Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Your manuscript titled “How stress mindset mitigates burnout: the role of hope in work-family conflict among Chinese teachers” asked a very important research question about the psychological mechanism to reduce burnout and identified a meaningful boundary condition of stress mindset. You write exceptionally well, and it is a very enjoyable read. I also appreciate the clarity in the articulation of study rationale and theoretical logic – all of which makes the story convincing. In the meantime, I would like to share several observations about the manuscript and hope they can be helpful for the improvement of the paper.

1. Conceptual Precision:

Overall, your writing about the key variables are very clear and logically tight. However, you could do a better job on the concept “stress-is-enhancing.” The definition is precise and clear. But the terminology was changed to “stress mindset” and “job stress mindsets” in the following paragraphs, then switch back to stress-is-enhancing. I am assuming that stress-is-enhancing could be one particular type of stress mindsets. I think readers would appreciate some kind of transition to point out the connection and distinction instead of an interchangeable case.

2. Hypothesis Statements

You did a superb job laying out the theoretical reasoning underlying the hypotheses. But the logical clarity of the hypothesis statements themselves could be improved. I would recommend looking up a few published articles to see how each of these type of relationships should be accurately framed. Specifically,

H1: the direction of the relationship should be specified.

H2a is not a moderated mediation relationship like H2b. Because of this, you should change the wording in Line 127 (page 3). H2a: This is a moderated relationship, no mediation. H2b is a moderated mediation statement – you should be specific on the directions of the relationships.

Furthermore, I think it might make the story and contributions more explicit to separate the role of a psychological mechanism from that of a boundary condition (moderator) in the structure:

• Change the subtitle 1.2 to reflect this
• In the writing, add a transition from the psychological mechanism to the boundary condition.

3. Article Title

Similar to my comments on the psychological mechanism and boundary condition, your title seems confusing to readers as well. Please consider making it clearer. I would recommend finding a few published articles to see how you can restructure the sentence to improve clarity.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript addresses a timely issue by investigating the psychological mechanisms that explain work–family conflict and burnout in a sample of Chinese teachers. The study is theoretically grounded in Conservation of Resources theory (COR theory), hope theory and positive psychology. I find the proposed model to be coherent and convincing, the sample to be of adequate size, the measures to be well-validated, the data analytic strategies to be adequate, and the paper to be well-written. Of note, the study has relevant application for teacher well-being and intervention design. In general, the paper makes a solid empirical contribution to the literature on burnout and occupational stress.

However, I have several major comments and suggestions that I believe would strengthen the manuscript further

Theoretical integration and conceptual clarity: The manuscript engages with COR theory, hope theory, and a stress mindset (i.e., stress-is-enhancing). However, these models are sometimes presented as competing frameworks rather than integrated. For example, it is not entirely clear whether the stress-is-enhancing mindset should be conceptualized, theoretically, as a personal resource (i.e., a cognitive appraisal), or as some sort of stable, trait-like individual difference. A more explicit clarification of its status within the COR framework would enhance the theoretical contribution of the study.

Inconsistency between hypotheses and empirical findings: H2b predicts that a stress-is-enhancing mindset would strengthen the indirect work–family conflict on burnout via hope, but empirically, the data support the buffering, as opposed to the amplifying strength of the effect. This is not simply an empirical inconsistency, but a conceptual one, as the authors fail to persuade in the theoretical section on why the hypothesized direction of the effect should be as stated above. The authors should revisit the logic of this hypothesis and more explicitly reconcile theory and findings.

Cross-sectional design and causal language: Although the limitations section acknowledges the cross-sectional nature of the study, causal language appears throughout the manuscript (e.g., references to work–family conflict “undermining” hope or hope “leading to” burnout). A more cautious and consistent use of non-causal language would be appropriate. As a third methodological shortcoming, a brief discussion of plausible reverse or reciprocal relationships would increase the analytical soundness of the discussion.

Underutilization of the cultural context: The authors identify the Chinese context and policy environment as important background variables, but do not fully capitalize on these analytically. Terms such as familism, normative role expectations, or culturally specific conceptions of stress and feelings of hope could have used more explicitly in interpreting the results. This would enhance the manuscript’s originality and cultural depth.

Measurement considerations regarding stress mindset: The internal consistency of the stress-is-enhancing mindset measure in the current study (α = .72) is lower than what was reported in the original validation of the Stress Mindset Measure (α = .80–.86; Crum et al., 2013). While the response format itself appears to be broadly consistent with the original five-category scaling, the manuscript does not clarify whether the items, scoring, and scaling fully correspond to the original instrument. More importantly, it remains unclear whether a validated Chinese version of the Stress Mindset Measure was used, and if so, how the translation and psychometric validation were conducted, or how the present reliability compares to previously reported Chinese samples. Similar concerns apply to other key measures used in the study (e.g., work–family conflict and psychological capital/hope), where prior Chinese adaptations are mentioned but specific validation studies and psychometric evidence are not consistently cited.

In addition, while the descriptive statistics table reports minimum and maximum values, these indices are less informative for evaluating the suitability of the data for parametric analyses than distributional characteristics such as skewness and kurtosis. Report of these indices would permit readers to make more accurate judgments about possible violations of normality. Third, for scales with comparatively weaker internal consistency, a brief item-level analysis (e.g. item–total or item–residual correlations) would clarify whether particular items may be contributing to the lower reliability. As stress mindset appears to be of central moderating importance in the proposed model, more transparency about measurement quality and distributional assumptions would greatly enhance the methodological soundness and interpretability of the results.

Treatment of gender as a covariate in the analytic models: Although gender was included as a demographic variable and showed no significant bivariate associations with the main study variables, it was not controlled for in the mediation and moderated mediation analyses. In the context of the marked gender imbalance in the sample and the extensive literature on gender differences in work--family conflict and burnout, a brief justification for excluding gender from the analytic models, or a sensitivity analysis including gender as a covariate, would improve the generalizability of the results.

Limited consideration of alternative models: Limited discussion of alternative models: The manuscript addresses only one theoretically specified moderated mediation model. A brief justification of why alternative (plausible) models were not examined (e.g., alternative moderation paths, inclusion of the other components of psychological capital) would be helpful from a reviewer's point of view.  A brief conceptual argument would increase analytic clarity of the paper.

In closing, this is a well-conceived and timely study that addresses an important issue in the literature. I hope that the comments and suggestions offered above will be helpful in further strengthening the manuscript. I wish the authors every success in revising the paper and developing this interesting line of research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study has clear potential to contribute to both theory and practice, particularly given the continued importance of understanding teacher burnout in high-demand contexts. That said, there are several conceptual, methodological, and interpretive issues that need to be addressed before the manuscript is ready for publication.

At the conceptual level, Conservation of Resources (COR) theory is positioned as the primary framework, but its use remains somewhat underdeveloped. The paper would benefit from a more explicit explanation of how hope and a stress-is-enhancing mindset function as distinct resources within COR theory, and how these constructs differ from broader notions of psychological capital. Because hope is drawn from a larger psychological capital scale, readers are left wanting a clearer rationale for isolating this single dimension and a stronger theoretical justification for treating it independently. Relatedly, the hypotheses themselves would benefit from clarification. Hypothesis 2b, in particular, predicts a strengthened indirect effect under high levels of stress-is-enhancing mindset, yet the results do not support this claim. A more direct acknowledgment of this mismatch between hypothesis and findings, along with a more cautious framing of the moderated mediation model, would strengthen the theoretical coherence of the manuscript.

From a methodological standpoint, the exclusive reliance on self-report, cross-sectional data raises familiar concerns. While Harman’s single-factor test is included, this approach is widely regarded as insufficient for fully addressing common method variance. The limitations of this test should be acknowledged more explicitly, and it would be helpful for the authors to discuss how future research might address these concerns through alternative designs, such as longitudinal data collection, temporal separation of measures, or multi-source reporting. The sampling procedures also need greater transparency. Although data collection is described as spanning multiple provinces, only data from Beijing and Chongqing were ultimately analyzed. The rationale for excluding the remaining data is not fully explained, and this decision has implications for representativeness and generalizability that should be addressed more clearly.

There are also some issues related to statistical interpretation and consistency. The results indicate that stress-is-enhancing mindset moderates the relationship between work–family conflict and hope, but not the direct relationship between work–family conflict and burnout. However, parts of the discussion suggest that stress mindset “amplifies” the direct relationship with burnout, a claim that does not appear to be fully supported by the reported interaction effects. Clarifying this point would help avoid confusion. Although the indirect effect through hope is statistically significant, it is relatively small. The practical significance of this mediation would benefit from a more critical discussion rather than being framed as substantively strong. There are several presentation issues in the tables, including labeling inconsistencies and typographical errors (such as “work-family inflict”), which should be corrected to improve clarity and professionalism.

The discussion section also tends to reiterate well-established findings about work–family conflict and burnout. To strengthen the manuscript’s overall contribution, the authors should more clearly articulate what this study adds beyond prior research, especially in light of existing studies on psychological capital, stress mindset, and burnout within Chinese occupational and educational contexts. The practical implications would also benefit from greater specificity. For instance, it would be helpful to elaborate on how schools might realistically cultivate hope or a stress-is-enhancing mindset among teachers. If evidence-based interventions exist, pointing to them would strengthen the applied value of the study; if not, this should be framed more clearly as an area for future development rather than an immediately actionable recommendation.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Although generally readable, the manuscript would benefit from careful language editing. There are recurrent grammatical issues, awkward phrasing, and minor inconsistencies that detract from clarity. A professional language edit is recommended prior to publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The article presents the findings of an empirical study investigating the relationship between work-family conflict and burnout among Chinese elementary and middle school teachers. Specifically, the research examines how a stress-is-enhancing mindset moderates the relationship between work-family conflict and burnout through the mediating role of hope.

For the development of the study, the authors provide a comprehensive review of the relevant literature, drawing on prior research published over an extended period of time. This approach allows for a clear identification of existing research gaps and enables the authors to demonstrate explicitly how the present study contributes to filling these gaps.

The manuscript would benefit from the following revisions:

• Given that the reference list includes two different studies that can be cited as Wang et al., 2012, each with different author groups, it is necessary to clarify in the in-text citations which study is being referenced. In addition, introducing the citation with a phrase such as “For example, …” would help clarify the relevance of the findings reported by Wang et al., 2012 for the present study.
• In Section 3.4 (Mediation Analysis of Hope), the manuscript contains an incorrect table reference (“Table 2”); the mediation results are reported in Table 3. Additionally, “presented” or “reported” would be preferable to “demonstrated” (lines 236, 256, 269).
• The title of Table 4 should be revised, as it currently duplicates the title of Table 3.
• In the Conclusions section, the phrase “In conclusion” should be removed, as it appears redundantly immediately below the section heading.
• A final careful proofreading is recommended to correct minor typographical errors (e.g., line 108 and the variable label “Work-family inflict” in Table 3)

Kind regards,
A Reviewer

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I want to thank the authors for making such a thorough and thoughtful revision to the manuscript. The answers to the reviewer's comments are clear and well-reasoned. The new version is clearer, more coherent, and more open about its methods. I'm happy with the changes that were made, and I think they made the manuscript better. I hope the authors keep doing well with this line of research.

Author Response

Response: We are very grateful to the reviewer for their positive feedback and constructive comments, which have greatly improved the quality of our manuscript. Their encouragement is deeply appreciated.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is clearly grounded in the literature and has strong relevance for scholars and practitioners interested in teacher well-being.

I am recommending minor revisions to address a few remaining issues that affect interpretive accuracy and the clarity of the manuscript’s contribution. Most importantly, there is still an inconsistency in how the moderation findings are described. In the Results and Discussion, some language suggests that a stress-is-enhancing mindset amplifies the direct relationship between work–family conflict and burnout. However, the reported analyses do not support moderation on that direct path; moderation is evident for the relationship between work–family conflict and hope, not for work–family conflict and burnout. I encourage the authors to revise or remove any statements that imply a significant moderation effect on the direct link and to ensure that the narrative aligns precisely with the statistical results.

I also encourage a more cautious framing of the indirect effect through hope. While the mediation is statistically significant, the effect size is relatively small. A more explicit discussion of what this magnitude likely means in practical terms, and what it does not mean, would strengthen the manuscript and help avoid overstating applied implications. A balanced interpretation here would enhance the credibility of the conclusions and better guide readers who may be interested in translating these findings into practice.

The clarification regarding sampling is helpful, particularly the note that the work–family conflict measure was administered only to the Beijing and Chongqing subsamples. I recommend stating this clearly and early in the Methods section and reiterating it briefly in the Limitations. Given the initial multi-province framing, this decision has implications for representativeness and generalizability that deserve to be discussed more explicitly.

I appreciate that the authors now acknowledge the limitations associated with cross-sectional, self-report data. The limitations section could be strengthened further by explicitly noting the constraints of Harman’s single-factor test and by pointing to concrete methodological improvements for future research, such as temporal separation of measures, multi-source data, or longitudinal or diary-based designs. This would signal a thoughtful awareness of design limitations while offering a clear path forward for subsequent studies.

The discussion and implications sections are moving in the right direction, but the manuscript would benefit from a sharper articulation of what this study adds beyond existing work on psychological capital, stress appraisal, and burnout in Chinese educational contexts. Similarly, the practical implications would be stronger if they were more specific. Readers would benefit from clearer examples of what schools or systems might realistically do to cultivate hope or a stress-is-enhancing mindset, along with a brief discussion of the evidence base for such approaches. Where evidence is still emerging, framing these ideas as promising directions rather than immediately implementable interventions would be more appropriate.

I recommend a careful final edit for consistency and presentation. Please ensure that all previously noted labeling or typographical issues are fully corrected and that variable names, abbreviations, and table labels are consistent across the text, tables, and figures.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is generally readable and appears improved; however, I recommend a final language and consistency pass to ensure the interpretation aligns precisely with the statistical results (particularly the moderation wording) and to eliminate any remaining typographical or labeling issues.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf