Predictive packaging design: Tasting shapes, typefaces, names, and sounds

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 34, Issue , 2014, Pages 88-95

  Velasco, Carlos ^a   Salgado Montejo, Alejandro ^a,b   Marmolejo Ramos, Fernando ^c   Spence, Charles ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSIDAD DE LA SABANA   (Colombia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE   (Australia)

Author keywords

Crossmodal; Design; Multisensory; Packaging

Indexed keywords

EID: 84893816757     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.12.005     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Abel G.A., Glinert L.H. Chemotherapy as language: Sound symbolism in cancer medication names. Social Science & Medicine 2008, 66:1863-1869.
2. Agresti A. Categorical data analysis 2002, John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey. 2nd Ed.
3. Anderson R.E. Consumer dissatisfaction: The effect of disconfirmed expectancy on perceived product performance. Journal of Marketing Research 1973, 10:38-44.
4. Aveyard M.E. Some consonants sound curvy: Effects of sound symbolism on object recognition. Memory & Cognition 2012, 40:83-92.
5. Azzi A., Battini D., Persona A., Sgarbossa F. Packaging design: General framework and research agenda. Packaging Technology and Science 2012, 25:435-456.
6. 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, 22:17-23.
7. Bremner A., Caparos S., Davidoff J., de Fockert J., Linnell K., Spence C. "Bouba" and "Kiki" in Namibia? A remote culture make similar shape-sound matches, but different shape-taste matches to Westerners. Cognition 2013, 126:165-172.
8. Calder B.J., DuPuis S. Packaging and brand design. Wiley International Encyclopaedia of Marketing 2010, 10.1002/9781444316568.wiem04024.
9. Childers T.L., Jass J. All dressed up with something to say: Effects of typeface semantic associations on brand perceptions and consumer memory. Journal of Consumer Psychology 2002, 12:93-106.
10. Crisinel A.-S., Spence C. Implicit associations between basic tastes and pitch. Neuroscience Letters 2009, 464:39-42.
11. Crisinel A.-S., Spence C. A sweet sound? Food names reveal implicit associations between taste and pitch. Perception 2010, 39:417-425.
12. Crisinel A.-S., Spence C. As bitter as a trombone: Synesthetic correspondences in nonsynesthetes between tastes/flavours and musical notes. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 2010, 72:1994-2002.
13. Darke P.R., Ashworth L., Main K.J. Great expectations and broken promises: Misleading claims, product failure, expectancy disconfirmation and consumer distrust. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 2010, 38:347-362.
14. Deroy O., Spence C. Quand les goÛts & les formes se réspondent [When tastes and shapes correspond]. Cerveau & Psycho 2013, 55:74-79.
15. Deroy O., Valentin D. Tasting liquid shapes: Investigating the sensory basis of cross-modal correspondences. Chemosensory Perception 2011, 4:80-93.
16. Dichter E. The strategy of selling with packaging. Package Engineering Magazine 1971, 16a-16c.
17. Doyle J.R., Bottomley P.A. Dressed for the occasion: Font-product congruity in the perception of logotype. Journal of Consumer Psychology 2006, 16:112-123.
18. Doyle J.R., Bottomley P.A. Mixed messages in brand names: Separating the impact of letter shape from sound symbolism. Psychology and Marketing 2011, 28:749-762.
19. Ferguson C.J. An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 2009, 40:532-538.
20. Friendly M. Mosaic displays for multi-way contingency tables. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1994, 89:190-200.
21. Gallace A., Boschin E., Spence C. On the taste of "Bouba" and "Kiki": An exploration of word-food associations in neurologically normal participants. Cognitive Neuroscience 2011, 2:34-46.
22. Hartigan J.A., Kleiner B. A mosaic of television ratings. The American Statistician 1984, 38:32-35.
23. Hine T. The total package: The secret history and hidden meanings of boxes, bottles, cans, and other persuasive containers 1995, Little Brown, New York.
24. Kittler J.E., Menard W., Phillips K.A. Weight concerns in individuals with body dysmorphic disorder. Eating Behaviors 2007, 8:115-120.
25. Klink R.R. Creating brand names with meaning: The use of sound symbolism. Marketing Letters 2000, 11:5-20.
26. Klink R.R. Creating meaningful new brand names: A study of semantics and sound symbolism. Journal of Marketing: Theory and Practice 2001, 9:27-34.
27. Klink R.R. Creating meaningful brands: The relationship between brand name and brand mark. Marketing Letters 2003, 14:143-157.
28. Knöferle K., Spence C. Crossmodal correspondences between sounds and tastes. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2012, 19:992-1006.
29. Liang P., Roy S., Chen M.-L., Zhang G.-H. Visual influence of shapes and semantic familiarity on human sweet sensitivity. Behavioural Brain Research 2013, 253:42-47.
30. Martin W.E., Bridgmon K.D. Quantitative and statistical research methods. From hypothesis to results 2012, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
31. 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.
32. Ngo M.K., Velasco C., Salgado A., Boehm E., O'Neill D., Spence C. Assessing crossmodal correspondences in exotic fruit juices: The case of shape and sound symbolism. Food Quality & Preference 2013, 28:361-369.
33. Overbeeke C.J., Peters M.E. The taste of desserts' packages. Perceptual and Motor Skills 1991, 73:575-580.
34. Piqueras-Fisman B., Spence C. Crossmodal correspondences in product packaging: Assessing color-flavor correspondences for potato chips (crisps). Appetite 2011, 57:753-757.
35. Piqueras-Fiszman B., Velasco C., Spence C. Exploring implicit and explicit crossmodal colour-flavour correspondences in product packaging. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 25:148-155.
36. Rundh B. The multi-faceted dimension of packaging: Marketing logistic or marketing tool?. British Food Journal 2005, 107:670-684.
37. Rundh B. Packaging design: Creating competitive advantage with product packaging. British Food Journal 2009, 111:988-1002.
38. Sapir E. A study in phonetic symbolism. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1929, 12:225-239.
39. Simner J., Cuskley C., Kirby S. What sound does that taste? Cross-modal mappings across gustation and audition. Perception 2010, 39:553-569.
40. Smets G.J.F., Overbeeke C.J. Expressing tastes in packages. Design Studies 1995, 16:349-365.
41. Spence C. Crossmodal correspondences: A tutorial review. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 2011, 73:971-995.
42. Spence C. Auditory contributions to flavour perception and feeding behaviour. Physiology & Behaviour 2012, 107:505-515.
43. Spence C. Managing the sensory expectations concerning products and brands: Capitalizing on the potential of sound and shape symbolism. Journal of Consumer Psychology 2012, 22:37-54.
44. Spence C., Deroy O. Hearing mouth shapes: Sound symbolism and the reverse McGurk effect. i-Perception 2012, 3:550-552.
45. Spence C., Gallace A. Tasting shapes and words. Food Quality and Preference 2011, 22:290-295.
46. Spence C., Ngo M. Capitalizing on shape symbolism in the food and beverage sector. Flavour 2012, 1:12.
47. Underwood R.L. The communicative power of product packaging: Creating brand identity via lived and mediated experience. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 2003, 11:62-76.
48. Uznadze D. Ein experimenteller Beitrag zum Problem der psychologischen Grundlagen der Namengebung [An experimental contribution to the problem of the psychological foundations of naming]. Psychologische Forschung 1924, 5:24-43.
49. Uznadze D. Zum Problem der Bedeutungserfassung [On the problem of ascertaining the meaning]. Proceedings and papers of the VIII international congress of psychology, Groningen, 6-11 September, 1926 1927, 440-442. P. Noordhoff-Groningen.
50. Walker P. Cross-sensory correspondences and cross talk between dimensions of connotative meaning: Visual angularity is hard, high-pitched, and bright. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics 2012, 74:1792-1809.
51. Westerman S.J., Gardner P.H., Sutherland E.J., White T., Jordan K., Watts D., et al. Product design: Preference for rounded versus angular design elements. Psychology & Marketing 2012, 29:595-605.
52. Woods A.T., Spence C., Butcher N., Deroy O. Fast lemons and sour boulders: Testing the semantic hypothesis of crossmodal correspondences using an internet-based testing methodology. i-Perception 2013, 4:365-369.