International Students’ Nostalgic Behaviour towards the Purchase of Products and Services

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General Comments

·        There are numerous grammatical errors and sentence structure errors that made it difficult to understand the flow, logic, and reasoning behind this study. Please thoroughly revise.

·        Objectives, methodologies, findings, and implications of this study need to be written in past tense.

·        Introduction and Literature Review sections could use more detailed elaboration and clarification on concepts and existing research findings. These would really help to highlight the existing knowledge gaps and how they are addressed by this study. I am also concerned that the authors mentioned “the theory of consumer behavior” on multiple occasions, but I am not sure what they were referring to. A more focused discussion on the theory they were referring to would help to improve the Introduction and Literature Review sections.

·        Methodology section is missing a concerning amount of information regarding their respondents/participants. Participant breakdown needs to be included. Considering their participant breakdown, did the authors expect any biases in their findings?

·        Findings section needs to be revised thoroughly. In general, more detailed reasoning as to why each analysis was conducted needs to be included. For example, “coefficient of determination” of what?

·        Discussion section needs to be significantly improved to really address the existing knowledge gaps and motivation behind this research. It appeared that many of the findings were already confirmed by previous studies, which down-played the importance of the findings in the present study. Many of the referenced literature provided information and were relatively relevant to the findings, but the authors need to link how the findings of these previous studies could help explain the findings and hypotheses proposed in this study more clearly. A sub-section on the limitations of this study would also be helpful.

 

 

Abstract

·        Keep your tenses consistent. Sentences regarding the present study need to be in past tense. Implications and background information can be in present tense.

·        Include number of sample size, gender, and age information

·        University names not needed; just mention where the universities are (i.e., Malaysia)

·        Line 23-24: “The findings of this research...” – this needs to be moved after the sentence regarding the findings of this study (see next point)

·        Include a sentence regarding the findings of this study in greater detail

·        Line 26: “arouse” – did you mean “arose”?

 

Introduction

·        Please fix grammatical errors. When talking about previous studies, it is generally acceptable to use present perfect or continuous tense. When talking about the present study, please use past tense as you have already conducted your research.

·        Line 36: Revise the first sentence of the Introduction paragraph. Delete “The”.

·        Line 37: Delete “the” in “In the earlier studies...”

·        Lines 41-42: If you have the reference for this cited (as reference #6), no need to mention “highlighted by...”

·        Lines 42-43: “The behavior of any consumer...” – revise this sentence; it does not make sense

·        Line 43: What is “far side”? Revise this sentence

·        Lines 43-46: This sentence is a little confusing. The reference cited is specific to the COVID-19 pandemic. Could you provide a more relevant reference to this sentence that covers the scope of other contexts and not just COVID-19 consumer behavior? Consumer behavior has received quite a lot of attention and has been established to be an important parameter for marketing strategies, so this sentence is not exactly accurate.

·        Lines 46-47: Revise this sentence. It is obvious that studies regarding consumer behavior would be related to consumer attitude and behavior. Link consumer behavior and attitude to purchase decision and consumption preference by revising this sentence and providing other references.

·        Line 49: change “discuss” to “have discussed”

·        Lines 50-51: “Similarly, cognitive dissonance...” – please elaborate how cognitive dissonance and socialization theory are related to consumer behavior. Here is also a good space to briefly explain what cognitive dissonance and socialization theory are.

·        Line 52: Please provide more than just one reference if there are “studies”

·        Line 53-54: “This gap is highlighted...” – delete this sentence as you have already cited this reference in the previous sentence

·        Line 56: “perceptive” – Did you mean “perspective”?

·        Lines 56-57: Revise this sentence “In the same way...” – this can be better expressed

·        Lines 58-59: Revise this sentence “In this way...” – this can be better expressed; grammatically incorrect

·        Line 62: “perceptive” – Did you mean “perspective”?

·        Lines 62-63: Elaborate on “feelings of groundedness”. What is it? How does it relate to consumer behavior? Please find other references and clarify.

·        Lines 63-64: What was the research gap mentioned by Eichinger et al.? Clarify here

·        Line 64: “New way” – in what way was this study “new”? Elaborate

·        Lines 68-70: If this was the secondary objective, what was the primary objective? Clarify

·        Lines 76-81: “In addition...” – these sentences are better suited for the Implications & Future Directions sections

 

Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

·        Please fix grammatical errors. I mentioned a few here but there are other major concerns regarding the structures and grammar of numerous sentences.

·        If you are citing the references anyway with the reference numbers, you do not need to include sentences like “discussed by...” and “XXX et al. mentioned”. Please thoroughly review.

·        Lines 86-87: Revise this sentence “In cultural services...” – this can be better expressed

·        Line 87: “In the American culture, the takeway” – delete both “the”

·        Line 88: What is “the best”? More convenient? More preferred? Clarify. Please avoid using subjective expressions like “the best”

·        Lines 92-93: “Sushi” should start with lowercase

·        Line 94: See comment on line 88 – what is “well”? Well in a sense that they feel pleased? Is it from a health perspective? Nostalgia perspective?

·        Lines 97, 106, 116, 150: Do not use absolutes like “always”. This is not accurate for all contexts. You can use “often” or “frequently” if that was what you meant.

·        Line 100: “Significantly” is not the appropriate word to start this sentence – revise.

·        Line 100: Delete “according to...” – just cite the reference at the end of the sentence

·        Line 102: “...due to the effective...” – delete “the”

·        Line 102: Change “logistics system” to “logistic systems”

·        Lines 112-113: The two hypotheses need to be rephrased. “Moving homes” is not an appropriate name for a variable”. People could move homes and still be living in the same country/culture. Please select a different variable name.

·        Line 117: Who are “they”?

·        Line 125: The comma is at the wrong place here

·        Line 126: What is “true representation”? Revise

·        Lines 130-133: Revise this sentence – it does not make sense

·        Line 134: What “values”?

·        Lines 145-147: There needs to be more link mentioned here on how attractiveness being subjective leads to little attention paid to international students and their inability to find products with cultural associations. Also, this sentence is grammatically incorrect.

·        Line 147: “Consumers purchase...” – Revise this sentence and provide references.

·        Lines 150, 155: What do you mean by “mature”? Either revise this sentence by using a different word other than “mature” or elaborate

·        Line 153: Do not abbreviate “don’t”

·        Line 154: What do you mean by “destruction”? Destruction from what?

·        Line 154: I noticed you use the phrase “a lot” throughout this manuscript. You could benefit by using a different phrase or word to replace this, like “numerous” or “variation” or “differing” to improve the academic soundness of this manuscript

·        Lines 157-158: This sentence is structurally incorrect. Please revise.

·        Lines 180-188: “Moving homes” in these hypotheses could be revised. Consider referring to it with a different term.

·        Figure 1 – some of the terms here are slightly cut-out – please revise (e.g., “product & service” box – this was meant to be “product & service attractiveness”)

·        Figure 1 – hypotheses 7-9 are not represented in this figure – please revise figure to include these and also indicate on this figure which line represents which hypothesis

 

Methodology

·        Line 192: “Survey-based collection” is one methodology that is used in social sciences, but it is not the only one. This sentence reads like surveys are the only means of collecting data in this field. Please revise to avoid this miscommunication.

·        Line 194: Survey-based collection using other scales also save time and cost, not just Likert scale. Revise this sentence.

·        Lines 195-196: “For this study...” this sentence is unclear. Revise.

·        Lines 195-196: I am confused how you determined what phrases to include in the measurement scales (e.g., “I accept my new resident”). How did you find these and determine to include these? How did you determine which phrases should be grouped with the separate variables?

·        Line 197: “experts” in what field?

·        Line 198: Remove “positive” in “positive feedback”

·        Lines 195-200: These two sentences can be combined.

·        Line 201: Change “the pilot study” to “a pilot study”

·        Line 202: Need more information about the participants in pilot study. For example, how many participants? Gender ratio? Age? Country of origin? Fields of PhD? How many years have they lived in Malaysia? Relevant information need to be included

·        Line 213: First sentence not necessary

·        Line 215: Why was 5-pt. Likert scale used? There have been studies/reviews of Likert scale length (e.g., Finstad, 2010 and Taherdoost, 2019 https://ssrn.com/abstract=4178693) highlighting the increased sensitivity of longer scale length and recommendation for usage of 7-pt. Likert scale

·        Lines 215-219: Information regarding the two research scholar volunteer to help with data collection can be more succinct. Revise.

·        Lines 220-223: Respondent demographic breakdown is needed (e.g., age, gender ratio, country of origin, and other relevant data). A table would be helpful to provide this information.

·        Lines 223-225: Information from survey data should always be confidential. The sentence “The respondents ensured...” is not needed

·        Line 225: There should be very few instances that pilot study results are included in the final data analysis. I am confused why this sentence was even included at all as it is usually assumed pilot study results were constrained to just the pilot study and not the main study. Also, “piolet” was misspelled.

 

Findings

·        “Smart PLS Bootstrapping” – Include software & version information used

·        All figure and table captions in this section need to be revised. They need to be more detailed and descriptive.

·        Line 228: “On the one hand...” – remove “the”

·        Lines 228-231: If you are using the same word (e.g., “ascertaining” in this case) in the same sentence to list concepts, just use the word once. This sentence also needs to be revised for grammatical error.

·        Figure 2 – “Determineation” – typo

·        Figure 2 – Did you mean “structural model assessment”? Keep the terms consistent

·        Figure 2 – PLS should not be abbreviated. What does “PLS” stand for? Terms should not be abbreviated in the first instance that they are mentioned

·        Line 237: comma missing

·        Line 241: “platykurtik” – typo

·        Line 241: Details regarding how you determined kurtosis and skewness to be normal need to be included here before this sentence. In Table 2, I am seeing a variety of – and + values for both kurtosis and skewness. How did you determine that these values contribute to the normality of the data? You can then rephrase this sentence to something like “Therefore, the kurtosis and skewness of this study were determined to be normal”.

·        Table 2 – this table caption needs to be more descriptive. Kurtosis and skewness of what?

·        Table 2 – If you cannot fit “standard deviation” in one column, move “deviation” to the next line so “deviation” is not cut-off. Same with “kurtosis”.

·        Table 2 – Missing column not needed

·        Line 248 – do not abbreviate PLS if this is the first time you are mentioning this.

·        Line 253: “recommendations of” – of what?

·        Lines 253-255: Maybe rephrase “must be” or clarify this whole sentence – must be above and below those values to mean what?

·        Figure 3 – please revise the caption. This needs to be more descriptive. For example, what do the values shown here represent?

·        Table 3 – please revise the caption. This needs to be more descriptive. Do not abbreviate CR and AVE. Alternatively, you could include a note to indicate what these terms mean. The note included here is not necessary since these variables were not abbreviated in this table to begin with.

·        Line 273: Keep it consistent. Is it “cross-loading” or “cross loading”?

·        Lines 268-275: This whole section needs to be explained more clearly. How did weak correlations between items of different variables contribute to the finding that the cross-loadings were significant?

·        Tables 4 & 5 – captions need to be more descriptive. Revise.

·        Line 290: “direct impacts tests” – change to “direct impact tests”

·        Lines 290 -304: The P-values listed here need to be exact. If they are very small, you can include, for example, P < 0.001

·        Lines 290-304: You addressed how your findings were related to your hypotheses here, but you need to include statements to indicate whether or not you could accept or fail to accept your hypotheses in this section also.

·        Line 304: Change “check” to “see”

·        Figure 4 and Table 6 – captions need to be more descriptive. Revise.

·        Line 316: The P-values listed here need to be exact. If they are very small, you can include, for example, P < 0.001

·        Tables 6-8: It would be very useful to also include a column to show if the hypotheses were accepted or failed to be accepted. The “Results” column could be excluded as we could see whether or not the results would be significant based on the P­-values. P = 0.000 is not acceptable. If it was very small, use P < 0.001.

·        Figure 5: “Moderator” can be excluded

·        Line 338: Change “is substantial” to “is considered to be substantial”

·        Line 339: Which specific “variable”? Did you mean “variables”? Which “variables”?

·        Table 9: If R and R-adjusted were the same, why did you include both? Choose one. If you chose either, why did you decide to use that value?

·        Line 347: Change “...is small...” to “...is considered small...”

·        Table 11: Do not abbreviate SSO and SSE. Include a note to explain what they are.

 

Discussion

·        I think including a section on limitations of this study would help improve this manuscript.

·        Line 367: Remove “indeed”. Cite references.

·        Line 368: “However...” needs to be a new sentence. This is a run-on sentence.

·        Lines 369-371: Rephrase. Not clear.

·        Line 372: “Moving homes” (as noted earlier) needs to be rephrased as a variable. This applies to the rest of the manuscript.

·        Lines 371-377: List the hypothesis numbers. Also, if these results were similar to earlier studies, what was novel about the findings then?

·        Line 381: “his” should be “their”

·        Line 381: This sentence is not grammatically correct and does not make sense.

·        Lines 381-383: The example from previous study that you mentioned were individuals from advanced and developed countries though? Rephrase this sentence.

·        Line 383: “required by whom?

·        Line 389: Do not abbreviate “can’t”. Also consider using a different word other than “declined”. This does not fit the sentence well.

·        Line 390: Remove “the” from “the consumers...”

·        Line 391: It is obvious that consumer behavior is subjective, so the first part of this sentence is not necessary.

·        Lines 393-395: Considering rephrasing “seventhly”, “eighthly”, and “ninthly”. Also cite the hypothesis number.

·        Line 398: cite the earlier studies. I must also make a note that if these findings were similar to those of previous studies, what was novel about the findings of the present study?

·        Line 403: “...consumers must be nostalgic” – rephrase. This gives the impression that consumers must feel nostalgia to purchase nostalgic products. This is not true for all contexts.

·        Line 409: What is “it”?

·        Line 409: Remove “the” from “the marketers”. Also, did you mean marketing professionals? Industry professionals?

·        Line 409: “required” by whom? Did you mean “recommended”?

·        Lines 409-412: This sentence could be more succinct.

·        Line 413: Again, what is “it”?

·        Lines 413-415: What “positive attitude”? You need to be more specific here. What did you mean? Feelings of nostalgia?

 

Conclusion (this section needs to be the very last section in this manuscript; not third to last)

·        Lines 421-423: Briefly describe what the gaps are and how the findings of this study addressed those gaps.

·        Line 423: Remove “accurate”. This is a personal opinion.

·        Lines 423-425: What were the data analysis methodologies used?

·        Lines 423-425: Brief summary of findings needs to be included here. If possible, please also address if the hypotheses were accepted or not.

·        Line 425: I am confused. What theory of consumer behavior are you referring to? There are many theories and concepted related to consumer behavior.

·        Line 426: What “neglected area of research” are you referring to?

·        Line 428: “...implications are significant”. Please rephrase. Unless you had information that confirmed that successful marketing strategies were truly significantly helped by your findings, please avoid using phrases like this.

·        Line 430: “...fine contribution” – rephrase. This is a subjective opinion.

·        Lines 431-432: Again, what “theory of consumer behavior” are you referring to?

 

Implications

·        Address grammatical errors and confusing sentences here.

·        Please avoid using “need” or “must”. Did you mean “recommended”?

·        Line 459: “complete” – this is quite a stretch. There were other factors not included in this study that would mediate consumer purchase behavior, like willingness to pay, specific visual cues, etc. Rephrase.

·        Line 471: “taste of the packaging” – rephrase

·        Line 483: What is “it”?

 

Future Directions

·        Line 488: “Although” is not the appropriate word to use here. Did you mean “overall”?

·        Line 489: “In this way” – in what way? Rephrase. It is better to use another phrase.

·        Lines 494-496: Rephrase. Grammatical error.

·        I do not agree that only three directions for future research were included here. For one, future research would need to address that the findings of the present study would hold for other cultures and other demographic aspects. Why was “impulsive buying” an important direction for future research? Other directions could also address the feelings of nostalgia and how they can mediate purchase behavior as the authors repeatedly mentioned it in this manuscript. Are feelings of groundedness related to nostalgia?

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for taking his or her valuable time to read our manuscript thoroughly and provide important suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript. We agreed with the reviewer and revised the manuscript as suggested. As per your suggestion, we had the manuscript professionally edited by a native English speaker to polish it. For more details, please see the revised version of the manuscript. All changes have been mentioned using the track changes option in Microsoft Word. We hope it will meet your expectations.

Reviewer 2 Report

The abstract must be revised for academic-flavour. 

Introduction have to echo with the title. The title specific Nostalgic Behaviors but were not mentioned in the introduction. The authors should start from consumer behaviors, then narrow down to nostalgic behaviors, and then cultural service and product, and eventually international student. Moving from major concepts down to minor ones, and then context. 

Line 91, "The cultural products could be perishable or perishable" - Please check

Line 100, "...Significantly, according to [24],..." - Incorrect writing 

2.1 What does "moving homes" means? 

2.2 What is "feeling of groundedness"? These important concepts must be define and explain clearly to facilitate reader's understanding!

Which existing literature does the authors refer to in measuring the proposed model and concepts? In other words, which literatures were refer in building the questionnaire? 

Conclusion should be the last section of the whole research. 

The theoretical and marketing implication are adequate and relavant. 

Proof-reading is a must! 

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for his or her valuable suggestions. We have revised the manuscript based on your suggestions. All changes are mentioned in the manuscript in different colors. The author’s responses are stated below.

Comment 1

The abstract must be revised for academic-flavour.

Response to Issue 1

Dear reviewer, as per your recommendations, the abstract of the study is revised. Thanks

Comment 2

Introduction have to echo with the title. The title specific Nostalgic Behaviors but were not mentioned in the introduction. The authors should start from consumer behaviors, then narrow down to nostalgic behaviors, and then cultural service and product, and eventually international student. Moving from major concepts down to minor ones, and then context.

Response to issue 2

Dear reviewer, as per your recommendations, the introduction section of the research is improved. Kindly, trace the changes.

Comment 3

Line 100, "...Significantly, according to [24],..." - Incorrect writing

Response to issue 3

Dear reviewer, as per your recommendations, this line is corrected. Kindly, trace the changes.

Comment 4

2.1 What does "moving homes" means?

Response to issue 4

“Moving homes is the process of leaving one's dwelling and settling in another.”

Dear reviewer, the main concepts are defined in the study text.

Comment 5

2.2 What is "feeling of groundedness"? These important concepts must be define and explain clearly to facilitate reader's understanding!

Response to issue 5

Respected reviewer, as per your recommendations, the main concept of the study is revised.

Comment 6

Which existing literature does the authors refer to in measuring the proposed model and concepts? In other words, which literatures were refer in building the questionnaire?

Response to issue 6

Dear review, the literature review section is base for the development of the questionnaire in this study. Furthermore, the validity was ensured by the expert researchers.

Comment 7

Conclusion should be the last section of the whole research. 

Response to issue 7

Dear reviewer, thanks for your concern. The conclusion section is presented in the end as per your recommendations.

Comment 8

The theoretical and marketing implication are adequate and relavant.

Response to issue 8

Dear reviewer, thanks for your comments.

Comment 9

Proof-reading is a must!

Response to issue 9

Respected reviewer, as per your directions the manuscript is proofread.

 

Thank you for your valuable time and suggestions. We hope you will like this version of the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Abstract:

·        Line 25 – “aimed” not “aims”

·        Line 25 – “could affect” not “affects”

·        Lines 26-27 – not clear what was meant by “through cultural products and services” – please be more specific. Did you mean “... international consumer purchase behavior of cultural products and services”?

