A Fuzzy-Based Analysis of the Mediating Factors Affecting Sustainable Purchase Intentions of Smartphones: The Case of Two Brands in Two Asian Countries

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you in advance for the invitation to review this article and thus be able to somehow contribute to its improvement. The object of study seems to be interesting for the strategy of brands, however I see many gaps in the article.

 

1. The introduction section of the paper is very short. The authors need to add some more detail of the topic.

2. English language should be refined.

3. Theoretical debate is not enough to support the need for this study. We do not see the research gap that is intended to be resolved.

4. The paper should include a deep discussion of the results. 5.1 section is not a truly discussion of the results but a sum up of the methods

5. The research question is not clear

6. iPhone has a higher brand equity compared to HTC. So we are comparing different things and brand equity is a major construct that is missing hear.

7. The study doesn't make sense and the implications do not match the study developed.

English language should be refined.

Author Response

Thank you in advance for the invitation to review this article and thus be able to somehow contribute to its improvement. The object of study seems to be interesting for the strategy of brands, however I see many gaps in the article.

Thank you for expressing your gratitude for the invitation to review the article and contribute to its improvement. It's great to hear that the object of study, which focuses on the strategy of brands, captures your interest. Your observation about the presence of gaps in the article is valuable feedback. Identifying areas for improvement can enhance the overall quality and rigor of the research. We appreciate the time and effort the reviewer has put in reviewing the manuscript and the comments. We have done our best to address ALL concerns. Where the manuscript has been modified is shown in yellow highlight.  

 

1. The introduction section of the paper is very short. The authors need to add some more detail of the topic.

Thank you for your feedback on the introduction section of the paper. We appreciate your perspective and agree that providing additional details on the topic would be beneficial. Expanding the introduction can help set the context, establish the relevance of the study, and provide a more comprehensive understanding for readers. We incorporating more relevant background information to enhance the overall clarity and engagement of the paper.

 

2. English language should be refined.

Noted with thanks. We have had the entire manuscript revised by native speaker of English.

 

3. Theoretical debate is not enough to support the need for this study. We do not see the research gap that is intended to be resolved.

Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the theoretical debate and research gap in our study. We appreciate your insights, and we have carefully considered your comments. As a result, we have made significant revisions to the introduction part of the manuscript to better address the research gap and provide a stronger rationale for the study. We believe these changes have greatly improved the clarity and relevance of our research. Thank you once again for your input

 

4. The paper should include a deep discussion of the results. 5.1 section is not a truly discussion of the results but a sum up of the methods

Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the discussion of the results in our paper. We appreciate your insights and agree that a deep and comprehensive discussion of the results is crucial. We have carefully considered your comment and made the necessary revisions to ensure that the discussion section provides a thorough analysis and interpretation of the results. Your input is greatly appreciated, and we are committed to improving the quality of our paper based on your feedback.

 

5. The research question is not clear

Thank you very much for this comment. We realize the introduction section was no well-developed. Thanks to your suggestions we have developed the introduction section and we have also included the research questions.

 

6. iPhone has a higher brand equity compared to HTC. So we are comparing different things and brand equity is a major construct that is missing hear.

iPhone and HTC in our study. We appreciate your perspective and acknowledge the importance of considering brand equity as a major construct. We have taken your feedback into account and have addressed this point in the manuscript by adding a new paragraph that clarifies the comparison and highlights the significance of brand equity. Your input has been valuable in enhancing the clarity and comprehensiveness of our research. We genuinely appreciate your contribution to our study.

 

7. The study doesn't make sense and the implications do not match the study developed.

Thank you very much for this observation. Indeed, your suggestion ignited an overhaul of the writing in the introduction and conclusion part of this paper. Thanks to your comment we have done a major revision.

Reviewer 2 Report

This article is based on the analysis of the mediating factors affecting sustainable purchase intentions of smartphones. The article looks interesting overall. However, some revisions are recommended.

1.      Several methods exist that can be used for the estimation process. Justify the selection of this method in the introduction section.

2.      Give a better description of Figures 3 and 4.

3.      Why are you selecting the price as the mediatory variable? Provide a valid reason. I think the price the major factor on which the purchase is directly dependent.

4.      Provide the proper explanation of the fuzzy set and fuzzy logic. How it works? Why it is more reliable than the crisp logic.

5.      Provide the process, how did you fuzzification of the obtained data?

6.      Explain Table 3. What is s, t and u? How are you assigning the values to them? Have they any weight? If you assign values directly without any criteria, it may cause of uncertainty.

