This document discusses factors that influence wine preferences, including biological, cultural, and individual psychological determinants. It explores how wine preferences develop over time through exposure and learning to appreciate bitter and unfamiliar flavors. While taste is important, other sensory dimensions and non-sensory attributes like packaging and information provided can impact preferences. Understanding these influences helps wine producers target consumer segments.

1. Wine Consumer
Flavour Preferences
Isabelle Lesschaeve,
WAC 2008, 27-29 March, Beaune (France)

2. Outline
 Literature review on development of
food preference
– Application to wine
 Sensory and cognitive dimensions of
wine preference
 Summary and Conclusion

3. Development of Food
Preference
 Three major determinants of food
choice and preference (Rozin,
1991):
– Biological factors
– Cultural factors
– Individual/Psychological factors

4. Development of Food
Preference
 Biological Factors
– Innate likes for sweet and dislikes
for bitter and sour foods
(Birch, 1982)
– In utero nutrition impacts future
child’s preference (Schaal, 2006)
– Preference increases with exposure
and familiarity (mere exposure theory,
Zajonc 1968)

5. Development of Food
Preference
 Individual factors
– Adolescents develop liking for bitter
food and beverages (e.g. beer)
– Genetic traits
 Sensitivity to the
bitter compound PROP
could influence both
positive and negative
sensations in
alcoholic beverages

6. How do we learn to like
wine?
 Introduction to wine in early adulthood
 Wine can:
– Taste sour and bitter
– Smell unfamiliar (food) aromas
 Oak, floral, petroleum
– Feel astringent and irritating
Wine could fit the
“unpalatable substance”
category (Rozin, 1986)

7. How do we learn to like
wine?
 Liking for unpalatable beverage :
– Is developed by associative learning
 Environmental and socio-cultural factors
– Results in desirable post-digestive
consequences

8. How do we learn to like
wine?
 Socio-cultural factors
– New world consumers versus old world
– Symbolic value of wine

9. Determinants of
Wine choice
 “Taste” is one of the most important
factors cited by consumers for choosing
wine (Thompson and Vourvachis, 1995;
Charters, 2003)
 Tasting wine prior purchase is not common
practice
– Purchasing wine is a risky endeavour, because of
taste uncertainty (Mitchell and Greatorec, 1988)

10. Sensory dimensions of likes and
dislikes
 Traditional market research techniques
– Wine experts
– Me2, sales volume
– “Taste” test, “one sip test”
Ask consumers to describe what they like
or dislike
– Focus groups

11. Sensory dimensions of likes and
dislikes
 Traditional market research techniques
– Research has shown that consumer
language can be misleading
– Merlot wine study (Lesschaeve (2006):
 When consumers liked the wine, they liked its
oak character
 When consumers disliked the wine, they
disliked the oak character
 Liked oak=Vanilla/toasted oak
 Disliked oak=Smoky oak, burnt

12. Sensory dimensions of likes and
dislikes
 New approach:
– Blends sensory and market research techniques
– Produces preference map
– Consumers still rate their overall liking
– Wine description is collected from a trained
sensory panel (Descriptive Analysis)
– Multivariate statistics are used to explain or
predict consumer flavour preference
[McEwan 1996; Lesschaeve et al. 2001, 2004]

13. Authors Wine category Attribute analysis Consumer evaluation Aromas driving liking
Lesschaeve et White wines Descriptive analysis CLTs, 361 consumers. * Sweet, fruity, berry,
al. 23 with 12 trained 9 pt hedonic scale overall aroma intensity,
Chardonnays; panelists; vanilla toasted oak,
14 wine styles 16 aroma attributes alcohol, spicy oak,
lingering after-taste
Yegge et al. White wines: DA with 14 trained CLT, with 126 *Fruity, floral, Caramel,
12 inexpensive panelists; consumers. spice, oak
Chardonnays 10 aroma attributes 9 pt hedonic scale
Frøst et al. Red wines: DA with 12 trained CLT, with 57 consumers. Vanilla/oak, Canned
12 inexpensive panelists; 9 pt hedonic scale vegetables, and Green
red wines, 7 9 aroma attributes olives, berry, butter,
varieties or leather
blends
Lesschaeve et Red wines: Descriptive analysis CLT tests, with 41 *Burnt, smoky, pungent,
al. 5 Merlot wines with 8 trained consumers. grassy, cut wood, butter
panelists; Liking on 100 pt linear scotch, vanilla, rawwood
17 aroma attributes scale
Lesschaeve et White wines: Descriptive analysis CLT with 115 *earthy, asparagus,
al. 8 inexpensive with 12 trained consumers. banana, butter, pine
white wines panelists; Liking on a 100 pt linear musty, mushroom
37 aroma attributes scale
Lesschaeve et White wines: Descriptive analysis CLT with 46 consumers. *Blind:
al. 4 Riesling wines with 10 trained Liking on a 100 pt linear high rubber and musty
panelists; scale. pungent, earthy
22 aroma attributes Blind and informed *Informed:
conditions earthy, rubber, rose
lemon, grapefruit,
pungent, cooked apple,
sweet, licorice, raisin
* Depends on consumer segments

14. Sensory dimensions of likes and
dislikes
 Example [Lesschaeve, 2007]
– Four Riesling wines
– 45 Ontario consumers assessed their liking (10
cm hedonic scale)
– Descriptive analysis by 12 trained panelists with
44 flavour attributes and 2 replicates.
– Both sets of data were analysed to produce a
preference map

15. Riesling preference map
Riesling prefmap - Blind condition
10
Raisin
Sherry like
5
Honey
F2 (9.56 %)
WB Liking 2
Licorice_F
Licorice
CS
Earthy-Musty Honey_F
Apple cooked
Melon Caramel
Raisin_F cooked_F
Apple
Vanilla
0
Rose_F
-10 -5 0 5 10 15
Rubber
WI
Pungent
Lemon Liking 1
Yeasty
Peach_F
Grapefruit HP
-5
F1 (90.44 % )

16. Is it just a matter of taste?
 Riesling study had two parts
1. Consumers tasted the wines blind (without
any information, except that the wines
were Riesling)
2. Consumers tasted the same
wines, but with some
information

17. Riesling preference map
with Information
Riesling preference map - Informed condition
20
L3
Raisin
WI Honey
10 Sherry like
Melon
Caramel
Licorice_F CS
Raisin_F
F2 (22.33 %)
Honey_F
Licorice
Pungent
Vanilla Apple cooked
0
-30 -20 -10 Earthy-Musty 10
0 20 L1 30
WB Apple cooked_F
Rubber
Grapefruit_F
Yeasty
Rose_F
-10
Lemon
HP Peach_F
Grapefruit
L2
-20
F1 (64.53 %)

18. Wine = Flavour + Image
Flavour = sensory attributes
(appearance, aroma, taste etc.)
Image =
label, bottle shape, advertising, etc.

19. Non sensory factors
affecting preference
 External information:
– packaging design, label (front/back)
– identifiers associated to quality: brand
name, appellation-region of origin (VQA,
AOC), country/region of origin, price,
award, expert rating

20. Cognitive factors affecting
likes and dislikes
 Consumer characteristics:
– Involvement, knowledge, and familiarity
with the product
“higher involvement consumers utilise more
information and are interested in learning
more, while low involvement consumers tend
to simplify their choices and use risk
reduction strategies”. (Lockshin, 2006)
3 dimensions of involvement: product
involvement, brand decision involvement and
purchasing involvement (Lockshin et al, 1997)

21. Cognitive factors affecting
likes and dislikes
 Consumer characteristics:
– demographics, lifestyle, self-perception
 Baby boomers. Generation X and Y

22. Cognitive factors affecting
likes and dislikes
 Consumer characteristics:
From Hughson et al. 2004
 1. Red & White Wines -- Segment 1
(‘Sensory explorers').
 2. Red & White Wines -- Segment 2
(‘Classics').
 3. Red & White Wines -- Segment 3
(Imaginers').
 4. Red Wines Only -- Segment 4 (‘No Frills').

23. Source: Project Genome, 2008

24. Non sensory factors
affecting preference
 Context of choice or consumption
 Societal factors:
– image, prestige, mystic, symbolic, values

25. Conclusions
 Understanding of consumer flavour
segments enable producers :
– to enhance the chance of repeat purchase
– to target niche markets with a specific wine
style.
 Elucidating wine active compounds is critical
to understand sensory drivers of liking and
develop targeted wine styles

26. Conclusions
 In foodstuff categories,
– when product does not meet the sensory
profile expected by consumers, marketing
cues cannot usually fool consumers.
 The wine category is different.
– Non sensory factors still have an impact
on consumer choice behaviours and may
enable consumers to forgive any
dissonance on the sensory profile.

27. Conclusions
 Non sensory factors impact:
– Is it stable over time?
– Have consumers developed strategies to
relate external information to sensory
properties?
– Do they rely on their memories? (brand,
taste)
– What is the influence of context (E.g. Tasting
room) and repeating tasting?
 More research is still needed