Promoting Reviewer-Related Attribution: Moderately Complex Presentation of Mixed Opinions Activates the Analytic Process

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting paper, that incorporated a lot of work and it is well written.

However, for its improvement there are few suggestions, both in terms of contents and shape:

-a more detailed description of the "activation of the analytic system" would be appropriate in the introduction section (with references)

-hypotheses 1, 2a and 2b need to be reworded, one/some words are missing and they do not read well

-in section 3 Methodology in the first sentence, study 1 needs to be shortly described

-you have to mention upfront what is that is presented in Table 2. If these are simulated dispersions, you need to specify.

-make it clear that your studies are experiments

-the manipulation check for study 1 not appropriately described. Not clear what was actually done

-study 1:the List 1, List 2, 2A and 2B to be included in the appendices

-Appendices are to be referred to in the text

-Check for manipulation study 2 not appropriately described

-discuss the utility of the check manipulation with arguments from the literature

-the presentation of results separately: the manipulation checks in appendices and the results DIRECTLY related to you research questions and objectives to stay in the text. There is too much information that distracts the reader from the actual results of the study.

-the inclusion of more recent references (2018-2020) would be appropriate

-references at the end are not correctly numbered

-CINIC source not in the references

-editing/English/spelling mistakes: raws 34, 64, 469

Author Response

Please see the responses as attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper develops an interesting methodology and it is original and interesting. However, I suggest to imporove these points:

• I believe that the title could be improved to better underline the content of the study
• The introduction section is well done, but I would suggest to add the literary gap that the Author want to cover with the study
• Please follow journal guidelines to cite references in text. Page 3 line 128 you write “According to Weiner (2000) and LeBoeuf & Norton (2012), attribution”. Also in other parts of the text you do not follow the journal guidelines for references.
• I would ask why Ebay is not taken into consideration among the major online platforms (see Table 1).
• In the methodology section please specify why the number of participants (i.e 60 for the first study can be considered statistically significant for the study purposes.
• The discussion sections of results should be deepen and better explained. From the study I can’t clear understand if hypothesis defined can be accepted or rejected. This should be clearly shown.

Author Response

Please see the comments as attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf