PONE-D-22-20251World Beliefs, Character Strengths, and Hope for the FuturePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. McGrath

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 Apr 20 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,

Grant Rich, Ph.D.

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. Please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). 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.

3. Please change "female” or "male" to "woman” or "man" as appropriate, when used as a noun (see for instance https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/gender).

4. Please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). 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.

5. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. 

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear Author,

Your paper addresses a topic of considerable importance and utilizes a promising, and intriguing emerging approach regarding the primals, as well as character strengths from the positive psychology paradigm.

A major revision is requested- see the comments from the two reviewers below. In particular I agree with reviewer two that presently the paper leaves the reader struggling to grasp main takeaways and that his reviewer (and I) recommend a revise and resubmit where problems are resolved by streamlining, shortening, and focusing the paper.

Also both reviewers and I agree that more should be said about the sampling- as reviewer 1 notes " Insufficient information is provided to allow a determination of the randomness of the sample vs a convenience sample"

Grant J Rich, PhD

--------------

Reviewer ONE said

This study covers a critical area for US public policy and specifically for behavioral health policy, namely, the tragic increases in deaths of despair in the United States, including suicide and accidental overdose deaths, as well as alcohol involved liver disease. While this has been extensively analyzed by Case and Deaton and the impact of lower levels of education compared to college education documented, the psychological variable of hope as the antithesis of despair has been far less explored despite its clear connection to suicide prevention. For that reason this study makes an important contribution. However, minor revisions are recommended. Insufficient information is provided to allow a determination of the randomness of the sample vs a convenience sample. Specifically, since data was collected by visitors to a website , limited information was provided regarding what brought visitors to the website Second, although at the start of the manuscript the assertion is made that deaths of despair while first documented among whites without a college degree is now being seen among communities of color, this important issue is not meaningfully returned to and related to differential expectations among different races regarding hope for the future and wat has shaped those differential expectations.

Reviewer TWO said

The author explores connections between primals and hope, strengths and hope, and demographics and hope. I read the paper three times and find it a valuable contribution to the nascent primals literature, since many of these relationships have not yet been examined and should be. There are many results here that I can see later papers building on.

However, the paper has two problems. First, I struggled to grasp main takeaways. There are too many exploratory analyses provided that are not united into a clear story. For example, a small set of hypotheses are not specifically stated and returned to in the discussion in a focused way and important results are obscured alongside other results that in my view belong in a supplement (e.g., country level results). The second main difficulty, as the author acknowledges, is that these were not representative samples, large though they might be. Thus, I recommend a revise and resubmit where problems are resolved by streamlining, shortening, and focusing the paper as well as running one additional pre-registered study—a nationally-represented prolific study of ~300 would be sufficient—testing only a handful of the most important hypotheses that the author deems worthy of replication, only measuring those specific primals, strengths, and demographics necessary for doing so, and then discussing only those specific hypotheses in the general discussion, with all other results moved to a supplement. I glanced through the pre-registered hypotheses and feel that a number of them could suffice and the precise direction is a matter of author discretion.

Minor comments/suggestions:

There is at least 1 reference to the “About Me” primal when it is now called “Interactive world belief”, which is referred to correctly in most places I believe.

Stahlmann and Ruch is not in press anymore.

There are a few recent primals papers that the author might not be aware of that may or may not be relevant: https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2021.2016907 was the first multi-sample look at primals in connection to life satisfaction and other mental health measures relevant to hope. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12780 shows that the pandemic made a small impact on primals, suggesting connections between demographics and primals might be small. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01145 is a theory paper explicitly discussing why relationships between primals and demographics are often small. The relevance of these papers might depend on what sort of streamlined story the author wants to tell.

It may not make sense to report an alpha for a 2 item scale, but that could be a matter of preference. See https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Manfred-Grotenhuis/publication/232610246_The_reliability_of_a_two-item_scale_Pearson_Cronbach_or_Spearman-Brown/links/00b4951759c45468bf000000/The-reliability-of-a-two-item-scale-Pearson-Cronbach-or-Spearman-Brown.pdf.

Per question above on publicly available data: I believe some of the data is not available publicly but this is adequately specified and why.

Sincerely,

[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: I Don't Know

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: No

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: This study covers a critical area for US public policy and specifically for behavioral health policy, namely, the tragic increases in deaths of despair in the United States, including suicide and accidental overdose deaths, as well as alcohol involved liver disease. While this has been extensively analyzed by Case and Deaton and the impact of lower levels of education compared to college education documented, the psychological variable of hope as the antithesis of despair has been far less explored despite its clear connection to suicide prevention. For that reason this study makes an important contribution. However, minor revisions are recommended. Insufficient information is provided to allow a determination of the randomness of the sample vs a convenience sample. Specifically, since data was collected by visitors to a website , limited information was provided regarding what brought visitors to the website Second, although at the start of the manuscript the assertion is made that deaths of despair while first documented among whites without a college degree is now being seen among communities of color, this important issue is not meaningfully returned to and related to differential expectations among different races regarding hope for the future and wat has shaped those differential expectations.

Reviewer #2: The author explores connections between primals and hope, strengths and hope, and demographics and hope. I read the paper three times and find it a valuable contribution to the nascent primals literature, since many of these relationships have not yet been examined and should be. There are many results here that I can see later papers building on.

