Influence of social interaction levels on panel effectiveness in developing wine sensory profiles using consensus method

Abstract

The development of sensory profiles is crucial for quality control and innovation in the wine industry. If quantitative descriptive analysis is the most commonly used method for establishing sensory profiles due to its robustness, it presents significant limitations. Specifically, this approach requires 12 to 15 trained panelists, which can pose logistical challenges. Additionally, the statistical analyses involved are often complex. Alternative methods exist, such as the consensus methodology, which requires only 4 to 6 panelists. Unlike conventional profiling, which relies on individual assessments aggregated statistically, consensus profiling involves collective discussions among panelists to agree on sensory descriptors and intensities (Chambers, 2018). This results in a unique sensory profile, avoiding laborious statistical analyses of individual profiles. This method offers advantages, including faster evaluations and fewer participants (Chambers, 2018), enabling efficient wine assessments by a small panel while providing scientifically robust results.

However, social interaction within the panel can influence the quality and consistency of these profiles. Since exchanges are inherent to this methodology, they introduce bias, as social dynamics can affect judgments and compromise objectivity (Syarief et al., 1985; Meilgaard, 1991). To explore this, six panels of four participants evaluated three white wines, each presented twice, under three interaction modalities. In the first modality, participants engaged in face-to-face discussions. In the second, they interacted verbally without visual contact. In the third, they communicated in writing without seeing one another.

The results demonstrate that each of the studied approaches has its own advantages and limitations depending on the study objectives, which will be further discussed. The findings highlight the potential for optimizing consensus methodologies, a robust tool for wine industries to achieve more reliable and precise wine evaluations.

References

[1] Chambers, E. (2018). Consensus Methods for Descriptive Analysis. In Descriptive Analysis in Sensory Evaluation (pp.211-236).

[2] Meilgaard, M., Civille, G.V. & Carr, B.T. (1991) Sensory Evaluation Techniques, 2nd edn. Boca Raton: CRC Press, pp. 119–141, 163–179.

[3] Syarief, H., Hamann, D.D., Giesbrecht, F.G., Young, C.T. and Monroe, R.J. (1985), Comparison of Mean and Consensus Scores from Flavor and Texture Profile Analyses of Selected Food Products. Journal of Food Science, 50: 647-650.