Digital Social Influence and Its Impact on the Attitude of Organic Product Consumers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The data collection methodology requires enhanced transparency regarding survey implementation. Specifically, the section should disclose the total number of questionnaires disseminated and the proportion of valid questionnaires.
2. To enable critical evaluation of the dataset, comprehensive descriptive statistics must be reported for all variables. This baseline transparency supports distributional assessment and validates analytical assumptions.
3. Supplement all result visualizations with control variable estimates. Complete graphical disclosure is essential to demonstrate model specification validity.
4. There have been many research achievements on the research topic of this article. It is suggested that the contribution of this study be more clearly and detailedly expounded and distinguished from other literature studies.

Author Response

Reviewer 1
Dear Reviewer. Thank you very much for the comments and suggestions provided on our study. We have addressed and corrected all the issues you pointed out. To facilitate the identification of the changes made, the revised texts have been highlighted in yellow.

 

Observations and responses: 

Observation 1: The data collection methodology requires enhanced transparency regarding survey implementation. Specifically, the section should disclose the total number of questionnaires disseminated and the proportion of valid questionnaires.

Response 1: Thank you very much for pointing out this shortcoming. We have made the necessary corrections as requested. (We kindly ask you to review the text highlighted in yellow in lines 301 to 304).

 

Observation 2. To enable critical evaluation of the dataset, comprehensive descriptive statistics must be reported for all variables. This baseline transparency supports distributional assessment and validates analytical assumptions.

Response 2. Dear Reviewer. We have included a paragraph to explain the demographic results calculated based on the mean and standard deviation of the model constructs. (We kindly ask you to review the text highlighted in yellow in lines 360 to 370).

 

Observation 3. Supplement all result visualizations with control variable estimates. Complete graphical disclosure is essential to demonstrate model specification validity.

Response 3. Thank you very much for this observation. In response, we have conducted an additional validation of the model, incorporating control variables (gender, age, and education level). Through this analysis, we support the validity of the model specification and confirm that the hypothesized relationships remain stable after controlling for key sociodemographic factors. (Please review the text highlighted in yellow in lines 432 to 441).

 

Observation 4. There have been many research achievements on the research topic of this article. It is suggested that the contribution of this study be more clearly and detailedly expounded and distinguished from other literature studies.

Response 4. Thank you for this observation, we fully agree with your point. To address it, we clarified our study’s unique contribution in the Research Model section, emphasizing how the integration of the SOR framework and the focus on digital social influence in an emerging market context distinguishes our work from prior research. (Please review the text highlighted in yellow in lines 279 to 288).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The excessive use of abbreviations hinders readability. It is recommended to avoid abbreviations except for core terms.

2. There are some incorrect symbols in lines 102-103 and 388-389 that need to be corrected.

3. The literature review section would be more appropriately placed under research hypotheses. Relevant research reviews can be included in the introduction, or the second section should distinguish between literature review and research hypotheses. The literature review should focus on evaluating similar topics, elucidating key concepts and foundational theories, etc.

4. The argumentation for the model could be more rigorous, and the establishment of arguments requires sufficient evidence, including theoretical or previous empirical results.

5. Before introducing the SOR theory in line 107, it is generally advisable to organize theories that influence consumer behavior or attitudes, and then point out the advantages of SOR and considerations for adopting this model.

6. The use of parentheses in lines 183-184 is not recommended, as it is a common practice often seen in AI-generated text.

7. The first row of the age section in Table 1 contains an incorrect year, which should probably be 1978?

8. There is a lack of discussion comparing the research conclusions with previous studies and how they can be applied.

Author Response

Reviewer 2
Dear Reviewer. Thank you very much for the comments and suggestions provided on our study. We have addressed and corrected all the issues you pointed out. To facilitate the identification of the changes made, the revised texts have been highlighted in green.

 

Observations and responses.

Observation 1. The excessive use of abbreviations hinders readability. It is recommended to avoid abbreviations except for core terms.

Response 1. Thank you for pointing out this error. We have corrected the abbreviations and have only retained acronyms for the variables hypothesized in the model, the SOR theory, and the main statistical techniques, terms that are mentioned repeatedly throughout the article.

 

Observation 2. There are some incorrect symbols in lines 102-103 and 388-389 that need to be corrected.

Response 2. The “?” symbols refer to the sub-research questions addressed in the study. We have revised the formatting and now only use the “?” symbol at the end of each question to avoid any confusion for the readers. (Please review the text highlighted in green in lines 100 to 103 and 444 to 447).

 

Observation 3. The literature review section would be more appropriately placed under research hypotheses. Relevant research reviews can be included in the introduction, or the second section should distinguish between literature review and research hypotheses. The literature review should focus on evaluating similar topics, elucidating key concepts and foundational theories, etc.

Response 3. Dear reviewer. We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion regarding the relocation of the literature review section. However, based on our experience in previous peer-reviewed publications, we respectfully request to maintain the current structure. We believe that presenting a dedicated literature review section prior to the development of hypotheses allows for a clearer and more comprehensive synthesis of key concepts, theoretical frameworks, and prior empirical findings. This structure enhances the logical flow of the manuscript by contextualizing each construct before formulating hypotheses. Moreover, this approach aligns with the conventions of numerous high-impact journals in the field. Therefore, we kindly suggest maintaining the current organization of the literature review and research hypotheses sections as originally presented.

 

Observation 4. The argumentation for the model could be more rigorous, and the establishment of arguments requires sufficient evidence, including theoretical or previous empirical results.

Response 4. Thank you for this observation, we completely agree with your point. This same observation was also raised by Reviewer 1; therefore, the corresponding revision is highlighted in yellow. To address it, we clarified our study’s unique contribution in the Research Model section, emphasizing how the integration of the SOR framework and the focus on digital social influence in an emerging market context distinguishes our work from prior research. (Please review the text highlighted in yellow in lines 279 to 288).

 

Observation 5. Before introducing the SOR theory in line 107, it is generally advisable to organize theories that influence consumer behavior or attitudes, and then point out the advantages of SOR and considerations for adopting this model.

Response 5. Thank you for this observation. We have included a paragraph that briefly discusses key theories previously used in the field of organic product consumption, followed by a justification of why the SOR model is the most appropriate framework for our study. (Please review the text highlighted in green in lines 105 to 114).

 

Observation 6. The use of parentheses in lines 183-184 is not recommended, as it is a common practice often seen in AI-generated text.

Response 6.  Thank you for this recommendation. We have removed the parentheses as suggested. (Please review the text highlighted in green in lines 189 to 190).

 

Observation 7. The first row of the age section in Table 1 contains an incorrect year, which should probably be 1978?

Response 7. Thank you for pointing out this error. We have corrected it accordingly. (Please see the text highlighted in green in Table 1).

 

Observation 8. There is a lack of discussion comparing the research conclusions with previous studies and how they can be applied.

Response 8. Thank you for this recommendation. We have added a paragraph at the end of the conclusion, written in a discussion-like manner. Its purpose is to compare the main conclusion of our study with previous literature in this field and to highlight how this can support the implementation of business strategies to promote the consumption of organic products. (Please review the text highlighted in green in lines 584 to 590).

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The objective of the present study is to ascertain whether digital social influence, stemming from the informational nature of social media content and online member group support, exerts an influence on the subjective norms and environmental attitudes of organic product consumers. This topic is intriguing, yet it is evident that further refinement is necessary to achieve optimal clarity and rigor.
1.    It is evident that there is a certain degree of redundancy in the use of the keywords "Social Media" and "Social Media Content". It is recommended that more distinctive keywords be devised. It is imperative to ascertain whether these two are the ones that require specific distinction in this article.
2.    The final sentence of the abstract summarizes the significance of this research. If the objective is merely to deepen our understanding of the factors that shape environmental attitudes, it would be somewhat superficial. It is requested that, in the event that an increase in comprehension regarding the elements that influence environmental attitudes is regarded as somewhat superficial, the practical significance of this research be refined and enhanced.
3.    It is requested that the final paragraph of the introduction be rewritten in a formal manner.
4.    It is required that the functions of the two extra lines in Figure 1 that do not have the hypothesis model numbers marked are identified. It is imperative to ascertain the veracity of this annotation. It has been noted that there is an inaccuracy in the age ranges specified in Table 1.
5.    A total of 371 consumers of organic products participated in the survey. The author's classification of "Educational Level" into "Degree" and "Postgraduate" appears to lack clarity.
6.    It is possible that issues of multicollinearity and mediation effect testing may be encountered in the research methods. Furthermore, the value of effect size (the square of f) should be supplemented.

Author Response

Reviewer 3
Dear Reviewer. Thank you very much for the comments and suggestions provided on our study. We have addressed and corrected all the issues you pointed out. To facilitate the identification of the changes made, the revised texts have been highlighted in orange.

 

Observations and responses

Observation 1. It is evident that there is a certain degree of redundancy in the use of the keywords "Social Media" and "Social Media Content". It is recommended that more distinctive keywords be devised. It is imperative to ascertain whether these two are the ones that require specific distinction in this article.

Response 1. Thank you very much for this observation. Our research team has decided to use an acronym only for the variable Social Media Content (SMC) to avoid any confusion. Additionally, we have removed the term "Social Media" from the list of keywords. (Please review the updated keywords section).

 

Observation 2.    The final sentence of the abstract summarizes the significance of this research. If the objective is merely to deepen our understanding of the factors that shape environmental attitudes, it would be somewhat superficial. It is requested that, in the event that an increase in comprehension regarding the elements that influence environmental attitudes is regarded as somewhat superficial, the practical significance of this research be refined and enhanced.

Response 2. Dear Reviewer, thank you for this observation. Our research team has improved the final sentence in the abstract to strengthen the applied value of the study and directly address the concern regarding superficiality. (Please review the text highlighted in orange in the abstract).

 

Observation 3. It is requested that the final paragraph of the introduction be rewritten in a formal manner.

Response 3. Thank you for pointing out this error. As this observation was also noted by another reviewer, you will find the correction highlighted in both orange and green. (Please review the text highlighted in lines 100 to 103).

 

Observation 4.    It is required that the functions of the two extra lines in Figure 1 that do not have the hypothesis model numbers marked are identified. It is imperative to ascertain the veracity of this annotation. It has been noted that there is an inaccuracy in the age ranges specified in Table 1.

Response 4. Dear Reviewer. The additional lines refer to the formulation of two hypotheses (H3B and H4B), which aim to test the mediating effects. A brief explanation of what these lines represent is provided in the lower right corner of the diagram.

Regarding the age ranges (Table 1), these have already been applied in previous studies published in Sustainability, FOODS, and the British Food Journal, where millennials were further subdivided into three sub-cohorts. We kindly invite you to review the following references:

https://doi.org/10.3390/su16125230

https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13020228

https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-05-2021-0558

 

Observation 5.    A total of 371 consumers of organic products participated in the survey. The author's classification of "Educational Level" into "Degree" and "Postgraduate" appears to lack clarity.

Response 5. Dear Reviewer, in Ecuador, there are two main levels of higher education: (a) Undergraduate (referred to as "Grado"), which includes bachelor's degrees and engineering programs, and (b) Postgraduate ("Postgrado"), which includes master’s and doctoral programs. Within the Ecuadorian and broader Latin American context, this classification is well known and generally consistent across most countries in North, Central, and South America.

 

Observation 6.    It is possible that issues of multicollinearity and mediation effect testing may be encountered in the research methods. Furthermore, the value of effect size should be supplemented.

Response 6. Thank you for this valuable observation. In response, we addressed potential multicollinearity issues by examining the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) values for all predictor constructs. All VIF values were below the recommended threshold of 3.3, indicating that multicollinearity was not a concern. Additionally, the mediation effects were tested using bootstrapping procedures with 5,000 resamples, following the guidelines of Preacher and Hayes. Regarding effect size, we have supplemented the results section by including f² values for each structural path. These values provide further evidence of the magnitude of each predictor’s contribution to the dependent variables, supporting the robustness of the model. (Please review the text highlighted in orange in lines 403 to 409).

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I found the paper to be interested and well-documented. 

First, the introduction provides the needed information in order to shape the gap in the literature.

Section 2 is presented in a comprehensive manner, as the authors provide support for their hypotheses. I suggest the authors to mix section 2 and 3 into a methodological section in which to present first the hypotheses of the model, then the scheme of the model and last the data collection and statistical procedure. In terms of validation of the model, please also include in the methodological section an explanation of the used indicators, such as VIF, NFI, CFI, RMSEA, factor loadings, AVE, HTMT etc. - just from a theoretical point of view, as well as their recommended thresholds as it results from the literature. 

Section 4 is supported by the used model and data. The results are presented in an easy-to-understand manner. 

Also, the concluding remarks section provides the needed results and discusses the limitations of the study. 

Please consider removing the reverse question marks in rows 389 and 390. 

Author Response

Reviewer 4
Dear Reviewer, thank you very much for the comments and suggestions provided on our study. We have addressed and corrected all the issues you pointed out.

 

Observations and responses

Observation 1. I found the paper to be interested and well-documented. 

Response 1. Thank you very much, dear Reviewer.

 

Observation 2. First, the introduction provides the needed information in order to shape the gap in the literature.

Response 2. Thank you very much, dear Reviewer.

 

Observation 3. Section 2 is presented in a comprehensive manner, as the authors provide support for their hypotheses. I suggest the authors to mix section 2 and 3 into a methodological section in which to present first the hypotheses of the model, then the scheme of the model and last the data collection and statistical procedure. In terms of validation of the model, please also include in the methodological section an explanation of the used indicators, such as VIF, NFI, CFI, RMSEA, factor loadings, AVE, HTMT etc. - just from a theoretical point of view, as well as their recommended thresholds as it results from the literature. 

Response 3. Dear Reviewer. Thank you for this observation. We have included all the requested elements in the article. We kindly ask you to review the sections on the measurement model estimation and the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM): Model Fit and Hypothesis Testing. (Please refer to Tables 2, 3, and 4).

Regarding the VOF, NFI, CFI, and RMSEA indicators, we appreciate your suggestion. However, as this study was conducted using PLS-SEM with SmartPLS, global fit indices such as NFI, CFI, and RMSEA are not applicable, as they pertain to the CB-SEM approach. Instead, following the recommendations of Hair et al. (2019), we applied fit indicators appropriate for the PLS approach, such as the SRMR and R² values, which support the model's structural fit and predictive relevance.

 

Observation 4. Section 4 is supported by the used model and data. The results are presented in an easy-to-understand manner.  Also, the concluding remarks section provides the needed results and discusses the limitations of the study.

Response 4. Thank you very much, dear Reviewer.

 

Observation 5. Please consider removing the reverse question marks in rows 389 and 390. 

Response 5. Dear Reviewer, thank you very much for this observation. The reverse question format was used to express the sub-research questions. We have revised the wording of these sub-questions to improve clarity and understanding. (Please review the text highlighted in green in lines 444 to 447).

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has completed the revision quite well and it has reached a publishable level.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for accepting our research.

The comments you provided allowed us to improve our study.

We once again thank you.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The revised manuscript shows a marked improvement in quality.  
2. The English of the paper must be thoroughly checked to ensure that the expression conforms to academic writing standards.  
3. Before publication, the authors should carefully examine and verify both the reliability of the data and the robustness of the results.  
4. When comparing the findings with previous work, the manuscript should cite relevant literature and explicitly state the contributions of the current study as well as its possible limitations.

Author Response

Dear reviewer.

Thank you very much for these new comments. We have corrected your request. You will find the corrections highlighted in yellow. 

 

Observation 1. The revised manuscript shows a marked improvement in quality.

Response 1. Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much.

 

Observation 2. The English of the paper must be thoroughly checked to ensure that the expression conforms to academic writing standards. 

Response 2. Dear reviewer. Thank you very much for this comment. We have corrected the article's writing. We received support from a colleague at our university who is a native English speaker.

 

Observation 3. Before publication, the authors should carefully examine and verify both the reliability of the data and the robustness of the results. 

Response 3. Dear reviewer. Thank you very much for this observation.

Our research group thoroughly reviewed the article to ensure that our study demonstrates reliability in its results. Accordingly, we re-examined the demographic results and verified the correctness of the measurement model estimates, ensuring compliance with the criteria for convergent validity (Cronbach’s alpha, Composite Reliability, and Average Variance Extracted), as well as discriminant validity (verifying compliance with the Fornell and Larcker criterion on the diagonal, HTMT values above the diagonal, and correlations below the diagonal). Finally, we confirmed that the requirements for Model Fit and Hypothesis Testing were met (statistical significance levels for hypothesis acceptance, SRMR test, and the R² coefficients of determination), thereby evidencing that the proportion of variability in the dependent variable is explained by the model and demonstrating that the model fits the observed data.

 

Observation 4. When comparing the findings with previous work, the manuscript should cite relevant literature and explicitly state the contributions of the current study as well as its possible limitations.

Response 4. We have improved the presentation of the discussion, comparing the findings of our study with those of other published works in this field. (Please review the texts marked in yellow in the discussion section.)

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have revised the manuscript extensively. However, there are still some minor details that have not been addressed, such as the lack of clarity in the categorisation of educational level in Table 1 and the use of commas instead of decimal points for percentages. There are also a number of spelling errors in the text, such as 'SPPS' in the abstract and 'conclision' in the conclusion.

Author Response

Dear reviewer.

Thank you very much for pointing out these errors. On behalf of our research group, we are very grateful for the comments you provided in the first round, which will greatly help improve our study.

Below, we detail the comments you provided in round two, along with their corresponding responses.

 

Observation 1: The authors have revised the manuscript extensively. However, there are still some minor details that have not been addressed, such as the lack of clarity in the categorization of educational level in Table 1 and the use of commas instead of decimal points for percentages. There are also a number of spelling errors in the text, such as 'SPPS' in the abstract and 'conclusion' in the conclusion.

Response 1: Dear reviewer. We have corrected the categorization of educational levels (Table 1). We have also corrected the use of commas instead of decimals and spelling errors (Review the text highlighted in green).