Bias Psychology of Wine & Spirits Consumers

George F Manska, CR&D Arsilica, Inc.

Psychology endeavors to provide explanations for human thoughts, actions, and beliefs. Strong beliefs create barriers to acceptance of functional science, particularly relating to subjects considered artistic or creative.  Wine and spirits tasting and appreciation have long existed as an art, craft, personal talent, or skill, and until recently, largely devoid of practical sensory and physical science methodology. 

After all, what is there to understand?  Pour the beverage into the glass, look at it, smell it, taste it, and decide whether you like it or not.  Few question the procedures and apparatus used, and most believe that if many experts follow a set process, then it must be correct.

Search for “Best” Creates a Psychological Attitude: Psychological attitudes are composed of beliefs, feelings, and behavioral tendencies.  Consumers are confronted by a multitude of choices and rely on “best” to make buying decisions.  They demand concise, prioritized lists while subscribing to impatient, psychological attitudes, “Just tell me which ones are best, don’t clutter my mind with details, Gimme the best and I want it now.”  It is truly a sign of the times.

Cases in Point:  The annual Wine Spectator List of 100 “Best” Wines of 202X inspires thousands of wine lovers to tear out the summary page and rush to claim a few of the best.  Sought-after brands in short supply are allocated to the highest sales volume stores, and prices skyrocket, leaving many frustrated by long lines and prices beyond their means.  The jungle becomes angry.

Storytelling: • Compelling narratives of history, heritage, and craftsmanship, creating an emotional connection with consumers, suggesting a rich and authentic backstory

Twisted Marketing Science/Pseudo-Scientific Language: Many brands use complex-sounding scientific terminology to describe manufacturing processes suggests a higher level of sophistication or intellect unsupported by science  (e.g., “proprietary molecular aging,” “scientifically crafted.”).

The Trade-off:  Brands that make the “best” lists are usually (1) scarce and pricy, (2) received good reviews from popular reviewers, or (3) won medals at prestigious competitions. As consumers turn to these prioritized lists to make buying decisions, they surreptitiously avoid personal accumulation of “unnecessary” baggage-knowledge-details.  Impatience automatically dismisses any inkling of the concept of making meaningful personal choices.

Choosing to bypass the learning curve to proficient evaluation, consumers turn to exposure experiences for social media posts that prove their self-involvement; like taking selfies of drinking Petrus (any vintage) and toasting in the presence of a Pappy van Winkle bottle. This widespread practice has become shameless and necessary to validate oneself as a “knowledgeable” participant.

Those treasured “sharing-the-spotlight” moments are all about a personal, prestigious “I belong” association with tradition, rare labels and vintages, or age statements, and not about the internal search for personal satisfaction and value.  Consumers voluntarily exchange their personal development for external experiences that portray them as “in-the-know” and “active participants.”  It simply requires too much time and effort, and self-validation is too important to play this game differently.  Is it worth the trade-off?

Science Eventually Steps In:  Science is usually late to influence artful and skillful topics, but has arrived, and suddenly everyone is confused by new, unbelievable, and unacceptable ideas.  Wine attributes traditionally described as “terroir” no longer fit that convenient catchall explanation. Glass shapes used for centuries now mask aromas with concentrated, anesthetic ethanol.  Water does not “open up” whiskey.  Beers should be swirled.  Personal taste may be more important than labels and vintage.  New scientific rationale threatens old memes, and resistance to change is nearly insurmountable as the consumer has become comfortably numb on his path to gathering external participation experiences and notoriety over an internal quest for discovering the sublime.

 

 

Confirmation Bias:  Occurs when one seeks out, interprets, and chooses to remember only information confirming preexisting beliefs.  Myth becomes fact as acceptable information supports existing views, while contradictory evidence is ignored or dismissed.  These types of beliefs are often reinforced by experts who see scientific explanations as a threat to their past stances.  Confirmation bias is key to the persistence of myth and deep-rooted false beliefs: it runs deep in today’s society from religion to politics and social media and is perhaps today’s biggest challenge to the acceptance of science.

 

 

Availability Heuristic Bias: The tendency to overestimate the importance of readily available information.  Recent news of a rare event leads one to believe it is a common occurrence.

Anchoring and Adjustment Bias: Relying too heavily on the first piece of information read because it confirms pre-existing beliefs.

Hindsight Bias: An event was predictable or expected, simply because it has already occurred.

Overconfidence Bias: Overestimation of knowledge, capabilities, and confirmation of the accuracy of beliefs and predictions.

Self-Serving Bias:  Successes are the result of personal efforts and talent, failures are someone or something else’s fault.

Dunning-Kreuger Effect:  Individuals with low ability or knowledge tend to overestimate their ability/knowledge.  Conversely, those with a high degree of ability/knowledge tend to underestimate themselves.  Dunning-Kreuger is about individual self-assessment of expertise and competence.

Groupthink Bias: The group values consensus and cohesion over critical thinking.

Status Quo Bias:  Preference to stay the same, even if change is beneficial (avoid unknown consequence or loss).

Loss Aversion:  Prefer avoiding a loss over acquiring gains (risk aversion).

Negativity Bias: Giving more weight and importance to negative information than to positive information or experiences.

Recency Bias:  Placing more importance on recent information than older ones when making judgments.

 

Cultural Bias:  Interpretation of issues as compared to the correctness of one’s own culture (ethnocentrism).

Did you recognize any of these?  There are many more. 

Summary:  The true expert is open-minded and strives to understand things scientifically, with the ultimate goal of improving judgment, buying decisions, and ultimately, personal satisfaction.  That true expert is you, the only one who knows what you like or dislike.  If you rely on others’ opinions, ask yourself “Is the critique fair and unbiased?”  Question the information:  Is it rational, does it correlate with other sources, are they (or am I) practicing a bias?  Reading and listening are indispensable tools, but developing a sharp sense of recognizing and retaining accurate information is key to enhancing enjoyment and has other far-reaching benefits – if you let it. Don’t follow the crowd.

Bio:  George F Manska, CR&D, Arsilica, Inc.

Qualifications:  Published sensory science researcher, and entrepreneur. BSME, NEAT glass co-inventor

Mission: Replace myth and misinformation with scientific truth through consumer education.