Tasting through the lens of the mind: The impact of personality and mental health on wine sensory and psychoactive effects

Abstract

Wine is not only a widely consumed beverage but also a sensory and psychoactive experience influenced by individual characteristics. This study aims to investigate the extent to which personality traits and mental health conditions affect the perception of taste and the psychoactive effects of organic and traditional wine. Specifically, we examine whether differences in wine perception and effects can be attributed to the wine's production method or to individual psychological traits. A total of 133 regular wine consumers participated in a double-blind study, consuming both organic and traditional wine in separate sessions. They rated taste characteristics (intensity, duration, and pleasantness) and the stimulant and sedative effects of each wine. Additionally, personality traits (Big Five and Dark Triad) and mental health conditions (happiness, anxiety, and depression) were assessed to explore their impact on wine perception and effects. Results showed no significant differences in taste intensity or pleasantness between organic and traditional wine, with only a weak difference in taste duration, where traditional wine had a slightly longer-lasting flavor. However, differences emerged in wine effects: organic wine induced a higher stimulant effect, while traditional wine produced stronger sedative effects. Personality traits and mental health played a key role in shaping these effects. Machiavellianism and happiness were associated with increased stimulation for both wine types, while narcissism predicted higher stimulant effects only for organic wine. In contrast, sedative effects were linked to higher levels of narcissism and depression, with extraversion reducing sedative responses in traditional wine. These findings suggest that wine perception is not solely determined by its chemical composition but is shaped by individual psychological factors. This research highlights the importance of considering personality and mental health in understanding consumer experiences, offering insights for both the wine industry and psychological research on alcohol-related behaviors.

Graphical abstract

Highlights

• •Personality traits and mental health conditions affect the perception of taste.
• •Personality traits and mental health affect the psychoactive effects of wine.
• •Taste and psychoactive effects of organic and traditional wine were compared.
• •Machiavellianism and happiness were associated with increased stimulation.
• •Narcissism and depression were associated with increased sedation.

1. Introduction

Wine is a drink consumed in many different cultures and social contexts. It is appreciated not only for its taste, but also for its effects and the possibility to improve conviviality between persons. People drink wine also a mean to control their emotional status, worries, anxiety or depression (Weiss et al., 2018). Wine undoubtedly influences human brain function, shaping the perception of both external stimuli and internal psychological states, ultimately affecting behavior. Its effects stem from its complex chemical composition, which interacts with neural and sensory processes. While the chemical basis of wine's complexity is well recognized, individual sensory and physiological responses to wine can vary significantly (Spence, 2019; Kantono et al., 2019). This variability highlights a gap in understanding how wine's molecular properties translate into subjective sensory experiences, emphasizing the need for further research on the interplay between chemical composition, perception, and individual differences.

There are studies showing that wine perception is affected by individual differences. There could be biological reason for this differences. Individuals with higher fungiform papillae density (super-tasters) exhibit heightened sensitivity to bitterness and sourness but are also more likely to add sugar to balance tastes (Masi et al., 2015). Biological variability, in particular variation in sensory receptors, is a significant determinant of how individuals perceive flavor intensity and array (Running and Hayes, 2016).

Wine perception and taste are influenced not only by biological characteristics of drinkers, but also by contextual factors. For example, Oberfeld and colleagues found that room color influences the subjective flavor perception of wine, even when the beverage's physical properties remain unchanged (Oberfeld et al., 2009). Contextual factors like ambient lighting or background music can alter the tasting experience by emphasizing specific wine attributes-e.g., sweetness or body (Campo et al., 2021; Spence, 2020). Experience or familiarity with wine can alter its perception. People with high familiarity with bitter cocktails perceive complexity differently, showing that individual experiences shape sensory appreciation (Pierguidi et al., 2019). Wine tasting induces also emotional and physiological responses (Elali et al., 2023), with individual differences in autonomic nervous system activation (pleasantness and arousal). Therefore, wine can be considered as an “emotional object”, meaning that its perception involves subjective feelings that are beyond chemical properties (Elali et al., 2023). Some studies evidenced that there were differences in skin conductance response in individuals. These differences reflected individual emotional arousal to tastes, particularly bitterness and astringency and psychological health traits-e.g., anxiety, neuroticism-could affect sensitivity to specific tastes (Spinelli et al., 2023). Other studies showed that wine preferences are related to the personality of drinkers. Extroverts prefer acidic wines, neurotics prefer more flavorful wine and open-mined people prefer wine with persistent flavor (Burro et al., 2022). All these studies showed that wine perception and taste cannot be considered only a result of its chemical characteristics, but it appears more as a transational interaction between wine organoleptic characteristics and drinkers psychological characteristics.

Wine has not only sensorial but also psychoactive effects on individuals. Studies showed that alcohol reduce the level of serotonin and noradrenaline (Gursey and Olson, 1960) and that low doses of alcohol can activate the dopaminergic transmission in neurons (Gessa et al., 1985). The activation of dopaminergic transmission can produce drug dependence (Gessa et al., 1985). Stimulant effects dominate during rising blood alcohol curve, while sedative effects prevail during falling blood alcohol curve (Martin et al., 1993). Heavy drinkers show greater stimulant and rewarding effects and reduced sedative effects compared to light drinkers. Stimulant and rewarding effects predict further consumption during drinking sessions and increased binge drinking, highlighting individual differences in response to alcohol, while sedative effects do not (King et al., 2011). Positive evaluations of stimulation act as a reinforcing factor, particularly under anticipatory stress, showing variability in response based on individual perceptions (Corbin et al., 2008). Stimulant and sedative effects are predictive of drinking behavior, particularly binge drinking (Rueger and King, 2013). These effects are reliable and measurable (Martin et al., 1993). However, stimulant and sedative effects are also affected by individual characteristics. Impulsivity significantly influences stimulant responses to alcohol in light drinkers. High impulsivity predicts greater stimulant effects, equating light drinkers to heavy drinkers (Berey et al., 2019). This shows that individual personality traits modify responses to alcohol. Woicik and colleagues found that four personality dimensions (hopelessness, anxiety sensitivity, impulsivity, sensation seeking) correlate with specific patterns of substance use, reinforcing that personality traits play a key role in alcohol effects (Woicik et al., 2009).

In these last years, there was a steeply increase of organic wine consumption. It is estimated that organic wine consumption will have an increment of 10.4 % from 2024 to 2030 (Organic Wine Market Size, 2024). The increased preference for organic wine is due to the greater attention to environmental sustainability and to the consumption of healthier foods with lower quantities of chemical additives (Azabagaoglu et al., 2007; Mann et al., 2012). Even if there is no same meaning of “organic wine” due to different laws regulating organic wine production worldwide, fundamentally the most important characteristic is to avoid the use of synthetic chemical fertilisers and pesticides, genetically modified organism and other synthetic additives in its production (Cravero, 2019). Therefore, we decided to test the different reactions of wine consumers to organic and traditional wines. We asked participant to rate some aspects of wine taste and we analyzed the stimulant and sedative effects of both wine qualities in relation to personality traits and mental health conditions. Our principal aim is to verify if perception and reaction to wine qualities are affected by individual characteristics.

2. Method

Participants. A total of 137 participants were recruited for the study through announcements distributed by a winery specializing in organic wine production. Inclusion criteria required participants to be regular wine consumers, while abstainers, individuals with alcohol abuse issues, and those with chronic pathological conditions (e.g., diabetes, hypertension, endocrinological or liver diseases) were excluded. Table 1 presents the demographic (age, sex, education level), anthropometric (Body Mass Index – BMI), and lifestyle characteristics (e.g., wine consumption and smoking habits) of the participants.

Table 1.

Demographic characteristics (gender, age and education level), anthropometric (BMI) and consumer wine and smoking habits of participants.

Demographic characteristics
Gender	Males	53.38 %
	Females	46.62 %
Age	Mean	36.50
	SD	7.27
Education level	Secondary school-1st level	2.29 %
	Secondary school-2nd level	34.35 %
	University student or degree	63.36 %
Anthropometric characteristics
BMI	Underweight	3.01 %
	Normal weight	51.13 %
	Overweight	30.08 %
	Obese	15.79 %
Consumer wine and smoking habits
Wine consumption	less than 2/3 times per year	0.75 %
	2/3 times per year	0.75 %
	2/3 times per month	22.56 %
	2/3 times per week	56.39 %
	every day for week, but only during meals	12.03 %
	every day for week, also between meals	7.52 %
Smoking habit	Smoker	18.05 %
	No smoker	81.95 %

3. Materials

Organic and traditional wines. The organic wine used in the study contained sulfite levels of less than 10 mg/L and malic acid concentrations below 0.31 g/L. In contrast, the traditional wine had sulfite levels of 140 mg/L and malic acid concentrations between 3.03 g/L. In the Supplementary Table 1 we provided all the chemical characteristics of organic and traditional wine, also including the glucose, tartaric, lactic, citric, and succinic acids concentration. The organic wine was produced by a local winery, while the traditional wine was sourced from a local wine shop.

Wine taste perception. We asked participants to judge the taste of wine, in particular, we asked them to judge the level of duration, intensity and pleasantness of wine (Oberfeld et al., 2009). Ratings were given on a Likert scale form 1 (not at all) to 9 (very high).

Wine effects. Stimulant and sedative wine effects were assessed with the Biphasic Alcohol Effects Scale (BAES; (Martin et al., 1993).This scale consists of 24 adjectives. Seven adjectives describe the stimulating effect of wine and seven adjectives describe the sedative effect. The remaining adjectives are fillers. Participants rated the effects on a scale from 1 (labeled “not at all”) to 10 (labeled “extremely”).

Personality. We assessed the big five factors of personality (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability and openness) with the Big-Five Questionnaire Short Form (BFQ-SF; (Vecchione et al., 2023). The scale consists of 60 items on a Likert scale form 1 (absolutely false) to 5 (absolutely true). Here's a brief description of each personality trait: extraversion is the tendency to be outgoing, energetic, and sociable; agreeableness reflects a person's level of compassion, cooperation, and friendliness; conscientiousness involves being organized, responsible, and goal-oriented; emotional stability, also referred to as the opposite of neuroticism, describes the ability to remain calm, composed, and less prone to negative emotions like anxiety or mood swings; openness represents curiosity and creativity, with a preference for novelty, variety, and intellectual exploration. We also assessed the negative aspects of personality, described as Dark Triad with the Dirty Dozen (DD) scale (Chiorri et al., 2013). The DD consists of 12 items, 4 for each Dark Triad factor (Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy). Items are on a Likert scale form 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Machiavellianism is characterized by manipulation, strategic thinking, and a focus on personal gain, often at the expense of others; narcissism involves an inflated sense of self-importance, a need for admiration, and a lack of empathy; psychopathy is marked by impulsivity, a lack of remorse or empathy, and a tendency toward reckless or antisocial behavior.

Mental health. We assessed mental health with two scale that measured negative mental health conditions-anxiety and depression- and one scale that measured positive condition-subjective happiness. Anxiety was assessed with the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-Y form (STAI-Y; Ilardi et al., 2021). Y1 form, with 20 items, assesses state anxiety while Y2 form, with 2 items, assesses trait anxiety. Items are on a Likert scale form 1 (not at all) to 4 (very much). Depression was assessed with the Teate Depression Inventory (TDI; (Balsamo and Saggino, 2014). The scale has 21 items, that describes symptoms of depression perceived by subjects in the last two weeks, and items are on a Likert scale from 1 (neve) to 5 (always). Happiness was assessed with the Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS; Iani et al., 2014), and consists of four item on a Likert scale from 1 (not very happy or non at all) to 7 (very happy or completely).

Procedure. Participants consumed wine on two separate occasions (once for organic wine and once for traditional wine) with a mean interval of 34 days between sessions (range from 9 to 168 days) in a dedicated room of the local winery. After being contacted, they were asked to refrain from consuming stimulating beverages (e.g., tea, coffee) during the 3 h prior to the start of the experiment and to consume low-fat meals. The wine tasting was done by having the participants sit around a table. Each participant had their own designated station where the tasting glass was placed. The glass was made of matte black glass to prevent the participant from recognizing the color of the wine (both organic and traditional). This measure was implemented to minimize any influence of wine color on taste perception and its effects. Both organic and traditional wines were white wines (wine denomination: Pecorino). Measurements of personality traits were taken in the beginning of experimental session. Measurements of wine taste and effects were taken 20–30 min after wine consumption, because blood alcohol concentration was higher after this period of time (Schrieks et al., 2014). These assessments were administered online using the Qualtrics platform.

The volume of wine consumed was calculated based on participants' weight, averaging 0.4 g of alcohol per 1 kg of body weight, which corresponded to an average wine volume of 23.5 cl (Bisby et al., 2010; De Pirro et al., 2020; Dougherty et al., 2008). The mean quantity of wine administered was 23.5 cl. Prior to the study, participants’ BMI was assessed and compared with regional population data provided by the Italian National Institute for Statistics (ISTAT). No significant differences were found between the sample and reference population (χ² = 3.94, df = 3, p = 0.27). From the initial 137 participants, 4 were excluded due to incomplete data, resulting in a final sample of 133 participants. Table 1 reports the principal demographic, anthropometrics and wine consumption characteristics of the 133 participants.

The study followed a double-blind protocol, ensuring that neither participants nor researchers knew the type of wine being administered during each session. Participant privacy was protected in compliance with Italian and European regulations (Italian Law n. 196/2003; EU GDPR 679/2016). The research adhered to the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the regional ethical committee for biomedical research (Protocol Code: rich5u5wi, January 14, 2020). Informed consent forms were signed by all participants, detailing the study's aims, potential risks, privacy guarantees, and data ownership.

Statistical analyses. Descriptive (mean, standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis) were calculated for all measures. Skewnesses and kurtoses between ±2 indicate normal distribution of data (Gravetter and Wallnau, 2014). Bayesian paired t-tests were conducted to assess differences in mean ratings of taste and effects between organic and traditional wines. Bayesian factors (BF₁₀) were interpreted as follows: BF₁₀ > 1 (weak evidence for the alternative hypothesis), BF₁₀ > 3 (moderate evidence), and BF₁₀ > 10 (strong evidence). Bayesian regression analyses were done to define which are the best predictors of wine taste and wine effects among personality traits and mental health components. Assuming a medium effect size (f = 0.15), α = 0.05, and 1–β = 0.80, a minimum of 123 participants was determined to be sufficient. In case of identical significant predictors between organic and traditional wine, with a path analysis we estimated the statistical difference between model coefficients to analyze if predictors have the same weight in predicting wine taste and effects. We also estimated goodness-of-fit indexes of the path model. For an acceptable fit of the model, we should obtain RMSEA <0.80 (lower limit of 90 % RMSEA confidence interval <0.80), CFI >0.95, TLI >0.95 and SRMR <0.50 (Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003). Statistical analyses were performed using JASP (version 0.18.1.0) for Bayesian t-tests and Bayesian regressions were done using Rstudio and BAS and Lavaan Packages.

4. Results

Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, skewnesses and kurtoses) for demographic, anthropometrics and wine consumption characteristics and for all measures of personality traits and mental health. All skewnesses and kurtoses values are between ±2.

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, skewness amd kurtosis) of wine taste, effect and measures of individual differences. Reliabilities (Cronbach's α and McDonald's ω) of individual differences are also reported.

