How high-intensity sensory consumption fills up resource scarcity: The boundary condition of self-acceptance

Liangjun Peng; Yuxin Peng; Haiyan Luo; Yeying Deng

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0285853

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 18, 2022
15 Mar 2023 Decision Letter - Abdullah Al Mamun, Editor PONE-D-22-28511How High-Intensity Sensory Consumption Fill up Resource Scarcity: The Boundary Condition of Self-acceptancePLOS ONE Dear Dr. Liangjun Peng, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by 14th April, 2023. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Abdullah Al Mamun, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf. 2. During your revisions, please note that a simple title correction is required: The word "fill" should be replaced with "fills". Please ensure this is updated in the manuscript file and the online submission information. 3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the Methods section, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. 4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Please check the reviewer(s) comments carefully, then amend (please do not submit half-baked revision) and resubmit the manuscript accordingly. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: 1) The DOE was quite interesting having said that the auditory equipment and color intensity instrument were lacking. 2) This study would be even better with a proper instrumentation as this could be collaborated with other transdisciplinary personnel (pity it did not happen). I would possibly reject this paper as it is lacking of that simple arrangement. However, other angle is considered quite interesting to taken into consideration as this might be explore even more. 3) The sampling distribution are quite unacceptable and the participant involved could be classified into generic parameters (e.g. educational background/traumatic event/sex/races/ages/lifestyle etc.). 4) What is your control sampling? Reviewer #2: The paper entitled: “How High-Intensity Sensory Consumption Fill up Resource Scarcity: The Boundary Condition of Self-acceptance” reports research showing the effect of resource scarcity on peoples HISC. The authors include data of four studies - presenting self-worth as mediator and self-acceptance as moderator. Also, they show the effect of scarcity on HISC on several sensory dimensions. The paper is well-written and informative. There is a notable progress across the studies and the validity of the effect is supported through the usage of the different methods. The analyses are adequate, and the data supports the hypotheses. However, there are also some issues that the authors need to address when revising their paper. The moderated mediation in Study 3 needs more explanation and the results should be described in more details. Currently, there are only explanations regarding the moderation effects. What is important to know here is if the self-worth only mediates the effect for the low-acceptance subsample? Generally, it is possible that there is a risk for a certain tautology when using self-worth and self-acceptance as mediator and moderator. The authors should explain the difference in more detail and discuss how it is possible that there is a strong connection but still room for these different processes. The authors should reflect and discuss about the relation/processes regarding the self-worth restauration and the HISC with negatively valanced stimuli. For the stimulation with positive sensory input the effect is easily understandable, but it is quite difficult to see a reason why people experiencing scarcity leading to fewer self-worth should be interested in increasing their arousal through negative valanced stimuli. Minor points The methods are changed throughout the course of the research. Sometimes just one clip is shown, and participants chose their volume level – sometimes they start with high vs. low intensity volume – why did the authors change the procedure? Please include some explanations. Pease include standardized betas in the results sections. There are several differences/errors in the way the authors cite the references. Please correct this. Some minor typos need to be corrected as well. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes: Anne Berthold ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285853.r001
Revision 1
30 Mar 2023 Author Response Response to Reviewer 1 Reviewer#1, Concern # 1: The design of experiment (DOE) was quite interesting having said that the auditory equipment and color intensity instrument were lacking. Author Response: In Section 3.1 Methodology, we explain that all participants used the same model and make of computer and headphones to listen to the music clips without lyrics. So, the auditory equipment used in our experiments were computers and headphones. In the revised manuscript, we added auditory equipment. The color swatches of high- and low- intensity visual stimuli in the experiment were indeed modulated by chemical engineers using professional colorimeters. We did not emphasize this process in the first manuscript. Thank the reviewer for finding that we are missing the description of colorimeter. In the revised draft, we added the description of colorimeter which was omitted in the first manuscript. Author action: (1) In Section 3.1 Methodology, we update the manuscript as follows: Further, for the purposes of this study, brand new headphones were purchased and tested by the assistant across all computers to ensure the same quality of audibility (the auditory equipment see Appendix A). (2) In Section 5.1 Methodology, we update the manuscript as follows: The color swatches of high- and low- intensity visual stimuli in our experiment were modulated by chemical engineers using professional instrument of colorimeters (the instrument see Appendix B) ________________________________________ Reviewer#1, Concern # 2: This study would be even better with a proper instrumentation as this could be collaborated with other transdisciplinary personnel (pity it did not happen). I would possibly reject this paper as it is lacking of that simple arrangement. However, other angle is considered quite interesting to taken into consideration as this might be explored even more. Author Response: As mentioned earlier, we used some necessary equipment and instruments in our experiment, such as colorimeter, decibel meter, computer, earphone, etc., which are not emphasized in the manuscript. We collaborate with other interdisciplinary people to use these devices, like color palette engineers and audiologists. In the revised manuscript, we have added the missing equipment, such as colorimeter, decibel meter, computer, and earphone, and illustrated the equipment drawings in Appendix A, B, and C. Author action: In Section 3.1 Methodology, we update the manuscript as follows: We used a decibel meter to record decibel levels at different volumes, and the record showed that the higher the volume, the higher the decibel level (the decibel meter see Appendix C). Previous studies also show that the increased volume of auditory stimuli corresponds to increased decibel levels and more intensive sound (Gelfand 2009). ________________________________________ Reviewer#1, Concern # 3: The sampling distribution are quite unacceptable and the participant involved could be classified into generic parameters (e.g., educational background/traumatic event/sex/races/ages/lifestyle etc.). Author Response: We consider the validity of the sample distribution in the experiment and we collect demographic data about the participants in each experiment. In the revised manuscript, the the participants involved have been classified into generic parameters (eg, educational background/sex/ages/major., etc.). Author action: (1) At the section 3.1 Methodology, we updated the manuscript as follows: Ninety-six undergraduate students and teachers from the Business School participated in the experiment, including 49 females (51.04%) and 47 males (48.96%) ranging from 18 to 35-years-old with a mean age of 20 (SD=2.421). (2) At the section 4.1 Methodology, we updated the manuscript as follows: One hundred and ninety-one participants from college students and teachers were randomly assigned to two groups of positive and negative valence conditions. A total of 191 students and teachers participated in the experiment, including 93 females (48.70%) and 98 males (51.30%) ranging from 18 to 46-years-old with a mean age of 21.06 (SD=4.34). 95 (48 females, 50.53%) participated in the negative valence conditions and 96 (47 females, i.e., 48.96%) in the positive valence conditions. (3) In Section 5.1 Methodology, we updated the manuscript as follows: We recruited 182 voluntary participants from an online research service platform(www.credamo.com) called Credamo who were paid RMB 1.5 (USD 25 cents) for the online experiment. The final valid sample comprised 160 participants (82 female i.e., 51.3%, average age 31.34, ranging from 18 to 62 with SD=9.648) who were randomly assigned to the conditions of resource scarcity and control condition, after excluding those incomplete responses. 80 (39 females, 48.75%) participated in resource scarcity conditions and 80 (43 females, that is, 53.75%) in control conditions. Among the 160 participants, 25 (15.63%) had master's degree, 99 (61.88%) had bachelor's degree and 36 (22.50%) had junior college degree or below. (4) In Section 6.1 Methodology, we update the manuscript as follows: Experiment 3 was still conducted on the Credamo platform (www.credamo. com), with a total of 251 voluntary participants who were paid RMB 1.5 (USD 25 cents) for the online experiment. The final valid sample comprised 240 participants (154 female i.e. 64.17%, average age 29.21, ranging from 18 to 59 with SD=7.836) who were randomly assigned to the conditions of a 2 (resource: scarcity vs. abundance) x 2 (self-acceptance: high vs. low) between-subjects design. Among the 240 participants, 38 (15.80%) had master's degree, 154 (64.20%) had bachelor's degree and 48 (20%) had junior college degree or below. ________________________________________ Reviewer#1, Concern # 4: What is your control sampling? Author Response: Thank you for your comment on the control sampling in our manuscript. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify this aspect of our study. (1) We selected the control group from a population of individuals who were matched to the study group based on educational background, age, sex, and other demographic factors. (2) The control group consisted of individuals who were similar to the experimental group in terms of educational background, age, gender, and other relevant factors. This allows us to determine whether any changes observed in the experimental group are due to antecedent variables or other factors. (3) Eligibility for the control group was determined based on the absence of any other significant factor conditions that could potentially confound the results. (4) We recognize the importance of using an appropriate control group to ensure the validity and reliability of our findings, and we are confident that the control sampling method we used is appropriate for the research question being investigated. (5) We will provide the following additional details and justification for this method in the revised manuscript to further clarify the study design. Author action: (1) In the section 3.1 Methodology, we updated the manuscript as follows: Ninety-six undergraduate students and teachers from the Business School participated in the experiment, including 49 females (51.04%) and 47 males (48.96%) ranging from 18 to 35-years-old with a mean age of 20 (SD=2.421). (2) In the section 4.1 Methodology, we updated the manuscript as follows: One hundred and ninety-one participants from college students and teachers were randomly assigned to two groups of positive and negative valence conditions. A total of 191 students and teachers participated in the experiment, including 93 females (48.70%) and 98 males (51.30%) ranging from 18 to 46-years-old with a mean age of 21.06 (SD=4.34). 95 (48 females, 50.53%) participated in the negative valence conditions and 96 (47 females, i.e., 48.96%) in the positive valence conditions. (3) In Section 5.1 Methodology, we updated the manuscript as follows: We recruited 182 voluntary participants from an online research service platform(www.credamo.com) called Credamo who were paid RMB 1.5 (USD 25 cents) for the online experiment. The final valid sample comprised 160 participants (82 female i.e., 51.3%, average age 31.34, ranging from 18 to 62 with SD=9.648) who were randomly assigned to the conditions of resource scarcity and control condition, after excluding those incomplete responses. 80 (39 females, 48.75%) participated in resource scarcity conditions and 80 (43 females, that is, 53.75%) in control conditions. Among the 160 participants, 25 (15.63%) had master's degree, 99 (61.88%) had bachelor's degree, and 36 (22.50%) had junior college degree or below. (4) In Section 6.1 Methodology, we update the manuscript as follows: Experiment 3 was still conducted on the Credamo platform (www.credamo. com), with a total of 251 voluntary participants who were paid RMB 1.5 (USD 25 cents) for the online experiment. The final valid sample comprised 240 participants (154 female i.e., 64.17%, average age 29.21, ranging from 18 to 59 with SD=7.836) who were randomly assigned to the conditions of a 2 (resource: scarcity vs. abundance) x 2 (self-acceptance: high vs. low) between-subjects design. Among the 240 participants, 38 (15.80%) had master's degree, 154 (64.20%) had bachelor's degree and 48 (20%) had junior college degree or below. ________________________________________ Response to Editor 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf. Author Response: We referenced the PLOS ONE style template to ensure that the manuscript met PLOS ONE style requirements. For example, we revised the file naming and abstract as follows. How high-intensity sensory consumption fills up resource scarcity: The boundary condition of self-acceptance Abstract: Objective Everyone in life will experience resource scarcity, which causes self-discrepancy. It is widely known that individuals participate in reactive consumption to solve the problems of self-discrepancy and resources scarcity. This kind of consumption may be symbolically related to the essence of the resource scarcity or may occur in an unrelated domain. This study proposes a theory for "filling up" one's resource scarcity through high-intensity sensory consumption (HISC). Methods According to the theoretical development, we put forward five hypotheses, which were verified by SPSS one-way ANOVA, mediation effect and moderating effect. Four experiments in the study were conducted from May 2022 and August 2022 and involved undergraduates from a university and volunteers recruited online. All participants are adults and verbally agree to participate voluntarily. Participants were grouped according to resources (scarcity vs. abundance) and self-acceptance (high vs. low). Data were collected with the scarcity questionnaire, the self-worth scale for adults, the self-acceptance questionnaire, and the high-intensity sensory preference scale responded by participants. Results Four studies suggest that not only do individuals facing resources scarcity prefer HISC but also that this consumption is mediated and moderated by self-worth and self-acceptance, respectively. This preference for HISC is negated when individuals have high self-acceptance traits. The findings are tested in the auditory domain (as evidenced by a propensity for louder volume), the visual domain (as evidenced by a propensity for more intense colors), and the tactile domain (as evidenced by a propensity for more intense need for touch). The findings also demonstrate that individual preferences for HISC is shown to operate regardless of the valence (positive valence vs. negative valence) of the sensory consumption. Conclusions Across four experiments, we find that individuals who are subjected to resource scarcity show a preference for high-intensity sensory consumption in the auditory, visual, and tactile domains. We also find that both negatively and positively valenced sensory stimuli have the same impact on resource-scarce individuals’ preference for HISC. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the sense of self-worth significantly mediates the effect of resource scarcity on HISC. Finally, we reveal that self-acceptance moderates the effect of resource scarcity on HISC preference. 2. During your revisions, please note that a simple title correction is required: The word "fill" should be replaced with "fills". Please ensure this is updated in the manuscript file and the online submission information. Author Response: In the revised manuscript the word "fill" has been replaced with "fills" and updated in the manuscript file. 3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the Methods section, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. Author Response: In the revised manuscript, we provide additional details regarding participant consent in the method of abstract and make it clear that all participants are adults. 4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information Author Response: At the end of the revised manuscript, we added the captions of the supporting information file and any in-text citations to match accordingly. The added support information file titles are as follows: S1 Appendix S2 Figure S3 Dataset S4 Table Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: renamed_e972f.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285853.r002
25 Apr 2023 Decision Letter - Abdullah Al Mamun, Editor PONE-D-22-28511R1How high-intensity sensory consumption fills up resource scarcity: The boundary condition of self-acceptancePLOS ONE Dear Dr. Haiyan Luo, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please check the reviewer 1's comments and address the issues accordingly. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 09 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Abdullah Al Mamun, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: 1) Abstract: No. of participant were not disclosed and the DOE was quite simplified and more towards a vague arrangement. 2) Page 12: The no. of participant was only mentioned at this section (182 participant) and this should be clearly worth mentioning earlier for a better understanding. 3) The specific statistical analysis in the method section was quite unclear and need more info on that. 4) The ultimatum comment: The DOE need to be clearly explained and visualized (e.g. Table and Figures) so that the reviewer could understanding at the fullest of the outcome of this studies. Not to mention it is quite excruciating lengthy with unclear statistical approaches. Reviewer #2: The paper has improved a lot by the revisions. No further actions required. The paper has improved a lot by the revisions. No further actions required. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Saiful Irwan Zubairi Reviewer #2: Yes: Anne Berthold ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285853.r003
Revision 2
30 Apr 2023 Author Response Response to Reviewer 1 Reviewer#1, Concern # 1: Abstract: No. of participant were not disclosed and the DOE was quite simplified and more towards a vague arrangement. Author Response: First, we fully disclosed the participants in the Abstract section in revised manuscript. Second, we elaborate the DOE of Abstract section (including participants, variable measurement methods, statistical analysis methods, experimental results) so that it is clearly presented to the reader. Third, we reinforced the DOE in the first paragraph of each study. Author action: (1) In the methods section of the Abstract, we update the manuscript as follows: We used different methods including one-way ANOVA, linear regression, mediating effect, and moderating effect to test the four hypotheses. Four experiments in the study were conducted from May 2022 and August 2022 and involved undergraduates from a university and volunteers recruited online. All participants are adults and verbally agree to participate voluntarily. Study 1a (N = 96 (male 47, female 49), participants from a business school in China) measured resource scarcity in the laboratory experiments and verified the effect of resource scarcity on consumer HISC preference by using linear regression (H1). Study 1b (N = 191 (male 98, female 93), students and teachers from a university in China) measured resource scarcity in the laboratory experiments and manipulated positively and negatively valenced experiences. Using the PROCESS SPSS Mode l, we verified that negatively valenced stimuli also lead to higher levels of arousal, which in turn restores the self-discrepancy caused by resource scarcity (H2). Study 2 (an online experiment, N = 182 (male 91, female 91), participants from China) manipulated resource scarcity in color sensory stimulant context, replicating the preliminary effect and examined the mediating effect of the self-worth by using the PROCESS SPSS Mode 4 (H3). Study 3 (an online experiment, N = 251 (male 125, female 126), participants from China) manipulated resource scarcity and self-acceptance in tactile sensory experience, and tested the moderating effect of self-acceptance by using the PROCESS SPSS Mode 8 (H4). (2) We reinforced the DOE in the first paragraph of each study as follows: Study 1a was designed to test H1 by using linear regression method to study the effect of resource scarcity on consumers’ audio consumption choices. Study 1a was conducted in a laboratory and recruited 96 participants from a business school in China. We measured participants' perceived resource scarcity in laboratory experiments. An important goal that study 1b was designed to test H2 by using PROCESS SPSS Mode l method to examine what effect the valence of HISC may have on the observed impacts. Study 1a was conducted in a laboratory and recruited 191 students and teachers from a business school in China. We manipulated participants' positively and negatively valenced experiences. The design of Study 2 is to test H3 by using PROCESS SPSS Mode l method to document the mediating role of self-worth between resource scarcity and HISC in the visual domain. Study 2 was conducted on a research service online platform (www.credamo.com) called Credamo and recruited 182 voluntary participants. We manipulated participants' resource scarcity in color sensory stimulant context. The design purpose of study 3 is to test H4 by using PROCESS SPSS Mode 8 to investigate the moderating effect of self-acceptance on resource-scarce individuals’ preference for HISC in the tactile domain. Study 3 was conducted on a research service online platform (www.credamo.com) called Credamo and recruited 251 voluntary participants. We manipulated participants' resource scarcity and self-acceptance in tactile sensory experience. ________________________________________ Reviewer#1, Concern # 2: Page 12: The no. of participant was only mentioned at this section (182 participant) and this should be clearly worth mentioning earlier for a better understanding. Author Response: We fully understand the reviewer's comments. As in Reply to Concern # 1, we advance participants to the first paragraph of each study (Study 1a, Study 1b, Study 2, Study 3) because this should be clearly worth mentioning earlier for a better understanding. Author action: we advance participants to the first paragraph of each study (Study 1a, Study 1b, Study 2, Study 3) as follows: Study 1a was designed to test H1 by using linear regression method to study the effect of resource scarcity on consumers’ audio consumption choices. Study 1a was conducted in a laboratory and recruited 96 participants from a business school in China. We measured participants' perceived resource scarcity in laboratory experiments. An important goal that study 1b was designed to test H2 by using PROCESS SPSS Mode l method to examine what effect the valence of HISC may have on the observed impacts. Study 1a was conducted in a laboratory and recruited 191 students and teachers from a business school in China. We manipulated participants' positively and negatively valenced experiences. The design of Study 2 is to test H3 by using PROCESS SPSS Mode l method to document the mediating role of self-worth between resource scarcity and HISC in the visual domain. Study 2 was conducted on a research service online platform (www.credamo.com) called Credamo and recruited 182 voluntary participants. We manipulated participants' resource scarcity in color sensory stimulant context. The design purpose of study 3 is to test H4 by using PROCESS SPSS Mode 8 to investigate the moderating effect of self-acceptance on resource-scarce individuals’ preference for HISC in the tactile domain. Study 3 was conducted on a research service online platform (www.credamo.com) called Credamo and recruited 251 voluntary participants. We manipulated participants' resource scarcity and self-acceptance in tactile sensory experience. ________________________________________ Reviewer#1, Concern # 3: The specific statistical analysis in the method section was quite unclear and need more info on that. Author Response: We have revised the method part of the abstract, in which we separately added the participants, the variable measurement method, and the specific statistical analysis method of each experiment. The specific statistical analysis methods used in experiment 1a, experiment 1b, experiment 2 and experiment 3 are linear regression, PROCESS SPSS Mode l, PROCESS SPSS Mode 4, and PROCESS SPSS Mode 8, respectively. Author action: we added the specific statistical analysis in the method section as follows: We used different methods including one-way