Effects of package visuals and haptics on brand evaluations

Purpose – This paper aims to examine how visual and haptic package design characteristics singularly and jointly affect consumers' brand impressions.Design/methodology/approach – Integrating and extending design perception with congruence and fluency theories, the paper presents three research propositions that are tested in three studies. Bottled water serves as an example category with data provided by professionals and consumers.Findings – Study 1 identifies key types of holistic bimodal designs (Modern, Big Grip, Prototypical‐Small, Boxy Billboards, and Prototypical‐Large) based on brand visual and haptic factors. Study 2 relates these types to unique single‐modal brand impressions. Study 3 determines how consumers evaluate brands depending on the semantic congruence between haptics and visuals. Except for the excitement dimension, brand evaluations are more positive under conditions of high rather than low congruence.Research limitations/implications – The findings are obtained for a single category ...

[1]  M. Wertheimer.  Untersuchungen zur Lehre von der Gestalt. II , 1923 .

[2]  Loren V. Geistfeld,et al.  The Concept and Measurement of a Hierarchy of Product Characteristics , 1977 .

[3]  Consumer Decision Making: The Technical Efficiency Approach , 1977 .

[4]  Alice M. Tybout,et al.  Designing Research for Application , 1981 .

[5]  Morris B. Holbrook,et al.  On the importance of using real products in research on merchandising strategy. , 1983 .

[6]  Craig A. Smith,et al.  Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. , 1985, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[7]  Elizabeth C. Hirschman,et al.  The Effect of Verbal and Pictorial Advertising Stimuli on Aesthetic, Utilitarian and Familiarity Perceptions , 1986 .

[8]  R. Klatzky,et al.  Hand movements: A window into haptic object recognition , 1987, Cognitive Psychology.

[9]  Mary Jo Bitner,et al.  Servicescapes: The Impact of Physical Surroundings on Customers and Employees: , 1992 .

[10]  R. Klatzky,et al.  Stages of manual exploration in haptic object identification , 1992, Perception & psychophysics.

[11]  Peter H. Bloch.  Seeking the Ideal Form: Product Design and Consumer Response: , 1995 .

[12]  John G. Lynch,et al.  Communication Effects of Advertising versus Direct Experience When both Search and Experience Attributes Are Present , 1995 .

[13]  B. Wansink.  Can Package Size Accelerate Usage Volume? , 1995 .

[14]  Alice M. Tybout,et al.  The Moderating Role of Prior Knowledge in Schema-Based Product Evaluation , 1996 .

[15]  S. Levy.  Stalking the Amphisbaena , 1996 .

[16]  Scott T. Grafton,et al.  Feeling with the mind's eye , 1997, Neuroreport.

[17]  J. Aaker,et al.  Dimensions of Brand Personality , 1997 .

[18]  Joseph A. Cote,et al.  Guidelines for Selecting or Modifying Logos , 1998 .

[19]  J. Aaker,et al.  The Malleable Self: The Role of Self-Expression in Persuasion , 1999 .

[20]  Priya Raghubir,et al.  Vital Dimensions in Volume Perception: Can the Eye Fool the Stomach? , 1999 .

[21]  Robert W. Veryzer.  A nonconscious processing explanation of consumer response to product design , 1999 .

[22]  C. Spence,et al.  Visual Capture of Touch: Out-of-the-Body Experiences With Rubber Gloves , 2000, Psychological science.

[23]  R. Teas,et al.  The effects of extrinsic product cues on consumers’ perceptions of quality, sacrifice, and value , 2000 .

[24]  Eva M. Hyatt,et al.  The Effects of Food Color on Perceived Flavor , 2000 .

[25]  W Krause,et al.  Theta power in the EEG of humans during ongoing processing in a haptic object recognition task. , 2001, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[26]  T. Meyvis,et al.  Effects of Brand Logo Complexity, Repetition, and Spacing on Processing Fluency and Judgment , 2001 .

[27]  Margaret C. Campbell,et al.  The Moderating Effect of Perceived Risk on Consumers’ Evaluations of Product Incongruity: Preference for the Norm , 2001 .

[28]  Robert L. Underwood,et al.  Packaging as Brand Communication: Effects of Product Pictures on Consumer Responses to the Package and Brand , 2002 .

[29]  Alan Kingstone,et al.  The ventriloquist in motion: illusory capture of dynamic information across sensory modalities. , 2002, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[30]  Terry L. Childers,et al.  All Dressed Up With Something to Say: Effects of Typeface Semantic Associations on Brand Perceptions and Consumer Memory , 2002 .

[31]  Joann Peck,et al.  To have and to Hold: The Influence of Haptic Information on Product Judgments , 2003 .

[32]  Todd J. Arnold,et al.  Individual Differences in the Centrality of Visual Product Aesthetics: Concept and Measurement , 2003 .

[33]  Robert L. Underwood.  The Communicative Power of Product Packaging: Creating Brand Identity via Lived and Mediated Experience , 2003 .

[34]  Stephen M. Nowlis,et al.  The Effect of Examining Actual Products or Product Descriptions on Consumer Preference , 2003 .

[35]  P. Hekkert,et al.  'Most advanced, yet acceptable': typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial design. , 2003, British journal of psychology.

[36]  R. Dolan,et al.  The Nose Smells What the Eye Sees Crossmodal Visual Facilitation of Human Olfactory Perception , 2003, Neuron.

[37]  Eric R. Spangenberg,et al.  Consumer need for tactile input , 2003 .

[38]  Terry L. Childers,et al.  Individual Differences in Haptic Information Processing: The "Need for Touch" Scale , 2003 .

[39]  Bernd H. Schmitt,et al.  Building Strong Brands in Asia: Selecting the Visual Components of Image to Maximize Brand Strength , 2003 .

[40]  Angela Y. Lee,et al.  The Effect of Conceptual and Perceptual Fluency on Brand Evaluation , 2004 .

[41]  P. Homer,et al.  The Situational Impact of Brand Image Beliefs , 2004 .

[42]  V. Folkes,et al.  The effect of package shape on consumers' judgments of product volume: Attention as a mental contaminant , 2004 .

[43]  N. Schwarz.  Metacognitive Experiences in Consumer Judgment and Decision Making , 2004 .

[44]  Joseph A. Cote,et al.  Impression Management using Typeface Design , 2004 .

[45]  N. Schwarz,et al.  Processing Fluency and Aesthetic Pleasure: Is Beauty in the Perceiver's Processing Experience? , 2004, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[46]  C. Whan Park,et al.  Formation of Price Expectation in Brand Extensions and Impact on Brand Extension Evaluation , 2005 .

[47]  Adamantios Diamantopoulos,et al.  The impact of brand extensions on brand personality: experimental evidence , 2005 .

[48]  Mariëlle E. H. Creusen,et al.  The Different Roles of Product Appearance in Consumer Choice , 2005 .

[49]  Jaideep Sengupta,et al.  Two Roads to Updating Brand Personality Impressions: Trait versus Evaluative Inferencing , 2005 .

[50]  A. Krishna,et al.  The Interaction of Senses: The Effect of Vision versus Touch on the Elongation Bias , 2006 .

[51]  Jennifer J. Argo,et al.  Consumer Contamination: How Consumers React to Products Touched by Others , 2006 .

[52]  P. Hekkert.  Design aesthetics: principles of pleasure in design , 2006 .

[53]  J. Peck,et al.  It Just Feels Good: Customers’ Affective Response to Touch and Its Influence on Persuasion: , 2006 .

[54]  M. Lindstrom.  Brand Sense: How to Build Powerful Brands Through Touch, Taste, Smell, Sight and Sound , 2006 .

[55]  Norbert Schwarz,et al.  If I Don’T Understand It, It Must Be New: Processing Fluency and Perceived Product Innovativeness , 2006 .

[56]  David Sprott,et al.  The influence of tactile input on the evaluation of retail product offerings , 2007 .

[57]  Ulrich R. Orth,et al.  Understanding the Relationships Between Functional, Symbolic, and Experiential Brand Beliefs, Product Experiential Attributes, and Product Schema: Advertising-Trial Interactions Revisited , 2007 .

[58]  J. Alba,et al.  Taste Perception: More than Meets the Tongue , 2007 .

[59]  Paul J. Silvia,et al.  Anger, disgust, and the negative aesthetic emotions: Expanding an appraisal model of aesthetic experience. , 2007 .

[60]  R. Dhar,et al.  Preference Fluency in Choice , 2007 .

[61]  J. Rossiter,et al.  The Predictive Validity of Multiple-Item versus Single-Item Measures of the Same Constructs , 2007 .

[62]  Ravi Dhar,et al.  Of Frog Wines and Frowning Watches: Semantic Priming, Perceptual Fluency, and Brand Evaluation , 2008 .

[63]  Jeremy M. Wolfe,et al.  Sensation and Perception , 2008 .

[64]  Maureen Morrin,et al.  Does Touch Affect Taste? The Perceptual Transfer of Product Container Haptic Cues , 2008 .

[65]  Ulrich R. Orth,et al.  Holistic Package Design and Consumer Brand Impressions , 2008 .

[66]  T. G. Chowdhury,et al.  The time-harried shopper: Exploring the differences between maximizers and satisficers , 2009 .

[67]  Thomas Johannes Lucas van Rompay,et al.  Symbolic Meaning Integration in Design and its Influence on Product and Brand Evaluation , 2009 .

[68]  Ale Smidts,et al.  Cross-National Logo Evaluation Analysis: An Individual Level Approach , 2008, Mark. Sci..

[69]  Bianca Grohmann,et al.  Gender Dimensions of Brand Personality , 2009 .

[70]  Susan J. Lederman,et al.  Multisensory Texture Perception , 2010 .

[71]  Jennifer J. Argo,et al.  The Sound of Brands , 2010 .

[72]  Aradhna Krishna,et al.  The Effects of Advertising Copy on Sensory Thoughts and Perceived Taste , 2010 .

[73]  Ulrich R. Orth,et al.  Formation of Consumer Price Expectation Based on Package Design: Attractive and Quality Routes , 2010 .

[74]  Ryan S. Elder,et al.  Feminine to smell but masculine to touch? Multisensory congruence and its effect on the aesthetic experience , 2010 .

[75]  Iris Vilnai-Yavetz,et al.  Cutting through the clutter: purchase intentions as a function of packaging instrumentality, aesthetics, and symbolism , 2013 .

[76]  M. Heller.  Haptic Perception in Blind People , 2013 .

[77]  U. Orth,et al.  Persuasive Mechanisms of Nostalgic Brand Packages , 2014 .

[78]  Jerzy Grobelny,et al.  The role of background color, interletter spacing, and font size on preferences in the digital presentation of a product , 2015, Comput. Hum. Behav..