Lower Buffet Prices Lead to Less Taste Satisfaction

The role of production process and information on quality expectations and perceptions of sparkling wines

BACKGROUND

This study, by combining sensory and experimental economics techniques, aims to analyse to what extent the production process, and the information about it, may affect consumer preferences. Sparkling wines produced by Champenoise and Charmat methods were the object of the study. A quantitative descriptive sensory analysis with a trained panel and non-hypothetical auctions combined with hedonic ratings involving young wine consumers (N = 100), under different information scenarios (Blind, Info and Info Taste), were performed.

RESULTS

The findings show that the production process impacts both the sensory profile of sparkling wines and consumer expectations. In particular, the hedonic ratings revealed that when tasting the products, both with no information on the production process (Blind) and with such information (Info Taste), the consumers preferred the Charmat wines. On the contrary, when detailed information on the production methods was given without tasting (Info), consumers liked the two Champenoise wines more.

CONCLUSION

It can be concluded that sensory and non-sensory attributes of sparkling wines affect consumers' preferences. Specifically, the study suggests that production process information strongly impacts liking expectations, while not affecting informed liking. © 2018 Society of Chemical Industry.

Statistical heartburn: an attempt to digest four pizza publications from the Cornell Food and Brand Lab

Background

We present the results of a reanalysis of four articles from the Cornell Food and Brand Lab based on data collected from diners at an Italian restaurant buffet.

Method

We calculated whether the means, standard deviations, and test statistics were compatible with the sample size. Test statistics and p values were recalculated. We also applied deductive logic to see whether the claims made in each article were compatible with the claims made in the others. We have so far been unable to obtain the data from the authors of the four articles.

Results

A thorough reading of the articles and careful reanalysis of the results revealed a wide range of problems. The sample sizes for the number of diners in each condition are incongruous both within and between the four articles. In some cases, the degrees of freedom of between-participant test statistics are larger than the sample size, which is impossible. Many of the computed F and t statistics are inconsistent with the reported means and standard deviations. In some cases, the number of possible inconsistencies for a single statistic was such that we were unable to determine which of the components of that statistic were incorrect. Our Appendix reports approximately 150 inconsistencies in these four articles, which we were able to identify from the reported statistics alone.

Conclusions

We hope that our analysis will encourage readers, using and extending the simple methods that we describe, to undertake their own efforts to verify published results, and that such initiatives will improve the accuracy and reproducibility of the scientific literature. We also anticipate that the editors of the journals that published these four articles may wish to consider whether any corrective action is required.