Purchase Intention of Healthy Foods: The Determinant Role of Brand Image in the Market of a Developing Country

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study addresses a relevant topic and provides valuable contributions to the field of consumer behavior. However, several issues need to be addressed to enhance the clarity, reproducibility, and overall robustness of the work. Please find my comments below:

 

Issues with Punctuation:

Abstract and Conclusion: I noticed some punctuation issues, particularly in lines 29 and 424. I suggest a careful review to correct these errors.

Abstract:

I recommend including information about data collection, such as the use of a digital questionnaire, as well as specifying the number of participants to provide a more comprehensive overview from the outset.

Introduction (Line 37):

The introduction mentions that the choice of healthy foods is influenced by extrinsic factors, but it would be beneficial to cite additional examples that also affect the choice of any product, such as price, packaging, and marketing. This would strengthen the argument that these factors broadly influence purchasing decisions.

Methodology:

The methodology presents serious limitations regarding the reproducibility of the study. It is necessary to provide more detailed information about the sections of the digital questionnaire and specify which items were answered in each section.

Instruments Used - Although the manuscript mentions the use of validated instruments to measure Brand Image, Brand Loyalty, Brand Perceived Quality, Brand Satisfaction, Brand Trust, and Purchase Intention, there is no information about the items that composed each sub-questionnaire. I suggest including a table that describes these items along with the corresponding references from which they were sourced.

Potential Sources of Bias:

Please argue: A point that requires attention is the involvement of the Union brand in the test. It is unclear why consumers needed to be previous consumers of this brand’s products. This requirement could have introduced bias into the results, and this aspect should be further discussed in the limitations section.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your informed comments, which helped us so much in improving the manuscript. We appreciated the time you spent doing this and tried our best to address all your comments.

We hope that this revised version of the paper reaches the expected standard, worthy of publication in this journal.

A detailed list of answers to your comments and suggestions is reported below.

Many thanks for your time.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It’s an interesting piece of work. The paper investigates how different calorie labelling formats (numeric, color-coded, and physical activity-based) influence consumer perceptions and responses in various restaurant settings. Here are some suggestions to help further improve the paper.

Firstly, the introduction cites several key studies and references that are relevant to the topic, establishing a connection to existing literature on calorie labelling and consumer behaviour. However, it could benefit from including more recent studies or those that explore the psychological mechanisms behind label interpretation, which would strengthen the foundation of the research.

Secondly, while the methods are adequately described, more detail could be provided on the rationale behind the choice of specific labelling formats and the exact wording or design of the labels used in the experiment. Additionally, a more thorough description of the participant demographics and how they were recruited would strengthen the section.

Thirdly, while the results are clear, the discussion of non-significant findings, particularly regarding the hypotheses that were not supported, could be expanded. Providing more interpretation of these results would give a fuller picture of the study's implications.

Lastly, the conclusion section could be strengthened by discussing the limitations of the study more explicitly and by suggesting directions for future research. This would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the study's significance and the potential for further exploration in this area.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English in the paper is generally good. However, there are occasional issues with grammar and syntax. For example, some sentences could be restructured for better clarity. In addition,  in some cases, the word choice could be more precise or varied to avoid repetition.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your informed comments, which helped us so much in improving the manuscript. We appreciated the time you spent doing this and tried our best to address all your comments.

We hope that this revised version of the paper reaches the expected standard, worthy of publication in this journal.

A detailed list of answers to your comments and suggestions is reported below.

Many thanks for your time.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf