Food Quality and Preference

Food Quality and Preference 44 (2015) 101–110 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Food Quality and Preference journal homepage: www.elsevier.c...
Author: Grace Bryan
4 downloads 1 Views 222KB Size
Food Quality and Preference 44 (2015) 101–110

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Quality and Preference journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodqual

Influence of the glassware on the perception of alcoholic drinks Xiaoang Wan a,⇑, Xi Zhou a, Andy T. Woods b, Charles Spence c a

Tsinghua University, Beijing, China Xperiment, London, UK c Crossmodal Research Laboratory, Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, UK b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 16 December 2014 Received in revised form 27 March 2015 Accepted 30 March 2015 Available online 9 April 2015 Keywords: Contextual factors Congruency Glassware Receptacle Wine

a b s t r a c t Two studies are reported in which the effect of glassware was investigated on subjective ratings of, and willingness-to-pay for, alcoholic drinks. Participants from China (Study 1) and the USA (Study 2) viewed online photographs of red wine, white wine, beer, whisky, and Chinese baijiu presented in 6 different glasses, including a narrow, wide, or stemless wine glass, a highball or rocks glass, and a beer mug. They rated liking, familiarity, and congruency (between the drink and the glassware), as well as how much they would be willing to pay for the drinks. Both the type of drink and the type of glassware influenced participants’ subjective ratings of, and willingness-to-pay for, the drinks. The red and white wine were liked more, and people were willing to pay significantly more for if they thought that the glassware was congruent with the contents. These findings highlight the influence of content–context congruency on consumers’ subjective ratings and willingness-to-pay. Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Many studies have examined the influence of various contextual factors on consumers’ perception (e.g., Diaz & Maria, 2013), memory (Kumar, 2000), evaluation (Wänke, Bless, & Schwarz, 1998), purchase intent (Steinhart, Kamins, Mazursky, & Noy, 2014), selection (Dhar, Nowlis, & Sherman, 2000), and preference (Noseworthy, Wang, & Islam, 2012). In the case of food and beverage consumption, it has been demonstrated that a variety of contextual factors influence the perception, cognition, and consumption behaviour of consumers (see Spence, Harrar, & Piqueras-Fiszman, 2012; Spence & Piqueras-Fiszman, 2014, for comprehensive reviews), as well as their willingness-to-pay for products (e.g., Wansink, Payne, & Painter, 2014). Over the last few years, there has been a growth of interest in studying how glassware, as one of the most significant contextual factors in the consumption of beverages, influences consumers’ perception and behaviour (see Spence & Wan, 2015, for a review). A number of studies have demonstrated that the shape of the glass influences how people sort glasses (Faye, Courcoux, Giboreau, & Qannari, 2013), how much they pour (Wansink & van Ittersum, 2003, 2005), how rapidly they consume a drink (Attwood, Scott-Samuel, Stothart, & Munafò, 2012), how they feel ⇑ Corresponding author at: Mingzhai 219, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China. Tel.: +86 10 62796746. E-mail address: [email protected] (X. Wan). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.03.018 0950-3293/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

about the entire meal experience (Billing, Öström, & Lagerbielke, 2008), and their choice, preference, and post-consumption satisfaction with the drink (Raghubir & Krishna, 1999). Importantly, the shape of the glass has also been shown to influence how people rate the smell and/or taste/flavour of wine (see Spence, 2011, for a review). For instance, many studies have demonstrated that if one can see and/or physically interact with a wine glass, the glass’s size, shape, weight, and colour can all influence the rating of the taste and/or flavour of its contents (e.g., Fischer & LoeweStanienda, 1999; Hummel, Delwiche, Schmidt, & Hüttenbrink, 2003; Vilanova, Vidal, & Cortés, 2008). However, the influence of the glassware on the consumer’s perception of the contents appears to be more psychological than necessarily chemical/ physical in origin (Spence, 2011; Spence & Wan, 2015). When people focus their attention on the drinks without being aware of the glass in which the drink is presented, they typically report no perceptible difference between the same wine samples presented in different wine glasses (Cliff, 2001; Delwiche & Pelchat, 2002; Russell, Zivanovic, Morris, Penfield, & Weiss, 2005). In many of the above-mentioned studies, the participants often had the opportunity to actually see, smell, and/or taste the drinks. By contrast, we have recently conducted a series of cross-cultural studies that were designed to investigate the influence of the glassware on consumers’ expectations concerning the coloured drinks and their colour-flavour associations when they viewed photos of these drinks online (Wan, Woods, Seoul, Butcher, & Spence, 2015; Wan et al., 2014). In these studies, photos of red, green,

102

X. Wan et al. / Food Quality and Preference 44 (2015) 101–110

yellow, blue, orange, and brown drinks were shown to participants from mainland China, the USA, the UK, South Korea, and India. These drinks were created in the psychology laboratory, and consisted of water mixed with food colouring. They were presented in different receptacles, such as those typically used for water, wine, or cocktail drinks. Interestingly, the results revealed that both the type of glassware and the cultural background of the participants influenced the flavour expectations that were set up by viewing a drink of a given colour. However, it remains unclear whether the glassware would influence people’s rating of drinks that had a more realistic or market-relevant colour, based only on the sight of these drinks as displayed in photos viewed online. Even though alcoholic drinks are sometimes purchased by the bottle (e.g., at supermarkets or some restaurants/bars), it is more typically the case that consumers will purchase drinks by the unit (e.g., at bars or restaurants) and consume them in different kinds of glasses. When alcoholic drinks are served in glasses where no label is available, the glassware will presumably come to play a much more important role in setting a consumer’s expectations. In two online studies, we investigated the influence of glassware (i.e., different glasses containing an alcoholic drink) on people’s ratings of, and willingness-to-pay for, alcohol drinks. Three specific research questions were addressed: (1) how does the glassware influence people’s liking of alcoholic drinks? (2) Does the glassware influence people’s ratings of the congruency between the drink and the glass? (3) Does the glassware influence the consumer’s willingness-to-pay for the drink? Considering the huge population and fast-growing wine market in China (Bretherton & Carswell, 2001; Insel, 2014; Jenster & Cheng, 2008), we thought it both interesting and important to test Chinese consumers in Study 1. In Study 2, we tested participants from the USA and compared the results to what had been found with the Chinese participants. Taken together, the results of these two experiments allow us to look for any cross-cultural differences that might be present. Five different alcoholic drinks, including red wine, white wine, beer, whisky, and Chinese baijiu1 were included in the study. These drinks were presented in any one of 6 different types of glasses, including 3 types of wine glasses and 3 types of non-wine glasses (see Fig. 1 for an illustration). Specifically, the wine glasses were either narrow, wide, or stemless; whereas the non-wine glasses consisted of a highball glass (i.e., a tall and narrow glass in the cylindrical shape), a rocks glass (i.e., a short and wide glass in the cylindrical shape), and a beer mug. Note that narrow and wide wine glasses are typically used to serve wine, whereas the stemless wine glass is currently not used as widely (e.g., Karwa, 2009). Beer mugs are often used to serve beer, whilst the use of the highball or rocks glass is a little more complicated to ascertain. That is, they are commonly used to present spirits in many western countries such as the USA, whereas they may be used to present tea in China. Note that whisky is currently not one of the most common alcoholic drinks in the Chinese market (Jenster & Cheng, 2008), so it is probably the alcoholic drink that our Chinese participants were most unfamiliar with in the present study. By contrast, Chinese baijiu would likely be quite unfamiliar to the North American participants in Study 2. It is therefore likely that some types of glassware, especially those that are tightly linked to certain specific alcoholic drinks (such as the narrow or wide wine glasses), might be expected to exert a pronounced effect on the ratings of the drinks. It would also seem reasonable to expect cross-cultural difference between the participants from China and the USA in their ratings 1 Baijiu is a traditional Chinese distiled alcohol (containing 20–60% alcohol) made from sorghum (or other grains). Its clear appearance has led to it being called ‘‘white wine” in Chinese or ‘‘Chinese liquor/spirits” in English (Liu & Murphy, 2007).

of, and willingness-to-pay for, alcoholic drinks such as whisky and baijiu that are more familiar to one group than to the other. 2. Study 1 2.1. Methods 2.1.1. Participants 120 undergraduate students from a major university in mainland China (mean age = 19.6 years, SD = 1.1, ranging from 18 to 23 years; 62 women) took part in this study online in order to obtain credit to fulfil the requirements of an introductory psychology course. None of the participants reported being colour blind. This study was reviewed and approved by the ethics committee at the Psychology Department of Tsinghua University. All of the participants provided informed consent prior to taking part in the study. 2.1.2. Apparatus and materials The participants took part in the study at http://www.unipark. info. Photographs of alcoholic drinks were shown to the participants, one at a time. Five different types of alcohol found in the Chinese marketplace were presented, including beer (Budweiser, Anheuser-Busch InBev), whisky (Chivas Regal 12 Years Old Blended Scotch Whisky, Chivas Brothers Ltd., Paisley, UK), red wine (Apollonia Vin de Pays de L’Herault Red Wine, Vive S.A., France), white wine (Apollonia Vin de Pays de L’Herault White Wine, Vive S. A., France), and baijiu (Hongxing Erguotou; Beijing Red Star Co. Ltd., Beijing, China). Each drink (100 ml) was presented in six different types of clear glass (see Fig. 1 for an illustration), including a narrow wine glass (195 ml capacity), a wide wine glass (259 ml), a stemless wine glass (266 ml), a highball glass (290 ml), a rocks glass (245 ml), and a beer mug (242 ml). There were a total of 30 pictures (5 types of drinks  6 types of glass). 2.1.3. Design and procedure A 6 (Glass: beer mug, highball glass, rocks glass, narrow, stemless, or wide wine glass)  5 (Drink: baijiu, beer, red wine, whisky, or white wine) within-participants experimental design was used. The 30 pictures were presented in a random order, with one picture shown on each page. When each picture was shown, the type of the drink was indicated next to each picture (see Appendix Table A.1 for the words used to describe the drinks). During each trial, the participants were shown one picture and were asked to rate (1) liking, (2) familiarity, and (3) drink-glass congruency (e.g., how much the drink and glass were congruent with each other), on 7-point scales2. They were also asked to indicate their willingness to pay for this drink by specifying the amount of money in the unit of CNY (Chinese Yuan, ¥), with 0 indicating no willingness to pay. At the end of the study, the participants were also asked to indicate the frequency with which they drank alcohol (never, occasionally, sometimes, or often). This online study took approximately 15 min to complete. 2.2. Results and discussion 2.2.1. The influence of glassware on the ratings of drinks Mean rating scores of liking, familiarity, and congruency are shown in Table 1. In terms of correlations between the mean liking, 2 Note that in the present study, the participants were also asked to rate the pleasantness of each drink in each of the glasses. However, the liking and pleasantness scores were highly correlated (0.98 and 0.64 in Studies 1 and 2, respectively, p < .01), and the results of a separate analysis of pleasantness scores matched a majority of the liking analysis. Therefore, we only report the results of the analysis of the liking scores, but not the pleasantness scores.

103

X. Wan et al. / Food Quality and Preference 44 (2015) 101–110

Narrow wine glass

Wide wine glass

Stemless wine glass

Highball glass

Rocks glass

Beer mug

Wine glasses

Non-wine glasses

Fig. 1. Six different glasses (with baijiu) shown to participants in the present study.

Table 1 The average liking, familiarity, and congruency scores for each glass of drink (with SDs in parentheses). Ratings

Glass

Chinese participants

USA participants

Baijiu

Beer

Red wine

Whisky

White wine

Baijiu

Beer

Red wine

Whisky

White wine

Liking

Beer mug Highball glass Rocks glass Narrow wine glass Stemless wine glass Wide wine glass

2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.1

(1.2) (1.2) (1.3) (1.3) (1.3) (1.2)

4.3 3.9 4.0 3.9 3.7 3.8

(1.3) (1.2) (1.2) (1.3) (1.3) (1.2)

4.3 4.3 4.3 4.8 4.6 4.8

(1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (1.1) (1.1) (1.1)

4.0 3.6 4.0 4.1 3.9 4.0

(1.1) (1.1) (1.2) (1.1) (1.1) (1.1)

4.0 4.1 4.1 4.6 4.3 4.5

(1.3) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (1.1)

3.9 4.0 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.2

(1.1) (1.0) (0.9) (0.9) (0.9) (1.0)

4.7(1.7) 4.6 (1.7) 4.7 (1.8) 4.5 (1.8) 4.6 (1.7) 4.7 (1.7)

4.5 4.5 4.6 4.9 4.8 4.9

(1.6) (1.5) (1.5) (1.5) (1.5) (1.5)

4.0 4.1 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.1

(1.7) (1.7) (1.7) (1.8) (1.8) (1.7)

4.3 4.4 4.4 5.0 4.6 4.9

(1.5) (1.5) (1.4) (1.4) (1.4) (1.3)

Familiarity

Beer mug Highball glass Rocks glass Narrow wine glass Stemless wine glass Wide wine glass

4.2 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.4 4.4

(1.5) (1.5) (1.5) (1.4) (1.4) (1.3)

5.3 5.0 5.1 4.9 5.0 5.0

(1.2) (1.3) (1.2) (1.4) (1.4) (1.3)

4.4 4.5 4.5 4.9 4.7 4.7

(1.3) (1.3) (1.4) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2)

3.4 3.2 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.4

(1.4) (1.4) (1.4) (1.3) (1.4) (1.3)

3.7 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.8

(1.3) (1.3) (1.4) (1.3) (1.5) (1.4)

2.4 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.5

(1.6) (1.6) (1.7) (1.8) (1.7) (1.7)

5.8 5.9 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.8

(1.2) (1.2) (1.3) (1.5) (1.3) (1.3)

5.2 5.4 5.5 5.7 5.5 5.7

(1.5) (1.3) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (1.1)

5.2 5.1 5.5 5.3 5.4 5.2

(1.4) (1.6) (1.3) (1.4) (1.3) (1.4)

5.3 5.4 5.3 5.7 5.4 5.6

(1.4) (1.4) (1.3) (1.1) (1.2) (1.1)

Congruency

Beer mug Highball glass Rocks glass Narrow wine glass Stemless wine glass Wide wine glass

2.7 3.0 3.9 3.4 3.1 3.4

(1.3) (1.3) (1.4) (1.5) (1.5) (1.4)

4.9 3.6 4.0 2.8 2.6 2.9

(1.5) (1.4) (1.3) (1.4) (1.3) (1.3)

2.9 3.0 3.0 5.1 4.1 5.1

(1.4) (1.4) (1.3) (1.2) (1.5) (1.2)

3.7 3.1 4.2 4.0 3.8 3.9

(1.5) (1.3) (1.5) (1.3) (1.4) (1.3)

3.0 3.2 3.3 5.0 4.3 5.0

(1.4) (1.4) (1.3) (1.3) (1.5) (1.2)

3.6 3.9 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.3

(1.3) (1.3) (1.2) (1.3) (1.1) (1.2)

4.4 3.9 3.4 2.7 2.9 2.7

(1.9) (1.7) (1.7) (1.7) (1.7) (1.7)

2.6 2.9 3.1 6.0 4.7 5.8

(1.6) (1.6) (1.7) (1.1) (1.5) (1.3)

3.4 3.7 5.6 2.9 4.2 2.9

(1.7) (1.5) (1.2) (1.6) (1.6) (1.5)

2.7 3.0 3.1 6.1 4.3 5.9

(1.7) (1.6) (1.7) (1.1) (1.5) (1.1)

familiarity, and congruency scores of the 30 glasses of drinks presented in this experiment, liking scores were positively correlated with the congruency scores, r = 0.60, p < .01; whereas the familiarity scores were significantly correlated with neither of these two scores, both rs < .04, p > .84. The results of a 6 (Glass)  5 (Drink) repeated-measures MANOVA on these scores revealed a significant main effect of the Glass, k = .78, F(15, 1637) = 10.41, p < .01, a significant main effect of the Drink, k = .38, F(12, 1254) = 45.94, p < .01, and a significant interaction, k = .68, F(60, 7095) = 16.19, p < .01. Univariate ANOVAs revealed significant main effects of Glass, all Fs > 2.58, p < .05, Drink, all Fs > 30.66, p < .01, and

significant interactions between these terms, all Fs > 2.94, p < .01, on all three of the response measures (see Appendix Tables B.1– B.6 for the specific statistics for this and the following tests). In order to interpret the interaction effects, separate MANOVAs were performed on the liking, familiarity, and congruency scores analyses for each of the alcohol drinks. The results revealed a significant main effect of the Glass for all five types of drinks, all Fs > 3.70, p < .01. Univariate ANOVAs were then performed on each type of rating score separately for each type of alcoholic drink. This time the results revealed a significant main effect of Glass on the liking and congruency scores for all five drinks, all Fs > 2.60,

104

X. Wan et al. / Food Quality and Preference 44 (2015) 101–110

p < .05. By contrast, the effect of Glass was significant on the familiarity scores only for the beer and red wine, both Fs > 4.00, p < .01, but not for baijiu, whisky, or white wine, all Fs < 1.73, p > .12. 2.2.2. Ratings on the red and white wine Further pairwise comparisons were performed on the rating scores of drinks presented in the different types of glasses.3 The results revealed that the red or white wine presented in the narrow or wide wine glasses received higher liking and congruency scores than when presented in any of the three non-wine glasses, all ts > 4.74, p < .01. The superiority of the narrow wine glass when it comes to the presentation of red wine was also shown on the familiarity scores, as compared to when the same drink was presented in any of the three non-wine glasses, all ts > 3.39, p < .05. These results therefore demonstrate that both the narrow and wide wine glasses were considered most appropriate for the serving of red or white wine. What is more, presenting the red wine in the stemless wine glass resulted in higher liking and congruency scores than when the same drink was presented in any of the three non-wine glasses, and higher familiarity scores than when presented in the beer mug, all ts > 3.03, p < .05. When presented in the stemless wine glass, the white wine received higher congruency scores than when it was presented in any of the other three non-wine glasses, all ts > 5.31, p < .01, but lower congruency scores than those in the narrow and wide wine glass, both ts > 4.44, p < .01. To summarise, the stemless wine glass was considered to be a more appropriate receptacle in which to show the red or white wine than any of the three non-wine glasses, though this superiority was not always apparent. 2.2.3. Ratings on the beer, whisky, and baijiu When the beer was presented in the beer mug, it received higher liking, familiarity, and congruency scores than when presented in the highball glass or any of the three wine glasses, all ts > 3.26, p < .05; the one exception was that the difference between the familiarity scores for the beer mug and stemless wine glass was only marginally significant, t(119) = 2.96, p = .055. What is more, the beer presented in the beer mug also received higher familiarity and congruency scores than those in the rocks glass, both ts > 3.13, p < .05, but those presented in the rocks glass received higher liking scores than when the drink was presented in the stemless wine glass, t(119) = 3.83, p < .01. In addition, presenting the beer in the rocks or highball glass also gave rise to higher congruency scores than when the drink was presented in any of the three wine glasses, all ts > 4.79, p < .01. In summary, these results reveal that the beer mug was considered most appropriate for the beer, as the name ‘beer mug’ would imply, and our participants liked the look of the beer more when it was presented in the appropriate receptacle. Presenting the whisky in the highball glass resulted in lower liking and congruency scores than when the same drink was presented in any of the other five types of glass, all ts > 3.30, p < .05. In other words, the results did not reveal which glass was most congruent with the whisky, or which whisky-receptacle pairing our participants liked most. Yet, the results did highlight the fact that the highball glass was not such a receptacle. 3 Pairwise comparisons were conducted when the main effect of Glass was significant. In this and the following cases where multiple comparisons were conducted, all p values are reported after Bonferroni correction. In the main text, we only reported the corrected p values which were significant at a = .05; whereas all the t values for both the significant and non-significant pairwise comparisons can be found in Appendix Tables B.1–B.6.

When the baijiu was presented in the beer mug, it received lower congruency scores than when presented in the rocks glass, narrow or wide wine glass, all ts > 4.93, p < .01. On the other hand, presenting the baijiu in the rocks glass resulted in higher congruency scores than when it was presented in the highball or stemless wine glasses, both ts > 4.85, p < .01. In summary, these results highlight the fact that, among the 6 types of glass that were presented in the present study, the rocks glass might well be considered the most appropriate for serving baijiu (at least amongst the Chinese participants tested in the present study). By contrast, the beer mug was considered to be the most inappropriate receptacle. 2.2.4. Willingness-to-pay When the willingness-to-pay data was analysed, the results from one of the participants had to be excluded from the data analyses since the price that s/he said that s/he would pay was more than three standard deviations from the group. The results of the ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of Glass, F (5, 590) = 14.01, p < .01, a significant main effect of Drink, F (4, 472) = 32.74, p < .01, and a significant interaction, F(20, 2360) = 3.22, p < .01. As can be seen in the upper panel of Fig. 2, the participants were willing to pay ¥ 20 less for the beer than for the other four drinks, all ts > 6.72, p < .01, which matches the fact that beer normally costs less than most of the other alcoholic drinks in the marketplace. The results of ANOVAs on the data from each drink revealed a significant main effect of the Glass on baijiu,4 beer, red wine, and white wine, all Fs > 4.20, p < .01, but not on the whisky, F(5, 590) = 1.11, p = .36. Pairwise comparisons revealed that the participants were willing to pay significantly more for the red wine when it was served in any of the three wine glasses than when served in any of the three non-wine glasses, all ts > 3.40, p < .05. The participants were also willing to pay more for the white wine when it was served in the narrow or wide glass than when it was served in any of the three non-wine glasses, all ts > 4.02, p < .01. What is more, our participants were willing to pay significantly more for the beer when it was served in the beer mug than in the highball or rocks glass, both ts > 3.96, p < .01. Last but by no means the least, the percentages of participants who reported that they never, occasionally, sometimes, and often drank alcoholic drinks in their daily life were 18%, 69%, 10%, and 3%, respectively. 2.2.5. Summary The results of the subjective ratings revealed that certain receptacles are considered to be more appropriate for a given alcoholic drink than others. For one, our participants considered both the narrow and wide wine glasses to be appropriate for the red and white wine, and, more importantly, expected that they would like the drinks more if it were to be served in the appropriate glassware. Similarly, participants liked the beer more when it was served in the beer mug. It was also considered to be the most appropriate glassware in which to serve the drink. These results also suggest that people are willing to pay more for an alcoholic drink when they believe the glassware and drink are congruent with each other. That is, they were willing to pay more for the red and white wine when they were served in the appropriate glassware (i.e., narrow and wide wine glasses), and more for the beer when it was served in the appropriate receptacle (i.e., the beer mug). Among the 6 types of glass presented in the present study, the rocks glass might well be considered the most appropriate receptacle for serving baijiu. Yet, in real life, Chinese baijiu is often served 4 Even though the main effect of Glass was significant for the baijiu data, none of the pairwise comparisons reached statistical significance after Bonferroni correction.

X. Wan et al. / Food Quality and Preference 44 (2015) 101–110

Willingness-to-pay (CNY)

A. Chinese participants

Beer mug Narrow wine glass 80

Highball glass Stemless wine glass

Rocks glass Wide wine glass

60 40 20 0 Baijiu

Beer

Red wine

Whisky

White wine

B. USA participants

Fig. 2. Panel A shows the price (in CNY) that Chinese participants reported that they would be willing to pay for the drink in each glass, whereas Panel B shows the price (in USD) that participants from the USA would be willing to pay. Error bars show the standard errors of the means.

in small baijiu cups that are made of glass, ceramic, or other materials (China Daily, 2010). Therefore, the rocks glass would likely have been considered the most appropriate receptacle for baijiu due to the resemblance of its form to the baijiu cup that Chinese consumers see on a regular basis. By contrast, our results did not reveal any strong preference with regards to which glass was deemed most appropriate for the whisky, possibly due to our participants’ lack of familiarity with such a drink. 3. Study 2 3.1. Method All the aspects of the method of this study were the same as those in Study 1 except for the following. A total of 100 participants from the USA (mean age = 35.5 years, SD = 12.4, ranging from 19 to 75 years; 56 women) took part in this study. They were recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, and took part in this study in exchange for a payment of 0.80 US dollars. They took part in the English version of this study online using Adobe Flash-based Xperiment software (www.xperiment.mobi downloaded on 15/05/ 13). At the beginning of the study, the participants were directed to a Wikipedia website (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baijiu) if they wanted a description of ‘‘baijiu.” During the study, when participants were asked to specify the amount of money they would like to pay for each glass of drink, there were asked to input the amount of money in the unit of US dollars. 3.2. Results and discussion 3.2.1. Influence of glassware on the ratings of alcoholic drinks Mean rating scores of liking, familiarity, and congruency are also shown in Table 1, next to the results of Study 1. In terms of correlations between the mean liking, familiarity, and congruency

105

scores of the 30 glasses of drinks presented in this experiment, liking scores were positively correlated with the congruency scores, r = 0.45, p < .05, and with the familiarity scores, r = 0.64, p < .01; whereas the familiarity scores were not significantly correlated with the congruency scores, r = .04, p = .82. The results of a 6 (Glass)  5 (Drink) repeated-measures MANOVA revealed a significant main effect of the Glass, k = .60, F(15, 1361) = 18.74, p < .01, a significant main effect of the Drink, k = .25, F(12, 1043) = 59.37, p < .01, and a significant interaction effect, k = .54, F(60, 5902) = 22.40, p < .01. For all three of the measures, univariate ANOVAs revealed a significant main effect of the Glass, all Fs > 3.92, p < .01, a significant main effect of the Drink, all Fs > 6.77, p < .01, and a significant interaction effect, all Fs > 2.86, p < .01. As for Study 1, we also performed the analyses on each type of alcoholic drink separately. The results of the MANOVA revealed a significant main effect of the Glass for all five types of drinks, all Fs > 4.15, p < .01, and the results of univaraite ANOVAs results also revealed a significant main effect of Glass on all of three measures for the red wine, white wine, and whisky, all Fs > 2.77, p < .05. By contrast, the main effect of Glass was significant on the liking and congruency scores for baijiu, and on congruency scores for beer, all Fs > 4.29, p < .01. None of other effects was significant, all Fs < 1.36, p > .24. 3.2.2. Red and white wine ratings The results of pairwise comparisons revealed that the red or white wine presented in the narrow or wide wine glasses received higher congruency scores than the same drink when presented in any of the three non-wine glasses or the stemless wine glass, all ts > 5.71, p < .01. What is more, when the red wine was presented in the narrow or wide wine glass, it also received higher liking scores than when presented in the highball glass, and higher familiarity scores than when presented in the beer mug, all ts > 3.01, p < .05. Similarly, when the white wine was presented in the narrow or wide wine glass, it received higher liking scores than when presented in any of the three non-wine glasses or the stemless wine glass, all ts > 3.23, p < .05. That said, the narrow wine glass also showed some superiority that was absent with the wide wine glass. That is, the red wine presented in the narrow wine glass received higher liking scores than when presented in the beer mug, t(99) = 3.03, p < .05; the white wine presented in the narrow wine glass received higher familiarity scores than when presented in the rocks glass or beer mug, both ts > 3.51, p < .05. To summarise, both the narrow and wide wine glasses were considered most appropriate for the serving of red or white wine. On the other hand, the results also revealed some superiority in presenting red or white wine in the stemless wine glass. Specifically, red or white wine presented in the stemless wine glass received higher congruency scores than the same drink presented in any of the three non-wine glasses, and the red wine presented in the stemless wine glass also received higher liking scores than the same drink presented in the highball glass, all ts > 3.03, p < .05. These results found that the stemless wine glass was also considered to be more appropriate for red or white wine than any of the three non-wine glasses, though the superiority of the stemless wine glass was not always apparent. 3.2.3. Ratings on the beer, whisky, and baijiu Pairwise comparisons revealed that all three of the non-wine glasses were considered to be more congruent with beer than any of the three wine glasses, all ts > 3.15, p < .05; while the beer mug was considered to be more congruent than the rocks glass, t (99) = 3.90, p < .01. These results suggest that the USA participants might consider both the beer mug and the highball glasses to be appropriate receptacles to present the beer.

106

X. Wan et al. / Food Quality and Preference 44 (2015) 101–110

When whisky was presented in the rocks glass, it received higher congruency scores than when presented in the highball glass, beer mug, narrow or wide wine glass, higher liking scores than when presented in the highball glass, beer mug, or wide wine glass, and higher familiarity scores than when presented in the highball glass, all ts > 3.29, p < .05. Even though the whisky presented in the stemless wine glass received lower congruency scores than when presented in the rocks glass, t (99) = 7.55, p < .01, it received higher liking scores than when presented in the highball glass or beer mug, and higher congruency scores than when presented in the highball glass, beer mug, narrow or wide wine glass, all ts > 3.06, p < .05. These results therefore show that the rocks glass and the stemless wine glass were considered more appropriate for the serving of whisky. When the baijiu was presented in the beer mug, it received lower congruency scores than when presented in the rocks glass or any of the three wine glasses, as well as lower liking scores than when presented in the narrow or stemless glasses, all ts > 3.05, p < .05. Presenting the baijiu in the highball glass resulted in lower congruency scores than when presented in the rocks glass or stemless wine glass, both ts > 3.17, p < .05. In summary, these results revealed that the USA consumers do not have a clear sense of what might be congruent glassware for baijiu, nor which baijiu-receptacle pairing they like most, but only revealed that neither the beer mug nor the highball glass was a congruent receptacle with baijiu.

3.2.5. Summary The results of the subjective ratings revealed that the North American participants also considered certain receptacles being more appropriate for a given alcoholic drink than others. For one, the participants in this study considered both the narrow and wide wine glasses to be appropriate for the red and white wine, and expected themselves to like the drinks more when they were served in the appropriate glassware in most of the cases. The results for red and white wine are basically consistent with our findings with Chinese participants in Study 1. What is more, the participants from the USA also considered the rocks glass and the stemless wine glass to be more appropriate to present whisky than the highball glass or beer mug, and expected themselves to like the whisky more when served in more appropriate glassware. These results suggest that people are more willing pay for a glass of red wine, white wine, or whisky when they believe the glassware to be especially congruent with the drink. It should be noted that only 13% of the Chinese participants in Study 1 and 34% of the USA participants in Study 2 reported that they consume alcoholic drinks more than occasionally. It therefore, remains unclear whether those who consume alcohol on a more frequent basis would show the same pattern of results as the participants in the present study. That being said, it should also be noted that the familiarity scores were not significantly correlated with the congruency scores in Studies 1 or 2, though the results of Study 2 revealed a positive correlation between the familiarity and liking scores.

3.2.4. Willingness-to-pay When the willingness-to-pay data was analysed, the results from two of the participants had to be excluded from the data analyses since the price that they reported being willing to pay was more than three standard deviations from that of the rest of the group. The results of the ANOVA revealed significant main effects of Glass, F(5, 485) = 4.27, p < .01, and of Drink, F(4, 388) = 30.31, p < .01, as well as a significant interaction effect, F (20, 1940) = 2.45, p < .01. As can be seen in the lower panel of Fig. 2, the amount that our participants were willing to pay for the beer was more than $ 1.45 lower than what they would be willing to pay for the other four types of drinks, all ts > 7.10, p < .01. The results of ANOVAs conducted on the data from each drink revealed significant main effects of the Glass for the red wine, the white wine, and the whisky, all Fs > 3.27, p < .01, but not for baijiu or beer, both Fs < 2.15, p > .06. Pairwise comparisons revealed that the participants were willing to pay significantly more for the red wine when it happened to be served in the narrow or wide wine glass than when served in any of the three non-wine glasses, all ts > 4.87, p < .01. Similarly, the participants were willing to pay significantly more for the white wine when it was served in the narrow or wide glass than in any of the three non-wine glasses, or the stemless wine glass,5 all ts > 3.32, p < .05. They were also willing to pay more for the whisky when it was served in the stemless wine glass than in the highball or wide wine glass, or more for the whisky in rocks glass than when it was in the highball glass, all ts > 3.06, p < .05. Last but by no means the least, the percentages of participants who reported that they never, occasionally, sometimes, and often drank alcoholic drinks in their daily lives were 16%, 50%, 23%, and 11%, respectively.

4. General discussion

5 It would appear that the participants would have been willing to pay more for the red or white wine when presented in the stemless wine glass than when presented in any of the three non-wine glasses. However, note that in this case none of the pairwise comparisons reached the statistical significance.

The results of both of the studies reported here clearly demonstrate that certain receptacles may be considered to be more appropriate for a given alcoholic drink than others, and participants expected that they would like drinks more when they were served in the appropriate glassware. These results suggest that people like alcoholic drinks more when they consider the glassware and drink to be congruent (Raudenbush, Meyer, Eppich, Corley, & Petterson, 2002). Both narrow and wide wine glasses are often used to present red and white wine, so the consumers might have just picked up such drink-receptacle associations from past experience with these pairings. Importantly, our results also revealed that consumers would like to pay more for the red or white wine when they were served in the appropriate glassware, thus indicating the influence of context–content congruency on consumers’ willingness-to-pay. These findings provide new insights into how contextual factors influence people’s cognition and behaviour (Spence et al., 2012), in the case of alcoholic drinks. Compared to the coloured drinks mixed in the psychology laboratory in our previous research (see Wan et al., 2014, 2015), the influence of the glassware on the alcoholic drinks presented here is somewhat more complicated, and may be more subject to the personal background and previous life experiences of the consumer. As a case in point, the results of the present study revealed that the influence of the context–content congruency on the willingness-to-pay is moderated by the consumer’s familiarity with the paring of the content and context. Despite the fact that consistent results were shared by both groups of participants as far as the red and white wine were concerned, we have observed cross-cultural difference in the results for beer and whisky. For one, Chinese participants were willing to pay more for beer presented in the beer mug which was more appropriate with the beer in their mind, as compared to the same drink when presented in the highball or rocks glass. By contrast, the beer mug and the highball glass were both considered appropriate receptacles when it came to presenting beer by the USA participants,

107

X. Wan et al. / Food Quality and Preference 44 (2015) 101–110

and no such effect of receptacle on the willingness-to-pay was observed. In addition, the participants from the USA were willing to pay more for the whisky presented in the rocks glass or stemless wine glass which they thought were more appropriate for whisky. By contrast, no such effect on participants’ willingness-to-pay for the whisky was observed with the Chinese participants, while the glassware did not impact their familiarity scores. These findings demonstrate that what seems to matter in terms of the participants’ willingness-to-pay is their familiarity with the pairing of content and context, and not necessarily the familiarity to the content itself. It is very likely that the participant’s familiarity with the pairing of the content and context modulates the strength of the associations between them, and thus influences their willingness-to-pay. Our findings also provide further understanding concerning the ‘‘appropriateness” and ‘‘inappropriateness” between context and content in the mind of the consumer. For one thing, when the consumers were unfamiliar with the content itself (e.g., the participants from China and the USA were unfamiliar with whisky and baijiu, respectively), it may not be known which context is most appropriate for the content. Nevertheless, consumers may well be able to pick up clues from the information that is available to figure out which context is most inappropriate. Another possibility is that consumers might take different aspects of one context into consideration, and decide its appropriateness with different contents accordingly. As a case in point, the stemless wine glass, a more novel type of wine glass, was considered to be more appropriate for red and white wine than the non-wine glasses by the participants from both China and the USA, and was also considered by the USA participants to be more appropriate than the narrow or wide wine glass for the whisky. That is, the stemless wine glass keeps the most important feature of the traditional bulbous wine glasses which is thought to enhance ratings of odour intensity (e. g., Karwa, 2009; Spence, 2011). It is also wide and short which seems generally appropriate for presenting strong distiled alcohols such as whisky. In conclusion, the findings reported in the present study demonstrate the influence of glassware on consumers’ subjective rating of and willingness-to-pay for the alcoholic drinks. They also highlight the importance of choosing the most appropriate receptacles to serve the alcoholic drinks to informed consumers. These findings also have direct implications to the online marketing of alcohols, and the design of glassware. In particular, our findings provide valuable information for those international marketers interested in breaking into the rapidly-growing Chinese wine market and for those Chinese marketers interested in attracting foreign customers to consume traditional Chinese wine. Specifically, these findings highlight the importance of contextual factors, and draw further attention to the need to carefully choose the most appropriate/flattering glassware in which to present the drinks. The glassware to present the drinks may well help the potential customers to generate expectations concerning the quality of the beverage even when they are purely looking at a glass of the beverage (or even just a photo of it via online advertising). Providing enough information as external cues about the quality of the beverage is helpful, and if so, choosing the glass that will be deemed most appropriate in the mind of the average consumer will result in the beverage and its receptacle seeming congruent with one another, and therefore more positive expectations and higher willingness-to-pay may ensue. Acknowledgements This research was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 71472106) awarded to Xiaoang

Wan, and the Rethinking the Senses grant from the AHRC (UK; AH/L007053/1) awarded to Charles Spence. The authors would also like to thank Bingbing Mu and Dikang Du for their assistance in the data collection of Study 1. Comments concerning this article should be sent to Dr. Xiaoang Wan at [email protected]. edu.cn. Appendix Table. A.1. The words shown next to each picture to indicate the type of the drinks in both studies.

Language Baijiu Beer Red wine Whisky White wine

Chinese participants

USA participants

Chinese 白酒 啤酒 红葡萄酒 威士忌 白葡萄酒

English Baijiu Beer Red wine Whisky White wine

Appendix Table. B.1. The results of MANOVA and ANOVAs conducted on the ratings data in both studies.

Effect

Measure

Glass

Multivariate

Drink

Glass  Drink

Chinese participants

USA participants

df

F

df

F

10.41**

Familiarity

5, 595

2.59*

Congruency

5, 595

31.37**

Willingnessto-pay

5, 590

14.01**

15, 1361 5, 495 5, 495 5, 495 5, 485

18.74**

Liking

15, 1637 5, 595

Multivariate

45.94**

Familiarity

4, 476

65.01**

Congruency

4, 476

30.67**

Willingnessto-pay

4, 472

32.74**

12, 1043 4, 396 4, 396 4, 396 4, 388

59.37**

Liking

12, 1254 4, 476

Multivariate

60, 7095 20, 2380 20, 2380 20, 2380 20.2360

16.19**

60, 5902 20, 1980 20, 1980 20, 1980 20, 1940

22.40**

Liking Familiarity Congruency Willingnessto-pay

13.02**

53.24**

8.03** 2.95** 53.30** 3.22**

12.15** 3.93** 59.90** 4.27**

6.78** 174.83** 43.00** 30.31**

4.84** 2.87** 79.82** 2.45**

Note: * denotes p < .05, and ** denotes p < .01. The ‘‘multivariate” measure refers to the MONOVA conducted on the liking, familiarity, and congruency scores.

108

X. Wan et al. / Food Quality and Preference 44 (2015) 101–110

Appendix Table. B.2. The results of the main effect of Glass on each type of drink in both studies.

Country

Measure

df

Baijiu

Beer

Red wine **

White wine

Multivariate Liking Familiarity Congruency Willingness-to-pay

15,1637 5,595 5,595 5,595 5,590

5.68 2.61* 1.25 14.92** 4.21**

18.84 9.31** 4.01** 61.89** 6.42**

24.35 16.14** 6.24** 86.75** 13.03**

3.71 5.45** 1.14 8.81** 1.11

19.24** 12.89** 1.72 65.73** 9.50**

USA

Multivariate Liking Familiarity Congruency Willingness-to-pay

15,1361 5,495 5,495 5,495 5,485

4.16** 4.30** 0.60 10.78** 2.14

9.11** 1.35 1.35 26.41** 0.56

32.50** 6.08** 6.67** 126.13** 3.46**

19.63** 6.19** 2.78* 65.48** 3.28**

34.06** 13.71** 4.97** 133.51** 13.39**

**

**

Whisky

China

Note: * denotes p < .05, and

**

**

denotes p < .01. The ‘‘multivariate” measure refers to the MONOVA conducted on the liking, familiarity, and congruency scores.

Appendix Table. B.3. Pairwise comparisons on liking scores in Studies 1 and 2, in the cases where the main effect of Glass was significant.

Chinese participants Baijiu Highball vs. rocks Highball vs. mug Highball vs. narrow Highball vs. stemless Highball vs. wide Rocks vs. mug Rocks vs. narrow Rocks vs. stemless Rocks vs. wide Mug vs. narrow Mug vs. stemless mug vs. wide Narrow vs. stemless Narrow vs. wide Stemless vs. wide Note: * denotes p < .05, and

**

1.18 0.81 2.17 1.70 1.95 1.72 1.08 0.70 0.78 2.59 2.43 2.53 0.32 0.37 0.00

Beer 1.93 3.92** 0.19 2.17 0.66 2.55 1.42 3.83** 2.35 3.32* 5.47** 4.23** 2.37 0.94 1.70

Red wine 0.65 0.00 5.86** 3.54** 5.73** 0.68 4.82** 3.31* 4.83** 5.25** 3.77** 5.07** 2.37 0.56 2.31

USA participants Whisky **

3.70 3.95** 4.56** 3.31* 4.08** 0.60 0.93 0.20 0.62 0.36 0.70 0.00 1.18 0.46 0.80

White wine 0.09 0.27 4.74** 2.58 5.08** 0.37 5.12** 2.62 5.11** 4.75** 2.46 4.88** 2.74 0.22 2.56

Baijiu 1.42 0.93 2.20 2.57 2.13 2.67 0.71 1.42 0.45 3.06* 3.93* 2.97 0.53 0.32 1.07

Beer – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Red wine 1.32 0.11 3.37* 3.04* 3.02* 0.99 2.48 2.75 2.44 3.03* 2.72 2.94 0.91 0.00 1.04

Whisky *

3.49 0.42 1.42 3.07* 0.45 4.39** 2.78 0.99 3.32* 1.47 3.10* 1.05 2.30 0.62 2.25

White wine 0.92 0.67 4.75** 2.48 4.29** 1.42 4.56** 1.76 4.11** 5.18** 2.82 4.61** 3.44* 0.93 3.24*

denotes p < .01, after Bonferroni correction.

Appendix Table. B.4. Pairwise comparisons of familiarity scores in Studies 1 and 2, in the cases where the main effect of Glass was significant.

Chinese participants Baijiu Highball vs. rocks Highball vs. mug Highball vs. narrow Highball vs. stemless Highball vs. wide Rocks vs. mug Rocks vs. narrow Rocks vs. stemless Rocks vs. wide

– – – – – – – – –

Beer 0.82 3.27* 0.88 0.15 0.37 3.14* 1.52 0.76 1.07

Red wine 0.26 1.00 3.84* 1.89 2.23 0.63 3.40* 2.28 2.43

USA participants Whisky – – – – – – – – –

White wine – – – – – – – – –

Baijiu – – – – – – – – –

Beer – – – – – – – – –

Red wine 0.67 2.27 2.65 1.06 2.65 2.54 2.21 0.73 2.13

Whisky *

3.30 0.97 1.47 2.97 1.38 2.09 1.83 0.95 1.71

White wine 1.12 1.16 2.22 0.19 1.70 0.23 3.52* 1.18 2.82

109

X. Wan et al. / Food Quality and Preference 44 (2015) 101–110 Appendix Table (continued)

Chinese participants

Mug vs. narrow Mug vs. stemless mug vs. wide Narrow vs. stemless Narrow vs. wide Stemless vs. wide Note: * denotes p < .05, and

**

USA participants

Baijiu

Beer

Red wine

Whisky

White wine

Baijiu

Beer

Red wine

Whisky

White wine

– – – – – –

3.43* 2.96 3.34* 0.75 0.56 0.15

3.84** 3.04* 2.92 1.91 1.74 0.48

– – – – – –

– – – – – –

– – – – – –

– – – – – –

3.98** 2.82 4.10** 1.80 0.11 1.84

0.55 1.54 0.40 1.04 0.18 1.16

3.56* 1.29 2.86 2.94 1.07 1.73

denotes p < .01, after Bonferroni correction.

Appendix Table. B.5. Pairwise comparisons on congruency scores in Study 1 and Study 2, in the cases where the main effect of Glass was significant.

Chinese participants Baijiu Highball vs. rocks Highball vs. mug Highball vs. narrow Highball vs. stemless Highball vs. wide Rocks vs. mug Rocks vs. narrow Rocks vs. stemless Rocks vs. wide Mug vs. narrow Mug vs. stemless mug vs. wide Narrow vs. stemless Narrow vs. wide Stemless vs. wide Note: * denotes p < .05, and

**

**

5.69 2.38 2.58 0.66 2.39 7.56** 2.65 4.86** 2.80 5.10** 2.79 4.94*** 2.31 0.31 2.21

Beer 2.44 7.12** 5.44** 6.70** 4.80** 5.26** 7.55** 9.54** 7.25** 10.71** 12.23** 10.20** 1.76 1.06 2.54

Red wine 0.00 0.82 14.02** 5.96** 11.70** 0.93 12.86** 6.88** 12.60** 13.30** 7.16** 11.94** 6.31** 0.64 5.95**

USA participants Whisky **

5.84 3.55** 5.89** 4.38** 4.90** 2.53 1.04 2.03 1.38 1.49 0.65 1.15 0.86 0.60 0.42

White wine 0.97 1.79 10.78** 6.64** 11.53** 2.48 11.55** 5.32** 10.32** 11.62** 6.47** 11.37** 4.45** 0.48 4.95**

Baijiu *

3.18 2.29 2.31 3.74** 2.64 4.88** 0.66 0.85 0.60 4.27** 5.95** 4.65** 1.46 0.24 1.58

Beer 2.53 2.16 5.89** 5.37** 5.97** 3.90** 4.07** 3.16* 3.89** 7.92** 6.97** 7.50** 0.96 0.40 1.43

Red wine 1.53 2.13 14.05** 10.31** 12.37** 2.89 12.52** 9.59** 11.53** 15.11** 10.94** 14.25** 6.73** 1.15 5.72**

Whisky **

10.43 1.82 5.84** 3.44* 4.62** 9.93** 12.59** 7.55** 12.78** 2.89 4.29** 2.56 8.19** 0.32 8.12**

White wine 0.86 2.04 14.33** 7.52** 14.02** 3.09* 13.56** 7.10** 12.51** 15.13** 9.11**** 14.28** 9.31** 1.42 9.29**

denotes p < .01, after Bonferroni correction.

Appendix Table. B.6. Pairwise comparisons of the willingness to pay data in Studies 1 and 2, in the cases where the main effect of Glass was significant.

Chinese participants

Highball vs. rocks Highball vs. mug Highball vs. narrow Highball vs. stemless Highball vs. wide Rocks vs. mug Rocks vs. narrow Rocks vs. stemless Rocks vs. wide Mug vs. narrow Mug vs. stemless mug vs. wide Narrow vs. stemless Narrow vs. wide Stemless vs. wide Note: * denotes p < .05, and

**

USA participants

Baijiu

Beer

Red wine

Whisky

White wine

Baijiu

Beer

Red wine

Whisky

White wine

0.71 1.09 2.63 2.21 2.78 0.70 2.53 2.06 2.73 2.18 1.51 2.32 1.34 0.65 0.81

1.71 3.97** 2.43 1.05 2.98 5.14** 3.08* 2.50 4.02** 0.62 2.26 1.21 1.71 0.23 1.40

0.71 0.50 4.70** 3.61** 5.39** 0.33 3.99** 3.83** 5.32** 4.39** 3.41* 5.07** 0.55 0.97 1.57

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

0.35 0.54 5.59** 1.40 4.03** 0.94 6.50** 1.43 5.12** 5.25** 1.68 5.29** 2.30 1.68 1.30

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

0.26 0.42 6.01** 1.59 5.39** 0.66 5.29** 1.55 4.88*** 5.15** 1.72 4.94** 0.10 1.24 0.37

3.68** 1.86 2.17 3.23* 1.07 1.25 0.51 0.39 1.90 0.58 1.66 0.72 1.16 1.45 3.07*

0.85 0.68 5.19** 2.21 5.72** 1.40 5.25** 2.47 4.91** 4.50** 1.07 3.98** 3.65** 0.49 3.34*

denotes p < .01, after Bonferroni correction.

110

X. Wan et al. / Food Quality and Preference 44 (2015) 101–110

References Attwood, A. S., Scott-Samuel, N. E., Stothart, G., & Munafò, M. R. (2012). Glass shape influences consumption rate for alcoholic beverages. PLoS One, 7(8), e43007. Billing, M., Öström, Å., & Lagerbielke, E. (2008). The importance of wine glasses for enhancing the meal experience from the perspectives of craft, design, and science. Journal of Foodservice, 19, 69–73. Bretherton, P., & Carswell, P. (2001). Market entry strategies for Western produced wine into the Chinese market. International Journal of Wine Marketing, 13, 23–35. China Daily (2010). Chinese alcohol, Chinese spirits. . Cliff, M. A. (2001). Influence of wine glass shape on perceived aroma and colour intensity in wines. Journal of Wine Research, 12, 39–46. Delwiche, J. F., & Pelchat, M. L. (2002). Influence of glass shape on wine aroma. Journal of Sensory Studies, 17, 19–28. Dhar, R., Nowlis, S. M., & Sherman, S. J. (2000). Trying hard or hardly trying: An analysis of context effects in choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9, 189–200. Diaz, R., & Maria, I. (2013). Price assessments by consumers: Influence of purchase context and price structure. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37, 13–20. Faye, P., Courcoux, P., Giboreau, A., & Qannari, E. M. (2013). Assessing and taking into account the subjects’ experience and knowledge in consumer studies. Application to the free sorting of wine glasses. Food Quality and Preference, 28, 317–327. Fischer, U., & Loewe-Stanienda, B. (1999). Impact of wine glasses for sensory evaluation. International Journal of Vine and Wine Sciences, Wine Tasting, Special Edition, 33(Suppl. 1), 71–80. Hummel, T., Delwiche, J. F., Schmidt, C., & Hüttenbrink, K.-B. (2003). Effects of the form of glasses on the perception of wine flavors: A study in untrained subjects. Appetite, 41, 197–202. Insel, B. (2014). The evolving global wine market. Business Economics, 49, 46–58. Jenster, P., & Cheng, Y. (2008). Dragon wine: Developments in the Chinese wine industry. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 20, 244–259. Karwa, A. (2009). Stemless wine glasses? Never say never. . Kumar, A. (2000). Interference effects of contextual cues in advertisements on memory for ad content. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9, 155–166. Liu, F., & Murphy, J. (2007). A qualitative study of Chinese wine consumption and purchasing: Implications for Australian wines. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 19, 98–113.

Noseworthy, T., Wang, J., & Islam, T. (2012). How context shapes category inferences and attribute preference for new ambiguous products. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 529–544. Raghubir, P., & Krishna, A. (1999). Vital dimensions in volume perception: Can the eye fool the stomach? Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 313–326. Raudenbush, B., Meyer, B., Eppich, W., Corley, N., & Petterson, S. (2002). Ratings of pleasantness and intensity for beverages served in containers congruent and incongruent with expectancy. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 94, 671–674. Russell, K., Zivanovic, S., Morris, W. C., Penfield, M., & Weiss, J. (2005). The effect of glass shape on the concentration of polyphenolic compounds and perception of Merlot wine. Journal of Food Quality, 28, 377–385. Spence, C. (2011). Crystal clear or gobbletigook? The World of Fine Wine, 33, 96–101. Spence, C., Harrar, V., & Piqueras-Fiszman, B. (2012). Assessing the impact of tableware and other contextual variables on multisensory flavour perception. Flavour, 1, 7. Spence, C., & Piqueras-Fiszman, B. (2014). The perfect meal: The multisensory science of food and dining. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Spence, C., & Wan, X. (2015). The influence of the container on the perception of the contents. Food Quality & Preference, 39, 131–140. Steinhart, Y., Kamins, M., Mazursky, D., & Noy, A. (2014). Effects of product type and contextual cues on eliciting naive theories of popularity and exclusivity. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24, 472–483. Vilanova, M., Vidal, P., & Cortés, S. (2008). Effect of the glass shape on flavor perception of ‘‘toasted wine” from Ribeiro (NW Spain). Journal of Sensory Studies, 23, 114–124. Wan, X., Velasco, C., Michel, M., Mu, B., Woods, A. T., & Spence, C. (2014). Does the type of receptacle influence the crossmodal association between colour and flavour? A cross-cultural comparison. Flavour, 3, 3. Wan, X., Woods, A. T., Seoul, K.-H., Butcher, N., & Spence, C. (2015). When the shape of the glass influences the flavour associated with a coloured beverage: Evidence from consumers in three countries. Food Quality and Preference, 39, 109–116. Wänke, M., Bless, H., & Schwarz, N. (1998). Context effects in product line extensions: Context is not destiny. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7, 299–322. Wansink, B., Payne, B., & Painter, J. E. (2014). What is beautiful tastes good: Visual cues, taste, and willingness to pay. . Wansink, B., & van Ittersum, K. (2003). Bottoms up! The influence of elongation on pouring and consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 455–463. Wansink, B., & van Ittersum, K. (2005). Shape of glass and amount of alcohol poured: Comparative study of effect of practice and concentration. British Medical Journal, 331, 1512–1514.