The Impact of Consumer Involvement on Perceived Brand
Authenticity: A Natural versus Conventional Winemaking
Approaches Experiment
Rafael Franceschini 11444398 Supervisor: Mr Joris Demmers MSc
MSc Business Administration 2016-2017 Semester 2
University of Amsterdam Amsterdam Business School
Plantage Muidergracht 12, 1018 TV Amsterdam
Statement of originality
This document is written by Rafael Franceschini, who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Abstract
The concept of Brand of Authenticity has been subject to great academic curiosity. It has great value for marketing managers who want to build strong and successful brands. This study intended to explore the moderating effect of Consumer Involvement on the link between authenticity cues and Perceived Brand Authenticity (PBA). For this, an online survey was applied to a non-probabilistic sample of 513 respondents from North America, Europe, and South America. Four attributes of a fictitious wine producer were manipulated throughout six randomised scenarios. The results showed that there is a significant impact of the level of Consumer Involvement on the relationship between the cues of authenticity and PBA. The findings contribute to the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) and PBA research literature by considering the different levels of consumer involvement. Further implications and limitations are discussed.
Keywords: perceived brand authenticity, purchase intentions, word-of-mouth, consumer involvement, elaboration likelihood model
Table of Contents 1. Introduction ... 5 2. Literature Review ... 9 2.1 Brand authenticity ... 9 2.2 Heritage ... 13 2.3 Quality commitment ... 15 2.4 Workmanship ... 16 2.5 Scarcity ... 18 2.6 Consumer involvement ... 19
2.7 Elaboration likelihood model ... 20
3. Research model ... 24
4. Method ... 25
4.1 Sample ... 26
4.2 Measurements of variables ... 28
4.3 Personal involvement inventory scale (PII) ... 31
4.4 Statistical procedure ... 32
5. Results ... 33
5.1 Moderation effect) ... 36
5.2 Consequences of PBA ... 43
6. Discussions ... 44
6.1 Theoretical and practical implications ... 45
6.2 Limitations and future research ... 48
1. Introduction
Involvement has been one of the fundamental concepts in the study of consumer behaviour for the past twenty years. It is credible that the level of involvement has an impact, both positive and negative, on how consumers evaluate products regarding quality and authenticity. For instance, experienced wine consumers look for products that are usually produced in small batches, by a single winemaker, and that follows a more transparent and eco-friendly approach. Whereas less involved wine consumers tend to make their choices based on the reputation of the brand, generally carried by large wine corporations.
To investigate the above example, this paper examined the effect of customer involvement as a moderator of the relationship between the brand authenticity cues on the four dimensions of PBA suggested by Morhart, Malär, Guèvremont, Girardin, and Grohmann (2013). The four dimensions of PBA are Continuity, Credibility, Integrity, and Symbolism (dependent variables). Four authenticity cues are filtered based on the examinations of previous researches conducted by Aaker, 1997; Alexander, 2009a; Assiouras, et al., 2015a; M. Beverland, 2005, 2006, 2008; Bruhn, et al., 2012a; Gilmore & Pine, 2009; Moulard, et al., 2016; Napoli, et al., 2014a; Pattuglia & Mingione, and examined in this research. Those being, Heritage, Quality Commitment, Workmanship and Scarcity (independent variables). The effects of the four dimensions of PBA on Purchase Intentions and positive Word-of-mouth are also studied (dependent variables of the PBA construct). This model is, therefore, integrated with the Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981; 1986) to expand the comprehension of the consumer decision-making process considering the two routes of persuasion. The backstage attributes (heritage, quality commitment, workmanship, and scarcity) may emerge more strongly for different levels of consumer involvement.
What stands out in the current literature of consumer behavior is the presence of authenticity as a brand characteristic and its effects on the unfolding of relationships between
consumers and brands or products. Beverland (2005) went on a quest for authenticity, his work uncovered one of the cornerstones of contemporary marketing. In addition to this, it is possible to find several studies that have emerged in the last decade, with a focus on research on how brand authenticity is composed (Beverland, 2005; Bruhn, Schoenmüller, Schäfer, & Heinrich, 2012; Ewing, Allen, & Ewing, 2012; J.-C. Molleda, 2009; Morhart et al., 2013), perceived (Beverland & Farrelly, 2010; Gilmore & Pine, 2009) and used (Napoli, Dickinson, Beverland, & Farrelly, 2014b) by the consumers. Also, it is possible to guide the construction and maintenance of more authentic brands in order to obtain better marketing results
(Alexander, 2009b; M. Beverland, 2005, 2006b; Beverland, 2005a; 2005b; 2006; 2008; Cavanaugh & Shankar, 2014; Eggers, O’Dwyer, Kraus, Vallaster, & Güldenberg, 2013; Kolar & Zabkar, 2010).
It is precisely an investigation about the above role of brand authenticity in the relationship between consumers and products that this research intends to accomplish. Measuring the impact of Consumer Involvement on Perceived Brand Authenticity and consequently on Purchase Intentions and Word-of-Mouth, through four authenticity cues (Heritage, Quality Commitment, Workmanship and Scarcity) impacting a four-dimensional PBA mapped in the literature (Continuity, Credibility, Integrity, and Symbolism) that together help to explain brand authenticity (M. B. Beverland & Farrelly, 2010; Bruhn et al., 2012b; Morhart et al., 2013; Napoli et al., 2014b).
This research aims to provide more detailed information on the role of Consumer Involvement and Brand Authenticity and its dimensions in the relations between consumers and products, with more precise guidelines for managers to build and maintain for a longer time, and more closely the relationship of their brands with their customers. Since they can manage very specific issues that make up the Brand Authenticity and obtain with this, direct results of greater association and loyalty of their clients and consumers.
For this study, a revision of the literature was made to select and compose a set of four authenticity cues and four dimensions of PBA that according to the main authors explain the construction and maintenance of brand authenticity. In this paper, we present the results regarding Heritage obtained by (Assiouras, Liapati, Kouletsis, & Koniordos, 2015; M. B. Beverland, 2005; 2006; 2010; Leigh, 2006; Napoli et al., 2014), Quality Commitment (J. L. Aaker, 1997; Bruhn et al., 2012b; Gilmore & Pine, 2009; Napoli et al., 2014b; Pattuglia & Mingione, n.d.), Workmanship ((Alexander, 2009b; M. Beverland, 2005; 2006; Napoli et al., 2014), Scarcity ((M. Beverland, 2006b; Moulard et al., 2016) and the four dimensions of Perceived Brand Authenticity studied by Morhart et al. (2013), which are Continuity, Credibility, Integrity and Symbolism.
To test the chosen authentic cues and their relationship with PBA, a survey has been conducted with wine consumers of three selected regions, Europe, North America and South America. The wine industry is selected for this study because it represents a rich context for discussions of authenticity given the recent mainstreaming of wine consumption (Beverland, 2006a). Differently, from Beverland’s research, this study introduced the concept of artisanal wine production. By manipulating some characteristics of a fictitious winemaker, this study aims to examine the influence of Consumer Involvement on the relationship of the selected attributes and PBA. Six scenarios were created, and they mix information regarding two types of the winemaking process, the conventional method, and the natural method.
