© Fotolia

Following the crowd when it comes to online tasting notes or don't mind being a black sheep?

Wine Searcher editor Rebecca Gibb considers the findings of new research that suggests tasters' opinions on wine are influenced by others.

“No man is an island, entire of itself,” penned poet and cleric John Donne in 1623.

The line from his somber work "Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions", along with “for whom the bell tolls” are the two phrases that have best survived the last 500 years, the latter inspiring eponymous songs by both Metallica and the Bee Gees. Donne would probably turn in his grave if he heard either tune.

While Donne’s work addressed a brush with death, the phrase “No man is an island,” appears to be appropriate in the age of posting our wine tasting notes on social networks, if recent research is to be believed. A working paper published by the American Association of Wine Economists suggests that we are sheep when it comes to rating wines online. Baaaarbera, anyone?

Wine critics have traditionally played a role in molding our views of a wine’s quality but they no longer rule the roost. The Internet has provided myriad sources of information on wines, and social networks are an increasingly important source for recommendations. In 2014, anyone can be a wine critic and CellarTracker is the best-known site for wine lovers to post their tasting notes online. Launched in 2003, it now lists almost four million reviews and boasts more than 304,000 members. It is a symbol of the democratization of wine criticism but can we trust the masses or should we stick with our favorite expert for advice?

In a bid to assess whether each man and woman posting tasting notes on CellarTracker is an island – or likes to stick with the bunch – researchers recently analyzed ratings for 106 Napa Cabernets over a 12-month period. There were 3227 ratings for these wines in late 2011 and the average score for the sample was 89.6. A year later, there were nearly twice as many ratings for the same wines and the average score remained “pretty much unchanged” (89.52-89.60).

Now, you might argue that this consistency could well be a reflection of the wines sampled; the aggregated nature of so many scores provides a useful consensus of how much people like or dislike a wine – but the authors aren’t so sure. They suggest that those posting their notes are guilty of conformist behavior. Their analysis found that there was a “significant direct relationship between the wine evaluations to which respondents were exposed and their own subsequent wine evaluations.”

Interestingly, the first four ratings posted for each wine were found to have a significant influence on subsequent scores. The variations in score of the first four member ratings largely explained the differences in subsequent scores; the more uniform the first quartet of ratings, the closer the subsequent average ratings. Was this a coincidental consensus or caused by a conformist clan?

© AFP

Even professional wine shows encourage you to conform when there is disparity

It could be argued that the results support psychologist Solomon Asch’s findings: humans have a desire to conform. Asch conducted experiments in the 1950s and '60s, which found that as many as 75 percent of participants in a group setting would publicly go along with the majority even if they believed the majority was incorrect.

Participants expressed a desire to fit in with the group and many believed that other people were more intelligent or better-informed than them, and submitted to the majority opinion. Many of Asch's tests asked participants simple questions and they were still willing to conform to the majority view even when they knew the correct answer.

In contrast, wine is complex and viewed as elitist. It would not be surprising if less-experienced wine drinkers tweaked their ratings to conform with the majority view, even though wine is a matter of taste.

Conformist behavior is actually encouraged when it comes to professional wine competitions. Many judges play it safe, in my opinion, scoring within a limited range for the majority of the time. Consensus is urged and should you disagree wildly with the other two judges on the panel, you do begin to question if your palate is up to much, despite passing all those tasting exams and working in the industry for years. In this competition arena there is often pressure to raise a low score so the competition organizer can save face, even if you think the wine that is about to be given a gold medal is a tragic waste of space. If wine professionals have to conform to reach a consensus then it would come as no surprise that those who consider wine as a hobby and put their tasting notes on sites like CellarTracker, would conform too.

The authors of the study admit that they can’t be sure if CellarTracker members do consult others’ views before making their own ratings but it’s highly likely that there are people who are guilty of taking a peek at other scores. Scores aren’t anonymous and few want to be on the edge of what's considered the norm, or have their palate called into question. Unless, of course, they are an island.

To read "In Vino Veritas? Social Influence on 'Private' Wine Evaluations at a Wine Social Networking Site" click here.

Related stories:

Critics Play Minor Role in Wine Choices

Wine Reviews: A Modest Proposal