Enhancing Shoppers’ Experiences and Building Mall Loyalty: The Role of Octomodal Mental Imagery (OMI) and Management Dimension-Evidence from the Yangtze River Delta Region of China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The research presented in the article is interesting, the initial argumentative thread gives a broad knowledge of the subject of study and the variables in which the researchers' attention is focused. The sources used are relevant and support the author’s claims.
I believe that the main problem lies in the broad hypothesis approach, this disperses the reader’s attention and does not connect adequately with the presentation of the results. It would be important to try to group them to give force to what is exposed in it, or to reconstruct the presentation of results according to each of them.
The methodology is clear and properly explained. The instrument is consistent with the approach that is brought. The. author shows how his construction and testing process was, which gives validity to the same and the sample that is collected. The presentation of results provides a series of variables in tables that are little analyzed, questioned and confronted by the author. It would be important to review this construction of results, to give significance to the numbers that are provided.
The development of the results does not account for the large number of hypotheses raised except in a table provided in the text. The auditory issue in the construction of the mental image should lead to a wide discussion, since it has a society with a strongly impacted visual component, but which in turn lost the notion of the importance of sound in communication. You cannot lose sight of the sensations, the association value of the sound elements. Semiotic references that from a sound generates images and stories in the imagination of the receiver.
As the sound theme there are several themes that remain loose in the development of the conclusions. I believe that the author should focus on specific aspects and assess whether two could emerge from this text.
Author Response
- Thank you for allowing us to revise our manuscript. Please see the attachment。
We have studied the comments carefully and have made revisions to this paper. The responses to the remarks of four reviewers are offered separately, and the corresponding modification position page in the revised manuscript can be found in the rightmost column of the response table below. Moreover, the revised paragraphs (sentences) are labeled in different colors.
We want to express our great appreciation to you and the reviewers for your comments on our paper.
Thank you and best regards. - Sincerely！
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Author(s),
Thank you for your paper. These are some revisions suggested, as I believe this paper would be a great fit for the journal:
“Title”. Looks like conclusions are based only on a very specific public from one specific region and country, mainly Undergraduates young people with lowest income from Yangtze River Delta region of China, it needs to be specified, title and hypotheses need to be adjusted. Especially important to demonstrate that people with low income can be considerate as the typical consumer of the malls.
“Abstract:” needs to be restricted. It is confusing. mentioned, why the topic is important. How does it address a specific gap in the field? Only in line 46 OMI appears correctly abbreviated. The promise made about « important implications for mall managers to improve their competitive advantage. « needs to be fullfield in the conclusion
“Introduction”: needs to have a clear relation with the title of the paper from the beginning. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
”sample design”. how did the author guarantee it with online data collection? What kind of probabilistic sample design was used? What are the results of the pre-test? Why we consider the sample representative form the population?
Survey. What is the set of the questions and how they were selected? Why the construct can be considered valid?
” Population”. Needs to be explained why the surveyed population is the appropriate to the study purpose? Young people often use headphones when shop. Can it be an explanation of the results for the Auditory parameter?
” dates”. The dates of the study are not clear.
Originality. The author(s) should illustrate how this research differs from the literature in the field / or considered a contribution to the literature. The novelty of the study is not clear.
There are several conclusions about similar studies made by other authors. It is relevant to underline at what points this research is novel.
The implications section is missing: What are the implications of this article in the literature? Who and how do these results help (both scientifically and professionally)? Please, improve the explanations of what we have learned, develop and extend the managerial implications.
Thank you again for your work, and I wish you all the best in your future research!
Author Response
- Thank you for allowing us to revise our manuscript. Please see the attachment。
We have studied the comments carefully and have made revisions to this paper. The responses to the remarks of four reviewers are offered separately, and the corresponding modification position page in the revised manuscript can be found in the rightmost column of the response table below. Moreover, the revised paragraphs (sentences) are labeled in different colors.
We want to express our great appreciation to you and the reviewers for your comments on our paper.
Thank you and best regards. - Sincerely！
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Based on my assessment, I provide below my comments and recommendations for the authors.
Abstract:
The abstract does not provide any background information about the previous studies or theories related to the impact of mental imagery and management dimensions on shoppers' experience and loyalty. Without this context, it is difficult to understand the novelty or significance of the study.
The abstract briefly mentions using a questionnaire (methodology) to collect data, but it does not provide details about the sample size, or the methodology used for data analysis. These details are important for evaluating the reliability and validity of the study.
Introduction:
The introduction lacks a clear and concise structure. It jumps between different ideas and statements without a smooth flow or logical progression. This can make it difficult for readers to understand the main points and arguments being presented.
While the introduction mentions the rise of shopping mall closures and the impact of online shopping, it lacks specific statistics or data to support these claims. Providing relevant quantitative data or previous research findings would strengthen the introduction's credibility and contextual understanding. Also, the introduction briefly mentions some concepts and theories related to shoppers' experience, mall loyalty, and motivational orientations. However, it lacks a comprehensive review of the relevant literature. A more thorough review of previous studies would provide a stronger theoretical foundation for the research and help identify the research gap.
Although the introduction mentions previous studies in a few instances, it does not provide sufficient references or citations to support the statements made. This can make it challenging for readers to verify the claims and understand the existing knowledge gap.
The introduction does not clearly (or directly) state the research objectives or research questions that the study aims to address. This omission makes it difficult for readers to grasp the specific focus and purpose of the research.
The introduction does not include a clear and concise thesis statement that summarizes the main argument or contribution of the study. A well-defined thesis statement would provide readers with a clear understanding of the study's purpose and direction. For instance, we don’t know why authors using Octomodal Mental Imagery (OMI) as a main part of the research model.
The introduction part also does not provide any rationale or justification for the chosen research methodology. It would be beneficial to explain which method and why the was selected and how it aligns with the research objectives.
Overall, the introduction could benefit from a clearer structure, more thorough background information and literature review, explicit research objectives, better integration of citations, a well-defined thesis statement, justification of the chosen methodology, and a more detailed discussion of implications.
Literature review and hypothesis:
In order to provide a comprehensive understanding of shoppers' experience, it is crucial to dedicate a specific section to clarify its dimensions and components. By doing so, researchers can establish a solid foundation for hypothesis development and subsequent analysis. This focused section will allow for a thorough exploration of the various factors that contribute to shoppers' experience and their potential impact on consumer behavior. By clarifying the concept of shoppers' experience and its underlying dimensions, researchers can then formulate hypotheses that are grounded in a well-defined theoretical framework. This approach ensures that the research study is guided by a clear set of expectations and objectives, enabling meaningful insights to be generated from the subsequent analysis. Furthermore, by explicitly outlining the dimensions of shoppers' experience, researchers can better understand the complex interplay between these factors and their influence on consumer decision-making processes. This enhanced understanding will contribute to the development of effective strategies and interventions for improving the overall shopping experience and enhancing customer satisfaction and loyalty.
The decision to incorporate three dimensions of mall management in this study may appear unclear without further explanation. However, the choice to consider these specific dimensions stems from their recognized significance in influencing shoppers' experience and subsequent consumer behavior.
Sampling and data collection:
The section does not provide details about the sampling procedure employed in the study. It is essential to explain how the participants were selected and whether any sampling biases or limitations might be present. Without this information, it is challenging to assess the representativeness and generalizability of the findings. The text also does not mention how the participants were recruited or whether any specific criteria were used to ensure a diverse and representative sample. If participants were self-selected or recruited from a specific population, it may introduce selection bias and limit the external validity of the findings. Further, the manuscript does not mention any measures taken to ensure the quality and reliability of the collected data. It is crucial to discuss steps such as data validation, data cleaning procedures, or any strategies implemented to minimize errors or biases in the data collection process.
The pre-test data collection involved only 48 participants. While it can provide some initial feedback on the questionnaire, the small sample size may limit the generalizability of the findings. Moreover, the section does not mention the non-response rate or any efforts made to address non-response bias. If a significant proportion of participants did not respond to the questionnaire, it may introduce bias and affect the reliability and validity of the findings.
Authors mention filtering out a portion of the data where participants did not select a specific item in the questionnaire. However, it does not provide a clear rationale for this filtering or explain the potential impact it may have on the final sample size and data analysis. It is important to address how data filtering decisions were made and justify their necessity.
