The Frontal Cortex

Expensive Wine Tastes Better

I’ve written about our wine biases before, but now we have anatomical evidence of why, exactly, expensive wine seems to taste better.

The experiment, led by researchers at Cal-Tech and Stanford, was simple. [A free version of the study is here.] Twenty subjects tasted five wine samples which were distinguished solely by their retail price, with bottles ranging from $5 to $90. Although the subjects were told that all five wines were different, the scientists had actually only given them three different wines. This meant that the first two wines were used twice, but given two different price labels. For example, Wine 1 was labeled as a $35 dollar wine and a $5 wine. The subjects sipped the wines inside an fMRI machine.

Not surprisingly, the subjects consistently reported that the expensive wine tasted better. They preferred the taste of the $90 bottle to the $10 bottle, and thought the $45 bottle was more delicious than than the $5 wine.

i-c7af776b53ae2f1ff07c3781c78b9ad0-wine_tasting_1.14.2008.png

What’s interesting is that the brain scans reflected these subjective reports. In fact, when people drank more expensive wines a part of the prefrontal cortex called the medial orbitofrontal cortex (mOFC) got significantly more excited. The scientists argue that the activity of mOFC can be used as a neural correlate for pleasure, so that more expensive wines not only tasted better but actually provided us with more “subjective utility,” as an economist might say. Of course, these wine preferences aren’t really valid. In a follow-up experiment, the subjects again tasted all five wine samples, but without any price information. This time, they thought the $5 dollar wine tasted the best.

The best way to think of this experiment is as the economic equivalent of the placebo effect. Consider a 2005 experiment by Tor Wager of Columbia. His experiment was brutally straightforward: he gave college students electrical shocks while they were stuck in an fMRI machine. Half of the people were then supplied with a fake pain-relieving cream. As expected, people given the pretend cream said the shocks were significantly less painful. The placebo effect eased their suffering. Wager then imaged the specific parts of the brain that controlled this psychological process. He discovered that the placebo effect depended entirely on the prefrontal cortex. When people were told that they’d just received a pain-relieving cream, their frontal lobes responded by inhibiting the activity of the emotional brain areas (like the insula) that normally respond to pain. However, when the same people were informed that the same cream was “ineffective” at blocking pain, their prefrontal cortex went silent. Because people expected to experience less pain, they ended up experiencing less pain. Just as our expectations about expensive wine influenced the taste of the wine itself – expensive wine is supposed to taste better – so do our expectations about pain affect our experience of pain.

Baba Shiv, a co-author on the recent wine study, has previously shown how price can warp our consumer decisions. He supplied people with an “energy” drink that was supposed to make them feel more alert and energetic. Some participants paid full price for the drinks, while others were offered a discount. The participants were then asked to solve a series of word puzzles. To Shiv’s surprise, the people who paid discounted prices consistently solved fewer puzzles than the people who paid full price for the drinks. The subjects were convinced that the stuff on sale was much less potent, even though all the drinks were identical. “We ran the study again and again, not sure if what we got had happened by chance or fluke,” Shiv says. “But every time we ran it we got the same results.”

Why did the cheaper energy drink prove less effective? According to Shiv, consumers typically suffer from a version of the placebo effect. Since we expect cheaper goods to be less effective, they generally are less effective, even if they are identical to more expensive products. This is why brand-name aspirin works better than generic aspirin, or why Coke tastes better than cheaper colas, even if most consumers can’t tell the difference in blind taste tests. “We have these general beliefs about the world -for example, that cheaper products are of lower quality – and they translate into specific expectations about specific products,” said Shiv. “Then, once these expectations are activated, they start to really impact our behavior.”

Comments

  1. #1 Yttrai
    January 15, 2008

    I am curious to see if you included a third group – a group consisting of people who are in the medical community and who believe that generics are just as effective as name brands – how that would affect the results.

    (As someone in the pharma/biotech field i am continually dismayed that people believe generics are less effective. I try to educate people but studies like this make it clear we have a long way to go, and my single person at a time campaign just isn’t going to make much of an impact :( )

  2. #2 Alan
    January 15, 2008

    “Since we expect cheaper goods to be less effective, they generally are less effective, even if they are identical to more expensive products.”

    Assuming this is correct, it would be interesting to think through the implications of using generic (less expensive) versions of name brand presciption medications. If an authority figure, say a physician or pharmacist, indicates that the generic compound in question is a bio-active equivalent (which it supposedly is), would that assurance dilute the perception of higher quality, and presumably enhanced efficacy, in the name brand product? And how does one gauge efficacy? Are pain perception and gustatory perception special cases, or do they define the rule?

  3. #3 peggy
    January 15, 2008

    I read an article several years ago in the New Yorker, I believe by Calvin Trillin, wherein he noted that in a blind test most (something like 95%) tasters are unable to even discern white from red wine! The visual cue is that critical to the experience.

  4. #4 Max
    January 15, 2008

    I would be interested to see how this effect compared across subjects of different economic status. Would a low-class individual, accustomed to $5 wine, gain the same placebo benefit from $10 wine as a high-class individual, accustomed to $20 dollar wine, would get a placebo benefit from $40 dollar wine? Would cheaper medicine work better on the poor? (Which sounds a bit awkward to ask, even.)

  5. #5 Kapitano
    January 15, 2008

    Just a tangential thought…

    If a doctor prescribes a generic medicine for patient X, and a name-brand version for patient Y who has the same condition, and both patients report the prescriptions to be ineffective…will the doctor be more likely to give credence to patient X than to Y?

    In other words, will the doctor, on some level, assume that the expensive medication must be effective, and discount the complaints of patient Y but be sympathetic to X who got the “inferior” (ie cheaper) medicine?

  6. #6 Jim
    January 15, 2008

    A few years ago, Eleanor Maguire et al (2000 in PNAS) published a marvellous paper about London taxi drivers and their impressive memory entitled “Navigation-related structural change in the hippocampi of taxi drivers”.

    Why this paper? I’ve often wondered with wine when looking at experts (eg Robert Parker) how much their tasting is driven by memory cues so that they don’t perhaps get caught as frequently as us mere mortals when confronted with a bit of experimental trickery.

  7. #7 amybuilds
    January 16, 2008

    I wonder what would happen if the $90 was marked down to say $50 – would it taste even better then because it was a bargain? :)

  8. #8 Bruce Triplett
    January 17, 2008

    Another ripple on the generic vs brandname medication trial. My pharmacist tells me that the government allows generic medication manufacturers to make drugs with a variation of 20% +/- of the activity of the brandname medication it substitutes for. Unless I misunderstood what he was trying to say. Perhaps someone could clear this point up.

  9. #9 Dunc
    January 22, 2008

    But did they make sure that their 20 test subjects actually had decent taste in wine first?

  10. #10 Jimmy
    January 27, 2008

    But did they make sure that their 20 test subjects actually had decent taste in wine first?

    Better question: does this imply that much of what we consider “good taste in wine” is only a placebo/price effect? If every wine lover out there has been trained by price and brand to believe in certain wines being better, then how valuable can such judgments be absent these indicators?

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.