However, the paper has two problems. First, I struggled to grasp main takeaways. There are too many exploratory analyses provided that are not united into a clear story. For example, a small set of hypotheses are not specifically stated and returned to in the discussion in a focused way and important results are obscured alongside other results that in my view belong in a supplement (e.g., country level results). The second main difficulty, as the author acknowledges, is that these were not representative samples, large though they might be. Thus, I recommend a revise and resubmit where problems are resolved by streamlining, shortening, and focusing the paper as well as running one additional pre-registered study—a nationally-represented prolific study of ~300 would be sufficient—testing only a handful of the most important hypotheses that the author deems worthy of replication, only measuring those specific primals, strengths, and demographics necessary for doing so, and then discussing only those specific hypotheses in the general discussion, with all other results moved to a supplement. I glanced through the pre-registered hypotheses and feel that a number of them could suffice and the precise direction is a matter of author discretion.

Minor comments/suggestions:

There is at least 1 reference to the “About Me” primal when it is now called “Interactive world belief”, which is referred to correctly in most places I believe.

Stahlmann and Ruch is not in press anymore.

There are a few recent primals papers that the author might not be aware of that may or may not be relevant: https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2021.2016907 was the first multi-sample look at primals in connection to life satisfaction and other mental health measures relevant to hope. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12780 shows that the pandemic made a small impact on primals, suggesting connections between demographics and primals might be small. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01145 is a theory paper explicitly discussing why relationships between primals and demographics are often small. The relevance of these papers might depend on what sort of streamlined story the author wants to tell.

It may not make sense to report an alpha for a 2 item scale, but that could be a matter of preference. See https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Manfred-Grotenhuis/publication/232610246_The_reliability_of_a_two-item_scale_Pearson_Cronbach_or_Spearman-Brown/links/00b4951759c45468bf000000/The-reliability-of-a-two-item-scale-Pearson-Cronbach-or-Spearman-Brown.pdf.

Per question above on publicly available data: I believe some of the data is not available publicly but this is adequately specified and why.

Sincerely,

Jer Clifton

**********

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: Jer Clifton

**********

[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.

====

Grant J. Rich, PhD LMT BCTMBPresident-Elect Society for Peace, Conflict, and Violence (APA D48)President-Elect Society for Media Psychology and Technology (APA D46)

Fellow, Association for Psychological Science (APS)Fellow, American Psychological Association (APA)Senior Contributing Faculty, Walden UniversityDr. Rich's SPN Website: http://rich.socialpsychology.org/Book Website (Rich, Gielen, & Takooshian, 2017)http://www.infoagepub.com/products/Internationalizing-the-Teaching-of-PsychologyBook Website (Rich & Sirikantraporn, 2018)https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781498554831/Human-Strengths-and-Resilience-Cross-Cultural-and-International-Perspectives#Book Website (Rich, Jaafar, & Barron, 2020) Psychology in Southeast Asia. Routledge.https://www.routledge.com/Psychology-in-Southeast-Asia-Sociocultural-Clinical-and-Health-Perspectives/Rich-Jaafar-Barron/p/book/9780367492144Book Website (Rich & Ramkumar, 2022) Psychology in Oceania and the Caribbean, Springerhttps://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-87763-7#editorsandaffiliations Book Website(Rich, Kuriansky, Gielen, & Kaplan, in press)  Psychosocial Experiences and Adjustment of Migrants: Coming to the USA, Elsevierhttps://www.elsevier.com/books/psychosocial-experiences-and-adjustment-of-migrants/rich/978-0-12-823794-6 Book (Rich, Kumar, & Farley, in contract) Handbook of Media Psychology and Technology-The Science and the Practice, Springer

============​

World Beliefs, Character Strengths, and Hope for the Future

PONE-D-22-20251R1

Dear Dr. McGrath

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,

Grant Rich, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

In my view the author has sufficiently responded to reviewers' feedback and thus the paper is accepted.

Reviewers' comments:

Grant J. Rich, PhD LMT BCTMB LSW

 

President-Elect Society for Peace, Conflict, and Violence (APA D48)

 

President-Elect Society for Media Psychology and Technology (APA D46) Fellow, Association for Psychological Science (APS)

 

Fellow, American Psychological Association (APA)

 

Senior Contributing Faculty, Walden University

 

Dr. Rich's SPN Website: http://rich.socialpsychology.org/

 

Book Website (Rich, Gielen, & Takooshian, 2017)

 

http://www.infoagepub.com/products/Internationalizing-the-Teaching-of-Psychology

 

Book Website (Rich & Sirikantraporn, 2018)

 

https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781498554831/Human-Strengths-and-Resilience-Cross-Cultural-and-International-Perspectives#

 

Book Website (Rich, Jaafar, & Barron, 2020) Psychology in Southeast Asia. Routledge.

 

https://www.routledge.com/Psychology-in-Southeast-Asia-Sociocultural-Clinical-and-Health-Perspectives/Rich-Jaafar-Barron/p/book/9780367492144

 

Book Website (Rich & Ramkumar, 2022) Psychology in Oceania and the Caribbean, Springer

 

https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-87763-7#editorsandaffiliations

 

Book Website(Rich, Kuriansky, Gielen, & Kaplan, in press)  Psychosocial Experiences and Adjustment of Migrants: Coming to the USA, Elsevier

 

https://www.elsevier.com/books/psychosocial-experiences-and-adjustment-of-migrants/rich/978-0-12-823794-6

  

Book

 

(Rich, Kumar, & Farley, in contract) Handbook of Media Psychology and Technology-The Science and the Practice, Springer

 

============