Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research topic is interesting and current. The authors also provide a clear introduction to patriotic consumption in South Korea.

Page 2: “… “No JAPAN” was launched by Sansam on July 15, 2019, to show support.” Is “Sansam” a typo? Would it be Samsung?

I wonder why this study focuses on “small business” but not medium-sized businesses. What types of products and businesses (e.g. high-end fashion boutiques, low-end stationery stores, natural food stores, etc.)? Consumers may have different levels of awareness, attitudes, and behaviour of different stores and/or products.

H2: I believe that this study can provide more in-depth and meaningful results if the authors develop two hypotheses for empirical testing – H2a focuses on instrumental motivation, and H2b focuses on non-instrumental motivation. By doing this, the stronger driving force will be identified.

Page 3: “Hoffmann (2013) stated that certain attitudes (e.g., empathizing with or having sympathy for those who are disadvantaged due to unjust behaviors) could also work as motivation to boycott.” What attitudes the authors are referring to? Be more specific.

Why did the authors highlight 4 specific consumer products (liquor, clothing, cosmetics, and stationery) for “purchasing level” but not including food, footwear or other products? What are the selection criteria or rationales behind their selection? Why these 4 products were considered as “major products related to the boycott in Korea”? Do the authors have any stistical data to support this, other than beer. In addition, “body care” or “skincare” products may be more relevant to male consumers rather than cosmetics.

How did the authors measure the purchasing level? I assume that this is closely related to an individual’s income and expenditure. It would be helpful if the authors can provide more information. Are there any correlations between income and spending attitudes and behaviour?

I wonder why the authors deliberately specify 4 product types (liquor, clothing, cosmetics, and stationary) in the “Purchasing Levels” but not for the “Patriotic Consumption” dimension. Consumers may have different perceptions of imported products – depending on what type of product. It is important to note that some products could be a lot easier to be replaced or substituted than others. Therefore, product type could play a critical role in patriotic consumption.

To me, this item “I participate in the boycott because everyone else participates in it” is more associated with peer pressure than sympathy.

“I participate in the boycott of Japanese products because it is an effective way to change the behaviors of the companies in question” How does it relate to the behaviour of the companies? It seems to me that it’s more to do with historical issues as stated in the “Introduction” section.

The meanings of these 2 items are too similar - “this message is important” and “this message is valuable”.

I wonder why the authors only conducted a PCA on the dimension of “Motivation in Participating in the Boycott” but not the others. In addition, the authors didn’t describe the findings in Table 2.

Table 3: use either 3 or 4 asterisks for p-value. Be consistent.

The authors need to further elaborate and explain the analytical part, results, and relationships among all the dimensions. Basic descriptive analysis (Table 4) is not good enough to explain the outcomes and also the complex relationships among various dimensions and variables.

Overall, the analytical part is weak. The authors may consider using SEM for their study.

Discussion: “Korean consumers significantly decreased their purchases of Japanese products during the boycotts” It seems to me that it’s not important to conduct this study in order to understand the impacts of boycotting imported products from Japan. The authors already pointed it out in the “Introduction” section. For example, “65.5% decrease in the number of Korean visitors to Japan”, “Japanese automakers reported that sales to Korea for August 2019 fell 57%” and “imports of Japanese beer to Korea had dropped by 99.9%.”

How did the authors measure the “ethnocentrism” of consumers? Please clearly explain.

The conclusion is weak. Please provide some practical and theoretical implications. It doesn’t give the readers enough insights and meaningful information by reporting the findings in the “Discussion” section.

What are the major contributions? Do the authors have any recommendations and implications for the practitioners and researchers?

What are the limitations of this study? Does any future research need to be conducted?

Author Response

Response to Comments from Reviewer 1 and Revisions (Round 2)

□ Comment 1: Page 2: “… “No JAPAN” was launched by Sansam on July 15, 2019, to show support.” Is “Sansam” a typo? Would it be Samsung?

Answer: I appreciate your reviews.

Sansam is correct. This application was developed by an independent application developer to encourage boycotting, and it has been downloaded more than 200,000 times as of now. Details have been provided for more information (please see lines 63-65).

“Further, a smartphone application titled “No JAPAN,” developed by an independent app developer (Sansam) in favor of the boycott, was launched on July 15, 2019, to show support.”

□ Comment 2: I wonder why this study focuses on “small business” but not medium-sized businesses. What types of products and businesses (e.g. high-end fashion boutiques, low-end stationery stores, natural food stores, etc.)? Consumers may have different levels of awareness, attitudes, and behavior of different stores and/or products.

Answer: Yes, you are right. However, there were reasons why I particularly focused on small business owners. First, the major brands that were targeted for boycotting in Korea were in the fields of clothing (Uniqlo), liquor (Asahi, Kirin, etc.), automobiles (Honda, Lexus, Nissan, etc.), or stationery. These are mostly operated as individual stores. Second, there have been several studies on consumers’ attitudes toward big businesses, but very few studies that focus on small businesses. Song (2020) found that many consumers believe that small business owners who give up their own benefits and have participated in recent boycotts demonstrate a great responsibility toward social movements. From this perspective, this study focused on consumers’ attitudes toward small businesses.

However, after reviewing your comments, we felt the need to describe this reasoning in detail. We have added the following text, as shown below (please see lines 48-57):

“The current boycott is relatively broader and more organizational compared to the boycotts that occurred in the past. In particular, small business owners are directly participating in the boycott by openly displaying that they are participating in it or setting unreasonable prices on products related to the boycott. The small business owners who are participating in the boycott are receiving favorable reactions from the Korean consumers. After the Korea Federation of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (KSME), consisting of 27 organizations including KADM, openly stated that it will participate in the boycott on the 5^th of July 2019, there was a movement from marketplaces all over the country to eliminate products related to the boycott (Lee 2019; Oh 2019). According to a study by Song (2020), Korean customers have encouraged small business owners to voluntarily participate in the boycott and perceive them as having mutual goals and being in the same boat.”

+++ References+++

Lee, J. H. 2019. Japanese Media States that Consumer Boycotting Towards Japanese Products in Korea is Unusually Long-Term. KBS News, July 30. Available online: http://news.kbs.co.kr/news/view.do?ncd=4252717 (accessed on 20 January 2020).

Oh, J. M. 2019. Boycotting the Japanese Products are Spreading: The Labor Union Participating in the Boycott by Rejecting Delivery and Customer Service. Korea Economy, July 24. Available online: http://www.hankyung.com/life/article/201907246614g2020 (accessed on 24 April 2020).

Song, E. 2020. A Study on the Characteristics and Significance of the Boycott Japan Based on Text Mining and Semantic Network Analysis. Journal of Consumption Culture 23(1): 69–91.

□ Comment 3: H2: I believe that this study can provide more in-depth and meaningful results if the authors develop two hypotheses for empirical testing – H2a focuses on instrumental motivation, and H2b focuses on non-instrumental motivation. By doing this, the stronger driving force will be identified.

Answer: Thank you for noting this point, which I had missed; it is a new perspective. Based on the reviewers’ comments, the H2 hypothesis was divided into two separate hypotheses to include more details, and we have added additional a rationale for each one as follows (please see lines 142-178):

“Klein et al. (2004) also divided motivation for boycotts into two categories: instrumental and emotional motivation. They stated that instrumental motivation encourages consumers to change society by participating in the boycott, and emotional motivation makes consumers who participate in the boycott experience internal rewards by feeling positive about themselves and highly self-confident. Thus, the types of motivation for participating in a boycott from Klein et al. (2004) and the instrumental and emotional motivations defined by Friedman (1999) are closely related. Additionally, Braunsberger and Buckler (2011) conducted a study about the motivation of consumers to participate in the Canadian seafood boycott, where pledgees explicitly expressed their desire for the target to abolish its egregious behavior, their anger about the behavior in question, and their desire for punitive actions. Boycott motivations also include the belief that consumers have the power to impact a boycott target's bottom line and/or behavior as well as the belief that the boycott will succeed in forcing the target to cease its egregious behavior.

Hoffmann (2013) studied the motivations of consumers who boycott companies. He stated that certain attitudes (e.g., empathizing with or having sympathy for those who are disadvantaged due to unjust behaviors) could also work as motivation to engage in a boycott. His study also stated that consumers’ moral obligation is a mediator that raises boycott intention. In addition, Cheon (2019) regarded boycotts as elements of political consumerism, thereby classifying participation motivation as expression, sympathy, and realizing justice. In other words, sympathetic feelings toward consumers who had been disadvantaged by a boycott also plays an important role in the motivation to participate in a boycott, and this is a non-instrumental motivation.

On the other hand, consumers tend to engage in positive behavior when they have a mutual goal with a specific group of people and thus feel united (Swann et al. 2009; Katz and Kahn 1978). They also prefer and choose conditions or situations with which they can easily fit or express their preference (Snyder, Ickes and Garcia 1997; Palmgreen, et al. 2001). Song and Lee (2017) found that consumers tend to associate themselves with businesses with which they feel a strong connection, and Lee et al. (2015) found that such a tendency affects the motivation of consumers to behave positively. Many small business owners participated in the current boycott in several ways, indicating that consumers feel strong connections or are united with them.

Subsequently, we developed our second hypothesis as follows:

H2a: The consumer instrumental motivation (realizing justice) to boycott will positively affect their intentions to visit the stores of small business owners who also boycott.

H2b: The consumer non-instrumental motivation (self-expression and sympathy) to boycott will positively affect their intentions to visit the stores of small business owners who are also participating in the boycott.”

+++ References+++

Braunsberger, Karin, and Brian Buckler. 2011. What Motivates Consumers to Participate in Boycotts: Lessons from the Ongoing Canadian Seafood Boycott. Journal of Business Research 64: 96–102.

Katz, Daniel, and Robert L. Kahn. 1978. The Social Psychology of Organizations (2d ed.). New York: Wiley.

Klein, Jill G., N. Craig Smith, and Andrew John. 2004. Why We Boycott: Consumer Motivations for Boycott Participation. Journal of Marketing 68: 92–109.

Lee, H. M., C. H. Lim, and J. S. Han. 2015. A Study on the Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility Corporate Image, Brand Identity and Behaviour Intention: Focusing on Five Star Hotels Guest of Seoul Region. Journal of Tourism and Leisure Research 27(7): 109–30.

Palmgreen, P., L. Donohew, E. P. Lorch, R. H. Hoyle, and M. T. Stephenson (2001). Television Campaigns and Adolescent Marijuana Use: Tests of Sensation Seeking Targeting. American Journal of Public Health 91(2): 292–6.

Snyder, Mark, William Ickes, and Stella Garcia. 1997. Personality Influences on the Choice of Situations. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, and S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of Personality Psychology. Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 165–195

Song, K. Y., and N. Y. Lee (2017). Study on Social Enterprise Customer’s Relational Benefits Impact on Repurchase Intention and Intention to Recommend - Focusing on the Mediating Effect of Customer-Company Identification. Journal of Human Resource Management Research 24(3): 101–25.

□ Comment 4: Page 3: “Hoffmann (2013) stated that certain attitudes (e.g., empathizing with or having sympathy for those who are disadvantaged due to unjust behaviors) could also work as motivation to boycott.” What attitudes the authors are referring to? Be more specific.

