Access to this full-text is provided by Frontiers.
Content available from Frontiers in Psychology
This content is subject to copyright.
Frontiers in Psychology 01 frontiersin.org
Using crossmodal
correspondences as a tool in wine
communication
AndersCrichton-Fock
1
*, CharlesSpence
2 and NicklasPettersson
3
1 School of Hospitality, Culinary Arts & Meal Science, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden, 2 Crossmodal
Research Laboratory, Department of Experimental Psychology, Oxford University, Oxford, United
Kingdom, 3 Örebro University School of Business, Örebro, Sweden
Introduction: This research investigates consumer acceptance of alternative
methods for communicating information about wine, focusing on the alignment
between sensory attributes and consumer expectations.
Methods: A survey was administered to wine enthusiasts to assess their attitudes
toward crossmodal communication.
Results: The findings reveal significant associations between consumer behaviors
and acceptance of alternative communication methods, highlighting the
emerging field of crossmodal correspondences.
Discussion: These results suggest that leveraging crossmodal correspondences
can enhance the match between a product’s sensory qualities and consumer
expectations, potentially reducing wine wastage resulting from unmet consumer
preferences. These findings have implications for improving communication
strategies in the wine industry and enhancing consumer experiences.
KEYWORDS
crossmodal correspondence, multisensory experience, crossmodal communication,
product matching, wine communication
1. Introduction
Multisensory research is important if one is to understand how to optimize communication,
since it involves much more than just spoken or written language. As humans, weuse multiple
senses such as sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell, to gather information and communicate
with others. Research on the crossmodal correspondences can provide an ecient tool for
communication by leveraging the connections between the senses, not least when it comes to
wine (see Spence, 2023). is is accomplished by involving a combination of dierent senses to
increase the potential success of product communication, depending on the product, potential
consumer, and purpose. For example, this could include dierent kinds of visual cues, such as
shapes and colors (Spence, 2023), to support the communication of complex multisensory
products, which on a single-sense basis can behard to fully communicate/understand for the
regular consumer. It could also bethe use of mental pictures, metaphors and analogies relating
to common recognizable human characteristics (Herdenstam etal., 2009, 2018, 2020). In this
context it could beargued that consumers in general are well-experienced using crossmodal
descriptions and sensory metaphors in their daily speech. For example: warm welcoming and
bubbly personality (touch), bright idea and glowing review (vision), end on sour note and such a
sweet personality (taste), love stinks and sweet smell of success (odor), music to my ears and the
world is listening (sound).
OPEN ACCESS
EDITED BY
Varun Dutt,
Indian Institute of Technology Mandi, India
REVIEWED BY
Carmen Adams,
University of Hasselt, Belgium
Bruno Mesz,
National University of Tres de Febrero,
Argentina
*CORRESPONDENCE
Anders Crichton-Fock
anders.crichton-fock@oru.se
RECEIVED 20 March 2023
ACCEPTED 06 July 2023
PUBLISHED 31 July 2023
CITATION
Crichton-Fock A, Spence C and
Pettersson N (2023) Using crossmodal
correspondences as a tool in wine
communication.
Front. Psychol. 14:1190364.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1190364
COPYRIGHT
© 2023 Crichton-Fock, Spence and Pettersson.
This is an open-access article distributed under
the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License (CC BY). The use, distribution or
reproduction in other forums is permitted,
provided the original author(s) and the
copyright owner(s) are credited and that the
original publication in this journal is cited, in
accordance with accepted academic practice.
No use, distribution or reproduction is
permitted which does not comply with these
terms.
TYPE Original Research
PUBLISHED 31 July 2023
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1190364
Crichton-Fock et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1190364
Frontiers in Psychology 02 frontiersin.org
In this context, a question arises as to whether this could bea tool not
only to help understand the correspondence between dierent senses, but
also as a tool to meet future challenges in regard to food communication
and ultimately food waste (Uiterkamp and Vlek, 2007; Rosen, 2009;
Adams, 2010; Hopton etal., 2010; Stock and Burton, 2011; De Soete, 2016;
Rinaldi, 2017; Dondi etal., 2020; Martini etal., 2021). As mentioned
already, there is a need to implement new strategies to decrease the
climate footprint, both in the wine industry as well as beyond (Christ and
Burritt, 2013; Galbreath etal., 2020). Strong communication and learning
from the sensory perspective of crossmodal correspondence can
potentially be used to enhance sensory training by creating more
immersive and interactive learning experiences as a tool to help
individuals better retain information about a product (Ahn, 2011; Ghosh
etal., 2016), especially one with a complex avor prole such as wine. is
is a critical subject when it comes to the communication of olfactory
experiences, both with regard to limitations in verbally and linguistically
grasping the message as well as in terms of understanding sensory
complex food products such as wine (Paradis and Eeg-Olofsson, 2013).
In the realm of sensory marketing, the utilization of
multisensory stimulation has traditionally served as a valuable tool
for understanding consumer responses to products in relation to
the fulllment of their expectations (Elder and Krishna, 2010;
Varela and Ares, 2012; Spence etal., 2013; Krishna and Schwarz,
2014; Croijmans and Wang, 2021; Spence, 2022a). is line of
research focuses, in part, on consumer acceptance while
acknowledging the ecacy of imagery and text in marketing, as
well as the interaction between visual and linguistic elements in
such contexts (Bolognesi and Strik Lievers, 2018). Nonetheless, it
is crucial to explore how various visual cues (e.g., Lick etal., 2017;
Baptista etal., 2022; Nguyen and Durner, 2023; Spence, 2023) and
haptic sensations (Piqueras-Fiszman and Spence, 2012; Wang and
Spence, 2018) may inuence consumer preferences and correlate
with taste and texture. Within this context, research has indicated
that imagery depicting wine plays a signicant role in the
recollection and communication of sensory experiences
(Herdenstam etal., 2009, 2018; Croijmans etal., 2020) and that
certain training and expertise can enhance imagery abilities among
wine-interested consumers (Croijmans etal., 2020; Herdenstam
etal., 2020). In a recent study, consumers with varying levels of
self-reported imagery vividness were examined (Croijmans and
Wang, 2021). e ndings suggested that the vividness of mental
imagery might bea crucial factor to consider, as multisensory wine
descriptions can help stimulate purchase intentions among
consumers with lower imagery vividness, particularly in terms of
their desire to drink the wine (Croijmans and Wang, 2021).
Conversely, consumers with higher vividness reported a greater
desire to drink the wine even in the absence of multisensory
descriptions in imagery (Wang etal., 2022).
Overall, the understanding of mental imagery vividness, is an
important factor to consider when it comes to nding better tools for
the communication of wine (Spence, 2017; Spence, 2022c). is
approach might beapplied for understanding how other complex food
products communicate, as they contain layers of volatile odors, avors,
and tactile sensations, and this tool might becritical in understanding
linguistic communication and dierent consumer group’s attraction
to a product (Paradis and Eeg-Olofsson, 2013). In this context,
investigating the multisensory environment and its impact on
consumer acceptance has also shown how important it is to consider
the sound and hearing aspects when tasting wine (Spence and Wang,
2015a,b,c).
Recent research studies have shied their focus towards
comprehending the comprehensive impact of multisensory
environments, surpassing earlier studies that examined sensory
experiences on an individual basis. ese studies aim to gain insights
into consumer experiences (Maziriri etal., 2021; Spence and Van
Doorn, 2022; Wörfel etal., 2022; Spence, 2022a). is emphasis is
particularly signicant in unraveling the reasons behind consumers’
product choices (Spence, 2020, 2022a,b).
In the past, a large body of wine research has demonstrated a wide
variety of inuences aecting the consumer’s esthetic and hedonic
relation to sensory experience (Spence etal., 2014). One possible
reason is that traditional and cultural aspects of the wine industry are
reected in idyllic images with beautiful landscapes, which has led to
a perception that wine is considered as an environmentally friendly
product (Ruggieri et al., 2009; Christ and Burritt, 2013). On the
contrary, the United Nations has made it clear that there is an
inevitable need to increase resources used in the food industry
through environmental, sustainable, and cost-eective solutions (Roy
etal., 2009; Ghosh etal., 2016; Merli etal., 2018). According to the
above-mentioned studies, it can beargued that nding alternative
ways to communicate about wine and other complex food products,
novel or otherwise, could behelpful to both the consumer experience
and the environment (Ahn, 2011; Ghosh etal., 2016). is is partially
due to the demonstrated limits of language in describing sensory
experiences that derive from the olfactory domain when experiencing
wine (Paradis and Eeg-Olofsson, 2013).
is questionnaire-based study aimed to explore the attitudes of wine
consumers towards crossmodal communication and assess the
eectiveness of crossmodal correspondence as a potential communication
tool for wine and other complex food products. e primary motivation
behind this study was to explore innovative approaches to enhance the
alignment between consumer expectations and sensory experiences,
particularly by identifying novel and eective tools to address challenges
associated with food production and waste.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Ethics statement
All of the participants were over 20 years of age, and informed
consent was obtained from all of those taking part in the study. All of
the data and analysis les were kept in accordance with legislated and
regulated data handling practices.
2.2. Participants
e participants consisted of 329 students from dierent
sections of the 7.5-credit, 15-week distance course ‘Beverage
knowledge’ oered through Örebro University (Sweden). e
students received training in which they learned a common
methodology to analyze wine. One important factor in the selection
of these group of participants was their common experience of
Crichton-Fock et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1190364
Frontiers in Psychology 03 frontiersin.org
partly being exposed of eects of crossmodal correspondence
during their training sessions, learning the basics of wine tasting.
Both theoretically, by taking part of research during the course, and
also practically, through the tasting exercises, experiencing
crossmodal correspondences aects when moving from one sense
modality to another. ey were instructed rst to look at a wine’s
appearance qualities in order to make visual judgments concerning
its color, intensity, maturity, age, freshness, acidity, and
concentration. ey were then encouraged to validate these rst
impressions on the nose, and subsequently on the palate, observing
the eect of crossmodal correspondence and their notable impact
during the professional wine tasting procedures, assessing rst
visual impressions, then the bouquet with layers of aromas, and
lastly taste and oral-somatosensation while during this multisensory
experience also being intervened by the retronasal eect of the
odors in the palate. e majority of the participants were female
(59%) and lived in the city (76%). Almost all had previously studied
at university (94%), and most of them had received a bachelor’s
degree, or higher (74%). As a group, they considered that they had
better than average wine knowledge (76%). Most of the participants
consumed wine on a weekly basis (87%), which they typically
purchased at Systembolaget (Sweden’s nationally regulated liquor
monopoly; 81%) and then consumed at home (80%; see
Appendix A).
e participants shared the following traits:
i. ey had all tasted the same wines and other beverages and had
therefore shared a variety of sensory experiences within their
training program.
ii. ey had all learned a common approach and methodology
when it came to the sensory analysis of wine. It can therefore
bepresumed that, as a group, they had an awareness of the
importance of (all) the senses in the analysis process, including
vision, olfaction, taste, touch, and sound.
iii. ey had all experienced crossmodal correspondence during the
tasting methodology practice. In other words, they were aware
that the senses could not betotally isolated from one other during
the process of analyzing the wine and, subsequently,
communicating about the multisensory experience.
2.3. The questionnaire
e questionnaire used in this study comprised four sections. is
section focuses on the analysis of the rst section, which included
inquiries about demographics, as well as single-choice and multiple-
choice (check-all-that-apply; CATA) questions pertaining to purchase
and consumption behaviors, communication practices, and sensory
experiences related to wine. e remaining sections, which investigated
visual aspects, the use of specic symbols, and alternative
communication methods, were analyzed and presented separately based
on the results of the statistical analysis. e questionnaire was
distributed to participants upon completion of the course. In addition
to collecting demographic information, it encompassed single-choice
and multi-choice (CATA) questions concerning purchase behaviors,
consumption habits, communication preferences, and sensory
experiences (see Appendix B).
2.3.1. Examples of single-choice questions
1) Where do you primarily purchase wine? 2) Where do
youprimarily consume wine? 3) To what extent would youconsider
buying a wine based only on sensory information – i.e., if no other
conventional information were available?
2.3.2. Examples multi-choice questions (CATA)
1) When purchasing wine from your selected choice in the
question above, what factors inuence your choice? 2) When
consuming your wine at your selected choice in the question above,
which factors primarily inuence “your experience”? 3) If youcould
freely choose an alternative to regular communication on a wine label,
what would youprefer?
2.4. Data analysis
EyeQuestion version 5 (Logic 8, Elst, Netherlands), a soware
program for sensory and consumer testing, was used to collect the
participants’ responses. e soware package R (R Core Team, 2021)
was used to analyze the data.
3. Results
We analyze the inuential factors when purchasing and
consuming wine (in section 3.1) and reported preferences towards
alternative wine communication (in section 3.2) including their
associations to demographics and inuential factors (in section
3.2.1–7). e relations between preferences are then analyzed (in
section 3.3) and followed up by investigating the most frequent
preference combinations and their associations to demographics and
inuential factors (in section 3.4).
3.1. Reported factors influencing
purchasing and consumption of wine
e most inuential factors reported by the participants when
purchasing wine were (in descending order of importance): type of
grape (77%), prior experience of the wine (72%), country of origin
(72%), external recommendations (68%), style (65%), and price
(62%). At the same time, the sensory descriptors communicated on
the wine label or on the shelf were also reported to bean important
factor for just under half of the participants.
e dominant factors inuencing the choices reported by this
group of engaged wine consumers would appear to beof a more
general character. On the other hand, more specic aspects such as:
sensory indicators of the experience, name of the producer, alcohol or
vintage information, overall product communication in the store, shelf
information and producer information (on the bottle design) were
considered to beless important (see Table1).
e most inuential sensory factors reported by the group of wine
enthusiasts when consuming wine were as follows: taste (94%), tasting/
dinner setting (66%), and smell of the wine (65%). Far fewer of the
participants reported being inuenced by the other senses during their
consumption: vision (26%), touch (12%), sound (8%). Here, a
discrepancy was noted, with the reported factors inuencing purchasing
Crichton-Fock et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1190364
Frontiers in Psychology 04 frontiersin.org
being dominated by more general information rather than sensory
indicators, and the sensory indicator of taste was reported as the single
most important factor when consuming the wine (see Table2).
3.2. Reported attitudes towards alternative
wine communication
When the participants were asked whether they might consider
buying wine based only on sensory information and no conventional
label information, most of them had positive reactions to buying a
bottle just so long as the sensory descriptors matched their own
personal preferences (91%). Another question asked if they would also
consider buying a wine with no specic origin, for example, a blend
of dierent wines from dierent origins. Here, the participants reacted
positively to the thought of buying a bottle if the descriptors happened
to be equivalent to their sensory prole (95%). In terms of
sustainability, 76% of them answered that they, to varying extents,
would consider climate change into when making a decision about
what wine to buy (see Appendix C).
In the questionnaire, the participants were introduced to
alternative ways of communicating about the sensory experiences of
wine and were asked to freely choose from examples of dierent
modalities (see Appendix B). Visual communication using shapes and
colors were the most frequently requested (54%), while avor (45%)
and odor/aroma (38%) were also highly ranked alternative means of
communication. e least popular alternatives were those
communicated auditorily, such as speech (9%), music (8%), and
sounds (6%), see Table3.
In sections 3.2.1–3.2.7 weexplore each of the alternative ways of
communicating in relation to reported demographics (see also
Appendix D) and purchase choice (Appendix E) and consumption
experience (Appendix F), using two-sided hypothesis tests of,
association (Kendall’s Tau rank correlation coecient, Fisher’s exact
test and Chi-square test), and of equal location among groups (Mann–
Whitney U test and for signicance to categories Kruskall-Wallis test,
Wilcoxon rank sum test and t-test), see Appendix D. When studying
the relation to purchase choice and consumption experience, as to rule
out the inuence of the reported locale, wealso use binary logistic
regression to regress the preferred alternative way of communication
on the locale and the inuential factor under study. Logged odds ratios
(logOR) are used to represent 2*2 categorical associations, as
exemplied at the start of section 3.2.1.
3.2.1. Shapes/colors (other visual symbols)
ere were 62 males and 115 females who preferred shapes/colors
as a means of communication, while 115 males and 80 females did
not. A positive (negative) logged odds ratio indicates larger (smaller)
odds amongst males who preferred shapes/colors as communication,
relative to the odds among females, while a value of zero indicates no
dierence in odds. Since the odds amongst females (115/80 = 1.44) is
higher than amongst males (62/70 = 0.89), the positive logged odds
ratio, logOR = log(1.44/0.89) = 0.48, indicates that females were more
likely than males to prefer shapes/colors as a means of communicating
about wine. Using Fisher’s exact test, under the null hypothesis that
gender and preference for shapes/colors are independent, the
probability of an outcome at least as extreme as the observed (i.e., the
p-value) is 0.042, which is less than 0.05. us, females (59%) are
signicantly more open to communications involving vision (using
TABLE1 Reported factors influencing wine purchasing behavior (CATA).
Influence factor nFrequency %
(n= 329)
e grape 253 76.90%
Previous experience (having tried the wine before) 237 72.04%
Country of origin 237 72.04%
External recommendations (professional, friends,
others)
224
68.09%
Style of wine 215 65.35%
Price 204 62.01%
Sensory indicators (concerning the taste, aroma
prole, and/or mouthfeel)
163
49.54%
e wine producer 112 34.04%
Climate impact (How eco-friendly is the wine) 98 29.79%
Vintage 65 19.76%
Illustrations on the label 61 18.54%
e front label 61 18.54%
Bottle design (bag in box/bottle) 55 16.72%
e back label 12 3.65%
Other 9 2.74%
TABLE2 Reported factors influencing experience of consuming wine
(CATA).
Influence factor nFrequency %
(n= 329)
Tas t e 309 93.92%
Dinner/tasting setting 216 65.65%
Smell/odor sensations of the wine 215 65.35%
“Meal” companions/other guests 164 49.85%
e visual impression (vision) 84 25.53%
Overall room environment 75 22.80%
Tactile (touch) sensations 40 12.16%
Hosts/Professionals/Sta 31 9.42%
Sound environment (sounds) 25 7.60%
Others 3 0.91%
TABLE3 Reported alternative communication to regular wine label
(CATA).
[Article section] Alternative
communication
nFrequency %
(n= 329)
[3.2.1] Shapes/Colors (other visual symbols) 178 54.10%
[3.2.2] Flavors (tastes) 148 44.98%
[3.2.3] Odors/aromas (smells) 125 37.99%
[3.2.4] Touch (tactile) 49 14.89%
[3.2.5] Speech (hearing) 30 9.12%
[3.2.6] Music (hearing) 26 7.90%
[3.2.7] Sounds (hearing) 20 6.08%
Crichton-Fock et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1190364
Frontiers in Psychology 05 frontiersin.org
shapes/colors) to describe the multisensory experience of wine,
compared to males (41%), see Tables AD.1, AD.2.
Regarding reported inuencing purchasing factors (Table AE.1),
the odds of preferring visual communication were signicantly
smaller for respondents inuenced (relative to those not inuenced)
by vintage (logOR = −0.63), and signicantly larger for respondents
inuenced by the climate impact (0.66), the bottle design (0.76), the
illustrations on the label (1.15) or the front label (0.67). e sensory
indicators (0.48) and the price (0.50) were also signicantly larger, but
not aer controlling for the locale of purchase (Table AE.2).
Among the factors inuencing the experience (Table AF.1), the
odds of preferring visual communication were signicantly larger for
respondents inuenced by taste sensations (logOR = 1.34) or hosts/
professionals/sta (0.55), also aer controlling for the locale of
consumption (Table AF.2).
3.2.2. Flavors (tastes)
Neither any demographical factors (Appendix D) nor any factors
inuencing wine purchasing (Appendix E) were signicantly related
to preferring avors (tastes) as means of communication. e only
association found to bestatistically signicant (Table AF.1), which also
held aer controlling for the locale of consumption (Table AF.2), was
the smaller odds of preferring avors (logOR = −0.55) for respondents
whose experience was aected by the overall room environment.
3.2.3. Odors/aromas (smells)
e median income was signicantly lower amongst those
respondents who were open to (35,000 SEK) vs. those who were not
open to (40,000 SEK) communication through odor/aromas
(Table AD.4 and Figure AD.2).
Among the factors inuencing the purchase (Table AE.1), the
odds of preferring communication via odors/aromas were signicantly
larger for respondents inuenced by the country of origin
(logOR = 0.74), the type of grape (0.70), the style (0.54), the sensory
indicators (0.63) or the bottle design (0.72) respectively, also aer
controlling for the locale of purchase (Table AE.2).
Regarding inuence on consumption experience (Table AF.1),
only one association was found to bestatistically signicant, where the
odds of preferring odor/aromas was (intuitively) larger for those
whose experiencing was inuenced by smell/odor (logOR = 0.86), also
aer controlling for the locale of consumption (Table AF.2).
3.2.4. Touch (tactile)
Consumers open for communication involving touch were on
average signicantly younger (35.2 years) than those who were not
open (42.4 years) to this form of communication (Table AD.3 and
Figure AD.1). eir median income was also signicantly lower (34.3’
SEK) compared to those who were not open to communication
through touch (39’ SEK), see Table AD.4 and Figure AD.2. e
respondents open to vs. not open to communication through touch
diered signicantly in their distribution of wine consumption, and
those more open to this modality were less likely to consume wine
frequently (33% more than once weekly) compared to respondents
that were not open to this modality (55% more than once weekly).
Also, they were signicantly more likely to primarily consume wine
in restaurants (12%) and not with friends or family/in a wine tasting
group (8%) compared to others (4 and 15% respectively), see
Table AD.5.
Regarding statistically signicant associations between reported
factors inuencing purchase of wine (Table AE.1) and the preference
for tactile alternative communication the odds was (intuitively) larger
for respondents who preferred communication via touch for the
illustrations on the label (logOR = 1.61) but as well for the front label
(1.16), and the bottle design (0.84), also aer controlling for the locale
of purchase (Table AE.2).
e only association found to bestatistically signicant was the
(intuitively) larger logged odds (logOR = 0.91) of preferring touch for
consumers whose experience were inuenced by tactile sensations
(Table AF.1), which also held aer controlling for the locale of
consumption (Table AF.2).
3.2.5. Speech (hearing)
Neither any demographical factors (Appendix D) nor any factors
inuencing the consumption (Appendix F) were signicantly related
to preferring speech (hearing) as a means of communication. e only
association found to bestatistically signicant (Table AE.1) was the
larger logged odds of preferring speech as alternative communication
for respondents whose wine purchasing were inuenced by the
country of origin (logOR = 1.34), also aer controlling for the locale
of purchase (Table AE.2).
3.2.6. Music (hearing)
Respondents open to alternative communication via music were
on average signicantly younger (36.4 years) compared to others
(41.8), and lived in more densely populated areas (96% vs. 74% in
capital or city), see Table AD.3 and Figure AD.1.
For inuence on purchase and consumption of wine, only a single
factor each was signicantly associated to preferring music as
alternative communication, also aer controlling for the locale.
Regarding purchase, the odds of preferring music were higher for the
bottle design (logOR = 1.27), see Appendix E, and for consumption
the odds of preferring music were higher for the sound environment
(logOR = 1.75), see Appendix F.
3.2.7. Sounds (hearing)
Respondents open to alternative communication via sounds were
on average signicantly younger (34.8 years) compared to others
(41.7), and lived in more densely populated areas (95% vs. 74% in
capital or city), see Table AD.3 and Figure AD.1.
None of the factors inuencing consumption experience
(Appendix F) were signicantly associated with the preference for
sounds as alternative communication. Regarding inuence on
purchase of wine a single factor was statistically signicant
(Table AE.1) with a larger odds of preferring sounds in relation to
sensory indicators (logOR = 1.18), also aer controlling for the locale
of consumption (Table AE.2).
3.3. Associations between reported
alternatives to regular wine
communication
We study the pairwise associations between the seven preferences
for alternative wine communication using logOR and correlations,
and then look for higher dimensional structures. While most
consumers reported only one alternative (45.9%), very few reported
Crichton-Fock et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1190364
Frontiers in Psychology 06 frontiersin.org
no alternative (6.1%), so almost half (49.0%) checked at least two of
these alternatives (see Table4).
