The single-serve wine option in South African restaurants: product involvement, risk perception and information-related behavioural effects

Figures & data

Figure 1. Conceptual model of wine by-the-glass (WBG), product involvement, risk perception and information processing.

Table 1. Socio-demographics, restaurant category patronage and WBG metrics of respondents.

Socio-demographic variable	Males	Females	Total (n = 1,038)
Gender	45.3%	54.7%	100.0%
Age generation
18–37 years old Millennials	48.6%	27.9%	35.3%
38–53 years old Generation-Xers	29.9%	44.6%	39.4%
54–72 years old Baby Boomers	18.8%	25.7%	23.2%
73–90 years old Silent Generation	2.7%	1.8%	2.1%
Age mean (years)	40.9 years	45.6 years	43.9 years
Gross monthly household income*
Household income (median)	ZAR 45,377	ZAR 55,996	ZAR 51,979
Educational status (highest level)
No post-secondary qualification	22.3%	23.2%	22.9%
Undergraduate post-secondary qualification	56.2%	53.1%	54.2%
Postgraduate post-secondary qualification	21.5%	23.7%	22.9%
Marital status
Married or co-habiting with de facto partner	67.1%	69.0%	68.3%
Single	26.6%	16.9%	20.3%
Divorced, separated or widowed	6.3%	14.1%	11.4%
Persons in household	3.52 persons	3.28 persons	3.37 persons
Restaurant category#
Full-service family restaurant	28.0%	39.0%	35.1%
Specialist steakhouse (e.g., Spur Group)	34.8%	17.0%	23.3%
Fine-dining upscale restaurant	15.8%	18.7%	17.6%
Casual ethnic food-service (e.g., Italian)	9.5%	18.1%	15.0%
Bar/pub/tavern	7.9%	3.6%	5.1%
Licensed café (e.g., Supermarket in-store)	2.4%	3.0%	2.8%
Quick-service/limited-service restaurant	1.6%	0.6%	1.1%
Wine consumption on the dining occasion
Dining group size (persons)	3.50	3.79	3.69
No. of WBG servings consumed by respondent	2.14	1.82	1.95
No. of 750 ml bottles also consumed by group	0.88	0.91	0.89
No. of WBG servings equiv. consumed by group	6.52	6.36	6.42
Amount spent^a on wine on the dining occasion	ZAR 201.90	ZAR 185.73	ZAR 191.84

^a ZAR Rands # Categorisation as per Canziani et al. (2016) and Euromonitor International (2022).

Table 2. WBG risk perception constructs confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

Factors	Mean	SD	Loading	AVE	Construct reliability	Z-stat	p > [z]
F1: Functional risk				0.533	0.733	22.303	<0.001
WBG_R1 (reversed)	5.55	1.408	0.113			2.413	0.016
WBG_R2	4.31	1.735	0.742			30.173	<0.001
WBG_R3	3.61	1.705	0744			28.075	<0.001
WBG_R4	4.38	1.707	0.753			28.550	<0.001
F2: Physical risk				0.586	0.735	28.334	<0.001
WBG_R5	3.49	1.766	0.553			19.019	<0.001
WBG_R6	4.94	1.725	0.781			34.747	<0.001
WBG_R7	4.32	1.721	0.741			31.235	<0.001
F3: Financial risk				0.519	0.723	22.263	<0.001
WBG_R8	5.05	1.560	0.512			24.614	<0.001
WBG_R9	4.09	1.864	0.604			27.094	<0.001
WBG_R10 (reversed)	3.74	1.692	0.134			22.081	0.037
F4: Social risk				0.646	0.865	29.598	<0.001
WBG_R11	2.70	1.689	0.544			14.178	<0.001
WBG_R12	2.29	1.515	0.732			30.065	<0.001
WBG_R13	2.01	1.332	0.823			39.947	<0.001
WBG_R14	2.04	1.302	0.691			22.568	<0.001
WBG_R15	2.11	1.390	0.833			42.814	<0.001
WBG_R16	1.93	1.235	0.772			28.013	<0.001
F5: Psychological risk				0.686	0.885	30.119	<0.001
WBG_R17* (deleted)	5.18	1.569	-0.098			-	-
WBG_R18	1.95	1.236	0.744			25.984	<0.001
WBG_R19	1.91	1.193	0.573			14.938	<0.001
WBG_R20	2.03	1.295	0.851			42.916	<0.001
WBG_R21	2.04	1.307	0.824			36.090	<0.001
WBG_R22	2.16	1.461	0.793			30.665	<0.001
F6: Time risk				0.513	0.711	22.440	<0.001
WBG_R23	4.60	1.833	0.573			18.583	<0.001
WBG_R24	3.41	1.671	0.721			26.130	<0.001
WBG_R25	3.80	1.816	0.674			22.608	<0.001

Measurement using 7-point Likert Scale: 1 =  Strongly Disagree …  … ..7 = Strongly Agree.

Goodness-of-fit stats: Chi-square: 1319.94 (452) RMSEA = 0.059 GFI = 0.916 AGFI = 0.907 p = 0.000.

^a Scale item deleted from the final WBG risk perception scales used in SEM model fit.

Table 3. Reliability analysis of involvement and information processing constructs scale items.

Latent construct	Inter-item covariances	AVE	Alpha	Chi-Square	p
Enduring Involvement (E_I)	1.404	0.601	0.798	409.360	0.000
Situational Involvement (S_I)	1.683	0.664	0.808	57.301	0.000
Information Seeking (I_S)	2.305	0.838	0.912	8.857	0.000
Information Provide (I_P)	2.008	0.692	0.818	105.109	0.000

Figure 2. Estimated model of wine-by-the glass (wbg) product involvement, risk perception and information processing.

Table 4. Final SEM outer model loadings outputs.

Latent variable	Item	Loading	Standard error	z-stat	P
Enduring Involvement (E_I)	E_I1	0.704	0.025	27.641	<0.001
Enduring Involvement (E_I)	E_I2	0.683	0.026	26.727	<0.001
Enduring Involvement (E_I)	E_I3	0.671	0.028	23.939	<0.001
Situational Involvement (S_I)	S_I1	0.771	0.022	35.250	<0.001
Situational Involvement (S_I)	S_I2	0.822	0.025	32.579	<0.001
Functional Risk (Funct_R)	WBG_1_r	0.104	0.044	2.196	0.028
Functional Risk (Funct_R)	WBG_2	0.742	0.025	29.939	<0.001
Functional Risk (Funct_R)	WBG_3	0.741	0.027	27.893	<0.001
Functional Risk (Funct_R)	WBG_4	0.764	0.026	29.022	<0.001
Physical Risk (Phys_R)	WBG_5	0.533	0.030	17.610	<0.001
Physical Risk (Phys_R)	WBG_6	0.760	0.033	23.163	<0.001
Physical Risk (Phys_R)	WBG_7	0.773	0.032	24.254	<0.001
Financial Risk (Fin_R)	WBG_8	0.941	0.285	3.289	<0.001
Financial Risk (Fin_R)	WBG_9	0.333	0.099	3.093	0.002
Financial Risk (Fin_R)	WBG_10_r	0.104	0.044	2.196	0.028
Social Risk (Social_R)	WBG_11	0.442	0.031	13.888	<0.001
Social Risk (Social_R)	WBG_12	0.732	0.025	29.090	<0.001
Social Risk (Social_R)	WBG_13	0.832	0.021	39.460	<0.001
Social Risk (Social_R)	WBG_14	0.694	0.030	22.778	<0.001
Social Risk (Social_R)	WBG_15	0.834	0.019	42.470	<0.001
Social Risk (Social_R)	WBG_16	0.771	0.028	27.183	<0.001
Psychological Risk (Psych_R)	WBG_18	0.754	0.028	26.474	<0.001
Psychological Risk (Psych_R)	WBG_19	0.582	0.039	14.970	<0.001
Psychological Risk (Psych_R)	WBG_20	0.853	0.020	42.913	<0.001
Psychological Risk (Psych_R)	WBG_21	0.811	0.024	34.415	<0.001
Psychological Risk (Psych_R)	WBG_22	0.794	0.027	29.141	<0.001
Time Risk (Time_R)	WBG_23	0.572	0.034	16.930	<0.001
Time Risk (Time_R)	WBG_24	0.753	0.036	20.526	<0.001
Time Risk (Time_R)	WBG_25	0.634	0.036	17.537	<0.001
Information Provide (I_P)	I_P1	0.814	0.022	38.491	<0.001
Information Provide (I_P)	I_P2	0.852	0.021	38.853	<0.001
Information Seeking (I_S)	I_S1	0.923	0.016	56.964	<0.001
Information Seeking (I_S)	I_S2	0.913	0.015	60.309	<0.001

Goodness-of-fit stats: Chi-square = 1230.831 (439) RMSEA = 0.057 GFI = 0.958 AGFI = 0.917.

SRMR = 0.051; p = 0.000.

Table 5. Parameter estimates for hypothesised paths.

Path between constructs	β (Beta)	Stan. Error	z-stat	p > [z]	Result
H1a: END_Involv→SIT_Involv	0.514	0.042	12.294	<0.001***	Supported
H1b: END_Involv→Psycho_Risk	0.268	0.054	4.986	<0.001***	Supported
H2a: SIT_Involv→Psycho_Risk	0.104	0.047	2.119	0.034**	Supported
H2b: SIT_Involv→Phys_Risk	0.133	0.060	2.229	0.026**	Supported
H2c: SIT_Involv→Fin_Risk	0.217	0.097	2.242	0.025**	Supported
H2d: SIT_Involv→Social_Risk	0.073	0.035	2.006	0.045**	Supported
H2e: SIT_Involv→Time_Risk	0.195	0.059	3.309	<0.001***	Supported
H2f: SIT_Involv→Funct_Risk	0.129	0.041	3.124	0.002***	Supported
H3a: Psych_Risk→Social_Risk	0.688	0.039	17.603	<0.001***	Supported
H3b: Psych_Risk→Funct_Risk	0.372	0.036	10.233	<0.001***	Supported
H3c: Psych_Risk→Phys_Risk	-0.031	0.054	-0.579	0.563	Not supported
H3d: Psych_Risk→Fin_Risk	-0.066	0.043	-1.541	0.123	Not supported
H3e: Psych_Risk→Time_Risk	0.206	0.055	3.743	<0.001***	Supported
H4a: END_Involv→INFO_Seek	0.155	0.046	3.385	<0.001***	Supported
H4b: SIT_Involv→INFO_Seek	0.443	0.044	9.986	<0.001***	Supported
H4c: Psych_Risk→INFO_Seek	0.235	0.049	2.913	<0.001***	Supported
H4d: Social_Risk→INFO_Seek	0.077	0.045	2.013	0.042**	Supported
H4e: Funct_Risk→INFO_Seek	0.072	0.036	1.985	0.047**	Supported
H4f: Phys_Risk→INFO_Seek	0.039	0.039	1.005	0.315	Not supported
H4g: Fin_Risk→INFO_Seek	0.072	0.038	1.989	0.048**	Supported
H4h: Time_Risk→INFO_Seek	-0.019	0.040	-0.486	0.627	Not supported
H5a: END_Involv→INFO_Prov	0.408	0.047	8.720	<0.001***	Supported
H5b: SIT_Involv→INFO_Prov	0.308	0.048	6.489	<0.001***	Supported
H5c: Psych_Risk→INFO_Prov	0.277	0.035	3.913	<0.001***	Supported

