This is an excellent article! A valuable contribution to the literature, and a good read. The study is well designed and robust, and reveals some important insights about perceptions of responsibility, which add to the literature on individuals’ multiple roles and social norms and expectations around climate change. The statistical tests are well explained and well presented, and the analysis is succinct and accurate. As you will see from my comments, in some places the analysis is a little too succinct, and the reader could do with a bit more assistance. Overall these should be achievable without much effort, and help the article to deliver on its potential.

Figure 2 - These charts took me a while to understand, re-reading the text several times. I eventually got there, but the phrasing could be slightly improved for clarity. Rather than ‘Perceptions of the individuals’ role as a government representative’ I think ‘government representatives: perceptions of one’s own role’ would be clearer. (Also a note to be aware of where the apostrophe should go when pluralising ‘individual’).

Is Figure 3 necessary? These diamond shaped marks have all already been displayed in figure 2. Is the intention just to show them side by side? Perhaps there is value in that.

In general, the reader could do with some additional help in unpacking the meaning of these figures. You refer very generally to supplementary material B-D for statistical tests behind Figures 2 and 3, but it would be helpful for you to draw these out in the text. Again, I read lines 12-16 several times on p13 before I understood what you meant – that the differences being ‘generally more pronounced’ refers to the differences between diamond and circle indicators across all measures. I suggest slowing down slightly and adding some more explanatory text. Could you indicate which of these are statistically significant?

Page 13 moves very quickly into what I would consider the ‘discussion’, and there is a need for more simple explanation of the key findings. For instance, lines 16-22 require context. Which direction is the observed difference? Are these significant? The observation about organisational culture is quite general and needs to refer back to the results.

P14 line 1 draws out an important finding which was the first I noticed when looking at Figure 2. I suggest reversing the order so that this comes first, before the more general observation of differences discussed on p13 from line 12. Then, you can say that this was one way in which people rated themselves higher than their group, but the general trend was the other way.

P14 line 7-18. This is a useful observation, but could you do more to contribute to the pluralistic ignorance phenomenon? Here, your findings help to confirm that people underestimate how much others care about climate, but you also show that they rate their own responsibilities and capabilities as lower than their peers. So, the pluralistic ignorance phenomenon appears to be limited to motivation and intention, but is reversed with regards responsibility, capability and current action.