Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors took up a very interesting and current topic, which is cause-related marketing in tourist destinations. The article is written in the correct language and is characterized by a very high level of statistical methods used. Nevertheless, the authors did not avoid certain methodological shortcomings.

Most of the hypotheses are obvious and their legitimacy and veracity have been supported by the content of section 2. So why research and prove it if someone has already done it before and documented it in the scientific publications you quote? The acceptance of these hypotheses needs better justification.

Two hypotheses (4 and 5) are imprecise and their construction requires improvement.

The method of sampling raises some doubts. Firstly, among the people entering the indicated website could also be residents of Zhangjiajie, and not only tourists, as indicated in the text. Have these people (residents) been identified here in any way? Secondly, due to the fact that the website is in Chinese (I don't know what language the questionnaire was in), only people who knew this language could participate in the study. This disqualifies the vast majority of potential foreign tourists.

Moreover, in order to participate in the study, it was necessary to visit the indicated website. Therefore, it should be clearly stated that the research sample was not representative. This is also indicated by the age structure of the respondents. This should be clearly indicated in "Limimtations".

 

I am surprised by the assumption (reflected in the questions of the survey) that in "Views of humanity" and "Emotional component" only positive, good experiences and emotions were assumed. After all, it could have been different (sometimes quite the opposite) and this could have translated into the verification of hypotheses 4 and 5.

Other remarks have been included in the text in the form of comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Altruistic motivation, moral elevation and tourism support behavior: An empirical study based on cause-related marketing in tourist destinations

This manuscript addresses an interesting topic. Please see my comments below:

·       The abstract does not explain enough about the purpose of the research. It should address the research gap (a short and clear explanation should be enough).

·       Lines 74-76 mention that "this study focuses on three key variables of…." and those three variables are mentioned, but until line 89, this study only emphasizes the moral elevation. How about the other three? It should also be explained since those three are the essential variables of this study. Or probably the wording is "this study focuses on three key variables of moral motivations. Those are emotional components, views of immunity, desire to be a better person"?

·       Before the statement of each hypothesis, the authors should indicate if there is enough evidence to show such a possibility. In other words, the literature review should lead the reader from the theoretical background to the application of the concepts by establishing the interrelationship between the constructs before we get into the statement of the hypotheses since the theoretical background only focuses on moral elevation.

·       On the mediating effect of moral elevation, why did this study put all variables together as the "moral elevation" as one hypothesis? Why does the study not separate them like other hypotheses that moral elevation is divided into three components and make the mediation one by one of those three components? It should be mentioned in the hypotheses development one by one, like the results other than making only H7.

·       Table 1 for annual income should put the currency as USD, or maybe we can put the conversion rate for a better understanding.

·       Table 3 for the squared AVE should be mentioned in the notes below that the diagonal value is the squared AVE. It's easier for the reader to see that the diagonal value is more than the other value below (valid).

·       Include sources of the questionnaire and previous studies using each construct in your study as an appendix or in the text. We cannot tell about the accuracy of your results unless we have a clear idea of the questions authenticity. This will be easier to search for future studies than only putting on the paragraph.

 

·       The theoretical implication part is not enough to emphasize the implication of this research to the theory! More likely to be the practical implication of the theory.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have revised the manuscript satisfactorily.