## 5 Analysis Results  
### Correlation between Beverage Container Form and CSR  
Based on the visual evaluation results of bottled beverage forms, QTT1 was used as a technique for modeling the correlation between the beverage container form and the CSR descriptions for each of three beverage categories. The independent variables correspond to the coding of bottled beverage samples, while the dependent variables correspond to the three CSR descriptions. Table 3 indicates the correlations between the beverage container form and the CSR descriptions for each of three beverage categories, and the QTT1 functional models in each of the three CSR descriptions for each of three beverage categories can be constructed using the data presented in the \"category scores (CS)\" columns of Table 3. On the whole, the \(R^{2}\) values for each model range from 0.667 (Family & Healthful) to 0.602 (Delightful & Young) for the category of mineral water (MW), from 0.717 (Delightful & Young) to 0.536 (Tasteful & Benevolent) for the category of carbonated drinks (CD), and from 0.724 (Tasteful & Benevolent) to 0.613 (Delightful & Young) for tea drinks (TD). These results show that the overall fits of these QTT1 functional models are good.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Mineral Water (MW)**} & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Elements**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Features**} & **Family \& Healthful** & **Delightful \& Young** & **Tasteful \& Benevolent** \\ \cline{3-8}  & & **PCC** & **CS** & **PCC** & **CS** & **PCC** & **CS** \\ \hline whole bottled form & X11 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.316} & \(-\)0.252 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.332} & \(-\)0.248 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.307} & \(-\)0.241 \\ (X1) & X12 & & & 0.252 & & 0.248 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.307} & \(-\)0.241 \\ \hline neck treatment & X21 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.192} & \(-\)0.175 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.271} & \(-\)0.205 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.096} & \(-\)0.103 \\ (X2) & X22 & & & 0.175 & & \(-\)0.205 & & 0.103 \\ \hline waist treatment & X31 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.385} & \(-\)0.327 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.127} & \(-\)0.141 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.214} & \(-\)0.187 \\ (X3) & X32 & & & 0.327 & & \(-\)0.141 & & 0.187 \\ \hline detail decoration & X41 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.234} & \(-\)0.162 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.133} & \(-\)0.078 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.172} & \(-\)0.124 \\ on bottled form(X4) & X42 & & & 0.162 & & 0.078 & & 0.124 \\ \hline Constant & \multirow{2}{*}{0.817} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.862} & \(-\)0.553 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.5876} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.5642} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.796} \\ \(R\) & & & 0.817 & & 0.752 & & 0.796 \\ \(R^{2}\) & & & **0.667** & & **0.602** & & **0.634** \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Carbonated Drinks (CD)**} & & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Elements**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Features**} & **Family \& Healthful** & **Delightful \& Young** & **Tasteful \& Benevolent** \\ \cline{3-8}  & & **PCC** & **CS** & **PCC** & **CS** & **PCC** & **CS** \\ \hline whole bottled form & X11 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.134} & \(-\)0.106 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.321} & \(-\)0.328 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.207} & \(-\)0.225 \\ (X1) & X12 & & & 0.106 & & 0.328 & & \(-\)0.225 \\ \hline neck treatment & X21 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.435} & \(-\)0.427 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.481} & \(-\)0.607 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.279} & \(-\)0.318 \\ (X2) & X22 & & & 0.427 & & 0.607 & & 0.318 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Analysis results of correlation model for three categories of bottled beverage containers.  
Figure 6: Subjective evaluation of bottled beverage packaging. (**a**) Procedural illustration of visual evaluation using SCEM (Sorting Card-based Evaluation Method), (**b**) Execution of visual evaluation.