Consumer understanding of beer and wine body: An exploratory study of an ill-defined concept

Ivanova, Natalja; Yang, Qian; Bastian, Susan E.P.; Wilkinson, Kerry L.; Ford, Rebecca

doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104383

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the cited study, Syrah, Cabernet sauvignon, and Port wines were associated with full‐bodied wines in contrast with Sauvignon blanc, rosè, and sparkling wines that were associated with light‐bodied ones (Niimi et al., 2017). The multi‐modal dimension of wine (and beer) body by consumers was also recently studied by Ivanova and colleagues (2022), and it was confirmed how consumers associate this term with mouthfeel attributes ( velvety , smooth , creamy ) as well as with flavor, particularly with nuances of dark fruit (blackberry, cherry, plum), and derived from wood‐aging (e.g., caramel, chocolate, and oak).…”

Section: A Focus On the Wine Body Concept: Sensory And Instrumental I...mentioning

confidence: 54%

“…Both red and white wines were taken into consideration, and the descriptive analysis was the most used sensory method for varietal characterization (Capitello et al., 2016; Carlucci & Monteleone, 2001; Etaio et al., 2008; King et al., 2003; King et al., 2014; Koussissi et al., 2003; Langlois et al., 2010; Mirarefi et al., 2004; Nel et al., 2015; Piombino et al., 2020; Sáenz‐Navajas et al., 2016; Schlosser et al., 2005). As well, few papers wanted to understand preference evaluations, which is usually carried out by untrained consumers (Ivanova et al., 2022; Loureiro et al., 2016; Mezei et al., 2021; Niimi et al., 2017; Rinaldi et al., 2021a; Torrico et al., 2020). Only a small number of studies used the sensory for in‐mouth properties evaluation of wine derived from grape subjected to different agronomical practices.…”

Section: Main Aims In the Study Of Mouthfeel Subqualitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This term is related to a wider concept, which unifies and includes a series of attributes employed to describe the same concept. First of all, the nearest words associated with body are full‐body , fullness (Loureiro et al., 2016; Vidal et al., 2004b), roundness (Pineau et al., 2011), volume (Casassa et al., 2013; Diago et al., 2010; Hopfer & Heymann, 2013; King et al., 2014b), weight (Harbertson et al, 2009; Ou et al., 2010), density (Ivanova et al., 2022), and viscous (Gawel et al., 2016). All these terms commonly shared the concept of thickness resulting in pressure required to move the wine around the mouth (Gawel et al., 2000), the sensation of fullness and richness in the oral cavity (Coste et al., 2018), and the viscosity and overall intensity of wine (Li et al.…”

Section: A Focus On the Wine Body Concept: Sensory And Instrumental I...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Mouthfeel subqualities in wines: A current insight on sensory descriptors and physical–chemical markers

Paissoni

Motta

Giacosa

et al. 2023

Comp Rev Food Sci Food Safe

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Astringency and more generally mouthfeel perception are relevant to the overall quality of the wine. However, their origin and description are still uncertain and are constantly updating. Additionally, the terminology related to mouthfeel properties is expansive and extremely diversified, characterized by common traditional terms as well as novel recently adopted descriptors. In this context, this review evaluated the mention frequency of astringent subqualities and other mouthfeel attributes in the scientific literature of the last decades (2000( -August 17, 2022. One hundred and twenty-five scientific publications have been selected and classified based on wine typology, aim, and instrumental-sensorial methods adopted. Dry resulted as the most frequent astringent subquality (10% for red wines, 8.6% for white wines), while body-and related terms-is a common mouthfeel sensation for different wine types, although its concept is still vague. Alongside, promising analytical and instrumental techniques investigating and simulating the in-mouth properties are discussed in detail, such as rheology for the viscosity and tribology for the lubrication loss, as well as the different approaches for the quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the interaction between salivary proteins and astringency markers. A focus on the phenolic compounds involved in the tactile perception was conducted, with tannins being the compounds conventionally found responsible for astringency. Nevertheless, other non-tannic polyphenolic classes (i.e., flavonols, phenolic acids, anthocyanins, anthocyanin-derivative pigments) as well as chemical-physical factors and the wine matrix (i.e., polysaccharides, mannoproteins, ethanol, glycerol, and pH) can also contribute to the wine in-mouth sensory profile. An overview of mouthfeel perception, factors involved, and its vocabulary is useful for enologists and consumers.Maria Alessandra Paissoni and Giulia Motta contributed equally to the study.

show abstract

Section: A Focus On the Wine Body Concept: Sensory And Instrumental I...mentioning

confidence: 54%

Section: Main Aims In the Study Of Mouthfeel Subqualitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A Focus On the Wine Body Concept: Sensory And Instrumental I...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mouthfeel subqualities in wines: A current insight on sensory descriptors and physical–chemical markers

Paissoni

Motta

Giacosa

et al. 2023

Comp Rev Food Sci Food Safe

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A generic image of the beer/wine bottle was presented and half the participants were told that it was a paper bottle (the other half that it was a glass bottle) (see Figure 3). Participants then evaluated the bottles on three sensory modalities (flavor, mouthfeel, aroma/appearance/other; Ivanova et al, 2022) related to the alcoholic drinks and marketing attributes (purchase likelihood, expected price). The evaluations were made on Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) from 1 to 100: flavor (flavor, aftertaste; 1 = Not at all good , 100 = Very good ; α = 0.86), mouthfeel (smoothness, thickness, astringency, fizziness; 1 = Not at all smooth/thick/astringent/fizzy , 100 = Very smooth/thick/astringent/fizzy ; α = 0.59), aroma/appearance/other (aroma, color, appearance, quality, freshness, overall taste; 1 = Not at all good , 100 = Very good ; α = 0.92), purchase likelihood (1 = Not at all willing , 100 = Very willing ), and expected price (1 = Not at all high , 100 = Very high ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Negative halo effects of sustainable packaging

Techawachirakul,

Pathak,

Motoki

et al. 2023

Psychology and Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

More firms are adopting “green packaging” due to regulatory and environmental concerns. The alcoholic beverage industry has recently joined the lobby and major producers have introduced creative paper bottles for their alcoholic drinks. Previous research on sustainable labeling (e.g., eco‐friendly labels) has shown the positive halo effect where sustainable labeling induces positive evaluations. In contrast, our research aims to reveal the negative halo effects of sustainable packaging in the case of paper‐bottled alcoholic beverages. Across three studies, we explore consumers' perceptions toward alcoholic drinks packed in innovative paper bottles. Studies 1–2 demonstrate that consumers hold inferior expectations (i.e., sensory attributes, price, and purchase likelihood) toward alcoholic beverages packed in paper bottles. Study 3 demonstrates that the enforced messaging and attractive packaging can mitigate the negative halo effect for self‐consumption and gifting. These findings contribute to the literature on sustainable packaging, especially in the novel space of paper‐bottled alcoholic drinks.

show abstract

“…Professionals have an essential role in influencing the sales of wine by means of their reviews and ratings; but standard consumers have an important role too since their buying behavior has a direct impact on the wine market. Wine sensory descriptions are written by wine experts, but these descriptions are often not meaningful for nonexperts (Parr, Mouret, Blackmore, Pelquest‐Hunt, & Urdapilleta, 2011; Rodrigues, Ballester, Saenz‐Navajas, & Valentin, 2015; Solomon, 1990) and terms often have different meanings for experts and nonexperts (Bianchi et al, 2021; Ivanova, Yang, Bastian, Wilkinson, & Ford, 2022). The issue of ensuring efficient communication between experts and nonexperts is therefore crucial.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing Australian standard consumers' understanding of the language used to describe wine

Bianchi

Truong

Russell

et al. 2022

Journal of Sensory Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With reference to 64 common descriptors of the sensory properties of wine (e.g., tannic, full‐bodied, etc.), we investigated the extent to which these terms are understood by Australian standard consumers in relation to an opposite property (i.e., as happens in the case of experts). The study also determined how consistently these dimensions were among the group of participants. The results confirmed that the sensorial dimensions relating to wine can be modeled in terms of opposites for standard wine consumers in more than 80% of cases. However, there was a great deal of variability between the properties in terms of the opposites which were elicited indicating that some terms are less open to ambiguity while others are associated with many different opposites. A comparison of the results with those from similar studies with Italian and Vietnamese participants is addressed in the final section. Practical Applications The aim of the study was to replicate previous research conducted with Italian participants, but in this case involving Australian participants, with a view to compare participants from a traditional wine‐producing country with those from a relatively newly established wine‐producing country. A similar study had already been carried out with Vietnamese participants, that is, with consumers from a country with less familiarity with grape wines. The importance of this study rests on the fact that English is one of the most commonly spoken languages in the world and, as such, the study represents a relevant evolution of the original research. Opposites seem to be a useful point of reference for standard consumers in all of these countries in terms of their understanding of the terms used to describe wine. This and the fact that there seems to be a certain degree of uncertainty regarding people's understanding of many of these terms indicate that it may be necessary to reconceptualize the sensory dimensions relating to wine. From a practical point of view, this is certainly of interest to wine producers since it can help in the marketing of their products.

show abstract

Consumer understanding of beer and wine body: An exploratory study of an ill-defined concept

Cited by 10 publications

References 46 publications

Mouthfeel subqualities in wines: A current insight on sensory descriptors and physical–chemical markers

Mouthfeel subqualities in wines: A current insight on sensory descriptors and physical–chemical markers

Negative halo effects of sustainable packaging

Testing Australian standard consumers' understanding of the language used to describe wine

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About