Determinants of Memory Encoding of Altruistic Messages: M-Delphi and F-DEMATEL Approach
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
This article uses M-Delphi and fuzzy DEMATEL methods to determine from experts in the field the determining factors for better memory encoding of altruistic messages.
The article is well written, clear and explicit. The references supporting the description of the determining factors are broadly relevant.
However, a few general remarks are in order.
The design of the study is not always clear: is the focus on determining factors or on testing methodology?
If the question is more about determining factors, the notion of altruistic message should be defined (I have a concern with the claim lines 445-46 inasmuch as the name itself contains reference to others: “Prior research has suggested that altruism is more conventionally associated with the individual’s concern for others rather than the individual’s concern for self)”.
The ethical dimension of the study's assumptions and potential recommendations is a central issue. Indeed, several questions can be raised: if the stakes of non-profit organizations are obvious, who morally guarantees the right to use certain psycho-communicational levers to influence memorization (and adherence?)? What happens if the goal defined as altruistic at the outset turns out to be a mistake (through deception, lack of information, etc.)? What happens if the same methods are usurped?
The context of the study should be presented in detail, and cultural and medium specificities should be taken into account from the very beginning and not merely in the perspectives’ section.
For instance, lines 370-71: “personal interest in the issue being communicated (personal interest) and the external atmosphere of the recipient at the time the message is delivered (atmosphere)”
What is the weight of self-interest in collectivist cultures, and what is the definition of altruism in such a context?
One methodological question: how did the author explain the factors to the experts? It would require a lot of time and explanation, unless the experts are already scientific experts as well and well-acquainted with the terminology and concepts.
Lines 464-66, the argument looks circular and would suggest no “first” experience is possible/relevant: “In addition, an argument presented to an individual with personal experience on the subject of communication is recalled because the recipient has first-hand knowledge about the importance of the subject of the communication, and they will, therefore, be likely to remember the information communicated to them”.
This might suggest that the determining factors need to be weighted and pondered.
Insights into domains of language performativity and Damasio’s work on emotions and decision-making could be interesting.
Line 470 – please consider syntax revision
globally good English
Author Response
Reviewer 1:
The time and effort devoted to reviewing the manuscript are greatly appreciated. The insightful comments and valuable suggestions have significantly enhanced the paper's quality. In response to this feedback, all raised points have been thoroughly addressed, and the revisions have been meticulously highlighted within the manuscript. Below, there is a detailed point-by-point response to these comments and concerns to aid in the review process. Please also refer to the supplementary files for more detailed information.
- This article uses M-Delphi and fuzzy DEMATEL methods to determine from experts in the field the determining factors for better memory encoding of altruistic messages. The article is well written, clear and explicit. The references supporting the description of the determining factors are broadly relevant.
Response: Thank you very much for the compliment.
- The design of the study is not always clear: is the focus on determining factors or on testing methodology? If the question is more about determining factors, the notion of altruistic message should be defined (I have a concern with the claim lines 445-46 inasmuch as the name itself contains reference to others: “Prior research has suggested that altruism is more conventionally associated with the individual’s concern for others rather than the individual’s concern for self)”.
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. The focus is on identifying factors, as stated in the final paragraph of the introduction. A new section addressing altruistic communication within the context of non-profit organizations (section 2.1) has been introduced.
- The ethical dimension of the study's assumptions and potential recommendations is a central issue. Indeed, several questions can be raised: if the stakes of non-profit organizations are obvious, who morally guarantees the right to use certain psycho-communicational levers to influence memorization (and adherence?)? What happens if the goal defined as altruistic at the outset turns out to be a mistake (through deception, lack of information, etc.)? What happens if the same methods are usurped?
Response: Thank you. The input is highly regarded. The point has been incorporated into the practical implications, highlighting the importance for practitioners to ensure the authenticity and non-harmful nature of the information they disseminate to stakeholders to avoid potential repercussions from distributing harmful content to their audiences. An illustrative example has also been provided in the same section.
- The context of the study should be presented in detail, and cultural and medium specificities should be taken into account from the very beginning and not merely in the perspectives’ section. For instance, lines 370-71: “personal interest in the issue being communicated (personal interest) and the external atmosphere of the recipient at the time the message is delivered (atmosphere)”.
Response: This is an excellent suggestion. Elaborations on the context of the study can be found in Section 4 (methodology). Explanations about personal interest and atmosphere as additional factors have also been added.
- What is the weight of self-interest in collectivist cultures, and what is the definition of altruism in such a context?
Response: Thank you for the observation. It would be reasonable to assume that in collectivist cultures like Taiwan, where the study was conducted, the desirability of outcomes to others would carry more weight than the desirability to oneself. However, the findings suggest otherwise, which is intriguing. The suggestion has been made that this interesting discovery could be further explored in future studies (Lines 471-474).
- One methodological question: how did the author explain the factors to the experts? It would require a lot of time and explanation, unless the experts are already scientific experts as well and well-acquainted with the terminology and concepts.
Response: Thank you for the observation. The initial step involved providing detailed explanations of the factors to the experts in an interactive manner. Subsequently, a sheet of paper containing comprehensive explanations of these factors was made available to the experts for reference during the rating process. This information has been included in Lines 308-310.
- Lines 464-66, the argument looks circular and would suggest no “first” experience is possible/relevant: “In addition, an argument presented to an individual with personal experience on the subject of communication is recalled because the recipient has first-hand knowledge about the importance of the subject of the communication, and they will, therefore, be likely to remember the information communicated to them”. This might suggest that the determining factors need to be weighted and pondered.
Response: Thank you for the suggestion. The statement has been revised to make it less circular and has been related to prior research that could explain why sending messages to people with prior experience could lead to memory encoding (Line 487-489).
- Insights into domains of language performativity and Damasio’s work on emotions and decision-making could be interesting.
Response: Thank you for the recommendation. The language performativity perspective has been incorporated to explain the link between argument quality and memory encoding. Additionally, Damasio's work has been referenced to elucidate the connection between emotional appeal and memory encoding.
- Line 470 – please consider syntax revision.
Response: Thank you for your feedback. The line has been revised accordingly.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Advantages.
The topic of this article is interesting and meaningful. The research in this article is in-depth.
This is an analytical report with practical experiments implementation. The mathematical part is acceptable. The design of manuscript is well structured according to journal template requirements.
- Introduction or background part is given
- Literature review part is given
- Methodology part is given
- Results part is given
- Discussion or conclusion part is given
There are no significant criticisms about the research methodology.
Disadvantages:
- Line 48: don't found such reference.
- Line 159 and 178: duplicate chapter number.
- Line 334: delete the line.
- Line 396: incorrect text (Aand10).
- Line 437: caption of figure must be below the figure.
- Line 542 and 543: duplicate reference.
According to manuscript requirements: “References must be numbered in order of appearance in the text (including citations in tables and legends) and listed indi-vidually at the end of the manuscript. In the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ] and placed before the punctuation; for example [1], [1–3] or [1,3].”
Please reorganize according to requirements “applsci template”.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
The time and effort devoted to reviewing the manuscript are greatly appreciated. The insightful comments and valuable suggestions have significantly enhanced the paper's quality. In response to this feedback, all raised points have been thoroughly addressed, and the revisions have been meticulously highlighted within the manuscript. Below, there is a detailed point-by-point response to these comments and concerns to aid in the review process.
- Disadvantage
- Line 48: don't found such reference.
- Line 159 and 178: duplicate chapter number.
- Line 334: delete the line.
- Line 396: incorrect text (Aand10).
- Line 437: caption of figure must be below the figure.
- Line 542 and 543: duplicate reference.
Response: Thank you for your guidance and recommendations. All concerns have been thoroughly revised and edited.
- According to manuscript requirements: “References must be numbered in order of appearance in the text (including citations in tables and legends) and listed individually at the end of the manuscript. In the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ] and placed before the punctuation; for example [1], [1–3] or [1,3].”
Response: Thank you for the observation. All the citations and references have been diligently reviewed and revised accordingly.
- Please reorganize according to the requirements “applsci template”.
Response: Thank you for the recommendation. All the text has been carefully reviewed and edited to conform to the ApplSci template.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Author,
Thank you for submitting your work to the Applied Sciences MDPI journal. Some comments and suggestions need to be considered to make your work better.
General comment: please remove the bullet points under each section. Too many bullet points make your manuscript’s structure a bit confusing.
1. Introduction
- At the end of this section, a paragraph should be added that briefly describe what each section will discuss.
2. Literature Review
- please add an introductory paragraph to illustrate what this section will discuss.
- please expand your literature and add more recent works (i.e. from 2023).
5. Discussion
- Please add an introductory paragraph to show what this section will discuss.
5.5. Limitations and future research directions
You should add a new section and call it Conclusion, limitations and future directions. This section will conclude your study and discuss research limitations and future directions.
Thank you
Author Response
Reviewer 3:
The time and effort devoted to reviewing the manuscript are greatly appreciated. The insightful comments and valuable suggestions have significantly enhanced the paper's quality. In response to this feedback, all raised points have been thoroughly addressed, and the revisions have been meticulously highlighted within the manuscript. Below, there is a detailed point-by-point response to these comments and concerns to aid in the review process.
- General comment: please remove the bullet points under each section. Too many bullet points make your manuscript’s structure a bit confusing.
