Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of 12th APacCHRIE Conference 2014.

12th APacCHRIE Conference 2014

How do consumers feel about wine consumption and the related perceived risk? A quantitative study

Bories D.a, Pichon P.b, Laborde C.c, Pichon Fd.* aLaboratory LRPmip, University Toulouse Jean Jaurès – Figeac Campus, Avenue de Nayrac, 46100 Figeac, France

bLaboratory CERTOP-EAST-UMR-CNRS 504, University Toulouse Jean Jaurès, 5 Allée Antonio Machado, 31100 Toulouse, France cLaboratory CERTOP-EAST-UMR-CNRS 504, University Toulouse Jean Jaurès, 5 Allée Antonio Machado, 31100 Toulouse, France dUIRGO Laboratoty-Bordeaux University, INP/Ensat Toulouse, Avenue de l’Agrobiopole, 31326 Castanet-Tolosan Cédex, France

Abstract

The objective of this research is to gain a better understanding of consumers' risk perception when purchasing wine and to identify which strategies they follow to reduce them. An empirical study was conducted to measure the risks associated with wine purchase and consumption and assess the perceived usefulness of 36 risk-reducing factors. The results of this study show that the purchase of wine and the wine consumption are associated with very low risk perception. They reveals that the short or long-term perceived physical risks are also very low while risks concerning tasting performance, psychosocial risks, financial risks and loss of time are relatively high. The results analysis clearly indicate that it is impossible to identify any “transversal” risk reducing strategy which can cover all the risks discussed in this research. Whether for theoretical or managerial concerns, the outcome of this research work underlines the need for further research on perceived risk and risk-reducing strategies. Keywords : consumer behavior, risk perception, risk reduction, wine studies

1. Introduction

Since the 1950s, French governments have been implementing actions seeking to prevent alcoholism by raising awareness about the potential health hazards caused by the consumption of alcohol, and particularly that of wine. In spite of those efforts, alcohol remains a major public health problem causing 49000 deaths a year. In 2010, the number of French consumers at risk (addicts or not) amounted to 3.8 million within the 18/75 age group. Although the negative health effects of alcohol have long been clearly shown and explained, French consumers still see wine drinking or “wine tasting as a way to stimulate one's senses, as a source of pleasure, and even more” (Aron, 1999). In this context, it seems necessary to have a clearer idea of the kind of risks consumers associate with wine purchasing and drinking. What is the exact nature of those risks ? Do they impact consumers’ eating habits ? Through which decisions and actions will consumers attempt to reduce those risks ?

* Bories D. Corresponding author. Bories D. Tel.: +0033674461890

E-mail address: denis.bories@univ-tlse2.fr

2

Building upon the existing work concerning risk perception when buying food products (Mitchell, 19998; Muraro-Cochart, 2000; 2003; Yeung et Morris, 2001; Pichon, 2006, 2012, Bories and al., 2014), the objective of this research work is to highlight the main issues that fall within the study of consumers' risk perception and to identify which strategies they follow to reduce them. This work aims at gaining a better understanding of consumers' concerns and behaviors when purchasing wine. It also pinpoints existing weaknesses, if any, in consumer relations. After a first part dedicated to a brief review of the literature on food hazards and risk mitigating factors, the methodology used to carry out the study will then be presented. In the third part, the results achieved will be described and discussed. The conclusion will focus on the limitations of this work as well as on the avenues for future research and will suggest recommendations in terms of management strategies.

2. Theoretical background

Food related concerns are not a recent phenomenon. Chiva (1998) recalled that “man has always had to envisage food eating as being hazardous”. Apfelbaum (1998) wrote that “food hazards are never null and are difficult to quantify”. A number of researchers often refer to the incorporation principle to account for this permanent risk-taking condition (Corbeau, in Corbeau and Poulain, 2002). Antoine (1997, quoted by Marouseau, 2001) described the future consumer trends and thought that ”if the new consumer may well be a myth, the fearful consumer is a reality”. The concept of risk is everywhere in food marketing and many researchers have attempted to categorize the different types of risks (Kapferer, 1998; Guillon, 1998; Brunel, 2002). According to Brunel (2002), risk is multidimensional and includes the performance, the financial, the short term and long term risk, the psychosocial risks (fear to put on weight, self-esteem), the societal risk (socio-economic and ecological consequences of product consumption). The physical or health risk is the most important food-related risk (Müller, 1985; Kapferer, 1998; Dandouau, 1999; Brunel, 2000; Poulain, 2002; Gallen and Cases, 2003; Muraro-Cochart, 2003; Pichon, 2006 and 2012). It is not easy, however to quantify it (Khan, 1998). Food risk is indeed less than thirty years ago (Apfelbaum,1998; Duby, 1998 ; Gurviez and al., 2003). For all that, authors point out that risk perception has changed and has intensified over the years. Our work first intends to provide an insight into the concept of risk perception associated with wine drinking in order to identify the changes that may have been induced by prevention campaigns against alcohol-related health issues. Since consumers perceive risks, they must try to limit them especially when they intend to purchase a product or a service. The search for information is one of the means to alleviate the perceived risk (Dowling and Staelin, 1994; Volle, 1995). Locander and Hermann (1979) suggest to categorize risk reducing strategies according to the source of information. They distinguish four different sets of sources : • Impersonal sources motivated by interest (TV and radio commercials, ads and POS advertising), • Impersonal independent sources (product specifications, consumer’s associations, etc.) • Personal sources motivated by self-interest (shop assistant’s or producer’s advice), personal independent sources

(friends, family, next of kin) • Sources resulting from observation and direct experience (testing or tasting a product before buy, information on

the packaging or demo). “Badges of quality” such as collective brands, quality labels are part of the numerous initiatives undertaken by the French authorities to curb the consumers’ fear when choosing food (Perronty and d’Hauteville, 2000). They are considered as risk framing approaches (Sirieix, 1999; Gurviez, 2001) and as differentiation sources on highly competitive markets. This work also aims at looking into the signs of quality (e.g quality labels) as perceived by the consumers and

into the consumer’s behavior around wine and wine-drinking.

3. Methodology

479 respondents between 18 and 64 years, living mostly in Midi-Pyrénées were interviewed. The questionnaire submitted aimed at measuring the risks associated with wine purchase and consumption through 2 items to be rated on a 0 to 10-point scale.

3

Respondents had then to assess the levels of poorer performance, loss of time, financial and psychosocial risks through 12 items to be rated on a 5-point Likert scale from risk-free to very risky. Besides, the questionnaire aimed at assessing the perceived usefulness of 36 risk-reducing factors, such as the AB (organic farming) or AOC (registered designation of product origin) quality labels on bottles, family, friends’ or the wine merchant’s recommendations, the degree of alcohol, the year of production…. The risk-reducing factors were identified by reviewing the literature on the topic and by conducting individual interviews with wine consumers. The levels of perceived risk have first been analyzed in terms of main trends so as to identify those perceived as major risks on the one hand, and the risk-reducing factors followed by respondents on the other. The data thus collected and then graded as low, medium or high level of risk were tested nonparametrically in order to determine whether significant distribution differences could be pinpointed for each category of risk and graded as low, medium or high.

4. Results

The analysis of the main trends (cf. Table 1) shows that the purchase of wine and the wine consumption are associated with very low risk levels (average perceived risk for wine purchase : 3.5472 out of 10 and a rating of 5 ; average perceived risk for wine consumption : 3.4653 out of 10 and a rating of 3). Moreover, a closer study reveals that the short or long-term perceived physical risks are also very low (namely, for short-term health hazards, an average of 2.1883 and a rating of 2 out of 5; for long-term physical risks an average of 2.5042 and a rating of 2 out of 5). However, the risk concerning tasting performance is relatively high (4 with an average of 3.4614 out of 5). The same levels apply to psychosocial risks (with an average of 3.609 and a rating of 4 out of 5), to financial risks (with an average of 3.393 and a rating of 4 out of 5) as well as to loss of time (an average of 3.0418 and a rating of 4 out of 5). The additional results collected to date show that the respondents consider that drinking wine is first and foremost a real pleasure (average of 4.2979 and a rating of 5 out of 5) and that they buy wine to celebrate (average of 3.5123 and a rating of 4 out of 5).

Table1. Levels of perceived risks

Type of risk Valid Missing Average Standard deviation Mode

Perceived risk when buying wine 466 13 3,5472 (out of 10) 2,05592 5

Wine-consumption related perceived risk 475 4 3,4653 (out of 10) 2,06854 3

Perceived psychosocial risk linked to self-image (better wine bought for the others than for oneself) 479 0 3,6096 (out of 5) 1,12781 4

Taste performance-related risk 479 0 3,4614 (out of 5) 1,01561 4

Financial perceived risk 478 1 3,3933 (out of 5) 0,99691 4

Waste of time perceived risk 479 0 3,0418 (out of 5) 1,17253 4

Long-term ingredient-related perceived physical risk 478 1 2,5042 (out of 5) 1,16328 2

Short- term ingredient-related perceived physical risk 478 1 2,1883 (out of 5) 1,0371 2

The analysis of consumers' risk-reducing strategies (Appendix A) shows that they mostly rely on the following

factors that they consider as most useful to reduce the perceived risks : • The year of production (average of 4.1461 and a rating of 4 out of 5). • The interpersonal opinions and advice by friends and family (average of 4.0877 and a rating of 4 out of 5 for

friends’ opinions; average of 4.0565 and a rating of 4 out of 5 for family opinions) • The notoriety of the designation (average of 4.0334 and a rating of 4 out of 5) • The information provided on the geographical origin (average of 3.8768 and a rating of 4 out of 5) and more

particularly on the French origin (average of 4.048 and a rating of 4 out of 5).

4

Concerning the psychosocial perceived risk, the Kruskall-Wallis chi-square test underlines significant distribution differences function of the display or non-display of the winegrower’s photograph on the label (chi-square : 29.99, significance : 0.000) and function of the shape of the bottle (chi-square : 11.857, significance : 0.003). The higher the psychosocial self-image related risk perceived by the respondent, the more use he/she makes of these two commercial risk-reducing factors (Figure 1 and 2).

Fig. 1. Psychological perceived risk and winegrower’s photograph on

the label average usefulness evaluation.

Fig. 2. Psychological perceived risk and shape of the bottle average

usefulness evaluation. As for taste performance-related risk, interpersonal advice and more particularly the advice given by family

(chi-square : 42.998, significance : 0.000) and by friends (chi-square : 21.443, significance : 0.000) are much more significant when the respondents perceive a high level of risk (Figure 3 and Figure 4).

Fig. 3. Taste performance-related risk and advices from friends

average usefulness evaluation.

Fig. 4. Taste performance-related risk and advices from family

average usefulness evaluation. As far as the financial risk is concerned, the Kruskal-Wallis test reveals significant distribution differences

function of the interpersonal advice given within the family circle (chi-square : 16.831, significance: 0.000).The higher the financial risk perceived by the respondent, the more valuable the family advice will be (Figure 5).

5

Fig. 5. Financial risk and advices from family average usefulness evaluation.

As for the time-waste risk, the Kruskal-Wallis test shows significant distribution differences when the bottle has

the “Gold Medal” label (chi-square : 22.029; significance : 0.000 ; Figure 6). A high price (chi-square : 14.575; significance : 0.001 ; Figure 7) and the winegrower’s photograph on the bottle (chi-square: 13.249; significance: 0.001) act likewise. Lastly, the distribution of inter-personal advice given by the wine-merchant or by the shop assistant of a hypermarket varies according to the grading of the risk as assessed by the respondent (low, medium or high ; chi-square : 1.817 ; significance : 0.003 for the wine-merchant’s advice and chi-square : 10.162 ; significance : 0.006 for those given by the hypermarket shop-assistant).

Fig. 6. Taste performance-related risk and the “Golf Medal” label on

the bottle average usefulness evaluation.

Fig. 7. Taste performance-related risk and the high price of the bottle average usefulness evaluation.

Concerning short and long-term physical risks, the winegrower’s photograph on the bottle goes together with

significant distribution differences function of the perceived risk (short term risk, Figure 8, chi-square : 15.624, significance : 0.000 ; long-term risk, Figure 9, chi-square : 12.789, significance : 0.002). These differences must not hide the fact that the respondents consider this risk-reducing strategy as totally useless (average of 1.9582 out of 5 for the overall sample and rating of 1).

6

Fig. 8. Short-term physical risk and winegrower’s photograph on the

label average usefulness evaluation.

Fig. 9. Long-term physical risk and winegrower’s photograph on the

label average usefulness evaluation.

In this respect, appendices B, C and D highlight the different degrees of usefulness of risk reducing strategies

according to the type of risk : short term physical risk, long term physical risk and taste performance-related risk. These results clearly indicate that it is impossible to identify any “transversal” risk reducing strategy which can cover all the risks discussed in this research. Function of the degree of perception, the risk reducing strategies can be either institutional, interpersonal or commercial.

Let us note, however, that the AB label on bottles has a greater impact when the degree of physical risk

perceived, short or long term, is high (Figure 10 and Figure 11). The same is true for the recommendations made by the associations of nature conservation and for the sanitary controls conducted by official bodies; both are considered more useful by the respondents who perceive a high physical short or long term risk; yet, their usefulness is less compared to the risk reducing strategies presented in appendix A.

Fig. 10. Short-term physical risk and AB label on the bottle average

usefulness evaluation.

Fig. 11. Long-term physical risk and AB label on the bottle average usefulness evaluation.

Actually, the winegrower’s picture on the bottles is the only risk reducing strategy among all those studied in this

work which evidences significant distribution differences. As described above, the respondents usually value it as worthless (average of 1.9582 out of 5 and a rating of 1). All these results are discussed in the next section.

7

5. Discussion

Risk is not everywhere. It is linked to taste performance, psychosocial, financial and waste of time risks. But it is diffuse and not compelling to consumers when they purchase or consume wine. The fact that it is impossible to identify common risk reducing strategies is that the individuals do what they can to avoid danger. Theoreticians, industrialists, retailers and politicians - not to mention the media - may well have overestimated risk perception and the attached anxiety (Louisot, 1998; Kreziak and al. 2003).

The institutional risk-reducing measures do not appear to be more reassuring than the « DIY » strategies consumers devise, among which relying on the origin of wine and on friends’ and family’s recommendations. There is an obvious discrepancy between our actual results and those that could have been expected. More generally, the results of the research lead to questioning labels as effective safeguards. The relatively little interest for the trendy AB label as expressed by interviewees is indeed surprising. This lack of interest may be accounted for by the interviewees’ little concern for short or long-term physical risks, which we didn’t expect. This particular reaction from the respondents is all the more puzzling as organic agriculture aims at protecting the environment.

6. Limitations and avenues for future research

One of the major limitations of this work lies in the selection of the risk reducing strategies discussed in this paper. Even if they are generated by a review of the literature and substantiated by individual interviews, it would be worthwhile conducting a more comprehensive survey of the risk reducing strategies used by consumers.

Moreover, if we consider the strong pressure of the media concerning the fight against alcohol addiction, the results obtained for short and long term risks are somewhat surprising. So, it may be valuable to better grasp why so little interest is attached to the AB label on the bottles in a day and age when environmental and health concerns are overreaching. This is why we think a qualitative study could be enlightening.

7. Theoretical and managerial implications

Whether for theoretical or managerial concerns, the outcome of this research work underlines the need for further research on perceived risk and efficient risk-reducing measures. From a theoretical point of view, risk components and, more particularly their roots, should be further delved in. This research work will then facilitate the identification of the most efficient risk-reducing strategies.

From a managerial point of view, to reduce the taste performance-related risk, wine-tasting sessions should be organized so that consumers may be reassured and actually enjoy the “good taste” of the wine. This also may lead to questioning the organization of wine departments according to geographical origin or type of wine without taking into account the differences in consumers’ taste.

