The influence of college students’ aesthetic cognitions on aesthetic behaviours: The Chain mediation effect

Qiao Qiao; Yongzhi Jiang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0289666

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 23, 2023
25 Aug 2023 Decision Letter - Maja Vukadinovic, Editor PONE-D-23-22731The Influence of College Students' Aesthetic Cognitions on Aesthetic Behaviours: The Chain Mediation EffectPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Jiang, 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 Oct 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, Maja Vukadinovic 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 provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, 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. If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information. 3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ 4. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. Additional Editor Comments: I have concerns regarding Ethics Statement. T is written :'' Informed consent. The participants had the study purpose explained to them first, and then they were asked to provide written informed consent. Participation was voluntary, and all data were handled confidentially. Please include these information in Participants section. [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 Reviewer #3: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: No ****** 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: I found the introduction, while informative, too long. Perhaps, it can be reduced to a more reasonable size without losing the justification for each hypothesis. Method-Participants section: “A total of 1132 samples were received, … Among the 1060 official samples, ..” I believe you mean participants, not samples! Furthermore, the writing needs to be a bit tighter. For example, the same paragraph should read: The sample consisted of 589 (55.6%) males, 471 (44.4%) females (44.4%), 422 (39.8%) art students, and 638 (60.2%) science students. Materials (Instruments): Please provide the validity and reliability data of the instruments used in this work (aesthetic general knowledge scale, aesthetic affect scale, aesthetic tendency scale, aesthetic behaviour scale. What is the purpose of this study? Is one of the aims of this study to provide validity and reliability measures of these instruments? If so, is this confirmation of what already exists and why? Are you validating these instruments or exploring the relationships between what these instruments measure? I found the result section, especially the part referring to factor analysis, hard to follow. Several statistical parameters are listed without explanation. These parameters should be listed in an appropriate table with the factor loadings and reference to rotation, if any. This section should be written more clearly with an emphasis on providing a sense of purpose, avoiding unnecessary details (i.e., statistical parameters) within the text, and relating the information gained from these analyses to what comes next and the big picture. The details of the factor analysis should be presented in a table, while the text should be reserved for reporting the essential details. I assume the reference to “gender” to mean “sex.” The statement “through statistical analysis” is unnecessary! A section discussing the limitations of this study and their implication is missing. Reviewer #2: This manuscript addresses a very interesting topic, not commonly addressed in higher education research and from a quantitative perspective. In this paper, the philosophical concept of aesthetic is discussed in the light of the relationship between psychological and behavioral students´characteristics. The study presents a complete literature review, however, sometimes, it lacks from the critical voices of the authors. The methods section should describe the sample in a more detailed way (characteristics, access, selection criteria, informed consent, etc.). Results are presented in a clear and consistent manner. Summarizing, the manuscript presents a sound piece of scientific research with data supporting findings and sound conclusions. I recommend the paper for publication with minor corrections (Literature review, sample). Reviewer #3: Abstract: It would be good to include some broader context into this abstract. Why is important to study students’ aesthetic behaviors? What is the purpose of the four scales? What is a daily aesthetic practice, and why would the reader want to know this? I can see from the intro that this is well developed in Chinese education, but it would be helpful for an international audience to have a bit more background. Introduction: • The introduction is quite long (2900 words), and reads a bit like a thesis. I think it can be streamlined and focused to bring the reader into the paper without having to explore each hypothesis in such detail. • Beware of paragraphs that are too long, especially the first one, which can be difficult for the reader to follow. • Early in the intro, it would be helpful to define aesthetic education. Methods: • It would help to know more about the participants. How many schools? What kinds of schools and what geographic area? What levels? How were they selected? • There appears to be some results mixed into the methods section. Discussion and Conclusion • I liked these sections better. They were a bit more focused and brought things into a broader context. I liked the connection to specific recommendations for universities. ****** 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: Yes: Dr. Ali M AL-Asadi Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No ******** [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.0289666.r001
Revision 1
