Energy Citizenship: Revealing the Intrinsic Motivational Factors Suggested by Self-Determination Theory
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see my attached comments.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
thank you for your valuable input and comments. Here is our point-by-point response to your comments:
The paper concludes in favour of the proposal to upgrade the role of the citizen and thus democracy. This is where, my major comment comes from. I think that although the authors work on the psychology’s discipline, it is clear that the issue they face it’s multidisciplinary in its essence and political science could not be outside of any understanding, explanation, and forecast.
Thus, I think that the authors should add a paragraph discussing the interdisciplinary nature of the subject. Moreover, this is justified by the fact that they use the term “citizenship” at the core of their analysis, which is in principle a political science term. As they are psychologists, I propose to make at least a reference to a relevant colleague, e.g., Contogeorgis, G. (2013). “Citizen and State: Concept and Typology of Citizenship”. LAP Lambert Academic Publishing. ISBN: 9783659397271. (https://www.amazon.com/Citizen-State-Concept-Typology-Citizenship/dp/365939727X ). I am economist but I often use Contogeorgis “incomplete citizen” term in discussing “economic agent or homo economicus” behavior in the so-called Western Societies.
A: Thank you for your assessment and the recommendation to highlight the interdisciplinarity of the paper. It has been added to the Introduction section, as well as the reference to the political science perspective on citizenship. This now has been also highlighted in the Conclusions.
In addition, I think that the title of the paper does not underscore the critical point of “energy citizenship”. I would propose the authors to think about to change it. For instance, it could become “Energy Citizenship: revealing the intrinsic motivational factors suggested by Self-Determination Theory.” Please, consider it.
A: Thank you for the suggestion. We have changed the Title.
Some indicative minor comments are as follows:
- Section 3/lines 141-144. I think that the authors could add here the “nationality” (Latvian) of the respondents (regardless whether it is mentioned in the sample description) emphasizing their culture, which it is supposed to be an important explanatory factor of intrinsic motivation in energy citizenship. Please, consider it.
A: The reference to the Latvian nationality has been added at the end of section 3.1 Sample Characteristics.
- Section 3/paragraph 3.2. I think that the “sampling method” used (simple random or any other) it should be reported by the authors. Please, consider it.
A: The sampling method is now mentioned to the section 3.2.
- Section 3/line 204: I think that the 4th option (“4 = I have done it before, but not anymore,”) seems ambiguous to be located in the right-hand side of the distribution. Please, consider it.
A: Thank you for your comment. We understand your concern about the placement of option 4. However, switching it with option 3 ("no, but I will certainly do it in the future") would alter the interpretation of the results. Our decision to place option 4 where it is reflects the priority of actual behaviour over future intentions, as we are measuring actions already taken. Given that behaviour is a stronger indicator of commitment, it is important to keep past actions in a more prominent position than future intentions in the analysis.
- Section 3/line 244: I think that the abbreviation for the JASP software used in the statistical analysis, should be written in detail the first time. Please, consider it.
A: We have broadened the description of the software used and added the reference for the readers.
- Section 4/line 282/ “… are more concentrated around the mean”: I think that in describing about the kurtosis, you mean “… around the “point of maximum frequency” instead of the “mean”. Please, consider it.
A: Thank you for your suggestion regarding the description of kurtosis. While "point of maximum frequency" can be an accurate way to describe certain distributions, in this context, we believe it is more practical to leave the description as it is, referring to the mean. The mean is a more common reference point in statistical analysis for describing the concentration of data points, especially in applied research. Additionally, we agree that delving into the detailed descriptions of kurtosis and skewness could overwhelm readers. As this information has already been outlined in Table 1, we feel it is sufficient to reference the key insights from the distribution without excessive detail in the main text.
- Section 4/line 284/ “… almost all correlations are statistically significant”: I think that the authors could mention that this is clearly expected given that the definition of the variables have relatively related concepts. Please, consider it.
A: Thank you for your suggestion. We agree with your point and have revised the sentence to better reflect the expected relationship between the variables.
- Section 4/lines 306-310: It's about a crucial not only important finding! People have not only utilitarian needs but also human relations ones. This is because people exist only if they have human relationships with others and the nature. It’s a human need, not a value or moral attitude. So, you have proved that the human needs motivated people to participate in public affairs in order to save common goods... I think that is a critical finding! Please, consider to underscore it.
A: Thank you for highlighting this important point. We agree that this finding extends beyond simple utilitarian needs and underscores a deeper aspect of human motivation. We have included the sentence on this in the Conclusions.
- Section 5/lines 361-365: I think that there is a clear contradiction here. I mean for your reference upon the findings of the paper. Extrinsic motivations have been proved statistically insignificant. Thus, why you mention them too? Please re-consider it.
A: Thank you for your comment. While it is true that extrinsic motivations were statistically insignificant in our findings, we believe it is still valuable to include them in the discussion. Their insignificance provides important insights into the relative strength of intrinsic versus extrinsic motivations in predicting energy citizenship. Addressing both significant and insignificant factors offers a comprehensive view of the data and avoids potential bias by focusing only on significant results. Therefore, we believe it is important to mention both types of motivation for a balanced interpretation of the findings.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article deals with the analysis of the results of a survey conducted in the form of a questionnaire on involvement in reducing energy consumption and introducing investments in pro-environmental technologies.
The theoretical introduction has been sufficiently presented.
The research method (research group, ranges of questions) has been presented but is not fully clear. I understand that the nature of the questions may make this difficult. However, I want the authors to be aware that for an outsider, more focus is needed in the analysis of the results presented
Determination of the quality of the obtained analysis, in my opinion, was presented too extensively by which it gently overwhelms the recipient.
It is accepted that for each value presented in the work should be given the formulas from which they were obtained. This work lacks this. Values are given, but there are no theoretical formulas from which they were obtained. In a few cases, reference is made to the literature, but the formulas should nevertheless be presented. This makes it easier for the recipient to understand the results obtained.
The conclusions are presented in a sufficient and understandable way
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you for your comments on our paper. Here is our point-by-point response to your comments:
Q: The research method (research group, ranges of questions) has been presented but is not fully clear. I understand that the nature of the questions may make this difficult.
A: We have slightly expanded section 3.3. description clarifying that this research is part of the wider research in the area.
Q: I want the authors to be aware that for an outsider, more focus is needed in the analysis of the results presented. Determination of the quality of the obtained analysis, in my opinion, was presented too extensively by which it gently overwhelms the recipient.
A: Thank you for your insightful comment. We understand your concern regarding the balance between presenting detailed analyses and maintaining focus. Our goal was to provide a comprehensive interpretation of the results to ensure clarity and transparency in the statistical evaluation. However, we recognize that the extensive nature of our explanation may have been overwhelming. We have slightly adjusted the Results and Conclusions sections.
Q: It is accepted that for each value presented in the work should be given the formulas from which they were obtained. This work lacks this. Values are given, but there are no theoretical formulas from which they were obtained. In a few cases, reference is made to the literature, but the formulas should nevertheless be presented. This makes it easier for the recipient to understand the results obtained.
A: Thank you for your observation. We understand your concern about the clarity of the formulas used in deriving the presented values. However, in our study, the focus is more on interpreting statistical results, and many of the values (e.g., regression coefficients) are standard outputs from statistical software. In some cases, such as structural equation modelling follows widely accepted formulas from the literature.
If you're referring to the need for explicit equations like those used in regression models we typically reference these to standard statistical methods and literature instead of restating them in the text. We appreciate the suggestion and will consider including more explicit formulas where applicable.
