IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jwecon/v7y2012i01p70-87_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reliability and Consensus of Experienced Wine Judges: Expertise Within and Between?

Author

Listed:
  • Ashton, Robert H.

Abstract

This paper considers the levels of reliability and consensus of wine quality judgments found in studies of experienced wine judges. Both reliability, which concerns the similarity of repeat judgments of a particular wine by the same judge, and consensus, which concerns the similarity of judgments of a particular wine across judges, are necessary requirements for expertise in wine judging. Reliability and consensus levels found in wine judging are compared to those documented by a large body of research in six other fields: medicine, clinical psychology, business, auditing, personnel management, and meteorology. In all fields, including wine judging, reliability is greater than consensus. Both reliability and consensus are, on average, substantially lower in wine judging than in other fields, although tremendous variability exists across judges in every field. Overall, little support is found for the idea that experienced wine judges should be regarded as experts. (JEL Classification: C91)

Suggested Citation

  • Ashton, Robert H., 2012. "Reliability and Consensus of Experienced Wine Judges: Expertise Within and Between?," Journal of Wine Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(1), pages 70-87, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:jwecon:v:7:y:2012:i:01:p:70-87_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1931436112000065/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pecchioli, Bruno & Moroz, David, 2023. "Do geographical appellations provide useful quality signals? The case of Scotch single malt whiskies," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    2. Clarissa Laura Maria Spiess Bru, 2023. "Does the Tasting Note Matter? Language Categories and Their Impact on Professional Ratings and Prices," Working Papers Dissertations 105, Paderborn University, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics.
    3. Olivier Gergaud & Victor Ginsburgh & Juan D. Moreno-Ternero, 2020. "Wine Ratings," Working Papers ECARES 2020-38, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    4. Barberà, Salvador & Bossert, Walter & Moreno-Ternero, Juan D., 2023. "Wine rankings and the Borda method," Journal of Wine Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(2), pages 122-138, May.
    5. Gergaud, Olivier & Ginsburgh, Victor & Moreno-Ternero, Juan D., 2021. "Wine Ratings: Seeking a Consensus among Tasters via Normalization, Approval, and Aggregation," Journal of Wine Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(3), pages 321-342, August.
    6. Chen, Kuan-Ju & McCluskey, Jill J., 2018. "Impacts of Expert Information on Prices for an Experience Good across Product Segments: Tasting Notes andWine Prices," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 43(3), September.
    7. Victor Ginsburgh, 2016. "On Judging Art and Wine," Working Papers ECARES ECARES 2016-21, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    8. Oczkowski, Edward, 2019. "The relation between Australian wine show results and prices," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 60(2), July.
    9. Bernd Frick & Clarissa Laura Maria Spiess Bru & Daniel Kaimann, 2023. "Are Women (Really) More Lenient? Gender Differences in Expert Evaluations," Working Papers Dissertations 106, Paderborn University, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics.
    10. Outreville, 2015. "The market structure-performance relationship applied to the Canadian wine industry," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(18), pages 1486-1492, December.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jwecon:v:7:y:2012:i:01:p:70-87_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jwe .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.