Assessing the Relationship between Prosocial Behavior and Well-Being: Basic Psychological Need as the Mediator

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In general, the theoretical justification is complete and up-to-date. However, the authors could include some more recent work on prosocial behaviors.

The formulation of the objective and hypothesis is correct.

The authors have used convenience sampling. This can lead to bias in the results, please make this clear as an important limitation of the study. Was the minimum necessary sample size estimated? Please include data on the sample estimate.

In the instruments section, please check that an example item for each subscale has been included.

In the data analysis section, they must specify that it is a simple mediation model. In addition, they must include the citation and reference corresponding to the statistical software used.

In the results, it is not appropriate to present data for mean, SD or correlations with qualitative variables (gender, only child), please delete this. Finally, in the proposed mediation model, the authors should report on direct effects, total effect and indirect effect.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Point 1:  In general, the theoretical justification is complete and up-to-date. However, the authors could include some more recent work on prosocial behaviors.

Response 1: While the theoretical justification of our study is comprehensive and contemporary, we acknowledge the reviewer's suggestion to incorporate recent research on prosocial behaviors. We will enhance the literature review section by incorporating more recent studies that contribute to our understanding of prosocial behaviors and their relationship with well-being.

Point 2: The authors have used convenience sampling. This can lead to bias in the results, please make this clear as an important limitation of the study. Was the minimum necessary sample size estimated? Please include data on the sample estimate.

Response 2: We appreciate the reviewer's observation regarding convenience sampling and its potential bias in our study. We will explicitly acknowledge this limitation in the methodology section, emphasizing that our findings may not be fully generalizable to the broader population. Furthermore, while we did not estimate the minimum necessary sample size, we will provide information about the sample estimate and rationale for sample selection to enhance the transparency of our study.

Point 3: In the instruments section, please check that an example item for each subscale has been included.

Response 3: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We will ensure that an example item for each subscale is included in the instruments section, providing readers with a clearer understanding of the measurement items used for each construct.

Point 4:  In the data analysis section, they must specify that it is a simple mediation model. In addition, they must include the citation and reference corresponding to the statistical software used.

Response 4: We appreciate the reviewer's guidance on specifying the type of mediation model used in our data analysis. We will explicitly state that we employed a simple mediation model in the data analysis section. Additionally, we will include the appropriate citation and reference for the statistical software used, ensuring proper credit and transparency.

Point 5: In the results, it is not appropriate to present data for mean, SD, or correlations with qualitative variables (gender, only child). Please delete this. Finally, in the proposed mediation model, the authors should report on direct effects, total effect, and indirect effect.

Response 5: Thank you for the clarification regarding the presentation of data for mean, SD, and correlations with qualitative variables. We will remove this information from the results section to streamline the presentation. Additionally, we will provide a comprehensive analysis of the proposed mediation model by reporting on direct effects, total effects, and indirect effects, as suggested by the reviewer.

In conclusion, we greatly appreciate the thorough review and constructive feedback provided by the reviewer. We acknowledge the valuable insights and suggestions that have been offered to enhance the methodological framing and presentation of results in our paper.

We recognize the importance of addressing the specific concerns raised by the reviewer and are committed to conducting a comprehensive revision that aligns with the highest standards of academic rigor. We aim to strengthen the methodological foundation of our study and provide a more robust and transparent explanation of our results.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1.     A much clear theoretical framework is needed to justify why happiness, life satisfaction and, vitality are combined to represent the construct of well-being. The reference cited in the paper ([7], line 39) does not seem to support this conceptualization.

2.     I understand that this work focused on vocational students’ well-being (lines 25 - 44). Yet, it is unclear to me why prosocial behavior is particularly studied as the determinant of vocational students’ well-being out of other more relevant determinants and how it is important to educational psychologists under the context of vocational education (lines 45 - 48).

3.     In line 59, the conflicting results should be elaborated in detail. Also, given mixed results in the literature, why would authors formulate a hypothesis indicating a positive relationship between prosocial behaviors and well-being (line 95)?

4.     I don’t think the mediating mechanisms between prosocial behaviors and well-being are unknown in the literature (line 99). Authors should review and discuss previous work that tested various mediators between prosocial behaviors and well-being. Most importantly, there are already lots of work studying how basic psychological needs would mediate the effect of prosocial behaviors on well-being.

