Issue link: http://winesandvines.uberflip.com/i/438260
8 p r a c t i c a l w i n e r y & v i n e ya r d J a n U a r y 2 0 1 5 W I N E M A K I N G components of a mixture such as a wine are perceived within the mixture, config- ural perception involves blending of the components or properties of the mixture with the resulting percept or Gestalt 3 being different from the components. The ease of identifying individual components/flavors of a wine was not a factor positively associated with perceived complexity. Evaluating global wine attributes such as complexity and perceived quality appears to involve cognitive processing that differs to that implicated when a taster evaluates a more concrete attribute such as intensity of a specific flavor like passion fruit. Conclusion and application It is clear that complexity in wine is a multi-dimensional, higher-order mental construct, comprising viticultural, eno- logical and organoleptic aspects. Further, our data from both the study on mental representation and from the behavioural (tasting) study show that complexity in wine is a construct that varies as a func- tion of wine-related expertise. An application or take-home message from these results is particularly relevant to wine marketing personnel. Our data concerning differences between groups in how complexity is conceptualized suggest the following: Although wine professionals are interested in aspects of wine production such as vineyard loca- tion and enological processes, and often give priority to such information on the back label of fine wine bottles, wine con- sumers overall are not. Wine consumers appear far more driven by their notions of wine quality and image/brand, and their expectations of an enjoyable and pleasurable sensory experience. PWV Wendy Parr is principal research offi- cer, Faculty of Agriculture & Life Sciences, Lincoln University, New Zealand. She has a Ph. D. in Psychology (Cognition and Psychophysics) and a Ph. D. in Wine Science (Sensory). Wendy is winemaker and partner in a boutique vineyard and winery in Nelson, New Zealand. Bibliography 1. Charters, S. and S. Pettigrew. 2007 "The dimensions of wine quality." Food Quality & Preference, 18, 997–1007. 2. Ferrarini, R., C. Carbognin, E.M. Casarotti, E. Nicolis, A. Nencini, and A.M. Meneghini 2010 "The emotional response to wine con- sumption." Food Quality & Preference, 21, 720–725. 3. Jinks, A., and D. Laing. 2001 "The analysis of odor mixtures by humans: evidence for a configurational process. Physiology & Behavior, 72, 51– 63. 4. Ochsner, K.N., and E. Phelps. 2007 "Emerging perspectives on emotion-cognition interactions." Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 317–318. 5. Parr, W.V. 2003 "The ambiguous nature of our sense of smell." Aus. & NZ Grapegrower & Winemaker: 31st Annual Technical Issue, 473a, 114–116. 6. Parr, W.V., P. Schlich, J.C. Theobald and M.J. Harsch. 2013 "Association of selected viniviticultural factors with sensory and chemical characteristics of New Zealand Sauvignon blanc wines. Food Research International, 53, 464–475. 7. Parr, W.V., M. Mouret, S. Blackmore, T. Pelquest-Hunt and I. Urdapilleta. 2011 "Representation of complexity in wine: Influence of expertise." Food Quality & Preference, 22, 647–660. 8. Reinert, M. 1986 Un logiciel d'analyse lexi- cal: [ALCESTE]. Les cahiers d'analyses des données, 9, 471–484. 9. Schlich, P., M. Medel Maraboli, C. Urbano and W.V. Parr. (in press). "Perceived com- plexity in Sauvignon blanc wines: Influence of domain-specific expertise." Aus. J. of Grape & Wine Research. 10. Thorngate, J.H. 1997 "The physiology of human sensory response to wine." Am. J. of Enol. & Vit., 48, 271–279.