·        Line 30 – “was” not “is”

·        Line 31 – “suggested” not “suggests”

·        Line 32 – “were” not “are”

·        Line 36 – “purchase” not “purchasing”

·        Line 39 – “were” not “are”

 

Introduction

Generally, significant improvements have been made in this section, which is very much appreciated. However, I am still unclear about what the “significant research gaps” were. There was only very little mention of what these gaps were and how previous studies did not highlight these gaps. I think this section would be greatly improved if the authors not only highlight the specific gaps, but also elaborate briefly on what the previous studies failed to include in the context of this field. This would help readers to understand what has been done, what has not been done, and how the present study is helping to contribute to the knowledge gaps. Currently, I am still not convinced that the present study is contributing as much as it says it is.

·        Line 77 – “aimed” not “aims”

·        Line 86 – “bridged” not “bridges”

·        Line 87 – “created” not “creates”

·        Line 92 – “Moving homes...” – citation needed. Also, the quotation marks can start after “... the process...”

·        Line 99 – “...that were not considered in earlier studies” – citation needed. Also, please address what relationships specifically were not considered.

·        Line 101 – “had” not “has”

·        Line 102  - “were” not “are”

·        Line 104 – “availing” should be replaced with a more appropriate word

 

Literature Review

·        Lines 139, 165, 166, 212, 219 – please do not use superlatives like “always” – rephrase

·        I still think ‘moving homes’ should be rephrased to be a different term or phrase

·        Line 195 – “proposed” instead of “advanced” may be better here

·        Line 250 – “proposed” instead of “advanced” may be better here

 

Methodology

·        Line 286 – “shows” instead of “present”

·        The comment regarding why 5-point scale instead of longer scales like 7-point was used in this present study has yet to be addressed from the previous review

·        The previous review also noted that more information regarding participant demographic from the main study needed to be included (gender, age, country of origin, etc.) – this was still not included here in this revision

 

Findings

·        Not all figures have not been corrected! (e.g., revise Figure 2)

·        When talking about the findings of the present study, use past tense

 

Discussion

This section was significantly improved and related the findings of the present study to previous studies better, while also highlighting how the present findings contributed to the knowledge gaps. However, I think the authors could make it more obvious that perhaps the ‘feelings of groundedness’ have not been used as an actual factor in previous studies. Instead, previous studies used nostalgia or other variables to explain consumer purchase behavior. The authors could simply include 1-2 brief sentences to address this.

·        When talking about the findings of the present study, use past tense

·        Line 524 – “literature” typo

·        Line 532 – use another word for “evidenced”

 

Implications

·        When talking about the findings of the present study, use past tense

·        Line 620 – “the purpose of products and services is to delight consumers...” – the present study did not show this, so do not include this. The main focus should be on the inclusion of cultural aspect of products of services.

·        Line 621 – “... the introduction of cultural variety...” – this study did not show that introducing cultural aspects into products could help marketers. This needs to be rephrased to be a recommendation and not as a finding from this study.

·        Line 623-624 – “should” instead of “must”. Also, is there a citation for this?

 

Conclusion and future directions

·        When talking about the findings of the present study, use past tense

·        Line 655 – ‘feeling of groundedness’ – keep it consistent, include apostrophes here

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for these constructive suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript. We have revised the manuscript, and all changes have been mentioned in the manuscript. The correction matrix file is added below.

 

Recommended Changes	Remarks
Abstract Line 25 – “aimed” not “aims” Line 25 – “could affect” not “affects” Lin26-27 – not clear what was meant by “through cultural products and services” – please be more specific. Did you mean “... international consumer purchase behavior of cultural products and services”? Line 30 – “was” not “is” Line 31 – “suggested” not “suggests” Line 32 – “were” not “are” Line 36 – “purchase” not “purchasing” Line 39 – “were” not “are”	Thank you for the comments. All of the suggested changes have been incorporated. The line 26–27 was intended to refer to international students, which is now corrected as per the recommendations of a worthy reviewer.
Introduction Generally, significant improvements have been made in this section, which is very much appreciated. However, I am still unclear about what the “significant research gaps” were. There was only very little mention of what these gaps were and how previous studies did not highlight these gaps. I think this section would be greatly improved if the authors not only highlight the specific gaps, but also elaborate briefly on what the previous studies failed to include in the context of this field. This would help readers to understand what has been done, what has not been done, and how the present study is helping to contribute to the knowledge gaps. Currently, I am still not convinced that the present study is contributing as much as it says it is. Line 77 – “aimed” not “aims” Line 86 – “bridged” not “bridges” Line 87 – “created” not “creates” Line 92 – “Moving homes...” – citation needed. Also, the quotation marks can start after “... the process...” Line 99 – “...that were not considered in earlier studies” – citation needed. Also, please address what relationships specifically were not considered. Line 101 – “had” not “has” Line 102  - “were” not “are” Line 104 – “availing” should be replaced with a more appropriate word	Thank you for the valuable comments. The addition is now made in the introduction to more strongly strengthen the research gap, and the reference to the latest study conducted by Eichinger, Schreier, and van Osselaery Eichinger, Schreier, & van Osselaer (2022) have been given, which indicate that the feeling of groundedness is an important factor that needs to be explored in future studies.   This study makes important contributions by moderating the role of moving homes and mediating the role of feeling of groundedness.   We agreed with all of the comments and incorporated them as suggested by a worthy reviewer.
Literature Review Lines 139, 165, 166, 212, 219 – please do not use superlatives like “always” – rephrase I still think ‘moving homes’ should be rephrased to be a different term or phrase Line 195 – “proposed” instead of “advanced” may be better here Line 250 – “proposed” instead of “advanced” may be better here	Thank you for the comments. Moving homes is taken as a variable in this study, which cannot be rephrased. Its definition is provided in the introduction section of the article.   The rest of the comments have been incorporated.
Methodology Line 286 – “shows” instead of “present” The comment regarding why 5-point scale instead of longer scales like 7-point was used in this present study has yet to be addressed from the previous review The previous review also noted that more information regarding participant demographic from the main study needed to be included (gender, age, country of origin, etc.) – this was still not included here in this revision	Thank you for the comments. The reason for using a 5-point Likert scale is now added to the methodology, and the demographic detail is already given in the methodology under the measurement scale heading.
Findings Not all figures have not been corrected! (e.g., revise Figure 2) When talking about the findings of the present study, use past tense	Thank you for the comments. We did not get the point of what the worthy reviewer meant by a change in the figures. Figures are not manually drawn. All of the figures are extracted from smart PLS software. Figure 2 has been revised in a different color for easier reading.
Discussion This section was significantly improved and related the findings of the present study to previous studies better, while also highlighting how the present findings contributed to the knowledge gaps. However, I think the authors could make it more obvious that perhaps the ‘feelings of groundedness’ have not been used as an actual factor in previous studies. Instead, previous studies used nostalgia or other variables to explain consumer purchase behavior. The authors could simply include 1-2 brief sentences to address this.  When talking about the findings of the present study, use past tense ·Line 524 – “literature” typo ·Line 532 – use another word for “evidenced”	Thank you for valuable comments. It is added in the last few lines of the discussion section (L575 to 578).
Implications When talking about the findings of the present study, use past tense Line 620 – “the purpose of products and services is to delight consumers...” – the present study did not show this, so do not include this. The main focus should be on the inclusion of cultural aspect of products of services. Line 621 – “... the introduction of cultural variety...” – this study did not show that introducing cultural aspects into products could help marketers. This needs to be rephrased to be a recommendation and not as a finding from this study.Line 623-624 – “should” instead of “must”. Also, is there a citation for this?	Thank you for valuable comments. We agree with all of the comments, and all the suggestions are now incorporated.

Reviewer 2 Report

NA

Author Response

Thank you so much for your positive feedback.