Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T17:31:53.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Should It Be Told or Tasted? Impact of Sensory Versus Nonsensory Cues on the Categorization of Low-Alcohol Wines*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2015

Josselin Masson  and
Philippe Aurier
Josselin Masson
Affiliation:
University of Haute-Alsace, EA 7317 CREGO-CERMAB, IUT Techniques de Commercialisation, 34 rue du Grillenbreit, 68008 Colmar, France; e-mail: [email protected].
Philippe Aurier
Affiliation:
LabEx “Entreprendre,”University of Montpellier, MRM - Montpellier Research in Management, Place Eugène Bataillon, 34095 Montpellier, France; e-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We use the expectation-disconfirmation and categorization theories to study the effects of sensory versus nonsensory cues relative to a transformed attribute on categorization and typicality judgments relative to a new food product. In an experiment involving 51 participants and low-alcohol wines (new products), we show that categorization and typicality judgments differ according to sensory versus nonsensory cues. The new transformed product is categorized more often in its original category—wine—and perceived as more typical in the nonsensory compared to the sensory condition. (JEL Classifications: L66, M31)

Keywords

categorizationeffect of informationlow-alcohol winenew productsensory cuetypicality
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Wine Economics , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , May 2015 , pp. 62 - 74
Copyright
Copyright © American Association of Wine Economists 2015 

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 authors thank the editors and the reviewers for their constructive comments, which helped us to improve the article.

References

Alston, J.M., Fuller, K.B., Lapsley, J.T., and Soleas, G. (2011). Too much of a good thing? Causes and consequences of increases in sugar content of California wine grapes. Journal of Wine Economics, 6(2), 135–159.Google Scholar
Anderson, R. (1973). Consumer dissatisfaction: The effect of disconfirmed expectancy on perceived product performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 10(1), 38–44.Google Scholar
Aurier, P., and N'Gobo, P.V. (1999). Assessment of consumer knowledge and its consequences: A multi-dimensional approach. Advances in Consumer Research, 26, 569–575.Google Scholar
Bhat, S., and Reddy, S.K. (2001). The impact of parent brand attribute associations and affect on brand extension evaluation. Journal of Business Research, 53(3), 111–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohannon, J., Goldstein, R., and Herschkowitsch, A. (2009). Can people distinguish pâté from dog food? AAWE Working Paper 36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chollet, S., Lelièvre, M., Abdi, H., and Valentin, D. (2011). Sort and beer: Everything you wanted to know about the sorting task but did not dare to ask. Food Quality and Preference, 22(6), 507–520.Google Scholar
Cohen, E., d'Hauteville, F., and Sirieix, L. (2009). A cross-cultural comparison of choice criteria for wine in restaurants. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 21(1), 50–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conibear, H. (2006). Rising alcohol levels in wine—Is this a cause for concern? AIM Digest, 18(4), 1–3.Google Scholar
Flynn, L.R., and Goldsmith, R.E. (1999). A short, reliable measure of subjective knowledge. Journal of Business Research, 46(1), 57–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, S., Lockshin, L., Cohen, E., Fenterseifer, J., Ma, H.C., d'Hauteville, F., Sirieix, L., Orth, U., Casini, L., Corsih, A., Jaeger, S., Danaher, P., Brodie, R., Olsen, J., Thach, L., and Perrouty, J.P. (2008). International comparison of consumer choice for wine: A twelve-country comparison. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference of the Academy of Wine Business Research, Siena (Italy), 1–13.Google Scholar
Hartman, C.L., Price, L., and Duncan, C.P. (1990). Consumer evaluation on franchise extension products: A categorization processing perspective. Advances in Consumer Research, 17(1), 120–127.Google Scholar
Hodgson, R.T. (2008). An examination of judge reliability at a major U.S. wine competition. Journal of Wine Economics, 3(2), 105–113.Google Scholar
Hodgson, R.T. (2009). An analysis of the concordance among 13 U.S. wine competitions. Journal of Wine Economics, 4(1), 1–9.Google Scholar
Lange, C., Martin, C., Chabanet, C., Combris, P., and Issanchou, S. (2002). Impact of the information provided to consumers on their willingness to pay for Champagne: Comparison with hedonic scores. Food Quality and Preference, 13(7–8), 597–608.Google Scholar
Loken, B., and Ward, J. (1987). Measures of the attribute structure underlying product typicality. Advances in Consumer Research, 14(1), 22–26.Google Scholar
Love, B.C., and Sloman, S.A. (1995). Mutability and the determinants of conceptual transformability. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Pittsburgh, 654–659.Google Scholar
Masson, J. (2010). Effects of changing a constitutive food cue on its adoption by consumers: The low-alcohol wine case. PhD dissertation, SupAgro, Montpellier.Google Scholar
Masson, J., Aurier, P., and d'Hauteville, F. (2008). Effects of nonsensory cues on perceived quality: The case of low-alcohol wine. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 20(3), 215–229.Google Scholar
Nedungadi, P., and Hutchinson, J.W. (1985). The prototypicality of brands: Relationships with brand awareness, preference and usage. Advances in Consumer Research, 12(1), 498–503.Google Scholar
Organisation Internationale de la Vigne et du Vin (OIV) (2014). International Code of Oenological Practices. OIV: Paris.Google Scholar
Pangborn, R. (1960). Influence of color on the discrimination of sweetness. American Journal of Psychology, 73(2), 229–238.Google Scholar
Recchia, A., Monteleone, E., and Tuorila, H. (2012). Responses to extra virgin olive oils in consumers with varying commitment to oils. Food Quality and Preference, 24(1), 153–161.Google Scholar
Rosch, E., and Mervis, C.B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7(4), 573–605.Google Scholar
Saliba, A.J., Ovington, L.A., and Moran, C.C. (2013). Consumer demand for low-alcohol wine in an Australian sample. International Journal of Wine Research, 5, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schifferstein, H.N.J., Kole, A.P.W., and Mojet, J. (1999). Asymmetry in the disconfirmation of expectations for natural yogurt. Appetite, 32(3), 307–329.Google Scholar
Siret, F., and Issanchou, S. (2000). Traditional process: Influence on sensory properties and on consumers’ expectation and liking application to “pâté de campagne.” Food Quality and Preference, 11(3), 217–228.Google Scholar
Tuorila, H., Meiselman, H., Cardello, A., and Lesher, L. (1998). Effect of expectations and the definition of product category on the acceptance of unfamiliar foods. Food Quality and Preference, 9(6), 421–430.Google Scholar
Urdapilleta, I., Parr, W., Dacremont, C., and Green, J. (2011). Semantic and perceptive organisation of Sauvignon blanc wine characteristics: Influence of expertise. Food Quality and Preference, 22(1), 119–128.Google Scholar
Wadhera, D., and Capaldi, E.D. (2012). Categorization of foods as “snack” and “meal” by college students. Appetite, 58(3), 882–888.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weil, R.L. (2007). Debunking critics’ wine words: Can amateurs distinguish the smell of asphalt from the taste of cherries? Journal of Wine Economics, 2(2), 136–144.Google Scholar