How Anxious and Stressed Are Emerging Adults? The Role of Mindfulness and Intolerance of Uncertainty

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I found the article to be well written, easy to follow and on a relevant subject. There is potential in the work. However;

1) Emerging Adult - an awkward term which need a longer explanation and also to consider with Generation Z, who are now full stamped into this group.  My suggestion is to discuss this in some depth for emerging adults in 20 years time could be very different and the author should consider such issues. Developing a body of knowledge around emerging adult, I feel, needs to consider how generations change.

2)  The authors select some topics to use and attempt to make an argument that these are the most important. I think they should say - we are going to focus on these variables, we accept that this is a limited range of variables but it covers what we consider are most of the key issues and then say what they are. The logic in setting up the study could be more persuasive. 

3. The sample - convenient. It is large but not thought out enough as it is not balance by gender and then gender is an issue in the results. I am tempted to say get an even sample and more data. 

4. The research design - the title implies that the design is an experiment when it is correlational. 

5. Results - extremely exploratory and should be written accordingly. I would have used a MANOVA to control p at.05 rather than run many tests. 

6. The discussion over emphasizes the results. 

My suggestion is to get a balanced sample, to re-analyze data, and interpret results as exploratory and tentative and so re-write the discussion. 

It is well written

Author Response

First of all, I wish to thank you for the valuable comments and suggestions. All newly added sections within the article are highlighted, making it easy for you to identify the modifications that have been made.

 

Thank you for your comment regarding Gen Z. In Introduction and Discussion it was emphasized what you recommended, hopefully it is what you suggested.

Additionally, we have incorporated a more focused explanation for measuring these specific variables.

Regarding sample size, and number of men. This study is a part of a broader research encompassing a wider age range. In that particular sample, the representation of men was limited in number, around 15%.  The only upcoming study, in which we have a more balanced gender distribution with a larger number of men, pertains to the realm of video games. We posit that topics concerning mental health and related variables might not be the central focus of interest among Croatia adult men. Alternatively, it is possible that such topics are of interest, but they remain stigmatized due to entrenched traditional gender roles.

It is noted in the Introduction that is correlation study. The role in the title implies that IU and MNDF are predictors of anxiety and stress. We can recommend maybe different title Mindfulness, Intolerance of Uncertainty, and the Experience of Anxiety and Stress among EA

You suggested MANOVA, but the reason we use t-test is because ANOVA assumes homogeneity of variance. In Analyses plan we described what we used and why, hopefully it is clearly highlighted.

Furthermore, we have made adjustment to certain analyses in accordance with the feedback from the second reviewer. As a result, some section have been rewritten accordingly.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors present an interesting contribution about stress, anxiety and their relations with mindfulness and intolerance of uncertainty in a sample of participants in their developmental period of "emerging adulthood". The study is generally interesting. However, certain issues should be addressed to make this a strong and convincing contribution.  

As also noted by the authors, the relations between the investigated variables have been heavily investigated in the literature. The novelty and added value of this research should be better explained to the reader. In spite of that the Introduction and Discussion were informative to read, these sections could be shortened a little?

The nature of this study is correlative and causal inferences are difficult. Regarding gender effects, there are apparent discrepancies between mean differences and results obtained from multiple regression analyses (which may suffer from suppression effects?). In spite of descriptive differences, a moderation effect of gender has not been tested in this study.

Minor issues and further details (in chronological order)

- l. 13 ff. (Abstract): "For women, all correlation coefficients were statistically significant": The pattern and magnitude of effects should be described in the Abstract (as well as in the Discussion, e.g., l .297) rather then mere "statistical significance".  The absence of significant findings in the male subsample is likely due to a lack of power.

- l.158: "I could be experiencing some emotion and not be conscious of it until some time later.": I know this wording stems from a frequently employed test. However, it reads like a contradiction in itself: Is it possible to "experience" something without "awareness"? (Sorry for the comment, no revision needed here.)

- 180 / l. 198: "Leven test": I think his name was Levene.

- 182: "standard regression analyses": Maybe "multiple regression analysis with standardized regression coefficients"?

- 191: "suggested by Lovibond and Lovibond []": reference missing

- 196  (and other places): "sd=...": Please capitalize: "SD=..." In fact, this paragraph is a bit redundant given that descriptives are given in Table 1.

- 214 ff: Likewise, it is not necessary to give correlations that are also given in Table 2.

- 242: "Due to small number of male participants (N=71, 17%), it was decided to include gender as a predictor in the regression analyses.": In fact, statistical control is one possibility. However, it would be more elegant to conduct a stepwise regression than: Enter demographics in the first step and the relevant predictors in the second step.

- Table 3, and related text: I would be cautions to interpret the significant effect of gender here, as the mean difference is not significant at all (p=.99, see Table 1). There may be some sort of suppression effect in the multiple regression which calls for caution. In fact, what was the magnitude of predictor correlations?

- 269: "the prevalence...": This term is conventionally used in case of categorical variables. As all variables investigated here are dimensional, possibly refer to their "magnitude", "strength", or "degree"?

- 286: "indicating that gender in significant moderator": The authors are right that this has been shown in other studies. However, this was not tested here. It is not enough to refer to significant vs. non-significant effects in subsamples. Instead, the significance of the difference needs to be demonstrated. Technically, interaction terms of gender with the other (standardized) predictors could have been included in the regression analyses. I agree, though, that the moderate number of male participants may not yield enough test power.

- 327 f: "anxiety can only be explained with inhibitory anxiety": Maybe inhibitory anxiety is a facet of anxiety as a broader trait? I think the challenge of interpreting correlative results becomes quite clear here.

- 345: "gender was significant predictor for stress, but not for anxiety": Given the discrepancies mean analyses and the multiple regressions, I would rather trust the first. In fact, the only group differences between gender groups were obtained in IU and its subdimensions.

fine

Author Response

 

First of all, I wish to thank you for the valuable comments and suggestions. All newly added sections within the article are highlighted, making it easy for you to identify the modifications that have been made.

 

Unfortunately, the Introduction and Discussion sections have not been shortened due to the incorporation of additional explanations, as recommended by another reviewer.

As you advised, we have revised the analysis plan, opting for hierarchical regression analyses. Notably, we identified a suppression effect concerning gender. Although these specific analyses were not included in the article, driven by your suggestion, we pursued an investigation into the moderating effect of gender. Our findings revealed that the percentage of criteria explained through the added interaction in the third step was approximately 3% 

for both criteria, with the inhibitory anxiety and gender interaction displaying proximity to significance.

Moreover, we have implemented your suggestion of attributing the lack of significance in the male sample to a potential deficiency in statistical power. Additionally, we have rectified all variations of typos and references omissions (Levene's test, standard deviation) as per your guidance.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

thank you for your interesting contribution. Here are my suggestions:

- Introduction is clear and well-written; however, it lacks some relevant details. What about psychological resources to deal with emotional issues? I argue that adding content regarding, for example, emotion regulation, coping, and emotional intelligence could foster your background (see: Durosini et al., 2022). 

- I suggest making Mindfulness content better explained. Please, add a definition, present different types of Mindfulness approaches, and be clearer about what kind of Mindfulness you are referring to (see: Garrote‐Caparrós et al., 2022).

- What do you mean for emerging adults? Please, specify it supported by the literature

- There are some typos in the participant paragraph. Please, correct them

- Add a table regarding socio-demographic data

- The first two questionnaires lack of alpha di Chronbach. Please, provide it

- Add the recruitment process

- Please, add an asterisk close to significant results in your tables

- Add limitation and future research

- What practical implication could follow the present contribution?

 

References:

- Durosini, I., Triberti, S., Savioni, L., Sebri, V., & Pravettoni, G. (2022). The role of emotion-related abilities in the quality of life of breast cancer survivors: a systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(19), 12704.

- Garrote‐Caparrós, E., Bellosta‐Batalla, M., Moya‐Albiol, L., & Cebolla, A. (2022). Effectiveness of mindfulness‐based interventions on psychotherapy processes: A systematic review. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 29(3), 783-798.

Minor typos

Author Response

First of all, I wish to thank you for the valuable comments and suggestions. All newly added sections within the article are highlighted, making it easy for you to identify the modifications that have been made.

 

Thank you for the intresting and valuable articles you recommended; both have been appropriately cited. The Cronbach's alpha for each utilized scale is included in the descriptions. Furthermore, we have incorporated sections covering limitations and practical implications. In addition to these updates, we have marked correlations of note with asterisks in the correlation table.

The only aspect we have chosen not to alter is the presentation of the sociodemographics table. We discovered that it remains easily comprehensible within the text, especially when compared to certain other articles where the table extends across a full page or even spans two pages.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have revised the paper and it is much better. There is need for a data analysis section and justification of what was done and why. A MANONA would give an omnibus result and that is how the author discuss the results. It would also give an overall effect size. 

I find the point that there is a larger sample not used interesting. I suggest using the entire sample and if it 2 completely separate questions then you can publish both. What you seem to be doing is hiding this data - an open approach is better. The readers of both articles will spot  the fact they are from the same sample and if not mentioned, this will look poor on you. 

English is well explained. Read closely for typos - I did not do a close proof read/ 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you once again for valuable comments.

The larger sample included a wider age range, and here we focused on EA and did not use the entire sample for this reason. And for the older sample, we used different measures, and we also had a small response of male participants. I am sorry if I did not explain that thoroughly in my first response.
We used ANOVA, but we noted that homogeneity of variance for anxiety and IU (PA and IA) was not established, so we used Welch's ANOVA. We also presented the effect size in Table 1.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have adequately addressed most of the points raised in the first round. In particular, the discrepancy between tests of mean difference and the multiple regressions has been large resolved (at least explained; but see below). The explicit discussion of generation effects nicely adds to the added value of this contribution.

However, I have been thinking on how to address the discrepant findings regarding gender obtained in the multiple regression analyses... The subsample of n=71 men should be large enough to derive a preliminary estimate, but it is considerably less reliable than that of the female subsample (n=354). Hence, I would definitely not present the interaction effect (irrespective of its effect size). In fact, readers might still be confused by the change in sign obtained in the multiple regression. To this end, the authors could possibly discuss that the male subsample was too small for subgroup analyses in the multiple regression models. Instead, effects of gender could be removed (residualized) from the other predictors (which will hardly change anything, given that gender did not display much of an effect). Then, a one-step multiple regression (anxiety / stress on the three predictors PA, IA, and mindfulness) could be reported.

fine

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

in the final version of this article, we done what you recommended, one-step multiple regression.

Thank you for your valuable comments during this process.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

No other comments needed

Author Response

ear reviewer,

in the second wave of comments and suggestions you did not have any, but we changed some because the first reviewer insisted on ANOVA, and we did that and also added the effect size to the table, and finally we did a one-step multiple regression.

Thank you very much for your comments in the first review wave.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The suggestion was to use MANOVA to obtain an omnibus result. The authors have cited statistical reasons for not using a MANOVA. MANOVA is generally robust and the argument is whether breaches of some of the underlying assumptions v providing an omnibus result discussion. I would use the omnibus option.

The suggestion was to use MANOVA to obtain an omnibus result. The authors have cited statistical reasons for not using a MANOVA. MANOVA is generally robust and the argument is whether breaches of some of the underlying assumptions v providing an omnibus result discussion. I would use the omnibus option.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your suggestion to use MANOVA. However, when we looked in the statistical manuals regarding non-homogeneity of variance, we found that the usual recommendation is Welch's ANOVA. Since 4 of 6 variables did not meet the criteria for homogeneity of variance, we used ANOVA instead. Since we thought a lot about this suggestion, we would appreciate if you could give us a reference that we can cite to justify that the homogeneity violation is still appropriate to use MANOVA. That would be very helpful. We are sorry if we have caused any inconvenience.