7.      Through your study what did you obtain? Write a paragraph in the conclusion.

8.      Discuss the paper future work https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-021-05829-8.

 

 

The English seem ok. 

Author Response

This article is based on the analysis of the mediating factors affecting sustainable purchase intentions of smartphones. The article looks interesting overall. However, some revisions are recommended.

Thank you for taking the time to review our article on the mediating factors influencing sustainable purchase intentions of smartphones. We genuinely appreciate your positive feedback and your interest in our research. Your acknowledgment of the article's overall interest is encouraging to us.

We also appreciate your suggestion for revisions, as it provides an opportunity for us to further enhance the quality and clarity of our work. We have carefully considered your recommendations and made the necessary revisions to improve the article. Your feedback is valuable to us, and we are grateful for your input. All changes are highlighted in the revised text in yellow highlight.

Thank you once again for your appreciation and constructive suggestions. We are committed to delivering a high-quality and impactful article, and your feedback helps us in achieving that goal.

 

1. Several methods exist that can be used for the estimation process. Justify the selection of this method in the introduction section.

Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the selection of the estimation method in our study. We appreciate your suggestion and agree that it is important to justify the choice of method in the introduction section. The introduction section has gone through major revisions. We have taken this into consideration and have provided a detailed rationale for using the fuzzy set theory in the introduction. By explaining our reasoning behind the selection, we aim to enhance the transparency and clarity of our research. We sincerely appreciate your input and the opportunity to improve our manuscript.

 

2. Give a better description of Figures 3 and 4.

Thank you for your comment regarding the description of Figures 3 and 4 in our manuscript. We appreciate your feedback and would like to inform you that we have already made improvements to provide a better and more comprehensive description of these figures. Your input has been valuable in enhancing the clarity of our work, and we sincerely appreciate your contribution.

 

3. Why are you selecting the price as the mediatory variable? Provide a valid reason. I think the price the major factor on which the purchase is directly dependent.

Thank you for your comment and for raising the question regarding the selection of “price” as a mediatory variable in our study. We appreciate your interest in our research. However, we would like to clarify that we are not considering price as the mediatory variable, but rather "price premium."

Price premium refers to the additional amount consumers are willing to pay for a product compared to similar alternatives. It captures the perception of higher value associated with a particular brand or product. In our study, we are investigating the mediating effect of price premium, which means we are examining whether the influence of brand equity on sustainable purchase intention is partially explained by the perception of a higher price premium associated with that brand.

While price may indeed be a major factor directly influencing purchase decisions, our focus on price premium specifically allows us to investigate the role of perceived value and the premium consumers associate with brands when making sustainable purchase intentions. By exploring the mediating effect of price premium, we aim to understand how brand equity affects consumers' willingness to pay a higher price for sustainable products.

We hope this clarifies the difference between price and price premium and provides a valid reason for our choice of the mediatory variable. Your comment has helped us ensure the clarity of our study, and we genuinely appreciate your engagement with our research.

 

4. Provide the proper explanation of the fuzzy set and fuzzy logic. How it works? Why it is more reliable than the crisp logic.

Thank you for your comment regarding the explanation of fuzzy set and fuzzy logic in our manuscript.  We appreciate your feedback and agree that providing a proper explanation of these concepts is important. We have thoroughly revised the introduction section to include a comprehensive explanation of fuzzy set and fuzzy logic, their functioning, and the reasons for their reliability compared to crisp logic. We hope the revised version addresses your concerns and provides the clarity you were looking for. Your input has been valuable in improving the quality of our manuscript, and we sincerely appreciate your engagement with our research.

5. Provide the process, how did you fuzzification of the obtained data?

Thank you for your comment regarding the fuzzification process of the obtained data in our study. We appreciate your feedback and would like to inform you that we have provided a detailed explanation of the fuzzification and defuzzification process in Section 3.3.1 of the manuscript. To further enhance clarity, we have included a few additional lines to make the process clearer for the readers. We hope these revisions address your concern and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the fuzzification process. Your input has been valuable in improving the quality of our manuscript, and we genuinely appreciate your engagement with our research.

6. Explain Table 3. What is s, t and u? How are you assigning the values to them? Have they any weight? If you assign values directly without any criteria, it may cause of uncertainty.

Thank you for your suggestion to elaborate on the information regarding the fuzzy procedure and the assignment of triangular fuzzy numbers (TFNs) to crisp values in Table 3. We appreciate your feedback and understand the importance of providing a comprehensive explanation.

In the fuzzy procedure, the first step involved assigning triangular fuzzy numbers to each crisp value. Triangular fuzzy numbers are represented by three parameters: the lower value (s), the peak or modal value (t), and the upper value (u). These parameters define the shape and uncertainty associated with the fuzzy number.

In Table 3, we have reported the respective TFNs (s, t, and u) for each linguistic and crisp value. These TFNs indicate the degree of membership or certainty associated with the assigned values. By using triangular fuzzy numbers, we capture the inherent uncertainty and linguistic nuances present in the data.

The assignment of values to the TFNs was based on specific criteria and linguistic terms that reflect the degree of membership. These criteria were carefully determined to ensure consistency and accuracy in representing the fuzzy nature of the variables.

By assigning TFNs to crisp values and linguistic terms, we enable a more nuanced representation and analysis of the data, considering the inherent uncertainty and linguistic variability in human perception and judgment.

We hope this elaboration provides a clearer understanding of the fuzzy procedure and the assignment of TFNs in Table 3. Your feedback has been invaluable in improving the clarity and comprehensiveness of our manuscript, and we genuinely appreciate your engagement with our research.

 

7. Through your study what did you obtain? Write a paragraph in the conclusion.

Thank you for your comment and your interest in the findings of our study. We appreciate your feedback and would like to inform you that we have thoroughly revised the entire conclusion section to provide a comprehensive summary of the results obtained. The revised conclusion highlights the key findings and their implications, offering a clear and concise summary of our study. We believe the revised conclusion will provide the information you are seeking regarding the outcomes of our research. Your input has been valuable in improving the quality of our manuscript, and we genuinely appreciate your engagement with our study.

8. Discuss the paper future work https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-021-05829-8.

It is added to section 5.3.

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper represents an interesting contribution for the analysis of the mediating factors affecting sustainable purchase intentions of smartphones. The introduction to the paper nicely suggests that there still are opportunities to research in this topic. However, in my opinion some further considerations are the following:

·       I suggest considering a general, integrative theoretical approach to present the conceptual framework previously, and then write the paper from the angle of the specific chosen approach.

·       Even though the paper is empirically oriented, good papers (either theoretical or empirical) always provide a review of both types of papers related to different disciplines of study. The reasons for this are that different types of readers may be interested in reading the paper and more importantly it helps to better evaluate the merits of the paper’s contribution.

·       The introduction should more clearly specify the novelty of the paper compared to other papers published in this area.

·       The methodology needs justification in the literature review for a similar design. For example, why the authors consider Taiwan and Indonesia in particular? Are these countries of general interest regarding the phenomenon? Why?

·       The last section (that is, Discussion, Implications, Conclusions and Limitations) requires more elaboration in another section. Particularly, a general consideration regarding the limitations and ways in which this research with differing intervention contributes to managerial and theoretical implications in the study is required. To the end of the paper, I suggest including several subsections renaming this section as follows: Discussions, Conclusions, and Limitations and Further Research. In my opinion, results are indicative in general terms. More limitations and managerial contributions of the study in terms of the generalization of the findings should be added.

OK.

Author Response

This paper represents an interesting contribution for the analysis of the mediating factors affecting sustainable purchase intentions of smartphones. The introduction to the paper nicely suggests that there still are opportunities to research in this topic. However, in my opinion some further considerations are the following:

Thank you for your kind comment and for acknowledging the contribution of our paper in analyzing the mediating factors impacting sustainable purchase intentions of smartphones. We sincerely appreciate your positive feedback and are delighted to hear that the introduction effectively conveys the research opportunities in this area.

We believe that understanding the factors influencing sustainable purchase intentions is crucial in today's context, and we aimed to shed light on this topic through our study. Your appreciation of our work encourages us to continue exploring and advancing knowledge in this field.

We genuinely appreciate your support and encouragement, and we are grateful for your valuable feedback. It motivates us to further enhance our research and make meaningful contributions to the understanding of sustainable consumer behavior. All changes in the revised manuscript are indicated in yellow highlight.

 

1. I suggest considering a general, integrative theoretical approach to present the conceptual framework previously, and then write the paper from the angle of the specific chosen approach.

Thank you for your thoughtful comment and your suggestion to consider a general, integrative theoretical approach to present the conceptual framework of our study. We genuinely appreciate your input and have carefully considered your recommendation in revising the paper.

 

Thanks to this comment we have extensively revised the introduction section to provide a more comprehensive and integrated theoretical approach. The revised version aims to present the conceptual framework in a manner that highlights the key theoretical underpinnings and contextualizes our research within the existing literature.

 

However, we would like to clarify that our study does not introduce a new theoretical model. Instead, our focus is on introducing a novel methodology to address the research objectives. Specifically, our study examines the mediation effect of price premium and brand preference on the causal impact of brand equity on sustainable purchase intention. The novelty lies in transforming the initial measures, which were collected on a 5-point Likert scale, into continuous values using a fuzzification and defuzzification process.

 

By incorporating this unique methodology, we aim to provide a more precise and nuanced understanding of the relationships between the variables under investigation. This approach allows us to capture the complex nature of consumer perceptions and preferences, thereby enriching the analysis and generating meaningful insights.

 

We hope that the revised introduction effectively conveys the significance of our study's methodology and its contributions to the field. We greatly value your feedback and sincerely hope that the updated version meets your expectations. Should you have any further suggestions or concerns, we would be grateful to receive them.

 

Thank you once again for your valuable input and your time spent reviewing our paper. Your insights have been instrumental in enhancing the clarity and rigor of our research.

 

2. Even though the paper is empirically oriented, good papers (either theoretical or empirical) always provide a review of both types of papers related to different disciplines of study. The reasons for this are that different types of readers may be interested in reading the paper and more importantly it helps to better evaluate the merits of the paper’s contribution.

Dear Reviewer, thank you for your valuable feedback and insightful suggestion regarding the inclusion of a review of both theoretical and empirical papers related to different disciplines of study. We appreciate your perspective and acknowledge the benefits that such a comprehensive review can offer to readers and the evaluation of the paper's contribution.

 

In our introduction section we mention that in the realm of academic research, it is crucial to recognize the existing reliance on primary data obtained through standardized questionnaires, typically utilizing a 5-point Likert scale. While this method has been widely employed and bears the semblance of a quantitative approach, it is not without limitations. The results obtained may not always reflect objective evaluations, as respondents may lean towards neutral opinions or display extreme biases. Furthermore, the discrete nature of this method fails to account for the relative numbers and the spaces between each two scale points, which can limit the accuracy and granularity of the findings. We also provide references for both methods.

 

Furthermore, to address these limitations and enhance the accuracy and depth of the study's findings, we have implemented a fuzzification and defuzzification process in this particular research. This process involves transforming the crisp linguistic values obtained through the Likert scale into continuous values. By adopting this approach, we aim to capture a more nuanced representation of respondents' perceptions and opinions, taking into account the various degrees of membership within each category.

 

Your suggestion reinforces the importance of providing a comprehensive understanding of the research landscape and the diverse approaches employed in academic literature. We have taken this into consideration and have further expanded the literature review section to incorporate relevant theoretical and empirical papers from different disciplines that are pertinent to our research topic.

 

We genuinely appreciate your constructive feedback, which has enabled us to strengthen the paper and ensure its relevance and robustness. If you have any additional suggestions or comments, please do not hesitate to share them with us.

 

Thank you once again for your valuable contribution and for taking the time to review our paper. We are grateful for your engagement and look forward to your continued insights.

 

3. The introduction should more clearly specify the novelty of the paper compared to other papers published in this area.

Thank you for your valuable comment regarding the clarity of the novelty in our paper compared to other publications in the field. We genuinely appreciate your feedback, and we want to assure you that we have taken it into careful consideration.

 

We have thoroughly revised the entire introduction section of the paper with the aim of clearly highlighting the novelty and unique contributions of our research. The revised version provides a more explicit explanation of how our study differs from existing literature and identifies the specific gaps we aim to address. By doing so, we aim to provide a clearer understanding of the unique value our paper brings to the field.

 

We sincerely appreciate your input, as it has helped us improve the quality and effectiveness of our manuscript. Your engagement with our research is valuable, and we are grateful for your thoughtful feedback.

 

4. The methodology needs justification in the literature review for a similar design. For example, why the authors consider Taiwan and Indonesia in particular? Are these countries of general interest regarding the phenomenon? Why?

 

Thank you for your valuable feedback and raising an important point regarding the justification of the chosen methodology and the selection of Taiwan and Indonesia as the focal countries for this study. We appreciate your insight and would like to provide a comprehensive response to address your concerns.

 

In determining the specific countries for our research, we carefully considered various factors, including the general interest and relevance of the phenomenon within those regions. Allow us to provide a detailed explanation of our rationale for selecting Taiwan and Indonesia as the focus of our study.

 

Firstly, Indonesia currently stands as the fourth-largest smartphone market globally, following China, India, and the United States [1]. This fact underscores the significance and relevance of examining sustainable purchase intentions of smartphones in the Indonesian context. The substantial market size and rapid growth of smartphone adoption in Indonesia make it an ideal setting to investigate the factors influencing consumer behavior and their implications for sustainability.

 

Turning to Taiwan, we acknowledge the local aspect and the presence of a renowned local brand, HTC. Taiwan's significance stems from its association with HTC, a notable smartphone manufacturer. Exploring the influence of brand equity and other factors on purchase intentions within the context of a local brand adds valuable insights to the literature. Additionally, Taiwan boasts a strong technological and manufacturing background, making it an interesting case to examine the dynamics between brand equity, purchase intentions, and sustainability within the context of a technologically advanced nation.

 

Furthermore, we would like to highlight an important aspect that emerged during our research. Despite the differences in market size and the presence of a local brand in Taiwan, the ratio of iPhone users to the total number of smartphone users in both countries is remarkably similar. In Taiwan, the ratio of iPhone users to total smartphone users is reported to be 97%, even with HTC being a prominent local brand. Similarly, in Indonesia, the ratio stands at 87%. This parallel suggests that a significant proportion of smartphone users in both countries are using iPhones, thus allowing for a balanced comparison of brand equity, purchase intentions, and sustainability factors between the two countries.

 

To further reinforce the choice of Taiwan and Indonesia, we have also reviewed relevant sources in the literature and found that these countries have garnered attention in the field of smartphone research. Their unique characteristics, market dynamics, and consumer behavior patterns make them noteworthy settings to investigate the mediation effects of brand equity, price premium, and brand preference on sustainable purchase intentions.

 

In light of the aforementioned justifications and the additional information obtained from research in the field, we believe that Taiwan and Indonesia are suitable and relevant countries to explore the research objectives of our study. However, we appreciate your feedback and recognize the importance of providing a clearer and more explicit justification in the literature review section. We have revised the manuscript to include a comprehensive explanation of our country selection process, taking into account the factors mentioned above.

 

Once again, we genuinely appreciate your valuable feedback, as it has helped us strengthen the methodology and rationale of our study. If you have any further suggestions or comments, we would be grateful to hear them. Thank you for your time, engagement, and contribution to our research.

 

[1] Indonesia's smartphone market size.

 

5. The last section (that is, Discussion, Implications, Conclusions and Limitations) requires more elaboration in another section. Particularly, a general consideration regarding the limitations and ways in which this research with differing intervention contributes to managerial and theoretical implications in the study is required. To the end of the paper, I suggest including several subsections renaming this section as follows: Discussions, Conclusions, and Limitations and Further Research. In my opinion, results are indicative in general terms. More limitations and managerial contributions of the study in terms of the generalization of the findings should be added.

Thank you for your detailed comment regarding the last section of our paper, including the discussion, conclusions, limitations, and further research. We appreciate your feedback and the specific suggestions you have provided.

 

We have made significant revisions to the mentioned sections, taking into account your valuable input. The revised version includes subsections that address each aspect individually, namely "Discussions," "Conclusions," "Limitations," and "Further Research." This restructuring allows for a more systematic and comprehensive treatment of these important components.

 

Moreover, we have taken great care to emphasize the limitations of our study and the implications for both managerial practice and theoretical advancements. By incorporating specific discussions on the generalization of our findings and the potential managerial contributions, we aim to provide a more well-rounded and informative conclusion section.

 

To ensure the visibility of the revisions, we have highlighted the changes in yellow throughout the manuscript. We hope that these changes effectively address your concerns and meet your expectations in terms of elaboration, clarity, and the inclusion of relevant aspects.

 

Your feedback has been instrumental in improving the quality of our paper, and we genuinely appreciate your engagement with our research. We believe that the revised sections will provide a more comprehensive and insightful conclusion, offering valuable insights for both academia and practitioners.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Accepted with no further questions.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is well revised and I am in favor of publishing it.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have made some improvements compared to the previous submission. In my opinion:

1.     In terms of explaining the paper contribution from a theoretical point of view, I am completely satisfied. In section 1, the problem description is well described and presented,

 

2. More limitations and managerial contributions of the study in terms of the generalization of the findings have been added.