Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

Dear authors,

 

 

I have read your manuscript with great interest. I think it is a very significant contribution to the field. The manuscript is well written, correctly referenced and the research design is adequate. I recommend its publication after considering some of the suggestion I lay out below.

 

However, I would like to suggest some re-structuring in some parts, especially the introduction and theoretical framework. I also suggest some clarifications in the description and choice of the mediators for the mediation analysis. Please see word file for more detailed revisions and suggestions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a well-written and interesting paper. However, I’d like to see more acknowledgement of the potential impact of ‘different cultures’ or nationality on the results, perhaps even just in the limitations section. From what I can see, there is very little about how this might impact on other factors included in the experiments. Under 4.3.1 it is not included. Under 4.3.2 and 4.3.3, is it included within ‘other demographic variables’? My worry is that it treats the respondents as homogenous, despite such variability in location, and the potential heterogeneity of “old habitual thought patterns” (333). 

Related to this, were the surveys all in English Language? Or were they translated?

I worry slightly about the incentivized PEB side of the design, but this might be because I’m not well versed in experimental economics. Does using the incentive of real money here not pull in other factors that you cannot control for, such as financial strain? Of course, I understand this might be the point, to invoke a closer to real-world scenario, but I still wonder about whether your sample may be rather heterogeneous on this matter, which may impact the results. I realise wordcount might be difficult but perhaps some more explanation in the methods around this, as a method ‘widely used in experimental economics’, would suffice.

Can you provide more information on how the specific audio clips were chosen? (Was it based on a consensus among researchers? Was there some expertise involved?) I think it’s also important to include the transcripts of the audio in the appendix, for full transparency.

Could it be argued that donating to an NGO is not necessarily representative of pro-environmental behaviour?

A few other points:

104-105: perhaps consider rewriting this sentence – an important sentence but with a lot of qualifiers

403: words missing

From 560: this inextricable link seems to imply that one (behaviour) follows the other (values), but you have already cited the intention-behaviour gap above. Perhaps this sentence just needs rewriting to avoid (what I think, but am happy to be corrected, is) the contradiction.

Twice, I think, you use the phrase “attibributed solely to experimental condition” – given the selectivity of the measures used, this could be couched in language with slightly less certainty.

NA

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The submitted paper entitled “Breath, Love, Walk? The impact of mindfulness interventions on climate policy support and environmental attitudes” is a very interesting and well-written paper as it follows a multilevel approach with many different conceptual scales addressing different aspects of human personality; furthermore, the results of the study derive from a large sample with different profile characteristics, while modern methodologies are used based on reliable references. Therefore, in my opinion, this paper should proceed for publication after carefully revising certain general and more specific points which are given below: 

 

General Suggestions

·    There is no consistency in presenting references in parentheses. Please consult authors’ guidelines.

·    I would strongly urge the authors to avoid using footnotes in a scientific paper. Some of the most important info with the respective references presented in footnotes can be included in the text.

·    I would strongly urge the authors to avoid using extended notes in Tables (e.g., Tables 3-6). They should be as epigrammatic as they can.

·    The pronoun in too many sentences in all over the text is the first person (e.g., “we”, “our”) Please modify it to the third person.

 

Specific suggestions

·    Line 47: correct Ajzen 1991

·    Line 52: delete space in parenthesis

·    Lines 73-78: This part of the paragraph should move to the end of the Introduction section

·    Lines 104-107: move these sentences at the end of the Introduction section, just before the paragraph “Our study seeks…”. Mind the connection between the two last paragraphs.

·    Lines 111-118: this information includes methodological issues, and therefore any excerpt of this paragraph that is not met in the Methodology section should move there

·    Lines 119-127: this paragraph should move to the Discussion / Conclusion section 

·    Lines 128-130: there is no need for such a paragraph in a scientific paper, and therefore should be deleted

·    Line 131: omit “hypotheses” from this subsection, as hypotheses should move to the Methodology section

·    Lines 142-148: move to Methodology (with figure & legend)

·    Lines 181-185: move to Methodology (with figure & legend)

·    Lines 216-221: move to Methodology (with figure & legend)

·    Line 231: the full name of CWN is found earlier in the text

·    Line 248: there is no analysis to the acronym PEB earlier in the text

·    Lines 253-257: move to Methodology (with figure & legend)

·    Line 398: why “preliminary analysis” in the subtitle?

·    Lines 399-401: no need for this paragraph. Please omit

·    Line 403: something is missing in the beginning of the sentence

·    Line 414: “control group”: this is mentioned for the first time in the text, while it should be clearly presented in the Methodology section

·    Table 1 is not mentioned in the text at all

·    Line 421: add “…statistical differences…” in the figure legend 

·    Line 437: add “…correlation coefficients…” in the figure legend

·    Line 465: “…ab product…”

·    Delete from legends of Tables 4-6: “Mediation results:”

·    Line 557: for a first time in the text the “systems level” is mentioned here. I would urge the authors either to omit the reference from the Discussion, or to add relevant info in the Introduction section

·    Line 565: delete “discussion” from the subtitle

·    In the Contribution subsection of the Discussion, I would strongly urge the authors to rephrase their own results (which are many and somehow a bit difficult to follow) in a stand-alone paragraph so that they become clearer to the reader

·    Lines 631-633: this information is not met in the Methodology section and therefore should be added 

·    Line 655: rephrase sentence to: “…Despite these limitations, the present study is expected to bring novel…”

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper investigates the role of mindfulness interventions on sustainable behavior. Specifically, the authors investigate the role of three mindfulness interventions (breathing, loving-kindness meditation, and walking in nature) on three types of sustainable behaviors (beliefs and intentions, climate policy, and eco-donations), using three mediating variables (openness to new experiences, compassion, and connectedness with nature).

Strong aspects of the paper

-          The authors do a fantastic job in framing the research problem, conducting a rigorous literature review, developing the hypotheses, and explaining the research design, methods, and results.

-          The topic tackled in this paper is of utmost importance and relevance, and the research conducted fills a gap in the literature and helps improve our fight toward a more sustainable society and less stressful individuals.

-          I particularly appreciate the flow of the writing and the effort that has been made to visually represent the hypotheses.

-          The analysis is rigorous, and the results are very transparent and well-presented.

Areas for improvement

There is not much to be changed, but a few things could be slightly improved:

-          Two mistakes were spotted: last paragraph of the introduction (preseting instead of presenting). Second paragraph of the results (there is probably some missing words at the beginning)

-          The significant level is set at 95% or 0.05. This makes 0.051 marginally significant. However, in the paper, specifically in the 4.3.3. paragraph, the authors reject trait mindfulness change. I would have stated that it is marginally significant.

-          The implications: the authors make a lot of connections between individual-level mindfulness and sustainable behavior change on the organizational and policy level. I would love to see the connection discussed in more detail. Maybe make practical links with some policy-level intervention, communication ..etc, and also organization-level and employee-level intervention and initiatives. A way to see this research scale up and make more impactful changes.

 

Overall, I would like to congratulate the authors for the great work they have done to put this work together and hope to see the paper published soon.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for all the corrections and improvements to the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

After carefully reading the revised ms as well as the authors' reply, i can tell that all suggestions were properly addressed through out the text, and therefore can proceed to the next stage of publication.