Investigating the Effect of Nudges on Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Genetically Modified Corn Oil

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Very good research with both theoretical and practical contribution

The research problem clearly stated, and research contribution clearly supported.

Research design very appropriate - a between subject experiment using a relevant CB design. Authors may consider moving questionnaire description from results to Material and Method section

Research results coherently and clearly written by presenting and interpreting study results in a simple and clear way

Conclusion section is a standard section, describing research contribution, marketing implications and limitations.

The language is correct and messages are clear

Author Response

Please, you check the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The text has a common thread. Very well done! And I believe all appendices are important but appendix C is the most one. Congratulations!

I also have a few comments that I believe are important to improve the paper.

1. It makes no sense to talk about the average age (table 3). So, it is suggested to identify age groups and the respective percentages for them.

2. An acronym is formed by the initial letters of words. Words in the singular or plural have the same initial. Thus, it is suggested to avoid the lowercase "s" after these initials for plural words. 

3. Keywords help us to find specific content. And I read the explanation of Nudge (lines 171-177). Nevertheless, I would like to know if you consider so important to be in this group (it is a rhetorical question). I don't believe researchers will look for "Nudge" as a keyword.

4. The variables (2.3. Trust, information, and perceived risk"). could be defined before the methodology. You can add them in the introduction section or you could create a framework section because it will help readers to understand it better.

5. Another question is about the significative influence between variables. For example, do trust (or information) variable(s) has(have) an influence on perceived risk?

6. Line 423: "While other studies ..." - it is suggested present those studies. 

7. The second contribution (lines 433-439) could be considered relevant if it showed something else than the expected negative association with risk perception. I understand that the research is done but the value is low.

8. Finally, the authors can offer a figure for the methodology (such as an overview of the investigation).

A suggestion for reflection: Presenting the model helps readers to understand better the results, but it needs an explanation of the influence between variables before presenting the model.

Another suggestion is about this scale. It can be used very often in the field of economics, but regarding consumer behavior, there are better scales because sometimes, the respondents struggle to evaluate the items.

Particularly, I find that the Likert scales are the most suitable for the majority of applications.

Author Response

Please, you check the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall, the article approaches an interesting topic and offers a relevant empirical study. Still, it needs some improvements to make it more relevant for readers.

 

Weaknesses that need the authors' attention and improvements:

1. Abstract. Please clearly state research objetives and research problem or question. 

2. Abstract: Please provide enough details on the methodology, for instance, number of participants, where the study was conducted, when, etc.

3. Abstract: I would recommend that the last sentence was replaced by more specific implications of the study. " We believe the findings can introduce potential effective tools to GM food marketers to raise their profits. " is quite vague, and I don't advise the use of "we believe". Maybe: this article instead of we? Or "this study suggests". And it would be more effective if the "potential" of the article for managers was more explicit. 

4. Language. I would recommend a more impersonal language along the text. One example above, avoiding "we believe" or any use of I/We. Another example in the introduction "As far as we know" - it would be more adequate to say "To the best of the authors' knowledge, ...". Please carefully check the whole article for similar writing options.

5. Literature review. The article does not have a literature review section. I would highly advise this inclusion. This means not only moving some paragraphs in the introduction to a new section, but also to enrich the theoretical background of the article. It is essential to provide the theoretical background to justify the options, the considered variables, and to support the hypotheses tested in the article.

6. Tested hypotheses: the article tests a long list of hypotheses (many variables are considered, and their effects on Utility, etc. Those hypotheses need to be stated and adequately supported by the literature review. As such, my suggestion is to organize the literature review according to the variables considered in the model, and insert the list of hypotheses in the literature review, so that what is being tested and the theoretical support of the assumptions made is clear for the readers.

7. Methodology. Although a lot of information is provided, it is very difficult to read and follow. So, I would recommend that the method section is structured in sections and subsections so that readers can find the information they need. Usually, method section has at least 4 subsections: materials, measures, participants, and analysis procedures. Maybe this helps. 

8. Table 3 - Sample characterization should be part of the method section. Results section should only be about the studied variables and estimations.

9. Results are very interesting. But they need to be compared to extant literature. Please insert small paragraphs comparing your results, so that it is immediately clear if the findings are in line with extant literature and theories or not.

10. I would also recommend to structure conclusion in subsections, so it is easier to read. Having one subsection dedicated to managerial implications, another to limitations and future research directions is really helpful for different readers to find exactly the type of information more relevant to them.

11. Please try to include more recent references. Not only in the literature review, but also in the introduction. In the introduction it is essential to refer to the most recent trends and information to demonstrate the relevance of the topic.

 

I wish all the best to the authors and their research.

Author Response

Please, you check the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The topic of the article is interesting. Well done!

Please add sampling and specific policy implication in the abstract.

The author should have separate sub-heading for the introduction and literature review.

The literature review section can be improved by having sub heading which specifically focus and discuss on:

GMO, Brand, Traceability, Price, Information, Trust, Perceived Risk, Wording nudge, Informational nudge

What is the underlying theory or model for this study?

Please provide the conceptual or research framework of the study.

There is no hypothesis of this study.

Any good justification for choosing Iranian consumers of corn oil resident in Mashhad?

Please explain on the validity and reliability  of the instrument.

What is the national household size and average national household income?

Table 4 - What is the reference for the categorization of trust, information and perceived risk? Any reference from the previous studies?

There is lack of in-depth and critical discussion for the results. Please provide explanation for the insignificant results too.

The author should have separate section for the contribution and limitation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please, you check the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the detailed responses. I believe that the improvements made are very clear and relevant.

Author Response

Thank you very much again for your deep attention and useful suggestions.