Dear Prof Schlehofer,Thank you to you and the reviewers for the helpful feedback provided on our manuscript. We have carefully considered all editor and reviewer comments and have outlined our responses below, alongside the corresponding revisions made to the manuscript. We believe these changes have strengthened the paper and addressed the points raised.All revisions are indicated in the manuscript in red font for ease of identification. We appreciate the time and effort invested in the review process and look forward to your further feedback.Yours sincerely,The authorsEditor1. Thank you for clarifying that regression analyses were conducted in order to be consistent with the data analytic approach used by Liss et al. (2013). Please clarify this for readers, as well, by including a line stating the statistical replication at the start of the results section.Response: A sentence has been added at the beginning of the Results section clarifying that the regression analyses were conducted to replicate the data analytic approach used by Liss et al. (2013). This addition is intended to make the analytic rationale explicit for readers.2. In a few places, casual and/or first-person language is used. Please make sure to use third person language throughout, to be consistent with APA format. For example: (a) Abstract reads “We also extended it with a UK and Ireland sample…” can be reworded to “This study replicated Liss et al. (2013) and extended with a UK and Ireland sample…” and (b) Page 15, line 30-32 reads “….and VanVoorhis and Morgan’s threshold too.” Cam be reworded as “…and VanVoorhis and Morgan’s (2007) threshold.” Please carefully check the entire manuscript to ensure use of professional, third person language.Response: The manuscript has been reviewed and revised to ensure consistent use of professional, third-person language throughout, in line with APA guidelines. Instances of first-person and informal phrasing noted by the editor and Reviewer 3, including those in the Abstract and Discussion, have been reworded.3. Make sure to carefully proofread for grammatical structure. For instance, the abstract reads “Age ranged from 25 to over 50 (M = 37.8 years).” This is a fragment and should be reworded; this information can also be incorporated into the sentence describing the participant sample (just report the M and range age in a parenthetical note).Response: The manuscript has been further proofread to address grammatical structure and clarity. The sentence fragment identified in the Abstract has been revised, with age information now incorporated into the participant description using a parenthetical note. Additional minor grammatical issues have also been addressed.4. The “Highlights” can be reordered to be consistent with the structure of the article. For instance, move the bullet point explaining that this is a replication study so it reads as the first highlight.Response: The Highlights section has been reordered so that the replication nature of the study is presented first, followed by the remaining key findings, to better reflect the structure of the manuscript.5. Please add “…of Liss et al. (2013)” to the end of the title, so that it reads “…A replication and extension of Liss et al. (2013)” as recommended by Reviewer 3.Response: The title has been revised to explicitly reference the target study and to better reflect the analytic focus of the manuscript. In line with the reviewer’s recommendation, the revised title now ends with “…A replication and extension of Liss et al. (2013).” Consideration has also been given to emphasising the prediction and moderation analyses in the title wording.6. Please add to the limitations section brief statements on the limits of this sampling approach and online data collection, as recommended by Reviewer 3.Response: The Limitations section has been expanded to include additional discussion of the sampling approach and the use of online data collection. This section now addresses potential constraints related to sample representativeness and data collection methods.