Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 14

International Journal of Wine Marketing

Identifying Wine Innovators: A Test of the Domain Specific Innovativeness Scale


Using Known Groups
Dr Ronald E. Goldsmith
Article information:
To cite this document:
Dr Ronald E. Goldsmith, (2000),"Identifying Wine Innovators: A Test of the Domain Specific
Innovativeness Scale Using Known Groups", International Journal of Wine Marketing, Vol. 12 Iss 2 pp.
37 - 46
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb008708
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 09:28 11 August 2015 (PT)

Downloaded on: 11 August 2015, At: 09:28 (PT)


References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 201 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Ronald E. Goldsmith, (2001),"Using the Domain Specific Innovativeness Scale to identify
innovative Internet consumers", Internet Research, Vol. 11 Iss 2 pp. 149-158 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/10662240110695098
Ronald E. Goldsmith, François d’Hauteville, Leisa R. Flynn, (1998),"Theory and measurement of
consumer innovativeness: A transnational evaluation", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 Iss 3/4
pp. 340-353 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090569810204634
Ronald Goldsmith, Leisa Reinecke Flynn, (1992),"Identifying Innovators in Consumer
Product Markets", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 26 Iss 12 pp. 42-55 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090569210022498

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:463575 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well
as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of
download.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 09:28 11 August 2015 (PT)
Identifying Wine Innovators: A Identifying
Test of the Domain Specific Wine
Innovators
Innovativeness Scale Using
Known Groups
Dr Ronald E. Goldsmith, Marketing Department, College of Business, Flor-
ida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-11100, USA

Introduction

Thefirstbuyers of new products are important because they tend to be heavy


users of the product category, they are willing to pay more for new products
than later buyers, they act to publicise the new product to other consumers,
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 09:28 11 August 2015 (PT)

and their reaction may be crucial to the success or failure of the new product.
Following the adoption model at the heart of Diffusion Theory (Rogers,
1995), marketers hope to facilitate the adoption of a new product by the inno-
vators who will in turn promote the spread of the new product to later adopt-
ers (Foxall, 1984). Consequently, when launching new products, marketers
and advertisers often target the earliest buyers for specialised marketing
strategies designed to encourage them to purchase and to spread positive
word-of-mouth about the new product (Dodd, 1997). A key success factor in
this strategy, however, is the ability to identify the product innovators, those
most likely to be the earliest buyers. One way to identify consumer innova-
tors is to draw their names from lists of previous buyers of new products in
the product field on the presumption that the best predictor of future behav-
iour is past behaviour. Another approach is to locate buyers of a related new
product and hope that the innovative behaviour will transfer. If the data ana-
lyst has some way to both identify individual consumers and to link their
identification to the time they adopted a new product or products in the past,
then "time-of-adoption" since the date a new product enters the marketplace
can be used to isolate the innovators (Midgley and Dowling, 1978).

Unfortunately, several problems impede using time-of-adoption in


many product fields. Access to this type of data is limited to companies that
collect both time-of-adoption and some identifying datum such as a phone
number, name, or warranty number. This situation is not likely to occur for
packaged goods such as foods and beverages. Another problem arises when
consumers are asked to report their own time-of-adoption. Lack of available
records and memory shortcomings limit the ability (not to mention willing-
ness) of consumers to report accurate time-of-adoption (see Malhotra, 1999,
pp.299-300). Lastly, time-of-adoption is suspect as a valid indicator of con-
sumer innovativeness because it is behaviour and not the trait that leads to the

Volume 12 Number 2 2000 37


behaviour; so time-of-adoption is not equivalent to the personality concept
of consumer innovativeness (Midgley and Dowling, 1978).
Identifying
Wine To enhance the usefulness of diffusion theory for marketers by over-
Innovators coming the shortcomings of time-of-adoption as an indicator of innovative-
ness, Goldsmith and Hofacker (1991) developed a short, reliable self-report
scale, the Domain Specific Innovativeness Scale or DSI as a way to measure
consumer innovativeness (items appear in Table I). Their goal was a meas-
ure that was easy to administer in mail and telephone surveys or through
self-administered and personal interviews. Since consumer innovativeness
is domain specific (Midgley and Dowling, 1978) the scale was written to be
adaptable to virtually any productfieldin which consumers purchase often
enough to be able to summarise their past and current behaviour regarding
new products. Several studies have since confirmed the reliability and valid-
ity of the DSI for goods and services (e.g. Flynn and Goldsmith, 1993a,
1993b; Goldsmith and Flynn, 1992). Some studies have demonstrated its
usefulness for measuring wine innovativeness. Goldsmith and d'Hauteville
(1998) showed that wine innovators identified by the DSI were heavy users
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 09:28 11 August 2015 (PT)

of wine; and d'Hauteville and Goldsmith (1998) showed that the DSI was
positively correlated with wine involvement, wine opinion leadership,
real and subjective wine knowledge, and wine consumption. Goldsmith
(1998) replicated these results, which are similar to those reported by Dodd
(1997). We hypothesise that the DSI will be positively correlated with these
measures in the present study.

One key psychometric test, however, that is lacking in these


evaluations of the DSI for wine is the criterion-related validity described by
"known-groups validity" (DeVellis 1991, p. 47). "Known-groups validity is
based on hypotheses that certain groups of respondents will score higher on
a scale than others" (Spector, 1992, p 49). Differentiating members of one
group from another, which should be theoretically different based on their
scale scores, is evidence for predictive validity (Hattie and Cooksey, 1984).
All the tests in previous studies related scores on the DSI to scores on scales
measuring other constructs. There is little evidence that the DSI can
distinguish members of groups that are theoretically expected to differ on
the key construct. The purpose of the present study, therefore, was to
compare DSI scores between a known group related to wine and wine use
with another group. This validation is important because of the evidence it
contributes for the predictive validity of the DSI. It shows that the scale can
be used with confidence to identify wine innovators.

Method

The data for this study camefromtwo mutually exclusive groups of student
volunteers. Thefirstgroup registered for a new course taught in the Hospi-
tality Administration department in the College of Business at a large south-
eastern US university. The course was titled "Wine and Culture" and was an

38 International Journal of Wine Marketing


elective special-topics course taught by a professor in the HA department
(not the author). Offering this course provided an opportunity to collect data
from consumers who could be expected theoretically to be more innovative Identifying
when it comes to wine than the larger student body. Thus, they represent the Wine
known group for the purpose of this study. Designated the "wineclass" Innovators
group, they consisted of 20 men and 28 women. Their ages ranged from 21 to
29 years with a mean of 21.7 years (SD = 1.43).

The second group of consumers consisted of student volunteers in mar-


keting research and consumer behaviour classes taught by the author. They
were assumed to represent "normal" student consumers who would be
roughly equivalent to the wineclass group in most other ways. This "regular"
group consisted of 10 men and 17 women. Their ages ranged from 20 to 32
with a mean of 22.1 years (SD = 2.34). The proportions of men and women in
the test groups were very close, and there was no statistically significant (p <
.05) difference in their mean ages.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 09:28 11 August 2015 (PT)

Each test group was given the identical questionnaire to complete. The
wineclass was asked to complete the questionnaire at the beginning of the se-
mester so that the constructs being measured would be unaffected by the
course content. The questionnaire asked them to record their age and sex
(where 1 = male and 2 = female). Multi-item scales measured the constructs
of interest: wine innovativeness, involvement with (enthusiasm for) wine,
opinion leadership for wine, subjective knowledge of wine, real wine knowl-
edge, and wine-related consumer behaviour. Each scale was summed so that
higher numbers indicated more of the construct (e.g. higher involvement
scores indicated greater enthusiasm for wine).

The 3-item scale described by Mittal and Lee (1989) was adapted to
measure involvement with wine as a product field. These items use a five-
point Likert-type response format. One item reads: "I have a strong interest
in wine." The 6-item Likert scale with a seven-point response format de-
scribed by Flynn, Goldsmith, and Eastman (1996) measured opinion leader-
ship for wine. One item reads: "I often persuade other people to buy the wine
that I like." The 5-item self-report knowledge scale using a seven-point
Likert-type response format developed by Flynn and Goldsmith (1999)
measured self-perceived or subjective knowledge of wine. One item reads:
"Among my circle of friends, I'm one of the 'experts' on wine." Real wine
knowledge was measured by asking the respondents 12 multiple choice
questions about wine. One item reads: "Chardonnay is what type of wine? A.
white wine, B. blush, C. champagne, D. red wine." This "test" was graded by
adding up the number of correct answers. As the descriptive statistics in Ta-
ble II show, on average, this sample got only about half of the questions right!
An exploratory factor analysis showed that this scale contained five factors
(there is no presumption that real wine knowledge is unidimensional), so no
assessment of internal consistency was made.

Volume 12 Number 2 2000 39


Wine usage was assessed by four questions with multiple response op-
tions (Manning, 1991, pp.147-156). These were: "How often do you drink
Identifying wine? How often do you shop for wine? How much money, on average, do
Wine you spend on wine each month? About how often do you currently drink
Innovators wine?" Multiple indicators enhance the reliability and validity of social re-
search data (Curtis and Jackson, 1962). The answers were scored and added
to form a summed scale of wine usage. Table II shows that these scores
ranged from a low of four to a high of 29, indicating a great deal of variation.
An exploratory factor analysis (principal axis factoring) showed that the
four items formed one factor with an eigenvalue greater than 1.0 that ac-
counted for 68% of the item variance, and coefficient alpha for the summed
scale was .82.
Analyses and Results
Table II presents the descriptive statistics for the variables in the study.
These values show that the distributions of scores on the multi-item scales
covered all or nearly all of their theoretical ranges and that the scales had ac-
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 09:28 11 August 2015 (PT)

ceptable internal consistency reliability as shown by Cronbach's alpha.


One-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests using the Lilliefors significance
correction showed that none of the scale scores were normally distributed (p
< .05). Table III presents Pearson correlations of the six multi-item scales'
scores along with age and sex of subject. These values show that the DSI was
positively and significantly correlated with all five of the other concepts, as
hypothesised, and consistent with previous research into wine innovative-
ness (Goldsmith, 1998). Owing to the small sample and absence of normal
distibutions, Kendall's tau b (non-parametric) correlation coefficients were
also computed and appear in Table III as well. They also provide support for
the hypothesised associations between DSI scores and the scores on the
other scales. Note that age of subject was uncorrelated with any of the vari-
ables.

MANOVA was used to test the differences on the six constructs of in-
terest between the two groups. The first analysis was a 2 X 2 (group X sex)
multivariate analysis of covariance with age as the covariate. The results
showed that although there was no covariate effect and no main effect for
sex, there was a significant group X sex interaction. Closer examination
showed that this effect was limited to a sex difference in the wineclass group
only, and only for wine behaviour, where the men reported buying and using
much more wine than the women did. Since substantive interest in sex dif-
ferences do not play a role in the purpose of this study and age was shown to
have no influence, the analysis was repeated as a simple MANOVA with the
grouping variable (wineclass versus regular) as the only independent vari-
able. There was a highly significant multivariate difference between the two
groups (F6,68= 12.0, p < .01, eta2 = .515). The univariate tests results from the
MANOVA appear in Table IV. They show that the students in the wine class
were more innovative, more involved with wine, more likely to be opinion

40 International Journal of Wine Marketing


leaders for wine, claimed to know more about wine, actually knew more
about wine, and consumed more wine than the regular group students.
Identifying
Because the dependent variables were not normally distributed and be- Wine
cause Box's test of the equality of covariance matrices was significant Innovators
(F21,10896 = 1.93, p < .01), indicating that the within-cell covariance matrices
were not the same; and because Levene's test of equality of error variances
showed that the error variances of the dependent variables were not equal
across the groups for four of the dependent variables (DSI, subjective knowl-
edge, opinion leadership, and involvement) at p < .05, the group comparison
analysis was repeated as a non-parametric test using Mann-Whitney rank
tests (see Huck and Conner, 1996). The results were identical; the wineclass
group ranked significantly higher (p's < .01) on all six dependent variables
than the regular group.
A final analysis was conducted to determine how well the six dependent
variables would discriminate between the two groups. A discriminant analy-
sis was performed using all six variables. The results showed that Wilks'
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 09:28 11 August 2015 (PT)

Lambda was significant (chi-square=48.7, df = 2, p < .01) and that with step-
wise entry of the variables, wine involvement entered first and DSI entered
second. Variable entry ceased at that point, indicating the remaining vari-
ables could not improve the discriminating power of the analysis. The dis-
criminant function correctly classified 93.8% of the wineclass and 55.6% of
the regular group. Only two of the 48 wineclass and seven of the 27 regulars
were misclassified. A second discriminant analysis used only involvement
as the discriminating variable. In this instance, 93.8% of the wineclass and
74.1% of the regulars were correctly classified. In a third discriminant analy-
sis, only DSI was used as the discriminating variable. This discriminant func-
tion correctly classified 93.8% of the wineclass and 55.65 of the regulars.
Thus, along with wine involvement, the DSI representing wine innovative-
ness did a good job discriminating between the students enrolled in the wine
class and the other students.
Finally, note that Table I presents the means of the two groups on the six
separate DSI items. A MANOVA showed that there was a significant multi-
variate difference between the two groups (F6,68 = 12.99, p < .001, eta2 =
.534), and the separate univariate tests showed that all six items discrimi-
nated between the two groups, at least at the . 10 level.
Discussion
This article reports the results of a validity study of the Domain Specific In-
novativeness scale using the known-groups validation method (DeVillis,
1991, p.47; Spector, 1992, p.49). Two groups of student volunteers com-
pleted questionnaires containing scales to measure wine-related constructs.
The analyses showed that the DSI was positively and significantly correlated
as hypothesised with five other constructs: wine involvement, wine opinion
leadership, subjective and actual wine knowledge, and wine usage. These re-

Volume 12 Number 2 2000 41


suits are very consistent with earlier studies of wine innovators (Dodd,
1997; Goldsmith, 1998). Moreover, the students who had registered for a
Identifying class in wine scored much higher on the DSI (M = 21.5) than did a group of
Wine "regular" students (M = 15.8). Since the wineclass students would theoreti-
Innovators cally be supposed to score higher on a measure of wine innovativeness, and
the DSI did a good job of differentiating these students, we can conclude that
the scale does possess this type of construct validity.
Although the DSI did not discriminate perfectly between the wineclass
and the regular students in the discriminant analysis, there is a good reason.
The two groups can not be considered to be "absolute" in their membership.
That is, not all those registered for the wine class could be expected to be
wine innovators; some might reasonably be expected to be interested in
wine enough to take the class, but not truly innovative when it comes to
wine. Likewise, there is good reason to suppose that some of the students
drawn from a "regular" class would be wine innovators and thus would have
profiles on these variables much more like the students in the wine class than
like their fellow students. Given this qualification, the DSI did a remarkable
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 09:28 11 August 2015 (PT)

job of distinguishing wine innovators from other wine consumers; and the
fact that the two groups differed on all the measures supports the validity of
the wineclass group as a legitimate test for the DSI.
The relatively small number of participating subjects limits the study.
It is also limited to the population from which the participants were drawn.
Generalisations should be made with caution. However, the clarity of the
findings suggests that the DSI is a valid and reliable instrument that can be
used with confidence in measuring wine innovativeness. Future studies
should focus on evaluating the DSI for known-groups validity in other prod-
uct fields; and studies should be made to further evaluate its predictive valid-
ity.
In conclusion, the study contributes to a body offindingsshowing that
the DSI is a reliable and valid self-report of wine innovativeness. Combined
with the results of other studies, the findings show that the DSI does a good
job of identifying wine innovators. Wine marketers can use it with confi-
dence to easily measure innovativeness for wine. Having identified these
consumers, their attitudes and behaviours can be studied and this knowledge
used to improve wine-marketing strategies directed to wine innovators. Suc-
cessful marketing to wine innovators can help promote the diffusion of new
wine products to all wine-drinking consumers.

