Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T05:15:17.975Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Half-Blind Tasting: A Deception-Free Method for Sizing Placebo and Nocebo Responses to Price and Packaging Attributes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 December 2019

Robin S. Goldstein
Robin S. Goldstein*
Affiliation:
University of California Agricultural Issues Center, 1 Shields Avenue, Davis, CA95616-8514, USA Université de Bordeaux, Laboratoire d'Analyse et de Recherche en Économie et Finance Internationales, Pessac, France; e-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Information conveyed on the price tag or label of a consumable packaged good is widely thought to change the consumer's sensory experience of consuming the good. Can the positive “placebo” effects of high prices and negative “nocebo” effects of low prices on consumer experience be isolated and observed in a controlled experiment without using deception? In a pilot wine experiment using a method I call “half-blind tasting,” I observe that the nocebo response to a $5 price tag is stronger than the placebo response to a $50 price tag. To interpret these preliminary results, I borrow some insights from prospect theory. (JEL Classifications: C91, D81, L66, M31, Q11)

Keywords

blind tastingnoceboplaceboprospect theorywine prices
Type
Shorter Papers and Comments
Information
Journal of Wine Economics , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , August 2019 , pp. 321 - 331
Copyright
Copyright © American Association of Wine Economists 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I thank an anonymous referee and Karl Storchmann for their helpful comments. I also thank David Card for hosting me as a visiting scholar at UC Berkeley, where I conducted this experiment with his enthusiastic assistance; Matthew Rabin at Berkeley for his comments on my half-blind methodology; and Hilke Plassmann, Johan Almenberg, Anna Dreber, Shane Frederick, Laurie Santos, Uri Gneezy, and Alexis Herschkowitsch for conversations that led to the development of the ideas and methods presented here.

References

Ashton, R. (2014). Wine as an experience good: Price versus enjoyment in blind tastings of expensive and inexpensive wines. Journal of Wine Economics, 9(2), 171–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashton, R. (2017). Dimensions of expertise in wine evaluation. Journal of Wine Economics, 12(1), 59–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bekkerman, A., and Brester, G. W. (2019). Don't judge a wine by its closure: Price premiums for corks in the U.S. wine market. Journal of Wine Economics, 14(1), 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohannon, J., Goldstein, R., and Herschkowitsch, A. (2010). Can people distinguish pâté from dog food? Chance, 23(2), 43–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, D. J. (2014). A note on deception in economic experiments. Journal of Wine Economics, 9(2), 111–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, D. D., and Holt, C. A. (1993). Experimental Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Drichoutis, A. C., Klonaris, S., and Papoutsi, G. S. (2017). Do good things come in small packages? Bottle size effects on willingness to pay for pomegranate wine and grape wine. Journal of Wine Economics, 12(1), 84–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, D., and Sunder, S. (1994). Experimental Methods: A Primer for Economists. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, R., Almenberg, J., Dreber, A., Emerson, J. W., Herschkowitsch, A., and Katz, J. (2008). Do more expensive wines taste better? Evidence from a large sample of blind tastings. Journal of Wine Economics, 3(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, J. (2018). Drink beer for science: An experiment on consumer preferences for local craft beer. Journal of Wine Economics, 13(4), 429–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, R. T. (2009). How expert are “expert” wine judges? Journal of Wine Economics, 4(2), 233–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jamison, J., Karlan, D., and Schechter, L. (2008). To deceive or not to deceive: The effect of deception on behavior in future laboratory experiments. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 68(3–4), 477–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision making under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, L., Frederick, S., and Ariely, D. (2006). Try it, you'll like it: The influence of expectation, consumption, and revelation on preferences for beer. Psychological Science, 17(12), 1054–1058.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levitt, S., and List, J. A. (2007). What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences tell us about the real world? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(2), 153–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusk, J. (2019). Viewpoint: The costs and benefits of deception in economic experiments. Food Policy, 83, 2–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luxen, M. (2018). Consensus between ratings of red Bordeaux wines by prominent critics and correlations with prices 2004–2010 and 2011–2016: Ashton revisited and expanded. Journal of Wine Economics, 13(1), 83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malone, T., and Lusk, J. L. (2019). Mitigating choice overload: An experiment in the U.S. beer market. Journal of Wine Economics, 14(1), 48–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plassmann, H., O'Doherty, J., Shiv, B., and Rangel, A. (2008). Marketing actions can modulate neural representations of experienced pleasantness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(3), 1050–1054.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed