Link Virtual Community Interaction and Citizenship Behavior of Fitness Club Customers: The Role of Psychological Empowerment and Sense of Community
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for opportunity reviewing manuscript titled “An empirical study Ohh the mechanism ….” Which I read with interest. The study seem interesting but still some flaws need to address to make it suitability for publication.
1. Your tile is too descriptive which make less interest to reader, authors should be address your key topic or main idea including in title
2. Your objective is not clear to me, thus, you need to address more clearly.
3. The same go to your research motivation which is not convince at all, author should tell reader more why this study is worth to conduct and how it is different from previous study in terms of theoretical and practical implications.
4. Again go to theoretical and managerial contributions were missing in introduction part.
5. When I see your model figure 1, the mediator PE seems to be another construct from UI to PE and then from PE to CCB. Authors are recommend to modified your model again.
6. If you insist to keep this way, we can see only from indirect path from UI—>PE—>CCB what about direct path from UI—>CCB? Is there any significant?
7. The theoretical foundation of Information interaction, human computer interaction, and interpersonal interaction are not up to date and author must digest more recent publication to convince us.
8. Section 2.6 should be put first mediator section according to your model and the same thing go to your findings.
9. LIne 295, … previous studies ? Which studies?
10. 380 sample …. This sentence need to be re-write since they repeat the same information.
11. Line 297, what is incomplete questionnaire? Criteria?
12. What is the criteria to select your sample?
13. Any common bias happen?
14. What kind of scale you use 7 or 9 Likert scale?
15. Your method section is the weakness of this study, you must re-write again before I can consider for suitability publication in this journal.
16. Section 4.1, I can SEE only validity but no reliability proof here? Any justification?
17. Your theoretical implication is not beyond the study LUO Et al., what is exactly new here?
I am looking forward to see your detail response, and happy new year.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your careful reviews and constructive suggestions with regard to our manuscript (ID: sustainability-2152093). These comments are very helpful for us to revise and improve our paper. According to your suggestions, a revised version has been provided. More detailed information is as follows:
Q1: “Your tile is too descriptive which make less interest to reader, authors should be address your key topic or main idea including in title”
R1: Thank you for this comment. This is a very helpful comment. In the new version, we alter the title of the article to “Link Virtual Community Interaction and Citizenship Behavior of Fitness Club customers: The role of Psychological Empow-erment and Sense of Community”.
Q2: “Your objective is not clear to me, thus, you need to address more clearly”
R2: Thank you for this comment. For our research, virtual community interaction is not only an important topic in today’s digital environment, but also very important to study and explore the impact of virtual community interaction on citizenship behavior.
Q3: “The same go to your research motivation which is not convince at all, author should tell reader more why this study is worth to conduct and how it is different from previous study in terms of theoretical and practical implications.”
R3: Thank you for this comment. With your commit, we add these sentences to line 42-50 of our paper, for telling our reader why our research need to be read. “This kind of personal behavior can solve the problems of serious homogenization of content and lack of innovation of service content with economic development[7]. After wide dissemination, on the one hand, it can reduce the pressure on the sales expenses of fitness enterprises, on the other hand, it can also promote the popularity of fitness en-terprise products and stand out in the market with serious homogeneity. Therefore, it is of great practical significance to promote the customers of fitness enterprises form cit-izen behavior, help enterprises form core competitiveness, enable fitness enterprises to successfully overcome the crisis, further improve market vitality, and promote the de-velopment of fitness enterprises and economy.” And, line 93-102: “Through the empirical research on customer citizenship behavior and user inter-action, it is found that the research objects include both tangible products and intangible products. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze the internal relationship and mechanism between virtual community user interaction and customer citizenship behavior in fit-ness clubs (a fitness club with a mixture of tangible and intangible products), in order to explore the specific impact of virtual community interaction on customer citizenship behavior. This study deepens the depth and breadth of customer citizenship behavior research, enriches the empirical research of social exchange theory, enriches the em-pirical research of community awareness as a regulating variable, and expands the boundary effect of psychological empowerment.”
Q4: “Again go to theoretical and managerial contributions were missing in introduction part.”
R4: Thank you for this comment. As it same goes with R3, we add the theoretical and managerial contributions into our introduction.
Q5: “When I see your model figure 1, the mediator PE seems to be another construct from UI to PE and then from PE to CCB. Authors are recommend to modified your model again.”
R5: Thank you for this comment. At the figure 1, we revised our model.
Q6: “If you insist to keep this way, we can see only from indirect path from UI—>PE—>CCB what about direct path from UI—>CCB? Is there any significant?”
R6: Thank you for this comment. The direct path from UI to CCB is added in the figure 1. The main effect of this paper is to study the influence of interaction on citizenship behavior.
Q7: “The theoretical foundation of Information interaction, human computer interaction, and interpersonal interaction are not up to date and author must digest more recent publication to convince us.”
R7: Thank you for this comment. At the seg 2.1. Social Exchange Theory, line 120-125, we add “Previous studies used social exchange theory as a theoretical lens to link user in-teraction with enterprise and team outcomes, such as sharing economy[27], cross-cultural communication[28] and consumer behavior and psychology[29], which shows that user interaction will have an important impact on customer behavior choice. Some scholars have proved that the interaction between users has a negative impact on the work-life balance[30], the participation of core users has a positive impact on social behavior and relationships in the digital live application,and the influence of social communication quality between users on customer citizenship behavior[31]. ”, which to update the new recent publication. And, seg 2.2 Customer Citizenship Behavior, line 176-181, we add “Research shows that user interaction is affected by user's personality characteristics[48], satisfaction[49]. It also affects prosocial behavior[50], sharing experience[51] and cus-tomer identity[52].Some scholars have proved the intermediary role of information interaction in the relationship between social exchange and innovation speed[13],and communication between people plays a role in solving burnout and self-care under mental health services[53].” Seg 2.4, line 192-193, we add “ Information interaction meets the requirements of users to obtain information [54], and is also the most important aspect of business development [55].”
Q8: “Section 2.6 should be put first mediator section according to your model and the same thing go to your findings.”
R8: Thank you for this comment. We stick to our point of view that we first describe the mediating role of psychological empowerment, and then analyze the moderating role of the sense of community in the relationship of virtual community interaction and psychological empowerment. Because, according to our previous research review, this paper wants to analyze the psychological mechanism of individual users first, in order to study the interference effect of group on individual psychology.
Q9: “LIne 295, … previous studies ? Which studies?”
R9: Thank you for this comment. In line 227, we add “in Kou's research(2013) ……”.
Q10: “380 sample …. This sentence need to be re-write since they repeat the same information.”
R10: Thank you for this comment. We rewrote seg 3.2 Sample and Data Collection, as it goes “In this study, convenient sampling method was adopted, and the sample objects were selected from the Fitness lovers in Southwest China. The questionnaire was dis-tributed online and as an on-site paper questionnaire. Respondents could fill in the questionnaire by scanning the code or hyperlink, and each IP address could only fill in one questionnaire to avoid repeated answers,and respondents were informed of the purpose of the survey and the procedures for filling out the questionnaire, and all in-formation they provided was guaranteed confidentiality. Moreovethe questionnaire in this study was compiled by drawing on the mature scale of famous scholars,and Likert 5-level scale was used to measure the core variables in this study. In this study, 380 questionnaires were collected from randomly assigned respondents. Seventeen re-spondents who did not complete the questionnaire were excluded and 363 question-naires were finally analyzed.
The statistical results showed that there was little difference between the men and women in the sample, but there were more women (53.4%). The respondents aged 18–30 years accounted for 89.3% of the total number of respondents, and the respondents were mainly students (65.6%); therefore, most of the respondents were unmarried (86.2%) and an income below CNY 2000 accounted for 49.6% of respondents. Most of the respondents’ time spent on fitness was less than 6 months (49.6%), and the number of fitness sessions per month was 4 times or less (60.9%). The duration of each fitness session was mostly 31 min to 1 h (42.1%).” Also, we delete these repeat the same information.
Q11: “Line 297, what is incomplete questionnaire? Criteria?”
R11: Thank you for this comment. As revision at Q10.
Q12: “What is the criteria to select your sample?”
R12: Thank you for this comment. In this study, convenient sampling method was adopted, and the sample objects were selected from the Fitness lovers in Southwest China.
Q13: “Any common bias happen”
R13: Thank you for this comment. We add seg new 4.2 Common method bias, “Based on Harman’s one-factor test (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986), results show that four factors that account for 60.158% of variance are extracted and the first factor accounts for 35.249%. Thus, although the data were collected from the same source, common method bias is not a major contaminant for our results.”
Q14: “What kind of scale you use 7 or 9 Likert scale?”
R14: Thank you for this comment. In this study, c Moreovethe questionnaire in this study was compiled by drawing on the mature scale of famous scholars,and Likert 5-level scale was used to measure the core variables in this study. This study’s questionnaire consists of two sections. The first section is about background and basic information, including the respondent’s marital status,age, edu-cation, exercise duration,and so on. The second section measures the three core varia-bles of “Customer citizenship behavior “,” User interaction “,” Psychological empow-erment “,” Sense of community “. Likert 5-level scale was used to measure the core vari-ables in this study.
Q15: “Your method section is the weakness of this study, you must re-write again before I can consider for suitability publication in this journal.”
R15: Thank you for this comment. We rewrote our method and result.
Q16: “Section 4.1, I can SEE only validity but no reliability proof here? Any justification?”
R16: Thank you for this comment. We add cfa.
Q17: “Your theoretical implication is not beyond the study LUO Et al., what is exactly new here?”
R17: Thank you for this comment. This study establishes a model based on social exchange theory through scientific theoretical methods, verifies the model, and proves the positive impact of user interaction (information interaction, human-computer interaction, interpersonal interaction) on customer citizenship behavior. Based on the uncertainty reduction theory, Lou found that different community interactions (information interaction, human-computer interaction, interpersonal interaction) have different impacts on harmonious community relations. Although the dimension selection of user interaction is consistent, the theoretical use, research objects, moderating variables, and dependent variables are inconsistent.
Reviewer 2 Report
Please see attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your careful reviews and constructive suggestions with regard to our manuscript (ID: sustainability-2152093). These comments are very helpful for us to revise and improve our paper. According to your suggestions, a revised version has been provided. More detailed information is as follows:
Q1: “The aim of your research should be clarified xxx. As it is now proposed, it is not clear.”
R1: Thank you for this comment. This is a very helpful comment. In the new version, in line 37-39, “Virtual community interaction is an important theme in today'sdigital environment, Therefore, it is essential to conduct research and explore virtual communication interaction in this field for citizen behavior.”
Q2: “also in this part of the paper, the actual aim of necessity is not clear; hence, it is difficult to follow.”
R2: Thank you for this comment. This is a very helpful comment. In the new version, in line 42-50, “This kind of personal behavior can solve the problems of serious homogenization of content and lack of innovation of service content with economic development[7]. After wide dissemination, on the one hand, it can reduce the pressure on the sales expenses of fitness enterprises, on the other hand, it can also promote the popularity of fitness en-terprise products and stand out in the market with serious homogeneity. Therefore, it is of great practical significance to promote the customers of fitness enterprises form citizen behavior, help enterprises form core competitiveness, enable fitness enterprises to successfully overcome the crisis, further improve market vitality, and promote the development of fitness enterprises and economy.”
Q3: “I would have personally placed the hypothesis in a single paragraph at the end of this section.”
R3: I'm sorry we don't understand the exact expression of this sentence.
Q4: “This section needs strong revision since it is not clear the actual methodology adopted. In short, going through this section, replicability is impossible since the procedure has not been explained.”
R4: Thank you for this comment. We rewrote seg 3.1 and 3.2.
Q5: “This section is imprecise. Robustness checks should be placed at the end, whereas actual results at the front.”
R5: Thank you for this comment. We rewrote seg 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 ( add common bias, cfa).
Q6: “discussion, In this paragraph you present your conclusion, But you need to separate discussion of results with conclusion. In short, at the end of this paper the feeling is “so what?””
R6: Thank you for this comment. The results of the study were divided into three parts: main effect, mediating effect and moderating effect. Specific for the data analysis of the conclusion, and predecessors of the differences
Additionally, we put all the tables and figures in the appendix of the article.
Reviewer 3 Report
Please take into consideration the file attached. In short, the aim of your research should be clarified better and immediately. Moreover, it is very technical, so actual and practical contributions are missed in the present form.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your careful reviews and constructive suggestions with regard to our manuscript (ID: sustainability-2152093). These comments are very helpful for us to revise and improve our paper. According to your suggestions, a revised version has been provided. More detailed information is as follows:
Q1: “The small concern is the description of the study sample. I will address this more in the weaknesses”
R1: Thank you for this comment. We rewrote Sample and Data Collection. “In this study, convenient sampling method was adopted, and the sample objects were selected from the Fitness lovers in Southwest China. The questionnaire was dis-tributed online and as an on-site paper questionnaire. Respondents could fill in the questionnaire by scanning the code or hyperlink, and each IP address could only fill in one questionnaire to avoid repeated answers,and respondents were informed of the purpose of the survey and the procedures for filling out the questionnaire, and all in-formation they provided was guaranteed confidentiality. Moreovethe questionnaire in this study was compiled by drawing on the mature scale of famous scholars,and Likert 5-level scale was used to measure the core variables in this study. In this study, 380 questionnaires were collected from randomly assigned respondents. Seventeen re-spondents who did not complete the questionnaire were excluded and 363 question-naires were finally analyzed.
The statistical results showed that there was little difference between the men and women in the sample, but there were more women (53.4%). The respondents aged 18–30 years accounted for 89.3% of the total number of respondents, and the respondents were mainly students (65.6%); therefore, most of the respondents were unmarried (86.2%) and an income below CNY 2000 accounted for 49.6% of respondents. Most of the respondents’ time spent on fitness was less than 6 months (49.6%), and the number of fitness sessions per month was 4 times or less (60.9%). The duration of each fitness session was mostly 31 minutes to 1 hour (42.1%).”
Q2: “the concern in this research paper is the selected sample of the study. China is big, we all know that. However, we do not see which online or virtual fitness communities were targeted, in which region, etc. If we do not see this in the work, I do not believe that 380 responses are a good representation of China.”
R2: Thank you for this comment. The questionnaire is mainly distributed in southwest China, and the scope of the questionnaire has been limited in the paper.
Q3: “Please avoid complex sentences in the writing”
R3: Thank you for this comment. Thank you for reminding me.
Q4: “the suggestion is to move Figures 2,3, and 4 to appendixes.”
R4: Thank you for this comment. Cover it!
Q4: “Research methods and results are interconnected but need modification in the methods sections.”
R4: Thank you for this comment. In the part of method research, the validity and reliability tests are rewritten, and the robustness tests of model fitting, mediating effect and moderating effect are added to enhance the persuasion of the method part.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall, authors have responded well to my previous comments.
