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