Reviewer 2: Justify approach and methods

[datarichard]

Reviewer 2 (SSM0-submission):

First, there is simply not enough justification of the approach and methods provided in the paper. Perhaps it is a well-established approach, but there is little in the paper to indicate this - certainly there is no reference to other studies applying the approach and methods to the authors' research question. If it is not an approach well established in this literature (and in fact even if it is), the authors need to explain in much more detail the reasons for taking the approach, the conditions under which it produces valid estimates and why it is the most appropriate approach to apply in the current context

[datarichard]

Suggestions:

• [x] Reference life events paper distinguishing between cognitive and affective wellbeing
• [x] Introduce the piecewise model approach as novel in this context (intro/methods)
• [x] Discuss the evidence from model fits that the piecewise model is best
• [ ] Discuss the difference between the MLE estimates and the partial-pooled estimates

[datarichard]

Maybe a duplicate of #14

[datarichard]

Introduction now includes a paragraph justifying the model approach taken. The evidence from model fits is discussed at the end of Section 3.1. And the evidence for a distinct effect of financial gain on cognitive and affective wellbeing provided by the life-events paper is also referenced in the intro.

[datarichard]

Edit the intro paragraph discussing the problem with null hypothesis testing