Exploring the Interplay of Cultural Restraint: The Relationship between Social Media Motivation and Subjective Happiness
, Amer Khaled Ahmad 2 and Neibal Moh’d Ibrahim Al-Etoum 3
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript entitled “Unlocking the Secret to Greater Happiness: Exploring the Moderating Effect of Cultural restraint between Social Media Motivation and Subjective Happiness” is a valuable contribution to the literature on individual differences. In my modest opinion, the manuscript deserves publication after a few issues are successfully addressed by the authors.
First and foremost, the abstract needs to be written with a more objective style without comments such as “ground-breaking study” or “rigorous quantitative analysis”. Let the reader decide whether the study is indeed ground-breaking or whether the quantitative analysis is rigorous. The abstract should contain the purpose of the study as it relates to the extant literature, the methodology used, the findings obtained, and the applications or implications of such findings.
The study is correlational in nature. Thus, if I were one of the authors, I would avoid language that implies a cause-effect relationship between social media and happiness (i.e., “the impact of”).
The theoretical foundation of the study may need to rely on sturdier grounds. I would recommend that the authors consider the work of Albert Bandura on observational learning as an addition to their argument. Studies on the motivation behind social media use also need to be more extensively examined.
Happiness (one of the universal emotions) needs to be clearly defined by referring to the literature on emotions.
Each hypothesis must be presented with a rationale that justifies it and makes it relevant.
In the methodological section, the authors need to describe how the data of their convenience sample were collected. What were the instructions given to the participants?
The following sentence is awkward: “A self-administered technique was used because it is popular in Jordan and has a superior response rate”.
The authors write that “[t]o answer the research questions, the sample was characterized as university and public young adults. Based on information from the Department of Statistics in Jordan, young adults [are] around two million”. How do the authors know the approximate age of the participants? Who is a “public young adult”?
Figure 2.3 is ambiguous. The format may be revised to introduce clarity.
The limitations of the study may need to be expanded. The same suggestion applies to the implications and applications of the researchers’ findings.
Most sentences of the manuscript need to be checked for grammatical structure and word choices. The goal is to ensure that the intended meaning is conveyed by each sentence.
Author Response
I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to express my sincere gratitude to you and the reviewers for the constructive feedback and valuable suggestions provided for our manuscript, "[Exploring the Interplay of Cultural Restraint: The Relationship Between Social Media Motivation and Subjective Happiness]." Your insightful comments and recommendations have significantly contributed to the improvement of our paper, making it more coherent, robust, and impactful.
We have carefully addressed each point raised by the reviewers and have made the necessary revisions and corrections to our manuscript. We believe that these changes have not only strengthened the arguments and findings presented in the paper but also enhanced the overall clarity and flow of the text. We are confident that these revisions have addressed the concerns of the reviewers and have elevated the quality of our work.
and we used Microsoft Word's "Track Changes" feature to facilitate this process. However, after making the corrections, we also sought the assistance of a professor, expert, for additional proofreading.
expert is highly experienced in her field, but she is not familiar with using the "Track Changes" feature in Microsoft Word. As a result, we have two versions of the manuscript: one with the corrections made using "Track Changes" and another that has been proofread by expert without the use of "Track Changes.
Please be aware that our system does not permit the submission of two files simultaneously. Therefore, we have provided the revised document with corrections made using the "Track Changes" feature. If you concur that all necessary adjustments have been made, we will proceed to send you the proofread version.
|
Reviewer no |
Comment |
Comment |
|
|
1 |
1-First and foremost, the abstract needs to be written with a more objective style without comments such as “ground-breaking study” or “rigorous quantitative analysis”. Let the reader decide whether the study is indeed ground-breaking or whether the quantitative analysis is rigorous. The abstract should contain the purpose of the study as it relates to the extant literature, the methodology used, the findings obtained, and the applications or implications of such findings. |
|
Done page 1 |
|
1 |
2- The study is correlational in nature. Thus, if I were one of the authors, I would avoid language that implies a cause-effect relationship between social media and happiness (i.e., “the impact of”). |
|
done |
|
1 |
3-The theoretical foundation of the study may need to rely on sturdier grounds. I would recommend that the A-authors consider the work of Albert Bandura on observational learning as an addition to their argument. B-Studies on the motivation behind social media use also need to be more extensively examined. |
|
Thank you for recommending the Social Learning Theory, which was proposed by Albert Bandura. This theory A-underscores the significance of observing, modeling, and imitating the behaviors, attitudes, and emotional reactions of others. In terms of research, this theory presents an opportunity to explore new avenues of inquiry. However, for this study, we utilized the Uses and Gratifications Theory (UGT) to elucidate the motivations behind social media usage, which has been extensively investigated in prior research. Our findings were further supported by Hofstede's Cultural Theory, specifically the dimension of "indulgence vs restraint". B-done page 3 |
|
1 |
4-Happiness (one of the universal emotions) needs to be clearly defined by referring to the literature on emotions. |
|
Done page 4 |
|
1 |
5-Each hypothesis must be presented with a rationale that justifies it and makes it relevant. |
|
done |
|
1 |
6- In the methodological section, the authors need to describe how the data of their convenience sample were collected. What were the instructions given to the participants? |
|
done |
|
1 |
7-The following sentence is awkward: “A self-administered technique was used because it is popular in Jordan and has a superior response rate”. |
|
Done |
|
1 |
8-Figure 2.3 is ambiguous. The format may be revised to introduce clarity. |
|
done |
|
1 |
9-The limitations of the study may need to be expanded. The same suggestion applies to the implications and applications of the researchers’ findings. |
|
done |
|
1 |
10-Most sentences of the manuscript need to be checked for grammatical structure and word choices. The goal is to ensure that the intended meaning is conveyed by each sentence. |
In proofreading version |
Done |
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for the invitation to review this article. Please find bellow my comments and suggestions for the authors:
1. The title of the paper should be ajusted: Unlocking the Secret to Greater Happiness... seems to be a metaphorical expression that is not supported by the proposed model. I would strongly recommend that the authors adjust the title.
2. Also, I would recommend that the authors rewrite the abstract of the paper using a more cautious language and a more objective approach.
3. The authors refer în the introduction section to recent studies, but the study they mentioned are from 2016. I would recommend to review studies from 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022. E.g.:
Pelet, J.É.; Ettis, S.; Cowart, K. Optimal experience of flow enhanced by telepresence: Evidence from social media use. Inf. Manag. 2017, 54, 115–128.
Fârte, G.I.; Obadă, D.R. The Effects of Fake News on Consumers’ Brand Trust. Rom. J. Commun. Public Relat. 2021, 23, 47–61.
Obadă, D.-R.; Dabija, D.-C. The Mediation Effects of Social Media Usage and Sharing Fake News about Companies. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 372. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12100372
Obadă, D.-R.; Dabija, D.-C. “In Flow”! Why Do Users Share Fake News about Environmentally Friendly Brands on Social Media? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4861. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19084861
4. The authors need to support their statements with arguments from the literature (E.g.: The impact of social media platforms on happiness remains unsettled, with some studies suggesting it is beneficial - WHICH ONES? while others claim it is HARMFUL - WHICH ONES?).
5. The research gap should be better grounded in theory or in practice - in this form, Tha argumentative structure of the text is not clear.
6. For research hypothesis 1 more additional studies should be consulted. For example, see the suggestion meda above. Also, I would recommend to refer to motivation concept from psychology.
7. The authors propose that social media motivation is a second order construct. They should provide more theoretical evidence for this claim. Also, they consider that this construct is reflective in nature. This should be also argued based on existing literature since it has serious implications for the next stage of their research project.
8. The sample descriptive statistics should be presented by the authors in a table.
9. Figure 2 has a low resolution - the authors should improve the quality of the image.
10. The authors should also report the results for the discriminat validity the Fornell-Larcker and Heterotrait-Monotrait results.
11. Researchers should reflect on their study limits and expand this section. Also, I consider that the contribuition of their study should be presented in a balanced way, without exaggerating the impact of the result.
Author Response
I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to express my sincere gratitude to you and the reviewers for the constructive feedback and valuable suggestions provided for our manuscript, "[Exploring the Interplay of Cultural Restraint: The Relationship Between Social Media Motivation and Subjective Happiness]." Your insightful comments and recommendations have significantly contributed to the improvement of our paper, making it more coherent, robust, and impactful.
We have carefully addressed each point raised by the reviewers and have made the necessary revisions and corrections to our manuscript. We believe that these changes have not only strengthened the arguments and findings presented in the paper but also enhanced the overall clarity and flow of the text. We are confident that these revisions have addressed the concerns of the reviewers and have elevated the quality of our work.
and we used Microsoft Word's "Track Changes" feature to facilitate this process. However, after making the corrections, we also sought the assistance of a professor, expert, for additional proofreading.
expert is highly experienced in her field, but she is not familiar with using the "Track Changes" feature in Microsoft Word. As a result, we have two versions of the manuscript: one with the corrections made using "Track Changes" and another that has been proofread by expert without the use of "Track Changes.
Please be aware that our system does not permit the submission of two files simultaneously. Therefore, we have provided the revised document with corrections made using the "Track Changes" feature. If you concur that all necessary adjustments have been made, we will proceed to send you the proofread version.
|
2 |
The title of the paper should be ajusted: Unlocking the Secret to Greater Happiness... seems to be a metaphorical expression that is not supported by the proposed model. I would strongly recommend that the authors adjust the title. |
|
done |
|
2 |
Also, I would recommend that the authors rewrite the abstract of the paper using a more cautious language and a more objective approach. |
|
done |
|
2 |
The authors refer în the introduction section to recent studies, but the study they mentioned are from 2016. I would recommend to review studies from 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022. E.g.: Pelet, J.É.; Ettis, S.; Cowart, K. Optimal experience of flow enhanced by telepresence: Evidence from social media use. Inf. Manag. 2017, 54, 115–128. Fârte, G.I.; Obadă, D.R. The Effects of Fake News on Consumers’ Brand Trust. Rom. J. Commun. Public Relat. 2021, 23, 47–61. Obadă, D.-R.; Dabija, D.-C. The Mediation Effects of Social Media Usage and Sharing Fake News about Companies. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 372. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12100372 Obadă, D.-R.; Dabija, D.-C. “In Flow”! Why Do Users Share Fake News about Environmentally Friendly Brands on Social Media? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4861. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19084861
|
|
Done , Thank you for your suggestion |
|
2 |
The authors need to support their statements with arguments from the literature (E.g.: The impact of social media platforms on happiness remains unsettled, with some studies suggesting it is beneficial - WHICH ONES? while others claim it is HARMFUL - WHICH ONES?). |
|
done |
|
2 |
The research gap should be better grounded in theory or in practice - in this form, Tha argumentative structure of the text is not clear. |
|
done |
|
2 |
For research hypothesis 1 more additional studies should be consulted. For example, see the suggestion meda above. Also, I would recommend to refer to motivation concept from psychology. |
|
done |
|
2 |
The authors propose that social media motivation is a second order construct. They should provide more theoretical evidence for this claim. Also, they consider that this construct is reflective in nature. This should be also argued based on existing literature since it has serious implications for the next stage of their research project. |
|
Done please see Measurements scale section |
|
2 |
The sample descriptive statistics should be presented by the authors in a table. |
|
Just wanted to mention that in our study, the demographic background isn't a crucial aspect, as our primary focus is on the relationship between the variables. |
|
2 |
Figure 2 has a low resolution - the authors should improve the quality of the image. |
|
done |
|
2 |
The authors should also report the results for the discriminat validity the Fornell-Larcker and Heterotrait-Monotrait results. |
Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio: The HTMT ratio is an alternative to the Fornell-Larcker criterion. It compares the average correlations between indicators of different constructs (heterotrait) with the average correlations between indicators of the same construct (monotrait). An HTMT ratio lower than a chosen threshold (commonly 0.85 or 0.90) suggests that the constructs are distinct from each other, indicating adequate discriminant validity. |
Done we report HTMT |
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for the updated version of the article.The quality of the paper has improved. The authors could still add some relevant references from the su regarding flow theory. However, the quality of the manuscript increased.
Author Response
Thank you for your feedback on our manuscript. We understand your concerns regarding the extensive editing required for the English language and style. We have already sought the assistance of an expert to proofread our manuscript. However, we would greatly appreciate it if you could help us by highlighting specific sections or passages that need further proofreading so that we can forward them to our expert for another round of review.
Our aim is to ensure that our manuscript is of the highest quality, and we believe that your input, combined with the expertise of our native English-speaking colleague, will help us achieve this goal.
We would be grateful if you could provide us with your insights on the areas that require further attention.
Thank you for your support and assistance in improving our manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