When pairs of reported alternatives were considered, about half
of them had a signicant relationship (see Table5). Since all signicant
logORs/correlations were positive, except for shapes/colors, where
only touch was positive and the others signicantly negative, the
occurrence of a reported alternative generally had an increased
probability of also having other alternatives reported. Particularly, the
logOR/correlation between sounds and music were large (2.89/0.40),
although both alternatives were quite infrequent in total (6.1 and
7.0%). e logOR/correlation was also fairly high between Odors/
aromas and Flavor (1.32/0.31). e other logORs involving Speech,
Music, Sounds and Touch (except for Music and Touch) were about
as high (1.02–1.49) although the correlations were somewhat lower
(0.10–0.18). For preferred alternatives Shape/colors and Flavors, the
logOR was not as high (0.90) but the correlation was somewhat
higher (0.22).
Among the respondents there were 51 dierent combinations of
preferences for alternative wine communication, including the
combination with no preferences at all. Aer applying logistic
principal component analysis for dimensionality reduction on the
preferences, wekept the rst three extracted principal components
(PCs) since they accounted for as much as 79% of the total deviance
among the preferences (44, 19 and 16% respectively), involved all
preferences with (very) high loadings and resembled the correlational
structure well, see Table6. e rst PC had high loadings (absolute
value larger than 0.3) of Sounds, Music, Speech and Touch, the second
had a very high loading (absolute value larger than 0.6) of Shapes/
colors but also high of Odors/aromas and Flavors, while the third PC
had a very high loading of Shape/colors, but also high of Odors/
aromas and Touch.
Aer plotting the respondents scores on the three extracted PCs,
see Figure1, we identied three groups (plus two deviant single
combination groups) of observations which (by construction) diered
signicantly in terms of their preferences of alternative wine
communication, see Table6.
e number of preferences also diered signicantly between the
groups, the bottom group (in red, named G1) with fewest (0–3), the
middle group (green, G2) with slightly more (1–4) and the top group
(blue, G3) with most preferences (2–5), see Figure1. and Table7. e le
single combination group (black, G4) had 80 respondents preferring only
Shapes/colors, while the utmost right (black, G5) had four respondents
preferring all the seven ways of alternative wine communication.
Relatively many in group G1 preferred hearing and tactile, but
fewer in G2 and G3. While none in group G1 preferred smells and
taste, about half in G2 and everyone in G3 did. e groups also
diered signicantly in terms of age (G5 youngest, G3 and G4 oldest),
see Table7, and to the degree which they selected wine with regard to
sustainability (Table AG.1).
In studying the relation to purchase choice and consumption
experience weuse multinomial regression and regress the group (but
to enable reliable estimation weexclude group G5) on the locale (as to
rule it its eect) and the inuential factor under study, see Table AG.2.
In addition to previously found signicant factors (see sections 3.2.1–7)
inuencing purchase (country of origin, grape, illustrations on the
label, vintage), the wine producer was also found to besignicant.
Regarding consumption experience (Table AG.3) the situation was
similar (with smell/odor and tactile sensations, overall room
environment and hosts/stas from before) adding visual impression.
We summarize the description of the groups in Table8.
3.4. Most frequent combinations of
reported alternatives to regular
communication of wine
Given the frequencies in Table3 it is as expected that the most
frequent combinations (63.2%) of reported alternatives (see Table9)
only involved the univariately most frequent alternatives: shapes/
colors (54.1%), avors (38.0%) and odors/aromas (45.0%). Almost
half of those who reported any three alternatives (13.7%) specically
reported these three (6.4%). However, no one reported the specic
TABLE5 Pairwise logged odds ratios (upper right) and correlations (lower left) of reported alternatives to regular wine communication.
Shapes/
colors
Sounds Music Speech Touch Odors/
aromas
Flavors
Shapes/colors 0.26 −0.35 −0.78*1.11*** −0.66*** −0.90***
Sounds 0.03 2.89*** 1.33** 1.47*** 0.74 0.64
Music −0.05 0.40*** 1.49*** 0.83 0.70 0.39
Speech −0.11*0.14*0.18*** 1.02** 0.69 −0.22
Tou c h 0.18** 0.18** 0.10 0.13*1.02*** 0.09
Odors/aromas −0.16** 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.18*** 1.32***
Flavors −0.22*** 0.08 0.05 −0.03 0.02 0.31***
Log odds ratio with Fisher’s exact test (Haldane-Anscombe), and Pearson correlation coecient with t-test. Two-sided p-value: 0.05 > * > 0.01 > ** > 0.001 > ***.
TABLE4 Total number of reported alternatives (Shapes/Colors; Sounds; Music; Speech; Touch; Odors/aromas; Flavors) to regular wine communication
among respondents.
Number of reported
alternatives
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total
Number of respondents 20 151 90 45 13 6 0 4 329
Percentage of total respondents (%) 6.1 45.9 27.4 13.7 4.0 1.8 0 1.2 100
Crichton-Fock et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1190364
Frontiers in Psychology 07 frontiersin.org
combination of shapes/colors and odors/aromas. e most common
combination was the group G4 (see section 3.3) with 80 respondents
only preferring shapes/colors as alternative communication.
It is hard to detect signicant dierences between the combinations
since they are relatively small (except for G4). Still, the age of
respondents was signicantly higher among the combination odors/
aromas and avors (49.7 years), relative to those only reporting the
alternative odors/aromas (37.9 years), but not among those only
preferring avors (45.4 years), see Figure AH.1. A few inuential factors
on the choice of purchase (illustrations on the label, sensory indicators),
see Table AH.1, and on the consumption experience (taste sensations),
see Table AH.2, diered signicantly between the combinations. Due
to scarcity of observations, wedid not control for the locale.
4. Discussion
e ndings of this study revealed that taste (94%), tasting/dinner
setting (66%), and the smell of the wine (65%) were the most inuential
self-reported sensory factors during wine consumption. In contrast, a
smaller percentage of participants reported being inuenced by other
senses, such as vision (26%), touch (12%), and sound (8%). ese results
suggest that there is relatively low awareness of crossmodal
correspondence and the eects of the multisensory environment among
this group of engaged wine consumers. is highlights the potential for
more serious attempts to implement the ndings of this research in the
food industry, considering the valuable role that alternative multisensory
communication tools have played in sensory marketing and increasing
sales (Elder and Krishna, 2010; Varela and Ares, 2012; Spence etal., 2013;
Krishna and Schwarz, 2014; Croijmans and Wang, 2021; Spence, 2022a).
Despite the extensive research demonstrating the inuence of
senses like vision and touch on crossmodal correspondence (Lick etal.,
2017; Baptista etal., 2022; Nguyen and Durner, 2023; Spence, 2023)
and the role of haptic sensations (Piqueras-Fiszman and Spence, 2012;
Wang and Spence, 2018), the participants in this study reported these
factors as being inuential for only a few of them. However, when
asked if they would consider purchasing wine based solely on sensory
information, the majority of participants reacted positively, particularly
if the sensory descriptors aligned with their personal preferences
(91%). Similarly, when asked about purchasing a wine with no specic
origin but blended from dierent wines, participants responded
positively (95%) if the descriptors matched their sensory prole.
Furthermore, when it came to the primary choice of alternative
communication for wine, visual cues were rated the highest (54%). is
supports the idea that this group of participants is open to buying wine
based solely on sensory information, without considering origin or
blending. By analyzing the respondents’ scores on the three extracted
principal components, three groups (along with two deviant single
combination groups) were identied. ese groups exhibited signicant
dierences in their preferences for alternative wine communication. is
result suggests the potential for a strategic communication approach that
employs dierent forms of communication tools to target dierent
consumer groups through alternative communication methods. It also
highlights the importance of utilizing such tools to support specic
consumer groups in need of special assistance (Spence, 2022c).
As mentioned earlier, one of the motivations behind this research
is to explore how novel sustainable products that are resource-ecient
and have a reduced carbon footprint can beeectively communicated
and validated for consumer acceptance (Lévy etal., 2006; Peschel
etal., 2019; Herdenstam etal., 2022). is research aims to enhance
researchers’ understanding of how consumers perceive a product in
relation to meeting their expectations, thereby contributing to the
communication and acceptance of such products.
5. Conclusion
ese results provide insights into the factors that inuence wine
purchasing and consumption, as well as the preferences and attitudes
towards alternative wine communication. ey highlight the
importance of sensory information, particularly taste, and the
potential for using visual and other alternative means to communicate
TABLE6 Loading matrix from logistic principal component analysis on preferences for alternative wine communication.
Principal
component
(% explained
deviance)
Shapes/colors Sounds Music Speech Touch Odors/
aromas
Flavors
First PC (44%) 0.090 −0.496 −0.488 −0.468 −0.464 −0.242 −0.119
Second PC (19%) −0.462 −0.092 −0.034 −0.096 −0.272 0.449 0.702
ird PC (16%) 0.655 −0.106 −0.180 −0.265 0.373 0.537 0.173
Loadings with absolute value larger than 0.3 (0.6) are in bold (bold italic).
FIGURE1
Respondents scores (with groupings colored and single group
combinations in black) on three extracted PCs (from preferences of
alternative wine communication).
Crichton-Fock et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1190364
Frontiers in Psychology 08 frontiersin.org
TABLE7 General characteristics and preferences for wine communication by group (G1-G5).
General characteristics Preference for altern. wine communication (%)
Group Nr of
respondents***
Average nr of
alternatives for
communication**
Average
age
(years)*
Median
income
(1,000 SEK)
Shapes/
colors
(%)***
Sounds
(%)***
Music
(%)***
Speech
(%)***
Touch
(%)***
Odors/
aromas
(%)***
Flavors
(%)***
G1 57 1.04 37.6 37.4 33 9 14 21 26 0 0
G2 111 1.72 40.5 37.0 37 6 7 7 14 40 60
G3 77 2.83 43.5 38.0 44 5 8 8 18 100 100
G4 80 1 43.5 41.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0
G5 4 7 33.0 24.5 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Test of equal size: Nr of respondents (Chi-square). Test of association: Preference for alternative (Chi-square). Test of equal location: Age (Anova F-test); Nr of alternatives and Income (Kruskal-Wallis). p-value: 0.05 > * > 0.01 > ** > 0.001 > ***.
TABLE8 Salient features among groups compared to the least salient (reference) group.
Group (size
in %)
Alt. wine
communication
Demographics and other characteristics Factors influencing purchase
choice
Factors influencing consumption
experience
G1 (17%) Hearing, tactile Younger, consume in bars/restaurants, willing to try blended wine Country of origin, illustrations on the label,
wine producer
Tactile sensations
G2 (34%) Consume with friends/family/wine tasting group, regard sustainability Grape Overall room environment, hosts/professionals/ sta
G3 (23%) Smell, taste Older, consume at home, consider buying with only sensory information Country of origin, wine producer, vintage Visual impression, smell/odor sensation
G4 (24%) Visual Older, consume with friends/family/wine tasting group, regard sustainability Hosts/professionals/sta
Crichton-Fock et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1190364
Frontiers in Psychology 09 frontiersin.org
the sensory experience of wine. Understanding these preferences and
associations can assist in developing eective strategies for wine
marketing and communication, addressing better resource use.
Overall, these ndings suggest that wine consumers consider various
factors when purchasing and consuming wine, including sensory
indicators, personal preferences, and inuential factors. ere is
openness to alternative means of wine communication, particularly
visual communication using shapes and colors. e associations
between preferences and demographics/inuential factors highlight
the individual dierences in wine communication preferences. It’s
important to note that these conclusions are based on the information
provided in the given sections. Further analysis and research may
benecessary to validate and expand upon these ndings.
Data availability statement
e original contributions presented in the study are included in
the article/Supplementary materials, further inquiries can bedirected
to the corresponding author.
Ethics statement
Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on
human participants in accordance with the local legislation and
institutional requirements. Written informed consent was taken from
the participants.
Author contributions
AC-F contributed to conception and design of the study and
wrote the rst dra of the manuscript. CS wrote sections of the
manuscript and approved the submitted version. AC-F and CS
contributed to manuscript revision and read. NP performed the
statistical analysis and contributed to manuscript revision. All
authors contributed to the article and approved the
submitted version.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to especially acknowledge Markus
Ekman, School of Hospitality, Culinary Arts & Meal Science at
Örebro, for collecting data. This study is the second pilot within
the multidisciplinary research project Rewine The World, which
has a mission to rescue wine and other complex food products.
Conflict of interest
e authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or nancial relationships that could
beconstrued as a potential conict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the
authors and do not necessarily represent those of their aliated
organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the
reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or
claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or
endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
e Supplementary material for this article can befound online
at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1190364/
full#supplementary-material
References
Adams, C. A. (2010). Sustainability research in need of a multi-disciplinary approach
and a practice and policy focus? Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J. 1. doi: 10.1108/
sampj.2010.46801aaa.001
Ahn, Y. H. (2011). Building for the future: United Nations approach for their
buildings. J. Green Build. 6, 1–6. doi: 10.3992/jgb.6.4.1
Baptista, I., Spence, C., Shimizu, R., Ferreira, E., and Behrens, J. (2022). Color is to
avor as shape is to texture: a choice-based conjoint study of visual cues on chocolate
packaging. J. Sens. Stud. 38:e12793. doi: 10.1111/joss.12793
Bolognesi, M., and Strik Lievers, F. (2018). How language and image construct
synaesthetic metaphors in print advertising. Vis. Commun. 19, 431–457. doi:
10.1177/1470357218782001
Christ, K. L., and Burritt, R. L. (2013). Critical environmental concerns in wine production:
an integrative review. J. Clean. Prod. 53, 232–242. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.04.007
Croijmans, I., Hendrickx, I., Lefever, E., Majid, A., and Van Den Bosch, A. (2020).
Uncovering the language of wine experts. Nat. Lang. Eng. 26, 511–530. doi: 10.1017/
S1351324919000500
Croijmans, I., Speed, L. J., Arshamian, A., and Majid, A. (2020). Expertise shapes
multimodal imagery for wine. Cogn. Sci. 44:e12842. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12842
Croijmans, I., and Wang, Q. J. (2021). Do youwant a description with that wine? e
role of wine mental imagery in consumer's desire to drink using the revised vividness
of wine imagery questionnaire (VWIQ-II). J. Sens. Stud. 37:e12712. doi: 10.1111/
joss.12712
TABLE9 Observed combinations of the most frequently reported
alternatives to regular wine communication (shapes/colors, flavors and
odors/aromas).
Shapes/
Colors
(other
visual
symbols)
Flavors
(tastes)
Odors/
aromas
(smells)
Sound;
Music;
Speech;
Touch
n%
YES NO NO NO 80 24.3
NO YES NO NO 37 11.2
NO YES YES NO 35 10.6
YES YES YES NO 21 6.4
YES YES NO NO 18 5.5
NO NO YES NO 17 5.2
YES NO YES NO 0 0
Sum of observations among the combinations in the table 208 63.2
All observations 329 100
Crichton-Fock et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1190364
Frontiers in Psychology 10 frontiersin.org
De Soete, W. (2016). Towards a multidisciplinary approach on creating value:
sustainability through the supply chain and ERP systems. Systems 4:16. doi: 10.3390/
systems4010016
Dondi, L., Ripamonti, F., Ugolini, M., and Var varo, S. (2020). A multidisciplinary
approach as an assumption for design sustainability in developing countries. IOP
conference series. Mater. Sci. Eng. 960:032102. doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/960/3/032102
Elder, R. S., and Krishna, A. (2010). e eects of advertising copy on sensory
thoughts and perceived taste. J. Consum. Res. 36, 748–756. doi: 10.1086/605327
Galbreath, J., Tisch, D., Quaddus, M., and Rabbanee, F. (2020). e impact of climate
change on rm adaptation: the case of the wine industry. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 32,
373–389. doi: 10.1108/IJWBR-07-2019-0045
Ghosh, P. R., Fawcett, D., Sharma, S. B., and Poinern, G. E. J. (2016). Progress towards
sustainable utilisation and management of food wastes in the global economy. Int. J.
Food Sci. 2016:3563478. doi: 10.1155/2016/3563478
Herdenstam, A., Hammarén, M., Ahlström, R., and Wiktorsson, P.-A. (2009). e
Professional language of wine: Perception, training and dialogue. Journal of Wine
Research 20, 53–84. doi: 10.1080/09571260902978543
Herdenstam, A. P. F., Kur tser, P., Swahn, J., and Arunachalam, A. (2022). Nature versus
machine: a pilot study using a semi-trained culinary panel to perform sensory evaluation
of robot-cultivated basil aected by mechanically induced stress. Int. J. Gastron. Food
Sci. 29:100578. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgfs.2022.100578
Herdenstam, A., Nilsen, A. N., and Öström, Å. (2020). Breaking the silence: a
pilot study investigating communication skills of sommeliers and chefs after
analogical training. Int. J. Gastron. Food Sci. 20:100210. doi: 10.1016/j.
ijgfs.2020.100210
Herdenstam, A., Nilsen, A., Öström, Å., and Harrington, R. J. (2018). Sommelier
training – dialogue seminars and repertory grid method in combination as a pedagogical
tool. Int. J. Gastron. Food Sci. 13, 78–89. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgfs.2018.07.002
Hopton, M. E., Cabezas, H., Campbell, D., Eason, T., Garmestani, A. S.,
Heberling, M. T., et al. (2010). Development of a multidisciplinary approach to assess
regional sustainability. Int J Sust Dev World 17, 48–56. doi: 10.1080/13504500903488297
Krishna, A., and Schwarz, N. (2014). Sensory marketing, embodiment, and grounded
cognition: a review and introduction. J. Consum. Psychol. 24, 159–168. doi: 10.1016/j.
jcps.2013.12.006
Lévy, C. M., Macrae, A., and Köster, E. P. (2006). Perceived stimulus complexity and food
preference development. Ac ta Psychol. 123, 394–413. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2006.06.006
Lick, E., König, B., Kpossa, M. R., and Buller, V. (2017). Sensory expectations
generated by colors of red wine labels. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 37, 146–158. doi:
10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.07.005
Martini, D., Ragone, G., Cazzini, F., Cheli, F., Formici, G., la Porta, C. A. M., et al.
(2021). e need for a multidisciplinary approach to face challenges related to food,
health, and sustainability: the contribution of CRC I-WE. Sustainability 13:13720. doi:
10.3390/su132413720
Maziriri, E. T., Rukuni, T. F., and Chuchu, T. (2021). Factors inuencing food
consumption satisfaction and purchase decisions of restaurant consumers. Cogent Bus.
Manag. 8. doi: 10.1080/23311975.2021.1968731
Merli, R., Preziosi, M., and Acampora, A. (2018). Sustainability experiences in the
wine sector: toward the development of an international indicators system. J. Clean.
Prod. 172, 3791–3805. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.129
Nguyen, T. H., and Durner, D. (2023). Sensory evaluation of wine aroma: Should
color-driven descriptors be used? Food Qual. Prefer. 107:104844. doi: 10.1016/j.
foodqual.2023.104844
Paradis, C., and Eeg-Olofsson, M. (2013). Describing sensory experience: the genre
of wine reviews. Metaphor. Symb. 28, 22–40. doi: 10.1080/10926488.2013.742838
Peschel, A. O., Kazemi, S., Liebichová, M., Sarraf, S. C. M., and Aschemann-Witzel, J.
(2019). Consumers’ associative networks of plant-based food product communications.
Food Qual. Prefer. 75, 145–156. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.02.015
Piqueras-Fiszman, B., and Spence, C. (2012). e weight of the bottle as a possible
extrinsic cue with which to estimate the price (and quality) of the wine? Observed
correlations. Food Qual. Prefer. 25, 41–45. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.01.001\
R Core Team (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R
Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available at: https://www.R-
project.org/
Rinaldi, C. (2017). Food and gastronomy for sustainable place development: a
multidisciplinary analysis of dierent theoretical approaches. Sustainability 9:1748. doi:
10.3390/su9101748
Rosen, M. A. (2009). Sustainability: a crucial quest for humanity – welcome to a new
open access journal for a growing multidisciplinary community. Sustainability 1, 1–4.
doi: 10.3390/su1010001
Roy, P., Nei, D., Orikasa, T., Xu, Q., Okadome, H., Nakamura, N., et al. (2009). A
review of life cycle assessment (LCA) on some food products. J. Food Eng. 90, 1–10. doi:
10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2008.06.016
Ruggieri, L., Cadena, E., Martínez-Blanco, J., Gasol, C. M., Rieradevall, J., Gabarrell, X.,
et al. (2009). Recovery of organic wastes in the Spanish wine industry. Technical,
economic and environmental analyses of the composting process. J. Clean. Prod. 17,
830–838. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.12.005
Spence, C. (2017). Gastrophysics: e new science of eating. New York, NY: Viking.
Spence, C. (2020). Senses of place: architectural design for the multisensory mind.
Cogn. Res. Princ. Implic. 5:46. doi: 10.1186/s41235-020-00243-4
Spence, C. (2022a). Experimental atmospherics: a multi-sensory perspective. Qual.
Mark. Res. Int. J. 25, 662–673. doi: 10.1108/QMR-04-2022-0070
Spence, C. (2022b). e form of taste: on the origins, implications, and applications
of shape-taste crossmodal correspondences. UOU Scient. J. 4, 150–163. doi: 10.14198/
UOU.2022.4.15
Spence, C. (2022c). Exploring group dierences in the crossmodal correspondences.
Multisens. Res. 35, 495–536. doi: 10.1163/22134808-bja10079
Spence, C. (2023). Explaining visual shape-taste crossmodal correspondences.
Multisens. Res. 36, 313–345. doi: 10.1163/22134808-bja10096
Spence, C., Hobkinson, C., Gallace, A., and Piqueras Fiszman, B. (2013). A touch of
gastronomy. Flavour 2, 1–15. doi: 10.1186/2044-7248-2-14
Spence, C., and Van Doorn, G. (2022). Visual communication via the design of food
and beverage packaging. Cogn. Res. Princ. Implic. 7:42. doi: 10.1186/s41235-022-00391-9
Spence, C., Velasco, C., and Knoeferle, K. (2014). A large sample study on the
inuence of the multisensory environment on the wine drinking experience. Flavour
3:8. doi: 10.1186/2044-7248-3-8
Spence, C., and Wang, Q. (2015a). Wine and music (I): on the crossmodal matching
of wine and music. Flavour 4:34. doi: 10.1186/s13411-015-0045-x
Spence, C., and Wang, Q. J. (2015b). Wine and music (II): can youtaste the music?
Modulating the experience of wine through music and sound. Flavour 4:33. doi:
10.1186/s13411-015-0043-z
Spence, C., and Wang, Q. J. (2015c). Wine and music (III): so what if music inuences
the taste of the wine? Flavour 4:36. doi: 10.1186/s13411-015-0046-9
Stock, P., and Burton, R. J. F. (2011). Dening terms for integrated (multi-inter-t rans-
disciplinary) sustainability research. Sustainability 3, 1090–1113. doi: 10.3390/su3081090
Uiterkamp, A. J. M. S., and Vlek, C. (2007). Practice and outcomes of multidisciplinary
research for environmental sustainability. J. Soc. Issues 63, 175–197. doi:
10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00502.x
Varela, P., and Ares, G. (2012). Sensory proling, the blurred line between sensory and
consumer science. A review of novel methods for product characterization. Food Res.
Int. 48, 893–908. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2012.06.037
Wang, H., Feng, X., Suo, H., Yuan, X., Zhou, S., Ren, H., et al. (2022). Comparison of
the performance of the same panel with dierent training levels: ash prole versus
descriptive analysis. Food Qual. Prefer. 99:104582. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104582
Wang, Q. J., and Spence, C. (2018). A smooth wine? Haptic inuences on wine
evaluation. Int. J. Gastron. Food. Sci. 14, 9–13. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgfs.2018.08.002
Wörfel, P., Frentz, F., and Tautu, C. (2022). Marketing comes to its senses: a
bibliometric review and integrated framework of sensory experience in marketing. Eu r.
J. Mark. 56, 704–737. doi: 10.1108/EJM-07-2020-0510
Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.