Influence of Goal-Framing Type and Product Type on Consumer Decision-Making: Dual Evidence from Behavior and Eye Movement

Comments 1: To enhance the appeal of the paper and convince readers of the importance of the topic, the introduction should present a stronger and more critically constructed representation of the main ideas. The authors are encouraged to elaborate on how this study contributes to the empirical literature with fresh perspectives, and to clearly explain how it differs from existing research. Stronger, deeper, and more persuasive claims are needed to establish the uniqueness and motivation behind the study. Although some attempts have been made in this direction, they are insufficient to fully justify the foundation of the research; further justification is necessary.

Response 1: We sincerely thank you for the constructive comments regarding the introduction. We fully agree that clearly articulating the significance and unique contribution of the study is crucial for engaging readers and establishing the rationale for the research. In response, we have substantially revised the introduction and literature review sections to:

(1) Highlight the novelty of the study by emphasizing the interaction between goal framing type and product type in consumer decision-making, a factor largely overlooked in prior research (see lines 61-63; 208-212).

(2) Provide a critical review of existing literature to clearly identify gaps in the persuasive effects of goal framing across different consumer contexts (see lines 170-177).

These revisions strengthen the theoretical and practical motivation of our study, making the rationale more compelling and the research gaps clearer. We hope that the updated introduction adequately addresses the reviewer’s concerns regarding the clarity, depth, and persuasiveness of the argument.

Comments 2: As evident the implications section does not effectively convey the significance of the study or outline a clear future roadmap. I recommend that the authors strengthen the managerial implications by making them more specific, actionable, and directly aligned with the study’s findings and conclusions. Each factor examined in the research should be addressed, with clear guidance on what actions are required and how they should be implemented.

Response 2: We sincerely thank you for the valuable feedback regarding the “Implications” section. We fully agree that clearly communicating the practical significance of the study and outlining actionable recommendations is essential. In response, we have substantially revised the implications section to:

Enhance specificity and applicability by linking each implication directly to the corresponding research findings and conclusions. Address all factors examined in the study, providing clear guidance on the actions that should be taken based on our results (see lines 796-822).

Comments 3: The conclusion currently restates the results in a bullet-point style, which reads more like a summary of results than a true conclusion. A stronger conclusion should concisely restate the key findings, highlight the novel contributions of the study, and close with a forward-looking perspective such as potential avenues for future research or the broader theoretical and practical implications of the work.

Response 3: We sincerely thank you for the constructive comments regarding the Conclusion section. We fully agree with the feedback. In response, we have removed the original Conclusion section and integrated its content into the Discussion section (see lines 709-751). Additionally, we have added a Limitation and Future Research section to provide a forward-looking perspective and outline potential directions for future studies (see lines 823-849).

These revisions aim to enhance the persuasiveness and comprehensiveness of the Discussion, better reflecting the significance of the study. We hope that the updated structure adequately addresses the reviewer’s concerns regarding the depth and value of the conclusions.

Comments 4: I will also suggest to explicitly list in the Appendices the exact advertising messages (ad copies) that were shown to participants in the experiments and ensure figure numbers (e.g., Figure 6, 7, etc.) match captions properly.

Response 4: We sincerely thank you for the valuable suggestions regarding the appendix and figure presentation. In response, we have:

(1) Clearly listed the exact advertisements shown to participants in the appendix, ensuring transparency and replicability of the experimental materials.

(2) Carefully checked all figures, including Figures 6 and 7, to ensure that the numbering correctly matches the corresponding titles and captions.

These revisions aim to improve the clarity, accuracy, and usability of the supplementary materials. We hope that the updated appendix and figures address the reviewer’s concerns.

Comments 5: Please do re-check the grammar because there are several minor mistakes that could be easily corrected.

Response 5: We sincerely thank the reviewer for pointing out the grammatical issues. In response, we have carefully rechecked the manuscript and corrected all minor errors to ensure proper grammar and language accuracy throughout the text.

We believe these revisions improve the clarity and readability of the manuscript and hope they address the reviewer’s concerns.

Comments 1: The abstract can be more concise and states the key research questions, theoretical model, research findings, and most importantly, key contributions.

Response 1: We sincerely thank you for the valuable suggestion regarding the Abstract. In response, we have revised the Abstract to make it more concise and focused. The updated version clearly outlines the key research questions, the theoretical framework, the main findings, and, most importantly, the core contributions of the study (see lines 14-32).

We believe these revisions improve the clarity and impact of the Abstract and hope they adequately address the reviewer’s concerns.

Comments 2: In the introduction, it is unclear why this research is important/needed and what theoretical/practical contributions it made. Therefore, the introduction section needs to be much strengthened.

Response 2: We sincerely thank you for the valuable comment regarding the Introduction section. We fully agree that the original introduction did not clearly convey the importance and necessity of the study, nor its theoretical and practical contributions. In response, we have substantially revised the introduction to:

(1) Highlight the research gap by emphasizing the overlooked role of product type in moderating the effects of goal framing on consumer decision-making (see lines 61-63).

(2) Explicitly state theoretical and practical contributions, showing how the study extends existing literature and provides actionable insights for marketing practice (see lines 66-71).

We believe these revisions strengthen the introduction and adequately address the reviewer’s concerns.

Comments 3: Go framing literature (Literature review, section 2.1) needs to be more extensively reviewed. (by the way, some missing citation as I spotted: "As the study of information framing has deepened, scholars have also categorized it into more nuanced types, typically including risky framing, attribute framing (), and goal framing (Levin et al., 1998)." The following literature could be considered for constructing the goal framing literature review: (1) about positive vs. negative framing, the following theoretical work is highly relevant: Fishbach, A., Eyal, T., & Finkelstein, S. R. (2010). How positive and negative feedback motivate goal pursuit. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(8), 517-530. // Fishbach, A., & Finkelstein, S. R. (2012). How feedback influences persistence, disengagement, and change in goal pursuit. In Goal-directed behavior (pp. 203-230). Psychology Press. // Finkelstein, S. R., & Fishbach, A. (2012). Tell me what I did wrong: Experts seek and respond to negative feedback. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(1), 22-38. (2) Recent work on goal framing: Zeng, K. J., Yu, I. Y., Yang, M. X., & Chan, H. (2022). Communication strategies for multi-tier loyalty programs: The role of progress framing. Tourism Management, 91, 104460. // Yang, M. X., Yu, I. Y., Chan, H. & Zeng, K. J. (2020). Retain or upgrade: The progress-framing effect in hierarchical loyalty programs. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 89, 102562. // Yang, M. X., Zeng, K. J., Chan, H., & Yu, I. Y. (2021). Managing loyalty program communications in the digital era: Does culture matter? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 60, 102476. (Note this paper is particular relevant because it provides evidence that positive/negative framing dovetails well with promotion/prevention focus to motivate goal pursuit.

Response 3: We sincerely thank you for the constructive feedback regarding the goal framing literature review in Section 2.1. We fully agree that the review could be broader and more comprehensive. In response, we have:

(1) Expanded the literature review to include additional theoretical and empirical studies on goal framing, particularly regarding positive and negative framing.

(2) Added the suggested references, including:

Fishbach, A., Eyal, T., & Finkelstein, S. R. (2010). How positive and negative feedback motivate goal pursuit. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(8), 517–530.

Fishbach, A., & Finkelstein, S. R. (2012). How feedback affects goal pursuit persistence, disengagement, and change. In Goal-Directed Behavior (pp. 203–230). Psychology Press.

Finkelstein, S. R., & Fishbach, A. (2012). Tell me what I did wrong: Experts seek and respond to negative feedback. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(1), 22–38.

Yang, M. X., Zeng, K. J., Chan, H., & Yu, I. Y. (2021). Managing loyalty program communications in the digital era: Does culture matter? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 60, 102476.

These additions help construct a more comprehensive and up-to-date review of the goal framing literature and highlight the theoretical and practical relevance of our study. We hope these revisions adequately address the reviewer’s concerns.

Comments 4: The conclusion is in point-form, which is not a standard way of presentation. Please modify the conclusion in coherent texts, and also discuss the limitations and future research directions.

Response 4: We sincerely thank you for the valuable feedback regarding the Conclusion section. We fully agree that presenting the conclusions in a bullet-point format is not a standard approach. In response, we have removed the original Conclusion section and integrated its content into the Discussion section (see lines 709-751). Additionally, we have added a Limitation and Future Research section to provide a forward-looking perspective and outline potential directions for future studies (see lines 823-849).

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript and for providing valuable comments and suggestions. We greatly appreciate your insightful feedback, which has helped us improve the clarity, rigor, and overall quality of our work. We have carefully considered each of your comments and have made corresponding revisions in the manuscript. All changes have been highlighted or tracked for your convenience. Below, we provide detailed point-by-point responses to your comments.

Comments 1: Extended proofreading to improve clarity of the text, remove redundancies from the speech, and ensure consistent terminology throughout the manuscript.

Response 1: We sincerely thank you for the constructive suggestion regarding the overall clarity and consistency of the manuscript. In response, we have:

(1) Expanded proofreading efforts to improve the clarity and readability of the text throughout the manuscript.

(2) Eliminated redundancies and verbose expressions, ensuring that the writing is concise and precise.

(3) Standardized terminology across all sections to maintain consistency and enhance comprehension for readers.

We believe these revisions have improved the overall quality and coherence of the manuscript and hope they adequately address the reviewer’s concerns.

Comments 2: It would be beneficial to abbreviate the theoretical framework to avoid repetition and strengthen hypothesis justification with recent literature in e-commerce and social media marketing, so this section could be more robust.

Response 2: We sincerely thank you for the helpful suggestion regarding the theoretical framework section. In response, we have:

(1) Shortened and streamlined the theoretical framework to reduce redundancy and enhance clarity.

(2) Strengthened the argumentation for the hypotheses, drawing on the latest literature in e-commerce and social media marketing to ensure that the theoretical rationale is robust and well-supported.

We believe these revisions make the theoretical framework more concise, focused, and compelling, and we hope they adequately address the reviewer’s concerns.

Comments 3: Developing sampling description would clarify the characteristics of the sample (specifying why other relevant sociodemographic variables were not involved in the sampling process).

Response 3: We sincerely thank you for the constructive comment regarding the sampling description. In response, we have provided a detailed description of the sample, clearly outlining its characteristics and demographic profile (see lines 312-315; 317-319; 503-505; 508-509).

We believe these revisions enhance the transparency and rigor of the sampling methodology and hope they adequately address the reviewer’s concerns.

Comments 4: Clarity and Writing

• Writing structure: The text contains sentences that are long and redundant. There is an example in the abstract: “...In the fierce market competition, how to quickly attract consumers' attention to products and prompt them to make purchases have become key issues for enterprises to ponder and focus on.” In this sense, these cases could be simplified for clarity. For this case I would recommend: “In today’s fierce market competition, enterprises must quickly attract consumers’ attention to products and prompt them to make purchases”. Therefore, authors must review the paper and modify this issue.

• Terminologically inconsistent: The manuscript seems to alternate between the terms “goal framing,” “information framing,” and “framing type” without a clear development of the same construct. It is recommended to unify these terms and clearly define it in the introduction.

• Orthographic mistakes: some minor issues with words like “thedonic” (instead of “hedonic”). Authors must review the entire manuscript to avoid these mistakes.

Response 4: We sincerely thank you for the detailed and constructive comments regarding the writing and terminology in the manuscript. In response, we have:

(1) Revised the text to eliminate redundancy and overly long sentences. In addition to the Abstract, similar issues throughout the manuscript have also been addressed.

(2) Standardized terminology by consistently using “goal framing type” as the core concept throughout the manuscript, and providing a clear definition in Section 2.1 of the literature review to avoid confusion with terms such as “information framing” or “frame type.”

(3) Carefully checked and corrected spelling errors, including changing “thedonic” to “hedonic” and correcting other minor typographical or formatting errors.

We believe these revisions significantly improve the clarity, readability, and professional presentation of the manuscript and hope they adequately address the reviewer’s concerns.

Comments 5: Theoretical Framework

• Repetitive literature review: similar literature arguments are presented as reiterative about positive vs. negative framing effects. To improve reading flow, it is necessary to analyze which authors are the most relevant cites and which works just present as an extended description of the same ideas.

• Updating references: To reinforce the literature, it would be positive to add relevant works addressing processing fluency and goal framing in social media and cross-border e-commerce contexts.

• Greater conceptual differentiation: The discussion could better explain why positive framing dominates even for utilitarian products under time pressure, exploring alternative mechanisms beyond processing fluency (e.g., heuristic-systematic model).

Response 5: We sincerely thank you for the insightful and constructive comments regarding the literature review and conceptual discussion. In response, we have:

(1) Addressed redundancy in the literature review by carefully evaluating which references are directly relevant to the positive and negative framing effects and distinguishing them from works that merely extend similar ideas, thereby streamlining the narrative and improving readability.

(2) Updated and expanded references to include the latest studies on processing fluency and goal framing in social media and cross-border e-commerce contexts, strengthening the theoretical foundation and empirical relevance of our study.

(3) Enhanced conceptual differentiation, with the relevant discussion incorporated and elaborated in the Discussion section (see lines 709-751).

We believe these revisions improve the clarity, depth, and originality of the manuscript, and we hope they adequately address the reviewer’s concerns.

Comments 6: Methodology

• Sample description: It is recommended to include the population, describing sampling criteria (explaining why it was selected) and then the sample; due the lack of some important demographic characteristics like gender, education level, prior online shopping experience.

• Control of external variables: The manuscript does not specify whether product and framing presentation orders were counterbalanced to avoid sequence bias.

• Time pressure measurement: Time pressure manipulation is based on average times adjusted ±50%, but it is unclear whether perceived pressure consistency was verified beyond the t-test results.

Response 6: We sincerely thank you for the valuable comments regarding the sample description, control of external variables, and measurement of time pressure. In response, we have:

(1) Expanded the sample description, providing additional demographic information including gender, education level, and monthly income (see lines 312-315; 317-319; 503-505; 508-509).

(2) Clarified the control of external variables, specifying that the presentation order of products and framing types was balanced to minimize potential sequence effects (see lines 341-343; 542-544).

(3) Provided further details on time pressure measurement, indicating that in addition to the t-test results, the consistency of participants’ perceived time pressure was also examined to ensure the validity of the manipulation (see lines 553; 559-564).

We believe these revisions enhance the rigor, transparency, and replicability of the study and hope they adequately address the reviewer’s concerns.

Comments 7: Analysis and Results Presentation

• Interaction effects: Some ANOVA results provide F and η² values but lack confidence intervals or error bars in figures, which would strengthen the visual interpretation.

• Interpretation of unexpected effects: While the overall positive framing effect is strong, some cases do not reflect the expected congruence pattern in fixations or purchase intentions; this deserves deeper discussion, or at least authors could address the topic implying future studies in this regard.

Response 7: We sincerely thank you for the constructive comments regarding the interaction effects and unexpected findings. In response, we have:

(1) Enhanced the reporting of interaction effects by adding 95% confidence intervals and including error bars in the relevant figures to improve visual interpretation of the results.

(2) Addressed the unexpected effects by discussing cases where the positive framing effect did not fully align with the expected pattern in gaze or purchase intention. We have elaborated on potential explanations and suggested avenues for future research to explore these inconsistencies further (see lines 675-688; 709-751).

We believe these revisions improve the clarity, interpretability, and scholarly depth of the manuscript and hope they adequately address the reviewer’s concerns.

Comments 8: Discussion and Conclusions

• The discussion section repeats findings instead of critically linking them to other papers and studies with comparable or contrasting results.

• The manuscript would benefit by specifying future investigative lines with replication potential with different samples (with diverse cultural contexts and with non-university populations) to test robustness.

Response 8: We sincerely thank you for the insightful comments regarding the Discussion section and future research directions. In response, we have:

(1) Enhanced the critical discussion by linking our findings to other comparable or contrasting studies in the literature, rather than merely repeating the results. This provides a more nuanced interpretation and situates our findings within the broader research context (see lines 709-751).

(2) Outlined potential avenues for future research by specifying studies that could replicate our work with different samples, including participants from diverse cultural backgrounds and non-university populations, to test the robustness and generalizability of the results (see lines 823-849).

We believe these revisions improve the analytical depth and practical relevance of the manuscript and hope they adequately address the reviewer’s concerns.