***z < 2.58 **z < 1.96 *z < 1.645.

Table

Risk dimension	Scale item	Scale mean if item deleted	Scale variance if item deleted	Corrected inter-item total correlation	Cronbach’s alpha if item deleted
Functional	R1 Drinking WBG allows for buying smaller quantities instead of a full 750 ml bottle of wine (reversed)	12.29	18.663	0.069	0.839
	R2 I would be concerned the wine served to me in a wine-by-the-glass format would not taste good because of the bottle having been opened a few days ago already	10.43	11.605	0.581	0.521
	R3 I would be afraid that WBG would not provide me with the level of benefits that I expected it to ^#	11.13	11.559	0.605	0.503
	R4 When buying WBG, I would worry about how reliable the WBG would be in terms of my taste expectation ^#	10.36	11.954	0.560	0.541
Physical	R5 WBG because it reduces the feeling of discomfort caused by a hangover	9.27	9.430	0.456	0.741
	R6 WBG because it makes it easier to control alcohol consumption level	7.81	8.554	0.591	0.578
	R7 WBG because of recommended quantity alcohol intake for health benefits	8.43	8.567	0.592	0.577
Financial	R8 WBG makes it possible to try some of the more expensive wines	7.83	6.997	0.246	0.189
	R9 WBG costs less and gives me more control over how much money I spend in total on wine when dining out	8.80	5.663	0.262	0.129
	R10 When buying WBG I would be concerned that I may not get my money’s worth (reversed) ^#	9.14	7.577	0.110	0.440
Social	R11 WBG because I cannot pick a 750 ml bottle for the table	10.38	30.658	0.427	0.874
	R12 WBG because not picking the right wine at a reunion would make me feel a fool	10.79	27.935	0.704	0.813
	R13 My friends’ and colleagues’ opinions about me buying WBG would cause me to feel concern ^#	11.08	29.086	0.741	0.807
	R14 WBG buying makes me feel antisocial	11.04	31.057	0.603	0.832
	R15 When buying WBG, I would be concerned about what people whose opinions are of value to me, would think of me, if I made a bad choice ^#	10.97	28.549	0.742	0.806
	R16 My buying WBG would cause me concern about what my friends would think of me if I made a bad choice	11.15	30.795	0.670	0.822
Psycho-logical	R17* WBG makes it possible to try new brands because I can order a number of small servings instead of one bottle of a single brand (deleted)	–	–	–	0.867
	R18 The thought of buying WBG would fill me with anxiety ^#	8.14	18.676	0.697	0.838
	R19 WBG because buying wine makes me feel anxious	8.18	20.586	0.521	0.877
	R20 When I think about buying WBG, I would experience tension ^#	8.06	17.458	0.787	0.814
	R21 The thought of buying WBG would make me feel uncomfortable ^#	8.04	17.803	0.738	0.827
	R22 I would worry a lot when buying WBG ^#	7.92	16.909	0.717	0.834
Time	R23 WBG because it is quicker to drink with a quick meal when I don’t have much time	7.21	8.937	0.469	0.637
	R24 WBG because it is quicker to order as there are fewer choices on the wine list ^#	8.40	9.191	0.538	0.551
	R25 WBG because I am not delayed in ordering as my choice is independent of the wine choice(s) of my dining companion(s) ^#	8.01	8.758	0.501	0.595

Note: WBG = Wine by-the-glass; Measurement using 7-point Likert Scale: 1 =  Strongly Disagree …  … ..7 = Strongly Agree Scale’s overall Cronbach alpha = 0.8133.

# Adapted from Dholakia (2001) for the purposes of this study; All other items are from the WBG scale of Bruwer et al. (2017).

*Scale item deleted from the final overall WBG risk perception scale used in SEM model fit.

Table

Construct	Scale item	Mean	Standard deviation	Corrected inter-item total correlation	Cronbach’s alpha if item deleted
Enduring Involvement (END_Involv)	EI-1 Because of my personality, I would rate wine as being of the highest importance to me personally	3.39	1.765	0.576	0.610
	EI-2 I could make many connections or associations between important experiences in my life and wine	4.16	1.754	0.551	0.641
	EI-3 In general, my wine would help others to see me as I would ideally like them to see me	2.93	1.652	0.526	0.670
Situational Involvement (SIT_Involv)	SI-1 When purchasing the wine on this last dining occasion, I had a high level of interest in the purchase process	4.50	1.588	0.662	0.796
	SI-2. On this last dining occasion, I put a lot of effort into the purchase of the wine	4.18	1.601	0.662	0.796
Propensity to Seek Information (INFO_Seek)	IS-1 Before buying the wine, I would obtain substantial information about the different brands and vintages	4.05	1.662	0.838	0.912
	IS-2 I would acquire a great deal of information about the different brands and vintages before buying the wine	3.96	1.656	0.838	0.912
Propensity to Provide Information (INFO_Prov)	IP-1 I would give other people advice about buying a particular brand of wine and vintage	4.41	1.680	0.692	0.818
	IP-2 I would like to influence my friends in their choice of a particular brand and vintage of wine	3.96	1.727	0.692	0818

Measurement using 7-point Likert Scale: 1 =  Strongly Disagree …  … ..7 = Strongly Agree1

# Adapted from Dholakia (2001) and the WBG scale of Bruwer et al. (2017).

Canziani, B.F., B. Almanza, R.E. Frash, M.J. McKeig, and C. Sullivan-Reid. 2016. Classifying restaurants to improve usability of restaurant research. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 28, no. 7: 1467–83.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Euromonitor International. 2022. Consumer foodservice by location in South Africa Passport Report. Euromonitor International, London: UK, March, 1–18.

 Google Scholar

Dholakia, U.M. 2001. A motivational process model of product involvement and consumer risk perception. European Journal of Marketing 35, no. 11/12: 1340–62.

 Google Scholar

Bruwer, J., A. Palacios Arias, and J. Cohen. 2017. Restaurants and the single-serve wine by-the-glass conundrum: risk perception and reduction effects. International Journal of Hospitality Management 62: 43–52.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar