Food Research International 147 (2021) 110534

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Research International

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodres

Carbonated emotions: Consumers’ sensory perception and emotional

response to carbonated and still fruit juices
Sophie Barker, Rachael Moss, Matthew B. McSweeney *
School of Nutrition and Dietetics, Acadia University, Wolfville, Nova Scotia, Canada

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The global carbonated beverage market is large, and consumers like the oral irritation (ex. burning or prickling)
Carbonation associated with carbonated beverages. This study’s first objective was to identify the effect of carbonation on
Fruit juices consumers’ liking and sensory perception of fruit juices (apple, cherry, and blueberry). The secondary aim was to
Check all that apply
evaluate consumers’ emotional responses to carbonated fruit juices. The first trial asked consumers (n = 103) to
Emotions
Consumer perceptions
use check-all-that-apply (CATA) and nine-point hedonic scales to evaluate six fruit juices (three carbonated and
three non-carbonated). In the second trial, consumers (n = 107) were asked to evaluate the pictures of the same
juices using the CATA variant of EsSense25 Profile® and a purchase intent scale. The consumers were also asked
to identify what they like and dislike about carbonated beverages using an open-ended comment question. The
first trial demonstrated that flavour significantly affected the overall liking scores but also identified that
carbonation increased the overall liking of the blueberry and apple juices (p < 0.05). In the emotional response
trial, the participants did not separate the samples based on carbonation, but rather separated the blueberry
juices from the cherry and apple juices. The penalty lift analysis identified that when positive emotions were
selected, the participants’ purchase intent increased. Lastly, the consumers identified they like mouthfeel and
flavour-enhancing qualities of carbonated beverages and associated them with special events. However, the
participants disliked beverages that are too carbonated or flat and associated carbonated beverages with negative
physical sensations and health perceptions. Overall, the flavour was more important than if the beverage was
carbonated or not and purchase intent scores increased when positive emotions were perceived. Future research
should investigate how emotions affect purchase intent, how participant’s familiarity affects the emotions they
select and evaluate how carbonation affects other beverages.

1. Introduction
The global carbonated beverage market is large and includes soft
drinks, energy drinks, fruit-flavoured drinks, colas, ginger ales and
beers, ready-to-drink iced teas and coffees, soda waters, and tonic waters
(Schram et al., 2015). A carbonated beverage is defined as any drink that
contains carbon dioxide. As the beverage is consumed, the carbon di­
oxide is converted into carbonic acid by carbonic anhydrase activity,
allowing carbonic acid to react with the tongue, which leads to a tri­
geminal sensation or oral irritation (Dessirier, Simons, Carstens,
O’Mahony, & Carstens, 2000). Trigeminal sensations include cooling
and irritation based on the trigeminal nerve (Carstens et al., 2002).
Trigeminal sensations are important in the acceptability of food and
carbonated beverages (Carstens et al., 2002). Carbonation perception
can be defined as the overall perception of sensations in the oral and
nasal cavity, including stinging, burning, prickling, tingling, mouth burn
and irritation (Carstens et al., 2002). These sensations are classified as
enjoyable characteristics in carbonated beverages (Carstens et al.,
2002). Also, consumer perception of carbonation changes based on the
serving temperature. As the temperature decreases there is a greater
perception of carbonation (Green, 1992; Harper & McDaniel, 1993)
Tastes are also impacted based on the carbonation of the beverage
(Leksrisompong, Lopetcharat, Guthrie, & Drake, 2012). Carbonation has
been found to enhance the saltiness or sourness of a beverage and inhibit
other tastes and flavours (Green, 1996). Furthermore, carbonation de­
creases sweet taste perception (Saint-Eve et al., 2010), and sweet tastes
have a suppressive influence on carbonation (Hewson, Hollowood,
Chandra, & Hort, 2009). Carbonation has also been found to increase
consumers’ perception of bitterness (Hewson et al., 2009). Carbonated
beverages can be evaluated by auditory cues (Zampini & Spence, 2005)

