The Impact of Individual Motivations and Social Capital on the Continuous Usage Intention of Mobile Social Apps
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- The authors chose to address individual motivations, social capital and service factors on continuous usage intention of mobile social apps. Why should those three antecedents be chosen for consideration? There are many other factors, such as utilitarian and hedonic motivations, social influence, and enjoyment to use mobile social apps. The reasons for choosing those factors should be fully developed.
- The introduction is not well organized and focused. The authors might want to organize the introduction based on the 12 links in the conceptual framework (Figure 2). Which links have not been previously tested? For those links that have been previously tested, are they trying to do something differently? Answers to these questions will help demonstrate the contribution of this study.
- In the depths of the article there is a clear discussion of what this research achieves, that has not been achieved by previous researchers, but neither this, nor an overall statement of the contribution of the research is very evident in the abstract or the introduction. Also, the introduction does not include any specific aims or problem statement. What is the rationale for conducting this research?
- In the literature review section, the authors’ conceptualization needs to be improved. The author did not clearly define the studied key factors and the authors should aim to lay out the significance of the key concepts in a clear and concise manner.
- Some of the writing style is hard to follow. Short, loose sentences that do not link or form a logical argument are used which make it difficult to follow the storyline and logic of the paper.
- The statistical analysis and result presentation were generally fine.
- I am concerned about the overall contribution of this study. From my read and also as indicated by the authors in the discussion section, the manuscript only provides supportive evidence for previous studies. The authors might want to work on this issue so as to make a new contribution to the literature.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for the opportunity for me to read your manuscript. The topic is very interesting and the study has yielded some interesting findings.
There are some recommendations for the authors to consider which are laid out by section below, with some additional points at the end.
Abstract:
It would be helpful to offer some information into the method you have used for this research in the abstract. Sentence two and three are very similar and it can be recommended that these sentences be combined/reduced to avoid replication.
Introduction:
It would be helpful to provide a definition of “mobile social apps” from the outset; in accordance with this, it is significant to explain why are they different to normal “apps” and why they are of more interest for this study.
The contribution of the study must be conveyed more; user behaviour surrounding apps and SNS has been vastly discussed in literature and so it is imperative that the author(s) convey (a) why more research is needed here initially, and (b) why the stress on social capital to achieve the aim of the study. It is not enough to say that what is being done here has not been done before, it must be conveyed why it is important to do it this way from a theoretical/practical implications perspective.
Theoretical background:
I would strongly suggest that this section be re-named to “literature review” as, although it is discussing the theoretical foundations of your work, it is used to explain the purpose of your research too. Accordingly, I would also recommend that constraints of various research are also discussed in relation to your research context to fully convey the novelty and necessity of your research.
I would recommend splitting sub-sections of “individual motivations” and “social capital” and to further explain why relevant theories are limited or are particularly useful for this study.
It may be helpful to create a diagram visualising the factors under consideration of “social capital” as the author(s) discuss various components of it. This would be particularly helpful to set up the model in the following section.
Some concluding paragraph summarising the overall findings of the literature review is needed to set up the following section.
Research Model:
I would suggest adding the relevant hypotheses on the diagram in Figure 1.
The way the hypotheses are laid out is relatively long-winded and the number of hypotheses are excessive for a quantitative study. Furthermore, it is not clear why the author(s) have focused on these sub-variables in particular and why they are treating them in such a way. I would strongly recommend a paragraph at the beginning of this section to identify the grounded theories that are being relied upon for these factors and why they are the most significant.
Methods:
It is not clear exactly what method is being used here. Although it is clear that the model is based on theory and is quantitative in nature, it remains questionable at this stage whether the author(s) are taking a covariance-based or variance-based approach to the analysis with no mention of the analysis tool that is intended to be used. I would strongly recommend expanding this section to discuss the precise sample frame, sampling procedure, data collection and means for analysis here.
Results:
The preliminary analysis looks satisfactory but some analysis into common method bias is also required here.
The model fit figures should be reported for both the measurement model as well as the structural model.
Further information is needed to explain how the results have been determined for tryst and satisfaction; were trust and satisfaction considered under the same overarching factor? Details are needed here to ensure model validity and reliability.
Discussion and implications:
The discussion nicely summarises the findings in relation to wider literature but more discussion is needed into why all of this is significant.
Other points:
Some literature can be updated in parts as there is seldom references post-2017.
A thorough proof read of the manuscript is required to eliminate any grammatical errors.
Again, thank you very much for your submission. I wish the author(s) the best of luck in further improving the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors implemented an adoption study which is typically conducted at the inception stage of an innovation introduced to society or community. Therefore, the topic needs to be rather unprecedented than existing ideas.
The introduction section needs a stronger rationale for the reason for the study. What research gap past studies on the topic existed? Were there related studies that did not touch upon a crucial aspect that needs research attention? A sizable body of research has been done on the adoption of mobile social apps and other mobile media. Motivations, social capital, and adoption were frequent factors used in the adoption studies. Please provide what distinguishes this study from related past research. Although the authors mentioned study necessities on page 2, para. 2, why that approach is important is not found.
Please help me understand what triggered the authors to submit this ms. to Sustainability. The authors need to link the topic to sustainability relating to natural sciences, social sciences and humanities in as much detail as possible in order to promote scientific predictions and impact assessments of global change and development.
In the introduction section, a passage that accentuates social media’s role in sustainability is needed. Please conceptually define mobile social apps.
The study employees many theories to develop arguments including motivational theory, flow theory, and trust theory, social capital theory, social exchange theory, uses gratifications theory, theories of collective action, social identity theory, and social presence theory. Adapting multiple theories to the study context are acceptable but a caveat is to integrate them with each other to streamline the author’s approach. How are the theories associates with each other? Are the authors trying to build an integrative model derived from all the theories? Then please explain.
In fact, this adoption study fits better with the technology adoption model (TAM) in combination with social capital and motivational theory.
All references are outdated. Please review and cite recent articles at least in 2018-2020. There are plenty of studies that looked at the same topic. Theoretically and empirically, motivations precede social capital. Attitude precedes satisfaction. Given that, the proposed model needs a conceptual refinement. There seem too many variables in this study. I would split the study into two or three. Given the model, is attitude a mediator?
The outcome variable, continuance usage, is a clear indication that this study is an adoption study. How would the authors associate this model with sustainability?
Why did the authors choose college students as respondents for the study? In compliance with Journal Sustainability, local residents are a better pool. If there were justifications for college students as a sample, what were they?
What is the source of the guidelines for a good model (RMR <= 0.05, RMSEA <= 0.05, GFI >= 0.8, TLI >= 0.9)? The cutoffs are too generous.
As the authors detail in the implication section, they interpret the results in terms of mobile social app use and continuance rather than sustainability relating to natural sciences, social sciences and humanities in as much detail as possible in order to promote scientific predictions and impact assessments of global change and development.
The study needs limitations and suggestions for future research.
In sum, the authors assessed key measures to test a proposed model in the use of mobile social apps. It was hard to find a link between the study and the scope of the journal. It may fit in other journal such as International Journal of Mobile Communications. Another observation is that the study needs a distinction from past research. Again, such studies have been done quite a lot. Please review journals such as Computers in Human Behavior, Telematics & Infomatics, and New Media & Society. Please split the study into at least two and add variables such as social participation, community engagement, social engagement with sustainability to fit the journal.
Please check with editing in English (e.g., an enormous growth and a media).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The previous comments have been satisfactorily addressed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear author(s)
Thank you very much for taking such care in improving the paper in-line with my comments. The paper has been improved considerably. I only have a few minor recommendations from this revised manuscript, as follows:
- It is clear that you have mentioned the necessity of this research area in the context of sustainability but this needs to be made more apparent at the beginning; this is important to ensure that readers of this journal will be interested in your work and subsequently cite it. I would also recommend you bring in some literature supporting your research area within the context of sustainability more frequently in your literature review and especially in your practical and theoretical implications.
- More information and justification is needed for your chosen data collection and analysis approach. I would recommend dividing section 4 into sub-headings comprising of "research methodology", "research method" "Structural Equation Modelling", "sampling" and "data collection". The main reason for this is it is important to convey why taking a quantitative approach is required for this work and why you have chosen to use confirmatory factor analysis using AMOS.
- Significance of your findings should relate back to the interest of the journal readership - sustainability.
- Limitations of your work and scope for further insight can be discussed in the conclusion.
Thank you again for considering my comments and for your clear hard work in improving the manuscript. I look forward to seeing further developments in the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper improved in model construction and writing. The paper, however, has no merits for the journal Sustainability. I suggest that the authors submit to social media-related journals such as The Journal of Social Media in Society, Cyberpsychology and Behavior, International Journal of Mobile Communications, etc.
The study’s take is ambiguous because it does not investigate a realm of mobile apps (e.g., social media use for sustainable community engagement). The study is a general survey of mobile social apps. The paper is over 16,000 words in length. The authors need to fit the length in journal format (6,000-8,000 words).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
