From traits to puffs: The interplay of personality, pandemic stress, and smoking behaviors

Ying Tian; Weiyi Xiang; Silvia Dzhugaryan; Dayoung Bae; Jessica Barrington-Trimis; Terry Church

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0316301

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 9, 2024
Decision Letter - Kamalakar Surineni, Editor PONE-D-24-54747From Traits to Puffs: The Interplay of Personality, Pandemic Stress, and Smoking BehaviorsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Church, 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. Although the study has some limitations, as highlighted in both the paper and by the reviewer, it was conducted rigorously and holds scientific validity. Please incorporate the feedback from Reviewer #2 and resubmit for further consideration. Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 05 2025 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, Kamalakar Surineni, MD, MPH Guest 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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: [The Institute for Addiction Science provided Ying Tian, Weiyi Xiang, and Silvia Dzhugaryan a total of $500 to recruit and compensate participants. The grant number is not available.]. Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. For studies involving third-party data, we encourage authors to share any data specific to their analyses that they can legally distribute. PLOS recognizes, however, that authors may be using third-party data they do not have the rights to share. When third-party data cannot be publicly shared, authors must provide all information necessary for interested researchers to apply to gain access to the data. (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-acceptable-data-access-restrictions) For any third-party data that the authors cannot legally distribute, they should include the following information in their Data Availability Statement upon submission: 1) A description of the data set and the third-party source 2) If applicable, verification of permission to use the data set 3) Confirmation of whether the authors received any special privileges in accessing the data that other researchers would not have 4) All necessary contact information others would need to apply to gain access to the data 5. Please include a copy of Table 1,2,3,4 which you refer to in your text on page 7. 6. 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. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): [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: 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 study investigates how personality traits, particularly the Big Five dimensions, and pandemic-related stressors influence nicotine dependence among young adults aged 18–30. Using validated tools like the Hooked-on Nicotine Checklist (HONC) and Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), the study finds that traits like agreeableness and conscientiousness are negatively associated with nicotine dependence, while stressors such as access to nicotine and routine disruptions during COVID-19 exacerbate dependence. Despite its strengths, including a timely focus and robust methodology, the study is limited by its cross-sectional design, reliance on self-reported data, and restricted sample diversity, which reduce the generalizability and causality of its findings. Suggestions for improvement include adopting a longitudinal design, incorporating objective biomarkers like cotinine levels, diversifying the sample to include different age groups and cultural backgrounds, and expanding the scope to stressors beyond the pandemic context. These enhancements in future studies could provide more comprehensive insights and inform targeted public health interventions. Reviewer #2: Thank you for allowing me to review this manuscript. I enjoyed reading it and providing feedback. Abstract: The abstract effectively summarizes the study’s objectives, methodology, key findings, and implications. However, while it includes correlation coefficients and significance values, it would benefit from the inclusion of specific numerical data points related to nicotine dependence levels, stress scores, and demographic characteristics. For example, adding values such as the mean Hooked-on Nicotine Checklist (HONC) scores before and during COVID-19 or specific regression coefficients from the study’s findings would enhance the clarity and immediate impact of the results. Introduction: The introduction provides a well-structured rationale for examining smoking behaviors in relation to personality traits during the pandemic. It successfully connects personality traits with smoking tendencies. However, the discussion of pandemic-related stress and its impact on addictive behaviors could be expanded. Incorporating recent literature on how COVID-19-related stressors, such as economic instability, social isolation, and health concerns, influence smoking habits would strengthen the theoretical foundation. Methods/Measures: The methods section thoroughly outlines the study’s design, including measurement instruments and statistical techniques. However, the explanation of participant recruitment and sample representativeness could be expanded. While the study mentions recruitment via social media platforms and Amazon Mechanical Turk, a discussion of the potential selection biases inherent in these methods is missing. Additionally, more details on the sample demographics, such as socioeconomic background and smoking history, would improve transparency. A discussion of how these recruitment methods may have influenced the study findings would also be beneficial. Results: The results section presents findings clearly and is well-supported by detailed tables. However, some portions are heavily laden with statistical information, which may be difficult for readers unfamiliar with statistical methods. Summarizing key findings in more accessible language alongside statistical results would improve readability. Furthermore, ensuring that all tables are fully explained in the narrative, particularly in terms of how the statistical relationships align with the study hypotheses, would enhance comprehension. Discussion: The discussion effectively ties findings back to the study’s theoretical framework and hypotheses. The analysis of how personality traits influence smoking behaviors under stress is well-structured. However, more attention could be given to unexpected or non-significant findings, such as the lack of a direct correlation between perceived stress and smoking behavior. Expanding on alternative explanations for these results, such as the role of external stressors moderating personality effects, would provide a more interpretation. Additionally, suggesting areas for future research, such as longitudinal studies examining personality and smoking behaviors over time, would strengthen the study’s impact. ****** 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: Nikhil Tondehal 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.0316301.r001
Revision 1
19 May 2025 Author Response Reviewer #1: The study investigates how personality traits, particularly the Big Five dimensions, and pandemic-related stressors influence nicotine dependence among young adults aged 18–30. Using validated tools like the Hooked-on Nicotine Checklist (HONC) and Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), the study finds that traits like agreeableness and conscientiousness are negatively associated with nicotine dependence, while stressors such as access to nicotine and routine disruptions during COVID-19 exacerbate dependence. Despite its strengths, including a timely focus and robust methodology, the study is limited by its cross-sectional design, reliance on self-reported data, and restricted sample diversity, which reduce the generalizability and causality of its findings. Suggestions for improvement include adopting a longitudinal design, incorporating objective biomarkers like cotinine levels, diversifying the sample to include different age groups and cultural backgrounds, and expanding the scope to stressors beyond the pandemic context. These enhancements in future studies could provide more comprehensive insights and inform targeted public health interventions. We have revised the Limitations section to explicitly address the limitations of cross-sectional design and self-reported data. We also added discussion on potential selection bias from MTurk and social media recruitment, and included future directions such as longitudinal designs, use of biomarkers (e.g., cotinine), broader age and cultural sampling, and stressors beyond the pandemic context. Reviewer #2: Thank you for allowing me to review this manuscript. I enjoyed reading it and providing feedback. Abstract: The abstract effectively summarizes the study’s objectives, methodology, key findings, and implications. However, while it includes correlation coefficients and significance values, it would benefit from the inclusion of specific numerical data points related to nicotine dependence levels, stress scores, and demographic characteristics. For example, adding values such as the mean Hooked-on Nicotine Checklist (HONC) scores before and during COVID-19 or specific regression coefficients from the study’s findings would enhance the clarity and immediate impact of the results. For the abstract, we add the nicotine dependence levels, stress scores, and demographic characteristics as recommended. Specifically: 1. The total number of participants (n = 324), including 269 nicotine users and 54 non-users. 2. The average Hooked-on Nicotine Checklist (HONC) scores before COVID-19 (M = 4.85, SD = 3.96) and during COVID-19 (M = 4.71, SD = 4.00). 3. The average Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) scores before COVID-19 (M = 26.62, SD = 3.36) and during COVID-19 (M = 26.77, SD = 3.50). Those enhance the clarity and specificity of the abstract. Thank you so much for your guidance. Introduction: The introduction provides a well-structured rationale for examining smoking behaviors in relation to personality traits during the pandemic. It successfully connects personality traits with smoking tendencies. However, the discussion of pandemic-related stress and its impact on addictive behaviors could be expanded. Incorporating recent literature on how COVID-19-related stressors, such as economic instability, social isolation, and health concerns, influence smoking habits would strengthen the theoretical foundation. We have revised the introduction to include recent literature on COVID-19-related stressors, including economic instability, social isolation, and health anxiety, and discussed how these factors influenced tobacco use patterns during the pandemic. This revision provides a stronger rationale for exploring the interaction between stress and personality in relation to nicotine dependence. Methods/Measures: The methods section thoroughly outlines the study’s design, including measurement instruments and statistical techniques. However, the explanation of participant recruitment and sample representativeness could be expanded. While the study mentions recruitment via social media platforms and Amazon Mechanical Turk, a discussion of the potential selection biases inherent in these methods is missing. Additionally, more details on the sample demographics, such as socioeconomic background and smoking history, would improve transparency. A discussion of how these recruitment methods may have influenced the study findings would also be beneficial. Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. We have addressed those concerns in the following aspects: 1. We specify the exclusion criteria, noting that only participants with access to internet platforms were eligible to complete the survey. 2. In the limitations section, we also expanded the discussion of recruitment methods, emphasizing the constraints of recruiting through media and Amazon Mechanical Turk and any bias it may introduce and the potential influences on the study. 3. Details regarding participants’ socioeconomic background and smoking history are available in the results section (table one). Results: The results section presents findings clearly and is well-supported by detailed tables. However, some portions are heavily laden with statistical information, which may be difficult for readers unfamiliar with statistical methods. Summarizing key findings in more accessible language alongside statistical results would improve readability. Furthermore, ensuring that all tables are fully explained in the narrative, particularly in terms of how the statistical relationships align with the study hypotheses, would enhance comprehension. Thank you for your suggestions. We have revised the demographic statistics and descriptions of other results to use more accessible language and explain the results. We also updated the descriptions of the tables in the Results section to improve readability and ensure that key findings are clearly linked to the study hypotheses. Additionally, we ensured that all tables are fully explained in the narrative to enhance clarity for readers who may be less familiar with statistical methods. Discussion: The discussion effectively ties findings back to the study’s theoretical framework and hypotheses. The analysis of how personality traits influence smoking behaviors under stress is well-structured. However, more attention could be given to unexpected or non-significant findings, such as the lack of a direct correlation between perceived stress and smoking behavior. Expanding on alternative explanations for these results, such as the role of external stressors moderating personality effects, would provide a more interpretation. Additionally, suggesting areas for future research, such as longitudinal studies examining personality and smoking behaviors over time, would strengthen the study’s impact. In the revised Discussion section, we explicitly address the lack of a significant correlation between perceived stress (PSS scores) and nicotine dependence. We suggest that general stress scales may not capture domain-specific or acute stressors that influence smoking behavior, especially during a unique context like the pandemic. To offer an alternative explanation, we added the possibility that external stressors—such as economic insecurity or social isolation—may moderate the relationship between personality traits and nicotine use. Furthermore, we expanded the future directions paragraph to recommend longitudinal studies, the use of refined stress measures, and exploration of moderating variables, which may clarify the complex interplay between stress, personality, and nicotine dependence. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response the questions.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316301.r002
Decision Letter - Kamalakar Surineni, Editor From Traits to Puffs: The Interplay of Personality, Pandemic Stress, and Smoking Behaviors PONE-D-24-54747R1 Dear Dr.Terry Church, 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, Kamalakar Surineni, MD, MPH Guest Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316301.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Kamalakar Surineni, Editor PONE-D-24-54747R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Church, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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 customercare@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. Kamalakar Surineni Guest Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316301.r004

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 .