The design of consumer packaging: Effects of manipulations of shape, orientation, and alignment of graphical forms on consumers' assessments

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 8-17

  Westerman, S J ^a   Sutherland, E J ^a   Gardner, P H ^a   Baig, N ^a   Critchley, C ^a   Hickey, C ^a   Mehigan, S ^a   Solway, A ^a   Zervos, Z ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Consumer assessments; Packaging design

Indexed keywords

EID: 84863465674     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.05.007     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Ampuero O., Vila N. Consumer perceptions of product packaging. Journal of Consumer Marketing 2006, 23(2):102-114.
2. Aronoff J., Barclay A.M., Stevenson L.A. The recognition of threatening facial stimuli. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1988, 54:647-655.
3. Aronoff J., Woike B.A., Hayam L.M. Which are the stimuli in facial displays of anger and happiness? Configurational bases of emotion recognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1992, 62(6):1050-1066.
4. Bar M., Neta M. Humans prefer curved visual objects. Psychological Science 2006, 17(8):645-648.
5. Bar M., Neta M. Visual elements of subjective preference modulate amygdala activation. Neuropsychologica 2007, 45:2191-2200.
6. Beaumont J.G. Lateral organization and aesthetic preference. The importance of peripheral visual asymmetries. Neuropsychologia 1985, 23(1):103-113.
7. Becker L., van Rompay T.J.L., Schifferstein H.N.J., Galetzka M. Tough package, strong taste: The influence of packaging design on taste impressions and product evaluations. Food Quality and Preference 2011, 22(1):17-23.
8. Berlyne D.E. Conflict, Arousal, and Curiosity 1960, McGraw-Hill, NY.
9. Bloch P.H. Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response. Journal of Marketing 1995, 59(3):16-29.
10. Bloch P.H., Brunel F.H., Arnold T.J. Individual differences in the centrality of visual product aesthetics: Concepts and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research 2003, 29:551-565.
11. Carbon C.-C. The cycle of preference. Long-term dynamics of aesthetic appreciation. Acta Psychologica 2010, 134(2):233-244.
12. Christman S., Pinger K. Lateral biases in aesthetic preferences: Pictorial dimensions and neural mechanisms. Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition 1997, 2(2):155-175.
13. Creusen M.E.H., Schoormans J.P.L. The different roles of product appearance in consumer choice. Journal of Product Innovation Management 2005, 22:63-81.
14. Demirbilek O., Sener B. Product design, semantics and emotional response. Ergonomics 2003, 46(13/14):1346-1360.
15. Fang X., Mowen J.C. Exploring factors influencing logo effectiveness: An experimental inquiry. Advances in Consumer Research 2005 (Extended abstract), 32:161.
16. Festinger L. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance 1957, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
17. Field A. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS 2005, Sage, London. 3rd Edition.
18. Gontijo P.F.D., Rayman J., Zhang S., Zaidel E. How brand names are special: Brands, words, and hemispheres. Brain and Language 2002, 82:327-343.
19. Hansen F. Hemispheral lateralization: Implications for understanding consumer behaviour. Journal of Consumer Research 1981, 8:23-36.
20. Hardyk C. Cerebral asymmetries and experimental parameters: Real differences and imaginary variations?. Brain and Cognition 1986, 5:223-239.
21. Hassenzahl M. The interplay of beauty, goodness, and usability in interactive products. Human-Computer Interaction 2004, 19:319-349.
22. Hekkert P., Leder H. Product aesthetics. Product Experience 2008, Elsevier, Amsterdam. H.N.J. Schifferstein, P. Hekkert (Eds.).
23. Hellige J.B. Hemispheric asymmetry. Annual Review of Psychology 1990, 41:55-80.
24. Hellige J.B. Hemispheric Asymmetry: What's Right and What's Left 1993, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
25. Janiszewski C. The influence of print advertisement organization on affect toward a brand name. Journal of Consumer Research 1990, 17:53-65.
26. Larson C.L., Aronoff J., Sarinopoulous I.C., Zhu D.C. Recognising threat: A simple geometric shape activates neural circuitry for threat detection. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2009, 21(8):1523-1535.
27. Larson C.L., Aronoff J., Stearns J.J. The shape of threat: Simple geometric forms evoke rapid and sustained capture of attention. Emotion 2007, 7(3):526-534.
28. Leder H., Carbon C. Dimensions in appreciation of car interior design. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2005, 19:603-618.
29. Leder H., Tinio P.P.L., Bar M. Emotional valence modulates the preference for curved objects. Perception 2011, 40:649-655.
30. Leuthesser L., Kohli C.S., Harich K.R. Brand equity: The halo effect measure. European Journal of Marketing 1995, 29(4):57-66.
31. Levy J. Lateral dominance and aesthetic preference. Neuropsychologica 1976, 14(4):431-445.
32. Lindell A.K., Mueller J. Can science account for taste? Psychological insights into art appreciation. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 2011, 23(4):453-475.
33. Lindgaard G., Fernandes G., Dudek C., Brown J. Attention web designers: You have 50milliseconds to make a good first impression!. Behaviour & Information Technology 2006, 25(2):115-126.
34. Ngo M.K., Piqueras-Fiszman B., Spence C. On the colour and shape of still and sparkling water: Insights from online and laboratory-based testing. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 24:260-268.
35. Nickerson R.S. Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology 1998, 2(2):175-220.
36. O'Brien H.L., Toms E.G. The development and evaluation of a survey to measure user engagement. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2010, 61(1):50-69.
37. Orth U.R., Malkewitz K. Holistic package design and consumer brand impressions. Journal of Marketing 2008, 72:64-81.
38. Oyama T., Agostini T., Kamada A., Marcovic S., Osaka E., Sakura S., et al. Similarities in form symbolism among various languages and geographical regions. Psychologia 2008, 51:170-184.
39. Reber R., Schwarz N., Winkielman P. Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience?. Personality and Social Psychology Review 2004, 8(4):364-382.
40. Rettie R., Brewer C. The verbal and visual components of package design. Journal of Product and Brand Management 2000, 9(1):56-70.
41. Russell J.A. Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Psychological Review 2003, 110:145-172.
42. Schoormans J., Eenhuizen-van den Berge M., van de Laar, van den Berg-Weitzel L. Designing packages that communicate product attributes and brand values: An exploratory method. Design Journal 2010, 13(1):31-47.
43. Schoormans J.P.L., Robben H.S.J. The effect of new package design on product attention, categorisation and evaluation. Journal of Economic Psychology 1997, 18:271-287.
44. Sergent J., Hellige J.B. Role of input factors in visual field asymmetries. Brain and Cognition 1986, 5:174-199.
45. Silayoi P., Speece M. The importance of packaging attributes: A conjoint analysis approach. European Journal of Marketing 2007, 41(11-12):1495-1517.
46. Simms C., Trott P. Packaging development: A conceptual framework for identifying new product opportunities. Marketing Theory 2010, 10(4):397-415.
47. Snelders D., Schoormans J.P.L. An exploratory study of the relation between concrete and abstract product attributes. Journal of Economic Psychology 2004, 25(6):803-820.
48. Spence C. Managing sensory expectations concerning products and brands: Capitalising on the potential of sound and shape symbolism. Journal of Consumer Psychology 2012, 22(1):37-54.
49. Tractinsky N., Katz A.S., Ikar D. What is beautiful is usable. Interacting with Computers 2000, 13:127-145.
50. Underwood R.L. The communicative power of product packaging: Creating brand identity via lived and mediated experience. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 2003, 10(4):58-69.
51. Valenzuela A., Raghubir P. Position-based beliefs: The center-stage effect. Journal of Consumer Psychology 2009, 19(2):185-196.
52. Van den Berg-Weitzel L., Van de Laar G. The power of structural design. Admap 2003, 443:1-9.
53. Watson D., Clark L.A., Tellegen A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1988, 54(6):1063-1070.
54. Westerman, S.J., Gardner, P.H., Sutherland, E.J., White, T., Jordan, K., Watts, D., Wells, S. Product design: Preference for angular versus rounded design elements. Psychology and Marketing, in press.
55. Winkielman P., Halberstadt J., Fazendeiro T., Catty S. Prototypes are attractive because they are easy on the mind. Psychological Science 2006, 17(9):799-806.
56. Zhang Y., Feick L., Price L.J. The impact of self-construal on aesthetic preference for angular versus rounded shapes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2006, 32(6):794-805.