Thank you for the opportunity to review [title of study removed]. The study represents a test of the communicate bond belong (CBB) theory and offers interesting insights into the role of everyday talk in living a more satisfying and fulfilling life. However, I have several concerns about the manuscript. <\/p>\n
A couple of minor edits are needed in the introduction. First, please explain or define \u2018daily constraints\u2019 when referencing this concept in the introduction. Second, the writing about \u2018explanations\u2019 in the second paragraph is somewhat unclear. It might be more helpful to first explicitly state that the study examines how four different patterns of social interaction are associated with well-being (i.e., thriving, alignment, ratios, unmet needs), then go on to say that examining these relationships could offer explanations for the associations between everyday talk and well-being. Finally, when introducing the concept of thriving in the 2nd paragraph of the introduction, the authors should provide a direct and clear definition of the concept. Currently, the authors define the concept by explaining what a lack of thriving looks like (\u2018needs fulfilled in ways that sustain life but do not enable growth\u2019), which is unnecessarily confusing for the reader. <\/p>\n
The literature review would benefit from a more thorough review of CBB. I would recommend a separate section right after the introduction to review CBB\u2019s propositions and how the theory conceptualizes everyday talk (see comments below). The literature review does have section that tries to do this after H1, but it starts right off with the theory\u2019s third proposition and doesn\u2019t fully explain the theory. This is important because throughout the literature review it is unclear which of the hypotheses represent tests of CBB and which are extensions of the theory. For example, on p. 5 the authors imply that all four of the \u2018explanations\u2019 are extensions of the theory (i.e., \u201cTo further develop the theory, this manuscript will examine\u2026\u201d); however, the association between striving communication and well-being is proposed in the theory and has been studied previously. Along these lines, I don\u2019t know that it\u2019s fair to say that CBB does not offer much rationale as to why there is an association between close relationships and well-being. <\/p>\n
I\u2019m not sure why the authors propose H1, which examines the relationship between interaction frequency and well-being. As the authors go on to note on p.5, CBB argues that not all forms of everyday talk are equally beneficial and instead is interested in how the nature of everyday talk influences personal and relational well-being. H1 seems to undermine the arguments of the theory and the authors do not offer an adequate justification for including this hypothesis alongside a study that employs a CBB framework. <\/p>\n
As I continued to read the manuscript, I also wondered why the authors focus on thriving when in fact the study examines striving communication episodes, which is again a direct proposition of CBB. I don\u2019t think the concept of thriving is irrelevant to the study, but it would be clearer if the authors included striving communication episodes in their explanation of the study in the introduction as opposed to thriving (it would also make it clearer how this represents a pattern of social interaction) and then used this term consistently throughout the manuscript. <\/p>\n
I am also concerned about the conceptualization of everyday talk in the manuscript. At times, the authors imply that the majority of everyday talk is beneficial, whereas at other times the authors seem to imply that only certain types of interaction are beneficial and that everyday talk is even taxing. For example, on p. 5 the authors state that mundane and boring conversations are pivotal in creating and sustaining relationships, whereas on pp. 6-7 the authors state that a small set of communication episodes facilitate relational bonding. Furthermore, these episodes (e.g., meaningful conversation, affectionate communication, joking around, catching up) are not boring, they are some of the more gratifying communicative acts in everyday relating. Later on, the authors describe everyday communication as draining and often dedicated to meeting role requirements and obligations (pp. 9-10). I recognize these descriptions of everyday talk are largely consistent with CBB, but making sense of these nuances in everyday talk is difficult for the reader to do when the manuscript seems to characterize everyday talk in a slightly new way for each hypothesis. That\u2019s why I recommend the authors start the literature review with not only a review of CBB, but also a clear conceptualization of \u2018everyday talk.\u2019<\/p>\n
A minor point \u2013 on p. 7 the authors first use the term \u2018interactive network\u2019 to describe the network of people we routinely talk to but then go on to use the term \u2018interaction network.\u2019 Please adopt one term and use consistently. <\/p>\n
Why were the four patterns of social interaction not measured in each of the three studies?<\/p>\n
I was surprised to see global well-being as the independent variable in the study. The immediate lead-ins to H3, H5, and H6 imply it is the DV (e.g., \u201cThe choice to converse with others may create a more fulfilling social life, which produces greater life satisfaction. Thus we offer:\u201d). I see the authors try to justify treating global well-being as the IV, but at the very least the authors should not imply global well-being as the DV when introducing the hypotheses. Beyond this point, however, I\u2019m not sure all the communication behaviors considered in the study are stable or \u2018patterned\u2019 enough to warrant considering well-being as the IV. That is, some of these behaviors might be infrequent or rare enough that there isn\u2019t a logical basis for considering well-being as an IV to these behaviors. For example, only 3% of the communication episodes in Hall (2018)\u2019s study fell under the category of affectionate communication. The authors admit at the beginning of the discussion section that \u2018people who are happier, less lonely, and more satisfied create positive social opportunities.\u2019 I thought this was some of the clearest and best reasoned writing in the manuscript. I wish the authors had found ways of incorporating this logic earlier in the manuscript, so the reader is not surprised once they get to the methods section.<\/p>\n
There is a sentence fragment on p. 12 (\u201cFinally, as the purpose of this manuscript is not to\u2026\u201d). <\/p>\n
I was also surprised that the study assessed 12 categories of communication episodes but only reported on four (e.g., meaningful conversation, affectionate talk, catching up, joking around). These are the four communication episodes that Hall (2018) identified as striving behaviors; however, they are slightly different from the communication episodes proposed as indicative of striving in the original articulation of CBB. It seems to me that developing a new theory warrants multiple examinations of its propositions and it would be worthwhile for new investigations to confirm whether these four episodes are in fact striving while others (i.e., gossip, self-disclosure) are not. <\/p>\n
The authors mentioned that the participants underwent training in the methods section, but do not explicate exactly what this training was. <\/p>\n
The use of single item measures is also a limitation of this study and should be identified as such. <\/p>\n
Related to my earlier point \u2013 the authors find associations among frequency and amount of time in interaction and well-being. What are the implications of these findings for CBB, which again, posits that the nature of everyday talk should be more important than its frequency?<\/p>\n
As I was reading the discussion section I kept thinking of research on depression and loneliness. The authors might consider incorporating some of this research into the discussion section. It would be one means of addressing the practical and social importance of the study and CBB. Indeed, I found myself wondering what readers learn from this study beyond its direct implications for CBB.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Thank you for the opportunity to review [title of study removed]. The study represents a test of the communicate bond belong (CBB) theory and offers interesting insights into the role of everyday talk in living a more satisfying and fulfilling life. However, I have several concerns about the manuscript. A couple of minor edits are […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[10],"class_list":["post-78903","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-research-paper-writing","tag-writing"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/78903","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=78903"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/78903\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=78903"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=78903"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=78903"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}