Analyses of Wine-Tasting Data: A Tutorial

Olkin, Ingram; Lou, Ying; Stokes, Lynne

doi:10.1017/jwe.2014.26

Cited by 28 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 27 publications

(35 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Statistical analyses were performed using R v3.2.2 [28]. Data from the sensory evaluation were processed using Big Sensory Soft 1.02 (Centro Studi Assagiatori, Brescia, Italy), using the non-parametric Friedman test to discern which descriptors differed between treatments since these data do not comply with the assumption of normality [29].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Two Different Irrigation Systems on the Amino Acid Concentrations, Volatile Composition and Sensory Profiles of Godello Musts and Wines

Mirás-Avalos

Bouzas-Cid

Trigo-Córdoba

et al. 2019

Foods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concentrations of amino acids and volatile compounds of a given grapevine cultivar may be modified by climate variability between years and by management practices, such as irrigation, that may alter the typicality of its wines. The current study aimed at assessing the amino acid profile of musts and wines, volatile composition and sensory profile of wines from Vitis vinifera (L.) cultivar Godello under rain-fed and two drip irrigation systems (above, drip irrigation (DI), and under the soil surface, subsurface drip irrigation (SDI)) over three consecutive years. Irrigation tended to increase must and wine total acidity; however, it did not alter must amino acid concentrations significantly. Irrigation reduced the concentrations of acetaldehyde and methanol in Godello wines. Moreover, irrigation tended to decrease the concentrations of compounds giving fruity aromas, such as acetaldehyde (by 31% in SDI) and isoamyl acetate (by 21% in SDI), when compared to rain-fed conditions. Sensory analysis revealed slight differences between treatments. Rain-fed and SDI were the treatments showing the greatest differences. Weather conditions affected more must and wine composition than in-season effects caused by irrigation.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Two Different Irrigation Systems on the Amino Acid Concentrations, Volatile Composition and Sensory Profiles of Godello Musts and Wines

Mirás-Avalos

Bouzas-Cid

Trigo-Córdoba

et al. 2019

Foods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As a final check and additional comparison, the correlation coefficients ( r F , M ) between the gender-specific marginal probabilities m ij are reported in Table 3. A simple interclass Pearson sample correlation coefficient is employed here, because potentially complex and controversial choices concerning calculation and interpretation of an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) are beyond the scope of this check; see Shrout and Fleiss (1979), Cicchetti's (2006) analysis of the Paris results, and Olkin et al (2015, 14) concerning ICCs.…”

Section: H2: Women and Men Have Differently Shaped Distributions Of Smentioning

confidence: 99%

Wine, Women, Men, and Type II Error

Bodington¹

2017

J Wine Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

More than forty published works show that women and men differ in their taste preferences for sweet, salt, sour, bitter, fruit, and other flavors. Despite those differences, dozens of state fair and other wine competitions determine winners' ribbons, medals, scores, and ranks by pooling the opinions of female and male judges. This article examines twenty-three blind wine tastings during which female and male judges scored more than nine hundred wines. Two-sample t-test results show that the gender-specific distributions of scores do have similar means and standard deviations. Exact p-values for two-sample chi-square tests show that the distributions of men's and women's scores are not significantly different, and exact p-values for likelihood ratio tests of Plackett-Luce model results show that the genders' preference orders are not significantly different. The correlation coefficient between women's and men's scores is weakly positive in 90 percent of the tastings. On that evidence, indications that the genders prefer different wines are difficult to detect. If such differences do exist, as the nonwine literature implies, the results of this analysis show that those differences are small compared to non-gender-related idiosyncratic differences between individuals and random expressions of preference. The potential for accept-a-false-null-hypothesis Type II error when pooling female and male judges' wine-related opinions appears to be small. (JEL Classifications: A10, C10, C00, C12, D12)

show abstract

“…Recent papers analyze wine tasting data—especially evaluating wine judging—and discuss alternative methods for evaluating the consistency of those judgments (e.g., Ginsburgh and Zang, 2012; Olkin et al, 2015; Cao and Stokes, 2017; Bitter, 2017). Maximum ranking consistency—ranking wines in the same order—is desirable; uncorrelated rankings reveal nothing about relative quality (Olkin et al, 2015, p. 5). These papers address some of the same statistical questions raised here (e.g., nonparametric analyses required for ordinal data (ibid., pp.…”

Section: Other Interpersonal Comparisons: Wine Judgesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Neither what they are counting nor the equality of one-point changes nor their zero points are well defined. Second, assuming cardinality often leads to assuming an underlying, unobserved wine quality (e.g., Olkin et al, 2015, p. 17; Cao and Stokes, 2017, p. 205) around which judges’ ratings are distributed. Our discussion questions that: if ratings are taken as a measure of hedonic enjoyment, the distribution of underlying, unobserved quality can differ by individual.…”

Section: Other Interpersonal Comparisons: Wine Judgesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Erring Experts? A Critique of Wine Ratings as Hedonic Scaling

Marks

2020

J Wine Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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)

show abstract

Analyses of Wine-Tasting Data: A Tutorial

Cited by 28 publications

References 27 publications

Effects of Two Different Irrigation Systems on the Amino Acid Concentrations, Volatile Composition and Sensory Profiles of Godello Musts and Wines

Effects of Two Different Irrigation Systems on the Amino Acid Concentrations, Volatile Composition and Sensory Profiles of Godello Musts and Wines

Wine, Women, Men, and Type II Error

Erring Experts? A Critique of Wine Ratings as Hedonic Scaling

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About