The Effect of Digital Literacy on Online Purchase Intention: The Mediating Role of Social Media Use

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study focuses on the relationship between digital literacy and online purchase intention, exploring the mediating role of social media usage. The topic offers valuable insights for both the theoretical and practical aspects of digital marketing. To further enhance the quality of the paper, I suggest the following improvements:

In the section presenting the research hypotheses, it would be beneficial to include the theoretical foundations supporting each hypothesis (H1-H4). Clarifying the logical connection between the theory and the hypotheses would strengthen the theoretical depth and rigor of the paper.

The paper provides an overall validation of the research hypotheses but lacks a heterogeneous analysis of different demographic groups (such as age, gender, occupation, etc.). I recommend adding this analysis to uncover differences in the relationships between core variables across various groups. This would deepen the research and improve the precision of its practical implications.

In the conclusion section, I suggest expanding on the management implications of this study for different stakeholders, such as businesses, consumers, and governments. Providing more targeted, actionable recommendations based on the sample characteristics would enhance the practical value of the research.

The paper exhibits redundancy in the abbreviation of key terms, such as “information and communication technologies (ICTs)” (e.g., in lines 36, 197, and 310) and “Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)”. I recommend standardizing the usage: provide the full term followed by the abbreviation upon its first appearance, and use only the abbreviation thereafter. This should be consistently applied throughout the paper to improve writing details.

It is hoped that the above suggestions can help the authors improve this study.

Author Response

Comments 1. In the section presenting the research hypotheses, it would be beneficial to include the theoretical foundations supporting each hypothesis (H1-H4). Clarifying the logical connection between the theory and the hypotheses would strengthen the theoretical depth and rigor of the paper.

Response 1: Thank you very much for this insightful and constructive comment. In line with your recommendation, the hypotheses section has been substantially revised to explicitly integrate the theoretical foundations and empirical evidence supporting each hypothesis (H1–H4).

Specifically, we have:

• Expanded the literature review under Section 2.4. Previous Studies on Digital Literacy, Social Media Use, and Online Purchase Intention to establish a stronger theoretical rationale.
• Added theory-driven explanations after each block of literature, clearly linking prior findings to the formulation of each hypothesis.
• Strengthened the logical progression from digital literacy ➝ social media use ➝ online purchase intention by incorporating relevant studies and theoretical perspectives.
• Revised the transitions to ensure that each hypothesis (H1–H4) is grounded in both conceptual theory and prior empirical findings.

These revisions improve the theoretical rigor of the manuscript and make the hypothesis development section more coherent and academically robust.

Comments 2. The paper provides an overall validation of the research hypotheses but lacks a heterogeneous analysis of different demographic groups (such as age, gender, occupation, etc.). I recommend adding this analysis to uncover differences in the relationships between core variables across various groups. This would deepen the research and improve the precision of its practical implications.

Response 2: We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. In line with your recommendation, we have expanded the analysis section by conducting heterogeneity tests across key demographic groups, including gender, marital status, age ranges, and employment type. To address this comment comprehensively, we performed:

• Independent-samples t-tests for gender and marital status groups,
• One-way ANOVA tests for age categories,
• Post-hoc analyses (Scheffe and Games–Howell) to identify specific group differences when significant variance was observed. These new analyses examine how participants’ levels of:
• Digital Literacy
• Social Media Use
• Online Purchase Intention vary across demographic subgroups.

The results revealed several statistically significant differences (e.g., younger participants exhibited higher digital literacy, social media use, and purchase intention than older participants; single participants showed significantly higher social media use than married participants; gender-based differences were also observed). All new results, along with detailed tables and interpretations, have been added to the Methods section (Section 3.3) and the Results section, specifically Tables 2, 3, and 4, as requested. These additions deepen the study's empirical insights and strengthen its practical implications, in line with the reviewer’s recommendation.

Comments 3. In the conclusion section, I suggest expanding on the management implications of this study for different stakeholders, such as businesses, consumers, and governments. Providing more targeted, actionable recommendations based on the sample characteristics would enhance the practical value of the research.

Response 3: Thank you very much for this insightful suggestion. In response to your comment, we have substantially expanded the practical implications section of the manuscript to provide clearer, stakeholder-specific managerial insights. More specifically, the revised Conclusion section now includes:

✔ Business-level implications: We added recommendations on how firms can design user-friendly digital interfaces, implement digital literacy–supportive customer communication strategies, and use targeted social media marketing campaigns based on consumer digital competence profiles identified in our sample.

✔ Consumer-level implications: We incorporated insights on how individuals with varying levels of digital literacy can make safer and more efficient online purchasing decisions, aligning with the demographic differences identified in the heterogeneous analyses.

✔ Government and policy implications: We added a new subsection discussing potential policy interventions, including national digital literacy programs, consumer protection mechanisms in digital markets, and frameworks to enhance trust and transparency in e-commerce.

Additionally, the revised section now highlights actionable recommendations tailored to the sample characteristics (e.g., higher social media use among younger participants and varying levels of digital literacy across age groups), ensuring greater context-specific practical relevance, as you suggested. These additions strengthen the study's real-world applicability and enhance its value to practitioners, policymakers, and consumers. The expanded practical implications are presented in the Conclusion section of the revised manuscript.

Comments 4. The paper exhibits redundancy in the abbreviation of key terms, such as “information and communication technologies (ICTs)” (e.g., in lines 36, 197, and 310) and “Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)”. I recommend standardizing the usage: provide the full term followed by the abbreviation upon its first appearance, and use only the abbreviation thereafter. This should be consistently applied throughout the paper to improve writing details.

Response 4: Following your recommendation, we have conducted a comprehensive revision of the manuscript to ensure standardized usage of all abbreviations.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The purpose of the research is to determine how the level of digital literacy affects consumers’ willingness to shop online and how social media use functions as an intermediary factor between these phenomena. The authors emphasize that the ongoing digital transformation has altered not only modes of communication but also patterns of consumption, making it important for both marketing theorists and practitioners to understand these processes when developing digital strategies. The study fills a gap in the existing literature, where digital literacy and online behavior are often examined separately, without considering their interaction through social media platforms.

Methodologically, the study employs a quantitative approach supported by advanced statistical techniques. Empirical data were collected via an online survey conducted through Google Forms. The sample included 401 active social media users from various Turkish cities.

However, the study also has certain limitations. The use of a convenience sampling method may have introduced selection bias, as participants were chosen based on accessibility rather than random selection. The research also omits potential moderating variables, such as age, gender, income, or trust in online systems, which could further clarify the observed relationships. In the study, age, gender, marital status, professional experience, and type of employment were used solely as sample characteristics and not as analytical variables.

To improve the quality of the article, the authors should supplement Section 6 (Conclusions) with a statement addressing the limited representativeness of the study results. In addition, the authors should expand the theoretical foundation of the research by including references to recent sources from 2024–2025 (at least five up-to-date publications).

Author Response

Comments 1. However, the study also has certain limitations. The use of a convenience sampling method may have introduced selection bias, as participants were chosen based on accessibility rather than random selection. The research also omits potential moderating variables, such as age, gender, income, or trust in online systems, which could further clarify the observed relationships. In the study, age, gender, marital status, professional experience, and type of employment were used solely as sample characteristics and not as analytical variables.

Response 1: Thank you for this insightful comment. In the original version of the manuscript, demographic variables (age, gender, marital status, professional experience, and employment type) were indeed used only as descriptive characteristics. We agree that this limited the depth of analysis regarding potential differences across demographic groups.

In response to your recommendation, the revised manuscript now includes a set of heterogeneity analyses using independent-samples t-tests and one-way ANOVA to examine whether the key study variables differ across demographic subgroups. These results are presented in the methodology and results sections, thereby addressing your suggestion and enriching the study's empirical contribution.

Accordingly, the Limitations section has also been updated. Instead of stating that demographic variables were not analyzed, we now clarify that although subgroup analyses have been performed, demographic variables were not modeled as moderators within the structural equation model. This revision ensures consistency between the studies conducted and the limitations stated. We appreciate your valuable comment, which has significantly strengthened the study's methodological rigor.

Comments 2. To improve the quality of the article, the authors should supplement Section 6 (Conclusions) with a statement addressing the limited representativeness of the study results. In addition, the authors should expand the theoretical foundation of the research by including references to recent sources from 2024–2025 (at least five up-to-date publications).

Response 2: Thank you very much for this constructive suggestion. We have revised the manuscript in two ways to address your comment.

First, we added an explicit statement in Section 6 (Conclusions) about the limited representativeness and generalizability of the findings. In the revised version, we now emphasize that the conclusions should be interpreted with caution because the sample was convenience-sampled from four major Turkish cities and may not fully reflect the broader population. This clarification has been added to the concluding section to ensure that readers are clearly informed about the limitations of the study’s external validity.

Second, we expanded the research's theoretical foundation by incorporating several recent references from 2024–2025 into the conceptual framework and discussion sections. These additions strengthen the positioning of our study within the current literature on digital literacy, social media use, and digital consumer behavior. The newly added sources include, among others:

• Stankevičienė et al. (2025) on technology readiness and sustainable IoT product purchases,
• Catană et al. (2025) on Generation Z’s purchasing behavior on online marketplaces,
• Ahmed et al. (2025) on social media platforms and sustainable purchase intentions among younger consumers,
• Ullah et al. (2025) on the influence of digital literacy on consumer perceptions and e-commerce engagement,
• Isnaini et al. (2025) on the role of digital literacy in social media use,
• Macías Urrego et al. (2024) and Yang (2024) on the impact of social media on purchase decisions and brand attitudes.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made sufficient revisions, and I have no further comments. However, I have noticed that the abbreviation issue still appears in lines 500, 514, 649, 777, etc. I hope this can be addressed during the proofreading stage.