Wine consumers’ environmental knowledge and attitudes: Influence on willingness to purchase

References

• Jay L. Green about the tills: Markets discover the eco-consumer. Manage Rev. 1990;79:24–29.
   Google Scholar
• Hayes D. The Green Decade. Amic J. 1990;12:24–29.
   Google Scholar
• Marshall R, Cordano M, Silverman M. Exploring individual and institutional drivers of proactive environmentalism in the US wine industry. Business Strategy and the Environment. 2005;14:92–109.
   Google Scholar
• Fish T. Viader fined by Napa County for environmental violations. Wine Spectator. 2002. [Cited August 15, 2008]. Available from http://www.winespectator.com/Wine/Daily/News/0%2C1145%2C1584%2C02.html.
   Google Scholar
• Fish T. Sierra Club tries to block new Beringer complex in Napa. Wine Spectator. 2002; Jan 18. p. 17.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson T, Cunningham W. The socially conscious consumer. J Mark. 1972;36:23–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kinnear H, Taylor J, Ahmed S. Ecologically concerned consumers: Who are they? J Mark. 1974;38:20–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antil J. Socially responsible consumers: Profile and implications for public policy. Journal of Micromarketing. 1984;4:18–32.
   Google Scholar
• Balderjahn I. Personality variables and environmental attitudes as predictors of ecologically responsible consumption patterns. J Bus Res. 1988;17:51–56.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buttel F. New directions in environmental sociology. Ann Rev Sociol. 1987;13:465–488.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hines J, Hungerford H, Tomera A. Analysis and synthesis of responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. J Environ Educ, 1987;13:1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Arbuthnot J. The roles of attitudinal and personality variables in the predication of environmental behavior and knowledge. Environ Behav. 1977;9:217–232.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maclnnis DJ, Mooreman C, Jaworski BJ. Enhancing and measuring consumers’ motivation, opportunity, and ability to process brand information from ads. J Mark. 1991;55:32–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer; 1986.
   Google Scholar
• Wright P. Cognitive responses to mass media advocacy. In: Petty RE, Ostrom TM, Brock TC, editors. Cognitive Responses in Persuasion. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1981. p. 263–282.
   Google Scholar
• Zaichkowsky JL. Familiarity: Product use, involvement, or expertise? Adv Consum Res. 1985;12:296–299.
   Google Scholar
• Frick J, Kaiser F, Wilson M. Environmental knowledge and conservation behavior: Exploring prevalence and structure in a representative sample. Pers Individ Diff. 2004;37:1597–1613.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krarup S, Russell C. Environment, information and consumer behavior. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Ottman JA. Green Marketing: Challenges and Opportunities for the New Marketing Age. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Business Books; 1992.
   Google Scholar
• Peattie K. Environmental Marketing Management: Meeting the Green Challenge. London: Pitman Publishing; 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Prothero A. Green consumerism and the societal marketing concept: marketing strategies for the 1990s. J Mark Manage. 1990;6:87–103.
   Google Scholar
• Lawrence J. Green product sprouting again: more focused efforts avoid controversy. Advert Age. 1993;10:12.
   Google Scholar
• GFK. Americans reach environmental turning point: Companies need to catch up. Custom Research North America. 2007. [Cited Aug 25, 2008]. Available from http://www.prnewswine.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?acct=104&story=/www.story/08-22-207/00046497348$edate#linktoppagebottom.
   Google Scholar
• Polansky MJ, Mintu-Wimsatt AT, editors. Environmental Marketing: Strategies, Practice, Theory, and Research. Binghamton, NY: The Hawthorn Press; 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Carlson L, Kangun N, Grove S. A classification schema for environmental advertising claims: Implications for marketers and policy makers. In: Polansky MJ, Mintu-Wimsatt AT, editors. Environmental Marketing: Strategies, Practice, Theory, and Research. Binghamton, NY: The Hawthorn Press; 1995. p. 225–238.
   Google Scholar
• Schlegelmilch B, Bohlen G, Diamantopoulos A. The link between green purchasing decisions and measures of environmental consciousness. Eur J Mark. 1996;30:35–55.
   Google Scholar
• Cornwall B, Schwepker C. Ecologically concerned consumers and their product purchase. In: Polansky MJ, Mintu-Wimsatt AT, editors. Environmental Marketing: Strategies, Practice, Theory, and Research. Binghamton, NY: The Hawthorn Press; 1995. p. 119–153.
   Google Scholar
• Webster F. Determining the characteristics of the socially conscious consumer. J Consum Res. 1975;2:188–196.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hooley GJ, Saunders J. Competitive Positioning: The Key to Marketing Strategy. London: Prentice-Hall International; 1993.
   Google Scholar
• Sherif M, Cantril H. The Psychology of Ego-involvements, Social Attitudes and Identifications. New York, NY: Wiley and Sons, Inc; 1947.
   Google Scholar
• Zaichkowsky JL. Measuring the involvement construct. J Consum Res. 1985;12:341–352.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rothschild ML. Perspectives on involvement: Current problems and future directions. Adv Consum Res. 1984;1:216–217.
   Google Scholar
• Mittal B. Measuring purchase decision involvement. Psychol Mark. 1989;6:147–162.
   Google Scholar
• Kassarjian H. Low involvement: a second look. Adv Consum Res. 1981;8:31–34.
   Google Scholar
• Andrews JC. Motivation, ability, and opportunity to process information: Conceptual and experimental manipulation issues. Adv Consum Res. 1988;15:219–225.
   Google Scholar
• Laurent G, Kapferer J. Measuring consumer involvement profiles. J Mark Res. 1985;22:41–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Houston M, Rothschild M. Conceptual and methodological prospectives of involvement, In: Jain S, editor. 1978 Educators’ Proceedings. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association; 1978. p. 184–187.
   Google Scholar
• Hupfer NT, Gardner DM. Differential involvement with products and issues: An exploratory study, Paper presented at the Second Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, College Park, MD; 1971.
   Google Scholar
• Lastovicka J. Questioning the concept of involvement defined product classes. Adv Consum Res. 1979;6:174–179.
   Google Scholar
• Bloch P. An exploration into the scaling of consumers’ involvement with a product class. Adv Consum Res. 1981;8:61–65.
   Google Scholar
• Dodd T, Laverie D, Wilcox J, Duhan D. Differential effects of experience, subjective knowledge, and objective knowledge on sources of information used in consumer wine purchasing. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research. 2005;29:3–19.
   Google Scholar
• Kolyesnikova N, Dodd TH, Wilcox JB. Gender differences as antecedents to reciprocal consumer behavior. J Consum Mark. 2009;26: In Press.
   Google Scholar
• Yuan J, So SI, Chakravarty S. To wine or not to wine: profiling a wine enthusiast for a successful list. Journal of Nutrition in Recipe and Menu Development. 2005;3(3/4):63–79.
   Google Scholar
• Barber N, Ismail J, Dodd T. Purchase attributes of wine consumers with low involvement. Journal of Food Products Marketing. 2007;14:69–86.
   Google Scholar
• Lockshin LS, Spawton AL, Macintosh G. Using product, brand and purchasing involvement for retail segmentation. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. 1997;4:171–183.
   Google Scholar
• Dodd TH, Gustafson WA. Product, environmental, and service attributes that influence consumer attitudes and purchases at wineries. Journal of Food Products Marketing. 1997;4:41–59.
   Google Scholar
• Goldsmith RE, d’Hauteville F, Flynn LR. Theory and measurement of consumer innovativeness: A transnational evaluation. Eur J Mark. 1998;32:340–353.
   Google Scholar
• Lockshin L, Quester PG, Spawton AL. Segmentation by involvement or nationality for global retailing: A cross-national comparative study of wine shopping behaviours. J Wine Res. 2001;12:223–236.
   Google Scholar
• Straughan R, Roberts J. Environmental segmentation alternatives: a look at green consumer behavior in the new millennium. J Consum Mark. 1999;16:531–532.