Wine taste and effects	Wine type	Mean	SD	Skewness	Kurtosis	Cronbach's α	McDonald's ω
taste duration	organic	5.218	1.955	−0.447	−0.465
	traditional	5.677	1.952	−0.621	−0.168
taste intensity	organic	5.241	1.888	−0.491	−0.547
	traditional	5.496	1.869	−0.609	0.072
taste pleasantness	organic	4.805	2.200	0.006	−0.816
	traditional	4.887	2.376	−0.356	−0.870
stimulant effect	organic	35.805	12.581	−0.159	−0.346
	traditional	33.564	12.665	−0.044	−0.749
sedative effect	organic	15.248	8.373	1.276	1.312
	traditional	16.797	9.346	0.978	0.609

Measures
Ext	38.278	6.494	−0.404	0.166	0.772	0.832
Agr	43.135	5.270	−0.296	0.173	0.685	0.750
Cos	45.038	5.825	0.109	−0.225	0.792	0.856
Sta	37.782	8.732	0.005	−0.269	0.891	0.916
Ope	46.353	6.095	−0.482	0.507	0.789	0.858
Mac	7.594	4.090	1.379	1.806	0.787	0.791
Nar	14.128	5.436	−0.230	−0.841	0.760	0.780
Psy	10.256	3.948	0.629	0.155	0.477	0.509
Dep	23.722	11.711	0.617	0.051	0.934	0.948
Anx	39.617	8.959	0.276	−0.433	0.914	0.929
Hap	19.564	4.373	−0.475	−0.166	0.786	0.806

Note: Ext = extraversion; Agr = agreeableness; Cos = conscientiousness; Sta = emotional stability; Ope = openness; Mac = Machiavellianism; Nar = narcissism; Psy = psychopathy; Dep = depression; Anx = anxiety; hap = happiness; SD = standard deviation.

Table 3 summarizes the results of the Bayesian paired t-tests for wine tastes and effects.

Table 3.

Bayesian paired samples t-tests and repeated ANOVA results.

Bayesian Paired Samples T-Test
Measures	BF10	error %	max BF10
duration taste	1.053	0.022	2.328
intensity taste	0.208	0.092	0.999
pleasantness taste	0.101	0.174	0.996
stimulation effect	1.455	0.016	3.002
sedative effect	1.033	0.022	2.294

In relation to wine tastes, there is only a weak evidence for the alternative hypothesis for taste duration. The taste of traditional win tend to have a longer duration in comparison with that of organic wine. No significant differences were found for taste intensity and pleasantness between the two wines. In relation to wine effects, a weak or moderate evidence was found for stimulant effect. Organic wine showed a lower stimulant effect in relation to traditional wine. There is a weak evidence that organic wine tends to have higher sedative effect in comparison to traditional wine. Fig. 1 shows the mean rating graphs for wine components of taste (duration, intensity and pleasantness) and for wine effects (stimulant and sedative effects).

Fig. 1.

Marginal inclusion probability plots of predictors for wine taste for organic and traditional wines. Note: Ext = extraversion; Agr = agreeableness; Cos = conscientiousness; Sta = emotional stability; Ope = openness; Mac = Machiavellianism; Nar = narcissism; Psy = psychopathy; Dep = depression; Anx = anxiety; hap = happiness.

Table 4 shows the Bayesian regression analyses for wine taste and effects.

Table 4.

Bayesian regression analyses for wine taste and effects. Marginal inclusion probabilities for each predictors, posterior probabilities and explained variance (R²) are reported both for organic and traditional wine.

	Dependent variables
	duration		intensity		pleasantness		stimulation		sedation
	O	T	O	T	O	T	O	T	O	T
Intercept	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000
Ext	0.149	0.121	0.147	0.102	0.136	0.137	0.144	0.137	0.439	0.949
Agr	0.483	0.111	0.166	0.105	0.136	0.205	0.218	0.220	0.135	0.495
Cos	0.164	0.147	0.194	0.143	0.125	0.132	0.148	0.270	0.219	0.260
Sta	0.750	0.176	0.652	0.144	0.422	0.162	0.147	0.202	0.156	0.225
Ope	0.481	0.374	0.132	0.127	0.132	0.318	0.199	0.298	0.136	0.155
Mac	0.205	0.108	0.133	0.109	0.142	0.144	0.778	0.957	0.303	0.158
Nar	0.143	0.106	0.122	0.138	0.395	0.380	0.549	0.175	0.615	0.960
Psy	0.136	0.106	0.134	0.101	0.131	0.246	0.183	0.140	0.359	0.180
Dep	0.147	0.165	0.127	0.101	0.156	0.186	0.162	0.207	0.965	0.761
Anx	0.159	0.115	0.141	0.137	0.195	0.146	0.212	0.199	0.176	0.242
Hap	0.194	0.108	0.128	0.127	0.760	0.891	0.862	0.541	0.135	0.245
Posterior Prob.	0.070	0.216	0.149	0.321	0.093	0.107	0.080	0.097	0.065	0.095
R2	0.046	0.000	0.045	0.000	0.047	0.070	0.120	0.086	0.209	0.256

Note: Ext = extraversion; Agr = agreeableness; Cos = conscientiousness; Sta = emotional stability; Ope = openness; Mac = Machiavellianism; Nar = narcissism; Psy = psychopathy; Dep = depression; Anx = anxiety; hap = happiness; O = organic wine; T = traditional wine.

Fig. 1, Fig. 2 show the marginal inclusion probability of predictors for wine taste and effects.

Fig. 2.

Marginal inclusion probability plots of predictors for wine effects for organic and traditional wines. Note: Ext = extraversion; Agr = agreeableness; Cos = conscientiousness; Sta = emotional stability; Ope = openness; Mac = Machiavellianism; Nar = narcissism; Psy = psychopathy; Dep = depression; Anx = anxiety; hap = happiness.

In relation to wine taste, emotional stability predicts duration and intensity only for organic wine. Happiness predicts taste pleasantness both for organic and traditional wine.

In relation to wine effects, Machiavellianism and Happiness predict stimulant effect both for organic and traditional wine, while narcissism predicts stimulant effects only for organic wine. Narcissism and Depression predict sedative effect bot for organic and traditional wine. Extraversion predicts sedative effect only for traditional wine.

Fig. 3 shows the path diagram model of significant predictors of wine taste and effects for organic and traditional wine. Global fit indexes indicate an acceptable fit of the model (RMSEA = 0.036; 90 % RMSEA between 0.0 and 0.075; CFI = 0.983; TLI = 0.961; SRMR = 0.038). Welch's t-tests reveal no significant differences between the regression model coefficients for pleasantness and happiness (z = −0.303, p = 0.762). Similarly, the differences in regression coefficients for the effect of stimulation on Machiavellianism and happiness are not significant (z = −1.566, p = 0.117; z = 1.031, p = 0.302). Likewise, no significant differences are found in the regression coefficients for the effect of sedation on narcissism and depression (z = −1.206, p = 0.228; z = 1.158, p = 0.247). These findings indicate that pleasantness is influenced by happiness to a similar extent in both organic and traditional wine. Likewise, the stimulation effect is similarly influenced by Machiavellianism and happiness, and the sedative effect is equally affected by narcissism and depression in both wine types.

Fig. 3.

Path diagram of the path analysis between predicting variables of personality traits (Machiavellianism, narcissism, extraversion and emotional stability) and mental health conditions (happiness and depression) and dependent variables of taste components (intensity, duration, pleasantness) and wine effects (stimulation and sedative effect), Standardized coefficient of paths and residuals (in ellipses) are reported. ∗ = p significant at 0.05 level; ∗∗ = p significant at 0.01 level; ∗∗∗ = p significant at 0.001 level.

5. Discussion

Our study yields several key conclusions, which we discuss in relation to differences in taste and effects between organic and traditional wine.

Differences in Wine Taste. Our analysis, particularly Bayesian t-tests, revealed only a slight difference in taste duration, with traditional wine exhibiting a longer taste duration than organic wine. However, no significant differences were found in taste intensity or pleasantness.

Taste intensity and duration in organic wine were influenced by emotional stability—individuals with higher emotional stability tended to perceive wine as less intense and with a shorter duration. Pleasantness, for both organic and traditional wine, was affected by individual happiness levels, with happier individuals rating the wine taste as more pleasant. Path analysis confirmed that the influence of happiness on wine pleasantness was consistent across both wine types. Pleasantness may be affected by higher residual sugar in wine (Sena-Esteves et al., 2018). However, in our case, the influence of glucose on wine perception is unlikely to be significant, as its levels were very low (see Supplementary Table 1), with no meaningful differences between the two.

Differences in Wine Effects. Bayesian t-tests indicated a moderate difference in stimulant effects and a slight difference in sedative effects between organic and traditional wine. Organic wine produced a stronger stimulant effect and a weaker sedative effect compared to traditional wine. Various personality traits and mental health characteristics influenced the stimulant effects of wine. For organic wine, stimulation was affected by Machiavellianism, narcissism, and happiness, whereas for traditional wine, only Machiavellianism and happiness played a role. Path analysis confirmed that the impact of Machiavellianism and happiness on stimulation was equivalent across both wine types. Higher levels of these traits corresponded to a greater stimulation effect after consumption. Similarly, personality traits and mental health characteristics influenced the sedative effects of wine. For organic wine, narcissism and depression significantly contributed to sedative effects, with higher levels of these traits resulting in stronger sedation. In traditional wine, extraversion also played a role, in addition to narcissism and depression. However, the relationship between extraversion and sedation was negative—higher extraversion levels were associated with a weaker sedative effect. Path analysis found no significant differences in the coefficients of common predictors of sedative effects between organic and traditional wine.

We did not found consistent differences in taste perception between organic and traditional wine, except for a weak difference of taste duration. In relation to wine effects, we found a moderate difference for stimulant effects and a weak difference of the sedative effect between the two types of wine. In particular, organic wine showed a higher stimulant effect and a lower sedative effect in relation to the traditional one. Stimulant effects of wine are related to dopaminergic transmission in neurons (Gessa et al., 1985) and sedative effects are related to serotoninergic transmission (Gursey and Olson, 1960).

Serotonin appears to play a complex role in alcohol craving and dependence. The evidence presented suggests that increased serotonin activity, in certain contexts, may contribute to anxiety and craving behaviors in individuals with alcohol use disorder (Uhl et al., 2019). Dopamine plays a complex and dual role in alcohol craving and dependence. Addictive drugs, including alcohol, increase dopamine levels in the nucleus accumbens, a key region for reward processing and the rewarding effects of dopamine activation in the brain contribute to initial drug use and reinforcement (Uhl et al., 2019). However, D1 receptors of dopamine are associated with reward and conditioning mechanisms that involve areas such as the amygdala and hippocampus (Volkow and Morales, 2015), while, in animal studies, increasing dopamine D2 receptor expression in the nucleus accumbens reduced alcohol consumption (Thanos et al., 2004). This suggests that targeting dopamine D2 receptors might have therapeutic potential in reducing alcohol dependence and cravings. The serotonin agonist metachlorophenylpiperazine has been shown to induce alcohol cravings in individuals with alcohol use disorder while serotonin reuptake inhibitors (fluoxetine and sertraline) treatment can increase anxiety and alcohol consumption in some individuals with alcohol use disorder (Uhl et al., 2019). Our results indicate that while organic wine may have a greater dopaminergic effect, it also exhibits a lower sedative impact. According to Koob, negative reinforcement strengthen the addictive behavior, in particular, the withdrawal from abused substances, for example alcohol, activates the corticotropin-releasing factor in the extended amygdala, and the search of the substance is targeted to reduce stress condition (Koob, 2006). Research in animals showed that corticotropin-releasing factor antagonists decrease alcohol intake in alcohol-dependent rats (Funk et al., 2006). Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors work by increasing serotonin availability, which can help stabilize mood and improve stress resilience (Koob, 2006). Therefore, it is reasonable to think that lower reduction of serotonin in organic wine can reduce the probability to develop higher stress in case of alcohol withdrawal and, therefore, the chronic craving for this substance.

Wine effects are affected by personality traits and mental health characteristics of individuals. In relation to trait personalities, our results evidenced that both for organic and traditional wine Machiavellianism predicts and increment of stimulation effect. For organic wine, also narcissism predicts and increment of stimulation effect, as well. Narcissism predicts and increment of sedative effect both for organic and traditional wine. For traditional wine, extraversion had a negative relation with sedative effect: individuals with higher level of extraversion tend to perceive lower sedative effects. In relation to menta health characteristics, individuals with higher levels of happiness tend to perceive a higher stimulating effect, both for organic and traditional wine and individuals with higher levels of depression tend to perceive higher sedative effects, both for organic and traditional wine.

Our findings indicate that the taste characteristics of organic and traditional wine do not significantly differ, suggesting that consumer preferences may not be strongly influenced by the wine's production method. However, we observed weak to moderate differences in the stimulation and sedative effects of the two wine types. Specifically, organic wine tended to have a higher stimulating effect, while traditional wine exhibited a stronger sedative effect. These differences in wine-induced effects appear to be influenced by individual characteristics, particularly personality traits and mental health conditions. This suggests that the subjective experience of wine consumption is not solely determined by its objective properties but also by the psychological and physiological state of the consumer. Our results align with previous research (Berey et al., 2019; Burro et al., 2022; Spinelli et al., 2023; Woicik et al., 2009), reinforcing the idea that wine perception and its psychophysical effects are closely tied to individual differences.

This study has some limitations. The restricted geographical sampling may limit the generalizability of our findings, as regional variations in wine production and consumption habits could influence the results. Additionally, the complex chemical composition of wine makes it challenging to isolate the specific effects of individual components. Future studies should aim to systematically investigate the contributions of various wine constituents to taste characteristics and individual reactions to organic and traditional wine.

Future research should further explore the interaction between wine consumption, personality traits, and mental health to better understand how these factors shape individual experiences. Additionally, investigating potential underlying mechanisms, such as the role of specific compounds in organic versus traditional wine, could provide deeper insights into their distinct effects. We acknowledge that a prior sensory characterization of the wines could have provided additional context for interpreting our findings. However, our primary focus was to compare the perception and effects of organic and traditional wine as experienced by consumers, without introducing potential biases from pre-established sensory profiles. Future studies could benefit from incorporating a detailed sensory analysis to further explore the relationship between wine composition and consumer perception. Also factors such as seasonality, weather conditions, and geographical location could influence wine perception and consumption preferences. While these aspects were beyond the scope of the present study, investigating how environmental and cultural factors interact with individual psychological traits in shaping wine perception would be a valuable extension of this work. Understanding these dynamics could have practical implications for the wine industry and consumers alike, helping to tailor wine choices based on personal preferences and psychological well-being.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Marco Tommasi: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft. Simone Arnò: Investigation, Data curation, Software. Chiara di Marcantonio: Investigation, Data curation. Laura Picconi: Methodology, Validation. Maria Rita Sergi: Investigation, Validation. Aristide Saggino: Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing.

Funding

This work was supported by Project “VINOSOPHIA” – PON Imprese e competitività 2014–2020, Asse I, Azione 1.1.3 - Prog n. F/200083/03/X45 – CUP: B71B20000130005 - COR: 1622519. Research and development project carried out with the co-financing of the European Union – FESR, PON Enterprises and Competitiveness 2014–2020″ and the Italian Ministry of Economic Development, in collaboration with the company Chiusa Grande and Made in Bio srl.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Handling Editor: A.G. Marangoni

Appendix A. Supplementary data

The following is the Supplementary data to this article:

Data availability

I have shared the link to my data