Exploring the Relationships between Personality and Psychological Well-Being: The Mediating Role of Pro-Environmental Behaviors

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Personality and psychological well-being: advancing pro-environmental behaviors as a promoting factor

 

Abstract: The introductory section is too long. There is a lack of data on the distribution of participants, sex, level of academic training). I recommend to extend the results a little further.

 

Introduction and Conclusions

Ideas that appear in the conclusions do not appear in the theoretical introduction. The authors introduce ideas and references in the conclusions that do not appear in the theoretical introduction. They should reorganize both sections.

In the Conclusions section, the authors must address the research hypotheses and relate their results to the theoretical background that appears in the introductory section. I recommend extending your reflections.

 

Participants

This section needs further explanation.

The authors need to explain:

·         the procedure,

·         control channels over the sample,

·         participant acceptance criteria,

·         ethical principles,

·         distribution by sex,

·         academic training...

This last variable (academic training) has been taken into account as a covariate, although authors later commented that they did not include it. Clear up these confusions.

 

Why do they write “Confounding variables?” This has no sense.

 

Statistical analysis: OK

 

References and citations do not follow Behavioral Science standards. Adhere to the Journal's guidelines.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 1 (R1):Abstract: The introductory section is too long. There is a lack of data on the distribution of participants, sex, level of academic training). I recommend to extend the results a little further.

Authors (A):Thank you for your suggestion. We have modified a large part of our abstract

Introduction and Conclusions

R1:Ideas that appear in the conclusions do not appear in the theoretical introduction. The authors introduce ideas and references in the conclusions that do not appear in the theoretical introduction. They should reorganize both sections.

In the Conclusions section, the authors must address the research hypotheses and relate their results to the theoretical background that appears in the introductory section. I recommend extending your reflections.

A:Thank you for your suggestion. We have completely changed the content and structure of the two sections in question.

R1:Participants

This section needs further explanation.

The authors need to explain:

• the procedure,
• control channels over the sample,
• participant acceptance criteria,
• ethical principles,
• distribution by sex,
• academic training...

This last variable (academic training) has been taken into account as a covariate, although authors later commented that they did not include it. Clear up these confusions.

Why do they write “Confounding variables?” This has no sense.

A:Thank you for your suggestion. We have completely modify these sections.

R1:Statistical analysis: OK

R1:References and citations do not follow Behavioral Science standards. Adhere to the Journal's guidelines.

A:Thank you for your suggestion. We checked and corrected our errors. We followed the guidelines of the Chicago style guide (see https://mdpi-res.com/data/chicago-mdpi-v2.ens), as recommended by the Social Science Journal.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Dear authors,

It is a good paper, where the structure of the research conducted is appropriately revealed. Nevertheless, we would like to ask you to take into account a few suggestions regarding the manuscript. These are as follows:

 

Rewrite the heading of the Abstract according to the guidelines provided by the Journal: Authors should follow the style of a structured abstract based on the IMRAD.

Page 3, line 127: Include year in citation.

Page 4, line 165: Punctuation check

The heading does not mention the type of methodology used in this work, e.g., experimental, quasi-experimental, etc. etc.

Page 7 line 259 review citation, should include year only as authors are mentioned earlier.

Throughout the document, and in particular in the conclusions, the confirmation or otherwise of the two hypotheses raised is not clearly assessed, we ask you to reconsider this proposal.

Check the doi format in the references.

On the other hand, it is worth mentioning that this research work is based on a good bibliographical overview of the topic in question.

The reliability of the measuring instruments used is considered.

Clear and concise statistical analysis heading

Finally, it is an article that can be considered for publication in this journal, with minor modifications.

Yours sincerely

Author Response

Reviever 2 (R2): Dear authors,

It is a good paper, where the structure of the research conducted is appropriately revealed. Nevertheless, we would like to ask you to take into account a few suggestions regarding the manuscript. These are as follows:

Rewrite the heading of the Abstract according to the guidelines provided by the Journal: Authors should follow the style of a structured abstract based on the IMRAD.

Authors (A):The reviewer is right, we modified the abstract structures.

R2:Page 3, line 127: Include year in citation.

A:Okay, done. Thank you.

R2:Page 4, line 165: Punctuation check

A:Okay, done. Thank you.

R2:The heading does not mention the type of methodology used in this work, e.g., experimental, quasi-experimental, etc. etc. Page 7 line 259 review citation, should include year only as authors are mentioned earlier.

A:There is no line 259 on page 7 as mentioned by the reviewer, and we assume they might be referring to a different line (line 277) where the citation of 'DeYoung and collaborators (2016)' is located. We will then seek confirmation from the reviewer regarding this assumption.

R2:Throughout the document, and in particular in the conclusions, the confirmation or otherwise of the two hypotheses raised is not clearly assessed, we ask you to reconsider this proposal. Check the doi format in the references.

A:Thank you for your suggestion. We have we corrected and edited the manuscript in accordance with the reviewer's suggestions.

R2:On the other hand, it is worth mentioning that this research work is based on a good bibliographical overview of the topic in question. The reliability of the measuring instruments used is considered. Clear and concise statistical analysis heading Finally, it is an article that can be considered for publication in this journal, with minor modifications.

A: Thank you for your positive comments, we appreciate them very much.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Personality and psychological well-being: advancing pro-environmental behaviors as a promoting factor

The title does not sufficiently express the focus of the research – what the authors mean by “advancing pro-environmental behaviors as a promoting factor” is unclear.

The rational supporting the relationship between personality traits and wellbeing is not sufficiently discussed in the introduction – a much stronger rationale could be developed here for exploring the Big Five traits and wellbeing,  there is already a body of evidence related to this area – and so a deeper discussion is warranted.  What does this study add to this body of work? 

The researchers introduce pro-environmental behaviours as an anticipated mediator between personality and wellbeing however I did not feel convinced by the line of argument supporting this claim.  Selecting pro-environmental behavious as a mediator is not sufficiently supported by the discussion of research and theory and it was unclear why the authors would expect this to mediate the relationship between 2 of the personality traits and wellbeing. It came across as though the hypotheses had been designed to fit the significant results reported. 

The participant sample were young adults – selection of this sample is not sufficiently justified in the rationale. Why only young adults and not adults of any age?  Was there a specific reason for this or is there some other sampling issue in how participants were recruited? 

The authors use a 10 item scale to measure personality - meaning only 2 questions per personality trait - whilst this is a validated measure, the reported reliability was low for some subscales – e.g. openness – which is a concern given this was one of only 2 variables where significant relationships with wellbeing are reported.

Table 1 is not aligned and so was difficult to read.  This needs to be amended.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Throughout the paper there are a number of issues with grammar/quality of written English which need to be addressed.

e.g. line 11 refers to the Big Fives - it should be Big Five.

In some  areas the quality of writing is not strong enough.  The opening sentence of the abstract for example "The realisation of well-being represents the most important purpose of human beings" is poorly expressed.

Author Response

Reviewer 3 (R3): Personality and psychological well-being: advancing pro-environmental behaviors as a promoting factor

The title does not sufficiently express the focus of the research – what the authors mean by “advancing pro-environmental behaviors as a promoting factor” is unclear.

Authors (A): Thank you for your suggestion. We have modified the title. We hope that the new title is more appropriate for the purpose of the research

R3: The rational supporting the relationship between personality traits and wellbeing is not sufficiently discussed in the introduction – a much stronger rationale could be developed here for exploring the Big Five traits and wellbeing,  there is already a body of evidence related to this area – and so a deeper discussion is warranted.  What does this study add to this body of work? 

A:Thank you for your suggestion. We have completely changed the content and structure of the two sections in question.

R3:The researchers introduce pro-environmental behaviours as an anticipated mediator between personality and wellbeing however I did not feel convinced by the line of argument supporting this claim.  Selecting pro-environmental behavious as a mediator is not sufficiently supported by the discussion of research and theory and it was unclear why the authors would expect this to mediate the relationship between 2 of the personality traits and wellbeing. It came across as though the hypotheses had been designed to fit the significant results reported. 

A:Thank you for your suggestion. We have we corrected and edited the manuscript in accordance with the reviewer's suggestions.

R3:The participant sample were young adults – selection of this sample is not sufficiently justified in the rationale. Why only young adults and not adults of any age?  Was there a specific reason for this or is there some other sampling issue in how participants were recruited? 

A:There is no specific reason with respect to the selection of the study participants. We have included the inclusion criteria in the participants section.

R3:The authors use a 10 item scale to measure personality - meaning only 2 questions per personality trait - whilst this is a validated measure, the reported reliability was low for some subscales – e.g. openness – which is a concern given this was one of only 2 variables where significant relationships with wellbeing are reported.

A:The reviewer is right. We chose the Big-Five-10 version in order not to burden the administration of the scales. Unfortunately, we believe that it is important to stay within a short time frame when administering questionnaires in a research context to avoid drop-out.

R3:Table 1 is not aligned and so was difficult to read.  This needs to be amended.

A:Ok thank you. We have modified the table 1.

 

 Comments on the Quality of English Language

Throughout the paper there are a number of issues with grammar/quality of written English which need to be addressed.

e.g. line 11 refers to the Big Fives - it should be Big Five.

In some  areas the quality of writing is not strong enough.  The opening sentence of the abstract for example "The realisation of well-being represents the most important purpose of human beings" is poorly expressed.

Thank you for your suggestion. We had the manuscript proofread by a native English speaker who helped us to improve the research from a linguistic point of view.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a study on the relations between two personality factors from the Big Five taxonomy, psychological well-being and the frequency of Pro-Environmental Behaviors as mediator. The rationale of the hypotheses is quite straightforward and well-articulated in the Introduction. There are some issues in the reporting of the empirical research that need to be addressed.

- the country of the study population must be specified. Moreover, in the Discussion (line 284) the authors stress the importance of the culture for the effects of personality on PEBs (”In fact, a group may promote PEBs, and this might be particularly true in collectivistic cultures, where people are more likely to act in line with group interests.”). Henceforth, the specific country of the study should be also included in this discussion, in relation to the type of culture that past research has indicated to belong to.

- line 217: ” Based on correlations, we performed two mediation analyses”. In fact, the correlation between the DV and the mediator (PEB and PWB) is not significant. Hence, the mediation models could not be based on the results of the correlation analyses, instead they are theoretically-driven at most.

- the two IV of the models (agreeableness and openness) are significantly correlated. This shared variance should be accounted for in the mediation analyses. One option is to use SEM instead of PROCESS, by testing a model with both IV. The other option is to reapply the PROCESS analyses, but controlling for the other Big Five trait while examining the effect of each (i.e., agreeableness as IV while controlling for the effect of openness, and the other way around).

- all statistical indicators reported in Fig. 1 should be specified / explained.

- table 1 does not report any information on the gender distribution of the sample.

Author Response

Reviever 4 (R4): The paper presents a study on the relations between two personality factors from the Big Five taxonomy, psychological well-being and the frequency of Pro-Environmental Behaviors as mediator. The rationale of the hypotheses is quite straightforward and well-articulated in the Introduction. There are some issues in the reporting of the empirical research that need to be addressed.

- the country of the study population must be specified. Moreover, in the Discussion (line 284) the authors stress the importance of the culture for the effects of personality on PEBs (”In fact, a group may promote PEBs, and this might be particularly true in collectivistic cultures, where people are more likely to act in line with group interests.”). Henceforth, the specific country of the study should be also included in this discussion, in relation to the type of culture that past research has indicated to belong to.

Authors (A): Thank you for this interesting suggestion. We have included details on this in the discussion

R4: line 217: ” Based on correlations, we performed two mediation analyses”. In fact, the correlation between the DV and the mediator (PEB and PWB) is not significant. Hence, the mediation models could not be based on the results of the correlation analyses, instead they are theoretically-driven at most. - the two IV of the models (agreeableness and openness) are significantly correlated. This shared variance should be accounted for in the mediation analyses. One option is to use SEM instead of PROCESS, by testing a model with both IV. The other option is to reapply the PROCESS analyses, but controlling for the other Big Five trait while examining the effect of each (i.e., agreeableness as IV while controlling for the effect of openness, and the other way around).

- all statistical indicators reported in Fig. 1 should be specified / explained.

- table 1 does not report any information on the gender distribution of the sample.

A: The reviewer is right. Our results were modified, and we updated all sections of our manuscript in accordance with the suggestions of the reviewer. We believe that thanks to the reviewer's comments, our manuscript has improved considerably

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The following statement is missing: " ....    of Helsinki and approved by the University of xxx (protocol number: xxx)."

Author Response

The statements are disclosed. Thank you!

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed my previous concerns.

Author Response

Thank you again!