The effects of luck perception on consumer variety-seeking

Jianbin Zhao; Zheng Li

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0324896

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 24, 2024
24 Nov 2024 Author Response https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0324896.r001
Decision Letter - Alessandro Pluchino, Editor Dear Dr. Zhao, Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 25 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols . We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Alessandro Pluchino Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1.Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please note that funding information should not appear in any section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript. 3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71962001); Humanities and Social Sciences Research Foundation of Ministry of Education (21YJC630069); Guangdong superior agricultural products foreign trade innovation team (2020WCXTD013); Greater Bay Area Agricultural products Circulation Research Center�Study on ways and countermeasures to enhance competitiveness of aquatic products in Guangdong Province (2022ZDJS018).” Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 5. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: “All relevant data are within the manuscript and in Supporting Information files.” Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. 6. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical. 7. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: Reviewer Attachments for Manuscript Number PONE-D-24-49678 The effects of luck perception on consumer variety-seeking: The mediating role of novelty-seeking motivation and the moderating role of need for cognitive closure General Assessment 1. Originality and Contribution to the Field The manuscript explores the under-researched area of luck perception in consumer behavior, offering valuable insights into its psychological underpinnings and practical implications. Recommendation: Highlight the novelty of examining luck perception in the context of variety-seeking and its practical relevance to marketing strategies. Discuss how these findings fill gaps in existing research on consumer behavior and psychological motivations. 2. Clarity and Structure The manuscript is generally well-organized, but the dense presentation of experimental methods and statistical analyses may be challenging for readers unfamiliar with these techniques. Recommendation: Simplify the descriptions of experimental designs and statistical methods. Consider adding summaries or diagrams to make complex concepts more accessible. 3. Theoretical Framework The manuscript presents a solid theoretical foundation, but the discussion of novelty-seeking motivation and the need for cognitive closure could be more comprehensive. Recommendation: Provide a deeper discussion of novelty-seeking and cognitive closure theories. Explain their relevance to consumer behavior and their integration with luck perception. Key Concerns and Recommendations 1. Methodology The experimental designs are robust, but some aspects of the methodology, such as participant selection, priming techniques, and statistical assumptions, require further elaboration. Recommendation: Clearly explain the criteria for participant recruitment and how cultural factors might influence responses to luck perception. Justify the choice of priming methods and discuss potential biases. 2. Operationalization of Key Variables Key variables like luck perception, novelty-seeking motivation, and need for cognitive closure are defined but require more detail on their measurement and validation. Recommendation: Provide detailed descriptions of scales used to measure these variables, including their reliability and validity. Explain how the experimental manipulations were verified. 3. Results Interpretation The results are well-presented, but their practical implications are underexplored. Recommendation: Discuss the real-world applications of these findings, such as how marketers can use luck perception to design campaigns that encourage variety-seeking. Provide specific examples of potential strategies. Moderation and Mediation Effects While the moderating and mediating effects are statistically significant, their broader implications are not fully discussed. Recommendation: Elaborate on how the need for cognitive closure influences the relationship between luck perception and variety-seeking. Discuss the implications of novelty-seeking motivation as a mediator in consumer decision-making. Overall Recommendation Major Revision Required To ensure the manuscript meets the standards of PLOS ONE, it requires substantial revisions. These revisions should focus on clarifying the methodology, deepening the interpretation of results, and expanding on both theoretical and practical implications. If these revisions are thoroughly addressed, the manuscript has the potential to make a significant contribution to the study of followership and leadership communication. Detailed Comments on Manuscript Sections 1. Title and Abstract Title Comment: The title is clear and informative but could emphasize the experimental nature of the study. Recommendation: Consider revising the title to reflect the experimental approach (e.g., "Experimental Evidence on the Role of Luck Perception in Consumer Variety-Seeking"). Comment: The abstract effectively summarizes the study but lacks emphasis on practical implications. Recommendation: Include a brief discussion of how these findings could inform marketing practices or consumer engagement strategies. 2. Introduction Comment : The introduction provides a strong rationale for the study but could better contextualize the research within broader consumer behaviour literature. Recommendation: Add a discussion of how this research complements or extends existing studies on psychological influences in consumer decision-making. 3. Literature Review Comment: The review covers key concepts but does not fully integrate them into a cohesive framework. Recommendation: Expand on the relationships between luck perception, novelty-seeking motivation, and variety-seeking. Include additional references to recent studies in consumer psychology. 4. Methodology Comment: The explanation of structural equation modeling (SEM) is dense and may be difficult for readers unfamiliar with advanced statistical techniques. While the fit indices are reported, there is little explanation of what these indices mean or why they indicate an acceptable model fit. Additionally, the assumptions underlying SEM (such as measurement invariance and suppression effects) are mentioned but not clearly explained. Recommendation: The methodology is detailed but dense, making it challenging for readers to follow. 5. Results Comment: The results are statistically robust but lack sufficient interpretation. Recommendation: Highlight the practical significance of findings, such as how marketers can leverage these insights to design interventions that enhance variety-seeking. 6. Discussion Comment: The discussion effectively summarizes the results but does not fully explore their theoretical and practical implications. Recommendation: Provide a deeper analysis of how these findings contribute to understanding consumer psychology. Discuss potential applications in marketing and product design. 7. Conclusion and Future Directions Comment: The conclusion is concise but could offer more specific suggestions for future research. Recommendation: Suggest investigating cultural differences in luck perception or exploring its impact on other consumer behaviors. Discuss how longitudinal studies could extend these findings. 8. Final Comments (Minor Revision) The manuscript addresses an important topic in consumer psychology and marketing. However, to enhance its clarity and impact, revisions are needed to elaborate on methodological details, deepen theoretical discussions, and explore practical implications. With these improvements, the study has the potential to make a significant contribution to the field. Reviewer #2: The paper is technically sound and highly relevant, exploring an interesting and practical topic—the effect of luck perception on consumer variety-seeking. The authors clearly structured their research, carefully crafted their hypotheses based on existing literature, and employed rigorous experimental methods across three distinct studies. Their statistical analyses robustly support the conclusions, effectively demonstrating that luck perception increases consumers' variety-seeking behaviors through novelty-seeking motivation, especially among consumers with a high need for cognitive closure. Importantly, the authors have transparently made their underlying data fully available within the manuscript, enhancing the credibility of their findings. Although minor improvements in language and clarity could enhance readability, the paper offers valuable theoretical contributions and practical insights, particularly for marketers aiming to strategically leverage perceptions of luck. Overall, the manuscript is scientifically sound, methodologically rigorous, and clearly conveys meaningful insights relevant to both researchers and marketing practitioners. ****** what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0324896.r002
Revision 1
17 Apr 2025 Author Response Modification instructions Dear Reviewers: I would like to thank you sincerely for your valuable comments on this paper, which were very professional and pertinent, pointing out shortcomings and giving suggestions for revision, which have been very enlightening. Your suggestions have been very helpful and we. The authors have followed your comments to read and revise the whole text again and again and to explain it in detail. Reviewer #1 General Assessment 1. Originality and Contribution to the Field. The manuscript explores the under-researched area of luck perception in consumer behavior, offering valuable insights into its psychological underpinnings and practical implications. Recommendation: Highlight the novelty of examining luck perception in the context of variety-seeking and its practical relevance to marketing strategies. Discuss how these findings fill gaps in existing research on consumer behavior and psychological motivations. Revision note: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have summarized the research significance of this paper as follows: “In this paper, the influence of luck on variety-seeking was explored in depth through experimental research methods. The main research questions include the direct influence of luck on variety-seeking, the mechanism of novelty-seeking motivation in the effect of luck on variety-seeking, and the boundary conditions need for cognitive closure. The findings offer innovative insights into the influence of luck in the field of consumption, broadening the scope of research on luck effects in product or brand decision-making. Furthermore, they delve into the psychological effects of luck, providing valuable theoretical support for people to gain a scientific understanding of luck. From a practical viewpoint, this paper’s findings will shed light on the expansion of product lines and the launch of new brands and provide guidance for enterprises to implement precision marketing as well as luck marketing.” 2. Clarity and Structure. The manuscript is generally well-organized, but the dense presentation of experimental methods and statistical analyses may be challenging for readers unfamiliar with these techniques. Recommendation: Simplify the descriptions of experimental designs and statistical methods. Consider adding summaries or diagrams to make complex concepts more accessible. Revision note: Thank you very much for your suggestions. This paper is written in accordance with the norms for psychological experiments, employing standardized terminology in the experimental section. If the processes and designs are overly simplified, readers may struggle to comprehend the entire experimental procedure, rendering it unhelpful as a reference for similar experimental designs in the future. 3. Theoretical Framework. The manuscript presents a solid theoretical foundation, but the discussion of novelty-seeking motivation and the need for cognitive closure could be more comprehensive. Recommendation: Provide a deeper discussion of novelty-seeking and cognitive closure theories. Explain their relevance to consumer behavior and their integration with luck perception. Revision note: Thank you very much for your questions and suggestions. We have reorganized the logical reasoning of the hypothesis to make the explanation of novelty-seeking motivation and the need for cognitive closure more comprehensive. The specifics are as follows: “Research on luck suggests that consumers who feel lucky become more energetic and possess more preferences for unfamiliar or novel choices. For example, consumers who feel lucky are more likely to use online banking, rather than a physical bank, to deposit money (Jiang et al., 2009). In financial markets, consumers who feel lucky have a higher interest in sudden and unfamiliar market information; they are more willing to pay for random shock signals in the lottery market (Gao et al., 2021). It is evident that luck motivates consumers and develops their interest in and desire for novel and unknown things. Novelty seeking is the innate tendency of consumers to show pleasure or excitement for novel stimuli (Thomas-Walters, 2021). Based on the above analysis, we argue that consumers who feel lucky possess a strong motivation to pursue novelty. The motivation for novelty seeking is one of the important factors influencing individual behavior. It represents consumers' innate tendency to exhibit pleasure or excitement towards novel stimuli, and serves as one of the driving forces for consumers to actively pursue new experiences (Nguyen et al., 2020). This is manifested in two aspects: intrinsic novelty seeking is the individual's desire for novel and exciting stimuli; extrinsic novelty seeking is manifested in the individual's actual behavior to obtain new stimuli. Therefore, we believe that the mechanism of luck’s influence on variety-seeking emerges from consumer novelty-seeking motivation. This is because variety-seeking is an expression of consumers’ search for novelty and pursuit of maximizing psychological utility, which can satisfy consumers’ novelty needs (Cao & Wang 2018). If consumers repeatedly choose a product, their stimulation for the product becomes weaker and fails to satisfy their novelty needs. on the other hand, found that when consumers have strong novelty-seeking motivation, they will change their routine purchasing behaviors, such as choosing new and unfamiliar products or brands. Meanwhile, when their novelty-seeking motivation is weaker, they will continue to maintain routine buying behavior (Sahni & Gupta, 2019).” “Cognitive closure needs, as a motivational factor influencing individuals' ambiguous decision-making in uncertain situations, are composed of dimensions such as cognitive structuring, ambiguity aversion, decision decisiveness, expectation predictability, and psychological closure. Cognitive closure needs are both personality traits and context-dependent, and can be aroused by time pressure, psychological fatigue, environmental noise, and task attractiveness. Individuals with higher cognitive closure needs often follow the principles of decision immediacy and decision continuity, and have a strong tendency towards grasping and freezing. Cognitive closure needs affect individuals' attitudes towards ambiguity and information processing methods. Those with higher cognitive closure needs have lower ambiguity tolerance and are more prone to heuristic information processing; whereas consumers with lower cognitive closure needs have higher ambiguity tolerance and are more likely to engage in analytical information processing. Individuals with high cognitive closure needs rely more on conventions or stereotypes during information processing, less on information search, and are prone to forming larger decision biases; whereas those with low cognitive closure needs have higher ambiguity tolerance during information processing, rely more on information search, and therefore make more accurate decisions. These research conclusions have been widely tested in the fields of social judgment, team interaction, consumer behavior, negotiation, and politics.” 4. Methodology. The experimental designs are robust, but some aspects of the methodology, such as participant selection, priming techniques, and statistical assumptions, require further elaboration. Recommendation: Clearly explain the criteria for participant recruitment and how cultural factors might influence responses to luck perception. Justify the choice of priming methods and discuss potential biases. Revision note: Thank you very much for your questions and suggestions. We have made further improvements to address the deficiencies in this area. The specifics are as follows: Experiment 1�“The subjects are required to have independent consumption experience. The experiment used a single factor analysis method (type of priming: lucky vs. unlucky vs. control), and participants were randomly assigned to the lucky (63), unlucky (75), and control (127) groups.” Experiment 2�“We recruit participants using the credamo research platform (www.credamo.com), and require them to have independent consumption experience. one hundred and forty-four consumers participated in the experiment, with a mean age of 35.32 years (SD = 4.93); 56 were male, accounting for 38.89%. A single factor (type of priming: lucky vs. unlucky) experiment was used, and participants were randomly assigned to any group. There were 72 each in the lucky and unlucky groups.” Experiment 3�“The subjects are required to have independent consumption experience. a total of 224 customers participated in the experiment, with a mean age of 36.99 years (SD = 6.92); 67 or 29.91% were male. They were randomly assigned to the lucky group (114) and the unlucky group (110) and asked to participate in two ostensibly unrelated experiments. The first was a questionnaire on traits needed for cognitive closure, and the latter was a consumer choice experiment.” In addition, the methods for initiating luck perception all refer to mature methods�Jiang et al., 2009; Li, 2021; Zhao & Zhong, 2022), which have been applied in the literature. Therefore, I believe there is no need to further discuss the feasibility of these methods. Reference Jiang, Y., Cho, A., & Adaval, R. (2009). The unique consequences of feeling lucky: Implications for consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(2), 171-184. Li, H. (2021). Confidence charms: How superstition influences overconfidence bias in Han and the Qiang ethnic minority Chinese. The Journal of Psychology, 155(5), 473-488. Zhao, J., & Zhong, H. (2022). The licensing effect of luck: The influence of perceived luck on green consumption intention. Current Psychology, 42(15), 1-15. 5. Operationalization of Key Variables. Key variables like luck perception, novelty-seeking motivation, and need for cognitive closure are defined but require more detail on their measurement and validation. Recommendation: Provide detailed descriptions of scales used to measure these variables, including their reliability and validity. Explain how the experimental manipulations were verified. Revision note: Thank you very much for your questions and suggestions. According to existing research, researchers generally only report reliability, while reporting on validity is relatively rare. In this experiment, there is only one scale, so it is impossible to conduct a validity analysis. In addition, this experiment utilized mature priming methods, and the results have proven these methods to be feasible. We tested luck perception in three experiments and found that the experimental group had a higher perception of luck compared to the control group, indicating that the experimental priming was effective. 6. Results Interpretation. The results are well-presented, but their practical implications are underexplored. Recommendation: Discuss the real-world applications of these findings, such as how marketers can use luck perception to design campaigns that encourage variety-seeking. Provide specific examples of potential strategies. “Luck is increasingly being used by businesses as an actionable marketing element to influence consumer behavior. These firms want to influence consumers’ consumption decisions by improving their luck perception. Therefore, This paper’s findings have managerial implications for business managers or marketers. Firstly, the findings have implications for firms expanding their product lines and launching new brands. When enterprises launch new products or brands, enterprise managers or marketers can consider altering consumers' luck perception to influence their consumption decisions. For instance, they can incorporate lucky numbers or symbols on product packaging or during advertising campaigns. When promoting products or brands offline, they can utilize lucky projection techniques or lucky draws to stimulate consumers' luck perception, fostering a greater variety of demands and enhancing their preference for new products or brands, thereby achieving market promotion for new products and brands. Secondly, the research conclusions assist enterprises in implementing precise marketing. Enterprise managers or marketers can utilize big data technology, such as by simplifying the cognitive closure needs scale, to simply inquire about consumers' cognitive closure needs and identify their personality traits, thereby tracking and identifying consumers with high cognitive closure needs. When facing these consumers, enterprise managers or marketers can push luck-related information to them while they browse products, stimulating their sense of luck, increasing their variety-seeking behavior, and encouraging them to purchase more different products, thereby increasing the sales volume of the enterprise.” 7. Moderation and Mediation Effects. While the moderating and mediating effects are statistically significant, their broader implications are not fully discussed. Recommendation: Elaborate on how the need for cognitive closure influences the relationship between luck perception and variety-seeking. Discuss the implications of novelty-seeking motivation as a mediator in consumer decision-making. We discussed in detail how the need for cognitive closure affects the relationship between luck perception and variety-seeking, as well as the mediating role of novelty-seeking motivation in consumer decision-making. The mediating role of novelty-seeking motivation Research on luck suggests that consumers who feel lucky become more energetic and possess more preferences for unfamiliar or novel choices. For example, consumers who feel lucky are more likely to use online banking, rather than a physical bank, to deposit money (Jiang et al., 2009). In financial markets, consumers who feel lucky have a higher interest in sudden and unfamiliar market information; they are more willing to pay for random shock signals in the lottery market (Gao et al., 2021). It is evident that luck motivates consumers and develops their interest in and desire for novel and unknown things. Novelty seeking is the innate tendency of consumers to show pleasure or excitement for novel stimuli (Thomas-Walters, 2021). Based on the above analysis, we argue that consumers who feel lucky possess a strong motivation to pursue novelty. The motivation for novelty seeking is one of the important factors influencing individual behavior. It represents consumers' innate tendency to exhibit pleasure or excitement towards novel stimuli, and serves as one of the driving forces for consumers to actively pursue new experiences (Nguyen et al., 2020). This is manifested in two aspects: intrinsic novelty seeking is the individual's desire for novel and exciting stimuli; extrinsic novelty seeking is manifested in the individual's actual behavior to obtain new stimuli. Therefore, we believe that the mechanism of luck’s influence on variety-seeking emerges from consumer novelty-seeking motivation. This is because variety-seeking is an expression of consumers’ search for novelty and pursuit of maximizing psychological utility, which can satisfy consumers’ novelty needs (Cao & Wang 2018). If consumers repeatedly choose a product, their stimulation for the product becomes weaker and fails to satisfy their novelty needs. on the other hand, found that when consumers have strong novelty-seeking motivation, they will change their routine purchasing behaviors, such as choosing new and unfamiliar products or brands. Meanwhile, when their novelty-seeking motivation is weaker, they will continue to maintain routine buying behavior (Sahni & Gupta, 2019). In sum, luck perception can give consumers a power resource that enhances their novelty-seeking motivation, and variety-seeking can satisfy their novelty-seeking needs. Therefore, luck affects consumer variety-seeking, and novelty-seeking motivation is the mediating mechanism. Hypothesis 2: Novelty-seeking motivation mediates the influence of luck perception on consumer variety-seeking. Moderating Role of Need for Cognitive Closure Research has shown that relative to consumers with low need for cognitive closure, consumers with high need for cognitive closure are cognitively lazy, tend to adopt heuristic, simplified and top-dow Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Modification instructions.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0324896.r003
Decision Letter - Alessandro Pluchino, Editor The effects of luck perception on consumer variety-seeking PONE-D-24-49678R1 Dear Dr. Zhao, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Alessandro Pluchino Academic Editor PLOS ONE Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: I would like to express my sincere appreciation for the authors’ diligent efforts in revising the manuscript and thoroughly addressing each reviewer’s comment. The revised version demonstrates a significant improvement in both content and presentation. Notably, the authors have strengthened the theoretical framework by expanding the discussion on novelty-seeking motivation and the need for cognitive closure, thereby providing a more comprehensive understanding of the psychological mechanisms underlying consumer variety-seeking. The methodological clarifications including participant selection criteria, the justification of priming techniques, and elaboration on statistical procedures have greatly enhanced the transparency and reproducibility of the study. Moreover, the authors’ integration of practical implications, especially in the context of marketing strategies involving luck perception, reflects a meaningful contribution to both academic literature and industry practice. The responses to reviewers were detailed, respectful, and well-articulated, evidencing a high level of scholarly engagement. Overall, this revised manuscript is a testament to the authors’ commitment to research quality and their responsiveness to constructive feedback. I commend the team for their impressive improvements and scholarly rigour. ****** what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy Reviewer #1: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0324896.r004
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Alessandro Pluchino, Editor PONE-D-24-49678R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zhao, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Alessandro Pluchino Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0324896.r005

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .