Are You Truly Green? The Impact of Self-Quantification on the Sincerity of Consumers’ Green Behaviors and Sustained Willingness

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There is much to like about this manuscript. The issue of understanding the determinants of green behavior, particularly in relation to the impact of emerging technologies enabling self-quantification, is timely and relatively underexplored, with both theoretical and practical importance. I also commend the material development and the experimental approach. The manuscript presents one pilot study and two main studies whose results align with the proposed hypotheses.

 

Despite these strengths, I believe the manuscript would benefit from several conceptual clarifications. I hope the following comments help the authors to revise and further strengthen their work.

 

Major concerns:

1. Theoretical justification for moderation and mediation (Figure 1). The rationale for predicting that situational involvement moderates the effect of the green consumption context on internal motivation—but not on sincerity—is unclear. Why would involvement moderate the effect of context on motivation but not on sincerity? This aspect of the model requires further elaboration.
2. Clarifying the concept of self-quantification. The manuscript would benefit from better distinguishing self-quantification (as an emerging technological tool) from related concepts such as external feedback or self-monitoring. Clarifying similarities and differences would help establish the specificity and relevance of self-quantification in this context.
3. Promotion vs defensive goal orientation. The distinction between goal-oriented promotion (substantive vs. non-substantive behaviors) and goal-oriented defense (necessary vs. unnecessary behaviors), as well as the rationale for predicting that promotion goals reduce intrinsic motivation while defensive goals enhance it, lacks clarity. In addition, this should be better integrated with existing research, particularly : (a) regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997; as well as the distinction between maximum and minimum standards (Brendl & Higgins, 1996); and (b) self-licensing literature (Blanken et al., 2015; Simbrunner et al., 2017). For instance, past pro-environmental behavior (e.g., external feedback, self-quantification) has been shown to encourage future green behavior in promotion-focused individuals, but reduce it among prevention-focused individuals (Lalot et al., 2022). As stated in the discussion, this study refines the understanding of green behavior by distinguishing between substantive and non-substantive, and between necessary and unnecessary behaviors. However, these distinctions need to be better positioned within existing green behavior literature.
4. Integration of hypotheses. Hypotheses H1 (promotion-goal orientation) and H2 (defensive-goal orientation) offer opposing predictions but are tested in separate studies. In my view, these hypotheses constitute two parts of a single prediction that should ideally be tested within the same study, using goal orientation (promotion vs. defensive) as an independent variable and testing a higher-order interaction. While splitting them may have been a methodological necessity, this should be acknowledged in the manuscript, and the conceptual unity of these hypotheses should be discussed.
5. The role of sincerity. Hypotheses 1-3 form a coherent framework, but H4 (sincerity) appears somewhat disconnected. Sincerity is posited to predict sustained willingness for green consumption, but in the model (Figure 1), it is part of asequential mediation: the green consumption context (moderated by involvement) affects motivation, which influences sincerity, which in turn affects willingness. Rather than testing H4 in isolation (Model 4), the manuscript should refer more explicitly to and test this full sequential mediation.
6. Conceptual validity of the involvement measure. Situational involvement is defined as the perceived importance and personal relevance of green issues. However, one item in the scale—“your environmental behaviors can effectively influence the environment”—taps into perceived behavioral control or self-efficacy rather than involvement. Given the high internal consistency (.953), this item likely did not influence the results substantially but does introduce conceptual confusion.
7. Conceptual Overlap Between Motivation and Involvement. There may be a conceptual overlap between internal motivation and situational involvement. Measures of involvement (e.g., importance and centrality) also reflect internal motivational forces like values, interest, and intrinsic fulfillment, rather than purely external triggers.
8. The construct of sincerity and its measurement. Sincerity is defined as a genuine willingness to engage in green consumption and is linked to internal motivation. It is measured by the proportion of substantive behaviors among all green behaviors. However, one can be “sincere” while engaging in less substantive actions, at least from their own perspective. Therefore, the termsincerity may not accurately reflect this construct or its operationalization. The more descriptive term used in the results section—proportion of substantive environmental activities—may be more appropriate.
9. Clarity of Figures 2-4. Figures display outcome variables on scales ranging from 0 to 7 (or 8), whereas key dependent variables (motivation and willingness) were measured using 5-point Likert scales (1 to 5). While this may be acceptable for some variables, it seems less appropriate for measures like average green energy use or the proportion of substantive behaviors. These inconsistencies should be clarified, or these variables should be removed from the figures.

 

Minor issues:

• Overall, the theoretical relevance of the research, as well as the overall readiness of the manuscript, could be enhanced by prensenting the theoretical framework—along with the definitions and theoretical significance of key concepts and variables—earlier in the introduction, rather tha in part 3 (Research model and hypotheses).
• Page 2: The statement that green consumption "often lacks immediate hedonic rewards," which weakens intrinsic motivation, may be overstated. A lack of hedonic reward does not necessarily reduce intrinsic motivation. Green consumption can align with personal values and altruistic motives that are internally driven, even if not immediately pleasurable.
• Page 4: It is argued that self-quantification may lead consumers to focus on metrics rather than long-term goals. However, the link between self-quantification and external incentives could be clarified. Does self-quantification necessarily imply external motivation? And is fun always internally motivated?
• Page 5: The claim that individuals with low internal motivation may falsify data to improve their metrics suggests a moderating role for internal motivation. However, in H1b and H2b, internal motivation is positioned as a mediator. This apparent inconsistency should be addressed.
• Page 16 (Section 8): This section refers to tables and figures that appear earlier in the manuscript. The structure should be revised for clarity.
• Tables reporting means, standard deviations, and correlations among key variables would be useful and are currently missing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, I find your study on self-rating in green consumption and its influence on the sincerity and long-term willingness of consumers to engage in green behaviors very interesting, highlighting that, under certain conditions, it can generate insincere or superficial attitudes such as “greenwashing”.

In reference to the specific assessment and improvements needed to your manuscript, I point you to the following:
1) The introduction between lines 32 and 97, is based on 14 references from the years 2018 to 2024. Which I recommend you to be summarized and better oriented to relate the context with the objective of this study.
2) The Theoretical Background section and the references considered [15-24] seems adequate to me.
3) Section 3 - Research Model and Hypotheses - seems to me somewhat unusual, but possible to sustain. Although for this it requires at least 2 conditions:
3.1) To generate an effective link of the hypotheses raised, with the previous section (Theoretical Background). Indicating the hypotheses in Figure 1 seems reasonable to me. Reconnecting references 15 to 24 with this text is another necessary measure.
3.2) Generate some paragraphs, at the end of section 3, describing the methods to be used in sections 5 and 6.
4) The pilot experiment section is highly narrative, merging arguments, methods, results and conclusions. It seems to me that at least the methods should be advanced in one section and the conclusions should be handled later.
5) Experiment 1 is divided into methods and results, see how this harmonizes with the rest of the manuscript.
6) Experiment 2 is divided into methods and results, see how this harmonizes with the rest of the manuscript.
7) In the format of this journal the conclusions are reserved for the final section, after discussion.
8) There is an empty section (Figures, Tables and Schemes), correct this error by eliminating this title.
9) The discussion of their theoretical contributions and managerial implications should not be a mere summary. It requires a proper contrast with the existing literature. This section should clarify the merits of your manuscript in contributing new knowledge.

It seems to me that by making the required changes to section 3 and the discussion, the article has a good chance of becoming an interesting contribution to be published in this journal.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I found your article to be such an interesting read. Overall, the article is very well written, the results are well presented and discussed. I have a few minor comments for you to address:

Please add more literature and identify your contribution to literature.

Please identify the relevance of green washing to your research. How is green washing relevant to individual identification of green activities? Usually green washing refers to corporate misleading behaviour. My suggestion is to replace the term green washing with a more suitable term.

Please justify participant and geographical selection.

Please identify how situational involvement was measured?

Please provide the questions relating to each variable in a table format.

Please provide a brief description of Ant Forest earlier in the article including the motivation behind it.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf