Effective Sustainability Messages Triggering Consumer Emotion and Action: An Application of the Social Cognitive Theory and the Dual-Process Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors

Some minor issues, that I advise the authors to take into consideration:

• the presentation in the results section of the value of composite reliability (CR).
• it was not clear the importance of the dual-process model, and why it was analyzed, and the main contributions of that.
• it was not clear to me, the main contributions to managers, the authors should add.
• advise the authors to make proofreading of the paper's English.

 

Author Response

Responses to the comments of reviewers:

Thank you for the thoughtful and valuable comments. The modifications are highlighted in yellow throughout the paper. Also, you can find the detailed responses to the comments below.

 

Reviewer 1:

Dear Authors

Some minor issues, that I advise the authors to take into consideration:

***the presentation in the results section of the value of composite reliability (CR):

---- Thank you for the comment. We included the information of Cronbach alpha to report the reliability of measurements. Please see lines 295-296 on page 7 and Table 2.

 

***it was not clear the importance of the dual-process model, and why it was analyzed, and the main contributions of that:

---- Based on the comment, the sub-section of the dual-process model in the theoretical framework section was modified. We addressed why it was used and applied in the study. Also, the sentence was revised in line with why dual-process model is related to this study as to provide available product information is still sufficient enough in convincing participants to elicit the right emotional attention to think logically. Logical thinking is important because it is only the way to break the long-practicing trend in buying products. Please see lines 87-92 on page 2.

 

***it was not clear to me, the main contributions to managers, the authors should add:

---- We added the main contributions to managers in the implication section. Please see lines 439-450 on page 12.

 

***advise the authors to make proofreading of the paper's English.

---- Thank you for the comment. We made proofreading of the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

From my point of view, this is an interesting work that could be published in this journal. However, I would introduce some improvements. I will describe them below:

1) INTRODUCTION

Further introduction of the concept of sustainability is needed. In this sense, it is necessary to define it according to the different scientific schools, delve into the concept

2) Hypothesis 1

It is not well defined. There is a lack of further argumentation for its defense, it is necessary to go deeper.

3) In section 3.3. The concept of emotion needs to be clearly defined. What is it, from what perspectives has it been studied?

3) In section 3.4. The concept of brand needs to be clearly defined. What is it, from what perspectives has it been studied?.

 

Best wishes,

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

Dear authors,

From my point of view, this is an interesting work that could be published in this journal. However, I would introduce some improvements.

---- Thank you for the thoughtful and valuable comments. The modifications are highlighted in yellow throughout the paper. Also, you can find the responses to the comments below.

 

I will describe them below:

 

1) INTRODUCTION

Further introduction of the concept of sustainability is needed. In this sense, it is necessary to define it according to the different scientific schools, delve into the concept

---- Thank you for the comment. To address this comment, the introduction section was revised, and we added the definition of sustainability. Please see lines 27-31 on page 1.

 

2) Hypothesis 1

It is not well defined. There is a lack of further argumentation for its defense, it is necessary to go deeper.

---- Thank you for the comment. We modified hypothesis 1 for clarification. Hypothesis 1 is about differences in the level of consumer emotion based on three sustainability aspects including person (self) relative to people (others) and the planet. This was to examine whether participants perceive the messages based on three different aspects of sustainability (person, people planet) differently or in the same way. Again, thank you for the comment and you can find the re-defined hypothesis 1 in lines 120-121 on page 3.

 

3) In section 3.3. The concept of emotion needs to be clearly defined. What is it, from what perspectives has it been studied?

---- Thank you for the comment. We revised the concept of emotion needs for clarification based on the comment. Please see lines 148-151 on pages 3-4.

 

3) In section 3.4. The concept of brand needs to be clearly defined. What is it, from what perspectives has it been studied?

---- The definition of brand romance is defined in the study highlighted in lines 170-176 on page 4. To clarify, we examined how the dimensions of brand romance i.e., brand pleasure and arousal were affected by the induced emotional responses (positive and negative emotions) of the participants after being exposed to an advertisement condition.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf