Cue incongruity in wine personality formation and purchasing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the direct and interaction effects of brand name (BN) of wine and country‐of‐origin (COO) on perceptions of the personality image of the wine, expected price, and willingness to engage with the wine. Design/methodology/approach A field experiment in which label information for a fictitious wine was presented to wine consumers with a questionnaire on wine perceptions and response measures. The label information was manipulated across subjects using four BNs and three COOs. Findings The study confirms BN and COO effects on perceived wine personality and responses to the wine. Findings also indicate the effects of BN and COO as well as a BN‐COO interaction effect on price expectations. Research limitations/implications Findings link different personality dimensions to the two different cues, suggesting greater independence of the cues than originally expected. However, some BN‐COO incongruity effects are found particularly regarding price perceptions. A small set of wine BNs and COOs are tested and sample size/treatments are limited. With larger sample sizes, some weak effects might prove more significant. For more substantive support of these findings, the study could be repeated in different locations with different BN and COO examples. Practical implications The results suggest consumers are open to some fluidity in brand name use across wine‐producing countries with appropriate pricing strategies. They also highlight the importance of understanding consumer perceptions of wine personality in assessing consumer responses and price expectations. Originality/value The research addresses BN and COO direct and interaction effects on many aspects of wine evaluation and the central role of personality dimensions in wine assessments. The paper provides evidence of value in a rapidly evolving marketplace for wine and insights into the ongoing strategic changes in the wine market. It also contributes to theory and research on information cue use and cue incongruity effects.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".