The Buffer Effect of Social Identity on Psychological Stress in Different Competition Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the opportunity to review the manuscript “The buffer effect of social identity on psychological stress in different competition conditions,” submitted to the journal Behavioral Sciences. Below is my review, in which I evaluate the scientific quality, methodology, results, and relevance of the topic to the journal.
The manuscript presents a topic relevant to social and work psychology: the role of social identity as a buffer against acute stress under different competitive frameworks. The premise that intergroup competition can generate a threat to identity that nullifies the protective effect of group membership is theoretically sound and well articulated in the introduction. However, some limitations compromise the robustness of the conclusions and need to be revised to ensure the validity of the inferences presented.

1) The manuscript frequently uses the term “directional trends” to support hypotheses where there was no statistical significance. In Experiment 1, it is mentioned that the effects on heart rate and blood pressure “did not reach significance.” Scientifically, a hypothesis cannot be validated based on non-significant trends (p > 0.05). If the authors wish to support the presence of evidence in non-significant results, it is recommended to apply Bayesian statistics (Bayes factor) to quantify the support for the alternative hypothesis over the null hypothesis. Otherwise, the authors should evaluate the entire text of the manuscript, treating non-significant results as null or inconclusive, rather than “trends.”

2) In Experiment 2, the authors suggest that social identity protects against stress in intragroup competition, but not in intergroup competition due to Social Identity Threat (SIT). However, the distinction between these primary and secondary evaluation mechanisms requires a more in-depth discussion of how SIT specifically nullifies the gain in collective efficacy. It is recommended to base this analysis on the Biopsychosocial Model of Challenge and Threat (Blascovich), discussing how the competitive frame alters the relationship between perceived demands and available resources, transforming the potential “buffer” of identity into a source of additional demand.

3) The subjective stress scale was applied after the task (post-task). The manuscript admits that this was done to “avoid task interruption.” This creates a memory or post-task relief bias. The reported stress may not reflect peak activation during PASAT, but rather performance perception or immediate relaxation. The authors should discuss the practical implications more pragmatically, explicitly addressing the possible dissociation between physiological markers (real-time reactivity) and self-reports (retrospective perception), considering the fragility of the observed effects.

4) Experiment 1 had only 58 participants. For psychophysiology studies seeking subtle moderating effects (such as social identity), this sample is considered small. Resource constraints do not justify accepting inconclusive results as robust scientific evidence. It is recommended that the sensitivity analysis mentioned in the supplementary material (not available for evaluation) be integrated into the main body of the manuscript, openly discussing the actual statistical power to detect the reported effect sizes.

5) Experiment 2 showed that intragroup competition generated greater reactivity (HR and SBP) than intergroup competition. This finding seems to contradict the hypothesis that social identity acts as a more effective buffer in this scenario. The authors should provide a robust theoretical interpretation for this inconsistency, assessing whether effortful engagement in intragroup competition might be overlapping with the protective effect of identity.

Author Response

Q1. The manuscript frequently uses the term “directional trends” to support hypotheses where there was no statistical significance. In Experiment 1, it is mentioned that the effects on heart rate and blood pressure “did not reach significance.” Scientifically, a hypothesis cannot be validated based on non-significant trends (p > 0.05). If the authors wish to support the presence of evidence in non-significant results, it is recommended to apply Bayesian statistics (Bayes factor) to quantify the support for the alternative hypothesis over the null hypothesis. Otherwise, the authors should evaluate the entire text of the manuscript, treating non-significant results as null or inconclusive, rather than “trends.”

Response: Thank you for this important point. We agree that hypotheses should not be supported by non-significant results (p > .05). Accordingly, we removed language such as “directional trends” and revised the Abstract, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions to treat all p > .05 findings as null/inconclusive, without confirmatory claims. Following your suggestion, Bayesian model comparison (e.g., Bayes factors) would be a valuable complementary approach to quantify evidence for the alternative versus the null; however, because our original analysis plan was frequentist and we did not preregister Bayesian priors, we did not add Bayes-factor analyses in this revision. We instead strengthened interpretive discipline (clear separation of statistically supported effects vs. descriptive patterns) and emphasize the need for higher-powered replications to adjudicate small effects.

Q2. In Experiment 2, the authors suggest that social identity protects against stress in intragroup competition, but not in intergroup competition due to Social Identity Threat (SIT). However, the distinction between these primary and secondary evaluation mechanisms requires a more in-depth discussion of how SIT specifically nullifies the gain in collective efficacy. It is recommended to base this analysis on the Biopsychosocial Model of Challenge and Threat (Blascovich), discussing how the competitive frame alters the relationship between perceived demands and available resources, transforming the potential “buffer” of identity into a source of additional demand.

Response: We appreciate this theoretical suggestion. In the revision, we expanded the mechanism section by integrating the Biopsychosocial Model of Challenge and Threat (Blascovich) to clarify how competition framing changes the balance between perceived demands and perceived resources. Specifically, we explain that identity salience can increase collective efficacy (a resource) but, under intergroup competition, simultaneously increases identity-relevant evaluative demands (e.g., group status stakes and potential identity threat), which can shift appraisals toward threat and attenuate any buffering effect. See page 16, lines 13-21 for details.

 

Q3. The subjective stress scale was applied after the task (post-task). The manuscript admits that this was done to “avoid task interruption.” This creates a memory or post-task relief bias. The reported stress may not reflect peak activation during PASAT, but rather performance perception or immediate relaxation. The authors should discuss the practical implications more pragmatically, explicitly addressing the possible dissociation between physiological markers (real-time reactivity) and self-reports (retrospective perception), considering the fragility of the observed effects.

Response: We agree. In the revised manuscript, we explicitly discuss that the post-task subjective stress rating may be influenced by memory/relief biases and may reflect retrospective evaluation (e.g., perceived performance and immediate recovery) rather than peak stress during PASAT. We clarify that this timing mismatch can contribute to dissociation between continuous physiological reactivity and retrospective self-reports, and we temper practical conclusions accordingly. We also added concrete methodological recommendations (e.g., brief in-task probes or multi-item post-task scales and additional physiology such as HRV/hemodynamics) to strengthen future inference. See page 21, lines 1-13 for details.

 

Q4. Experiment 1 had only 58 participants. For psychophysiology studies seeking subtle moderating effects (such as social identity), this sample is considered small. Resource constraints do not justify accepting inconclusive results as robust scientific evidence. It is recommended that the sensitivity analysis mentioned in the supplementary material (not available for evaluation) be integrated into the main body of the manuscript, openly discussing the actual statistical power to detect the reported effect sizes.

Response: We agree that the sample size in Experiment 1 limits sensitivity for subtle effects. In the revision, we moved the sensitivity/power analysis from the Supplement into the main manuscript and explicitly state the minimum detectable effect size given N = 58 under α = .05 and 80% power. We also added a transparent limitation statement clarifying that small-to-moderate effects could remain undetected, and therefore null findings should be interpreted as inconclusive rather than evidence of absence. See page 7, lines 15-22 for details.

 

Q5. Experiment 2 showed that intragroup competition generated greater reactivity (HR and SBP) than intergroup competition. This finding seems to contradict the hypothesis that social identity acts as a more effective buffer in this scenario. The authors should provide a robust theoretical interpretation for this inconsistency, assessing whether effortful engagement in intragroup competition might be overlapping with the protective effect of identity.

Response: Thank you for highlighting this apparent inconsistency. In the revision, we clarify that higher cardiovascular reactivity in intragroup competition does not necessarily imply greater threat; it may reflect effortful engagement and self-presentational concerns typical of within-group ranking contexts. Within the challenge–threat framework, intragroup competition may elicit a high-engagement (potentially “challenge-like”) pattern, while identity salience can still reduce threat-related appraisal within that context. We therefore interpret the intragroup > intergroup reactivity finding as potentially indexing task engagement rather than the absence of buffering, and we note that additional hemodynamic measures (e.g., CO/TPR) would be needed to dissociate challenge from threat more definitively. See page 16, lines 13-21 for details.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I found the theoretical presentation well balanced and matching the methodology used in the study.  The measures seemed appropriate and the analysis fit the qualities of the data and the theoretical basis being presented.  The lack of significance in the findings is a little concerning, but the results were trending in the expected directions which is encouraging.  It may be that the tasks used were not demanding enough to overcome the measurement intrusiveness as the switching of arms for blood pressure, etc. might have caused too much focus on the experimental procedures detracting from the focus on the conditions of the independent variables.  It might be worth running the experiments again without the controls of switching arms for measurements and keeping the measurement procedures as minimally intrusive as possible.

Author Response

Q1. I found the theoretical presentation well balanced and matching the methodology used in the study.  The measures seemed appropriate and the analysis fit the qualities of the data and the theoretical basis being presented.  The lack of significance in the findings is a little concerning, but the results were trending in the expected directions which is encouraging.  It may be that the tasks used were not demanding enough to overcome the measurement intrusiveness as the switching of arms for blood pressure, etc. might have caused too much focus on the experimental procedures detracting from the focus on the conditions of the independent variables.  It might be worth running the experiments again without the controls of switching arms for measurements and keeping the measurement procedures as minimally intrusive as possible.

Response: Thank you for your positive evaluation of the theoretical framing, measures, and analytic strategy. We agree that several effects did not reach statistical significance across outcomes, and therefore interpretations should be cautious. At the same time, Experiment 2 yielded a statistically significant Identity × Competition interaction for HR reactivity, which we interpret as a modest, outcome-specific moderation that requires confirmation.

We also appreciate your methodological insight regarding measurement intrusiveness. We have added a dedicated limitation paragraph noting that repeated cuff-based blood pressure assessment (including arm switching) may have increased procedural salience, potentially diverting participants’ attention from the experimental framing and attenuating condition differences. In addition, we now explicitly recommend less intrusive future protocols (e.g., continuous noninvasive BP/beat-to-beat devices, minimizing arm switching, reducing measurement prompts, and/or optimizing measurement timing). While we were unable to rerun the experiments within the current revision cycle, we highlight this as a concrete direction for follow-up studies to strengthen causal inference and effect detectability. We also clarified in the Limitations that repeated cuff-based BP assessment likely adds task-irrelevant demands and measurement noise, and therefore we treat BP-based null effects as particularly fragile in the present protocol. See page 21, lines 1-13 for details.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study offers a moderate level of originality by examining the independent effect of identity salience and introducing competition framing as a contextual moderator of the social identity–stress relationship. While the theoretical framework is largely grounded in established social identity theory, the context-dependent experimental approach provides a useful empirical extension of prior research. Specifically, the attempt to test the independent effect of identity salience without the direct provision of social support, and to investigate whether buffering effects differ across intragroup versus intergroup competitive contexts, represents a meaningful effort to reconcile previously inconsistent findings in the social identity–stress literature. Nevertheless, the research questions are not explicitly articulated in clearly structured RQ statements (e.g., RQ1, RQ2), but rather appear dispersed across hypotheses. The clarity and readability of the study would therefore benefit from presenting explicitly formulated research questions that align directly with the analytical framework.

Methodologically, the study employs two experimental designs with random assignment, manipulation checks, and covariate controls, thereby meeting the fundamental requirements of experimental research. The simultaneous use of objective physiological indicators (heart rate and blood pressure) and self-reported stress measures constitutes a multimethod measurement approach that strengthens internal validity. Furthermore, the application of ANOVA, ANCOVA, and repeated-measures ANOVA is appropriate given the factorial design and the structure of the hypotheses. However, the manuscript does not explicitly report diagnostic tests for the statistical assumptions underlying these analyses, including normality, homogeneity of variance, and homogeneity of regression slopes. Reporting these assumption checks would enhance the credibility and interpretability of the statistical findings.

From the perspective of construct validity, although random assignment and covariate control appear to have been properly implemented, the identity salience manipulation consists of multiple components (e.g., writing tasks, drawing tasks, and symbolic apparel), making it difficult to disentangle the independent contribution of each manipulation element. Future studies would benefit from isolating these components or employing more parsimonious manipulation procedures to clarify the mechanisms underlying the observed effects.

Regarding external validity, the reliance on a single undergraduate sample from one university limits population generalizability, and the experimentally simulated competition scenarios may not fully capture the dynamics of real-world competitive environments, thereby constraining ecological validity. Expanding the sampling frame to include more diverse populations and incorporating interactive or field-based competitive settings would improve the generalizability of the findings.

Overall, the study presents a theoretically relevant and methodologically structured attempt to experimentally investigate the relationship between social identity and stress responses under competitive contexts. Nevertheless, the limited statistical support for several key hypotheses, together with the absence of reported assumption diagnostics and certain methodological constraints, somewhat reduces the persuasive strength of the conclusions. Providing explicit assumption checks, refining the manipulation procedures, and adopting a more cautious interpretation of non-significant findings would substantially strengthen the empirical and theoretical contribution of the manuscript.

