The Effects of Knowledge Types on Consumer Decision Making for Non-Toxic Housing Materials and Products

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I believe this is an interesting and timely manuscript. The authors have clearly defined the problem, operationalized the constructs, and explained the methods in detail. The findings would contribute to the literature, and the authors stated possible implications of the findings. A couple minor questions, comments, and edits:

• The audience may wonder about any criticisms to the HBM model, or revisions, if any.
• p.2, l. 77, there are two periods at the end of the sentence. 
• p.4, l.165 - "toxicity levels" instead of "toxic levels"?
• p.5, l.197 - maybe revise the sentence? sounds like you purchased the "sample" residents. 
• Have you pilot tested the survey?
• Table 2. "Formaldehyde is toxic building materials." "is a toxic material"?
• p.10, l 347 - "on one hand" instead of "on the one hand"

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. Please find the attachment for the detailed responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This study showed the results that consumers’ exposure to information affected the perceived benefits and perceived severity but not perceived barriers. In addition, consumers’ exposure showed the strongest association with the behavioral intention among the three knowledge types; Consumers’ exposure, subjective knowledge, and objective knowledge.

An increase in consumers’ exposure to a product is related to purchases of that product. However, subjective knowledge did not affect any of the three HBM components. The previous study mentioned that subjective knowledge is more relevant to consumers’ decision-making, but this study indicated that subjective knowledge does not need to be associated with the product’s benefits, barriers, or severity.

Therefore, the study resulted in that perceived benefits, perceived severity, and perceived barriers all mediated behavioral intention. This study recommends putting more effort into increasing consumers’ subjective knowledge through effective exposure channels.

- Strong literature review: This study is well described so that even those who first encounter this field can understand the research well.

- Enough sample sizes were sufficient to validate the study results.

- The limitations of the study were also well explained.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments!

Reviewer 3 Report

1- I was not able to access Timm & Gray's article. I suggested either updating the link or replacing this article with an accessible one such as https://www.epa.gov/report-environment/indoor-air-quality 

2- Can you please add a reference to this sentence - > Key determinants of indoor environmental quality in 32 a residential environment are housing materials and products.

3- In -> "this current study highlights the three types of consumer knowledge, that is, consumers’ exposure to information, subjective knowledge, and objective knowledge of non-toxic housing materials and products." Are those types of knowledge identified by the authors or previous researchers? This was not clear in the introduction.

4- I suggest adding a couple of sentences to describe the HBM in the introduction. 

5- Please add citations for -> "Product-related experiences include various types of exposure to product and are considered at the most comprehensive level. They include exposure to advertising, information searches, communication with salespeople, experiences with decision making, and product use." 

6- Please add citations for -> "There are two ways to operationalize and measure product “familiarity”: the extent to which a consumer actually knows about the product; and the extent to which a consumer thinks s/he knows about it. Product familiarity can be considered the knowledge structure of the consumer’s long-term memory." 

7- The literature review section 2.3 can be improved by referring to more of the previous research on interior materials and health.

8- Please add citations to -> "If consumers suspect these materials and products are dangerous, or if they perceive poor indoor air 152 quality as a possible cause of health problems, they would choose non-toxic housing materials and products that do not include certain toxic chemicals or that have earned environmental performance certifications. Among these are low VOC paints, non-toxic adhesives, and formaldehyde-free plywood."

9- Why was the HBM selected for this study? Are there other theoretical frameworks that can be employed for this type of research? 

10- In Figure 1, the term "perceived safety" is used while in the hypothesis the term "perceived threat" is used. Would it be possible to use consistent terms? 

11- In 3.1, I suggest use the therm the research team instead of "we".

12- Well done statistical analysis. 

13- The connection between the literature review and discussion sections can be improved. 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. Please find the attachment for the detailed responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf