Understanding the Terminology for Snack Foods and Their Texture by Consumers in Four Languages: A Qualitative Study

The choice of food products is affected by the combination of food properties, consumer motives, emotions, and context, especially in cross-cultural studies. The designs of cross-cultural studies involve several limitations such as conceptual perception and linguistic and cultural differences in response style. These factors confine the validity and generalizability of such study models. In this study, we have combined linguistic and contextual perception together to generate consumer texture terminologies. Four focus groups discussions were conducted with consumers from nine different countries in English, Hindi, Mandarin, and Spanish. Vocabularies for sixteen texture terms were generated. Consumers provided a single consensus term that they typically use to describe contextual sensory perception. The results show that consumers use several terms to describe texture, and terms are very specific to product and related perception. The English translation of words like “snack”, “texture”, and other sensory texture terms are meaningless for non-English speaking cultures. Researchers are encouraged to validate (test) the structure of cross-cultural study models before application. Practical application: The findings of this study present a model which can be utilized to conduct cross-cultural research studies. The results can contribute to generate accurate consumer responses, acceptance, preference, and addressing consumers concerns. Food industries could leverage these by using our methodology in product development, finding consumer insights, effective communication, and products testing in international settings.


Introduction
Cross-cultural understating of sensory terminologies is a major need of today's global world where the same products are tested and marketed internationally. The growing demand for standards to describe products on a global scale makes it more important to define and understand sensory terminologies, either in analytical sensory description with trained panelists or with consumers to investigate human perception [1,2]. Sensory profiling can help to achieve better understanding of products and meet objectives [3]. However, cross-cultural sensory studies become complicated when understanding food perceptions. Issues such as language and culture can promote frustration when trying to understand the same products across multiple countries. For descriptive sensory analysis, such problems can be overcome by training and good communication among researchers and panels [4]. This may be less easy to do with consumers, who may have high variability in their use of consumer terms, a problem aggravated by differences in language and culture. For effective communication across cultures, particularly when consumers are involved, it is vital to understand how people of different languages and cultures describe the same perception.

Products
The list of representative foods served to consumers to establish textural context and to help in determining consumer term options was based on the descriptive sensory analysis results produced by Kumar and Chambers [1], who used a trained panel and expert translators to describe textural terms in various languages ( Table 2). The samples used in the study were ready to eat without any preparation and, thus, were served "as is". The samples were served blind (no label information) in 3.25 oz (plastic) or 8 oz (Styrofoam) cups (based on the size and shape of the samples) and covered with a lid. One sample at a time was served to consumers for tasting. Participants cleaned their palates between samples with water. Paper napkins were provided for cleaning of lips and hands.

Focus Group Methodology
Professionally trained moderators, whose native language was that of the consumer group, led and conducted four focus group discussions. The moderator's guide was prepared in English (Table 3) and moved from more general to complex, and on to detailed questions. After discussions with industry colleagues, it was translated into three languages by the moderators, who also had excellent skills in English. Whenever a question arose about possible options for translation, other native speakers of that language were consulted. All sessions were conducted in the native language of the representative consumer group, and were video recorded in order to review later. Each focus group session lasted for 90 min. The study was approved by the Committee on Research with Human Subjects at Kansas State University.
Each participant was provided with printed handouts that included the trained descriptive panel texture terms of interest (Table 3) with definitions in both the native language and English [1]. The terms and definitions were provided one at a time, at the time the term was discussed. To provide context, participants were served representative snack foods for each attribute listed in Table 3. Recent authors have shown that simple changes in the flavor of products where texture is maintained can still show differences in consumer emotional response to the product, clearly indicating the importance of tasting to provide context [28].
The participants were asked to read the textural term and definition, followed by tasting of product for textural experience. Then, participants were asked to describe the textural attribute using consumer terms in their native language that they thought were best representative of the attribute, definition, and the experience during tasting. Multiple terms were requested from the participants; the moderator obtained at least three terms before exploring the meanings of those words and discussing them. Once the list was developed, discussion on the meanings of those terms and how they compared were held to begin developing consensus for the one best consumer term, if possible, that was most representative of the descriptive texture term developed by a trained panel. The strategy was to get the most appropriate term that consumers usually use to define these textures in their daily life.

Texture attributes
What are words you use to describe these texture terms?
(1) Firmness: The force required to bite completely through the food sample with the molar teeth.
(2) Smoothness: Degree to which the sample feels smooth and free of lumps/particulates as opposed to lumpy, rough, grainy, gritty, and/or sandy.
(3) Moistness: The perceived amount of moisture in the product.
(4) Roughness of surface: The amount of indentations/bumps and surface abrasions which can be perceived by gently manipulating one piece between the thumb & fingers, lips, palate, and/or tongue. (5) Adhesive: The degree to which the product sticks to the hands or mouth. (6) Cohesiveness: The degree to which the sample deforms prior to breaking apart when compressed once between the molar teeth. (7) Crispiness: The intensity of audible sound when the sample is compressed between the molar teeth.
(8) Uniformity of bite: Degree to which the product changes from start to finish in the bite. If the force necessary to bite through the sample changes during the bite, the product is non-uniform. The more consistent the force, the more uniform. (9) Astringency: Drying sensation on the surface and/or edges of the lips, tongue, and mouth. (10) Oiliness: The appearance of a fat or oily coating on the surface of the product. The English speakers from the US were the only group that related sensory perceptions to the term "texture" and explained "texture" explicitly as a terminology. For example, "a crunchy texture of an apple is an indicator of freshness, whereas mushy apple is stale", "I do not eat crunchy textured foods because it's noisy", and "yogurt is too thin to experience, not my jam, rather I like hummus because it is more substantial". Hindi, Mandarin, and Spanish speakers had difficulty with "texture" as a translated term and used different methods to describe what "texture" was.
General comments made by Hindi speakers on snack texture were "ruffle texture, structure of food, rough surface, crispy, and indentions on chips". They were not able to understand the English term "texture" as a terminology for snacks, and their responses were mainly based on individual experiences. Some direct comments were "hardness depends on chip, kettle cooked is different from normal chips", said a 26-year-old women. Indian consumers frequently used product names and associated sensory attributes such as namkeen mixture, bhujia, roasted groundnuts, bhel puri, salty, spicy, crispy, crunchy, sweet etc. Similarly, Chinese speakers frequently used product names to establish textural concepts in terms of specific products. For example, "peanut candy should be crispy but not hard, and I will be disappointed if it is very hard", "softness of bread, it should not be dry or hard", "creaminess and thickness of yogurt texture", "liquid texture of yogurt stimulates the feeling of low quality" etc. "A cracker needs to be crunchy", said a 32-year-old Spanish speaker. The Spanish-speaking group related textures to snacking occasion. For example, "what texture I eat depends on the time of the day and the event" and "cereal bars for the office consumption". A few Spanish speakers noted that texture was a quality, freshness, and purity indicator. For example, "fruits with certain textures are too perfect, it makes me think if it has something extra".
All groups had experienced multi-textured snack foods before, but not all were as adept at describing the textural aspects of such products. For example, Hindi speakers often attributed their prior experience to multi-sensory characteristics, including flavor (i.e., taste and aroma). For example, "rasagulla (sweet dumpling) liked for sponge feel, sweet taste and rose flavor", a product "layered in cookies and ladoos (sweet dish) coated with coconut flakes offers a variety of soft and hard bite experiences", said a 26-year-old woman. Other examples provided for multi-textured experiences were "ice cream as soft, apple as crispy, and banana as soft", suggesting again that the concept of the term "texture" was associated with specific products. Spanish speakers talked about combining different snacks with alcoholic "beer" and non-alcoholic "coffee and tea" beverages. For example, "flour or grain-based snacks pair well with coffee or tea" and "meat snacks go well with alcohol". The US group shared widespread multi-textured experiences such as "soft yogurt with crunchy granola". Some snacks were preferred for their specific features, such as "crispy and flaky pretzel stick for their crunch and thick bite experience" and "buffalo pretzels for crispness".

Snacking Occasion, Texture, and Emotions
We found a strong association between snacking occasion, textures, and emotions. The format of association remained consistent across cultures and genders. Consumers want to start their day with a soft-textured snack or food, and as the day progressed, consumers tend to move towards more crispy, hard, and noisy textures. In addition, consumers prefer to eat something healthier or something close to nature, like fruits, particularly in the morning and early in the day. Consumers want to avoid noisy snacks in public places. For example, "in office, I don't like crispy stuff because it is super loud", "I prefer soft texture like chocolate or fruits like banana. I have issue with apple because it is still noisy to eat", said a 24-year-old Indian woman. "Usually I eat fruits in morning, it is culture to eat fruits in morning and savory snack in evening", said a 26-year-old Indian woman. Similar responses were received from the Chineseand Spanish-speaking groups.
Consumers associated occasions to snack eating, for example "sometimes I need sweet in the morning more like fruit or other sweet, and in the afternoon more crunchy or salty", said a Spanish speaker. A pattern of starting the day with something sweet, soft, less or no crisp or crunch at all was also observed among non-English speakers. The Indian group preferred to eat fruits, milk, puff pastry, croissants, bread, and soft-textured foods, giving the reason as tradition and culture. Some specific comments included "I eat soft textured food in morning, even if I eat rusk (sweet toast) like food, I dip that in milk or tea to make it soft, little hard during lunch but likes crispy in evening", said a 26-year-old women. "I do not like to eat spicy or savory snack in morning, prefer to eat something that gives me a less stomach fill experience", said 30-year-old man. The majority of Indian consumers eat savory, crispy, crunchy, and hard-textured snacks in the evening or late at night to re-energize themselves. At night, they prefer to eat sweet, semi-liquid snacks like chocolate. A 30-year-old Indian consumer said "I want to eat something in night where I do not waste energy to chew or eat". One or two consumers in each group did not have a texture preference at all. The number of consumers who had "no texture preference at all" was higher in US group than others, but still in the minority.
Consumers mentioned some specific textures that are preferred at certain places. For example, all groups want to avoid eating crispy and crunchy textures in public (like offices) due to noise generation. For example, "In office, I don't like crispy stuff because it is super loud, I prefer soft texture like chocolate, fruits like banana, have issue with apple too because it is still noisy", said a 25-year-old Indian woman. A 28-year-old US woman said "I don't like to eat crumbly, easily breakable, sticky, and oily snacks in the car". Chinese consumers also shared similar comments about avoiding eating snacks in public places that makes noise. Spanish consumers prefer to eat creamy textures at home due to spreading process. US consumers usually eat snacks in all places, but mostly prefer to eat only at home. Alike, India consumers mostly eat snacks at home.
We found a strong association of snacking with emotions. When stressed, some consumers prefer to snack, whereas others said they lose their appetite. Consumers, especially women, prefer to eat sweet and soft-textured snacks (like ice creams and cookies) when feeling sad. Specific comments made by the US group were "if it's a bad day, that's an excuse to get ice cream or cookies", "when frustrated I eat crunchy and loud to get steam out", "if sad, eat ice cream", "If sad or down, I eat ice cream", and "if stressed, I do not eat anything". In the comments, "taste" (such as sweet) dominated over texture preference for most emotions, at least among women. For example, a 34-year-old US woman in the English group stated "my snacking preference in a sad emotional state is more related to taste and flavor than texture. I do not eat savory foods when feeling sad".
A contrasting pattern was found for male consumers. Almost all male consumers either eat anything (texture does not matter) or prefer to eat crunchy, savory, and hard-textured snacks when they feel angry, saying it helps to get the anger out, and potentially exhaust themselves. US consumers were found very assertive for their emotions and snacking behavior, whereas Spanish-, Chinese-, and Indian-speaking consumers were more assertive for occasion (different time in a day), places, and snacking behaviors than emotional associations.   Grainy Grainy Gritty 1 Heat/burn technically is a trigeminal sensation part of flavor, separate from texture. However, it is included here because people often refer to it as part of texture because of its seemingly physical effect in the mouth. * Closest term for the product tasted but no single term because it depends on the product. ** Equal number of consumers voted for these terms. Grainy Grainy Gritty 1 Heat/burn technically is a trigeminal sensation part of flavor, separate from texture. However, it is included here because people often refer to it as part of texture because of its seemingly physical effect in the mouth. * Closest term for the product tasted but no single term because it depends on the product. ** Equal number of consumers voted for these terms.   1 Heat/burn technically is a trigeminal sensation part of flavor, separate from texture. However, it is included here because people often refer to it as part of texture because of its seemingly physical effect in the mouth.     Gummy Worms were used as a reference food for "firmness". US consumers described "force required to bite completely through the food sample with the molar teeth" as chewiness, toughness, and hardness. The Hindi-speaking group used exactly the same terms, the Chinese group used chewy and toughness, and the Spanish group described firmness as consistency, hardness, and resistance. Only "hardness" was consistent among all four groups. The US and Indian groups described "toughness" as the most suitable descriptor for firmness, based on the (1) tough structure of the Gummy Worms and (2) the force required to bite through the Gummy worms. The Spanish and Chinese groups preferred terms that translated as resistance and chewy as their final descriptors ( Table 8). The reason was the high number of chews required to breakdown the food.

Consumer Texture Terms
Brach's chocolate balls were used as a reference food for "smoothness". The descriptors used by US consumers were sleek, creamy, silky, clean, clear, hard surface, and smoothness. The group explained that the terms might change with product. For example, "creamy goes for cheese spreads and silky for milk-based drinks". The Indian group used six terms to describe smoothness, but not all terms could be used in a similar manner. The terms were gluey, slickness, soft feel Only "hardness" was consistent among all four groups. The US and Indian groups described "toughness" as the most suitable descriptor for firmness, based on the (1) tough structure of the Gummy Worms and (2) the force required to bite through the Gummy worms. The Spanish and Chinese groups preferred terms that translated as resistance and chewy as their final descriptors ( Table 8). The reason was the high number of chews required to breakdown the food. Brach's chocolate balls were used as a reference food for "smoothness". The descriptors used by US consumers were sleek, creamy, silky, clean, clear, hard surface, and smoothness. The group explained that the terms might change with product. For example, "creamy goes for cheese spreads and silky for milk-based drinks". The Indian group used six terms to describe smoothness, but not all terms could be used in a similar manner. The terms were gluey, slickness, soft feel (कोमल), slippery/smooth ( चकना), soft feel (नरम), and soft touch (म ृ दु ). The terms largely mean smoothness, but terms were specific to certain products. Spanish speakers used flat, smooth (terso), soft, smooth (liso), and homogeneous. There is no term for smoothness (only smooth) in the Spanish language. The Chinese group used roundness and smooth. Only smooth/smoothness was common among cultures. Due to the smooth surface of chocolate balls, all groups felt smooth was the most suitable final term ( Table  8). The final terms may change to other terms if the product is different. For example, Chinese consumers used "smoothness" for hard-textured products and "roundness" for soft-textured products. Frozen jackfruit was used as a reference product for "moistness". US consumers used wet, slimy, juicy, and tender as descriptors and stated that they use tender for moist meat food and slimy for oyster-like watery foods. Indian consumers used descriptors such as water-like (पानी पानी), water-like (प नयाल), flabby, भे जवाला (no English term), and wet. Spanish speakers used juiciness, watery, and wet. The Chinese group used only two terms, i.e., juicy and moist (wet). The term "wet" was common , slippery/smooth Only "hardness" was consistent among all four groups. The US and Indian groups described "toughness" as the most suitable descriptor for firmness, based on the (1) tough structure of the Gummy Worms and (2) the force required to bite through the Gummy worms. The Spanish and Chinese groups preferred terms that translated as resistance and chewy as their final descriptors ( Table 8). The reason was the high number of chews required to breakdown the food. Brach's chocolate balls were used as a reference food for "smoothness". The descriptors used by US consumers were