Do Biospheric Values Moderate the Impact of Information Appeals on Pro-Environmental Behavioral Intentions?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It's necessary to improve the outcomes (doing it more "friendly with plots, figures, etc."). I recommend that this manuscript be more focused and concise at the same time, without a lot of details (some paragraphs include a lot of information)

Author Response

Thank you very much for your advice to make the text more understandable. We have added a plot, picturing the results of study 1 on page 11 of the new manuscript (you can also find the figure in the file attached to this commentary). We have also shortened some sections and tried to summarize information more precisely without losing information (lines 228 and following, line 529 and following, footnote page 5 in the old manuscript). For reasons of clarity and reading flow, we have deliberately decided to repeat some information about the study design, which is similar in the first study, in the presentation of the second study. 

We believe that we were able to improve the manuscript with the help of your comment and thank you for your efforts.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript investigates whether biospheric values influence the effectiveness of informational and socio-normative appeals in promoting pro-environmental behaviors. It presents two experimental studies focusing on low-cost (organic coffee purchase) and high-cost (adoption of energy-saving heating styles) behaviors. The results show that while informational appeals had a significant effect on pro-environmental intentions, the anticipated moderation effect of biospheric values was not consistently significant. The findings challenge the 'values-as-moderator' hypothesis, suggesting that the effectiveness of environmental appeals may not be significantly influenced by individuals' biospheric values. This has implications for designing targeted interventions to promote environmental behaviors, indicating that a one-size-fits-all approach may not be as effective as previously thought.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript. As we do not see any suggestions for improvement of our manuscript, we consider your review as an acknowledgement of our work. Thank you for your efforts. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper adopts an innovative approach by challenging the widely accepted values-as-moderator hypothesis, contributing valuable insights to the field of environmental psychology and pro-environmental behavior research. The dual experimental studies are well-designed, with clear hypotheses, a diverse participant pool, and a solid methodological framework that includes manipulation checks and a variety of control measures to ensure the reliability of the findings. The topic is highly relevant to current global environmental challenges and contributes to the ongoing academic and practical discourse on effective strategies to promote pro-environmental behaviors. Paper demonstrates a professional level of English, with proper use of technical terms, coherent sentence structure, and clear articulation of complex ideas. The paper adheres to academic standards of language quality, which is critical for effective communication in peer-reviewed scientific journal. The paper presents a significant contribution to the field by challenging existing assumptions and providing new insights into the factors influencing pro-environmental behavior. The paper is well-positioned for publication.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your appreciation of our work. We are pleased to read that you consider the work to be ready for publication and that you value it as an important contribution to the research field. 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

.  This is an important topic and requires more research.  However, I have some main concerns about the present paper including the novelty of the study, the rigor of research design, the theoretical justification, inadequate literature review for the hypotheses proposed, and the lack of insights on the topic.   Hope the review comments may help improve the paper.

1). The introduction provides an essential background knowledge but the rationale for the study requires further development, particularly for the theoretical justification.  It is unclear about the novelty of the current study and the added value of the findings. 

 

2). The literature review needs further development to tightly connect the review of relevant studies to support the proposed hypotheses and the theory.  In addition, the novelty of the proposed hypotheses is not articulated.  The experiment design needs more justification.

3). The effects of the demographic variables are not tested and discussed.  These effects could provide valuable insights. 

4). There are some redundant contents or similar information.  The implications from this study may be further developed.       

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 This is an important topic and requires more research.  However, I have some main concerns about the present paper including the novelty of the study, the rigor of research design, the theoretical justification, inadequate literature review for the hypotheses proposed, and the lack of insights on the topic.   Hope the review comments may help improve the paper.

1). The introduction provides an essential background knowledge but the rationale for the study requires further development, particularly for the theoretical justification.  It is unclear about the novelty of the current study and the added value of the findings. 

 

2). The literature review needs further development to tightly connect the review of relevant studies to support the proposed hypotheses and the theory.  In addition, the novelty of the proposed hypotheses is not articulated.  The experiment design needs more justification.

3). The effects of the demographic variables are not tested and discussed.  These effects could provide valuable insights. 

4). There are some redundant contents or similar information.  The implications from this study may be further developed.       

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for the critical review of our manuscript. We respond to each point of criticism individually.  

Comment from the reviewer	Our response
1.1. The introduction provides an essential background knowledge but the rationale for the study requires further development, particularly for the theoretical justification.  It is unclear about the novelty of the current study and the added value of the findings.	Thank you very much for your feedback. We reviewed the Introduction section and believe that we have introduced the reader to the topic sufficiently well and have also derived the theoretical rationale adequately. We are not sure where we can elaborate more on these points especially with regard to the other points of criticism (redundant contents or similar information). We have added one sentences elaborating on the novelty of the study after line 166 in the old manuscript (“The novelty of our study is to test independently and in a sophisticated experimental design the circulating assumptions about the high impact of BioV on the effectiveness of interventions to promote pro-environmental behaviors, and furthermore to investigate the potential effect of the publicity of an action.”) The value of the study and its findings are mentioned in the introduction section (line 121 and following in the old manuscript) and explained in detail in the general discussion section.
1.2. The literature review needs further development to tightly connect the review of relevant studies to support the proposed hypotheses and the theory.  In addition, the novelty of the proposed hypotheses is not articulated.  The experiment design needs more justification.	Thank you for this comment. We have tried to make the connection tighter, by adding references to the hypotheses section (lines 169 to 195 in the old manuscript).
1.3. The effects of the demographic variables are not tested and discussed.  These effects could provide valuable insights.	Thank you for this comment. The paper is already very comprehensive and the influence of demographic factors on environmentally conscious behavior was not our main interest. Other studies deal with the relation between pro-environmental behavior and socio-demographic factors, e.g. Patel, J., Modi, A. & Paul, J., 2017. Nevertheless, based on your suggestion, we included the variables (age, sex, education, income) in our models. As expected, due to our experimental study design with randomized assignment of subjects to the conditions, the results of our effects of interest did not change substantially by including the socio-demographic variables. We have included control variables in the open access data such that the interested reader can run her own analyses using these variables-
1.4. There are some redundant contents or similar information.  The implications from this study may be further developed.	Thank you for raising this valid point. We have shortened some sections and tried to summarize information more precisely without losing information (lines 228 and following, line 529 and following, footnote page 5 in the old manuscript). For reasons of clarity and reading flow, we have deliberately decided to repeat some information about the study design, which is similar in the first study, in the presentation of the second study. We also reviewed our elaborations on the implications. From our point of view the implications of the study are sufficiently explained in the general discussion (more precisely in line 691 and following, 702 and following).