Data-Driven Analysis Exploring the Development of Empathy in an Iranian Context
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for the opportunity to review this work.
I found your paper very interesting, and well-written.
However, I have some minor revisions to suggest:
Introduction
It is well described and contextualized, but quite long. I suggest reducing the introduction section a little bit, to make the read more simple.
Measures
Please, specify the language of your questionnaires and provide the correct references for the original questionnaire and for the version that you used.
Discussion
Lines 513-517 it is not very clear the connection that you are making, please try to re-write this part.
Please, correct typos in Line 481 (wrong format).
I found that many references are related to authors, please delete some.
Author Response
Comment 1. Introduction
It is well described and contextualized, but quite long. I suggest reducing the introduction section a little bit, to make the read more simple.
Response 1. We appreciate your suggestion to make the introduction briefer. In the revised manuscript, we removed some unnecessary parts in the introduction for brevity.
Comment 2. Measures
Please, specify the language of your questionnaires and provide the correct references for the original questionnaire and for the version that you used.
Response 2. Thank you very much for your comment regarding the measures. In the revised manuscript, we described the nature of the employed measures with citations:
We employed these three questionnaires in our study to examine empathy development in a comprehensive manner. Since Farsi was the first language of participants, the translated Farsi version of the questionnaires [24,44] were distributed. (lines 399-402)
Comment 3. Discussion
Lines 513-517 it is not very clear the connection that you are making, please try to re-write this part.
Response 3. Thanks a lot for your suggestion regarding improvement of clarity. In the revised manuscript, we added a sentence to make the meaning of the part clearer:
Previous studies have shown that first-hand experience of different life events, especially painful experiences, would lead to higher emotional understanding and hence higher affective empathy [15,67]. Perhaps within the context of higher education, people might be able to have time to experience and deliberate upon painful emotions emerging from socio-moral issues that they had not seriously considered in the past [68,69]. Therefore, people with higher educational level could develop a more mature emotional empathy because of more diverse experiences they have [20]. (lines 661-668)
Comment 4. Please, correct typos in Line 481 (wrong format).
Response 4. We appreciate your comment regarding the typo(s). In the revised manuscript, we updated the sentence:
In these domains, female scored higher than their male counterparts. Our result was in line with previous studies [15,45] and theoretical works about higher empathy and personal distress among women [30]. (lines 627-629)
Comment 5. I found that many references are related to authors, please delete some.
Response 5. Thank you for your comment regarding author-authored references. We removed a couple of the references from the list in the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Reviewer Report
Type of manuscript: Article
Title: Data-Driven Analysis to Explore the Development of Empathy in Iranian Context
Special Issue: Prominent Papers in Psych- 2021-2023
This study, explored the best regression models that explain developmental path of dispositional empathy among Iranian participants with Bayesian Model Averaging (BMA).
MAIN COMMENTS:
1. The structure of the paper is clear and contains the required sections
2. The purpose of the study is clearly defined and the methodology is adequate
3. There is adequate literature and related work documented. I suggest incorporating more recent papers
MINOR COMMENTS
I think there is an error in the quotations in the text. It is not necessary to include the year, e.g.:
Thus, Grühn et al. (2008) [16] assessed (line 103)
Unlike Phillips et al. (2002) [9], Grühn et al. (2008) [16] (line 109)
Although Grühn et al. (2008) [16] (line 117)
As suggested by Decety and Cowell (2014) [32], Grühn et al. (2008) [16], and O’Brien et al. (2013) [10] (line 182)
SPECIFIC COMMENTS (for the authors)
1. Check citations in the text
2. Update references
Author Response
Comment 1. There is adequate literature and related work documented. I suggest incorporating more recent papers + Update references
Response 1. Thank you very much for your suggestion regarding updating references with recent studies. In the revised manuscript, we additionally cited recent studies in the field of research on empathy, particularly those published after 2000-2010.
Comment 2.
I think there is an error in the quotations in the text. It is not necessary to include the year, e.g.:
Thus, Grühn et al. (2008) [16] assessed (line 103)
Unlike Phillips et al. (2002) [9], Grühn et al. (2008) [16] (line 109)
Although Grühn et al. (2008) [16] (line 117)
As suggested by Decety and Cowell (2014) [32], Grühn et al. (2008) [16], and O’Brien et al. (2013) [10] (line 182)
Response 2. We appreciate your comment regarding the citations. In the revised manuscript, we removed years as per your comment.
Comment 3. Check citations in the text
Response 3. Thanks a lot for your comment about citations. We updated citations with Zotero to minimize the potential human errors.
Reviewer 3 Report
I would like to spend many positive words to the authors who launched a very interesting methodological approach which is unfortunately rare in many sub-fields of psychology. The contribution is clearly presented and the authors propose informative sections on both the method and the results. I do not have proposal for improvement. I think the paper is good as it is.
Author Response
Comment 1. I would like to spend many positive words to the authors who launched a very interesting methodological approach which is unfortunately rare in many sub-fields of psychology. The contribution is clearly presented and the authors propose informative sections on both the method and the results. I do not have proposal for improvement. I think the paper is good as it is.
Response 1. Thank you very much for your positive comments on our study. We revised and update the manuscript as per the other reviewers' comments and suggestions, so we hope you find how it has been improved from the original version.
