Is There an Impact of Digital Transformation on Consumer Behaviour? An Empirical Study in the Financial Sector

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the research is interesting. while most studies examine digital transformation from the perspective of firms as the actors of digital transformation, this study uses customers' perspective. Having said that, I would like to give some comments and feedback which expectedly improve the quality of the manuscript. 

Introduction

Line 8--Therefore, the aim is to determine the impact of digital transformation on consumer 8

behavior in the financial sector --> the aim of what? do you mean: the aim of this study?

Not necessary to mention "a non-experimental" because the authors have explained it in a more specific way - i.e. survey. 

Literature review

line 57--sub-section "Previous research" change the section with "2. Literature review". Don't forget to put the number 2 before the title of the section. 

line 58-62--the sentence is overrun. break it down into 2 or 3 sentences. 

line 65-67--one paragraph consists of one sentence only. Try to combine it with other sentences and develop into a more comprehensive paragraph. The authors can combine it with the three paragraphs that follow because the three-paragraph consist only of one sentence as well. 

I would like to see a graph presenting the research framework, which summarize all hypothesis proposed. By presenting in one graph, readers can see how the interrelationship between one hypothesis so that the overall body of knowledge of this study can be understood more easily.

Also, I would like to read what is the grand theory that underpins your study? are you using Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)? One of the variables used in the study is trust and the study is related to technology. In my perspective, it is less complete if you do not cite or mention the TAM. 

Methodology

I would like to read how the authors develop the instrument used in this study. How the questionnaire was developed, which literature was used as the basis for developing the questionnaire, what scale was used, etc. The methodology is the weakest point of the manuscript. The authors must redevelop this section into more comprehensive discussion. 

Results

Most of this section presents the results of statistical testing presented in a descriptive way. I would like to read more insightful discussions with reference to previous studies. The authors could have added more discussion about why the findings support or contradict previous studies, and what lessons we can learn from the findings.

Also, I would like to see a table summarizing the result of hypothesis testing - i.e., which hypothesis is accepted, and which are rejected. In this way, readers can grasp more easily the key points of the findings.

Conclusion

The conclusion section is missing. The authors could have presented the conclusion section by presenting a brief on the proposed research question and summarizing the key findings of the analysis. In this way, readers who jump to the conclusion section can grasp the ideas of the paper without necessarily reading the full paper. 

The authors have addressed interesting topics accompanied by a good research approach and the feedback above will improve the quality of the manuscript. Good luck with your revision and thanks for the opportunity to read your work.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

The research topic is interesting. While most studies examine digital transformation from the perspective of companies as actors of digital transformation, this study uses the perspective of customers. That said, I would like to provide some comments and feedback that will hopefully improve the quality of the manuscript.

We thank you for your kind appreciation and appreciation of our work.

Introduction

Line 8--Therefore, the objective is to determine the impact of digital transformation on consumer behaviour 8

consumer behaviour in the financial sector --> the objective of what? you mean: the objective of this study?

It is not necessary to mention "non-experimental" because the authors have explained it in a more specific way, i.e. survey.

Comments for improvement are welcome and we confirm the acceptance of the observation and the respective correction.

It was added that the objective of the study was to determine the impact of digital transformation on consumer behaviour, and the mention of "non-experimental" was removed.

Literature review

line 57--subsection "Previous research" change the section to "2. Literature review". Don't forget to put the number 2 before the section title.

The comment is accepted and changed to 2. Literature review.

line 58-62--sentence is superseded. split it into 2 or 3 sentences.

line 65-67--a paragraph consists of a single sentence. Try to combine it with other sentences and develop it into a more complete paragraph. Authors can combine it with the three paragraphs that follow because all three paragraphs also consist of a single sentence.

Corrections were made to the style and presentation of the specified paragraphs, as requested.

I would like to see a graph presenting the research framework, summarising all the proposed hypotheses. By presenting in a graph, readers can see how the interrelationship between a hypothesis so that the overall body of knowledge of this study can be more easily understood.