Response: Thank you for the advice. The unnecessary bullet points have been removed.
- Introduction
- At the end of this section, a paragraph should be added that briefly describe what each section will discuss.
Response: Thank you for the suggestions. The description has been added to the last paragraph of the introduction section as per your suggestion.
- Literature Review
- please add an introductory paragraph to illustrate what this section will discuss.
- please expand your literature and add more recent works (i.e. from 2023).
Response: Thank you for the suggestions. The introductory paragraph has been added at the beginning of the section. Additionally, more recent references have been included in the literature review section.
- Discussion
- Please add an introductory paragraph to show what this section will discuss.
Response: Thank you for the recommendation. The introductory paragraph has been added at the beginning of the discussion section.
- Limitations and future research directions
You should add a new section and call it Conclusion, limitations and future directions. This section will conclude your study and discuss research limitations and future directions.
Response: Thank you for the recommendation. The Conclusion, Limitations, and Future Directions sections have been separated into distinct sections.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Paper No.: # applsci-2471354
Title: " Determinants of Memory Encoding of Altruistic Messages: M-Delphi and F-DEMATEL approach"
I admire the author’s efforts in the preparation of this work and thank them for submitting this paper to the Applied Sciences journal (ISSN 2076-3417). While the article addresses an important topic regarding the determinants of memory encoding of altruistic messages, there are several areas that require major revision to enhance the clarity, coherence, and scientific rigor of the paper. The following points should be considered for the major revision:
1) Provide a clear and concise introduction to the importance of effective communication of altruistic values by non-profit organizations.
2) Clearly state the research objectives and research questions guiding the study.
3) Justify the use of the social cognitive theory as the theoretical framework and explain how it relates to the study's context.
4) Provide a detailed description of the modified Delphi (M-Delphi) and Fuzzy Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (F-DEMATEL) methods, including their underlying principles and steps involved.
5) Explain how the initial ten factors were identified and justify the addition of two factors after the first Delphi round.
6) Clarify the process followed in the data analysis using the M-Delphi and F-DEMATEL methods, including any statistical or mathematical models used.
7) Present the results of the M-Delphi and F-DEMATEL analyses in a clear and organized manner, using appropriate tables, diagrams, or visualizations.
8) Clearly identify and explain the three causal factors and four effect factors identified in the analysis.
9) Discuss the significance and implications of each identified factor in the context of memory encoding of altruistic messages.
10) Provide a comprehensive discussion of the findings, relating them back to the research objectives and research questions.
11) Discuss the theoretical and practical implications of the identified determinants of memory encoding, considering their relevance to communication literature and non-profit organizations.
12) Compare and contrast the identified determinants with existing studies or theories in the field, highlighting any similarities or discrepancies.
13) Summarize the key findings of the study, emphasizing the contribution to the understanding of memory encoding of altruistic messages.
14) Clearly state the limitations of the study and suggest areas for future research to address these limitations.
15) Provide a concise and conclusive statement that aligns with the research objectives and answers the research questions.
These were my suggestions, and if they are corrected, I think this article has a high chance of being accepted and published in Applied Sciences journal.
Yours sincerely,
There are some minor language mistakes in the manuscript. The article should be carefully reviewed and corrected again. The use of Grammarly software is also recommended.
Author Response
Reviewer 4:
The time and effort devoted to reviewing the manuscript are greatly appreciated. The insightful comments and valuable suggestions have significantly enhanced the paper's quality. In response to this feedback, all raised points have been thoroughly addressed, and the revisions have been meticulously highlighted within the manuscript. Below, there is a detailed point-by-point response to these comments and concerns to aid in the review process. Please also refer to the supplementary files for more detailed information.
1) Provide a clear and concise introduction to the importance of effective communication of altruistic values by non-profit organizations.
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. In the second paragraph, an introduction on the importance of effective communication of altruistic values by non-profit organizations has been added.
2) Clearly state the research objectives and research questions guiding the study.
Response: Thank you for the suggestion. The research objectives and research questions have been added in the sixth paragraph of the paper.
3) Justify the use of the social cognitive theory as the theoretical framework and explain how it relates to the study's context.
Response: Thank you for this observation. The justification for using the social cognitive theory has been added in the fifth paragraph of the introduction.
4) Provide a detailed description of the modified Delphi (M-Delphi) and Fuzzy Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (F-DEMATEL) methods, including their underlying principles and steps involved.
Response: Thank you for the comment. The descriptions of the M-Delphi and F-DEMATEL methods used in the study have been enhanced.
5) Explain how the initial ten factors were identified and justify the addition of two factors after the first Delphi round.
Response: Thank you for the observation. The descriptions of the M-Delphi and F-DEMATEL methods used in the study have been enhanced.
6) Clarify the process followed in the data analysis using the M-Delphi and F-DEMATEL methods, including any statistical or mathematical models used.
Response: Thank you for the comment. The descriptions of the M-Delphi and F-DEMATEL methods used in the study have been enhanced.
7) Present the results of the M-Delphi and F-DEMATEL analyses in a clear and organized manner, using appropriate tables, diagrams, or visualizations.
Response: Thank you for the suggestion. All figures and tables have been added as advised.
8) Clearly identify and explain the three causal factors and four effect factors identified in the analysis.
Response: Thank you for the observation. This has been addressed in the abstract, results, and discussion sections to clarify the concern.
9) Discuss the significance and implications of each identified factor in the context of memory encoding of altruistic messages.
Response: Thank you for the suggestion. The significance and implications of each identified factor in the context of memory encoding of altruistic messages have been incorporated into the discussion section.
10) Provide a comprehensive discussion of the findings, relating them back to the research objectives and research questions.
Response: Thank you for the comment. The discussion has been revised to make it more comprehensive and in sync with the research objectives and research questions.
11) Discuss the theoretical and practical implications of the identified determinants of memory encoding, considering their relevance to communication literature and non-profit organizations.
Response: Thank you for the feedback. Theoretical and practical implications stemming from the identified determinants of memory encoding have been thoroughly discussed, taking into account their significance within the context of communication literature and non-profit organizations.
12) Compare and contrast the identified determinants with existing studies or theories in the field, highlighting any similarities or discrepancies.
Response: Thank you for the comment Thank you for your comment. A comparative analysis of the identified determinants with existing studies or theories in the field, emphasizing both similarities and discrepancies, has been incorporated within the discussion section.
13) Summarize the key findings of the study, emphasizing the contribution to the understanding of memory encoding of altruistic messages.
Response: Your input is highly regarded. Table 3, Figure 2, and Figure 3 have been added to provide visual summaries of the study. Additionally, the discussion section and the theoretical implications section have been enhanced to emphasize the paper's contribution to the understanding of memory encoding.
14) Clearly state the limitations of the study and suggest areas for future research to address these limitations.
Response: Thank you for the feedback. The limitations of the study and suggestions for areas of future research to address these limitations have been addressed accordingly.
15) Provide a concise and conclusive statement that aligns with the research objectives and answers the research questions.
Response: Your input is highly regarded. A conclusion section (Section 7) has been added, which contains the content suggested above.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Author,
Thank you for the detailed response and the updates.
Just some minor remarks:
- "education" may not be the appropriate term lines 43-44: NGO's have no moral or social prerogatives in educating people (except NGO's aiming education & schooling);
- why talk about "homophily" and not abour "empathy"? I mean, "homophily" might even generate discrimination, in a narrow interpretation of similarity.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for the valuable comments. Your insightful feedback has been instrumental in enhancing the quality of this manuscript. After a meticulous review of the comments, comprehensive revisions to the manuscript have been made. Please find our responses to your comments in a point-by-point format below. A revised version of our manuscript with all changes highlighted in red has been submitted for your consideration.
- "education" may not be the appropriate term lines 43-44: NGO's have no moral or social prerogatives in educating people (except NGO's aiming education & schooling)
Response: Thank you for the suggestions. The sentence was revised according to the comments.
- why talk about "homophily" and not about "empathy"? I mean, "homophily" might even generate discrimination, in a narrow interpretation of similarity.
Response: Thank you for the comments. The reason that homophily is applied in this study is due to the Delphi method used. This means that it was referred to and introduced by the experts. Moreover, homophily refers to the tendency of individuals to prefer associating and forming connections with those who are similar to them. Many social network analysis studies have observed some form of homophily and have indicated that "similarity" is related to "establishing connections." Homophily can exist in various categories such as age, gender, social class, etc. Similar characteristics among homophilous individuals, such as beliefs, values, education, etc., make it easier for them to communicate and build relationships.
Reviewer 2 Report
Recommendations have been taken.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for the previous valuable comments. Your insightful feedback has been instrumental in enhancing the quality of this manuscript.
Reviewer 4 Report
Paper No.: applsci-2471354
Title: " Determinants of Memory Encoding of Altruistic Messages: M-Delphi and F-DEMATEL approach"
I admire the authors’ efforts for the preparation of this work and thank them for submitting this paper to the Applied Sciences journal (ISSN 2076-3417). The authors have improved the manuscript by addressing all concerns raised by the reviewer. I have no further revision requests. The article is fully eligible for publication in the Applied Sciences journal.
Yours sincerely,
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for the previous valuable comments. Your insightful feedback has been instrumental in enhancing the quality of this manuscript.
