I'm glad to see the changes made in this second version of this paper. The introduction is better organized with a much clearer connection between all the concepts and the methods section is also tighter now with the preliminary study moved to the back. I'm also happy to see the operationalization table and the considerations of outliers and missing data. I also thank the authors for the application of the power analysis - this will definitely strengthen your results and research. 

The authors satisfactorily made all requested changes and I don't have any other major thoughts on the paper. I do have several small points below. 

I would also suggest the authors continue simplifying the language in this paper as much as possible. There are a lot of abstract, overlapping, subjective concepts here where it's easy to get lost in the terms, so paying extra attention to clarity and succinctness will be key. 

I wish the authors good luck in continuing this research! 

Minor comments/points for consideration when conducting the research:

-in the abstract, why is the opposite of each concept mentioned in parenthesis? "focusing on differences (similarities) when comparing with a past extroverted self...." This is confusing. Do you mean to say "versus similarities" 

-list the between/within factors when you discuss the design on page 15. 

-if some participants show clinical levels of depression (a psychiatric disorder, which you are excluding according to your exclusion critera), what will you do?

Thank you for inviting me to review this interesting stage 1 report. McCarthy et al plan to investigate whether manipulating the temporal distance from a negative social memory by priming participants to focus on differences or similarities produces change in social anxiety, affect, and performance on a speech task. I have evaluated the paper in line with required criteria as outlined below and have included some additional thoughts at the end.

1A. The scientific validity of the research question(s). 

McCarthy et al plan to investigate whether priming participants to focus on differences or similarities alters the perceived temporal distance of a negative social memory in a sample of individuals with subclinical levels of social anxiety (RQ1). They then plan to investigate whether differences in perceived temporal distance produces differences in perceptions of social anxiety in the past self (RQ2), positive/negative affect when recalling the memory (RQ3), performance on a speech task (RQ4) and perceived similarity with the past self (RQ5). I believe that these research questions are scientifically justifiable and fall within established ethical norms.

1B. The logic, rationale, and plausibility of the proposed hypotheses, as applicable. 

The hypotheses as stated in Table 1 are coherent and credible. However, it is unclear how McCarthy et al would interpret contradictory results for hypotheses centered around the same research question. For example, if McCarthy et al find evidence of a group difference for H1 but not for H2 would they conclude that the experimental manipulation was successful? I also think that McCarthy et al could be more specific with the interpretation of the hypotheses in table 1. For example, for RQ2 McCarthy et al write “Significant group effects would show that a comparison focus on differences or similarities can influence current and past self-evaluations of social anxiety symptoms.”. I think it would be helpful to consider the direction of effects here (particularly in an opposing direction to that hypothesised) and relate directly back to the outcome measure of the hypothesis. It may also be helpful for McCarthy et al to provide figures for their hypothesised results which can later be compared against the actual findings.

When stating the hypotheses, this is very clearly done within Table 1 but is less clear in the introductory text. I think it would be helpful to be much more explicit as to the expected group differences within this section rather than just stating a group difference will occur.

In Table 1, H4 “The difference in social anxiety ratings between past and current selves will be higher in the differences group than the similarities group”. Could the authors be more explicit about what the difference means here? I understand H3 with the current levels of social anxiety but what does a difference score tell us beyond this?

1C. The soundness and feasibility of the methodology and analysis pipeline (including statistical power analysis or alternative sampling plans where applicable). 

I believe that the study procedure is feasible, and McCarthy have demonstrated this in their preliminary study. It does seem like a complicated and long procedure for participants though, so I wonder about potential fatigue effects. Is it possible for McCarthy et al to measure/mitigate this?

Regarding the sample size calculation, a fairly rudimentary calculation has been done using a medium effect size and conventional levels of power/alpha to determine a sample size of 128 participants. Firstly, I think it would be helpful to use a more specific effect size rather than a generic medium effect (is there a specific analysis that is relevant in Hanko et al?). Secondly, I am concerned that this sample size is too small given (a) the inconclusive results of the preliminary study, and (b) the large number of hypotheses being tested. I would be more confident in the proposed sample size if McCarthy et al could visualise their expected results as I have suggested in the previous section and simulate data based on these parameters to test the required sample size. I also think it might be helpful to build in potential issues with data quality/participant attrition into the sample size calculation to ensure sufficient power.

I also have some concerns regarding the planned analysis of t-tests/ANOVAs of group differences. From my understanding McCarthy et al wish to investigate whether creating temporal distance from a negative social memory through focusing on differences vs. similarities produces subsequent changes in several outcomes including social anxiety, affect, and performance on a speech task. However, I would argue that finding evidence of a group difference in temporal distance as well as group differences in these outcome measures does not necessarily mean that temporal distance is a causal factor as other, unmeasured, aspects of the manipulation may play a role. I wonder whether an analysis that includes the temporal distancing measure as a predictor might be more appropriate. I am not a statistician, but I would consider a linear regression model with temporal distance as a predictor and the different elements McCarthy et al want to assess as the outcome measure in a series of individual models (and potentially also adjust for group). This would allow the authors to assess whether temporal distance is associated with the different outcome measures as well as the strength and direction of effects.

1D. Whether the clarity and degree of methodological detail is sufficient to closely replicate the proposed study procedures and analysis pipeline and to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the procedures and analyses. 

I believe that the methods are clear and detailed enough to permit replication of the proposed study procedures and prevent undisclosed flexibility.

1E. Whether McCarthy et al have considered sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. absence of floor or ceiling effects; positive controls; other quality checks) for ensuring that the obtained results are able to test the stated hypotheses or answer the stated research question(s). 

McCarthy et al have included a manipulation check of the distancing paradigm but also include this as a study hypothesis. I’m not sure if this is permitted under the journal guidelines but I think it may make the manuscript clearer to consider it either as a manipulation OR a hypothesis rather than both. McCarthy et al have not stated how they will assess floor/ceiling effects and do not appear to have specified a positive control.

Additional thoughts

The preliminary study is clearly distinguished from the work that is yet to be done. I find the figure outlining the study procedures to be very helpful.

The report is comprehensive; however I think it would be benefit from the language being more accessible. McCarthy et al have used a lot of jargon, particularly in the abstract, which makes the manuscript quite dense and difficult to read if you are not an expert within this field.

Temporal discrimination task instructions - I’m not sure the temporal manipulation is ‘pure’ here as it’s mixed up with positivity/negativity. Participants primed to focus on similarities are asked about things that have improved, whereas those focused on differences are asked about things that have not improved. I would suggest there’s a valanced connotation using the word ‘improved’, perhaps ‘changed’ may be a more neutral alternative.  

In the speech task, participants are allowed to ask to stop. How will the authors handle data in this situation?

This is an interesting paper on how we perceive our past and current selves. It investigates how focusing on either similarities or differences with a past self affects psychological distance in individuals with social anxiety. The paper was strongly grounded in theory and well-researched. The hypotheses and methods are logical and strongly linked to the literature. I also appreciated the clear detailing of each hypothesis and analysis in Table 1 and strong research question-to-analysis connection. 

Although the topic of the current paper is outside my area of expertise, I will do my best to give some suggestions for improvement to the authors. In the below review, I break down my comments by each section of the paper. 

Intro:

The introduction is generally logical and well-researched, however I found it very difficult to read overall and saw issues with the flow. All the sentences were very complex, making the paper difficult to understand. It was also difficult to keep all the terminology straight. The whole introduction would benefit from using simpler, shorter sentences, breaking up the walls of text into paragraphs to increase readability and clarity, and forming better connections between all the paragraphs. 

One way to make sentences more clear would be for example:

• The sentence: “This suggests that dysfunctional comparison habits may contribute to pathological behaviors and cognitions” could be changed to → “Dysfunctional comparison habits may contribute to pathological behaviors and cognitions.” 

Importantly, the research gap and objectives are missing from the introductory paragraph. The research background and context is provided, but does not clearly articulate what is missing from the literature that this study will address, nor what the objectives of the study are. This makes the reader not understand why this study matters. 

To make this more clear, after stating the research gap (i.e., “currently, we still don’t know…”), discuss how the study will address that gap (i.e., “this study aims to investigate the impact of….”). 

The introduction is also missing the relevance of the study (i.e., what new things it will bring to the field). 

A few suggestions to improve the flow:

• The link between temporal distance and the other main constructs of interest for the study and social anxiety needs to be made apparent early on to make the study rationale clearer. Right now, it’s not clear how these concepts are connected until the end of the introduction, which makes it difficult for the reader to understand the main point of the study right away (this makes the reader lose interest).  
  • An explicit definition of each construct and theoretical models are largely missing, making the reader go back and reread to figure out what each is. I would suggest to clearly define each construct in the intro when it first appears.
  • For instance, temporal distance is somewhat defined in the assimilation effects section but not in the section on temporal distance, which is confusing.
  • The methods section also talks about “augmented assimilation-contrast paradigm” but this never defined.
  • The paper also jumps right into theories and concepts without really defining them. For example, the SAM model is never defined, making it confusing and unclear. Same with the temporal self-appraisal theory. We need clear definitions.
• I found the transitions between each paragraph in the introduction not very well connected. Right now, the introduction section is like mini-essays on each construct but how they are all connected is unclear.
  • For example, the paper starts talking about comparison, then jumps to temporal distance, then back to the comparison process. The links between them are not straightforward and going back and forth between concepts is confusing.
  • To make the transitions smoother, you could add transition sentences to paragraphs and connecting sentences such as “building on this concept…” or “expanding these findings to…”
    Making the connection with social anxiety clearer for each construct would also help improve this section 

Hypotheses and manipulation checks

Did I miss it or is this section only discussing the hypotheses? I did not see any manipulation checks here. It might be helpful to state how RQ1 and 2 serve as manipulation checks in this section. 

Another thing to consider regarding manipulation checks would be to include a specific manipulation check items immediately after the priming tasks to assess whether participants perceive the intended temporal closeness or distance. 

In Table 1, the authors mention what previous research hasn’t addressed. Why is this only being stated here but not in the intro where it belongs? Bringing this up sooner would paint a better picture for the reader about what is currently missing in the literature (the gap) and how your study will help address it. 

Methods (the proposed study)

After the intro, the paper jumps into a preliminary study, for which the hypotheses just outlined don’t correspond to. This breaks the flow of the paper because everything the reader just learned the current study would be about in the intro, is not what follows in the methods. 

I would advise authors to go straight into the current (proposed) study after the methods. This would make the whole paper more coherent. Maybe mention that this was developed following the preliminary study and then remove the preliminary study from the main paper. You can still put the preliminary study in a supplementary section for reference, but in the current paper the preliminary study really doesn’t bring much. It is also missing key details necessary for a methods section like the experimental design. 

Would be helpful to have a table or section in the Methods that describes how each of the constructs from the introduction will be operationalized and measured to remind the reader. 

A 3x2 design is mentioned but the factors and levels are not stated. Can you clarify? 

It would be helpful to assess power based on the type of design you have. This will help give you more reliable findings. You can use the Superpower package in R, for example: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/Superpower/vignettes/intro_to_superpower.html#specifying-the-design-using-design I would recommend this over using G*Power, which has been shown to not be very robust in all cases. For more info, see Brysbaert, 2019. 

The impromptu speech tasks are known to elicit stress in participants (i.e., Shields et al., 2017). Did I miss it but why are you doing this in addition to having an already an anxious sample? What does having participants being “double stressed” bring? The rationale for this needs to be further justified. 

The participants section needs more clarification. Like which psychiatric disorders were excluded and how were they assessed? What were the cut-off values for exclusion?

Also, for the social screening and depression section, what is the cut-off value for depression above which you will exclude participants? I don’t believe this is mentioned.

Page 16 - the authors state the FNE instructions are not validated. How are you planning to validate them to ensure reliability? 

In the missing data section, it would be helpful to stipulate how other types of missing data will be handled (i.e., if participants write nonsense or illegible responses in the forced choice questionnaires) - will they be excluded or will you include them based on various cut-off values? Similarly, how will you handle outliers in the dataset?

Lastly, it doesn’t look like this paper corresponds to APA guidelines. Can the authors use APA guidelines please? This is the standard for most journals and papers.  

++++

Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. I hope the suggestions will be well received by the authors. In case of questions, feel free to email me: mariela.mihaylova@etu.unige.ch