Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Hello,

            The topic is interesting, which is why I believe some additions should be made. First of all, I think the chapter on literature review should be improved. The concepts of "peer attachment" and "prosocial behavior" are not sufficiently elaborated. They need to be defined and described in more detail from the perspective of studies and theories developed to date. Also, with regard to "positive legal emotions", I propose a more detailed approach because this concept has a general meaning that differs from the authors' interest, and this needs to be clearly stated. Positive legal emotions are most often understood as emotions and admiration for legal fairness and confidence in the justice system. The authors, in an inspired approach, refer rather to "individuals' identification with social institutions and normative systems." In my opinion, it should be explained how the transition from the justice system to organizational normativity is achieved and what is the connection between the two social contexts, which are, in fact, different.

            I also have questions about the notion of "social exclusion." In my opinion, in this context, there should be more discussion about "social inclusion," even if a scale of measurement established for the phenomenon of "social exclusion" is used. More specifically, the population studied by the authors consists of students, normal people who are socially integrated. They live in a context of "social inclusion." If we were talking about disadvantaged groups or ex-convicts, then the phenomenon of "social exclusion" would indeed be appropriate. In any case, this concept also needs to be treated more comprehensively.

            I believe that the authors should make improvements to Table 2, where it is quite difficult for the reader to understand the labels assigned to the variables (even though the program provides explanations in the form of a legend). Also, after both Table 2 and Table 3, I believe explanations are needed about the evolution of the dependent variable in accordance with the change of the independent variables by one unit (which unit should be clearly specified).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Many thanks for the opportunity to read through and evaluate this interesting paper. I find the bold approach, importance, and originality of the paper commendable. Studies on prosocial behavior and social cohesion are becoming increasingly more relevant and important, especially in this day and age, and this paper represents a valuable contribution to existing literature. Overall, I also find the Manuscript very well-written, precise, detail-oriented, and articulate. Nonetheless, despite the putative importance of this paper, I also note a few areas for potential improvement.

Firstly, I noted a few formatting and/or typographical errors, in a few parts of the Manuscript. More specifically, line 228-229 of the Manuscript refers to "Table 2", when it is clear it should actually be referring to Table 1. I would therefore recommend updating this, prior to publication.

Secondly, Table 2 in the Manuscript correctly specifies the results for "Model 1" and "Model 2". However, I was also fully expecting these models to be explicitly referenced in the preceeding section, namely: "3.3. Moderated Mediation Analysis". That said, given that the quantitative results from these models are already presented and discussed in this section, I further believe it would be appropriate to explicitly and specifically refer to these same models, namely, "Model 1" and "Model 2", in this same section.

Thirdly, while there very well may be additional typographical and/or formatting issues in the Manuscript, I note, here, only those that were to me, most obvious. That said, I would therefore encourage further careful editing and proofreading for similar issues, prior to publication.

Lastly, although the article currently under consideration for publication is not, strictly speaking, a neuroscience paper, I nonetheless bring to the Author's attention a recently published paper the Authors may find relevant to social cohesion, social cognition, and biological neural networks, namely: Oesch, N. (2024). Social brain perspectives on the social and evolutionary neuroscience of human language. Brain Sci. 14(2):166. Though I do not consider mandatory, citing this paper as a requirement for publication, I nonetheless suggest to the Authors, perhaps mentioning this potentially relevant, recently published paper in the Introduction and/or Discussion.

Apart from these minor, though I believe important qualms, I find this to be an interesting and important paper that should probably be published.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf