Intergenerational Differences in Impulse Purchasing in Live E-Commerce: A Multi-Dimensional Mechanism of the ASEAN Cross-Border Market

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Hello, because I am directly interested in this field, I enjoyed reading this work. It is current, of interest, and certainly covers a field that will be increasingly analyzed in future research. To improve this article I recommend:

• In point 2, Literature review, respectively 2.1 - refer to a single article, respectively (Chen et al., 2025), and make the argument using a lot of data and percentages that have no sources. For example, the entire paragraph from lines 138-168 - the data has no source, and there is no reference to existing literature. Same in 2.2 - lines 205-227; In 2.3, lines 242-282. Basically, in the Literature review, you mention only three published articles. I recommend either citing other studies or, in the paragraphs with statistical data, citing the source of the data.
• In point 3, you need to provide clearer explanations of the research methodology. I understand the sampling, but it is not clear whether you applied a questionnaire. In 3.2, you refer to 1500 valid responses. I did not understand how you applied this questionnaire in the analyzed countries, and what the total number of responses was. I think it would be useful for the reader to have a structured presentation of the implemented questionnaire, for example, in table form.

For example, column 1 – Indicators
Row 1: SocialMediaUsage(hours per 436 day)
Row 2: LivestreamUsage (frequency per week),
Row 3: BrandLoyalty
Column 2: Example items
Column 3: Item type (Scale)

Editing recommendations: I noticed that some titles have very small fonts. Please review the settings.

For example.
2.1 Economic dimension: intergenerational mapping of market size and consumption capacity
2.2 Policy Dimensions: Intergenerational Regulation of Consumption Decisions by Institutional Environment

5.1.2 Cultural divide in Eastern and Western impulse buying mechanisms: The moderating effect of collectivism

 Thanks for this article!

 

Author Response

Comments 1：

In point 2, Literature review, respectively 2.1 - refer to a single article, respectively (Chen et al., 2025), and make the argument using a lot of data and percentages that have no sources. For example, the entire paragraph from lines 138-168 - the data has no source, and there is no reference to existing literature. Same in 2.2 - lines 205-227; In 2.3, lines 242-282. Basically, in the Literature review, you mention only three published articles. I recommend either citing other studies or, in the paragraphs with statistical data, citing the source of the data.

Response: We sincerely appreciate your valuable suggestions. The issues you identified regarding insufficient citation of references and unclear data source annotations are of great significance for the further refinement of our manuscript. We highly value your feedback and have implemented the following targeted improvements in the revised version:

Firstly, we have comprehensively supplemented and clarified the data source annotations within the text. For the data and percentage statements in Sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 that previously lacked source attribution, we have added specific references. For example, in Section 2.1, the statement "TikTok Shop's transaction volume in the Singapore market reached USD 57 million in the first half of 2024" is now followed by "(Data source: Southeast Asia Market Annual Report, Douyin, 2024)"; in Section 2.2, the claim "Indonesia's 2022 e-commerce subsidy policy increased Generation Z's impulsive purchase frequency by 4.5 times" has been supplemented with "(Data source: Ministry of Trade Indonesia E-commerce Policy Effectiveness Evaluation, 2023)," ensuring all data are traceable and verifiable.

Secondly, we have further enriched the academic references in the literature review section. In accordance with your recommendations, we have added several high-quality recent references related to economic, policy, and cultural dimensions, thereby strengthening the theoretical support and comprehensiveness of our review.

 

Comments 2：

In point 3, you need to provide clearer explanations of the research methodology. I understand the sampling, but it is not clear whether you applied a questionnaire. In 3.2, you refer to 1500 valid responses. I did not understand how you applied this questionnaire in the analyzed countries, and what the total number of responses was. I think it would be useful for the reader to have a structured presentation of the implemented questionnaire, for example, in table form.

