The article incorporates, from the structural conceptual framework of social representations, the study of the central and peripheral keys that consumers use to select and determine their intention to purchase a product, in this case a laptop. The approach is interesting through three complementary studies, two descriptive and the third experimental.
An obvious strength of the study is its approach from a theory that has not been widely used since consumer psychology and consumer behavior research, and also its multi-method approach.
However, there are several aspects that are not clear or that need to be deepened or expanded. First, although the theoretical introduction places the reader within the framework of the study, including the classical authors of social representations, the state of the art is nevertheless outdated. Of the 36 articles cited, only 6 correspond to the last 5 years, including since 2014 and two of them are from the authors. For this reason, it is convenient to review the introduction by updating the references to realize that the topic is indeed of current interest.
At the methodological level, an introduction is needed to explain and account for the need to include three studies and how they connect with each other, and it is also essential to point out which were the ethical safeguards for the study.
Also at a methodological level, it is necessary to describe the research designs that correspond to each of the studies and specify the type of sampling and description of the sample, not being clear what the recruitment procedure was or the inclusion-exclusion criteria.
In the specific case of Study 3, the gender imbalance of the sample that includes 26 men and 129 women is not explained. This needs to be explained both in terms of sampling and possible impact on the results. In this regard, no mention is made in the results of this gender distribution either.
Regarding the analyzes and results, nowhere is the data analysis plan described, so the reader is forced to assume that statistical measures were used. It is important to detail this point and also establish the measures of reliability and validity of the instruments used. There is also no mention of the procedure in relation to sample recruitment, instrument construction or experimental conditions, and data collection. This leaves many doubts for whoever reads the article and also for future replications of the study.
Regarding the discussion, although it addresses general aspects of the results, a greater connection with the state of the art is necessary, where once again the need to update it is reiterated. There is also no analysis of the limitations of the study and the only one that is recognized, after which it is pointed out that it is not a limitation in itself. In this regard, it is necessary to refer to the possible impact of gender disparity in the study sample 3.
 A more detailed analysis of the advantage or disadvantage of having used this theoretical approach for this research and what the contribution it makes compared to other approach strategies.
In summary, although the article addresses an interesting topic with a novel theoretical approach, it is necessary to review in depth most of its sections.