<p>Anthony Piermattéo, Grégory Lo Monaco, Sylvain Delouvée:<br><br>We have reached a decision regarding your submission to Revista Interamericana de Psicología/Interamerican Journal of Psychology, "The Effect of Cue Hierarchy on Expected Quality and Purchase Intentions Regarding Laptops".<br><br>Our decision is to: Request Revisions</p>
<p>The revisions will be expected until August 1, 2020.</p>
<p>Sincerely<br>------------------------------------------------------<br>Reviewer C:<br>Recommendation: Resubmit for Review<br><br>------------------------------------------------------<br><br></p>
<p>Does the abstract provide the main purposes of the study?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the abstract provide what conditions, if any, were participants exposed?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the abstract provide what type of design was used?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the abstract provide main findings and conclusions?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>What is your overall rating of the abstract?</p>
<blockquote>Good</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the introduction provide the background and context for the study?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the introduction provide what in current theory, research, or clinical work makes this study useful, important, or of interest?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the introduction provide what is different or special about the study in focus, methods, or design to address a need in the area?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the introduction provide a clear the rationale regarding the constructs to be assessed?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the introduction provide what specifically were the purposes, predictions, or hypotheses?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>What is you overall rating of the introduction?</p>
<blockquote>Poor</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide who were the participants and how many of them were there in this study?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide why was this sample selected in light of the research goals?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide how was this sample obtained, recruited, and selected?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what are the participant (s) demographic characteristics of the sample (e.g., gender, age, ethnicity, race, socioeconomic status)? What if any inclusion and exclusion criteria were invoked (i.e., selection rules to obtain participants)?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide how many of those participants eligible or recruited actually were selected and participated in the study?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide if and it was informed consent solicited? How and from whom, if special populations were used?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what is the design (e.g., longitudinal, cross-sectional, relationship, comparison) and how does the design relate to the goals of the study?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide&nbsp;how were participants assigned to groups or conditions?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide how many groups were included in the design?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide how were the groups similar and different in how they were treated in the study?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide why were these groups critical to address the questions of interest?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide the constructs of interest and how were they measured?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide the relevant reliability and validity data from previous research (and from the present study) that support the use of these measures for the present purposes?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide multiple measures and methods used to assess the constructs?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide response sets or styles relevant to the use and interpretation of the measures?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide how was the assessment conducted? By whom (as assessors/observers)? In what order were the measures administered?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide if raters were used in any facet of assessment, what is the reliability (inter- or intrajudge consistency) in rendering their judgments/ratings?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide where was the study conducted (setting)?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what materials, equipment, or apparatuses were used in the study?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what was the chronological sequence of events to which participants were exposed?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what intervals elapsed between different aspects of the study (e.g., assessment occasions)?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what procedural checks were completed to avert potential sources of bias in implementation of the manipulation and assessments?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what checks were made to ensure that the conditions were carried out as intended?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what other information does the reader need to know to understand how participants were treated and what conditions were provided?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>What is your overall rating of the methodology?</p>
<blockquote>Poor</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide the primary measures and data on which the predictions depend?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide the scores on the measures of interest for the different groups and sample as a whole (e.g., measures of central tendency and variability)?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide how the scores compare with those of other study, normative, or standardization samples?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide the groups of interest within the study similar on measures and variables that could interfere with interpretation of the hypotheses?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide the analyses were used and how specifically did these address the original hypotheses and purposes?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide the assumptions of the data analyses met?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide if multiple tests were used, what means were provided to control error rates?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide if more than one group was delineated, were they similar on variables that might otherwise explain the results (e.g., diagnosis, age)?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide if data was missing due to incomplete measures (not filled out completely by the participants) or due to loss of participants? If so, how were these handled in the data analyses?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide ancillary analyses that might further inform the primary analyses or exploratory analyses that might stimulate further work?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>What is your overall rating of the results?</p>
<blockquote>Poor</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the discussion provide what were the major findings of the study?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide how do these findings add to research and how do they support, refute, or inform current theory? What alternative interpretations can be placed on the data?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide what limitations or qualifiers must be placed on the study given methodology and design issues? What research follows from the study to move the field forward?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>What is your overall rating of the Discussion?</p>
<blockquote>Poor</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Is the manuscript well written, grammatically correct, free of spelling errors, cohesive, and logically organized?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Are conclusions stated clearly?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Do the author(s) appropriately reference primary and secondary sources using the APA publication manual?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Please provide a narrative</p>
<p>Suggested guidelines for narrative review:</p>
<ul>
<li class="show">Do not indicate recommendation for publication</li>
<li class="show">Do not include reviewer-identifying information</li>
<li class="show">Narrative should serve as constructive guidance for author, serve a mentoring function to help author identify ways to improve/orient the paper appropriately for this journal</li>
<li class="show">Suggested structure:
<ul>
<li class="show">Summarize paper (1-2 sentences)</li>
<li class="show">Overall strengths and areas for improvement and recommendations including what excites or interests the reviewer, what the paper might potentially contribute to the literature</li>
<li class="show">Specific recommendations (this section should be clearly organized and allow the author to specifically address the concerns) for example, how the manuscript could be more relevant to the Interamerican Psychology.</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<blockquote>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.<br>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.<br>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.<br>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.<br>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.<br>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.<br>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.<br>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.<br>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.<br>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.</blockquote>
<p>Based on the answers to these questions what is your&nbsp;disposition&nbsp;for the manuscript?</p>
<blockquote>Rewrite and resubmit</blockquote>
<p><br>------------------------------------------------------<br><br><br></p><br/><p>The following message is being delivered on behalf of Interamerican Journal of Psychology. _____________________________________________________________</p>
<div>
<div id="Zm-_Id_-Sgn" data-zbluepencil-ignore="true">
<div><strong><span class="size">Dr. Fernando Andres Polanco</span></strong></div>
<div><em>Editor Revista Interamericana de Psicología/Interamerican Journal of Psychology</em></div>
<div><a href="mailto:fernando.polanco@sipsych.org" target="_blank" rel="noopener">fernando.polanco@sipsych.org</a>&nbsp;</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Sociedad Interamericana de Psicología</div>
<div>Web:&nbsp;<a href="http://sipsych.org" target="_blank" rel="noopener">http://sipsych.org</a>&nbsp;</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div><a href="https://www.facebook.com/sipsych/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Facebook</a>&nbsp; |&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://twitter.com/sipsych" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitter</a> &nbsp;|&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.instagram.com/sipsych/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Instagram</a>&nbsp; |&nbsp; <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/SIPChannel2013" target="_blank" rel="noopener">YouTube</a></div>
</div>
</div>