PONE-D-24-46923Materialists Perceive their high socioeconomic status as justice: Leading to increased political participationPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tao,

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 Mar 23 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,

Enrico Ivaldi

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. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met.  Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This research was funded by Humanities and Social Science Projects of the Ministry of Education of China (19YJC710066).”

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.

5. In the online submission form, you indicated that “The original data of this paper can be obtained by contacting the corresponding author.”

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

[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: Partly

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: No

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: I am grateful for the opportunity to review this manuscript. It presents an interesting research topic. The authors have employed a quantitative research method to examine the relationships among the variables, which is refreshing. However, there are several concerns that need to be addressed:

Q1: The correlations presented in the abstract should reflect the correlations among all variables in the study, including the analysis of materialism value.

Q2: The introduction and literature review would benefit from more literature evidence. Generally, statements that are not the authors' own opinions require citations. The lack of citations is a significant issue in this manuscript, a large lack of literature citations can lead reviewers to question the necessity and rigor of the study.

Q3: There are many instances in the introduction and literature review where it states "numerous studies indicate...". There should be at least three references to support this claim.

Q4: The proposed moderated mediation model (Fig. 1) should clarify whether the moderating variable has a positive or negative moderating effect.

Q5: Please elaborate on the sample selection process or reason in the research methods, as this will shed light on sample representativeness.

Q6: What is the basis for the minimum sample size, and how to control the bias in advance (please note that Harman’s single-factor test is a post-hoc bias test)? For further learning on bias control, you may refer to the following literature:

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of applied psychology, 88(5), 879. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Q7: What platform was used for online questionnaire collection? Please provide a valid link to that platform.

Q8: More demographic background information about the participants should be provided, such as their grade and family location, as these background variables may affect the stability of the research results.

Q9: I noticed that the other three measurement tools used by the authors are Likert scales. Is the SSS scale also a Likert scale? If not, how are the scores converted of SSS scale? Additionally, please provide reliability and validity analysis for the SSS scale.

Q10: As far as I know, developing a self-constructed questionnaire or scale requires substantial preliminary work, such as: how to generate an item pool? Is item analysis and exploratory factor analysis conducted? To ensure the reliability and validity of the tool. Although this study uses CFA, it lacks the necessary steps for a self-constructed questionnaire, which raises doubts about the measurement tool.

Q11: Please provide the criteria or reference ranges for all indicators in the research methods and results, such as Cronbach's α, model fit indices, and the critical threshold of 40%.

Q12: Please detail the data analysis strategy used in this study.

Q13: The descriptive statistics and correlation analysis of the research results should include the moderating variable, materialism value.

Q14: The discussion section would benefit from more literature support, and incorporating discussions on the Chinese cultural context could further explain the validity of the research results.

Q15: Please clarify the practical value of this research.

In summary, this manuscript requires more effort in literature citations to meet the standards of academic writing.

Reviewer #2: The study provides valuable insights into the interplay of socioeconomic perceptions, justice beliefs, and material values in shaping political participation. Below, I provide detailed feedback and pose questions for the authors to address in their revision.

General Feedback:

The paper presents a well-structured investigation into the relationship between subjective socioeconomic status (SSS) and political participation. The findings contribute meaningfully to political psychology and behavioral economics by integrating psychological mechanisms such as perceived social justice and materialism. The use of established scales and robust statistical techniques enhances the credibility of the study. However, certain areas require further clarification and elaboration to strengthen the manuscript.

Major Points for Revision:

• The authors acknowledge contradictory findings in the literature regarding SSS and political participation. While this study finds a positive relationship, some studies suggest a negative or null effect. Could the authors provide a more detailed discussion of why their findings differ from others? Are contextual factors (e.g., China's political environment, university culture) potentially influencing this relationship?

• The study suggests that individuals with higher SSS perceive greater social justice, which in turn fosters political participation. However, previous research indicates that individuals with higher SSS might disengage from political participation due to a sense of complacency. Can the authors explore alternative explanations for the mediation effect? Could there be a nonlinear or curvilinear relationship that was not tested? However, it is possible that relationships are more complex. The authors did not test for any non-linear relationships and assume linear relationships between variables. For example, the relationship between SSS and political participation may not be consistently positive. It is possible that at very high levels of SSS, individuals may become complacent or disengaged from political activities. Similarly, there might be a threshold effect where only after a certain level of perceived social justice has been reached do individuals become more politically active. This might result in a curvilinear relationship, which the study did not explore.

• The findings indicate that materialism strengthens the relationship between SSS and perceived social justice. However, materialism is a multidimensional construct with facets such as success, centrality, and happiness. Although the study does not explore whether all three dimensions of materialism have different moderating effects, it is plausible that they do. Future research could explore these differences to develop a more comprehensive understanding of how materialism influences the relationship between SSS, perceived social justice, and political participation. Do all dimensions of materialism exert the same moderating effect? If not, how do they differ?

• The study relies on PROCESS models which are well-established but have limitations. Could the authors consider alternative methods such as Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) or Bayesian Mediation Analysis? By using alternative methods like SEM or Bayesian analysis, the authors could gain a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of the complex relationships among SSS, perceived social justice, materialism and political participation. These methods would provide a more robust assessment of the model's validity and offer the possibility of exploring more complex relationships. A comparison of methods could add robustness to the findings.

Additional Points for Consideration:

• Would a more heterogeneous sample yield different findings?

• Given China's unique political and economic landscape, to what extent do the findings generalize to other cultural settings?

Overall, this study offers valuable contributions to the understanding of political participation among Chinese college students. The use of a moderated mediation model is commendable, but further clarifications, additional robustness checks, and theoretical discussions would enhance the manuscript. I encourage the authors to address these points in their revision.

**********

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.

PONE-D-24-46923R1Materialists Perceive their high socioeconomic status as justice: Leading to increased political participationPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tao,

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.

The authors are requested to revise the title of the manuscript by removing the term 'lead to,' as it may imply a causal relationship that is not supported by the cross-sectional study design.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 09 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,

Enrico Ivaldi

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.

Additional Editor Comments:

The authors are requested to revise the title of the manuscript by removing the term 'lead to,' as it may imply a causal relationship that is not supported by the cross-sectional study design.

[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: All comments have been addressed

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 would like to express my appreciation for the authors’ efforts in revising the manuscript. The quality of the revised version has been significantly improved, and the authors have adequately addressed my concerns. It is evident from the revised manuscript and the response letter that the research team has dedicated considerable effort to this work. However, given that your study is cross-sectional in design, I recommend revising the title to remove the term “lead to,” which may imply a causal relationship. Once this modification is made, I am prepared to recommend the manuscript for publication.

Reviewer #2:  (No Response)

**********

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:  Jun Li

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.

Materialists Perceive Their High Socioeconomic Status as Justice: Associations with Increased Political Participation

PONE-D-24-46923R2

Dear Dr. Tao,

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,

Enrico Ivaldi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: