Cognitive Daily reports nearly every day on fascinating peer-reviewed developments in cognition from the most respected scientists in the field.
Both Greta and I are big wine fans. Despite Jonah's recent extremely popular post, I, at least, believe that I can tell the difference between good and bad wines. I'm still convinced that a good wine is more than just an attractive label (though I'm a sucker for labels with Zinfandel puns like "Zen of Zin" or "Amazin"). That said, the research suggesting that labeling has a lot to do with wine preference is also quite convincing.
Several studies suggest that we expect to prefer wines from certain vineyards or regions, and in many cases wine drinkers will actually rate the identical wine higher when it's presented in a fancier bottle. These results apply not only to wine, but to a variety of foods. Restaurateurs have known this for years, placing special emphasis on the presentation of the food in addition to the actual preparation and ingredients.
So if presentation matters, then perhaps the presentation of wine could actually affect the taste of the food it's served with. This is the premise of a study by Brian Wansink, Collin Payne, and Jill North.
In their first experiment they served 49 graduate students cheese and one of two types of wine as they arrived at a reception. The wine -- in both cases the identical cheap Cabernet -- was served in bottles labeled as being from California or North Dakota. Prior to drinking the wine, they rated its expected tastiness on a scale of 1 to 9. After sampling both wine and cheese, they rated both of them for actual taste. Here are the results:
Both expected and actual tastiness ratings were significantly higher for the "California" wine -- despite the fact that the wine bottles had identical, professionally-designed labels from the fictitious "Noah's Winery." What's more, the tastiness ratings for the cheese, which was the same, unlabeled mild goat cheese for everyone, matched the wine ratings. When people thought they were drinking better wine, they also liked the cheese more.
In a second experiment, 51 patrons of the Spice Box, the white-tablecloth campus restaurant at the University of Illinois, were served identical prix-fixe meals. When they were seated, the waiter at each table made the following announcement:
Thank you for joining us tonight for this special meal at the Spice Box. Because this is the first meal of this new year, we are offering each person at the table a free glass of this new Cabernet from the state of California [or North Dakota].
The wines were labeled as before, but the patrons were all actually given an identical glass of Charles Shaw Cabernet Sauvignon (the to-my-view undrinkable "Two-Buck Chuck"). Their meal and drink portions were carefully weighed in the kitchen before and after consumption, so that the amount consumed could easily be calculated. Here are the results:
The patrons who thought they were drinking "California" wine consumed significantly more food (p = .02), and marginally more food and wine combined (p = .08). There was no difference in the amount of wine consumed, probably because everyone was limited to one glass.
One possible explanation for the result is social facilitation -- diners might have felt compelled to eat more if their table mates were cleaning their plates. However, the researchers controlled for social facilitation and found that the labeling difference still explained the differences in amount of food consumed.
So apparently if we believe we're drinking better wine -- whether or not it's actually better -- we'll not only think the accompanying food tastes better, we'll eat more of it too. Maybe the next time I try to lose weight I should start drinking bad wine!
Wansink, B., Payne, C.R., North, J. (2007). Fine as North Dakota wine: Sensory expectations and the intake of companion foods. Physiology & Behavior, 90, 712-716. DOI: doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2006.12.010
Brain & Behavior
Comments
In re two-buck Chuck's drinkability: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=3372578&page=1
Posted by: Drake | November 14, 2007 3:15 PM
I've only tried the Cabernet, not the Chardonnay, and I didn't like it at all. I can usually gulp down bad wine, but not this stuff. I've heard better things about the Shiraz.
I'm certainly not one to spend bucketloads of money on wine, but going this low I feel I can definitely tell the difference (perhaps wrongly, as this study suggests).
Posted by: Dave Munger | November 14, 2007 3:23 PM
Well, if anyone is interested in the wines of North Dakota ...
Posted by: justawriter | November 14, 2007 3:45 PM
This is so true! I went to a wine tasting party at a friends house a few months ago. Everyone was asked to bring a bottle of Pino Noir (being poor I chose the cheapest brand I could find in a pinch) and the hosts covered all the bottles in paper bags and named each bottle after a species of duck. Then the guests all spent the evening trying the wines and rating them. At the end of the evening the labeles were revealed. Turns out the $60 bottle got first place and my $6.99 budget wine got second place! I was suddenly quite popular. :) I doubt my 'budget bouquet' could have placed so high if everyone had known what it was.
Posted by: braingirl | November 15, 2007 12:36 AM
Maybe the next time I try to lose weight I should start drinking bad wine!
Ah, but you may not have to actually drink bad wine. You could just have someone serve you good wine, but tell you that it's the "undrinkable Two-Buck Chuck"!
Posted by: Mad Hatter | November 15, 2007 8:42 AM
What a great post! Dave, since you and Greta are red wine fans, I'd really be interested for you to come over and comment on your views/tasting notes on the Beaujolais Nouveaux, either on this year's or your past experiences.
Posted by: Abel Pharmboy | November 16, 2007 12:09 PM