Re: Intro (what I have so far - will add to it some more)
Rachel Lee
Brochet, F., & Dubourdieu, D. (2001). Wine descriptive language supports cognitive specificity of chemical senses. Brain and Language, 77, 187–196.
Gawel, R. (1997). The use of language by trained and untrained experienced wine tasters. Journal of Sensory Studies, 12, 267–284.
Hughson, A., & Boakes, R. (2001). The knowing nose: the role of knowledge in wine expertise. Food Quality and Preference, 13, 463-472.
Lawless, H. (1984). Flavour description of white wine by ‘‘expert’’ and nonexpert wine consumers. Journal of Food Science, 49, 120–123.
Solomon, G. (1990). Psychology of novice and expert wine talk. American Journal of Psychology, 105, 495–517.
Bryant Rathbone
On 2/2/12, Rachel Lee <rachel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Abstract:
> A. What was done?
> B. How was it done?
> C. What was discovered?
> D. Why is the discovery important?
>
> Intro:
>
> The art of wine tasting is ancient in its origins but has evolved into a
> modern science. Recent research show that judging a wine expertly relies on
> high cognitive processes like memory (Hughson and Boake, 2001) and being
> able to correctly identify the style and typical characteristics of the
> wine from experience (Gawel, 1997).
>
> A number of past studies have shown that sommeliers are better at
> identifying wine than the average person. These test subjects were able to
> single out the odd sample out of three wines while novices failed to do so
> (Solomon, 1990), and gave accurate descriptions of wines that experts
> themselves can match to the samples (Lawless, 1984; Solomon, 1990). Their
> results suggest that knowledge and training play important roles in wine
> expertise. The high pricing of good wine, therefore, is well-founded as the
> differences between high-end and low-end wines are indeed recognizable.
> However, Brochet’s experiments in 2001 disagree with these findings by
> demonstrating that wine-tasting is no more than just subjectivity, as the
> connoisseurs he tested gave erroneous descriptions. According to Brochet,
> the tasting of wine is only a perceptive representation. The more training
> a connoisseur received, the more mistakes they were likely to make because
> of their perceptions of color. What this implies is that wine-tasting is
> based on perceptual skills, and the price differences among wine are not
> justifiable as even experts cannot correctly detect the quality. These
> differing opinions led us to conduct our investigation into wine tasting.
> (What
> does your study contribute towards a better understanding of the topic?)
>
> We hypothesized that there is an objective difference in quality between
> wines, which will be positively correlated to their price. This paper seeks
> to answer the question of whether the quality of wine can be detected by
> the general public through a double-blind taste study.
>
>
Bryant Rathbone
Bryant Rathbone
V. Discussion (interprets the findings of your study) A. Briefly recap
what you did and found
-Taste test of three wines of same varietal, different prices
-Torres Milmanda Chardonnay @ 51.99
-Catena Zapata Chardonnay @ 30.99
-Mendoza Heights Chardonnay @ 9.99
-Subjects (wine inexperienced) were asked to rank the wines from most
to least favourite
-Points were awarded as follows: 1st choice: 2pts, 2nd choice: 1pt
-A preference was shown for Mendoza Heights Chardonnay.
B. Study limitations
1. What are the limitations of your study?
-Limited by small sample size
-Biased sample (university students willing to participate in study
for free)
-Limited wine selection
-only one bottle of each (maybe not such a big deal)
-only one varietal
-only a few of that varietal
2. What caveats need to be placed on your conclusions?
-No conclusion can be reliably drawn about the sample stratum (due to
sample size)
-No conclusion can be drawn about the general population (due to
biased sample)
-No conclusion can be drawn about the trend in the varietal (due to
only a few products)
-No conclusion can be drawn about the trend in wine generally (due to
only one varietal)
C. Interpretation of findings
1. What do your findings mean?
-Findings could indicate that less expensive wines may be more popular
-This could be important commercially, as wine is not currently
marketed based on “easy drinking” quality.
-Could an approach of “market driving” be beneficial?
2. How well did they answer your question or hypothesis?
-Findings appear to directly contradict our hypothesis
-Hypothesised that most expensive wine would be the most popular, the
opposite was found
3. How do your findings compare to those of other published studies?
-Studies show that experts know the difference (Solomon, 1990)
-Do laymen prefer what experts prefer? Maybe not.
-Study indicates that taste is irrelevant to pricing in retail
settings (Brentati 2011)
D. Recommendations
1. How could this study be improved?
-Increase sample size/ block representation
-Increase wine selection
-Recording subject responses
2. What new questions have been raised and need to be answered?
-Would this apparent effect hold in a real experiment?
-Would this hold for all wine?
-What are the gustatory qualities of popular wine?
-What effects could the possibility that cheap wine tastes better to
the layman have on the business of wine making?
E. Concluding statement
1. What did you find?
-Found that cheaper wine was more popular
2. What is the significance of your findings?
-Insignificant due to small sample size and undetermined qualities of
sample stratum
3. What final thought or word of wisdom do you want to leave the
reader with?
-Market research is important
-Can lead to new ways of doing business
-example
-example
-Could the marketing of wine be ready for an overhaul?
VI. Acknowledgements (gives credit to those who helped you)
A. Who helped do the work or provided space?
-Daniel Shin – Providing testing space
-11 anonymous test subjects – donating time and assuming risk
B. Who provided comments, advice, edits?
-Bruce Dunham – suggestions on study design
-Eric Jandciu – advice on ethics
-Nick Fishbane – advice on ethics
VII. Literature Cited (lists all scientific papers, books and websites
that you cite) A. Include your bibliography using RefWorks or
software
Rachel Lee
I did write a research paper last term and I'd say MLA is the norm
Argh I just saw Eric's post on Blackboard about how to do the outline grrr sorry I'm going to have to add to it AGAIN sorry for the bombardment of posts
Rachel Lee
A. What was done? Double-blind taste study of three different priced wines
B. How was it done? One session, 11 university students, randomized serving order, participants asked to rank (best=2, second=1, worst=0)
C. What was discovered? A preference was shown for Mendoza Heights Chardonnay (cheapest)
D. Why is the discovery important? Findings could indicate that less expensive wines may be more popular. This could be important commercially, as wine is not currently marketed based on “easy drinking” quality
Intro:
A. Introduce the broad area of research
1. What motivated your study? Differing opinions of what wine-tasting is based off of
example 1: expert wine-tasting due to knowledge + training (memory + experience) (Hughson and Boake, 2001)
example 2: wine-tasting merely subjective, based on perception (Brochet and Dubourdieu 2001)
2. What is the broad area of research that your study arises from? Justification of high prices of wine
3. What is known about this broad field of knowledge? Wine-tasting either involves high cognitive processes (meaning better wine have better qualities that can be identified) or perceptual skills (meaning taste is subjective)
B. Identify the problem
1. What particular aspect of the broad area of knowledge does your
research address? Whether the quality of wine can be detected by the general public
2. What is already known about this specific aspect? Experts are often the ones who can correctly assess the quality of wine (Lawless, 1984; Solomon, 1990)
3. What still needs to be determined (i.e., what does your study
address)? Our results and what that implies about the general public
4. Why is it important to know this? Could be important commercially, as wine is not currently marketed based on “easy drinking” quality.
C. Problem statement
1. What was your research question or hypothesis? Can the quality of wine be detected by the general public? We hypothesized that there is an objective difference in quality between wines, which will be positively correlated to their price
2. How did you answer this question? Experiment, observations,
questionnaire, etc? Double-blind taste study
3. What does your study contribute towards a better understanding
of the topic? Taste is irrelevant to pricing in retail settings
Colin Todd
statistical entries for the results. I also updated the excell with a
line graph that shows the total allocated points per category and :.
the negative correlation between taste and price.
Methods:
A) The study was a double-blind taste test of three individual samples
of Chardonnay (wine) of varying value. These samples of wine were
presented in varying order and tasted by subjects who then noted their
preference. A palette wash was provided between each tasting to
prevent flavour contamination.
B) The test was conducted in the evening in a clean, dormitory
environment that emulates the casual setting typical of most student
homes.
C) The site provided little distraction in regards to noise or traffic
of individuals and the relaxed atmosphere provided a setting where the
subject could focus on the wine itself with little if any disturbance.
As it was in the evening, and not during the school day, subjects were
less likely to be concerned with academics lending their entire psyche
to contemplating the taste of the various wines.
D) An experimenter coded three opaque plastic cups on their undersides
and then filled them by their assigned wine variety. These cups were
then randomized into different orders by another experimenter who was
not present for the filling. Data was collected by asking the subject
to state their preference in a three tier scale of favourite to least
favourite. When preference was noted the cups were sorted by the
subjects’ taste preference and the cups were then inspected to
determine their identification. The subject’s preference for each wine
was evaluated using a point system of either a two = favourite, one =
moderately favoured, and 0 = least favourite.
Results:
Wine preference scores were recorded as discrete numerical data for
each category of wine. From these data, grouped histograms were
constructed and compared to not only distinguish which wine was
favoured overall, but also the patterns of preference within each
category.
To emphasize the overall trend in preference over monetary value, a
line graph was also produced.
The histograms and line graph revealed that the student population
favoured the cheapest wine overall, and disliked the most expensive
variety. While each category of wine was ranked best and worst by at
least three subjects, an additional two would highlight the ranking of
the wines overall.
As the study was double blind, and each sampling was independent,
there was an overall equal chance for each wine to be prejudiced by
its taste alone. From the apparent trend, students favour cheap
chardonnay over its more expensive counterparts.
Rachel Lee
could submit it to Blackboard before 10 pm that would be great. I also realized we are presenting next week, either Wed Feb 8 or Fri Feb 10, so I guess
we gotta meet up Monday to work on the slides and all that wonderful stuff
Bryant Rathbone
the left over wine?