   Google Scholar
• Samdahl D, Robertson R. Social determinants of environmental concern: specification and test of the model. Environ Behav. 1989;21:57–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimmer M, Stafford T, Stafford M. Green issues: dimensions of environmental concern. J Bus Res. 1994;30:63–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Liere KD, Dunlap RE. The social bases of environmental concern: a review of hypotheses, explanations and empirical evidences. Public Opin Q. 1980;181–197.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickett GM, Kangun N, Grove SJ. Is There a general conserving consumer? a public policy concern. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing. 1993;12:234–243.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmer P, Kahle L. A structural equation test of the value-attitudebehaviour hierarchy. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988;54:638–646.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCarthy JA, Shum LJ. The recycling of solid wastes: personal values, value orientations, and attitudes about recycling as antecedents of recycling behaviour. J Bus Res. 1994;30:53–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gambro JS, Switzky HN. Variables associated with American high school students’ knowledge of environmental issues related to energy and pollution. J Environ Educ. 1999;30:15–22.
   Google Scholar
• Leeming FC, Dwyer WO, Bracken BA. Children’s environmental attitude and knowledge scale: Construction and validation. J Environ Educ. 1995;26:22–31.
   Google Scholar
• Schultz PW. Knowledge, information, and household recycling: Examining the knowledge-deficit model of behavior change. In: Dietz T, Stern PC, editors. New tools for environmental protection: Education, information, and voluntary measures. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2002. p. 67–82.
   Google Scholar
• Martin B, Simmintiras A. Determination of green purchase behavior: A review of the literature and an agenda for further research. In: Bell J, et al. editors. Marketing: Unity and Diversity. Proceedings of the 1994 Marketing Educators Group Conference; 1994. p. 628–637.
   Google Scholar
• Krause D. Environmental consciousness. Environ Behav. 1993;25:126–142.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amyx D, DeJong P, Lin X, Chakrabotry G, Wiener L. Influencers of purchase intentions for ecologically safe products: An exploratory study. Marketing Theory and Applications, Proceedings on the 1994 AMA Winter Educators Conference; 1994. p. 341–347.
   Google Scholar
• Kaiser FG, Fuhrer U. Ecological behavior’s dependency on different forms of knowledge. Appl Psychol. 2003;52:598–613.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eagly A, Chaiken S. The Psychology of Attitudes, New York: Harcourt Brace; 1993.
   Google Scholar
• Arcury T. Environmental Attitude and Environmental Knowledge. Human Organization. 1990;49:300–304.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bradley J, Waliczek T, Zajicek J. Relationship between environmental knowledge and environmental attitude of high school students. J Environ Educ. 1999;30:17–22.
   Google Scholar
• Jones J. U S drinkers consuming alcohol more regularly. 2006. [Cited Nov 5, 2007]. Available from: http://www.gallup.com/poll/23935/USDrinkers-Consuming-Alcohol-More-Regularly.aspx
   Google Scholar
• Jones J. Beer again edge out wine as American drink of choice. 2007. [Cited Nov 1, 2007]. Available from: http://www.gallup.com/poll/28234/Beer-Again-Edges-Wine-Americans-Drink-Choice.aspx
   Google Scholar
• Saad L. Wine gains momentum as Americans’ favorite adult beverage. The Gallup Poll Survey, July 18, 2005. [Cited Oct 17, 2007]. Available from: http://www.gallup.com/search/default.aspx?q=beverage+survey+gallop&s=&b=SEARCH.
   Google Scholar
• Wine Institute. 2005 California wine sales continue growth trend as wine Enters mainstream U S. lifestyle. 2006. [Cited April 3, 2006]. Available from: http://www.wineinstitute.org/industry/statistics/2006/wine_sales.php.
   Google Scholar
• Hussain M, Cholette S, Castaldi R. Determinants of wine consumption of US consumers: an econometric analysis. Int J Wine Bus Res. 2007;19:46–62.
   Google Scholar
• Baughman AT, Brown EJ, Brummet W, Dramko JM, Goldstein JH, Hooper BE. California Winemaking Impact Assessment, Masters Thesis. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California – Santa Barbara; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Raju P, Lonial S, Mangold W. Differential effects of subjective knowledge, objective knowledge and usage experience on decision making: An exploratory investigation. J Consum Psychol. 1995;4:153–180.
   Google Scholar
• Orth UR, Firbasova Z. The role of consumer ethnocentrism in food product evaluation. Agribusiness. 2003;19:137–153.
   Google Scholar
• Beatty S, Smith S. External search effort: An investigation across several product categories. J Consum Res. 1987;14:83–96.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brucks M. The effects of product class knowledge on information search behavior. J Consum Res. 1985;12:1–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alba J, Hutchinson J. Dimensions of consumer expertise. J Consum Res. 1987;13:411–454.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bettman J, Park C. Effects of prior knowledge and experience and phase of the choice process on consumer decision processes: A protocol analysis. J Consum Res. 1980;7:234–248.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bang HK, Ellinger A, Harjimarcou J, Traichal P. Consumer concern, knowledge, belief, and attitude toward renewable energy: An application of the reasoned action theory. Psychology and Marketing. 2000;17:449–468.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaichkowsky JL. The emotional aspect of product involvement. Adv Consum Res. 1987;14:32–35.
   Google Scholar
• Arcury TA, Johnson TP, Scollay SJ. Ecological Worldview and Environmental Knowledge: An Examination of the “New Environmental Paradigm.” J Environ Educ. 1986;17:35–40.
   Google Scholar
• Barber N. How self-confidence and knowledge effects the sources of information selected during purchase situations. Published dissertation. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell AN. The attitude and knowledge relationships between secondary agriculture and science students’ participation in multidisciplinary education and environmental/wetland restoration. Master’s thesis. College Station, TX: Department of Horticultural Sciences, Texas A&M University; 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Armstrong JB, Impara JC. The impact of an environmental education program on knowledge and attitude. J Environ Educ. 1991;22:36–40.
   Google Scholar
• Churchill GA. Basic Marketing Research, 5th ed. Mason, OH: South-Western; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Tabachnick B, Fidell L. Using Multivariate Statistics. Boston: Allyn and Bacon; 2001. p. 57–85 (Data samples); p. 653–771 (Structural Equation Modeling).
   Google Scholar
• Motto K, Fisher L. US Wine Demographics Report. St. Helena, CA: The Wine Business Center; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Kolyesnikova N. Gratuity purchasing at wineries: The role of gratitude and obligation in purchase by winery visitors. Unpublished Dissertation. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• United States Government. The United States Government. 2008. [Cited Oct 2, 2008]. Available from: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/appendices/07-append03.html&h=332&w=651&sz=24&tbnid=5Fcg47kIieYJ::&tbnh=70&tbnw=138&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dregions%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bunited%2Bstates&hl=en&usg=__F3ga1cHK2WixwzbCjhO3IM7UX9o=&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=5&ct=image&cd=1.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson J, Gerbing D. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull. 1988;103:411–423.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryu K, Jang S. The effect of environmental perceptions on behavioral intentions through emotions: The case of upscale restaurants. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research. 2007;3:56–72.
   Google Scholar
• Hair J, Anderson R, Tatham R. Black W. Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Byrne B. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Hu L, Bentler P. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structure Equation Modeling, 1999;6:1–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schumacker R, Lomax R. A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Park C, Lessig P. Familiarity and its impacts on consumer decision biases and heuristics. J Consum Res. 1981;8:144–151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barber N, Taylor C, Dodd T. The importance of wine bottle closures in retail purchase decisions of consumers. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management. 2008;18:(4) In Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bloch P, Richins M. A Theoretical model for the study of product importance perceptions. J Mark. 1983;47:69–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu M, Bruning E. Decomposing instrumental product importance to predict purchase behavior. Journal of Travel Research. 1986;25:24–28.
   Google Scholar