Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of 12

th
APacCHRIE Conference 2014.
12
th
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 F
d
.*
a
Laboratory LRPmip, University Toulouse Jean Jaurs Figeac Campus, Avenue de Nayrac, 46100 Figeac, France
b
Laboratory CERTOP-EAST-UMR-CNRS 504, University Toulouse Jean Jaurs, 5 Alle Antonio Machado, 31100 Toulouse, France
c
Laboratory CERTOP-EAST-UMR-CNRS 504, University Toulouse Jean Jaurs, 5 Alle Antonio Machado, 31100 Toulouse, France
d
UIRGO Laboratoty-Bordeaux University, INP/Ensat Toulouse, Avenue de lAgrobiopole, 31326 Castanet-Tolosan Cdex, 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 (Mller, 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, consumers associations, etc.)
Personal sources motivated by self-interest (shop assistants or producers 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
dHauteville, 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 consumers behavior around wine and wine-drinking.

3. Methodology
479 respondents between 18 and 64 years, living mostly in Midi-Pyrnes 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 merchants
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 winegrowers 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 winegrowers 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 winegrowers 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-merchants 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 winegrowers 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 winegrowers photograph on the
label average usefulness evaluation.

Fig. 9. Long-term physical risk and winegrowers 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 winegrowers 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 familys 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 didnt 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 winegrowers 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 friends opinion 479 0 4,0877 4 0,78468
Consumers associations opinions 478 1 3,2908 4 1,16246
Familys 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 winegrowers 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 expertsadvice 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
Winegrowers 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 winegrowers 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 friends opinion
2,92 2 0,232
Consumers associations opinions
0,728 2 0,695
Familys 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 winegrowers 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 expertsadvice 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
Winegrowers 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 winegrowers 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 friends opinion
4,139 2 0,126
Consumers associations opinions
1,393 2 0,498
Familys 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 winegrowers 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 expertsadvice 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
Winegrowers 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 winegrowers 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 friends opinion
21,443 2 0
Consumers associations opinions
2,628 2 0,269
Familys 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 winegrowers 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 expertsadvice 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
Winegrowers 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 : volution de la pense 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 rduction du risque lors de lachat de viande bovine : une tude
exploratoire, 13
th
Marketing Trends Congress, Paris-Venise, 24
th
-25
th
January 2014
Brunel O. (2000), Perception du risque dincorporation de produits alimentaires dorigine trangre, Lagroalimentaire entre local et global,
Socit Franaise dconomie Rurale et lAssociation Internationale dconomie Alimentaire et Agro-industrielle, Paris.
Brunel O. (2002), Les Stratgies dajustement au risque alimentaire : modle thorique et test empirique, Thse de Doctorat en Sciences de
Gestion, IAE, Universit 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 lalimentation, entre imaginaire et rationalit, Editions Privat.
Dandouau J.C. (1999), Le besoin dinformation en situation dachat et le comportement dinformation face au rayon : utilisation des effets du
mdia de communication interactive lectronique, Thse de Doctorat en Sciences de Gestion, Universit 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 dsinformation, in Apfelbaum M., Risques et peurs alimentaires, Paris, O.Jacob, p. 159-165.
Gallen C., Cases A.-S. (2003), Identification des dimensions du risque peru dans lachat de vins en ligne, in les Actes du 2nd atelier de
Recherche de lAFM, Percevoir, identifier et grer le risque en marketing , La Sorbonne, Paris, p. 155-175.
Guillon F. (1998), Notre systme conomique alimentaire est-il facteur de risque ou de scurit sanitaire ?, in Apfelbaum M., Risques et peurs
alimentaires, Paris, O.Jacob, p. 169-177.
Gurviez P. (2001), Le rle de la confiance dans la perception des risques alimentaires par les consommateurs, Revue Franaise du Marketing, le
marketing face aux peurs alimentaires, n183/184, 2001/3-4.
Gurviez P., Kreziak D., Sirieix L. (2003), La matrice des vertus : Une nouvelle approche mthodologique des proccupations lies lthique, in
Les Actes du 19me Congrs de lAFM, 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 peru, in Les Actes du 2nd atelier de
Recherche de lAFM, Percevoir, identifier et grer 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 march est-il sr ? Examen de lorganisation de la filire viande bovine face limpratif de scurit, in March(s)
et Hirarchie(s), Colloque Histoire, Gestion, Organisations, n10, Institut dadministration 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
Mller J. (1985), Thorie du risque peru et comportement du consommateur : Proposition dun modle, Thse de 3me Cycle, Lille
Muraro-Cochart M. (2000), Contribution ltude de la relation entre le risque de sant peru, limplication durable et le comportement du
consommateur dans un contexte de crise alimentaire, 9me Journe de Recherche en Marketing de Bourgogne, Dijon, Actes en ligne.
Muraro-Cochart M. (2003), La perception du risque de sant alimentaire : approfondissement conceptuel et perspectives managriales, in 3me
Congrs International des Tendances du Marketing, Venise.
Perrouty J.-P., dHauteville F. (2000), A la recherche du lien entre risque, incertitude et qualit perus dans les choix alimentaires : pour une
approche conventionnaliste, in Les Actes des 1iers ateliers de recherche de lAFM, Percevoir, identifier et grer le risque en marketing ,
La Sorbonne, Paris, p. 9-28.
Pichon P-E. (2006), Perception et rduction du risque lors de lachat de produits alimentaires en grande distribution : facteurs dinfluence et rle
de la confiance, Thse de doctorat en sciences de gestion, Universit des sciences sociales de Toulouse, 140, 238, 312, 490, 491-493.
Pichon P.-E (2012), Rducteurs de risque, in Dictionnaire des cultures alimentaires, sous la direction de J.-P. Poulain, collection Quadrige, PUF
Sirieix L. (1999), La consommation alimentaire : problmatiques, approches et voies de recherche, Recherche et Applications en Marketing, Vol.
14, n3/1999, p .41-58.
Volle P. (1995), Le concept de risque peru en psychologie du consommateur : antcdents et statuts thoriques, 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.