COVID-19 in New Zealand: The Moderating Effect of Involvement on the Roles of Attitudes and Subjective Norms
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Introduction
The introduction includes a neat discussion of attitudes and subjective norms, moving the theoretical framework on from earlier theoretical models to include ‘interest’ in the topic in question and its capacity to fluctuate. The rational for the main hypothesis is well explained, although it would be much improved with a review of relevant literature.
The first two paragraphs of Method and Materials would be more suitably placed in the Introduction, as they present the specific theoretical framework of the study. This could be explained in more depth.
I found the form of referencing used difficult to follow – it requires flipping back and forward from the text to the reference section to work out who did what and when.
Method and Materials
For each of the scales used, what were the response categories? (eg Yes/No; strongly agree to strongly disagree, etc?) Was there any evidence for reliability or validity for these scales (eg from other studies)? Where relevant, what were the Cronbach alphas of scales with more than one item? What is meant by ‘average agreement’? What constitutes the possible score range for each variable?
When dividing participants into three groups (low, mod and high involvement), what were the Ns and %s in each group? Why did you divide them up?
None of the regression tables are properly titled. The title should indicate what you are trying to predict, eg prediction of involvement from attitudes, subjective norms and goal intention (if that’s what they are). At least mention the dependent variable in the title.
Table 3, 4 and 5 would be clearer if the columns were labelled low, med and high involvement (as well as with the score range).
After each table there should be a verbal description of what the table shows, and how it supports or does not support predictions, i.e., Table 3 indicates…blah blah. The tables do not stand alone as explanations. All the regressions shown are significant and the R-squares are high – comment on this also.
Why do you think that tables 3, 4 and 5 show different results from each other in terms of patterns of significance for the low, medium and high involvement groups? Could it relate to sample composition or time of testing? Do these differences influence how the subsequent predictions will be tested?
Elaborate with more description of the ‘striking’ differences mentioned in line 186.
Sum up what tables 7 and 8 show. Are hypotheses supported?
I cannot follow the purpose of, or findings from, the three Figures.
Discussion
There is just a bald statement at the beginning of the discussion that the hypothesis was supported. But there needs to be a much more sophisticated discussion of the complex results presented. Why are predictions of involvement different for the three samples, and why do they differ for the three levels of involvement? How do the results of this study align with previous studies that predict behavioural intention and include an involvement variable? What are the theoretical implications of the results?
The second and third implications – how do they derive from the data presented?
Summary: I think the study has great potential but it needs more explanation, especially in the results section. Please attend to all or most of the comments above.
Author Response
We are very grateful to the referees for the care and attention they have given to our manuscript and the usefulness of their suggestions to its improvement.
We have responded to almost all matters raised in the reviews, the broader being dealt with at various relevant different points in the manuscript.
Please see attached. Thanks!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a generally well-written article. It aims to evaluate the moderating effect of 'object importance' (involvement) on the relationship between behavioural intentions, attitudes and subjective norms. The authors found that when importance decreases, the influence of attitudes on behavioural intentions decreases, and the influence of subjective norms increases.
However, there are a few minor points that need to be clarified:
Introduction section:
Lines 58 to 65 are rather confusing. What exactly do the authors mean by "normative compliance dominates behavioural intention"?
Materials and methods section:
It is unfortunate that the authors refer to other articles for a more detailed description of their surveys. They could include more detail in this paper. In my opinion, an article should stand on its own. All the necessary elements should be included in this article, even if only in summary form.
Discussion section:
Lines 242 to 245: I'm not sure I understand what the authors mean with this sentence. Can the authors explain why they are making these points and why they are relevant in this case?
Finally, the slight difference between study 3 and the other 2 (elimination vs prevention) could be discussed.
line 48: capital letter missing at beginning of sentence
line 58: repetition of words to be deleted
Author Response
We are very grateful to the referees for the care and attention they have given to our manuscript and the usefulness of their suggestions to its improvement.
We have responded to almost all matters raised in the reviews, the broader being dealt with at various relevant different points in the manuscript.
Please see attached. Thanks!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