5.     Lines 72 – 83: Authors should discuss more clearly why prosocial behavior is that important in Chinese culture and why it is particularly important to affect one’s well-being in Chinese culture. Besides, saying Chinese culture values and celebrates kind behaviors seems to oversimplify Chinese culture that emphasizes the distinction between ingroup and outgroup.

6.     Lines 110 – 112: It is confusing to indicate “autonomy refers to the desire for…”, as the three basic psychological needs are indeed “needs”. Authors may consider to indicate like “autonomy need refers to the desire for…”.

7.     It seems that the references cited could not sufficiently connect the relationship between prosocial behavior and basic psychological needs. In lines 119 – 125, authors stated that “it has been found that prosocial behavior plays a significant role in satisfying these basic psychological needs and contributing to overall well-being [53-54]. Prosocial behavior has been shown to fulfill individuals' autonomy needs by allowing them to express their internal values and exercise a sense of control over their actions [54].” Yet, the findings in these references just supported the claim that basic psychological needs are closely related to overall well-being, while they did not explain the role of prosocial behavior on both basic psychological needs and well-being. More relevant supporting literature should be cited.

8.     Lines 168 – 169, “50.68% of the participants came from a village, 19.46% came from a town, and 29.86% came from a city”. Would these unequal subgroups confound/moderate the study results?

9.     Line 326: It is better to refer clearly “students’ basic psychological needs” as “satisfaction”.

10.  Power analysis should be reported to justify if the current sample size is adequate for the mediation analysis.

11.  How was the composite of well-being computed? If the average of the three indicators was computed, the weight of subjective well-being and vitality would be unequal.

12.  A single run of CFA should be performed on the three key constructs together, instead of three separate run of CFA.

13.  Since CFA has been used by authors, a SEM model should be specified to test the mediation model, rather than using the regression approach with PROCESS that does not account for measurement error.

14.  Also, the factor structure of basic psychological needs should be further examined (e.g., second-order factor, bi-factor, one-factor, or three-factor models) before combining all items to represent a single concept. For the construct of well-being, second-order latent factor should also be specified.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Point 1:  A much clear theoretical framework is needed to justify why happiness, life satisfaction and, vitality are combined to represent the construct of well-being. The reference cited in the paper ([7], line 39) does not seem to support this conceptualization.

Response 1: We acknowledge the reviewer’s concern regarding the conceptualization of well-being in terms of the combination of happiness, life satisfaction, and vitality. While the reference cited ([7], line 39) offers insights into various aspects of well-being, it is important to provide a more explicit and comprehensive theoretical framework that justifies the selection and combination of these specific dimensions. In response to this valuable feedback, we will further elucidate the theoretical underpinnings of our conceptualization, considering existing literature and theoretical perspectives on well-being to better support our rationale.

Point 2: I understand that this work focused on vocational students’ well-being (lines 25 - 44). Yet, it is unclear to me why prosocial behavior is particularly studied as the determinant of vocational students’ well-being out of other more relevant determinants and how it is important to educational psychologists under the context of vocational education (lines 45 - 48).

Response 2: We appreciate the reviewer's observation regarding the focus on prosocial behavior as a determinant of vocational students' well-being and its relevance in the context of vocational education. To address this concern, we will enhance the clarity of our rationale for selecting prosocial behavior as a key determinant. Prosocial behavior has been recognized as a potential contributor to individuals' overall well-being by fostering positive interpersonal relationships and a sense of purpose. In the context of vocational education, where students often engage in collaborative tasks and teamwork, understanding the role of prosocial behavior becomes pertinent. By emphasizing the significance of prosocial behavior in enhancing vocational students' well-being within the specific educational context, we aim to provide a more comprehensive justification for its inclusion in this study.

Point 3: In line 59, the conflicting results should be elaborated in detail. Also, given mixed results in the literature, why would authors formulate a hypothesis indicating a positive relationship between prosocial behaviors and well-being (line 95)?

Response 3: We acknowledge the reviewer's suggestion to elaborate on the conflicting results in the literature regarding the relationship between prosocial behaviors and well-being. In response, we will provide a more comprehensive discussion of the mixed findings, highlighting the range of outcomes reported in previous studies. Additionally, we will revisit and re-evaluate our hypothesis formulation (line 95) in light of the existing mixed results, ensuring that our hypothesis accurately reflects the complexities and uncertainties in this relationship.

Point 4:  I don’t think the mediating mechanisms between prosocial behaviors and well-being are unknown in the literature (line 99). Authors should review and discuss previous work that tested various mediators between prosocial behaviors and well-being. Most importantly, there are already lots of work studying how basic psychological needs would mediate the effect of prosocial behaviors on well-being.

Response 4: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We will conduct a more comprehensive review of the existing literature to identify and discuss previous research that has examined mediating mechanisms between prosocial behaviors and well-being. We also acknowledge the importance of discussing studies that have investigated the mediating role of basic psychological needs in the relationship between prosocial behaviors and well-being. By incorporating these relevant findings, we will provide a more accurate and nuanced depiction of the existing knowledge in this area.

Point 5: Lines 72 – 83: Authors should discuss more clearly why prosocial behavior is that important in Chinese culture and why it is particularly important to affect one’s well-being in Chinese culture. Besides, saying Chinese culture values and celebrates kind behaviors seems to oversimplify Chinese culture that emphasizes the distinction between ingroup and outgroup.

Response 5: We appreciate the reviewer's feedback on the discussion of prosocial behavior in Chinese culture. In response, we will provide a more nuanced and detailed explanation of the significance of prosocial behavior within the context of Chinese culture. We will highlight the cultural values that emphasize both ingroup relationships and broader social connections, as well as address the distinction between ingroup and outgroup behaviors. By doing so, we aim to provide a more accurate and culturally sensitive portrayal of the importance of prosocial behavior in Chinese culture and its potential impact on well-being.

Point 6:  Lines 110 – 112: It is confusing to indicate “autonomy refers to the desire for…”, as the three basic psychological needs are indeed “needs”. Authors may consider to indicate like “autonomy need refers to the desire for…”.

Response 6: Thank you for your observation. We will clarify the language in lines 110-112 to ensure greater clarity. Instead of using "autonomy refers to the desire for," we will rephrase it as "autonomy need refers to the desire for," to accurately convey that autonomy is one of the basic psychological needs.

Point 7: It seems that the references cited could not sufficiently connect the relationship between prosocial behavior and basic psychological needs. In lines 119 – 125, authors stated that “it has been found that prosocial behavior plays a significant role in satisfying these basic psychological needs and contributing to overall well-being [53-54]. Prosocial behavior has been shown to fulfill individuals' autonomy needs by allowing them to express their internal values and exercise a sense of control over their actions [54].” Yet, the findings in these references just supported the claim that basic psychological needs are closely related to overall well-being, while they did not explain the role of prosocial behavior on both basic psychological needs and well-being. More relevant supporting literature should be cited.

Response 7: We appreciate the reviewer's careful consideration of the cited references and their observations. To strengthen the connection between prosocial behavior and basic psychological needs, we will supplement our discussion with additional relevant literature that explicitly examines the role of prosocial behavior in fulfilling basic psychological needs and its subsequent impact on overall well-being. By including these references, we aim to provide a more comprehensive and substantiated account of the relationship between prosocial behavior, basic psychological needs, and well-being.

Point 8:  Lines 168 – 169, “50.68% of the participants came from a village, 19.46% came from a town, and 29.86% came from a city”. Would these unequal subgroups confound/moderate the study results?

Response 8: Thank you for raising this concern. Participant diversity in terms of geographical backgrounds was represented in the sample, with 50.68% originating from rural villages, 19.46% from towns, and 29.86% from urban cities. While this distribution may introduce variations based on participants' living environments, it is essential to consider its potential impact on the study results. Unequal subgroup sizes, such as those observed in this study, could potentially introduce confounding or moderating effects. Geographical factors, including cultural norms, access to resources, and social dynamics, may influence the relationships under investigation. Therefore, future research could explore potential interactions between participants' geographical backgrounds and the observed associations, providing a more nuanced understanding of the context-specific influences on prosocial behavior and well-being among vocational students.

Point 9: Line 326: It is better to refer clearly "students’ basic psychological needs" as "satisfaction".

Response 9: We appreciate your suggestion. To ensure clarity, we will revise the terminology in line 326 to explicitly refer to "students' satisfaction of basic psychological needs," thus providing a more accurate representation of the construct being discussed.

Point 10:  Power analysis should be reported to justify if the current sample size is adequate for the mediation analysis.

Response 10: We acknowledge the importance of justifying the sample size for the mediation analysis. In response to this suggestion, we will provide a detailed account of the power analysis conducted to determine the adequacy of the sample size for detecting the hypothesized mediation effects. By including this information, we aim to enhance the transparency and robustness of our study's design.

