Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T03:26:39.138Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Erring Experts? A Critique of Wine Ratings as Hedonic Scaling

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2021

Denton Marks
Denton Marks*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics Emeritus, College of Business and Economics, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, c/o 4444 North Prospect Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53211-1773, USA; e-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Consumers use expert ratings to help choose wine, and economists find correlations between ratings and transaction prices. Rating scales resemble hedonic scales in the behavioral sciences, which suffer from an “intersubjectivity” problem. Taste is a private sensation; people taste differently (an external validity problem), so ratings are often unreliable hedonic markers of enjoyment. But why? Hedonic measurements from food science (“general Labeled Magnitude Scales”) attempt to adjust for differences in perceived sensory sensitivity and offer clues. Resulting insights illustrate wine ratings’ shortcomings as reliable guides to enjoyment. (JEL Classifications: C14, D12, D91, L15, L66)

Keywords

expertshedonic scalingwine ratings
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Wine Economics , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , November 2020 , pp. 386 - 393
Copyright
Copyright © American Association of Wine Economists, 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The College of Business and Economics, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, has supported this research. I appreciate helpful comments from Victor Ginsburgh, Karl Storchmann, and three anonymous referees.

References

Ashenfelter, O. (1986–1997). Liquid Assets. Princeton: Self-published.Google Scholar
Ashenfelter, O. (2016). Remarks, Plenary Session, American Association of Wine Economists (AAWE), 10th Annual Conference, Bordeaux FR, June 21–25.Google Scholar
Ashenfelter, O., and Jones, G. (2013). The demand for expert opinion: Bordeaux wine. Journal of Wine Economics, 8(3), 285–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartoshuk, L. (2014). The measurement of pleasure and pain. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(22), 91–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bartoshuk, L., Duffy, V., Green, B., Hoffman, H., Ko, C.-W., Lucchina, L., Marks, L., Snyder, D., and Weiffenbach, J. (2004). Valid across-group comparisons with labeled scales: The gLMS versus magnitude matching. Physiology and Behavior, 82(1), 109–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bitter, C. (2017). Wine competitions: Reevaluating the gold standard. Journal of Wine Economics, 12(4), 395–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodington, J., and Malfeito-Ferreira, M. (2018). Do female and male judges assign the same ratings to the same wines? Large sample results. Journal of Wine Economics, 13(4), 403–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cao, J., and Stokes, L. (2017). Comparison of different ranking methods in wine tasting. Journal of Wine Economics, 12(2), 203–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardello, A. (1998). Perception of food quality. In Taub, I. and Singh, R. (eds.), Food Storage Stability, 1–38. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Cicchetti, D., and Cicchetti, A. (2014). Two enological titans rate the 2009 Bordeaux wine. Wine Economics and Policy, 3(1), 28–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derbyshire, D. (2013). Wine tasting: It's junk science. Available at https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/23/wine-tasting-junk-science-analysis (accessed May 16, 2019).Google Scholar
Faye, B., and Le Fur, E. (2019). On the constancy of hedonic wine price coefficients over time. Journal of Wine Economics, 14(2), 182–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsburgh, V. (2016). On judging art and wine. In Rizzo, I. and Towse, R. (eds.), The Artful Economist: A New Look at Cultural Economics, 245–265. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Ginsburgh, V., and Zang, I. (2012). Shapley ranking of wines. Journal of Wine Economics, 7(2), 169–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalva, J., Sims, C., Puentes, L., Snyder, D., and Bartoshuk, L. (2014). Comparison of the hedonic general labeled magnitude scale with the hedonic 9-point scale. Journal of Food Science, 79(2), S238–S245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lawless, H. (2013). Quantitative Sensory Analysis. ProQuest ebrary. Somerset, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lim, J. (2011). Hedonic scaling: A review of methods and theory. Food Quality and Preference, 22(8), 733–747.Google Scholar
Luxen, M. (2018). Consensus between ratings of red Bordeaux wines by prominent critics and correlations with prices 2004–2010 and 2011–2016: Ashton revisited and expanded. Journal of Wine Economics, 13(1), 83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marks, D. (2015). Seeking the veritas about the vino: Fine wine ratings as wine knowledge. Journal of Wine Research, 26(4), 319–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marks, L., and Gescheider, G. (2002). Psychophysical scaling. In Pashler, H. (edition ed.) and Wixted, J. (volume ed.), Stevens’ Handbook of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 4: Third Edition, 91–138. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Oczkowski, E., and Doucouliagos, H. (2015). Wine prices and quality ratings: A meta-regression analysis. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 97(1), 103–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olkin, I., Lou, Y., Stokes, L., and Cao, J. (2015). Analyses of wine-tasting data: A tutorial. Journal of Wine Economics, 10(1), 4–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, G., and Hayes, J. (2017). Influence of biological, experiential, and psychological factors in wine preference segmentation. Australian Journal of Grape Wine Research, 23(2), 154–161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Storchmann, K. (2015). Expert opinion on the wine market. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 159(2), 129–140.Google Scholar
Williams, J., Bartoshuk, L., Fillingim, R., and Dotson, C. (2016). Exploring ethnic differences in taste perception. Chemical Senses, 41(5), 449–456.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed