Life Satisfaction: Insights from the World Values Survey
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Pointing out the research gap can increase the acceptability of the article to the reader.
2. While the research is very nicely observed with empirical citations, there are shortcomings in the theoretical analysis.
3. There are no limitations to the article and the absence of direction for future research can be questioned the quality.
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer No.1
June 2024
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for accepting to review this manuscript id “Life Satisfaction: Insights from World Values Survey” id societies-2970412, sent for consideration for publication in Societies (1st round of revisions).
Regarding your appreciations/questions/suggestions, I will address each as follows:
Reviewer 1:
1.Pointing out the research gap can increase the acceptability of the article to the reader.
Authors’ response:
Thank you very much for your useful suggestions! I added at the end of the Related Work section a paragraph dedicated to explaining the main research gaps as identified when performing the revisions (all changes/additions with green background in the revised version of the manuscript).
Reviewer 1:
2.While the research is very nicely observed with empirical citations, there are shortcomings in the theoretical analysis.
Authors’ response:
Thank you very much for your kind words of appreciation! Regarding the shortcomings, I added in Introduction more references and ideas regarding the subjective well-being as a generic concept of life satisfaction, as well as research on related concepts (all changes/additions with green background in the revised version of the manuscript). Improvements were also performed in terms of related works, identified limitations and future research directions.
Reviewer 1:
- There are no limitations to the article and the absence of direction for future research can bequestioned the quality.
Authors’ response:
Thank you very much for your suggestions! As required, I added a consistent section dedicated to presenting the Limitations and Future Research Directions (all changes/additions with green background in the revised version of the manuscript).
Thank you again for the time and consideration given to this submission and for helping me to improve it. I look forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
The Author
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer No.2
June 2024
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for accepting to review this manuscript id “Life Satisfaction: Insights from World Values Survey” id societies-2970412, sent for consideration for publication in Societies (1st round of revisions).
Regarding your appreciations/questions/suggestions, I will address each as follows:
Reviewer 2:
General Comments:
1.This empirical paper uses the World Values Survey to examine what values and sociodemographic factors predict life satisfaction. A variety of statistical analytic approaches are employed and are described transparently.
2.This paper finds that greater household finances, happiness, freedom of choice, physical health, and democracy all positively predict life satisfaction. In addition, older age (roughly 40-60), being female, larger settlement of city, partnered marital status, and higher social class positively predict life satisfaction.
3.I appreciate that this paper uses a variety of analytical approaches to further show which values/demographic predictors are key for life satisfaction.
Authors’ response:
Thank you very much for your kind words of appreciation!
Reviewer 2:
General Comments: 3. A terminology issue – it is not altogether clear to me what distinguishes the value predictors from the sociodemographic predictors. The values (household finances, happiness, freedom of choice, physical health, and democracy) seem like additional demographic variables to me.
Authors’ response:
Thank you very much for your comment! Household finances, happiness, freedom of choice, physical health, and democracy resulted as the most robust predictors. They resisted all types of validations, and I included them in a so-called quad-core model. In contrast, none of the sociodemographic ones (coded by WVS with abbreviations starting with X in the name, from cross – variables usually used for cross validations) proved robust. Therefore, they were not considered in the core model. For this reason, I added now the word “consecrated” before most appearances of “socio-demographic” to make it clearer (all changes/additions with green background in the revised version of the manuscript).
Reviewer 2:
General Comments: 4. One of the bigger suggestions I have is using the construct name instead of the data analysis variable name throughout the text and in tables/figures. So instead of A009 in text or in Figures, type the name of the construct, whatever that may be (Household Finances, Life Satisfaction, etc.). This will greatly improve readability.
Authors’ response:
Thank you very much for your suggestion! I added additional explanations in the main text, legends or code translations in figures, and explanations between round parentheses in tables to increase the readability (all text changes/additions with green background and updated figures in the revised version of the manuscript).
Reviewer 2:
Specific Comments:
Abstract:
5.p. 1 line 5 – would suggest swapping “ones” for “values”
Authors’ response:
Thank you very much for your suggestions! As required, I replaced “ones” with “values” (all changes/additions with green background in the revised version of the manuscript).
Reviewer 2:
Specific Comments:
Introduction:
6.I think it would be useful if in the introduction section 1, the authors very briefly categorized life satisfaction within broader well-being theories (e.g., eudaimonic vs. hedonic).
Authors’ response:
Thank you very much for your suggestions! As required, I introduced a paragraph towards the end of Introduction with a brief categorization of life satisfaction within these theories (all changes/additions with green background in the revised version of the manuscript).
Reviewer 2:
Specific Comments:
Introduction:
7.The introduction section could afford to mention Cybernetic Value Fulfillment Theory (DeYoung & Tiberius, 2023), which is a values-based theory of well-being, thus relevant for this study.
Authors’ response:
Thank you very much for your suggestions! As suggested, I introduced a paragraph at the end of Introduction which is dedicated to the theory of the Cybernetic Value Fulfillment (all changes/additions with green background in the revised version of the manuscript).
Reviewer 2:
Specific Comments:
8.The related work section 2 reads like a bullet list of studies instead of a comprehensive argument. I appreciate that the authors are trying to extensively cover a literature review on extant findings, and they do a thorough job. But I think the writing could be restructured so there is a main point/argument instead of just a list of associations.
Authors’ response:
Thank you very much for your suggestions! As suggested, I introduced a paragraph at the end of Related Work (before the formulation of the main set of hypotheses) which is dedicated to synthesizing a salient and succinct point from this literature review (all changes/additions with green background in the revised version of the manuscript).
Reviewer 2:
Specific Comments:
9.Hypotheses – I appreciate how the authors root their predictions in extant findings. But I think there needs to be a short paragraph somewhere that describes what is being replicated and what is being extended in this study. What will this study affirm from past research, but also why is this new study necessary? What is the main contribution (if it’s methodological, then just say that sooner in the intro)? It might also be worth mentioning the disciplinary perspectives the article takes because although values are definitely studied across disciplines, the methods are quant heavy, and so it might be good to be up-front about that.
Authors’ response:
Thank you very much for your point! As suggested, I introduced a paragraph at the end of Related Work (which is dedicated to presenting the identified research gaps) and also another one (which is dedicated to synthesizing the disciplinary perspectives of this article) at the end of Introduction (all changes/additions with green background in the revised version of the manuscript).
Reviewer 2:
Specific Comments:
Materials and Methods
10.Figure 1 is mentioned subtly in the first paragraph, but one sentence describing exactly what Figure 1 represents would be helpful for readers less familiar with these methods.
Authors’ response:
Thank you very much for your suggestion! I introduced a paragraph just before Figure 1. This paragraph now describes exactly the meaning and purpose of Figure 1 (all changes/additions with green background in the revised version of the manuscript).
Reviewer 2:
Specific Comments:
Materials and Methods
11.I appreciate how transparent and thorough the authors are with their methods and analytic approaches.
Authors’ response:
Thank you very much for your kind words of appreciation!
Reviewer 2:
Specific Comments:
Results
- I appreciate how transparent and thorough the authors are with the reporting of their results.
Authors’ response:
Thank you very much for your kind words of appreciation!
Reviewer 2:
Specific Comments:
Results
- In general for all figures, I think it would be helpful if the authors could either (a) use normal language for variables (e.g., Finances instead of “A009”) or (b) always have a “Notes” section under each figure that lists what the shorthand variable names refer to (e.g., Notes. A009 = Finances, etc.). This applies to tables and axes in figures.
Authors’ response:
Thank you very much for your suggestion! I added additional explanations in the main text, legends or code translations in figures, and explanations between round parentheses in tables to increase the readability (all text changes/additions with green background and updated figures in the revised version of the manuscript).
Reviewer 2:
Specific Comments:
Results
- I appreciate the robust appendix.
Authors’ response:
Thank you very much for your kind words of appreciation!
Reviewer 2:
Specific Comments:
Discussion
- I think readers would appreciate sub-headings in the discussion, e.g., one or more for main findings and one for socio-demographic variables.
16.It would help if the first sentence of the discussion listed the 5 strongest values in one sentence before jumping into summarizing each value’s effects (p. 17, line 466). Same for demographic variables (p. 18, line 514).
Authors’ response:
Thank you very much for your point! I proceeded as suggested and included two subsections, namely 5.1 Main findings and 5.2 Socio-demographic findings. The same for corresponding synthesizing and intro phrases for both 5.1 and 5.2 (all text changes/additions with green background in the revised version of the manuscript).
Reviewer 2:
Specific Comments:
Discussion
- P. 18, lines 529-530 – I take issue with this interpretation, and it comes across as sexist to me. I think a more neutral explanation is that women may be socialized to feel permission to feel a wider array of emotions (valence and arousal), not that they are less resilient to challenges. Feeling emotions, positive and negative, in general, is not a weakness.
Authors’ response:
Thank you very much for your observation! I think You are right. Consequently, I rephrased this sentence (all text changes/additions with green background in the revised version of the manuscript).
Reviewer 2:
Specific Comments:
Discussion
- Conclusion: needs to be clearer what is a novel contribution from this study
- Conclusion: could draw stronger implications for societal well-being
Authors’ response:
Thank you very much for your observations! I proceeded as suggested and included more contributions and stronger implications in Conclusions (entirely changed - green background in the revised version of the manuscript).
Thank you again for the time and consideration given to this submission and for helping me to improve it. I look forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
The Author
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe research explores enduring influences of life satisfaction using empirical analysis based on three waves of World Values Survey data.
Literature review in the introduction sheds light on the wide theoretical field of life satisfaction research. In a concise format, the author(s) go through the historical roots of life satisfaction and related terms such as happiness and quality of life. Regarding the length of the manuscript and the research purpose the introduction is quite short and remains earlier studies of life satisfaction research in somewhat superficial level - just because of the brevity of this part. As research in the field is very extensive, the theoretical section could have included a slightly more in-depth review of subjective well-being as a generic concept of life satisfaction, as well as research on related concepts. Also, some of the references were quite old, e.g., Sirgy et al., 1998. On the other hand, section 2, related work complements the theoretical framework.
The empirical part of the research and exploratory approach are strong and explained in detail. Using four datasets including approximately 450 000 observations in the beginning phase and ending up with the final dataset after various tests, the data have been carefully compiled. All in all, the Materials and methods and Discussion sections show original and relevant new results and contributes strongly on life satisfaction research.
It addresses especially to the various factors related to life satisfaction based on robust analysis with a large data. As the (partial) hypothesis validation is confirmed the paper adds to the life satisfaction and well-being research. However, some of the results – e.g., the influence of happiness to life satisfaction - support earlier research and as such only confirm the link between these two factors -and are somewhat expected results.
As the author(s) states, all the hypothesis were fully or partly supported and are as such consistent with the original arguments presented. As evidence, a bigger picture of a person satisfied with his or her life was presented. The factors confirm earlier study results of what life satisfaction constitutes of, what a good life is made of - within life satisfaction and well-being research field.
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer No.3
June 2024
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for accepting to review this manuscript id “Life Satisfaction: Insights from World Values Survey” id societies-2970412, sent for consideration for publication in Societies (1st round of revisions).
Regarding your appreciations/questions/suggestions, I will address each as follows:
Reviewer 3:
The research explores enduring influences of life satisfaction using empirical analysis based on three waves of World Values Survey data.
Literature review in the introduction sheds light on the wide theoretical field of life satisfaction research. In a concise format, the author(s) go through the historical roots of life satisfaction and related terms such as happiness and quality of life. Regarding the length of the manuscript and the research purpose the introduction is quite short and remains earlier studies of life satisfaction research in somewhat superficial level - just because of the brevity of this part. As research in the field is very extensive, the theoretical section could have included a slightly more in-depth review of subjective well-being as a generic concept of life satisfaction, as well as research on related concepts. Also, some of the references were quite old, e.g., Sirgy et al., 1998. On the other hand, section 2, related work complements the theoretical framework.
Authors’ response:
Thank you very much for your kind words of appreciation! Regarding the observations, as suggested, I added in Introduction more new references and ideas regarding the subjective well-being as a generic concept of life satisfaction, as well as research on related concepts (all changes/additions with green background in the revised version of the manuscript). The old reference to Sirgy et al., 1998 was replaced with a newer one (Issock, 2023).
Reviewer 3:
The empirical part of the research and exploratory approach are strong and explained in detail. Using four datasets including approximately 450 000 observations in the beginning phase and ending up with the final dataset after various tests, the data have been carefully compiled. All in all, the Materials and methods and Discussion sections show original and relevant new results and contributes strongly on life satisfaction research.
Authors’ response:
Thank you very much for your words of appreciation!
Reviewer 3:
It addresses especially to the various factors related to life satisfaction based on robust analysis with a large data. As the (partial) hypothesis validation is confirmed the paper adds to the life satisfaction and well-being research. However, some of the results – e.g., the influence of happiness to life satisfaction - support earlier research and as such only confirm the link between these two factors -and are somewhat expected results.
Authors’ response:
Thank you very much for your kind words of appreciation!
Reviewer 3:
As the author(s) states, all the hypotheses were fully or partly supported and are as such consistent with the original arguments presented. As evidence, a bigger picture of a person satisfied with his or her life was presented. The factors confirm earlier study results of what life satisfaction constitutes of what a good life is made of - within life satisfaction and well-being research field.
Authors’ response:
Thank you very much for your kind words of appreciation!
Thank you again for the time and consideration given to this submission and for helping me to improve it. I look forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
The Author
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