Author Response

Q1. Nevertheless, the research questions are not explicitly articulated in clearly structured RQ statements (e.g., RQ1, RQ2), but rather appear dispersed across hypotheses. The clarity and readability of the study would therefore benefit from presenting explicitly formulated research questions that align directly with the analytical framework.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We agree that explicitly stated research questions would improve clarity and readability. In the revised manuscript, we added a structured set of Research Questions (Page 6, lines 8-25) at the end of the Introduction, aligned directly with the analytical framework of the two experiments. We also revised the hypothesis section to ensure each hypothesis maps onto a corresponding research question and the associated statistical model. See page 6, lines 8-25 for details.

 

Q2. Methodologically, the study employs two experimental designs with random assignment, manipulation checks, and covariate controls, thereby meeting the fundamental requirements of experimental research. The simultaneous use of objective physiological indicators (heart rate and blood pressure) and self-reported stress measures constitutes a multimethod measurement approach that strengthens internal validity. Furthermore, the application of ANOVA, ANCOVA, and repeated-measures ANOVA is appropriate given the factorial design and the structure of the hypotheses. However, the manuscript does not explicitly report diagnostic tests for the statistical assumptions underlying these analyses, including normality, homogeneity of variance, and homogeneity of regression slopes. Reporting these assumption checks would enhance the credibility and interpretability of the statistical findings.

Response: We conducted and reported diagnostic checks for the primary assumptions underlying our ANOVA/ANCOVA/repeated-measures ANOVA analyses, including residual normality checks, homogeneity of variance (Levene’s test), homogeneity of regression slopes for ANCOVA models (covariate × factor interaction tests), and sphericity for repeated-measures models (Mauchly’s test with Greenhouse–Geisser corrections where applicable). Overall, the diagnostics indicated that model assumptions were adequately met (or appropriately corrected when needed), and our substantive conclusions were robust to these checks. See page 10, lines 8-19 for details.

 

Q3. From the perspective of construct validity, although random assignment and covariate control appear to have been properly implemented, the identity salience manipulation consists of multiple components (e.g., writing tasks, drawing tasks, and symbolic apparel), making it difficult to disentangle the independent contribution of each manipulation element. Future studies would benefit from isolating these components or employing more parsimonious manipulation procedures to clarify the mechanisms underlying the observed effects. Regarding external validity, the reliance on a single undergraduate sample from one university limits population generalizability, and the experimentally simulated competition scenarios may not fully capture the dynamics of real-world competitive environments, thereby constraining ecological validity. Expanding the sampling frame to include more diverse populations and incorporating interactive or field-based competitive settings would improve the generalizability of the findings.

Response: We agree that the multi-component identity-salience manipulation limits construct specificity regarding which element drives the effect. We have clarified this constraint in the Construct Validity section of the limitations and added a concrete future direction recommending dismantling or more parsimonious manipulations to isolate the active ingredient(s). See page 21, lines 1-13 for details.

 

Q4. Overall, the study presents a theoretically relevant and methodologically structured attempt to experimentally investigate the relationship between social identity and stress responses under competitive contexts. Nevertheless, the limited statistical support for several key hypotheses, together with the absence of reported assumption diagnostics and certain methodological constraints, somewhat reduces the persuasive strength of the conclusions. Providing explicit assumption checks, refining the manipulation procedures, and adopting a more cautious interpretation of non-significant findings would substantially strengthen the empirical and theoretical contribution of the manuscript.

Response: Thank you. We expanded the External Validity discussion to explicitly acknowledge the single-site undergraduate sample and the simulated competition framing as constraints on population and ecological generalizability. We also added concrete recommendations for future research, including recruiting more diverse samples and using interactive or field-based competitive contexts to better approximate real-world competitive dynamics. See page 21, lines 1-13 for details.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is the second revision of the manuscript “The Buffering Effect of Social Identity on Psychological Stress Under Different Competition Conditions”, submitted to Behavioral Sciences.

The authors have removed phrasing such as “directional trends” and now treat non-significant findings (p>0.05) as null or inconclusive, avoiding confirmatory language. This change brings the abstract, results, and conclusions into closer alignment with good reporting practices and reduces the risk of interpretive “spin”. Although Bayesian analyses (e.g., Bayes factors) were not added to quantify relative evidence across hypotheses, this is acceptable for the purposes of this revision, provided the narrative remains tightly aligned with the observed pattern of results.

The revised manuscript also strengthens its account of plausible mechanisms by integrating the Biopsychosocial Model of Challenge and Threat (Blascovich). The discussion more clearly articulates how identity salience may operate as a resource (e.g., via collective efficacy) in some contexts, while potentially increasing evaluative demands under intergroup competition, consistent with the concept of Social Identity Threat. Importantly, the authors should continue to state explicitly that these mechanisms were not directly measured (e.g., appraisals, SIT, demands/resources indices) and are therefore presented as theoretically plausible interpretations rather than as mechanistic evidence.

The methodological discussion is improved by more clearly acknowledging the limitations of subjective stress assessed only post-task, including potential recall and post-task “relief” effects. The authors also appropriately note the possibility of dissociation between real-time physiological markers and retrospective self-reports, which helps temper the practical implications.

The inclusion of a sensitivity/power analysis for Experiment 1 (N=58) is also a meaningful improvement, as it clarifies limits on effect detection and reinforces the need for higher-powered replications when testing subtle moderators. To maximize transparency, it would be helpful for the authors to report the minimum detectable effect (MDE; or minimum detectable effect size) and specify the statistical model to which it applies.

An important interpretive issue remains in Experiment 2. At first glance, greater cardiovascular reactivity under intragroup competition may appear to conflict with the identity-buffering hypothesis. The authors address this point in a manner broadly consistent with the challenge–threat framework, arguing that greater reactivity can reflect engagement/effort rather than threat. However, without hemodynamic indices (e.g., CO/TPR) and appraisal measures, it is difficult to disentangle these interpretations. Accordingly, this account should be framed explicitly as conditional and presented as a hypothesis for future work rather than as a conclusion supported by the current data.

Author Response

Comment1：

This is the second revision of the manuscript “The Buffering Effect of Social Identity on Psychological Stress Under Different Competition Conditions”, submitted to Behavioral Sciences.

The authors have removed phrasing such as “directional trends” and now treat non-significant findings (p>0.05) as null or inconclusive, avoiding confirmatory language. This change brings the abstract, results, and conclusions into closer alignment with good reporting practices and reduces the risk of interpretive “spin”. Although Bayesian analyses (e.g., Bayes factors) were not added to quantify relative evidence across hypotheses, this is acceptable for the purposes of this revision, provided the narrative remains tightly aligned with the observed pattern of results.

The revised manuscript also strengthens its account of plausible mechanisms by integrating the Biopsychosocial Model of Challenge and Threat (Blascovich). The discussion more clearly articulates how identity salience may operate as a resource (e.g., via collective efficacy) in some contexts, while potentially increasing evaluative demands under intergroup competition, consistent with the concept of Social Identity Threat. Importantly, the authors should continue to state explicitly that these mechanisms were not directly measured (e.g., appraisals, SIT, demands/resources indices) and are therefore presented as theoretically plausible interpretations rather than as mechanistic evidence.

The methodological discussion is improved by more clearly acknowledging the limitations of subjective stress assessed only post-task, including potential recall and post-task “relief” effects. The authors also appropriately note the possibility of dissociation between real-time physiological markers and retrospective self-reports, which helps temper the practical implications.

The inclusion of a sensitivity/power analysis for Experiment 1 (N=58) is also a meaningful improvement, as it clarifies limits on effect detection and reinforces the need for higher-powered replications when testing subtle moderators. To maximize transparency, it would be helpful for the authors to report the minimum detectable effect (MDE; or minimum detectable effect size) and specify the statistical model to which it applies.

An important interpretive issue remains in Experiment 2. At first glance, greater cardiovascular reactivity under intragroup competition may appear to conflict with the identity-buffering hypothesis. The authors address this point in a manner broadly consistent with the challenge–threat framework, arguing that greater reactivity can reflect engagement/effort rather than threat. However, without hemodynamic indices (e.g., CO/TPR) and appraisal measures, it is difficult to disentangle these interpretations. Accordingly, this account should be framed explicitly as conditional and presented as a hypothesis for future work rather than as a conclusion supported by the current data.

Response1:
Thank you for your careful and constructive evaluation of our second revision. We appreciate your positive assessment of the improvements in reporting discipline, theoretical integration, and methodological transparency. We are especially grateful for your guidance on maintaining a cautious narrative and clearly separating statistically supported findings from theoretically plausible interpretations.

In this minor revision, we have made the following targeted clarifications in response to your comments:

1. Mechanism language (challenge–threat / SIT) further qualified
   We agree that appraisals, social identity threat (SIT), and perceived demands/resources were not directly measured in the present studies. We therefore revised the Discussion and General Discussion to state more explicitly that these accounts are theoretically plausible interpretations used to contextualize the observed pattern, rather than direct mechanistic evidence from our data. See page 16, lines 20-21 and page 21, lines 2-19 for details.

2. Experiment 1 sensitivity analysis clarified (MDE and applicable model)
   We revised the sensitivity-analysis description in Experiment 1 to explicitly report the minimum detectable effect size (MDE) and clarify the statistical model to which it applies (i.e., the between-condition contrast in Experiment 1, approximated as a two-tailed independent-samples comparison with equal group sizes for sensitivity estimation). We also retain the statement that effects smaller than this threshold may not be reliably detected, and therefore non-significant findings are interpreted as inconclusive. See page 7, lines 22-25 for details.

3. Experiment 2 intragroup > intergroup reactivity interpretation further softened
   We appreciate this point and agree that, without hemodynamic indices (e.g., CO/TPR) and appraisal measures, we cannot distinguish challenge-like engagement from threat-related responding. We therefore revised the relevant text to frame the “effortful engagement” account as a conditional interpretation/hypothesis for future research, not as a conclusion established by the current data. See page 16, lines 11-12 and lines 20-21 for details.

We believe these revisions further improve the manuscript’s transparency and interpretive precision. Thank you again for helping us strengthen the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made a meaningful effort to address the previous comments, resulting in several important improvements. The clearer articulation of the analytical framework, the inclusion of statistical assumption diagnostics, and the expanded discussion of methodological constraints enhance the clarity and transparency of the manuscript.

The manuscript appropriately acknowledges that the identity-salience manipulation involves multiple components, which limits construct specificity and strengthens the construct validity discussion. However, the treatment of external validity remains only partially explicit. While the single undergraduate sample and the simulated competition context are described, these factors are not consistently framed as explicit limitations affecting population generalizability and ecological validity. Stating these constraints more directly in the limitations section would improve interpretive balance.

The authors also adopt a more cautious interpretation of non-significant findings, which increases the credibility of the conclusions. The distinction between modality-specific effects and broader theoretical claims is now clearer.

Overall, the manuscript is methodologically sound and theoretically relevant, and the revisions have improved its clarity and rigor. Remaining issues primarily concern explicit presentation and interpretive framing rather than substantive methodological problems.

Author Response

Comment1：

The authors have made a meaningful effort to address the previous comments, resulting in several important improvements. The clearer articulation of the analytical framework, the inclusion of statistical assumption diagnostics, and the expanded discussion of methodological constraints enhance the clarity and transparency of the manuscript.

The manuscript appropriately acknowledges that the identity-salience manipulation involves multiple components, which limits construct specificity and strengthens the construct validity discussion. However, the treatment of external validity remains only partially explicit. While the single undergraduate sample and the simulated competition context are described, these factors are not consistently framed as explicit limitations affecting population generalizability and ecological validity. Stating these constraints more directly in the limitations section would improve interpretive balance.

The authors also adopt a more cautious interpretation of non-significant findings, which increases the credibility of the conclusions. The distinction between modality-specific effects and broader theoretical claims is now clearer.

Overall, the manuscript is methodologically sound and theoretically relevant, and the revisions have improved its clarity and rigor. Remaining issues primarily concern explicit presentation and interpretive framing rather than substantive methodological problems.

Response1:

Thank you for your careful and constructive review, and for recognizing the improvements made in this revision. We appreciate your positive evaluation of the clearer analytical framework, the inclusion of assumption diagnostics, and the more explicit discussion of methodological constraints. We are also grateful for your acknowledgment that our revised interpretation of non-significant findings is more cautious and better aligned with the observed pattern of results.

We agree with your remaining point regarding external validity. Although the manuscript described the use of a single undergraduate sample and a simulated competition paradigm, we had not stated these issues consistently and explicitly enough as limitations affecting population generalizability and ecological validity. In the revised manuscript, we have therefore strengthened the limitations section by directly framing:

1. the single-university undergraduate sample as a constraint on population generalizability; and

2. the scenario-based/simulated competition manipulation as a constraint on ecological validity, given that it may not fully capture the interpersonal dynamics, reputational stakes, and feedback contingencies of real-world competitive settings.

We also added a brief forward-looking statement indicating that future studies should test the proposed boundary conditions using more diverse samples and more interactive or field-based competitive contexts. See page 21, lines 2-19 for details.

Thank you again for your helpful feedback, which improved the interpretive balance and transparency of the manuscript.