다음은 Journal of Social Psychology 저널로부터 요청을 받아서 제가 작성한 reviewer’s comment입니다.
이전의 게시글에서는 리뷰어의 상세한 수정 요청사항을 보여드리지 않았었는데, 이번 글에서는 complete version을 보여드리겠습니다.
매우 흥미로운 주제를 가지고 잘 쓰여진 논문이라서 review를 하는 동안 지루하지 않았던 것으로 기억합니다.
최종판정은 accept with major revision 이었습니다.
——
I would like to thank the author(s) for the opportunity to review a very interesting manuscript. Overall, the manuscript has a lot of potential and I enjoyed reading it very much. Now, I do have several comments:
1. The tile (augmented TPB) should be changed since the current focus of the paper is primarily on both TPB and TAM.
2. Most importantly, the author(s) should make clear why it is interesting to show that using mobile money service is ‘planned’ behavior. Someone may think it is not planned but spontaneous behavior or immediate reaction.
3. The length of the Introduction part is quite long. While I am hard-pressed as to what should be cut, I defer to the editor on this notion.
4. In the manuscript, the author(s) stated that “We also adopt the position that the individual’s acceptance of the mobile money technology is on voluntary basis and that the behavior is not under his or her complete volitional control” (p.5). Is this correct? I understand that TPB is not limited to the study of behaviors under full volitional control (e.g., perceived behavioral control). However, behavior that is performed on voluntary basis is considered to be under volitional control. The author(s) needs to make a clarification on the statement.
5. The title of ‘3.1 Theory of Planned Behavior’ (p. 6) may be deleted, as the section of ‘3. Theoretical Foundation’ mainly discusses TPB (or, the tile of ‘3. Theoretical Foundation’ may be switched with ‘3. Theory of Planned Behavior’).
6. The author(s) might want to provide appropriate reference(s) to the statement of “TAM posits that an individual have a complete volitional control over the behavior” (p. 9). Also, there are several works framed around the TAM in non-voluntary or mandatory contexts.
7. Grammar needs to be checked and corrected throughout (e.g., “And also hypothesize that….” in p.9).
8. ‘H5: consumers’ attitude’ (lowercase) vs. ‘H6: Consumer’s emotional state’ (uppercase) (in p.12): please be consistent. If the author(s) wants to use lower- or uppercase, please keep it consistent in the entire manuscript Also, please check ‘H1: cognitive attitude’ (in p.10).
9. The quality of research methodology is high, with care having been taken to maintain reliability and validity of the design of the data collection and analysis. I have concern over the wording of the questionnaire items for Arousal (e.g., “The use of mobile money service makes me feel stimulated/aroused”). Why is it important for respondents participated in the survey to consider if the use of mobile money service is stimulated or aroused? Do these items (stimulated/aroused) really fit in the measurement of usage behavior of mobile money? However, this concern is not major and does not require author(s) to revise the design and data collection.
10. The author(s) needs to provide the descriptive statistics for each of nine construct measurements (e.g., behavioral intention, PEOU, PU, pleasure, arousal, PBC, social norm, CA, and AA) in a table form.
11. The author(s) should change the title of ‘Planned Behavioral Control’ to ‘Perceived Behavioral Control’ in Table 1 (p. 22).
12. On a positive note, the manuscript is well laid out. The research question should be both timely and important in the region of Ghana. I would love to see this manuscript published, but before I recommend publication, I would like to see items 1 thru 11 above addressed.
——