sleek, creamy, silky, clean, clear, hard surface, and smoothness. The group explained that the terms might change with product. For example, "creamy goes for cheese spreads and silky for milk-based drinks". The Indian group used six terms to describe smoothness, but not all terms could be used in a similar manner. The terms were gluey, slickness, soft feel (कोमल), slippery/smooth ( चकना), soft feel (नरम), and soft touch (म ृ दु ). The terms largely mean smoothness, but terms were specific to certain products. Spanish speakers used flat, smooth (terso), soft, smooth (liso), and homogeneous. There is no term for smoothness (only smooth) in the Spanish language. The Chinese group used roundness and smooth. Only smooth/smoothness was common among cultures. Due to the smooth surface of chocolate balls, all groups felt smooth was the most suitable final term ( Table  8). The final terms may change to other terms if the product is different. For example, Chinese consumers used "smoothness" for hard-textured products and "roundness" for soft-textured products. Frozen jackfruit was used as a reference product for "moistness". US consumers used wet, slimy, juicy, and tender as descriptors and stated that they use tender for moist meat food and slimy for oyster-like watery foods. Indian consumers used descriptors such as water-like (पानी पानी), water-like (प नयाल), flabby, भे जवाला (no English term), and wet. Spanish speakers used juiciness, watery, and wet. The Chinese group used only two terms, i.e., juicy and moist (wet). The term "wet" was common Only "hardness" was consistent among all four groups. The US and Indian groups described "toughness" as the most suitable descriptor for firmness, based on the (1) tough structure of the Gummy Worms and (2) the force required to bite through the Gummy worms. The Spanish and Chinese groups preferred terms that translated as resistance and chewy as their final descriptors ( Table 8). The reason was the high number of chews required to breakdown the food. Brach's chocolate balls were used as a reference food for "smoothness". The descriptors used by US consumers were sleek, creamy, silky, clean, clear, hard surface, and smoothness. The group explained that the terms might change with product. For example, "creamy goes for cheese spreads and silky for milk-based drinks". The Indian group used six terms to describe smoothness, but not all terms could be used in a similar manner. The terms were gluey, slickness, soft feel (कोमल), slippery/smooth ( चकना), soft feel (नरम), and soft touch (म ृ दु ). The terms largely mean smoothness, but terms were specific to certain products. Spanish speakers used flat, smooth (terso), soft, smooth (liso), and homogeneous. There is no term for smoothness (only smooth) in the Spanish language. The Chinese group used roundness and smooth. Only smooth/smoothness was common among cultures. Due to the smooth surface of chocolate balls, all groups felt smooth was the most suitable final term ( Table  8). The final terms may change to other terms if the product is different. For example, Chinese consumers used "smoothness" for hard-textured products and "roundness" for soft-textured products. Frozen jackfruit was used as a reference product for "moistness". US consumers used wet, slimy, juicy, and tender as descriptors and stated that they use tender for moist meat food and slimy for oyster-like watery foods. Indian consumers used descriptors such as water-like (पानी पानी), water-like (प नयाल), flabby, भे जवाला (no English term), and wet. Spanish speakers used juiciness, watery, and wet. The Chinese group used only two terms, i.e., juicy and moist (wet). The term "wet" was common , and soft touch Only "hardness" was consistent among all four groups. The US and Indian groups described "toughness" as the most suitable descriptor for firmness, based on the (1) tough structure of the Gummy Worms and (2) the force required to bite through the Gummy worms. The Spanish and Chinese groups preferred terms that translated as resistance and chewy as their final descriptors ( Table 8). The reason was the high number of chews required to breakdown the food. Brach's chocolate balls were used as a reference food for "smoothness". The descriptors used by US consumers were sleek, creamy, silky, clean, clear, hard surface, and smoothness. The group explained that the terms might change with product. For example, "creamy goes for cheese spreads and silky for milk-based drinks". The Indian group used six terms to describe smoothness, but not all terms could be used in a similar manner. The terms were gluey, slickness, soft feel (कोमल), slippery/smooth ( चकना), soft feel (नरम), and soft touch (म ृ दु ). The terms largely mean smoothness, but terms were specific to certain products. Spanish speakers used flat, smooth (terso), soft, smooth (liso), and homogeneous. There is no term for smoothness (only smooth) in the Spanish language. The Chinese group used roundness and smooth. Only smooth/smoothness was common among cultures. Due to the smooth surface of chocolate balls, all groups felt smooth was the most suitable final term ( Table  8). The final terms may change to other terms if the product is different. For example, Chinese consumers used "smoothness" for hard-textured products and "roundness" for soft-textured products. Frozen jackfruit was used as a reference product for "moistness". US consumers used wet, slimy, juicy, and tender as descriptors and stated that they use tender for moist meat food and slimy for oyster-like watery foods. Indian consumers used descriptors such as water-like (पानी पानी), water-like (प नयाल), flabby, भे जवाला (no English term), and wet. Spanish speakers used juiciness, watery, and wet. The Chinese group used only two terms, i.e., juicy and moist (wet). The term "wet" was common . The terms largely mean smoothness, but terms were specific to certain products. Spanish speakers used flat, smooth (terso), soft, smooth (liso), and homogeneous. There is no term for smoothness (only smooth) in the Spanish language. The Chinese group used roundness and smooth. Only smooth/smoothness was common among cultures. Due to the smooth surface of chocolate balls, all groups felt smooth was the most suitable final term ( Table 8). The final terms may change to other terms if the product is different. For example, Chinese consumers used "smoothness" for hard-textured products and "roundness" for soft-textured products. Heat/burn technically is a trigeminal sensation part of flavor, separate from texture. However, it is included here because people often refer to it as part of texture because of its seemingly physical effect in the mouth. * Closest term for the product tasted but no single terms because it depends on the product. ** Equal number of consumers voted for these terms.
Frozen jackfruit was used as a reference product for "moistness". US consumers used wet, slimy, juicy, and tender as descriptors and stated that they use tender for moist meat food and slimy for oyster-like watery foods. Indian consumers used descriptors such as water-like Only "hardness" was consistent among all four groups. The US and Indian groups described "toughness" as the most suitable descriptor for firmness, based on the (1) tough structure of the Gummy Worms and (2) the force required to bite through the Gummy worms. The Spanish and Chinese groups preferred terms that translated as resistance and chewy as their final descriptors ( Table 8). The reason was the high number of chews required to breakdown the food. Brach's chocolate balls were used as a reference food for "smoothness". The descriptors used by US consumers were sleek, creamy, silky, clean, clear, hard surface, and smoothness. The group explained that the terms might change with product. For example, "creamy goes for cheese spreads and silky for milk-based drinks". The Indian group used six terms to describe smoothness, but not all terms could be used in a similar manner. The terms were gluey, slickness, soft feel (कोमल), slippery/smooth ( चकना), soft feel (नरम), and soft touch (म ृ दु ). The terms largely mean smoothness, but terms were specific to certain products. Spanish speakers used flat, smooth (terso), soft, smooth (liso), and homogeneous. There is no term for smoothness (only smooth) in the Spanish language. The Chinese group used roundness and smooth. Only smooth/smoothness was common among cultures. Due to the smooth surface of chocolate balls, all groups felt smooth was the most suitable final term ( Table  8). The final terms may change to other terms if the product is different. For example, Chinese consumers used "smoothness" for hard-textured products and "roundness" for soft-textured products.
Frozen jackfruit was used as a reference product for "moistness". US consumers used wet, slimy, juicy, and tender as descriptors and stated that they use tender for moist meat food and slimy for oyster-like watery foods. Indian consumers used descriptors such as water-like (पानी पानी), water-like (प नयाल), flabby, भे जवाला (no English term), and wet. Spanish speakers used juiciness, watery, and wet. The Chinese group used only two terms, i.e., juicy and moist (wet). The term "wet" was common among the four cultures, and "juicy" was common in three of cultures but not in the Indian group. The term "juicy" in Hindi explicitly reflects fruit or vegetable juice perception. Therefore, Indian consumers used "wet" as a term for moist perception of jackfruit. Whereas, other cultures used "juiciness/juicy" for dripping-moistened jackfruit. The perception of "juiciness" as a fruit juice, not as moist, was the dominant driving force here. Again, the final terms may change if the product is changed.
Sourdough pretzels were used as a reference product for "roughness of surface". US consumers used coarse, abrasive, gritty, and jagged as descriptors, while the Hindi-speaking group used hard, rough/abrasive, and crisp. The Spanish group used six descriptors, i.e., roughness (rugosidad), heterogeneous surface, irregular surface, rough, lijoso (sharp-edged products), and roughness (aspereza). The Chinese group used rugged and roughness, with "rugged" as the final term ( Table  8). The Spanish and US consumers settled with "rough" as the final term. Indian consumers determined that both rough and abrasive were equally good ( Table 8). The rough perception was due to the top surface of the pretzels. Both the US and Indian consumers may use other terms for "roughness of surface" if the product is different.
For "adhesive" perception, chewy caramels were used as a reference product. US consumers used descriptors such as sticky, chewy, gummy, and tacky. Indian consumers used sticky ( चप चपा), sticky ( चपकना), and slippery ( चकना). Spanish consumers used sticky, taffy, and gummy, and Chinese consumers used teeth sticky and viscous. The US consumers commented that "the product is chewy, and it sticks on teeth because it is chewy", and chose "chewy" as the final term. The other three cultures used "sticky" (teeth sticky) as final term (Table 8). "Adhesive" was too technical, as consumers use "adhesive" to describe adhesive glues for pasting things but not as a food sensory descriptor. US consumers described "cohesiveness" by terms such as chewy, gummy, crumbly, spongy, uniform bite, and "change in shape but stay as whole". There was no agreement on the use of a single term, so no conclusion was reached. Indian consumers used strong, tough, "something that holds together" (न टू टने वाला), "remains together" (जु ड़ा ह ु आ), "something that does not break", and "something that does not scatter". They agreed to use the phrase "something that does not scatter" , water-like Only "hardness" was consistent among all four groups. The US and Indian groups described "toughness" as the most suitable descriptor for firmness, based on the (1) tough structure of the Gummy Worms and (2) the force required to bite through the Gummy worms. The Spanish and Chinese groups preferred terms that translated as resistance and chewy as their final descriptors ( Table 8). The reason was the high number of chews required to breakdown the food. Brach's chocolate balls were used as a reference food for "smoothness". The descriptors used by US consumers were sleek, creamy, silky, clean, clear, hard surface, and smoothness. The group explained that the terms might change with product. For example, "creamy goes for cheese spreads and silky for milk-based drinks". The Indian group used six terms to describe smoothness, but not all terms could be used in a similar manner. The terms were gluey, slickness, soft feel (कोमल), slippery/smooth ( चकना), soft feel (नरम), and soft touch (म ृ दु ). The terms largely mean smoothness, but terms were specific to certain products. Spanish speakers used flat, smooth (terso), soft, smooth (liso), and homogeneous. There is no term for smoothness (only smooth) in the Spanish language. The Chinese group used roundness and smooth. Only smooth/smoothness was common among cultures. Due to the smooth surface of chocolate balls, all groups felt smooth was the most suitable final term ( Table  8). The final terms may change to other terms if the product is different. For example, Chinese consumers used "smoothness" for hard-textured products and "roundness" for soft-textured products. Frozen jackfruit was used as a reference product for "moistness". US consumers used wet, slimy, juicy, and tender as descriptors and stated that they use tender for moist meat food and slimy for oyster-like watery foods. Indian consumers used descriptors such as water-like (पानी पानी), water-like (प नयाल), flabby, भे जवाला (no English term), and wet. Spanish speakers used juiciness, watery, and wet. The Chinese group used only two terms, i.e., juicy and moist (wet). The term "wet" was common among the four cultures, and "juicy" was common in three of cultures but not in the Indian group. The term "juicy" in Hindi explicitly reflects fruit or vegetable juice perception. Therefore, Indian consumers used "wet" as a term for moist perception of jackfruit. Whereas, other cultures used "juiciness/juicy" for dripping-moistened jackfruit. The perception of "juiciness" as a fruit juice, not as moist, was the dominant driving force here. Again, the final terms may change if the product is changed.
Sourdough pretzels were used as a reference product for "roughness of surface". US consumers used coarse, abrasive, gritty, and jagged as descriptors, while the Hindi-speaking group used hard, rough/abrasive, and crisp. The Spanish group used six descriptors, i.e., roughness (rugosidad), heterogeneous surface, irregular surface, rough, lijoso (sharp-edged products), and roughness (aspereza). The Chinese group used rugged and roughness, with "rugged" as the final term ( Table  8). The Spanish and US consumers settled with "rough" as the final term. Indian consumers determined that both rough and abrasive were equally good ( Table 8). The rough perception was due to the top surface of the pretzels. Both the US and Indian consumers may use other terms for "roughness of surface" if the product is different.
For "adhesive" perception, chewy caramels were used as a reference product. US consumers used descriptors such as sticky, chewy, gummy, and tacky. Indian consumers used sticky ( चप चपा), sticky ( चपकना), and slippery ( चकना). Spanish consumers used sticky, taffy, and gummy, and Chinese consumers used teeth sticky and viscous. The US consumers commented that "the product is chewy, and it sticks on teeth because it is chewy", and chose "chewy" as the final term. The other three cultures used "sticky" (teeth sticky) as final term (Table 8). "Adhesive" was too technical, as consumers use "adhesive" to describe adhesive glues for pasting things but not as a food sensory descriptor. US consumers described "cohesiveness" by terms such as chewy, gummy, crumbly, spongy, uniform bite, and "change in shape but stay as whole". There was no agreement on the use of a single term, so no conclusion was reached. Indian consumers used strong, tough, "something that holds together" (न टू टने वाला), "remains together" (जु ड़ा ह ु आ), "something that does not break", and "something that does not scatter". They agreed to use the phrase "something that does not scatter" Only "hardness" was consistent among all four groups. The US and Indian groups described "toughness" as the most suitable descriptor for firmness, based on the (1) tough structure of the Gummy Worms and (2) the force required to bite through the Gummy worms. The Spanish and Chinese groups preferred terms that translated as resistance and chewy as their final descriptors ( Table 8). The reason was the high number of chews required to breakdown the food. Brach's chocolate balls were used as a reference food for "smoothness". The descriptors used by US consumers were sleek, creamy, silky, clean, clear, hard surface, and smoothness. The group explained that the terms might change with product. For example, "creamy goes for cheese spreads and silky for milk-based drinks". The Indian group used six terms to describe smoothness, but not all terms could be used in a similar manner. The terms were gluey, slickness, soft feel (कोमल), slippery/smooth ( चकना), soft feel (नरम), and soft touch (म ृ दु ). The terms largely mean smoothness, but terms were specific to certain products. Spanish speakers used flat, smooth (terso), soft, smooth (liso), and homogeneous. There is no term for smoothness (only smooth) in the Spanish language. The Chinese group used roundness and smooth. Only smooth/smoothness was common among cultures. Due to the smooth surface of chocolate balls, all groups felt smooth was the most suitable final term ( Table  8). The final terms may change to other terms if the product is different. For example, Chinese consumers used "smoothness" for hard-textured products and "roundness" for soft-textured products. Frozen jackfruit was used as a reference product for "moistness". US consumers used wet, slimy, juicy, and tender as descriptors and stated that they use tender for moist meat food and slimy for oyster-like watery foods. Indian consumers used descriptors such as water-like (पानी पानी), water-like (प नयाल), flabby, भे जवाला (no English term), and wet. Spanish speakers used juiciness, watery, and wet. The Chinese group used only two terms, i.e., juicy and moist (wet). The term "wet" was common among the four cultures, and "juicy" was common in three of cultures but not in the Indian group. The term "juicy" in Hindi explicitly reflects fruit or vegetable juice perception. Therefore, Indian consumers used "wet" as a term for moist perception of jackfruit. Whereas, other cultures used "juiciness/juicy" for dripping-moistened jackfruit. The perception of "juiciness" as a fruit juice, not as moist, was the dominant driving force here. Again, the final terms may change if the product is changed.
Sourdough pretzels were used as a reference product for "roughness of surface". US consumers used coarse, abrasive, gritty, and jagged as descriptors, while the Hindi-speaking group used hard, rough/abrasive, and crisp. The Spanish group used six descriptors, i.e., roughness (rugosidad), heterogeneous surface, irregular surface, rough, lijoso (sharp-edged products), and roughness (aspereza). The Chinese group used rugged and roughness, with "rugged" as the final term ( Table  8). The Spanish and US consumers settled with "rough" as the final term. Indian consumers determined that both rough and abrasive were equally good ( Table 8). The rough perception was due to the top surface of the pretzels. Both the US and Indian consumers may use other terms for "roughness of surface" if the product is different.
For "adhesive" perception, chewy caramels were used as a reference product. US consumers used descriptors such as sticky, chewy, gummy, and tacky. Indian consumers used sticky ( चप चपा), sticky ( चपकना), and slippery ( चकना). Spanish consumers used sticky, taffy, and gummy, and Chinese consumers used teeth sticky and viscous. The US consumers commented that "the product is chewy, and it sticks on teeth because it is chewy", and chose "chewy" as the final term. The other three cultures used "sticky" (teeth sticky) as final term (Table 8). "Adhesive" was too technical, as consumers use "adhesive" to describe adhesive glues for pasting things but not as a food sensory descriptor. US consumers described "cohesiveness" by terms such as chewy, gummy, crumbly, spongy, uniform bite, and "change in shape but stay as whole". There was no agreement on the use of a single term, so no conclusion was reached. Indian consumers used strong, tough, "something that holds together" (न टू टने वाला), "remains together" (जु ड़ा ह ु आ), "something that does not break", and "something that does not scatter". They agreed to use the phrase "something that does not scatter" (no English term), and wet. Spanish speakers used juiciness, watery, and wet. The Chinese group used only two terms, i.e., juicy and moist (wet). The term "wet" was common among the four cultures, and "juicy" was common in three of cultures but not in the Indian group. The term "juicy" in Hindi explicitly reflects fruit or vegetable juice perception. Therefore, Indian consumers used "wet" as a term for moist perception of jackfruit. Whereas, other cultures used "juiciness/juicy" for dripping-moistened jackfruit. The perception of "juiciness" as a fruit juice, not as moist, was the dominant driving force here. Again, the final terms may change if the product is changed.
Sourdough pretzels were used as a reference product for "roughness of surface". US consumers used coarse, abrasive, gritty, and jagged as descriptors, while the Hindi-speaking group used hard, rough/abrasive, and crisp. The Spanish group used six descriptors, i.e., roughness (rugosidad), heterogeneous surface, irregular surface, rough, lijoso (sharp-edged products), and roughness (aspereza). The Chinese group used rugged and roughness, with "rugged" as the final term ( Table 8). The Spanish and US consumers settled with "rough" as the final term. Indian consumers determined that both rough and abrasive were equally good ( Table 8). The rough perception was due to the top surface of the pretzels. Both the US and Indian consumers may use other terms for "roughness of surface" if the product is different.
For "adhesive" perception, chewy caramels were used as a reference product. US consumers used descriptors such as sticky, chewy, gummy, and tacky. Indian consumers used sticky Only "hardness" was consistent among all four groups. The US and Indian groups described "toughness" as the most suitable descriptor for firmness, based on the (1) tough structure of the Gummy Worms and (2) the force required to bite through the Gummy worms. The Spanish and Chinese groups preferred terms that translated as resistance and chewy as their final descriptors ( Table 8). The reason was the high number of chews required to breakdown the food. Brach's chocolate balls were used as a reference food for "smoothness". The descriptors used by US consumers were sleek, creamy, silky, clean, clear, hard surface, and smoothness. The group explained that the terms might change with product. For example, "creamy goes for cheese spreads and silky for milk-based drinks". The Indian group used six terms to describe smoothness, but not all terms could be used in a similar manner. The terms were gluey, slickness, soft feel (कोमल), slippery/smooth ( चकना), soft feel (नरम), and soft touch (म ृ दु ). The terms largely mean smoothness, but terms were specific to certain products. Spanish speakers used flat, smooth (terso), soft, smooth (liso), and homogeneous. There is no term for smoothness (only smooth) in the Spanish language. The Chinese group used roundness and smooth. Only smooth/smoothness was common among cultures. Due to the smooth surface of chocolate balls, all groups felt smooth was the most suitable final term ( Table  8). The final terms may change to other terms if the product is different. For example, Chinese consumers used "smoothness" for hard-textured products and "roundness" for soft-textured products. Frozen jackfruit was used as a reference product for "moistness". US consumers used wet, slimy, juicy, and tender as descriptors and stated that they use tender for moist meat food and slimy for oyster-like watery foods. Indian consumers used descriptors such as water-like (पानी पानी), water-like (प नयाल), flabby, भे जवाला (no English term), and wet. Spanish speakers used juiciness, watery, and wet. The Chinese group used only two terms, i.e., juicy and moist (wet). The term "wet" was common among the four cultures, and "juicy" was common in three of cultures but not in the Indian group. The term "juicy" in Hindi explicitly reflects fruit or vegetable juice perception. Therefore, Indian consumers used "wet" as a term for moist perception of jackfruit. Whereas, other cultures used "juiciness/juicy" for dripping-moistened jackfruit. The perception of "juiciness" as a fruit juice, not as moist, was the dominant driving force here. Again, the final terms may change if the product is changed.
Sourdough pretzels were used as a reference product for "roughness of surface". US consumers used coarse, abrasive, gritty, and jagged as descriptors, while the Hindi-speaking group used hard, rough/abrasive, and crisp. The Spanish group used six descriptors, i.e., roughness (rugosidad), heterogeneous surface, irregular surface, rough, lijoso (sharp-edged products), and roughness (aspereza). The Chinese group used rugged and roughness, with "rugged" as the final term ( Table  8). The Spanish and US consumers settled with "rough" as the final term. Indian consumers determined that both rough and abrasive were equally good ( Table 8). The rough perception was due to the top surface of the pretzels. Both the US and Indian consumers may use other terms for "roughness of surface" if the product is different.
For "adhesive" perception, chewy caramels were used as a reference product. US consumers used descriptors such as sticky, chewy, gummy, and tacky. Indian consumers used sticky ( चप चपा), sticky ( चपकना), and slippery ( चकना). Spanish consumers used sticky, taffy, and gummy, and Chinese consumers used teeth sticky and viscous. The US consumers commented that "the product is chewy, and it sticks on teeth because it is chewy", and chose "chewy" as the final term. The other three cultures used "sticky" (teeth sticky) as final term (Table 8). "Adhesive" was too technical, as consumers use "adhesive" to describe adhesive glues for pasting things but not as a food sensory descriptor. US consumers described "cohesiveness" by terms such as chewy, gummy, crumbly, spongy, uniform bite, and "change in shape but stay as whole". There was no agreement on the use of a single term, so no conclusion was reached. Indian consumers used strong, tough, "something that holds together" (न टू टने वाला), "remains together" (जु ड़ा ह ु आ), "something that does not break", and "something that does not scatter". They agreed to use the phrase "something that does not scatter" , sticky Only "hardness" was consistent among all four groups. The US and Indian groups described "toughness" as the most suitable descriptor for firmness, based on the (1) tough structure of the Gummy Worms and (2) the force required to bite through the Gummy worms. The Spanish and Chinese groups preferred terms that translated as resistance and chewy as their final descriptors ( Table 8). The reason was the high number of chews required to breakdown the food. Brach's chocolate balls were used as a reference food for "smoothness". The descriptors used by US consumers were sleek, creamy, silky, clean, clear, hard surface, and smoothness. The group explained that the terms might change with product. For example, "creamy goes for cheese spreads and silky for milk-based drinks". The Indian group used six terms to describe smoothness, but not all terms could be used in a similar manner. The terms were gluey, slickness, soft feel (कोमल), slippery/smooth ( चकना), soft feel (नरम), and soft touch (म ृ दु ). The terms largely mean smoothness, but terms were specific to certain products. Spanish speakers used flat, smooth (terso), soft, smooth (liso), and homogeneous. There is no term for smoothness (only smooth) in the Spanish language. The Chinese group used roundness and smooth. Only smooth/smoothness was common among cultures. Due to the smooth surface of chocolate balls, all groups felt smooth was the most suitable final term ( Table  8). The final terms may change to other terms if the product is different. For example, Chinese consumers used "smoothness" for hard-textured products and "roundness" for soft-textured products.
Frozen jackfruit was used as a reference product for "moistness". US consumers used wet, slimy, juicy, and tender as descriptors and stated that they use tender for moist meat food and slimy for oyster-like watery foods. Indian consumers used descriptors such as water-like (पानी पानी), water-like (प नयाल), flabby, भे जवाला (no English term), and wet. Spanish speakers used juiciness, watery, and wet. The Chinese group used only two terms, i.e., juicy and moist (wet). The term "wet" was common among the four cultures, and "juicy" was common in three of cultures but not in the Indian group. The term "juicy" in Hindi explicitly reflects fruit or vegetable juice perception. Therefore, Indian consumers used "wet" as a term for moist perception of jackfruit. Whereas, other cultures used "juiciness/juicy" for dripping-moistened jackfruit. The perception of "juiciness" as a fruit juice, not as moist, was the dominant driving force here. Again, the final terms may change if the product is changed.
Sourdough pretzels were used as a reference product for "roughness of surface". US consumers used coarse, abrasive, gritty, and jagged as descriptors, while the Hindi-speaking group used hard, rough/abrasive, and crisp. The Spanish group used six descriptors, i.e., roughness (rugosidad), heterogeneous surface, irregular surface, rough, lijoso (sharp-edged products), and roughness (aspereza). The Chinese group used rugged and roughness, with "rugged" as the final term ( Table  8). The Spanish and US consumers settled with "rough" as the final term. Indian consumers determined that both rough and abrasive were equally good ( Table 8). The rough perception was due to the top surface of the pretzels. Both the US and Indian consumers may use other terms for "roughness of surface" if the product is different.
For "adhesive" perception, chewy caramels were used as a reference product. US consumers used descriptors such as sticky, chewy, gummy, and tacky. Indian consumers used sticky ( चप चपा), sticky ( चपकना), and slippery ( चकना). Spanish consumers used sticky, taffy, and gummy, and Chinese consumers used teeth sticky and viscous. The US consumers commented that "the product is chewy, and it sticks on teeth because it is chewy", and chose "chewy" as the final term. The other three cultures used "sticky" (teeth sticky) as final term (Table 8). "Adhesive" was too technical, as consumers use "adhesive" to describe adhesive glues for pasting things but not as a food sensory descriptor. US consumers described "cohesiveness" by terms such as chewy, gummy, crumbly, spongy, uniform bite, and "change in shape but stay as whole". There was no agreement on the use of a single term, so no conclusion was reached. Indian consumers used strong, tough, "something that holds together" (न टू टने वाला), "remains together" (जु ड़ा ह ु आ), "something that does not break", and "something that does not scatter". They agreed to use the phrase "something that does not scatter" , and slippery Only "hardness" was consistent among all four groups. The US and Indian groups described "toughness" as the most suitable descriptor for firmness, based on the (1) tough structure of the Gummy Worms and (2) the force required to bite through the Gummy worms. The Spanish and Chinese groups preferred terms that translated as resistance and chewy as their final descriptors ( Table 8). The reason was the high number of chews required to breakdown the food. Brach's chocolate balls were used as a reference food for "smoothness". The descriptors used by US consumers were sleek, creamy, silky, clean, clear, hard surface, and smoothness. The group explained that the terms might change with product. For example, "creamy goes for cheese spreads and silky for milk-based drinks". The Indian group used six terms to describe smoothness, but not all terms could be used in a similar manner. The terms were gluey, slickness, soft feel (कोमल), slippery/smooth ( चकना), soft feel (नरम), and soft touch (म ृ दु ). The terms largely mean smoothness, but terms were specific to certain products. Spanish speakers used flat, smooth (terso), soft, smooth (liso), and homogeneous. There is no term for smoothness (only smooth) in the Spanish language. The Chinese group used roundness and smooth. Only smooth/smoothness was common among cultures. Due to the smooth surface of chocolate balls, all groups felt smooth was the most suitable final term ( Table  8). The final terms may change to other terms if the product is different. For example, Chinese consumers used "smoothness" for hard-textured products and "roundness" for soft-textured products.
Frozen jackfruit was used as a reference product for "moistness". US consumers used wet, slimy, juicy, and tender as descriptors and stated that they use tender for moist meat food and slimy for oyster-like watery foods. Indian consumers used descriptors such as water-like (पानी पानी), water-like (प नयाल), flabby, भे जवाला (no English term), and wet. Spanish speakers used juiciness, watery, and wet. The Chinese group used only two terms, i.e., juicy and moist (wet). The term "wet" was common among the four cultures, and "juicy" was common in three of cultures but not in the Indian group. The term "juicy" in Hindi explicitly reflects fruit or vegetable juice perception. Therefore, Indian consumers used "wet" as a term for moist perception of jackfruit. Whereas, other cultures used "juiciness/juicy" for dripping-moistened jackfruit. The perception of "juiciness" as a fruit juice, not as moist, was the dominant driving force here. Again, the final terms may change if the product is changed.
Sourdough pretzels were used as a reference product for "roughness of surface". US consumers used coarse, abrasive, gritty, and jagged as descriptors, while the Hindi-speaking group used hard, rough/abrasive, and crisp. The Spanish group used six descriptors, i.e., roughness (rugosidad), heterogeneous surface, irregular surface, rough, lijoso (sharp-edged products), and roughness (aspereza). The Chinese group used rugged and roughness, with "rugged" as the final term ( Table  8). The Spanish and US consumers settled with "rough" as the final term. Indian consumers determined that both rough and abrasive were equally good ( Table 8). The rough perception was due to the top surface of the pretzels. Both the US and Indian consumers may use other terms for "roughness of surface" if the product is different.
For "adhesive" perception, chewy caramels were used as a reference product. US consumers used descriptors such as sticky, chewy, gummy, and tacky. Indian consumers used sticky ( चप चपा), sticky ( चपकना), and slippery ( चकना). Spanish consumers used sticky, taffy, and gummy, and Chinese consumers used teeth sticky and viscous. The US consumers commented that "the product is chewy, and it sticks on teeth because it is chewy", and chose "chewy" as the final term. The other three cultures used "sticky" (teeth sticky) as final term (Table 8). "Adhesive" was too technical, as consumers use "adhesive" to describe adhesive glues for pasting things but not as a food sensory descriptor. US consumers described "cohesiveness" by terms such as chewy, gummy, crumbly, spongy, uniform bite, and "change in shape but stay as whole". There was no agreement on the use of a single term, so no conclusion was reached. Indian consumers used strong, tough, "something that holds together" (न टू टने वाला), "remains together" (जु ड़ा ह ु आ), "something that does not break", and "something that does not scatter". They agreed to use the phrase "something that does not scatter" . Spanish consumers used sticky, taffy, and gummy, and Chinese consumers used teeth sticky and viscous. The US consumers commented that "the product is chewy, and it sticks on teeth because it is chewy", and chose "chewy" as the final term. The other three cultures used "sticky" (teeth sticky) as final term (Table 8). "Adhesive" was too technical, as consumers use "adhesive" to describe adhesive glues for pasting things but not as a food sensory descriptor. US consumers described "cohesiveness" by terms such as chewy, gummy, crumbly, spongy, uniform bite, and "change in shape but stay as whole". There was no agreement on the use of a single term, so no conclusion was reached. Indian consumers used strong, tough, "something that holds together" used descriptors such as sticky, chewy, gummy, and tacky. Indian consumers used sticky ( चप चपा), sticky ( चपकना), and slippery ( चकना). Spanish consumers used sticky, taffy, and gummy, and Chinese consumers used teeth sticky and viscous. The US consumers commented that "the product is chewy, and it sticks on teeth because it is chewy", and chose "chewy" as the final term. The other three cultures used "sticky" (teeth sticky) as final term (Table 8). "Adhesive" was too technical, as consumers use "adhesive" to describe adhesive glues for pasting things but not as a food sensory descriptor.