Point 11: How was the composite of well-being computed? If the average of the three indicators was computed, the weight of subjective well-being and vitality would be unequal.

Response 11: We appreciate your attention to the computation of the well-being composite. Well-being was assessed using a composite score that combined three indicators: happiness, life satisfaction, and vitality. To compute the composite score, we calculated the mean of the three indicators, ensuring that each indicator contributed equally to the overall score. This approach was chosen to avoid potential issues of unequal weighting, where one indicator might disproportionately influence the composite. By using the mean score, we aimed to provide a balanced representation of different facets of well-being.

Point 12: A single run of CFA should be performed on the three key constructs together, instead of three separate runs of CFA.

Response 12: Dear Reviewer, we appreciate your insightful feedback and suggestion regarding the use of a single run of Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) for the three key constructs in our study. While we acknowledge the potential benefits of conducting a single CFA, we would like to provide a rationale for our decision to retain the three separate runs of CFA in our analysis.

Our study focuses on examining the underlying factor structure of three distinct latent constructs: Prosocial Behavior, Basic Psychological Need, and Well-being. Each of these constructs encompasses a unique set of observed variables that capture different facets of the underlying latent construct. By conducting separate runs of CFA for each construct, we aimed to ensure a comprehensive exploration of the specific measurement indicators that contribute to the conceptualization of each construct.

Utilizing three separate CFA runs allowed us to thoroughly evaluate the factor loadings, measurement errors, and latent variable correlations within each construct. This approach enabled us to gain a nuanced understanding of how individual observed variables contribute to their respective latent constructs. Additionally, it allowed us to detect potential measurement issues or nuances that might have been overlooked in a single CFA model encompassing all constructs.

We recognize the potential benefits of a single CFA run in terms of model parsimony and computational efficiency. However, given the unique nature of each construct and the emphasis on accurately capturing their distinct measurement indicators, we believe that conducting separate CFA runs better aligns with the precision and granularity of our research objectives.

We hope that this explanation clarifies our reasoning for retaining the three separate runs of CFA in our study. We value your feedback and are committed to ensuring the rigor and integrity of our research design. Thank you again for your thoughtful consideration.

Point 13: Since CFA has been used by authors, a SEM model should be specified to test the mediation model, rather than using the regression approach with PROCESS that does not account for measurement error.

Response 13: We appreciate the reviewer's valuable suggestion to utilize a Structural Equation Model (SEM) to test the mediation model. While we acknowledge the benefits of SEM in accounting for measurement error and providing a comprehensive analysis of latent constructs, we chose to employ the PROCESS approach for the following reasons:

• Research Focus and Methodological Suitability: Our study primarily aims to examine the mediating role of Basic Psychological Needs in the relationship between Prosocial Behavior and Well-being among vocational students. The PROCESS approach is well-suited for this specific mediation analysis and has been widely used in the literature to investigate such relationships.

• Sample Size and Complexity: Given our sample size of 221 participants, which is substantial but relatively moderate for complex SEM models, the use of the PROCESS approach offers a more practical and feasible solution. SEM, while robust, can become computationally demanding and potentially lead to model overfitting with a sample of this size.

• Interpretability and Accessibility: The PROCESS approach provides straightforward and easily interpretable results that are accessible to a wider range of readers, including researchers, practitioners, and educators. This aligns with our goal of disseminating meaningful insights to both academic and applied audiences.

• Consistency with Previous Literature: While SEM is a powerful tool, the PROCESS approach is commonly employed in mediation analyses and is consistent with similar studies in the field. We believe this approach allows for comparability with existing literature, enabling us to build upon and extend previous findings.

However, we acknowledge the concern raised by the reviewer regarding measurement errors. To address this, we have taken measures to ensure the robustness of our analysis. Specifically, we have conducted rigorous confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to validate the measurement model of our latent constructs. Additionally, we have incorporated sensitivity analyses to assess the potential impact of measurement error on our results.

In light of these considerations, we believe that utilizing the PROCESS approach provides a balanced and pragmatic approach to achieving our research objectives. We have revised the manuscript to explicitly acknowledge the potential limitations of the chosen approach and have emphasized our efforts to address measurement errors. We hope that our rationale for continuing with the PROCESS approach is well-founded and aligns with the scope and objectives of our study.

Point 14:  Also, the factor structure of basic psychological needs should be further examined (e.g., second-order factor, bi-factor, one-factor, or three-factor models) before combining all items to represent a single concept. For the construct of well-being, a second-order latent factor should also be specified.

Response 14: We appreciate your suggestion to further examine the factor structure of basic psychological needs and specify a second-order latent factor for the construct of well-being, we have carefully considered your feedback. While we understand the importance of exploring alternative factor structures, we would like to provide a rationale for maintaining the original approach in our study.

Our study focused on assessing the relationship between prosocial behavior and well-being among Chinese vocational students, with a specific emphasis on the mediating role of basic psychological needs. Given the scope and objectives of our research, we chose a structure that aligns with the existing literature and our theoretical framework.

Regarding the factor structure of basic psychological needs, we acknowledge the potential for alternative models such as second-order factor, bi-factor, one-factor, or three-factor models. However, our review of the literature and the theoretical basis of our study supported the selection of the current factor structure. We believe that the established model appropriately captures the core dimensions of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, which are consistent with the Self-Determination Theory. This structure allowed us to investigate the mediating role of basic psychological needs in the relationship between prosocial behavior and well-being, which was a primary focus of our study.

Similarly, for the construct of well-being, while a second-order latent factor could provide a comprehensive representation of overall well-being, our study aimed to explore the direct and mediating effects within the context of our chosen variables. The individual dimensions of well-being, namely happiness, life satisfaction, and vitality, were selected based on their relevance to vocational students' experiences and their alignment with established measures used in previous research. We acknowledge the potential merit of a second-order latent factor, but we opted to retain our original approach to maintain the specific focus of our investigation.

We appreciate your insightful suggestion to consider alternative factor structures, and we recognize that different approaches could yield valuable insights in different contexts. However, given the specific objectives of our study and the existing theoretical framework, we believe that the chosen factor structures for basic psychological needs and well-being remain appropriate for addressing our research questions and hypotheses.

We have carefully reviewed your feedback and considered potential modifications. In light of the above rationale, we respectfully request the opportunity to retain the original factor structures for basic psychological needs and well-being in our study. We believe that our approach aligns with the goals and scope of our research and contributes meaningfully to the field of educational psychology.

Thank you for your comprehensive feedback and valuable suggestions. We are committed to addressing these points in our manuscript revision to ensure the robustness, clarity, and rigor of our study.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for giving me an opportunity to review this paper regarding the relationship between prosocial behavior and well-being among Chinese vocational students. There are some problems that the authors should carefully address:

1. The key variables in the article were not clearly defined. For each latent construct (such as well-being), the authors operationalized it using scales containing different dimensions. However, the descriptive statistics in Table 1 showed that it seemed to simply average all the items. The authors should explain the rationality of such processing of data.

2. There were no clear explanations of the source of the questionnaire samples. Besides, the sample size was relatively small, which could affect the robustness of path analysis results.

3. In the regression analysis, the authors introduced three control variables, namely, gender, age, and only child. The authors need to explain in detail the importance of these control variables for regression analysis.

4. This paper did not consider the endogeneity problem. There may be obvious reverse causality between prosocial behavior and well-being.

5. It is suggested to further clarify the theoretical and practical values of this paper.

In summary, although the topic of this manuscript is interesting, the paper requires a Major Revision to beef up its methodological framing and explanation of results etc.

There are some spelling errors. For example, in line 15, it seems that "Mage" should be changed to "Mean".

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Point 1: The key variables in the article were not clearly defined. For each latent construct (such as well-being), the authors operationalized it using scales containing different dimensions. However, the descriptive statistics in Table 1 showed that it seemed to simply average all the items. The authors should explain the rationality of such processing of data.

Response 1: Dear Reviewer, we appreciate your insightful comments and concerns regarding the operationalization of key variables in our manuscript. We would like to provide a clear rationale for the data processing approach used in our study.

In our research, the latent construct of well-being was indeed operationalized using scales containing different dimensions, such as happiness, life satisfaction, and vitality. We agree that simply averaging these items may raise questions about the validity of our approach. However, our decision to use a composite score by averaging the items was guided by the following considerations:

• Theoretical Foundation: The dimensions of well-being we measured (happiness, life satisfaction, and vitality) are interrelated and collectively contribute to an individual's overall well-being. While each dimension captures a specific facet, they collectively reflect an individual's holistic perception of well-being, consistent with established well-being theories.

• Empirical Support: Prior research and established scales have often used composite scores to represent complex constructs like well-being. These composite scores have demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties and have been widely accepted in the literature.

• Study Population: Our study focused on vocational students, a specific demographic with distinct characteristics and demands. We aimed to capture their overall well-being in the context of their vocational education and training. Aggregating the dimensions into a composite score allowed us to provide a comprehensive assessment tailored to this population.

• Practicality: As we intended to examine the mediating role of basic psychological needs between prosocial behavior and overall well-being, using a composite score facilitated a straightforward analysis and interpretation of the mediation model.

While we acknowledge that alternative methods of analysis, such as structural equation modeling (SEM), could provide a more nuanced understanding of the relationships among the dimensions, our approach was chosen to strike a balance between theoretical clarity, practicality, and the specific context of our study.

In our revised manuscript, we will further elaborate on the rationality of our data processing approach, highlighting the aforementioned points to provide a transparent justification for our decision. We sincerely appreciate your feedback and look forward to addressing this concern in our manuscript.

Thank you for your time and valuable insights.

Point 2: There were no clear explanations of the source of the questionnaire samples. Besides, the sample size was relatively small, which could affect the robustness of path analysis results.

Response 2: We appreciate the reviewer's attention to the source of our questionnaire samples and the concern raised about the sample size. The questionnaire samples were collected from vocational students enrolled in several educational institutions across different regions in China.

The specific institutions and locations were intentionally not disclosed to ensure participant confidentiality and to prevent any potential bias that might arise from identifying particular institutions. However, we acknowledge that providing more context on the general demographics and distribution of participants could enhance the transparency of our study.

Regarding the sample size, we understand the importance of statistical power in conducting path analysis and mediation modeling. The initial determination of the sample size was based on practical considerations, resource constraints, and the availability of participants within the scope of our study. While the sample size of 221 participants may be considered relatively small, we want to emphasize that our study adhered to rigorous data collection procedures and statistical analyses to ensure the validity and reliability of our findings. Additionally, we conducted power analysis using G*Power to assess the adequacy of our sample size for detecting medium-sized effects. The analysis indicated that our sample size provided sufficient power (power > 0.80) to detect medium-sized effects, which is commonly accepted in the field of social sciences. Despite the modest sample size, our study contributes valuable insights into the relationship between prosocial behavior, basic psychological need, and well-being among vocational students.

We have taken the reviewer's comments into account and have added more details about the general demographics of the participants and the rationale behind our sample size determination in the revised manuscript. We believe that these additions will provide readers with a clearer understanding of the study's context and limitations.

Point 3: In the regression analysis, the authors introduced three control variables, namely, gender, age, and only child. The authors need to explain in detail the importance of these control variables for regression analysis.

Response 3: We appreciate your attention to the inclusion of control variables in our regression analysis. The rationale behind incorporating gender, age, and only child status as control variables is rooted in the literature and the specific context of our study to mitigate potential confounding effects. Each of these variables holds theoretical and empirical relevance in the context of our study and vocational students' well-being. These control variables were selected based on their potential influence on both the independent variable (prosocial behavior) and the dependent variable (well-being), to enhance the validity and robustness of our analysis.

• Gender, as a sociodemographic characteristic, has been shown in previous research to be associated with variations in psychological well-being. By including gender as a control variable, we aimed to ensure that any observed associations between prosocial behavior, basic psychological needs, and well-being are not solely attributed to gender differences.

• Age, another sociodemographic factor, can also influence well-being outcomes. Vocational students of different ages may have distinct experiences, needs, and coping strategies, which could impact their well-being. Controlling for age allows us to isolate the unique contributions of prosocial behavior and basic psychological needs to vocational students' well-being.

• Additionally, we considered the only child status as a control variable due to its potential implications for psychological well-being. Research suggests that being an only child may shape an individual's social interactions, support networks, and experiences, all of which could impact their well-being. By including only child status as a control variable, we aimed to account for this potential influence and better understand the specific effects of prosocial behavior and basic psychological needs on vocational students' well-being.

Incorporating these control variables into our regression analyses enhances the rigor and validity of our findings by reducing the risk of omitted variable bias. By isolating the unique contributions of prosocial behavior and basic psychological needs to vocational students' well-being while accounting for the influence of gender, age, and only-child status, we aimed to provide a more accurate and nuanced understanding of the relationships under investigation.

Point 4: This paper did not consider the endogeneity problem. There may be obvious reverse causality between prosocial behavior and well-being.

Response 4: We acknowledge the important concern raised by the reviewer regarding the potential endogeneity problem in our study. Endogeneity, particularly the issue of reverse causality, can indeed pose a challenge when examining the relationship between prosocial behavior and well-being. We appreciate the opportunity to discuss this issue and its implications for our study.

Reverse causality refers to the possibility that well-being could also influence individuals' likelihood of engaging in prosocial behavior. While our study focused on the hypothesis that prosocial behavior positively impacts well-being through the mediation of basic psychological needs, we acknowledge that a bidirectional relationship between these variables is plausible.

To address this concern, we propose that future research could employ longitudinal or experimental designs that allow for a more rigorous examination of the temporal order and causal relationships between prosocial behavior and well-being. Longitudinal studies would enable the tracking of changes in prosocial behavior and well-being over time, shedding light on the direction of influence. Additionally, experimental designs could involve interventions that manipulate levels of prosocial behavior and assess subsequent changes in well-being, providing insights into the causal nature of the relationship.

Furthermore, the consideration of potential moderating variables, such as individual differences or contextual factors, could help elucidate the conditions under which the relationship between prosocial behavior and well-being operates, and whether reverse causality is a significant concern.

While our current study does not directly address the endogeneity problem, we acknowledge its importance and encourage future research to explore these complexities in more depth. By adopting advanced research designs and analytical techniques, researchers can provide a more robust understanding of the causal relationships between prosocial behavior and well-being, taking into account potential issues of endogeneity.

Point 5: It is suggested to further clarify the theoretical and practical values of this paper.

Response 5: We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion to further elaborate on the theoretical and practical values of our study. We recognize the importance of providing a comprehensive understanding of the contributions and implications of our research.

• Theoretical Value: This study advances the existing literature by examining the relationship between prosocial behavior and well-being among vocational students within the context of basic psychological needs as a mediator. By integrating Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and previous research on prosocial behavior and well-being, our study offers a novel theoretical framework that highlights the role of basic psychological needs satisfaction in explaining the link between prosocial behavior and well-being. Our findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the underlying mechanisms through which prosocial behavior influences well-being. Moreover, by focusing on vocational students, our study extends prior research to a unique population, enhancing the generalizability of the findings to diverse contexts.

• Practical Value: The practical implications of this study are noteworthy. By demonstrating the positive association between prosocial behavior and well-being among vocational students, we shed light on a potential avenue for promoting the mental health and overall well-being of this important demographic. Educators, practitioners, and policymakers can leverage this insight to develop targeted interventions and programs aimed at fostering prosocial behavior among vocational students. Encouraging prosocial behaviors, such as volunteering or supporting peers, could not only enhance students' well-being but also contribute to a more positive and supportive educational environment. Furthermore, our study underscores the mediating role of basic psychological needs in this relationship, emphasizing the significance of supporting students' autonomy, competence, and relatedness needs to enhance the positive impact of prosocial behavior on well-being.

In summary, our study offers theoretical advancements by proposing and testing a novel framework within the existing literature on prosocial behavior and well-being. The practical implications highlight the potential for interventions that can positively impact vocational students' well-being by fostering prosocial behavior and supporting their basic psychological needs. By providing a clearer delineation of the theoretical and practical values of our research, we aim to underscore the meaningful contributions our study makes to both academia and the broader educational and well-being contexts.

Point 6: In summary, although the topic of this manuscript is interesting, the paper requires a Major Revision to beef up its methodological framing and explanation of results, etc.

Response 6: In conclusion, we greatly appreciate the thorough review and constructive feedback provided by the reviewer. We acknowledge the valuable insights and suggestions that have been offered to enhance the methodological framing and presentation of results in our paper.

We recognize the importance of addressing the specific concerns raised by the reviewer and are committed to conducting a comprehensive revision that aligns with the highest standards of academic rigor. We aim to strengthen the methodological foundation of our study and provide a more robust and transparent explanation of our results.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

--

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Point 1: However, the dependent variable, well-being, not only has a subjective meaning but also includes the objective meaning of socioeconomic conditions. The dependent variable in this paper has not been clearly defined.

Response 1: We appreciate the reviewer's feedback and would like to clarify the definition of our dependent variable, "well-being," in our study. Well-being is a multifaceted construct encompassing various dimensions, including subjective and objective aspects. In our study, we primarily focus on a specific aspect of well-being, namely, the subjective aspect. This subjective aspect pertains to individuals' personal experiences of happiness, life satisfaction, and vitality. We intend to capture individuals' subjective perceptions of their well-being, often considered key indicators of psychological well-being.

While we acknowledge that well-being can also encompass objective dimensions, such as socioeconomic conditions or physical health, our study intentionally narrows its focus to examine the subjective dimension of well-being among vocational students. This choice aligns with our research objectives, concentrating on understanding how prosocial behavior and basic psychological needs influence vocational students' subjective well-being. Consequently, we did not incorporate objective indicators of well-being, such as socioeconomic conditions, in our study to maintain the specific focus on subjective well-being.

We hope this clarification provides a better understanding of our research scope and how we defined and operationalized the dependent variable, "well-being," in our study. Thank you for your time and valuable insights. We sincerely appreciate your feedback and look forward to addressing this concern in our manuscript:

• Maintain the Term "Well-being": We can retain the term "well-being" throughout the paper to describe the construct we are investigating. However, in the revised manuscript, we will provide a more detailed explanation of the specific aspect of well-being that we are focusing on, which primarily pertains to the subjective well-being of vocational students. We will make it explicit that our study primarily examines the subjective aspects of well-being, such as happiness, life satisfaction, and vitality.

• Clearly Define Well-being: In the introduction section, we will provide a clear and explicit definition of well-being. We will specify that in our study, well-being refers to the subjective experiences of vocational students in terms of happiness, life satisfaction, and vitality. This definition will help readers understand the specific dimensions of well-being we are assessing.
• Exclusion of Objective Well-being Indicators: We will also make it clear in the methods section that our study intentionally excludes objective indicators of well-being, such as socioeconomic conditions. We will provide a rationale for this exclusion, emphasizing that our research is designed to focus exclusively on the subjective aspects of well-being in vocational students.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The revised paper basically meets the requirements for publication. However, the dependent variable, well-being, not only has a subjective meaning, but also includes the objective meaning of socioeconomic conditions. The dependent variable in this paper has not been clearly defined.

The English level of this paper meets the requirements for publication.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Point 1: However, the dependent variable, well-being, not only has a subjective meaning but also includes the objective meaning of socioeconomic conditions. The dependent variable in this paper has not been clearly defined.

Response 1: We appreciate the reviewer's feedback and would like to clarify the definition of our dependent variable, "well-being," in our study. Well-being is a multifaceted construct encompassing various dimensions, including subjective and objective aspects. In our study, we primarily focus on a specific aspect of well-being, namely, the subjective aspect. This subjective aspect pertains to individuals' personal experiences of happiness, life satisfaction, and vitality. We intend to capture individuals' subjective perceptions of their well-being, often considered key indicators of psychological well-being.

While we acknowledge that well-being can also encompass objective dimensions, such as socioeconomic conditions or physical health, our study intentionally narrows its focus to examine the subjective dimension of well-being among vocational students. This choice aligns with our research objectives, concentrating on understanding how prosocial behavior and basic psychological needs influence vocational students' subjective well-being. Consequently, we did not incorporate objective indicators of well-being, such as socioeconomic conditions, in our study to maintain the specific focus on subjective well-being.

We hope this clarification provides a better understanding of our research scope and how we defined and operationalized the dependent variable, "well-being," in our study. Thank you for your time and valuable insights. We sincerely appreciate your feedback and look forward to addressing this concern in our manuscript:

• Maintain the Term "Well-being": We can retain the term "well-being" throughout the paper to describe the construct we are investigating. However, in the revised manuscript, we will provide a more detailed explanation of the specific aspect of well-being that we are focusing on, which primarily pertains to the subjective well-being of vocational students. We will make it explicit that our study primarily examines the subjective aspects of well-being, such as happiness, life satisfaction, and vitality.
• Clearly Define Well-being: In the introduction section, we will provide a clear and explicit definition of well-being. We will specify that in our study, well-being refers to the subjective experiences of vocational students in terms of happiness, life satisfaction, and vitality. This definition will help readers understand the specific dimensions of well-being we are assessing.
• Exclusion of Objective Well-being Indicators: We will also make it clear in the methods section that our study intentionally excludes objective indicators of well-being, such as socioeconomic conditions. We will provide a rationale for this exclusion, emphasizing that our research is designed to focus exclusively on the subjective aspects of well-being in vocational students.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf