The Green-Awakening Customer Attitudes towards Buying Green Products on an Online Platform in Thailand: The Multigroup Moderation Effects of Age, Gender, and Income

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks for giving me such an opportunity to review a paper entitled " Buying Green Products on an Online Platform in Thailand: The Multigroup Moderation Effects of Age, Gender, and Income”

 

The topic of this paper is relevant, but from my point of view, the paper has some issues which should be improved. In my opinion, the revised version should undergo a new assessment process.

1-    Please mention the program employed to analyze the collected data in the abstract.

2-    The main focus is to test the multigroup moderation effects; please mention these results in the abstract.   

3-    The research gap is well written

4-    Please remove the underlining in the measures section.

5-    Please elaborate and justify the employed data analysis techniques

6-    Please report the CFA model as an output from the Amos program with all correlations and path coefficients; similarly report the structural model with all path coefficients.

 

7-    In the practical implication section remove numbering and report the implication as a critical discussion, not pullet or numbers.  

Author Response

Reply to reviewer 1: Thank you for your valuable comments, which we highly appreciate. We revised and responded to the above comments as follows:

1. We added one sentence to identify the SPSS Amos program employed to analyze the collected data in the abstract. You’ll find it in the abstract section with yellow highlight.
2. We also added that the main focus is to test the multigroup moderation effects and the results in the abstract. You’ll find it in the abstract section with yellow highlights.
3. Thank you for your valuable compliment. We will keep this compliment as an encouragement for our next work.
4. We removed the underlining in the measures section. You’ll find it in the section 3.2 Measures.
5. We added the rationale behind the employed data analysis techniques – multigroup moderation analysis. You’ll find it in section 4. Data Analysis and results with yellow highlight.
6. All correlation and path coefficients were newly provided. You’ll find it in Table 4, 5, and 6.
7. We removed the numbering and reported the implication as a critical discussion. You’ll find it in section 5.2. Practical implications.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1.Define "green-awakening consumer".

2.Since the study is about "The Multigroup Moderation Effects of Age, Gender, and Income", it is suggested to highlight the result of moderating effects in the last parts of the article abstract.

3.For group comparison, usually the minimum sample size for group is 30, otherwise the comparison result maybe biased or lack of representation.

4. The result of H1 and H2 need to be highlighted.

5.Please explain the sampling process of  The Green-Awakening Consumer who use online platform to purchase green products.

6. Define green products in this study.

 

Author Response

Reply to reviewer 2: Thank you for your valuable comments, which we highly appreciate. We revised and responded to the above comments as follows:

1. We added the definition of green-awakening consumer attitudes in the literature review sections. You’ll find them in section 2.2. Green-awakening customer attitude changes to purchase green products on an online platform with yellow highlights.
2. We also added that the focus is to test the multigroup moderation effects and the results of moderating effects in the abstract. You’ll find it in the abstract section with yellow highlights.
3. For group comparison, we used the minimum sample size of 100 for each group, which was more than 30. Therefore, bias and lack of representation may not be present.
4. We added the results of H1, H2, and H3 according to your comments. You’ll find it in Table 8.
5. We added the inclusion criteria for sample selection and explained the sampling process. You’ll find it in section 3.1. Sampling and data collection with yellow highlights.
6. We added the definition of green products in both sections of the introduction and literature review. You’ll find them in both sections with yellow highlights.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1. Please provide your research model and include AMOS output results

2. See attached for sample tables related to correlation and data analysis presentation.

3, Make sure your conclusions are based on your hypotheses.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reply to reviewer 3: Thank you for your valuable comments, which we highly appreciate. We revised and responded to the above comments as follows:

1. We provided our research model and represented AMOS output results in Figure 3, 4, and 5.
2. We added the correlation analysis and HTMT discriminant validity. You’ll find it in Table 4 and 5.
3. We revised our conclusion based on our hypotheses according to your comments. You’ll find it in the conclusion section with yellow highlights.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you very much for this manuscript. I have read your article with great interest. Below you will find my comments, arranged according to the respective chapters of the text.

The introduction is very detailed and provides a good thematic introduction. The research questions were well derived from the relevant literature. I also liked the concluding summary of the most important contributions to the research. However, there was one thing that I found a little lacking. Indeed, I would have expected a short definition at the beginning, what exactly is a green product? What do the authors include under this product category? The question is also relevant with regard to the later empirical analysis.

The literature review is combined with the derivation of research hypotheses. This is a straightforward approach that I like. However, some hypotheses could have been better justified theoretically, especially since constructs such as relative advantage or compatibility can be well grounded in adoption theory.

The methodological approach is well described. I also find the data basis of the study convincing. Furthermore, I did not notice any inconsistencies in the statistical key figures on model quality. The presentation of the results also impressed me.

The discussion chapter is detailed. The practical and theoretical relevance of the results is well presented. Research outlooks and limitations are also indicated.

I did not notice any language or formatting errors.

Since I consider the quality of the manuscript to be high, I will make a publication recommendation. However, I would appreciate it if the authors would incorporate my minor comments before publication to further improve the quality of their work.

Thanks again for this very well done paper.

Author Response

Reply to reviewer 4: Thank you for your valuable comments, which we highly appreciate. We revised and responded to the above comments as follows:

1. We added and explained what green products are exactly defined in this study, and their category is focused on eco-friendly home consumption items. You’ll find it in section 1. Introduction and 2. Literature review.
2. We revised and adjusted our hypotheses development according to your comment. You’ll find it in section 2. Literature review.
3. Thank you for your valuable compliment. We will keep this compliment as an encouragement for our next work.
4. Thank you for your valuable compliment. We will keep this compliment as an encouragement for our next work.
5. Thank you for your valuable comment. However, we would have checked our language and formatting errors once again before resubmitting to the system.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

can accept in its current form 

Author Response

Reply to reviewer 1: Thank you for your valuable recommendation to accept our paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed reviewers concerns and is ready to proceed for publication.

Author Response

Reply to reviewer 2: Thank you for your valuable recommendation to accept our paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Here are my comments:

• Thank you for your effort in taking care of the revisions
• There are two H6 in hypothesis development.
• Please explain the purpose of Table 5.
• Please include the actual AMOS model in your paper, including the actual AMOS standardized vales
• Please include some writing before each table to describe the purpose of your table and what it represents
• Please include a note for ALL abbreviations of your valuables and item under each table
• Thank you for figures 3, 4 and 5

Author Response

Reply to reviewer 3: Thank you for your valuable comments. We highly appreciate such comments. Here is what we added to respond to your focal points, as follows:

1. We carefully edited the repetition of Hypothesis 6 in the literature review section. One was changed to H7. You’ll find it in yellow highlights.
2. We added the explanation of the purpose of Table 5. You’ll find it in yellow highlights.
3. We included the actual AMOS model with standardized regression weights in our paper, as it was posted in Appendix B. You’ll find it in yellow highlights.
4. We added some introducing phrases or linking sentences before each table to describe the purpose of our table and what it represents. You’ll find it in yellow highlights.
5. We added a note for ALL abbreviations of variables of interest and items under each table. You’ll find it in yellow highlights.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the revisions. Please consider the following.

1. Your presentation of data and table formats needs improving.

2. Tables and figures should be explained right before they appear. 

3. Do not cram all explanations two pages before seeing the actual tables. 

4. Table 1 in P. 13 is out of page boundaries. (see attached manuscript that I have received)

5. Table 3 ~ Table 6 should be separated by a paragraph to introduce the tables. 

6. Be consistent in your table format and table size. 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reply to reviewer 3: Thank you for your valuable comments. We highly appreciate such comments. Here is what we added to respond to your focal points, as follows:

1. We improved the presentation of data and table formats. You’ll find it in the improved Table 1.
2. We put the explanations for tables and figures right before they appear. As we made the explanations better and shorter, we moved the explanations closer to each other. 
3. We tried to make them close each of their explanations. Some may not be applicable because they come to the same pattern of figure presentation, like Figures 3, 4, and 5 or even Tables 6, 7, and 8.
4. Table 1 has been improved according to your comment.
5. Tables 3 and 6 have been improved by separating them into paragraphs to introduce the tables. It means that we kept Tables 2, 3, and 4 together after the explanations of such Tables had been introduced.
6. We have improved our table formats and sizes according to your comment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf