Food Quality and Preference 71 (2019) 270–278

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Quality and Preference

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodqual

Consumers wine preferences according to purchase occasion: Personal T

consumption and gift-giving
⁎
Fabio Boncinelli, Andrea Dominici , Francesca Gerini, Enrico Marone
Dipartimento di Gestione dei Sistemi Agrari, Alimentari e Forestali, University of Florence, Italy

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: We tested the hypothesis that individuals may act differently when buying a bottle of wine for themselves than
Inferred valuation they do when buying wine as a gift. Using a between-subject design, we estimated the differences in consumer
Gift giving preference for these two occasions. We conducted a choice experiment on 618 Italian wine consumers and
Latent class model included the attributes of price, geographical indication (i.e. IGT, DOC, or DOCG), organic claim, and brand (i.e.
Organic wine
famous producer or a non-famous producer). By applying an error component random parameters logit model,
we detected relevant differences between the two scenarios in terms of the relative importance of the studied
attributes. The gift-giving scenario was further investigated using a latent class model, which identified three
segments of consumers; we profiled these according to personal attitudes and wine knowledge. Our results show
a relevant heterogeneity among consumers’ preferences for the gift-giving scenario, with geographical indication
having a low impact and brand and organic claim playing a pivotal role. This study provides relevant insights for
winemakers and retailers regarding diversifying marketing strategies.

1. Introduction
People buy bottles of wine for daily use to drink with dinner at
home or for a special occasion, such as a dinner with friends or cele-
bration. The purchasing occasion is a relevant factor in determining
consumer wine preference. That is, the same consumer choosing from
the same wines can behave differently according to the occasion for
which they are choosing the wine (Aqueveque, 2006; Hall, Lockshin, &
Barry O’Mahony, 2001). Of the countless special occasions, the gift-
giving situation is a particularly satisfactory example to consider be-
cause wine is a very suitable product to offer as a present (Hatak &
Stoeckl, 2008). Focusing on this specific purchasing situation, an ex-
tensive body of literature related to other consumer goods has already
demonstrated that consumers behave differently in this situation when
compared with buying for personal consumption (Baumann & Hamin,
2014; Clarke & Belk, 1979; Gillison & Reynolds, 2016; Grønhaug, 1972;
Ryans, 1977).
When choosing a bottle of wine, consumers generally evaluate its
multiple attributes and product quality by considering intrinsic and
extrinsic attributes. According to some authors, quality was demon-
strated to mainly depend on intrinsic attributes (Charters & Pettigrew,
2007), namely, the physical–chemical aspects of the wine, such as
colour, alcohol content, and flavour, which are specific to each product
and cannot be altered without changing the product (Lockshin & Hall,
2003). Notably, there is often no opportunity to taste a wine before
buying it, that is, when evaluating a product, consumers cannot con-
sider its intrinsic sensory characteristics (Barber, Almanza, & Donovan,
2006). Thus, consumers choose a bottle of wine using any available
information they can gather when inspecting the bottle and the label,
namely, extrinsic attributes. Extrinsic attributes are often quality cues,
for example, brand, price, packaging, and geographical indication
(Sáenz-Navajas, Campo, Sutan, Ballester, & Valentin, 2013). Quality
cues can be the impetus for consumers’ wine choices (Hollebeek,
Jaeger, Brodie, & Balemi, 2007), especially when they want to reduce
the perceived risk of making a ‘wrong purchase choice’ (Dodds &
Monroe, 1985; Mitchell & Greatorex, 1989).
In their consideration of the relationship between consumption
occasion and wine attributes, Balestrini and Gamble (2006) highlighted
that consumers place greater importance on the country of origin of
wine when purchasing a bottle for a special occasion than they do when
purchasing for private consumption. Hall et al. (2001) stressed that
taste is important in all situations, whereas the price level and brand
acquire a particular weight for very special occasions. Building on this
evidence, we hypothesize that, when purchasing a bottle of wine as a
gift or for their own consumption, consumers’ preferences shift to place
value on different extrinsic qualitative attributes.

⁎
Corresponding author at: Dipartimento di Gestione dei Sistemi Agrari, Alimentari e Forestali, University of Florence, Piazzale delle Cascine, 18, 50144 Florence
Italy.
E-mail address: andrea.dominici@unifi.it (A. Dominici).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.07.013
Received 5 March 2018; Received in revised form 23 July 2018; Accepted 23 July 2018
Available online 27 July 2018
0950-3293/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F. Boncinelli et al.
The purpose of this study is to verify whether consumers behave
differently when choosing a bottle of wine for a gift-giving occasion or
for their own personal consumption. We also focus on the gift-giving
scenario to identify segments of consumers who can be characterized by
their heterogeneous preferences for wine attributes and personal atti-
tudes and inclinations. In particular, the objective of this study is to
assess whether consumers behave differently when purchasing a bottle
of wine in a gift-giving situation, rather than for their own consump-
tion, weighing up and considering the selected wine attributes differ-
ently for each circumstance. A secondary goal is to test whether, when
choosing a gift, consumers select a bottle of wine by evaluating its at-
tributes according to their attitudes and inclinations, that is, the brand
awareness–quality inference, relationship between product price and
quality, attitudes towards organic products, and altruism.
When consumers buy a product, their choice also depends on their
attitudes and inclinations. Therefore, these factors can influence gift-
giving behaviour. For example, some consumers link high product
quality with well-known brands (Aaker, 1991); this brand awar-
eness–quality inference may affect their purchasing decisions. Other
factors that may influence consumers’ choices are their attitude towards
the price–quality relationship of a product and their preference for the
product to be organic. Furthermore, when evaluating the purchase of a
product for a gift-giving occasion, individual altruism may influence a
consumer’s selection.
This study is based on a discrete choice experiment (DCE) that used
a bottle of red wine, with a sample of 618 Italian consumers. We ap-
plied an error component random parameters logit (EC-RPL) model to
account for heterogeneity in consumer preference, correlation across
parameters (i.e. the value consumers place on the attributes of each
product when choosing among products) and correlation across utilities
for both purchase situations. We also performed a latent class model
(LCM) for the gift-giving situation alone, to detect homogenous con-
sumer segments that can be defined by their preferences for wine at-
tributes. Finally, using wine knowledge and factor scores from a con-
firmatory factor analysis (CFA), we described these segments according
to their consumers’ attitudes.
The presentation of this study is organized as follows. After a lit-
erature review, the ‘Materials and methods’ section presents details
regarding the DCE, survey, and econometric model. In the ‘Results’
section, the outputs of the EC-RPL and LCM are described. In the final
section, we discuss the findings and present insights and suggestions for
the development of marketing strategies.
2. Literature review
2.1. Gift-giving behaviour
Since the anthropologic research conducted by Mauss (1954), the
scientific literature has investigated various aspects of gift-giving be-
haviour. Gift-giving is a multidimensional phenomenon, typified by
social, economic, and personal aspects, and dependent on the char-
acteristics of the giver, gift, recipient, and condition involved (Belk,
1979).
Sherry (1983) split the complex behavioural process of gift-giving
into three stages: the search for and purchase of the gift (gestation); the
exchange of the gift (i.e. presentation); and the gift disposition and
redefinition of the relationship between giver and recipient (i.e. re-
formulation). Our study focuses on the action of purchasing a gift, and
this occurs in the first phase of the classification.
The act of gift-giving carries four functions (Belk, 1979): commu-
nication, social exchange, economic exchange, and socialization. The
gift can represent a symbolic message in the communication between
the giver and recipient, expressing love, other emotions, thankfulness,
or apology. The giver must accurately choose the gift to avoid the risk
of a misunderstanding surrounding the message for the recipient
(Scammon, Shaw, & Bamossy, 1982). In terms of social exchange, a gift
271
Food Quality and Preference 71 (2019) 270–278
promotes the establishment, maintenance, and improvement of inter-
personal relations (Laroche, Saad, Cleveland, & Browne, 2000). For
example, a wedding gift represents a symbol of social support, and a
bottle of wine or a bouquet of flowers demonstrate appreciation for a
dinner invitation (Scammon et al., 1982). Considering the function of
economic exchange, the act of exchanging a gift is meant to confer
material benefits upon the recipient (Sherry, 1983). Although a gift is
often voluntarily given and there are no expectations of compensation
(Belk, 1979), it is imbued with an economic value, which is assessed by
its recipients. Moreover, the function of socialization, expressed by the
effect of gifts regarding self-concept and behavioural patterns of the
recipient, is clear to everyone.
All these gift-giving functions suggest consumers’ purchasing be-
haviour can differ based on the occasion. According to our review of the
literature, many scholars have analysed consumers when choosing a
product for personal use, compared with the purchase of the same
product as a present. Scammon et al. (1982) demonstrated that gift and
personal uses represent different purchasing situations. For gift pur-
chases, consumers consider a greater number of product alternatives,
study more marketing literature, and visit a great number of stores
(Grønhaug, 1972), especially stores with a quality image (Ryans, 1977).
Furthermore, people spend more time in selecting the same product as a
present than for personal use (Clarke & Belk, 1979). The gift-giving
purchase is an emotional act because the selection of a gift for someone
else can produce anxiety (Moreau, Bonney, & Herd, 2011) due to un-
familiarity with the recipient’s preferences and the desire to make a
good impression while fearing failure (Wooten, 2000). This type of task
involvement further underlines the dichotomy between gift selection
and personal use: a gift purchase represents a more emotionally in-
volving situation than buying for personal use (Belk, 1975; Clarke, &
Belk, 1979).
This situational involvement is particularly lofty when consumers
perceive risk in a specific situation (Laurent & Kapferer, 1985); given
that, in the gift-giving occasion, the social component of risk is per-
ceived to be much greater than in a purchase for personal use (Vincent
& Zikmund, 1976). To reduce this perceived risk, Shapiro (1970) de-
monstrated that consumers consider product quality the most important
attribute when buying something for themselves. Belk (1982) stressed
that high-involvement gift-giving situations relate to higher quality and
more expensive gifts. Moreover, in terms of high involvement, Belk
(1982) distinguished between birthday and wedding gifts by introdu-
cing the hypothesis that the gift-giving occasion is a heterogeneous si-
tuation where different factors play a role during the selection of the
present.
2.2. Gift-giving behaviour for wine
The literature has investigated wine choice behaviour regarding
personal consumption. These studies have specified the choice context
during the survey in a brief script at the beginning of the choice ex-
periment; for example, the context could be an informal dinner with
family and friends (e.g. Lockshin, Jarvis, d’Hauteville, & Perrouty,
2006), wine consumption with friends at home (e.g. Jarvis, Mueller, &
Chiong, 2010), or a generic special occasion (e.g. Mueller, Lockshin,
Saltman, & Blanford, 2010). That these studies all specified the context
implies that wine choice and the consumption situation are related.
Therefore, wine purchasing is context-specific, that is, investigating
how consumers behave in situations is relevant. Furthermore, of the
various situations that have been presented in the literature, gift-giving
has received less attention.
In the 19th century, the Austro–Hungarian Emperor Franz Josef I
would send 12 bottles of Tokaij Aszù, a Hungarian dessert wine, to
Britain’s Queen Victoria as a birthday present every year (Lambert-
Gócs, 2010). This anecdote demonstrates that wine, with its symbolic
and cultural dimensions, is a particularly suitable product as a gift on
special occasions and at celebrations.
F. Boncinelli et al.
In the act of transferring the present from donor to recipient, wine
has social and symbolic connotations. Notably, some consumers lack
confidence when purchasing wine for friends, because the friends could
have different tastes or a much greater level of wine knowledge com-
pared with the giver (Olsen, Thompson, & Clarke, 2003). To overcome
this stressful situation and reduce the risk, even when choosing a bottle
of wine, consumers focus on quality factors, especially extrinsic and
intrinsic attributes.
In an explorative piece of qualitative research, Hatak and Stoeckl
(2008) found that the preferred type of wine for gift-giving is red wine
of a popular local variety from a popular region of origin with a good
reputation and image, a natural cork, a ‘modern’ or ‘artistic’ label, and a
price of approximately €11. In terms of how the bottle is sealed, Barber,
Taylor, and Dodd (2009) emphasized the importance of a natural cork
for consumers when giving wine as a gift and on special occasions. This
preference is justified because the type of seal is considered a direct
indication of wine quality (Barber et al., 2006). A bottle of wine with a
natural cork is perceived to be of a higher quality than screw tops
(Barber & Almanza, 2007).
Yu, Sun, Goodman, Chen, and Ma (2009), in a study on consumers
in China, showed that price is a discerning cue and indicates consumers
pay higher prices for wine purchased as a gift. This result was also
highlighted by Cholette and Castaldi (2005), affirming that wines in-
tended as gifts are likely to be more expensive than bottles bought for
everyday consumption. Yu et al. (2009) added that origin is also an
influential factor in wine purchases, with French wine, in particular,
being the most preferred for special occasions and as gifts. However,
with their choice of French-produced wine, consumers are considering
more than that France is a country famous for producing premium
wines. Therefore, this country is also symbolic of a perceived positive
image that consumers strongly desire to evoke when gift-giving. Yang
and Paladino (2015), in their research on the purchasing of wine as a
gift in China, outlined important characteristics that have a positive
influence on consumers: the country of origin with an ethnocentric
preference and the gift packaging.
Only Carsana and Jolibert (2017), when comparing two purchasing
occasions (gift-giving and personal consumption), have evaluated the
importance that consumers place on wine cues for both occasions. They
stressed that in both purchasing situations, the AOC (Appellation d’Or-
igine Contrôlée) level was rated as the most important attribute when
choosing a wine. Furthermore, they stated that other relevant cues for
wine choice are, in order of importance, wine category, vintage and,
only when gift-giving, the commercial brand.
In summary, the literature has investigated consumers’ behaviour
when purchasing a bottle of wine as a gift by implementing methodo-
logical strategies, such as qualitative research (Hatak & Stoeckl, 2008),
best–worst scaling (Yu et al., 2009), and the theory of planned beha-
viour (Yang & Paladino, 2015), without comparing this situation with a
‘base’, namely, personal consumption. Carsana and Jolibert (2017)
evaluated the importance of wine attributes in both situations by de-
signing a questionnaire with multi-item Likert scales and elaborating
their findings by using the analysis of variance and a t test.
The DCE model has been only infrequently applied while in-
vestigating this research area. The choice experiment approach allows
for the reproduction of a real market purchase situation, where a con-
sumer must choose between product alternatives (Carlsson, 2011). The
DCE model is based on a long-standing, well-tested theory of choice
behaviour called random utility theory (Louviere, Flynn, & Carson,
2010). Moreover, in the aforementioned literature on wine as a gift,
nobody has previously considered the organic nature of the wine, an
increasingly important aspect for consumers when choosing wine
(Wiedmann, Hennigs, Henrik Behrens, & Klarmann, 2014).
272
Food Quality and Preference 71 (2019) 270–278
Table 1
Attributes and levels in the discrete choice experiment.
Attributes Level no. Information levels
Price 4 €5, €8, €11, €14
Geographical indication 4 IGT, DOC, DOCG, none
Organic claim 2 Organic, none
Brand 2 Famous producer, non-famous producer
3. Materials and methods
3.1. Choice model
We applied a DCE model to test the importance consumers place on
several attributes for two purchasing situations. The use of the DCE
technique has been common in consumer studies about food in general
(see among others Boncinelli, Contini, Romano, Scozzafava, & Casini,
2017; Contini, Casini, et al., 2015; Gerini, Alfnes, & Schjøll, 2016), and
the preferences of wine consumers (the most recent include Corsi,
Mueller, Lockshin, 2012; Costanigro, Scozzafava, & Casini, 2017;
Lockshin et al., 2006; Williamson, Lockshin, Francis, & Loose, 2016).
The selection of attributes was based on a review of the most cited
literature on wine consumer preferences and features related to the gift-
giving occasion. The attributes and their corresponding levels selected
for this choice experiment are shown to respondents by using verbal
labelling elements (Table 1).
Geographical indication (GI) and price are two of the most im-
portant qualitative attributes for consumers when they choose a bottle
of wine (Mtimet & Albisu, 2006; Remaud, Mueller, Chvyl, & Lockshin,
2008). The levels of GI selected in terms of choice are those regulated
by the Italian classification system of GI wine (Italian Law 238/2016),
in accordance with European Union regulations (Council Regulation
(EC) No. 479/2008). The GI wine classification consists of DOCG (De-
nominazione di Origine Controllata e Garantita), DOC (Denominazione di
Origine Controllata) and IGT (Indicazione Geografica Tipica). The first two
appellations are related to a quality discipline, with DOCG wines sub-
ject to stricter regulations than DOC and IGT wines. The wines not
produced in line with the aforementioned qualitative distinctions do
not belong to GI appellations and commonly called ‘table wines’.
Price is a pivotal attribute when selecting wine (Contini, Romano,
Scozzafava, Boncinelli, & Casini, 2015), particularly when intrinsic cues
are unavailable before the purchase (Mitchell & Greatorex, 1989). The
four levels of price (€5, €8, €11, €14) selected for this study cover the
segments of the premium (€5-€8) and super premium (€8-€14) wine
price range (Castriota, 2015).
Finally, the brand represents another extrinsic attribute consumers
use to assess wine quality. The strength of the brand name is an im-
portant feature when choosing a product as a gift (Laroche et al., 2000).
There are many wine brands on the market, often belonging to small
and family producers. Notably, although a brand is clearly recognizable
in relation to other product typologies, the concept of brand in wine
generates a degree confusion among consumers (Viot & Passebois-
Ducros, 2010). Some consumers consider brand to refer to the region of
origin, grape variety, or denomination of origin presented on the label,
all of which represent different attributes.
To avoid this multifaceted view of wine brand (Spawton, 1990), the
choice set shown to respondents used the term ‘producer’ instead of
‘brand’. We conclude this solution is rationale because the term ‘pro-
ducer’ is one brand element that constitutes ‘brand hierarchy’ for wine
(Keller, 2013). In the choice experiment, as levels of this attribute, we
did not select specific names of brands available on the market but
opted for a dichotomous variable (famous vs. non-famous) grounded in
the fame of brand. A famous brand, as a symbol of perceived high
quality, may encourage consumers to purchase a bottle of red wine.
This phenomenon may be particularly true when a bottle of wine is a
F. Boncinelli et al.
present, because well-known brands feature in the main risk reduction
strategy used by consumers (Rubio, Oubiña, & Villaseñor, 2014).
Consumers are willing to pay a price premium for a sustainable wine
(Sellers-Rubio & Nicolau-Gonzalbez, 2016) and consider the organic
claim as a positive signal of overall quality (Larceneux, Benoit-Moreau,
& Renaudin, 2012), with a proportion of them declaring they are much
more willing to pay for an organic wine than a conventional one, as
evidenced by the review of Lockshin and Corsi (2012). In this regard,
Wiedmann et al. (2014) asserted that the image of organic products has
a strong effect on consumer attitudes and product perception. This ef-
fect may be due to the messages regarding environmental friendliness,
health, safety, and quality that an organic label transmits to consumers.
Using the DCREATE, a STATA 14.2 software module, we created an
efficient experimental design. Starting with 64 alternatives, that is, all
combinations of levels and attributes, we obtained a design with six
choice sets with two alternatives each, plus a ‘none of them’ option (D-
efficiency = 0.69). We performed our experiment without blocking.
During the choice exercise, we asked consumers to choose one
bottle of red wine (0.75 L) from two alternatives, which differed ac-
cording to the level of attributes, and a ‘no choice’ option. Louviere,
Hensher, and Swait (2000) recommended inserting a ‘no choice’ option
to make the purchase scenario more real.
We performed a between-groups experiment, from which we ob-
tained two subsamples according to the two purchasing scenarios: one
group of respondents selected a bottle of red wine as a gift for someone
else, and the second group chose a bottle of red wine for their personal
consumption. The respondents were randomly assigned to one of these
two scenarios.
To mitigate hypothetical bias and social desirability behaviour, we
invited the respondents to predict what choice an average consumer
would have made, instead of directly asking them what choice they
would make. This technique, which Fisher (1993) referred to as ‘in-
direct questioning’, was developed by Lusk and Norwood (2009) as the
‘inferred valuation method’. These authors demonstrated that during
consumer preference surveys, respondents have a propensity to mis-
represent their true preferences, to show themselves in the best possible
light to the researchers. This tendency to choose responses believed to
be more socially desirable or acceptable, rather than choosing to ac-
curately reflect their thoughts or feelings, is referred to as social de-
sirability bias (Grimm, 2010). The inferred valuation method is, thus, a
technique to mitigate this bias.
3.2. Survey and questionnaire
In October 2017, an online questionnaire was administered to 618
Italian wine consumers randomly distributed according to two sce-
narios: 300 respondents to the gift-giving scenario and 318 to the
personal consumption scenario. The online survey was proven superior
to traditional offline (i.e. paper and pencil) methods (Sethuraman,
Kerin, & Cron, 2005), because it increased the speed and cost-effec-
tiveness of data collection (McCullough, 1998). All respondents were
over 18 years of age and had bought at least one bottle of wine in the
previous 12 months.
Following the choice experiment, consumers’ habits were in-
vestigated by using a short questionnaire. The information was related
to the number of bottles they had purchased in the previous six months
and, in the case of an affirmative answer, how many of these were in-
tended as gifts. Subjective wine knowledge was measured through a
self-assessment with a 10-point Likert scale, ranging from non-ex-
pert = 1 to very expert = 10.
We measured the individual characteristic of ‘altruism’, ‘brand
awareness–quality inference’, ‘inclination toward organic product’, and
‘price/quality product relation’ using 7-point Likert agreement scales
ranging from completely disagree = 1 to completely agree = 7. More
specifically, we used a three-item scale suggested by Lusk, Nilsson and
Foster (2007) for calculating altruism. To investigate brand
273
Food Quality and Preference 71 (2019) 270–278
Table 2
Items describing personal attitudes for the gift-giving occasion.
Variables Median IQR
Altruism (Lusk et al., 2007)
1) I am willing to make sacrifices for the good of those around me 6 2
2) I enjoy contributing to charities and other non-profit 4 3
organizations
3) Paying taxes is important because they fund programmes, such 6 2
as schools and roads, from which everyone benefits
Price/quality relation (Grunert et al., 2001)
4) I always try to get the best quality at the best price 6 1
5) I compare prices between products variants in order to get the 6 2
best value for money
6) It is important for me to know that I get quality for all my 6 1
money
Organic (Grunert et al., 2001)
7) I always buy organically grown food products if I have the 4 3
opportunity
8) I make a point of using natural or organic products 5 3
9) I do not mind paying a premium for organic products 4 2
Brand awareness–quality inference (Rubio et al., 2014)
10) When the product is not from a recognized brand, it is of 2 2
lower quality
11) The ‘more famous’ the brand name, the better the quality the 2 2
product that carries that name
12) Brand name is a determining issue when purchasing a 4 3
product
13) The more a product is advertised, the better its quality 2 2
14) I feel secure purchasing a brand whose advertising I have 2 3
seen via some communications medium
Note: IQR = Interquartile range
awareness–quality inference, we applied a 5-item scale recommended
by Rubio et al. (2014). To measure inclination towards organic pro-
ducts and the relationship between price and quality, we adopted two
scales of three items each, as proposed by Grunert, Brunsø, Bredahl and
Bech (2001) (Table 2).
The last section of the questionnaire concerned sociodemographic
information, occupation, and household income; the latter variable was
measured by asking the respondent, considering all available incomes,
how well their family’s needs were met at the end of the month.
3.3. Econometric specification
We estimated two utility functions for both scenarios with NLOGIT
5.0 software using the EC-RPL specification, involving 1000 Halton
draws with freely correlated random parameters. The RPL is a gen-
eralization of the logit model characterized by coefficients of observed
variables, which differ randomly over people rather than being fixed
(Train, 1998). In particular, the EC-RPL model (Scarpa, Ferrini, &
Willis, 2005; Van Loo, Caputo, Nayga, & Verbeke, 2014) accounts for
the correlation across utilities from different alternatives. Our DCE
design comprises choice sets incorporating three options: two involving
a purchase and one ‘no choice’ option. The experimentally designed
alternatives are hypothetical and change across the choice tasks, and
the ‘no choice’ option is experienced by respondents and repeats in all
choice sets. As Scarpa et al. (2005) demonstrated that the two pur-
chasing alternatives have utilities more correlated between themselves
than with the utility of the ‘no choice’ option. In the utility structure,
these two alternatives share error components, which are zero-mean
random and normally distributed (Hensher, Rose, & Greene, 2005). We
specified our model according to McFadden’s random utility theory
(1973). The i-th consumer’s utility when choosing a product, in our
case, a bottle of wine j, at choice occasion t, is dependent on the product
attributes:
F. Boncinelli et al. Food Quality and Preference 71 (2019) 270–278

Uijt = NOCHOICE + β1 PRICEijt + β2 IGTijt + β3 DOCijt+ Table 3

+β4 DOCGijt + β5 ORGANICijt + β6 BRANDijt + ηij + εijt Sociodemographic statistics.
(1)
Categories Pooled sample Gift-giving Personal consumption
where NOCHOICE is the alternative-specific constant, coded as a
dummy variable equal to 1 for the ‘no choice’ option, and 0 otherwise. Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %
The βs are the parameters associated with each attribute. The price
Gender
variable (PRICE) is a continuous variable measured in euros. The IGT,
Male 275 44.5 117 39.0 158 49.7
DOC, and DOCG variables refer to the IGT, DOC, and DOCG GIs, re- Female 343 55.5 183 61.0 160 50.3
spectively. ORGANIC and BRAND are coded as dummy variables be-
Age (years)
cause they indicate whether the corresponding claims being analysed 18–34 330 53.4 170 56.6 160 50.3
are present or absent in the model. ηij is the zero-mean normal error 35–54 184 29.8 80 26.7 104 32.7
component, which is only associated with the purchase alternatives and > 54 104 16.8 50 16.7 54 17.0
induces correlations between themselves but not with the ‘no choice’ Education level
alternative (Scarpa, Campbell, & Hutchinson, 2007). Finally, εijt is the Primary school 1 0.2 0 0.0 1 0.3
error term assumed to be independently distributed with an extreme Middle school 23 3.7 7 2.3 16 5.1
High school 276 44.7 143 47.7 133 41.8
value distribution.
Tertiary 318 51.4 150 50.0 168 52.8
We estimated the RPL-EC assuming a correlation between random education
parameters (Hensher et al., 2005) as the three GIs considered in the
Occupation status
model could be interconnected. Moreover, GI preference could be Employee 400 64.7 197 65.6 203 63.8
correlated with organic production. These assumptions are supported Student 138 22.3 69 23.0 69 21.7
by Scarpa and Del Giudice, (2004) who stressed that the attributes’ Retired worker 37 6.0 18 6.0 19 6.0
correlation can be evident, particularly for products where there is a Unemployed 27 4.4 14 4.7 13 4.1
Homemaker 16 2.6 2 0.7 14 4.4
strong correlation between site and mode of production, such as olive
oil, cheese, and wine. Income
With high 15 2.4 6 2.0 9 2.8
In addition, for the gift-giving scenario, an LCM was estimated to
difficulty
investigate heterogeneity among respondents by classifying them into With difficulty 29 4.7 17 5.7 12 3.8
classes with similar preferences (Greene & Hensher, 2003). The speci- With few 183 29.6 91 30.3 92 28.9
fication of the LCM is the same as Eq. (1), excluding the ηij, that is, the difficulties
With few facilities 227 36.7 117 39.0 110 34.6
zero-mean normal error component. We have focused on this scenario
With facility 132 21.4 57 19.0 75 23.6
because exploring consumers’ choices for the gift-giving occasion was With high facility 32 5.2 12 4.0 20 6.3
the main objective of this work. Total 618 100 300 100 318 100
Finally, with the aim of exploring respondents’ attitudes, we per- Wine knowledge 5.1a 4.8a 5.3a
formed a CFA using the items of four latent unobserved variables re-
lated to brand, organic, price, and altruism regarding consumers’ atti- Note: a = average score.
tudes and inclinations. Next, we estimated the factor scores for each
latent construct to evaluate the importance of these consumers’ char- literature regarding the impact of a consumer’s gender, making it a
acteristics to the classes identified by means of the LCM (Bollen, 1989). disputed topic. For instance, Morey, Sparks, and Wilkins (2002) re-
Several examples in the literature have calculated factor scores for at- ported that for Australian consumers, gender does not affect consumers’
titudinal statements by applying principal component analysis (PCA) behaviour when selecting a bottle of wine; additionally, Atkin, Nowak,
(e.g. Bechtold & Abdulai, 2014). However, this method shows a better and Garcia (2007) stressed that women rely on medals and awards,
fit when an a priori specification of the number of dimensions is not compared with men. Forbes (2012) focused exclusively on the influence
established. Moreover, with CFA, the items are restricted to rely on the of gender on wine purchasing and consumption by performing an in-
factors established by the experiment (Kline, 2016). store survey in four countries (New Zealand, Australia, the United
Kingdom, and the United States). She statistically demonstrated that
women and men ascribed the same importance to wine attributes, in-
4. Results
cluding characteristics such as price and brand, which we have also
considered in our study. Her results demonstrated that the only attri-
4.1. EC-RPL model results: comparison of the scenarios
butes that had no significant effect were ‘discounted price’ and ‘region
of origin’; this latter characteristic is close to GI but not directly con-
First, we performed tests to investigate whether there were differ-
sidered in this study.
ences between the two scenario groups according to their socio-
The correlations between parameters were inspected with a log-
demographic characteristics (Table 3). All the tests for factors, such as
likelihood ratio (LR) test for both scenarios. The results (LR = 28.6 for
age (t test: t = −0.83; Pr = 0.41), education level (chi-squared test:
the gift-giving scenario and LR = 24.4 for the personal consumption
χ2 = 6.88; Pr = 0.14; df = 4), occupation (chi-squared test: χ2 = 8.64;
scenario, with df = 13) indicate that the correlation between para-
Pr = 0.07; df = 4), household income (chi-squared test: χ2 = 5.62;
meters is significant. Table 4 presents the results concerning the esti-
Pr = 0.35; df = 5), and degree of knowledge regarding the wine sector
mated utility functions for both occasions. The two models related to
(median test: Pearson χ2 = 3.20; Pr = 0.07) rejected the null hypoth-
the two scenarios differ regarding the magnitude and statistical sig-
esis. Therefore, the random assignment of the respondents into one of
nificance of the parameters, indicating that the purchasing occasion has
the two scenarios created two homogenous sets according to these
great influence on consumers’ wine choice, with the selected attributes
variables. Gender is the only sample characteristic that did not corre-
playing a different role, according to the purchasing scenario.
spond to this prerogative (chi-squared test: χ2 = 7.14; Pr = 0.008;
The ‘no choice’ option is negative and significant for both situations,
df = 1). Notably, we can reasonably assume that this observation about
indicating that consumers gain a higher utility when purchasing a
gender has very little effect on our results. We formulated this hy-
bottle instead of not buying one. Moreover, the price variable is sta-
pothesis based mainly on the relevant literature.
tistically significant and always negative, in accordance with economic
Regarding wine choice, gender has a limited impact on the featured
theory. The price coefficients differ in the two situations: −0.13 for the
behaviour compared with other sociodemographic features (Sharp,
purchase scenario and −0.30 for the personal consumption scenario.
2010). Atkin and Newton (2012) noted conflicting results in the

274
F. Boncinelli et al. Food Quality and Preference 71 (2019) 270–278

Table 4 members of different classes. For profiling consumer segments that

Parameters estimated from EC-RPL for both scenarios. participated in the experiment regarding gift-giving situations, we
Gift-giving Personal consumption analysed the four attitudinal statements towards organic, brand awar-
eness–quality inference, price/quality relation, and altruism by ap-
Coefficients Standard Coefficients Standard plying a CFA (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2014; Kline,
error error 2016) with STATA 15.1 software. Beforehand, a Mardia test for mul-
Random parameters in utility functions tivariate normality was performed to verify the normal distribution of
ORGANIC 1.50*** 0.31 0.31 0.25 the items. The results showed a p value equal to 0.000, indicating the
BRAND 1.98*** 0.30 1.06*** 0.17 rejection of the normality assumption. In the CFA, the multivariate non-
IGT −0.68 0.55 0.57 0.37 normality was corrected by performing a maximum likelihood with a
DOC −0.23 0.56 1.41*** 0.45
Satorra-Bentler rescaled χ2 correction.
DOCG −0.43 0.59 1.36** 0.54
The goodness of fit of the constructs provided mediocre values
Non-random parameters in utility functions
(χ2 = 2899.54; DF = 71; CFI = 0.885; RMSEA = 0.086). We verified
PRICE −0.13*** 0.04 −0.30*** 0.05
NO-CHOICE −3.36*** 0.61 −4.70*** 0.64 the presence of the convergent validity of the items by identifying the
Standard deviation of 2.24*** 0.33 2.45*** 0.38 specific constructs (Hair et al., 2014). The average variance extracted
error component (AVE) is a computation to validate scales’ convergent validity and in-
Standard deviations of parameter distributions ternal stability, which should be greater than 0.5 (Hair et al., 2014).
ORGANIC 1.23*** 0.27 1.45*** 0.25 The AVE values showed a validity for the constructs ‘organic’
BRAND 1.36*** 0.34 0.76*** 0.24 (AVE = 0.708) and ‘brand awareness–quality inference’
IGT 0.64 0.43 0.70 0.47
(AVE = 0.569). Meanwhile, the other two constructs assumed an AVE
DOC 0.62 0.43 1.56** 0.61
DOCG 1.49** 0.59 1.59** 0.66 value below the recommended threshold of 0.5. If a construct fails to
χ2 1704.26*** 1510.68*** show an internal consistency reliability, this implies that the used items
Number of observations 1800 1908 for its estimation are too heterogeneous (Kline, 2016); thus, these two
2
Pseudo R 0.43 0.36
attitudinal variables were excluded from the analysis1.
Log-likelihood −1125.37 −1340.81
To identify the optimal number of latent classes, we analysed the
Note: (***) and (**) denote statistical significance respectively at 1% and 5%. Akaike information criterion (AIC) and Bayesian information criterion
(BIC). The model that better fits the choice of class number is the one
For both scenarios, the standard deviation of the error component for with the lowest AIC and BIC values (Scarpa, Thiene, & Tempesta, 2007).
the purchase alternative is positive and statistically significant, con- The solution with three classes was the best fit in our research, because
firming the presence of a correlation among the alternatives in the it had minimum BIC statistical value (Table 5). In particular, BIC de-
choice sets. creases passing from two to three classes before increasing when ad-
In the gift-giving scenario, famous brand (1.98) and organic (1.50) ditional segments beyond three are added. Furthermore, the change in
are, respectively, the only two significant factors, and the GI parameters AIC is smaller when considering three and four classes, as opposed to
are not statistically significant. The attribute ‘famous brand’ is also two and three classes.
significant in the personal consumption model (1.06). Moreover, in this The results of the LCM with three classes for the gift-giving scenario
scenario, the organic label is not a statistically significant variable. As are presented in Table 6. A preliminary analysis of the parameters
stated, none of the GI attributes increases consumers’ utility in the gift- across the three classes shows that two attributes, organic claim and
giving scenario. In the personal consumption, DOC (1.41) and DOCG brand, have significant and positive parameters for Class 1 and Class 2,
(1.36) are, respectively, positive and statistically significant. The IGT but with different values. Similar to the EC-RPL findings, GIs are non-
indication does not increase consumer utility in either situation. significant for all three segments. In particular, consumers who first
The significant coefficients of the standard deviations for some gain utility from the famous brand of a wine characterize the first class
random attributes suggest that preferences varied across the population and includes the majority of the sample (52%), namely, the ‘brand
for all parameters (Train, 1998). In particular, the standard deviations follower’.
of organic, brand, and DOCG certification (except IGT in both scenarios Respondents in this class have significant parameters for organic
and DOC in the gift-giving scenario) are statistically different from zero claim and price, which has a negative value. This class is notable as the
and suggest that consumers showed a significant heterogeneity in pre- only group with a significant parameter estimate for ‘no choice’, sug-
ferences related to these attributes. gesting that ‘brand follower’ consumers obtain great utility when
choosing a bottle of red wine. Class 2 shows significant parameter es-
timates for organic claim and brand. These consumers obtain the
4.2. Profiling of consumers and the latent class model highest utility from the organic claim when choosing a bottle of red
wine for gift-giving purposes, followed by the name of the famous
The preference heterogeneity detected by the EC-RPL results was brand. Members of this class, which represent 38% of the sample, are
further investigated in the gift-giving scenario by applying an LCM, called ‘organic supporter’. The last consumer group represents 10% of
with the aim of detecting significant preference differences among respondents and shows unusual behaviour because all attributes are not
statistically significant and all factors present negative scores.
Table 5 For the three classes individuated with an LCM, we calculated the
Statistics for determining the optimal number of consumer segments for the average value of self-reported wine knowledge for each class. The re-
gift-giving scenario. sults show a value of 4.64 for Class 1, and this average value is the
Model LL AIC (LL) BIC (LL) Npar among the three classes. The Class 3 consumers declared the highest

Two-class model −1188.1 2406.2 2488.7 15

Three-class model −1134.4 2314.8 2441.2 23
1
Four-class model −1121.0 2303.3 2474.3 31 We also performed a principal component analysis (PCA). The value of
Cronbach’s alpha, factor loadings, and the value of KMO led to the same con-
Note: LL = log-likelihood; AIC (LL) = Akaike information criterion and BIC clusions as those of the CFA, that is, brand and organic were the only reliable
(LL) = Bayesian information criterion, both based on LL; Npar = number of attitudinal constructs. The PCA results can be supplied on request to the cor-
estimated parameters. responding author.

275
F. Boncinelli et al. Food Quality and Preference 71 (2019) 270–278

Table 6 factor and a slightly positive correlation with the brand factor, vali-
Latent class model parameter estimations for the gift-giving scenario. dating the LCM results, where all attributes are not significant, thus
Attributes Coefficients confirming their unyielding behaviour. In summary, the LCM post-esti-
mation of class membership of the sample significantly replicated the
Brand follower Organic supporter Unyielding attitudes of the classes.
Class 1 Class 2 Class 3
5. Discussion and conclusions
ORGANIC 0.82*** 2.09*** 0.36
BRAND 2.14*** 1.43** 0.20 Our results have indicated that consumers behave differently when
IGT −0.75 −1.13 0.50 purchasing a bottle of red wine according to distinct situations.
DOC −0.41 −0.97 0.93
DOCG −1.07 0.43 1.12
Therefore, the selection of a bottle of red wine is occasion-specific, a
PRICE −0.21** 0.08 0.05 finding in line with the results of the literature on wine choice
NO-CHOICE −3.64*** −1.27 0.83 (Aqueveque, 2006; Carsana & Jolibert, 2017; Hall et al., 2001).
Class size 52% 38% 10% When a bottle of red wine is intended as a gift, attributes such as
famous brand, organic certification, and price are important to gift
Note: R2 = 0.4263; LL = −1,134.4063; BIC (LL) = 2441.21; ** and *** denote
seekers. That is, with all other factors being constant, the respondents
significance at the 5% and 1% level, respectively.
elicited different preferences according to the circumstance.
The magnitude of the price coefficients is different between the two
average value of self-reported wine knowledge (5.23 as opposed to 4.64
scenarios and in line with Yu et al. (2009) and Cholette and Castaldi
and 4.98 for Classes 1 and 2, respectively).
(2005) findings. In the gift-giving situation, the magnitude is lower
The evidence that consumers belonging to Class 3 have the highest
than in the personal consumption hypothesis, indicating wine demand
average level of wine knowledge may help to explain their behaviour.
is less reactive to price changes. In the baseline scenario, the WTP es-
However, after performing a χ2 test, we detected that the level of wine
timates are observed to be reasonable, and those for the gift scenario
knowledge among the classes is not statistically different. Therefore,
particularly overestimated. This evidence suggests that applying the
this factor can only partially explain the behaviour of the consumer
inferred valuation for mitigating the hypothetical bias worked well for
segment represented by Class 3. We conclude that their choices are not
one scenario, but this did not avoid hypothetical bias in the situation
motivated by the extrinsic attributes presented in the DCE but by other
where the bottle of wine is purchased for a gift. Notably, the source of
factors not included in our analysis.
this inflation could be due to the situation. In the gift-giving context,
Using the membership probabilities estimated with the LCM, we
the donor’s orientation swings between altruistic motivations (i.e.
calculated the factor scores of the three classes identified by means of
maximizing the pleasure of the recipient) and agonistic motivations (i.e.
this model for the two valid scales individuated by CFA (Bollen, 1989),
maximizing the pleasure of the donor) (Sherry, 1983). Whatever the
organic and brand awareness–quality inference. The mean factor scores
consumer’s orientation, this maximization may be translated into the
of each class are displayed in Fig. 1. Due to the limited set of dimen-
personal tendency to leave a generous impression of oneself, and pre-
sions, the results from CFA do not facilitate the analysis of preference
sents oneself in the best possible light. This phenomenon of social de-
heterogeneity for red wine in a gift-giving situation. Instead, these re-
sirability bias may lead to misleading results and then to an over-
sults can be used only to validate the results from the LCM.
estimation of the WTP. Notably, our results provide more evidence on
An extracted factor is identified by all items pertinent to the scale
consumer behaviour than the estimation of WTPs for certain attributes.
for measuring consumers’ attitudes towards organic products. This is
The crucial impact of brand in the gift-giving scenario, which was
the only factor positively correlated with membership of Class 2.
also demonstrated by Carsana and Jolibert (2017), may be interpreted
Members of the organic supporter class, as the name indicates, have a
in two ways. In a gift-giving situation, consumers are highly psycho-
particular attitude towards the purchase of organic wine. For the other
logically involved, which produces degrees of anxiety and stress. From
two classes, this factor is negatively correlated. Furthermore, Class 2
this perspective, the giver wants to make the correct choice and reduce
shows a negative correlation with brand awareness–quality inference.
the risk of a ‘wrong’ purchase by choosing a famous, branded wine. An
Conversely, membership in Class 1 (brand follower) presents a negative
additional explanation behind the preference for wines from well-
correlation with the organic factor and a positive correlation with the
known producers is the value of the gift. Consumers are observed to
brand awareness–quality factor, which only assumes a positive value in
benefit from communicating the economic value of the gift to the re-
this class. Finally, Class 3 shows a negative correlation with the organic
ceiver because this states their importance to the giver. In this sense, the
giver wants to ensure the recipient understands the value of the gift,
regardless of the recipient’s knowledge of wine. For consumers, a well-
known brand is an easily recognizable objective cue when measuring
the value of a product. The literature on consumer preferences for wine
has not focused on this attribute. Therefore, producers must increase
their focus on the development of their brand and implement marketing
strategies to increase brand awareness, including ‘image’. A famous
brand, especially for consumers who are not experts in the wine sector,
is a signal that reduces the information gap in terms of product quality.
Branding contributes to brand awareness and helps consumers choose
wine for occasions such as gift-giving with associated risks.
The certification of an organic wine plays a similar role to that of
brand when consumers are in a gift-giving scenario, because they may
interpret an organic label as a mark of quality. That is, an organic wine
can offer greater value in terms of product quality (Bernabéu,
Brugarolas, Martínez-Carrasco, & Díaz, 2008) because this certification
is indicative of positive health effects (Mann, Ferjani, & Reissig, 2012),
environmental benefits (Mueller Loose & Remaud, 2013), and great
Fig. 1. Factor scores of the three classes for the gift-giving occasion. flavour (Kim & Bonn, 2015). Conversely, when a consumer buys a

276
F. Boncinelli et al.
bottle of red wine for personal consumption, whether the wine is or-
ganic is insignificant. Therefore, the purchasing circumstance influ-
ences whether an organic certification is defined as a vertical differ-
entiation attribute.
One attribute concerns the denominations of origin (i.e., DOC and
DOCG), which in the personal consumption scenario are the most re-
levant attributes (in terms of parameter magnitude). In the gift-giving
scenario, these attributes do not affect consumers’ wine choice. This
result differs from the conclusions reported in Carsana and Jolibert
(2017), which indicated that denominations of origin are distinctive
cues in the selection of wine as a present. The lesser importance as-
cribed to denominations of origin could be related to the recent pro-
liferation in the number of GIs in the Italian wine market. This rapid
spread may have reduced the differential values of GI-labelled wines.
The presence of too many GI-labelled wines does not help consumers in
their search process and decreases the average marginal utility of wines
with GIs. This designation policy, with different GIs often within the
same production area, may have created a ‘GI inflation’ situation in
wine market, consequently reducing consumers’ awareness of GIs
(Adinolfi, De Rosa, & Trabalzi, 2011).
Notably, in the design of this choice experiment, we provided
generic information regarding the presence of the GI attribute without
including the name and origin of the wine. In other words, the attribute
presented in the choice set was, for instance, only ‘DOCG’ wine and not
‘DOCG Chianti Classico’. The interaction between GI and a specific GI
name is likely to still affect consumer choice, because specified GIs are
much appreciated and enjoy a great reputation among consumers. This
aspect should be investigated in further research by testing the inter-
action between appellations and specific territories with different
quality reputations.
Further insights were provided by the LCM and CFA to improve the
investigation of the preference heterogeneity in the gift-giving scenario.
A large segment (52% of the sample) chose a bottle of red wine by
primarily looking for a famous brand. These consumers considered a
brand’s fame as a signal of quality when making purchases.
Additionally, 38% of respondents were characterized by a strong pre-
ference for organic wine. These results are validated by the higher
average of scores for the brand awareness–quality inference scale in this
segment.
In summary, this study demonstrated, as we hypothesized, that
circumstance is a relevant factor when determining the importance of
the investigated wine characteristics. The wine-as-gift market was ob-
served to be highly relevant. Information on the percentage of wine sold
as a gift in Italy is not available in the literature, but the trend can be
inferred because 72.5% of our respondents reported they bought a
bottle of wine for a gift in the last six months. In this sense, wine re-
tailers could set up a concession inside their stores specifically for gift-
giving purchases to help consumers with the decision and increase wine
sales.
Future studies could analyse types of personal consumption and gift-
giving situations, as well as consider the relationship between the giver
and recipient. A gift for a close friend could differ from a bottle of wine
given as a gift to an acquaintance, and a gift for a birthday or a cele-
bration could be different from a bottle of red wine purchased for a
party at a friend’s house. In the same manner, a bottle of wine pur-
chased for personal consumption could have different characteristics
depending on the type of occasion, such as an everyday dinner or family
reunion. Moreover, future studies ought to include other qualitative
cues, such as the specific region of origin, vintage, grape variety,
awards, and packaging, to extend the literature regarding their affect in
a gift-giving scenario.
This study has limitations. Unfortunately, our operationalization of
gender did not create equally sized subgroups between the two sce-
narios; however, in our opinion, this did not affect our findings to a
large extent for two main reasons. First, past studies focusing on this
issue, such as Forbes (2012), have demonstrated that women and men
277
Food Quality and Preference 71 (2019) 270–278
behave almost homogenously in this area. Second, the differences be-
tween the two situations are well-established; thus, a reasonable as-
sumption is they cannot be exclusively ascribed to a discrepancy re-
garding the number of women in each of the two scenarios. An
additional limitation is that we opted for a DCE with verbal descriptors
for wine attributes, which might mimic a real market purchase in a less
realistic way. To avoid this limitation, further studies should implement
choice experiments where the choice sets are designed with visual la-
belling elements, such as images or symbols. The use of visual elements
instead of textual ones to represent attributes, such as brand and or-
ganic, would better simulate a real purchasing situation and increase
the accuracy of the results (Jarvis et al., 2010).
Declarations of interest
None.
References
Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity. Capitalizing on the value of a brand name. New
York: The Free Press.
Adinolfi, F., De Rosa, M., & Trabalzi, F. (2011). Dedicated and generic marketing stra-
tegies: The disconnection between geographical indications and consumer behavior
in Italy. British Food Journal, 113(3), 419–435.
Aqueveque, C. (2006). Extrinsic cues and perceived risk: The influence of consumption
situation. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(5), 237–247.
Atkin, T. S., & Newton, S. K. (2012). Consumer awareness and quality perceptions: A case
for Sonoma County wines. Journal of Wine Research, 23(2), 155–171.
Atkin, T., Nowak, L., & Garcia, R. (2007). Women wine consumers: Information search
and retailing implications. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 19(4),
327–339.
Balestrini, P., & Gamble, P. (2006). Country-of-origin effects on Chinese wine consumers.
British Food Journal, 108(5), 396–412.
Barber, N., & Almanza, B. A. (2007). Influence of wine packaging on consumers’ decision
to purchase. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 9(4), 83–98.
Barber, N., Almanza, B. A., & Donovan, J. R. (2006). Motivational factors of gender,
income and age on selecting a bottle of wine. International Journal of Wine Marketing,
18(3), 218–232.
Barber, N., Taylor, D. C., & Dodd, T. (2009). The importance of wine bottle closures in
retail purchase decisions of consumers. Journal of Hospitality Marketing &
Management, 18(6), 597–614.
Baumann, C., & Hamin, H. (2014). Premium generic brand (PGB) choice vis-à-vis generic
and national brands: A scenario comparison for self-use, family consumption and gift
giving in a food versus non-food and cross-cultural context. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, 21(4), 492–501.
Bechtold, K. B., & Abdulai, A. (2014). Combining attitudinal statements with choice ex-
periments to analyze preference heterogeneity for functional dairy products. Food
Policy, 47, 97–106.
Belk, R. W. (1975). Situational variables and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer
Research, 2(3), 157–164.
Belk, R. W. (1979). Gift-giving behavior. In J. N. Sheth (Ed.). Research in marketing (pp.
95–126). Greenwich: JAI Press.
Belk, R. W. (1982). Effects of gift-giving involvement on gift selection strategies. In A.
Mitchell (Ed.). Advances in consumer research (pp. 408–412). Ann Arbor: Association
for Consumer Research.
Bernabéu, R., Brugarolas, M., Martínez-Carrasco, L., & Díaz, M. (2008). Wine origin and
organic elaboration, differentiating strategies in traditional producing countries.
British Food Journal, 110(2), 174–188.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
Boncinelli, F., Contini, C., Romano, C., Scozzafava, G., & Casini, L. (2017). Territory,
environment, and healthiness in traditional food choices: Insights into consumer
heterogeneity. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 20(1),
143–157.
Carlsson, F. (2011). Non-market valuation: Stated preference methods. In J. L. Lusk, J.
Roosen, & J. F. Shogren (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of the economics of food con-
sumption and policy (pp. 181–214). New York: Oxford University Press.
Carsana, L., & Jolibert, A. (2017). The influence of brand schematicity on the importance
of product cues: Self-purchasing versus gift-giving situations. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 34(3), 255–267.
Castriota, S. (2015). Economia del vino. Milano: EGEA S.p.A.
Charters, S., & Pettigrew, S. (2007). The dimensions of wine quality. Food Quality and
Preference, 18(7), 997–1007.
Cholette, S., & Castaldi, R. (2005). Analyzing the US retail wine market using price and
consumer segmentation models. Presentation at second international wine marketing
symposium. Rohnert Park, CA: Sonoma State University.
Clarke, K., & Belk, R. W. (1979). The effects of product involvement and task definition on
anticipated consumer effort. In A. Mitchell (Ed.), Advances in consumer research
(vol. 6, pp. 313–318). Ann Arbor: Association for Consumer Research.
Contini, C., Casini, L., Stefan, V., Romano, C., Juhl, H. J., Lähteenmäki, L., ... Grunert, K.
G. (2015). Some like it healthy: Can socio-demographic characteristics serve as
F. Boncinelli et al.
predictors for a healthy food choice? Food Quality and Preference, 46, 103–112.
Contini, C., Romano, C., Scozzafava, G., Boncinelli, F., & Casini, L. (2015). Wine con-
sumption and sales strategies: The evolution of Mass Retail Trading in Italy. Wine
Economics and Policy, 4(2), 116–127.
Corsi, A. M., Mueller, S., & Lockshin, L. (2012). Let’s see what they have. What consumers
look for in a restaurant wine list. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 53(2), 110–121.
Costanigro, M., Scozzafava, G., & Casini, L. (2017). Vertical differentiation, perceptions
restructuring, and wine choices: the case of the Gran Selezione in Chianti wines.
AAWE working paper No. 211. <http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/253850/
files/AAWE_WP211.pdf/> Accessed 03 February 2018.
Dodds, W. B., & Monroe, K. B. (1985). The effect of brand and price information on
subjective product evaluations. In E. C. Hirschman, & M. B. Holbrook (Eds.),
Advances in consumer research (vol. 12, pp. 85–90). Provo: Association for Consumer
Research.
Fisher, R. J. (1993). Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning.
Journal of Consumer Research, 20(2), 303–315.
Forbes, S. L. (2012). The influence of gender on wine purchasing and consumption: An
exploratory study across four nations. International Journal of Wine Business Research,
24(2), 146–159.
Gerini, F., Alfnes, F., & Schjøll, A. (2016). Organic-and animal welfare-labelled eggs:
Competing for the same consumers? Journal of Agricultural Economics, 67(2),
471–490.
Gillison, S., & Reynolds, K. (2016). Shopping for yourself versus shopping for someone
else. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 33(4), 225–234.
Greene, W. H., & Hensher, D. A. (2003). A latent class model for discrete choice analysis:
Contrasts with mixed logit. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 37(8),
681–698.
Grimm, P. (2010). Social desirability bias. Wiley International Encyclopedia of Marketing.
Grønhaug, K. (1972). Buying situation and buyer’s information behavior. European
Marketing Research Review, 7(7), 33–48.
Grunert, K. G., Brunsø, K., Bredahl, L., & Bech, A. C. (2001). Food-related lifestyle: A
segmentation approach to European food consumers. In L. J. Frewer, E. Risvik, & H.
Schifferstein (Eds.). Food, people and society (pp. 211–230). New York: Springer-
Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg GmbH.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2014). Multivariate
data analysis. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hall, J., Lockshin, L., & Barry O'Mahony, G. (2001). Exploring the links between wine
choice and dining occasions: Factors of influence. International Journal of Wine
Marketing, 13(1), 36–53.
Hatak, I., & Stoeckl, A. (2008). Purchasing wine as a gift; influencing factors and preferences:
An empirical qualitative approach. Presentation at 4th international conference of the
academy of wine business research Siena, Italy.
Hensher, D. A., Rose, J. M., & Greene, W. H. (2005). Applied choice analysis: A primer.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hollebeek, L. D., Jaeger, S. R., Brodie, R. J., & Balemi, A. (2007). The influence of in-
volvement on purchase intention for New World wine. Food Quality and Preference,
18(8), 1033–1049.
Jarvis, W., Mueller, S., & Chiong, K. (2010). A latent analysis of images and words in wine
choice. Australasian Marketing Journal, 18(3), 138–144.
Keller, K. L. (2013). Strategic brand management. Building, measuring, and managing brand
equity. Harlow: Pearson.
Kim, H., & Bonn, M. A. (2015). The moderating effects of overall and organic wine
knowledge on consumer behavioral intention. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism, 15(3), 295–310.
Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (fourth ed.). New
York: The Guilford Press.
Lambert-Gócs, M. (2010). Tokaji Wine: Fame, fate, tradition. Williamsburg: Ambeli Press.
Larceneux, F., Benoit-Moreau, F., & Renaudin, V. (2012). Why might organic labels fail to
influence consumer choices? Marginal labelling and brand equity effects. Journal of
Consumer Policy, 35(1), 85–104.
Laroche, M., Saad, G., Cleveland, M., & Browne, E. (2000). Gender differences in in-
formation search strategies for a Christmas gift. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17(6),
500–522.
Laurent, G., & Kapferer, J. N. (1985). Measuring consumer involvement profiles. Journal
of Marketing Research, 22(1), 41–53.
Lockshin, L., & Corsi, A. M. (2012). Consumer behaviour for wine 2.0: A review since
2003 and future directions. Wine Economics and Policy, 1(1), 2–23.
Lockshin, L., & Hall, J. (2003). Consumer purchasing behaviour for wine: What we know and
where we are going. Proceedings of the international wine marketing colloquium Adelaide.
Lockshin, L., Jarvis, W., d’Hauteville, F., & Perrouty, J. P. (2006). Using simulations from
discrete choice experiments to measure consumer sensitivity to brand, region, price,
and awards in wine choice. Food Quality and Preference, 17(3), 166–178.
Louviere, J. J., Flynn, T. N., & Carson, R. T. (2010). Discrete choice experiments are not
conjoint analysis. Journal of Choice Modelling, 3(3), 57–72.
Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D. A., & Swait, J. D. (2000). Stated choice methods: Analysis and
applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lusk, J. L., Nilsson, T., & Foster, K. (2007). Public preferences and private choices: Effect
of altruism and free riding on demand for environmentally certified pork.
Environmental and Resource Economics, 36(4), 499–521.
Lusk, J. L., & Norwood, F. B. (2009). An inferred valuation method. Land Economics,
85(3), 500–514.
Mann, S., Ferjani, A., & Reissig, L. (2012). What matters to consumers of organic wine?
British Food Journal, 114(2), 272–284.
Mauss, M. (1954). The gift: The form and reason for exchange in archaic societies. London:
Cohen and West.
278
Food Quality and Preference 71 (2019) 270–278
McCullough, D. (1998). Web-based market research: The dawning of a new age. Direct
Marketing, 61(8), 36–39.
McFadden, D. (1973). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In P.
Zarembka (Ed.). Frontiers in econometrics (pp. 105–142). New York: Academic Press.
Mitchell, V. W., & Greatorex, M. (1989). Risk reducing strategies used in the purchase of
wine in the UK. European Journal of Marketing, 23(9), 31–46.
Moreau, C. P., Bonney, L., & Herd, K. B. (2011). It’s the thought (and the effort) that
counts: How customizing for others differs from customizing for oneself. Journal of
Marketing, 75(5), 120–133.
Morey, R. C., Sparks, B. A., & Wilkins, H. C. (2002). Purchase situation modelling in wine
selection: An evaluation of factors in an Australian context. International Journal of
Wine Marketing, 14(1), 41–64.
Mtimet, N., & Albisu, L. M. (2006). Spanish wine consumer behavior: A choice experiment
approach. Agribusiness, 22(3), 343–362.
Mueller, S., Lockshin, L., Saltman, Y., & Blanford, J. (2010). Message on a bottle: The
relative influence of wine back label information on wine choice. Food Quality and
Preference, 21(1), 22–32.
Mueller Loose, S., & Remaud, H. (2013). Impact of corporate social responsibility claims
on consumer food choice: A cross-cultural comparison. British Food Journal, 115(1),
142–166.
Olsen, J. E., Thompson, K. J., & Clarke, T. K. (2003). Consumer self-confidence in wine
purchases. International Journal of Wine Marketing, 15(3), 40–51.
Remaud, H., Mueller, S., Chvyl, P., & Lockshin, L. (2008). Do Australian wine consumers
value organic wine. Proceedings of 4th international conference of the academy of wine
business research Siena.
Rubio, N., Oubiña, J., & Villaseñor, N. (2014). Brand awareness–Brand quality inference
and consumer’s risk perception in store brands of food products. Food Quality and
Preference, 32, 289–298.
Ryans, A. B. (1977). Consumer gift buying behaviour: An exploratory analysis. In O.
Bellinger, & B. Greenberg (Eds.). Contemporary marketing thought (pp. 99–104).
Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Sáenz-Navajas, M. P., Campo, E., Sutan, A., Ballester, J., & Valentin, D. (2013). Perception
of wine quality according to extrinsic cues: The case of Burgundy wine consumers.
Food Quality and Preference, 27(1), 44–53.
Scammon, D. L., Shaw, R. T., & Bamossy, G. (1982). Is a gift always a gift? An in-
vestigation of flower purchasing behaviour across situations. In A. Mitchell (Ed.).
Advances in consumer research (pp. 531–536). Ann Arbor: Association for Consumer
Research.
Scarpa, R., Campbell, D., & Hutchinson, W. G. (2007). Benefit estimates for landscape
improvements: Sequential Bayesian design and respondents’ rationality in a choice
experiment. Land Economics, 83(4), 617–634.
Scarpa, R., & Del Giudice, T. (2004). Market segmentation via mixed logit: Extra-virgin
olive oil in urban Italy. Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, 2(Article
7), 1–18.
Scarpa, R., Ferrini, S., & Willis, K. G. (2005). Performance of error component models for
statusquo effects in choice experiments. In R. Scarpa, & A. Alberini (Eds.).
Applications of simulation methods in environmental and resource economics (pp. 247–
273). Dordrecht: Springer Publisher.
Scarpa, R., Thiene, M., & Tempesta, T. (2007). Latent class count models of total visitation
demand: Days out hiking in the eastern Alps. Environmental and Resource Economics,
38(4), 447–460.
Sellers-Rubio, R., & Nicolau-Gonzalbez, J. L. (2016). Estimating the willingness to pay for
a sustainable wine using a Heckit model. Wine Economics and Policy, 5(2), 96–104.
Sethuraman, R., Kerin, R. A., & Cron, W. L. (2005). A field study comparing online and
offline data collection methods for identifying product attribute preferences using
conjoint analysis. Journal of Business Research, 58(5), 602–610.
Shapiro, B. A. (1970). The effect of price on purchase behaviour. In D. L. Sparks (Ed.).
Broadening the concept of marketing. Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Sherry, J. F., Jr. (1983). Gift giving in anthropological perspective. Journal of Consumer
Research, 10(2), 157–168.
Spawton, T. (1990). Marketing planning for wine. International Journal of Wine Marketing,
2(2), 2–49.
Train, K. (1998). Recreation demand models with taste differences over people. Land
Economics, 74(2), 230–239.
Van Loo, E. J., Caputo, V., Nayga, R. M., Jr., & Verbeke, W. (2014). Consumers’ valuation
of sustainability labels on meat. Food Policy, 49, 137–150.
Vincent, M., & Zikmund, W. G. (1976). An experimental investigation of situational ef-
fects on risk perception. In B. B. Anderson (Ed.). Advances in consumer research (pp.
125–129). Provo: Association for Consumer Research.
Viot, C., & Passebois-Ducros, J. (2010). Wine brands or branded wines? The specificity of
the French market in terms of the brand. International Journal of Wine Business
Research, 22(4), 406–422.
Wiedmann, K. P., Hennigs, N., Henrik Behrens, S., & Klarmann, C. (2014). Tasting green:
An experimental design for investigating consumer perception of organic wine. British
Food Journal, 116(2), 197–211.
Williamson, P. O., Lockshin, L., Francis, I. L., & Loose, S. M. (2016). Influencing consumer
choice: Short and medium term effect of country of origin information on wine
choice. Food Quality and Preferences, 51, 89–99.
Wooten, D. B. (2000). Qualitative steps toward an expanded model of anxiety in gift-
giving. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(1), 84–95.
Yang, Y., & Paladino, A. (2015). The case of wine: Understanding Chinese gift-giving
behavior. Marketing Letters, 26(3), 335–361.
Yu, Y., Sun, H., Goodman, S., Chen, S., & Ma, H. (2009). Chinese choices: A survey of wine
consumers in Beijing. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 21(2), 155–168.