Customer involvement has been chosen to be examined in this study, affecting the relationship between the antecedents of brand authenticity and PBA. The study, aims for integrating this concept with the ELM framework (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981). More specifically, how consumers with different levels of involvement take central or peripheral routes of persuasion when exposed to different information manipulated in this experiment.
The results obtained through this research tested the validity of the use of Heritage, Quality Commitment, Workmanship, and Scarcity as authenticity cues present in the composition of a solid explanation of how consumers perceive brand authenticity. This contributes to the understanding of the formation of this important construct, on which much of the efforts of the marketing literature are currently deposited. For as Beverland (2005b)
has already pointed out, authenticity is one of the great cornerstones of the marketing research agenda.
This study aimed to contribute to the literature in several ways. Firstly, by expanding the understanding of how the dimensions of PBA influence behavior under the perspective of the wine industry. Secondly, by introducing consumer involvement into the PBA framework and observe its influence on the outcome variables. This study makes an ultimate contribution to the ELM theory, by concluding on how different levels of involvement affect the perception of brand authenticity. To managers, this study helps to incorporate attributes into the brand and create conditions that allow these brands to be recognized by their audiences as more authentic. Therefore, achieve better and long-lasting marketing results.
This research is conducted under the theme of Brand Authenticity and its consequences on the identification and connection of consumers and brands in the context described in the previous item, having as a research problem the following question: What is the influence of consumer involvement on the relationship between authenticity cues and perceived brand authenticity?
2. Literature Review
There is an evident current of science examining the conceptual values of brand authenticity for a robust, reliable and widely accepted construct. As a result of this academic interest, it is likely to find in the marketing literature some significant works on the subject, such as
Alexander (2009a), Beverland, (2005, 2006, 2008), Morhart et al. (2013).
The above trend is more emphasized in the last six years when marketing literature has been inundated by a large volume of impactful publications on brand authenticity and its role in association to consumers and brands (Aiello & Dickinson, 2014; Morhart et al., 2013). This gives the subject more popularity in the academic world, accelerating the construction of knowledge about possible effects of brand authenticity on consumer behavior
The proposal offered by this research is supported by investigating the current theoretical references on the theme of brand authenticity with the intention of providing relevant support for the understanding about the characterizations of PBA, besides its dynamic position and importance in marketing under the lens of consumer behavior.
2.1 Brand authenticity
Brands authenticity has been defined by scholars as, "the extent to which consumers perceive a brand to be faithful to itself and true to its customers" The usefulness of brand authenticity cannot be overemphasized, as it helps consumers look for brands that are relevant, original, and genuine. Brand authenticity has been the priority when purchasing goods (Morhart et al., 2013).
Authenticity is one of the elements that constitute the brand identity (Chernatony, 1999). It is also a central component of brand success, as it is part of unique brand identity
(Aaker, 1997; Kapferer & Laurent, 1993). As an element of identity, it is perceived by consumers and the market (Heding, Knudtzen, & Bjerre, 2009). The creation of images of
authenticity involves the projection into parts, truths and rhetoric (Beverland, 2005). This combination of real and stylized attributes helps to create an "aura" around the brand
(Alexander, 2009) that differentiates this brand from the mass market, allowing it to look committed to higher values. There is a solidified consensus that authenticity is a socially constructed interpretation of the essence of what is observed rather than inherent properties of an object (Lindgreen, Beverland, & Farrelly, 2010). The literature states that authenticity can be proper to an object, when it is analysed in its relations with other elements, such as; its origin, its nature, its historical period, its manufacturing process or organization, among other relations (Lindgreen et al., 2010).
Postrel (2003) claims that authenticity can result through a series of subjective forms, such as the connection with time and place, to claim tradition. Through balance and pleasure to harmoniously project authenticity. Alternatively, like purity, which condemns dilution and thus, gives authority to what is natural and functional. Alternatively, as an aura (Alexander, 2009) or essence (Newman & Dhar, 2014), where authenticity refers to objects that have in themselves signs of their history. Finally, it also considers, as self-expression, where the brand is authentic because it is a genuine expression of internal and personal truth.
Beverland and Farrelly (2010), in turn, acknowledge after their review of the literature that there are several elements that determine authenticity, including industrial and rhetorical attributes. Given this, they coined the following definition for brand authenticity; "Authenticity is projected through a heartfelt story that involves confession of compromise with tradition, passion for craft and production excellence, and the public repudiation of modern industrial attributes as well as commercial motivation" (Beverland and Farrelly (2010).
Brand authenticity has gained a growing and relevant focus of study and discussion in the last decade (Alexander, 2009; Beverland, 2005, 2006; Eggers et al., Gilmore & Pine,
2009). However, there is still not a very clear definition of how this higher-level construct is accurately composed since each researcher (Napoli et al., 2014) has been incorporating new lower-level constructs to measure and explain the development of brand authenticity. Although they are proposing new and different definitions, conceptually they walk close to each other.
Brand authenticity is presented in the literature as a construct composed of several attributes. And it's the combination of these attributes that help define the building of an authentic brand. The perception of an aura of authenticity around the brand as described by
Alexander (2009), depends on the mental perspectives of the consumers themselves
(Beverland, 2005), which can occur in a varied way between one individual and another
(Leigh, 2006). Thus, a brand can be perceived as authentic through the interpretation and combined analysis of this set of attributes by each consumer (Napoli et al., 2014). Still, under the interpretation of Napoli et al. (2014) the study of authenticity is defined as a subjective assessment of the authenticity attributed to a brand by its consumers and can be built around multifaceted perceptions. What Gilmore and Pine (2009) believe to occur in two ways; through its internal consistency, which reflects how much a brand stays true to itself and external consistency, which reflects how much a brand is capable of appearing to be what it is and does not appear to be a fake. Therefore, the authenticity perceived by the consumers, is a strong competitive advantage (Gilmore & Pine, 2009).
For a comprehension of the set of attributes considered in this research, a review of these attributes presented by the authors (Beverland, 2005a, 2005b, 2006; Brown, Kozinets, & Sherry, 2003; Eggers et al., 2013b; Ewing, Jevons, & Khalil, 2009; Lindgreen et al., 2010; Molleda, 2009; Napoli et al., 2014a) will serve as a foundation for the theoretical analysis of the constructs of this study.
Brands play an important role in consumers' projection of identity (Escalas & Bettman, 2005). Customers can also rely on brands to express themselves, and it serves as the ground for differentiation between meaningless and useful products. The success of a brand stands with its perceived integrity, that is, the public sentiment of a brand’s proven and trusted capacity to fulfill its promises (Campelo, Aitken, & Gnoth, 2011).
Recent studies have endeavored to conceptualize and measure brand authenticity dimensions. Liao & Ma (2009) identified six characteristics of authenticity: Originality, Heritage, Quality Commitment and Credibility, Scarceness, Sacredness, and Purity. This assertion was further supported by Bruhn et al. (2012), as he opined that brands authenticity consists of four dimensions, namely continuity, originality, reliability, and naturalness.
