Effects of Psychological Variables on the Relationship between Customer Participation Behavior and Repurchase Intention: Customer Tolerance and Relationship Commitment
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper aims to investigate the effects of two psychological variables, i.e., consumer tolerance and relations commitment, on the relationship between customer participation and repurchase intention. Therefore, the authors conduct an empirical study. Based on the results of Likert-scale evaluations (to measure the focal variables), they estimated a structural equation model. They found, that relationship benefits serve as a motivation factor for customer participation. Furthermore, customer participation yields a significant influence on customer tolerance and relationship commitment. Additionally, customer participation and tolerance had significant effects on repurchase intention, while relationship commitment does not.
The paper is well-written and illustrates the methodology and results in a concise way. However, the paper needs major revision in order to be ready for publication:
Major remarks
Section 1:
· The motivation of the paper regarding the novelty of the research topic should be underlined more precisely. The authors summarize the results of recent literature. However, some statements need a revision to be more precise. For example, the results of the Sierra and McQuitty (2005) study are stated. (ll. 57-62) However, the formulation is quite general. Which service provider were examined in this study? The results seem plausible for services with direct customer-service provider-interaction (e.g., hairdresser), but seem to be weird for other services, e.g., car repairs, where the interaction between customer and service provider is limited.
· In lines 87-93 the authors describe the study model verbally. I strongly recommend to include a Figure to illustrate this study model here. The authors included a very detailed study model at the end of section 2, i.e., Figure 1. However, to improve the reader’s understanding, an illustration of the verbally explained model may be very helpful. In my opinion, it would be sufficient to illustrate a very broad model, e.g., instead of the three variables “social benefits”, “psychological benefits” and “economic benefits” the authors may use the construct “relationship benefits”.
Section 2:
· The authors rely on many literature references which are more than 25 years old. I wonder if there are more actual studies that tackle the subjects as well. Please update your literature.
· The authors choose to consider the variable “consumer tolerance” instead of “consumer foregiveness”. However, the core reason why the authors explicitly focus on “consumer tolerance” does not become clear. The authors may provide a strong argument toward this variable.
·
Section 3:
· In lines 352 to 358 the authors describe their data collection procedure. However, the country in which the study was distributed (online) is not mentioned here. Please provide some information.
· Is the sample representative for the demographical distribution in the focal country?
· Furthermore, the vast majority of respondents is between 50 and 59 years old. Is this age group the most target group for beauty salons? The authors may explain their sample and the sample structure in more detail regarding the appropriateness for their research questions.
Section 5:
· The last section is entitled with “Conclusion”. However, section 5 is rather a discussion of the results. I would suggest to rename section 5 in “Discussion” and include a sixth section “Conclusion” explicitly summarizes the results on 25 lines at maximum.
· In particular, lines 468 to 480 should be incorporated in the new section “Conclusion”, because they are not appropriate for the discussion section.
Minor remarks
· Ll 10 to 12: Please revise this sentence in the abstract.
· L. 48: “Is there a way some way…
· Ll.79 to 82: For the ease of reader’s understanding; please split this sentence in two sentences.
· Ll.87 to 93: For the ease of reader’s understanding; please split this sentence in two sentences.
· L 421. Please insert a blank between “713.500” and “(df=…)”
· L. 431: Please delete the first parenthesis
· L. 448: Please delete “(x2=776.085, df=263)” to avoid redundancies
Author Response
Sorry for the late update.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Congratulations for the effort and results!
Research purpose and hypotheses are clearly defined. The research variables are proper & extensive reviewed and operationalized. Measurement of constructs respects the theoretical requirements, so does the SEM method.
Recommendations:
1. In table no.5, you have path coefficients (Estimate column) and the C.R. (which is basically a Z-value by dividing the Estimate to the S.E.) and their statistical significance (none, one or two stars). I recommend to include the path coefficients values in Figure 2 and NOT the CR values because these path values represent the sense & intensity of the interaction between constructs.
2. Using the concept of mediator variable (e.g. second row of conclusion) implies considering full or partial mediation between the variables.
E.g. between CPB (Customer participation behavior) and RI (Repurchase behavior) there is a direct relationship (1.108 patch coefficient) AND a partial (or indirect effect) causality through the mediator CT (this indirect effect can be measured by multiplying 0,778*0,107 = 0,083). Based on the upper, it can be stated that there is a partial mediation of the relationship CPB to RI through CT. The same logic can be applied for RC (relationship commitment) as mediator variable...but in this case there is NO mediation because RC does not influence statistically significant RI.
3. Rephrase or split some ideas to be more easily understandable.
e.g. rows 239 - 244
rows 469 - 473
and other.
Author Response
Sorry for the late update.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Hello
I hope you are in good health
It is a good article and can help to develop knowledge in this field.
In order to strengthen the article, the following suggestions are presented that are expected to be modified:
Abstract: The theoretical foundations and results are discussed in the abstract. It should be written as follows: introduction, methodology (introduction of the method, society and sample, tools, analysis method), presentation of the most important findings, conclusion.
Introduction: It has covered the hypotheses well. But there is a need to use newer sources in providing the research background in each section. It is also necessary to explain the problem well and clearly, and the main reason for conducting this study should be well presented.
Methodology: In the methodology, there should be a detailed introduction of the research method, the population and the statistical sample of the research, the introduction of data collection tools (the number of items, dimensions and components, measurement scale and spectrum, validity and reliability check method), analysis method. The data and software used should be paid.
The findings are well reported. It is necessary to report the fit indices of the model. Describe the amount of variables.
Discussion and conclusion: The general discussion is appropriate. In order to improve this section, it is necessary to use new sources. To compare and discuss the results of this study with other new studies. At the end of this section, the suggestions and applications of these findings for the research community should be mentioned.
Be successful and healthy.
Author Response
Sorry for the late update.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the revised version of the paper; it has really improved!
Author Response
Thanks for the nice comment.
The thesis has improved a lot.
thank you
Reviewer 3 Report
Hello
It is a good article. It is necessary to use newer sources in the introduction. Also, at the end, it is necessary to write practical suggestions according to the research findings more carefully.
Good luck
Author Response
thanks for the nice comment
It was faithfully reflected in the thesis.
review 2
Hello
It is a good article. It is necessary to use newer sources in the introduction. Also, at the end, it is necessary to write practical suggestions according to the research findings more carefully.
Good luck
Recent papers are cited in the introduction.
Greer, C. R., Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. 2016. A service perspective. Organizational dynamics, 1(45), 28-38.
Hepp, M. 2006. Semantic Web and semantic Web services: father and son or indivisible twins?. IEEE Internet Computing, 10(2), 85-88.
And practical implications in the conclusion section
In addition, service providers should be provided with specific manuals on customer participation behaviors, and quality mutual relationships should be induced through related training.