Result:
In order to examine and address potential self-biases, it is crucial to report the one-factor Harman bias test. This test allows researchers to assess whether common method variance, specifically stemming from self-report measures, significantly influences the study's results. Also, to establish discriminant validity, it is crucial to report the Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations. This metric provides a quantitative measure to assess the distinctiveness between constructs and ensure that they are capturing unique variance. This information is valuable in determining whether the measurement instruments used in the study effectively differentiate between the constructs of interest or if there is potential for construct overlap or redundancy.
Conclusion
The theoretical contribution part briefly mentions that the study contributes to existing literature, but it does not provide a comprehensive synthesis or discussion of how the findings align with or expand upon previous research. A more thorough integration with the existing body of knowledge would strengthen the conclusion and highlight the study's unique contributions. Also, the contribution briefly mentions the need for future in-depth exploration of the relationship between shoppers' experience and consumer behavior but does not provide specific research directions or areas that require further investigation.
The conclusion uses repetitive phrases and general statements without providing specific details or elaboration. This vagueness weakens the overall clarity and impact of the conclusion, making it less convincing and informative.
The overall quality of English in the manuscript is satisfactory, with clear and understandable language. However, there are a few areas that require attention and improvement:
Some sentences are excessively long and complex, leading to a lack of clarity and difficulty in understanding the intended meaning. Consider simplifying and breaking down these sentences into shorter, more concise ones. Also, there were instances where incorrect prepositions were used, leading to confusion and ambiguity. Review and correct the usage of prepositions throughout the manuscript to ensure accuracy. I recommend conducting a thorough proofreading of the entire manuscript to identify and rectify any remaining language errors, typos, or inconsistencies.
Author Response
- Thank you for allowing us to revise our manuscript. Please see the attachment。
We have studied the comments carefully and have made revisions to this paper. The responses to the remarks of four reviewers are offered separately, and the corresponding modification position page in the revised manuscript can be found in the rightmost column of the response table below. Moreover, the revised paragraphs (sentences) are labeled in different colors.
We want to express our great appreciation to you and the reviewers for your comments on our paper.
Thank you and best regards. - Sincerely！
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
This paper proposes the impact of mental imagery (OMI) and management dimensions on shoppers' experience and loyalty to the mall.
In the abstract, there is an extra capital letter in the sentence: “it was found that The results showed”.
Line 118-119: position of citation is wrong: [12]Grouped shopping mall management dimensions into three independent variables: accessibility, tenant mix, and entertainment
In order to justify the remove of participants in the “3.2 Sampling and Data Collection”, you should cite Oppenheimer with IMC (Instructional Manipulation Check).
The figure3 is not clear. Please complete the labels.
The authors analyzed data from a sample of 358 questionnaires and the results are very interesting.
In short, the study is really interesting!
However, I raise an if here: regarding auditory stimuli.
I remind the authors of all the works and experiences that prove the influence of music on the behavior of individuals (in stores, train stations, and even in shopping centers). In conclusion, they all show that the faster the music, the faster the customer finishes the meal or walks faster in terms of walking. Like others, they show that classical music makes us more aware of our surroundings. As such, it is difficult for me to agree with the result regarding the non-influence of auditory effects.
Talking about what you hear and listening to something are not the same thing.
Was there no problem/influence with the translation of the items related to this dimension?
I had a great interest and pleasure in reading this first version of the paper, may the authors be thanked and encouraged.
I give this paper a favorable opinion.
Author Response
- Thank you for allowing us to revise our manuscript. Please see the attachment。
We have studied the comments carefully and have made revisions to this paper. The responses to the remarks of four reviewers are offered separately, and the corresponding modification position page in the revised manuscript can be found in the rightmost column of the response table below. Moreover, the revised paragraphs (sentences) are labeled in different colors.
We want to express our great appreciation to you and the reviewers for your comments on our paper.
Thank you and best regards. - Sincerely！
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I believe that the authors have made a judicious analysis of the reviewers' comments. The changes made to the text give greater clarity to the research exposed and is ready for publication. I believe that the text is of relevance, consultation and citation for future work.
Reviewer 3 Report
The prior comments were taken into account in the revision.
Although the English language is generally satisfactory, certain sentences can be enhanced by modifying their sentence structure. By making changes to the structure of these sentences, their quality can be improved.
