Gender, knowledge and motivation for wine purchasing

Carlos Peixeira Marques (Department of Economics, Sociology and Management and Center for Transdisciplinary Studies for Development, Universidade de Tras-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal)
Ana Teresa Bernardo Guia (School of Technology and Management of Lamego and Centre for the Study of Education, Technologies and Health (CI&DETS), Polytechnic Institute of Viseu, Viseu, Portugal)

International Journal of Wine Business Research

ISSN: 1751-1062

Publication date: 19 November 2018



The purpose of this paper is to verify if the gender effects described in the wine consumer behaviour literature, namely, concerning information search and the motivations to buy, may be explained by the mediating effect of subjective knowledge, taking into consideration that the importance of knowledge in the decision process is gender specific.


A path analysis was modelled with an exogenous variable (gender), a mediating variable (subjective knowledge) and four dependent variables (need for information and three motivational dimensions). The model was assessed with empirical data obtained from a sample of 523 shoppers in large supermarkets in the areas of Lisbon and Oporto, Portugal. Structured interviews were conducted at checkout, collecting information on the relevant variables. Scales measuring the latent variables (knowledge, information and motivation) were previously validated through confirmatory factor analysis in a sample of 217 wine consumers.


Subjective knowledge fully mediates the effects of gender on motivation and information needs. Men think of themselves as more knowledgeable in wines and the mediation effect explains why, compared to women, they use less personal information sources and are more motivated to purchase wine.

Practical implications

The authors suggest promotion programmes in large supermarkets focussing on opportunities for wine knowledge development.


The study contributes to the literature by introducing and validating an alternative formulation of gender effects on wine shopping, emphasising the role of the purchaser’s perceived or subjective knowledge.



Marques, C. and Guia, A. (2018), "Gender, knowledge and motivation for wine purchasing", International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 481-492.

Download as .RIS



Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2018, Emerald Publishing Limited


The buyer’s gender is one factor that significantly influences the decision process when shopping for experience goods (Park et al., 2009). It is considered that, compared to females, males try to accomplish the purchase using minimum effort in the search for information (Laroche et al., 2003). The so-called selectivity model is presented as the main basis for that behaviour. Subsequently, in retail context, females tend to obtain rewards from the decision process itself, whereas males tend to view shopping as a problem and look for a more direct solution (Campbell, 2000).

Wine is one of the product categories whose decision process is more complex, since most of its attributes are unverifiable before consumption and the search for information may be costlier for the decision maker than the direct experience with the product (Nelson, 1970). The fact that wine markets are predominantly fragmented (Berni et al., 2005), with a wide range of products and a large diversity of brands, also contributes to the complexity of the consumer choice process, which emphasises the salience of extrinsic attributes compared to intrinsic ones and increases the importance of the consumer's subjective knowledge of the category, compared to information search (Park et al., 1994).

The main purpose of this paper is to verify if the gender effects described in the wine consumer behaviour literature, namely, regarding information search and the motivations to buy, may be explained by the mediating effect of subjective knowledge, taking into consideration that gender influences the importance of knowledge in the decision process (Barber et al., 2009). The next section carries a literature review to frame the identified variables, placing gender and knowledge in the context of the wine purchasing process.

Literature review

Subjective knowledge and information

The process of choosing wine is complex, namely, due to the product breadth, to market differentiation, and to the considerable information asymmetry. Being an experience good, the consumers’ knowledge plays a key role in the decision process (Bishop and Barber, 2012) and the information processing ends up being an intense experience in wine acquisition (Bruwer et al., 2011). To overcome this situation of complexity, the buyer will retrieve his/her own life experiences, knowledge and the most diverse sources of external information. According to Barber (2009), knowledge is a search for internal information, accessible in one’s memory, being expected that consumers who believe to be more knowledgeable will have less need to seek external information. Johnson and Bastian (2007) suggest that buyers who are more confident in their knowledge neither need much information to purchase nor resort to other risk reducing strategies, being more open to new experiences. Instead, those who have less knowledge or are less confident in their knowledge routinely buy the same type and/or brand of wine, or employ other risk reduction strategies, especially external information, with specific emphasis on credible sources such as family and friends.

