*2.2. Methodology*

In order to evaluate consumer WN, the Wine Neophobia Scale (WNS) was administered [6] (Table 2). The WNS is an 8-item scale developed to evaluate consumer neophobia toward the acquisition of new wines, based on the well-known FNS originally developed by Pliner and Hobden [27] to evaluate general food neophobia. As the questionnaire was administered in Spanish, the translation proposed by Fernández-Ruiz et al. [43] was used, changing the word "*alimento*" (food) to "*vino*" (wine). In the WNS, consumers are asked to evaluate each of the proposed items on a 9-point Likert-type scale ranging from "strongly disagree" (1) to "strongly agree" (9). The individual score on the WNS for each consumer was calculated as the sum of the 8 items after reversing the negative items (items 2, 4, 5, and 8). As a result, consumers obtaining higher values indicate a higher level of wine neophobia and, as a result, a lower tendency to try new wines. On the other hand, consumers with lower scores are identified as wine neophilics, indicating a higher tendency to try new wines.

To evaluate consumer attitudes toward foods produced using novel technologies, the Abbreviated Food Technology Neophobia Scale (AFTNS) was used [44] (Table 2). The AFTNS is an abbreviated 9-item version of the original 13-item Food Technology Scale proposed by Cox and Evans [28]. The translation to Spanish provided by the study of Schnettler et al. [45] was used. Specifically, consumers were asked to evaluate the 9 proposed items using a 6-point Likert-type scale. Individual scores for each consumer were calculated as the sum of the scores for each item after reversing the negative item (item 5). Within the possible range of the scale (9 to 54), higher values indicate a higher level of food technology neophobia (FTN), meaning consumers with a low tendency to accept products that have been produced using novel technologies (NT).


**Table 2.** Items from the Wine Neophobia Scale (WNS) and the Abbreviated Food Technology Neophobia Scale (AFTNS).

> Additionally, consumers provided information about the importance they attached to different wine attributes (such as price or origin) using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from very unimportant (1), neither unimportant nor important (3), to very important (5). To identify the attributes included in the survey, previous studies evaluating factors that determine wine purchase decision-making were used [5,46]. Consumers were also required to indicate the frequency of their consumption of wine (four levels). Using a 9-point Likert-type scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (9), consumers were also asked to indicate their attitudes toward statements linked to wine innovation and their opinions on statements about individual openness. Moreover, to include information on the consumers' socioeconomic characteristics, they were asked to provide information about gender, age, highest level of education completed, and net household income.

> Similarly to Schnettler, Grunert, Miranda-Zapata, Orellana, Sepúlveda, Lobos, Hueche, and Höger [44], a cluster analysis using hierarchical conglomerates was used with linkage by Ward's method and the squared Euclidian distance as the measure of similarity between objects [47]. The aim of the segmentation was to identify consumer segments according to consumer scores obtained on the WNS and AFTNS. Four different groups with different attitudes were obtained. To describe the differences between the obtained segments, oneway analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey's HSD post-hoc (significance level 5%) comparison was used to examine responses about wine attributes and the results of the scales, and Pearson's chi<sup>2</sup> test was applied to discrete variables. For the statistical analysis of the data, the Statistical Package for Social Sciences IBM SPSS version 23 was used.

### **3. Results and Discussion**

The results show that consumers interviewed in this study are more neophobic than the average consumer in Australia [5]. In this regard, the deeper tradition of Spain as a growing wine country could be the explanation for consumers' less positive attitude toward the acceptance of novel wines [2]. However, this explanation contradicts the widely accepted idea of FN decreasing with the exposure to product diversity [36]. In European countries in which viticulture is traditional, wine consumers are exposed from birth to a wide range of different wines, ye<sup>t</sup> their level of wine neophobia seems to be higher than in other emerging markets such as Australia. Castellini and Samoggia [2] suggested that in European countries in which viticulture is traditional, consumers are influenced by their countries' wine traditional heritage but, at the same time, excited about trying novel or innovative wines. To our knowledge, only the study by Nguyen, Johnson, Jeffery, Danner, and Bastian [5] has evaluated the level of wine neophobia in several countries simultaneously, concluding that consumers from Vietnam were more neophobic than those from China and Australia.

The correlation found between the score obtained by consumers on the WNS and the AFTNS was not significant, showing a value within the range reported for previous studies between the FNS and the FTNS [19,28,44,48–51]. This result confirms the proposed idea of the WNS and FTNS measuring different aspects of FN. Moreover, the average score obtained on the WNS for Spanish consumers is similar to the values reported by Fernández-Ruiz, Claret, and Chaya [43] for general FN using the FNS. In this sense, further studies of the correlation between WN and general FN should be conducted to evaluate whether one could be used as a proxy of the other.

The results of the consumer segmentation analysis using the scores obtained on the WNS and the AFTNS are shown in Table 3. Four different consumer segments comprising a similar number of consumers were obtained. Segment 1 is composed of those reported as wine neophilics as they show the lowest values of WN and TFN. A segmen<sup>t</sup> of neophobics was also identified (Segment 4). This segmen<sup>t</sup> was formed by consumers that showed the highest values of WN and FTN, meaning they had the lowest interest in trying new wines and also the lowest rate of acceptance of any product produced using innovative technologies. Two consumer segments with intermediate characteristics between these two groups were also identified. Segment 2 was formed by consumers with low values of WN but high values for TFN. Opposite attitudes were reported by those consumers aggregated in Segment 3.


**Table 3.** Consumer segmentation according to Wine Neophobia Scale (WNS) and Abbreviated Food Technology Scale (AFTNS).

The means of the values for the consumers in each segmen<sup>t</sup> are shown for the scales and for the wine attributes. Different letters in the same row mean significant differences for scales and wine attributes (*p* < 0.05). Chi-squared values for wine consumption frequency are: X<sup>2</sup> = 44.101, df = 9, *p* = 0.000.

> Segments composed of consumers that show lower WN scores (Segments 1 and 2) are also those that report a higher frequency of wine consumption (more than 60% of them consume wine at least once a week). This result supports the idea that a greater exposure to the product, in this case, a higher frequency of wine consumption, is associated with a lower product neophobia [36]. Similar results were obtained by Nguyen, Johnson, Jeffery, Danner,

and Bastian [5], who also found a correlation between consumption frequency and WN in different countries. More involved consumers (the group of neophilics and neophilics anti-NT) attach greater importance to most of the wine attributes considered, including grape variety, wine barrel aging, or the presence of quality labels. When purchasing food products, a higher involvement has also been associated with the evaluation of a wider range of attributes in products such as fruits [52]. On the other hand, WN has no significant effect on the importance consumers attach to the price when purchasing wine.

Table 4 shows the attitudes of the reported segments toward the statements linked to the wine purchasing process. Wine neophilic segments showed more positive attitudes toward online wine shopping. Regarding wine distribution, Casali et al. [53] found that innovative wine companies opt more for direct distribution channels. Our results sugges<sup>t</sup> that innovative consumers could shop at innovative wineries using online sales as a direct selling channel. Consumers that are more open to wine innovation also place more trust in wine advertising more and pay greater attention to bottle aesthetics and winery image when purchasing wine. This encourages wine makers to develop nontechnological innovations (marketing and organizational innovations) also directed to these segments of wine neophilics.

**Table 4.** Impacts of WN and FTN on wine consumers' opinions toward statements linked to wine innovation.


The means of the values for the consumers in each segment. Likert 9-point scale from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (9). Different letters in the same row mean significant differences in the consumers' opinions (*p* < 0.05).

> Table 5 shows the socioeconomic characteristics of each designated segment. Significant differences were found between consumer segments regarding income and education, but not according to gender or age. No effect of gender on consumer neophobia was expected as, although a study developed in very specific populations reported some effects [54], large-scale studies developed in countries such as Portugal [55] or Sweden [56] have concluded that there is no association between gender and FN.

> Although significant differences for age were not found, the age profile of the segmen<sup>t</sup> of neophilic consumers showed slight differences compared to the profile of neophobics. For example, the number of consumers over 65 years old was twice as large in the neophobic segmen<sup>t</sup> as in the neophilic segment. In this sense, Castellini and Samoggia [2] reported that in countries with a long tradition of wine consumption, young consumers show more positive attitudes toward wine innovation [2]. However, in one of the most comprehensive studies about evolution of FN with age, Dovey et al. [57] concluded that FN reaches its highest point in childhood and then decreases during adolescence, is stable during adulthood, and then increases slightly in older ages as health problems appear. As wine consumption is mainly concentrated in adulthood, the reported absence of age-related differences between segments is consistent with the model proposed by Dovey, Staples, Gibson, and Halford [57].

> On the other hand, significant differences were found for the variables of education and income. The segmen<sup>t</sup> of neophilic consumers was composed of the consumers with the highest income and level of education, while the segmen<sup>t</sup> of neophobic consumers showed the lowest income and the lowest education level. Currently, there is a consensus on the negative association between individuals' FN scores and higher education level and

income [33,37,40]. According to our results, this association between lower income and education and higher neophobia also appears when WN is considered instead of general FN. Flight, Leppard, and Cox [36] explained this association by considering that exposure to greater cultural diversity is expected for consumers with a higher socio-economic status, which results in lower neophobia.


**Table 5.** Socioeconomic characteristics of the segments (%).

Chi-squared values for the socioeconomic variables are: gender, X<sup>2</sup> = 5.42, df = 3, *p* = 0.143; age, X<sup>2</sup> = 26.79, df = 12, *p* = 0.571; education level, X<sup>2</sup> = 18.703, df = 9, *p* = 0.028; net family income, X<sup>2</sup> = 72.580, df =12, *p* = 0.000.

In a recent study, Rabadán and Bernabéu [33] suggested that globalization tends to reduce the level of FN worldwide as exposure to different cultures increases [36]. The association between lower FN and higher individual openness was initially proposed by Knaapila, Silventoinen, Broms, Rose, Perola, Kaprio, and Tuorila [35]. To evaluate the association between personal openness and technological innovation in the wine sector, consumers were asked to evaluate their degree of agreemen<sup>t</sup> with different statements (Table 6). The results showed that according to the statistical differences reported for some items, a higher openness could be attributed to the less neophobic segments, i.e., they are more willing to travel and discover new cultures. However, in the statements covering the self-reported attachment to tradition, a clear pattern did not appear.

**Table 6.** Impacts of WN and FTN on statements about individual openness.


Means of the values for the consumers in each segment. Likert 9-point scale from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (9). Different letters in the same row mean significant differences in the consumers' opinions (*p* < 0.05).
