Predictors of Purpose Among Young Adults in College: An Exploratory Analysis of the Importance of Relational Supports and Experiential Learning

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

Please find attached the review.

Best regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: Thank you for enriching our knowledge about this specific subject. Here are some contributions to the text you submitted, in the hope that they will be useful and that they will enhance your work. 

• Response: Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections in red in the re-submitted files.

Comment 2: Abstract: To meet the requirements for the Abstract, some points should be strengthened or even added. As far as the Background is concerned, the objectives of this article are not clearly identified. This situation has repercussions in other parts of the text, which will be indicated in the appropriate place. The methodology followed in the study is missing and should be indicated. Finally, although the results are duly presented, the conclusion (lines 19-20) does not correspond to what was intended as it does not indicate the main conclusions or interpretations. Finally, please avoid citing sources in an abstract. 

• Response: Thank you for your thoughtful comments. We edited to better articulate the objectives of our study (lines 15-17), clarify the methodology used in this study(line 16), and better align the conclusions with the results (line 21-22). Finally, the citations were removed from the abstract.

Comment 3: Introduction: National data from Gallup is referred to, but without a succinct presentation, nor is the supporting bibliographical reference given (Line 36). It is important to clarify some aspects of this data (when and how it was collected, how it was systematised around the Big Six, in particular). 

• Response: We appreciate this comment. We added further, succinct presentation of the Gallup poll (line 41-42) and increased the number of times we cite the bibliographic reference. 

Comment 4: Lines 53-56 indicate that the aim of the article is to explain the relationship between the Big Six and post-graduate thriving. However, it's important to clarify the results of this article, which don't appear to be these. It goes on to say that the Big Six predict postgraduate success (Lines 78-79 and you should add the bibliographical reference). For greater clarification, it is suggested that you emphasise the differentiation between what are the results of other works (which were relevant to a literature review) and what are the objectives of your article. In congruence with lines 170-171, which finally clarify the objective of this article (when it states: "we examined the "Big Six" experiences as predictors of purpose to see if these experiences also confer benefits (i.e., increased purpose) among students while still in college"), it is important to be clear in indicating what the objectives of this article are. This suggestion is in line with what was highlighted in the analysis of the Abstract. 

• Response: Thank you for this feedback. We removed the first reference to post-graduate thriving (lines 53-54) in order to increase clarity regarding our article’s objectives. 

Comment 5: Materials and Methods: It is not clear what was extracted from the survey and what was added by the authors for this study (2.1. and 2.2.). The choice of certain demographic variables should be explained in the light of the study's objectives and their impact should be clarified in terms of the Results (2.3.). In the text submitted, apart from characterising the sample, there doesn't seem to be a justification for the choice of certain sociodemographic variables. 

• Response: We appreciate this comment. We have added further clarification on the first point, noting that the measures used in the present study have been incorporated into this student survey since its inception. 

• We have also added rationale for the inclusion of our demographic variables and an appropriate citation. 

Comment 6: Results: Lines 260-262 present a reductive conclusion, which doesn't seem appropriate in a subchapter dedicated to presenting the results. Please check English at the end of Line 259- beginning of Line 260. 

• Response: Thank you for these suggestions. We have removed the discussion of findings in Lines 260-262 and have revised the language in Line 259.

Comment 7: Discussion: In the Discussion, it includes a set of Recommendations for HEIs, which constitute a relevant part of the article. This contribution should be referred in the Abstract.

• Response: Thank you for this comment; we added reference to this section of the discussion into the abstract (line 21-22).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Excellent report and analysis. 

Authors should be encouraged to present a follow up, since the main limitations are data collected from only one academic year and COVID period. 

 

     

Author Response

Comment: Excellent report and analysis. Authors should be encouraged to present a follow up, since the main limitations are data collected from only one academic year and COVID period. 

• Response: Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and for your kind words. We have continued to collect data and hope to present a follow up, as you suggested, sometime in the near future.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• Introduction: The study focuses on examining the "Big six" experiences that impact the purpose of life among college students. It is cited in the paper that youth enrolled in college and not enrolled have an equally low purpose in life. The not enrolled ones are from economically deprived sections or into other activities? Such citations can be difficult to make sense of if the underlying information is missing (Page 1). It is worthwhile to cover both relationships and experiences that make an impact on the purpose as in 1.2 and 1.3. The last para in 1.3 is not cited. Does it represent author's observations from the research?
• Methodology: The paper has a good dataset for such a research, but the rationale for taking up this work and for choosing the particular region is not so clear. May be mentioned. However, the dataset is primarily from female students (60%) and whites. This can result in skewed assessment? If this bias has been taken care of, please explain. Second, the questions asked are simple - My life has a clear sense of purpose. However, were they first explained as to what you meant by purpose? Many students are disillusioned on what they really want to do in college and that is more about career, but a purpose could be different from a career. Third, the participation is voluntary which may invite only engaged students. Any biases resulted from this?
• Results - Too short, need some tables and graphs to understand the statistics. There is no clarity on the outcome. Major revisions are needed.
• Discussion - Again, too short to come up with inferences. Except recommendations, it misses a lot. Recommendations must also be more clearly articulated.
• Limitation - One major limitation of the study, also noted by the author, is that the data was collected during COVID. Any specific reasons to choose that time? That time was challenging for college going youth world over and the purpose of life was blurry for many of them. Work was delayed and there was loss of life. But there is potential in this research to understand the well-being perspective considering that students were not biased due to the particular global situation. Were they given any instruction to think in a particular way? For eg: Think about the good times in your life, and then....
• The study did not delve into the on Big Six "impact of internships" due to low student participation during the COVID-19 pandemic. ​Since it is not analysed, is it okay to keep it as a part of the study?
• The study also lacks longitudinal data to understand long-term impact of relationships and experiences. Though it is fine, but focused on COVID time. Is there any comparative experience available?

Author Response

General Response: Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Comment 1: Introduction: The study focuses on examining the "Big six" experiences that impact the purpose of life among college students. It is cited in the paper that youth enrolled in college and not enrolled have an equally low purpose in life. The not enrolled ones are from economically deprived sections or into other activities? Such citations can be difficult to make sense of if the underlying information is missing (Page 1). It is worthwhile to cover both relationships and experiences that make an impact on the purpose as in 1.2 and 1.3. The last para in 1.3 is not cited. Does it represent author's observations from the research?

• Response: Thank you for your comment. Additional context regarding the first-mentioned citation was added (line 31). Citations were added as appropriate to the last paragraph of 1.3.

Comment 2: Methodology: The paper has a good dataset for such a research, but the rationale for taking up this work and for choosing the particular region is not so clear. May be mentioned. However, the dataset is primarily from female students (60%) and whites. This can result in skewed assessment? If this bias has been taken care of, please explain. Second, the questions asked are simple - My life has a clear sense of purpose. However, were they first explained as to what you meant by purpose? Many students are disillusioned on what they really want to do in college and that is more about career, but a purpose could be different from a career. Third, the participation is voluntary which may invite only engaged students. Any biases resulted from this?

• Response: Thank you for your feedback. We agree that the majority female and white identities of our participants constitutes a limitation of our work and thus mention it as such in our limitations section (line 404-407). The questions asked in our survey regarding purpose are part of the Meaning in Life questionnaire–an empirically supported, valid and reliable measure of purpose among adolescents and young adults (Lund et al., 2019; Steger et al., 2006). Given that purpose is a subjective and personal experience with high colloquial usage in this context, we did not define purpose as we anticipated that participants would have their own understanding of this word and interpret it individually as opposed to having a prescribed definition that may not match their understanding of purpose (Hill & Burrow, 2021). Finally, we agree that the voluntary nature of participation in this study may bias results and thus we mention this as a limitation in our limitations section (line 396-397).

Comment 3: Results - Too short, need some tables and graphs to understand the statistics. There is no clarity on the outcome. Major revisions are needed.

• Response: Thank you for your comment. There are two results tables included in Appendix A (lines 432-453) that offer further information to support readers’ understanding of the statistics. We also underscore the exploratory nature of this study and call for additional work on this topic. 

Comment 4: Discussion - Again, too short to come up with inferences. Except recommendations, it misses a lot. Recommendations must also be more clearly articulated.

• Response: We appreciate this comment. We note that this is an exploratory study of the predictors of purpose among college students. We hope that this framing, along with minor revisions to the Discussion section, have meaningfully improved this section. 

Comment 5: Limitation - One major limitation of the study, also noted by the author, is that the data was collected during COVID. Any specific reasons to choose that time? That time was challenging for college going youth world over and the purpose of life was blurry for many of them. Work was delayed and there was loss of life. But there is potential in this research to understand the well-being perspective considering that students were not biased due to the particular global situation. Were they given any instruction to think in a particular way? For eg: Think about the good times in your life, and then....

• Response: Participants were not given any instruction to think in a particular way aside from thinking about their present experience. Moreover, understanding the predictors of purpose during this major stressor may provide guidance on experiences and programming that college administrators could sustain and support during other major disruptions in the future (e.g., natural disasters) to continue to foster student thriving (e.g., purpose cultivation). 

Comment 6: The study did not delve into the on Big Six "impact of internships" due to low student participation during the COVID-19 pandemic. ​Since it is not analysed, is it okay to keep it as a part of the study?

• Response: We appreciate this suggestion. We include a discussion of internships in the literature review and throughout the manuscript as that aligns with the framework provided by Gallup. That being said, it’s worth highlighting that this research is useful in determining which experiences foster purpose in life beyond internships, given that many students lack access to internships due to financial constraints and limited networks. 

Comment 7: The study also lacks longitudinal data to understand long-term impact of relationships and experiences. Though it is fine, but focused on COVID time. Is there any comparative experience available?

• Response: Thank you for your feedback. We agree that lacking longitudinal data is a limitation and mention it as such in our limitations section (line 387). Additionally, though there is no comparative data available at this point, we do continue to collect data from participants in this population and hope to present a follow up sometime in the future.