Johnson and Bastian’s findings are consistent with the theory of subjective knowledge, i.e. how much people think they know. The gap between the consumers’ subjective and objective knowledge is due to over- or under-confidence about their actual knowledge, so the measure of subjective knowledge is chiefly dependent on self-confidence (Brucks, 1985). On one hand, there is a wide agreement in the literature, which considers that what drives the buying decision is not the objective knowledge, but rather an expression of subjective knowledge that reflects confidence in the decision maker’s role and an expected effectiveness of that decision (Bishop and Barber, 2012; Marques and Almeida, 2013; Park and Lessig, 1981; Raju et al., 1995). Likewise, Brucks (1985) claims that consumers who believe to have good subjective knowledge easily discard perceived inferior options; the same author also emphasises that subjective knowledge is related to decision-making processes involving a lower number of attributes or benefits than objective knowledge, and that external search for product information is motivated by lack of confidence on one’s knowledge. On the other hand, it has been demonstrated that experience with the product category, accessible in memory, is the main antecedent of subjective but not of objective knowledge (Park et al., 1994). Finally, subjective knowledge was actually identified as the major determinant of the quantity of wine consumed (Brunner and Siegrist, 2011). In short, the literature suggests that information processing during purchase decisions depends more on subjective knowledge than on objective knowledge of the product category, likely because subjective knowledge mediates the effects of objective knowledge on decision outcomes (Raju et al., 1995).

Motivations for wine consumption

In the contexts of either market or academic research on consumer behaviour, the study of motivations for the purchase and consumption is based on the question “Why?”, i.e. the reasons or motives to feel the need for a certain product category or to choose a specific product or brand. The study of motivations in quantitative marketing research is seldom based on motivational theories. There is a propensity to misunderstand motivation with benefits, with attitudes and even with perceptions of attributes. According to Fennell (1978), motivation is either based on aversive mechanisms, where consumption behaviour results from felt or perceived problems; or on appetitive mechanisms, where consumption behaviour is perceived as an end, thus self-rewarding. Aversion is also known as negative motivation and appetite as positive motivation.

Positive motivation rather operates in a frame of expectations anticipating gratification by consumption (Cohen and Warlop, 2001), through an affective assessment of an imagined consumption experience, usually influenced by memories of past experiences activated by stimuli such as the marketing communication. Rossiter and Percy (1987) proposed three essential positive consumption motivations: sensorial gratification; mastery or intellectual stimulation; and social motivation, including affiliation and conformity or approval. These motivational facets have appeared in several studies on wine purchase and consumption, although in most cases with no connection to the underlying theory.

For example, Hall et al. (2004) identified, as motivations for wine consumption, its paring with food, the buyer’s socialisation desires, and the opportunity to impress others. Charters and Pettigrew (2008) presented a paradigm of motivation for wine consumption based on three structural elements – physical, symbolic and experiential – but end up splitting the experiential motivation into three dimensions: sensorial experience (taste, paring with food); interactive experience (socialisation, fraternising); cognitive experience (challenge and exploration). Barrena and Sánchez (2009) mention that consumers from the Mediterranean countries claim sensorial gratification as the main motivation for wine drinking. However, they refer that younger people are driven by different motives such as cultural identity and social status. Summarising these papers, it may be concluded that Rossiter and Percy’s (1987) categorisation of positive motivations is well documented in the wine consumption literature.

Gender effects

In spite of being typically used to signify an identity or even maleness or femaleness traits, the concept of gender used here has a broader meaning, also considering the effects of biological sex differences on wine consumption behaviour. In this sense, we can say that gender has been referred to by different researchers as a decisive factor in the consumers’ wine choice (Berni et al., 2005; Olsen et al., 2007; Thach and Olsen, 2006). (Hoffman, 2004) found that females are more likely to drink white wine and sparkling wine than males, with no significant differences between genders in relation to the consumption of red wine. As for attributes, females prefer fruity wines, while males place greater value on characteristics associated with the body and maturation (Bruwer et al., 2011).

Literature is prolific about gender differences in the decision process, namely regarding knowledge and information retrieved. According to the selectivity model, males tend to follow a more heuristic information process than females, and they are more subjective and intuitive in decision-making (Laroche et al., 2003). This more simplified decision process is reinforced by the fact that males feel more self-confident, particularly in the case of wine (Babakus and Yavas, 2008; Barber, 2009; Bishop and Barber, 2012). Thus, males with higher levels of subjective knowledge rely more on their own experience and on impersonal sources, therefore more fully exploiting the knowledge of the category (Barber, 2009; Bishop and Barber, 2012). On the contrary, females show greater perceived risk associated to wine buying (Barber et al., 2009) and need more information to complete the purchase (Atkin et al., 2007). Females are more sensitive to details (Bishop and Barber, 2012) and they prefer personal sources of information (Barber, 2009; Bishop and Barber, 2012). Moreover, they value the interaction in the buying process (Babakus and Yavas, 2008).

According to Babakus and Yavas (2008), the gender differences in consumption information processing can have a motivational root, given that females are more oriented towards the relationship with others and males are more task-oriented and more independent in the acquisition and processing of information, valuing knowledge. Regarding the differences in the relative importance of motivations for wine consumption, Thach (2012) suggests that males differentiate themselves from females in the importance attributed to mastering the wine knowledge, while females distinguish themselves by the importance of social motives.

Thus, the first set of hypotheses for this research may be produced:


In the process of buying wine, males and females differ in subjective knowledge, in the need for information and in motivations.


Males have more subjective knowledge.


Females have greater need for personal information.


Males give more importance than females to intellectual motivation.


Females give more importance than males to social motivation.

However, as already mentioned, the main objective of this research is to assess whether H1 still holds when the postulated effects are mediated by subjective knowledge. There are several studies confirming the influence of subjective knowledge on decision-making, with particular focus on the information breadth and processing (Dodd et al., 2005). For example, regardless of gender, wine buyers who are less knowledgeable rely more on advice at the retail outlet, while those who rely more on their knowledge seek less information (Johnson and Bastian, 2007).

The value attributed by males to the knowledge of wines tends to influence other decision facets (Bishop and Barber, 2012). For example, regarding the consumption of technology, Venkatesh and Morris (2000) suggest that males keep their self-esteem by avoiding personal information sources, since the male role in the buying process of these products incorporates knowledge of the category. It is legitimate to suppose that the same will happen in the wine category, requiring males to have a familiarity and a cognitive mastery that is not required from females (Bishop and Barber, 2012). For example, Thach (2012) argues that males show more interest in discussing technical aspects of wine, taking the opportunity to show their knowledge, and that even the interaction with others may be related to the desire to demonstrate and to develop knowledge. In this setting, it is also acceptable to admit that subjective knowledge influences the relative importance of motivations. As a result, a second set of hypotheses is derived:


Gender effects postulated in H1 are mediated by subjective knowledge in the following way.


Females have greater need for personal information because they have less subjective knowledge.


Males give more importance than females to intellectual motivation because they have more subjective knowledge.


To empirically assess the model integrating the hypotheses exposed above, it was necessary to collect data from a sample of 600 purchasers of wine. They were interviewed by interviewers from a market research company at six facilities of a hypermarket chain in the metropolitan areas of Lisbon and Oporto, Portugal (300 interviews in each area), during seven consecutive days from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. At each predefined period (morning, afternoon, evening), a cash register was randomly selected to approach customers after checkout. During the selected period and register, all customers who bought at least one bottle of wine were interviewed (subject to the interviewers’ availability). The sample size was determined by the available budget. The questionnaire was structured into three sections. The first section collected information on the wine(s) purchased, on the intended consumption occasion(s), on factors influencing the wine choice, and on information sources used. In this study, only the sources of information were considered. The second section included measures of motivations, subjective knowledge, and emotions associated with consumption. Finally, a third section registered buyers’ demographics, including gender.

Regarding the operationalisation of the variables, gender is represented by the effect of being a male, compared to that of being a female. As for the latent variables, the need for information has been operationalised according to Barber (2009), including two items of personal sources and two items of information controlled by the consumer, the latter being reverse scored. The subjective knowledge items are also taken from Barber (2009). To measure motivations, the three positive dimensions proposed by Rossiter and Percy (1991) were included: intellectual (intellectual stimulation, knowledge growth); sensorial (sensory gratification, pleasure); social (consumption as a facilitator of interaction with each other and as an instrument of social approval). The motivational items were developed based on Henley and Donovan (2002), also taking into account the ones used by Duarte et al. (2010) in Portugal. The items of these three dimensions, as well as those of subjective knowledge, were evaluated in a test applied to 217 consumers through confirmatory factor analysis, which resulted in removing some items from the scales: the intellectual, sensorial and social motivation dimensions were down from five to three items each; subjective knowledge went from five to four items. All items were measured on a five-point Likert-type scale: the items related to the need of information on a scale of importance, and the remaining ones on an agreement scale.


The sample profile is presented in Table I. Only 523 buyers that replied to all the items covered in this study are considered. The typical buyer is a 48-year-old male, with higher education and employed. He mainly buys red wine to consume daily on meals, for a price close to 3€ a bottle. The same table allows us to suggest some differences between genders regarding buying behaviour: males spend more money on wine because they buy more and consume more regularly − 4/5 of males, compared to 2/3 of females, consume more than once a week. Although both prefer to buy red wine, there is a higher proportion of females (29 per cent) than males (20 per cent) buying mostly white or pink wines.

Having identified the main gender differences in relation to purchasing and consumption behaviours, the next step is to analyse the differences in motivation, information and subjective knowledge measures. However, prior to this analysis, it is necessary to validate the corresponding measurement scales, taking into account the indications suggested by the literature, especially for the convergent validity and the composite reliability (Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2010). Confirmatory factor analysis is the suitable statistical technique to assess validity and reliability. Table II presents all factor loadings λ and respective variances extracted λ2, which is the proportion of the item variance explained by the respective latent variable. As can be seen in Table III, every factor presents average variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliability (CR) above the reference values, respectively 0.5 and 0.7. According to generally accepted reference values (Byrne, 2016), the measurement model has adequate goodness of fit indicators: χ2/d.f. = 3.308; CFI = 0.927; GFI = 0.936; RMSEA = 0.066; p[RMSEA ≤ 0.05] < 0.007. Goodness of fit could have been improved by allowing some correlated errors, but this step was not followed, as it could underestimate the relationships between latent variables.

Tables II and III also show the average scores of the items and of the scales, respectively. The motivation for sensorial gratification presents the highest scores. Intellectual stimulation items have scores above the scale’s central point. The subjective knowledge measure is near the midpoint, while social motivation and the need of information have lower average values. Through a multi-group confirmatory factor analysis, the difference between males and females was estimated in latent variable scores. Table III shows the scores, the difference and the respective significance, estimated by bootstrap. Compared to males, which represent most of the sample, female buyers distinguish themselves by expressing a greater need for information, and lesser subjective knowledge. With regard to motivation factors, gender differences are smaller, but it still can be seen that males are more motivated in particular by intellectual stimulation. These results support H1.1 (males believe to have more knowledge), H1.2 (females feel more information needs) and H1.3 (males value intellectual stimulation more than females). Conversely, H1.4, which postulated females’ greater social motivation, cannot be confirmed.

To evaluate H2, the way in which gender differences can be attributed to males’ greater subjective knowledge, a path analysis was modelled with an exogenous variable (gender, fixed in the males’ category), a mediating variable (subjective knowledge) and four dependent variables (information and motivations) with correlated measurement errors. Following the indications of Shrout and Bolger (2002), the bootstrapping method (with 2,000 samples) was used to calculate the significance and the confidence intervals of the estimated direct and indirect effects, which are shown in Figure 1.

The regression results (Table IV) support both mediation hypotheses, that is, females seek more personal information because they have less subjective knowledge and males are more motivated for wine mastering because they have more subjective knowledge. Indeed, in Table IV, it is quite evident that the differences between genders concerning motivation and information needs presented in Table III do not hold after the mediation analysis. The estimates show that gender only affects directly the subjective knowledge (β = 0.237, p = 0.001), which in turn negatively affects information need (β = −0.145, p = 0.007) and positively affects motivation to buy, particularly for intellectual stimulation (β = 0.563, p = 0.001). The mediation is apparent in Figure 1, revealing that, because male buyers think they know more about wine, they feel more motivated and feel less need to get external information to make a purchase. All indirect effect coefficients are significant at the p < 0.001 level.

Considering that the establishment of a direct relationship between the gender of the buyer and the motivations for the purchase of wine is at issue, it is suggested that the associations identified by Thach (2012) should be mediated by other factors, namely, the subjective knowledge. The most consistent explanation will be that the association observed between gender and motivations is due to the fact that males reveal more subjective knowledge about wines, and, probably due to their self-confidence and perceived decision effectiveness, they feel more motivated to buy. Although the effect is much more significant for intellectual stimulation, as expected, there may be a halo effect on the other motivational dimensions. However, the interpretation proposed here, to be confirmed in future researches, is that subjective knowledge also promotes sensorial gratification and social motivation for wine buying and drinking. On one hand, in view of Thach’s (2012) results, it is reasonable to admit that for the self-confident buyers, knowledge of wines facilitates interaction, helps integration, and is an excuse to socialise. On the other hand, it is logical to consider that knowledge promotes wine sensorial gratification (Bruwer et al., 2011). Finally, the fact that males have higher scores in all motivation facets (Table III) and that subjective knowledge also favour them all (Table IV) may be due to the greater involvement of males with this product category, probably because traditionally it has been a man’s role to be judged by his wine knowledge in familiar and social contexts (Bruwer et al., 2011). This type of results is consistent with those acknowledged by Vandecasteele and Geuens (2010) for the acceptance of innovations, where males exhibited greater propensity for hedonic, social, and cognitive innovation dimensions.

Conclusions, implications, limitations and future research

This paper’s main objective was to analyse the role of subjective knowledge as a mediator of the gender effects on the motivations for purchasing wine, as well as on the use of information for wine choice. The results could mark a theoretical advance by suggesting that much of the gender differences described in the literature are due to other factors, which are proximal antecedents of motivations and information search. This seems to be the case for subjective knowledge. Male buyers prove to see themselves as more knowledgeable in wines and this explains why, compared to women, they use less personal information sources and are more motivated to purchase. The descriptive analysis also showed that males buy larger quantities and consume more regularly, but the possible mediation of knowledge in behaviour was not evaluated as it was not the purpose of this research.

In fact, this study confirms the expectation that Portuguese male and female consumers who buy wine at hypermarkets diverge in the way they use information during the decision process. Men claim to rely more on knowledge from previous experience, while women resort more often to advice from friends or from salespeople. However, the results presented suggest that this gender effect disappears after controlling for subjective knowledge, meaning that consumers who are equally confident on their knowledge use the same information search strategy regardless of gender (Barber et al., 2009). So, what seems to differentiate the genders is the confidence on one’s knowledge about wines. Despite of traditionally gendered consumer roles having changed, as Portugal evolved over the past 50 years from a closed rural conservative society to a postmodern Western society with a more open and more gender-balanced culture, Portuguese men may still value the importance of showing wine knowledge much more than women do.

Taking this into account, it is suggested that, in general, the marketing communication should emphasise the feeling of self-confidence and perceived effectiveness of consumers with greater perceived category knowledge. Exposure to impersonal advertising – for instance on the Internet – is an effective way of reinforcing subjective knowledge for self-confident people (Bishop and Barber, 2012). In a context of purchasing in hypermarkets, these consumers may also be receptive to marketing actions that promote opportunities for knowledge development. As for the less experienced female audience, this retail channel suffers from limited interaction and scarce personal information, which may be surpassed by specific occasional actions aimed at this target. Since the share of females in the oenology field is increasing, it would be interesting to have female oenologists promoting or endorsing such actions.

The scientific literature about wine consumer behaviour has suggested a number of different marketing strategies for men and women in several countries. This paper suggests that the consumers’ confidence about the knowledge of the product category may be more important than gender. However, one needs to be cautious regarding the strength of this conclusion, given the circumstance that the buyers’ sample was obtained only in one hypermarket chain in the Lisbon and Oporto areas, which burdens the generalisation of the results of this research with certain limitations. The sample shows an overrepresentation of well-educated, heavy drinking males and the overwhelming majority of purchases involved were essentially of affordable wines. Given that more experienced consumers attend specialised stores (Vigar-Ellis et al., 2015) and that females value personal information in the shopping environment (Babakus and Yavas, 2008), it would be advisable to enquire buyers in several retail outlets, which was not affordable on this project budget. On the other hand, a qualitative approach could bring an additional insight, particularly to confirm and interpret the impact of subjective knowledge on the three motivations to purchase and to assess if subjective knowledge still impacts on different information search strategies when buying expensive wines for special occasions.


The mediation model

Figure 1.

The mediation model

Wine buyer’s profile

Variables Males
(n = 344)
(n = 179)
Age (mean) 48.8 47.8 0.8
Education level
Primary 27.3 29.1 −0.4
Secondary 30.8 29.6 0.3
Tertiary 41.9 41.3 0.1
Employment status
Employed 51.5 50.8 0.1
Self-employed 16.0 12.3 1.1
Unemployed 5.5 15.1 3.7
Retired 21.8 16.8 1.4
Homemaker 0.0 3.4 3.4
Student 5.2 1.7 2.0
Consumption frequency
Daily 45.9 33.0 2.9
4-5 times a week 8.4 6.7 0.7
2-3 times a week 25.9 26.3 −0.1
Once a week 11.3 19.6 2.6
2-3 times a month 3.5 6.1 −1.4
Once a month or less 4.9 8.4 −1.6
Type of wine purchased (main)
Red 58.4 52.5 1.3
White/pink 20.3 29.1 2.2
Vinho Verde (young wine) 17.7 16.2 0.4
Sparkling wine 3.5 2.2 0.8
Consumption occasion (main)
Usual meal 61.6 59.9 0.4
Meal with friends 29.2 29.7 −0.1
Special meal 9.2 10.5 −0.4
Quantity of bottles purchased
One 39.0 45.3 −1.4
Two 21.5 24.0 −0.7
Three or more 39.5 30.7 2.0
Purchasing Value (mean €) 10.2 8.1 2.1
Purchasing Value (median €) 6.0 4.6
Price (mean €) 3.6 3.3 1.3
Price (median €) 2.9 2.8

Statistics with significant differences between genders indicated in italic

Item statistics

Items Mean λ λ2
Subjective knowledge
I fairly know the characteristics of wine from the different Portuguese regions 3.58 0.679 0.461
I know more about wine than the average person 2.84 0.848 0.719
I know a lot about wine related subjects 2.85 0.835 0.697
I am sure about my ability to choose the right wine 3.45 0.664 0.441
Need of information
Previous knowledge (R) 1.92 0.717 0.514
Experience (R) 3.11 0.689 0.475
Shop employees 2.14 0.731 0.534
Friends 2.81 0.736 0.542
Sensorial gratification
I like the wine tasting flavour 4.55 0.768 0.590
Wine helps me to better appreciate a meal 4.52 0.670 0.449
Wine gives me pleasure 4.31 0.682 0.465
Intellectual stimulation
I want to know more about wines 3.74 0.741 0.549
I like learning about wine characteristics which are associated with the various wine varieties 3.77 0.824 0.679
I intend to know many brands of wine 3.08 0.641 0.411
Wine makes my interaction with others easier 3.01 0.702 0.493
Drinking wine helps me to feel integrated in my group of friends 2.50 0.808 0.653
Wine helps me having new friends 2.30 0.815 0.664

λ: factor loading; λ2: extracted variance; (R) reverse scored

Latent variable measurement

Latent variable CR AVE Mean score Difference M-F p
Subjective knowledge 0.845 0.580 3.155 0.440 0.001
Need for information 0.810 0.516 2.496 −0.493 0.025
Intellectual stimulation 0.781 0.546 3.500 0.274 0.001
Sensorial gratification 0.750 0.501 4.471 0.127 0.008
Social 0.820 0.603 2.382 0.199 0.037

CR: Composite reliability; AVE: Average variance extracted; F: Females; M: Males; the significance of mean differences was obtained by bootstrap

Standardized direct effects

90% confidence
Regression path Estimate Lower bound Higher bound p
Male → Knowledge 0.237 0.158 0.323 0.001
Male → Intellectual 0.013 −0.062 0.084 0.750
Male → Sensorial 0.007 −0.071 0.099 0.832
Male → Social 0.030 −0.054 0.117 0.494
Male → Information −0.073 −0.154 0.021 0.124
Knowledge → Intellectual 0.563 0.481 0.630 0.001
Knowledge → Sensorial 0.408 0.319 0.491 0.001
Knowledge → Social 0.241 0.145 0.326 0.001
Knowledge → Information −0.145 −0.233 −0.043 0.007

The confidence interval and the significance were obtained by bootstrap


Atkin, T., Nowak, L. and Garcia, R. (2007), “Women wine consumers: information search and retailing implications”, International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 327-339.

Babakus, E. and Yavas, U. (2008), “Does customer sex influence the relationship between perceived quality and share of wallet?”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61 No. 9, pp. 974-981.

Barber, N. (2009), “Wine consumers information search: gender differences and implications for the hospitality industry”, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 250-269.

Barber, N., Dodd, T. and Kolyesnikova, N. (2009), “Gender differences in information search: implications for retailing”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 415-426.

Barrena, R. and Sánchez, M. (2009), “Using emotional benefits as a differentiation strategy in saturated markets”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 11, pp. 1002-1030.

Berni, P., Begalli, D. and Capitello, R. (2005), “An Occasion-Based segmentation approach to the wine market in Denmark”, Journal of International Food and Agribusiness Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 117-145.

Bishop, M. and Barber, N. (2012), “A market segmentation approach to esteem and efficacy in information search”, The Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 13-21.

Brucks, M. (1985), “The effects of product class knowledge on information search behavior”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-16.

Brunner, T.A. and Siegrist, M. (2011), “A consumer-oriented segmentation study in the Swiss wine market”, British Food Journal, Vol. 113 No. 3, pp. 353-373.

Bruwer, J., Saliba, A. and Miller, B. (2011), “Consumer behaviour and sensory preference differences: implications for wine product marketing”, The Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 5-18.

Byrne, B.M. (2016), Structural Equation Modeling with Amos: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming, Routledge, New York, NY.

Campbell, C. (2000), “Shopaholics, spendaholics, and the question of gender”, in Benson, A.L. (Ed.), I Shop, Therefore I Am: Compulsive Buying and the Search for Self, Jason Aronson, Northvale, NJ, pp. 57-75.

Charters, S. and Pettigrew, S. (2008), “Why do people drink wine? A consumer-focused exploration”, Journal of Food Products Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 13-32.

Cohen, J.B. and Warlop, L. (2001), “A motivational perspective on means-end chains”, in Reynolds, T.J. and Olson, J.C. (Eds), Understanding Consumer Decision Making: The Means-End Approach to Marketing and Advertising Strategy, L. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 389-412.

Dodd, T.H., Laverie, D.A., Wilcox, J.F. and Duhan, D.F. (2005), “Differential effects of experience, subjective knowledge, and objective knowledge on sources of information used in consumer wine purchasing”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 3-19.

Duarte, F., Madeira, J. and Barreira, M.M. (2010), “Wine purchase and consumption in Portugal – an exploratory analysis of young adults’ motives/attitudes and purchase attributes”, Ciência e Técnica Vitivinicola, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 63-73.

Fennell, G. (1978), “Consumers’ perceptions of the product-use situation”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 38-47.

Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.

Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ, Harlow.

Hall, J., Binney, W. and O'Mahony, G.B. (2004), “Age related motivational segmentation of wine consumption in a hospitality setting”, International Journal of Wine Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 29-43.

Henley, N. and Donovan, R.J. (2002), “Identifying appropriate motivations to encourage people to adopt healthy nutrition and physical activity behaviours”, Journal of Research for Consumers, available at:

Hoffman, C.A. (2004), “When consumers buy wine, what factors decide the final purchase?”, Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 82-91.

Johnson, T.E. and Bastian, S.E.P. (2007), “A preliminary study of the relationship between australian wine consumers' wine expertise and their wine purchasing and consumption behaviour”, Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 186-197.

Laroche, M., Cleveland, M., Bergeron, J. and Goutaland, C. (2003), “The knowledge-experience-evaluation relationship: a structural equations modeling test of gender differences”, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences de L‘administration, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 246-259.

Marques, C.P. and Almeida, D. (2013), “A path model of attitudinal antecedents of green purchase behaviour”, Economics and Sociology, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 135-144.

Nelson, P. (1970), “Information and consumer behavior”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 78 No. 2, pp. 311-329.

Olsen, J.E., Thach, L. and Nowak, L. (2007), “Wine for My generation: exploring how US wine consumers are socialized to wine”, Journal of Wine Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 1-18.

Park, C.W. and Lessig, V.P. (1981), “Familiarity and its impact on consumer decision biases and heuristics”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 223-230.

Park, C.W., Mothersbaugh, D.L. and Feick, L. (1994), “Consumer knowledge assessment”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 71-82.

Park, J., Yoon, Y. and Lee, B. (2009), “The effect of gender and product categories on consumer online information search”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 36, pp. 362-366.

Raju, P.S., Lonial, S.C. and Mangold, W.G. (1995), “Differential effects of subjective knowledge, objective knowledge, and usage experience on decision making: an exploratory investigation”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 153-180.

Rossiter, J.R. and Percy, L. (1991), “Emotions and motivations in advertising”, in Holman, R.H. and Solomon, M.R. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, 21, Provo, UT, Vol. XVIII, pp. 100-110.

Rossiter, J.R. and Percy, L. (1987), Advertising and Promotion Management, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, NY City, New York, NY.

Shrout, P. and Bolger, N. (2002), “Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: new procedures and recommendations”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 422-445.

Thach, E.C. and Olsen, J.E. (2006), “Market segment analysis to target young adult wine drinkers”, Agribusiness, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 307-322.

Thach, L. (2012), “Time for wine? Identifying differences in wine-drinking occasions for male and female wine consumers”, Journal of Wine Research, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 134-154.

Vandecasteele, B. and Geuens, M. (2010), “Motivated consumer innovativeness: concept, measurement, and validation”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 308-318.

Venkatesh, V. and Morris, M.G. (2000), “Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 115-139.

Vigar-Ellis, D., Pitt, L. and Caruana, A. (2015), “Knowledge effects on the exploratory acquisition of wine”, International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 84-102.

Corresponding author

Carlos Peixeira Marques can be contacted at: