The Influence of Social Media Attributes on Impulsive Travel Intentions: Integrating the Stimulus–Organism–Response Theory and Information Adoption Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The wording of hypotheses need to be justified.

Authors need to present theoretical foundation of this work well at the literature review section.

Authors need to clarify the aims of this work well at the introduction.

Authors need to present threshold for the statistical analysis.

Authors need to justify the sample size of this work

Authors need to present clear operational definition of variables. 

EFA and CFA are mingled. Need to organize it.

Authors need to present the direction at the research model.

Authors need to strengthen theoretical contribution of this work more.

Authors also need to present the reason for the not supporting hypotheses.

Authors need to justify the sampling and its weakness at the limitation section.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Need to improve it 

Author Response

Comments 1: [The wording of hypotheses need to be justified.]
Response 1: Agree.Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have conducted comprehensive theoretical groundwork and literature review prior to formulating each hypothesis.

Comments 2: [Authors need to present theoretical foundation of this work well at the literature review section.]
Response 2: Agree.We appreciate your perspective. However, due to space limitations, we will address your valuable suggestions in future research.

Comments 3: [Authors need to clarify the aims of this work well at the introduction.]
Response 3: Agree. We made revisions based on comments.This change can be found – page 3 and line 97-102.

Comments 4: [Authors need to present threshold for the statistical analysis. ]
Response 4: Agree.We sincerely appreciate your careful review of the statistical methodology. Following your suggestion, we have comprehensively addressed the thresholds for statistical analyses in the revised manuscript.

Comments 5: [Authors need to justify the sample size of this work.]
Response 5: Agree.Thank you for raising this critical methodological concern. We have strengthened the justification for sample size adequacy in both theoretical and empirical terms, with revisions marked in Section 3.1-Data Collection. 

Comments 6: [Authors need to present clear operational definition of variables. ]
Response 6: Agree.We sincerely appreciate your careful review. We have made the corresponding revisions in the manuscript. This change can be found – page 7 and line 310-312.

Comments 7: [EFA and CFA are mingled. Need to organize it.]
Response 7: Agree.We deeply appreciate your insightful feedback regarding the analytical structure. To rigorously disentangle EFA and CFA procedures, we have added content of EFA in Section 4.2-Measurement Model.This change can be found – page 9, paragraph1, and line 376-379.

Comments 8: [Authors need to present the direction at the research model.]
Response 8: We appreciate your thorough review. The directional relationships between variables have been explicitly indicated with arrows in Fig. 1.

Comments 9: [Authors need to present theoretical foundation of this work well at the literature review section.]
Response 9: Agree.We appreciate your perspective. However, due to space limitations, we will address your valuable suggestions in future research.

Comments 10: [Authors also need to present the reason for the not supporting hypotheses.]
Response 10: Agree.We sincerely appreciate your suggestions regarding the unsupported hypotheses, and we have attempted to provide a possible explanation in the manuscript.
[We offer a possible explanation that travel behavior, involving financial and emotional investment, may lead travelers to prioritize accurate and detailed information over similarity to the content provider. Certain types of content, particularly objective in-formation like safety, accessibility, and amenities, may rely less on personal similarity for their effectiveness compared to subjective content like reviews or experiential nar-ratives.][It is possible that while content quality is generally important, its influence on desti-nation trust may be overshadowed by more dominant factors such as source credibility and source homophily. Another explanation concerns the mismatch between content and consumers’ expectations. For example, content that is highly detailed and accurate but fails to address safety concerns that are top of mind for a particular audience might not enhance trust.] 
It can be found – page 13, line 478-482, and  page 14, line 501-507.

Comments 11: [Authors need to justify the sampling and its weakness at the limitation section. ]
Response 11: Agree.Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, We have supplemented additional clarification in the study limitations section. This change can be found –  page 15 and line 582-586. 

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language
Point 1: Need to improve it 
Response 1: We have verified and revised the manuscript to align with standard academic conventions and terminology.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The subject matter is intriguing, and the methodology is sound. However, the attached review offers several recommendations for further improvements.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1: [Information should also be provided on the location and linkage of the survey. ]
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. According to the 2024 annual reports of China's mainstream social media platforms, we have compiled data on their monthly active user (MAU) scale to demonstrate the extensive usage of social media in China. Focusing particularly on RedNote and Tiktok, this section elucidates the correlation between social media content and users' impulsive travel intentions. To ensure coherence with the overall article structure, this content has been revised and relocated to the Introduction section (Page 2, Lines 57-63).]

Comments 2: [The method of distributing the online questionnaire (e.g. convenience sampling) should alsobe mentioned in relation to data collection. .]
Response 2: Agree. This study employed convenience sampling by randomly distributing questionnaire links to users commenting on popular travel posts within WeChat, RedNote, and TikTok China. This methodological description has been revised and incorporated into Section 3.1 Data Collection (Page 6, Lines 288-290).

Comments 3: [A justification for the choice of scale type is also recommended. It would also be worthwhile to specify the validity rate in the final sample. ]
Response 3: Agree. To ensure the reliability and validity of the constructs in this study, all measurement constructs were developed and/or adapted from well-established studies, using reflexive items. This change can be found – page 7, paragraph2, and line 300, 305-307.

Comments 4: [Figure 1: what represents the lAM model?]
Response 4: Agree. We made revisions based on comments. This change can be found – page 6 Fig.1.

Comments 5: [The objectives of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)should be clearly stated in the manuscript.]
Response 5: Agree. We deeply appreciate your insightful feedback regarding the analytical structure. To rigorously disentangle EFA and CFA procedures, we have added content of EFA in Section 4.2-Measurement Model.This change can be found – page 9, paragraph1, and line 376-379.

Comments 6: [Table 2, Table 3, Table 4: use the same number format (number of decimal places).]
Response 6: Agree. We fully concur with your suggestions and have incorporated the corresponding revisions in the table.

Comments 7: [The outer model (the meaning of manifest variables for latent variables may also indicate interesting results, and it is recommended that these be described in the manuscript.]
Response 7: Agree.We appreciate your perspective. However, due to space limitations, we will address your valuable suggestions in future research to further validate the outer model results.

Comments 8: [The findings on the joint application of the two models (SOR, lAM) are not included in this subsection and it is recommended that they be added.]
Response 8: Agree.We appreciate your constructive suggestions and have incorporated the relevant additions accordingly. This change can be found – page 12, paragraph 2, and line 427-434.

Comments 9: [It is worth highlighting here the practical usefulness of the observations from the reflective measurement model.]
Response 9: Agree.We appreciate your constructive suggestions and have incorporated the relevant additions accordingly. This change can be found – page 14, paragraph 3, and line 524-528.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The purpose of the work should be specified. It is not clearly defined at the moment.
2. The title of Figure 1 needs to be corrected. It is not clear what model it is. In addition, Figure 1 is not mentioned in the text.
3. Chapter 3 “Methodology” describes how the data was collected, by what measures, but it is not clear how the results obtained are presented in Tables 2-4. Not a single calculation formula is provided. It should also be explained what X2, df, GFI, CFI, NFI, NNFI, RMSEA are.

Author Response

Comments 1: [The purpose of the work should be specified. It is not clearly defined at the moment.]
Response 1: Agree. Thank you for pointing this out. We made revisions based on comments. This change can be found – page 3 and line 97-101. 'This study adopts a tourist-origin perspective to investigate the factors and underlying mechanisms triggering potential tourists' impulsive travel intentions. The research objectives are twofold: (1) to theoretically advance the integration of the Stimulus-Organism-Response (SOR) framework and Information Adoption Model (IAM) within social media contexts, and (2) to practically provide destination marketers and travel influencers with evidence-based strategies for tourism promotion and visitor retention.'

Comments 2: [The title of Figure 1 needs to be corrected. ]
Response 2: Agree. We made revisions based on comments. This change can be found – page 6 and line 281.

Comments 3: [Chapter 3 “Methodology” describes how the data was collected, by what measures, but it is not clear how the results obtained are presented in Tables 2-4. Not a single calculation formula is provided. It should also be explained what X2, df, GFI, CFI, NFI, NNFI, RMSEA are.]
Response 3: Agree. We sincerely appreciate this valuable feedback to enhance methodological transparency. The Full name of all reported metrics (X2, df, GFI, CFI, NFI, NNFI, RMSEA) are added in Table 2 and Table 4.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Many thanks for submitting your paper to the Journal. Your paper derives a very interesting model which has many potential applications. Your coverage of the literature is excellent, and your derivation of the model is well documented. Your evaluation of the model is also very good. One area that I feel needs discussion is that of ethics. Could you please add a short section to discuss any ethical implications of your work. What if the model were to give incorrect recommendations? What are the implications of this? Subject to this small revision, I feel your paper is suitable for publication within the journal.

Author Response

Comments 1: [Could you please add a short section to discuss any ethical implications of your work. ]
Response 1: Agree. Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, We have supplemented additional clarification in the study limitations section. This change can be found – page 7 and line 294-298, and page 15 and line  582-586.. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx