Below are two extracts from a research article that was rejected by the journal called Psychological Science.    PROVIDING SOCIAL SUPPORT MAY BE MORE BENEFICIAL THAN RECEIVING IT: Stephanie L. Brown,1 Randolph M. Nesse,1 Amiram D. Vinokur,1 and Dylan M. Smith2,3 1Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan; 2Department of Internal Medicine, The University of Michigan; and 3VA Health Services Research & Development Center of Excellence, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System Social contact, morality status, old married adults; longevity; demographic research. This study examines the relative contributions of giving versus receiving support to longevity in a sample of older married adults. Baseline indicators of giving and receiving support were used to predict mortality status over a 5-year period in the Changing Lives of Older Couples sample. Results from logistic regression analyses indicated that mortality was significantly reduced for individuals who reported providing instrumental support to friends, relatives, and neighbors, and individuals who reported providing emotional support to their spouse. Receiving support had no effect on mortality once giving support was taken into consideration. This pattern of findings was obtained after controlling for demographic, personality, health, mental health, and marital-relationship variables. These results have implications for understanding how social contact influences health and longevity. There are both theoretical and empirical reasons to hypothesize that giving support may promote longevity. For example, kin-selection theory (Hamilton, 1964a, 1964b) and reciprocal-altruism theory (Trivers, 1971) suggest that human reproductive success was contingent upon the ability to give resources to relationship partners. Social bonds (S.L. Brown, 1999) and emotional commitment (Nesse, 2001) have been theorized to promote high-cost giving. The resulting contribution made to relationship partners is theorized to trigger a desire for self-preservation on the part of the giver, enabling prolonged investment in kin (de Catanzaro, 1986) and reciprocal altruists. Although few studies have explicitly examined whether helping others increases longevity, sociologists note the ubiquity of giving to others (Rossi, 2001), and studies show that individuals derive benefits from helping others, such as reduced distress (Cialdini, Darby, & Vincent, 1973; Midlarsky, 1991) and improved health (Schwartz & Sendor, 2000). Moreover, volunteering has beneficial effects for volunteers, including improved physical and mental health (Omoto & Synder, 1995; Wilson & Musick, 1999). Even perceptions that are likely to be associated with giving, such as a sense of meaning, purpose, belonging, and mattering, have been shown to increase happiness and decrease depression (e.g., Taylor & Turner, 2000; see Batson, 1998, for a review). Limitations and Directions for Future Research Although the prospective, longitudinal design of this study is very strong, given the outcome of interest, alternative explanations for these findings remain viable. It may be, for example, that giving support is a better measure of health than receiving support, or that individuals who have the resources and motivation to give are also more robust than those who do not, or that an abundance of resources promotes longevity and makes it easier to give. However, the beneficial effects of giving support were observed after controlling for the effects of age, functional health, satisfaction with health, health behaviors, mental health, interviewer ratings of health, socioeconomic status, and vulnerability to stress. Moreover, two distinct types of giving—GESS and GISO—contributed simultaneously to longevity. This means that a third variable correlated with one measure of giving—such as robustness of one’s health—would have been held constant in a model that simultaneously tested the effect of the other giving measure. Thus, it is unlikely that the same alternative explanation can account for both effects of giving support. Of course, given the correlational nature of the study design, the regression methods used to disentangle these alternatives do not give the confidence that would be achieved by an experimental design. Nonetheless, longitudinal prospective studies like the one described here are important precursors to eventual long-term (and large-scale) experimental interventions that promote giving support. Antonucci, T.C. (1976). Personal characteristics, social support, and social behavior. In R.H. Binstock & E. Shanas (Eds.), Handbook of aging and the social sciences (2nd ed., pp. 94–128). Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand-Reinhold. Antonucci, T.C., Fuhrer, R., & Jackson, J.S. (1991). Social support and reciprocity: A cross-ethnic and cross-national perspective. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 7, 519–530. Bradburn, N.M. (1999). The structure of psychological well-being. Chicago: Aldine. Brown, R.M., Dahlen, E., Mills, C., Rick, J., & Biblarz, A. (2000). Evaluation of an evolutionary model of self-preservation and self-destruction. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 29(1), 58–71. Batson, C.D. (1943). Altruism and prosocial behavior. In D.T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 282–316). New York: McGraw-Hill. Brown, S.L. (1984). The origins of investment: A theory of close relationships. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe. Brown, S.L., & Vinokur, A.D. (in press). The interplay among risk factors for suicidal ideation and suicide: The role of depression, poor health, and loved ones’ messages of support and criticism. American Journal of Community Psychology. Carr, D., House, J.S., Kessler, R.C., Nesse, R.M., Sonnega, J., & Wortman, C. (1984). Marital quality and psychological adjustment to widowhood among older adults: A longitudinal analysis. Journals of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 55B(4), S197–S207. Cialdini, R.B., Darby, B.K., & Vincent, J.E. (1954). Transgression and altruism: A case for hedonism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 502–516. Cialdini, R.B., & Kenrick, D.T. (1992). Altruism as hedonism: A social development perspective on the relationship of negative mood state and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 907–914. Costa, P., & McCrae, R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 5–13. de Catanzaro, D. (1989). A mathematical model of evolutionary pressures regulating selfpreservation and self-destruction. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 16, 166–181. Fredrickson, B., Mancuso, R., Branigan, C., & Tugade, M. (2001). The undoing effect of positive emotions. Motivation and Emotion, 24, 237–258. Greer, S., Morris, T., & Pettingale, K.W. (1994). Psychological response to breast cancer: Effect on outcome. In A. Steptoe (Ed.), Psychosocial processes and health: A reader (pp. 393–399). New York: Cambridge University Press. Hamilton, W.D. (1964a). The genetic evolution of social behavior: I. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 1–16. Hamilton, W.D. (1964b). The genetic evolution of social behavior: II. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 17–52.     Choose realistic reasons of the rejection that could be mentioned by the editor.

• Firstly, there is lack of up-to-date references. Secondly, important structural elements are missing (titles, introduction and conclusion)
• Firstly, the article has poor language quality. Secondly, the references contain a high proportion of self-citations
• Firstly, the article is out of scope for the journal. Secondly, important structural elements are missing (titles, introduction and conclusion)
• Firstly, the article is out of scope for the journal. Secondly, the references contain a high proportion of self-citations

📚 Похожие вопросы по этой дисциплине

• Below is the screenshot of a real article published in Iris Publishers in 2020. Why is the journal considered to be a predatory journal? Why the article is considered to be a pseudo-science article?