Review Reports

Comments 1: First, the main limitation concerns causal inference. The manuscript occasionally implies directional or causal relationships (e.g., “dominant role” of leisure attitude), but the study is cross-sectional. This issue is acknowledged in the limitations, but its implications are not sufficiently reflected in the discussion and conclusions.

Response 1: Thank you for this important comment. I agree that the cross-sectional nature of the study limits causal interpretation. In response, I revised the Discussion and Conclusion sections to adopt more cautious language regarding directional relationships and theoretical implications. Specifically, expressions such as “dominant role” and “stronger determinant” were moderated to avoid overstating causal interpretations. I also clarified that the observed associations should be interpreted as theoretically informed relationships rather than definitive causal pathways. In addition, I further emphasized that longitudinal or experimental studies are required to confirm the temporal and causal ordering among leisure attitude, leisure satisfaction, and psychological well-being. These revisions strengthen the methodological rigor and interpretive balance of the manuscript.

Comments 2: Second, the claim of asymmetry between pathways is somewhat overstated. While the standardized coefficients differ (β = 0.368 vs. β = 0.150, p. 9), this does not necessarily justify strong theoretical claims about “dominance” or a shift toward cognition-centered frameworks. The difference is quantitative, but its theoretical interpretation should be more cautious.

Response 2: Thank you for this thoughtful observation. I agree that the difference between the standardized coefficients should be interpreted cautiously. Accordingly, I revised the manuscript to moderate the theoretical language related to the asymmetrical dual-pathway framework. Rather than describing the cognitive pathway as “dominant,” the revised manuscript now states that the cognitive pathway demonstrated a relatively stronger association with psychological well-being within the present sample and model. I also clarified that the observed differences in standardized coefficients should be interpreted cautiously, as they do not necessarily indicate statistically significant differences between pathways. Accordingly, the findings were revised to provide only preliminary support for the relative importance of cognitive mechanisms rather than definitive evidence for a cognition-centered framework. These revisions provide a more balanced and theoretically cautious interpretation of the findings. I also acknowledge that differences in standardized coefficients do not necessarily indicate statistically significant differences between pathways.

Comments 3: Third, the sampling strategy limits generalizability. Participants were recruited from welfare centers and are likely more active and socially engaged than the general older population. This introduces a selection bias that should be more explicitly discussed.

Response 3: I appreciate this valuable comment and agree that the sampling strategy may introduce selection bias. In response, I expanded the Limitations section to more explicitly acknowledge that participants recruited from senior welfare centers may represent relatively active, healthier, and socially engaged older adults compared to the broader aging population. I further clarified that this characteristic may limit the generalizability of the findings to older adults with lower levels of leisure participation, reduced mobility, or greater social isolation. In addition, I emphasized the need for future studies using more diverse and representative samples, including community-dwelling and vulnerable older populations. These revisions improve the transparency and contextual interpretation of the study findings.

Comments 4: Fourth, there is a lack of detailed demographic information, particularly age distribution (explicitly noted as missing on p. 4). Given that aging is central to the study, this is a non-trivial omission.

Response 4: Thank you for highlighting this issue. I agree that the absence of detailed age distribution information represents an important limitation. Because the original survey primarily focused on psychological and leisure-related constructs, detailed age subgroup data were not collected beyond eligibility criteria (≥65 years). To address this concern, I more explicitly acknowledged this limitation in both the Participants and Limitations sections and discussed its potential implications for interpreting age-related variability within the sample. I also noted that future research should incorporate more detailed demographic stratification, including age subgroups, to better examine potential differences across stages of older adulthood.

Comments 5: Fifth, the risk of common method bias remains. Although Harman’s single-factor test is reported (p. 6), this approach is widely considered insufficient on its own. This should be acknowledged more critically.

Response 5: I appreciate this insightful comment. I agree that Harman’s single-factor test alone does not fully eliminate concerns regarding common method bias. In response, I revised the manuscript to acknowledge the limitations of relying solely on this procedure. Specifically, I clarified that although the Harman’s single-factor test suggested that common method variance was unlikely to substantially distort the findings, this approach has recognized methodological limitations and should be interpreted cautiously. I additionally emphasized that the use of self-report measures collected at a single time point may still increase the risk of shared method variance. Finally, I recommended that future studies should employ more rigorous procedural remedies and advanced statistical approaches, including multi-source data collection, temporal separation, and CFA marker-variable techniques, to better address potential common method bias.

Comments 1: This paper appears to examine the role of leisure in psychological well-being among older adults using path analysis (covariance structure analysis), with leisure attitude and leisure satisfaction serving as explanatory variables. Whilst the statistical methods appear to be sound, the conclusions reached are largely as expected and do not appear to offer much in the way of novelty.

Response 1: I sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful comment regarding the theoretical contribution and novelty of the study. In response, I revised the Discussion section to more clearly emphasize the unique contribution of the present study. Specifically, I strengthened the explanation that the study integrates cognitive and experiential perspectives within a unified structural model and directly compares the relative influence of leisure attitude and leisure satisfaction on psychological well-being among older adults. I also clarified that previous studies have generally examined these mechanisms independently, whereas the present study empirically examines their simultaneous and asymmetrical relationships within a single model. These revisions were intended to more clearly highlight the theoretical contribution and novelty of the study.

Comments 2: Table 2 appears to present the conclusions; however, it covers only Hypotheses H1 to H3, whilst H4 and H5 are not explicitly addressed.

Response 2: Thank you for this valuable comment. In response, I revised the Results section to more explicitly address Hypotheses H4 and H5. Specifically, I added a clearer explanation of the bootstrapped mediation analysis supporting H4 and clarified that H5 received only preliminary support based on the relatively stronger standardized effect of leisure attitude compared to leisure satisfaction. These revisions were intended to improve the clarity and completeness of the hypothesis-testing results and to ensure that all proposed hypotheses were explicitly addressed in the manuscript.

Comments 3: A discussion of the contribution of background factors, such as gender differences, would have been beneficial.

Response 3: I appreciate the reviewer’s insightful suggestion regarding demographic and contextual factors. In response, I expanded the Discussion and Limitations sections to acknowledge that background characteristics such as gender, health status, and socioeconomic conditions may influence how older adults experience leisure and psychological well-being. I also clarified that although these variables were statistically controlled in the present study, future research should more explicitly examine potential subgroup differences across demographic and social contexts. These revisions were intended to provide a more nuanced interpretation of the findings and to highlight important directions for future research.

Comments 4: Nevertheless, as the study seems to be conducted according to soundly programed research protocols, I believe it possesses a certain merit worthy of publication.

Response 4:

I sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s positive evaluation of the overall research design and methodological rigor of the study. I am grateful for the reviewer’s recognition that the study possesses merit worthy of publication. In response to the reviewer’s constructive comments, I further strengthened the manuscript by clarifying the theoretical contribution, explicitly addressing all hypotheses, and expanding the discussion of demographic and contextual factors. These revisions have helped improve the clarity and overall quality of the manuscript.

Comments 1: The introduction is very long. It is better to shorten it and emphasize the problem statement and the importance of the work.

Response 1: I sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s valuable comment regarding the organization and focus of the Introduction section. In response, I revised the Introduction to improve clarity and readability by reducing repetitive theoretical explanations and strengthening the presentation of the research gap, problem statement, and significance of the study. In particular, I more clearly emphasized the lack of integrative research simultaneously examining cognitive and experiential mechanisms underlying leisure-related psychological well-being among older adults. These revisions were intended to improve the overall coherence and conciseness of the Introduction while highlighting the theoretical contribution and practical importance of the present study.

Comments 2: The validity and reliability of the questionnaire should be mentioned. More details about the questionnaire should be mentioned

Response 2: Thank you for this constructive suggestion. In response, I substantially expanded the Measurement and Data Analysis sections to provide more detailed information regarding the questionnaire and psychometric properties of the scales. Specifically, I added descriptions of the origins and sub-factors of each scale, response formats, and representative example items. In addition, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), average variance extracted (AVE), composite reliability (C.R.), and Cronbach’s α coefficients were more clearly reported to demonstrate the validity and reliability of the measurement instruments. These revisions improve the methodological transparency and rigor of the study.

Comments 3: The method of complete sampling should be mentioned

Response 3: I appreciate the reviewer’s helpful comment regarding the sampling procedure. In response, I clarified the participant recruitment process and sampling strategy in the Participants section. Specifically, I explained that a non-probability sampling approach incorporating stratified and quota-based elements was used within community-based senior welfare center settings. I also noted that eligible participants attending the selected welfare-center programs during the data collection period were invited to participate, thereby improving coverage within the targeted community setting. These revisions were intended to provide a clearer explanation of the sampling procedure and to improve the transparency of the research design.

Comments 4: The discussion is also long

Response 4: Thank you for this thoughtful comment. In response, I carefully revised the Discussion section to improve readability and reduce redundancy. Several repetitive explanations and overly detailed descriptions were condensed, while the core theoretical interpretations and practical implications were retained. I also refined the structure of the Discussion to provide a clearer and more concise presentation of the study’s main findings and contributions. These revisions were intended to improve the overall flow and readability of the manuscript.