Aging and Psychological Well-Being: The Possible Role of Inhibition Skills
, Massimiliano Palmiero 3, Sara Lavolpe 2,4, Laura Colautti 5, Maura Crepaldi 2, Alessandro Antonietti 5, Alberto Di Domenico 6, Barbara Colombo 7, Adolfo Di Crosta 6, Pasquale La Malva 6, Luca Rozzini 1 and Maria Luisa Rusconi 2,*
David Nussbaum
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
See Attached PDF. I enjoyed reading the manuscript. The English was quite good. I made a few suggestions for clarity as noted in the PDF. You might want to consider a few simple analyses to clarify whether the demographic variables had any impact on the relationships between the IVs and the DVs. I think that could be done very quickly and if the answer is "no" it closes the issue, but if the answer is yes, you will have added to the value of your research. I know that the overall regression results were non-significant, but that could be because the tails of the demographic variables "cancelled" out a more nuanced effect (i.e., differences between 60-65 year olds and 80-82 year olds, especially if the relationships are non-linear.) But I would leave that up to the authors. The paper is very worthwhile without that addition.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We thank you for your revision and we have corrected the errors in lines 275-281 and 347 according to your suggestions.
Instead, as concern the possible impact of socio-demographic variables on the analyses, we have already performed a correlation analysis between age, education and the variables of interest (see Table 3 and line 256 -264 for the description). These variables, in line with neuropsychological literature, have an impact mainly on cognitive variables (we tried to underline that), so much that we have controlled for the impact of these variables in the subsequent regression analysis by including them as a first block.
Following your suggestion, however, we have also added preliminary t-tests analyses to control for gender differences (196 – 243; Table 2); we found a difference only in the Self-Acceptance subscale, that is not considered in the subsequent analysis that specifically focus on the Personal Growth Subscale.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Methods: 1) thank you for this important point. We added in the Participants and Procedures section, the specifics on data collection, which occurred between November 2019 and February 2020 (line: 123-124). Moreover, we added a brief discussion on this issue in the discussion section (line: 446-450).
2) we added considerations about the role of cultural and socioeconomic status on PWB in the discussion 442-446
3) thank you for this interesting suggestion. In the literature of behavioral aging and cognition, the difference between reactive and proactive inhibition has not been studied in such depth, but it will indeed be very interesting to consider their differential role in future studies (line: 368– 374).
Results and conclusions: In the discussion (line 375 - 441) and line 461-464 in the conclusions section we tried to deepen with both further references and considerations about the importance of both cognitive and psychological preventive interventions.
Finally, as concerned the Ryff citation, we have fixed the mistake.