The results of this research work stress the questionable efficiency of labels. It shows that the players of the wine sector ought to look for other solutions to meet the consumers’ expectations. They could certainly make better use of interpersonal advice, particularly from friends and family. They should pay more attention to the word-of-mouth concerning their wines. Digital social networks could be mobilized for brands to have a better understanding of how consumers feel and talk about their wines. Concerning the product, it should be remembered that the French origin, when commercialized in France, is a definite commercial asset which ought to be taken advantage of on the bottle. This information must be highlighted, as well as the production year and its designation when of public notoriety.

8

Appendix A. Perceived usefulness of risk-reducing factors – descriptive statistics

Risk-reducing factors Valid Missing Average Mode Standard deviation

Grape used to produce the wine 478 1 3,7071 4 1,10554

AB label on the bottle 479 0 3,1879 4 1,18489 Presentation of the wine section/department 479 0 3,3027 4 1,13991 A wine already purchased by the family 479 0 3,8539 4 0,99346 A winegrower’s wine : selection of the hypermarket 479 0 3,0689 4 1,08501 Leaflets and flyers 479 0 2,1399 1 1,10119 Radio commercials 479 0 1,8643 1 0,97262

Ad in a magazine 479 0 2,3278 1 1,20801 My friend’s opinion 479 0 4,0877 4 0,78468 Consumer’s associations opinions 478 1 3,2908 4 1,16246 Family’s opinion 478 1 4,0565 4 0,85104 The « Gold Medal” label on the bottle 479 0 3,7161 4 1,0444 Wine presented on a TV program 478 1 2,9728 3 1,21023

Nature conservation associations’ opinion and advice 479 0 2,3236 1 1,19346 The shape of the bottle 479 0 2,3862 1 1,16392 Information on the geographical origin 479 0 3,8768 4 0,9892 Wine recommended by a famous oenologist 479 0 3,6472 4 1,16556

Toll-free number to have details on the wine 479 0 1,952 1 1,124 The winegrower’s reputation 479 0 3,6931 4 1,01442 Sanitary controls by official bodies 478 1 3,2218 4 1,20489 Product with official designation of protected geographical origin 479 0 3,8559 4 1,00943 Colour of the wine 479 0 3,5825 4 1,0026

Information on the production techniques 479 0 3,5887 4 1,07655 Name and address of the bottling factory 479 0 2,9645 4 1,23951 Scientific experts’advice guaranteeing the quality of the wine 479 0 3,0564 3 1,19927 Cleanliness of the wine department 478 1 3,2615 4 1,19073 High price 479 0 3,023 3 1,05174 Well-known designation (eg: st emilion) 479 0 4,0334 4 0,85504

Advice given by the shop assistant in the super/hypermarket 478 1 3,1632 4 1,16309 Winegrower’s photograph on the bottle 478 1 1,9582 1 1,00852 Advice given by the wine merchant 477 2 3,9623 4 1,04853 Wine recommended by the Hachette guide-book 479 0 3,1962 4 1,18706 Origin of the wine (French or foreign)) 479 0 4,048 4 0,82571 Alcohol content 478 1 3,5669 4 1,07901

Year of production 479 0 4,1461 4 0,84061 « Independant winegrowers » label 479 0 3,309 3 1,12249

9

Appendix B. Kruskall-Wallis Test Results - Short term physical risk(*)

Short term physical risk

Risk-reducing factors Khi 2 ddl Sig.

Grape used to produce the wine 0,063 2 0,969

AB label on the bottle 7,118 2 0,028

Presentation of the wine section/department 12,387 2 0,002

A wine already purchased by the family 0,691 2 0,708

A winegrower’s wine : selection of the hypermarket 11,227 2 0,004

Leaflets and flyers 13,768 2 0,001

Radio commercials 5,739 2 0,057

Ad in a magazine 2,675 2 0,263

My friend’s opinion 2,92 2 0,232

Consumer’s associations opinions 0,728 2 0,695

Family’s opinion 1,202 2 0,548

The « Gold Medal” label on the bottle 2,453 2 0,293

Wine presented on a TV program 5,797 2 0,055

Nature conservation associations’ opinion and advice 6,652 2 0,036

The shape of the bottle 0,234 2 0,89

Information on the geographical origin 0,718 2 0,698

Wine recommended by a famous oenologist 2,462 2 0,292

Toll-free number to have details on the wine 14,506 2 0,001

The winegrower’s reputation 0,729 2 0,695

Sanitary controls by official bodies 11,623 2 0,003

Product with official designation of protected geographical origin 0,077 2 0,962

Colour of the wine 0,015 2 0,993

Information on the production techniques 6,471 2 0,039

Name and address of the bottling factory 4,159 2 0,125

Scientific experts’advice guaranteeing the quality of the wine 5,359 2 0,069

Cleanliness of the wine department 1,322 2 0,516

High price 1,239 2 0,538

Well-known designation (eg: st emilion) 4,543 2 0,103

Advice given by the shop assistant in the super/hypermarket 3,034 2 0,219

Winegrower’s photograph on the bottle 15,624 2 0

Advice given by the wine merchant 3,052 2 0,217

Wine recommended by the Hachette guide-book 1,847 2 0,397

Origin of the wine (French or foreign)) 0,261 2 0,878

Alcohol content 3,391 2 0,184

Year of production 0,12 2 0,942

« Independant winegrowers » label 3,926 2 0,14

(*) The shaded areas point out the significant distribution differences

10

Appendix C. Kruskall-Wallis Test Results – Long term physical risk(*)

Long term physical risk

Risk-reducing factors Khi 2 ddl Sig.

Grape used to produce the wine 7,578 2 0,023

AB label on the bottle 6,533 2 0,038

Presentation of the wine section/department 4,088 2 0,13

A wine already purchased by the family 0,151 2 0,927

A winegrower’s wine : selection of the hypermarket 2,244 2 0,326

Leaflets and flyers 5,715 2 0,057

Radio commercials 2,295 2 0,317

Ad in a magazine 3,956 2 0,138

My friend’s opinion 4,139 2 0,126

Consumer’s associations opinions 1,393 2 0,498

Family’s opinion 0,84 2 0,657

The « Gold Medal” label on the bottle 1,073 2 0,585

Wine presented on a TV program 2,381 2 0,304

Nature conservation associations’ opinion and advice 10,432 2 0,005

The shape of the bottle 2,984 2 0,225

Information on the geographical origin 5,199 2 0,074

Wine recommended by a famous oenologist 2,279 2 0,32

Toll-free number to have details on the wine 1,448 2 0,485

The winegrower’s reputation 3,022 2 0,221

Sanitary controls by official bodies 9,629 2 0,008

Product with official designation of protected geographical origin 0,659 2 0,719

Colour of the wine 0,404 2 0,817

Information on the production techniques 2,214 2 0,331

Name and address of the bottling factory 1,34 2 0,512

Scientific experts’advice guaranteeing the quality of the wine 2,069 2 0,355

Cleanliness of the wine department 4,269 2 0,118

High price 4,657 2 0,097

Well-known designation (eg: st emilion) 8,324 2 0,016

Advice given by the shop assistant in the super/hypermarket 4,353 2 0,113

Winegrower’s photograph on the bottle 12,789 2 0,002

Advice given by the wine merchant 2,835 2 0,242

Wine recommended by the Hachette guide-book 0,694 2 0,707

Origin of the wine (French or foreign)) 5,169 2 0,075

Alcohol content 10,516 2 0,005

Year of production 5,665 2 0,059

« Independant winegrowers » label 2,102 2 0,35

(*) The shaded areas point out the significant distribution differences

11

Appendix D. Kruskall-Wallis Test Results – Taste related risk(*)

Taste related risk

Risk-reducing factors Khi 2 ddl Sig.

Grape used to produce the wine 0,132 2 0,936

AB label on the bottle 2,13 2 0,345

Presentation of the wine section/department 0,21 2 0,9

A wine already purchased by the family 12,54 2 0,002

A winegrower’s wine : selection of the hypermarket 0,306 2 0,858

Leaflets and flyers 3,637 2 0,162

Radio commercials 0,081 2 0,96

Ad in a magazine 0,252 2 0,882

My friend’s opinion 21,443 2 0

Consumer’s associations opinions 2,628 2 0,269

Family’s opinion 42,998 2 0

The « Gold Medal” label on the bottle 3,729 2 0,155

Wine presented on a TV program 4,604 2 0,1

Nature conservation associations’ opinion and advice 2,448 2 0,294

The shape of the bottle 0,687 2 0,709

Information on the geographical origin 1,191 2 0,551

Wine recommended by a famous oenologist 6,147 2 0,046

Toll-free number to have details on the wine 10,327 2 0,006

The winegrower’s reputation 1,496 2 0,473

Sanitary controls by official bodies 3,42 2 0,181

Product with official designation of protected geographical origin 1,395 2 0,498

Colour of the wine 0,584 2 0,747

Information on the production techniques 0,882 2 0,643

Name and address of the bottling factory 2,871 2 0,238

Scientific experts’advice guaranteeing the quality of the wine 3,632 2 0,163

Cleanliness of the wine department 8,862 2 0,012

High price 1,086 2 0,581

Well-known designation (eg: st emilion) 5,774 2 0,056

Advice given by the shop assistant in the super/hypermarket 3,028 2 0,22

Winegrower’s photograph on the bottle 15,683 2 0

Advice given by the wine merchant 4,035 2 0,133

Wine recommended by the Hachette guide-book 1,333 2 0,514

Origin of the wine (French or foreign)) 1,598 2 0,45

Alcohol content 2,494 2 0,287

Year of production 0,329 2 0,848

« Independant winegrowers » label 4,441 2 0,109

(*) The shaded areas point out the significant distribution differences

12

References

Apfelbaum M. (1998), Risques et peurs alimentaires, Paris, O. Jacob Aron L. (1999), Du vin du culte au culte du vin : évolution de la pensée « magique » du vin, Vigne et Vin Publications Internationales, 45-51. Bettman J.R. (1973), Perceived Risk and its Components: A Model and Empirical Test, Journal of Marketing Research, 10, 2, p. 184-190. Bories D., Cazes-Valette G., Pichon P., Laborde C. (2014), Perception et réduction du risque lors de l’achat de viande bovine : une étude

exploratoire, 13th Marketing Trends Congress, Paris-Venise, 24th-25th January 2014 Brunel O. (2000), Perception du risque d’incorporation de produits alimentaires d’origine étrangère, L’agroalimentaire entre local et global,

Société Française d’Économie Rurale et l’Association Internationale d’Économie Alimentaire et Agro-industrielle, Paris. Brunel O. (2002), Les Stratégies d’ajustement au risque alimentaire : modèle théorique et test empirique, Thèse de Doctorat en Sciences de

Gestion, IAE, Université Lyon 3. Chiva M. (1998), Les risques alimentaires : approches culturelles ou dimensions universelles ?, in Apfelbaum M., Risques et peurs alimentaires,

Paris, O.Jacob, p. 125-134. Corbeau J.-P. and Poulain J.-P. (2002), Penser l’alimentation, entre imaginaire et rationalité, Editions Privat. Dandouau J.C. (1999), Le besoin d’information en situation d’achat et le comportement d’information face au rayon : utilisation des effets du

média de communication interactive électronique, Thèse de Doctorat en Sciences de Gestion, Université de Bourgogne. Dowling G.R., Staelin R (1994), A Model of Perceived Risk and Intended Risk-Handling Activity, Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 1, p. 119-

134. Duby J.-J. (1998), Risque alimentaire et désinformation, in Apfelbaum M., Risques et peurs alimentaires, Paris, O.Jacob, p. 159-165. Gallen C., Cases A.-S. (2003), Identification des dimensions du risque perçu dans l’achat de vins en ligne, in les Actes du 2nd atelier de

Recherche de l’AFM, « Percevoir, identifier et gérer le risque en marketing », La Sorbonne, Paris, p. 155-175. Guillon F. (1998), Notre système économique alimentaire est-il facteur de risque ou de sécurité sanitaire ?, in Apfelbaum M., Risques et peurs

alimentaires, Paris, O.Jacob, p. 169-177. Gurviez P. (2001), Le rôle de la confiance dans la perception des risques alimentaires par les consommateurs, Revue Française du Marketing, le

marketing face aux peurs alimentaires, n°183/184, 2001/3-4. Gurviez P., Kreziak D., Sirieix L. (2003), La matrice des vertus : Une nouvelle approche méthodologique des préoccupations liées à l’éthique, in

Les Actes du 19ème Congrès de l’AFM, Volume 19, Gammarth, p. 485-494. Ingene C.A., Hughes M.A. (1985), Risk Management By Consumers, Research in Consumer Behavior, 1, JAI Press, p. 103-158. Kapferer J.-N. (1998), Les marques, base de la confiance ?, in Apfelbaum M., Risques et peurs alimentaires, Paris, O. Jacob, p. 203-210. Kreziak D., Gurviez P., Sirieix L. (2003), Racines anthropologiques et sociologiques du risque alimentaire perçu, in Les Actes du 2nd atelier de

Recherche de l’AFM, « Percevoir, identifier et gérer le risque en marketing », La Sorbonne, Paris, p. 121-136. Locander W.B., Hermann P.W. (1979), The effect of Self-Confidence and Anxiety on Information Seeking in Consumer Risk Reduction, Journal

of Marketing Research, 16 , 2, p. 268-274. Louisot P. (1998), Les peurs alimentaires : Quelles assurances pour le consommateur ?, in Apfelbaum M., Risques et peurs alimentaires, Paris, O.

Jacob, p. 225-231. Marouseau G. (2001), Le marché est-il sûr ? Examen de l’organisation de la filière « viande bovine » face à l’impératif de sécurité, in Marché(s)

et Hiérarchie(s), Colloque Histoire, Gestion, Organisations, n°10, Institut d’administration des Entreprises de Toulouse. Mitchell V-W. (1999), Consumer perceived risk: conceptualisations and models, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33 Iss: 1 pp. 163 – 195 Müller J. (1985), Théorie du risque perçu et comportement du consommateur : Proposition d’un modèle, Thèse de 3ème Cycle, Lille Muraro-Cochart M. (2000), Contribution à l’étude de la relation entre le risque de santé perçu, l’implication durable et le comportement du

consommateur dans un contexte de crise alimentaire, 9ème Journée de Recherche en Marketing de Bourgogne, Dijon, Actes en ligne. Muraro-Cochart M. (2003), La perception du risque de santé alimentaire : approfondissement conceptuel et perspectives managériales, in 3ème

Congrès International des Tendances du Marketing, Venise. Perrouty J.-P., d’Hauteville F. (2000), A la recherche du lien entre risque, incertitude et qualité perçus dans les choix alimentaires : pour une

approche conventionnaliste, in Les Actes des 1iers ateliers de recherche de l’AFM, « Percevoir, identifier et gérer le risque en marketing », La Sorbonne, Paris, p. 9-28.

Pichon P-E. (2006), Perception et réduction du risque lors de l’achat de produits alimentaires en grande distribution : facteurs d’influence et rôle de la confiance, Thèse de doctorat en sciences de gestion, Université des sciences sociales de Toulouse, 140, 238, 312, 490, 491-493.

Pichon P.-E (2012), Réducteurs de risque, in Dictionnaire des cultures alimentaires, sous la direction de J.-P. Poulain, collection Quadrige, PUF Sirieix L. (1999), La consommation alimentaire : problématiques, approches et voies de recherche, Recherche et Applications en Marketing, Vol.

14, n°3/1999, p .41-58. Volle P. (1995), Le concept de risque perçu en psychologie du consommateur : antécédents et statuts théoriques, Recherche et Applications en

Marketing, 10, 1, p. 39-54. Yeung R.M.W. et Morris J. (2001), Consumer perception of food in risk in chicken meat, Nutrition & Food Science, Vol. 31, n° 6, 270-278.