The Association between Climate Change Exposure and Climate Change Worry among Israeli Adults: The Interplay of Risk Appraisal, Collective Efficacy, Age, and Gender
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is subject to the following major revisions:
Abstract: The abstract should be written in the following context: Background, objective(s), methods, results, conclusions, policy recommendations.
Introduction: The introduction lacks study background. What is the novelty? How is your study different from other studies? Please explain in detail.
Many important studies related to the topic have been ignored. For instance, consult the following studies and improve your study:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125637
https://doi.org/10.1142/S2010007822400103
How you can compare your results with other studies of same geographical regions. It is pivotal to tie your results with other relevant literature.
Discussion: The study discussion is very generic and do not stem from study findings. It is suggested to rearrange discussion based on study findings.
Conclusions: Conclusions are very weak and miss several important dimensions. To strengthen the contents and quality of the study, conclusions must be revised for more clarity and for the ease of normal readers.
Policy recommendations: Specific policy recommendations should be put forward according to the target sample. General policies are of no use in scholarly articles.
Study limitations should be provided along with future research directions for prospective scholars interested in the similar works.
The authors have used several old references to support their arguments. We are in 2023 and you are using such old references. In order to nurture the importance of study, references should be updated using recent and relevant studies.
There is an intermingle of capital and small letters. Please avoid this practice in scientific writing.
Finally, the manuscript can be benefited if the authors thoroughly proofread it in terms of English language mistakes and syntax structure.
Minor English spelling should be checked.
Author Response
August 2023
Dear Reviewer,
Re: A revised version of the manuscript:
Revised title: The association between climate change exposure and climate change worry among Israeli adults: The interplay of risk appraisal, collective efficacy, age, and sex
We would like to thank you for your insightful comments. In revising our manuscript, we paid close attention to each comment and accepted most of the recommended changes.
Below, we provide our detailed responses. Please note that we numbered the comments.
We believe that the comments and the excellent suggestions, aimed at guiding us through the revision process, have significantly improved our manuscript.
Best regards,
Dr. Shiri Shinan-Altman
Prof. Yaira Hamama-Raz
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript is subject to the following major revisions:
- Abstract: The abstract should be written in the following context: Background, objective(s), methods, results, conclusions, policy recommendations.
Response: We revised the abstract to adhere to a structured format and improve its conciseness (p. 1).
- Introduction: The introduction lacks study background. What is the novelty? How is your study different from other studies? Please explain in detail.
Response: We rewrote the introduction in accordance with the reviewer’s comments and those of the three other reviewers. We elaborated on the subject of climate change threat, and we explained the novelty of the current study and how it differs from other studies (pp. 1-2). - Many important studies related to the topic have been ignored. For instance, consult the following studies and improve your study:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125637
https://doi.org/10.1142/S2010007822400103
Response: In line with the reviewer's comment, we elaborated on the adverse impact of increased CO2 emissions on various aspects of climate change (pp. 2-3).
- How you can compare your results with other studies of same geographical regions. It is pivotal to tie your results with other relevant literature.
Response: In line with the reviewer's comment, we have noted in the discussion section findings from relevant studies within the same geographical regions (pp. 10-11).
- Discussion: The study discussion is very generic and do not stem from study findings. It is suggested to rearrange discussion based on study findings.
Response: Thank you for this comment. We would like to clarify that the discussion section was designed in accordance with each of the study’s hypotheses. Specifically, we noted whether the hypothesis was confirmed, then provided other relevant literature findings in order to enrich the discussion, and finally suggested possible explanations for the findings. We hope that in accordance with the abovementioned explanation you will find the discussion section clearer.
- Conclusions: Conclusions are very weak and miss several important dimensions. To strengthen the contents and quality of the study, conclusions must be revised for more clarity and for the ease of normal readers.
Response: We revised the conclusions to enhance clarity and better address important dimensions for the ease of the reader (p. 13).
- Policy recommendations: Specific policy recommendations should be put forward according to the target sample. General policies are of no use in scholarly articles.
Response: We have incorporated precise policy recommendations that are tailored to the target sample's characteristics (p. 13).
- Study limitations should be provided along with future research directions for prospective scholars interested in the similar works.
Response: We have added avenues for future research where they were lacking (p. 13).
- The authors have used several old references to support their arguments. We are in 2023 and you are using such old references. In order to nurture the importance of study, references should be updated using recent and relevant studies.
Response: We have revised the references by replacing outdated ones with more recent and relevant studies, while retaining the older references that pertain to foundational theoretical models (see references list).
- There is an intermingle of capital and small letters. Please avoid this practice in scientific writing.
Response: We are not exactly sure to what the reviewer is referring. We aimed to use upper-case letters when appropriate, and lower-case letters when appropriate. If the reviewer has something specific in mind, we would be happy to re-review each instance.
- Finally, the manuscript can be benefited if the authors thoroughly proofread it in terms of English language mistakes and syntax structure.
Response: A professional English-language editor reviewed the manuscript and made changes/corrections accordingly.
- Comments on the Quality of English Language- Minor English spelling should be checked.
Response: Done.
Thank you!
Reviewer 2 Report
A research was conducted to identify the relationship between climate change exposure, climate change worry, and climate change risk appraisal pertaining to air pollution and collective efficacy involving Israeli adults through a cross-sectional approach. With the rising global concern about climate impact on human health and well-being, the current study aims to evaluate and suggest interventions that may help to improve climate change worry levels in Israel. However, there are various parts of this research that needs further clarification. They are included in the attached folder below.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Minor editing would be required. Also, the author should consider using the term "gender" as a replacement for "sex".
Author Response
August 2023
Dear Reviewer,
Re: Revised version of the manuscript:
Revised title: The association between climate change exposure and climate change worry among Israeli adults: The interplay of risk appraisal,
collective efficacy, age, and gender
We would like to thank you for your insightful comments. In revising our manuscript, we paid close attention to each comment and accepted most of the recommended changes.
Below, we provide our detailed responses. Please note that we numbered the comments.
We believe that the comments and the excellent suggestions, aimed at guiding us through the revision process, have significantly improved our manuscript.
Best regards,
Dr. Shiri Shinan-Altman
Prof. Yaira Hamama-Raz
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
- Improper way of citation. Follow the format of the journal (refer to (e.g., 18,24), page 4.
Response: Thank you. We corrected the citation according to the journal's format (p. 3).
- How is this figure considered? Is it based on response rate or? The authors can elaborate more on this.
Refers to: The number of potential participants (n=5,378) had been determined in accordance with the company’s previous experience in arriving at the number of participants necessary for our study (n=379).
Response: Indeed, the number of potential participants (n=5,378) was calculated on the basis of the company's previous experience with response rates. We now note this point in the text (p. 4).
- This section should belong to the results section. (the Participants section)
Response: Thank you. We moved the participants section to the results section in line with the reviewer's comment (p. 5).
- Table 1: Is there other ways to identify level of education? For example, their highest degree? The education mentioned here, does it also includes informal education?
Response: Participants were asked to state: "How many years of education do you have?" Notably, the Israeli Compulsory Education Law (1949) requires all children between the ages of 3 to 16-17 (kindergarten through grade 12) to attend school. Subsequently, people can choose whether they prefer to continue their education at all, and in what way (i.e., university, college, an institution for vocational training, etc.). Given that people might then receive a diploma or license, rather than a degree, we preferred to ask about years of education rather than highest degree.
- Table 1: Not sure if this is presented accurately. It doesn't make sense to have 1.75 children in average.
Response: We have addressed this comment by representing the data in percentages (p. 5 and table 1 in p. 6).
- Table 1: How would the working hours be for these group of people? As compared to the full-time and part-time employed staff?
Refers to ‘Independent worker’
Response: Self-employed women in Israel work an average of 31.6 hours per week compared to self-employed men, who work an average of 45.1 hours per week
(https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001236131).
- Table 1: Is this a paid job? If it is not paid, how does it differentiate between being a housewife and being unemployed?
Refers to Housewife
Response: Thank you. We now divided the employment status to four categories: full time, part time, self-employed worker, unemployed (p. 6).
- Table 1: It is unclear how do you identify someone as "not so religious". Please elaborate
Refers to Traditional-not so religious
Response: Nearly all Israeli Jews identify with one of four categories: Ultra-Orthodox (Haredi), Religious (Dati), Traditional (Masorati) or Secular (Hiloni). Traditionalists occupy a broad middle ground between Orthodoxy and secularism, and they report widely varying levels of observance. In terms of their religious beliefs and practices, the traditional Jews are the most diverse of these four self-defined types of Jews (https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2016/03/08/israels-religiously-divided-society/). In line with the reviewer’s comment, we now clarify the categories in the table (p. 6).
- Table 1: It would be great if the authors are able to elaborate on how they control for the discrepancies among the respondent reporting this.
Refers to Perceived health status
Response: We made sure to write “perceived health status” throughout the manuscript and treated this category as “perceived” rather than as representing a person’s objective health status. Still, during data collection, we provided clear definitions and criteria for different health statuses to minimize misinterpretation.
- Table 1: Not sure what is the dot at this part
Refers to the word Excellent
Response: Thank you. It is a mistake which we deleted.
- Sub-section should be in the next line.
Refers to Measures
Response: We corrected this matter in line with the reviewer’s comment (p. 4).
- I recommend that the authors include the instrument used in this study as appendix.
Refers to Climate change exposure in the Measure section
Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. However, we felt it was important that the instruments that were used in the study be described in the manuscript itself as the instruments were also the basis for the analysis.
- Table 2: Why is the correlation only for men?
Response: The correlations for gender relate to both men and women (1-men, 0-women). It is customary to note the higher value in parentheses, so that the signs of the correlations can be interpreted. We erased the parentheses with men in them, and added a note below the table (Table 2)
- Discussion: Please elucidate the conditions at this point of time for international audience.
Refers to ‘comfortable weather.’
Response: We have provided a clarification regarding the concept of “comfortable weather” in response to the reviewer's comment (p. 11).
- 15. I am not sure about this finding. Logically speaking, the optimistic level is expected to increase with age, i.e., the psychological adaptive capacity of elderlies would be stronger as compared to children.
Refers to “Our third hypothesis was not supported by the findings, as the moderating effect of age on the association between climate change exposure and climate change worry was non-significant.”
Response: We have included a note acknowledging the expectation of an increase in psychological adaptive capacity with age (p. 12).
- 16. The authors should be more precise on what aspect of the effect of climate change that has no difference between ages. While the level of susceptibility to the effect of climate change may be the same, the real impact towards the people will be largely affected by the age factor, i.e., elderlies will have lower coping mechanism against climate risks.
Refers to “However, currently, people of all ages are susceptible to the effects of climate change, with no differences between ages [50].”
Response: Thank you. We've included the notion that susceptibility levels to climate change effects might be similar across ages. However, the actual impact is influenced by age-related coping mechanisms and vulnerabilities (p.12).
- 17. Would education level influence this finding? Perhaps the authors can also elucidate the mean years of education among men vs women. Knowledge and awareness about environmental risks can enhance climate resilience.
Refers to “association was significant for women and not for men.”
Response: It's important to highlight that our current analysis did not specifically focus on comparing background characteristics between men and women. We recognize this aspect as an additional limitation of our study and have suggested exploring the education aspect in future studies (p. 13).
- 18. Inappropriate way of expression. I suggest using sex-based hierarchical standards or gender-based hierarchical standards.
Refers to sex positions
Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We used the expression “gender-based hierarchical standards.” (p. 12).
- 19. Is this a citation? Refers 59 reference 55
Response: The citations in the manuscript were reorganized to accommodate additional references.
- 20. Throughout this article, it is not clear how is air pollution defined? Is it based on a general air quality index or visibility or odour or other air quality parameters? How would one person appraise climate change risk with regards to the air quality?
Refers air pollution.
Response: Thank you. We have now clarified that we are referring to outdoor air pollution. Moreover, we refer to the link between climate risk appraisal and air pollution (p. 1).
- Minor editing would be required. Also, the author should consider using the term "gender" as a replacement for "sex".
Response: A professional English-language editor reviewed the manuscript and made changes/corrections accordingly. We also used the term "gender" as a replacement for "sex".
Thank you!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Here « In Israel, where this study was carried out,.. » I think there is not need for explaining that the study was carried out in Israel. You can just start by for example : « In Israel, the ministry of … or « The Israelian ministry of …» after at the end when presenting the objective you can indicate the study area also to avoid repetition.
I think that this paragraph must be in the Methods and Material section : (Two theoretical frameworks guided the present study. First, we used the transac- tional model of stress and coping [12], which postulates that potentially stressful events will trigger a primary appraisal process wherein people assess the degree of threat in relation to their well-being. According to this primary appraisal, the secondary appraisal process provides a global assessment of people’s coping resources and ability to manage the threat/challenge. Thus, the following variables were suggested in the current study as variables that may contribute to the explanation of climate change worry: climate change exposure, climate change risk appraisal, and collective environment efficacy). It may be shortened as for introduction we analyzed the previous studies done related to our study so we can show the novelty of our study, presenting the methods we will follow for the study must be short and detail must be in the related section (methods and materials)
Have the authors considered also investigating the population awareness rate about climate change and its effects? or already the obtained responses indicated that all respondents are aware of climate change?
You reported « Our results show that levels of climate change worry were moderate », is it moderate because the awareness about climate change impacts is not that high and related knowledge among the population is little? Is it because the population's beliefs are different?
Please try to highlight the primary outcome of your study mainly in the abstract section and conclusions.
The introduction section must be shortened.
No issue
Author Response
August 2023
Dear Reviewer,
Re: Revised version of the manuscript:
Revised title: The association between climate change exposure and climate change worry among Israeli adults: The interplay of risk appraisal,
collective efficacy, age, and gender
We would like to thank you for your insightful comments. In revising our manuscript, we paid close attention to each comment and accepted most of the recommended changes.
Below, we provide our detailed responses. Please note that we numbered the comments.
We believe that the comments and the excellent suggestions, aimed at guiding us through the revision process, have significantly improved our manuscript.
Best regards,
Dr. Shiri Shinan-Altman
Prof. Yaira Hamama-Raz
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
1. Here « In Israel, where this study was carried out,.. » I think there is not need for
explaining that the study was carried out in Israel. You can just start by for example :
« In Israel, the ministry of … or « The Israelian ministry of …» after at the end when
presenting the objective you can indicate the study area also to avoid repetition.
Response: In line with the reviewer's comment, we now avoided repetition regarding the study area (pp. 1-2).
- I think that this paragraph must be in the Methods and Material section : (Two
theoretical frameworks guided the present study. First, we used the transac- tional
model of stress and coping [12], which postulates that potentially stressful events will
trigger a primary appraisal process wherein people assess the degree of threat in
relation to their well-being. According to this primary appraisal, the secondary
appraisal process provides a global assessment of people’s coping resources and
ability to manage the threat/challenge. Thus, the following variables were suggested
in the current study as variables that may contribute to the explanation of climate
change worry: climate change exposure, climate change risk appraisal, and collective
environment efficacy). It may be shortened as for introduction we analyzed the
previous studies done related to our study so we can show the novelty of our study,
presenting the methods we will follow for the study must be short and detail must be
in the related section (methods and materials).
Response: In accordance with this comment, we now moved the theoretical frameworks and the variables that were derived from these frameworks to the Materials and Methods section (pp. 2-3).
- Have the authors considered also investigating the population awareness rate about
climate change and its effects? or already the obtained responses indicated that all
respondents are aware of climate change?
Response: Thank you for this comment. We did not specifically examine the population's awareness rate about climate change and its effects. We added this aspect to the limitations section of the study (p. 13).
- You reported « Our results show that levels of climate change worry were moderate»,is it moderate because the awareness about climate change impacts is not that high and related knowledge among the population is little? Is it because the population' beliefs are different?
Response: We added these suggestions as explanations for the finding of moderate levels of climate change worry (p. 11).
- Please try to highlight the primary outcome of your study mainly in the abstract section and conclusions.
Response: We highlighted the primary outcome of the study in the abstract section and conclusions (p. 1 and p. 13).
6. The introduction section must be shortened.
Response: We rearranged the manuscript sections, and shortened the introduction section.
7. Comments on the Quality of English Language- No issue. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript presents a quantitative study of the association between climate exposure and climate worry, among other variables included in the models. The study found details of how this relationship takes place, including mediating variables. The manuscript reads quite well, and is appropriately structured.
Tables and figures are all clear and appropriate, although it would be wonderful if you coud include all the questions used to capture the variables included in the analysis.
I have one main methodological concern in the statistical analysis. No test for normality is presented before the Pearson correlation. Since normality is needed for variables in a Pearson correlation, it may be that a non-parametric correlation is called for.
Minor concerns
· Introduction, second paragraph. Please use upper case: Ministry of Environmental Protection.
· Third page, second paragraph: sex, age, education and income are demographic variables, not “roles”. Please revise.
· Page 5, after Table 1, subtitle 2.3 should be in the next line.
· Page 6, paragraphs 2 and 3 close with the sentence: “In this study, Chonbach´s …”. It should explain that the Chronbach results is for that variable or section of the data, not for the whole study.
· The results related to gender differences are very interesting and merit further research. It would be wonderful if you could recommend further research ideas that could be developed in different countries.
English is fine
Author Response
August 2023
Dear Reviewer,
Re: Revised version of the manuscript:
Revised title: The association between climate change exposure and climate change worry among Israeli adults: The interplay of risk appraisal, collective efficacy, age, and gender
We would like to thank you for your insightful comments. In revising our manuscript, we paid close attention to each comment and accepted most of the recommended changes.
Below, we provide our detailed responses. Please note that we numbered the comments.
We believe that the comments and the excellent suggestions, aimed at guiding us through the revision process, have significantly improved our manuscript.
Best regards,
Dr. Shiri Shinan-Altman
Prof. Yaira Hamama-Raz
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript presents a quantitative study of the association between climate exposure and climate worry, among other variables included in the models. The study found details of how this relationship takes place, including mediating variables. The manuscript reads quite well, and is appropriately structured.
Thank you.
- Tables and figures are all clear and appropriate, although it would be wonderful if you could include all the questions used to capture the variables included in the analysis.
Response: Thank you for this comment. Unfortunately, we were worried that doing so might affect the clarity of the tables and figures. In the measures section, we now provide details about each variable measurement (pp. 4-5).
- I have one main methodological concern in the statistical analysis. No test for normality is presented before the Pearson correlation. Since normality is needed for variables in a Pearson correlation, it may be that a non-parametric correlation is called for.
Response: In line with the reviewer's comment, we now noted the test for normality (p. 5).
Minor concerns:
- Introduction, second paragraph. Please use upper case: Ministry of Environmental Protection.
Response: Thank you for this comment. However, as we rewrote the introduction section this reference was omitted.
- Third page, second paragraph: sex, age, education and income are demographic variables, not “roles”. Please revise.
Response: In line with the reviewer's comment, we rephrased the sentence and referred to the role of demographic variables (p. 3).
- Page 5, after Table 1, subtitle 2.3 should be in the next line.
Response: We moved subtitle 2.3 to the next line (p. 4).
- 6. Page 6, paragraphs 2 and 3 close with the sentence: “In this study, Chonbach´s …”. It should explain that the Chronbach results is for that variable or section of the data, not for the whole study.
Response: In order to avoid repetitiveness, Cronbach’s alphas are presented only in Table 2 (p. 8).
- The results related to gender differences are very interesting and merit further research. It would be wonderful if you could recommend further research ideas that could be developed in different countries.
Response: We have included a recommendation for future research directions that can be pursued in different countries (p. 13).
- Comments on the Quality of English Language- English is fine.
Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have well addressed all of my concerns. Therefore, I accept the manuscript in its current form.
English quality is fine
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for the insightful and constructive comments and the suggestion to publish the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
A study was conducted to investigate the relationship between climate change exposure and climate change worry considering mediating factors such as climate change risk approval, collective efficacy, age and gender. The authors have addressed all the comments from the first round of review. Although most of the concerns are addressed, many that are unresolved were presented as the limitation of the current study. The clarity and flow of article is also improved to an easy-to-follow manner. I have no further comments.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We would like to express our appreciation to you for the insightful and constructive comments and suggestions. Please see our responses to your comments below.
Comment: A study was conducted to investigate the relationship between climate change exposure and climate change worry considering mediating factors such as climate change risk approval, collective efficacy, age and gender. The authors have addressed all the comments from the first round of review. Although most of the concerns are addressed, many that are unresolved were presented as the limitation of the current study. The clarity and flow of article is also improved to an easy-to-follow manner. I have no further comments.
Response: Thank you.
Comment: If self-efficacy refers to the ability to bring positive outcome from collective action, shouldn't the relationship be inversely proportionate? Higher belief self-efficacy should reduce climate anxiety, and not the other way round. This might be the case unless there are other mediating factors towards this relationship.
Response: Thank you for this comment. We would like to clarify that this finding was indicated by Maran and Begotti (2021), although it is somewhat controversial. We added the reference also beside this finding.
Thank you!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper has been modified and corrected according to our recommendations and suggestions, we think it can be accepted in its current form. However, we invite authors to check and verify their manuscript language and ensure that all mistakes were corrected according to the reviewer's comments.
still need to be checked.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We would like to thank and appreciate your time and efforts in reviewing our manuscript. Please see our responses to your comments below.
Comment: The paper has been modified and corrected according to our recommendations and suggestions, we think it can be accepted in its current form.
Response: Thank you.
Comment: However, we invite authors to check and verify their manuscript language and ensure that all mistakes were corrected according to the reviewer's comments.
Response: The revised manuscript was edited by a professional language editor. We checked and verified the manuscript language and ensured that all mistakes were corrected.
Thank you!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors have addressed most of the issues. Two exceptions remain:
Author: "In the measures section, we now provide details about each variable measurement (pp. 4-5)".
Reviewer reply: Yes, it cites some examples of the questions, but not the full questionnaire. This would be useful for replication by other researchers. It could be added as an annex, so as not to affect the clarity of tables and figures.
Author: “In line with the reviewer's comment, we rephrased the sentence and referred to the role of demographic variables (p. 3).”
Reviewer reply: According to standard "role theory" ( See for example: https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780199756384/obo-9780199756384-0175.xml ), demographic variables do not have roles. Only individuals have roles. Women and men have roles, but gender/sex does not have a role. I checked Reference 25, which is from a hospitality management journal, and it uses a non-standard concept of role. Moreover, this reference does not mention “role theory”, as the manuscript text leads the reader to believe. May I suggest that this reference be removed and that the word “role” be changed “influence of sociodemographic characteristics”, as used in Reference 27.
The English is fine
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We offer our deep appreciation to you for the insightful and constructive comments and suggestions. Please see our responses to your comments below.
Comment: The authors have addressed most of the issues. Two exceptions remain:
Author: "In the measures section, we now provide details about each variable measurement (pp. 4-5)".
Reviewer reply: Yes, it cites some examples of the questions, but not the full questionnaire. This would be useful for replication by other researchers. It could be added as an annex, so as not to affect the clarity of tables and figures.
Response: We included an appendix as a supplementary referring to the study's questionnaires that did not appear in the measures section with their full questions. These questionnaires were derived from their original article to protect copyrights.
Comment: Author: “In line with the reviewer's comment, we rephrased the sentence and referred to the role of demographic variables (p. 3).”
Reviewer reply: According to standard "role theory" (See for example: https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780199756384/obo-9780199756384-0175.xml ), demographic variables do not have roles. Only individuals have roles. Women and men have roles, but gender/sex does not have a role. I checked Reference 25, which is from a hospitality management journal, and it uses a non-standard concept of role. Moreover, this reference does not mention “role theory”, as the manuscript text leads the reader to believe. May I suggest that this reference be removed and that the word “role” be changed “influence of sociodemographic characteristics”, as used in Reference 27.
Response: Thank you for this comment. In line with your suggestion, we removed reference 25 and added a suitable reference (Archer, 1996) which refers to the social role theory. Moreover, we used only the term social-demographic characteristics for age.
Thank you!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