15 Sep 2023 Author Response Dear reviewer, Thank you very much for your comments and professional advice. These opinions help to improve academic rigor of our article.Based on your suggestion and request, we have made corrected modifications on the revised manuscript, Meanwhile, the manuscript had be reviewed and edited by language servicices of AJE SEVIER. We hope that our work can be improved again. Furthermore, we would like to show the details as follows: Reviewer #1: I found the introduction, while informative, too long. Perhaps, it can be reduced to a more reasonable size without losing the justification for each hypothesis. Method-Participants section: “A total of 1132 samples were received, … Among the 1060 official samples, ..” I believe you mean participants, not samples! Furthermore, the writing needs to be a bit tighter. For example, the same paragraph should read: The sample consisted of 589 (55.6%) males, 471 (44.4%) females (44.4%), 422 (39.8%) art students, and 638 (60.2%) science students. Materials (Instruments): Please provide the validity and reliability data of the instruments used in this work (aesthetic general knowledge scale, aesthetic affect scale, aesthetic tendency scale, aesthetic behaviour scale. What is the purpose of this study? Is one of the aims of this study to provide validity and reliability measures of these instruments? If so, is this confirmation of what already exists and why? Are you validating these instruments or exploring the relationships between what these instruments measure? I found the result section, especially the part referring to factor analysis, hard to follow. Several statistical parameters are listed without explanation. These parameters should be listed in an appropriate table with the factor loadings and reference to rotation, if any. This section should be written more clearly with an emphasis on providing a sense of purpose, avoiding unnecessary details (i.e., statistical parameters) within the text, and relating the information gained from these analyses to what comes next and the big picture. The details of the factor analysis should be presented in a table, while the text should be reserved for reporting the essential details. I assume the reference to “gender” to mean “sex.” The statement “through statistical analysis” is unnecessary! A section discussing the limitations of this study and their implication is missing. The author’s answer: We have revised the sentence in the article. The details as follows: Firstly,The introduction section has cut the number of words (2372 words) without losing the justification for each hypothesis. “In recent years, the development of aesthetic education has received a great deal of attention in Chinese education. Aesthetic education aims to improve the aesthetic qualities of Chinese university students and has positive significance in cultivating noble aesthetic pursuits and noble personalities among university students. Aesthetic behaviour is the outwards manifestation of aesthetic literacy, aesthetic common sense and aesthetic concepts, which constitute the aesthetic qualities of individuals; these can be concretely expressed only through aesthetic behaviour [1]. Aesthetic education evokes and forms characteristics and attributes with human value in students [2]. However, some scholars claim that aesthetic education is not effective [3-6]. Shi O and Hou Jingmin [7] suggest that there is a substantial difference between passive viewing and active participation in the creation of beauty for improving aesthetic literacy, that students' aesthetic literacy is not only reflected in their artistic activities, that aesthetics should be infused into life, that the act of aesthetics is a form of aesthetic creativity, and that this ability to create beauty is expressed in the ability to create and express using diverse materials and multiple methods [8]. This study posits that the aesthetic practice behaviours of university students can be divided into three aspects: the behavioural habit of participating in art, the beautification of the living environment, and the rational matching of clothing，moreover, the three aspects represent the fit and communication between the aesthetic subject and object, which comprehensively reflects the quality of human existence and is the most typical mass aesthetic activity. This involves a kind of creation in which the relationship between the subject and object is reciprocal and constitutes the action of the subject in consciously interacting with the aesthetic object to achieve pleasure and creation in life [9]. There is very little research on the everyday aesthetic behaviour of university students. This study uses structural equation modelling to conduct an empirical study. The study of the psycho-behavioural mechanisms of the aesthetic behaviours of university students is important for understanding the characteristics of aesthetic psychology and ensuring high-quality development of aesthetic education”. Secondly, The “samples” has been changed to the “participants”. Method-Participants section: Written informed consent was given from all the participants prior to this study in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent was obtained from all the participants prior to this study.From 1 July 2022 to 8 July 2022, the researcher used Questionnaire Star software to distribute the questionnaires on the online platform, and 300 college students from five colleges and universities in Shaanxi Province, China, were selected as the official participants of the pretest for this study. The study distributed the official questionnaire to the participants three weeks after the pre-test questionnaire testing was completed and revised, the participants in the study were between the ages of 18 and 28 years old, and each participant received a cash prize for completing the questionnaire through the online platform. Written informed consent was obtained from all the participants prior to this study. A total of 1132 participants were received, with a total of 1060 valid questionnaires and a recovery rate of 93.6%. The source of formal participants are Shaanxi Normal University, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an University of Posts & Telecommunications, Northwest University, Northwest University of Political Science and Law, Xi`an International Studies University, Xidian University,Yulin Vocational and Technical College,Weinan Normal University,Yulin University,Xi’an University of Finance and Economics.The participants consisted of 589 (55.6%) males, 471 (44.4%) females, 422 (39.8%) art students, and 638 (60.2%) science students. Materials (Instruments):This part has been modified to increase the reliability and validity. “In this study, SPSS 23 and AMOS 24 were used to verify the reliability and validity of the collected scale data, and structural equation models were used to construct measurement models [50][51]. The variance of error for the aesthetic cognition was between 0.153 and 0.641, and the results were positive and significant. All standardized regression coefficients ranged from 0.61 to 0.9, with no coefficients above or overly close to 1.The stimated standard errors (SEs) of the variance of measurement errors ranged from 0.013 to 0.035, with no considerable SE observed. The variance of error for the aesthetic emotion was between 0.167 and 0.520, and the results were positive and significant. All standardized regression coefficients ranged from 0.632 to 0.890, with no coefficients above or overly close to 1.The stimated standard errors (SEs) of the variance of measurement errors ranged from 0.014 to 0.025, with no considerable SE observed.The variance of error for the aesthetic tendencies was between 0.195 and 0.505, and the results were positive and significant. All standardized regression coefficients ranged from 0.641 to 0.847, with no coefficients above or overly close to 1.The stimated standard errors (SEs) of the variance of measurement errors ranged from 0.018 to 0.029, with no considerable SE observed. The variance of error for the aesthetic behaviour was between 0.205 and 0.418, and the results were positive and significant. All standardized regression coefficients ranged from 0.679 to 0.845, with no coefficients above or overly close to 1.The stimated standard errors (SEs) of the variance of measurement errors ranged from 0.014 to 0.024, with no considerable SE observed. The results of the fitting tests for the four scales indicate that all values were within an acceptable range (presented in Table 1). Confirmatory factor analysis results indicated that the four scales had sufficient validity [52]. Insert Table 1 about here Tests for convergent validity indicated that the standardized factor loadings of the aesthetic cognition scale, aesthetic emotion scale, aesthetic tendencies scale, and aesthetic behaviour scale were in the range of 0.61–0.9, 0.632–0.890, 0.641–0.847, and 0.679–0.845 respectively; these values were all greater than the acceptable criterion of 0.5 and were all significant [53][54].The combined reliability values for each dimension of each scale range from 0.781 to 0.915, all reaching the standard of being higher than 0.6 [55]. Average variant extraction (AVE) values ranged from 0.493 to 0.76, meeting the standard of being higher than 0.5 [55]. Therefore, the professional identity scale has sufficient convergent validity. The discriminant validity test indicated that the correlation coefficient of each dimension of the four scales was between 0.273 and 0.718, and a significant correlation was observed. The square root of AVE of each dimension of the scale was between 0.702 and 0.872, and the correlation coefficient value of each dimension was less than the square root of the AVE. And Cronbach's coefficients for the four scales ranged between 0.815 and 0.933. This indicates a certain correlation and a certain degree of discrimination between the latent variables. This also indicates that the four scales had sufficient discriminant validity [55]”. The “gender” has been changed to the “sex”, and “through statistical analysis”has been deleted. Furthermore，This article has been added with the limitations of the Part VI study. Reviewer #2: This manuscript addresses a very interesting topic, not commonly addressed in higher education research and from a quantitative perspective. In this paper, the philosophical concept of aesthetic is discussed in the light of the relationship between psychological and behavioral students´characteristics. The study presents a complete literature review, however, sometimes, it lacks from the critical voices of the authors. The methods section should describe the sample in a more detailed way (characteristics, access, selection criteria, informed consent, etc.). Results are presented in a clear and consistent manner. Summarizing, the manuscript presents a sound piece of scientific research with data supporting findings and sound conclusions. I recommend the paper for publication with minor corrections (Literature review, sample). The author’s answer: We have revised the sentence in the article. The details as follows: Written informed consent was given from all the participants prior to this study in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent was obtained from all the participants prior to this study.From 1 July 2022 to 8 July 2022, the researcher used Questionnaire Star software to distribute the questionnaires on the online platform, and 300 college students from five colleges and universities in Shaanxi Province, China, were selected as the official sample of the pretest for this study. The study distributed the official questionnaire to the participants three weeks after the pre-test questionnaire testing was completed and revised, the participants in the study were between the ages of 18 and 28 years old, and each participant received a cash prize for completing the questionnaire through the online platform. Written informed consent was obtained from all the participants prior to this study. Reviewer #3: Abstract: It would be good to include some broader context into this abstract. Why is important to study students’ aesthetic behaviors? What is the purpose of the four scales? What is a daily aesthetic practice, and why would the reader want to know this? I can see from the intro that this is well developed in Chinese education, but it would be helpful for an international audience to have a bit more background. Introduction: • The introduction is quite long (2900 words), and reads a bit like a thesis. I think it can be streamlined and focused to bring the reader into the paper without having to explore each hypothesis in such detail. • Beware of paragraphs that are too long, especially the first one, which can be difficult for the reader to follow. • Early in the intro, it would be helpful to define aesthetic education. Methods: • It would help to know more about the participants. How many schools? What kinds of schools and what geographic area? What levels? How were they selected? • There appears to be some results mixed into the methods section. Discussion and Conclusion • I liked these sections better. They were a bit more focused and brought things into a broader context. I liked the connection to specific recommendations for universities. The author’s answer: We have revised the sentence in the article. The details as follows: Firstly，Introduction section has been deleted (2372 words). Methods:The method section has been modified: From 1 July 2022 to 8 July 2022, the researcher used Questionnaire Star software to distribute the questionnaires on the online platform, and 300 college students from five colleges and universities in Shaanxi Province, China, were selected as the official sample of the pretest for this study. The study distributed the official questionnaire to the participants three weeks after the pre-test questionnaire testing was completed and revised, the participants in the study were between the ages of 18 and 28 years old, and each participant received a cash prize for completing the questionnaire through the online platform. Written informed consent was obtained from all the participants prior to this study. A total of 1132 participants were received, with a total of 1060 valid questionnaires and a recovery rate of 93.6%. The source of formal samples are Shaanxi Normal University, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an University of Posts & Telecommunications, Northwest University, Northwest University of Political Science and Law, Xi`an International Studies University, Xidian University,Yulin Vocational and Technical College,Weinan Normal University,Yulin University,Xi’an University of Finance and Economics.The sample consisted of 589 (55.6%) males, 471 (44.4%) females, 422 (39.8%) art students, and 638 (60.2%) science students. There is very little research on the everyday aesthetic behaviour of university students. This study uses structural equation modelling to conduct an empirical study. The study of the psycho-behavioural mechanisms of the aesthetic behaviours of university students is important for understanding the characteristics of aesthetic psychology and ensuring high-quality development of aesthetic education. Thank you very much for you attention and time. Look forward to hearing from you. Yours sincerely, Qiao Qiao, Yongzhi Jiang Krirk University 8 Sep., 2023 Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: renamed_7cd7b.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289666.r002
6 Oct 2023 Decision Letter - Maja Vukadinovic, Editor PONE-D-23-22731R1The Influence of College Students' Aesthetic Cognitions on Aesthetic Behaviours: The Chain Mediation EffectPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Jiang, 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 Nov 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, Maja Vukadinovic 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes 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: I thank the autors for addressing my previous commennts. However, although the authors indicate that a section on limitations was added, I could not find (or see) this section! A section on limitations should be inserted before the conclusions section. Reviewer #2: The comments on methods section have been addressed and resolved. The comment on the literature review could be resolved by revising the way in which it was written, maybe to write it in a more critical way, by showing their voices too. However, it is only a recommendation because it has to do with the authors´writing style. I recommend to accept the article. ****** 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: Dr. Ali M. AL-Asadi Reviewer #2: No ******** [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.0289666.r003
Revision 2
7 Oct 2023 Author Response Dear reviewer, Thank you very much for your comments and professional advice. These opinions help to improve academic rigor of our article.Based on your suggestion and request, we have made corrected modifications on the revised manuscript, Meanwhile, the manuscript had be reviewed and edited by language servicices of AJE SEVIER. We hope that our work can be improved again. Furthermore, we would like to show the details as follows: Reviewer #1: I thank the autors for addressing my previous commennts. However, although the authors indicate that a section on limitations was added, I could not find (or see) this section! A section on limitations should be inserted before the conclusions section. Reviewer #2: The comments on methods section have been addressed and resolved. The comment on the literature review could be resolved by revising the way in which it was written, maybe to write it in a more critical way, by showing their voices too. However, it is only a recommendation because it has to do with the authors´writing style. I recommend to accept the article. The author’s answer: We have revised the sentence in the article. The details as follows: “6 Research limitations 6.1 Research Sample In terms of sampling, limited by the researcher's time and ability, the sample of this study is only students of several universities in Shaanxi Province, China, and it is not possible to account for more Chinese college students in other provinces, which limits the interpretation of the results of the study and the inference. 6.2 Research Variables There are many factors that influence Chinese college students' aesthetic behavior, and this study is limited to two influences: aesthetic perception and aesthetic tendency. Other possible influencing factors, such as Chinese college students' personality traits, parents' income level, parents' attitudes toward art, the economic and cultural level of their cities, and the aesthetic environment, are not included in the variables of this study. 6.3 Research Method This study uses a questionnaire survey to collect information about personal background variables, aesthetic cognition, aesthetic tendency and aesthetic behavior of Chinese college students in Shaanxi Province; however, whether subjects can truly express and reflect the real situation may have a biased influence on the correctness of the results of the study.” Thank you very much for you attention and time. Look forward to hearing from you. Yours sincerely, Qiao Qiao, Yongzhi Jiang Krirk University 7 Oct., 2023 Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289666.r004
10 Oct 2023 Decision Letter - Maja Vukadinovic, Editor The Influence of College Students' Aesthetic Cognitions on Aesthetic Behaviours: The Chain Mediation Effect PONE-D-23-22731R2 Dear Dr. Jiang, 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, Maja Vukadinovic Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289666.r005
Formally Accepted
12 Oct 2023 Acceptance Letter - Maja Vukadinovic, Editor PONE-D-23-22731R2 The Influence of College Students' Aesthetic Cognitions on Aesthetic Behaviours: The Chain Mediation Effect Dear Dr. Jiang: 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 Dr. Maja Vukadinovic Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289666.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 .