1. In Table 7, you label H1 as BAP → PI (β=0.180), H2 as EI → PI (β=0.175), H3 as IMI → PI (β=0.133), and H4 as ISMC → PI (β=0.222). However, in the Discussion section, you state that H1 (social media content) has β=0.180, H2 (engagement) β=0.175, H3 (brand awareness) β=0.133, and H4 (influencer marketing) β=0.222. This is a complete misalignment of coefficients with hypotheses. How do you explain this internal inconsistency? Does this not indicate a fundamental error in either your results reporting or your interpretation of the model? Moreover, for H1 (BAP → PI), the standard beta equals the standard error (both 0.180). This is statistically improbable unless the estimate is exactly 1.0 after scaling, which is not the case. Is this a typo or a calculation error? If it is an error, how many other values in Table 7 are incorrect?
2. Your model explains only 21.1% of the variance in purchase intention, meaning nearly 79% remains unexplained. Yet your conclusion states that the four SMM dimensions have a “positive impact on young consumers’ purchase decisions” without acknowledging the model’s weak explanatory power. Why did you not discuss this severe limitation? How can you claim practical relevance when the vast majority of variance is attributed to factors outside your model?
3. You used purposive sampling and collected data from 412 respondents, of which 92.5% are unmarried and 57.8% are graduates. This is not representative of Bangladeshi youth aged 18–30, where marriage rates and educational attainment vary widely. Given this, how can you justify generalizing your findings to the broader population of “young customers in Bangladesh” as claimed in your abstract and conclusion?
4. You claim ELM as the underlying theory, yet none of your hypotheses or measurement items assess elaboration, central route vs. peripheral route processing, or message argument quality. Your model simply correlates SMM dimensions with purchase intention. How does this test or even apply ELM? Without measuring elaboration, your theoretical framework appears ornamental rather than functional.