For example, column 1 – Indicators
Row 1: SocialMediaUsage(hours per 436 day)
Row 2: LivestreamUsage (frequency per week),
Row 3: BrandLoyalty
Column 2: Example items
Column 3: Item type (Scale)

Response:We sincerely appreciate the valuable feedback provided by the reviewer regarding the research methodology section, particularly concerning the clarity and structural presentation of the questionnaire survey approach. Your suggestions have significantly contributed to enhancing the transparency and standardization of our research methods. In response, we have made the following revisions:

Firstly, in Section 3.1, "Data Sources," we have added detailed information about the distribution and collection of questionnaires. The revised statement reads: "The questionnaires were primarily distributed via the 'Wenjuanxing' online platform, supplemented by offline distribution at designated locations in certain countries, covering six core ASEAN nations and three emerging markets. A total of 1,800 questionnaires were distributed, with 1,500 valid responses collected, resulting in an effective response rate of 83.33%," thereby clarifying the scope of the survey, distribution channels, and sample recovery effectiveness.

Secondly, in accordance with the reviewer's suggestions, we have introduced "Table 4: Details of Core Variable Questionnaire Measurements" in Section 3.3, "Variable Setting." This table is structured into three columns as recommended: "Indicator" (e.g., social media usage (hours/day), live streaming frequency (per week), brand loyalty), "Sample Questions," and "Question Type (Scale)." For example, under the "Social Media Usage" indicator, the sample question is explicitly stated as: "How long on average do you spend a day using social media (Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, etc.)?" The question type is marked as "Single-choice scale (Options: <1 hour; 1–2 hours; >3 hours)," which is subsequently converted into a continuous numerical variable. This systematic presentation clearly illustrates the design details of the questionnaire measurement tools.

 

Comments 3：

Editing recommendations: I noticed that some titles have very small fonts. Please review the settings.

For example.
2.1 Economic dimension: intergenerational mapping of market size and consumption capacity
2.2 Policy Dimensions: Intergenerational Regulation of Consumption Decisions by Institutional Environment

5.1.2 Cultural divide in Eastern and Western impulse buying mechanisms: The moderating effect of collectivism

Response:Thank you, editor, for your meticulous review and valuable suggestions regarding the formatting revisions. Your guidance is crucial for enhancing the overall standard and readability of the manuscript. In accordance with your recommendations, we have conducted a comprehensive and uniform review and adjustment of all section headings throughout the document. Specifically:  

[1] Systematic adjustments: All hierarchical headings in the text (including the example subheadings 2.1, 2.2, 5.1.2, etc.) have been meticulously formatted to meet the journal's style guidelines regarding font and font size.  

[2] Thorough verification: We have ensured that such formatting issues have been thoroughly corrected, eliminating any instances of inconsistent or overly small fonts.  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The text addresses an important and underexplored area at the intersection of generational consumer psychology, policy dynamics, and digital commerce behavior in the ASEAN region. The integration of economic, sociological, and political science perspectives in explaining intergenerational differences in impulse buying is highly original and offers a strong contribution to both theoretical development and regional policy.

The macro-institutional–meso–micro behavioral framework is compelling, as it helps conceptualize how regulatory environments, economic stratification, and cultural values interrelate to shape consumer behavior across generations. The empirical design is satisfactory, employing multi-source data, stratified sampling, robust econometric modeling, and even addressing endogeneity with an instrumental variable approach. These methodological strengths greatly enhance the credibility and generalizability of the findings within the ASEAN digital commerce context.

However, while the study makes substantial contributions, I suggest a few revisions to improve the manuscript’s accessibility, clarity, and theoretical coherence:

• The distinction between macro, meso, and micro layers is conceptually innovative but sometimes ambiguous. For example, it is not always clear whether influencer effects belong to the meso-market level or the micro-behavioral level. Please consider refining the definitions and providing a brief table or visual diagram clarifying these levels with real-world examples.
• While the manuscript is intellectually rigorous, the language is at times unnecessarily dense and overly formal. Terms such as “synergistically contributed to a superimposed effect” and “institutional heterogeneity variables” may alienate readers unfamiliar with bureaucratic phrasing. So, please consider simplifying and streamlining key sections, especially the abstract, introduction, and discussio, for broader academic readership.
• Hofstede’s cultural dimensions provide a solid basis for comparison, but they are often criticized for being outdated and insensitive to sub-generational evolution within cultures. Since your study acknowledges intra-cultural variability (e.g., Cambodian Gen Z showing individualistic traits), a short paragraph discussing the limitations or dynamic adaptations of Hofstede’s framework would strengthen the cultural validity of the model.
• While the prioritization of “Key Opinion Leaders” (KOLs) as the central independent variable is well-grounded in prior literature and meta-analytic support, your dismissal of other host traits (like humor or product knowledge) could benefit from additional robustness checks or at least a more balanced justification.
• A concise visual representation of your full empirical model—including generations, cultural/policy/economic moderators, and key behavioral outcomes—would greatly aid reader comprehension and reinforce the structure of your argument.

Author Response

Comments 1：

The distinction between macro, meso, and micro layers is conceptually innovative but sometimes ambiguous. For example, it is not always clear whether influencer effects belong to the meso-market level or the micro-behavioral level. Please consider refining the definitions and providing a brief table or visual diagram clarifying these levels with real-world examples.

Response:Thank you to the reviewer for your valuable suggestions regarding the theoretical framework of the manuscript. Your recommendations are crucial for enhancing the scholarly rigor and logical coherence of this study. We have given this feedback high priority and have made meticulous revisions to Section 2.4, "Variable Selection." The revised subsection retains the key conclusion that "KOL influence serves as the core independent variable" while emphasizing two additional aspects:

First, we explicitly define the "refined three-tier analysis framework—macro, meso, and micro levels"—clarifying the theoretical boundaries and interrelations among these levels.

Second, we include a "Variable Definition and ASEAN Case Correspondence Table," illustrating how variables manifest across different levels through specific regional examples, thereby improving the framework's operational applicability and contextual relevance.

These modifications not only clarify the three-tier structure but also provide a more solid theoretical foundation for the subsequent "2.5 Research Hypotheses" section. Furthermore, they establish a more rigorous logical basis for the variable setting and empirical strategies discussed in Chapter 3, ultimately strengthening the overall clarity and academic persuasiveness of the theoretical framework.

 

Comments 2：

While the manuscript is intellectually rigorous, the language is at times unnecessarily dense and overly formal. Terms such as "synergistically contributed to a superimposed effect" and "institutional heterogeneity variables" may alienate readers unfamiliar with bureaucratic phrasing. So, please consider simplifying and streamlining key sections, especially the abstract, introduction, and discussion, for broader academic readership.

Response:Thank you to the peer reviewers for your valuable suggestions regarding the language expression of the manuscript. You pointed out that some of the phrasing was overly formal and cumbersome, potentially affecting the clarity of the writing and the reader's comprehension. This advice is of great significance for enhancing the readability and dissemination value of this research. We highly value your feedback and have conducted meticulous linguistic refinements throughout the entire manuscript. Specifically, we have streamlined and refined the academic expressions in the abstract, introduction, and discussion sections. Under the premise of maintaining the accuracy of the core scientific content, we have removed redundant embellishments and overly complex sentence structures to make the expressions clearer and more direct. These adjustments effectively lower the comprehension threshold of the text, improve accessibility for readers from diverse academic backgrounds, and preserve the rigor of scholarly writing.

 

Comments 3：

Hofstede's cultural dimensions provide a solid basis for comparison, but they are often criticized for being outdated and insensitive to sub-generational evolution within cultures. Since your study acknowledges intra-cultural variability (e.g., Cambodian Gen Z showing individualistic traits), a short paragraph discussing the limitations or dynamic adaptations of Hofstede's framework would strengthen the cultural validity of the model.

Response:Thank you for highlighting the issues regarding the static nature of Hofstede's cultural dimensions framework and its limitations in cultural applicability. Your insights are highly perceptive and provide valuable guidance for enhancing the rigor and contemporary relevance of our theoretical model. We highly value this feedback and have incorporated the following targeted revisions in the revised manuscript:

Firstly, in Section 5.4, "Research Limitations and Future Directions," we have added a dedicated discussion on the limitations of Hofstede's theory. We explicitly identify two issues: the framework's insufficient acknowledgment of cultural dynamism and temporal relevance, and the potential deviation of the assumption of internal cultural homogeneity from reality. These points are supported by empirical examples, such as the finding that approximately 60% of Z-generation consumers in Cambodia engage in impulsive purchasing driven by product uniqueness, exhibiting behaviors aligned with individualism. This contrasts with the traditional classification of Cambodia as a collectivist society within Hofstede's dimensions, thereby highlighting the framework's limitations in capturing cultural evolution.

