Social and Cognitive Factors Influencing Trust and Purchase Intention in Organic E-Commerce: A Gender-Based Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The primary focus of the author’s research lies in examining the impact of social variables (social influence) and cognitive variables (perceived usefulness, perceived control, and perceived risk) on trust and purchase intention. Although gender differences are also explored, the title of the paper is not well aligned with the primary focus of the study, as it overemphasizes the latter part of the research. It would be more appropriate to revise the title to reflect the central research areas of social and cognitive variables in relation to trust and purchase intention.

 

2. The author frames the research within the context of organic products but does not provide a thorough discussion on the importance of organic products in the introduction. There is already a substantial body of literature on the impact of Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) on trust and purchase intention. What is the author’s contribution or innovation in this regard? If the study is focusing on the context of organic products, what unique findings does it offer in this specific setting?

3.  In terms of the literature review, the author does not adequately highlight how their research adds to the existing body of knowledge or its innovation. It is essential to strengthen the introduction and literature review by clearly stating how this study fills a gap in the literature, contributes new insights, and addresses real-world challenges. This could include identifying gaps in existing studies.

 

4. The current structure of the paper is somewhat unbalanced. There should be a distinct and separate literature review section that synthesizes prior research on the subject. Additionally, Chapters 2 and 3, which discuss hypotheses, should be consolidated into a single chapter for better coherence and logical flow.

 

5. Chapters 6 and 7 should be merged into a single chapter that discusses both the results and the theoretical and practical implications. This will provide a more integrated approach to presenting the findings and their significance.

 

6. The discussion of the data collection process is too brief. The author needs to provide a more detailed description of how the data was collected, including sample characteristics, data collection methods, and any relevant procedures followed to ensure data quality.

 

7. The analysis of gender differences should be re-evaluated. Using a moderation method to examine gender as a moderator of the relationships between social and cognitive variables, trust, and purchase intention would be more appropriate and robust.

8. Finally, the author needs to more explicitly explain the practical implications of the research findings. The paper should clarify how the results can help businesses and platforms in practical terms, such as how understanding social and cognitive influences on trust can improve marketing strategies or how gender differences can be leveraged in product promotions for organic goods.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Abstract

(1) Refine key findings to be more specific: Instead of stating “females are more influenced by privacy and perceived control, while males are more sensitive to perceived risk,” specify which variables (e.g., social influence, provider trust) have the strongest differential impacts. For example: “Females show stronger sensitivity to perceived control’s effect on provider trust (β= -0.231, p<0.001) than males (β= -0.101, p<0.05), while males exhibit a more significant link between perceived privacy risk and website trust (β= -0.087, p<0.01) than females.”  

(2) Explicitly note that trust “partially mediates” the relationship between antecedent variables and purchase intention, as this is a critical theoretical insight.  

2. Introduction

(1) Strengthen the literature review on **gender and green e-commerce privacy**: The manuscript mentions limited research but could better contextualize with post-2020 studies that explore gender differences in privacy behaviors for sustainable products. This will better frame the research gap.  

(2) Clarify the theoretical link between SCT extensions and gender: Explain why integrating social influence and perceived usefulness is critical for gender-based analysis (e.g., females’ higher reliance on social cues, males’ focus on task efficiency). This will reinforce the rationale for the study’s model.  

3. Theoretical Framework

(1) Distinguish “social influence” and “social norms”: The manuscript uses “social influence” in H4 and “social norms” in H10, but their definitions are conflated. Explicitly define both constructs (e.g., social influence = opinions of close others; social norms = societal expectations) and cite literature to justify why H10 (social norms → privacy concerns) was proposed, even if it was later unsupported.  

(2) Deepen the rationale for gender-specific hypotheses (H12–H14): For each hypothesis (e.g., H12a: social influence → website trust is stronger for females), cite gender theory (e.g., females’ relationship-oriented behavior vs. males’ task-oriented behavior) or prior studies  to explain why such differences are expected.  

4. Methodology

(1) Justify sampling location and generalizability: The sample is drawn from Cáceres, Spain. Explain why this region was selected (e.g., high organic product consumption rates, e-commerce adoption) and whether demographic characteristics (e.g., 55.3% income €1,000–3,000) align with Spanish organic e-commerce users. This will contextualize the study’s external validity.  

(2) Improve scale transparency in Table 2: Link each scale item (e.g., SI01: “People who are important to me think I must buy organic products”) to its specific reference (e.g., social influence scale adapted from Hong & Tam, 2006). Currently, references are noted at the end of Table 2 but not tied to individual items.  

(3) Report full measurement invariance for multi-group analysis: The manuscript only mentions configural invariance. To compare latent means across genders, report results for metric invariance (equal factor loadings) and scalar invariance (equal intercepts), as these are required to validate gender-based comparisons.  

5. Results

(1) Correct typos in Table 4: H6a (“Website trust → Website trust”) and H6b (“Provider trust → Provider trust”) are likely errors. They should reflect the intended relationships: “Website trust → Online purchase intention” and “Provider trust → Online purchase intention.”  

(2) Highlight gender-specific significant relationships in text: Table 6 shows that some relationships are significant only for females (e.g., H14b: Provider trust → Purchase intention, β=0.16, p<0.05) or only for males (e.g., H12b: Privacy concern → Website trust, β=-0.087, p<0.01). Explicitly discuss these differences in the text (not just the table) to emphasize key gender findings.  

(3) Explain variance explained differences: The model explains 56.5% of purchase intention variance for females vs. 35.7% for males. Link this to the theoretical framework (e.g., females’ higher sensitivity to relational variables like trust and social influence) to contextualize the result.  

6. Discussion

(1) Address non-supported hypothesis (H11): H11 (social norms → privacy concerns) was not supported (β=-0.025, n.s.). Discuss potential reasons (e.g., Spanish consumers’ low sensitivity to social norms regarding privacy, scale measurement issues) and how this aligns or contradicts prior literature.  

(2) Refine practical implications to be actionable: For example, instead of “provide options for detailed control over shared information for females,” specify concrete features (e.g., one-click privacy settings, real-time alerts for data sharing). For males, name relevant security certifications (e.g., GDPR compliance, ISO 27001) to enhance usability.  

(3) Expand future research directions: The manuscript mentions including physical store consumers, but could suggest cross-country studies (e.g., comparing EU vs. Asian markets) or exploring other moderators (e.g., age, income) to further generalize findings.  

7. References

(1) Complete incomplete references: For example, Reference 17 (Bandura & Walters, 1977) lacks publisher location. Ensure all citations follow Sustainability’s reference format.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a theoretically sound and empirically rigorous study applying an extended Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) framework to analyze gender differences in privacy, trust, and online purchase intention for organic products. The work aligns well with Sustainability’s scope on digital sustainability and consumer behavior. However, the manuscript would benefit from theoretical deepening, stronger framing of originality, and minor language and structure refinements for publication readiness.

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework: The extension of SCT with social influence and perceived usefulness is well justified and contributes to sustainability and technology adoption literature. The inclusion of gendered analysis fills an underexplored gap in sustainable digital consumption. The hypotheses are logically derived and clearly articulated (H1–H14).

However, the novelty claim should be strengthened. The introduction cites general gaps, but it should explicitly state how this paper differs from prior applications of SCT in green e-commerce or privacy contexts (e.g., contrast with TAM–UTAUT–TPB hybrids). Please integrate a clearer conceptual diagram earlier (end of Introduction) to help readers visualize constructs and relationships. The theoretical section is overly descriptive. Consider synthesizing key constructs (privacy concern, perceived control, trust) in a concise summary table (e.g., construct definition and main references).

Methodology: There is a large and balanced sample (n = 821) enhances statistical validity. There is a clear explanation of EFA, CFA, and SEM with proper indices (CFI, GFI, RMSEA) following Anderson & Gerbing (1995) and strong reliability (α > 0.8) and AVE/CR values reported. However, the sampling process should clarify inclusion criteria and recruitment platform (e.g., social media, panels, organic e-commerce users). The data collection region (Cáceres, Spain) limits generalizability. Please add a justification for geographic choice and discussion of its socio-digital context. In Table 2, include source references for each adapted scale in the same table for traceability. Add details on ethical approval (institutional board or project code) since human participants were involved. State whether common method bias was tested (e.g., Harman’s single-factor test).

Results and Analysis: There are comprehensive SEM results with significant pathways supporting most hypotheses. The gender-based multi-group comparison adds analytical richness and model fit statistics are within acceptable ranges. However, please clarify the variance explained (R²) values—explicitly state for both trust and purchase intention constructs in text, not only in tables. Provide a figure summarizing the final model with significant paths (standardized coefficients by gender). H6a/H6b are mislabeled (“website trust ➜ website trust”); revise typographical error in Table 4. Report effect sizes (β values with significance indicators) in text to strengthen interpretation.

Discussion and Implications: Discussion connects results effectively with previous studies and contextualizes gender differences. Practical implications for e-commerce managers and policy design are detailed and relevant. To improve, condense redundancy: the discussion restates several results without deeper theoretical linkage. Enhance cross-cultural reflection: how might cultural or regional norms about privacy and gender in Spain influence results? Provide a clearer theoretical contribution paragraph, summarizing how the extended SCT advances the literature. Management implications could benefit from prioritization group by “privacy”, “trust”, “platform design”, and “marketing strategy”.

References: Current citations (2020–2024) show good coverage and includes both foundational (Bandura, 1986) and recent (Kamboj et al., 2023) works. Ensure all references are formatted according to MDPI style:

• Author(s), Title, Journal Name, Year, Volume, Page range, DOI.
• Remove semicolons and “doi:” where not required.

Add 2–3 recent Sustainability or Journal of Cleaner Production references linking gender, privacy, and green consumerism to align with the journal’s ecosystem.

Conclusion and Limitations: Please end with a forward-looking sustainability statement. In addition, highlight future directions involving AI-based privacy personalization or cross-country gender comparison.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Writing and Structure: Language is largely clear and academic and logically flow of sections from theory to results.

Minor grammar issues: article usage, plural agreement (“females are more influenced…” → “female participants were more influenced…”). Use consistent terminology: “supplier trust” vs. “provider trust” vs. “destination trust”. Remove template editorial notes (e.g., lines 252–264 discussing GenAI disclosure and ethical approval requirements) before final submission. Reference formatting should follow Sustainability’s MDPI style (e.g., numbered order with full journal names, DOI links, and no italics in titles).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

This article presents a timely and relevant study on gender differences in privacy assessment within the e-commerce of organic products—a topic well-suited for Sustainability, bridging environmental consumption with digital trust and social equity. I also think that the application of an expanded Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) framework is a solid theoretical contribution. However, there are some critical issues that should be addressed for the sake of clarity, methods, and the interpretation of the main results, which, from my perspective, currently compromise the strength of the presented findings.

The existing conflicting results and lack of a clear explanation for them represent a major flaw. I encourage the authors to undertake a major revision to address these points convincingly, namely considering the following aspects (the first three are more important):

1 — Concerning the gender analysis (Section 5.3 & 6), the results presented in Table 6 are confusing and, in some cases, directly contradict the stated hypotheses and the subsequent discussion. For example, hypotheses H12c and H13c posit that the impact of perceived privacy risk on trust is greater for females. The results, however, show that this relationship is non-significant (n.s.) for females but positive and significant for males. This is the opposite of what was hypothesized and is a major finding that is not adequately discussed or explained. A negative impact was hypothesized (H2a, H2b), but a positive one is found for males, which is counter-intuitive and requires deep investigation.

Another example is that H13d hypothesizes a greater positive impact of perceived ability to control on Provider trust for females. The results show a significant negative relationship for both genders, which is the direct opposite of the positive relationship established in the main model (H3b) and fundamental to privacy literature. This is a profound contradiction that must be addressed. The authors cannot simply state these results without a thorough discussion of why their data shows that more control leads to less trust in the provider for both genders.

The discussion in Section 6 overlooks these contradictions with generic statements, failing to address the unexpected and theoretically challenging nature of those results.

2 — I believe the methodology lacks clarity and, to some extent, justification.

First, the manuscript mentions a "tourist sample" and "destination trust" in several places (e.g., H14a, Table 2 scale reference, Section 6 discussion). This is very confusing as the study is framed entirely around e-commerce for organic products, not tourism. I strongly recommend that you clarify the context of your survey and ensure all terminology is consistent throughout the entire manuscript. Were the respondents evaluating a tourism-related website, or is this an error from a template?

Second, H6a and H6b in Table 4 are listed as Website trust -> Website trust and Provider trust -> Provider trust. This seems like a typographical error that should be Website trust -> Online purchase intention and Provider trust -> Online purchase intention. Please confirme and make correct it accordingly.

Finally, concerning the measurement model, while fit indices are provided, more detail is needed on the model identification, handling of potential cross-loadings, and demonstration of discriminant validity beyond the Fornell-Larcker criterion (which is implied but not explicitly shown with a table).

3 — The introduction and theoretical sections are somewhat generic. The literature review on gender differences, while covering broad areas, could be more sharply focused on prior findings related to privacy, trust, and technology adoption in e-commerce specifically. This would provide a stronger foundation for the gender-specific hypotheses.

The justification for why SCT was expanded with these specific constructs (social influence, perceived usefulness) is adequate, but the link to the unique context of organic e-commerce could be stronger. Why are these factors particularly salient for organic products versus conventional products?

4 — The Abstract could be more precise. The introduction follows a standard structure but could be more concise and impactful in stating the research gap.

5 — Structural Equation Model (SEM) Reporting: The model fit indices for the structural model (χ²/df = 1586.16/329 ≈ 4.82) are acceptable but not excellent. The GFI (0.87) is below the conventional 0.90 threshold. The authors should briefly acknowledge this.

Also, although not mandatory, to align with current methodological best practices, the authors should supplement their measurement model analysis by reporting the Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio to conclusively demonstrate discriminant validity. A table or statement confirming all HTMT values are below 0.85 would enhance the rigor and credibility of the findings.

6 — The discussion should be reorganized to first clearly state the main findings, then discuss the supported hypotheses from the general model, and finally dedicate a substantial, separate section to the complex and contradictory gender results. The managerial implications are well-developed but are based on the initial hypotheses rather than the actual, more subtle results.

7 — The paper requires proofreading for minor grammatical errors and awkward phrasing (e.g., "Females and males" can often be replaced with "Women and men" or "Male and female consumers" for better flow).

Good luck!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper requires proofreading for minor grammatical errors and awkward phrasing (e.g., "Females and males" can often be replaced with "Women and men" or "Male and female consumers" for better flow).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have adequately addressed all my previous concerns in the revised manuscript. Accept

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their positive assessment and for the constructive comments provided in the previous round, which have substantially contributed to improving the clarity and robustness of the manuscript. We are grateful for the recommendation to accept the paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Introduction and Theoretical Framework

(1) Clarify research gaps and uniqueness: While the manuscript notes limitations of prior SCT applications, explicitly contrast your extended model with key predecessors to highlight how integrating both social influence and privacy control variables adds novelty to organic e-commerce research.

(2) Explicitly state research questions: Complement the hypotheses (H1-H14) with 2-3 core research questions (e.g., “How do privacy and social cognitive factors interact to shape trust in organic e-commerce, and do these mechanisms differ by gender?”) to guide readers and emphasize the study’s focus.

(3) Strengthen theoretical justification for unsupported hypotheses: H10 (social norms → negative privacy concerns) was not supported (β = -0.025, n.s.). Discuss conflicting literature on the link between social norms and privacy concerns (e.g., why social approval may not mitigate privacy risks in organic e-commerce) and refine the theoretical rationale for this hypothesis (or acknowledge its tentative nature) in the revised manuscript.

(4) Tie gender role theory to hypotheses H12-H14: Expand on why specific paths (e.g., social influence → trust) are expected to be stronger for females, while others (e.g., perceived risk → trust) may differ for males. For example, link relationship-oriented traits (females) to social influence sensitivity, and task-oriented traits (males) to risk/control perceptions with more targeted citations.

2. Methodology

(1) Measurement invariance testing: The manuscript confirms configural invariance, but metric (factor loadings) and scalar (intercepts) invariance are critical for validly comparing path coefficients across genders. Report results of these higher-order invariance tests to ensure the multi-group SEM results are robust.

(2) Questionnaire transparency: Table 2 summarizes questionnaire items (e.g., PP01 is cut off: “I pay attention to the sharing of personal information (name, email, telephone number, photo-”). Provide full item wording for all scales, or reference the exact adapted items from the cited literature (e.g., page numbers, supplementary materials) to enhance replicability.

(3) Sample generalizability: Acknowledge limitations of the Spain-only sample earlier (e.g., in the Methodology section) rather than solely in Conclusions. Discuss how Spain’s strict privacy regulations or cultural norms around organic consumption may influence results, and how this impacts cross-country generalizability.

3. Results and Discussion

(1) Interpret gender-specific path differences: The multi-group analysis reveals nuanced differences (e.g., H12b: privacy concern → website trust is significant for males only; H14b: provider trust → purchase intention is significant for females only). Move beyond reporting these results to explain why they occur. For example: Why do privacy concerns undermine males’ website trust but not females’? Could this reflect males’ task-oriented focus on transactional security, while females prioritize relational trust in providers? Why does provider trust drive females’ purchase intention but not males’? Link to females’ relationship-oriented traits and reliance on supplier credibility for organic products (which lack in-person verification).

(2) Contextualize variance explained: The model explains 56.5% of females’ and 35.7% of males’ purchase intention. Discuss potential unmeasured variables that could enhance explanatory power (e.g., prior organic purchase experience, perceived product authenticity, or platform-specific trust signals like eco-certification badges) and propose these as future research directions.

(3) Align discussion with hypotheses: For supported hypotheses (e.g., H4: social influence → trust), connect results to prior literature in organic e-commerce specifically (not just general e-commerce) to reinforce the study’s contribution.

4. Practical Implications

(1) Make recommendations more actionable: The manuscript suggests privacy dashboards and tailored information for genders—provide concrete examples to enhance utility. For instance:

For females: “Design a ‘privacy summary’ page that simplifies data sharing policies alongside a one-click option to adjust preferences.”For males: “Integrate concise security badges and ‘quick checkout’ with pre-saved privacy settings to prioritize transaction efficiency.”

(2) Link implications to sustainability goals: Explicitly connect gender-tailored strategies to broader sustainability objectives (e.g., increasing organic product adoption reduces carbon footprints).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your thoughtful and comprehensive revisions to the manuscript. I appreciate the care taken to respond thoroughly to each reviewer comment and to enhance the manuscript's alignment with Sustainability’s conceptual and methodological standards.

Key Areas of Improvement:

• Strengthened Contribution & Framing: The introduction is now clearer in positioning the distinct role of trust in the context of organic e-commerce and offers a stronger rationale for the application of the Social Cognitive Theory (SCT). The expansion of textual justifications more clearly delineates the manuscript’s value-add relative to TAM-UTAUT work.

• Methodological Rigor: The inclusion of details on sampling procedures, nationwide eligibility, and ethical compliance substantially improves the transparency of the Methods section. The addition of common method bias testing (Harman’s single-factor test) is also appreciated.

• Visual and Structural Enhancements: The new figures summarizing SEM results for the global model and gender subgroups assist the reader significantly. The reorganization of managerial implications into priority groups (privacy, trust, platform design, marketing strategy) helps directly translate findings to practice.

• Reference Consistency: The updates to MDPI style are appreciated, as are the recent references enhancing the sustainability and trust-related discourse.

Remaining Minor Suggestions:

• Language Precision: Although readability is improved, I recommend a final language polish for conciseness (e.g., rephrasing long sentences in the Discussion).

• Clarity on Country Context: The Spain-specific sampling findings could briefly acknowledge European Union-wide regulations (e.g., GDPR) that make findings applicable beyond just the domestic context.

• Typographic Checks: Please ensure newly added elements (figures, tables) are consistently labeled and referenced in the text and that all in-text citations have corresponding entries in the References section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Your submission of the revised manuscript with your answers to my first set of comments is greatly appreciated. I have reviewed your answers and the revised document. Your response has successfully handled all my main points in a complete and effective manner. The modifications have brought major enhancements to the manuscript through better research methods, result interpretation and clearer paper presentation. In my opinion, the manuscript requires no changes for acceptance.

Congratulations on your excellent work.

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for your careful review of our revised manuscript and for your very encouraging comments. We truly appreciate your recognition of the improvements made in the research methods, interpretation of results and overall clarity of the paper.

We are grateful that you consider the manuscript to require no further changes for acceptance. Your constructive feedback throughout the review process has been invaluable in strengthening the quality and contribution of this work.

Thank you again for your time, effort and supportive evaluation.