1
SPARROW MANUSCRIPT REVIEW HISTORY
REVIEWS (ROUND 2)
Editor Decision Letter
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to the Journal of Consumer Research. The manuscript
has been read by the same team as before. This letter gives you my decision.
My decision is to conditionally accept the paper. I think the AE’s advice is good and should
serve as the guidance for the conditions to be met in preparing the next submission. What I shall
now say is, therefore, probably redundant with the AE report, but perhaps not entirely.
It starts with the observation of Reviewer C on the previous round that the paper “does not do a
great deal to advance our understanding of (anthropomorphism)” (I’m being selective here
because the reviewer actually says “either anthropomorphism or power” and I see this paper as
lying in a body of work on the former, with the latter as just a manipulation to document an
effect of anthropomorphism on risk perception.) The problem with the magnitude of the
contribution is that the paper is more compelling as an effects paper than, as the AE summarizes
well, as a paper with a well specified and unambiguously tested process that adds depth to the
understanding of anthropomorphism and how it works.
Now demonstrating the effect is enough to get it published, but not at the length of the current
version. So in the next round, I’d like to offer two choices. You can tighten the front end and
significantly attenuate the general discussion, shortening the paper by perhaps 6 pages of text.
My preference however is for the other option, which is to keep the present length but use it to
clarify the theory in the front of the paper and, in the general discussion, integrate this result with
the body of anthropomorphizing research to produce something of a state of the science report on
the topic.
Maybe the state of the science does not warrant a report yet, or maybe you want to take the easier
path. But I hope it is possible to use this paper to advance thinking about anthropomorphism at
least by conjecture in the general discussion.
If anything in the reports or this letter needs clarification, please let me know.
AE Report
Comments to the Authors:
This document is part of a JCR Manuscript Review History. It should be used for educational purposes only.
2
This was a nice paper in the first round and the review team and I are in agreement that your
revisions of it have made it even stronger. Reviewer C has not provided any written comments
to the authors. The review team raises just a few small issues that seem to merit some additional
attention, which I will summarize below.
1. Reviewer B and Reviewer C (in private communication) still aren’t completely convinced
about what exactly is your contribution. Reviewer B asks if your effects would hold for nonrisk-bearing entities as well. This is a valid question and without empirical data that includes
non-risk-bearing conditions, we can’t know for certain. It might have been nice to include
such conditions in your revised Study 2. Reviewer C might have been more convinced about
your overall contribution had you taken up his/her comment in the previous round to examine
different types of social power. In the end, both reviewers agree that your paper’s
contribution is above the bar for publication in JCR, so these are not critical issues.
However, I think it’s important for you to be aware of and thoughtful about these issues.
Perhaps Reviewer B’s (non-risk-bearing) and C’s (different types of social power) comments
could be addressed in your GD.
2. Reviewer B asks for additional information about the mediated moderation analyses
performed in studies 1 and 2. I think a few paragraphs outlining the model predicted by your
theory and then the specific models that you have run, before you describe your results,
would solve this problem. Right now I’m sure it seems obvious to you, but it requires a lot
of work for the reader to create the mental map of the various effects.
3. Reviewer B also asks for a little more information about the prize in study 3. This is a minor
point that can be easily addressed.
4. Your GD is still quite long. I agree with Reviewer A on this point. Although it’s not a huge
problem, it would be nice to see the GD shortened by a page or two. I realize that in the
point above I’m asking you to add to it at the same time that I am suggesting that you shorten
it. I think, however, that if you choose carefully about the most important points you want to
make in your GD, and shorten your review of your own findings, you can accomplish both
goals.
5. Last, Reviewer A notes two small typos.
Congratulations on such a successful revision!
Reviewer A
Comments to the Authors:
The authors have returned a very nice revision. Good job. The concerns I raised in the first
round have been addressed or allayed. First, the front-end now reads very nicely, with a better
treatment of the role of “control” and its interplay with the “power” construct. These additions
have improved the theoretical rigor of the paper. Whereas the previous manuscript was fuzzy
This document is part of a JCR Manuscript Review History. It should be used for educational purposes only.
3
regarding the distinction between control and power, the current paper more clearly delineates
these two constructs.
There were some empirical weaknesses in the initial submission, as well. In the revised
manuscript, the inclusion of direct measures of control in study 2 strengthens the empirical work
considerably.
A remaining concern: The general discussion is long—about 7 pages. It would be prudent to cut
this down some.
Minor Comment:
Typo (page 3, last paragraph):
“For example, perceived similarity between human behavior and the nonhuman movement of
object increases accessibility of human schema…” -- “object” should be plural
Reviewer B
Comments to the Authors:
Again, I very much enjoyed reading this paper. I believe the authors handled the most important
issues that came up in the previous round very well.
One issue that I’m still struggling with however is whether the authors’ contribution is really
limited to situations in which anthropomorphized entities bear risk, as they claim it is. It does not
seem unlikely that perceived control, caused by power, has an effect on other dependent
variables besides risk perception as well. What if you manipulated power and degree of
anthropomorphization of non-risk-bearing entities, such as a vacuum cleaner for instance?
Would you still find a power*anthropomorphization interaction on let’s say WTP for the vacuum
cleaner?
Other Minor Issues
Studies 1 & 2: Could the authors provide some additional information on the mediated
moderation analyses they performed?
Study 3: I wonder what the prize was that the participants received. Did participants know what
it was before they received it?
Reviewer C
Comments to the Authors:
This reviewer provided comments for the editor only.
This document is part of a JCR Manuscript Review History. It should be used for educational purposes only.