Meaning in Life and Loneliness as Mediators between COVID-19 Anxiety and Life Satisfaction in the Post-Pandemic among the General Population in Turkey: A Serial Mediation Model
, Francesco Chirico 5,6, Amelia Rizzo 7,* and Murat Yıldırım 2,8,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Thank you for your work and effort to carry out studies that can improve people's quality of life.
Your work has been improved compared to the previous version, however I consider that some little changes should be done before publication.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
REVIEWER 1
REVIEWER´S COMMENTS
This paper examines the association between COVID-19 anxiety and life satisfaction using the effects of meaning in life and loneliness as mediators of this relationship. This study could provide interesting information for the knowledge of variables and influential factors in human behavior and mental health.
Response to the reviewer’s comment: Thank you for your comment.
GENERAL
I consider that the work has been carried out with rigor and professionalism. However, the wording of the text should be improved since on several occasions the authors describe the current pandemic situation. This is not the case. I think they could focus on the findings of the study on the variables studied and possible applications in the life and health of young adults, especially in stressful situations such as a pandemic.
Response to the reviewer’s comment: The entire manuscript was checked and the wording referring to the current pandemic was revised/deleted based on the comment.
SPECIFICS
Introduction
Line 47 and 48- A psychological distress factor cannot be psychological distress.
Response to the reviewer’s comment: The relevant sentence was revised.
Line 54 We do not currently have a pandemic.
Response to the reviewer’s comment: Yes. The relevant sentence was revised or words referring to the current pandemic were deleted from the text.
Line 59
Attempt to improve the wording. Do not repeat concepts in the same sentence (life satisfaction).
Response to the reviewer’s comment: The repetitions in the same sentence were removed and the sentence was revised.
Line 71 Is it possible that the word “life” is missing? Could it be “quality of life”?
Response to the reviewer’s comment: Yes, you are right. The word "life" was accidentally deleted during the edits in line 71.
Line between 67 and 82
In this paragraph, the wording should be improved in order to relate all the factors and variables that influence loneliness and/or are influenced by this condition.
Response to the reviewer’s comment: The wording of the paragraph was improved by associating loneliness factors.
Line 83
Frankl [31], one of the forerunners of Existential Theory, argued that people are characterized by an innate drive to "will to meaning", to find meaning and significance in their lives, and the inability to obtain meaning results in psychological distress.
Response to the reviewer’s comment: The sentence was revised.
Line between 85 and 99
In this paragraph, the wording should be improved in order to link all the arguments, to deliver a message integrating everything and avoiding loose, unconnected sentences. It is recommended to avoid very long sentences.
Response to the reviewer’s comment: The wording of the paragraph was reorganized in line with your suggestions.
Materials and Methods
Line 119
Calculations of the sample size required for each particular study should usually be made depending on the study population. It would be better to know what was considered regarding to confidence interval, accuracy and a population proportion.
Response to the reviewer’s comment: Detailed information about the adequacy of the sample size was added to “Participants” section. It was also added to the “Limitations” section with suggestions.
Line 150
The authors claim to have used social communication tools to recruit participants but do not describe how and/or where the questionnaires were conducted to ensure the safety and anonymity of the participants.
Response to the reviewer’s comment: To address this, the following information was added to the procedure section
“A secure Google form link was generated and shared with participants to ensure data security. Participants were invited to the study through various communication tools (e.g., WhatsApp, and Facebook).”
Discussion
Line 228
We do not currently have a pandemic.
Response to the reviewer’s comment: A more general expression has been added to the sentence.
Line 241
The authors should consider whether this is current in their population as it is not the generality worldwide: young people limit their social contacts.
Response to the reviewer’s comment: Yes, you are right. It was a situation in a pandemic for our population. So, we removed the sentence and added the concluding sentence.
Contributions
Line 272
Since we are not currently in a pandemic, the authors must argue for the usefulness of their results in other areas or spheres of the individual. For example, by pointing out the importance of support from health professionals to avoid these problems.
Response to the reviewer’s comment: We explained the contributions of our study by considering from different perspectives, without being completely dependent on the pandemic.
Conclusion
Line 305
Correct wording as we are not currently in a pandemic.
Response to the reviewer’s comment: The sentence was revised.
Thank you for your time, consideration, and suggestions.
Corresponding authors on behalf of all authors
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
I’m thankful for the opportunity to review the paper.
The manuscript is well written and very interesting. However, there are some changes in order to improve the scientific soundness. Below, the points that can be improved are reported:
Introduction:
Introduction paragraph could be implemented by some other references (i.e.: other studies have been focused on COVID-19 anxiety and emotional adaptation in young adults, for instance see: https://doi.org/10.13129/2282-1619/mjcp-3051; https://doi.org/10.1177/1535370220975118)
Materials and Method:
The characteristics of the participants could be explained through a descriptive table of the participants.
References:
Line 331 reference is in red, like as line 521 of the references.
Author Response
REVIEWER 2
I’m thankful for the opportunity to review the paper.
The manuscript is well written and very interesting. However, there are some changes in order to improve the scientific soundness. Below, the points that can be improved are reported:
Response to the reviewer’s comment: Thank you for your constructive feedback.
Introduction:
Introduction paragraph could be implemented by some other references (i.e.: other studies have been focused on COVID-19 anxiety and emotional adaptation in young adults, for instance see: https://doi.org/10.13129/2282-1619/mjcp-3051; https://doi.org/10.1177/1535370220975118)
Response to the reviewer’s comment: The suggested two references were incorporated in the Discussion section.
Materials and Method:
The characteristics of the participants could be explained through a descriptive table of the participants.
Response to the reviewer’s comment: The descriptive table of the participants (Tablo 1) and the characteristics of the participants were added, and table numbers were revised.
References:
Line 331 reference is in red, like as line 521 of the references.
Response to the reviewer’s comment: Indeed, these comments were retained from the previous review round. Nevertheless, we have improved the formatting by changing the color of the previous comments from red to black.
Thank you for your valuable contribution to paper improvement.
Sincerely,
Corresponding authors on behalf of all authors
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
This study examined the relationships between COVID 19 anxiety, life satisfaction, loneliness and meaning of life in Turkish college students. Purpose and rationale for study were well articulated, statistical test used were appropriate, and results were not surprising. Overall, study well done.
Author Response
REVIEWER 3 REVIEW REPORT ROUND 1
This study examined the relationships between COVID 19 anxiety, life satisfaction, loneliness and meaning of life in Turkish college students. Purpose and rationale for study were well articulated, statistical test used were appropriate, and results were not surprising. Overall, study well done.
Response to the reviewer’s comment: Thank you for your constructive feedback.
Sincerely,
Corresponding authors on behalf of all authors
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
Dear editors and authors, many thanks for allowing me to review this paper titled Meaning in Life and Loneliness as Mediators between COVID-19 Anxiety and Life Satisfaction in the Post-pandemic in Young Adults: A Serial Mediation Model.
The paper is well-written and well-structured. The study is well-designed and well-described.
I have two items for suggestion as a review:
The study is based on Turkey; this aspect must be underlined in the title and discussed in the introduction; what is the relevance of literature and for international context on doing this study in turkey? Related to this aspect the introduction section should include a critical overview of some relevant aspects for the paper in turkey ( e.g. demographic distribution etc..) the discussion should be include a reflection based on what is it the meaning of result obtained in turkey in a international perspective.
The other item is related to the sample and the target population. In the title, the authors declare that is focuses on the young, but the sample is composed of a large spectrum, including adolescent people and adult people. So I'm a little confused, even after you put this focus on young people in the limitation.
The authors must decide how to manage this issue with these options:
1. Review the sample, including only young people and maintain the focus on the young. (that I suppose should be possible to do considering the numerosity of the sample),Of course, it requires a new analysis of data.
2. cut the sample in two ( youth and other target population) and to a comparative analysis, but the starting point of view remains the young people.
3. Not change the sample but change the focus of the study (not only young people), discuss the sample's composition obtained as a result of the recruitment process and maybe consider the demographic distribution in Turkey. in this case, that title must be changed.