ANOVA, linear regression, mediating effect, and moderating effect to test the four hypotheses. Four experiments in the study were conducted from May 2022 and August 2022 and involved undergraduates from a university and volunteers recruited online. All participants are adults and verbally agree to participate voluntarily. Study 1a (N = 96 (male 47, female 49), participants from a business school in China) measured resource scarcity in the laboratory experiments and verified the effect of resource scarcity on consumer HISC preference by using linear regression (H1). Study 1b (N = 191 (male 98, female 93), students and teachers from a university in China) measured resource scarcity in the laboratory experiments and manipulated positively and negatively valenced experiences. Using the PROCESS SPSS Mode l, we verified that negatively valenced stimuli also lead to higher levels of arousal, which in turn restores the self-discrepancy caused by resource scarcity (H2). Study 2 (an online experiment, N = 182 (male 91, female 91), participants from China) manipulated resource scarcity in color sensory stimulant context, replicating the preliminary effect and examined the mediating effect of the self-worth by using the PROCESS SPSS Mode 4 (H3). Study 3 (an online experiment, N = 251 (male 125, female 126), participants from China) manipulated resource scarcity and self-acceptance in tactile sensory experience, and tested the moderating effect of self-acceptance by using the PROCESS SPSS Mode 8 (H4). ________________________________________ Reviewer#1, Concern # 4: The ultimatum comment: The DOE need to be clearly explained and visualized (e.g. Table and Figures) so that the reviewer could understanding at the fullest of the outcome of this studies. Not to mention it is quite excruciating lengthy with unclear statistical approaches. Author Response: First, we revised the method section of the Abstract, which clearly explains the design of experiment for each study including participants, variable measurement methods, statistical analysis methods. Second, we revised the first paragraph of study 1a, study 1b, study2, and study3, which clearly explains the design of experiment including the purpose of the experiment, participants, variable measurement methods, statistical analysis methods Third, each of our studies has visual research results, which are included in the result section. Outcome of this studies are visualized in 10 Figures, which uploaded separately according to journal requirements and are not included in the manuscript. In order to enable reviewer to understand at the fullest of the outcome of this studies, we show the figures below. Author action: First, we update the method section of the Abstract as follows: We used different methods including one-way ANOVA, linear regression, mediating effect, and moderating effect to test the four hypotheses. Four experiments in the study were conducted from May 2022 and August 2022 and involved undergraduates from a university and volunteers recruited online. All participants are adults and verbally agree to participate voluntarily. Study 1a (N = 96 (male 47, female 49), participants from a business school in China) measured resource scarcity in the laboratory experiments and verified the effect of resource scarcity on consumer HISC preference by using linear regression (H1). Study 1b (N = 191 (male 98, female 93), students and teachers from a university in China) measured resource scarcity in the laboratory experiments and manipulated positively and negatively valenced experiences. Using the PROCESS SPSS Mode l, we verified that negatively valenced stimuli also lead to higher levels of arousal, which in turn restores the self-discrepancy caused by resource scarcity (H2). Study 2 (an online experiment, N = 182 (male 91, female 91), participants from China) manipulated resource scarcity in color sensory stimulant context, replicating the preliminary effect and examined the mediating effect of the self-worth by using the PROCESS SPSS Mode 4 (H3). Study 3 (an online experiment, N = 251 (male 125, female 126), participants from China) manipulated resource scarcity and self-acceptance in tactile sensory experience, and tested the moderating effect of self-acceptance by using the PROCESS SPSS Mode 8 (H4). Second, we update the first paragraph of study 1a, study 1b, study2, and study3 as follows: Study 1a was designed to test H1 by using linear regression method to study the effect of resource scarcity on consumers’ audio consumption choices. Study 1a was conducted in a laboratory and recruited 96 participants from a business school in China. We measured participants' perceived resource scarcity in laboratory experiments. We examine the propensity for HISC by participants’ attitude toward an intense (high decibel) sound and their preferred volume on continuous audio in the same audio clips ranging from less intense to high intense sound (low decibel to high decibel). The audio sound we used in study 1a is music clips without lyrics. An important goal that study 1b was designed to test H2 by using PROCESS SPSS Mode l method to examine what effect the valence of HISC may have on the observed impacts. Study 1a was conducted in a laboratory and recruited 96 students and teachers from a business school in China. We manipulated participants' positively and negatively valenced experiences. Unlike study 1a, which used only positively valenced sensory stimuli, study 1b included negatively valenced stimuli. We expect that individuals subjected to resource scarcity prefer negatively valenced stimuli just as they prefer positively valenced stimuli, since negatively valenced stimuli also lead to higher levels of arousal, which in turn restores the self-discrepancy caused by resource scarcity. In studies 1a and 1b, we demonstrate that individuals subjected to resource scarcity exhibit a propensity for HISC in the auditory domains. We speculate that resource scarcity would reduce an individual’s self-worth and that HISC itself, like other affirming activities, serves as a restorative mechanism of self-worth [105] (Steele 1988; Townsend, Sood 2012). The design of Study 2 is to test H3 by using PROCESS SPSS Mode l method to document the mediating role of self-worth between resource scarcity and HISC in the visual domain. Study 2 was conducted on a research service online platform (www.credamo.com) called Credamo and recruited 182 voluntary participants. We manipulated participants' resource scarcity in color sensory stimulant context. We hypothesize that resource scarcity reduces the individual’s self-worth, which in turn promotes an individual’s HISC preference and ultimately has a restorative effect on self-worth. Unlike studies 1a and 1b, in study 2 we examine the propensity for HISC by the attitude of the participants toward intense color (highly saturated) and by their preferred choice of color on a continuum of shades ranging from less intense (less saturated) to more intense colors (more saturated) in the same hue family. The design purpose of study 3 is to test H4 by using PROCESS SPSS Mode 8 to investigate the moderating effect of self-acceptance on resource-scarce individuals’ preference for HISC in the tactile domain. Study 3 was conducted on a research service online platform (www.credamo.com) called Credamo and recruited 251 voluntary participants. We manipulated participants' resource scarcity and self-acceptance in tactile sensory experience. Study 3 shows that individuals subjected to resource scarcity prefer HISC in the visual domain when they are not allowed additional opportunities to restore their self-worth, which is mediated by self-worth. First, Study 3 is designed to investigate the robustness of the effects observed in previous studies by testing whether resource scarcity impacts the preference for HISC in the tactile domain. Second, Study 3 will expand on previous studies by testing whether self-acceptance attenuates the mediating effect of Study 3. Third, Outcome of this studies are visualized in 10 Figures, which are shown below. Fig. 1. Conceptual framework. Fig. 2 Moderating effect of valence (negative vs. positive) on the resource scarcity and HISC Fig. 3. Orange color swatches of high- and low- intensity visual stimuli Fig. 4 Spectrum of low-high intensity color Fig. 5. The mediating effect of sense of the self-worth. Fig. 6 Moderating effect of self-acceptance on the resource scarcity and self-worth Fig. 7 Moderating effect of self-acceptance on the resource scarcity and HISC ________________________________________ Response to editor and reviewers Dear Editor, Thank you for allowing a resubmission of our manuscript, with an opportunity to address the reviewer comments. We have uploaded on the system (a) our point-by-point responses to comments (responses to the reviewer and editor), (b) the revised manuscript with the changes shown, and (c) the cleanly updated manuscript with no changes shown if the submission system is accessible. In this revised manuscript, we have removed three references that may have been retracted and replace them with relevant current references. As authors, we don't have the ability to find out whether the literature has been retracted, but the literature we cite has been downloaded and read. In addition, we have uploaded the data as a supplement to the submission system. Best regards Liangjun Peng, Yuxin Peng, Haiyan Luo, Yeying Den Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: renamed_bc74c.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285853.r004
3 May 2023 Decision Letter - Abdullah Al Mamun, Editor How high-intensity sensory consumption fills up resource scarcity: The boundary condition of self-acceptance PONE-D-22-28511R2 Dear Dr.Haiyan Luo, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Abdullah Al Mamun, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Congratulations Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285853.r005
Formally Accepted
18 May 2023 Acceptance Letter - Abdullah Al Mamun, Editor PONE-D-22-28511R2 How high-intensity sensory consumption fills up resource scarcity: The boundary condition of self-acceptance Dear Dr. Luo: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Assoc. Prof. Dr. Abdullah Al Mamun Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285853.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .