Effects of product unit image on consumption of snack foods

Journal of Consumer Psychology

Volumn 20, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 398-409

  Madzharov, A V ^a   Block, L G ^a  

^a CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

Anchoring; Food consumption; Packaging

Indexed keywords

EID: 77956612124     PISSN: 10577408     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcps.2010.06.007     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Aiken L., West S.G. Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions 1991, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
2. Blazhenkova O., Kozhevnikov M. The new object-spatial-verbal cognitive style model: theory and measurement. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2008, 23(5):638-663.
3. Bone P.F., France K.R. Package graphics and consumer product beliefs. Journal of Business and Psychology 2001, 15(3):467-489.
4. Chandon P., Wansink B. How biased household inventory estimates distort shopping and storage decisions. Journal of Marketing 2006, 70:118-135. (October).
5. Chapman G.B., Johnson E.J. Incorporating the irrelevant: anchors in judgments of belief and value. Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment 2002, 120-138. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, D. Kahneman (Eds.).
6. Charpentier A. Analyse experimentale de quelques elements de la sensation de poids (Experimental study of some aspects of weight perception). Archives de physiologie normales et pathologiques 1891, 1(3):122-135.
7. Clement J. Visual influence on in-store buying decisions: an eye-track experiment on the visual influence of packaging design. Journal of Marketing Management 2007, 23(9-10):917-928. (November).
8. Cole C., Balasubramanian S.K. Age differences in consumers' search for information: public policy implications. Journal of Consumer Research 1993, 20:157-169. (June).
9. Ellis R.R., Lederman S.J. The role of haptic versus visual volume cues in the size-weight illusion. Perception & Psychophysics 1993, 53(3):315-324.
10. Epley N. A tale of tuned decks? Anchoring as accessibility and anchoring as adjustment. The Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making 2004, 240-256. Blackwell, Oxford, UK. D.J. Koehler, N. Harvey (Eds.).
11. Epley N., Gilovich T. The anchoring and adjustment heuristic: Why adjustments are insufficient. Psychological Science 2006, 17:311-318.
12. Fitzsimmons G.J. Death to dichotomizing. Journal of Consumer Research 2008, 35(1):5-8.
13. Folkes V., Matta S. The effect of package shape on consumers' judgments of product volume: attention as a mental contaminant. Journal of Consumer Research 2004, 31(2):390-401.
14. Gupta O.K., Tandon S., Debnath S., Rominger A.S. Package downsizing: is it ethical?. AI & Society 2007, 21(3):239-250.
15. Hagtvedt H., Patrick V.M. The broad embrace of luxury: hedonic potential as a driver of brand expendability. Journal of Consumer Psychology 2009, 19(4):608-618.
16. Hoegg J., Alba J.W., Dahl D.W. The good, the bad and the ugly: influence of aesthetics on product feature judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology 2010, 20(4):419-430.
17. Hollenberg C.K. Functions of visual imagery in the learning and concept formation of children. Child Development 1970, 41:1003-1015.
18. Jonassen D.H., Grabowski B.L. Handbook of individual differences, learning, and instruction 1993, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
19. Kirby J.R., Moore P.J., Schofield N.J. Verbal and visual learning styles. Contemporary Educational Psychology 1988, 13:169-184.
20. Kisielius J., Sternthal B. Examining the vividness controversy and availability-valence interpretation. Journal of Consumer Research 1986, 12:418-431. (March).
21. Krider R., Raghubir P., Krishna A. Pizzas: Pi or square? Psychophysical biases in area comparisons. Marketing Science 2001, 20(4):405-425.
22. Krishna A. Spatial perception research: an integrative review of length, area, volume, and number perception. Visual Marketing: From Attention to Action 2008, 167-192. Erlbaum, New York. M. Wedel, R. Pieters (Eds.).
23. Larsen V., Luna D., Peracchio L. Points of view and pieces of time: a taxonomy of image attributes. Journal of Consumer Research 2004, 31:102-111. (June).
24. MacInnis D.J., Price L.L. The role of imagery in information processing: review and extensions. Journal of Consumer Research 1987, 13:473-491. (March).
25. McGill A.L., Anand P. The effect of vivid attributes on the evaluation of alternatives: the role of differential attention and cognitive elaboration. Journal of Consumer Research 1989, 16:188-196. (September).
26. Mussweiler T., Strack F. Hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming in the anchoring paradigm: a selective accessibility model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 1999, 35:136-164.
27. Mussweiler T., Strack F. Considering the impossible: explaining the effects of implausible anchors. Social Cognition 2001, 19:145-160.
28. Mussweiler T., Strack F. The semantics of anchoring. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 2001, 86:234-255.
29. Paivio A. Mental representations. A Dual Coding Approach 1986, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
30. Peracchio L., Meyers-Levy J. Using stylistic properties of ad pictures to communicate with consumers. Journal of Consumer Research 2005, 32:29-40. (June).
31. Petrova P.K., Cialdini R.B. Evoking the imagination as a strategy of influence. Handbook of Consumer Psychology 2008, 505-525. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. C. Haugtvedt, P. Herr, F. Kardes (Eds.).
32. Raghubir P. Are visual perceptual biases hard-wired?. Visual Marketing: From Attention to Action 2008, 143-165. Erlbaum, New York. M. Wedel, R. Pieters (Eds.).
33. Raghubir P., Krishna A. Vital dimensions in volume perception: can the eye fool the stomach. Journal of Marketing Research 1999, 36:313-326. (August).
34. Reimann M., Zaichkowsky J., Neuhaus C., Bender T., Weber B. Aesthetic package design: a behavioral, neural and psychological investigation. Journal of Consumer Psychology 2010, 20(4):431-441.
35. Strack F., Mussweiler T. Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: mechanisms of selective accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1997, 73:437-446.
36. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 1974, 185:1124-1131.
37. Underwood R.L., Klein N.M. Packaging as brand communication: effects of product pictures on consumer responses to the package and brand. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 2002, 10(4):58-69.
38. Unnava R.H., Agarwal S., Haugtvedt C.P. Interactive effects of presentation modality and message-generated imagery on recall of advertising information. Journal of Consumer Research 1996, 23:81-88. (June).
39. Van Ittersum K., Wansink B. Do children really prefer large portions? Visual illusions bias their estimates and intake. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 2007, 107(7):1107-1110.
40. Wansink B. Mindless Eating: Why We Eat More Than We Think 2007, Bantam Dell, New York.
41. Wansink B., Van Ittersum K. Bottoms up! The influence of elongation on pouring and consumption volume. Journal of Consumer Research 2003, 30:455-463. (December).
42. Wansink B., Kent R.J., Hoch S.J. An anchoring and adjustment model of purchase quantity decisions. Journal of Marketing Research 1998, 35:71-81. (February).
43. Wegener D.T., Petty R.E., Blankenship K.L., Detweiler-Bedell B. Elaboration and numerical anchoring: implications of attitude theories for consumer judgment and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology 2010, 20(1):5-16.
44. Wilson T.D., Houston C., Etling K.M., Brekke N. A new look at anchoring effects: basic anchoring and its antecedents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 1996, 4:387-402.
45. Yang X., Zhang J., Peracchio L.A. Understanding the impact of self-concept on the stylistic properties of images. Journal of Consumer Psychology 2010, 20(4):508-520.