A “Lockdown” of Materialism Values and Pro-Environmental Behavior: Short-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review of

A ‘lockdown’ of materialism values and pro-environmental behavior: short-term effects of the covid-19 pandemic

 

The study took advantage of the current pandemic to study the dynamics of pro-environmental behaviors and values under changing conditions for different individuals. The study is very valuable to the literature and can definitely contribute to a better theoretical understanding on how and under what circumstances pro-environmental behaviors develop. Below are my suggestion on how to further improve the manuscript.

 

1. Make sure to thoroughly copyedit the manuscript.
2. While looking at the matter through the lens of rebound effects, perhaps a more in-depth discussion on why humans are prone to these effects is in order? I see a clear connection to evolutionary psychology here, so perhaps some discussion from that side of the literature could be included.
3. I am very happy to see pre-registered research! Recently I’ve seen and reviewed a lot of studies with pre-registrations, which is a good sign. Would you consider also opening up the data to the public? At least the dataset with the variables used in this paper. This would even further add to setting a good example for future research.
4. This is only a suggestion, but it would make it easier to understand the results of the moderation analyses if you were to include graphs showing the effects.
5. Please mention the low internal consistency values of some of the measures as a limitation and accordingly discuss this when presenting the results and in drawing conclusions.

 

Overall, the study is simple, yet valuable. Most limitations have been mentioned, which shows that the authors indeed spent sufficient time thinking about their research. I would welcome some more theory development in the discussion. Perhaps the authors will consider looking at their results from an evolutionary point of view, but this is up to the authors. And, of course, I would be very happy to see the authors make their data openly available.

 

I wish the authors the best of luck in their ongoing and future research.

Author Response

The study took advantage of the current pandemic to study the dynamics of pro-environmental behaviors and values under changing conditions for different individuals. The study is very valuable to the literature and can definitely contribute to a better theoretical understanding on how and under what circumstances pro-environmental behaviors develop. Below are my suggestion on how to further improve the manuscript.

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We accordingly addressed the points that were raised and hope to thereby answer your concerns (Please see the attachment). Our answers are written in italic letters, starting with an asterisk (*).

1. Make sure to thoroughly copyedit the manuscript.

* We proofread the manuscript several times and checked for consistency and accuracy. We corrected some typos and formatting issues.

2. While looking at the matter through the lens of rebound effects, perhaps a more in-depth discussion on why humans are prone to these effects is in order? I see a clear connection to evolutionary psychology here, so perhaps some discussion from that side of the literature could be included.

* Thank you for sharing this idea with us. We added our thought based on an evolutionary psychology approach in the discussion section: “From an evolutionary psychology standpoint, it makes sense that people only seek status and recognition when basic needs for safety and health have been met. Materialistic val-ues, spurred by envy and jealousy [50], are “an evolutionary adaptation that motivates in-dividuals to take actions in order to improve their material or social status” [51, p. 214]. A pandemic, as covid-19, might have such a considerable impact on a person’s basic needs so that a further improvement of one’s materialistic status is postponed” (lines 402-408).

3. I am very happy to see pre-registered research! Recently I’ve seen and reviewed a lot of studies with pre-registrations, which is a good sign. Would you consider also opening up the data to the public? At least the dataset with the variables used in this paper. This would even further add to setting a good example for future research.

* Thank you for your kind words. We now share our data online at OSF (https://bit.ly/2WFS7qP) (“Data Availability Statement: Data can be obtained online at https://bit.ly/2WFS7qP”, line 467).

4. This is only a suggestion, but it would make it easier to understand the results of the moderation analyses if you were to include graphs showing the effects.

* Thank you for your suggestion. We now added graphs (figures 4-6, pages 9-10) and a description in text (“In order to display the effects in figures 4-6, we dichotomized values of narcissism, agreeableness and pro-environmental attitude in groups of “low” (values ≤ mean minus one standard deviation) and “high” (values ≥ mean plus one standard deviation)” (lines 339-342).

5. Please mention the low internal consistency values of some of the measures as a limitation and accordingly discuss this when presenting the results and in drawing conclusions.

* We agree with the reviewer and added sections about the low internal consistency of the “PESA”-scale in the results and discussion sections. (“Some scale reliabilities were relatively poor. This issue will be later discussed” (lines 260-261); “Additionally, especially the scale to observe pro-environmental sacrificing actions in this study yielded low rates of scale consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha), although the developers of the scale reported high scale reliability [42]. We assume, as the scale was developed to ask for a two-month period, that our adaption to a period of one week could have led to diminished scale reliability” (lines 437-441).

Overall, the study is simple, yet valuable. Most limitations have been mentioned, which shows that the authors indeed spent sufficient time thinking about their research. I would welcome some more theory development in the discussion. Perhaps the authors will consider looking at their results from an evolutionary point of view, but this is up to the authors. And, of course, I would be very happy to see the authors make their data openly available. I wish the authors the best of luck in their ongoing and future research.

* Again, we thank the reviewer for this kind words and valuable feedback. The advice helped us to further improve our manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article focuses on “A ‘lockdown’ of materialism values and pro-environmental behavior: short-term effects of the covid-19 pandemic”.

While the paper is indeed providing an interesting information, however I must say that this paper is far from ready. Paper is not complete.

The paper is limited in scope and, thus, in value. It's lack of scientific originality/novelty. Lack information on the topic.

You have a severe limitation based on the words chosen and perhaps in the way in which they were searched.

Literature survey is not sufficient to present the most updated status for further justification of the originality of the manuscript.

The methodological framework is not linear and have particular problems or omissions allowing you to make everything work strictly from a scientific perspective.

The article is done without indicating the methodology applied. The Conclusions and implication there aren't reported. 

The theoretical background is not extensive.

It is the opinion and suggestion of this reviewer to reject this manuscript for a publication on this journal.

Author Response

Answer to Reviewer 2

While the paper is indeed providing an interesting information, however I must say that this paper is far from ready. Paper is not complete. The paper is limited in scope and, thus, in value. It's lack of scientific originality/novelty. Lack information on the topic. You have a severe limitation based on the words chosen and perhaps in the way in which they were searched.
Literature survey is not sufficient to present the most updated status for further justification of the originality of the manuscript. The methodological framework is not linear and have particular problems or omissions allowing you to make everything work strictly from a scientific perspective. The article is done without indicating the methodology applied. The Conclusions and implication there aren't reported. The theoretical background is not extensive.
It is the opinion and suggestion of this reviewer to reject this manuscript for a publication on this journal.

 

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you for your feedback on our manuscript, although it was quite discrepant from how the other reviewers commented on our paper. Furthermore, your comments were rather general and we received little specific comments on how we can improve our work. Based on the comments of the other reviewers, we rewrote significant parts of the manuscript (please see the attachment). We hope that you are more satisfied with the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments to the Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. Overall, it is a well conducted and written study on an important topic. Please see some concerns related to this paper.

Title

The title contains key features of the article. Also, the title is attractive and might spot interest in the reader.

Abstract

The abstract is well written and important information is provided for the reader. However, I suggest authors to report some specific results in the abstract (i.e., add some specific values/numbers). The abstract could also include some statement as a conclusion.

Introduction

The Authors provide adequate review of the existing literature. Specifically, the Authors provide logical progression from existing knowledge that leads their research question and highlight the important patterns. Authors provide sufficient understanding what the paper is about. Most of the recent relevant and important studies are included. The introduction section ends with hypotheses. Overall, all the hypotheses are well worded. However, I suggest Authors to be more accurate with 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 hypotheses. In all the cases, authors state that “…to have a diminishing effect.” I ask Authors to specify that effects on what?

Materials and Methods

Overall, materials and methods are adequately described. My only concern is that why Authors spell out “six-hundred-and-fifty-four”? Why don’t you just use numbers?

Results

Overall, results of the current research are well explained. However, I’ve never seen that 95% confidence intervals are used for Cronbach’s Alphas. Could you please provide more information on that in the data analysis section? Also, please add the data analysis section for all the results. In addition, figures are a bit misleading. Please use complete range of the values when you draw figures (for example, not only from values 4 to 5).

Discussion

Overall, discussion is well written. The Authors have discussed the results from multiple angles and placed it into proper context without being overinterpreted. My only concern is that could you please provide some more practical recommendations for the reader? Based on the results of the current study. Also, please check the reference list, it is not fully accurate at the moment.

Author Response

Answer to Reviewer 3

Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. Overall, it is a well conducted and written study on an important topic. Please see some concerns related to this paper.

Dear Reviewer 3,

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We accordingly addressed the points that were raised and hope to thereby answer your concerns (please see attachment). Our answers are written in italic letters, starting with an asterisk (*).

Title
The title contains key features of the article. Also, the title is attractive and might spot interest in the reader.

* Thank you for supporting our choice of the title with your feedback.

Abstract
The abstract is well written and important information is provided for the reader. However, I suggest authors to report some specific results in the abstract (i.e., add some specific values/numbers). The abstract could also include some statement as a conclusion.

* Thank you. We agree with the reviewer and added a conclusion statement in the abstract (“In conclusion, materialism values and pro-environmental behaviors were “locked down” due to covid-19 restrictions but did not show the expected rebound effects.”, lines 17-18). As reporting means and standard deviations in the abstract would not make sense for the reader without detailed knowledge about the scales, and reporting p-values in psychological abstracts is rather uncommon, we would prefer not to add specific numbers in the abstract. However, if you want us to do, we are certainly more than willing to report specific statistics in the abstract.

Introduction
The Authors provide adequate review of the existing literature. Specifically, the Authors provide logical progression from existing knowledge that leads their research question and highlight the important patterns. Authors provide sufficient understanding what the paper is about. Most of the recent relevant and important studies are included. The introduction section ends with hypotheses. Overall, all the hypotheses are well worded. However, I suggest Authors to be more accurate with 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 hypotheses. In all the cases, authors state that “…to have a diminishing effect.” I ask Authors to specify that effects on what?

* Thank you for supporting out introduction. We agree with the concerns and added a specification of the hypotheses 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 as follows “…on the change of pro-environmental behaviors and materialism values from pre to post-lockdown restrictions” (lines 169-179, respectively).

Materials and Methods
Overall, materials and methods are adequately described. My only concern is that why Authors spell out “six-hundred-and-fifty-four”? Why don’t you just use numbers?

* Thank you for pointing out this error, which occurred because the number was once mentioned at the front of the sentence. We accordingly use numbers instead of text now (line 181).

Results
Overall, results of the current research are well explained. However, I’ve never seen that 95% confidence intervals are used for Cronbach’s Alphas. Could you please provide more information on that in the data analysis section? Also, please add the data analysis section for all the results. In addition, figures are a bit misleading. Please use complete range of the values when you draw figures (for example, not only from values 4 to 5).

* Thank you for pointing this out. We added a “Data Analysis” section at the beginning of the report of results. Also, we added an explanation why it seems plausible to report confidence intervals for Cronbach’s Alpha (lines 258-260). Additionally, we changed the range of axis in figures 2 and 3 (page 8).

Discussion
Overall, discussion is well written. The Authors have discussed the results from multiple angles and placed it into proper context without being overinterpreted. My only concern is that could you please provide some more practical recommendations for the reader? Based on the results of the current study. Also, please check the reference list, it is not fully accurate at the moment.

* Thank you for your feedback. We added an in-depth conclusion of our practical implications in lines 426-429: “An important practical conclusion is that we cannot rely on temporary changes for the better when it comes to pro environmental behavior. Rather, people seem to be returning to old patterns and habits even after a lengthy exceptional situation as the covid-19 lock-down restrictions were.” Additionally, we corrected the reference list.

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

      I find the topic of the paper of interest for future developments of other related research. Please find my comments below:

1. Introduction section: I suggest moving the Hypotheses paragraph to the Materials and Methods section.
2. I suggest adding a schematic figure of the research materials and methods used. It will more clear for the readers. From my point of view, there are too many information/variables that have to be crossed (e.g. no. of participants, gender, region, income, etc.)

 

3. The results section should be extended. I suggest moving some of the discussions presented in section 4 in section 3. and considering it 3. Results and discussion.

 

4. The last section should concentrate only on the conclusion of the study.

Best regards,

Author Response

Answer to Reviewer 4

Dear Authors,
      I find the topic of the paper of interest for future developments of other related research. Please find my comments below:

Dear Reviewer 4,

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We accordingly addressed the points that were raised and hope to thereby answer your concerns. Our answers are written in italic letters, starting with an asterisk (*).

1. Introduction section: I suggest moving the Hypotheses paragraph to the Materials and Methods section.

* As suggested, we moved the hypotheses paragraph to the beginning of the Materials and Methods section.

2. I suggest adding a schematic figure of the research materials and methods used. It will more clear for the readers. From my point of view, there are too many information/variables that have to be crossed (e.g. no. of participants, gender, region, income, etc.)

* We agree with the reviewer and added a schematic figure on the research procedure and used materials (Figure 1, page 4).

3. The results section should be extended. I suggest moving some of the discussions presented in section 4 in section 3. and considering it 3. Results and discussion.

* We added the section “Data Analysis” in the results section (starting line 257), which is now longer, as suggested by the reviewer. However, we want to avoid mixing up results with discussions and therefore maintain interpretations in section 4, instead of moving them to section 3.

4. The last section should concentrate only on the conclusion of the study.

* Thanks for the hint. We solved this problem by deleting the heading “Conclusions” as this section is optional and is not mandatory for the magazine “Sustainability”. Following the instructions for authors on the MDPI website, “this section is not mandatory, but can be added to the manuscript if the discussion is unusually long or complex” - which does not appear to be the case for the present study.

Best regards,

* Again, we thank the reviewer for the valuable feedback.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I have no further comments. The authors have addressed all of the points of my previous review.

Good luck with your ongoing and future research!

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,
I appreciate your effort but in my opinion the paper does not increase knowledge. Your answers are just as general and did not describe the improvements made. The paper has not improved.

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors, 

     I'm satisfied with the revised version of the manuscript.

Best regards,