42 International Journal of Wine Marketing


References
Curtis, R.F. and Jackson, E.F. (1962), "Multiple Indicators in Survey Re- Identifying
search," American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 68, No. 2, pp. 195-204. Wine
Innovators
DeVellis, R.F. (1991), Scale Development: Theory and Applications, Sage,
Newbury Park.
D'Hauteville, F. and Goldsmith, R.E. (1998) "Measuring Cross Cultural Ac-
ceptance of an Innovation: The Case of Low-Alcohol Wine," in I. Balder-
jahn, C. Mennicken, and E. Vernette (Eds.), New Developments and
Approaches in Consumer Behaviour Research, Stuttgart, Schaffer-Poeschel
Verlag, pp.290-305.
Dodd, T.H. (1997), "Factors That Influence the Adoption and Diffusion of
New Wine Products," Hospitality Research Journal, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp.123-
136.
Flynn, L.R. and Goldsmith, R.E. (1993a), "Identifying Innovators in Con-
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 09:28 11 August 2015 (PT)

sumer Service Markets," Service Industries Journal, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp.97-
109.
Flynn, L.R. and Goldsmith, R.E. (1993b), "A Validation of the Goldsmith
and Hofacker Innovativeness Scale," Educational and Psychological Meas-
urement, Vol. 53, pp.1105-1116.
Flynn, L.R. and Goldsmith, R.E. (1999), "A Short, Reliable Measure of Sub-
jective Knowledge," Journal of Business Research, Vol. 46, No. 1, pp.57-66.
Flynn, L.R., Goldsmith, R.E. and Eastman, J.K. (1996), "Opinion Leaders
and Opinion Seekers: Two New Measurement Scales," Journal of the Acad-
emy of Marketing Science, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 137-147.
Foxall, G.R. (1984), Corporate Innovation, St. Martin's Press, New York.
Goldsmith, R.E. (1998), "Some Characteristics of Wine Innovators," Inter-
national Journal of Wine Marketing, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp.5-12.
Goldsmith, R.E. and d'Hauteville, F. (1998), "Heavy Wine Consumption:
Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives," British Food Journal, Vol. 100,
No. 4, pp. 184-190.
Goldsmith, R.E. and Flynn, L.R. (1992), "Identifying Innovators in Con-
sumer Product Markets," European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 26, No. 12,
pp.42-55.
Goldsmith, R.E. and Hofacker, C.F. (1991), "Measuring Consumer Innova-
tiveness," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 19, No. 3,
pp.209-221.

Volume 12 Number 2 2000 43


Hattie, J. and Cooksey, R.W. (1984), "Procedures for Assessing the Validi-
ties of Tests Using the 'Known-Groups' Method," Applied Psychological
Identifying Measurement, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp.295-305.
Wine
Innovators Huck, S.W. and Cormier, W.H. (1996), Reading Statistics and Research,
Harper Collins, New York.
Malhotra, N.K. (1999), Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation, 3rd
edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Manning, W.G. (1991), The Costs ofPoor Health Habits, Cambridge, Har-
vard University Press.
Midgley, D.F. and Dowling, G.R. (1978), "Innovativeness: The Concept
and Its Measurement," Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 4 (March),
pp.229-242.
Mittal, B. and Lee, M. (1989), "A Causal Model of Consumer Involve-
ment," Journal ofEconomic Psychology, Vol. 10, pp.363-389.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 09:28 11 August 2015 (PT)

Rogers, E.M. (1995), Diffusion of Innovations, 4th edition, Free Press, New
York.
Spector, P.E. (1992), Summated Rating Scale Construction: An Introduc-
tion, Sage, Newbury Park.

44 International Journal of Wine Marketing


Table I: Domain Specific Innovativeness Items Compared Between Two Groups
DSI Item Wineclass Regular F Sig. Eta Observed
Mean & SD Mean & SD Squared Power
In general, I am among the last in my 3.94(0.84) 2.89(1.42) 16.2 <.00 .182 .978
circle of friends to purchase a new wine.
(-)
If I heard that a new wine was available 3.71 (0.62) 2.37 (0.97) 53.5 <.00 .423 1.0
through a local store, I would be inter-
ested enough to buy it. (+)

Compared to my friends, I do little shop- 3.71 (0.85) 2.96(1.34) 8.7 .004 .106 .828
ping for new wine. (-)

I would consider buying a new wine, 3.65 (0.91) 2.30(1.17) 30.8 <.00 .297 1.0
even if I hadn't heard of it yet. (+)

In general, I am the last in my circle of 3.67 (0.93) 3.19(1.44) 3.01 .083 .041 .411
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 09:28 11 August 2015 (PT)

friends to know the names of the latest


wines and wine trends. (-)

I know more about new wines than other 2.85 (0.65) 2.07(1.00) 16.7 <.00 .187 .981
people do. (+)

Note: These are the univariate tests from the MANOVA. A five-point Likert response format was used where 1 =
Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree, 4 = Agree, and 5 = Strongly Agree. Negative items
are reverse scored.

Table II: Descriptive Statistics for the Variables in the Study


Variable Name Range Mean Stand. Alpha
Deviation
DSI 6-27 19.5 4.6 .79

Involvement 3-15 10.7 3.0 .82

Opinion. Leader 6-37 24.0 7.8 .85

Subjective Know 5-33 20.5 5.9 .81

Real Knowledge 2-10 6.3 1.8

Behaviour 4-29 15.1 6.2 .82

Age 20-32 21.8 1.8

Volume 12 Number 2 2000 45


Table III: Correlations of the Variables

Identifying Variable DSI Inv OL SKnow RKnow Behave Age Sex


Wine DSI .52* .38* .43* .34* .43* -.03 -.13
Innovators
Inv .68* .52* .39* .28* .49* -.01 -.17

OL .63* .68* .50* .29* .45* -.05 -.06

SKnow .67* .53* .74* .25* .34* -.05 -.21*

RKnow .50* .45* .42* .34* .31* -.07 -.01

Behave .57* .65* .61* .51* .43* -.02 -.18

Age -.10 -.04 .01 -.05 -.11 .03 -.19

Sex -.13 -.18 -.05 -.23* .04 -.21 -.06


Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 09:28 11 August 2015 (PT)

Note: Upper diagonal contains Kendall's tau b coefficients; lower diagonal contains Pear-
son product-moment coefficients
*p < .05 (2-tailed)

Table IV: Comparison of Mean Scores on Independent Variables Between


Wineclass and Regular
Variable Wineclass Regular F Sig. Eta Observed
Mean& Mean& Squared Power
SD SD
DSI 21.5(2.7) 15.8 (4.9) 43.0 <.001 .371 1.0

Inv 12.2(1.8) 8.1 (2.9) 58.9 <.001 .447 1.0

OL 26.5 (5.5) 19.6 (9.4) 16.3 <.001 .182 .978

SKnow 22.1(4.9) 17.7(6.7) 10.6 .002 .127 .896

RKnow 6.8(1.5) 5.3 (2.0) 15.3 <.001 .174 .972

Behave 17.3 (5.5) 11.2(5.4) 21.8 <.001 .230 .996

Note: These are the univariate tests from the MANOVA.

46 International Journal of Wine Marketing


This article has been cited by:

1. Rakhi Thakur, Mala Srivastava. 2015. A study on the impact of consumer risk perception
and innovativeness on online shopping in India. International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management 43:2, 148-166. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Sonia San Martín, Jana Prodanova. 2014. ¿Qué factores fomentan la compra por impulso en el
comercio móvil?. Revista Española de Investigación en Marketing ESIC 18, 32-42. [CrossRef]
3. Rhonda Hammond, Natalia Velikova, Tim H. Dodd. 2013. Information Sources Used by Millennial
Restaurant Wine Consumers. Journal of Foodservice Business Research 16, 468-485. [CrossRef]
4. Yung-Hsiang Cheng, Ting-Yu Huang. 2013. High speed rail passengers’ mobile ticketing adoption.
Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 30, 143-160. [CrossRef]
5. Kiran Karande, Altaf Merchant, K. Sivakumar. 2012. Relationships among time orientation,
consumer innovativeness, and innovative behavior: the moderating role of product characteristics.
AMS Review 2, 108-125. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 09:28 11 August 2015 (PT)

6. K. Bhagya Lakshmi, M. Rajaram. 2012. Impact of Information Technology Reliance and


Innovativeness on Rural Healthcare Services: Study of Dindigul District in Tamilnadu, India.
Telemedicine and e-Health 18, 360-370. [CrossRef]
7. Kyu-Seek Sohn. 2012. An Empirical Study of Factors Influencing Intention to Use Smartphone
Applications. Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society 13, 628-635. [CrossRef]
8. Kiran Karande, Altaf Merchant, K. Sivakumar. 2011. Erratum to: Relationships among time
orientation, consumer innovativeness, and innovative behavior: the moderating role of product
characteristics. AMS Review 1, 99-116. [CrossRef]
9. Somnath Chakrabarti. 2010. Factors influencing organic food purchase in India – expert survey
insights. British Food Journal 112:8, 902-915. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. I. Lesschaeve, J. BruwerThe importance of consumer involvement and implications for new product
development 386-423. [CrossRef]
11. Joaquín Aldás‐Manzano, Carla Ruiz‐Mafé, Silvia Sanz‐Blas. 2009. Exploring individual personality
factors as drivers of M‐shopping acceptance. Industrial Management & Data Systems 109:6, 739-757.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
12. Jay P. Carlson, Leslie H. Vincent, David M. Hardesty, William O. Bearden. 2009. Objective and
Subjective Knowledge Relationships: A Quantitative Analysis of Consumer Research Findings.
Journal of Consumer Research 35, 864-876. [CrossRef]
13. Joaquín Aldás‐Manzano, Carlos Lassala‐Navarré, Carla Ruiz‐Mafé, Silvia Sanz‐Blas. 2009. The role
of consumer innovativeness and perceived risk in online banking usage. International Journal of Bank
Marketing 27:1, 53-75. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
14. Karen Miller, Doren Chadee. 2008. The relevance and irrelevance of the brand for small and medium
wine enterprises. Small Enterprise Research 16, 32-44. [CrossRef]
15. Enrique Bigné‐Alcañiz, Carla Ruiz‐Mafé, Joaquín Aldás‐Manzano, Silvia Sanz‐Blas. 2008. Influence
of online shopping information dependency and innovativeness on internet shopping adoption.
Online Information Review 32:5, 648-667. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
16. Nelson Barber, Barbara Almanza, Tim Dodd. 2008. Relationship of Wine Consumers' Self-
Confidence, Product Involvement, and Packaging Cues. Journal of Foodservice Business Research 11,
45-64. [CrossRef]
17. Nelson Barber, Joseph Ismail, Tim Dodd. 2007. Purchase Attributes of Wine Consumers with Low
Involvement. Journal of Food Products Marketing 14, 69-86. [CrossRef]
18. Brian F. Blake, Colin M. Valdiserri, Kimberly A. Neuendorf, Jillian N. Valdiserri. 2007. The Online
Shopping Profile in the Cross-National Context. Journal of International Consumer Marketing 19,
23-51. [CrossRef]
19. Ronald E. Goldsmith. 2001. Using the Domain Specific Innovativeness Scale to identify innovative
Internet consumers. Internet Research 11:2, 149-158. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 09:28 11 August 2015 (PT)

Вам также может понравиться