The suggestion is accepted, and figures summarising the research framework and the hypotheses with their respective result have been made to make it easier to read and understand.

Also, I would like to read what is the grand theory behind your study, do you use the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)? One of the variables used in the study is trust and the study is related to technology. In my view, it is less complete if you do not cite or mention the TAM.

Thank you for your input. We have added the theory or model of technology acceptance (TAM), with its respective argumentation.

Methodology

I would like to read how the authors develop the instrument used in this study. How the questionnaire was developed, what literature was used as a basis for developing the questionnaire, what scale was used, etc. The methodology is the weakest point of the manuscript. The authors should re-develop this section in a more comprehensive discussion.

Appreciation and recommendations for improvement are welcome. The methodology has been added as requested.

Based on the literature review, the operationalisation of the variables was elaborated, taking different authors as a basis, the dimensions corresponding to the digital transformation approach from the customer's perspective were located. Subsequently, the indicators that gave rise to the creation of the questionnaires with an ordinal Likert-type scale (where 1 is totally disagree, up to 5 totally agree) were established. These questionnaires were validated for content (judgement of experts in the field) and construct, finding both significant correlations and Cronbach's alpha to guarantee stability for their respective application. The internal consistency of Cronbach's alpha was 0.719 for the independent variable and 0.738 for the dependent variable. Information was collected both in person and online through a virtual form distributed through various electronic media used by customers.

Among other details.

Results

Most of this section presents the results of the statistical tests in descriptive form. I would like to read more in-depth discussions with reference to previous studies. The authors could have added more comments on why the results support or contradict previous studies, and what lessons we can learn from the results.

Thank you for your input. The recommendation is accepted, the discussion of the results has been deepened, in the discussion section, with emphasis on what you recommend.

In addition, I would like to see a table summarising the outcome of the hypothesis testing, i.e. which hypotheses are accepted and which are rejected. This will make it easier for readers to grasp the key points of the conclusions.

A figure is presented with the summary of the hypothesis results, verifying which hypotheses are accepted and which are rejected.

Conclusion

The conclusion section is missing. The authors could have presented the conclusion section by briefly stating the proposed research question and summarising the key results of the analysis. In this way, readers moving on to the conclusion section would be able to grasp the ideas of the article without necessarily having to read the entire article.

The concluding section is presented separately from the discussion, and concluding inputs are given that are highly relevant to the research.

The authors have addressed interesting issues accompanied by a good research approach and the above comments will enhance the quality of the manuscript. Good luck with the review and thank you for the opportunity to read your work.

Thank you for your contributions that make our work and contribution to the scientific community better.

Thank you.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper examines the impact of digital transformation on consumer behaviour in the financial sector. The idea is interesting, but some refinements could be made.

First, this study is at the intersection of consumer behavior and bank marketing. I reckon it is important to acknowledge the literature in these areas and locate which streams the present study is contributing and extending. A good way to do so is to refer to reviews in these areas such as the ones below.

Evolution and trends in consumer behaviour: Insights from Journal of Consumer Behaviour. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 22(1), 217-232.

Past, present and future of bank marketing: a bibliometric analysis of International Journal of Bank Marketing (1983–2020). International Journal of Bank Marketing, 40(2), 341-383.

Second, the paper needs to be reformatted according to the author guidelines and journal style. It is quite difficult to read when headings are not bold or numbered.

Third, recent studies on consumer behavior and digital transformation interactions, including across industries, could be included such as the ones below.

Consumer adoption of on‐demand digital platforms: An integrated model. Global Business and Organizational Excellence.

Digital business model innovation among small and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs). Global Business and Organizational Excellence.

Distance is no longer a barrier to healthcare services: current state and future trends of telehealth research. Internet Research.

The digital transformation of preventive telemedicine in France based on the use of connected wearable devices. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 39(6), 17-27.

Software as a service: Lessons from the video game industry. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 39(2), 31-40.

Finally, the discussion section could be separated from the conclusion section, where the theoretical and practical implications appear as sub-sections in the discussion section and the key takeaways and limitations and future research directions sub-sections appear in the conclusion section.

Good luck and all the best!

Author Response

Reviewer 2

The paper examines the impact of digital transformation on consumer behaviour in the financial sector. The idea is interesting, but some improvements could be made.

We appreciate your valuable support with each of your comments and suggestions.

First, this study is situated at the intersection between consumer behaviour and bank marketing. I think it is important to acknowledge the literature in these areas and to locate which streams this study contributes to and extends. A good way to do this is to refer to reviews in these areas such as the ones below.

Evolution and Trends in Consumer Behaviour: Insights from Journal of Consumer Behaviour. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 22(1), 217-232.

Past, present and future of bank marketing: a bibliometric analysis of International Journal of Bank Marketing (1983-2020). International Journal of Bank Marketing, 40(2), 341-383.

Secondly, the article should be reformatted according to the author's guidelines and the journal's style. It is quite difficult to read when titles are not bolded and numbered.

Third, recent studies on consumer behaviour and interactions of digital transformation, including across sectors, could be included, such as those cited below.

Consumer adoption of on-demand digital platforms: An integrated model. Global business and organisational excellence.

Digital business model innovation among small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Global business and organisational excellence.

Distance is no longer a barrier to healthcare services: current status and future trends in telehealth research. Internet research.

The digital transformation of preventive telemedicine in France based on the use of connected wearable devices. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 39(6), 17-27.

Software as a service: Lessons from the video game industry. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 39(2), 31-40.

We have added the recommended sources in order of priority and approach to the study. We value these contributions that enhance our research. We have ordered the numbering and highlighted in bold the corresponding titles and subtitles for better readability.

Finally, the discussion section could be separated from the conclusions section, so that theoretical and practical implications appear as sub-sections in the discussion section and key findings and limitations and future research directions appear in the conclusions section.

Thank you for your recommendation. The conclusion section is presented separately from the discussion, and extremely important concluding inputs to the research are given, such as key contributions, theoretical and practical implications, future lines of scientific approach.

Good luck and best of luck!

Thank you!!!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper discusses the impact of digital transformation on consumer behaviour in the financial sector. The authors use a non-experimental, cross-sectional design with a quantitative approach and a survey questionnaire to find out whether digital transformation has a significant impact on the behaviour of consumers in the financial sector. Overall, the idea of the paper is both interesting and insightful. However, the proposed approach lacks coherence. Results could be more clearly defined. Therefore, I would like to make the following comments:

1.     The introduction is well written. However, it is a bit long. It would benefit from being split into separate introduction and literature review sections.

The last part of the introduction should give a brief overview of the rest of the paper. It is appropriate for authors to explain the structure and logic of the rest of the paper.

I suggest that the authors use the conclusion of the literature review to provide a summary of previous research and identify any gaps that the current study will address.

2.     The authors briefly outline the research methodology. However, I suggest that they provide a more detailed description of the research steps and methods used. This would make the study more transparent and easier for readers to understand and potentially replicate.

3.     While the authors do test the hypothesis in the Results section, it would be beneficial for them to provide a more detailed explanation of the logic used to formulate the hypothesis. I recommend that they outline the steps involved in formulating the hypothesis. In addition, it would be helpful for them to explain in detail the variables used and how they relate to the hypothesis being tested. Overall, the inclusion of these elements would improve the rigour and transparency of the study.

4.     Including a discussion of related research and a comparison of the authors' findings with their original hypothesis would enhance the conclusion section. This would provide the reader with a more comprehensive understanding of the results of the research and their significance in the context of the existing literature.

5.     In the conclusion section, it is important that the author clearly articulates how their work contributes to the current state of knowledge in the field. This should be done by providing a scientific rationale for the study and explaining its potential uses and extensions, if applicable. In this way, readers will have a better understanding of the significance of the research and how it adds value to the field.

I hope this feedback is helpful, and I wish you the best of luck with your paper.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

The article analyses the impact of digital transformation on consumer behaviour in the financial sector. The authors use a non-experimental, cross-sectional design with a quantitative approach and a survey questionnaire to find out whether digital transformation has a significant impact on consumer behaviour in the financial sector. Overall, the idea of the article is interesting and insightful. However, the proposed approach lacks coherence. The results could be more clearly defined. Therefore, I would like to make the following comments:

We very much appreciate your comments and inputs that make us improve our research.

1. The introduction is well written. However, it is a bit long. It should be divided into separate introduction and literature review sections.

The last part of the introduction should provide a brief summary of the rest of the article. The authors should explain the structure and logic of the rest of the article.

I suggest that authors use the conclusion of the literature review to provide a summary of previous research and identify any gaps that the current study will address.

We have complied with your request and have separated it into an introduction containing the brief summary of the rest of the article, in addition the point is the review of the binding scientific literature, which has also been expanded with other authors, making clear the scientific theoretical motivation of the study and the possible contributions to be obtained that end up being given both in discussion and conclusions, later on.

2. The authors briefly outline the research methodology. However, I suggest that they describe in more detail the steps of the research and the methods used. This would make the study more transparent and easier for readers to understand and potentially replicable.

Thank you for your kind input. The methodology has been restructured, with the steps followed and methods deployed more clearly defined.

The following is put here and expressed in the article:

Based on the literature review, the operationalisation of the variables was elaborated, taking different authors as a basis, the dimensions corresponding to the approach of digital transformation from the customer's perspective were located. Subsequently, the indicators that gave rise to the creation of the questionnaires with an ordinal Likert-type scale (where 1 is totally disagree, up to 5 totally agree) were established. These questionnaires were validated for content (judgement of experts in the field) and construct, finding both significant correlations and Cronbach's alpha to guarantee stability for their respective application. The internal consistency of Cronbach's alpha was 0.719 for the independent variable and 0.738 for the dependent variable. Information was collected both in person and online through a virtual form distributed by various electronic media used by customers.

Among other details.

3. Although the authors test the hypothesis in the Results section, it would be useful for them to explain in more detail the logic used to formulate the hypothesis. I recommend that they describe the steps necessary to formulate the hypothesis. In addition, it would be helpful if they explained in detail the variables used and how they relate to the hypothesis being tested. In general, the inclusion of these elements would improve the rigour and transparency of the study.

Thank you for your input and comments. The sources cited and referenced for the hypothesised support presented have been increased, along with the theories of the technology acceptance model and social influence theory. The methodology also explains in more detail the process of arriving at the verification, thus making transparent with scientific rigour all that has been developed. We hope that its recommendations have been fully met.

4. The inclusion of a discussion of related research and a comparison of the authors' results with their original hypothesis would enhance the conclusion section. This would give the reader a better understanding of the research findings and their relevance in the context of the existing literature.
5. In the conclusion section, it is important that the author clearly explains how his/her work contributes to the current state of knowledge in the field. This should be done by providing a scientific justification for the study and explaining its possible uses and extensions, if appropriate. In this way, readers will better understand the importance of the research and how it adds value to the field.

Thank you for your input. The recommendation is accepted, the discussion of the results has been deepened in the discussion section, with emphasis on what you recommend.

The conclusions section is presented separately from the discussion, and concluding contributions are given that are extremely important for the research, such as key contributions, theoretical and practical implications, and future lines of scientific approach.

I hope you find these comments useful and I wish you the best of luck with your article.

Thank you for taking the time to read our work and give us your input to improve. We value it and have taken on board every suggestion because we know it improves our research and contribution to the scientific community.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have done a great job doing the revison. I' m happy to accept the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After careful consideration of the manuscript, I am pleased to recommend that it be published in its present form. The paper presents a clear and concise argument and is well organized, making it easy to follow the author's thought process. 

I commend the authors for their hard work and attention to detail. Based on the quality of the manuscript, I believe it will be of interest to a wide audience and will make a significant contribution to the literature. I am confident that this paper will be well received by readers and would recommend its publication without hesitation.