US consumers described "cohesiveness" by terms such as chewy, gummy, crumbly, spongy, uniform bite, and "change in shape but stay as whole". There was no agreement on the use of a single term, so no conclusion was reached. Indian consumers used strong, tough, "something that holds together" (न टू टने वाला), "remains together" (जु ड़ा ह ु आ), "something that does not break", and "something that does not scatter". They agreed to use the phrase "something that does not scatter" , "remains together" used descriptors such as sticky, chewy, gummy, and tacky. Indian consumers used sticky ( चप चपा), sticky ( चपकना), and slippery ( चकना). Spanish consumers used sticky, taffy, and gummy, and Chinese consumers used teeth sticky and viscous. The US consumers commented that "the product is chewy, and it sticks on teeth because it is chewy", and chose "chewy" as the final term. The other three cultures used "sticky" (teeth sticky) as final term (Table 8). "Adhesive" was too technical, as consumers use "adhesive" to describe adhesive glues for pasting things but not as a food sensory descriptor.
US consumers described "cohesiveness" by terms such as chewy, gummy, crumbly, spongy, uniform bite, and "change in shape but stay as whole". There was no agreement on the use of a single term, so no conclusion was reached. Indian consumers used strong, tough, "something that holds together" (न टू टने वाला), "remains together" (जु ड़ा ह ु आ), "something that does not break", and "something that does not scatter". They agreed to use the phrase "something that does not scatter" , "something that does not break", and "something that does not scatter". They agreed to use the phrase "something that does not scatter" as the final term. Spanish consumers used terms such as elasticity, softness, consistency, firmness, and brittle; the final term was "elasticity" ( Table 8). The Chinese used only one term, "tenacity" (something that does not break or recover in shape, like sponge). Cohesiveness is a complex term that encompasses multiple aspects.
The US consumers described "crunchiness" as crunchy and crackly. Spanish consumers used crunchiness (crujencia) and crunchiness (crocancia), with "crunchiness" (crocancia) as the final term. Similarly, Indian consumers also used crispy as the final term. Hindi speakers used only one Hindi term to describe both crispy and crunchy, i.e., as the final term. Spanish consumers used terms such as elasticity, softness, consistency, firmness, and brittle; the final term was "elasticity" ( Table 8). The Chinese used only one term, "tenacity" (something that does not break or recover in shape, like sponge). Cohesiveness is a complex term that encompasses multiple aspects. The US consumers described "crunchiness" as crunchy and crackly. Spanish consumers used crunchiness (crujencia) and crunchiness (crocancia), with "crunchiness" (crocancia) as the final term. Similarly, Indian consumers also used crispy as the final term. Hindi speakers used only one Hindi For "chew count", all four cultures used chewy (high number of chews required to breakdown food) as the final term (Table 8). Other terminologies, for example: US consumers used gummy; Spanish consumers used chew-ability; and Indian consumers used "ease of swallowing". As for Indian consumers, "if something is chewy that it is not easy to swallow".
US consumers described "residuals in mouth" as gritty and grainy, and Chinese consumers used residuals (indicated the need to drink water to clear teeth). Spanish consumers' use of terms was based on the lingering sensation, i.e., flavor in the mouth, sensation in the mouth, and residuals in the mouth. Similarly, Indian consumers also used phrases such as "left over in mouth" and "stuck in between teeth". The US consumers concentrated on the nature of the food, i.e., "gritty", and other cultures selected "leftover in mouth" as the final term ( Table 8).
The Spanish consumers described the term "powdery" as "dusty", but other cultures used "powdery" as the final term (Table 8). Multiple terminologies were provided by each group of language speakers, with US consumers using chalky and dry; Indians using flour-like; and Spanish using sandy, grainy, floury, dusty (Polvoso), and dusty (Polvoroso). Although powdery is an English term, all four cultures understood it fairly well.
Consumers found it difficult to relate to "dissolvability" as a term for food texture sensory perception. The US consumers used terms such as disintegrate, airy, melt, and dissolve; Indian consumers used melt and dissolve; Spanish consumers used solubility (melt) and dissolvability; and Chinese consumers used a single term, "dissolve", as the descriptor. All others groups preferred to use "melt" as a generic texture term for "dissolvability".
Heat burn was noted by consumers to be more of a taste sensation rather than texture. The terms used by US consumers were spicy, hot, real hot, hot-hot (for Spanish foods), flaming, lips burning, chili powder, and chili pepper. Indian consumers used peppery hot, spicy, and peppery tang; Spanish consumers used spicy (picante), spicy (picosidad), and spicy (enchiloso); Chinese consumers used burning, spicy, and pungent. The terms spicy (picante) (used by both Spanish and US consumers), peppery hot (Indian consumers) and burning (Chinese consumers) were used as the final terms (Table 8).
A crunchy granola bar was used as a reference product for "particle amount". The terms generated were crumbly, grainy, and gritty (by US consumers); crisp, gritty, and crumbly (by Indian consumers); grainy (by Spanish consumers); and granular and crisp (by Chinese consumers). The final terms were grainy (by both Spanish-and English-speaking consumers), crumbly (by Indian consumers), and granular (by Chinese consumers) ( Table 8).

Discussion
Consumers related texture with quality, freshness, taste, ease of handling, and good experience. Consumers had certain texture benchmark expectations for each snack food, which must be met for acceptance of that particular snack food. The consumer benchmark expectations were completely based on experiences from previous consumption of those snack foods. For example, a benchmark for chips (crisps) is that there must be a certain level of crispness without the chip being either limp or too hard, and the chip must shatter without being powdery or breaking into pieces with sharp edges. Consumers had positive and negative connotations with textures. Consumers considered snacks that are too hard, too floury (starchy), too gummy, or oily as negative textures that discourage them from eating or handling snacks. However, airy and crunchy (indicator of freshness, good quality) are positive textures. For example, "good texture also tells us about the ingredients used in snack manufacturing, for example, the creaminess of an ice cream".
English speakers (US) used more vocabulary to define their understanding of snacks without naming food products. The non-English speakers used food product names to explain their concepts of snacks. The understating of snacks for non-English speakers was mainly context-based. For example, "potato chips, nuts, namkeen, crackers, candies" etc. Therefore, sensory studies of non-English speaking cultures conducted on direct English translation without any contextual backing might be misleading. Some authors [13,[15][16][17]40,41] emphasized (a) the importance of context in identifying consumers' sensory descriptors, and (b) that translation of sensory descriptors among different languages are always not useful. Vlontzos et al. [42] used a technique where a questionnaire was developed, translated into two languages, pre-tested in each language representing Eastern and Western European countries, and finally translated into the seven languages used in the test. In contrast, other researchers [43][44][45][46] have used translation and back translation to the original language to confirm that the meaning was maintained.
Spanish, Hindi, and Mandarin do not have a specific term or terms for "snack" or "snack foods". These languages do not have a direct translation similar to snack or snack foods, although there are context-specific words driven by time of day or eating occasions. The specific sensory terms provided by consumers were different, and the majority of consumers do not use these terms in daily life. However, Chinese and Indian consumers had one commonality in explaining texture that is something perceived by "handfeel". This assertion confirms the basic definition of sensory perception by one of the five senses.
We found that only English speakers explicitly mentioned texture as a factor they consider while making a snack food purchase. Speakers from other languages used terms that represented particular textures of specific foods, such as "crispy apple, crunchy chips" etc. Languages such as Hindi and Mandarin do not have consumer-relevant terms for the overall concept of "texture". No term, not even translation, for words like "texture" exist in Spanish, Hindi, or Mandarin. The use of the English term "texture" for Indian, Chinese, and Spanish consumers is meaningless. Conceptual differences across cultures resulted in consumers responding somewhat differently. The non-English language groups' understanding of texture was based on their previous experiences and memories of certain foods, which they often used to support their comments [47]. The consumer experiences and memories of certain food textures can be termed as "contextual experience", which is one tool to overcome language and understanding barriers in non-English speaking cultures. One paper reported on a technique similar to what we used with determination of attributes by trained panelists, translation, and back translation by experts, and then using representative products and the lexicon to produce a multi-lingual questionnaire for use in various countries [48].
These findings may be applicable to online surveys where sensory questions are presented without contextual references. Eertmans et al. [49] reported the lack of completeness of food choice questionnaire models (FCQ) and their generalizability to a wide range of countries. The authors suggested that the meaning and connotation of the items may be strongly affected by culture. Steptoe et al. [50] emphasized the need to relook and revise questionnaires investigating the perception of consumers from different cultures to include items related to the main factors of their food choices.
All groups had experienced multi-textured snacks before, and everyone in these groups indicated that they enjoyed such snacks. Consumers across cultures preferred to mix foods for balancing texture, flavor, and taste.
A clear association was observed for snacking occasions with specific textures. Mostly, consumers prefer to eat snacks "at home while watching movies, lying down, resting, convenience, relaxing, passing time, studying, when they see snacks at home that they like, do not want to share with others, and do not want to look bad in office". Phan and Chambers [39] also reported snacking as to be a more personal event. All of the activities mentioned above are convenient and energy-charging snacking. A US woman consumer mentioned a special category, "fuel texture", which helps "to gain energy from foods like pretzels or jellybeans, but not heavy or thick-textured foods". Other authors also defined snacks as energy-dense food [51], and consumers reported to eat snacks to fulfill energy needs [38].
The majority of consumers start their day with soft-textured and sweet-tasting snacks. Indian consumers indicated "culture" as the primary reason to eat soft-textured, less savory, and natural foods early in the day. US consumers eat soft, less crunchy, and less savory snacks for soothing experiences. As the day progresses, consumers tend to move towards crunchy textures and savory flavors or indulgent snacks (ice cream for the end of the day when stressed). This is similar to other findings [38,39]. Some emotions were related to snack food textures, although this would need to be confirmed by larger studies. When sad, for example, women prefer to eat soft-textured and sweet-tasting snacks, whereas men tend to eat savory and crunchy snacks when they are angry. Some men commented that taking a snack break when stressed would help to release stress and gain focus.
Results showed wide-ranging perceptions, understandings, preferences, and liking of several textures across cultures. The non-English speakers frequently used taste and aroma descriptors to describe snacks, and texture was seldom mentioned, although their descriptions of food they eat as snacks clearly showed variation in texture. In addition, its relevance was demonstrated by presenting consumers with food samples. Texture has been found to be a strong driver of food liking and aversion, along with flavor [52]. Our texture theme discussion results suggest that consumers (individuals) bring to each food a certain texture expectation. If that expectation is met, then there is less focus on texture. If the expectation is not met, then food is rejected. Our findings on consumer texture expectation of foods are in agreement with Engelen and de Wijk [53]. This expectation of certain texture varies by individual. The variation could be due to a function of consumer prior expectations and experiences for specific foods.
We conclude from these focus groups that the consumers we tested with native languages other than English seem to be less aware of terms similar to those used in English for food texture than English-speaking consumers. In addition, direct translation of texture terms from English into other languages could lead to misleading identifications, if not backed by specific foods for textural contexts. The vocabulary used by non-English consumers to describe sensory perceptions was different among cultures, and was product-specific. Yoshikawa et al. [54] reported that Japanese consumers were more sensitive to subtle variations in texture and had a much richer texture vocabulary than American consumers. Similar, differences in how consumers in different cultures describe sensory attributes have been reported by numerous authors [4,17,40,55].
Although some similarities exist with consumers, no specific consistency was observed in understanding and usage of texture terms among cultures. Hindi speakers used the term kurkure to describe both crispy and crunchy experiences, but the term has no direct English translation. Consumers used multiple terms to describe single sensory perception and vice versa. Spanish and Mandarin speakers used grainy and granular to describe roughness of surface, particle amount, and powdery. Similarly, the French term doux, which means smoothness and sweetness, has no direct translation into English or Spanish [56]. Consumers found English terms as too technical and confusing, and the direct translations were not always commonly used in a food context. The use of definitions helped consumers in understanding the attributes, but this creates a problem when marketing specific texture concepts to consumers. When marketing to consumers, it is important that the consumer can understand the term. For words where the meaning is not completely obvious, the use of context or other marketing tactics must clearly demonstrate the meaning of the term. Consumers demonstrated similarities in some texture terms, but their conceptual meanings were completely different. For example, the speakers of Hindi and English described "oily" as a surface property of snacks, whereas Spanish speakers used both oily and greasy interchangeably. Spanish speakers related greasy to animal-based products like meat, and measured it as whole (overall).
The results show the necessity to focus primarily on stimuli rather than words when dealing with consumers. For example, English speakers used juiciness to describe moistness of jackfruit but stated that the term might be different if the product was different. A similar trend was noticed for smoothness, roughness of surface, and cohesiveness among English speakers. The different conceptual understating for texture terms was present in all four cultures. The direct translation of texture terms isolated from any context could be problematic with consumers [17]. The selection of the context product should be carefully considered for the development of sensory vocabularies with consumers [16].
We conclude that researchers must avoid direct translation of English words, as they are presented out of context and could potentially lead to misunderstanding, inconsistencies, and confusion. It may not be feasible to develop a comprehensive and complete polyglot list of texture terms across cultures. However, after careful investigation, a limited and common contextual texture vocabulary is possible across languages.

Limitations
The study results are based on the inputs of a small number of specifically recruited participants, and caution must be considered in generalizing the findings to a larger population. However, it may be completely logical to infer from the theme of this study that consumer vocabulary differs greatly from sensory scientist vocabulary. A simple translation of sensory terms in consumer studies does not reflect true responses. The consumer vocabulary generated in this study can only be used for textural context, not for flavor, aroma, or appearance.

Conclusions
The accelerated pace of globalization has increased the application of cross-cultural sensory and consumer research [57]. The rapid growth of the internet will continue to foster new opportunities from multiple countries at a much faster, easier, and cheaper rate [58]. Cross-cultural study models based on the assumption of conceptual and linguistic equivalence are problematic. The validity of such models should be tested thoroughly before application. Researchers should avoid imposing constructs and models developed in one culture to other cultures.
Consumers used numerous terms to describe the textural properties of various snack food products. Sometimes, the terms were quite consistent across cultures, suggesting an underlying understanding of the concept. Sometimes, the use of terms was mainly contextual-based, i.e., food or snacks versus other products (e.g., the term for "hardness/firmness" in Chinese depends on whether the person is talking about hardness of steel or hardness of foods), and certain terms were product-specific, as noted. Texture terms developed by trained descriptive panels are easy to translate at a scientific level to produce consistent information across panels, but much too technical for use to describe the products to consumers. We found divergent understanding and usage of English terms in each culture. When conducting consumer studies or communicating benefits of products to consumers, it is essential to pre-test the terminology to ensure that the meaning is conveyed appropriately.
Our results conclude that simple translation of sensory terms without context may be problematic in consumer studies. We provide a method where linguistic differences could be minimized, if backed by contextual perception of sensory terms. The direct translation of descriptors from one language to another does not mean that they are intercepted as conveying the same meaning in both languages. The vocabulary used by consumers to describe sensory characteristics depends on context, culture, and previous exposure to different products. Some of the terminologies are specific to products and may change when the product characteristics or product itself change. Hence, it is important to investigate the cultural mindset, and its implications on food testing.