Author Response
REVIEWER 4 REVIEW REPORT ROUND 1
Dear editors and authors, many thanks for allowing me to review this paper titled Meaning in Life and Loneliness as Mediators between COVID-19 Anxiety and Life Satisfaction in the Post-pandemic in Young Adults: A Serial Mediation Model.
The paper is well-written and well-structured. The study is well-designed and well-described.
Response to the reviewer’s comment: Thank you for your constructive feedback.
I have two items for suggestion as a review:
The study is based on Turkey; this aspect must be underlined in the title and discussed in the introduction; what is the relevance of literature and for international context on doing this study in turkey? Related to this aspect the introduction section should include a critical overview of some relevant aspects for the paper in turkey ( e.g. demographic distribution etc..) the discussion should be include a reflection based on what is it the meaning of result obtained in turkey in a international perspective.
Response to the reviewer’s comment: The country where the study was conducted was added to the title. The relevant aspects were added and discussed in the introduction and discussion sections.
The other item is related to the sample and the target population. In the title, the authors declare that is focuses on the young, but the sample is composed of a large spectrum, including adolescent people and adult people. So I'm a little confused, even after you put this focus on young people in the limitation.
The authors must decide how to manage this issue with these options:
- Review the sample, including only young people and maintain the focus on the young. (that I suppose should be possible to do considering the numerosity of the sample),Of course, it requires a new analysis of data.
- cut the sample in two ( youth and other target population) and to a comparative analysis, but the starting point of view remains the young people.
- Not change the sample but change the focus of the study (not only young people), discuss the sample's composition obtained as a result of the recruitment process and maybe consider the demographic distribution in Turkey. in this case, that title must be changed.
Response to the reviewer’s comment: Thank you for the options you offer. Since the average age of the participants was 33, we considered the focus of the study to be young adults. Based on your suggestions, we realized this led to confusion and changed it to "general population in Turkey". We made the necessary revisions in the title, text, and limitations section.
Sincerely,
Corresponding authors on behalf of all authors
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
Many thanks to the authors for accepting my suggestions in the first review round. The scientific quality of the paper is significantly improved in this version, and I suggest accepting this paper after in depth reading of the authors of the text because it still includes some typos.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
We have conducted a thorough language check and have made the necessary corrections to ensure the text is free from any language-related errors. Thank you for pointing out the 'language check' issue, that was underlined in the Word document. We appreciate your attention to detail and your valuable feedback.
Sincerely,
Dr. Amelia Rizzo
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.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I would like to thank the authors and the Editorial Board for the opportunity to review the article submitted to MDPI’s EJIHPE. The authors' manuscript refers to a very important topic: the meaning in life and loneliness in emerging adults. Unfortunately, I have some serious concerns towards the authors manuscript and I believe that its’ revision could be an example of hypothesis-hacking.
1. The presented study does not have strong theoretical rational. The authors try to test a serial mediation model, which requires very strong theoretical background. Their proposed model is not in line with many meaning in life-related concepts: e.g Steger’s, Wong’s, George & Park’s or Folkman’s concepts. I will use Crystal Park’s meaning making model (MMM) and Folkman’s revised transactional stress model (TSM) as an examples.
a. The MMM refers to global and situational meaning systems. Based on the global meaning’s mechanism (see Park 2008, 2010; Folkman & Park 1997) it can be assumed, that MIL affects the one’s evaluation of the situation (like the attitude and anxiety towards the COVID-19). Based on MMM, MIL should be treated as a independent variable (X) rather than mediator (M).
b. The TSM states and meaning in life is an important resource, which can have a significant role in the coping with stress mechanism. Folkman states that meaning-oriented coping mediates in the relationship between stressor and well-being. Therefore, based on Folkman’s framework it can be assumed, that MIL would mediate in the relationship between loneliness and life satisfaction, where in the authors model it is the opposite. I will remind once again, that the information presented in the authors’ introduction do not present any theoretical model other than Frankl’s concept of MIL, which does not underline its mediational role. What is more, the authors presented information also does not provide sufficient rationale behind mediational role of MIL: even the authors write that some studies suggest that MIL serves as a moderator (buffer). Therefore it is unknown why in their case, the authors chose to operationalise it as a mediating variable.
2. The authors sample size is unjustified. The authors write “” a sample size ranging from 11 and 285 participants is typically required”. The authors do not provide any reference supporting that claim. If we calculate the required sample size for a general OLS model, such as multiple regression for 1 DV (life satisfaction) and 3 predictors (anxiety, MIL and loneliness) and 6 regression connections, the required sample size for alpha=0.05, 1-Beta=0.95 and small effect size (calculated based on the authors Table 1 and 2) would be N=543 (much above the presented sample size). Please keep in mind that I’ve calculated the R-squared and Cohen’s f-squared values by hand, because the authors do not report the R-squared values in their manuscript. The authors justification of their sample size is arbitrary, and not supported by any reference.
3. The mediation analysis itself. The authors present the results of a cross-sectional study. Mediation analysis is causal in nature, therefore mediation effects/indirect effects should be tested via longitudinal research. The author’s refer to Hayes’ book Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis [49], which clearly states that. Unfortunately, the authors fail to admit that in their limitations section, which is not in line with the references they cite throughout their manuscript. I believe that the age of mediation wow-effect is already over, and psychological research should present reliable results rather than complicated statistical models, which cannot be verified without additional studies.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
We extend our heartfelt appreciation for dedicating your time and expertise to review our paper. Your valuable feedback and insightful comments have been instrumental in enhancing the quality and rigor of our research.
Your thoughtful observations and constructive suggestions have guided us in addressing the paper's weaknesses and have undoubtedly contributed to its overall improvement. We are genuinely grateful for your efforts in ensuring the accuracy and validity of our work.
The presented study does not have a strong theoretical rationale. The authors try to test a serial mediation model, which requires a very strong theoretical background.
Author response: We appreciate your valuable feedback. In response, we have revised the study and incorporated Frankl's concept of meaning in life as the underlying theoretical framework, supported by relevant studies.
The author's sample size is unjustified. The authors write “” a sample size ranging from 11 and 285 participants is typically required”. The authors do not provide any reference supporting that claim.
Author response: Revision was done as follows.
Determining the adequacy of the sample size is important in research. It is commonly known that to detect an indirect effect among the variables of interest, a sample size ranging from 115 to 285 participants is typically required for .80 power to detect an effect [41]. In our study, a total of 333 Turkish young adults were recruited, which falls within this recommended range. This indicates that the sample size chosen for our study ensures sufficient statistical power to detect the desired effect.
The authors fail to admit that in their limitations section, which is not in line with the references they cite throughout their manuscript.
Author response: Yes, you are right. We apologize for this mistake. We removed inconsistent information from the limitation section.
Once again, thank you for your invaluable support and dedication to improving our paper.
With sincere gratitude,
Dr. Amelia Rizzo
Prof. Murat Yıldırım
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Your thorough evaluation of our work has guided us in identifying areas that required further refinement, and your suggestions have helped us shape a stronger and more comprehensive manuscript. Your expertise and attention to detail have been invaluable to us, and we genuinely appreciate the effort you put into reviewing our paper.
REVIEWER´S COMMENTS
This paper examines the association between COVID-19 anxiety and life satisfaction using the effects of meaning in life and loneliness as mediators of this relationship. This study could provide interesting information for the knowledge of variables and influential factors in human behavior and mental health.
Author reply: Thank you for your constructive feedback.
GENERAL
I consider that the work has been carried out with rigor and professionalism. However, the wording of the text should be improved since on several occasions the authors describe the current pandemic situation. This is not the case. I think they could focus on the findings of the study on the variables studied and possible applications in the life and health of young adults, especially in stressful situations such as a pandemic.
Author reply: First of all, we would like to thank you for your contribution. We revised our manuscript in line with your suggestions and recommendations. The changes are as follows:
SPECIFICS
Introduction
Line 47 and 48
A psychological distress factor cannot be psychological distress.
Author reply: "Psychological distress" was removed in lines 47-48.
Line 54
We do not currently have a pandemic.
Author reply: The expression was replaced with a more general one in line 53.
Line 59
Attempt to improve the wording. Do not repeat concepts in the same sentence (life satisfaction).
Author reply: The repetitions in the same sentence were removed and the sentence was rewritten in lines 57-58.
Line 71
Is it possible that the word “life” is missing? Could it be “quality of?life”?
Author reply: Yes, you are right. The word "life" was accidentally deleted during the edits in line 71.
Line between 67 and 82
In this paragraph, the wording should be improved in order to relate all the factors and
variables that influence loneliness and/or are influenced by this condition.
Author reply: The wording of the paragraph was improved by associating loneliness factors.
Line 83
Frankl [31], one of the forerunners of Existential Theory, argued that people are
characterized by an innate drive to "will to meaning", to find meaning and significance in
their lives, and the inability to obtain meaning results in psychological distress.
Author reply: The sentence was rewritten.
Line between 85 and 99
In this paragraph, the wording should be improved in order to link all the arguments, to
deliver a message integrating everything and avoiding loose, unconnected sentences. It is
recommended to avoid very long sentences.
Author reply: The wording of the paragraph was reorganized in line with your suggestions.
Materials and Methods
Line 119
Calculations of the sample size required for each particular study should usually be made
depending on the study population. It would be better to know what was considered
regarding to confidence interval, accuracy and a population proportion.
Author reply: Detailed information about the adequacy of the sample size was added to “Participants” section. It was also added to the “Limitations” section with suggestions.
Line 150
The authors claim to have used social communication tools to recruit participants but do
not describe how and/or where the questionnaires were conducted to ensure the safety
and anonymity of the participants.
Author reply: To address this, the following information was added in the procedure section
“A secure Google form link was generated and shared with participants to ensure data security. Participants were invited to the study through various communication tools (e.g., WhatsApp, and Facebook).”
Discussion
Line 228
We do not currently have a pandemic.
Author reply: A more general expression has been added to the sentence.
Line 241
The authors should consider whether this is current in their population as it is not the
generality worldwide: young people limit their social contacts.
Author reply: Yes, you are right. It was a situation in a pandemic for our population. So, we removed the sentence and added the concluding sentence.
Contributions
Line 272
Since we are not currently in a pandemic, the authors must argue for the usefulness of
their results in other areas or spheres of the individual. For example, by pointing out the
importance of support from health professionals to avoid these problems.
Author reply: We explained the contributions of our study by considering from different perspectives, without being completely dependent on the pandemic.
Conclusion
Line 305
Correct wording as we are not currently in a pandemic.
Author reply: “Pandemic” was changed.
Once again, thank you for your valuable input and support. We are honored to have received your guidance and will diligently incorporate your recommendations into our paper.
With deep appreciation,
Dr. Amelia Rizzo,
Prof. Murat Yıldırım
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Revision
I appreciate the authors' efforts to improve their manuscript. Unfortunately, I do not believe that the progress was made. In the initial report, I've underlined the serious limitation of the authors' manuscript - the atheoretical aspect of their tested mediation model.
The authors write that " In response, we have revised the study and incorporated Frankl's concept of meaning in life as the underlying theoretical framework, supported by relevant studies."
First of all, Frankl's concept is not a psychological theory, more like philosophical concept. The logotherapy concept has been criticised even in the previous century (for example, see Massey, 1988).
Massey, R. F. (1988). A critique of logotherapy as a personality theory. International Forum for Logotherapy, 11(1), 42–52.
Second, it does not provide any rationale for indirect/mediational effects. As I mentioned before, the proposed model is not in line with many meaning in life-related concepts: e.g Steger’s, Wong’s, George & Park’s or Folkman’s concepts. I used Crystal Park’s meaning making model (MMM) and Folkman’s revised transactional stress model (TSM) as an examples to show, the the proposed mediation model is atheoretical. The authors do not answer my critique at all in their response to the review report.
What is more, in the revised version of the manuscript the authors write: “115 to 285 participants is typically required for .80 power to detect an effect”. First, any sample size can “detect an effect” – smaller samples will detect only larger effects, bigger samples can detect very small effects. The authors statement is incorrect. Second, it is unknown why the authors chose the threshold of 1-Beta=0.80 instead of 1-Beta=0.95 especially then their chosen alpha levels were of 0.05. Third, the authors refer to reference [41] to justify that claim. Reference 41 is the following publication: Reaction to the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Influence of Meaning in Life, Life Satisfaction, and Assumptions on World Orderliness and Positivity. It is not a statistical or methodological publication and its manuscript body does not provide any justification for the authors claim – what is more, it never states that the mentioned “115 to 285 participants” is enough.
In my initial review report, I’ve presented the results of sensitivity power analysis (a statistical proof) that the authors sample size is unjustified. Unfortunately, the authors do not answer my critique at all (even without proper reference).
Lastly, the authors completely ignored 3rd comment on the mediation analysis. It is highly impossible that the authors forgot about that comment, since my previous report had only three big points. Lack of response to the critique of mediation analysis on cross-section data does not show the attitude of the authors in a positive light. Reviewers spend many hours of their valuable time writing reviews. Stating if the authors agree or disagree with the critique (with a proper explanation and references) should be a part of a proper review response. Unfortunately, it is not present here. Ignoring comments is never welcome. It is not known whether the lack of response from the authors is due to the impossibility or lack of knowledge of how to answer the mentioned comment, or whether the authors simply hoped that omitting the comment would hide the problem. Therefore, I state as in my initial review report.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We sincerely appreciate your thorough evaluation of our manuscript and your invaluable feedback. Your insights have been instrumental in shaping the direction of our work, and we are committed to addressing each of your concerns in a comprehensive manner. Thank you for your time and dedication.
Comment: Frankl's concept is not a psychological theory, more like philosophical concept. The logotherapy concept has been criticized even in the previous century.
It does not provide any rationale for indirect/mediational effects. The authors do not answer my critique at all in their response to the review report.
Author response:
We acknowledge your point about the theoretical framework, specifically our incorporation of Frankl's concept of meaning in life. We apologize for any confusion caused by our initial response and understand that our attempt to integrate this concept may not have fully met the expected theoretical rigor.
While our proposed model may diverge from some prevailing interpretations of the concept of meaning in life that you have delineated, it is imperative to acknowledge that the notion of meaning in life holds a prominent position as one of the ten most influential psychological ideas, encompassing both philosophical and psychological dimensions (Haidt, 2006). Frankl's conceptualization of meaning in life has garnered substantial support from a plethora of theoretical and empirical studies. Despite enduring critiques leveled against Frankl's logotherapy, as is common for many paradigms, approaches, and theories, it stands as a meaning-centric therapeutic framework esteemed by scholars and mental health practitioners alike for its efficacy in elucidating life's purpose.
Furthermore, Frankl postulated a triadic framework for individuals to ascertain meaning in their lives, encompassing creative values, experiential values, and attitudinal values. The latter, attitudinal values, are particularly pertinent in engendering meaning by inducing a transformative shift in attitudes to navigate inevitable adversities, including situations marked by anxiety, such as the exigencies of a pandemic. Notably, individuals who possess a profound sense of meaning and purpose in their lives tend to endure despite confronting formidable challenges.
Moreover, the salutary impact of meaning in life extends to mental health, physical well-being, and overall psychosocial flourishing. Hence, we posit that augmenting individuals' sense of meaning may serve as a potent modality for ameliorating anxiety and concurrently heightening life satisfaction. It is our assertion that we have substantiated the mediating role of meaning in life within our study, which was meticulously designed to parallel analogous investigations. We consider the aforementioned robust body of evidence, including that cited in both our manuscript and the sources aforementioned, as constituting the rationale underpinning the indirect and mediating effects of meaning in life.
In light of these deliberations, the findings stemming from our model, anchored in Frankl's seminal conceptualization, not only affirm the plausibility of this notion but also augur well for illuminating avenues for prospective research.
Haidt, J. (2006). The happiness hypothesis: Finding modern truth in ancient wisdom. Basic books.
Comment: What is more, in the revised version of the manuscript the authors write: “115 to 285 participants is typically required for .80 power to detect an effect”. First, any sample size can “detect an effect” – smaller samples will detect only larger effects, bigger samples can detect very small effects. The authors statement is incorrect. Second, it is unknown why the authors chose the threshold of 1-Beta=0.80 instead of 1-Beta=0.95 especially then their chosen alpha levels were of 0.05. Third, the authors refer to reference [41] to justify that claim. Reference 41 is the following publication: Reaction to the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Influence of Meaning in Life, Life Satisfaction, and Assumptions on World Orderliness and Positivity. It is not a statistical or methodological publication and its manuscript body does not provide any justification for the authors claim – what is more, it never states that the mentioned “115 to 285 participants” is enough.
In my initial review report, I’ve presented the results of sensitivity power analysis (a statistical proof) that the authors sample size is unjustified. Unfortunately, the authors do not answer my critique at all (even without proper reference).
Author response:
Regarding the sample size justification, we fully understand and appreciate your concerns. Your clarification about the characterization of statistical power and the choice of threshold for beta is noted. We apologize for the inaccuracies in our statement and for referencing an inappropriate source (Reference 41) to support our claim. We are committed to cite a robust and justified sample size determination, taking into account the appropriate statistical parameters.
In our earlier version, we cited Fritz and MacKinnon (2007) as a reference. Regrettably, we inadvertently placed the citation in an incorrect location, an error that has been rectified in the updated reference order. We apologize for this oversight.
This paper is fundamentally methodological in nature, with the objective of determining the necessary sample size to detect mediated effects. Its aim is to provide researchers with a set of guidelines for determining the appropriate sample size required to conduct mediational studies with a statistical power of .8. Within the context of this paper, it is underscored that a sample size ranging from 115 to 285 participants is typically necessary to detect an effect in mediation analysis.
Furthermore, it is crucial to distinguish between the concepts of power and significance value within the realm of psychological research. In psychology, power is generally considered adequate when it attains a threshold of .80, a criterion delineated by Cohen (1990). Conversely, the significance value, often represented as a p-value, reflects the probability of obtaining results as extreme as those observed under the assumption that the null hypothesis is valid. These two metrics serve disparate functions within the context of statistical analysis and should not be conflated.
Cohen, J. (1992). "Things I have learned (so far)." American Psychologist, 45(12), 1304–1312.
Fritz, M. S., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2007). "Required sample size to detect the mediated effect." Psychological Science, 18(3), 233-239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01882.x)
Comment: The authors completely ignored 3rd comment on the mediation analysis.
“The mediation analysis itself. The authors present the results of a cross-sectional study. Mediation analysis is causal in nature, therefore mediation effects/indirect effects should be tested via longitudinal research. The author’s refer to Hayes’ book Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis [49], which clearly states that. Unfortunately, the authors fail to admit that in their limitations section, which is not in line with the references they cite throughout their manuscript.”
Author response:
We sincerely apologize for any misunderstanding. We want to assure you that we value and appreciate your feedback. It was not our intention to overlook any comments, and we regret any confusion caused.
Regarding the mediation analysis, we want to clarify our position. In the original version of the manuscript, we did address the limitation related to the cross-sectional research design. We explicitly acknowledged that the data used in our study are cross-sectional, and while our analysis provides insights into potential relationships between the variables, it does not establish causal relationships. We understand that mediation analysis is inherently causal, and we did not claim to establish definitive causal links through our cross-sectional study.
Furthermore, to prevent any ambiguity, we have revisited the limitation section and made adjustments. We have removed the previous limitation to the claim of non-causal relationships between variables. Our intention was to ensure clarity and alignment with our stated limitations.
We hope this clarification adequately addresses your concern. We greatly value your insights. Thank you for your understanding.
Dr. Murat Yıldırım,
Dr. Amelia Rizzo
