PONE-D-24-60508Wellbeing Across the American Nations: First Settler Effects influence traditional and existential wellnessPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Samson,

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.

Both Reviewers appreciated the manuscript and encouraged its publication, albeit suggesting relevant and substantial changes. Even Reviewer #1, who submitted a judgment of acceptance of the manuscript, then in fact in the commentary moved an important methodological issue, which requires at least a clarifying response from the authors. Reviewer #2 offers a complex body of comments, requiring a thorough review of the study.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 24 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,

Stefano Federici, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 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. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement: This research was supported through Discovery Grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (RGPIN-2020-05942 to D.R.S.). Additional support was provided by the Department ofAnthropology, University of Toronto Mississauga and The Pell Center’s Nationhood Lab.  Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: We thank the funding agency that has helped support this research through Discovery Grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (RGPIN-2020-05942 to D.R.S). We also thank the Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto Mississauga for further support. We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: This research was supported through Discovery Grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (RGPIN-2020-05942 to D.R.S.). Additional support was provided by the Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto Mississauga and The Pell Center’s Nationhood Lab Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process. 5. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. 6. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. 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 these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or remove the figures from your submission: a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 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.The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful: USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.htmlNASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

Additional Editor Comments:

Both Reviewers appreciated the manuscript and encouraged its publication, albeit suggesting relevant and substantial changes. Even Reviewer #1, who submitted a judgment of acceptance of the manuscript, then in fact in the commentary moved an important methodological issue, which requires at least a clarifying response from the authors. Reviewer #2 offers a complex body of comments, requiring a thorough review of the study.

[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 submission is a very interesting piece that does contribute to the important topic of historical-and-cultural prerequisites for regional devision of the United States. The hypotheses the authors test and two of which verify are really important for a better understanding of the differences between the US historical and cultural macroregions - the North and the South (divided into smaller regions by the paper authors). The research shows convincingly (although I am not a specilist in statistical methods) that this division finds a remarkable manifestation in significant, even fundamental differences in the Northerners and Southerners' wellbeing. So, the paper is good and definitely deserves publication. Yet my final comment would be that it could become even better if the authors had done at least several interviews with people from different American nations. People's explanations of their views and state of mind, "voices from the field", could make the paper less "dry" in its style of presentation, this could allow the reader to see just human beings behind the figures.

Reviewer #2:  Dear Authors,

Thank you for writing such a fascinating paper. Here, I believe this paper should be published, though it has a few major and minor issues that I believe should be addressed to substantially improve the manuscript.

Major Issues:

The manuscript repeatedly references the $75,000 income plateau in well-being (Kahneman & Deaton, 2010). However, more recent research by Killingsworth (2021), which used real-time, continuous measures of experienced well-being in a large U.S. sample, found a linear relationship with income across the full range, including well above $75,000. A revised introduction/discussion should acknowledge this recent research and discuss the nuanced relationship between material wealth and wellbeing accordingly.

The manuscript introduces the First Settler Wellness Effect and asserts that early settlement patterns explain current wellness differences, but it does not sufficiently elaborate the psychological mechanisms underlying this persistence. Specifically, the psychological or institutional processes through which regional cultures continue to influence wellness outcomes today, despite changes in ecology, economy, and demography, remain vague. For example, while honor cultures are attributed to herding societies, there is no explanation of why those patterns persist now that herding has largely declined. Integrating theories of cultural transmission would help clarify and tighten the hypotheses for how the historical legacies hypothesized translate into contemporary individual-level outcomes.

The classification of social well-being within the Traditional Wellness Index, rather than the Existential one, needs further justification. Social relationships seem quite related to existential wellness. Did the authors empirically test the factor structure of the wellness components to examine their validity? Does social well-being fit better in the traditional wellness index? Demonstrating this would be useful.

The manuscript implies plausible psychological and social mechanisms through which regional culture influences different dimensions of wellness, but these are not formally tested. In particular, two mediation models seem especially warranted: (1) Region → Social Connection → Existential Wellness, which reflects how communal norms and belonging foster purpose and meaning; and (2) Region → Institutional Trust/Strength → Traditional Wellness, which reflects how confidence in institutions (e.g., health care, governance, economic systems) supports material and physical stability. Testing these pathways empirically, through mediation models, would clarify the mechanisms of the First Settler Wellness Effect and strengthen the claims.

Given the conceptual distinction between traditional and existential wellness, it would be informative to test whether the predictors have significantly different effects across these two wellness types. This could be accomplished via a within-subjects mixed-effects model that includes a wellness-type factor and its interactions with the primary predictors. Such an analysis could more directly assess claims regarding the differences or tradeoffs between material stability and existential fulfillment across regions. That is, do the relationships between regions and each wellness type significantly differ from one another?

Minor issues:

The manuscript presents the First Settler Effects hypothesis and the American Nations framework in a way that feels overly deterministic. While the model offers a useful lens, it has also been subject to scholarly critique for its generalizations. A brief acknowledgment of these critiques in the introduction would help temper the stronger claims and reflect the diversity within regions in the U.S.

The manuscript states that “additional research has found a significant association between having a strong internal locus of control and overall happiness,” but no citation is provided for this claim.

While the study’s central findings are compelling and well-supported, the final discussion section would benefit from substantial tightening. Much of the latter half reads as exploratory rather than integrative, with several tangents (e.g., early childhood education, DRAMMA framework, internet use, indigenous communities) that, although interesting, dilute its main focus.

**********

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:  Dmitri M. Bondarenko

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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Wellbeing - First Nations - Review.pdf

Wellbeing Across the American Nations: First Settler Effects influence traditional and existential wellness

PONE-D-24-60508R1

Dear Dr. Samson,

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,

Stefano Federici, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

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)

**********

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: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

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: (No Response)

**********

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: (No Response)

**********

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: Dear Authors,

Thank you for reacting to my comments. I do understand that your main source of information presupposes anonymity of the collected and processed data. I hope you will employ a mixture of methods which could include your own interviews with people beyond the anonymized database while working on your next paper.

**********

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:  Dmitri M. Bondarenko

**********