Answer: Thank you for your comment. This was mentioned with regard to sympathy. It has been edited as follows (please see lines 155-162):

“Hoffmann (2013) studied the motivations of consumers who boycott companies. He stated that certain attitudes (e.g., empathizing with or having sympathy for those who are disadvantaged due to unjust behaviors) could also work as motivation to engage in a boycott. His study also stated that consumers’ moral obligation is a mediator that raises boycott intention. In addition, Cheon (2019) regarded boycotts as elements of political consumerism, thereby classifying participation motivation as expression, sympathy, and realizing justice. In other words, sympathetic feelings toward consumers who had been disadvantaged by a boycott also plays an important role in the motivation to participate in a boycott, and this is a non-instrumental motivation.”

□ Comment 5: Why did the authors highlight 4 specific consumer products (liquor, clothing, cosmetics, and stationery) for “purchasing level” but not including food, footwear or other products? What are the selection criteria or rationales behind their selection? Why these 4 products were considered as “major products related to the boycott in Korea”? Do the authors have any statistical data to support this, other than beer. In addition, “body care” or “skincare” products may be more relevant to male consumers rather than cosmetics.

Answer: You are correct. The recent boycott targets Japanese brands, especially targeting liquor, clothing, cosmetics, and stationery. The paper has clearly mentioned what was targeted through the boycott and the reasons, as follows (please see lines 255-259):

“The products were selected based on the list of major products related to the boycott in Korea (Cho 2019; Kyodo News Agency. 2019; McCurry 2019; Lee 2019; Pham, 2019; Yomiuri Shimbun, 2019) and the items were rated on a 5-point scale (1 = “never buy” while 5 = “must buy”)”

+++ References+++

Cho, M. H. 2019. South Korea Looks to Own Startups for Growth, Here are the Top 5 in 2019. ZDNet. May 27. Available online: https://www.zdnet.com/article/south-korea-looks-to-own-start-ups-for-growth-here-are-the-top-5-in-2019/ (accessed on 20 January 2020).

Kyodo News Agency. 2019. Japan Beer Shipments to South Korea Plummet 99.9% in September From Year Earlier. Kyodo News Agency, October 30. Available online: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/10/30/business/economy-business/japan-beer-south-korea/#.Xh-fK8hKjIV (accessed on 20 January 2020).

McCurry, J. 2019. South Korean Boycott of Japanese Goods Hits Beer and Carmakers. The Guardian. September 4. Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/04/south-korea-boycott-japanese-goods-beer-car-sales (accessed on 20 January 2020).

Pham, S. 2019. South Korea Didn’t Buy Any Beer from Japan Last Month. CNN Business. Available online: https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/29/business/south-korea-japan-trade-war-beer-export/index.html (accessed on 20 January 2020).

□ Comment 6: How did the authors measure the purchasing level? I assume that this is closely related to an individual’s income and expenditure. It would be helpful if the authors can provide more information. Are there any correlations between income and spending attitudes and behavior?

Answer: This study could not quantify purchasing levels in terms of the boycotted products.

There were limitations regarding the precise measurement of purchasing levels before the boycott through surveys, and products that consumers prefer may change over time. We also could not quantify purchasing levels after adjusting for income and expenditures.

Instead, this study measured purchasing levels of boycotted products before and after purchasing and then made a comparison (1= never buy while 5= must buy) (please see line 260).

□ Comment 7: I wonder why the authors deliberately specify 4 product types (liquor, clothing, cosmetics, and stationery) in the “Purchasing Levels” but not for the “Patriotic Consumption” dimension. Consumers may have different perceptions of imported products – depending on what type of product. It is important to note that some products could be a lot easier to be replaced or substituted than others. Therefore, product type could play a critical role in patriotic consumption.

Answer: Yes, you are right, and I fully agree with you. However, this study aimed to study intensions of utilizing small businesses that participate in a boycott. Consumers’ purchasing level of boycotted products was measured in order to analyze how much the study participants were involved in the boycott (please see lines 255-256).

“Boycott participation levels were measured by comparing the purchasing levels of the four main boycotted product types (i.e., liquor, clothing, cosmetics, and stationary) and other products.”

The following shows how the interpretation of the results of the analysis was written in the paper (please see lines 321-322).

“This indicates that Korean consumers were actively participating in the boycott.”

□ Comment 8: To me, this item “I participate in the boycott because everyone else participates in it” is more associated with peer pressure than sympathy.

Answer: In consideration of the reviewer’s comments, we removed the related questions and conducted the analysis again. Although the questions were driven with reference to previous studies, the reviewer’s opinions on the questions were quite reasonable and appropriate. The overall statistics were all edited.

□ Comment 9: “I participate in the boycott of Japanese products because it is an effective way to change the behaviors of the companies in question” How does it relate to the behavior of the companies? It seems to me that it’s more to do with historical issues as stated in the “Introduction” section.

Answer: You are right. The boycott by Koreans is usually deeply rooted in history. However, the targeted businesses in the recent boycott are related to the history between Korea and Japan. For instance, the Dokdo dispute, which is a territorial dispute between Korea and Japan, is a typical example of an international dispute between Korea and Japan that is related to history. There are a number of Japanese businesses that support Japan’s claims about this territorial dispute and collect funds. This is why Uniqlo is the main target of this recent boycott. In other words, ‘to change the behavior of the companies in question’ is related to such history and disputes that have not been solved.

The related questions illustrate such issues described above, but they were softened for the earlier draft. However, in consideration of the readers’ understanding, we decided not to dilute the questions and have written them as they were used. The text has been edited accordingly (please see Tables 1 and 2).

From: I participate in the boycott because it is an effective way to change the behaviors of the companies in question

To: I participate in the boycott of Japanese products because it is an effective way to change the inappropriate behavior of Japanese businesses regarding the distortion of historical or territorial disputes.

□ Comment 10: The meanings of these 2 items are too similar - “this message is important” and “this message is valuable”

Answer: I agree with your comments and out of the item, “this message is important” was removed based on previous studies (Cha and Kim 2019; Pan and Schmitt 1996; Oh and Kwon 2009; Park et al. 2018); “important” was not used as a variable to measure attitude (please see lines 297-305).

In addition, as the related question was removed, the overall statistics were also edited.

□ Comment 11: I wonder why the authors only conducted a PCA on the dimension of “Motivation in Participating in the Boycott” but not the others. In addition, the authors didn’t describe the findings in Table 2.

Answer: I appreciate your comment. I have added some descriptions about Table 2 as follows (please see lines 244-248):

“A factor analysis identified whether the factors of motivations for participating in the boycott (expression, sympathy, and realizing justice) can be statistically differentiated. A principle components analysis (PCA) with Varimax rotation of the motivation variables found three factors, as we predicted. The results of analyzing Table 2 showed identical results to the to those that are suggested by this study.”

□ Comment 12: Table 3: use either 3 or 4 asterisks for p-value. Be consistent.

Answer: Thank you for the detailed review. We made some mistakes with the asterisks; we have decided to use only 3 asterisks for consistency.

□ Comment 13: The authors need to further elaborate and explain the analytical part, results, and relationships among all the dimensions. Basic descriptive analysis (Table 4) is not good enough to explain the outcomes and also the complex relationships among various dimensions and variables

Answer: Thank you for your comment.

I have added a description about Table 4 as follows (please see lines 326-333):

“The means of the subfactors of the variables were first calculated, and then the means of each variable were analyzed (see Table 4). Patriotic consumption of Korean consumers was the lowest relative level. Out of the motivations to participate in the boycott, realizing justice and expression motivations were relatively higher than sympathy motivation. The consumer attitude toward the participation messages, the consumer attitude toward the small business owners who participated in the boycott, the intentions of the consumers to visit the stores of the small business owners who participated in the boycott were all over three points. Consumer attitudes and visiting intention were both relatively high.“

□ Comment 14: Overall, the analytical part is weak. The authors may consider using SEM for their study.

Answer: Yes, you are right. We considered this comment very carefully. However, in this study, we aimed to overview how variables, such as patriotic consumption or motivation influence the intention to visit stores one-dimensionally. Therefore, the regression analysis was thought to be sufficient for proving the hypothesis. However, we have mentioned variables that were not included in this study and their interactions as limitations of the study.

□ Comment 15: Discussion: “Korean consumers significantly decreased their purchases of Japanese products during the boycotts” It seems to me that it’s not important to conduct this study in order to understand the impacts of boycotting imported products from Japan. The authors already pointed it out in the “Introduction” section. For example, “65.5% decrease in the number of Korean visitors to Japan”, “Japanese automakers reported that sales to Korea for August 2019 fell 57%” and “imports of Japanese beer to Korea had dropped by 99.9%.”

Answer: Yes, you are right. In this part, the measurements were made to quantify boycott involvement to show that the participants substantially took part in the boycott, as indicated in previous studies and reports.

□ Comment 16: How did the authors measure the “ethnocentrism” of consumers? Please clearly explain.

Answer: In this study, the consumers’ ethnocentrism was determined from studies by Shimp and Sharma (1987), Klein and Ettenson (1999), and Park and Jang (2012). We have added an extra explanation about how it was measured as follows (please see lines 262-268):

“Patriotic consumption was measured based on a modified version of the consumer ethnocentrism tendencies scale (CETSCALE), which was developed by Shimp and Sharma (1987) and reconstructed by both Klein and Ettenson (1999) and Park and Jang (2012). They measured consumer patriotism to quantify beliefs of consumers in purchasing and selling domestic and imported products, such as the duty of citizens to purchase domestic products, the awareness of socioeconomic effects of imported products (e.g., effects on unemployment), or policies about high taxes on imported products.”

□ Comment 17: The conclusion is weak. Please provide some practical and theoretical implications. It doesn’t give the readers enough insights and meaningful information by reporting the findings in the “Discussion” section.

Answer: Thank you for your comments.

We have included additional results of this study in the results section (please see lines 411-413).

“The results revealed that reviewing the use of a common logo, as was done during this boycott, will be necessary in the future. Using a stimulant, such as the boycott logo, in a proper way may lead consumers to influence the market more effectively and systematically.”

□ Comment 18: What are the major contributions? Do the authors have any recommendations and implications for the practitioners and researchers?

Answer: Thank you for your comments. We have accepted your opinions and added the contributions and implications of this study in the discussion section (please see lines 389-394 and 411-413).

“This study is meaningful because we found that consumers can interact and build strong relationships with businesses when they have mutual goals during an international boycott and that consumers evaluate these businesses very positively. These results can contribute academically and socially; they can be used to develop theories to better understand consumers’ behaviors as well as find the most effective ways to boycott and implement such actions. It can also be used to better understand the relationships between businesses and consumers as primary data.”

□ Comment 19: What are the limitations of this study? Does any future research need to be conducted?

Answer: Limitations were edited in the discussion section as follows (please see lines 395-401):

“This study had some limitations. First, the participants were limited to Korean consumers during a specific boycott that was related to historical issues. We aimed to study how consumer patriotism, motivation, and attitudes toward a boycott influenced their motivation of using small businesses that participate in the boycott. Future studies are necessary to investigate other boycotts to determine the generalizability of these findings. In particular, it will be crucial to focus on causal effects and factors of consumers’ attitudes toward small business and their motivation to use these businesses during a boycott.“

++We appreciate the excellent comments of the reviewers, which helped us improve the quality of our manuscript. Thank you! ++

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

ABSTRACT

Maybe the abstract could be clarified. Have you interviewed managers and consumers? So, did you stat two main objectives? Which sample of participants could you finally obtain? Could you anticipate your main conclusions/results? (just in couple of sentences).

INTRODUCTION

Also, in your introduction, is not clear if you have focused on consumers and companies, or just on consumers. If you are going to investigate consumers’ motivations and attitudes, Why? What can managers learn? How can public administrations use your results? Why is this research relevant? If you concluded that a lot of consumers have reacted towards Japan products, which is the conclusion? Is this appropriate? Should companies and administrations stimulate this type of measures/slogans? Is this an adequate strategy that should be stimulated or avoided?

THEORETICAL PROPOSAL

Literature has also referred to patriotism as “ethnocentrism” or “ethnocentric consumers”.

The difference-relationship between patriotism and motivation is not clear enough. They could represent the same feeling. Why have you included both of them?

H3 is not clear to me. “H3: Small business owners who participate in the boycott positively affect consumer intentions to visit their businesses”. The redaction is not adequate. If you have only investigated consumers, maybe you should state that “H3: positive consumers’ perceptions towards business owners… will positevly affect.. …”

You can also change “will positively affect” for “will augment”

METHOD

Table 1 does not include the authors that you have follow for each scale.

When you talk about consumers’ attitudes, you are really talking about attitude towards a “communication message/slogan stimulating boycott” and “attitude towards companies involved in boycotting… “ . Your theoretical proposal should be changed accordingly to considered the real concepts that you have measured.

I am not sure if the 3 dimensions of your motivation scale should appear in your hypotheses. That is, a different sub-hypothesis to analysis each type of motivation separately.

A sub-epigraph anticipating the tools that you are going to use to test each hypothesis will help to better understand the paper.

RESULTS

Your scales validation is simple. SEM has not been used.

Your results section is really short. Your hypotheses are not tested. Much more development is needed in this part.

Also, managerial/public administration implications are missing.

Author Response

Response to Comments from Reviewer 2 and Revisions (Round 2)

□ Comment 1: Maybe the abstract could be clarified. Have you interviewed managers and consumers? So, did you stad two main objectives? Which sample of participants could you finally obtain? Could you anticipate your main conclusions/results? (just in couple of sentences).

Answer: I appreciate your reviews. The part of the abstract that mentions the results was edited as follows (please see lines 16-29).

“Declining Japanese product sales indicated high levels of a consumer boycott. The analyses demonstrated that consumers held positive attitudes toward small business owners who shared their boycotting beliefs and goals. Second, self-expression and the realization of justice motivation were relatively high, as were attitudes toward the participation message and small business owners who were participating in the boycott. Korean consumers had relatively high intentions to visit the stores of small business owners who were participating in the boycott. Lastly, self-expression motivations, motivations to realize justice, consumer attitudes toward the boycott participation messages of small business owners, and consumer attitudes toward the small business owners themselves had statistically significant positive effects. Small business owners holding general consumer beliefs about boycott participation should actively spread their support messages, and this would provide an excellent opportunity to create positive long-term awareness. This study provided a unique insight into Korean consumer behaviors when patriotism was considered. The findings have significant implications for small business owners looking to sustain themselves during product boycotts.”

□ Comment 2: INTRODUCTION - Also, in your introduction, is not clear if you have focused on consumers and companies, or just on consumers. If you are going to investigate consumers’ motivations and attitudes, Why? What can managers learn? How can public administrations use your results? Why is this research relevant? If you concluded that a lot of consumers have reacted towards Japan products, which is the conclusion? Is this appropriate? Should companies and administrations stimulate this type of measures/slogans? Is this an adequate strategy that should be stimulated or avoided?

Answer: I appreciate your review. I focused on the relationship between consumers and small businesses during a boycott. Therefore, in the main results and conclusion of this study, I emphasized the fact that it is possible to build a mutual positive relationship between consumers and companies when they have a common goal. I edited the results and conclusions of this study to highlight this more, as follows (please see lines 403-413):

“This study investigated consumer attitudes toward Korean small business owners as well as their intention to visit those businesses when the owners and consumers shared common beliefs and goals during the boycott. In addition, consumers held positive attitudes toward small business owners who shared their goals, and thus, had greater intention to visit those businesses. This indicates that small business owners should share their boycotting beliefs and goals with consumers. These owners can specifically appeal to consumers by posting signs or other advertisements that state their intention to participate in the boycott and fulfill their social responsibilities as small business owners. Doing so provides an excellent opportunity for small business owners to create long-term positive awareness. The results revealed that reviewing the use of a common logo, as was done during this boycott, will be necessary in the future. Using a stimulant, such as the boycott logo, in a proper way may lead consumers to influence the market more effectively and systematically.“

□ Comment 3: THEORETICAL PROPOSAL

Literature has also referred to patriotism as “ethnocentrism” or “ethnocentric consumers”. The difference-relationship between patriotism and motivation is not clear enough. They could represent the same feeling. Why have you included both of them?

H3 is not clear to me. “H3: Small business owners who participate in the boycott positively affect consumer intentions to visit their businesses”.

The redaction is not adequate. If you have only investigated consumers, maybe you should state that “H3: positive consumers’ perceptions towards business owners… will positively affect.. …”

You can also change “will positively affect” for “will augment”

METHOD

I am not sure if the 3 dimensions of your motivation scale should appear in your hypotheses. That is, a different sub-hypothesis to analysis each type of motivation separately.

A sub-epigraph anticipating the tools that you are going to use to test each hypothesis will help to better understand the paper.

Answer: Thank you for noting this point, which I had missed. I had not ever thought about it. We have edited the hypothesis to read “will positively affect…” Again, thank you. In addition, the theoretical background was edited as follows:

H2a: The consumer instrumental motivation (realizing justice) to boycott will positively affect their intentions to visit the stores of small business owners who also boycott.

H2b: The consumer non-instrumental motivation (self-expression and sympathy) to boycott will positively affect their intentions to visit the stores of small business owners who are also participating in the boycott.

H3: Small business owners who participate in the boycott will positively affect consumer intentions to visit their businesses.

H4: Consumer attitudes toward boycott participation messages from small business owners will positively affect their intentions to visit the businesses.

Klein et al. (2004) also divided motivation for boycotts into two categories: instrumental and emotional motivation. They stated that instrumental motivation encourages consumers to change society by participating in the boycott, and emotional motivation makes consumers who participate in the boycott experience internal rewards by feeling positive about themselves and highly self-confident. Thus, the types of motivation for participating in a boycott from Klein et al. (2004) and the instrumental and emotional motivations defined by Friedman (1999) are closely related. Additionally, Braunsberger and Buckler (2011) conducted a study about the motivation of consumers to participate in the Canadian seafood boycott, where pledgees explicitly expressed their desire for the target to abolish its egregious behavior, their anger about the behavior in question, and their desire for punitive actions. Boycott motivations also include the belief that consumers have the power to impact a boycott target's bottom line and/or behavior as well as the belief that the boycott will succeed in forcing the target to cease its egregious behavior.

+++ References+++

Braunsberger, Karin, and Brian Buckler. 2011. What Motivates Consumers to Participate in Boycotts: Lessons from the Ongoing Canadian Seafood Boycott. Journal of Business Research 64: 96–102.

Katz, Daniel, and Robert L. Kahn. 1978. The Social Psychology of Organizations (2d ed.). New York: Wiley.

Klein, Jill G., N. Craig Smith, and Andrew John. 2004. Why We Boycott: Consumer Motivations for Boycott Participation. Journal of Marketing 68: 92–109.

□ Comment 4

RESULTS

Your scales validation is simple. SEM has not been used.

Your results section is really short. Your hypotheses are not tested. Much more development is needed in this part.

□ Comment 5

RESULTS

Also, managerial/public administration implications are missing.

Answer: Thank you for your comments. We have accepted your opinions and added the contributions and implications of this study in the discussion section (please see lines 389-394 and 411-413).

++We appreciate the excellent comments of the reviewers, which helped us improve the quality of our manuscript. Thank you! ++

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed all of my concerns and queries with detailed explanations.

I am pleased to recommend this revised manuscript for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for improving this paper. Congratulations ¡¡ I

Review Reports