Analysis on Consumers’ Purchase and Shopping Well-Being in Online Shopping Carnivals with Two Motivational Dimensions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study investigates the factors affecting online shopping intentions in online shopping carnivals. I have the following concerns. 

- What is the research question the study tried to answer?

- What is the theoretical background of the research model? On what basis those different factors are selected? 

- Why the monetary saving has no effect on utilitarian or hedonic values?

- If the “shopping well-being” is modeled as a formative construct. Then why in Table 2, the construct has loadings. Formative has weights. 

- I believe, the social interaction is more a formative construct than a “shopping well-being”. 

Author Response

 387870 for reviewer 1

We invited other scholars together to modify our article. This paper was completely revised to enhance its readability. Approximately 60% of the content of this paper was revised based on the reviewer’s comments. We used the "Track Changes" function in Microsoft Word, so that changes are easily visible to the editors and reviewers. Our paper has been polished by the editorial department. The spelling and grammar of this study has been double edited by professional English editors.

We sincerely thank for the review and valuable opinions again that helped us modify this article successfully; the comments helped greatly enhance the study and improve easy understanding, readability, quality and contribution. Thanks again.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1). There are overlaps between major constructs and the arguments being made regarding the construct definitions are not strong enough. For example, the hedonic and utilitarian values are respectively defined using two dimensions, which in my opinion lacks theoretical soundness. Utilitarian values in a shopping context can go beyond merely selection and convenience. In fact, although monetary saving is listed as a separate motivational factor, it can also fall under the utilitarian category given people may be taking advantage of these online shopping events for the discount benefits and that is very much a functional benefit of the event. I believe this part needs major rework and I encourage the authors to provide more robust theoretical support regarding the motivational factors and consider all dimensions of such factors. 

2). The paper lacks main/overarching theoretical reasoning. In other words, the relationships between constructs seemed to be linked through binary theoretical reasonings, and it is unclear to me what overarching theory/theories might have led to the authors creating such a framework. This is important because it seems that intent to purchase is the focal construct and the authors have identified antecedents and consequences and argue that actual purchase should not be the sole consequence and that shopping well-being is of importance as well. Without strong overarching theoretical support, it is unconvincing to me that the contribution is scientific-oriented. Rather, it seems to be data-driven and measurement-oriented. This part needs a lot of rework in my opinion and I encourage the authors to think deeper about what the main theoretical contribution is, and what is the overarching theoretical support. 

3). This research clearly needs more meaningful discussions of the results. Currently, it looks like the discussion part is really put together in a hurry with underdeveloped theoretical and managerial implications. Again, I encourage the authors to think deeper why they started to conduct this research at first place and not just focus on creating a framework and empirically test it. 

Author Response

87870 for reviewer 2

We invited other scholars together to modify our article. This paper was completely revised to enhance its readability. Approximately 60% of the content of this paper was revised based on the reviewer’s comments. We used the "Track Changes" function in Microsoft Word, so that changes are easily visible to the editors and reviewers. Our paper has been polished by the editorial department. The spelling and grammar of this study has been double edited by professional English editors.

We sincerely thank for the review and valuable opinions again that helped us modify this article successfully; the comments helped greatly enhance the study and improve easy understanding, readability, quality and contribution. Thanks again.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I would like to thank the authors for the opportunity to review their work. I find it very interesting and relevant in todays business environment and I like how you examine the factors under the prism of hedonic and utilitarian motivations. I feel however that there is some literature missing from your discussion on such factors and the underlying dimensions. For instance there is some work by Mikalef et al., 2013 and Mikalef et al., 2012 which is highly relevant. I would suggest you include a short discussion about how your work fits into this context. Perhaps they can be used as a basis to expand section 2.1. 

Mikalef, P., Giannakos, M., & Pateli, A. (2013). Shopping and word-of-mouth intentions on social media. Journal of theoretical and applied electronic commerce research, 8(1), 17-34.

Mikalef, P., Giannakos, M. N., & Pateli, A. G. (2012, June). Exploring the Business Potential of Social Media: An Utilitarian and Hedonic Motivation Approach. In Bled eConference (p. 21).

There is also some interesting work by Zhang and Benyouceff on a literature review when examining such factors.

Zhang, K. Z., & Benyoucef, M. (2016). Consumer behavior in social commerce: A literature review. Decision Support Systems, 86, 95-108.

On the section of the practical implications, another work by the same authors in which they look at factors affecting design and usage of platforms for commerce is that of Mikalef et al., 2017

Mikalef, P., Giannakos, M. N., & Pappas, I. O. (2017). Designing social commerce platforms based on consumers’ intentions. Behaviour & Information Technology, 36(12), 1308-1327.

This is a good paper to expand your practical implications and perhaps compare and contrast findings.

Best of luck with revisions and I look forward to see the revised version.

Author Response

87870 for reviewer 3

We invited other scholars together to modify our article. This paper was completely revised to enhance its readability. Approximately 60% of the content of this paper was revised based on the reviewer’s comments. We used the "Track Changes" function in Microsoft Word, so that changes are easily visible to the editors and reviewers. Our paper has been polished by the editorial department. The spelling and grammar of this study has been double edited by professional English editors.

We sincerely thank for the review and valuable opinions again that helped us modify this article successfully; the comments helped greatly enhance the study and improve easy understanding, readability, quality and contribution. Thanks again.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Although the authors provide a description of the reference scenario, the introduction is deficient and not capable of clearly stigmatizing the objectives of the research and the contribution to the literature. May I suggest that the authors provide a more compelling motivation for the paper.     The hypotheses are not well structured. It is difficult to follow the theoretical argumentations. I  strongly recommend reviewing the introduction. Moreover, it could be helpful the provision of a separate paragraph "Theoretical Background" before hypotheses. Please embed your work into the literature with a clear indication of your contribution. 

You have identified the relationship between monetary saving, utilitarian and hedonic shopping value without verifying the potential impact of monetary saving on intentions to buy and shopping well-being. There is not much novelty in this approach. The application may be new but this is not sufficient to make a contribution. Furthermore, there are number of mediating variables in the model but there is no mediation analysis on the data. 

The above-mentioned weaknesses inevitably compromise the quality of the final discussion in terms of both theoretical and practical aspects. Therefore, a deep and well-structured revision is needed in order to provide a more valid framework.

Author Response

87870 for reviewer 4

We invited other scholars together to modify our article. This paper was completely revised to enhance its readability. Approximately 60% of the content of this paper was revised based on the reviewer’s comments. We used the "Track Changes" function in Microsoft Word, so that changes are easily visible to the editors and reviewers. Our paper has been polished by the editorial department. The spelling and grammar of this study has been double edited by professional English editors.

We sincerely thank for the review and valuable opinions again that helped us modify this article successfully; the comments helped greatly enhance the study and improve easy understanding, readability, quality and contribution. Thanks again.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All the comments I raised are now addressed. 

Authors need to proofread the article again. Minor formatting issues are also there.

Reviewer 4 Report

Authors addressed the concerns raised and the work has improved both in terms of structure and data analysis.