Research on the Impact Mechanism of Self-Quantification on Consumers’ Green Behavioral Innovation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study examined the effect of self-quantification on the diversity and novelty of consumers' green behaviors, which is interesting. However, there are several concerns that necessitate significant revisions to the manuscript.

First, the authors should clarify the relationship and differences between previous research and this study through a thorough analysis of the literature. It is essential to clearly explain which hypotheses have been previously validated and which have not, and to provide a theoretical framework that underpins these hypotheses.

Furthermore, the relevance of the literature that serves as the theoretical basis for the hypotheses, such as studies 41-49, 32, 19, and 53-57, is unclear. The connections between these works and the current study are not adequately articulated, making it difficult for readers to follow the logic. Therefore, the explanation of the hypotheses needs to be comprehensively rewritten.

Regarding the research methodology, it is unclear what existing studies the current research is based on. The criteria and explanations for the research methods are vague. Specifically, what does the "Promotional (vs. Defensive) Goal Orientation Experimental Design" entail? The criteria for the design and how it was executed are not clearly defined, and there is no manipulation check included.

Additionally, the lack of control for personal preferences or behavioral habits related to specific actions, such as doing household chores or watering flowers, represents a limitation of the study. 

I hope these comments help improve the manuscript.

Author Response

Please kindly refer to the attached document for detailed modifications. This will provide you with a clear overview of the specific changes made.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the article chosen by the authors is relevant nowadays because it is related to the research of self-quantification influence on consumers' green behavioural innovation. In terms of research perspective, this study expands the exploration of self-quantification effects from the traditional healthcare domain into the realm of green consumption by introducing the concept of self-quantification into consumer behavior literature. Unlike previous studies that analyzed the influence of self-quantification solely on consumers' participation outcomes in green activities, this research establishes the link between self-quantification and green behavioral innovation.

In Chapter 3 (Hypotheses of the study), the authors justify the hypotheses put forward. However, in the reviewer's opinion, the text of the article lacks a logical transition to the first hypothesis (line 193). The authors of the article should formulate 1-2 sentences for a more logical transition to the first hypothesis.

Chapter 4 of the article (Experimental Design), in the reviewer's opinion, should be supplemented with a justification of the number of participants in the experiment (why exactly 80 students became participants in the experiment).

The perception of the article is slightly hampered by the fact that Figures, Tables and Schemes are in a separate chapter rather than being integrated into other chapters of the article.

The choice of methods for processing the results of the experiment is positively evaluated.

The conclusions presented in the article are correct, consistent with the research conducted and correspond to the hypotheses put forward. 

The references are appropriate.

Author Response

Please kindly refer to the attached document for detailed modifications. This will provide you with a clear overview of the specific changes made.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made significant improvements to the manuscript based on the feedback provided. Overall, these revisions have improved the clarity and quality of the paper.