* Corresponding author at: School of Nutrition and Dietetics, Acadia University, 15 University Ave, Wolfville, NS B4P 2R6, Canada.
E-mail address: matthew.mcsweeney@acadiau.ca (M.B. McSweeney).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2021.110534
Received 11 April 2021; Received in revised form 12 June 2021; Accepted 14 June 2021
Available online 17 June 2021
0963-9969/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Barker et al.
and based on their appearance of the bubbles in the product (Lynch &
Bamforth, 2002). Carbonation has also impacted aroma perception,
including enhancing the aroma of mint beverages (Saint-Eve et al.,
2009) and increasing the overall aroma intensity of blueberry flavoured
milk (Yau, McDaniel, & Bodyfelt, 1989).
Research has shown that people enjoy carbonated beverages, and the
carbonation sensation is perceived as pleasurable and sought after by
consumers, although it is also considered an oral irritation (Dessirier
et al., 2000). Carbonated beverages are commonplace, day-to-day drinks
for consumers, and they are a staple of the modern culinary repertoire
(ranging from sparkling water to soft drinks to wine and beer) (Johnson,
Gerson, Hershcovici, Stave, & Fass, 2010). Specifically, carbonation at
appropriate levels in dairy products has been found to improve sensory
properties (Newbold & Koppel, 2018). Also, carbonation has been found
to drive consumer liking of orange juice products (Kim, Lee, Kwak, &
Kang, 2013). Fruit juices are considered excellent sources of energy,
fibre and nutrients and are consumed by all age groups (Rolim, Hu, &
Gänzle, 2019). Fruit juices are also sources of polyphenolic compounds
and carotenoids (Zielinski et al., 2014) and many consumers include
them as part of their daily diet. As consumers continue to incorporate
different fruit juices in their diet, there is a need to evaluate how
carbonation affects consumer perception. Carbonation is well liked by
consumers, but its’ effect on the acceptability and emotional response on
fruit juices is not well studied.
Firstly, this study wanted to look at how carbonation affects con­
sumer liking of fruit juices and determine if carbonation affects con­
sumers’ perception of the sensory properties. The first phase of the study
used nine-point hedonic scales and check-all-that-apply (CATA). CATA
has gained popularity in the sensory evaluation field due to its
simplicity, quickness, and ease of use for consumers (Ares, Barreiro,
Deliza, Giménez, & Gámbaro, 2010). During the CATA task, consumers
are presented with a list of terms and are asked to select all the terms
they perceive in the product (Ares, Dauber, Fernández, Giménez, &
Varela, 2014). Each term’s relevance is then determined by calculating
its frequency of use (Ares et al., 2014). With the results of a nine-point
hedonic scale asking about overall liking, a penalty analysis can then
be completed to determine how the deviations reduce much overall
liking in the sensory profiles (Ares et al., 2014; Plaehn, 2012).
The second part of this study sought to evaluate which emotions
consumers apply to carbonated drinks and identify the relationship
between emotions and purchase intent of carbonated beverages. Interest
has been growing in measuring product-related emotions (Jaeger &
Hedderley, 2013). This growth is based on findings that consumers’
choice and consumption behaviours have a significant emotional
component (Oh & Yoon, 2014). One of the methods used to evaluate
consumers emotions is the EsSense Profile®, which features 39 emotion
words (King & Meiselman, 2010). The EsSense Profile® is usually
applied by asking consumers to rate the intensity of 39 emotion words
(King & Meiselman, 2010); however, it has been shown that a CATA-
variant of the EsSense Profile® can also be used (Jaeger et al., 2018).
The ratings of each emotion word provide high discrimination, but they
may lead to consumers not experiencing certain words and rating them
as “slight” or “moderate”, which will not add much product insight
(Jaeger, Cardello, & Schutz, 2013). Also, scales have been reported to
lead to analytical responses that can override consumers’ ability to
evaluate products (Prescott, Lee, & Kim, 2011). The CATA variant al­
lows the researcher to overcome some of these limitations and requires
less cognitive effort from the participants (Jaeger et al., 2018).
Furthermore, the EsSense Profile® has been shortened to 25 words,
called EsSense25, an efficient and valid method (Nestrud, Meiselman,
King, Lesher, & Cardello, 2016). This study will use a CATA variant of
the EsSense25 version of the EsSense Profile®.
As such, the aim of this study is to determine the effect of carbonation
on consumers’ liking, sensory perception and emotional response to fruit
juices. Firstly, consumers evaluated their liking and sensory perception
of carbonated and still fruit juice using CATA and nine-point hedonic
2
Food Research International 147 (2021) 110534
scales. Secondly, consumers evaluated their emotional response, using
the CATA variant of the EsSense25, to carbonated and still fruit juices.
Consumers also evaluated their purchase intent using a five-point Likert
scale. Lastly, the study evaluated what consumers like or dislike about
carbonated beverages using open ended comment questions. This study
determined which emotions consumers apply to carbonated drinks and
identified the relationship between emotions and acceptability in
carbonated beverages. It also determined how emotional responses
relate to consumers’ purchase intent.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Samples and sample presentation
Six different samples were evaluated in the consumer acceptability
and the emotional response trial. Three different flavours (apple, cherry
and blueberry) were evaluated as still (not carbonated) juice, and three
were evaluated as carbonated beverages. All carbonated beverages were
at a level of 15 PSI at 2 ◦ C and were provided by a local company. The
carbonation level is similar to commercially available sparkling waters.
All samples were stored in the fridge (4 ◦ C) until 5 min before testing
began, when they were removed from the refrigerator. The amount of
each sample was 50 mL. Each bottle contained 250 mL of juice, and five
servings were poured from each bottle. The bottles all had a screw top
closure and were opened slowly, without shaking. The samples were
poured slowly, similar to how you pour a beer from a bottle to a glass,
approximately 30 s before being served to the panellists. Each sample
was closed immediately after pouring and sealed with Parafilm to reduce
the potential loss of carbonation. The serving temperature was
approximately 5.5 ◦ C. The samples were presented in a small, clear
standard ISO wine glass. For the consumer acceptability trial, each
sample was presented one at a time in random order and was labelled
with random three-digit codes on the ISO wine glass and a placemat. The
participants were asked to take a normal to full-sized amount of the
sample. Each participant was also provided with a glass of filtered water
to cleanse their palates.
2.2. Participants
Participants were recruited from the Annapolis Valley, Nova Scotia
community and were recruited using posted advertisements and word of
mouth. All participants (Table 1) were asked if they had consumed juice
in the last two weeks and if they regularly bought and consumed juice,
and if so, they were invited to participate in the trial. The participants’
demographics were assessed in a questionnaire and presented in Table 1.
A total of 103 participants completed the consumer acceptability trial,
and 107 participants completed the emotional response trial.
2.3. Consumer acceptability trial
Approval for the study (both trials) was received from the Acadia
University Research Ethics Board (REB 13-72). The testing was
completed in individual sensory booths on computers using Compusense
Cloud software (Guelph, Ontario, Canada). The trials took place in
booths under white fluorescent light, at a temperature of 25 ◦ C, and in a
ventilated area. Before starting the testing, a consent form containing
information about the study, the purpose, and the ingredients was
provided. Participants were asked to rate the appearance, flavour,
mouthfeel (all tactile (feel) properties perceived from the time the
beverage was placed in the mouth until they swallowed), and overall
liking of each sample using a nine-point hedonic scale (1 = Dislike
Extremely to 9 = Like Extremely). Participants were then asked to com­
plete a CATA questionnaire. The descriptors included in the CATA
questionnaire were based on a literature review (Ares, Varela, Rado, &
Giménez, 2011; Kappes et al., 2006, 2007; Leksrisompong et al., 2012;
McMahon, Culver, Castura, & Ross, 2017; Nascimento, Tavares,
S. Barker et al. Food Research International 147 (2021) 110534

Table 1 2.5. Statistical analysis

Demographic details for the consumer acceptability and emotional response
trial. 2.5.1. Consumer acceptability trial
Consumer Acceptability Emotional Response A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), where participant was a
Trial (n ¼ 103) Trial (n ¼ 107) random factor and sample was a fixed factor, followed by a Tukey’s
Characteristics Sample Population (%) Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test was completed to determine
any significant differences in overall liking and liking of flavour,
Age
19–20 7 6 mouthfeel, or appearance among the samples. The frequency of attri­
21–29 29 30 butes identified by participants for each sample was summed from the
30–39 11 12 CATA question. A contingency table was used to summarize each de­
40–49 18 17 scriptor’s frequency choice across all of the participants. Cochran’s Q
50–59 20 22
60–65 15 13
test was used to establish the difference between the frequencies of the
different samples for each descriptor. Correspondence analysis was
Gender
performed on the total frequency count of the attributes for each product
Male 30 31
Female 70 69 in order to identify relationships between the attributes and the samples.
Prefer not to say 0 0 A penalty lift analysis was carried out following the procedure by
Meyners and Castura (2016). All analyses were completed using XLSTAT
Income
Less than $25,000 20 18 software (Version 2020.2, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) in Microsoft ExcelTM.
$25,000-$44,999 13 15
$45,000-$64,999 12 10 2.5.2. Emotional responses
$65,000-$99,999 20 21
An two-way ANOVA (factors: samples and participants) with par­
$100,000-$149,000 7 7
$150,000+ 8 7
ticipants as random factor, followed by a Tukey’s HSD test was
Prefer not to say 20 22 completed to determine any significant differences in liking among the
different samples. The frequency of use of each emotional term used by
Education
Some High School 5 5 the participants to describe each sample was calculated. Cochran’s Q
High School Graduate 16 18 test was used to identify significant differences among the samples for
Some Post-Secondary 23 23 each of the emotional terms included in the CATA question. If there was
Post-Secondary 19 20 a significant difference among the attributes, then post-hoc multiple
Certificate or Diploma
Bachelor’s Degree 27 26
pairwise comparisons were conducted using McNemar’s test with Bon­
Above Bachelor’s Degree 10 8 ferroni alpha adjustment. Correspondence analysis was performed on
the total frequency count of the emotions for each product in order to
identify relationships between the emotions and the samples (Ng,
Meireles, dos Anjos, de Andrade, Machado, & da Souza, 2020; Tan, Wee, Chaya, & Hort, 2013). A penalty lift analysis was carried out following
Tomic, & Forde, 2019; Varela, Ares, Giménez, & Gámbaro, 2010) and the procedure by Meyners and Castura (2016); however, it was adapted
evaluations by research assistants who are experienced in sensory by using the purchase intent scale instead of overall liking. All analyses
analysis evaluating the samples (sweet, bitter, bland taste, intense taste, were completed using XLSTAT software (Version 2020.2, New York, N.
fruity, astringent, floral, cloudy, clear, earthy, sour, carbonated, still, Y., U.S.A.) in Microsoft ExcelTM.
watery, thick, bite, burn, body, mouthcoating, aftertaste). To account for The participant’s responses to the open-ended comment questions
possible CATA attributes order bias, terms were randomized based on were visualized using the Comment Visualization tools (Word Cloud and
the procedure suggested by Meyners and Castura (2016). The partici­ Text Network) in the Compusense Cloud software. Additionally, the
pants were instructed to check or click all of the attributes they felt were procedure by Fonseca et al. (2016) was followed to refine the responses
appropriate to describe the sample. The participants were also asked to to the open-ended comment questions. The procedure included a)
describe what they liked and disliked about the samples in an open- verifying spelling and correcting grammatical mistakes; b) removing
ended comment question. The participants finished the trial by connectors and auxiliary terms; c) reducing derivatives of the same
answering demographic questions. term; and d) grouping synonyms together. Lastly, recurring themes and
key concepts in the responses were identified. Results were also dis­
2.4. Emotional responses cussed among the authors to reach a consensus.

The participants first completed an informed consent form. The
participants were then presented with a picture of the samples described
above and a description. The participants completed a CATA question
containing the 25 emotional terms in the EsSense25 Profile® (Nestrud
et al., 2016). The question was worded as “How do you expect to feel
after drinking this product? Check or click all that apply” (Jaeger et al.,
2018). The participants were also asked their purchase intent for each
sample ranging from “1 = Definitely will not buy” to “5 = Definitely will
buy.” Then, the participants were asked to describe what they liked and
disliked about the samples in an open-ended comment question. The
participants were also asked open-ended comment questions about their
likes and dislikes of carbonated beverages, as well as demographic
questions. The questionnaire was presented using Compusense Cloud
software (Guelph, Ontario, Canada).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Consumer acceptability trial
The mean hedonic scores are listed in Table 2. The carbonation did
not significantly affect the liking of the juices’ appearance and flavour
when comparing the juices to the carbonated juice (sparkling). How­
ever, it did affect the liking of the mouthfeel and the overall liking of the
juices. The blueberry juices’ appearance was liked significantly less than
the sparkling cherry juice and the apple juices (p < 0.05), while the
cherry juice flavour was liked significantly less than all other juices in
the sensory trial (p < 0.05). Although the participants’ familiarity with
each drink was not evaluated in this study, the participants may not have
been familiar with cherry juice. The carbonation did improve the con­
sumers’ liking of the flavour as the sparkling cherry juice was liked
significantly more than the non-carbonated cherry juice (p < 0.05). The
liking of the mouthfeel increased for all juices when they were carbon­
ated, and the sparkling blueberry juice and sparkling cherry juice were

3
S. Barker et al. Food Research International 147 (2021) 110534

Table 2
Consumer mean liking scores for appearance, flavour, mouthfeel and overall liking.
Juice Appearance Flavour Mouthfeel Overall Liking
1,2,3
Blueberry Juice Mean+/- Standard Deviation 6.4a +/-1.1 7.1a +/-1.2 6.0a +/-0.8 6.9a +/-1.2
Sparkling Blueberry Juice Mean+/- Standard Deviation 6.8a +/-1.2 7.6a +/-0.9 7.6b +/-0.9 7.8b +/-1.0
Cherry Juice Mean+/- Standard Deviation 7.3ab +/-0.1 5.5b +/-0.8 5.3a +/-1.2 5.5c +/-1.2
Sparkling Cherry Juice Mean+/- Standard Deviation 7.8b +/-0.2 6.3c +/- 1.0 6.4c +/-1.1 6.1c +/-1.0
Apple Juice Mean+/- Standard Deviation 7.9b +/-0.2 7.2a +/-1.0 7.0bc +/-1.3 7.2a +/-0.9
Sparkling Apple Juice Mean+/- Standard Deviation 8.3b +/- 0.2 7.8a +/-0.9 8.0b +/-1.2 8.2b +/-0.7
1
n = 103.
2
Means in the same column, with the same letter, are not significantly different at α = 0.05.
3
Data input on the 9-point hedonic scale, where 1 = Dislike Extremely, 5 = Neither Like or Dislike, and 9 = Like Extremely.

significantly higher than their non-carbonated counterparts (p < 0.05).

The juices’ overall liking also increased when they were carbonated, and
the sparkling versions of the blueberry and apple juice were liked Fruity
significantly more than the non-carbonated versions (p < 0.05).
Carbonation has been linked to the thirst-quenching qualities of drinks,
mainly alcoholic beverages (McEwan & ColwiII, 1996) and consumers
like beverages when thirst-quenching (Guinard, Souchard, Picot,
Sweet
Rogeaux, & Sieffermann, 1998). However, participants in this study
were not asked if they believed the samples were thirst-quenching.
Future studies should ask participants to evaluate the thirst-quenching
properties of fruit juices.
Watery
The results of the CATA question were analyzed using correspon­
dence analysis (CA), as seen in Fig. 1. The CA map dimensions explained
91.8% of the experimental variability, 62.7% on the first dimension, and
29.1% on the second dimension. The first dimension separated the juice
based on their flavour attributes, including citrus, lemon, fruity, and Bland

sweet on the positive side with bland, floral, and earthy on the negative
side. Additionally, the first dimension separated the juices based on their
appearance, cloudy on the positive side, and watery (which could also
be considered a flavour) and clear on the negative side. Furthermore, the
body attribute was situated very close to the cloudy attribute, which
may be because cloudy beverages are associated with having more body,
like a wheat beer (Xu, Guo, Du, & Zhang, 2018). A study on apple juices
by Włodarska, Pawlak-Lemańska, Górecki, and Sikorska (2016) identi­
fied that cloudy apple juices were not as well-liked as clear apple juices.
This result was not found in this study, as the cloudy attribute did not
detract from the apple juice’s liking. However, this study did not
investigate a variety of different apple juices. The first dimension
separated the apple juices from the cherry juices, while the blueberry
juice was in the middle.
Combining these results with those in the penalty lift analysis (Fig. 2)
0.6
Bitter
0.5
Carbonated
0.4 Bite
0.3
Sparkling
Cherry
0.2
F2 (29.1%)
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Fig. 2. Penalty lift analysis of the CATA attributes and overall liking based on
the participants’ evaluation of the juice samples.
and Table 2, the fruity and sweet attributes drove the liking of the juices.
The cherry juice associated with the terms watery and bland was dis­
liked by the consumers (Fig. 2). Sweetness has been found to drive
consumers’ liking of many products (Forde & Delahunty, 2004; Hutch­
ings, Low, & Keast, 2019), including juices (Kim et al., 2013). For
example, grape juice perceived to be sweet was also associated with
fruitiness (Meullenet, Lovely, Threlfall, Morris, & Striegler, 2008). This
result was also found in this study, as the apple juices were associated
with sweetness and fruitiness.
The second dimension separated the juices based on whether they
were carbonated or not. All three sparkling juices were on the positive
side of the second dimension and their non-carbonated counterparts on
the negative side. The second dimension’s positive side was associated
with the attributes carbonated, bitter, bite and sour, while the negative
side of the dimension was associated with the aftertaste, astringent and
Sour
thickness. The bite attribute has been associated with carbonated or
Sparkling sparkling beverages in past studies (Kappes et al., 2006, 2007; Wise,
Apple

Body
Cloudy Wolf, Thom, & Bryant, 2013). Past studies have also identified that
0.1 BlandWatery Sparkling Burn Citrus carbonation increases sourness (Hewson et al., 2009; Yau & McDaniel,
Blueberry Lemon
1992). In contrast to this study, Kappes, Schmidt, and Lee (2007) found
0
Clear Mouthcoating a negative correlation with the level of carbonation and bitterness.
Cherry However, Kappes et al. (2007) used trained panellists and descriptive
-0.1
Floral
Fruity Apple
Sweet

-0.2
Earthy analysis to evaluate the carbonated beverages. This study asked con­
Astringent sumers to evaluate both carbonated and non-carbonated juices. Also,
-0.3 consumers are known to confuse sour and bitter (O’Mahony, Golden­
Aftertaste
Blueberry
Thick berg, Stedmon, & Alford, 1979). Another study by Mielby et al. (2018)
-0.4
-0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 found that consumers perceived the drinks to be more carbonated at a
F1 (62.7%) high level of bitterness.
In agreement with the study by Kappes et al. (2007), the non-
Fig. 1. Biplot representation of the juice samples and consumers’ descriptions carbonated beverages were associated with astringency, as well as
on the first two dimensions of the correspondence analysis.

4
S. Barker et al.
with the attributes thick and aftertaste. Although bitter aftertaste has
been associated with carbonated beverages (Hewson et al., 2009), the
aftertaste was associated with non-carbonated beverages in this study.
The non-carbonated beverages were also associated with being thick.
This result may have occurred as carbonated beverages are considered
refreshing (Saint-Eve et al., 2009) and thirst-quenching (McEwan &
ColwiII, 1996). The consumers in this trial may have associated the lack
of effervescence or carbonation with the beverages being thick, and as
they were not as thirst-quenching, this may have led to an aftertaste.
However, carbonation can also increase the viscosity of beverages
(Liger-Belair, 2019), so it is interesting that consumers associated the
non-carbonated beverages with thickness.
The carbonated blueberry and apple juices were liked significantly
more than the non-carbonated counterparts (p < 0.05; Table 2); how­
ever, the effect of carbonation was not seen in the penalty lift analysis
(Fig. 2). The flavour attributes of the juices mainly drove the liking of the
juices. The next part of the study will investigate what emotions con­
sumers perceive in carbonated beverages and ask them to describe what
they like and dislike about carbonated beverages.
3.2. Emotional responses
The emotional terms were evaluated using correspondence analysis,
as found in Fig. 3 (explaining 91.7% of the variance). The first dimension
separated the blueberry juices from the cherry and apple juices. The
blueberry juices were associated with aggressive, worried, disgusted,
wild, guilty, and adventurous. As the participants explained in the open-
ended comment question about the samples, the result probably
occurred because they felt the colour of the blueberry juice was not a
natural colour and described it as being “too blue.” Food perceived as
disgusting can have specific personal or social meaning (Jiang, King, &
Prinyawiwatkul, 2014). In the open-ended comments, many partici­
pants stated the colour of the blueberry juice was artificial, and as blue
foods are rare in nature (Spence, 2018), they may have disliked this
colour. Also, it has been identified that disgust is adversely correlated
with liking (Cardello et al., 2012), which is similar to what was found in
this study, as the blueberry juice (carbonated and non-carbonated) had
the lowest purchase intent scores (2.4 and 2.3, respectively). The blue­
berry juices were associated with negative emotions (Jiang et al., 2014)
in the CA, including disgusted, worried, bored, guilty, and aggressive.
The cherry and apple juices (carbonated and non-carbonated) were
all found on the negative side of the first dimension, and they were
associated with positive emotions, including friendly, joyful, glad, good-
1 A penalty lift analysis was conducted to determine if the participant’s
Tame
Nostalgic
0.5 Bored
Secure
Blueberry Disgusted
Apple Calm
Satisfied Mild Guilty
F2 (17.9%)
Pleasant
LovingGood
0
Free
Cherry
Sparkling Good natured Active
Apple Warm Happy Interested
Enthusiastic
Understanding
Joyful
-0.5
Sparkling
Cherry
-1
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5
F1 (73.8 %)
Fig. 3. Biplot representation of the juice samples and emotional terms on the
first two dimensions of the correspondence analysis.
Food Research International 147 (2021) 110534
natured, happy, pleasant, and satisfied. Similar to a past study on wine
(Danner et al., 2016), products associated with positive emotions were
associated with increased purchase intent scores (Apple = 3.6, Sparkling
Apple = 3.3, Sparkling Cherry = 3.2 and Cherry = 3.1). Also, the apple
juice was on the positive side of the second dimension, while the spar­
kling apple, sparkling cherry and cherry juice were located on the
negative side of the second dimension. The apple juice was associated
with tame, nostalgic, secure, and calm emotions, which may be due to
the participants’ familiarity with apple juice. Although the participants’
familiarity with each drink was not evaluated in this study, of the juices
included in the study, apple juice is the most common, and this may
explain why it evoked nostalgic and calm emotions. Based on the CA
(Fig. 3), the carbonation did not seem to affect the emotional terms used
by the participants. This result is reinforced in Table 3, as the frequency
of selection of the emotional terms was based on the type of juice (apple,
cherry, and blueberry) rather than whether the juice was carbonated.
This result contrasts with the consumer acceptability trial results, as the
overall liking of the blueberry juice and apple juice was significantly
higher when the juice was carbonated (Table 2). A study on blackcurrant
squash found that products with similar liking scores were associated
with different emotions (Ng et al., 2013). Also, Pierguidi, Spinelli,
Dinnella, Prescott, and Monteleone (2020) identified that emotions were
found to be more informative than sensory properties in sample differ­
entiation. Pierguidi et al. (2020) stated that there is a linkage between
sensory properties and emotions are strongly related to consumer liking.
However, in the studies by Ng et al. (2013) and Pierguidi et al. (2020),
the participants consumed the samples while collecting the overall
liking scores and emotions. In this study, the participants in the
emotional response trial only looked at pictures of the samples, which is
one of the study’s limitations. Instead of looking at the overall liking
scores (Table 2), if the emotion response trial results are compared to the
liking of the appearance in the consumer acceptability trial, a similar
trend to the past study by Cardello et al. (2012) can be seen. The
emotional responses were able to further distinguish the liking of the
appearance as the still apple juice was associated with different terms
than the sparkling apple juice (Table 3 and Fig. 3). Although the par­
ticipants only looked at the fruit juices, this information contributes to
the conceptualisation of the fruit juices (Ng et al., 2013). Con­
ceptualisation is overarching term encompassing meaning or feeling
attributed to the sensory and packaging experiences. In this study the
emotions perceived by the participants were based on the appearance of
the drink and builds on the conceptualisation of the fruit juices. Also, it
examines the emotional expectations of the fruit juices. Expectations
about food are personal predictions about the consumption of the food
product (Leigh Gibson, 2006).
emotions affected their willingness to purchase the juice. In the penalty
lift analysis described by Meyners, Castura, and Carr (2013), overall
Aggressive liking and the result of a CATA question were used. The liking is aver­
aged across all observations in which the attribute under consideration
Worried
was used to characterize the product and across those observations for
Sparkling which it is not (Meyners et al., 2013). The difference between the two
Wild
Blueberry mean values estimates the average change in liking due to this attribute.
Also, liking might decrease due to the attribute applying, resulting in a
negative or a penalty (Meyners et al., 2013). In the penalty-lift analysis
Adventurous
of this study’s results, the overall liking was replaced with results of the
purchase intent scale (“1 = Definitely will not buy” to “5 = Definitely will
buy”), and attributes were the emotional terms from the CATA variant of
the EsSense25. The results of the penalty lift analysis can be seen in
Fig. 4. The emotional terms, good, pleasant, happy, joyful, and inter­
ested, led to the participants’ purchase intent increasing. These terms
can all be identified as positive emotions (Danner et al., 2016) and
1 1.5 2
indicate that positive emotions led to increased purchase intent. Past
studies have found that pleasure significantly affects consumers’ satis­
faction with a product (Gutjar et al., 2015; Ladhari, 2007). Positive
anticipated emotions have also been shown to impact fast food
5
S. Barker et al. Food Research International 147 (2021) 110534

Table 3
Frequency of selection of the emotional terms for the six different juices.
Words
Sparkling Apple Sparkling Blueberry Sparkling Cherry Apple Juice Blueberry Juice Cherry Juice

Happy*** 321bc 13a 41c 27abc 13ab 26abc

Joyful*** 30c 13ab 29bc 12ab 7a 17abc
Good*** 32 cd 6a 25 cd 43d 6ab 22bc
Interested** 27b 26ab 36b 10a 26ab 33b
Pleasant*** 39 cd 6a 23bc 48d 11ab 35 cd
Good-natured*** 21b 3a 17b 17b 6ab 9ab
Secure*** 7ab 1a 5ab 16b 3ab 2a
Satisfied*** 22bc 5a 13ab 33c 3a 14ab
Free ns 7 4 9 9 7 8
Understanding ns 4 1 4 3 2 3
Enthusiastic** 19a 16a 21a 6b 10ab 6b
Loving*** 6ab 1a 9ab 13b 0a 4ab
Adventurous*** 14b 31b 22b 0a 23b 15b
Aggressive ns 0 10 0 1 7 1
Wild*** 9ab 18b 8ab 2a 16b 4ab
Active ns 9 9 10 5 8 9
Nostalgic*** 14ab 4a 6a 31b 8a 10a
Warm*** 11ab 3a 14ab 14ab 3a 20b
Mild ** 12ab 5a 11ab 22b 9ab 12ab
Calm*** 11a 4a 8a 28b 5a 17ab
Tame*** 6ab 0a 0a 13b 0a 6ab
Bored ns 4 6 2 11 8 8
Disgusted*** 4a 32b 5a 4a 26b 6a
Guilty ns 1 4 2 2 3 2
Worried*** 2a 18b 4a 1a 22b 3a

*** Indicates significant differences between samples according to Cochran’s Q test at p < 0.0001.
** Indicates significant differences between samples according to Cochran’s Q test at p < 0.01.
* Indicates significant differences between samples according to Cochran’s Q test at p < 0.05.
ns Indicates no significant differences between samples according to Cochran’s Q test (p < 0.05).
1
Post hoc multiple pairwise comparisons were performed using McNemar’s test with Bonferroni alpha adjustment. The different letters (a, b, c) denote significant
significance differences within the attribute at p < 0.05.

Good

Pleasant

Happy

Joyful

Interested

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

Fig. 4. Penalty lift analysis of the emotional terms and willingness to pay based on the participants’ evaluation of the juice samples.

consumers’ purchase intent (Pérez-Villarreal, Martínez-Ruiz, &
Izquierdo-Yusta, 2019). This result agrees with the theory of “hedonic
asymmetry” as people prefer positive emotions rather than negative
words to describe food experiences (Desmet & Schifferstein, 2008), and
this is seen in Table 3; positive words are used more frequently.
Furthermore, positive emotions are correlated with overall liking (Car­
dello et al., 2012).
Carbonated beverages have been suggested to influence sensory
perception due to varying ingredient dynamics (Leksrisompong et al.,
2013). The participants were asked what they like and dislike about
carbonation using open-ended comment questions. The general cate­
gories of responses identified by the researchers are shown in Table 4.
The primary categories identified for why the participants liked
carbonated beverages are the mouthfeel and texture, the enhancement
of flavours, and the associations with special occasions and events.
People tend to enjoy carbonated beverages because they like how it feels
when they drink them. The trigeminal senses and pain receptors are
activated, and they like the burning, bubbly feeling at the back of their
throat (Carstens et al., 2002). Many people appreciate the sensory
qualities elicited by irritant chemical stimulation of the skin, such as
eating spicy foods or drinking hot coffee – the burning sensation in the
mouth and throat (Carstens et al., 2002).
Flavour enhancement was a major characteristic that participants
identified drove the liking of carbonated drinks. The participants stated
they like carbonated beverages because they enhance the sweetness and
gives them a better sensory experience. Several studies have explored

6
S. Barker et al.
Table 4
Results of the comment analysis conducted on the reasons for liking and dis­
liking of carbonated beverages provided by the participants (n = 107).
Category Summary of responses and keywords identified
Liking
Mouthfeel/ Refreshing, fizz, bubbly, burn, CO2 action, gives drinks an extra
Texture kick, pleasant, thirst-quenching, effervescence, light
mouthfeel, carbonated texture, fun, pair well with certain
foods, exciting, light-body, satiety
Flavour Add a little zest, offset a sweet taste, break up a heavy taste,
Enhancement fruitiness, more substance, makes flavour more obvious, has an
effect on taste, slight flavour adjustment, diverse, strong
flavour, good flavour, satisfy craving.
Events Nice to consume during special occasions, feels more
sophisticated, similar to champagne, mixes well with alcohol,
glamourous, decadent, reminder of festivities, associated with
celebration, elegant, social drinking, feels fancy, seems
celebratory.
Disliking
Carbonation Flatness, lose carbonation, sharp, too carbonated, too bubbly,
Issues too fizzy, can only drink slowly, aggressive carbonation,
reduced flavour
Physical Hiccups, stomach upset, throat irritation, gas, bloating,
Sensations burping, burn, indigestion, the way they feel, sharp, too filling,
acid reflux
Health Colour, appearance, artificial, a lot of calories, not natural,
Perceptions additives, not healthy, not as healthy as regular beverages, less
nutrients, fake, added dyes, high in sugar, sodium
Flavour Too sweet, artificial, acidity, taste salty, bad aftertaste,
reduced flavour, no flavour, overwhelming flavour
the effects of carbonation on sweetness and flavour enhancement, but on
the whole, they have been inconclusive (Green, 1996; Hewson et al.,
2009; Leksrisompong et al., 2012; Saint-Eve et al., 2010). One study
provided evidence that carbonated apple juice suppressed sweetness due
to carbonation; however, other studies have shown that increasing the
carbonation did enhance the drink’s flavour (Hewson et al., 2009).
Individuals also stated that they associated carbonated beverages
with celebratory events and special occasions (Table 4). They stated that
these drinks are classified for their social meaning; similar to cham­
pagne, carbonated drinks are used to define the occasion. Extensive
research on the association between non-alcoholic carbonated bever­
ages and celebrations has yet to be studied; however, it is evident that
consumers relate the two together. A study on sparkling wine suggests
that recollections of significant events and high-quality sparkling wines
are intertwined (Charters, 2005). Other research concluded a general
observation of alcoholic beverage consumption – that the desire for
people to want to convey an image of sophistication was reflected in
their decision to consume the carbonated beverage (Verdonk et al.,
2017).
When consumers were asked what they dislike about carbonation
(Table 4), key concepts consumers identified were related to carbona­
tion issues, physical sensations, health perceptions, and flavour.
Carbonation issues were the most divergent concept, with some con­
sumers identifying a dislike for too much carbonation and others for too
little carbonation. The level of carbonation in beverages has been
demonstrated as important for consumer acceptability (Leksrisompong
et al., 2013; McMahon et al., 2017). A previous study by McMahon et al.
(2017) found similar findings when assessing consumer perception of
sparkling wines based on varying carbonation levels. Researchers sug­
gested that differences may be present in panellist sensitivity to carbon
dioxide, which may explain the differences observed in consumers’
dislikes for either too much or too little carbonation (McMahon et al.,
2017).
Carbonation was also associated with perceived flavour, which
consumers indicated a dislike for sweetness, acidity, and aftertaste.
Increased carbonation has been associated with enhanced flavour
perception, specifically sweetness and sourness, which may explain
consumers’ perceptions of flavour (Saint-Eve et al., 2010). This finding
7
Food Research International 147 (2021) 110534
is supported by a study conducted by Leksrisompong et al. (2013), which
demonstrated that consumers characterized sparkling beverages to be
associated with an aftertaste or sour taste. Additionally, consumer per­
ceptions of carbonation and flavour could be associated with familiarity
with specific carbonated beverages, as carbonated beverages vary
considerably in level of carbonation and beverage profile attributes
(Leksrisompong et al., 2013). For example, carbonated beverages that fit
within the soda category were commonly associated with burn,
carbonation, and high bite attributes, supporting this and further coin­
ciding with these findings (Leksrisompong et al., 2013)
Consumers also identified several physical sensations such as burn,
acid reflux, gas, bloating, and burping as common dislikes of carbon­
ation. Carbonated beverages have been widely discussed as potentially
exacerbating acid reflux and bloating, which may be attributed to the
physical sensation dislikes identified by consumers (Johnson et al.,
2010). As previously mentioned, consumer sensitivity to carbon dioxide
may also contribute to the variation in physical sensations described by
consumers (McMahon et al., 2017).
Consumers also identified health concepts such as too sweet, artifi­
cial, reduced flavour, and enhanced flavour as commonly perceived
dislikes associated with carbonated beverages. An explanation for this
could potentially be that higher carbonation contributed to the
perception of increased sweetness, as a study by Yau and McDaniel
(1992) found a small effect between perceived sweetness and carbon­
ation level. However, other studies have demonstrated that carbonation
increases consumer perception of sour taste while decreasing perception
of sweet taste, which consumers also identified in this study by indi­
cating a dislike for acidity and bad aftertaste, which could be associated
with a sour taste (Saint-Eve et al., 2010). Furthermore, beverages
sweetened with non-nutritive sweeteners have been characterized as
having bitter, metallic, and other aftertastes, which could also explain
these perceived health and flavour dislikes (Leksrisompong et al., 2013).
This might also provide an explanation for other health perception dis­
likes identified by consumers in this study, such as carbonated bever­
ages being perceived as unnatural, containing additives, high in sugar,
less nutrients, fake, consisting of added dyes, and artificial.
The presence of carbonation has been suggested to enhance
perceived freshness in beverages (Labbe et al., 2009) . However, Sain­
t-Eve et al. (2010) demonstrated that the presence of sugar in carbon­
ated beverages was associated with the perception of decreased
freshness, which could explain certain health perceptions consumers
indicated in this study. For example, consumers identified additives,
high in sugar and not as healthy as regular beverages as common dislikes
of carbonated beverages. A study by Kim and House (2014), which
looked at health perceptions of various beverages’ healthfulness on a
1.0–9.0 scale, may also support our findings as perceived healthfulness
varied across various beverage categories. Based on healthfulness rating
scales, Kim and House (2014) found that consumers perceived water as
the healthiest beverage, rating it 8.6, followed by 100 percent juice
which consumers rated at 7.6, and non-carbonated beverages, which
consumers had given a healthfulness rating of 4.6. However, carbonated
beverages were rated as 2.3 on the healthfulness scale, indicating that
consumers perceived carbonated beverages as unhealthy, which may
explain consumers’ health perceptions in our study (Kim & House,
2014). Moreover, study findings from Kim and House (2014) demon­
strated a positive relationship between beverage health perceptions and
consumers’ beverage consumption behaviour. Therefore, consumer
perceptions of carbonated beverages may be attributed to the level of
carbonation, which might contribute to differences and dislikes in
flavour perception, physical sensations, and health perceptions of
carbonated beverages across consumers.
Although the results are supported by past studies, some limitations
must be identified. Firstly, the emotional responses were evaluated by
looking at pictures of the fruit juices and the participants did not
consume the beverages. Also, the results of the emotional response trial
should be confirmed by conducting further trials on fruit juices.
S. Barker et al.
Secondly, the participants’ familiarity with each fruit juice was not
evaluated and familiarity has been found to participants’ liking and
emotional responses to food products (Borgogno, Favotto, Corazzin,
Cardello, & Piasentier, 2015; Torrico, Fuentes, Gonzalez Viejo, Ashman,
& Dunshea, 2019). This limitation could have affected the responses
from the participants. Future studies should ask the familiarity with the
food product before assessing their overall liking and emotional re­
sponses. Also, thirst-quenching is an important sensation associated
with carbonated beverages and future studies should investigate the
thirst-quenching ability of the fruit juices. As stated in the introduction,
temperature affects carbonation perception, if the fruit juices were
served at higher temperature the consumers’ sensory perception may
have been different. From a methodology perspective, the CATA ques­
tionnaire can be restrictive for participants in their choice of attributes,
restricting the evaluation of small differences between samples. Future
studies could investigate small differences between the beverages uti­
lizing a trained panel. Also, carbonated beverages are not a static
experience, and they should be evaluated using a temporal sensory
methodology. Lastly, more studies are needed to determine how
emotional responses affect purchase intent and studies should investi­
gate how purchase intent and emotional responses can differ based on
cultural background or familiarity with the food product.
4. Conclusion
The juices’ flavour attributes mainly drove the liking of the juices;
however, the carbonated blueberry and apple juice were liked signifi­
cantly more than their non-carbonated counterpart. In the emotional
response trial, the participants did not separate the samples based on
carbonation. The purchase intent scores increased when positive emo­
tions (good, pleasant, happy, joyful and interested) were perceived and
selected in the penalty lift analysis. The participants identified that they
like the mouthfeel and flavour-enhancing qualities of carbonated bev­
erages while also associating them with special events. The participants
expressed a dislike for carbonated beverages if they are too carbonated
or flat, while also associating carbonation with negative physical sen­
sations (ex. upset stomach), health perceptions (ex. artificial) and
overwhelming flavours. Future studies should also look at how emotions
affect purchase intent and how participant’s familiarity affects the
emotions they select. Although participants did identify that the juice’s
flavour is more important than if the juice is carbonated, these findings
are relevant to the fruit juice industry and those working with carbon­
ated beverages, as they provide context to how carbonation affects
consumers’ perceptions.
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.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded in part by the Centre for the Sensory
Research of Food. Thank you to all the volunteers who participated in
this project.
Author statement
S. Barker: investigation, data curation, writing-original draft,
writing-review and editing, visualization. R. Moss: investigation, data
curation, writing-original draft, writing-review and editing, visualiza­
tion. M. McSweeney: conceptualization, methodology, software, vali­
dation, formal analysis, resources, data curation, writing- review and
editing, visualization, supervision, project administration, funding
acquisition.
8
Food Research International 147 (2021) 110534
References
Ares, G., Barreiro, C., Deliza, R., Giménez, A., & Gámbaro, A. (2010). Application of a
check-all-that-apply question to the development of chocolate milk desserts. Journal
of Sensory Studies, 25(s1), 67–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-
459X.2010.00290.x.
Ares, G., Dauber, C., Fernández, E., Giménez, A., & Varela, P. (2014). Penalty analysis
based on CATA questions to identify drivers of liking and directions for product
reformulation. Food Quality and Preference, 32, 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodqual.2013.05.014.
Ares, G., Varela, P., Rado, G., & Giménez, A. (2011). Identifying ideal products using
three different consumer profiling methodologies. Comparison with external
preference mapping. Food Quality and Preference, 22(6), 581–591. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.04.004.
Borgogno, M., Favotto, S., Corazzin, M., Cardello, A. V., & Piasentier, E. (2015). The role
of product familiarity and consumer involvement on liking and perceptions of fresh
meat. Food Quality and Preference, 44, 139–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodqual.2015.04.010.
Cardello, A. V., Meiselman, H. L., Schutz, H. G., Craig, C., Given, Z., Lesher, L. L., &
Eicher, S. (2012). Measuring emotional responses to foods and food names using
questionnaires. Food Quality and Preference, 24(2), 243–250. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.12.002.
Carstens, E., Iodi Carstens, M., Dessirier, J.-M., O’Mahony, M., Simons, C. T., Sudo, M., &
Sudo, S. (2002). It hurts so good: Oral irritation by spices and carbonated drinks and
the underlying neural mechanisms. Food Quality and Preference, 13(7), 431–443.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(01)00067-2.
Charters, S. (2005). Drinking sparkling wine: An exploratory investigation. International
Journal of Wine Marketing, 17(1), 54–68. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb008783.
Danner, L., Ristic, R., Johnson, T. E., Meiselman, H. L., Hoek, A. C., Jeffery, D. W., &
Bastian, S. E. P. (2016). Context and wine quality effects on consumers’ mood,
emotions, liking and willingness to pay for Australian Shiraz wines. Food Research
International, 89, 254–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2016.08.006.
Desmet, P. M. A., & Schifferstein, H. N. J. (2008). Sources of positive and negative
emotions in food experience. Appetite, 50(2), 290–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
appet.2007.08.003.
Dessirier, J.-M., Simons, C. T., Carstens, M. I., O’Mahony, M., & Carstens, E. (2000).
Psychophysical and neurobiological evidence that the oral sensation elicited by
carbonated water is of chemogenic origin. Chemical Senses, 25(3), 277–284. https://
doi.org/10.1093/chemse/25.3.277.
Fonseca, F. G. A., Esmerino, E. A., Filho, E. R. T., Ferraz, J. P., da Cruz, A. G., &
Bolini, H. M. A. (2016). Novel and successful free comments method for sensory
characterization of chocolate ice cream: A comparative study between pivot profile
and comment analysis. Journal of Dairy Science, 99(5), 3408–3420. https://doi.org/
10.3168/jds.2015-9982.
Forde, C. G., & Delahunty, C. M. (2004). Understanding the role cross-modal sensory
interactions play in food acceptability in younger and older consumers. Food Quality
and Preference, 15(7), 715–727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2003.12.008.
Green, B. G. (1992). The effects of temperature and concentration on the perceived
intensity and quality of carbonation. Chemical Senses, 17(4), 435–450. https://doi.
org/10.1093/chemse/17.4.435.
Green, B. G. (1996). Chemesthesis: Pungency as a component of flavor. Trends in Food
Science & Technology, 7(12), 415–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-2244(96)
10043-1.
Guinard, J.-X., Souchard, A., Picot, M., Rogeaux, M., & Sieffermann, J.-M. (1998).
Determinants of the thirst-quenching character of neer. Appetite, 31(1), 101–115.
https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.1998.0165.
Gutjar, S., Dalenberg, J. R., de Graaf, C., de Wijk, R. A., Palascha, A., Renken, R. J., &
Jager, G. (2015). What reported food-evoked emotions may add: A model to predict
consumer food choice. Food Quality and Preference, 45, 140–148. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.06.008.
Harper, S. J., & McDaniel, M. R. (1993). Carbonated water lexicon: Temperature and
CO2 level influence on descriptive ratings. Journal of Food Science, 58(4), 893–898.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1993.tb09386.x.
Hewson, L., Hollowood, T., Chandra, S., & Hort, J. (2009). Gustatory, olfactory and
trigeminal interactions in a model carbonated beverage. Chemosensory Perception, 2
(2), 94–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12078-009-9043-7.
Hutchings, S. C., Low, J. Y. Q., & Keast, R. S. J. (2019). Sugar reduction without
compromising sensory perception. An impossible dream? Critical Reviews in Food
Science and Nutrition, 59(14), 2287–2307. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10408398.2018.1450214.
Jaeger, S. R., Cardello, A. V., & Schutz, H. G. (2013). Emotion questionnaires: A
consumer-centric perspective. Food Quality and Preference, 30(2), 229–241. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.05.015.
Jaeger, S. R., & Hedderley, D. I. (2013). Impact of individual differences in emotional
intensity and private body consciousness on EsSense Profile® responses. Food Quality
and Preference, 27(1), 54–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.06.004.
Jaeger, S. R., Swaney-Stueve, M., Chheang, S. L., Hunter, D. C., Pineau, B., & Ares, G.
(2018). An assessment of the CATA-variant of the EsSense Profile®. Food Quality and
Preference, 68, 360–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.04.005.
Jiang, Y., King, J. M., & Prinyawiwatkul, W. (2014). A review of measurement and
relationships between food, eating behavior and emotion. Trends in Food Science &
Technology, 36(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2013.12.005.
Johnson, T., Gerson, L., Hershcovici, T., Stave, C., & Fass, R. (2010). Systematic review:
The effects of carbonated beverages on gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Alimentary
Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 31(6), 607–614. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2036.2010.04232.x.
S. Barker et al.
Kappes, S. M., Schmidt, S. J., & Lee, S.-Y. (2006). Descriptive analysis of cola and lemon/
lime carbonated beverages. Journal of Food Science, 71(8), S583–S589. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2006.00162.x.
Kappes, S. M., Schmidt, S. J., & Lee, S.-Y. (2007). Relationship between physical
properties and sensory attributes of carbonated beverages. Journal of Food Science,
72(1), S001–S011. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2006.00205.x.
Kim, H., & House, L. A. (2014). Linking consumer health perceptions to consumption of
nonalcoholic beverages. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review. https://doi.org/
10.22004/ag.econ.163208. Article 1203-2016–95549.
Kim, M. K., Lee, Y.-J., Kwak, H. S., & Kang, M. (2013). Identification of sensory attributes
that drive consumer liking of commercial orange juice products in Korea. Journal of
Food Science, 78(9), S1451–S1458. https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.12227.
King, S. C., & Meiselman, H. L. (2010). Development of a method to measure consumer
emotions associated with foods. Food Quality and Preference, 21(2), 168–177.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.02.005.
Labbe, D., Almiron-Roig, E., Hudry, J., Leathwood, P., Schifferstein, H., & Martin, N.
(2009). Sensory basis of refreshing perception: Role of psychophysiological factors
and food experience. Physiology & Behavior, 98(1–2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.physbeh.2009.04.007.
Ladhari, R. (2007). The movie experience: A revised approach to determinants of
satisfaction. Journal of Business Research, 60(5), 454–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2006.12.007.
Leigh Gibson, E. (2006). Emotional influences on food choice: Sensory, physiological and
psychological pathways. Physiology & Behavior, 89(1), 53–61. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.physbeh.2006.01.024.
Leksrisompong, P., Lopetcharat, K, Guthrie, B., & Drake, M. A. (2013). Preference
mapping of lemon lime carbonated beverages with regular and diet beverage
consumers. Journal of Food Science, 78(2), S320–S328. https://doi.org/10.1111/
1750-3841.12028.
Leksrisompong, P. P., Lopetcharat, K., Guthrie, B., & Drake, M. A. (2012). Descriptive
analysis of carbonated regular and diet lemon-lime beverages. Journal of Sensory
Studies, 27(4), 247–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2012.00389.x.
Liger-Belair, G. (2019). Carbon dioxide in bottled carbonated waters and subsequent
bubble nucleation under standard tasting condition. Journal of Agricultural and Food
Chemistry, 67(16), 4560–4567. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.9b00155.
Lynch, D. M., & Bamforth, C. W. (2002). Measurement and characterization of bubble
nucleation in beer. Journal of Food Science, 67(7), 2696–2701. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1365-2621.2002.tb08801.x.
McEwan, J., & ColwiII, J. (1996). The sensory assessment of the thirst-quenching
characteristics of drinks. Food Quality and Preference, 7(2), 101–111. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0950-3293(95)00042-9.
McMahon, K. M., Culver, C., Castura, J. C., & Ross, C. F. (2017). Perception of
carbonation in sparkling wines using descriptive analysis (DA) and temporal check-
all-that-apply (TCATA). Food Quality and Preference, 59, 14–26. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.01.017.
Meullenet, J.-F., Lovely, C., Threlfall, R., Morris, J. R., & Striegler, R. K. (2008). An ideal
point density plot method for determining an optimal sensory profile for Muscadine
grape juice. Food Quality and Preference, 19(2), 210–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodqual.2007.06.011.
Meyners, M., & Castura, J. C. (2016). Randomization of CATA attributes: Should
attribute lists be allocated to assessors or to samples? Food Quality and Preference, 48,
210–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.09.014.
Meyners, M., Castura, J. C., & Carr, B. T. (2013). Existing and new approaches for the
analysis of CATA data. Food Quality and Preference, 30(2), 309–319. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.06.010.
Mielby, L. A., Wang, Q. J., Jensen, S., Bertelsen, A. S., Kidmose, U., Spence, C., &
Byrne, D. V. (2018). See, feel, taste: The influence of receptacle colour and weight on
the evaluation of flavoured carbonated beverages. Foods, 7(8), 119. https://doi.org/
10.3390/foods7080119.
Nascimento, R. Q., Tavares, P. P. L. G., Meireles, S., dos Anjos, E. A., de Andrade, R. B.,
Machado, B. A. S., … Mamede, M. E. de O. (2020). Study on the sensory acceptance
and check all that apply of mixed juices in distinct Brazilian regions. Food Science and
Technology, 40, 708–717. https://doi.org/10.1590/fst.37619.
Nestrud, M. A., Meiselman, H. L., King, S. C., Lesher, L. L., & Cardello, A. V. (2016).
Development of EsSense25, a shorter version of the EsSense Profile®. Food Quality
and Preference, 48, 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.08.005.
Newbold, D., & Koppel, K. (2018). Carbonated dairy beverages: Challenges and
opportunities. Beverages, 4(3), 66. https://doi.org/10.3390/beverages4030066.
Ng, M., Chaya, C., & Hort, J. (2013). Beyond liking: Comparing the measurement of
emotional response using EsSense Profile and consumer defined check-all-that-apply
methodologies. Food Quality and Preference, 28(1), 193–205. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.08.012.
O’Mahony, M., Goldenberg, M., Stedmon, J., & Alford, J. (1979). Confusion in the use of
the taste adjectives ‘sour’ and ‘bitter’. Chemical Senses, 4(4), 301–318. https://doi.
org/10.1093/chemse/4.4.301.
Food Research International 147 (2021) 110534
Oh, J.-C., & Yoon, S.-J. (2014). Theory-based approach to factors affecting ethical
consumption. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38(3), 278–288. https://doi.
org/10.1111/ijcs.12092.
Pérez-Villarreal, H. H., Martínez-Ruiz, M. P., & Izquierdo-Yusta, A. (2019). Testing model
of purchase intention for fast food in Mexico: How do consumers react to food
values, positive anticipated emotions, attitude toward the brand, and attitude
toward eating hamburgers? Foods, 8(9), 369. https://doi.org/10.3390/
foods8090369.
Pierguidi, L., Spinelli, S., Dinnella, C., Prescott, J., & Monteleone, E. (2020). Liking
patterns moderate the relationship between sensory, emotional and context
appropriateness profiles: Evidences from a Global Profile study on alcoholic
cocktails. Food Quality and Preference, 83, Article 103904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodqual.2020.103904.
Plaehn, D. (2012). CATA penalty/reward. Food Quality and Preference, 24(1), 141–152.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.10.008.
Prescott, J., Lee, S. M., & Kim, K.-O. (2011). Analytic approaches to evaluation modify
hedonic responses. Food Quality and Preference, 22(4), 391–393. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.01.007.
Rolim, P. M., Hu, Y., & Gänzle, M. G. (2019). Sensory analysis of juice blend containing
isomalto-oligosaccharides produced by fermentation with Weissella cibaria. Food
Research International, 124, 86–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2018.08.089.
Saint-Eve, Anne, Déléris, I., Aubin, E., Semon, E., Feron, G., Rabillier, J.-M., …
Souchon, I. (2009). Influence of composition (CO2 and sugar) on aroma release and
perception of mint-flavored carbonated beverages. Journal of Agricultural and Food
Chemistry, 57(13), 5891–5898. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf900542j.
Saint-Eve, A., Déléris, I., Feron, G., Ibarra, D., Guichard, E., & Souchon, I. (2010). How
trigeminal, taste and aroma perceptions are affected in mint-flavored carbonated
beverages. Food Quality and Preference, 21(8), 1026–1033. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.foodqual.2010.05.021.
Schram, A., Labonte, R., Baker, P., Friel, S., Reeves, A., & Stuckler, D. (2015). The role of
trade and investment liberalization in the sugar-sweetened carbonated beverages
market: A natural experiment contrasting Vietnam and the Philippines. Globalization
and Health, 11(1), 41. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-015-0127-7.
Spence, C. (2018). What is so unappealing about blue food and drink? International
Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science, 14, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijgfs.2018.08.001.
Tan, V. W. K., Wee, M. S. M., Tomic, O., & Forde, C. G. (2019). Temporal sweetness and
side tastes profiles of 16 sweeteners using temporal check-all-that-apply (TCATA).
Food Research International, 121, 39–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodres.2019.03.019.
Torrico, D. D., Fuentes, S., Gonzalez Viejo, C., Ashman, H., & Dunshea, F. R. (2019).
Cross-cultural effects of food product familiarity on sensory acceptability and non-
invasive physiological responses of consumers. Food Research International, 115,
439–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2018.10.054.
Varela, P., Ares, G., Giménez, A., & Gámbaro, A. (2010). Influence of brand information
on consumers’ expectations and liking of powdered drinks in central location tests.
Food Quality and Preference, 21(7), 873–880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodqual.2010.05.012.
Verdonk, N., Wilkinson, J., Culbert, J., Ristic, R., Pearce, K., & Wilkinson, K. (2017).
Toward a model of sparkling wine purchasing preferences. International Journal of
Wine Business Research, 29(1), 58–73. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWBR-10-2015-
0048.
Wise, P. M., Wolf, M., Thom, S. R., & Bryant, B. (2013). The influence of bubbles on the
perception carbonation bite. PLOS ONE, 8(8), Article e71488. https://doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pone.0071488.
Włodarska, K., Pawlak-Lemańska, K., Górecki, T., & Sikorska, E. (2016). Perception of
apple juice: A comparison of physicochemical measurements, descriptive analysis
and consumer responses. Journal of Food Quality, 39(4), 351–361. https://doi.org/
10.1111/jfq.12208.
Xu, K., Guo, M., Du, J., & Zhang, Z. (2018). Cloudy wheat beer enriched with okra
[Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench]: Effects on volatile compound and sensorial
attributes. International Journal of Food Properties, 21(1), 289–300. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10942912.2018.1454468.
Yau, N. J. N., & McDaniel, M. R. (1992). Carbonation interactions with sweetness and
sourness. Journal of Food Science, 57(6), 1412–1416. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1365-2621.1992.tb06871.x.
Yau, N. J. N., McDaniel, M. R., & Bodyfelt, F. W. (1989). Sensory evaluation of sweetened
flavored carbonated milk beverages. Journal of Dairy Science, 72(2), 367–377.
https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(89)79118-9.
Zampini, M., & Spence, C. (2005). Modifying the multisensory perception of a
carbonated beverage using auditory cues. Food Quality and Preference, 16(7),
632–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2004.11.004.
Zielinski, A. A. F., Haminiuk, C. W. I., Nunes, C. A., Schnitzler, E., van Ruth, S. M., &
Granato, D. (2014). Chemical composition, sensory properties, provenance, and
bioactivity of fruit juices as assessed by chemometrics: A critical review and
guideline. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 13(3), 300–316.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12060.