Applying Stimulus–Organism–Response Theory to Explore the Effects of Augmented Reality on Consumer Purchase Intention for Teenage Fashion Hair Dyes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you to the authors for a interesting article. The article is interesting and has many strong points

I have one observation. The objectives of the work do not appear in the work. Please enter the objectives of the work under Introduction. And in Results, fill in how the objectives were achieved.

The part of bibliographic sources could be enriched with 10-15 current articles.

 

Hope to take my comments as a constructive advice.

Author Response

Dear respected reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback, it has proven to be very beneficial to us. In response to your suggestions, we have included clearer objectives, methods, data and obtained results in the introduction. In addition, to enrich the literature base, we included references from more than 10 relevant articles.

We thank you again for your diligent review and valuable suggestions. We anticipate that these revisions will further improve the quality of the paper. If you have any other suggestions or suggestions for style improvements, please feel free to let us know as we'll be more than happy to make further adjustments.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate that the paper deals with an interesting and important issue nowadays in the context of increasingly frequent use of artificial intelligence in various industries. However, there are some aspects that can be improved in the current version of the paper:

1. The “Introduction” should include and emphasize more clearly the following aspects: aim; objectives; methods and data used; main results obtained; novelty and contribution of the research in the context of specialized literature; structure of the paper; and usefulness of the present study.

2. Please indicate the reason for not including in Table 3 one of the measurement items presented in Table 2 for the dimension Behaviour Intention.

3. In Figure 2, the error terms are missing.

4. Assessing the measurement model validity and assessing the structural model validity should be completed with GOF analysis.

5. It should be included a new sections called “Methods” which will include the stages employed in performing the statistic analysis.

6. Other specific remarks:

   - Some abbreviations are used throughout the manuscript without first indicating what they refer to (e.g., SIG, UTAUT, TPB).

     - In “Literature Review” subsection “2.1.” is missing.

    - In Table 2, the dimension “Emotionality” is abbreviated “EN” while in the rest of the manuscript is “EM”. Please uniform the notation.

     - In Table 6, what is the use of the symbols included in the column “Path”?

    - At line 349, the correct year is “2013”? In this case, these results are not relevant in the present.

   - At line 395, considering the numeric results presented, instead of “entertainment experience” it should be “aesthetic experience”.

Good luck!

Author Response

Dear respected reviewer,

 

1.Thank you for your valuable feedback; we deeply appreciate the insights you have provided. Following your suggestions, we have made modifications to the Introduction section, incorporating additional content on objectives, methods, data, and obtained results to present a more comprehensive research framework.

2.Additionally, we have revised the items related to behavioral intentions in Table 2, ensuring accuracy and consistency.

3.Concerning the issue of system construction, we have observed that error terms are not set during the establishment of the PLS model, as you pointed out. This is because, unlike conventional ML estimation methods, PLS models do not include error terms. We have explicitly addressed this point in the manuscript to alleviate any potential concerns.

4.To present a more comprehensive measurement model, we have added Table 7, which includes relevant information on Inner VIF values.

5.For enhanced clarity and structure, a new section, 3.3 Research Methodology, has been added to provide detailed explanations of the research methods.

6.Based on your suggestions, we have further clarified the relevant contents of SIG, UTAUT and TPB, and corrected the symbols in Table 6. Additionally, we have revised the size codes in Section 2.1 and Table 2 based on your guidance. Finally, we updated the questionnaire annually to 2023 to ensure data accuracy.

We thank you again for your thorough review and valuable suggestions. We expect these improvements to help improve the overall quality of our research. If you have any further suggestions or modifications please feel free to inform us and we will be happy to make further adjustments

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to review this study. While the research is well-developed, it seems that the authors need to concentrate on improving several sections. Specifically, they should pay attention to ensuring proper citations and references throughout the paper. Several parts of the study lack citations, which is unacceptable for an academic publication.Below, I have outlined some suggestions for improvement.

 

Introduction
 

The first paragraph is left without any citation.

 The research gap or gaps are not explained well in the introduction section.

Literature Review

On page 3, rows 100 to 108 are left without citation. Are those definitions intended for authors?

The authors have not mentioned those who proposed that AR has characteristics. For example, they can refer to the studies of McLean and Wilson (2019) and Gong (2019).

·       Gong, T., & Park, J. (2023). Effects of augmented reality technology characteristics on customer citizenship behavior. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 75, 103443.3

·       McLean, G., & Wilson, A. (2019). Shopping in the digital world: Examining customer engagement through augmented reality mobile applications. Computers in Human Behavior, 101, 210-224.
 

Page 3, row 142: I think it is better to provide a short explanation of SIG technology or what SIG stands for.

The content from page 4, specifically rows 151 to 171, is missing citations

Why haven't authors developed hypotheses regarding the impact of interactivity on aesthetic experience, as well as the influence of spatiality on entertainment experience?

Further clarification is required to justify the mediation hypotheses.

Methodology and Results

Authors need to provide information about the sampling procedure, methods, etc., as well as the age of respondents, which is not reported in Table 1.

What is the reference for this sentence? SmartPLS 4 was used because it does not impose sample size limits and provides excellent explanatory and predictive capabilities (p.8)

In section 4.2, there is a need to include cut-off values for Factor Loading, which are not set at 0.5 but rather at 0.70 and the composite reliability value of 0.70 (Hair et al.)

The label of Table 3 is incorrect. AVE tested the convergent validity, while this table includes the reliability tests (CR, Alpha). Additionally, the note under the table can also include α = Cronbach's alpha, AVE = average variance extracted, and CR = composite reliability.

For Table 4, why did the authors not report the HTMT for Discriminant Validity?
In Section 4.3, according to Hair et al. authors should report Q2, R2, and VIF. However, the authors reported only R2 on page 13, row 448, which could be expanded upon at the beginning of Section 4.3. Additionally, providing the effect size of each hypotheses path can offer more information.

In the table 6, the authors used "二", "三", "四", which should be numbered in English.

Conclusion

In the Conclusion section, the authors need to explain their findings and compare them with the previous study findings.

Implications

What is the difference between the practical implications in sections 5.2 and 5.3?

Practical implications should be based on the findings of the study, but the authors focused more on AR experiences than on the findings of this study.

Theoretical implications also need to be added to this section.

This limitations section appears weak. Additionally, could you clarify what you mean by 'Potential errors'?

In the last section, the authors have not provided any suggestions for future research.

 

In addition to the suggestions mentioned above, I suggest creating a separate section for the research methodology, starting on page 7 from row 321 to 355, and then proceed to reporting the results. The authors can include Common Method Bias testing in the analysis section. Between Figures 2 and 3, authors can report either one of them as the results are the same.

 Good luck,

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Thank you for providing valuable feedback; we greatly appreciate the insights gained. Regarding the suggestions for the introduction, we have conducted a comprehensive revision, adding research objectives and results to enrich the professional background. We have carefully adjusted the content in accordance with the reviewer's recommendations.

In the literature review, we have incorporated references from two scholars based on the committee's suggestion and provided a brief explanation of SIG. Additionally, we have corrected content from lines 151 to 171, ensuring the correct citation of references. We appreciate the suggestions regarding the impact of interaction on aesthetic experience and the influence of spatiality on entertainment experience. Due to limited literature on AR in the context of hairstyling, empirical testing was challenging, and therefore, corresponding hypotheses were not proposed.

In response to the reviewer's advice, we have made revisions in the methods and results sections, including the addition of Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) in Table 4, PLS Result of Goodness-of-Fit (GoF) index in Table 6, and Inner VIF values in Table 7. Additionally, we have corrected the English numbering in the original Table 6.

Finally, in the conclusion section, we have provided detailed explanations of the research findings and compared them with previous studies. Based on the review suggestions, we have made adjustments to the content in sections 5.4 and 5.5. Once again, we express our gratitude for the reviewer's thoughtful guidance.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the authors' effort to respond to my recommendations and I consider that the quality of the manuscript has been improved.

Congratulations and success!

Author Response

We are grateful for the careful guidance of the reviewers. Your suggestions will contribute to the improvement of our manuscript, and we deeply appreciate your invaluable input.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, First of all I appreciate your hard work in addressing the feedback provided during the review process. While the authors have made efforts to enhance the manuscript, it is evident that further improvements are necessary to align it with the standards expected for publication in this journal.

 Introduction:
 While you have removed the first paragraph and added a brief explanation on the initial page, you still haven't cited any references. I would like to emphasize that citation is both ethically and academically necessary for such studies.
Moreover, in the introduction section, there is no need to include the findings of your study from rows 74-89.

In my initial feedback, I expected clear explanations for the research gap or gaps in the introduction section, yet no sentences addressing this have been provided.

Literature Review:

The authors argued that "Due to limited literature on AR in the context of hairstyling, empirical testing was challenging, and therefore, corresponding hypotheses were not proposed." However, I believe that by considering the impact of interactivity on aesthetic experience, as well as the influence of spatiality on entertainment experience, this study can become more unique. The authors could explore literature regarding the role of interactivity and spatiality in user experience from similar fields.

Before delving into the research methodology section, it is essential for the authors to provide a paragraph justifying the mediation hypotheses.

Methodology:

What was the sampling method? How you approached to your respondents?

In row 369, the authors mentioned using SPSS 25 and included factor and reliability analyses to.... However, it appears that the authors perhaps did not conduct factor analyses, or if they did, they did not report the results of such analyses.

Analysis:

The authors have mentioned that "Both factor loadings and AVE values should exceed the 0.5 threshold," which is not correct. In my previous feedback, I have mentioned that there is a need to include cut-off values for Factor Loading, which are not set at 0.5 but rather at 0.70 (Hair et al.).  Thus, Factor Loadings should be above 0.70, AVE should be more than 0.50, and composite reliability should be more than 0.70.

In row 395, the authors reference a study by Wibbenmeyer et al., 2011. However, this study titled "Evaluation of the usefulness of two established pain assessment tools in a burn population" is unrelated to the statistics and current research.

·        Wibbenmeyer, L., Sevier, A., Liao, J., Williams, I., Latenser, B., Lewis, R., 2nd, Kealey, P., & Rosenquist, R. (2011). Evaluation of the usefulness of two established pain assessment tools in a burn population. Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association, 32(1), 52–60.

According to Henseler & Sarstedt (2015), a value of 0.85 indicates significance for the HTMT value (row 402). However, in Table 4, the HTMT value between Aesthetic Experience and Spatiality is calculated to be 0.864, indicating a lack of discriminant validity between these constructs. Therefore, I recommend adopting a more liberal cut-off value of 0.9 (Henseler et al., 2015; Franke and Sarstedt, 2019).

·        Franke, G. and Sarstedt, M. (2019), “Heuristics versus statistics in discriminant validity testing: a comparison of four procedures”, Internet Research, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 430-447.

The goodness of fit (GoF) has been developed as an overall measure of model fit for PLS-SEM. However, as the GoF cannot reliably distinguish valid from invalid models and since its applicability is limited to certain model setups, researchers should avoid its use as a goodness of fit measure (source: https://www.smartpls.com/documentation/algorithms-and-techniques/goodness-of-fit/). Therefore, I suggest removing the results of GoF from the study, as it is no longer reported in studies.

The cv-redundancy and cv-communality outcomes represent different aspects. Specifically, the results of Stone-Geisser's Q² value (cv-redundancy) should be reported for endogenous latent variables. A value larger than zero indicates that the PLS path model has predictive relevance for this construct.

 

Regarding the software version used, based on Table 8, it appears that SmartPLS 3 was utilized in this study. Therefore, it would be appropriate to correct the software version mentioned in the methodology section accordingly.

Conclusion :

The conclusion of the study is weak. In my previous review, I suggested some points, which I repeat my questions again here:

The authors need to explain their findings and compare them with the previous study findings.

What is the difference between the practical implications in sections 5.2 and 5.3?

Practical implications should be based on the findings of the study, but the authors focused more on AR experiences than on the findings of this study.

Theoretical implications also need to be added to this section.

The section from row 580 to 589 labeled as limitations does not contain limitations. Additionally, in the last section, the authors have not provided any suggestions for future research.

The conclusion section begins with "Teenagers aspire...", but considering that 75.7 percent of the respondents fall within the age range of 19-22, it might be more appropriate to use a term other than "teenagers."

Thank you for the opportunity to review your work, and I look forward to seeing the revised version.
Good luck.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Introduction: The first paragraph incorporates the opinions of the peer reviewer and highlights relevant literature on the cover page. Simultaneously, content pertaining to the research results from lines 74 to 89 has been removed.

Literature Review: Gratitude is extended to the committee for their valuable suggestions, prompting an immediate exploration of literature on the roles of interactivity and spatiality in user experience. New research hypotheses have been introduced, and PLS4 has been employed for a comprehensive reanalysis, with adjustments made to relevant chart values. Additional paragraphs have been included to substantiate the rationale behind the mediating hypotheses.

Methodology: Detailed steps of the sampling process and participant contact methods have been added to the journal. Table 1 has been introduced to present factor analysis data.

Analysis: Threshold values for factor loading have been revised, and references to the study by Wibbenmeyer et al. (2011) have been removed. Appreciation is expressed for the committee's provision of more liberal cutoff values from Franke and Sarstedt (2019), which have been adopted. The study's GoF results have been deleted, and corrections have been made to the content of Stone-Geisser Q² values.

Conclusion: The conclusion has been reconstructed, omitting the original Section 5.3. A new section on theoretical implications has been added, and more content has been incorporated into future research recommendations. Adjustments have been made to the language related to adolescents in the conclusion, and heartfelt thanks are extended to the guidance provided by the supervisor and the thoughtful direction from the peer reviewer.

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors 

Thank you for providing answers and for enhancing the quality of your paper based on the suggestions provided. Here are some recommendations that need to be reconsidered because they have not been addressed in the latest version..

1.   On page 6, in rows 258-259, the authors mention that 'emotional and authority appeals have a positive and significant influence on customer emotions.' However, in the developed hypotheses, they argue that 'AR emotionality has a negative effect on the entertainment experience' Is the usage of 'negative' correct?

2.   In the hypotheses section, the authors argued "H8: AR spatiality has a positive effect on the entertainment experience of consumers". However, the results in Table 9 show a negative impact of spatiality on the entertainment experience (β=-0.255). Therefore, the authors need to explain this discrepancy in results, or if the negative impact is supported by existing literature, they can cite references that show spatiality has a negative effect on the entertainment experience.

3.   The items of the questionnaire reported in Table 3 show that the authors applied the study of Grewal et al. (1998) on behavioral intention. However, the study by Grewal et al. (1998) consists of three items for purchase intention, which are completely different from the items used in the current study. Therefore, it is possible that this reference may not be appropriate for the behavioral intention items in the current study.

4.   I suggest reorganizing the results of Table 9 based on the numbering of hypotheses, and likewise for Table 10 if applicable. Additionally, the headings of both Table 9 and Table 10 could be made the same.

Paths

Coefficient

Standard Error

T-value

P-value

5.   In the interpretation of this table, authors can enhance understanding by adding the hypotheses numbering alongside the results. Additionally, incorporating the results of beta coefficients for interpretation could be beneficial. For instance, reporting results as follows: (H1: β = 0.709, t = 11.390, p < 0.001).

6.   The authors may include the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett's test results within Table 1, or alternatively, they could report just the values for these two tests, as these are available in the same output of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and essential for EFA results.

7.   In Table 8, it's better to remove the terms EM, IN, and SP, and instead of using the term 'cv-redundancy,' it would be clearer to use Q2.

 8.   In the conclusion section, in my previous feedback, I recommended that the authors explain their findings and compare them with the findings of previous studies. It appears that this section has not been given as much consideration as other parts. Here, I provide an example that may help.

 “The results of this study demonstrated that AE (abbreviated term) has a positive impact on BI (abbreviated term), which is consistent with the findings of ABC (Year). This alignment suggests a robustness in the relationship between AE and BI across studies”

 9.   The authors mentioned "In the context of China's Double 11 shopping festival..." (Shiau & Liu, 2022), which is not the Theoretical Implications of this study. In this section, it is important to address how the results of this study contribute to or challenge existing theories or knowledge.

 10.    The author’s explanations about sample size and research locations can be considered limitations of this study. Other sentences that do not pertain to limitations should be excluded. In this section, it can be explained that gender, age, or other demographic items were not studied, which future studies can consider. The current study focused on intention rather than actual behavior, suggesting that other researchers could investigate the impact of behavioral intention on actual behavior. Moreover, the study only collected data and analyzed young consumers, thus limiting generalizability to other generations.

 11. In the future studies section, the authors have not provided recommendations based on this study, or at least they have not explained them clearly. For instance, the authors suggested, "With the continuous increase in the population using hair dye, expanding AR experiences to the silver haired market could assist consumers in addressing the challenges of white hair, thereby  tapping into new market demands." Such a suggestion does not seem to offer a research avenue for future studies.

 Finally, the authors have cited many references from the Sustainability journal in this study. They can take a look at how other studies have explained the discussion, conclusion, limitation, implication, reporting the results etc.

As examples.

 https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/4/3258

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/14/8869
 

Good luck!

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Sincere gratitude to the meticulous and patient peer reviewers for their thorough examination, consistently providing valuable opportunities for the author to make improvements.

1. Special thanks for the guidance provided by the reviewers, leading to corrections in the content from rows 258-275 on page 6.
2. Inclusion of negative reference literature has been added, contributing to a more comprehensive review of the paper.
3. In accordance with the reviewers' suggestions, corrections will be made to the literature on behavioral intention in Table 3.
4. Simultaneously, appreciation for the reviewers' careful identification of hypothesis numbers in Tables 9 and 10, leading to appropriate modifications.
5. Following the reviewers' recommendations, beta values will be added, for example, (H10: β = 0.709, t = 11.390, p < 0.001).
6. The SPSS25 operation of importing variables at once will be implemented, and the results of the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett's test will be reported in the text.
7. Gratitude for the valuable suggestions from the reviewers; EM, IN, and SP have been removed, and 'cv-redundancy' has been corrected to Q2.
8. Once again, appreciation for the exemplary sentences provided by the reviewers in the conclusion section, offering rich inspiration to the author.
9. The reference to "In the context of China's Double 11 shopping festival..." (Shiau & Liu, 2022) has been removed, while additional empirical literature has been incorporated.
10. Heartfelt thanks to the reviewers for explaining the research limitations, contributing to the enhancement of the paper's quality.
11. In the future research suggestions, gratitude for providing references to two articles, offering valuable insights for the author's research.