# Wine Psychology



## GreginND (Feb 14, 2014)

Interesting segment on Science Friday about our perceptions of wine based on label and what we think it is in the bottle.

I am a little miffed they singled out North Dakota to disrespect. But it makes me think I have to work on my labels very carefully.

Enjoy!

http://www.sciencefriday.com/video/02/07/2014/out-of-the-bottle-wine-psychology.html


----------



## bkisel (Feb 14, 2014)

I really don't know what to think or say about that video except thanks for sharing.


----------



## jamesngalveston (Feb 14, 2014)

I 100 percent agree with the video....the whole wine thing is a mystery to me.


----------



## sour_grapes (Feb 14, 2014)

Yeah, the ND snub must have stung. Since he is at Cornell, he couldn't very well have busted on Finger Lakes wines! Interesting video though.


----------



## jamesngalveston (Feb 14, 2014)

this thread could be so debated..it stinks.
i dont think it matters what product your buy, words,presentation,display actually regulate what were buying.
the new in word....organic...LOL
the only way to get true organic is to grow it your self...

what, wait, the grocery does not lie about stuff like that...well
sorry , but they do.


----------



## GreginND (Feb 14, 2014)

All I can say is I am a big fan of blind tastings.

Chateau Montelena anyone? Changed the wine industry.


----------



## sour_grapes (Feb 14, 2014)

James, if I understood what you were trying to say, I would agree with it, or disagree with it. I am not sure which.


----------



## corinth (Feb 14, 2014)

*Wine Psycholgy*

Thank you for bringing this topic up since Physiological Psychology and other more specific areas are right up my alley...but its a long alley and I definitely will never have all the bricks for the wall.

Since I am a novice winemaker but not a novice physiological psychologist(Emeritus), I started to look up a number of studies and well,
* So many of them really do not do an adequate job in reference to a couple if not more issues:*

1. I have found a tendency for many(?) studies to imply(?) that
a. " set and setting influence our behavior" and in many cases, that is the case but not limited to this.
(1) If those in the experimental group are told "this is a great wine" and others who are part of the study say so even though, they are in plot as "stooges" can be very influencing.
extra detail: very early in the 60's, there was a very funny study done with Marijuana where uses were put in a room with non uses and told they were going smoke some very potent marijuana. It was Oregano! The set and setting, including "in-agodda-da-Vida{the Cream 1968}) was very influencing! 
b. such things as labels, wine glasses, particular state of mind of wine tasters, other variables which we call extraneous did not always get left out.
(1) this is one reason replication of a study is important
2. Some of the articles I have read start out with a definite bias toward wine testing which as far I am concerned rules out their objectivity.
3. they are not researchers but journalists( no harm intended to all the journalists out there) working for some type of wine publication
4. Many of them are not clinical neuroscientists 
*The research that I do find interesting pertains to:*
1. the physiology or neurology as it pertains to areas such as research on taste buds
2. research on smell which in some ways we know less than many of the other senses.
3. Organic chemistry, biochemistry, clinical neurology, Brain imaging, etc.
4. And sometimes... I said sometimes, animal research ( We love the Albino Rat!)
*And almost last but not least*, you have the publication, which could be quite prestigious such as the New England Journal of medicine, lancet( UK) and the Journal of the American Medical Association are not without their bias as times.
a. My son is a journalist and recently took a class on bias in scientific journals by a Ph.D who specializes in the field and he was shocked as she discussed many examples and told me about it---I giggled. I told him why do you think they call it "*unconscious* experimenter bias)
b. Who said on a previous post, Follow the money!
c. PR and marketing. Look at the "French Paradox."
Extra DetailI am going to date myself here but back in the early 60's a lot of research "included" the researcher's statistics( I started with IBM cards) and the numbers substantiated their results. Along comes this statistician and checks out their stats--the stats were wrong.

_I had a graduate professor who said these immortal words to me:" statistics do not lie--statisticians lie"_

Sorry if I did not organize as well as I should have but I am tired and...
Enough for me for now. I need a nap!

My Sincere Prayers to All Of You Back East That Must Endure That Terrible Winter Storm...May You Be Safe!
Corinth


----------



## sour_grapes (Feb 14, 2014)

corinth said:


> extra detail: very early in the 60's, there was a very funny study done with Marijuana where uses were put in a room with non uses and told they were going smoke some very potent marijuana. It was Oregano! The set and setting, including "in-agodda-da-Vida{the Cream 1968}) was very influencing!



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFUiUT-n9KM"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFUiUT-n9KM[/ame]


----------



## RegionRat (Feb 14, 2014)

A few years ago I helped a friend of mine that is a professional yacht captain move a sport fishing boat from Miami to St Pete for the new owners. When we took possession of the vessel the previous owner had removed everything that was theirs. 

While we were underway I happened on a case of wine that was tucked away in a corner or the room where all the electronics and computer hardware was. 

It was some kind of imported white wine I had never heard of. I plugged in the wine fridge and stuck all 12 bottle.

We made it to the Keys and tied off at Burdine's for the night. We made a few calls and found some friends to come on down to check out this fancy boat and then go to dinner. While they were there we drank several bottles of the wine. Because there was nothing on the boat we drank it out of red solo cups we got from the marina. We all liked it. After dinner our friends left and we sent them on their way with a several bottles of the found wine. 

Any way, a few day later I looked up the wine we were drinking and it turned out to be in the $80 a bottle range. To this day we laugh about it saying if we would have known how expensive it was we would have enjoyed it that much more...


RR


----------



## jojabri (Feb 15, 2014)

2 points here.

1) Taste is subjective. A person may prefer a glass of homemade DB more than a glass of Dom. Its all about the audience.

2) labeling is equally as subjective. Commercial labels are designed to sell, its an advertisement. Commercial entities design labels to sell directly to the demographic they are trying to sell to. Its simple marketing. You can't fault a company for marketing a product to the people they are trying to market to. 

I do find it unfair they picked on one area though.


----------



## sour_grapes (Feb 15, 2014)

I think the point isn't that the companies are marketing their product. The important point is that the marketing alters the reported pleasure, and, if the MRI results are to be believed, the _actual_ pleasure from the product.


----------



## GreginND (Feb 15, 2014)

Well, I'm sure they were making up labels and thinking "What's the state that would be furthest from people's mind with wine?"

They obviously haven't tasted any ND wine. I was at our annual Grape and Wine Association meeting a couple weeks ago. And I can say the wines are greatly improving. We had a chef pair 8 ND wines with food. It was awesome.


----------



## corinth (Feb 15, 2014)

Who said Blind tasting-great. why not a double blind like they do with meds

labeling, PR...Wow. I wonder if wineries use focus groups? 

Also, I wonder how much money the big wineries spend on producing any type of commercials where the advertising experts( a lot of psychology here) are paid big bucks.
I am not trying to be negative toward wineries of any size.

Also, I would assume countries would also be involved as it could be very economically profitable. 

Sour_grapes:
You touched an a very interesting point!. The MRI and "pleasure." This would give us a lot of info but this would probably be WAY DOWN THE ROAD

Extra detail: if we play with this a bit, we could include in there a PET scan. This scan shows which part of the brain is metabolizing glucose. The results show up as pictures and the colors that are displayed show which part of the brain is producing more heat as a result of the glucose being metabolized.
(just know a few things about the above that I had to know) We have all seen these pictures for many disorders. I am sure that if this was done(who wants to volunteer?), we would see parts of the brain which have been shown to correspond to pleasure(what is often called a feedback loop)
Sounds good so far except...There are a lot of variables that would have to be controlled.

Lastly, I am not sure why all the negativity in the articles(not the neuroscience) I read. Most of them did not "necessarily" suggest options which might help shore up some of the subjectivity?

Corinth


----------



## dangerdave (Feb 15, 2014)

I love Science Friday! When I went to watch the video, this caught my eye...

"In the third episode of our wine science series, "Out of the Bottle," Dr. Brian Wansink, Director of Cornell University's Food and Brand Lab, explains how expectations, environment, and social cues can fool us into believing that our wine *tastes better or worse than it is*."

Doesn't this statement claim an objectivity that contradicts the proclaimed subjectivity of wine tasting?


----------



## corinth (Feb 15, 2014)

Dangerdave: That is a good question. I am going to have to watch the video again and do a little digging.
Corinth


----------



## sour_grapes (Feb 16, 2014)

dangerdave said:


> I love Science Friday! When I went to watch the video, this caught my eye...
> 
> "In the third episode of our wine science series, "Out of the Bottle," Dr. Brian Wansink, Director of Cornell University's Food and Brand Lab, explains how expectations, environment, and social cues can fool us into believing that our wine *tastes better or worse than it is*."
> 
> Doesn't this statement claim an objectivity that contradicts the proclaimed subjectivity of wine tasting?




Good catch! But don't you think that a perfectly reasonable interpretation of that statement is something like "....explains how expectations, environment, and social cues can fool us into *perceiving* that our wine tastes better or worse than *we would perceive it to taste in absence of these cues*" ?


----------



## jamesngalveston (Feb 16, 2014)

I think this is an excellent article on the topic.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/23/wine-tasting-junk-science-analysis


----------



## dangerdave (Feb 16, 2014)

sour_grapes said:


> Good catch! But don't you think that a perfectly reasonable interpretation of that statement is something like "....explains how expectations, environment, and social cues can fool us into *perceiving* that our wine tastes better or worse than *we would perceive it to taste in absence of these cues*" ?


 
Yes, Paul, I like your version much better.


----------



## ShelleyDickison (Feb 16, 2014)

Ok, I don't know much about the psychology of wine part, but I showed it to my hubby and he said if I ever put canned spaghetti on a plate, gold or not, he would chunk it across the room. I think it was lost on him. 


"Quickly, bring me a beaker of wine, so that I may wet my mind and say something clever." - Aristophanes


----------



## corinth (Feb 16, 2014)

James:

I read the same article and it is excellent and makes some very good points.

Sour_grapes very well put. "....explains how *expectation*s, *environment*, *and social cues* can fool us into perceiving that our wine tastes better or worse than we would perceive it to taste in absence of these cues" ? "

Some thoughts.

1. Sour grapes, you are right on with your statement and those words in bold are significant for a couple of reasons:
a. *This type of research as been around for at least 40-50 years. That being said, maybe the research needs to be updated?*
b.judges are subject to "social cues(who is in the audience),environment( what kind of day is it)expectations(very impressive label or I know who has submitted their wine) plus things such as the physical or emotional state of the judge( I am not feeling well today)

2. Great statistics but what you enter into it may be the problem. 

3. Even with brain research, good stuff but NOT how a person decides if they like it. That is another matter completely

what about...

1. Everything is scanned these days. Why not share that info with us?

2. WHAT ABOUT WOMEN! if anyone watched 60 minutes last week, Women have not been included in a lot of reaearch. If wine tasting is going to the next level, studies are going to have to include seperate data for men and women.

3. Have the methods for wine tasting changed much in the last 20 to 30 years? 


Maybe all the red flags going up is the start of significant change? 
Corinth


----------



## nucjd (Feb 16, 2014)

I would really like to see the Brain imaging. I assume it was functional imaging of the prefrontal cortex and limbic system but I would be really interested in the change of perceived pleasure and would be curious if the smell was the cue rather than the taste buds as the only sensation we have that is directly tied into the limbic system and does not pass through the prefrontal cortex is the sense of smell. That is why smells can trigger such vast emotions more so than other senses. With that being said, very interesting and truly enlightening. I would say this much though. My wife is pretty darn tough on wine and will slaughter it if she thinks it is bad. She does not care at all of price or labels. My wine friends that do a lot of collecting love having her over for a tasting as she is the control for any comparisons


----------



## sour_grapes (Feb 16, 2014)

Corinth, thanks for the kind words, but they largely were not mine, but rather were mostly from that video. I just altered them a bit to convey what I thought they were objectively trying to say.


----------



## corinth (Feb 16, 2014)

Sour_grapes" you may have altered them but you did a very nice job. 

Nucjd:

OMG! I love it when people talk "dirty(only kidding") to me.
You have definitely hit some really good questions. 

Brain imaging, very cool stuff but I get a gut feeling that anything pertaining to this will probably be s result of some other brain research that someone spots and relates it to wine tasting. You got my interest but I digress...

Has wine tasting or the methods that are used been the same over the last 20 Years?
Corinth


----------



## GaDawg (Feb 17, 2014)

I think at Emory University an fMRI will cost about $10,000 an hour. So this research needs a really big budget


----------



## BernardSmith (Feb 17, 2014)

I think the bottom line is that no one experiences the world in any way that is not mediated through social , psychological, physiological and biological systems that constitute who we are as sense making human beings. Knowing this we can manipulate the ways we experience the world in ways that others (or ourselves ) may not be very conscious of or aware of. It behooves us to be aware of such manipulations and to be more knowledgeable of the ways we do in fact experience the world.


----------

