1. How can the authors justify drawing meaningful conclusions about gender differences in motivation when the male sample size (n=13) is disproportionately small compared to women (n=39) and not representative of the broader LSES population?
2. Why do the authors emphasize non-significant gendered differences (e.g., altruism, p=0.079) as meaningful patterns in the Discussion, rather than treating them as tentative observations appropriate for a qualitative, exploratory study?
3. Given that LSES status is highly correlated with racial/ethnic marginalization, how can the authors claim to understand “gendered motivational pathways” without conducting an intersectional analysis that accounts for race/ethnicity?
4. How do the authors address the potential for recall bias and social desirability effects in self-reported motivations, especially among high-achieving scholarship recipients?
5. Where is the promised “cross-walk table” (Table 1) mentioned in the Theoretical Background section, and how does its absence affect the evaluation of theoretical integration?
6. How do the authors explain the reversal of the expected gender-altruism link (altruism more salient for men) and rule out sampling or methodological artifacts as the cause?
