paragraphs of “2.2. Commercial insurance purchase as a mediator” in the original manuscript. To clarify the theory, we then added more description at the beginning of the 2^nd paragraph of section 2.2.

(iii) In P.3( line 140) the authors mentioned attachment theory to explain the hypothesis 2. However, attachment theory just jumped out of nowhere. Thus, I would like to see more discussions about attachment theory in the revision.

Answer: Thank you for your comments! We added more description in the 5^th paragraph of “2.2. Commercial insurance purchase as a mediator” (line 179).

3. Date and Methods:

(i) This section is also well conducted and explained in a detailed manner. All the descriptions fit the scientific manner and thus I will offer no comments in this section.

(ii) Some items are measured in a self-response manner. How do you manage or minimize the data of self-response bias in your sample? (e.g. some respondents may over rate his/her economic status than in reality due to dignity or conformity reasons)

Answer: Thank you for your comments! We admit that your consideration of the self-response manner is an important limitation to our study. About the overrating of economic status, some previous research has indicated the measurement of subjective social class (the manner we used in the current study) has better predictive validity. Compared to the scale of objective social class, that of subjective social class can better predict physical illness (Cohen et al., 2008), psychological stress (Sakurai et al., 2010) and social injustice (Whyte & Han, 2008).

Cohen, S., Alper, C. M., Doyle, W. J., Adler, N., Treanor, J. J., & Turner, R. B. (2008). Objective and subjective socioeconomic status and susceptibility to the common cold. Health Psychology, 27(2), 268.

Sakurai, K., Kawakami, N., Yamaoka, K., Ishikawa, H., & Hashimoto, H. (2010). The impact of subjective and objective social status on psychological distress among men and women in Japan. Social Science & Medicine, 70(11), 1832-1839.

Whyte, M. K., & Han, C. (2008). Popular attitudes toward distributive injustice: Beijing and Warsaw compared. Journal of Chinese Political Science, 13(1), 29-51.

 

4. Results(i) Please add statistical significant (i.e. ***) below Figure 4 (p.9). In sum, I think the authors contribute to the literature by proposing an often ignored but important topic. I hope that you will find my comments helpful and I wish you best in revision.

Answer: Thank you for mind us the omission! We added the statistical significant.

5. Discussion

In p.14 (line p.318), the authors discussed it from an evolutionary perspective. Again, this paragraph is less linked to the prior content since you mentioned life history theory not evolutionary theory. Thus, I would like to suggest the authors revise this paragraph.

Answer: Thank you for your comments! The life history theory is one part of evolutionary perspective. We explained it more clearly at the beginning of the 2^nd paragraph of “2.2. Commercial insurance purchase as a mediator”

Reviewer 4 Report

This paper studies how childhood subjective socioeconomic status affects adulthood pro-environmental behaviour, taking commercial insurance purchase as a mediator of such association. Moreover, the authors analyse the moderating role of age throughout a conditional process model. The data set is based on the 2013 Chinese General Social Survey, providing a wide sample (11172 respondents) with ample age span and gender balance.

-This is an interesting paper and is well motivated and referenced.

- I would, however, invite authors to address some minor issues:

A better explanation of the statistical analyses. For example, you could relate the models 4 and 8 of PROCESS_v3.5 to your Figure 1 to better understand the final estimations shown in Figure 4 (is it necessary to refer to them as models 4 and 8?). Moreover, the information given in Tables 2 and 3 and the corresponding results discussed in the main text should be connected more clearly (i.e. the definitions of equations, the “ab” or “B_simple” effects, etc.). Also, Figures 2 and 3 should be explained.

Add some discussions on the gender role. The authors mention that gender (and age) are included in Table 1 but they are not. It could be interesting to show some descriptive statistics and correlations of gender (and age). More importantly, I do not really understand why, being extant the literature studying the relationship between gender and economic decision-making under risk/uncertainty, the authors do not consider gender as an alternative moderator. Some discussion about it should be included.

Author Response

A better explanation of the statistical analyses. For example, you could relate the models 4 and 8 of PROCESS_v3.5 to your Figure 1 to better understand the final estimations shown in Figure 4 (is it necessary to refer to them as models 4 and 8?). Moreover, the information given in Tables 2 and 3 and the corresponding results discussed in the main text should be connected more clearly (i.e. the definitions of equations, the “ab” or “B_simple” effects, etc.). Also, Figures 2 and 3 should be explained.

Answer: Thank you for your comments! According to your comments, we made a few modifications to the layout of statistical analyses to make them more clearly and to make the tables and figures correspond with the texts. Please check this section for the corrections.

Add some discussions on the gender role. The authors mention that gender (and age) are included in Table 1 but they are not. It could be interesting to show some descriptive statistics and correlations of gender (and age). More importantly, I do not really understand why, being extant the literature studying the relationship between gender and economic decision-making under risk/uncertainty, the authors do not consider gender as an alternative moderator. Some discussion about it should be included.

Answer: Thank you for your comments! This is a really nice suggestion! We included gender and age because they are common demographics that researchers always choose to report in descriptive statistics. According to your suggestion, we ran gender as a moderator but no significant results were obtained. However, this is only a sample from mainland China, gender as a moderator can be tested in future research in other samples.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.