Secondly, we propose specific measures for dynamic cultural adaptation. To address the shortcomings of Hofstede's model, we introduce moderating variables such as "global media exposure" and "changes in family structure" to enhance its explanatory power regarding cultural hybridization and intergenerational differences. Additionally, we recommend that future research adopt longitudinal survey methods to collect data on the evolution of cross-generational cultural values, facilitating the development of more dynamically adaptable cultural analysis models. This approach aims to improve the applicability of the theoretical framework across diverse contexts.

 

Comments 4：

While the prioritization of "Key Opinion Leaders" (KOLs) as the central independent variable is well-grounded in prior literature and meta-analytic support, your dismissal of other host traits (like humor or product knowledge) could benefit from additional robustness checks or at least a more balanced justification.

Response:Thank you to the reviewers for their insightful and constructive comments. Regarding the focus on the core independent variable "KOL influence," we acknowledge the need for more comprehensive justification for excluding other potential influencing factors such as humor and product knowledge. This feedback has significantly contributed to enhancing the rigor and persuasiveness of our research. We highly value this suggestion and have incorporated the following two enhancements in the revised manuscript:

First, we have added robustness checks to validate the appropriateness of our model specification. In Section 3.4.3 of the revised manuscript, we introduced a "Core Variable Substitution Test," replacing the original "KOL influence" variable with a composite "主播综合特征指数" (Broadcaster Comprehensive Feature Index) that encompasses multiple dimensions, including humor and product knowledge. The regression analysis was rerun, and the results confirmed that the primary conclusions remain unchanged. Moreover, the marginal effect of "KOL influence" continues to dominate within the model, demonstrating its robustness and explanatory power as a core variable.

Second, from a theoretical perspective, we have supplemented a more balanced argument for variable exclusion. In the relevant section, we elaborated on the limited efficacy of humor (primarily short-term interaction effects) and product knowledge (which exhibits significant informational transmission constraints) in addressing the central contradiction of "cross-border consumer trust and intergenerational motivation asymmetry." Additionally, we cited the case of high-knowledge streamers in the Thai market, who exhibit relatively low conversion rates, to substantiate the rationality of our variable selection. These revisions strengthen the comprehensiveness and depth of our theoretical argumentation.

 

Comments 5：

A concise visual representation of your full empirical model—including generations, cultural/policy/economic moderators, and key behavioral outcomes—would greatly aid reader comprehension and reinforce the structure of your argument.

Response:We sincerely appreciate the valuable suggestions provided by the reviewer. The recommendation to include a comprehensive schematic diagram of the entire model is highly constructive, as it effectively facilitates readers' intuitive understanding of the overarching theoretical framework and the complex interrelationships among variables. In response, we have carefully implemented this suggestion by adding a "Full Model Schematic Diagram" at an appropriate location in the manuscript, such as the "Research Model" or "Theoretical Framework" section. The diagram systematically encompasses the four generational cohorts involved in the study (Generation Z, Millennials, Generation X, and Baby Boomers), the cultural, policy, and economic moderating variables, the mediating variables represented by KOL influence within the meso-market layer, and the two core behavioral outcome variables—impulse purchase frequency and amount. It also clearly delineates the pathways of influence among variables and highlights key validation points within the model.

By introducing this schematic, the complete logical chain of "Intergenerational Differences—Multidimensional Moderators—Mediation Mechanisms—Behavioral Outcomes" is presented in a straightforward and concise manner, significantly enhancing the logical coherence and overall readability of the paper. We believe this addition will greatly aid readers in comprehending the complex theoretical structure of our research.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• Title & Abstract: Relevant and clear, though the title is too long. The abstract summarizes methods and findings well but lacks emphasis on the study’s originality.
• Introduction / Gap / Objectives: Good context, but the research gap is not sharply defined. Objectives are present but need clearer alignment with the gap.
• Literature Review: Comprehensive but overly descriptive. Needs more synthesis, critical analysis, and recent references.
• Methodology: Clear description of data and sampling. However, justification for methods and explanation of validity/reliability could be stronger.
• Results: Well-presented with tables and figures, but too descriptive. More interpretation of patterns and implications is needed.
• Discussion: Connects findings to theory but often repeats results. Should focus more on theoretical contributions, alternative explanations, and limitations.
• Conclusion: Summarizes findings but underplays theoretical contributions. Future research suggestions are too general.
• References: Relevant, though more recent and diverse sources are needed. Ensure consistency with journal style.

Author Response

Comments 1：

Title & Abstract: Relevant and clear, though the title is too long. The abstract summarizes methods and findings well but lacks emphasis on the study's originality.

Response: Thank you to the reviewer for your valuable comments on the title and abstract of the manuscript. Your suggestions have been instrumental in enhancing the conciseness and scholarly significance of the paper. We have made the following careful revisions accordingly:

Firstly, the title has been streamlined and optimized. The original title, "Generational Differences in Impulse Buying on Live-Streaming E-Commerce: A Multidimensional Mechanism Analysis in ASEAN's Cross-Border Markets,"has been revised to"Intergenerational Impulse Buying in ASEAN Cross-Border Live-Streaming E-Commerce: A Multidimensional Mechanism." This new title retains the core elements—intergenerational differences, impulse purchasing, live-streaming commerce, and multidimensional mechanisms—while significantly improving clarity and readability.

Secondly, we have substantially strengthened the articulation of the research's innovative aspects within the abstract. An explicit summary of the study's novel contributions has been added at the conclusion of the abstract, highlighting three key innovations: theoretical integration, cross-cultural contextual validation, and methodological fusion, thereby more clearly emphasizing the theoretical and practical significance of the research.

 

Comments 2：

• Introduction / Gap / Objectives: Good context, but the research gap is not sharply defined. Objectives are present but need clearer alignment with the gap.

Response: Thank you for the insightful comments and valuable suggestions provided by the reviewer regarding the introduction. Your recommendations have significantly guided us in enhancing the logical rigor and academic value of our paper. We highly appreciate your feedback and have made targeted revisions accordingly:

Firstly, we have clearly delineated and refined the discussion of the research gaps. In accordance with your advice, we added a subsection titled "1.2 Research Gaps and Objectives," systematically summarizing the deficiencies in existing studies into three points: (1) the current theoretical frameworks are limited by disciplinary boundaries and fail to effectively integrate multi-dimensional factors; (2) the mechanisms underlying intergenerational differences in live-streaming e-commerce contexts remain somewhat ambiguous; (3) the applicability of traditional impulsive buying theories in cross-border consumption scenarios requires further validation. Presenting these gaps in a point-by-point manner enhances clarity and specificity.

Secondly, we have emphasized the alignment between our research objectives and the identified gaps. In section "1.2.2 Research Objectives," we ensured that each objective directly addresses the corresponding research gap. For example, the first objective, "to deconstruct the characteristics and divergence patterns of impulsive purchasing behaviors among different generations in cross-border live-streaming e-commerce," aims to fill the gap of "ambiguous intergenerational mechanisms." The second objective, "to reveal the roles of economic, policy, and cultural factors in influencing intergenerational impulsive buying," responds to the issue of "disciplinary limitations of existing theoretical frameworks." The third objective, "to develop an interdisciplinary integrated theoretical model," seeks to address the gap of "insufficient adaptability of traditional theories in cross-border scenarios." This one-to-one correspondence ensures a close linkage between our research aims and the identified gaps.

 

Comments 3：

• Literature Review: Comprehensive but overly descriptive. Needs more synthesis, critical analysis, and recent references.
•   Response: theoretical depth and cutting-edge relevance of this study. We have taken your suggestions seriously and made the following meticulous revisions:

Firstly, we have strengthened the integration and critical analysis of the literature. In the revised version, we have moved away from a simple enumeration of studies and, within the subsections of "Economic Dimension," "Policy Dimension," and "Cultural Dimension," we have added dedicated "Critical Analysis" paragraphs. For example, in Section 2.1 on the Economic Dimension, we summarize: "Existing research generally focuses on the linear relationship between 'income level' and 'consumption expenditure,' but most neglect the interactive effects between policy regulation and economic factors, and fail to systematically incorporate key variables such as household structural changes into the analytical framework." By systematically reviewing the consensus, divergences, and limitations within current research, our aim is to construct a clearer and more in-depth theoretical analysis framework.

Secondly, we have systematically supplemented the literature with more recent and diverse references. To ensure the timeliness and frontier nature of the sources, we have selectively added several recent studies from 2024 to 2025, such as Zhang et al. (2025) on how live-streaming e-commerce supply chains influence consumer decision-making, as well as other relevant literature on cross-border consumption behaviors in emerging markets. These additions serve to further strengthen the credibility and contemporary relevance of the theoretical foundation of this research.

 

Comments 4：

Methodology: Clear description of data and sampling. However, justification for methods and explanation of validity/reliability could be stronger.

Response: Thank you to the peer reviewers for your valuable suggestions regarding the research methodology section. In response, we have made targeted improvements in the revised manuscript as follows:

First, we have emphasized a detailed explanation of the rationale behind our choice of research methods. Based on your recommendations, we have added a new subsection, "3.4.2 Justification for Method Selection," which systematically clarifies why the multiple linear regression (OLS) model was selected for this study. We also compare it proactively with models such as Poisson regression and logistic regression, highlighting that the OLS model is more suitable for analyzing continuous dependent variables and multivariate relationships, aligning better with the core objectives and analytical requirements of our research. This underscores the appropriateness and rationality of our methodological choice.

Second, we have further strengthened the validation of the questionnaire's reliability and validity. In Section 3.2, "Sample Characteristics," we explicitly include detailed results of measurement instrument reliability tests—for example, the Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the "Influence of Anchors" dimension is 0.89. Additionally, we have incorporated indicators such as convergent validity and discriminant validity. These additions provide clear empirical support for the reliability and construct validity of our survey instrument, ensuring the scientific rigor of our research tools.

 

Comments 5：

Results: Well-presented with tables and figures, but too descriptive. More interpretation of patterns and implications is needed.

Response: We sincerely appreciate the insightful comments and valuable suggestions provided by the peer reviewers regarding the results section. Your observation that the analysis of findings is predominantly descriptive highlights the necessity to deepen the interpretation of underlying data patterns and their scholarly significance, which is crucial for enhancing the theoretical depth and academic contribution of this study. In response, we have implemented the following improvements:

Firstly, we have significantly strengthened the interpretation of core data patterns. In Sections 4.1 "Descriptive Statistics" and 4.2 "Regression Results Analysis," we have added a dedicated subsection titled "Interpretation of Data Patterns." For instance, regarding the key finding that "Generation Z exhibits an average impulsive purchase frequency of 4.5 times per month (with an average expenditure of $80), whereas the Baby Boomer generation averages 1.3 times (with an average expenditure of $200)," we no longer merely describe the phenomenon but further elucidate the underlying mechanisms. We argue that this is not simply an age-related difference but results from the interplay of "intergenerational resource endowment" and "digital ecological adaptation." The high frequency of Generation Z supports the validity of the "Media Exposure–Impulsive Trigger" theory within live streaming contexts, while the higher average transaction value among Baby Boomers reveals a new characteristic of "cautious yet high-investment" behavior among middle-aged and older consumers in cross-border shopping, thereby filling a gap in existing literature on consumer behavior mechanisms in the ASEAN market.

Secondly, we systematically expanded the discussion of the academic significance of our findings. In the newly added subsection "Academic Implications," we explicitly articulate the theoretical value and practical implications behind the data results. For example, the observed intergenerational differences reflect not only divergent consumption behaviors but also the multi-dimensional interactions of technological adoption, cultural identity, and economic capacity. This provides important empirical support for the development of a cross-generational consumer behavior framework.

 

Comments 6：

Discussion: Connects findings to theory but often repeats results. Should focus more on theoretical contributions, alternative explanations, and limitations.

Response: Thank you for the insightful comments and valuable suggestions provided by the reviewer regarding the discussion section. You pointed out that the results description is repetitive, the theoretical contribution needs further emphasis, and that alternative theoretical perspectives and specific research limitations should be supplemented. Addressing these points is crucial for enhancing the theoretical depth and academic rigor of this study. We highly value your recommendations and have made the following careful revisions accordingly:

First, we have streamlined the descriptive content in the discussion section that overlaps with the "Results" chapter. In the revision, we avoid reiterating specific figures such as the frequency and amount of impulsive purchases across different generations. Instead, we focus on deeper theoretical correlations and mechanistic analyses based on existing findings, ensuring that the discussion emphasizes interpretation and enrichment rather than repetition.

Second, we have incorporated exploration of alternative theoretical perspectives. A new section 5.2, "Potential Alternative Theories and Mechanisms," introduces frameworks such as Baudrillard's Symbolic Consumption Theory (1970) and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), expanding the scope of theoretical dialogue. For example, utilizing Symbolic Consumption Theory, we explain how high-income Malaysian Generation X consumers construct social identity and express themselves through impulsive luxury purchases, thereby providing richer theoretical explanations for our findings.

Third, we have further refined and elaborated on the discussion of research limitations. The previously broad limitations have been specified into three aspects: (1) the sample coverage remains concentrated on the core ASEAN markets, with a need to improve representation of emerging countries; (2) the measurement of brand loyalty primarily relies on repurchase rates, without fully incorporating subjective dimensions such as emotional identification; (3) external factors such as platform algorithm adjustments and regional economic fluctuations have not been adequately controlled. Clearly and objectively identifying these limitations offers guidance for future research directions.

 

Comments 7：

Conclusion: Summarizes findings but underplays theoretical contributions. Future research suggestions are too general.

Response: Thank you for the valuable feedback provided by the peer reviewers regarding the conclusion section. Your identification of the insufficient theoretical elaboration and the overly broad future research directions offers significant guidance for enhancing the theoretical depth and forward-looking perspective of this study. We highly value your suggestions and have implemented the following improvements in our revision:

Firstly, we have substantially strengthened the summary and refinement of the theoretical contributions. After section 6.1, "Main Research Findings," we added a subsection titled "Theoretical Contributions," which delineates three ways in which this research extends the theoretical framework: (1) introducing institutional and policy variables to expand the "stimulus–organism" dimension within the S-O-R model; (2) revealing intergenerational differences in consumption motivation and behavioral mechanisms, thereby deepening and specifying the connotations of intergenerational consumption theory in digital contexts; (3) contextualizing and modifying the "perceived usefulness" dimension of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) within the live e-commerce environment, emphasizing its integration with emotional triggers and social interactions, thus highlighting the study's contribution to supplementing and enriching existing theories.

Secondly, we have further specified the future research directions to enhance their feasibility and scholarly foresight. The previously broad statements have been refined into four explicit research avenues: (1) expanding the sample scope to include all ASEAN markets and conducting more detailed analyses of subgroups within generations based on occupation, income, and cultural background; (2) optimizing variable measurement methods, such as incorporating a multidimensional "brand emotional identification" scale and integrating objective behavioral indicators like users' actual policy browsing records to improve data granularity and validity; (3) constructing dynamic panel models that incorporate external variables such as platform algorithm update cycles and public health emergencies to analyze their short-term fluctuations and long-term impacts on intergenerational consumption behaviors; (4) conducting cross-regional comparative studies, particularly contrasting ASEAN markets with Europe, America, and East Asia, to examine differences and similarities in consumption mechanisms within live e-commerce contexts, thereby testing the cross-cultural applicability and universality of the proposed theoretical model.

 

Comments 8：

References: Relevant, though more recent and diverse sources are needed. Ensure consistency with journal style.

Response: Thank you to the reviewer for your valuable suggestions regarding the literature references. You pointed out the need to enhance the timeliness and diversity of the references and to ensure formatting consistency, which are crucial for improving the academic rigor and cutting-edge nature of this study. In response, we have made the following meticulous revisions:

First, we systematically supplemented the references with the most recent and diverse scholarly works. During the revision process, we focused on incorporating multiple studies published between 2024 and 2025, such as the newly added research by Zhang et al. (2025) on user behavior in live-streaming e-commerce. Additionally, we introduced high-quality literature from related disciplines including sociology, consumer behavior, and cross-border digital policy, significantly enhancing both the timeliness and disciplinary breadth of our references.

Second, we conducted a comprehensive review and standardized the formatting of all references. In accordance with journal guidelines, each reference entry was carefully checked and adjusted to ensure that elements such as author names, publication year, article titles, journal names, volume, issue, page numbers, and DOI identifiers conform to the required format, thereby ensuring the consistency and professionalism of the reference list.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf