PONE-D-23-19069Feeling connected but dissimilar to one’s future self reduces the intention-behavior gapPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ganschow,

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. Overall, your manuscript is well written and brings a valuable contribution to this area of research. Two reviewers made interesting comments and suggestions that should be considered during the preparation of your revised version. You can check both of the reviews at the end of this message.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 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,

André Rabelo, 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. We note that Figures 1C, 1D, 1E and 1F  in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1C, 1D, 1E and 1F to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission. 

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

3. 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. 

4. We note that Figures 1A and 1B includes an image of a participant in the study. 

As per the PLOS ONE policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research) on papers that include identifying, or potentially identifying, information, the individual(s) or parent(s)/guardian(s) must be informed of the terms of the PLOS open-access (CC-BY) license and provide specific permission for publication of these details under the terms of this license. Please download the Consent Form for Publication in a PLOS Journal (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=8ce6/plos-consent-form-english.pdf). The signed consent form should not be submitted with the manuscript, but should be securely filed in the individual's case notes. Please amend the methods section and ethics statement of the manuscript to explicitly state that the patient/participant has provided consent for publication: “The individual in this manuscript has given written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish these case details”. 

If you are unable to obtain consent from the subject of the photograph, you will need to remove the figure and any other textual identifying information or case descriptions for this individual.

[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: Partly

**********

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: The current study focused on the impact of various future-self perspective-taking modalities on changes in future self-continuity (FSC) domains, as well as subsequent intention to perform future-oriented behaviors. I enjoyed reading the manuscript and believe that the topic has both theoretical and practical importance. I particularly want to highlight the experimental design of the study (e.g., having the multiple VR conditions and the in-vivo control) and the longitudinal nature of the data collection (e.g., measuring and controlling for baseline FSC and following up with participants regarding their intentions-behaviors).

I did have some questions and comments as I went through the manuscript that I believe would help improve any revision. These items are listed below based on when I had them as I was going through the document. As a result, they are not ordered based on perceived importance.

1. Line 192. It says the average of the 16 VVIQ items were used, but based on the SPSS data file included on OSF it appears that sum/total scores were used (but I could be looking at the wrong column). If there is no missing data on the items (which appears to be the case), the results using mean/average or sum/total scale scores will be the same. But you would still want to be clear if average or total scale scores were used.

2. Lines 227-228. For the Figure 1 caption, I believe that the first “Imagine-VR” should be “Imagine-IV”.

3. Follow-up: Did everybody respond to the behavioral intention follow-up, or was there attrition? It doesn’t seem like there was attrition because on line 273 the full sample size of 90 is listed as the denominator. Or, were the 8 participants mentioned on lines 163-164 as having incomplete data people that did not respond to the follow-up? Was there any incentive for participants to complete the follow-up? In my experience it is very difficult getting such a high percentage of the sample to respond to even a quick follow-up, so any information detailing how the follow-up response rate was achieved would be helpful.

4. On lines 279-281 it is stated “The frequency of failing the memory check did not differ by condition (see Supplementary Materials 1).” I do not see a condition column/variable included in these supplementary materials, so the veracity of this statistical statement cannot be confirmed in the supplementary materials.

5. Lines 309-310. For people not familiar with the PROCESS macro, it would be helpful to make it clear that the T0 future self-continuity and VVIQ covariates are predicting both the mediators and the intention-behavior outcome in the model. In some specifications of mediation models, covariates only predict the outcome and not the mediator(s) (or vice versa). I have no issue with the specification of the model here per se, but just think this clarification would be helpful for a reader (so that they have a clear image of the mediation path model being tested).

6. Line 313. A bit nitpicky but you say proportion but then provide percents. Similarly, in Line 362 they are described as probabilities and not percents.

7. Line 317-320 reference a moderation analysis and then says to “see online supplementary analyses”. I was not able to locate where these analyses are on OSF, so a clearer description of the location would be needed.

8. I believe the labeling of the first row in Table 1 will confuse readers. I think “Imagine-IV” in the first row is actually the intercept/constant of the logistic regression models, correct? Because Imagine-IV is the reference group you usually don’t expect to see coefficients associated with that group. Now, because they are the reference group, it is the case that you can interpret the intercept as the intention-behavior rate for the Imagine-IV group (and the adjusted intention-behavior rate after controlling for the mediators and covariates in the mediation model). However, I believe this subtle detail will be lost on many readers, and I feel many might interpret the significant p-value in the conditional model as somehow implying that the Imagine-IV condition had higher odds of intention-behavior than the other groups.

9. Additionally, in Table 1, why is the p value for this first row .901 when the 95% CI for the odds ratio is completely above 1?

10. I was confused by lines 315-316. It says the expectation was that the Embodied-VR condition would reduce the intention-behavior “rate” more than the other groups. I know the hypothesis was that the Embodied-VR condition would reduce the intention-behavior gap, but for the rate doesn’t a higher rate imply less of a gap? That is, wouldn’t it be expected that the Embodied-VR condition would exhibit the highest rate? A similar issue is with the wording in Line 428.

11. Table 2. Not clear to me what the grey line towards the bottom of the table represents (separating the conditions for the vividness item). But this could just be a line added to the pdf document on my end.

12. Looking at the data in Table 2, it does look like there was a bit of a ceiling effect for the valence item. There still was enough room for significant increases to be observed from T0 to T1, but looking at the Ms and SDs it is still the case that a lot of participants were likely at the highest point of 7 at baseline. Because the T0 FSC covariates also predicted the T1 FSC mediators, the mediators essentially act as a measurement of the within-subject change in the FSC constructs. As a result, there could have been reduced power to observe an effect of valence due to the inability to observe potential increases in valence for the percentage of participants that were at ceiling at baseline. I am not necessarily predicting an effect of valence would have been found otherwise, but it would be helpful to at least reference the potential ceiling effect on the valence item in the Discussion.

13. In lines 337-338, it is mentioned that the PROCESS macro ran four logistic regressions. I think the wording here might confuse some readers. To my understanding based on the earlier description of the mediation model and the PROCESS image included on OSF, one mediation model was performed with all 4 mediators included. That does mean four separate set of coefficients will be provided from the condition IV to the mediators, but some readers might interpret the wording here to imply that the mediation model was performed 4 times (with one mediator included at a time). Second, why would these predictions of the mediators be described as logistic regressions since the FSC mediators presumably are being treated as continuous variables (which is confirmed in the PROCESS image on OSF since the mediators are scale variables)?

14. In Lines 448-449 the results of a pilot study are referenced for the first time. It was a little confusing as a reader because when I read that line it forced me to go back to the Methods/Results to see if that pilot study was mentioned before. I am not implying you need to reference those results before, but you may want to introduce the pilot study in these lines better so that it doesn’t confuse a reader.

15. In the Supplemental 2 Results, sometimes different condition names are used compared to the main document (e.g., Visual-VR). I recommend keeping the names consistent so it is clear to a reader comparing both results.

Reviewer #2: This study compared different ways of imagining a future self being successful with a specific focus on imagination and virtual reality integration. The authors looked at whether the impact of exposure to different future imaginings, and resultant ratings of similarity, connectedness and vividness to that future self on the transfer of intentions into behaviour.

The set up for the study was interesting and the authors offer sound possible interpretations of their findings. Where the study could be improved, from my perspective, is in the presentation of research questions and methodology; I found it difficult to follow this study and efforts could be put into place to more clearly explain what is expected and how the study was conducted. I provide more specific details below.

Introduction:

I found the introduction to be well written, logical and clear.

When describing the present study, I am curious why described the future self as having completed a long-terms personal goal (versus not having completed them). That is, why did the authors choose to take an approach versus an avoidance perspective. When imagining future selves, people may pursue a future self they would like to become (e.g., get my doctorate) but they may also want to engage in a behaviour (e.g., exercise) to avoid a future self they don’t want to realise (e.g., develop a chronic condition, get out of shape etc.). The chose to focus on a successful future self could be unpacked and justified.

Method

It seems strange and exclusive that the VR software only allowed for the creation of male avatars. It begs the question, why are there VR software out there that are made to represent only one gender? The choice of this VR software limits the generalizability of the study, which is a big limitation.

What inspired or served as the basis for the measurement of future self-continuity domains?

The authors explain why they controlled for imaginary ability by saying that “VR may aid participants with low imaginative ability”. This doesn’t see like a reason to control for imaginative ability. Wouldn’t you control for imaginative ability because it may influence how well one engages with imaginative tasks?

The authors should provide an explanation of what the steps of the perspective taking exercise are meant to accomplish. For example, for step 1, why did they have participants describe their future self having achieved a goal versus not having achieved it? For step 2, what do the authors think will come of the two chair exercise? And in step three, the behavioural intention? The reader can try to infer why these steps were chosen and what they are meant to accomplish but it would be clearer if the authors were explicit about why they chose these activities.

In the Imagine-VR condition, I understand that the participants did not use avatars, but then what did the virtual experience look like? Who did they see? What aspects about it were VR and why was this necessary?

Overall, what was the intended function of the two-chair exercise? This is implied but could be made more explicit.

Presumably, step 3 – setting an intention – was measured to test if the other two steps impacted the intention behaviour gap. Just be clear about this – help pull together the different pieces of the study so that it is easy for the reader to understand.

Were participants told that their goal would take about 10 years to achieve? Why was this an aspect of the study? Why didn’t this get any mention earlier when describing the intervention? Couldn’t participants have chosen something that could be achieved and maintained such as getting in shape, maintaining a healthy body weight, being in a happy marriage etc.? What if the goal was not verified as taking 10 years to achieve? What happened then?

Description of the conditions happens in bits and pieces throughout the methods which is confusing. I think it would be easier for the readers to understand if a clear description of the conditions were given all at once, in one place.

What did participants in the VR condition see? I don’t understand this brief embodiment exercise described involving a virtual mirror. Readers should not be expected to go read reference 31 to get an understanding of this condition.

The recording aspect of the two chair method is unclear to me. What does it mean that a participant recorded a question and then answer to a question. Did they have the recording played back to them once they were done? Couldn’t they just hear themselves ask and answer in real time? Why was a recording necessary?

Was anything done to ensure that the intervention conditions were carried out as intended?

Results

Early in the results, mediation analyses are mentioned for the first time. No mention of mediation was set up in the intro – why test for mediation and what is the proposed mediator? It appears from the hypotheses that moderation may be something tested (though if so, that should be explicitly stated in the hypotheses) insomuch as stronger self-continuity is supposed to be associated with a reduction in the intention-behaviour gap.

On page 19 (marked page 13) , there is mention of a hypothesis that “… the increased likelihood in the Imagine and Embodied-VR condition would be mediated via future self-connectedness/similarity and vividness. Yet this is not clearly outlined in the study research questions listed on the bottom of page 6. There should be clear continuity across the paper in terms of the research questions and analyses. This is lacking.

In general, it was not clear to me by the time I got to the results what analyses were going to be carried out and, relatedly, what types of relationships (mediations) were expected. The results should flow naturally and expectedly from the set up earlier in the introduction. That is lacking here.

The authors discuss studies where VR embodiments have led to change – and cite weight loss studies. It may be that the VR embodiment may have to pertain to some outcome (like weight loss) that can be visually represented for the embodiment aspect to be motivational. In this study, the age-morphed avatar would not embody any of the changes (especially because people choose their own changes, so it wasn’t uniform and incorporated). One might think that the use of avatars may even be detrimental as people age. I am in my mid 40’s and seeing a 10-year age-morphed avatar may be nothing but depressing… something to consider. Bottom line – if the age morphed avatar doesn’t depict the thing that the person is seeking to change (which it wouldn’t with something like, finished my doctorate) the virtual aspect may not offer anything over one’s imagination – unless the avatar was going through the motions of that future self (e.g., walking through the halls of a university, conducting research etc.).

I was surprised to not see the rather large fact that only one gender was represented (without any rationale for the limitation) not listed as a limitation. I understand that this was a logistical necessity based on the VR program – but the choice to use that program is a limitation that should be acknowledged. Further the findings are not discussed with any acknowledgment to the fact that they pertain only to a sample of males. This major limitation should be acknowledged and discussed. One example of how this limitation could be acknowledged is if instead of saying “participants” in the discussion, the word “male participants” is used.

Minor points:

Page 13 (of PDF), line 154 under Method – something is off in the wording of this sentence.

Page 15 (of PDF), line 213. I think the word “sat” should be removed.

Page 25 (of PDF), discussion, line 412: result should be results or it should read “This suprising result”.

**********

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: 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.

Feeling connected but dissimilar to one’s future self reduces the intention-behavior gap

PONE-D-23-19069R1

Dear Dr. Ganschow,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

André Rabelo, Ph. D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: