Self-Transcendence Values Influence Meaningful Sports Consumption Behavior: The Chain Mediator of Team Identification and Eudaimonic Motivation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is a very interesting study, in general, it complies with all quality and contribution guidelines in the area.

- It is necessary to explain whether the items that measure the variables are proposed by the researchers or were adapted from other studies (Table 2).

-It is necessary to adapt all the text to the guidelines of the journal, as well as the citation style.

Author Response

We express our gratitude to the experts for approving our manuscript and providing valuable suggestions. We have incorporated experts' feedback and made further improvements to address the issues mentioned. Specifically, we have clarified in the article that the titles used are from other related studies, which enhances the scientific validity of our study. Additionally, we have adhered to journal standards by adjusting the formatting of references, character spacing, font size, and other elements in the article.

We sincerely appreciate the experts' contributions to our work.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper deals with the current, socially interesting and still unprocessed topic of the relationship between the consumption of sports activities and events and the internal character setting of a person in the altruistic-hedonistic range. From this perspective, the authors think very precisely about motivation, mindset, etc.

In my opinion, the first – theoretical – part mapping the state of the issue deserves great appreciation and unreserved approval. It has a length of 10 pages and testifies to the deep erudition and broad overview of the authors who processed it at the level of a separate book chapter or similar scientific text. Their reasoning is thoroughly structured, logical, consistent.

The methodological part and the processing of the research itself using advanced statistical methods have a similarly high level. The authors very clearly formulated (up to) 11 hypotheses, familiarized themselves with existing related methodological procedures, chose already proven tests and scales and measured influence, impact, effect, mediation and moderation in various combinations of variables. Only one of the hypotheses (11a) was not confirmed.

In connection with the setting of the sample, the age composition of the respondents deserves mention. Of them, 12% were under 18 years old. Subsequently, it did not make sense to find out education or income in this part of the sample, but even more importantly, it is questionable how relevant the child respondents were for the research. Maybe respondents from a certain age would be relevant (eg 15 or 13 years old), but such a lower limit should have been set and, above all, it should have been justified. I therefore suggest that the authors explicitly comment on the lower limit of their sample and explain it.

I consider the processing of research data to be very erudite and scientifically beneficial. It should be especially emphasized that the results are also practically usable, which the authors confirmed in the final part with advice for sports managers. The social impact of research must therefore be appreciated.

I can't expertly assess the language side, but the text definitely needs proofreading (there are some forgotten technical typos, etc.).

Overall, I evaluate the text as professionally valuable and proving the experience, expertise and maturity of the authors, who offered the professional audience and the public an interesting topic and inspiring findings. Perhaps the only questionable thing is its scope, which is disproportionately large - but that is rather a matter for the editors, what is their attitude towards such long texts and whether they accept them.

Author Response

We express our gratitude to the experts for approving our manuscript and providing valuable feedback. We have incorporated these comments and made further improvements to the manuscript. Firstly, we point out that the lower age limit of the survey respondents is 16 years old and explain it accordingly. Secondly, we meticulously reviewed the entire text and rectified any technical typos. Lastly, we are open to reducing the length of the article, if required.

Once again, thank you for your thorough review!