Napoli, Dickinson, Beverland and Farrelly (2014) on the other hand suggest three factors labeled quality commitment, sincerity, and heritage.
Brand authenticity is a significant factor influencing customer’s purchase intention or an estimate of how much other people are prepared positively talk about the brand. This indicates a widespread tendency to overestimate others’ purchase intention. This precedent suggests that when brand authenticity is assured, customers are more likely to have a positive attitude, which estimates their purchase intention. This also suggests that the more customers perceive a brand to be authentic, the more likely consumers incorporate it into their self-concept and tell other people positive things about that brand (Assiouras, 2015). The more authentic a brand is, the more connected customers will be to the brand, and this sets a high preference level on the brand.
2.2 Heritage
One of the dimensions that help to explain the authenticity of the brand is its place of origin
(Assiouras et al., 2015a; Beverland, 2005; Newman & Dhar, 2014). This involves the place of foundation of the company, the origin of the products (Beverland, 2006), the city, region and/or country where the products are designed (Beverland, 2005a; Newman & Dhar, 2014). For example, the authenticity of sparkling wines produced in the Champagne region of France (Beverland, 2005a). It can still be perceived as the place where the products are marketed (Assiouras et al., 2015a).
If Harley Davidson is considered to be an authentic brand (Beverland, 2005b), this is partly because it is made entirely of American soil. In the same way, the Ferrari brand can be considered authentic because it manufactures its vehicles totally in Italy, in the famous factory of Maranello. Or even a Levis Strauss jeans can be perceived as a more authentic product than that of competing brands by having in its marking label (San Francisco, California, patented May 20, 1873) with information of the company and its location
(Alexander, 2009a). These brands thus attribute to their identities part of the characteristics, cultural symbolism and values of the place of origin.
Beverland (2006) states that often when a brand that has built its authenticity through the link with its place of origin removes or has for some reason a break in this connection, they suffer an identity crisis. Like what happened with British Airways, which, by altering its communication to better adapt to a global operation, removed the British flag from the tail of its aircraft in the name of a multicultural design that was capable of encompassing its global consumer base (Beverland, 2006).
For this study, the tradition employed by a brand will be considered as one of the attributes that help to explain and build the authenticity of a brand, here composed in a condensed way, by complementary concepts already worked by the marketing literature. It is
one of the characteristics of the tradition of a brand, constituted here by its heritage
(Beverland, 2005; Napoli et al., 2014; Pattuglia & Mingione, 2015) and by its nostalgia (R. Belk, 1988). This ability to be considered or perceived (Kressmann et al., 2006) as a traditional brand is described by Beverland (2005) as the link with, or the ability to show, the signs of its history. The position occupied by a brand according to its past and future history, help define its authenticity through its heritage (Beverland, 2006).
In his study, Beverland (2006) presents the heritage and describes its importance as a result of the parameters established by the brand since its foundation, able to attribute to its image a "pedigree," since it indicates a consistent level of quality. As a result, the company's heritage is inherited (Heding et al., 2009). Therefore, heritage is a constructive form of authenticity (Leigh, 2006a). Heritage may aid in the conception of tradition, by how committed the brands are to their roots, since they can reflect the values of their founders and how much of their stories are known to their consumers (Beverland, 2006).
Nostalgia is an individual or collective preference for objects that were present in moments already lived by the individual (Belk, 1990). Defined by Belk (1988) as a melancholic mood that can be presented in various forms, such as objects, music, aromas and so on. For Beverland and Farrelly (2010), nostalgia is related to a bygone era. Napoli et al., (2014) links nostalgia to the memories that a consumer possesses of what they call the "golden age," which still lasts by making strong connections with the past.
The concept of place of origin (Assiouras et al., 2015; Beverland, 2006; Beverland, 2005) has been merged with heritage to form a single variable. This involves the place of foundation of the company, the origin of the products (Beverland, 2006) the city, region or country where the products are designed (Beverland, 2005). For example, the authenticity of sparkling wines produced in the Champagne region of France (Beverland, 2005). It can also be perceived as the place where the products are marketed (Assiouras et al., 2015b).
This direct linking of the brand with its place of origin grants consumers a certain attractiveness by suggesting that the product still has essential aspects of the brand.
Beverland (2006) states that often when a brand that has built its authenticity by connecting with its place of origin interrupts this connection, they suffer an identity crisis.
H1: Heritage positively influences the four dimensions of PBA.
2.3 Quality commitment
Brands can be considered authentic according to their degree of reliability. That is, how much a brand is perceived as able to fulfill its commitments, as well as to deliver and maintain what it promises (Bruhn et al., 2012b). Other authors conceptualize sincerity (Aaker, 1997; Fine, 2003; Napoli et al., 2014; Pattuglia & Mingione, 2015) as a dimension very similar to reliability or quality commitment. Although the sincere history of a brand for Beverland (2005) refers to the dimensions of the country of origin and heritage, the brand's real commitment to the quality of its products demonstrates the sincerity of its promises and the commitment to deliver the best possible to its consumers.
Credibility will be considered in this study as part of the brand sincerity dimension, due to its conceptual similarity. Presented by Morhart et al. (2013) in his authenticity scale, credibility is also important in the associative contribution of authenticity to brands because it means that the brand delivers what it said to be able to do (Morhart et al., 2013). Still, for
Morhart et al. (2013) they also conceptualize credibility as the transparency of the brand and its honesty towards consumers, as well as their willingness and ability to fulfill their demands.
An important element when dealing with brand management is particularly the quality of its products. It is capable of conveying competence and performance to consumers who have previously used the product. Because quality is a result of the commitment to the
original processes and principles, and to the high levels of demand determined by the company, regardless of changes in the market (Beverland, 2005; Gilmore & Pine, 2009). Considering quality as a factor present in trust, resulting from a continuous process of experiences and perceptions over time. That is, consumers attribute a greater degree of trust in brands, based on the combination of perceptions of their image over many experiences, which results in a brand reputation (de Chernatony, 1999b) capable of strengthening the consumer's future expectation after every contact and experience. Therefore, quality is fundamental to brands (Napoli et al., 2014b) and is one of the main ways companies can ensure that consumers will continue to experience real and authentic experiences (Molleda, 2009) by consuming their products.
H2: Quality commitment positively influences the four dimensions of PBA.
2.4 Workmanship
Beverland's contribution (2005a) to the composition of the superior definition of brand authenticity reflects the passion for the craft and a commitment to excellence, while at the same time representing a public repudiation of the role of modern industrial attributes and commercial motivations. In studying artisanal winemaking, Beverland (2005a) was able to understand that the deliberate mercantilist dissociation and opposition to mass marketing, coupled with a dedication to traditional methods and handmade craft production, was able to provide a greater image of authenticity for the brands of wines that thus behaved in their daily operations. Brand authenticity is also derived from adjustments made by the "artist's hand," which attributes critical issues about creativity and high product quality (Beverland, 2006), such as some special parts manufactured in the manufacture of a Rolls Royce.
The dimension of authenticity, of being craftsmanship, establishes that the brand and its products are made by a craftsman who is attentive to the details and involved with the production process (Napoli et al., 2014a) of the object.
If on one side of this characteristic of being artisanal is the factor of manufacture, that is, the specialized and individual handling of the artisan, on the other there is a prerogative that pressures the manufacturing process to be less oriented to the commercial motivations
(Beverland, 2005a; 2005b; 2006) which needs to be adjusted to the objectives of the company.
Thus Beverland (2006) describes how some brands seek to maintain their sense of authenticity even while working with large-scale manufacturing processes, such as Coca-Cola which has industrial facilities across the globe but maintains consistent American values. Or the Mercedes Benz that produces its vehicles in countries of low cost but retaining the German style. Whether it is producing something handmade (real) or handmade (fictional) production style, the perception is that the manual production that involves the human skill of the artist, designer or craftsman is valued by consumers (Beverland, 2006) as especially unique, which contributes to the maintenance of what Alexander (2009) presents as the "aura" of the brand's authenticity.
As stated by Beverland (2005), the definition of brand authenticity includes something that reflects the passion for the craft, and the commitment to a product of excellence, while at the same time representing a public repudiation of the role of modern industrial attributes and commercial motivations. In studying artisanal winemaking,
Beverland (2005) was able to understand that the deliberate mercantilist dissociation and opposition to mass marketing, coupled with the dedication to traditional methods and handcrafted artisanal production, was able to provide a greater image of authenticity for the brands of wines that behaved accordingly to these premises in their daily operations. Brand
authenticity is also derived from adjustments made by the artist's hand, which attributes critical questions about creativity and the high quality of the products (Beverland, 2006), like some special parts in the manufacture of a Rolls Royce.
The dimension of authenticity, of being craftsmanship, establishes that the brand and its products are made by a craftsman who is attentive to detail and involved with the production process (Napoli et al., 2014b) of the object. Beverland (2006) describes how some brands seek to maintain their sense of authenticity even while producing at a large scale. Whether it is producing handmade or industrially manufactured, it is evident that the perception of a manual production involving the artist, designer or craftsman's human skill, is valued by consumers (Beverland, 2006), as especially unique. This observation contributes to the maintenance of what Alexander (2009) presents as the "aura" of the brand.
H3: Workmanship positively influences the four dimensions of PBA.
2.5 Scarcity
Scarcity is described as the extent to which consumers perceive that products or service are not widely available or accessible (Moulard et al., 2016). Product's scarcity gives consumers the impression that the brand is not focused only on aggressive growth, as commonly assumed by the other brands. As such, brands that produce few goods or manage few outlets are more likely to be seen as rare (Moulard et al., 2016). Further, brands with limited output are likely to be perceived to take pride in and are committed to their craft. According to
Boyle (2004), brands perceived as small are believed to have handmade goods that are not mass-produced. In Beverland's, (2006) qualitative study on authentic wines, one participant notes, “scarcity has value and authentic wines are those that are difficult to find because they are made in small batches.” Scarcity is also similar to (Moulard et al., 2016) notion of celebrity discretion, which their results suggest is a sub-dimension of rarity.
H4: Scarcity positively influences the four dimensions of PBA.
2.6 Consumer involvement
There are several different applications of the term "involvement" in the literature, and this may be a consequence of the various combinations and measurements of involvement
(Zaichkowsky, 1985). Despite the existence of different levels of involvement, there is, however, a certain consensus that the high degree of involvement means personal relevance or importance (Greenwald & Leavitt, 1984). For Blackwell, Miniard and Engel (2001), involvement is the degree of perceived personal relevance of a product or service in a given context. Zaichkowsky (1985) proposes the most updated definition of involvement in the literature: "The perceived relevance of an object based on the needs, values, and interests inherent to the person."
Quester and Smart (1998) report that consumer behavior is influenced by the level of involvement with the product and by the anticipated consumption situation. For Michaelidou and Dibb (2006), the history of product involvement appears to vary according to the product category. According to Schiffman and Kanuk (2007), "the level of involvement of a consumer depends on the degree of personal applicability that the product presents to him." High-involvement purchases are those with high risk involved and, therefore, cause more information processing.
2.7 Elaboration likelihood model
The Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1983) is considered to be a dominant model in the theory of persuasion and attitude change (Zheng et al., 2012). The ELM was initially proposed as a means of understanding why the results of some studies of attitude changes could be characterized as relatively strong (persistent), while the results of other attitudinal change studies could be characterized as weak (non-persistent).
Petty and Cacioppo (1981) argue that the existing literature on persuasion, even with various conceptual and effect divergences, ends up emphasizing two distinct pathways for attitude change. The ELM presents two likely persuasion processes: the central route, characterized by the intense cognitive elaboration of the message's arguments, for high levels of involvement. And a peripheral route, when there is little motivation or ability to process information. The receiver uses other clues such as the attractiveness or atmosphere of the ad to determine the suitability and attitude that result to the commercial and the brand (Petty & Cacioppo, 1983). The central route is emphasized by the theories of attention, comprehension, and retention of the message, by the theory of the information generated by the recipient in the face of the persuasive message, and by the theory that people combine information to evaluate them (Petty and Cacioppo, 1981). A very rational and "elaborate" approach, therefore.
On the peripheral route, the thinking is not so elaborate, and the message is accepted by its attractiveness or by "sounding good" to the recipient. While on the central route, the force of arguments is an essential aspect of attitude change. On the peripheral route, some clues may be the basis of attitude change, such as the attractiveness of the source, the number of arguments (not the nature of these), the atmosphere and the sentiment generated by the message (Petty and Cacioppo, 1981).
The result of attitude change via the central route is characterized as implying more extensive and integrated cognitive structures, while the change of attitude by the peripheral route is characterized by smaller and weaker connections. And the distinction between processing routes is characterized by the likelihood - high or low - of the receiver's elaboration of the message (Petty & Cacioppo, 1983).
According to the ELM theory, constructs such as the level of involvement, the need for cognition and the ability to elaborate serve as moderators to lead the consumer to process
via the central or peripheral route. The ELM authors translate involvement as the degree of personal relevance and the result of which entails more personal connections to the advertising message (Petty & Cacioppo, 1983).
H5a: Higher levels of consumer Involvement decrease the influence of heritage on
the dimensions of PBA. As examined by Beverland (2005), a rich Heritage is appreciated by wine consumers, and it is perceived as a cue of authenticity. However, consumers at higher levels of involvement may not perceive the older winemaker as more authentic than the winemaker with recent history. Adopting the ELM theory as background framework, it can be inferred that Heritage operates on the peripheral route of persuasion. Consumers at lower levels of involvement may perceive the older winemaker as more authentic than the winemaker with more recent history.
H5b: Higher levels of Consumer involvement increase the effect of quality
commitment on the dimensions of PBA. Consumers at higher levels of involvement may perceive more authenticity in the winemaker that applies a natural winemaking approach, using natural techniques and believing in small human intervention. Consumers at lower levels of involvement may perceive the winemaker that employs more modern techniques as more authentic. It is, therefore, inferred that adopting natural winemaking techniques, which include minimal human intervention and letting nature decide the outcome of final product vintage after vintage, works on the central route of persuasion, whereas modern techniques and standardized quality year after year, operates on the peripheral route.
H5c: Consumer involvement moderates the effect of workmanship on the four
dimensions of PBA. Consumer at a higher level of involvement may perceive more authenticity in the winemaker that has a smaller area and produces less quantity, suggesting that this information works on the central route of persuasion. Consumers at low levels of
involvement may perceive the winemaker with a larger area and a larger production as more authentic, suggesting that this information works on the peripheral route of persuasion.
H5d: Consumer involvement moderates the effect of scarcity on the four dimensions
of PBA. Consumer at a higher level of involvement may perceive more authenticity in the winemaker whose wines are more difficult to find, suggesting that this information works on the central route of persuasion. Consumers at low levels of involvement may perceive the winemaker whose wines are easier to find as more authentic, suggesting that this information works on the central peripheral of persuasion.
Figure 1 shows the mechanisms of persuasion suggested by Petty & Cacioppo (1983), which depending on the consumer’s ability and motivation, he or she may process the information either along the central or peripheral route of persuasion.
This study presents a framework (Figure 2) showing how Consumer Involvement affects the influence of authenticity cues on the PBA dimensions. The ELM theory is, therefore, used as an overarching theory to explain role these product's attributes, as predictors of PBA. The message is transmitted to the consumers that according to his or her level of involvement, will process the information along the central or peripheral route of persuasion.
Figure 1. ELM framework
According to Assiouras et al., (2015), brand authenticity positively impacts brand attachment that consequently has a positive effect on behavioral intentions, such as purchase intentions and positive Word-of-mouth. Marketing communications strategies may hurt consumers’ perception of brand authenticity and therefore brand attachment and behavioral intentions and Word-of-mouth. It is, therefore, hypothesized that PBA positive influences Purchase Intentions and Word-of-mouth.
H6a: PBA positively influences Purchase Intentions.
3. Research model
This research helps bring to light new authenticity cues that can affect brand authenticity perception and analyze its impact on brand attachment under different levels of consumer involvement. Through brand authenticity, customers can reinforce their identity and thereby be enhancing their loyalty and attitude on a given brand. This shows that brand authenticity cues such as quality commitment, heritage, originality, reliability, and originality are remarkably similar to the self-brand connection of consumers. This paper also shows the significance of brand authenticity in creating, reflecting, or participating in customer's identity. It also examines the impact of PBA on brand attachment under the persuasion theory of ELM. Helping the understanding how PBA affect both, peripheral and central routes of persuasion according to the level of customer involvement.
The literature explains the influence of some authentic cues, such as reliability
(Beverland, 2005) and respectfulness on brand authenticity perception (Morhart et al., 2013).
Brand authenticity is a component of the brand equity (Lu, Gursoy, & Lu, 2015), influencing positively brand attachment leading to purchase intention, word-of-mouth, quality perception, and willingness to pay (Assiouras et al., 2015b; Morhart et al., 2013). What the literature doesn't explain, is why, in some circumstances, customers assign different values to the authenticity cues, or even consider different aspects such as, irony, fun, anarchism or outlaw. The previous literature hasn’t yet introduced “involvement” as a moderating effect between PBA and brand attachment.
Figure 2. Conceptual framework
4. Method
This research utilizes the data on 686 respondents from an online survey conducted to examine PBA using a fictitious winemaker. The survey was designed on Qualtrics structured to include 35 survey questions. All survey questions were recorded on a 7-point Likert scale except for demographic variables of age which is on a continuous scale and gender which is on a nominal scale. The data was available in Statistical Package for Social Scientist (SPSS) format, and statistical calculations were conducted in SPSS version 25. Data screening was done to check for inconsistent observations and missing observations before proceeding with the data analysis process.
Four IVs were manipulated in this experiment and randomized throughout six scenarios. Two levels of manipulation were used for each variable, as showed in Table 4. Code 0 and Code 1 indicate how the cases were coded in SPSS. Table 5 shows how the manipulations were scrambled throughout the six scenarios.
Table 4. Randomization and case coding
IV Code 0 (Natural winemaker) Code 1 (conventional winemaker)
Heritage Founded in 2005 Founded in 1857
Quality Commitment Applies natural winemaking techniques Applies modern winemaking techniques Believes in minimal human intervention Believes in maximum human intervention
Workmanship Owns 5 hectares Owns 450 hectares
Produces 5 thousand bottles/year Produces 3 million bottles/year
Scarcity Can be found in a few specialized stores Can be found in all wine stores
Table 5. Randomized scenarios/code
Scenarios Heritage Workmanship Quality
Commitment Scarcity Scenario 1 1 0 0 0 Scenario 2 0 1 1 1 Scenario 3 1 0 1 0 Scenario 4 1 0 1 1 Scenario 5 0 1 0 0 Scenario 6 0 1 0 1
The above combination of attributes was considered taking real-life examples as reference. Some specific combinations of attributes were not considered because no examples were found that would represent such a combination. For example, a winemaker that has a large production cannot have a small distribution or a winemaker that applies natural wine techniques is most likely to believe in minimal human intervention.
4.1 Sample
A sample of 686 consumers from North America, Europe, and South America (49% females) completed an online questionnaire about six randomly assigned scenarios describing a fictitious winemaker. Only one of the six pre-conceived scenarios were shown each respondent. A frequency test was run to check for missing data or errors. The amount of missing data was less than 5% for all cases and, therefore missing values were excluded
listwise, totalizing 562 valid questionnaires. There was no need to record counter-indicative items. For this research, only respondents from North America above 21 years of age were considered, and only respondents above 18 years of age from South America and Europe were considered.
An overall distribution was tabulated based on data collected from the 562 valid participants. The overall PII mean is 50.11. Following Zaichkowsky 1987 instructions, the two end points 10 and 70 were deleted. Thirteen points were deleted at the low end of 10, and 47 points were deleted from the high point of 70. These scores indicate that the rater only used the endpoints of one and seven to rate the product in this experiment (Zaichkowsky, 1987). For this study, 513 valid questionnaires were considered.
Table 1. Frequencies by gender
Construct Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Male 268 52.2 52.2 52.2 Female 245 47.8 47.8 100.0 Total 513 100.0 100.0
A distribution among North American respondents (36.5%), European (63.5%), and South American of the research can be seen in the table below.
Table 2. Frequencies by nationality
Construct Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent North America 365 71.0 71.0 71.0 Europe 103 20.0 20.0 91.1 South America 36 7.0 7.0 98.0 Others 9 2.0 2.0 100.0 Total
4.2 Measurements of variables
Scale reliability tests were run for Consumer involvement, Continuity, Credibility, Integrity, Symbolism, Purchase intentions, and Word-of-mouth. The Cronbach’s alpha, which represents the estimator of the internal consistency (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2008), has been tested to verify if all the items of one scale measure the same construct. As exhibited in table 2, all seven variables have a Cronbach’s α > .7, which indicates a high level of internal consistency.
Table 3 below presents the constructs used in this study together with the items measuring the constructs. For example, the continuity construct was measured by four items; This winemaker has a history, this is a timeless winemaker, this winemaker survives time, and this winemaker survives trends.
Reliability analysis was conducted on these items, and the results revealed that the four items measure the same construct, the Cronbach’s α value associated with the reliability analysis is .90 an indication that the items sufficiently meet reliability condition.
The credibility construct was measured using 3 items: This winemaker will not betray me, this winemaker accomplishes its value promise, this is an honest winemaker. The reliability test was also conducted on the three items to determine if they all measure the credibility construct. The Cronbach’s α of .85 indicates that the items sufficiently meet the reliability condition and they were all used in calculating the variable for credibility. The three items were summed.
Similarly, a reliability analysis was assessed for the other items; Continuity, Credibility, Integrity, Symbolism, Consumer Involvement, Purchase Intentions, and Word-of-mouth and the Cronbach’s α values were .89, .85, .87, .88, 95, 92 and .93 respectively. The variables measuring these constructs were therefore obtained by adding the scores of the respective items. I revision of items were also conducted and no items were removed from
this study. All items showed a corrected item-total correlation > .30 and Cronbach’s α if item deleted < .10, not substantially affecting reliability if the item were removed.
Table 3. List of Items used in the research
Construct (Source) Items Cronbach's Alpha
Continuity This winemaker has a history α = .89
(Morhart, 2013; This is a timeless winemaker Wiedmann, 2011) This winemaker survives time This winemaker survives trends
Credibility This winemaker will not betray me α = .85
(Morhart, 2013) This winemaker accomplishes its value promise This is an honest winemaker
Integrity This winemaker gives back to his consumers α = .87
(Morhart, 2013; This winemaker has moral principles
Venable, 2005) This winemaker is true to a set of moral values This winemaker cares about his consumers
Symbolism This winemaker adds meaning to people's lives α = .88
(Morhart, 2013) This winemaker reflects important values people care about This winemaker connects people with their real
selves
This winemaker connects people with what is really important
Consumer Involvement For me wine is: α = .95
(Zaichowsky, 1994) Uninportant/Important Irrelevant/Relevant
Means nothing to me/Means a lot to me
Worthless/Valuable Boring/Interesting Unexciting/Exciting Unappealing/Appealing Mundane/Fascinating Uninvolving/Involving Not needed/Needed
Purchase Intentions The likelihood of purchasing a wine from this winemaker is high α = .92 (Fritz, 2017; Baker, 1977;
Spears, 2004)
The probability that I would consider buying a
wine from this winemaker is high My willingness to buy this wine is high
Word-of-mouth I would recommend this winemaker to someone
who seeks my advice α = .93 (Morhart, 2013; I would say positive things about this winemaker
to other people Price & Arnoud, 1999) I would recommend this winemaker to others
A factor analysis (PAF) has been run on the scales (continuity, credibility, integrity, and symbolism). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure verified the sampling adequacy for the analysis, KMO = .920. Bartlett’s test of sphericity X2 (105) = 4831.82, p < .001, indicated that correlations between items were sufficiently large for PAF. An initial analysis was run to obtain eigenvalues for each component in the data. Three components had eigenvalues over Kaiser’s criterion of 1 and in combination explained 68.59% of the variance. In agreement with Kaiser’s criterion, examination of the scree plot revealed a leveling off after the third factor. Thus, three factors were retained and rotated with an Oblimin with Kaiser normalization rotation. Table 4 shows the factor loadings after performing the rotation. The items that group on the same factor suggest that factor 1 represents Credibility and Integrity, factor 2 represents Continuity and factor 3 Symbolism. As the results indicate, the items that represent Credibility show high cross-loadings on the factors that represent Integrity. This could be explained due to the content of the items.
Table 4. Factor analysis
Rotated Factor Loadings
Item 1 2 3
This winemaker has a history .01 .86 -.10 This is a timeless winemaker -.09 .87 .11 This winemaker survives time .03 .88 .02 This winemaker survives trends .11 .76 .04 This winemaker will not betray me .76 .06 -.04 This winemaker accomplishes its value promise .80 .11 -.10 This is an honest winemaker .88 .02 -.11 This winemaker gives back to his consumers .48 .02 .27 This winemaker has moral principles .77 -.05 .11 This winemaker is true to a set of moral values .75 -.02 .16 This winemaker cares about his consumers .76 .02 .09 This winemaker adds meaning to people's lives .02 .04 .76
This winemaker reflects important values people care about .33 .05 .57
This winemaker connects people with their real selves .07 .05 .80
This winemaker connects people with what is really important -.06 .02 .93
Eigenvalues 7.48 1.65 1.16 % of variance 49.84% 11.01% 7.74%
4.3 Personal involvement inventory scale (PII)
The PII scale developed by Zaichkowsky (1985) is bipolar, composed of 10 items, which despite having two dimensions - affective and cognitive - generates a single score corresponding to the level of consumer involvement. According to the author, the scale can be used to measure engagement with the advertisement, the product, or the purchase decision.
Munson & Mcquarrie (1987) tested the PII scale, reducing it from 20 to 14 items, noting that this action would decrease respondent fatigue and generate time savings for the interviewers. In a later study, McQuarrie & Munson (1992) validated the PII scale and found that it is stable and capable of predicting behaviors associated with involvement, as well as discriminating between different products and different situations. The scale resulting from the study has ten items and uses shorter and simpler words. The authors point out, however, limitations of the PII scale, such as the inability to discriminate degrees of temporary involvement in different situations, long range and comprehension difficulties. In order to respond to the criticism and to show the applicability of the scale, Zaichkowsky (1994)
revised its original scale, reducing the measurement items from 20 to 10, without causing significant harm to the scale.
To measure the consumer involvement construct, a 10-item Zaichkowsky Personal Involvement Inventory (PII) (Zaichkowsky, 1985) was applied. The scale successfully meets standards for internal reliability, reliability over time, content validity, criterion-related validity, and construct validity (Laurent & Kapferer, 1985). The PII will be composed of 10 semantic differential items scored on a 7-point scale (Zaichkowsky, 1985) . The scores will be summed to form an overall measure of involvement, ranging from 10 for the lowest score of involvement and 70 for the highest score of involvement. The measurement of the influence of the authenticity cues on PBA is validated by the previous studies of Beverland (2005); Littrell, Anderson, & Brown (1993); and Morhart et al. (2013). An example in the
study of Morhart et al. (2013), where the item continuity with its sub items (a brand with a history, a timeless brand, a brand that survives times, a brand that survive trends) indicates the quality of this study (Cronbach’s α .94). The last two blocks of the survey intend to examine the influence of PBA on Purchase Intentions and Word-of-mouth, using the items previously applied in the study of Miller, Hofstetter, Krohmer, and Zhang (2011). Figure 3 shows the overall distribution of the PII scores.
Figure 3. Overall distribution of PII scores
Mean = 50.11 Std. Dev. = 11.96 N = 513
4.4 Statistical procedure
The means of the items used to examine the four dependent variables were combined to generate four new variables: ContTOT, CredTOT, IntegrTOT, and SymbTOT. All constructs meet the required requisites of at least two arguments which must be numeric. No minimum number of valid arguments for this function was specified.
Descriptive statistics, skewness, kurtosis and normality tests were computed for all items of all variables. All variables are normally distributed except the variable Credibility that presented a substantial positive kurtosis, thus presenting many scores in the tails. For the variable of Continuity, Credibility, and Symbolism, outliers were filtered out and a normality test of the same variable showed a normal distribution after the exclusion of outliers (z > -3). The mean, standard deviation and correlations were computed among the variables (Table 5).
Table 5. Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations
Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Heritage 2. Workmanship 3. Quality Comm. 4. Scarcity 5. Continuity 6. Credibility 7. Integrity 8. Symbolism .50 .50 .51 .50 5.38 5.34 5.20 4.92 .50 .50 .50 .50 1.25 .96 .94 1.02 - -1.0** .32** -.38** .43** .11* -.10* -.09* - -.32** .38** -.43** -.11* .10* -.09* - .31** .17** .09 -.02 .18** -.17** -.03 -.47** .01 (.89) .48** .54** .41** (.85) .73** .59** (.87) .69** (.88)
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
The correlation matrix shows that Symbolism, Credibility, and Integrity are significantly correlated at the 0.05 level, and have a Pearson correlation above 0.5. According to the rules of thumb (Cohen, 1988) a correlation of 0.5 or above is considered a large effect.
5. Results
Four one-way ANOVAs for each IV were run to examine the effect of each IV (Heritage, Quality Commitment, Workmanship, and Scarcity) separately on each of the four dimensions of PBA, Continuity, Credibility, Integrity, and Symbolism (DVs). MANOVA was bypassed because of three reasons: an independent analysis of the relationship of each IV on each of the four dimensions of PBA was intended, second reason was because multiple correlations
among the four dimensions of PBA were found. And third reason, because according to
Keselman et al., (1998), in 84% of the studies, researchers never used the results of the MANOVAs to explain the effects of the group of IVs on the outcome variables. Instead, they interpreted the results of ANOVAs.
H1: Heritage positively influences the four dimensions of PBA.
The first one-way ANOVA was run by testing Heritage (IV) on all four DVs together. The analysis of variance (Table 6) showed a significant effect of Heritage on Continuity, F (1, 511) = 126.378, p < .05; Credibility, F (1, 511) = 5.202, p < .05; Integrity, F (1, 511) = 4.613, p < .05; and Symbolism, F (511) = 4.679, p < .05. The means plot indicates that the winemaker with an older heritage leads to higher scores on the PBA dimensions than the winemaker with a more recent heritage.
Table 6. One-way ANOVA
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Continuity 126.378 1 125.382 126.378 .000 Credibility 5.202 1 7.313 5.202 .017 Integrity 4.613 1 7.313 4.613 .022 Symbolism 4.679 1 7.601 4.679 .034
IV: Heritage. Significant at the p < .05 level
H2: Quality Commitment positively influences the four dimensions of PBA.
The second one-way ANOVA was run by testing Quality Commitment (IV) on all four DVs together. The analysis of variance (Table 7) showed a significant effect of Quality Commitment on Continuity, F (1, 511) = 14.555, p < .05; Credibility, F (1, 511) = 3.838, p < .05; on Integrity, F (1, 511) = 6.644, p < .05; and on Symbolism, F (1, 511) = 16.186, p < .05. The means plot indicates that the winemaker that applied natural wine production techniques
leads to higher scores on the PBA dimensions than the winemaker with a more conventional approach.
Table 7. One-way ANOVA
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Continuity 18.864 1 18.864 14.555 .000 Credibility 3.493 1 3.493 3.838 .050 Integrity 5.800 1 5.800 6.644 .010 Symbolism 16.439 1 16.439 16.186 .000
IV: Quality Commitment. Significant at the p < .05 level
H3: Workmanship positively influences the four dimensions of PBA.
The third one-way ANOVA was run by testing Workmanship (IV) on all four DVs together. The analysis of variance (Table 8) showed a significant effect of Workmanship on Continuity, F (1, 511) = 116.410, p < .05; Credibility, F (1, 511) = 5.737, p < .05; Integrity, F (1, 511) = 5.270, p < .05; and Symbolism, F (511) = 4.505, p < .05. The means plot indicates that the winemaker that has a larger production leads to higher scores on the PBA dimensions than the winemaker with a smaller production.
Table 8. One-way ANOVA
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Continuity 126.378 1 126.378 116.410 .000 Credibility 5.202 1 5.202 5.737 .017 Integrity 4.613 1 4.613 5.270 .022 Symbolism 4.679 1 4.679 4.505 .034
H4: Scarcity positively influences the four dimensions of PBA.
The fourth one-way ANOVA was run by testing Scarcity (IV) on all four DVs together. The analysis of variance (Table 9) showed a significant effect of Scarcity on Continuity, F (1, 512) = 14.783, p < .05. The means plot indicates that the winemaker that is easier to find leads to higher scores on the PBA dimensions than the winemaker that is more difficult to find.
Table 9. One-way ANOVA
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Continuity 19.151 1 18.764 14.783 .000 Credibility .296 1 .936 .323 .570 Integrity .221 1 1.016 .250 .617 Symbolism .031 1 .174 .030 .863
IV: Scarcity. Significant at the p < .05 level
The independent-sample t-test results confirmed that Scarcity manipulation was successful for Continuity (M0 = 5.56, SD = 1.06; M1 = 5.18, SD = 1.20, p < .05). There was not a
significant difference in the scores of Credibility, Integrity, and Symbolism for the levels of Scarcity.
5.1 Moderation effect
To examine the conditions under which the effect of Heritage, Quality Commitment, Workmanship, and Scarcity on the dimensions of PBA operates, conditional process analysis
(Hayes, 2013) were ran using SPSS macro PROCESS (model 1, 5000 bootstrap samples) with brand authenticity conditions (dummy coded with 0 = conventional winemaking approach and 1 = natural winemaking approach) serving as predictors, Consumer Involvement as moderator and the new variable PBA (mean = ContTOT, IntegrTOT, CredTOT, and SymbTOT).
H5a: Consumer Involvement decreases the influence of Heritage on PBA.
The regression coefficient of the interaction of Heritage and Consumer Involvement is Heritage*ConsInv (XM) c3 = -.26, and is statistically different from zero, t (3, 509) = -2.79, p < 0.001. Thus, the effect of Heritage on PBA depends on the level of Consumer Involvement. This model accounts for 14% of the variance of PBA. The confidence interval for the index of moderation (Hayes, 2013) did not include zero (-.26, 95% CI = [-.44; -.08]), indicating that the relationship between Heritage and PBA is moderated by CI. The conditional effects indicate the relationship between Heritage and PBA as stronger at lower levels of CI (effect = .60, SE = .10, CI: .407 to .796), comparing to higher levels of CI (effect = .19, SE = .10, CI: .001 to .391). As it can be seen from probing the interactions, the slope linking Heritage and PBA is positive throughout all levels of CI but has a stronger effect at lower levels of CI. The findings support the proposed moderating effect of CI on PBA. In other words, although the winemaker with an older history is perceived as more authentic, this relationship is stronger at lower levels of CI. Higher levels of CI diminish this relationship. Figure 4 visually shows the moderating effect. Table 10 shows the results of the regression.
Figure 4. Moderating effect of Consumer Involvement.
Low Heritage accounts for the winery founded in 2005 and which production has been taken care by two Japanese immigrants that acquired the piece of land in a prestigious Burgundy village. High Heritage accounts for the winery founded in 1854 which production has been taken care by the same founding family since the beginning in a prestigious Burgundy village.
Table 10. Moderation effect of CI on Heritage and PBA
Coefficient SE t p Intercept i1 5.02 .05 102.24 < .001 Heritage (X) c1 .39 .07 5.80 .000 Consumer Involvement (M) c2 .38 .05 5.65 .000 Heritage*ConsInv (XM) c3 -.26 .09 -2.79 .050 DV = PBA_TOT; R2 = 0.1405 p < 0.001; F (3, 509) = 22.4086
H5b: Consumer involvement increases the effect of Quality Commitment on PBA.
The regression coefficient of the interaction of Heritage and Consumer Involvement is QualityCom*ConsInv (XM) c3 = -.36 and is statistically different from zero, t (3, 509) = 3.76, p < 0.001. Thus, the effect of Quality Commitment on PBA depends on the level of
confidence interval for the index of moderation (Hayes, 2013) did not include zero (.36, 95% CI = [.17; .54]), indicating that the relationship between Quality Commitment and PBA is moderated by CI. The conditional effects indicate the relationship between Quality Commitment and PBA as stronger at higher levels of CI (effect = .56, SE = .10, CI: .371 to .750), comparing to median levels of CI (effect = .32, SE = .07, CI: .183 to .450), and there’s no significant effect at lower levels of CI. By plotting the results, it is possible to see that the slope linking Quality Commitment and PBA is positive at higher levels of CI but negative at lower levels of CI. The findings support the proposed moderating effect of CI on PBA. The visual representation of Figure 5 shows that consumers at lower levels of CI perceived more authenticity in the winemaker that applies the most modern techniques and believes in human intervention to guarantee the quality year after year. Consumers at higher levels of involvement perceived the winemaker that applies only natural winemaking techniques and leaves it up to nature to decide the outcome year after year as more authentic. Table 11 shows the results of the regression.
Low QualityCom accounts for the winery that applies the most modern techniques and the best oenological inputs to guarantee the quality of the wines year after year; they also believe that human intervention is required to ensure the quality. High QualityCom accounts for the winery that applies natural winemaking techniques and nearly no oenological inputs, leaving up to nature to decide the outcome year after year. They also believe that minimal human intervention is required to express the maximum potentiality of that vintage.
Table 11. Moderation effect of CI on Quality Commitment and PBA
Coefficient SE t p Intercept i1 5.07 .05 104.54 < .001 Quality Commitment (X) c1 .28 .07 4.11 .000 Consumer Involvement (M) c2 .09 .06 1.53 .127 QualityCom*ConsInv (XM) c3 .36 .10 3.73 .000 DV = PBA_TOT; R2 = 0.1232 p < 0.001; F (3, 509) = 22.1629
H5c: Consumer involvement moderates the effect of Workmanship on PBA.
The regression coefficient of the interaction of Heritage and Consumer Involvement is Workm*ConsInv (XM) c3 = .26 and is statistically different from zero, t (3, 509) = 2.79, p < 0.001. Thus, the effect of Workmanship on PBA depends on the level of Consumer Involvement. This model accounts for 14% of the variance of PBA. The confidence interval for the index of moderation (Hayes, 2013) did not include zero (.26, 95% CI = [.08; .44]), indicating that the relationship between Workmanship and PBA is moderated by CI. The conditional effects indicate the relationship between Workmanship and PBA as significant only at lower levels of CI (effect = -.60, SE = .09, CI: -.795 to -.407), there was no significant effect at higher levels of CI. By plotting the results, it is possible to see that the slope linking Workmanship and PBA is negative at all levels of CI. The findings support the proposed moderating effect of CI on PBA. The visual representation of Figure 6 shows that consumers at lower levels of CI perceived more authenticity in the winemaker that has a larger production. Consumers at higher levels of involvement showed no statistical significance
between the winemaker that has a larger production and the winemaker that has a smaller production. Table 12 shows the results of the regression.
Figure 6. Moderating effect of Consumer Involvement.
Low Workmanship accounts for the winery that has an area of 450 hectares and a production of over 3 million bottles per year. High Workmanship accounts for the winery that has an area of 3 hectares and a production that doesn’t exceed 5 thousand bottles per year.
Table 12. Moderation effect of CI on Workmanship and PBA
Coefficient SE t p Intercept i1 5.41 .05 115.33 < .001 Workmanship (X) c1 -.39 .07 -5.81 .000 Consumer Involvement (M) c2 .12 .06 1.94 .050 Workm*ConsInv (XM) c3 .26 .09 2.79 .005 DV = PBA_TOT; R2 = 0.1405 p < 0.001; F (3, 509) = 22.4086
H5d: Consumer involvement moderates the effect of Scarcity on PBA.
The regression coefficient of the interaction of Heritage and Consumer Involvement is Scarcity*ConsInv (XM) c3 = .37 and is statistically different from zero, t (3, 509) = 3.91, p <
0.001. Thus, the effect of Scarcity on PBA depends on the level of Consumer Involvement. This model accounts for 11% of the variance of PBA. The confidence interval for the index of moderation (Hayes, 2013) did not include zero (.37, 95% CI = [.18; .56]), indicating that the relationship between Scarcity and PBA is moderated by CI. The conditional effects indicate the relationship between Scarcity and PBA as significant only at lower levels of CI (effect = -.42, SE = .10, CI: -.624 to -.219), there was no significant effect at higher levels of CI. By plotting the results, it is possible to see that the slope linking Scarcity and PBA is negative at lower levels of CI and positive at higher levels of CI. The findings support the proposed moderating effect of CI on PBA. The visual representation of Figure 7 shows that consumers at lower levels of CI perceived more authenticity in the winemaker which wines are easier to find. Consumers at higher levels of involvement perceive more authenticity in the winemaker which wines are harder to find. Table 12 shows the results of the regression.
Figure 7. Moderating effect of Consumer Involvement.
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Low Scarcity High Scarcity
PB
A Low CI
